In May 1945, 57% of the respondents claimed the USSR, 20% the USA, 12% the UK. By 2015, the figures are 23% USSR, 54% USA, 18% UK.
Wonder if American WWII movies have anything to do with it?
http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis...
Because of the threat of communism most western democracies saw it as important to emphasize American contribution over the USSR.
> BLU-43/B and BLU-44/B (Bomb Live Unit) "Dragontooth" were air-dropped cluster-type land mines used by the United States during the Vietnam War.
> The use of Dragontooth mines in Vietnam went largely unnoticed, likely as a product of its essentially classified usage primarily in Laos as part of Operation Igloo White. Production of the system had ceased by 1970, and it was predicted that existing stocks would be exhausted by the end of 1971.
> In stark contrast to the lack of public commentary on the Dragontooth system, the subsequent Soviet analogue, the PFM-1, spurred a lot of controversy after being used in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, being a key element leading to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
Sounds like the "killing children" line, used exclusively against the soviets, would be a bit loaded
1. The US also doing something does not invalidate my correction.
2. The USSR did this after the US had already done it. The first person who deploys weapons like these can claim ignorance of the issue of children picking them up - at least for a while. The second, much less so.
That being said, both sides hands are clearly dirty in this case.
This was propaganda served by the US that we swallowed up in Norway and retold to our kids. Ironically, the Soviets told the same kind of propaganda to their kids about US involvement in Nicaragua where they used similar types of cluster bombs.
The implication of this line or reasoning is also that all of Europe and the USSR would have become Nazi Germany. That would have created an enormously powerful empire which together with Japan had been a serious threat to America. It is not like it would have been irrelevant to the US what the outcome would have been.
It's hard to think of world issues on this scale, but we are making a lot of progress as a species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_di...
PS: US had a major role in the Green Revolution which does have downsides, but as saved more lives than all the 20th century was combined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution the world population was 2.5 billion in 1950.
And, while the US contribution to the outcome in WWII was more significant globally than in WWI, we absolutely did not get involved to save Europe from anything, or anyone from Europe. It wasn't Europeans that attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Roosevelt administration Congress has approved the Lend-Lease act which meant active involvement in Europe with armaments, active naval combat in the North Atlantic, and ground troops in Iceland. The US had started building a 'two ocean' Navy almost two years before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a final gift to the Roosevelt administration's multi-year program of full mobilization.
This program of support and mobilization absolutely was in response to events in Europe and a desire to see the UK in particular not fall. Note that when the US did enter the war, the Pacific was designated the secondary theater of operations.
The impact on WW1 was rather small though. German forces were already at a low, especially because of the British sea blockade. The American entry into the war might have shortened it a bit, but it was not really the deciding factor.
Full disclosure: I'm German.
Propagation of these rights to other countries have resulted in their prosperity as well.
If you need statistics, start with longevity, infant mortality, and average height starting in 1800 to the present.
A practice, one might note, that the US has also continued.
"Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
I guess my point is that America is a great thing with some serious problems. Not unlike some codebases I could mention. I don't know that blind nationalism is good for anything other than making you feel good, but patriotism isn't all bad. America is the best kludge ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...
I think it is reasonable. The US international involvement far surpasses any other countries, which gives it a lot more chances to do right (and wrong).
The problem with just speaking of good things is that many good things are intrinsically linked to bad things. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was clearly a good thing viewed in isolation. But viewed in context with all the problems it caused it was probably a bad thing. Far more people have suffered due to the invasion of Iraq than people who have benefitted.
Opposing a socialists dictatorship in Afghanistan was in principle a good thing. But when the alternative becomes Taliban and bin Laden then clearly it was a bad thing.
Encouraging a capitalist democracy in Vietnam was also seen in isolation a good thing. In practice in turned into a horrible thing, causing huge amounts of suffering, not just in Vietnam but also triggering genocide in Cambodia.
This is a reoccurring thread with American foreign engagements. So much of what America does is theoretically good, but ends up being horrible in practice.
As long as Americans think they are mainly a force for good and don't acknowledge all the screwup properly, America will keep screwing up things. The best way for America to do good I think is to accept they are not exceptional, don't know all the answers and actually have to listen to others to find the best solutions.
I have no doubt that there is a tremendous will in America do to the good thing. The problem is that the will is not matched with the wisdom and humbleness needed to accomplish it.
I remember one Honda that had a transmission recall, defective radio and a tendency for body trim to fall off (according to the little blurb) and was rated awesome.
The equivalent Ford was dinged because the OEM tires were noisy.
So do they like Tesla or dislike Tesla? Only a year ago or so they rated the Model S as the best car they had ever reviewed; then there were a few Autopilot failures and some troubles with the Model X -- now the honeymoon seems to be over.
It's not that I think CR does a wonderful job with cars -- or with any other product that I'm familiar with -- but I think that their biases are more complex than a simple "they like who they like".
Model S was a fairly new vehicle, so in year one they only did the first part - there weren't many Tesla owners who were also CR subscribers who also have had the car for at least a year to generate a reliable corpus of reader ratings.
Things changed in year two when reader surveys started trickling in, with Model S owners reporting higher than average amount of issues, which impacted the overall ratings.
CR's own driving tests still earned Model S a "CR Recommended" badge, it just no longer came with a spotless 100-point score they've previously assigned.
That allows you to simply +/- their ratings in a certain area, depending on how well their rating lines up with your personal experience. It's hard to do that with similar types of organizations, where it really comes down to the person who reviewed it, and sometimes even how they felt that day.
