Is the enormity of what Americana has done too much for Americans to face up to? [Archive]

Some Friggin Guy

19th February 2004, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Totally agree.

Yes the USA can and does act in a way that should be condemned but I can't think of any country (with perhaps the exception of Lichtenstein) that doesn't act in a way that can't be condemned by someone, somewhere.

I am also sure that there are lots of countries that you could find "On every continent, there is a country that has a grudge against...” it.

What is going on I believe is that since the USA is the last superpower still standing after decades of peace it is a big easy target for anyone not too happy with how the world is to have a go at.

In a couple of hundred years when the USA is no longer the "big kid on the block" I'm sure there will be people asking the same question of whichever state/nation/country is in the "ascendant" then.

(I also don’t believe the USA citizens are particularly more “nationalistic” then many other countries.)

Okay, you beat me to the punch. I do disagree with you slightly on a couple of points, though.

First, I don't think it will take a couple hundred years fro the US to not be the big kid on the block. I would estimate less than 100 on the conservative side.

Second, while there are many nationalistc countires in the world, I would have to rank the US as in the top five, and the one with the biggest megaphone (that being major media.)

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
You're both right in this case.

Yes, the US has cause a great deal of...stress...throughout the world. Perhaps moreso than most other countries (I don't know for sure, to be honest). The population of the US is generally unaware of/unwilling to accept the culpability of the US in the problems it has caused.

This is, however, not a uniquely American trait. In fact, Americans are probably more aware of their country's faults than some other nations.

I would not call it a uniquely American trait. The US just happens to be the most powerful country on earth. However, there are differences. For example, I would disagree that other countries are not so nationalistic. In Australia, for example, no one knows the words to the national anthem, and if you fly the flag on your front lawn, you are a d!ckhead.

However, there are certainly people who know just what the US is guilty of. Just not that many, and those who do have no connection with those in power.

Cain

19th February 2004, 03:51 AM

AUP, let me ask you this: What is the general opinion of Australians with regard to their government's role in East Timor over the last 30 years?

I'd agree the United States is relatively nationalistic (though not nearly as bad as France). It's also one of the most fundamentalist countries in the first world.

El Greco

19th February 2004, 03:58 AM

What I find rather vexing is that many Americans don't even know what's going on. President Clinton has apologized for the support US offered to the military junta in Greece (1967-1974), yet I've talked to many Americans who have strong opinions about their country's foreign policy without even knowing what US has done here and in what ways it has affected us.

Zero

19th February 2004, 04:14 AM

Americans simply don't know much, generally...I'm not completely sure why, because Americans aren't any dumber than anyone else. They just don't seem to know anything...too much TV, not enough library time?

Some Friggin Guy

19th February 2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by El Greco
What I find rather vexing is that many Americans don't even know what's going on. President Clinton has apologized for the support US offered to the military junta in Greece (1967-1974), yet I've talked to many Americans who have strong opinions about their country's foreign policy without even knowing what US has done here and in what ways it has affected us.

Part of the problem here is that the US has it's fingers in too many pies, both officially and covertly. I mean, I'm ACTIVELY trying to keep up with everything the US is involved in and I have a lot of trouble. Add into the the government's Geller-esque ability to misdirect people's attention here, you can see why we (as a nation) have such trouble paying attnetion.

OOOH! SHINEY THINGS!

Skeptic

19th February 2004, 05:18 AM

Yeah, THAT'S the reason that Americans disagree with your rock-bottom evaluation of America: they're all in denail!

It couldn't possibly be that you're biased, and the "enormity" of America's crimes exists only in your own head.

America isn't perfect, of course, but, had America not existed, the world would have been infinitely worse. You'd be speaking Japanese in a labor camp, for starters.

Bottle or the Gun

19th February 2004, 05:26 AM

What the? Crimes? Don't confuse corruption and idiocy of a few people's policies with your second, third and fourth world medieval viewpoint. Hey, BATHING GOOD, DIRT BAD! Get it?

If the rest of the world would quit supporting tiny regimes that sucked the people dry while destabilizing the sovereign rights of other nations, the US wouldn't care and would leave them alone.

(And odds are that the poster wouldn't be speaking japanese as the Nazis would steam-rolled the country flat and would have wiped his family out years ago.)

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yeah, THAT'S the reason that Americans disagree with your rock-bottom evaluation of America: they're all in denail!

It couldn't possibly be that you're biased, and the "enormity" of America's crimes exists only in your own head.

America isn't perfect, of course, but, had America not existed, the world would have been infinitely worse. You'd be speaking Japanese in a labor camp, for starters.

You're wrong Skeptic. They probably never would've survived the march to the camp...

Most Americans are fully aware (as much as our public education system allows) of our interests and actions taken abroad.

By far the most telling thing about America is this:

Name another country who, with its own people, money, and resources, repeatedly stays and rebuilds the countries it defeats in war?? The South after the Civil War; Germany and Japan after WWII; Iraq currently...

zenith-nadir

19th February 2004, 05:40 AM

So, in summary;

America is bad.

America is stupid.

America watches too much TV.

America has stressed out the world.

America is fundamentalist.

America has it's fingers in too many pies.

...shouldn't this really be in the Flame Wars section under "America, I hate you"?

Bottle or the Gun

19th February 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
By far the most telling thing about America is this:

Name another country who, with its own people, money, and resources, repeatedly stays and rebuilds the countries it defeats in war?? The South after the Civil War; Germany and Japan after WWII; Iraq currently...

Yeahhhhhhhhhh, baby! And we don't drive on sidewalks like in Europe either!

The Don

19th February 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Name another country who, with its own people, money, and resources, repeatedly stays and rebuilds the countries it defeats in war?? The South after the Civil War; Germany and Japan after WWII; Iraq currently...

All of them, they leave once they have installed a suitable puppet regime ;)

Zero

19th February 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So, in summary;

America is bad.

America is stupid.

America watches too much TV.

America has stressed out the world.

America is fundamentalist.

America has it's fingers in too many pies.

...shouldn't this really be in the Flame Wars section under "America, I hate you"? You should try reading the thread again.

zenith-nadir

19th February 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You should try reading the thread again.

Well lemme see, the title is "Is the enormity of what Americana has done too much for Americans to face up to?"

That is not current events, politics or history....that is, (and if I may use the JREF nomenclature), a straw man argument to bash America.

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by The Don

All of them, they leave once they have installed a suitable puppet regime ;)

:nope:

Any serious replies?

Zero

19th February 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Well lemme see, the title is "Is the enormity of what Americana has done too much for Americans to face up to?"

That is not current events, politics or history....that is, (and if I may use the JREF nomenclature), a straw man argument to bash America. If you say so...

Wrath of the Swarm

19th February 2004, 06:21 AM

Presumably the victor in a World War will always rebuild the countries damaged in the conflict. Otherwise there'll be no one to trade with. What use would there be in leaving them devastated?

The era of Genghis Khan slaughtering entire cities is over.

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 06:25 AM

"Is the enormity of a_unique_person's hate for America too much for liberal JREF Forum members to face up to?"

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

:nope:

Any serious replies?

OK, I will give it a try.

The USA does not provide post-war help unless such help is in the best interests of the USA.

The USA has helped to re-build countries that it was previously at war with provided that there is an understanding that those countries will be of considerable help in future conflicts (the several USA military bases established in Germany, Japan, and the Phillipines for example).

However, if it looks like there is no understanding, then such help will not be forthcoming (such as North Korea and Vietnam for example).

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 06:31 AM

Zero

19th February 2004, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Is the enormity of a_unique_person's hate for America too much for liberal JREF Forum members to face up to?"
lol, you such a funny person...

Darat

19th February 2004, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

...snip...

Second, while there are many nationalistc countires in the world, I would have to rank the US as in the top five, and the one with the biggest megaphone (that being major media.)

I would disagree because I think it is a matter of perspective.

It is easy to think that because US citizens can be heard to be patriotic in nearly all media outlets that they are at the top of any “nationalistic” list. Yet in the USA people can and do speak out against their country without it being a crime, but in many countries it would be a crime.

We should start any list with those countries and if there is any room left on the page we can then start to argue are Germans more nationalistic then the USers.

(Edited to put things into perspective.)

Wrath of the Swarm

19th February 2004, 06:43 AM

Oh, come on. Britain and France were completely trashed (we helped them rebuild, too), Russia rebuilt E. Germany (in a manner of speaking), and I honestly don't know much about how Australia was affected by WWII. We wouldn't have accepted Russian assistance to rebuild the rest of Europe if they'd offered it.

We found out what happens when the victor doesn't help the losers rebuild after WWI, remember?

Tmy

19th February 2004, 06:46 AM

Well whatever America has done its cause we learned it by wathing our parents............Europe! You spent the better part of last century pulling the entire globe into war, when the dust settled the US was in a good position to take the lead.

So to ensure the world doesnt repeat the same nonsense we try to keep everything under control. In short, YOU CREATED US!

And I thought the Aussies were a bunch of xenophobes.

iain

19th February 2004, 06:50 AM

Minor point : probably my fault, but I still find it slightly annoying when Americans tell us we would all be speaking German/Japanese (or worse) if it wasn't for them.

Yes, the Americans made a big contribution to the allied side in WWII (and got paid well for it - Britain paid off it's war debt to the US in the late '80s), but the US contribution was nowhere near as great as the Russian one, for example. The British also did quite a bit ourselves of course - we weren't just sitting around for three years waiting for the US to come along.

I think it's fair to say that at various points, Germany came close to winning the war and, even with the Americans involved, could probably still have won if they hadn't made certain strategic errors. Given how close it was, pretty much any country on the allies side can say with some justification that if it wasn't for them...

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

OK, I will give it a try.

The USA does not provide post-war help unless such help is in the best interests of the USA.

The USA has helped to re-build countries that it was previously at war with provided that there is an understanding that those countries will be of considerable help in future conflicts (the several USA military bases established in Germany, Japan, and the Phillipines for example).

However, if it looks like there is no understanding, then such help will not be forthcoming (such as North Korea and Vietnam for example).

