PDA

View Full Version : Insular Americanism


vanir
12-05-2008, 07:01 PM
Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.
Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

The Doctor
12-05-2008, 07:06 PM
I couldn't agree more, though I don't see that this will turn into anything but an "Americans vs. the World" thread. Especially with some of the more... shall we say, "opinionated" American citizens on the forum. I think everyone knows who I'm talking about. :dozey:

Astor
12-05-2008, 07:06 PM
So the largest, most advanced Battleship ever constructed is 'inferior technology'?

I will say, in defence of Americans, all of the Americans i've ever spoken to (and i've also spoken with a number of WWII veterans) have never made such claims about 'saving the world'.

jrrtoken
12-05-2008, 07:07 PM
What kind of sites do you visit anyhow? :confused:

Yeah, I hate the whole "American is the BESTEST!!!" attitude. It's not like its nothing new, I mean, there was the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which practically declared that the U.S. had the right to police the entire Western Hemisphere to its whim.

Web Rider
12-05-2008, 07:08 PM
Oh please, most nations laud their contribution to *conflict* far more than others because as you say, they're just like everyone else(as long as they were on the winning side).

Russia believed that without them, Europe would have been lost to the Germans. It's a very common attitude to say that "my country did more!"

It takes years to learn about all the contributions to any conflict that all involved nations gave, primary(K-12) education simply does not cover it, and yes, some places, even in higher education, teach that America is the greatest and that we did everything. It simply is one of those things that happens.

And don't start going on about how Americans are insular to the world, every European nation tries it's hardest to protect their country and their interests just as much as the US does. see:world history.

Darth333
12-05-2008, 07:26 PM
Having lived in several countries, the "we are the best and the others are wrong" attitude seems like it can be found anywhere. Every country tries to protect its interests to some point.

However, it seems rather more common in countries such as Canada and the US (perhaps because some people tend to rank the possibility to amass pure material individual comfort above anything else, no matter what and/or perhaps because I also have "my nose right on it".). Apart from popular opinions, one of the things that come to my mind are the IMF and World Bank policies: in the end, it is not surprising that there are some reactions such as the Banco del Sur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_South) in response to that.

My simple take on that for this evening (I can elaborate more later on): there are good and bad things everywhere...although the good and bad are not necessarily at the same "place" and that still depends on perspective and/or context for a lot of things: what is good or fitting for one isn't necessarily the best for the others.

ForeverNight
12-05-2008, 07:57 PM
So the largest, most advanced Battleship ever constructed is 'inferior technology'?

Yep, since bigger battleships == bigger targets.

Anyway, to say that we 'liberated' Europe nigh singlehandedly is not really a fallacy. The Russian's did not Liberate any square millimeter of European soil to say otherwise is to say that the Soviet Union never oppressed it's people. The Canadians and the English did their bit to be sure, but the US seems to have done the bulk of the effort in the European theater. As well as the various resistance groups scattered throughout Europe at the time.

However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

England was working a lot with US built planes and equipment. Same with the Russians. Monty was paralyzed in North Africa, following his pattern of attack, build up forces until you have near-perfect intelligence and at minimum a 2:1 force ratio. The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.

As for Japan, yes they were technologically inferior if I dare to use the term. They didn't have many Aircraft carriers and those were quickly proven to be the penultimate navel vessel.
---
Anyway, where is America any different in terms of Human Potential?

You seriously have to ask this question?

America's strength is it's immigrants looking for a better life. Almost all of the most important inventions and people in the history of America have been first or second generation immigrants. Now, granted, this isn't occurring as much as it used to, but then we have a bunch of immigrants who can't be bothered to learn the language.

As for Righteousness, I think that the past sixty years are to blame for this. We had the Soviet Union who was communist and Marx believed that Socialism is just the transition to Communism. So, Europe was steadily becoming more and more Socialist, more like our enemies, and then starting to disagree with us more and more with how to deal with the Union.

So, we see the world as starting to turn there backs and we're the only one's -in our eyes- really doing something about it, so we are the righteous. Also, that helps with the don't trust the rest of the world as much as you can mentality.

At least, that's my take on it.

vanir
12-05-2008, 07:58 PM
Mmm, I will apolegise more directly for this kind of thread's potential to start a bash America thread. This is definitely neither a productive nor objective course, and I would hope the impressive debaters of Kavar's have a little more gnads than to be so droll.

I've a bit of respect for this forum developed over the past few days I've been a regular visitor.

Myself, I'm a member of dozens of forums, partly for networking and some for research purposes. Some excellent good friends I've made include a PhD physicist and some acquaintence with a literary/academic author (mine is well researched fiction).

It's just I feel like my brain's being shoved into a box every time I encounter this attitude of using statistics to further a political argument of national superiority. It's tiring to argue with those involved and ultimately it appears a violent argument is all they're searching for. A case of "I'm the King of the Castle and you're the dirty rascal."

But its the consequences of what's being said that indeed bother me. Japanese culture is less technologically capable, one insinuation. It's the old "Barbarians are less than human" argument of imperial colonialism.

what is good or fitting for one isn't necessarily the best for the others.

It seems on some days this wonderful realisation is so very painfully rare.

I have come across the poorer attitude among poms, Indians and Russians, so obviously it's not an entirely American phenomenon. However, in a purely anecdotal capacity I seem to hit it head on at sites with predominant American membership more often than anywhere else. Whilst it may be annoying that popularisms have little reference, therefore little to debate with, nevertheless it is a common popularism outside America that Americans are commonly politically and philosophically insular.
There was even a very popular local workers movement as I recall, back in the nineties to determine that Australia (and its government) not become too, "Americanised."

Now, for example, what exactly does that mean? What is Americanised?

