How the USA is regarded from the rest of the world

Post Reply New Topic

During the battle for France, the French Premier actually cried on the phone begging for its ally America to help it in its hour of need. America refused, and France fell.

Later on, America gave Russia 100,000 Studebakers, which the Russian military admitted made it possible for them to advance on Berlin so very rapidly. Had they not done that, the Russian front would have been a lot further east. A large number of countries that ended up in the dark behind the Iron Curtain would have remained free to excercise their own choice of government.

Numerous military operations were conducted based on popular opinion in America, not on tactical or strategic requirements. Arguments about American status often precluded or overwhelmed the needs of operations. American stubborness about tactical requirements got far too many people killed. The same problems occurred in other allied theaters of operation, like Burma/China, where political requirements were placed above the obvious goal.. winning the war. Cynically, the war was lengthened in order to meet political requirements, many of them American.

There are numerous events during WW2 alone where American "help" made situations worse in the long run. Did America "free" Europe, or just help plunge half of it into domination by a regime as corrupt and evil as the Reich ever was?

Go beyond that, and look at Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.. and Americans "freeing" people. But at what cost..

Europe and the world can ill afford American help and American freedom.

Such arrogance and disregard for what the rest of the world "thinks" is what feeds such vitriolic hatred of America. Sad really, because there are plenty of nice Americans out there. They just seem to be the silent ones.

Silenced. Or more commonly drowned out.

What help could we have given to France? The French sat on their asses for six weeks (the famous Sitzkreig). Britain was in effect our aircraft carrier to attack the Germans in Europe. The U.S. was in no shape militarily to put troops on the ground in France, in 1940 and the American public would not have stood for it. The U.S. did not get directly involved until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December, 1941. And the U.S. was not fit to fight for almost another year after that.

You may not be aware of this, but prior to the U.S. entry into war the U.S. military was rated 17th in the world. Britain and France were much more fit to fight than the U.S. in 1940.

As for the aid we gave to the Soviets, keep in mind that the U.S. victory over Germany was purchased with Russian blood. The Russians were slaughtered in numbers much greater than the U.S. public would have tolerated. Giving the Russkies trucks to drive west so they could be killed in large numbers was a good investment for the U.S.


ruveyn

Russian combat deaths were as much about terrible training, and a tactical doctrine that basically required mounding dead bodies onto the enemy until they suffocate. (Also a doctrine that the US applied on more than one occassion, its worth noting, especially when engaging the Westwall.) They could easily have reduced their death-toll had they not a) killed all their own GOOD officers before the war started and b) not used such a ludicrously expensive doctrine.

The American public not standing for it is half the problem. American "popular opinion" was more important than the prevention of the conquest of Europe and more specifically countries traditionally allied and friendly to the U.S. The American public appeared to be quite happy to let their allies get steamrollered into the floor, without even giving the offer of moral support, much less any solid military aid. Even words of encouragement and some sort of token attempt at support might have turned around the defeatist attitudes of the French, leading to a more resolute defence against the Germans. Knowing that the effectively infinite supply line of the US would be behind them could well have stiffened the resolve of several of the nations that capitulated so quickly, allowing the whole strategy of defense against the germans to rapidly become a rout. Also, what manner of effect would that have had on the German public or the German military.. having fought against America once, and knowing how large a contribution it could make to any war effort?

Its also worth noting that America recalling its loans certainly helped Hitler to get to power in the first place, as it had a direct effect on the Weimar economy. It could even be debated that if Hitler had not declared war upon the USA that the US would have restricted itself to engaging only Japan militarily.

Seems that America has been all to ready to mess about in other nations affairs when it suits itself, but recoils from "helping" when that help is actually requested or most sorely needed, and when it could be most effective.

Of course. That is how all nations operate. In their perceived self interest.

ruveyn

It's kind of funny how Europe is accused of emulating America, and yet Europe cannot even guarantee its citizens the basic rights that Americans hold sacred. The politicians love signing our rights away. This is what happened In Denmark where I live; police don't need suspicion to stop, search, or arrest someone. They wanna do it, they can, because you're a criminal who's guilty until proven innocent, and what do you think Officer Power Trip is gonna infer from a citizen who insists on their rights? That's right, probably a criminal!

Difference being that Americas self-interests end up dragging every one in to them.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21SrSMzzSHc[/youtube]

As far as Russian casualties in the Great Patriotic war ('Indian voice' - what you call World War II'... the correct answer is 'too many'.

However, the Russians had two fronts; one, directly at the enemy's front, composed of soldiers, but also convicts, political enemies, and minorities; and a second front behind that, composed of NKVD (pre-KGB, Pre-SVR) that shot any Russian troops going in the 'wrong' direction.

We also supplied the Russians with fighter airplanes as well (want to say Aircobras, but I don't remember exactly). We're best remembered for supplying the meat version of Spam, which even Khruschev admitted 'was quite good'.

Still, wars aren't won by counting up how many died, but how many lived.

But that was all 60 years ago and more. It has no bearing on current situation. The question from Europe and the rest of the world is...'what have you done for us lately?'

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! Don't spoil the myth for the children! Why don't you just tell them Santa and Jesus aren't real either, ya curmudgeon. :p

Though, you should look more closely at what went on. It wasn't simply "America". You should look a bit farther into who was playing both sides of that war.

It's a shame....Truman really shouldn't have won the election after the war. Dewey was great....and such a visionary of what shambles politics would turn into. His quote on banning Communism, "you can't shoot an idea with a gun", was brilliant and can still be applied today to many ideological bannings and wars on (insert vague term or idea here).



Like as if anyone would ever let my voice be heard.

Ok now this has "good story" written all over it... any place I can read about this? It would never occur to me that Russians made EAT spam, rather than send it!

Well, I first heard about it in Khruschev's autobiography, but had heard it later from other sources. I'm sure if you found the Spam (Is it Hormel? I can't remember who makes it, I can't eat it, though I'd like to... web site, there'd be a mention or two.

The Russians made a big deal of it in a disparaging way, but I don't hear anything about sending back any shipments...

I've always found it interesting that only 5% of Americans hold a passport, and yet as a whole seems to be all too ready to express an opinion on the rest of the world.

Hell, the scariest moment was finding out that Sarah Palin had never held a passport, and was aiming to be vice president!

I never really have had an opportunity to use one so I've never picked one up. International travel costs a lot of money and takes up a lot of time. Things I can't afford to lose on frivolous travel.

Yea traveling overseas is really expensive and I would think a big hassle. It's different for Europeans who live in much smaller countries(in area and population) who are only a few hours away from each other

Overseas travel has never been cheaper

Thats my point, its the 'I can't be bothered/too expensive/no care etc' vast majority (95%) that allows a collective ignorance to pervade a country that has in the past determined a foreign policy that has done little more than alienate most of the world.

My 2c