Hindsight is coloring your perception. Germany and Japan were not rebuilt by the U.S. with the proviso that US bases would be necessary to counter a Russian threat that didn't exist yet (they were still allies). Once the Russian threat did materialize though, the U.S. took advantage of its position in Western Europe and only succeeded in halting the encroachment of Soviet communism into countries thousands of miles from its own borders.

As far as Korea and Vietnam are concerned - 2 points for your consideration:

1. Compare the infrastucture and economics of South Korea with that of North Korea.

2. Do you think Vietnam would've been better off or worse off infrastructurally and/or economically if the U.S. had won the Vietnam War?

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 06:55 AM

Wrath of the Swarm

19th February 2004, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
2. Do you think Vietnam would've been better off or worse off infrastructurally and/or economically if the U.S. had won the Vietnam War? Hard to say. The South Vietnamese government was a corrupt dictatorship with a penchant for vanishing those who spoke out against it.

Would Iraq be better off or worse off if Iran had won the Iran-Iraq war? Did our support for Iraq end up benefitting it in the long-tun?

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
We found out what happens when the victor doesn't help the losers rebuild after WWI, remember?

Good point, but the Versailles Treaty and the worldwide depression played a much greater role, don't you think?

iain

19th February 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Well whatever America has done its cause we learned it by wathing our parents............Europe! You spent the better part of last century pulling the entire globe into war, when the dust settled the US was in a good position to take the lead. Fair point. Europe spent the first half of the 20th century doing this. Amazingly, Europe managed to sort itself out in the second half; the result being the European Union and rather more peace than we've been historically used to.

Most of the world always has been an exceptionally brutal place to live. African, Asian, South American and Native American peoples have been fighting bloody wars against each other for centuries with the winners treating the losers appallingly. The difference with the Western nations is that for the last couple of centuries we've been able to do it much more effectively and, because of the growth of mass media, find out about it too.

The US has happened to become the major superpower at a time when the world is moving to a more civilised state. Does that mean we can compare the US now to older superpowers in different times? Not sure.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

19th February 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yeah, THAT'S the reason that Americans disagree with your rock-bottom evaluation of America: they're all in denail!

It couldn't possibly be that you're biased, and the "enormity" of America's crimes exists only in your own head.

America isn't perfect, of course, but, had America not existed, the world would have been infinitely worse. You'd be speaking Japanese in a labor camp, for starters.

hmm interesting while we are developing hypothetical theses:

Would we be speaking Japanese in a labour camp if America did not exist?

If we hypothetically eliminate American (not forgetting of course this was in conjuction with British and other European power's) influence and foreign Policy (as it related to Japan's national identity, economic/industrial development and view of the west in the late 19th and early 20th century) would this necessarily follow?

What I am trying to get at is;
If America didn't exist, and its influence and actions in regards to Japan were eliminated, would Japan still have developed into the aggressive militaristic state that it did in the first half of the 20th century?

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 07:07 AM

Americana. What an interesting choice of words.

You're right, AUP. Americana has done enormous harm. You guys should give it back. McDonald's, Coke, Nike, Subway, Star Wars, Madonna, Elvis. Oh, and all those Constitutions around the world that are based on ours. Give those up, too. And all the bridges, and immunizations that wiped out smallpox, water purification plants, roads, schools, businesses. Give them back. And all those loans which were defaulted on? We've change our minds. We want them paid back. The grants, too.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

hmm interesting while we are developing hypothetical theses:

Would we be speaking Japanese in a labour camp if America did not exist?

If we hypothetically eliminate American (not forgetting of course this was in conjuction with British and other European power's) influence and foreign Policy (as it related to Japan's national identity, economic/industrial development and view of the west in the late 19th and early 20th century) would this necessarily follow?

What I am trying to get at is;
If America didn't exist, and its influence and actions in regards to Japan were eliminated, would Japan still have developed into the aggressive militaristic state that it did in the first half of the 20th century?

Oh, this is just unbelievable. Exactly what influence and actions in regards to Japan are you talking about?

Turn your eyes westward, pal. Look to Russia and China. Not us.

Un-freaking-believable.

Darat

19th February 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Americana. What an interesting choice of words.

You're right, AUP. Americana has done enormous harm. You guys should give it back. McDonald's, Coke, Nike, Subway, Star Wars, Madonna, Elvis. Oh, and all those Constitutions around the world that are based on ours. Give those up, too. And all the bridges, and immunizations that wiped out smallpox, water purification plants, roads, schools, businesses. Give them back. And all those loans which were defaulted on? We've change our minds. We want them paid back. The grants, too.

You really want Madonna back? :eek: I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority of the UK population when I say, "PLEASE TAKE HER BACK!".

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Hard to say. The South Vietnamese government was a corrupt dictatorship with a penchant for vanishing those who spoke out against it.

Would Iraq be better off or worse off if Iran had won the Iran-Iraq war? Did our support for Iraq end up benefitting it in the long-tun?

We did not create the South Vietnamese government.

That's why I limited my point to infrastructure and economics. I'm all for rebuilding houses, roads, factories, and schools, as well as introducing capitalism and a free market, but I in no way support forcing a government on a people.

I say: "fix 'em up, and let 'em choose themselves how they should be governed."

As far as Iran/Iraq is concerned, regardless of our recent history with Saddam, it is always better to have one radical militant religious fundamentalist country than to have two...

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Darat

You really want Madonna back? :eek: I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority of the UK population when I say, "PLEASE TAKE HER BACK!".

We'll take her back if you'll take Michael Jackson off our hands.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 07:18 AM

Some of the resentment toward the U.S. is because we loaned billions and billions of dollars to various countries which then proceeded to squander it. And then when they asked for more, we gave it to them. And then when they squandered that away, too, they asked for even more. Somewhere down the line, we said, "No more." And now they are pissed at us.

iain

19th February 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

We'll take her back if you'll take Michael Jackson off our hands. I'm sure that both of them would be ideal envoys to cheer up the Iraqi people. Maybe someone could organise an Iraqi "peace and understanding" tour for them.

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

In the universe I live in which is parallel to yours, we did not conquer North Korea or Vietnam.

Quite right!

While the USA did do a good bit to destroy North Korea and Vietnam, it did not actually conquer North Korea and Vietnam. Although, the USA did make considerable efforts to reach a post-war understanding all the same while the fighting was still going on.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by iain
Yes, the Americans made a big contribution to the allied side in WWII (and got paid well for it - Britain paid off it's war debt to the US in the late '80s), but the US contribution was nowhere near as great as the Russian one, for example. The British also did quite a bit ourselves of course - we weren't just sitting around for three years waiting for the US to come along.

We hear a different version (http://tri.army.mil/tsac/wwii.htm) of how much lend-lease was repaid.

The next major United States decision to aid the British was the Lend-Lease program initiated by an Act of Congress of March 11, 1941. Lend-Lease eventually supplied about $50 billion of arms, food, and other aid to our Allies, including, as they became engaged in the war, the Russians and the Chinese. Under Lend-Lease, the United States "loaned" materials to the Allies under the premise that it would be paid back when they were able to do so. The program also allowed the "lease" of other materials and services for which payment could be made by "reverse lend-lease" whereby the Allies would provide certain materials and services to the United States in payment. As a matter of historical interest, less than $10 billion were repaid to the United States for America’s lend-lease contributions.

As for the Soviet contribution, I'm afraid I must protest: as I read history, they had occasion to fight on both sides of WWII, making the comparison to the United States, who only ever fought against the Axis, rather unfair.

MattJ

Darat

19th February 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

...snip...

As far as Iran/Iraq is concerned, regardless of our recent history with Saddam, it is always better to have one radical militant religious fundamentalist country than to have two...

Not too sure - they at least keep other occupied (no pun intended) ;)

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Hindsight is coloring your perception. Germany and Japan were not rebuilt by the U.S. with the proviso that US bases would be necessary to counter a Russian threat that didn't exist yet (they were still allies). Once the Russian threat did materialize though, the U.S. took advantage of its position in Western Europe and only succeeded in halting the encroachment of Soviet communism into countries thousands of miles from its own borders.

As far as Korea and Vietnam are concerned - 2 points for your consideration:

1. Compare the infrastucture and economics of South Korea with that of North Korea.

2. Do you think Vietnam would've been better off or worse off infrastructurally and/or economically if the U.S. had won the Vietnam War?

Hindsight is not coloring my perception.

Germany and Japan were essentially occupied by the USA (note: the other allies did help with this as well, but the USA was pretty much running the show after a while) after the war, so USA military bases were established there to enforce the occupation. By the time the occupation ended, the Cold War was starting to heat up so the bases remained and the host countries were in no condition to complain about it.

True, during the war and occupation period, the USA and USSR were officially allies, but in practice there was a good bit mutual distrust and animosity between the two. So while you are technically correct in stating the bases were not established to counter a future threat from the USSR; if one were to look at the post-war planning on the USA side, then one will see there was considerable concern about such a threat all the same.

In regards to your first question, I think you have already answered it. South Korea was willing to side with the USA, therefore they got the benefit of substantial military and economic aid from the USA.

In regards to you second question, yes I am sure that the infrastructure and economy of Vietnam would have been better off if the USA had won the war. But then again, considering how devastated Vietnam was after the war about anything would have been an improvement.

Shaun from Scotland

19th February 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

We hear a different version (http://tri.army.mil/tsac/wwii.htm) of how much lend-lease was repaid.

MattJ

Everyone always forgets why lend-lease was necessary........

Wrath of the Swarm

19th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Because the manufacturing capability of those countries had been essentially wiped out by the war, yes?

Mycroft

19th February 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Presumably the victor in a World War will always rebuild the countries damaged in the conflict. Otherwise there'll be no one to trade with. What use would there be in leaving them devastated?

The era of Genghis Khan slaughtering entire cities is over.

Yeah? Who’s idea was it to change that?

Originally posted by Crossbow

OK, I will give it a try...

The USA has helped to re-build countries that it was previously at war with provided that there is an understanding that those countries will be of considerable help in future conflicts (the several USA military bases established in Germany, Japan, and the Phillipines for example).

However, if it looks like there is no understanding, then such help will not be forthcoming (such as North Korea and Vietnam for example).

Which can be translated to say that the United States has always been willing to make allies out of former enemies, but not every former enemy is willing.