Q
12-05-2008, 11:01 PM
Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.
While this is true in several cases, the opposite could be said in several others. It really came down to three basic factors: resources, production capacity and design philosophy. I believe that it could safely be said that the US had an overwhelming advantage in the first two factors and were just about even in the third. Please note that this is a very broad statement. I could go into detail if you wish, but I'm feeling too lazy to go into specifics if I don't have to. :p
Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.
I'm of the opinion that while it was the Soviets who saved Europe from the Nazis it was the combined efforts of the US, the UK and Canada that saved western Europe from the Soviets. ;)
And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?
Actually they're doing the exact opposite by teaching students that it's chic to feel guilty for the sins committed by their forefathers 50+ years ago; sins for which they are in no way responsible. The result is mindless drivel like this:
Do some research on America and you'll find out we're really a horrible nation, and that we've done the exact opposite of what you believe throughout history.
:roleyess: Which, IMO, is just as ridiculous as the belief that we saved the world all by ourselves. We are neither angels in white, nor are we "The Great Satan," or the next Nazi Germany.
However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?
Yes, I believe I can. Ever heard of the Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain)? Stalingrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad)? How about Kursk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk)? First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein) and Second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein) El Alamein, perhaps? Yes, I know that El Alamein is in Africa, but my point is that none of these major turning-points in the war against Nazi Germany involved US forces.
The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.
I believe that I know. Even without our aid, it would have merely taken them longer (probably much longer) to do so. While our production capacity certainly made a difference in providing much-needed material support, it does not subtract from the fact that the Soviet Union took on over 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and obliterated it. What happened in the West was little more than a sideshow in comparison. I have little doubt that the Soviets would have eventually crushed Nazi Germany on their own had they needed to. Even after 20+ million dead, they were in no danger of running out of manpower and with all of that land mass, they were in no danger of running out of territory into which they could strategically retreat, rest, lick their wounds, reform and then get back into the fight. And they were so utterly and righteously pissed off at the Germans that they would have fought them down to the last man and the last bullet. Germany could never have beaten them without the bomb, period, and they were a lot farther from producing a working example than what is generally believed.
As for Japan, yes they were technologically inferior if I dare to use the term.
Wrong. At the start of the war, the Zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Zero) was the most advanced carrier-borne fighter in the world and outclassed its US opponent, the Wildcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_Wildcat) in nearly every way. It could out-run, out-turn and out-climb it, and the only thing that kept the Wildcat from becoming a veritable deathtrap for our fighter pilots was that it could fall like a stone by going into a steep dive (useless at low-level) and the fact that it was built like a tank (a Grumman legacy) with armor and self-sealing fuel tanks that the Zero lacked and could therefore absorb enormous amounts of punishment and keep on flying. It was these features and the invention of the Thach Weave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave) tactic that helped our pilots hold their own against the Zero until the belated arrival of more advanced fighters. The Japanese designed advanced types as well, but were unable to introduce them due to their limited production capacity which was already strained to the breaking point in trying to produce enough examples of existing types to meet the demands of their armed forces. Germany had very similar problems, but this has been downplayed somewhat due to the fact that they did manage to be the first nation to introduce jet-powered combat aircraft.
They didn't have many Aircraft carriers and those were quickly proven to be the penultimate navel vessel.
Wrong again. Yamamoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto) had realized the carrier's pre-eminence, and was actually opposed to the construction of the superbattleships Yamato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato) and Musashi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi) because he believed (correctly as it turned out; both were sunk by carrier-based aircraft) that they were an enormous waste of resources that could have been better-used elsewhere. They actually had more carriers than we did at the beginning of the war, two of which, Shōkaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sh%C5%8Dkaku) and Zuikaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuikaku), were the most advanced in the world until the introduction of the Taiho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taih%C5%8D), also by the Japanese, and of the Essex Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_Class_aircraft_carrier) by the US in 1943. Once again their lack of production capacity prevented the Japanese from replacing ships lost in combat as their first-rate navy was ground into dust by our overwhelming numerical superiority.

Well, it looks like I went all into detail anyway. :D Good topic, vanir.

vanir
12-06-2008, 03:58 AM
Okay, definitely don't want to turn this into a 'bash ForeverNight' thread but dude, take a step back man. Always argue the other side before forming an opinion.
Yep, since bigger battleships == bigger targets.
Although not according to pre-war US Naval doctrine. Carriers were designated escort vessels whilst the Battleship remained the flagship of the Fleet. This was forcibly changed by Pearl Harbour, and it was Yamamoto who changed it. But the statement was obviously intended to provide a simple comparison, who had the best battleship, which was at the time (prior to Pearl Harbour) the flagship of any navy. The answer would be Japan, by a longshot. The Yamato and Musashi were designed to almost single handedly wipe out an entire surface action force and they could do it too.
However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?
Indeed no Operation Overlord may have happened, no invasion of northern France almost wholly due to changes therefore to Operation Point Blank and no attainment of air superiority in western Europe due to a severe downgrading or cancellation of the daylight bombing campaign.

But this is the most important point: it would have changed nothing for Germany, only for British and American involvement in the defeat of Germany. Gaining air superiority over western Europe, the Channel Front was necessary only to permit an invasion of northern France, and it was only around 200 Luftwaffe fighters defending it at the best of times, in the final years. It started off with only 26 operational defensive fighters in 1942 (edit; and iirc, this was a low point at the beginning of '42 in terms of immediate response units, total strength was about 80 109F capable of being directed to a region if somewhat prepared), covering the entirety of nothern France and the Low Countries.

Had these been freed for service on the Eastern Front they could have made no difference whatsoever, it was a case of a few hundred in total against some 15,000 and getting worse.

Hence post war soviet control of western Europe by simple occupation and adamant claims of sole liberation. And keep in mind a great proportion of western Europe not only believed in communism, but was reaffirmed by Nazi Germany in this belief, not in capitalism which let's face it, a fair number believed helped cause the whole matter to begin with.

England was working a lot with US built planes and equipment. Same with the Russians. Monty was paralyzed in North Africa, following his pattern of attack, build up forces until you have near-perfect intelligence and at minimum a 2:1 force ratio. The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.
The drive to Berlin involved at best guess around 15,000 Soviet combat aircraft comprising roughly 50% numbers of the IL2 Sturmovik ground attack fighters as the primary tactical doctrine, next to the T-34/85 tank and ISU series SPG's. And the variety of Soviet made fighters in service, Yak-7, Yak-1B, Yak-9, Yak-9T, Yak-9U, Yak-9D, Yak-9M and Yak-9B, plus La-5F, La-5FN and La-7 (series 1), plus LaGG-3 (series 35), LaGG-3 (series 66) and LaGG-3IT and a partridge in a pear tree. At one time on the whole Eastern Front there were around 24,000 IL2 Sturmoviks alone listed as currently in action, a figure never surpassed in aviation history.

There were relatively small numbers of American made P-39N and Q Airacobras (remodelled to Soviet specifications by the manufacturer), and these were equipped only to Guards units (because they had such good comparative pilot equipment when they first appeared in numbers in 1943, more than any other single reason). The USSR also received a number of LF Mark Vb and later a handful of Mark IX Spitfires but performance was downgraded due to lower quality available fuel. Other than that a small number of Hurricanes and Warhawks were used around the Stalingrad period (mid-42 to early 43) and didn't see much more action due to their obsolescence compared to any Luftwaffe fighter types in service. Hurricanes were used almost exclusively for ground attack by this stage and Warhawks for escorting Sturmoviks, alongside early build LaGG-3 fighter-bombers (roughly equivalent to a Mark Ia Spit).

