I think it’s better said as “money enables happiness”. If you have enough money that your needs are met, then you are free to pursue whatever makes you happy.

This statement is only ever said by the truly rich.

At a point, more money can’t buy more happiness.

Guess what, economic stability and security buys quite a lot of happiness.

You fight like my sister!

Then you’re bucking the trend of your generation!

Punk rock!

There’s a high-fashion boutique in my city that has “saving the world through fashion” (or similar) displayed in its window.

I’m somewhat dubious of that claim.

No. It’s weasel wording.

One might argue that compensated forced labour isn’t slavery. One could also argue that chattel slaves were compensated with accomodation. However if the labourer doesn’t have the freedom to leave then they are a slave.

Confiscating passports and identity documents or binding visas to the “employer” are modern methods of restricting that freedom.

Fundamentally, the half of the population that this government represents just want the savages to know their place and not get above their station.

It is a disgusting attempt to revert back to NZ’s troubles of the 19th C.

Arthur! King of the Britons!

That’s me falling afoul of auto correct. I’ll edit.

My point was that the allied countries’ media doesn’t present the same picture.

Of course axis media will paint the picture of their defeat as a late as possible, new player introduction; rather than incompetence in high command.

One must evaluate the source’s Providence, motivation, etc.

I wouldn’t use Hollywood as a source. What sells well to the American public? America winning the war.

In British media, it’s the battle of Britain.

I imagine Soviet media would show it as operation barbossa barbarossa.

But yes, scummy as hell.

You’re right to call BS: I provided no supportive evidence. I’ll try to do so.

The US “dealers of death” '(a precursor name of the military industrial complex) were happy to sell to anyone who was buying. Commercial support is only relevant as a source for lobbying.

The (strictly non-interventionalist at the time) US government officially wanted to avoid involvement in a war as a belligerent. That doesn’t preclude sympathy within Congress or amongst the people for either side. The popularity of “America First” and Lindbergh in particular demonstrate that.

Germany was compelled to declare war against the US because of Pearl Harbour, the US’ declaration was just reciprocation. The US, now busy in the Pacific, entered the European theatre only after operation barbossa barbarossa, noting that Germany had already made its fatal strategic blunder and was weakened from its battle of Britain defeat.

The Wikipedia articles have good sources and are well edited. They’re a good place to find entry points into the histories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee is about all I can find in a few minutes.

Apologies, for not having more or better.

I’ve got some bad news.

The US was fully prepared to support the Nazis right up until it looked like they’d probably lose the war.