Why Europe should thank the US

Reply 100

simstar88

8

Just LOL at this conversation even happening.

Reply 101

Viscousbadgerjelly

4

Didn't America (Self proclaimed saviour of Europe and bringer of the War on Terror) also provide funding to the IRA?

Should we all be thankful for that too?

Reply 102

johndoranglasgow

14

Original post by Komnenos

youth on here hate their own country

I hate to come across as "internationalist" -great insult by the way- or "left-wing" but why does the fact that Britain is MY country mean that I should love it or think it's great?
By the way, I really do like living in the UK but you seem a tad moronic when you say that I should love my country simply because I was born there.
By that same logic, I shouldn't be an atheist because I was baptised. I should smoke because members of the family I was born into smoke.

I think you're allowing that signature US cognitive dissonance of "YEAH WE'RE THE BEST!!" but "the incumbent administration is **** and they're failing to pull our once great nation back from the brink of eternal destruction" to bleed through.

Don't come on here to stir-up arguments, especially not about something as idiotic as America thinking it saved the world for the millionth time running.

Reply 103

abc:)

22

Original post by Komnenos

It is often said that the Soviets won WWII for the allies, and that American's are stupid for believing they played a pivotal role on the European front.

This may be a fair criticism, from a military point of view. In a political sense, though, the US did play the role of savior to Western Europe.

It was the US that ensured Western Europe would develop into prosperous, liberal, democracies by preventing Soviet influence from spreading West.

You can all whinge on about the US being evil imperialists, but the fact of the matter is that they ensured the survival of your way of life. As much as you may hate it.

Edit:
Whoops, I forgot that all the left-wing, "internationalist", self-hating, youth on here hate their own country and hate the fact that it doesn't resemble Venezuela. My bad.

You kind of just make a sweeping statement here with nothing to back it up

Reply 104

MuffinMonster

Almighty America - oppressor of everything it doesn't agree with.

Reply 105

johndoranglasgow

14

Original post by kopite493

**** that it was Britain that cracked the enigma code subsequently winning the war

Yeah that was actually down to a guy called Alan Turing - really fascinating guy by the way.
Long story short, he was gay, our society was ignorant and overly religious and about 15 or 16 years after the war ended he was convicted under the Labouchere Ammendment, same act that convicted Oscar Wilde. He was offered prison or hormone replacement, chose the latter and was injected with a synthetic form of oestrogen on a regular basis causing shrunken genitals and a change in his cognition.
He killed himself 2 years after that, coroner noted that his brain tissue smelled of almonds.

I love Britain but I really don't think we get to take credit for the work of a man who we failed so tremendously.

Reply 106

username424118

Actually, we learnt in history lessons in Germany that Russia (with loads of predominantly American financial and material help) mainly caused Nazi-Germany to lose the war. The delay of the Operation Barbarossa and seeral bad decisions of Hitler who didnt want to listen to his generals are widely considered the main reason for Axis loss. I read the same in English history books. American definitely played a huge role in supporting and Britian wouldn't have been able to defeat Germany, nor would Germany have been able to defeat Britian (even though that seems much liklier.

Reply 107

Komnenos

OP

7

Original post by DdotT

No? Its a generally agreed historical fact.

Also, The Red Army was on the verge of collapse at the end of WWII, hyperinflation dramatically over extended supply lines and a lack of general party control made the force barely able to sustain itself.

It is a generally agreed historical fact that the Soviet's justification for controlling the government's of these countries was purely "self-defense".

The Red Army may have been weak, but compare it to armies of Western Europe, sans the US.

Reply 108

Komnenos

OP

7

Original post by johndoranglasgow

I hate to come across as "internationalist" -great insult by the way- or "left-wing" but why does the fact that Britain is MY country mean that I should love it or think it's great?
By the way, I really do like living in the UK but you seem a tad moronic when you say that I should love my country simply because I was born there.
By that same logic, I shouldn't be an atheist because I was baptised. I should smoke because members of the family I was born into smoke.

I think you're allowing that signature US cognitive dissonance of "YEAH WE'RE THE BEST!!" but "the incumbent administration is **** and they're failing to pull our once great nation back from the brink of eternal destruction" to bleed through.

Don't come on here to stir-up arguments, especially not about something as idiotic as America thinking it saved the world for the millionth time running.

I can't say I'm surprised you don't actually respond to my argument. I will address your points, though.

The modern nation state is a social contract amongst a relatively like-minded group of people. It exists to advance the interests - political, economic, and military - of these people, these "citizens", through the construct of a state.

