America only started their offensive after Russia started winning and likely only wanted to deny them Europe. And the heavy casualties in the war likely caused Russia to fold on the cold war as well, there were just not enough able men after the war to create families with about 80% of the male population in their prime dead. That low birth rate circle continues to date.
The world would've been a very different place with the USSR still in power and indoctrinating europes youth for generations.
America likely did save the Democratic western Europe at that time, just not from Germany.
It's often said that the war was won with British intelligence, American steel, and Soviet blood.
I'm sorry? They went from a peasant society immediately to defending against multiple foreign invasions (including the U.S.) to fighting and defeating the fascists, all in three decades. That was achievable only due to their economic and political system.
This is old, debunked propaganda trope recited for a millionth time.
No, USSR never went to industrial giant overnight, for a reason it never been it. USSR relied on single digit of large factories for everything during the war.
Even tiny Eastern European countries USSR invaded were heads above USSR, to the point the first thing USSR did there were stealing all factory equipment, and relocating it to new factories in USSR.
So arguably it had nothing to do with the largest war of all time waged against them explicitly for their annihilation?
Very arguably, as it's actually the opposite: the socialism forced mass force industrialization, and prepared USSR better for WWII than Russia ever had any chance of being.
Stalin himself is also reported to have said the Soviets couldn't have won the war without American aid, among other Soviet leaders.
Worth nothing that Russia was the 2nd largest recipient of American lend-lease (after the British), which started well before the Normandy landings. Yes they were in the unenviable position of the being German bullet sponges, but they couldn't have even done that without American supplies. So it's arguable the US did save Europe from Germany: 100% indirectly at first and more directly later.
The Soviet Union paid a very high price, but their hands were not clean.
In December of 1941, after Pearl Harbour, the US entered the war, and then you had the main combatants in place:
The allies with the USSR (Stalin), USA (Roosevelt), British Empire (Churchill), France (de Gaulle), Republic of China (Chiang Kai-Shek), against
The axis with Germany (Hitler), Italy (Mussolini), and Japan (Hirohito).
Also USSR pretty much annexed eastern Europe after the war, in a way they are the only country that won anything out of ww2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
Eventually the USSR learned and with support of the UK and US in terms of materiel turned into a formidable fighting force. But a decent amount of their casualties were somewhat self-imposed.
Music from the future? ;)
"The French can't drive a car. They can't keep it up. They ruin vehicles."
The French, on the whole, certainly do not drive as well, keep a car up as well, or protect their vehicles as well as we do. Neither do women, compared to men.
We have had more mechanical training, more technical experience. And at the present time we have incomparably better maintenance facilities.The rest doesn't seem inappropriate to me, I can believe it to be right.
"The right to speak involves the duty to listen."
"The promoters of the statue in France formed an organization, the French-American Union, in 1875. The group issued a statement calling for donations from the public and presenting a general plan specifying that the statue would be paid for by France, while the pedestal upon which the statue would stand would be paid for by Americans."
Source : https://www.thoughtco.com/who-paid-for-the-statue-of-liberty...
Since both countries were at the time white majority and controlled, there wasn't any need to address race in any way. There was no "race" dimension. Therefore, I wouldn't take the lack of racism as a virtue, but just that it would be off-topic for the purpose of the book.
EDIT: Look through the book - every illustration of French, Germans, and Americans depicts white people. The book, as typical of the era, just doesn't address race. It only addresses culture.
How about this:
Some Frenchmen have certainly gypped some Americans . We
remember the times we were gypped . We forget
the number of times we were not. How many times were
you treated fairly, honesty°' ?
Were you never "gypped" back home -in towns near
army camps ? (See question 4 83),That passage doesn't give me that vibe -- it seems to be trying to suggest that the relevant behavior, "gypping", isn't culturally unique, but rather could be found back in the United States, too.
Concerns about terminology etymologically-based on cultural stereotypes aside, it doesn't read like the author was expressing a racist perspective, but rather trying to speak to such preexisting-perspectives as to dispel them.
Would probably want to do some checking on this first, though I'd suspect that "gypsy" wasn't widely regarded as offensive back then, either, much like "Negro" literally just meant "Black". Seems like sometimes terms are retro-historically recast as racial-slurs, apparently in an attempt to create a gap between historical-texts which use such terms and later-texts which don't. Kinda like depreciating an API in favor of a clone as a mode of depreciating the corresponding ecosystem.
For example, in this case the speaker clearly wasn't trying to equate Romani to swindlers. Any logic arriving at such a faulty conclusion would seem fallacious, presumably due to over-simplification.