The United States had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the USSR driving to Berlin being a wholesale victory. US lend-lease primarily saved Stalingrad from certain defeat by October '42. Without the US Stalingrad would've been lost, then recaptured, all in all it was worth an extra, poorly equipped Soviet army along with the two already lost by September, out of about 15 in the immediate vicinity. Trust me, America made mostly a political difference, and one of international morale, they even made a logistical one insofar as it helped out of a bad period there for a few months, but it ultimately made no strategic difference whatsoever. Nothing would've changed...bar more people killed amid millions being killed. It's even up for some very loose speculation if it could possibly have delayed anything, the forces being built by Zhukov were being equipped from Ural factories. Most of the US stuff either went to second echelon units in the field (those not involved in Uranus or Little Saturn), or second echelon units in the Kuban (Cossacks, Gherkas and Kyrghs, whom the Russians had a bit of antipathy with...ahem along with Georgians, Baltics and Ukrainians lol).

Similarly the United States did as much for the Battle of Britain, adamantly supplying England, as far as relative impact this was far and away more significant. But in terms of direct US involvement it hardly played any role at all in Europe. America's role in Europe during WW1 was far more significant, representing a reserve force Germany was too exhausted to continue hostilities with. In WW2 Germany already had no chance against the Soviets alone anyway, not after Moscow, the Mediterranean (in terms of cost to the Luftwaffe and merchant navy) and Kursk. Combining the results of those three campaigns is what directly defeated Germany.

Web Rider
12-06-2008, 04:36 AM
So, in the end, the US did a lot to help everyone else out, but didn't do it single-handedly.

Personally, I love it when the UK or France complains that Hollywood doesn't make enough movies about their WWI/II soldiers. Srsly, make your own movies, you'll like 'em, we won't, just like we like our movies, and you don't. Every country loves a hero, and they love them more if they're from their own country, so it's only logical that a country will parade their efforts more than their buddies.

vanir
12-06-2008, 04:46 AM
Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.
And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.

Web Rider
12-06-2008, 04:59 AM
Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.
And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.

No, I disagree. I think a country's primary goals and obligations are to it's own people, to make us healthy, wealthy, and wise. Yes, it is good to know that the Allies ALL worked together to win WWII, but I have no problem with the US promoting to it's citizens the US side of the story. The US helped, a LOT, and there's nothing wrong IMO, with saying that, there is a problem IMO, with taking ALL the credit.

But first and foremost, our concerns should be ourselves. We have no right to help others if we cannot help ourselves. We have no right to educate others if we cannot educate ourselves, you get the idea. We have every right to put our concerns above others, because you can bet that they are putting their concerns above ours.

Astor
12-06-2008, 05:02 AM
However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

Ever heard of this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_E._Morgan)? or this?

General Sir Bernard Montgomery was named as commander of the 21st Army Group, to which all of the invasion ground forces belonged, and was also given charge of developing the invasion plan.

mur'phon
12-06-2008, 06:01 AM
The Russian's did not Liberate any square millimeter of European soil
Wrong, northern Norway was liberated by the reds, no occupation folowed there. Besides, the people in several countries actually wanted to join the Soviet Union, so you could argue those were liberated as well (that they weren't alowed to leave is a diferent matter).

vanir
12-06-2008, 07:05 PM
No, I disagree. I think a country's primary goals and obligations are to it's own people, to make us healthy, wealthy, and wise. Yes, it is good to know that the Allies ALL worked together to win WWII, but I have no problem with the US promoting to it's citizens the US side of the story. The US helped, a LOT, and there's nothing wrong IMO, with saying that, there is a problem IMO, with taking ALL the credit.

But first and foremost, our concerns should be ourselves. We have no right to help others if we cannot help ourselves. We have no right to educate others if we cannot educate ourselves, you get the idea. We have every right to put our concerns above others, because you can bet that they are putting their concerns above ours.

You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.

Web Rider
12-06-2008, 09:07 PM
You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.
Well if you want to take it that far then maybe the fact that Britain does not allow Budweiser to call itsself beer because it fears them undermining british beers is a sign that Britian is going to kill some Jews....or maybe some rednecks.

Look I hate to pull Goodwin's Law on you but you basically said "putting your nations interests first makes you a Nazi". And that's simply not the case. Yeah, it CAN be the case if you want to take it to the extent they did, but moreover, it is NOT the case. Nations put their interests first all the time, Germany protects it's businesses and workers over foreign companies. Japan favors their businesses and citizens over foreign ones. China is happy to accommodate foreign business but slaps down a load of China-centric regulations on them.

Ireland(I think it's Ireland) has continually voted against certain EU treaties to protect their interests. Every nation on this green earth favors the people and mindsets in their dominion over the people and mindsets beyond them. Does this mean we're all gonna start marching off to war on each other? Of course not. It may in some cases, but such is human nature.

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.
Please show me where this mystical second holocaust is going on. I'm not saying don't try to see their point of view, or understand their point of view, remember I said "Wise" in "healthy, wealthy and wise", but that doesn't mean we should just give creedence to every opinion under the sun as though they were all equal.

That kind of wanton cultural relativism is just as bad as the kind of cultural insulation you're complaining about(the kind that doesn't exist and you're doing a fine job exaggerating.)

vanir
12-07-2008, 04:14 AM
Nations put their interests first all the time, Germany protects it's businesses and workers over foreign companies. Japan favors their businesses and citizens over foreign ones. China is happy to accommodate foreign business but slaps down a load of China-centric regulations on them.
So now we're talking business administration and I understand the philosophy, "well everybody else is doing it," really I do. But it is not the only means of business management.
Some businesses believe that you invest for a return.

You seem very young to be so cynical, Web Rider. From experience I might suggest funding patriotism with cynicism to garner a sense of belonging is a very bad idea. It is smartest to consider yourself belonging to an international community first and work back from there. It simply opens more doors. Most importantly it is the responsibility of your government to represent and to change for you, not the other way around. And it will.

jonathan7
12-07-2008, 07:04 AM
I just want to point out at this time that this thread has the potential to spire out of control quickly into "anti-Americanism" - if it does it will be locked, and infractions will result, so please be careful about what you post, be sensitive to our American friends here on the boards. Please also remember that America is a very diverse place, and I don't think the government truly represents any Americans viewpoints, there is also a difference between government policy and what the people want. Finally I would like to note, having been the the U.S. recently I actually prefer the States to the U.K. - in my experience they are usually more friendly, more helpful, and far more direct that many from the U.K (and by extension Europe) - all the former are qualities I admire. -- j7

True_Avery
12-07-2008, 08:01 AM
I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.
The irony of this OP is that it contradicts the point of what you are trying to point out.