Patriotism - a belief in the purpose on necessity of the state, a willingness to sacrifice for the state, and an acceptance of the supremacy of the state - is necessary to ensure that the social contract remains strong and intact.

I will use your religion metaphor to further my point. If you are born a Catholic, and stay loyal to the ideology and the organizational apparatus of the Catholic Church, you will remain a Catholic. If you switch religious faiths, you pledge your loyalty to the ideology and the organizational apparatus of your new faith, or you abandon the ideology and the organization apparatus all together, feeling it to be unnecessary.

If you are born British, and stay loyal to the ideology and organization apparatus of the British state, you will remain British. If you are born British, but move countries and switch citizenship, you switch your loyalties. Or, if you become an anarchist, you abandon the concept of the "state" all together.

Now you, sir, are none of the above. You are, to extend the analogy, a "lapsed Catholic". You are British in name, but you give no loyalty to the British state and feel no connection to it. You are, however, too invested in it to completely abandon it.

I am an atheist, secularist, liberal, social democrat. In other words, I am the polar opposite of most Americans. At the same time, I am an American, and I feel loyal to the country that gave me the opportunity to develop into who I am today. I will not apologise for that.

Reply 109

johndoranglasgow

14

Original post by Komnenos

I am an atheist, secularist, liberal, social democrat. In other words, I am the polar opposite of most Americans. At the same time, I am an American, and I feel loyal to the country that gave me the opportunity to develop into who I am today. I will not apologise for that.

No, but you should apologise for being an idiot - although definitely a coherent one.
Right for a start liberalism is a fairly left-wing ideology, I understand that as with almost all political beliefs it lies somewhere in the middle, but if I had to shove you to one side, you're going in the left-pile. So maybe you shouldn't go use "left-wing internationalist" as some kind of insult if you're about to go on and describe yourself as essentially that.

Don't give yourself the credit of being different from most Americans, you seem pretty industry standard to me - typical beliefs, flimsy but long-winded argument and an ability to mutilate an original point into an unrescognisable state.

My argument is essentially this, patriotism is stupid.
Patriotism is used almost exclusively to describe someone's passion and enthusiasm for the country they live in. However, the nation someone is born into is essentially a lottery, and no matter what country gets drawn people are going to claim that its the "best country in the whole darn world gosh-dangit."

Someone being critical of their nation can,in a small way, help that country to improve on its flaws. So I don't really get why your whinging about British people hating their country - especially when you seem to pride yourself on being different from the average person in your country.

Final point: yeah of course I wavered off from the original topic, you didn't win the war. You showed up at the last minute - because you were attacked - and then you nabbed all the credit in exchange for a relatively minor contribution.

Not to mention the fact that your solution to WW2 was to create what continues to be one of the biggest threats to the world, the nuclear weapon - and killed approximately 200,000 people in the process.

Reply 110

Komnenos

OP

7

Original post by johndoranglasgow

No, but you should apologise for being an idiot - although definitely a coherent one.
Right for a start liberalism is a fairly left-wing ideology, I understand that as with almost all political beliefs it lies somewhere in the middle, but if I had to shove you to one side, you're going in the left-pile. So maybe you shouldn't go use "left-wing internationalist" as some kind of insult if you're about to go on and describe yourself as essentially that.

Don't give yourself the credit of being different from most Americans, you seem pretty industry standard to me - typical beliefs, flimsy but long-winded argument and an ability to mutilate an original point into an unrescognisable state.

My argument is essentially this, patriotism is stupid.
Patriotism is used almost exclusively to describe someone's passion and enthusiasm for the country they live in. However, the nation someone is born into is essentially a lottery, and no matter what country gets drawn people are going to claim that its the "best country in the whole darn world gosh-dangit."

Someone being critical of their nation can,in a small way, help that country to improve on its flaws. So I don't really get why your whinging about British people hating their country - especially when you seem to pride yourself on being different from the average person in your country.

Final point: yeah of course I wavered off from the original topic, you didn't win the war. You showed up at the last minute - because you were attacked - and then you nabbed all the credit in exchange for a relatively minor contribution.

Not to mention the fact that your solution to WW2 was to create what continues to be one of the biggest threats to the world, the nuclear weapon - and killed approximately 200,000 people in the process.

I am moderately left-wing, yes. I see many things wrong with the left, though, and feel no need to hide my disdain for strands of it with which I disagree.

I don't give myself "credit" for anything - I give credit to my parents and my country for allowing me to develop into who I am today.