My best guess might be that you're trying to represent a belief that words have context-free meaning, and then you're very short in your own communication in part due to that same belief.
However I disagree with jumping to conclusions about stuff. For example, while I might try to guess that you're arguing that words ought to be held as context-free, such an argument would seem quite naive, such that I'd prefer not attribute it to another on the basis of speculation alone.
In short, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
While I might try to guess that you're arguing that readers' contexts ought to be held as irrelevant, such an argument would seem quite naive, such that I'd prefer not attribute it to another on the basis of speculation alone.
When the relationship was different from today's, during WW2, the US Army published a Pocket Guide to China:
https://archive.org/details/PocketGuideToChina1943-nsia/mode...
I feel this statement grossly misrepresents history. French north Africa was controlled by Vichy France, which was Nazi Germany's puppet regime and did not represented french sentiment or opinion.
No, not really. The Vichy regime was the dictatorship puppet regime imposed onto the remaining french territory after the third republic was dissolved, and enacted policies imposed by Nazi germany such as rounding up Jews to hand them over to them. It grossly misrepresents the french sentiment of the time to even suggest that France suddenly had a change in heart and decided to not only accept Nazi Germany as it's political and ideological compass but also jump enthusiastically and head-on onto the Holocaust to the point of eclipsing even Franco's Spain.
The national sentiment in June 1940 when Pétain formed the last government of the 3rd Republic was _very_ pro-Pétain and the country as a whole was pro-armistice. The Vichy regime was formed on the basis of popular support to lead a policy that, if it didn't gather the unconditional support of everyone, didn't alarm many. You have to keep in mind the Parliamentarian 3rd Republic was seen as having failed miserably. All the while 1.8 French men were held as PoWs in Germany and the government was expected to gain them back.
Until mid-1941 pro-Vichy sentiment remained high and the Resistance movement was at best paltry, with people like de Gaulle seen as trouble makers.
Germany invaded the USSR on the on June 22, prompting the Communists in France to enter the Resistance. At the same time the systemic plunder of the French economy, with the help of Vichy, was coming into fruition and starting to be felt. Real antisemitic and repression policies started being implemented in the second half of 1941.
The Vel d'Hiv Roundup happened in mid-1942. In June 22 1942 French workers were incentivised to leave France to work in Germany. Two months later, on August 22 work conscription was instituted and accelerated in late 42 / early 43 while the Germans invaded Southern France, up 'til now nominally in the hands of the French government.
From _that_ moment national sentiment truly turned, Vichy lost all the good will it still had, the French lost all illusions that Pétain was anything more than a mop and large amounts of youths trying to dodge slave work in Germany entered the Resistance.
I think you « grossly misrepresent » French sentiment much more than I do.
This is absolutely nothing like the situation with China, which is definitely NOT an ally of the west.
Shortly after assuming his position as President of the People's Republic of China, Xi Jinping disseminated a secret internal paper with his most important views and plans, including the 7 biggest threats to China in his eyes. In 2013, this "document number 9" was leaked. Among the 7 threats were democracy, human rights, and independent media.
Seriously, China does not just have a different culture with slightly different ideas. They view our most fundamental values as their biggest threats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
Edit: As pointed out by several commenters, my remarks refer to the Chinese Communist Party, not to the Chinese people.
Almost all news about China are not about the people of China, but instead treat China as a single entity defined by its government.
I think GP has a point is that we could get a better understanding of China by considering the people, their culture and how they live on a day-to-day basis rather than by focusing on Xi Jinping.
I'd like to see more reports of westerners actually living there, rather than government talk.
Where does this reflexive anti-American bullshit come from?
The US (as in government) like all large powers are doing a lot of self interested power politics. They have overthrown many democratically elected governments and supported (and sometimes even put in place) some of the worst dictatorships in the world, because it was in their geopolitical interest. They invaded a sovereign country and presented lies to justify the invasion. They jave introduced a massive worldwide surveillance system, that is essentially spying on everyone. Have used that aperatus to spy on allies, and used it for to gain every economic advantage they could get.
Is pointing this out "anti-american bullshit". Has someone who did these things done more good than anyone else by a massive margin?
We AGREE about the negative bullshit the US has done. We're actively trying to work on that shit, none of us like it. We've actually done a stellar job looking at our history and current practices and saying "That was fucked up" and "We should fix this going forward."
But we still do WAY more good than, like I said, the next 10 countries combined.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou...