Originally posted by iain
Minor point : probably my fault, but I still find it slightly annoying when Americans tell us we would all be speaking German/Japanese (or worse) if it wasn't for them.

Yes, but it’s only said in response to America bashing, that’s annoying too.

Originally posted by Luke T.

In the universe I live in which is parallel to yours, we did not conquer North Korea or Vietnam.

Lol! I wish I had said that!

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Yeah? Who’s idea was it to change that?

You don't remember how the British Empire, France, and the Soviet Union swept in and rebuilt Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire after WWI? I don't either, but presumably they would have, so then they must have, right?

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 08:15 AM

Another Lend-Lease item if I may.

While there are still quite a few who think that the Allies were getting vast amounts of support that was being paid for by USA taxpayers, I say, "Well, it most certainly was not! But even if it was, then so what? Would you have rather had the USA military go in and fight the Germans and all of their friends by themselves as opposed to going in with lots of other help from several different quarters which kept the enemy divided and prevented him from focusing all of his energies on the USA?"

Face it, Lend-Lease was a great bargain for the USA in many ways.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Everyone always forgets why lend-lease was necessary........

There are many reasons why it was necessary, many of which I am aware of. Perhaps I have missed some. If you think that I have, please fill me in. (Or perhaps you think that iain is the one who has forgotten, it's hard to tell)

My objection is to his claim that we 'got paid well' monetarily. He seems to believe it, I just want him to explain what he means more precisely. Perhaps the version I have posted is incorrect, but I believe that much of the lend-lease aid was not repaid. The way it seems to me, Iain is saying "We're going to keep your money and accuse you of profitting from our misery."

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
Face it, Lend-Lease was a great bargain for the USA in many ways.

Indeed it was. Who in this thread is giving you the impression that they believe it was not?

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by iain
Minor point : probably my fault, but I still find it slightly annoying when Americans tell us we would all be speaking German/Japanese (or worse) if it wasn't for them.

For what it's worth, iain: I believe that without American martial help, folks in your country would be speaking English, while most of the rest of Europe (and much of the British Empire) would have grown up speaking Russian or speaking their own language under Japanese or Soviet rule.

rikzilla

19th February 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All around the world, there are many conflicts and disasters. For all kinds of reasons, from all kinds of countries. But if you want to find the country that is at the top ten of the usual suspects, it has to be the US. The USSR was not exactly a model of global good manners, but it no longer exists.

The citizens of the US seem to be unable to face up to what the US has done. On every continent, there is a country that has a grudge against the US. Even on the Island Contintent, Australia, not quite big enough to be a continent, but too big to be the usual island, the US has been implicated in overthrowing a democratically elected goverment just because it was left of centre.

What is going on here people?

What's going on here is your "glass-half-empty" perception. By virtue of your own post I've quoted above, you see the US as only a great negative. What about balancing your perception? What's wrong with also looking at the US's positive influences as well?

-z

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Indeed it was. Who in this thread is giving you the impression that they believe it was not?

Er, you for one.

When you mention that item which discusses how only $10 billion of the $ 50 billion that was provided was paid for it sounded to me that you were trying to say that some of the Allies had shirked their financial obligations.

Jocko

19th February 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by iain

I think it's fair to say that at various points, Germany came close to winning the war and, even with the Americans involved, could probably still have won if they hadn't made certain strategic errors. Given how close it was, pretty much any country on the allies side can say with some justification that if it wasn't for them...

Baloney. Perhaps you forget the one-two punch combination that convinced Japan to surrender? Given a few months, we could have added Berlin and Hamburg to the list of nuclear testing grounds. That fact alone should clarify any doubts as to who ended the war.

Indeed, I would wager the Germans would have only needed one demonstration, rather than the two required in Japan. They're so much more practical that way.

Skeptic

19th February 2004, 09:03 AM

I think it's fair to say that at various points, Germany came close to winning the war and, even with the Americans involved, could probably still have won if they hadn't made certain strategic errors.

That's HIGHLY unlikely, according to the vast majority of historians (although, of course, hindsight is 20/20). You are also forgetting that, had it not been for the Anglo-Americans (which meant 90% American), western Europe--and Australia, for that matter--would have only had the choice between a nazi or Japanese dictatorship and a Stalinist one.

I am by no means denying or minimizing the bravery of the Russians (however horrible their leader was) against the Germans, or that of the British under Churchill facing Hitler alone. But when Churchill said that he "would fight in the streets", he meant it--it was a serious possibility at the time. Only American supplies and, later, military involvement made sure Britian would win.

The point of the WWII claim, however, is different. It's to remind people who America's friends and who America's enemies were. Generally speaking, America's enemies were the dictators ahd butchers, while its friends were the democracies. Had it never existed, it would be much easier for the dictators to win.

zenith-nadir

19th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
What's going on here is your "glass-half-empty" perception. By virtue of your own post I've quoted above, you see the US as only a great negative. What about balancing your perception? What's wrong with also looking at the US's positive influences as well? -z

What I find strange is this entire thread is devoted to "what America has done" rather than the topic "Is the enormity of what Americana has done too much for Americans to face up to"

That is; how do Americans rationalize American foreign policy and how do they deal with it.

So far I haven't seen anything that discusses American introspection on American foreign policy. Just debate about WW2, Vietnam, lend-leases and bombing Japan. Earlier I tried to point this out, but was scolded for stating the obvious.

And I am sure I shall be scolded for stating the obvious again.

WildCat

19th February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Darat

You really want Madonna back? :eek: I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority of the UK population when I say, "PLEASE TAKE HER BACK!".
Sorry, once she started spaeaking w/ a "British" accent it was too late.

Suddenly

19th February 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Yeah? Who’s idea was it to change that?

Funny thing about the end of the war in Europe. Two of the big three were leaning towards simply executing every German Officer above the rank of (I think) Colonel. They also were strongly considering permanently reducing Germany to an agricutural economy.

Then the third member of the big three insisted on trials for all Nazi officials. Eventually we had war trials and a rebuilt Germany.

Any guess as to who insisted on the trials?

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Er, you for one.

When you mention that item which discusses how only $10 billion of the $ 50 billion that was provided was paid for it sounded to me that you were trying to say that some of the Allies had shirked their financial obligations.

Well, when Iain claimed that the US "got paid well" and was specifically talking about how the UK paid back back the money, he's full of garbage.

I, for one, am glad that we did not demand that the UK pay back the full $31 billion appropriated to them under Lend-Lease - you folks had clearly paid quite enough in blood and tears. Post-war decisions to not hold the allies to their debts were obviously the right thing to do. However, I'm not going to roll over for his claim that we were fully repaid monetarily unless he can back it up.

MattJ

Here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm) is another link with yet another version of how much Great Britain paid back of the $31 billion.

In 1941, the US GDP was $112 billion, for people wondering just 'how much' money we're talking about.

iain

19th February 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
My objection is to his claim that we 'got paid well' monetarily. He seems to believe it, I just want him to explain what he means more precisely. Perhaps the version I have posted is incorrect, but I believe that much of the lend-lease aid was not repaid. The way it seems to me, Iain is saying "We're going to keep your money and accuse you of profitting from our misery." Fair point. I'm not saying that. Obviously in the long run, it did work out well for the US (you have to have people to export to), but that's not a criticism of the US. Europe got itself into the mess with too many wars; the money that the US lent was essential to both the war effort and the post-war reconstruction.

It may be that my aside about the US being "well paid" for intervening was incorrect; in which case I happily withdraw it and thank those who have taken the trouble to correct my error. :)

Edited to add : in this case, I was making a claim which I had been told was true in the past but, thanks to the data supplied here, I now know is not. I'm very happy to have been corrected - I guess that if I hadn't mentioned it, I would have gone on believing something that wasn't correct. See - this forum isn't entirely useless.

Crossbow

19th February 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Well, when Iain claimed that the US "got paid well" and was specifically talking about how the UK paid back back the money, he's full of garbage.

I, for one, am glad that we did not demand that the UK pay back the full $31 billion appropriated to them under Lend-Lease - you folks had clearly paid quite enough in blood and tears. Post-war decisions to not hold the allies to their debts were obviously the right thing to do. However, I'm not going to roll over for his claim that we were fully repaid monetarily unless he can back it up.

MattJ

Thanks for clearing that up!

Likewise, I for one do not care if England paid their Lend-Lease debt or not because they were so good about sharing data on Radar and Cryptography with the USA and I am sure that those two items alone were worth several times their Lend-Lease debt.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by iain
Fair point. I'm not saying that. Obviously in the long run, it did work out well for the US (you have to have people to export to), but that's not a criticism of the US. Europe got itself into the mess with too many wars; the money that the US lent was essential to both the war effort and the post-war reconstruction.

It may be that my aside about the US being "well paid" for intervening was incorrect; in which case I happily withdraw it and thank those who have taken the trouble to correct my error. :)

I appreciate your acknowledgement of that point. How about the other one? Do you believe that the US contribution against the Axis during WWII deserves to be compared disfavorably with the Soviet contribution? It's not as if the US agreed to split Western Europe with the Nazis, like the Soviets agreed to (and then proceeded to) split Eastern Europe with them. The non-agression pact, active cooperation before and during the war, etc?

In defense of the Soviets, once it became clear that their nation was at risk, they fought back harder than anyone. (and I believe that they would likely have defeated Germany even had both the US and UK stood aside) Their nation would likely not have been so at risk had they not agreed to let Germany invade half of Eastern Europe, however.

MattJ

iain

19th February 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Do you believe that the US contribution against the Axis during WWII deserves to be compared disfavorably with the Soviet contribution?I think that to the extent that one nation can claim to have been the nation which tipped the balance the defeated the Nazis, several can including Russia, the US, the UK and others.

My annoyance, such as it is, is not really related to the exact details of the relative contributions of different nations or their behaviour before and after the war. It is merely to the attitude which seems to think that the Americans came on in and sorted everything out on their own (OK, I know this is an exaggeration, but you know what I mean).

I get similarly annoyed by those who think the British empire went in and sorted out those Africans in the 19th century, as if they were naughty schoolkids and the Empire was the caring parent.

(The British empire did many far worse things that the American empire has ever done; but we can only judge by the times we live in so that comparison would be a little unfair).