I do not disagree, however that does not make patriotism any less essential.

The West is so successful, in my mind, due to it's capacity for self-criticism. Nowhere have I stated, nor implied, that criticism is, in and of itself, a bad thing. In fact, I feel quite the opposite - it is necessary. There is a difference, however, between criticism of perceived wrongs in order to improve the nation state and criticism of the nature and existence of the nation state itself. I find the former to be useful and the latter to be sad. I must add, before you accuse me of censorship, that just because I find the latter view to be disagreeable does not mean I feel it should be repressed. As I liberal, I believe in freedom of speech to an almost extreme extent.

You, and most people here, do not seem to understand my argument. I am not denying that, relative to the Soviets, the US made a relatively small contribution to the European front. What I am saying is that the US captured enough territory and established enough of a troop presence to ensure that Soviet influence did not spread into Western Europe. For that, I do believe some thanks is owed.

The nuclear weapon was an inevitable creation. I am of two minds over its use, however. On one hand, yes, it does, seemingly, represent unnecessarily massive human destruction. On the other hand, though, it ensured that Japan would not need to be invaded. This invasion would have, in all likelihood, led to immensely more human suffering. I think the better solution would have been to first drop the bomb in Tokyo harbor to demonstrate its power and efficacy before proceeding to use it in the field. So I don't find the dropping of the bombs to be the best solution, but nor do I see it as the worst solution.

Don't listen to me, though. I'm just some idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Reply 111

DH-Biker

14

Original post by Komnenos

It is often said that the Soviets won WWII for the allies, and that American's are stupid for believing they played a pivotal role on the European front.

This may be a fair criticism, from a military point of view. In a political sense, though, the US did play the role of savior to Western Europe.

It was the US that ensured Western Europe would develop into prosperous, liberal, democracies by preventing Soviet influence from spreading West.

You can all whinge on about the US being evil imperialists, but the fact of the matter is that they ensured the survival of your way of life. As much as you may hate it.

Edit:
Whoops, I forgot that all the left-wing, "internationalist", self-hating, youth on here hate their own country and hate the fact that it doesn't resemble Venezuela. My bad.

Hah. The negs really blew up on this one.

Sigh.

If anyone ever tells you that the American's didn't play a pivotol role on the Western Front, and they claim to be of reasonable understanding of the Second World War. Slap them, really hard.

Of course the American's intervention was pivitol. No one in thier right mind would argue against it. The only reason it got to the stage in which America could deploy on the Western Front or up through Italy is due to Russia's intervention on the Eastern Front.

Some people make the assessment that the Western Front saw the worst of the fighting, and the most Germans. This is incorrect. The Eastern Front had many times as many Battalions deployed to it, the fighting was far more bloody and at the end of the day, Russia was the only force keeping Germany occupied. Had the Russian's not have controlled over half of the German Army and Air Force in the East, that's over half of the German Army and Air Force that could've been rotated round to the Western Front in the event a landing craft actually made it ashore.

The American's role once a beachhead along Normandy had been established is completely pivitol. But their focus was always more concentrated on the Pacific Theatre. Just as Germany's was on the East. Russia was inevitably going to destroy Germany once its peace was broken. I'd argue that there is no scenario once war between the two nations was declared that results in a German victory.
Had America not established a foothold in Europe either from the Normandy Western Front or the Italian Southern Front, they would still have continued their island-hopping campaigns in the East.

Germany and Japan weren't "Allies" in that sense during the war. At best, they wouldn't attack each other given what they thought would be the inevitable end result of an Axis Victory. There was no mutual support, Germany never sent troops to aid Japan's efforts against America nor vice-versa and I'm not even sure any supplies were traded. It was merely a mutual understanding.

The American's didn't really ensure that the remains of Western Europe weren't rolled under the Communist flag, though. Arguably, the entire planet would be Russian now, given that more then a few of the American Brass on the Western Front wanted to push through Berlin and attack the Russians. Had they done that, Europe would've been cleared of American and probably the rest of the Allied forces. Russia was at the absolute peak of its World War II Military might, wheras America was struggling to get supplies that far into Germany at that time of the war anyway, most were being diverted to a now more urgent Pacific cause.

It was British officials who brokered the final posting of peace. Russian and American guards on duty around Berline, cooperating in organising the remenents of the German forces. Etc. It was that that ensured most of the early Cold-War tensions didn't break out into small scale fighting, not American implentation. Russia was well aware that if America consolidated its fighting forces from the Pacific after it had finished off Japan with the Nuclear Weapons it knew America had, it could easily turn those on them afterwards.