"Why are Americans such douchebags! Us here in the UK and such arn't as bad as them"

Congrats, you are now an insular European.

Oh, and by the way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

You should probably look up the derogatory term "Yank" before you use it in a sentence asking why Americans are such ignorant tools...

It really, really makes your argument look bad.

Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.
And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.
Yeah, too bad that doesn't sell in the box office.

Also, point out a "benevolent" government that hasn't gone bankrupt by its bleeding heart.

You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.
You do realize that by placing yourself above America and the Nazi's, you yourself are being insular? You've done nothing but bash America, but you've done so in a very subjective way. Meaning, you are a European who's nationalistic views (however big or small) are showing through in your argument.

Your view of what is "benevolent" is probably subjective, and thus your view of what the world should be so by extension insular.

And before you pull out the Nazi flag, realize that the Nazi's weren't so much for themselves as they were extending their influence and teachings across the world.

Remember, the Nazi's thought of themselves as liberators of the world. They were the benevolent bleeding hearts in World War 2, not the rest of the world. Trying to free the world is hardly "keeping to yourself" as Web Rider put it.

So no, Web Rider's suggestion is hardly Nazi Germany. If you want to pull up comparisons to World War 2, then Web Rider is isolationist America and your world view would be closer to that of the Nazi's.

I'm not calling you a Nazi, I'm just saying that a desire to change the world to fit your supposed view of a Utopia puts you in their general category along with thousands of other groups.

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.
That would be fantastic if it wasn't for the fact that Empathy only reaches so far. It is in fact -impossible- to know what another person thinks and sees through their eyes, because you can never be them. You can only make vague assumptions based on your subjective and short interactions with a side of them that is only shown in a social environment.

You've never met anyone in your life if you think about it. We all have our self, and we have a mask we put on for everyone else. Our Self only shows when we are alone, and the mask goes on whenever we interact with another social being.

You can try to think objectively, but its really a fools game in the end. You'll always have a subjective bias working upon you. Its why you posted "Yank" at the beginning of the thread. Its why you've pointed out America, but not your own country or even yourself.

Sorry, but welcome to being alive.

So now we're talking business administration and I understand the philosophy, "well everybody else is doing it," really I do. But it is not the only means of business management.
Some businesses believe that you invest for a return.
Just because the business takes and chance and invests doesn't make it -any- less selfish. They invested because the want to try and make more money off of the investment. Its self interest, and its a basic part of being alive and its Human Nature down to the core. Self preservation and interest is one of the few pre-programmed things that keep us from being born Tabula Rasa.

You seem very young to be so cynical, Web Rider.
Optimism is just as bad as being a cynic.

From experience I might suggest funding patriotism with cynicism to garner a sense of belonging is a very bad idea. It is smartest to consider yourself belonging to an international community first and work back from there. It simply opens more doors.
You could start by not calling Americans ignorant "Yanks" who are the problem. While to some degree I agree, but you started this entire thing on the wrong foot by pointing at Americans first and not yourself and your own country along the way.

Most importantly it is the responsibility of your government to represent and to change for you, not the other way around. And it will.
The definition in the dictionary is often completely different from how real life works.

You are selfish for wanting the government to appeal to you and your peoples demands. The government is selfish for wanting to do what it wants to do. That nun is selfish for helping that kid in order to get into heaven.

What you are talking about is this:

Independent thought is "evil". Too bad that is what makes you and I human, and if you'd like that to go away then we would be "animals" again. Nothing else to it.

People are not designed to be bleeding hearts. We are actually incapable of being selfless. If you do manage to be 100% selfless, than it is an act of either insanity, or you are not even part of this universe. Even atoms selfishly try to balance their charges, or something. Not a physics whiz myself.

Here, a post from another thread:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2558971&postcount=24
For that answer, take a sociology/psychology class.

A pretty much universal rule is that everything people do has a selfish motive behind it. Even if it is a nun helping a homeless child, the nun is doing it for the self knowledge and satisfaction that what she is doing is right, helps her god love her, and will get her heaven points.

Selfish motive drives us into doing anything. So, you do something because you think it is "good" or "right" for you in your current situation and will benefit you in some way more than other options.

So, a Sith Lord kills a bunch of people. Are they Jedi? Because the Sith religious belief is that Jedi are fools that don't deserve the power they have. By killing them, they believe what they are doing is "right" and have justified it in their mind in a way that personally benefits themselves.

Now, if they are killing for the fun of it then it is also deemed "right" in their minds. By killing someone, they are gaining entertainment and a good feeling that personally benefits themselves in either a financial, spiritual, etc way.

Same goes for a Jedi, a mother, a nun, etc. They step in and help someone, they are doing it for a motive of self interest. Whether that a feeling of self satisfaction, entertainment, or an escape from a depressed lonely feeling, etc.

Without this self interest, people would not kill each other, but mothers would also not take care of their children.

Now, there are a few types of people that this rule does not fully apply to: The insane, and Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or rather people with Antisocial personality disorder or Dissocial personality disorder.

The legal definition of insanity is someone who mentally have no concept of an action being "right" or "wrong", thus the selfish interest is not always there as the action seemingly has no benefit for themselves as far as they can see.

If you do something under the personal knowledge that it is wrong and do it under the personal knowledge that you will gain nothing from it, then the action is an action of a Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or someone with Antisocial or Dissocial disorder. Its only 1 or 2 of them, but I'm not exactly sure which so if anyone knows the clear differences between them you can correct me.

I could go into the differences between Sociopaths/Psychopaths, Antisocial personality disorder, and Dissocial personality disorder, but it would take me a few hours to write.

All the Sith Lords and Jedi I have seen thus far have been motivated by some form of self interest. Thus, they are for the most part like every other human being, but now with the ability to move **** with their minds.

So, in summary, killing for fun and killing for a purpose are the same thing.

That help at all?

Sorry, but selfless people and selfless societies do not and will not exists as long as human nature exists within humans. As being living beings part of this Universe, we are driven by self interest. Selfish desire.

You are selfish by wanting America to conform to your standards. America is selfish for wanting you to conform to theirs. You are selfish for calling them out for it, but not yourself or your own country.