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by iain
It is merely to the attitude which seems to think that the Americans came on in and sorted everything out on their own (OK, I know this is an exaggeration, but you know what I mean).

I do know what you mean, and it annoys me as well.

Not as much as hearing the praise that gets lavished on the Soviets (vs USA) for their comparitive effort against the European Axis powers, which is not exactly what you did, but seems about as common as the attitude that is your peeve.

MattJ

demon

19th February 2004, 10:50 AM

A_U_P:
"All around the world, there are many conflicts and disasters. For all kinds of reasons, from all kinds of countries. But if you want to find the country that is at the top ten of the usual suspects, it has to be the US. The USSR was not exactly a model of global good manners, but it no longer exists.

The citizens of the US seem to be unable to face up to what the US has done. On every continent, there is a country that has a grudge against the US. Even on the Island Contintent, Australia, not quite big enough to be a continent, but too big to be the usual island, the US has been implicated in overthrowing a democratically elected goverment just because it was left of centre.

What is going on here people?
_________________________________________________

How do all the hapless journeymen maintain the belief that the US is fundamentally interested in bringing democracy to the Middle East or anywhere else in the world when they are sitting back, watching the US watching it collapse in Haiti?
How muddled does your thinking have to be to continue on lapping up this fiction? When the US is involved in or at best indifferent to the outcome of 2 attempted overthrows of democracies in Latin America in the last 2 years, how can anyone convince themselves - I mean how could even someone with a track record in selling Amway, Tupperware and a vengeful Jesus convince himself - that actions to "democratise" the ME are anything but malicious and utterly doomed to failure? I mean, how dim do you have to be?

HOW PITIFULLY DIM?!

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 11:06 AM

aerocontrols:Not as much as hearing the praise that gets lavished on the Soviets (vs USA) for their comparitive effort against the European Axis powers, which is not exactly what you did, but seems about as common as the attitude that is your peeve.I suspect that this attitude is the result of the one iain mentions.

I know exactly how iain feels. I can't count the number of times I've seen the following type of exchange on this board:

European/Australian: I find the (insert policy/action) of the US to be wrong for the following reasons....
American: I'm sick of your anti-Americanism! If it wasn't for our saving of the world in WWII, you'd be speaking German/Japanese!

Okay, I exaggerated a bit, but I think the gist is clear.

Kodiak

19th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by demon
How do all the hapless journeymen maintain the belief that the US is fundamentally interested in bringing democracy to the Middle East or anywhere else in the world when they are sitting back, watching the US watching it collapse in Haiti?
How muddled does your thinking have to be to continue on lapping up this fiction? When the US is involved in or at best indifferent to the outcome of 2 attempted overthrows of democracies in Latin America in the last 2 years, how can anyone convince themselves - I mean how could even someone with a track record in selling Amway, Tupperware and a vengeful Jesus convince himself - that actions to "democratise" the ME are anything but malicious and utterly doomed to failure? I mean, how dim do you have to be?

HOW PITIFULLY DIM?!

For a view uncolored by such diatribes, check out this. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/18/opinion/diplomatic/main600914.shtml)

specious_reasons

19th February 2004, 11:19 AM

The misuse of the word "enormity" is too much for me to face.

Hutch

19th February 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I do know what you mean, and it annoys me as well.

Not as much as hearing the praise that gets lavished on the Soviets (vs USA) for their comparitive effort against the European Axis powers, which is not exactly what you did, but seems about as common as the attitude that is your peeve.

MattJ

Well, just to start another argument (as if this thread hasn't already got several good ones started) ;) the Soviets did fight longer (June 1941 to May 1945) against more German divisions (between 150-200) and with higher casulities (military+civilian were probably close to 20M). If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder.

Shaun from Scotland

19th February 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think it's fair to say that at various points, Germany came close to winning the war and, even with the Americans involved, could probably still have won if they hadn't made certain strategic errors.

That's HIGHLY unlikely, according to the vast majority of historians (although, of course, hindsight is 20/20). You are also forgetting that, had it not been for the Anglo-Americans (which meant 90% American), western Europe--and Australia, for that matter--would have only had the choice between a nazi or Japanese dictatorship and a Stalinist one.

I don't think that is the case at all. There is an increasing tendency amongst modern historians against the belief that the allies were ultimately going to win the war, simply because of their enormous productive capacity. Richard Overy's book "Why the Allies Won" argues extremely convincingly that the Germans had their chances and blew them. Allied victory in WWII was not inevitable. However, it was also not simply down to German mistakes either. That's the thing about WWII. Simplistic conclusions about it dont stand up.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 11:33 AM

Hutch:Well, just to start another argument (as if this thread hasn't already got several good ones started) ;) the Soviets did fight longer (June 1941 to May 1945) against more German divisions (between 150-200) and with higher casulities (military+civilian were probably close to 20M). If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder. Indeed. It is my understanding that even on the brink of D-Day, three times as many Nazi Wehrmacht divisions were committed to fighting the advancing Russians in the East as were awaiting the Anglo-American invasion in France or holding back the Allied armies in Italy.

Chaos

19th February 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Hutch

Well, just to start another argument (as if this thread hasn't already got several good ones started) ;) the Soviets did fight longer (June 1941 to May 1945) against more German divisions (between 150-200) and with higher casulities (military+civilian were probably close to 20M). If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder.

Also, if Germany had managed to conquer Russia (at least to the Urals) they would not have faced such crippling shortages later in the war, which were a critical factor in the collapse of the Germany military - especially the oil (and therefore, fuel) shortage.

Shaun from Scotland

19th February 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hutch:Indeed. It is my understanding that even on the brink of D-Day, three times as many Nazi Wehrmacht divisions were committed to fighting the advancing Russians in the East as were awaiting the Anglo-American invasion in France or holding back the Allied armies in Italy.

This is all true, but it ignores the unity and inter-connectedness of the whole allied war effort.

Dodge trucks, radios, army boots, food supplies spare parts.......largely supplied by the USA. Does that devalue the Soviet contribution? Of course not. America supplied these because it would weaken the Germans.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 11:59 AM

iain

19th February 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Not as much as hearing the praise that gets lavished on the Soviets (vs USA) for their comparitive effort against the European Axis powers, which is not exactly what you did, but seems about as common as the attitude that is your peeve.

MattJ I have a huge respect for the Russian people and what they went through in the second world war. The suffering they endured to beat Hitler was massively greater than that of the western allies.

I have no respect at all for the thugs, criminals and murderers who ruled the Soviet Union during that period and acted almost entirely without either morals or honour throughout.

The US government deserves far greater praise than the Soviet government for their respective war records; but the Russian people deserve recognition for what the suffered and achieved.

Darat

19th February 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by WildCat

Sorry, once she started spaeaking w/ a "British" accent it was too late.

Well her accent is at least as genuine as her husbands :D

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 12:11 PM

Luke T.:Nah. We would have just nuked those Germans a year later. Yep, and the Russians could have been the first on the Moon, if only.....

What version of crystal ball are you using, Luke?

Hutch

19th February 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by iain
I have a huge respect for the Russian people and what they went through in the second world war. The suffering they endured to beat Hitler was massively greater than that of the western allies.

I have no respect at all for the thugs, criminals and murderers who ruled the Soviet Union during that period and acted almost entirely without either morals or honour throughout.

The US government deserves far greater praise than the Soviet government for their respective war records; but the Russian people deserve recognition for what the suffered and achieved.

No disagreement from me, iain.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:I suspect that this attitude is the result of the one iain mentions.

I know exactly how iain feels. I can't count the number of times I've seen the following type of exchange on this board:

European/Australian: I find the (insert policy/action) of the US to be wrong for the following reasons....
American: I'm sick of your anti-Americanism! If it wasn't for our saving of the world in WWII, you'd be speaking German/Japanese!

Okay, I exaggerated a bit, but I think the gist is clear.

Given my response to Iain: "I do know what you mean, and it annoys me as well." what makes you think I needed this clarification?

The times it appears may be uncountable, but the argument didn't appear in this thread until Iain introduced it.

MattJ

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Yep, and the Russians could have been the first on the Moon, if only.....

What version of crystal ball are you using, Luke?

A lot of speculation was made way before I made that comment. To wit:

"If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder."

"if Germany had managed to conquer Russia (at least to the Urals) they would not have faced such crippling shortages later in the war, which were a critical factor in the collapse of the Germany military - especially the oil (and therefore, fuel) shortage."

Add your statement, "It is my understanding that even on the brink of D-Day, three times as many Nazi Wehrmacht divisions were committed to fighting the advancing Russians in the East as were awaiting the Anglo-American invasion in France or holding back the Allied armies in Italy" to supplement these speculations, and couple that with the fact we nuked Japan a year later to avoid having to deal with a million-plus Japanese, and it is a logical speculation on my part that we would have waited another year to invade Europe and nuked the Germans if those "1M+" that the Russians supposedly distracted away from us were around.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Hutch

Well, just to start another argument (as if this thread hasn't already got several good ones started) ;) the Soviets did fight longer (June 1941 to May 1945) against more German divisions (between 150-200) and with higher casulities (military+civilian were probably close to 20M). If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder.

1) 6 months longer is indeed longer.

2) You're right about how many more Germans they faced in WWII. How many more Japanese-allied troops did they face?

3) How many of those additional Germans were not, in fact, Germans, but were conscripts from Eastern Europe that the Soviets agreed to split with Germany under their Non-Agression pact?

You are quite correct that the Normandy invasion would have been harder without the Soviets drawing away strength from the Germans, but let's remain mindful of how the Soviets helped the Germans to become strong in the first place.

MattJ

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 12:52 PM

aerocontrols:Given my response to Iain: "I do know what you mean, and it annoys me as well." what makes you think I needed this clarification?Clarification? Where on this thread had it been previously stated that there might be a cause and effect between the urge of some people to highlight the achievements of the Russian Army and the America-centered view that they were the deciding factor in WWII?

Just asking.
The times it appears may be uncountable, but the argument didn't appear in this thread until Iain introduced it.Bollocks. It began already by the 12'th post on the first page. The Bottle or the Gun said: (And odds are that the poster wouldn't be speaking japanese as the Nazis would steam-rolled the country flat and would have wiped his family out years ago.)