So it's not all roses, but... Yeah, I wouldn't dismiss us as a net benefit.
See, I don’t know if this is helping the case you are trying to make against cycomanic. You come here claiming you are more generous than the next 10 combined, when, in reality, you aren’t even in the top 5.
Norway would fit in 1/3 of the most prosperous part of Los Angeles. I assumed we were talking about geopolitical powers.
I mean I guess if it's a wedding party, now that I think about it.
The recent US leadership hasn't done a very good job of representing "American Values". You can expect anti-American sentiment from this.
It may not be justified when referring to individuals, but neither is the xenophobic response to any of the countries listed above.
Fight the governments, not the people.
Those countries have legitimate issues we call out. We call ours out too. That's the difference.
>This one could apply to our relationship with China maybe?
>> Yes, we quarrel with the French. The members of a family argue pretty freely inside the home ; We quarrel with our allies, We don't quarrel with our enemies -- we fight them.
With that said, I wouldn't interpret the US relationship with China as one of alliance nor as one of enmity (yet).
It makes sense for the military to recognize the other forces that pose the biggest threat. But regarding declarations by politicians, it appears to me that internal politics in both countries are driving politicians to make such statements. As in, both American and Chinese leadership see advantage in creating an external enemy. Naturally, as China's power rises, the relationship changes texture, but how much of our attitude change is recognition of the changed situation versus a change in attitude induced by the political class?
Canada and Mexico are bigger export targets from the US, but the US imports much kore from China, making it a bigger overall trade partner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_...
Huh, you may have been looking at curerent year-to-date goods-only figures, but aside from the problem of being goods only (services are traded to), there is seasonality to trade, so current year YTD figures aren’t a good measure.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
I also wish we had such a book currently on how progressive and conservatives are different
- Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting.
- The US needs to take a serious look at implementing Universal Basic Income, and not just because of the automation of jobs.
- Abortion should be legal up to the earliest that a fetus has survived out of the womb, roughly 3 months.
- We should celebrate diversity, and, we should be able to talk about what makes us different. Without risking censure.
- We should have a clear, straightforward and streamlined path to citienship for anyone who wants to become an American.
- Mass media has done a masterful job of brainwashing Americans for the purpose of polarizing us, which drives outrage, clicks and ad revenue.
What label do you apply to me? How about none? People's beliefs are on a spectrum, they aren't binary. But we should each understand the 'first principles' of why we believe what we believe, and dig deeper than a news article. Once you view people in this way, you actually have to get to know them before you can decide whether their beliefs align with yours.
Labeling people and judging them based on a superficial observation is the opposite of inclusion. I was taught that in grade school 50 years ago.
You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. In fact the disagreement lies not in proving citizenship but in the methods to do so. If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all.
Republicans not only want you to show citizenship. They want you to show it 2, 3, 4 times in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard“.
Isn’t the argument that you need to prove the person voting is the same person who registered? Where I live, you only need to give a name and address verbally to vote and that can be gathered online fairly easily.
(Just to be clear, I’m not saying voting fraud is rampant but can understand the risk)
Why don't you ask every other country why they do such a thing? Seriously, if the issue was as clear-cut as you make it out to be ("Those peoples are just trying to suppress the votes of their opponents") then the US would not be one of the few places in the world where this is controversial.
It's not controversial in some of the largest democracies in the world, and yet you want us to believe that you really think that it is controversial?
I think there are some problems when you bring in the "Why don't you ask every other country?" argument. For one, not every country has the same protections that the U.S. carries in the Bill of Rights. This is why you can't, for example, use this defense when it comes to banning intolerant speech even though it may be done elsewhere.
I think the generous interpretation is this law feels like a "show me your papers" statute which the United States generally has a philosophical angle against. It would be comparable in some people's eyes to a "Show me your vaccine card" enforced by the State. Pragmatically, the ID law may also create de facto racial profiling. Although I think the opposite side of this feels the issue is more about State vs. Federal immigration enforcement than really striking down the "show me your papers" provision.
What I am saying is that presenting the argument as a clear-cut case of $PARTY wants to limit voter participation from certain demographics is disingenuous - it is NOT clear-cut at all because more countries require voter registration than not.
So no one should be attacking labeling a proponent of this law as a Nazi just because they support it - the majority of the world's voting democracies can't be Nazis, now can they?
Maybe in France but in the US you will absolutely get disagreement from liberals.
>If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote?
If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive?
If you showed proof to purchase/register your vehicle why do you need to show proof of registration when you get pulled over?
>In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all.