I am selfish for every action I have ever done ever, and so are you, and so is Web Rider and everyone else on this forum, country, earth, and universe down to electrons.

If you think you can finally bring about Communism Utopia, then be my guest and try.

It wont work though, and you would be selfish for trying.

And just to clear this out, I am not insulting you or anyone else. I'm selfish, your selfish, he's selfish. We're all selfish and always will be. And by extension, so is our government, country, continent, world, planet, solar system.

For more, take some Sociology classes. I've found them all to be fascinating.

By the way, sorry if you're not from Europe. I really have no clue where you live, but I'm just assuming by what you're saying.

Lance Monance
12-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Is it considered fact that humans are purely motivated by self-interest? Incapable of being selfless?

It is in fact -impossible- to know what another person thinks and sees through their eyes, because you can never be them
Yet psychologists or sociologists happen to know what motivates our actions?

TKA-001
12-07-2008, 11:26 AM
If absolutely everything is motivated by selfishness, then selfishness itself has no meaning and therefore can't be said to be the motivation for anything.

vanir
12-07-2008, 02:02 PM
Well, True_Avery satisfactorily convinced me of J7's point and to avoid further bloodshed I'm going to leave this thread where it stands.

In any case I'd like to thank all contributors for their insights, including yours T_A and Web Rider. All in all it formed a most interesting point of reference I may use at an anthropology site I'm a member of.

Thanks again.

Web Rider
12-07-2008, 03:46 PM
Yet psychologists or sociologists happen to know what motivates our actions?
They know how you work, but they don't know YOU. That's the difference here. They know how the average human of your age bracket and socio-economic standing should operate based on what others have done.

That does not mean they know the specifics of you.

If absolutely everything is motivated by selfishness, then selfishness itself has no meaning and therefore can't be said to be the motivation for anything.
Not exactly, since there are still the "rational" motivations for doing something, like giving to the poor. But what you gain out of that is maybe a tax writeoff or a sense of doing good that you like. Your motivator may be helping the poor, but the fact that you also enjoy what you get out of it makes it somewhat selfish.

There are degrees to everything, that's just life.

Vaelastraz
12-07-2008, 04:44 PM
They know how you work, but they don't know YOU. That's the difference here. They know how the average human of your age bracket and socio-economic standing should operate based on what others have done.

That does not mean they know the specifics of you.

If they don't know what's going on in my head then they cannot claim that I act due to self-interest when I do something altruistic. A model of self-interest or rational choice may be able to predict what I do, but they can't make a qualified statement about my motivations.

True_Avery
12-07-2008, 05:44 PM
If they don't know what's going on in my head then they cannot claim that I act due to self-interest when I do something altruistic. A model of self-interest or rational choice may be able to predict what I do, but they can't make a qualified statement about my motivations.
Ok, name one action you've ever done where you never got something back in return. Not even a slightly, tiny feeling of happiness, self fulfillment, etc.

You wouldn't give money to the bum unless you felt some form of self payback, even if its a fleeting emotion. If you got 0 out of it, not even a feeling of self accomplishment, you wouldn't do it.

We do things out of some degree of self interest. Is that a bad thing? Hell no. Is being selfish a bad thing? Hell no.

Doing nothing is a bad thing. If you get a feeling of accomplishment by helping orphans, or giving to the poor, then power to you. Just don't deny that every time you do it you are expecting some form of payback for your actions. Whether that be a feeling, knowledge of kharma points, looking good to your god, looking good to others, looking good to yourself, maybe that the guy owes you money later, etc.

Jae Onasi
12-07-2008, 05:49 PM
Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.
If you're asking if Japanese are inferior to Americans, no. If you're asking if Americans had technological warfare superiority to Japanese in 1945, technically yes--US had nukes, Japanese did not.

Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.The Germans were winning until the US got involved. Without US involvement the rest of Europe may very well have fallen. I don't think the UK would have been able to hold off the Germans very much longer if we hadn't gotten involved. Obviously the US couldn't have won WWII without UK and USSR, however, but without the US all of Europe might indeed have fallen.

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?I think you've confused American military superiority in WWII with overall American superiority.

In some ways the US is superior--in terms of military advances, medical advances, many scientific and technology advances, business/monetary, etc. In other ways the US is not superior. We don't have universal healthcare, we don't have decent access financially to college, our work ethic that makes us so successful in business also drives us to insane levels of workhours which has had an impact on family life in my view, our divorce rate is quite high, and we have serious anxiety/depression issues on average because of the type of lifestyle we're trying to live. Rampant consumerism has lead in part to the financial meltdown this year--people spending on average more than they could afford, and the financial chickens have come home to roost.

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.
There is some idea that we Americans do it 'the right way' and everyone else does it 'the wrong way', yes, but that attitude is not exclusive to Americans. I saw that attitude in France, as well--any country that has a gov't agency intended to 'keep the language pure' probably has some thoughts on what language they think is superior, no?

jonathan7
12-07-2008, 06:05 PM
The Germans were winning until the US got involved. Without US involvement the rest of Europe may very well have fallen. I don't think the UK would have been able to hold off the Germans very much longer if we hadn't gotten involved. Obviously the US couldn't have won WWII without UK and USSR, however, but without the US all of Europe might indeed have fallen.

Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked :D

Darth333
12-07-2008, 11:04 PM
I I saw that attitude in France, as well--any country that has a gov't agency intended to 'keep the language pure' probably has some thoughts on what language they think is superior, no?How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard means that someone thinks himself superior to another nation (English words are in fact taking more and more space in the French language...it was the contrary back in the 17-18th centuries - due to communications today, those changes are more obvious and not reserved to a certain 'elite"- but now, French sentences such as "Je vais acheter du fastfood avant d'aller prendre ma voiture au parking pour le weekend" - I will buy some fastfood before getting my car from the parking lot for the weekend - are part of every day life). It's not about being against something but simply keeping some quality to what you already have and ensuring that people on a given territory can understand each other...English countries certainly feel that this kind of "attitude" is less relevant since English has become today's business language and no "protection" measures" are needed.

(I won't go any further on the issue here as I still want to stay on topic).

Anyway, I see the issue more as when someone goes to another country and try to impose their own rules or judge the local customs/culture traits based on what is going on in their own country (on the individual as well as a corporate or national level...)

Web Rider
12-07-2008, 11:31 PM
How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.
You misunderstand. France does not promote the use of traditional languages. In fact it is only recently(due to EU legislation) that France even recognized that there are other dialects of French in their country. For the last couple hundred years, France has run a campaign of squashing every language except the "official" version of French.