19th February 2004, 12:53 PM

Re: Is the enormity of what Americana has done too much for Americans to face up to?

Well, we are a modest people but if you want to say "thanks", go right ahead.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

2) You're right about how many more Germans they faced in WWII. How many more Japanese-allied troops did they face?

MattJ

Exactly. Germany wasn't the only country fighting a two front war. We were, too, and on a much larger scale than anyone else.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Luke T.:A lot of speculation was made way before I made that comment. To wit:

"If they had not been able to carry on, Eisnehower would have faced 1M+ additional Germans in Normandy and France in 1944, which might have made the job just a wee bit harder."

"if Germany had managed to conquer Russia (at least to the Urals) they would not have faced such crippling shortages later in the war, which were a critical factor in the collapse of the Germany military - especially the oil (and therefore, fuel) shortage."

Add your statement, "It is my understanding that even on the brink of D-Day, three times as many Nazi Wehrmacht divisions were committed to fighting the advancing Russians in the East as were awaiting the Anglo-American invasion in France or holding back the Allied armies in Italy" to supplement these speculations, and couple that with the fact we nuked Japan a year later to avoid having to deal with a million-plus Japanese, and it is a logical speculation on my part that we would have waited another year to invade Europe and nuked the Germans if those "1M+" that the Russians supposedly distracted away from us were around. Why is it logical? What makes you think that the US could have politically done so? And how do you know what the status of Europe would have been in 1946, if the Russian army hadn't resisted and advanced the way it did in 1944? That's a two year interval. If Germany had been free to use its forces elsewhere, or had taken Moscow, and had the time to develop its own arsenals, who knows what might have occured? How long did the Manhattan project take?

Your idea is complete speculation.

aerocontrols

19th February 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:Clarification? Where on this thread had it been previously stated that there might be a cause and effect between the urge of some people to highlight the achievements of the Russian Army and the America-centered view that they were the deciding factor in WWII?

Just asking.

I'm sorry, I wasn't really taking your first sentence seriously. Are you serious about it?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Bollocks. It began already by the 12'th post on the first page. The Bottle or the Gun said:

Indeed you are correct. My apologies.

I wish that Iain had therefore aimed his complaint specifically at him rather than at Americans in general.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 01:07 PM

aerocontrols:I'm sorry, I wasn't really taking your first sentence seriously. Are you serious about it? My first sentence in the part you quoted? Yes, of course.
Indeed you are correct. My apologies.Accepted.
I wish that Iain had therefore aimed his complaint specifically at him rather than at Americans in general. I expect iain has had the same experience I have. I.e. it is a fairly common occurence.

iain

19th February 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I wish that Iain had therefore aimed his complaint specifically at him rather than at Americans in general. I can assure you that my complaint was only with people who expressed the opinion I complained about; not with people in general who don't hold that view.

But it was a minor moan on my part and I guess we've spent far too many posts disecting its rights and wrongs already.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Why is it logical? What makes you think that the US could have politically done so? And how do you know what the status of Europe would have been in 1946, if the Russian army hadn't resisted and advanced the way it did in 1944? That's a two year interval. If Germany had been free to use its forces elsewhere, or had taken Moscow, and had the time to develop its own arsenals, who knows what might have occured? How long did the Manhattan project take?

Your idea is complete speculation.

Politics didn't stop us from nuking Japan. Why should it have stopped us from nuking Germany?

The first atomic test was July 16, 1945. We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima three weeks later, on August 6.

Germany invaded Russia in 1941, prior to our entering the war. Hitler never took Stalingrad or Moscow, try as he might. This all occurred before we entered the fight, and Hitler was defeated in Russia well before D-Day.

Even if Hitler had the best-case scenario after that, and the Russians had stopped at their borders in early 1944 as they chased the Germans away, and not pursued, and the Germans were then free to commit their troops to the Western Front, then I doubt D-Day would have occured in June of that same year. And as any D-Day historian will tell you, Eisenhower considered going any later than that to be too narrow a timeline for success. So we would have delayed another year, most likely. And by then, we had the Bomb in our pocket.

So we would have nuked them Germans. Just like Japan.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 02:07 PM

Luke T.Politics didn't stop us from nuking Japan. Why should it have stopped us from nuking Germany?A year in politics in a long time. With the devistation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the front page of every newspaper, who knows?
The first atomic test was July 16, 1945. We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima three weeks later, on August 6.That is correct.
Germany invaded Russia in 1941, prior to our entering the war. Hitler never took Stalingrad or Moscow, try as he might. This all occurred before we entered the fight, and Hitler was defeated in Russia well before D-Day.Yes, Hitler met hit Waterloo in Russia. Exactly! And the Red Army was advancing.
Even if Hitler had the best-case scenario after that, and the Russians had stopped at their borders in early 1944 as they chased the Germans away, and not pursued, and the Germans were then free to commit their troops to the Western Front, then I doubt D-Day would have occured in June of that same year. And as any D-Day historian will tell you, Eisenhower considered going any later than that to be too narrow a timeline for success. So we would have delayed another year, most likely. And by then, we had the Bomb in our pocket.Which is interesting, but irrelevant. The Russians had stopped the Nazi invasion of Russia. The amount of resources Hitler had expended on this hopeless gamble was enormous. He now had to commit even more, just to slow down the advance of the Red Army.
So we would have nuked them Germans. Just like Japan. Ehh? You, like me, have no clue what the outcome of the war would have been without the Russians.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ehh? You, like me, have no clue what the outcome of the war would have been without the Russians.

At what point did the Russian involvement in WWII change from an involuntary one to a voluntary one? From what point do we owe them a debt of gratitude, as seems to be the implication in this topic, for distracting Hitler and saving American lives?

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 02:16 PM

Maybe its Hitler we should be grateful to for being so stupid as to invade Russia. I don't get this whole Russian-sacrifice-which-saved-Americans mindset. They didn't "sacrifice," they had no choice. We had the choice to help Western Europe or not.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 02:22 PM

Luke T.At what point did the Russian involvement in WWII change from an involuntary one to a voluntary one? From what point do we owe them a debt of gratitude, as seems to be the implication in this topic, for distracting Hitler and saving American lives? We don't care whether it was voluntary or not and we don't care whether it saved American lives or not.

What we are discussing is the contributions from each participent of WWII to the downfall of the Nazi regime.

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 02:24 PM

Luke T.Maybe its Hitler we should be grateful to for being so stupid as to invade Russia. I don't get this whole Russian-sacrifice-which-saved-Americans mindset. They didn't "sacrifice," they had no choice. We had the choice to help Western Europe or not. Where are you getting this "saved American lives" from? It is irrelevant to the question.

Luke T.

19th February 2004, 02:28 PM

DanishDynamite

19th February 2004, 02:35 PM

Luke T.I thought we were talking about the enormity of what Americana has done. :D According to the thread title, you are right.

A pox on myself for derailing. :D

[Edited to add] Personally, I blame Cleopatra. I asked her for a good fight on one of the Israel-Palestine threads, but she said "she was too tired". Women. :)

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Cain
AUP, let me ask you this: What is the general opinion of Australians with regard to their government's role in East Timor over the last 30 years?

I'd agree the United States is relatively nationalistic (though not nearly as bad as France). It's also one of the most fundamentalist countries in the first world.

There is a huge debate in Australia over our role. A lot of people are not happy with it.

However, there was also the problem, common around the world, of just how do you deal with the unravelling of the colonial era. As in Africa, there were totally illogical (in terms of where the indiginous people lived) divides, which were done purely along the lines of who colonsied what. Timor, for example, is one island, which was split in half by the Dutch and Portugese. When the dutch and Portugese bailed out, there was the usual scramble for ownership of the area. Indonesia, as the biggest guy in the area, claimed ownership of East Timor, since they already owned West Timor.

Australia, in a move which generated much internal debate, gave a nod to Indonesia when it invaded East Timor. It was supposed to be our gesture to them that we were not going to be a colonialist interferer in the region, the US was in favour of it, and we werent' about to go against the US on this issue, we didn't want to go to war with Indonesia over the matter, as, even though we have a decent military in terms of equipment compared to Indonesia, have nothing to compare in terms of size.

East Timor was turned into a playground for Suharto to pillage at his whim, and the popular resistance movement flourished under these conditions. There was a lot of sympathy in Australia for their cause, as Indonesia's treatment of the East Timorese was appalling.

In the end, Indonesia bailed out under a deal brokered by the UN. (Damm their hides, can't they do anything right?)

East Timor is independent, and hopefully going to make it as a viable nation.

bignickel

19th February 2004, 02:58 PM

There's got to be a way of approaching this subject with out such intense flames. Perhaps a less provacative thread title?

"Why are many Americans unaware of the shady things various parts of American government and companies have done?"

demon

19th February 2004, 03:37 PM

Hi Kodiak.
Long time no see. How`s our old friend Sun Tzu doing these days? If only things were as simple as he said eh?;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
How do all the hapless journeymen maintain the belief that the US is fundamentally interested in bringing democracy to the Middle East or anywhere else in the world when they are sitting back, watching the US watching it collapse in Haiti?
How muddled does your thinking have to be to continue on lapping up this fiction? When the US is involved in or at best indifferent to the outcome of 2 attempted overthrows of democracies in Latin America in the last 2 years, how can anyone convince themselves - I mean how could even someone with a track record in selling Amway, Tupperware and a vengeful Jesus convince himself - that actions to "democratise" the ME are anything but malicious and utterly doomed to failure? I mean, how dim do you have to be?

HOW PITIFULLY DIM?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a view uncolored by such diatribes, check out this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/18/opinion/diplomatic/main600914.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, the subjected mind! Thanks for this demonstration of a view that isn't a diatribe. It's too labile and obsequious for that.
Here is a question - if spreading and maintaining democracy is the reason for preventitive war such as in Iraq, why, in its own region, hasn't the US army protected Aristide? Please tell me!

And that Aristide is not a perfect ruler does not really enter into the question since he is the ONLY legitimate, democratically elected leader and the leaders of the opposition leading this terrorism are generally reckoned at tops to be able to garner about 8% of the electorate - since they represent the rapaciuous, US-backed interests of 150 years and are lead by a mass murderer.