The thing that drives me nuts is the lengths people such as yourself will go to in order to rationalize their dislike of him. Calling people who like him and the car 'disciples' is also pretty terrible.
People like the cars because they view them as antiestablishment. e.g. better than what other car makers are building — because the establishment car makers are crooks with no regard for the world and would allow the destruction of nature for a dollar.
Meanwhile the data shows that cars are a minuscule contributor to global warming in comparison to burning coal. And that electric cars are not necessarily cleaner than gas cars when you consider what source they are charged from.
If you want to do something about global warming that will have an actual impacted you must turn China and India into rich countries that can afford be green (to use the common vernacular).
Musk's whole brand and "popularity [is based on] exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people" (from the Wikipedia article on demagogue).
Again, this drives me nuts.
People like the cars because they are better than what the other car makers are making. Model S is the safest, fastest, and most efficient sedan on the market. That's a fact!
Cars are minuscule contributors? The EPA site says 14% Co2 is from cars, which is substantial. That's also a fact!
If Tesla keeps going, it will replace generation and consumption of fossil fuels with a fully renewable cycle. How is that not the best thing ever? That's fantastic! We might be cutting more than 30% of our CO2 emissions.
You need to re-evaluate your standpoint. Also, when you're struggling with cognitive dissonance after reading this, consider this: Your brain's attempts to discredit my argument, and paint Elon backers as mindless followers/disciples, is the real example of psychological trickery, not Elon exploiting some prejudice.
Wow, disregarding Soviet Union's role is a bit shortsighted.
In any case, lavish praise of America is kind of a common American thing... no one person or group really owns that.
I'm open to counterpoints, given the recurring theme of "we could have just not"
Not sure about the high impact of the US.
German troops and the resources were quite exhausted (malnutrition and bad equipment) and the Brits were effectively blocking the seaway. France was also able to encrypt the German communication, giving them an edge. The strategy of the Germans contained a lot of flaws as well, so their success at least of the Army was quite limited.
One might argue that the Germany Navy wins over Britain (which was one of the reasons the US entered) could've turned the war, but I'm sceptical.
When the Germans did the Spring Offensive 1918, with substantials reinforcements from the Eastern front after the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, they found shops filled with all types of food in the areas they where advancing, when they at the same time severely lacked food supplies. This lead to looting and a break down in morale.
And by that time, the German civilian population had severe war fatigue by years of blockade.
US troops balanced the German reinforcements from the Eastern front, and thereby removed the German advantage, however it did not grant the victory.
Remember that when Armistice of 11 November 1918 was signed, Germany was not occupied by any forces of the entente. It was Germany that was on the offensive.
This was the motive for the Stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende), the army was not beaten, but the politicians made peace behind their backs.
I'd disagree with every case. Elon Musk could not possible have research this very thoroughly. Especially claiming WWI seems nuts. Back in those days France, Germany and other neighboring countries had had many wars, but it was seldom about complete dominion. They stole some land from each other. Germany only planned to take some chunks from France and take over Belgium. Secondly Germany was hardly some crazy fascist dictatorship. Thirdly if you read discussion of this Americans don't seem to have had that much direct effect on the battlefield. Its seems like the allies would have won eventually, just slower without American participation. They controlled the sea and was ramping up war production way beyond Germany. And finally none of the above might have matter at all since the real end was the German revolution which produced the Weimar republic. The new democratic leadership was not interested in any war of conquest.
The US had more influence on WWII, but 80% of German forces got destroyed on the east front. The Soviet Union was a formidable opponent and it seems unlikely that they could have ever held it even if they had had more success without US support of the USSR. Germany was poorly prepared for occupying such a large country. Without the US the war would likely have dragged on longer but I think Germany would have had to give in eventually. The alternative outcome would likely have been an undemocratic Germany, however Stalin would likely not have had the strength to occupy eastern Europe, and we might actually have ended up with more democracies. This is what I hate about the rose tinted description of WWII outcomes. WWII started because Britain had pledged to keep Poland free. At the end of the war Poland was a communist dictatorship. So was all the other east block countries. So WWII didn't result in a lot of democracy.
The US surely stopped Japan, but Japan wasn't spreading dictatorship in a free world. They were frequently replacing one colonial power for another. Who knows China controller by capitalist dictatorship in Japan might have been preferable over a communist dictatorship led by Mao.
Finally the last assertion is on even shakier ground. Quite the contrary I'd claim the US mostly did things worse in the cold war. The Vietnam war was a big waste of resources. Vietnam turned capitalist in the end just like China. US meddling in Afghanistan during the cold war screwed up the country more and laid the seeds for modern day jihad. In some cases like Cambodia, US meddling more likely caused communism to happen than prevented it. Communism got rotten from the inside. They started stagnating in the 70s and economic problems got worse through the 80s while those living behind the iron curtain increasingly became aware that they were falling far behind the western democracies. Groups like solidarity sprung up in Poland. Communism got destroyed from the inside. The US was hard on the communist rhetoric but ultimately I don't think that was what mattered.
We can't prove it would end one way or the other for sure. But I think it is dangerous to end up in this kind of hero worship of the US. I think a lot of failed American policies has happened precisely because of the idea of American exceptionalism. If America had less inflated ego, it might have accomplished more IMHO.
Musk sounds like Trump sometimes. Reminds me of this other line of his:
> Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth", describing it as "the greatest force for good of any country that's ever been". Musk believes outright that there "would not be democracy in the world if not for the United States", arguing there were "three separate occasions in the 20th-century where democracy would have fallen with World War I, World War II and the Cold War, if not for the United States".