Russia would've dominated a conventional war, but with the outset of the Nuclear Arms Stalin was tentative of beginning any hostilities. Capable of conquering America? Debatable, but certainly plausible. Even with Nuclear Arms, America still needed the time to make them, and only two had been created for the purpose of moral-crippling Japan's population and leaders.

It was America that made sure Britain's final handover of its remaining territories was ensured after the war, ending obviously with the handover of Hong Kong. France, The Netherlands and Spain were still grappling with whether or not the majority welcomed this incursion from the Allied Forces, including the Resistance Forces of the aforementioned who aided the Allied War Effort. Remember, whilst Germany had invaded and taken over, the respective take overs (excluding Spains which was done via its own Leadership and wasn't peaceful) (whilst being under the form of Blitzkrieg to begin with) cost the countries very little in damage, and were welcomed for the most part afterwards. Much of Holland reveled in Germany's occupation, almost a half in fact. This half was then almost wiped out when Allied Forces threw down for the travesty which was Operation Market Garden; the Germans witnessed this and systamatically wiped as much of the Allied support as possible. Even with the ending of the Second World War, a lot of the Netherlands still idolized the idea of a Nazi state, often being outright hostile to Allied clean up forces.

America couldn't account for much of Germany's self-aid, either. Britain played a crucial role in ensuring that much of Germany began digging itself out of the ruins. As far as we were concerned, the war was over and now it needed to be cleaned up by those who had caused the mess in the first place. German citizens were offered many bonuses if they helped the operations and especially so if they brought others to help. America was still hunting down any whisper of a lead on any fighting factions left and remorslessly butchering them. Granted, these were the enemy, but it was also important to note that this installed only fear in people witnessing it. It was bad enough America took control of everything in Western Europe for a spell after the war, never mind that squads shot huge numbers of Nazi sympathisers in the streets or anyone who was even hinted at supporting Nazism.

They were tasked with many end-war objectives that they didn't complete. Reinstating leaders to oversee aspects of their respective countries renewel was left till the very end and sometimes not even begun at all. France wasn't under the directive of its own leading figures until half a decade after the war; sure they were there, but America made damn sure its interests were kept at heart, along with promised trade negotiations.

America did bugger all politically. It may have advocated pleasentries left, right and centre, but arguably Russian organisation did more to sort out aid. It even managed to clear up the Eastern Battlefields with combinations of Russian and German civilians. Russia and Germany had detested each other for over a decade. Hitler had smeared Communism during his rise to power. Yet somehow afterwards, they managed to sort out the population effected between them. The butchery of Germany's invasion into Russia and the countering Russian invasion of Germany all but forgotten. Whereas the American forces simply lined up and shot anyone suspected of being a Nazi, left Britain and the Resistance forces to clean up their own countries and forced Germany to sort out the gaps.

America was useless in post-war Europe, but it was quick to demand trade links and money for organising the apparent regrowth of Western Europe.

Reply 112

johndoranglasgow

14

Original post by Komnenos

The nuclear weapon was an inevitable creation. I am of two minds over its use, however. On one hand, yes, it does, seemingly, represent unnecessarily massive human destruction. On the other hand, though, it ensured that Japan would not need to be invaded. This invasion would have, in all likelihood, led to immensely more human suffering. I think the better solution would have been to first drop the bomb in Tokyo harbor to demonstrate its power and efficacy before proceeding to use it in the field. So I don't find the dropping of the bombs to be the best solution, but nor do I see it as the worst solution.

Don't listen to me, though. I'm just some idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

You know what, I would actually like to retract something.
I claimed that American's made a small contribution to the war, that was silly of me, it was an important contribution that may very well have impacted on the overall outcome. Your motivation behind it was cowardly and morally bankrupt nonetheless.
The bombing of pearl harbour lead to the US participating in WW2, you didn't see what was right and wrong and feel inclined to make a difference, you were attacked and had to defend yourself. That isn't the mark of a brave nation and it taints every contribution your country made to that war.
A little brief note on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you killed over 200,000 civilians by pushing buttons from the sky. An act like that is evil from every angle and it is nobody's right to make that decision - certainly not the right of a country that decided it should throw over 100,000 of its own people into camps because they were Japanese-Americans.
Just to settle the whole patriotism thing. The concept of patriotism is stupid, a country should be measured on its accomplishments not based on whether or not you hold a passport there. British people do not hate Britain they are critical of it and rightly so, it is flawed, but ignoring those flaws is not going to do nothing to fix them.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 113

username310124

15

Original post by DYKWIA

Wow, could you be more insensitive?