Given his murderous record, if Sharon is an example of a democratic and "brave" figure in the ME - deserving of US sympathy and protection , you can barely point a finger at Aristide without, yet again, looking inadequate to the task of arguing your case.

Now the Washington Post is also labile and power friendly - yet it, even with it's dislike of Aristide, can't help but criticise the US position - because not to is to be seen rightly as foolish.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-opinion&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53109-2004Feb18.html

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by bignickel
There's got to be a way of approaching this subject with out such intense flames. Perhaps a less provacative thread title?

"Why are many Americans unaware of the shady things various parts of American government and companies have done?"

Good point, but I had been downing a few wines at the time.

However, the thing that impresses me on this forum, is how many people don't seem to be abel to grasp the truth even when it is right in front of their face.

There are many who are not at all happy at what is being done in their name, or who at least question what is happening. But as Suddenly pointed out, the majority of Americans have a more banal view of the world.

When I was in Canada, the view of the Canadians was that the majority of Americans have no interest whatsoever in the rest of the world.

bignickel

19th February 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Good point, but I had been downing a few wines at the time.

I may yet do so, but need to get it down in size.

Are you familiar with Alan Moore's "Brought to Light" by any chance?

Mike B.

19th February 2004, 05:26 PM

Here is a quote from the "New Republic," a center-left publication in the US a few months ago:

"But, if the greatest injustice in the world is U.S. impearilism, the world's greatest injustices must be found where U.S. impearilism is strongest. And, here, Africa poses a problem. Africa, after all, has less contact with the United States than any other part of the world. The continent accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. foreign investment, it receives less than .1 percent of U.S. military assistance, and it hosts no permanent American troop deployments. If you are a left-wing activist scouring the globe for places suffocating under America's "stranglehold," you'll pass right over sub-Saharan Africa. And, even if you do find U.S. impearilsim in Africa, you'll find it in countries stable and prosperous enough to attract investment and cooperate against terrorism, not in the disaster zones of Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and Sudan."

I think this is spot on with AUP's analysis. AUP is strangely silent when it comes to a lot of the worst disasters in the world. If he can not plausibly connect them to the US or even better Israel, they do not exist. He has explained this away, with the notion that since there is no controversy, there is no reason to talk about it. But look at the title of AUP's thread...He really sees the world struggling under US oppression.

Mike B.

19th February 2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.We don't care whether it was voluntary or not and we don't care whether it saved American lives or not.

What we are discussing is the contributions from each participent of WWII to the downfall of the Nazi regime.

Hello DD,

I have never said, and I have always been against the notion that the US "won" World War II. I have always said the Soviets and British fought bravely and had their home countries devastated (at least bombed.)

However, I think that the notion put forward, a few times on this board that the US was in WW2 for the money, etc. is a notion that I think is just as "arrogant" as it were.

Mike B.

19th February 2004, 05:34 PM

DD,

Am I wrong in thinking that had the US pulled out of Western Europe in 1945, that it would have inevitably became a big Soviet satillite?

I think the UK was too worn out by that time as well as being over-stretched.

Does this mean that we should have our arses kissed? Of course not.

Does that mean it was not beneficial to the US to be in Western Europe? Of course not.

I don't think that this makes the original premise wrong.

Hutch

19th February 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.According to the thread title, you are right.

A pox on myself for derailing. :D

Me too, I rather started this argument aways back. Guess I'll have to go and start a new argument. :)

Mike B.

19th February 2004, 05:41 PM

BTW,

Since Skeptic originally brought up World War II, I think his original point should be looked at.

As a matter of history, I do believe that Skeptic's original point was correct.

Australia would indeed have become part of the Japanese co-prosperity sphere were it not for the US.

This in no way is meant as a hit against Australia. I realize the soliders fought very well in tough jungle conditions in places like Indoneisa.

What I believe though in early 1942, the British Empire had quickly fallen apart to the Japanese. The British were fighting for their lives in Europe. The Dutch and French colonies had also fallen. The US was getting its butt kicked all over the place in the Pacific.

It is no stretch of the imagination to think that a Japan that did not have to fight the US navy at Coral Sea would have eventually overan Australia.

(Again of course, this does not mean Australia should kiss the US arse or owes America anything.)

Again though as a matter of history, I believe Skeptic's point is essentially correct.

Mike B.

19th February 2004, 05:46 PM

If there is one thing I don't like at all, it is American belittlement of France and French soldiers.

Remember France lost something like 300,000 soliders at Verdun, and over 1,000,000 in 1914-1918 with a population of about 50,000,000. America has never had anything like that.

And anyway if it wasn't for mostly French, but Spanish and Dutch help too, we wouldn't have won our revolution.;)

(And yes the Dutch made money on loans to the American colonists ;) )

Hutch

19th February 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
BTW,

Australia would indeed have become part of the Japanese co-prosperity sphere were it not for the US.

This in no way is meant as a hit against Australia. I realize the soliders fought very well in tough jungle conditions in places like Indoneisa.

What I believe though in early 1942, the British Empire had quickly fallen apart to the Japanese. The British were fighting for their lives in Europe. The Dutch and French colonies had also fallen. The US was getting its butt kicked all over the place in the Pacific.

It is no stretch of the imagination to think that a Japan that did not have to fight the US navy at Coral Sea would have eventually overan Australia.

(Again of course, this does not mean Australia should kiss the US arse or owes America anything.)

Again though as a matter of history, I believe Skeptic's point is essentially correct.

Oh goody, I can start another argument! :D

If we take as a given that the US did not get involved until much later or had lost more than we could afford at Coral Sea and Midway (which was not beyond the realm of possibility), I think Australia would probably have been safe. Oh, the Japanese might have blockaded or raided the Northern area, but even in 1942 they were stretched so thin that a major invasion of Aussie-land would not have been feasible.

I don't believe Australia was ever considered to be a part of the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" that Japan wanted to establish. IMHO, the Japanese would have been happy to make a peace with Australia that allowed them the domination of the Pacific and mainland China that they really desired. Would Australia have made such a peace or fought on as England did? There we enter the realm of eternal speculation....

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow

OK, I will give it a try.

The USA does not provide post-war help unless such help is in the best interests of the USA.

The USA has helped to re-build countries that it was previously at war with provided that there is an understanding that those countries will be of considerable help in future conflicts (the several USA military bases established in Germany, Japan, and the Phillipines for example).

However, if it looks like there is no understanding, then such help will not be forthcoming (such as North Korea and Vietnam for example).

Vietnam was in fact promised aid to help rebuild. That aid never appeared. NK was promised help to build safe nuclear reactors in return for dismantling the current ones that can be used to create plutonium. These were never build.

However, American influence in 'dirty tricks' is much more prevalent than just it's involvement in the obvious wars. People from Greece, to Chile, to Australia, to New Zealand, and on and on the list goes, have every right to be suspicious of US meddling in their internal politics and punitive acts that were not warranted.

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Nah. We would have just nuked those Germans a year later.

Germany was working on it's own nuclear program. If Russia had folded, Hitler would have had totally safe areas for development of both missiles and nukes.

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Some of the resentment toward the U.S. is because we loaned billions and billions of dollars to various countries which then proceeded to squander it. And then when they asked for more, we gave it to them. And then when they squandered that away, too, they asked for even more. Somewhere down the line, we said, "No more." And now they are pissed at us.

That is an incredibly naive view of how 'aid' works. Often aid is inappropriate, tied to other factors, given to despots, etc. The total dollar amount does not necessarily mean much.

Jocko

19th February 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Germany was working on it's own nuclear program. If Russia had folded, Hitler would have had totally safe areas for development of both missiles and nukes.

Except half his think tank was working for us by then. Duh. Without them, we would never have developed the bomb - but with them, we could easily have built more than two if the circumstances demanded it.

We had them beat by many months, thanks to their own scientists.

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
Here is a quote from the "New Republic," a center-left publication in the US a few months ago:

"But, if the greatest injustice in the world is U.S. impearilism, the world's greatest injustices must be found where U.S. impearilism is strongest. And, here, Africa poses a problem. Africa, after all, has less contact with the United States than any other part of the world. The continent accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. foreign investment, it receives less than .1 percent of U.S. military assistance, and it hosts no permanent American troop deployments. If you are a left-wing activist scouring the globe for places suffocating under America's "stranglehold," you'll pass right over sub-Saharan Africa. And, even if you do find U.S. impearilsim in Africa, you'll find it in countries stable and prosperous enough to attract investment and cooperate against terrorism, not in the disaster zones of Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and Sudan."

I think this is spot on with AUP's analysis. AUP is strangely silent when it comes to a lot of the worst disasters in the world. If he can not plausibly connect them to the US or even better Israel, they do not exist. He has explained this away, with the notion that since there is no controversy, there is no reason to talk about it. But look at the title of AUP's thread...He really sees the world struggling under US oppression.

Now who's being naive, no american involvement in Africa?

Jocko

19th February 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Now who's being naive, no american involvement in Africa?

Maybe it's time to see if the Belgians can face the horrors they've commited on the world. Then we'll take the Portugese to task. I'd love to put Australia on trial for their crimes, but unfortunately East Timor just doens't get my mojo going the way Brazil does.

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Maybe it's time to see if the Belgians can face the horrors they've commited on the world. Then we'll take the Portugese to task. I'd love to put Australia on trial for their crimes, but unfortunately East Timor just doens't get my mojo going the way Brazil does.

Granted that these are crimes, but they were from last century. The US is the sole democracy in the world now that sees itself as being allowed to unilaterally invade anyware it wants for whatever shonky reason it wants.

Australia is responsible for no crimes in East Timor. The military operation there was under the authorisation of the UN. As far as the past goes, I think most countries do realise that their past indiscretions were wrong. Australia was also involved in low scale slave trading, 'black birding' as it was called then, but slavery by any other name.

Jocko

19th February 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Granted that these are crimes, but they were from last century. The US is the sole democracy in the world now that sees itself as being allowed to unilaterally invade anyware it wants for whatever shonky reason it wants.

