The people that say "the USA sucks" rant

Are you capable of explaining your thoughts or are you just good at copying and pasting dates and links from other websites?

Your ability to converse is extraordinary

This is completely true - If you wanted to talk about America 'saving' Europe you might be better saying that the American presence in Europe after the fall of Berlin prevented the Russians from continuing westwards.

Interesting? Is it? Perhaps you meant 'irritating'?

That is not true.

Russia is MUCH, MUCH harder to invade and occupy than any other country in Europe (perhaps the world?). Ask Napoleon.

Do you know anything about the siege of Stalingrad? Do you know how hard Russian winters are? Do you know how many Germans died besieging Stalingrad when they should have just been able to bulldoze it? Do you know nothing of the Russian 'tactics' of not giving a shit how many infantry men die because they have more men to replace them than the enemy ever could?

The Nazis never would have taken the Soviet Union - not Stalin's Soviet Union.

I missed this one.

I have two threads, telling people on extremes of the point of view to shut the fuck up. It falls into every topic, the people that take extreme stances on either side of an opinion are closed minded individuals that cannot be reasoned with.

If you read my other thread you will see that my opinion covers both of these extremes regarding this subject.

Thanks for playing.

Every nation thinks they're the heroes - the Brits are convinced they won WWII as are the Americans. The reality is that nobody would've achieved a damn thing without the cooperation of all involved. I will say that in the States, we do a very good job of excluding other countries in terms of giving them the recognition and appreciation they deserve when it comes to world events. Kids here grow up thinking the US won everything. We got our asses handed to us in Vietnam even though we made it seem like we acted nobley and altruistically, and no doubt we'll spin some nice story about the events in Iraq to make it look like we did a good job there in years to come. We have a bad case of Americentrism that'll never fully disappear and the media bias here is much stronger than it is in other countries. Having said that, we do lots of good things as well - it's just that recent events (and government) have made everyone distrust us to the point where any positives are overlooked and/or taken for granted, which is not exactly okay either.

Actaully I am very much the history buff regarding WWII. I am very much aware on how Russian soldiers charged into battle without weapons and/or ammo etc. I am not taking anything away from that, I was just pointing out that if Hilter could have focused just on the Russian front things more than likely would have turned out differently.

And I admitted it works both ways, the rest of the Allies do not push the Germans to their side of the Rhine without the Russians bogging them down to the east. Instead they get pushed back out to sea.

I'm not sure why people take statements and twist it around just so they can argue.

My point is that very little in your statement bears much resemblance to fact.

Firstly on the subject of The Great War: America joining the war made very little difference on its outcome. You only joined the war within the last year, not as is your fantasy "for the cause of other nations", but to protect your shipping routes! Even then you were not fully involved, America would not could itself as one of the allied powers as it did not declre war on many of the Axis nations, only Germany. So the credit of WWI rightfully goes to Russia, Italy, France and The British Empire.

So we move to WWII: Again you were rather late to join, not doing so really, untill the beginning of 1942. And again it wasn't for "the cause of other nations" who you had ignored to fend for themselves. But because the American soil had been threatened by Japan.
You've made it sound like you were the first to be there when Hitler started conquering countries, but you watched quite happily as down goes Poland, down goes Denmark, down goes Norway, then France, then Malta, then Greece, then Yugoslavia, then Finland, then Romania. You watch still as Hitler attempts to invade Russia, and Britain leaving us to fend for ourselves, and then finally when Japan forces you to be actively involved you step up to the mark and begin to be useful.
At this point huge credit is due, Americas troups fought very bravely and her troups were comanded, on the whole, very well. But there were other factors. The British Empire and Commonwealth Nations and Russia were just as responsible as you for the defeat of Hitler as well as many other smaller countries.

Next up is the ridiculous claim that America has lost more people in the last 100 years than any other country: The list of countries that have lost more people in war than the United States really is very long, it includes...

• Russia
• France
• The British Empire
• Italy
• Germany
• Japan
• Poland
• Yugoslavia

The people of America do produce an awful lot of aid for times when it is called for by way of Natural Disaster or whatever... but know more than would be expected from the richest and one of the biggest countries in the world. For example take a country like Sweden, It could never hope to produce the same kind of level of aid as the USA, although it is also very rich, because its far less densly poulated. Much of Sweden is forest so there are less people living there to donate money.

(Try to understand what I have written rather than over-riding my opinion the American way...)

Lucky, you (and others) should read Wartrac's other thread-
The people that say the US is the greatest country rant.

At the end of WW1, on the western front, both sides were exhausted. They had long since reach the point of stalemate. While the US entry didn't have a huge impact on combat operations, the prospect of 100's of thousands of fresh American troops on the ground and the US's industrial capacity being brought to bare, convinced the German military that surrender was the only option to prevent occupation of German territory.

If the US had not entered that war it may have gone on much longer and an eventual armistice may have seen Germany gaining French territory. That's just speculation I know, but don't discount the American influence on the final outcome.

Again, taking things out of context. I've stated it was us doing it alone, again people are blind to points made just to feel like they can be right and argue. It's like I'm speaking to my ex-wife.

I never once said it wasn't all of us, I just said that if we were not involved, regardless of when, you cannot convince me that Europe would have been liberated. Of course all the other nations involved were as important, never said otherwise.

What's ironic is that you're pointing out we didn't rush right in but waited until our blood was drawn. But I'm sure if we jumped into a situation that didn't directly include us, you would complain we acted too fast.

If the only reason we went in was the attack by Japan, why didn't we just focus on the Pacific then?


You are quote mining. I stated lost more people coming to the aid of others, not lost total during a war/wars. So if you're going to take apart a statement keep it in context.

[quote]

The donations made by the US civilian population far exceed times of when disasters occurs. And I don't understand why it's "expected". The point being is that for a country that people like to dump on, the people (not the government) look past it and still give to countries in need, even ones that burn our flag in the streets.

LOL I have, I'm not saying we are the best by any means, or that any country is the best for that matter. Every country has something special to offer, ours just happens to be efficiency, or used to be at least. I've been to 11 countries so far, a pretty decent number for my age, and so far Japan is the only one I've been to that seems to have the whole "doing things efficiently" down like we do. I'm not trying to hate on anyone because I know there are plenty of things that could make my country better, but all in all from what I've experienced, America is more efficient when it comes to many things...except for public transportation, Euorpeans have that figured out very well.

Its a fair point, but a threat does not qualify as stepping in and "saving" Europe.

Granted, America was reluctant to get involved in foreign affairs and I agree we did little until the end of WWI but gotta take issue with you downplaying our role in WWII. Saying we were rather “late to join” is somewhat of a misnomer since Hitler was greatly threatened by our vast amounts of aid to the British starting in 1940. If it wasn’t for the tremendous amounts of vehicles, merchant & warships, guns, ammunition and just about everything else except the kitchen sink we sent over on credit things could have been much different, especially in Hitler’s objectives early on.

Just like Iraq u mean?

But there you have said it yourself! "Coming to the aid of others", exactly whos aid did you come to?? Certainly not those nations I have already listed who you sat back and watched fall to Hitler. So you were coming to our aid, and what if we had also fallen in The Battle of Britain and invasion of Russia had been successful? You would have missed your chance and there would be no-one left to "rescue"!!

Have you forgotten your country was right by our side on that one?