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard
Keeping the language standardized wasn't the problem, it was the nationalistic destruction of other languages and cultures in order to preserve "Frenchness".

vanir
12-09-2008, 04:12 AM
If you're asking if Japanese are inferior to Americans, no. If you're asking if Americans had technological warfare superiority to Japanese in 1945, technically yes--US had nukes, Japanese did not.
The sentence you refer to was a relation, not a question. If it was a question I would've placed it within a context, for clarity sake. The context it refers to is not related to your response ;)
The Germans were winning until the US got involved.
WW1? This is completely innacurate as a statement about WW2. It is widely recognised the German war was lost by 1943 (including at the time, by Chiefs of Staff on all sides), most speculators suggest it was lost by December 1941, and it was most assuredly lost on the Eastern Front. American involvement in invading nothern France was wholly motivated by concerns about Soviet control in post war western Europe. Had they not been involved another war may very well have immediately started between the UK and USSR. Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).
American military superiority in WWII
The United States had military superiority in the Pacific Theatre. The Allied Expeditionary Force held military superiority in Europe until 1941 (technically the Battle of France was won against the odds, with an inferior force). Germany held military superiority in Europe for a short period between mid 1941 and late 1942, the Soviet Union held military superiority in Europe from 1942 until about 1958. The United States has arguably held military superiority in Europe since that time, though never with conventional weaponry until fairly recently. It should be mentioned that due to Normandy, the US could put up a good show in Europe from 1944 onwards, but the USSR was King.

At the height of the early Cold War, in the late 'fifties it was politically recognised the United States could not stand up to a drive by Soviet forces further into western Europe from the Balkans. It was simple arithmatic: Soviet nuclear bombers had proven faster speeds and greater defence penetration capabilities than the majority available US interceptors could match (Backfires versus Supersabres). Soviet interceptors were breaking world absolute speed records it was taking the entire concentrated US economy to achieve, and they were equipping front line units with them which the US could never have done for the sheer, ridiculous expense (MiG-25 versus YF-12A proposed interceptor derivative of the top secret, titanium-alloy A-12 Blackbird). In fact at this time the United States erroneously assumed the Soviets had developed some unknown aerospace technology, perhaps captured from Germany. US ballistic missile development was directly a product of German/Nazi scientists like von Braun and the development of the A4/V2 German wartime ballistic missile, for example.

The US could not hope to match Soviet tank numbers, who had constantly updated the highly successful T-34/85 and IS-2/3 models. Worst of all the Soviet military was entirely geared for operations in a nuclear/chemical/biological environment due to assumptions made about the US (that it was use these types of weapons in a first strike against the USSR). As a sidenote this has always remained the standard doctrine of Soviet forces, all AFV's are fully sealed, all front line soldiers equipped with protective gear, etc.

The US and USSR were approximately equal in nuclear technologies, both free fall bombs and medium range missles being used (MRBM), plus some tactical nukes such as nuclear torpedos (USSR) and nuclear tipped air-to-air missiles (US).

Finally, during the late 'fifties the USSR moved approximately two-thirds their entire tank and tactical strike capabilities to a tremendous build up in the Balkan states whilst communist East Germany attempted to become accepted as a satellite state, to push western occupation out of western Berlin and West Germany. Western Germany was where of course many US bases were, and the independence of western Berlin was guaranteed by NATO, which was formed due to this conflaguration.

At this point the US used its wartime contacts and Allied wartime political influence to place MRBM's in Turkey (ie. political pressure), from which the nuclear warheads could reach Russian cities They were the first of the superpowers to gain the capability of launching a direct first strike from home bases (previously free fall bombs flown there by aircraft had to be used if each others' countries were to be attacked directly).

An ultimatum was received by the Soviet cabinet. Any move into East Germany will be immediately followed by a nuclear first strike by the United States, due to Soviet conventional military superiority in Europe (a state which had definitively existed since 1945 and arguably since 1943).

The Soviets responded by trying to put MRBM's in Cuba. This was blocked by the apparent preparedness of JFK to go to full scale nuclear war whilst the United States were still the only of the pair capable of a ballistic nuclear first strike (ie. an attack by a weapon type which cannot be intercepted by defensive aircraft). Until the Soviets had nukes in Cuba, they had to use bombers and free fall nukes, which can be intercepted by Air National Guard units (Delta Daggers and Delta Darts) using nuclear tipped missiles capable of taking out entire formations.

The gamble worked, the Soviets backed down, Bay of Pigs got cancelled midway, JFK got murdered, and the US had military superiority in Europe for the first time since 1917. Due to the nukes in Turkey. Soon enough though, ICBM's appeared and changed the game again to an all out anybody's guess.
In some ways the US is superior--in terms of military advances, medical advances, many scientific and technology advances, business/monetary, etc. In other ways the US is not superior.
I do not agree with this attitude. In the words of Peter Darman, "Colonialism, the subjugation of a people by a foreign state was fuelled by Nationalism, the belief that one race is superior to another."
Due to the universal recognition there are no subdivisions or "races" within Homo Sapiens Sapiens (as much variation exists within any regional or cultural group as outside the group), therefore one can safely substitute the term "race" in the above quote as being "national culture," a term which would most accurately address the point being made by its author.

See the whole point is and this is a massive point, the lesson that was supposed to have been learned from WW2 was changing our (ie. democratic) political attitudes (from foreign policy to domestic culture) to not go around creating Nazis (and Stalins) elsewhere. And yet here we are, an Idi Amin and Mugabe later, a Pol Pot and Al Qeda and all the others.

And if you ask those people/groups they'll all tell it is the US/UN/NATO/League of Nations/UK/French fault, whom did indeed perform sanctions/policing actions/invade and colonise/dictate policy/etc.

Hitler blamed the League of Nations and if you research enough, there is so much foundation for the claim that W.Wilson took the United States and withdrew from League formation on moral grounds (and left the continent on medical grounds cited as being caused by the negotiations and assertions placed forth at Versailles and elsewhere). Hitler was created, that's what is meant when learned historians say, "we must never let it happen again." They sure as hell don't mean, "let's start hunting for Hitlers among the kids."