Ah, so your statute of limitations for "national evil" is apparently 100 years, am I right? If we, as a nation, can dodge your altruistic whistle-blowing for another 90 years or so, we're in the clear? Thanks!

Australia is responsible for no crimes in East Timor. The military operation there was under the authorisation of the UN. As far as the past goes, I think most countries do realise that their past indiscretions were wrong. Australia was also involved in low scale slave trading, 'black birding' as it was called then, but slavery by any other name.

That's the best fig leaf I've seen since Eve. Well done!

a_unique_person

19th February 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Ah, so your statute of limitations for "national evil" is apparently 100 years, am I right? If we, as a nation, can dodge your altruistic whistle-blowing for another 90 years or so, we're in the clear? Thanks!

[B]

That's the best fig leaf I've seen since Eve. Well done!

I'm prepared to forgive and forget. The US, however, is continuing remorselessly.

As for the fig leaf, Australia was invited in by the population, under the auspices of the UN, and has had nothing like the problems the US has in Iraq. The only problem has been the destruction of the country by Indonesia creating crime and poverty, and the outsiders trying to stir up trouble from West Timor. I believe that East Timor doesn't want Australian forces to leave.

WildCat

19th February 2004, 08:39 PM

The enormity of it all...I, I just can't face it...where's the love man, where's the love?
:v:

waitew

19th February 2004, 09:50 PM

Well, now I'm completely lost.I've never been much of a fan of Madonna,but is she American or British?Is Mel Gibson American or Australian??I just don't know?Why can't everyone just speak with the accent they were raised speaking?Why fake it?Really,which are they?

Bottle or the Gun

20th February 2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.
If there is one thing I don't like at all, it is American belittlement of France and French soldiers.

Remember France lost something like 300,000 soliders at Verdun, and over 1,000,000 in 1914-1918 with a population of about 50,000,000. America has never had anything like that.

And anyway if it wasn't for mostly French, but Spanish and Dutch help too, we wouldn't have won our revolution.;)

Oh, give it up. The French did.

(Madonna is a fake skank, Mel was born in New York and lived most of his life in Australia. I spent 9 months in Texas and it took me a year to get rid of the stupid accent)

a_unique_person

20th February 2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
The enormity of it all...I, I just can't face it...where's the love man, where's the love?
:v:

False dichotomy.

Skeptic

20th February 2004, 01:09 PM

Funny thing about the end of the war in Europe. Two of the big three were leaning towards simply executing every German Officer above the rank of (I think) Colonel. Then the third member of the big three insisted on trials for all Nazi officials.

You seem to be referring to an incident during the Yalta conference (Feb. 45), but I think you (or your source) misremember it.

Stalin suggested that they should simply shoot the top 50,000 Germans in the heirarchy. Roosevelt, shocked, suggested sarcastically that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill then answered seriously that a trial would be necessary (perhaps I'm mixing up Churchill and Roosevelt here).

This is hardly "two of the big three agreeing for executing" the Germans.

Skeptic

22nd February 2004, 01:49 PM

Vietnam was in fact promised aid to help rebuild. That aid never appeared.

That might have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that the communist north, of course violating the cease-fire agreement (which they never intended to keep in any case), had sent its troops to the south, butchered hundreds of thousands, caused millions to flee, and made the whole country a communist dictatorship. Obviously, after this genoicde, the US no longer felt obligated to supply Vietnam--or, more precisely, the Ho Chi Minh regime--with aid.

You might as well "blame" Britian for the fact that it promised France military aid in 1939, but for some reason "broke its word" and didn't give the nazi occupation forces any tanks or bombers after the fall of France. What a liar Churchill was, eh?

Idiot.

NK was promised help to build safe nuclear reactors in return for dismantling the current ones that can be used to create plutonium. These were never build.

Maybe because NK never actually dismantled their reactors, merely lied and claimed they did. That has something to do with the fact that NK is lead by an insane sadist who has not the slightest respect for any agreement, and in fact broke every agreement he ever made the moment it was to his advantage.

However, American influence in 'dirty tricks' is much more prevalent than just it's involvement in the obvious wars. People from Greece, to Chile, to Australia, to New Zealand, and on and on the list goes, have every right to be suspicious of US meddling in their internal politics and punitive acts that were not warranted.

Yes, Australians live in fear of American invasion. Right. (Well, maybe YOU do, but, to repeat, that's because you're an idiot.)

a_unique_person

22nd February 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Vietnam was in fact promised aid to help rebuild. That aid never appeared.

That might have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that the communist north, of course violating the cease-fire agreement (which they never intended to keep in any case), had sent its troops to the south, butchered hundreds of thousands, caused millions to flee, and made the whole country a communist dictatorship. Obviously, after this genoicde, the US no longer felt obligated to supply Vietnam--or, more precisely, the Ho Chi Minh regime--with aid.

You might as well "blame" Britian for the fact that it promised France military aid in 1939, but for some reason "broke its word" and didn't give the nazi occupation forces any tanks or bombers after the fall of France. What a liar Churchill was, eh?

Idiot.

No, the aid was promised at the end of the war, as part of the peace negotiations.

NK was promised help to build safe nuclear reactors in return for dismantling the current ones that can be used to create plutonium. These were never build.

Maybe because NK never actually dismantled their reactors, merely lied and claimed they did. That has something to do with the fact that NK is lead by an insane sadist who has not the slightest respect for any agreement, and in fact broke every agreement he ever made the moment it was to his advantage.

For some strange reason, I like to hold the US up to higher standards than Kim the Wonder Boy. Unless you want me to regard them as being morally equivalent?

However, American influence in 'dirty tricks' is much more prevalent than just it's involvement in the obvious wars. People from Greece, to Chile, to Australia, to New Zealand, and on and on the list goes, have every right to be suspicious of US meddling in their internal politics and punitive acts that were not warranted.

Yes, Australians live in fear of American invasion. Right. (Well, maybe YOU do, but, to repeat, that's because you're an idiot.)

The thing that worries me is that the US did not feel it was good enough to carry on it's holy war against the commies, it also felt compelled to interfere in Democracies. And it did. Not all actions were as blatant or bloody as Chile, but the mere fact it interfered with peaceful democracies such as Australia who had the audacity to vote for a left-wing Social Democratic party makes me very worried. Once again, you fail to be able to face up to what the actions of the US are. Instead, you invoke a special pleading in every case.

LeFevre

22nd February 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun

Oh, give it up. The French did.

(Madonna is a fake skank, Mel was born in New York and lived most of his life in Australia. I spent 9 months in Texas and it took me a year to get rid of the stupid accent)

And that Maryland accent is just so grand! :p

davefoc

22nd February 2004, 11:20 PM

AUP,
It seems to me a great deal of American foreign policy needs to be seen in light of the basic mechanisms that have driven nationalism, war and alliances for thousands of years.

Small political entities need to make military alliances with bigger political alliances to survive. Big political alliances need to make as many military alliances as possible with smaller political entities to be successful at warding off invasion and to be successul at invading other big political entities.

So, the US, made a lot of alliances, some more voluntary than others with the idea of resisting other big political entities. At times there was some altruism involved perhaps, but mostly we wanted as many allies as possible to fend off the expansion of the nazis or the soviet union with as little risk to our own country as possible. You may think some of this was immoral and you may think that some of this was counter to the best interests of the small political entities that we were seeking as allies. My view is that it was for the most part amoral. It was the process that had been followed by all large military powers in history and the US was just the last in a long line.

Having said that, I suppose I am still a deluded American in your mind because I believe that there was a genuine nobility on the part of the US in this role. More than most other large military powers of the past, I think there was a genuine desire on the part of the US government and its people to do good. And the US did do good. It didn't attempt to maintain a colonial base, many of the countries that are far too weak militarily to fend off an American invasion have no fear of an American invasion, and we have stood by our allies in times of their own national disasters . But far more importantly than those things we have provided assistance for for some of those allies with the establishment of their own capitalist democracies.

It is in that last statement where I suspect that you and I disagree the most. But the fact is that the citizens of the US allies that have adopted the US model even roughly have been staggeringly better off than their counterparts that followed the soviet model.

I was split a bit when I was writing this post since I also agree with your initial post to some degree in that I believe that a lot of the US meddling, particularly in the middle east has had disastrous results for just about everybody concerned including the US. But I do have a little trouble emotionally in agreeing with you on things like this too much since it does seem that criticism of American foreign policy is a pretty common theme for you. Perhaps you could challenge yourself just once to dig up a pro-American story about something and start a thread on that. You know just throw us Americans a bone sometime.

a_unique_person

23rd February 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Having said that, I suppose I am still a deluded American in your mind because I believe that there was a genuine nobility on the part of the US in this role. More than most other large military powers of the past, I think there was a genuine desire on the part of the US government and its people to do good. And the US did do good. It didn't attempt to maintain a colonial base, many of the countries that are far too weak militarily to fend off an American invasion have no fear of an American invasion, and we have stood by our allies in times of their own national disasters . But far more importantly than those things we have provided assistance for for some of those allies with the establishment of their own capitalist democracies.

The US policy makers have always been careful to sell the excursions into other's foreign policy in the best light. But don't just believe what you have been told. I have said before that I don't believe that Americans are instrinsically evil people, but the fact that the US can interfere in Australian domestic politics is disgraceful.

The US is the last in a long line of bullies, so it is just as much a part of the historical process of powers rising and dominating. That doesn't make it right, however.

It is in that last statement where I suspect that you and I disagree the most. But the fact is that the citizens of the US allies that have adopted the US model even roughly have been staggeringly better off than their counterparts that followed the soviet model.

I was split a bit when I was writing this post since I also agree with your initial post to some degree in that I believe that a lot of the US meddling, particularly in the middle east has had disastrous results for just about everybody concerned including the US. But I do have a little trouble emotionally in agreeing with you on things like this too much since it does seem that criticism of American foreign policy is a pretty common theme for you. Perhaps you could challenge yourself just once to dig up a pro-American story about something and start a thread on that. You know just throw us Americans a bone sometime.