Americans were incredibly insensitive about the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Reply 114

economicsisfun

Original post by Agenda Suicide

First off it is won, not one.

Secondly in WW2 America jumped in at the last minute, debateable how much influence they had, most likely would have gone the same way.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

You see communist as evil. Why? Because you have been brought up in a capitalist society.

What if you weren't? What if you were born intoa communist country, you would be adapted to the life.

Look at the world today, it's crumbling economically.

I think communism does not work, but you are making ridiculous assumptions.

As well as this, as much of a massive JFK fan I am, they sure ensured my survival of my way of life but there have been a damn good few times when they've managed to endanger it, especially in that era.

To be honest I'm just throwing stuff out there, but you seem a bit vague and one of those uneducated people who throw their hat into the ring so I'm gonna leave it here.

The most likely cause I can see is that the US would benefit from arming both sides and profiteering, as it did in World War 1, and in the Iran-Iraq war. It was only until The Attack on Pearl harbour, when the Americans felt at risk. Even then, the majority of their fighting, was with the Japanese.

Reply 115

DYKWIA

13

Original post by CB91

Americans were incredibly insensitive about the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

I don't remember people being insensitive about the earthquake in Japan. In fact, we gave a lot of aid to Japan after the tsunami. Even if people were insensitive, does that make it acceptable to be insensitive about the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Original post by economicsisfun

The most likely cause I can see is that the US would benefit from arming both sides and profiteering, as it did in World War 1, and in the Iran-Iraq war. It was only until The Attack on Pearl harbour, when the Americans felt at risk. Even then, the majority of their fighting, was with the Japanese.

We didn't enter the war to profiteer. We lost over 400,000 American troops during the war, defending you and the allies in the pacific.

Also, it's spelled 'Pearl Harbor' - I know you are english, but it is a place name.

Reply 116

DYKWIA

13

Original post by Lewis :D

I see you constantly mocking Russia for its failed communist policies which killed millions, so don't try and take the moral high ground just because this jokes on the USA.

It's the truth. Communism doesn't work. I don't see how that is mocking the mass culls out there.

[QUOTE=Lewis [excludedFace]biggrin[/excludedFace];35060018]Scandinavia?

It is an oil state. Its GDP is nothing to do with social policies. I'd say it is a state that is successful, despite its socialist policies.

Reply 117

Blackburn_Allen

6

Yawnin'ell. That's all I have to say.

No one can disagree that American intervention played a role in the winning of the war, but are you seriously trying to say that the whole of Europe has America to thank for democracy?

Try saying that to Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia and other Eastern European countries that were on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. Left to ponder in the pit of an evil communist regime. They sure have A LOT to thank America for, right?

Quit generalising Europe as the UK & France. It's a lot bigger than you Americans seem to get taught in geography. In fact, one American I argued with once even declared that: "Europe is the most rubbish country in the world", exact words too.

The UK was fighting the war long before the USA got involved. We went through years of bombing whilst our so-called allies sat nice and pretty in their country, we bore the brunt of a tyrant and still came through the other side. It speaks for British courage when we went through all of what we did and still played just as big of a role in the D-Day landings and the war on the Western Front as America did.

The Soviet Union is our true saving grace. Without Hitler's stupid decision to invade Russia the western front would have had 3 times the troops that the allies fought against and the D-Day landings probably wouldn't have been successful.

PS: Send a thankyou letter to the French for their efforts in your infamous "revolutionary" war. I'm sure they will appreciate it!

Reply 118

DYKWIA

13

Original post by Blackburn_Allen

PS: Send a thankyou letter to the French for their efforts in your infamous "revolutionary" war. I'm sure they will appreciate it!

Why are you placing revolutionary in double quotes? It marked the creation of the first real democracy and it was when we threw out the ideals of monarchies and imperialism and replaced them with democracy and freedom.

Reply 119

Blackburn_Allen

6

Original post by DYKWIA

Why are you placing revolutionary in double quotes? It marked the creation of the first real democracy and it was when we threw out the ideals of monarchies and imperialism and replaced them with democracy and freedom.

There's been no real difference. Your country stamps his foot down all over the world, dictates what can and can't be done, interferes with global affairs that have nothing to do with you and renowned for it's gun-ready approach to anything.

Sounds familiar.

Why Europe should thank the US

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you