Similarly if you investigate colonialism you'll find those very same attitudes behind policing the Middle East and they're all about racial (ie. cultural/political and ultimately intellectual) superiority. I mean we get the modernised version in school, "yeah our grandaddies were a bit racist, oh well let's keep the gold and heal the world," but if you do the research you'll find out actually, we're still using the same legal system and much of the same legislation, more to the point we're still using precisely the same arguments.
Grandaddy thought he was healing the world, he thought the Aborigines and Amerindians and whoever were being dominated by "evil empires" and unsavoury individuals or cultural practises. The military got involved because there was money in it, and the aristocrats (whether economic or hereditary) control the military in lieu of an absolutist monarch or a dictator. There's no difference between Bismarck and Grant. And ultimately their designs are strategic and economic. And there's no differnce between shooting blackfellers and redskins to shooting towelheads. It was for gold, now it's for oil. You say, "No, there's political reasons," yeah sure, so were there then, hence the legislation and gold ownership still stands now. It's about the oil. And the funny part is that is the true definition of racism (hence many Arabs and many, many others call Euro-Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc. racist, regardless of our tremendous efforts to make using racial slurs a serious offence...because children and criminal governments ~just don't get it~).

Of course it's not an American phenomenon (I've already mentioned in a previous post), and many Americans are objective, clear individuals. I do certainly hope they prevail. In every nation I always hope the well educated, the benevolently intelligent, the smartly objective, prevail in all things. But the American government and its policies, or world history are not arguments this is the case, at all.

Don't even get me started on US and British culpability on starting the Pacific war too. Look up Treaty Ports and Manchuria prior to any Japanese involvement. Research the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Boxer Rebellion and the Kuomintang. Paints a very different overall picture than a mean, nasty bunch of wonton imperialists waving their fists and surprise attacking anybody.

And as far as Japanese war technology goes, it was ahead of the United States at the start of the war, lagged at the end primarily for industrial reasons and overall must be considered like virtually every contemporary nation at the time, to be precisely equal. Germany was not really ahead overall, the UK wasn't, actually nobody was. I can back that argument up, but that would require its own thread as it would get quite detailed. And it has nothing to do with the discussion topic, it was never a question placed before this forum.


To all browsers:
This is not a bash America thread, btw.
I will not enter into a heated and unintelligable argument. America has some things/policies I actually quite very much like, but one shouldn't have to go around begging to have a point of view.

The subject was only those individuals who seem to use being American as some kind of superiority towards academia (ie. consider obvious patriotism an academic argument and any challenge as excuse for a competitive debate).
This whole thread has actually helped me personally already, you know. The poorly informed and impressively ignorant bother me very much less again.

Cheers to all intelligent yanks for making the world a better place, not because you're American, but because you're smart ;)

jonathan7
12-09-2008, 07:19 AM
The sentence you refer to was a relation, not a question. If it was a question I would've placed it within a context, for clarity sake. The context it refers to is not related to your response ;)

WW1? This is completely innacurate as a statement about WW2. It is widely recognised the German war was lost by 1943 (including at the time, by Chiefs of Staff on all sides), most speculators suggest it was lost by December 1941, and it was most assuredly lost on the Eastern Front. American involvement in invading nothern France was wholly motivated by concerns about Soviet control in post war western Europe. Had they not been involved another war may very well have immediately started between the UK and USSR. Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).

I'd dispute this for the following reason; had the States not provided massive logistical help to both the UK and the Soviet Union, in the form of materials etc, even the Soviet Union might of collapsed in the wake of the massive Nazi onslaught. The Nazi's did run themselves aground in the USSR, and the war was turning when the Americans officially got involved, but they still played an instrumental role in the war in Europe - and pretty much won the pacific all on their own. As for WW1, I think the British Empire (even on its own) would eventually have beaten the Germans, it just would of taken a very long time.

Q
12-09-2008, 12:09 PM
Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked :D
I agree with this assessment. Had the Luftwaffe been able to destroy RAF Fighter Command, the case could then be made that it would have been able to clear the Royal Navy from the Channel in support of a cross-Channel invasion flotilla, but that is a moot point since it ultimately failed to do so.

I believe that the u-boat menace was a far bigger threat to the UK's war effort and it is notable that Churchill himself admitted that it was the only enemy activity that truly frightened him.
As for WW1, I think the British Empire (even on its own) would eventually have beaten the Germans, it just would of taken a very long time.
This is open to debate, however, as the Germans came much, much closer to winning World War I than they ever did World War II, IMO.
To all browsers:
This is not a bash America thread, btw.
I have not viewed it as such, and I find it rather curious that some have (erroneously, IMO) chosen to do so.
The subject was only those individuals who seem to use being American as some kind of superiority towards academia
I can't imagine why, because this thread would seem to reveal some serious shortfalls in our education system (imagine that, America!).
Cheers to all intelligent yanks for making the world a better place, not because you're American, but because you're smart ;)
I'd like to think that, in spite of our mistakes, we've done our part, but I'm not about to belittle the contributions of other nations who have done the same.

And, no, I don't view your use of the word "yank" as derogatory because I don't believe that it was meant as such, and I fail to understand why anyone else would, either. ;)

Web Rider
12-09-2008, 12:10 PM
Don't even get me started on US and British culpability on starting the Pacific war too. Look up Treaty Ports and Manchuria prior to any Japanese involvement. Research the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Boxer Rebellion and the Kuomintang. Paints a very different overall picture than a mean, nasty bunch of wonton imperialists waving their fists and surprise attacking anybody.

If you're talking about China, that's the Ming dynasty, the Boxer Rebellion, and the KMT. Japan, because it established itsself as a military power in the Pacific before it was overrun with Western guys trying to eat it alive, was well involved in the taking of China for everything it's worth.

Palpatine_dc
12-09-2008, 04:08 PM
Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).


Untrue, at the time of the Japanese surrender a 3rd bomb was on the way to Tinian, and was expected to be used around august 24/25, with a 4th about 2 weeks later. Those last 2 were used in the Bikini island tests in 1946. Atomic bomb production continued at lower peace-time peace but that still meaned that when the Soviets detonated their first A-bomb, the US had about 4-5 Little Boy type and about 100 Fat Man type weapons in stockpile. Those are NARA figures btw.
Japan only surrendered because of the 2 A-bombs. The firebombings had been going on for 4 months and and because of the naval blockade imports had been reduced to around 10% of the 1941 level. And still the only reason the military leadership surrendered was the second bomb. In fact they were arguing it was a one of a kind bomb the US could not massproduce and that Japan should continue the war when news was brought in of Nagasaki.



The United States had military superiority in the Pacific Theatre. The Allied Expeditionary Force held military superiority in Europe until 1941 (technically the Battle of France was won against the odds, with an inferior force). Germany held military superiority in Europe for a short period between mid 1941 and late 1942, the Soviet Union held military superiority in Europe from 1942 until about 1958.