I suppose it is just common because, as I said in the title, that many Americans can't seem to believe just how bad some of the policy has been. However, I also believe that if Americans were prepared to be as self-critical as yourself, and others here, there would be no real problem. Unfortunately, I can't see the likes of Bush and his backers ever being that enlightened. They seem to seek the dark attractions of the world view of those like Rice. The people with half a brain, like Powell, bail out.

demon

23rd February 2004, 01:46 AM

AUP, how has Powell bailed out?
If he was going to bail out why did he do the circus act at the UN? A short time before his statements at the UN, there he was sure that Saddam had no capacity to harm anyone...so did Rice as it happens.
I`d like some evidence as to why people always think Powell is a dove and some stabling influence at the Whitehouse. Some of us remember his role in Mai Lia the cover up.
It`s pretty obvious the guy is no dove and was more than willing to particiapte in the push for war. Everyone makes much of his military credentials...well fair enough...why didnt they alert him to the crap he was being fed, that`s on the assumption that he "didn`t know" he was being fed crap that he then fed to the world.

a_unique_person

23rd February 2004, 03:02 AM

He is a military man, you don't back out of a mission. However, he didn't extend it either. If things were going well, and along the lines he would judge as being successful, I think you could guarantee he would be hanging around.

mummymonkey

23rd February 2004, 05:18 AM

On Lend-Lease:

Anthony Eden:
The negotiations did not go smoothly, nor did I altogether approve of the details of the final settlement. At one time the suggestion was put forward in Washington that the entire British West Indies should be handed over for the cancellation of our war debts. I thought this less than friendly bargaining.

The age and condition of the fifty destroyers made unexpectedly large demands upon our dockyards. Only nine ships were available before the end of 1940, by which time our own naval construction was catching up on our losses.

In March 1941 the cash-and-carry basis of British purchasing in the United States was abolished, and the principle of lend-lease sanctioned by Congress. Later the same month documents handing over bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies were signed.

Burton K Wheeler:
The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal's triple-A foreign policy; it will plow under every fourth American boy. Never before have the American people been asked or compelled to give so bounteously and so completely of their tax dollars to any foreign nation.

William Knox:
To keep our land secure we must prevent the establishment of strong aggressive military power in any pan of the New World. We can keep non-American military power out of our hemisphere only through being able to control the seas that surround its shores. Once we lose the power to control even a part of those seas, inevitably the wars of Europe and Asia will be transferred to the Americas. We need time to build ships and to train their crews. We need time to build up our outlying bases so that we can operate our fleets as a screen for our continent. We need time to train our armies, to accumulate war stores, to gear our industry for defense. Only Great Britain and its fleet can give us that time. And they need our help to survive.

George Norris:
Hitler's triumphs had simplified America's choice. Either this country could accept him and try to get along with him, or it had to stem the march of his armies in his plan of world conquest. I place no faith in his protestation of a peaceful attitude toward the countries of the western hemisphere. His every deed and utterance established that once he had made himself supreme in Europe, Africa, and Asia the next step would be conquest of the Americas.

Harold Wilson:
Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.

When the European war ended, most people expected the conflict with Japan to last for another year or so. The atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended that assumption. Almost within the hour, President Truman, unwillingly no doubt, but without any choice in the matter, notified Attlee that Lend-Lease was being cut off. At that time it was worth £2,000 million a year. There was no possible means of increasing our exports to the United States to earn that sort of sum. Britain was in pawn, at the very time that Attlee was fighting to exert some influence on the postwar European settlement. The only solution was to negotiate a huge American loan, the repayment and servicing of which placed a burden on Britain's balance of payments right into the twenty-first century

I've cherry picked these quotes from here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm) to support my view. My view is that Lend-Lease benefited both the US and the UK, and that any shortfall in dollar repayment was more than made up for in royalty free technology transfer, 99 year leases to military bases and the time bought by the UK which the US required to bring her armed forces up to strength.

There is a detailed account of the UK finances in the immediate post war period here (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarEcon/UK-Civil-WarEcon-19.html) from which this quote is taken.

The lend-lease settlement, it must be said once again, was part of a comprehensive 'concordat' which included the loan agreement and the agreement on commercial policy. An historian of the peace would find it hard to remove the settlement from the wider context to which it belong. But the historian of the war may treat it in isolation. The settlement was on its own standing far and indeed magnanimous. It did not shoulder the United Kingdom with any repayments for purely wartime aid. This item at least was not added to the costs of the war that the British nation would have to meet in the peace.

Edited because I clicked the wrong button.

Skeptic

23rd February 2004, 07:40 AM

No, the aid was promised at the end of the war, as part of the peace negotiations.

...a "peace agreement" which the communists, of course, instantly broke the moment the US troops were out of the way by overwhelming south Vietnam.

Gee, those nasty Americans--break a peace agreement by war (followed by genocide), and the next thing you know, the Americans don't want to give you the foreign aid the agreement specified any more!

Shocking, isn't it?

For some strange reason, I like to hold the US up to higher standards than Kim the Wonder Boy.

Indeed so. And, for some strange reason, I hold Churchill to a higher standard than Hitler, and therefore think he should STILL have sent the promised tanks and planes to France even after Hitler occupied it.

After all, he promised aid, didn't he? Surely, Hitler breaking all his promises is no reason for Churchill to break his. Unless, of course, you think Churchill and Hitler are morally equivalent.

demon

23rd February 2004, 01:51 PM

davefoc:
It seems to me a great deal of American foreign policy needs to be seen in light of the basic mechanisms that have driven nationalism, war and alliances for thousands of years.

Small political entities need to make military alliances with bigger political alliances to survive. Big political alliances need to make as many military alliances as possible with smaller political entities to be successful at warding off invasion and to be successul at invading other big political entities.

So, the US, made a lot of alliances, some more voluntary than others with the idea of resisting other big political entities. At times there was some altruism involved perhaps, but mostly we wanted as many allies as possible to fend off the expansion of the nazis or the soviet union with as little risk to our own country as possible. You may think some of this was immoral and you may think that some of this was counter to the best interests of the small political entities that we were seeking as allies. My view is that it was for the most part amoral. It was the process that had been followed by all large military powers in history and the US was just the last in a long line.

Having said that, I suppose I am still a deluded American in your mind because I believe that there was a genuine nobility on the part of the US in this role. More than most other large military powers of the past, I think there was a genuine desire on the part of the US government and its people to do good. And the US did do good. It didn't attempt to maintain a colonial base, many of the countries that are far too weak militarily to fend off an American invasion have no fear of an American invasion, and we have stood by our allies in times of their own national disasters . But far more importantly than those things we have provided assistance for for some of those allies with the establishment of their own capitalist democracies.

It is in that last statement where I suspect that you and I disagree the most. But the fact is that the citizens of the US allies that have adopted the US model even roughly have been staggeringly better off than their counterparts that followed the soviet model.

I was split a bit when I was writing this post since I also agree with your initial post to some degree in that I believe that a lot of the US meddling, particularly in the middle east has had disastrous results for just about everybody concerned including the US. But I do have a little trouble emotionally in agreeing with you on things like this too much since it does seem that criticism of American foreign policy is a pretty common theme for you. Perhaps you could challenge yourself just once to dig up a pro-American story about something and start a thread on that. You know just throw us Americans a bone sometime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don`t know if you would agree dave but I think a lot of Americans spend their lifes being bombarded with the messages of the US Government and a compliant right-wing media. The views you expresse seem, to me, to be broadly representative of tens of millions of Americans, not to mention a great many in the UK.

I might think them deluded, misinformed, perhaps even naive, some might say "corrupt", however for "corrupt" I would rather say 'corrupted'. Corrupted by power, by propaganda, and by a system that makes just making a living so difficult for most people that they have little time to challenge or question the booming voice of power (or for it to even occur to them that they should).

Bill Hicks used to say "go back to asleep America, your government is in control". He was right to point out that most people are "asleep" but it is more than that. They are exhausted, mentally, physically, and spiritually by a system that makes day to day life a debilitating, often grueling grind. Those of us who have the comparative privilege of a life that leaves us free to read, research, and think, should bear that in mind.

You say "I suppose I am still a deluded American in your mind because I believe that there was a genuine nobility on the part of the US in this role."
"The US", like "Britain", "France" and "Haiti" is not the name of a moral agent (cf. "Dick Cheney", "Phil Collins" or “Jeffrey Dahmer"). The USA is a nation state, and "its" foreign policy is the result of specific decisions taken by individual moral agents with human names. As the US is, at least nominally, a democracy, you and all other citizens of that nation also share in the responsibility for what your elected representatives choose to do in your name, and for the consequences of those actions. America, like Britain or Germany or Israel, is exactly what its people make it.

"You know just throw us Americans a bone sometime."...ok...I get cheered up about the good things Americans are capable of when they take their democratic rights and obligations seriously, and we might start with Chalmers Johnson’s gripping review (published a year ago)of Ellsberg’s "Secrets":

“The subject of Daniel Ellsberg's memoir is the decadence of American democracy. The conditions he began fighting in 1969 are much worse today and far more dangerous to many more people. Yet central casting could not have produced a more perfect foil for the American imperial Presidency than Ellsberg. An infantry lieutenant in the Marine Corps with genuine battle experience in Vietnam, a PhD in economics from Harvard, and a defence intellectual employed by the Rand Corporation of Santa Monica, with the highest security clearances, Ellsberg is as good as the American system can produce in the way of a male citizen working in the foreign policy apparatus. His odyssey from Pentagon staff officer to the man who spirited 47 volumes of top secret documents out of the Rand Corporation, copied them, and delivered them to the New York Times and a dozen other newspapers is breathtaking.

Ellsberg helped end the Vietnam War, but publication of this memoir now is not just a happy coincidence. The features of American government he documents - the cult of Presidential infallibility, the march of militarism, the executive's routine lying to the other two branches and to the people, and the cancerous growth of official secrecy - are just as relevant today as they were thirty years ago.

The United States, even the world, desperately needs more Ellsbergs. […]”

The whole article is on the London Review of Books website:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n03/john04_.html

Admirable Americans? No shortage of ‘em, from Mark Twain via Muhammed Ali to Ellsberg and Marlon Brando - not to mention Wallace Stevens, Little Richard, Jim Jarmusch, Daniel Barenboim and the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club :)

(By the way: Daniel Ellsberg was probably not very far from your own current position when he first joined the Pentagon. What do you think?)