In fact, if you have ID that proves you are over 21 then registration of your firearm purchase shouldn't be necessary at all.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.
True. People on both sides of the isle use the "privilege not a right" counter on various issues.
>Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.
Exactly. Owning a firearm is a right so this example still works here.
While I wouldn't want to label 11thEarlOfMar personally, I think it can be helpful to look at each of those views in the context of a larger framework because it helps understand what value systems you operate with to either find inconsistencies or common ground.
Edit: I think the fact that people are so quick to either label their personhood or assume someone else is doing the same is indicative of the problem. It's also a bit troubling that a post simply advocating for contextually understanding differences would get downvotes. I don't know if that's a problem with my inability to communicate that point effectively or something worse.
Reflecting a bit more, it's hard to imagine that a government could convince it's people to go to war without a large degree of brainwashing to demonize the foe. To some degree, we need our soldiers to believe that they people they kill are deserving of death, even though the they were most likely brainwashed and drafted into the conflict on false pretenses. In a symbolic way, this happened in the US in 2020, but this time, private industry and the government entered symbiosis in polarizing citizens into a civil conflict. And people were killed.
We owe it to ourselves to peel back a couple of layers of the onion, and understand and respect other well supported beliefs, even if those beliefs differ from our own.
E.g., Someone could assume a person is against voter ID simply because they want to disenfranchise specific groups or they can legitimately be concerned about fraud. If we just assume the former, it misses any opportunity to make rational arguments about the claims of the latter.
Yes, conservatives aren't just people with a different belief system than yours. They are bad people, liars, evil, rotten to the core, and deserve to die.
/s
(The other side has its tell-signs as well).
If you are conservative you believe liberals are stupid and probably brainwashed.
This is America.
When a man beats up a wife, _you don't say_, well, look, she probably wasn't the easiest to live with, and he had it tough dealing with her. He is a good business man, and a pillar in the community. so look both sides have positives and negatives. (Well to be fair as a society we usually do, do this, but clearly we are wrong).
No the facts say otherwise.
I wish we had such a book currently on how arabs and the muslim world are different, but not so different than us.
> We didn't come to Europe to save the French, either in 1917 or in 1944. We didn't come to Europe to do anyone any favors. We came to Europe because we in America were threatened by a hostile, aggressive and very dangerous power.
> In this war, France fell in June of 1940, We didn't invade Europe until June of 1944. We didn't even think of "saving the French" through military action until after Peary Harbor -- after the Germans declared war on us
I can't stop reading, this is so interesting, this is really a lesson on racism and discrimination. I'm curious about who wrote this.
> It was inevitable that some Frenchmen would rub some Americans the wrong ray=. City people often rub country folk the wrong «ay the same goes for a Pittsburgher in New Orleans or Texan on Fifth Avenue. We Americans believe in the value of differences -- if basic political beliefs and goals rest on a common foundation. "Unless you bear with the faults of a friend you betray your own."
another one:
> You don't have to love the French. You don't have to hate them either. You might try to understand them, The more important point is not to let your feeling blin d you to the fact that they were and are our allies. They were in 1917, too. The most important question any people can ask itself is this: "Who fights with us? Who fights against us ?"
This one could apply to our relationship with China maybe?
> Yes, we quarrel with the French. The members of a family argue pretty freely inside the home ; We quarrel with our allies, We don't quarrel with our enemies -- we fight them.
I like how this one is phrased so that it sounds like France gave more money. I also really thought that France gave the statue to the US entirely.
> In France, 180 French cities, forty general councils, and thousands of anonymous Frenchmen contributed a quarter of a million dollars (not francs) towards the statue, (The United States raised $280,000.)
that's how much a cocktail was back then:
> A. G.I., comes out of a night club in the States and says, "A buck and half for a Scotch and soda".
that one can apply to the homeless crisis in the US:
> Some of the French are scroungers. Hungry people lose their pride. An empty stomach does not worry about losing face.
France sounded like a muslim country back then:
> Most French girls before the war had far less freedom than our girls back home. A great many were not permitted to go out without a chaperone. France is dominantly Catholic in religion and in morals. The immoral Frenchwomen are, of course, the easiest women for us to meet. That's why we meet so many of them.
this one is hilarious:
> This always startles Americans - at first . Kissing on both cheeks is the traditional French greeting between old friends. For their love making, the French prefer privacy, if available, just as we do.
It's interesting how the second part goes into "germans are so much nicer than french people".
PS: holy shit I can copy/paste from an old picture of a book O_o