Why do you hate the USA?

Post Reply New Topic

Where nations and wars are concerned,it's never so straightforward.As others have said,
Germany didn't start the 1st world war.In the 2nd,Hitler was financed by American and
British banks (it's only now in the current economic crisis that people are starting to realise
just how much corruption and strife has been encouraged for financial gain with no regard
for what is decent or fair) . The Nazi scientists who developed rocket weapons were helped
to escape and assist in US and then Soviet weapons and space projects,with many people no
doubt benefitting financially in the whole 'Cold War' process. The same thing happened in Iraq
where Saddam Hussain was originally supported by the US and UK,where certain parties
have no doubt benefitted from the 'war' in terms of rebuilding and oil-related contracts.

As far as Germanic people go,this description encompasses British,Dutch,Scandinavian - all involved as early settlers in the USA.In view of this I don't think we can really generalise
about any nations.So,although personally I would never hate the USA I can understand why some others might think it has in the past been somewhat hypocritical in championing itself as a leader of world freedom,while ignoring some of the covert activities that go on behind the scenes. The same goes for my own country the UK,pretending to be a model of democracy,in case anyone thinks I'm being unduly anti-American !

I don't think Iraq existed until after WWI. At least that is what I was taught.

I am pretty sure the Germans started the first world war. Not only is that what I have read in history books and heard from college professors, but I have talked to people that lived at that time. They told me it was the Kaiser of Germany that wanted more territory then he was allotted. He was related to the Nobility of England. He build up his army looking for excuses to attack.

Mistreatment of Germans after WWI and Hitler was the cause of WWII.

I don't think you can solely blame greed, as greed is always present. Greed and gross profiteering can occur during time of peace and war. But peace is easier to stabilize and support than war, which someone usually wins or surrenders, or pulls out.

Yes that is right. And WWI was going to happen one way or another. It was looming, and if the serbian assassination didnt start it, something else would have shortly.

You like to put words in my mouth I never said.

I never said we didn't learn from other countries.
I never said I was personally rich.
I never said I did/didn't have a inferiority/superiority complex

Do you like to make up arguments and pretend they are that of someone you never met, so you can win a pointless internet argument?

Look up the word Strawman in the dictionary.

Yes, history has shown that when a country builds up its military and wants to go to war, it will go to war.

Germans were mistreated after WWI. But I don't blame Europe for mistreating them considering how much destruction and lives they cost them. I would have wanted to just take everything they had too if they bombed all my cities and had a nice standing one in perfect shape. If someone mangled my car around a tree and killed my children, I would want their car and their paycheck, too.

The harsh sanctions applied against Germany after WWI were revenge on the part of the French. The Germans had applied strong sanctions in a previous war, but the french took it too far.

It was instrumental in the decency that Germany was treated with after WWII. The escalation of war reparations was a germinal factor in both world wars.

I agree for the most part. But Germany didn't stop at attacking the French .

It's the US who stopped the Germans to attack further, man.

You are right, the US reversed the fortunes of the Allied forces against the Axis powers.

This is much more the result of the Elysee-Treaty of 1963; a treaty which in respect of the US War with Iraq II did not work in favour of G. W. Bush:

Any imperialist country would have done this though...

For the war it is true, but I am more than certain that a Nazi-dominated Europe would be not stable on a longer term. Empires need to provide their subjects a real benefit, otherwise they collapse, because the costs of suppressing the people are too high and drains the substance. Suppressed people do not work very well and need constant military and other presents to keep those under control.

Germany on itself was not that stable this time as the Nazi propaganda suggested - there were 100'000 of political prisoners, millions would be follow in whole of Europe. A constant thread of rebellions would need a constant strong and expensive apparatus for the suppression.

The Soviets did their share. Consider the Battle of Kursk. The T-34 tank produced by the Soviet "subhumans" wrecked the much vaunted panzers. After Kirsk the Germans were in full retreat in the East.

ruveyn

However the Soviets are pushed into the outskirts of Moscow... Without USA, even USSR would be defeated.

Very likely. But without the Soviet Union bleeding profusely the Americans and the Brits might not have taken Germany down in time before the Germans got lots of jet planes in the air (they did beat both the Americans and the Brits to an operational jet fighter). So the Russkies did their share. Besides, better the Commies should bleed, yes?

ruveyn