If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR. Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.


(Backfires versus Supersabres). Soviet interceptors were breaking world absolute speed records it was taking the entire concentrated US economy to achieve, and they were equipping front line units with them which the US could never have done for the sheer, ridiculous expense (MiG-25 versus YF-12A proposed interceptor derivative of the top secret, titanium-alloy A-12 Blackbird). In fact at this time the United States erroneously assumed the Soviets had developed some unknown aerospace technology, perhaps captured from Germany. US ballistic missile development was directly a product of German/Nazi scientists like von Braun and the development of the A4/V2 German wartime ballistic missile, for example.


Several things wring with that
Tu 22M Backfires were and SuperSabres were hardly the same generation. The former started entering Soviet front-line service in '71 while the latter served only in the ANG from '71.
As for Soviet bombers superior? Their first nuclear capable bomber they had was a inferior copy of the B 29. US bombers have always been superior in numbers and capabilities compared to the Soviets. Strategic Air Command had about 1500 intercontinental bombers at peak strength, Soviet Long-range Aviation never reached those numbers.
When Lt Belenko defected to the West in his MiG 25 in 1976, its shortcomings were painfully revealed. Inferior radar and electronics, undurable engines and little manoeuvrebility. About the only thing it had was speed.

Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked

Concur entirely. Germany never had the naval means for crossing the Channel, let alone establish a steady supply route. The Seel÷we plan was a nice piece of fiction anyway: the invasion force consisted of 15 divisions. Initial landing would have consisted of a battalion of each division to be landed at 15 different places along a 200km front using converted Reine arks over the course of 2 days. Another week would have been necessary to transfer the rest of the divisions to UK shores. If they had tried they would have been shredded.

jonathan7
12-09-2008, 04:37 PM
If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR.

QFT

Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.

I actually think Hitlers worst mistake (and there are a few howlers) was still not having learned from Napleon some 100 years previously, and opening up that second front against the Soviet Union - though in the end it was the weather (and the much more complicated machinery of the Nazi war machine think - Panzer's (and the supply (or lack of) spare parts)) more than anything else that led to the Nazi invasion of Russia failing. Had he not started war with the Soviets, the Nazi's would have had a time of consolidating their power in pretty much all of Europe.

<sniped>

I concur, and generally would note that perhaps with the exception of the space race, the U.S. always had technological superiority over the Soviet Union. (*prepares for gross generalisation to be criticised*)

ForeverNight
12-09-2008, 06:06 PM
(*prepares for gross generalisation to be criticised*)

Why? When you look at the technologies that both sides had, it looks like -note I have not done any in-depth research on this subject- the US has usually had the Tech-edge. The Soviet Planes built were built to be able to take off from their crappy airstrips (The only area I think the USSR was better than the US) but didn't have the raw industrial power to build hordes of them.

Whereas the US was able to build tons of stuff in-house with no off-shoring involved, it really wasn't until the trailing edge of the Cold War that the US starting off-shoring a lot. So, in terms of out-put, the US was king.

We could just out-spend them. For every ICBM the USSR was able to build, we built 2,3, who knows off the top of their head? I sure don't.

Q
12-09-2008, 10:08 PM
When you look at the technologies that both sides had, it looks like -note I have not done any in-depth research on this subject- the US has usually had the Tech-edge.
Electronically speaking: definitely.
Metallurgically: maybe.
Aerodynamically: no.
The Soviet Planes built were built to be able to take off from their crappy airstrips (The only area I think the USSR was better than the US) but didn't have the raw industrial power to build hordes of them.
Huh? Their industrial base was huge. If they had put some of it to work producing cheap, high-quality consumer goods for export (like China did), the USSR might still be in existence today. They had thousands more combat aircraft than we did, but because electronics became more and more important, they began to fall behind in combat effectiveness per aircraft. By the '70s they realized that they couldn't continue to compete the way they had in the previous decades so they designed the MiG-29 and Su-27 in order to have more of a technical parity with the US and to a large degree they succeeded.

vanir
12-10-2008, 06:24 AM
Tu 22M Backfires were and SuperSabres were hardly the same generation.
Oops, sorry my bad. I was talking about the Tu-22 Blinder. It was in service a couple of years before being publicly revealed to the west in 1961, and had been picked up intruding NATO airspace doing supersonic dash at 1.4 Mach when the major US interceptor of the day was the 1.1 Mach Supersabre, and it was clearly a strategic nuclear delivery system (the blatant purpose of the airspace intrusions, to rattle a sabre).
During the entire early 60's period it was believed by NATO that the USSR had nuclear bomber superiority such that interceptor development at present could not stand up to a full scale nuclear war, though it was still believed NATO held tactical nuclear superiority. The problem was that if the US used tactical nukes to answer a Soviet conventional movement, the Soviets would respond with strategic bombers and probably win. Several tremendous expensive interceptor projects were underway in the US to meet this challenge, certainly it was not one which would be tolerated, but it was one which historically existed.
In any case the situation was changed by ballistic missiles and improving AA missile defence systems. For those few years however, things were very dicey indeed.

I'll have to come back to address other points, just passing through with things to do.

--------------------

back for a minute or two

As for Soviet bombers superior? Their first nuclear capable bomber they had was a inferior copy of the B 29. US bombers have always been superior in numbers and capabilities compared to the Soviets. Strategic Air Command had about 1500 intercontinental bombers at peak strength, Soviet Long-range Aviation never reached those numbers.
From around 1960 to around 1968 the Soviet strategic nuclear bomber force was believed by NATO (including the US) to be superior. Whether or not this was actually true (we could argue endlessly about our own speculations in hindsight), it was believed to be superior and these guys at least thought they knew what they were talking about. Look it up, read statements and transcripts.
When Lt Belenko defected to the West in his MiG 25 in 1976, its shortcomings were painfully revealed. Inferior radar and electronics, undurable engines and little manoeuvrebility. About the only thing it had was speed.

Once again, similar reasoning. The Ye-155P Foxbat prototype began development in 1959 and the CIA were aware of its development proposal since probably 1958 (first flight in 1964). Both nations were presently in a race to develop Mach 3 warplanes, both strategic bombers and interceptor/reconnaissance models, flying at near space altitudes. SAMs at this stage had not yet reached a guidence technology capable of intercepting such a thing, and there was nothing remotely portable for frontal defences which could fly that high or fast anyway. Both nations had a Mach 2 fighter/interceptor force entering mass production (F-104 and F-102/106, and MiG-21), but both nations wanted to take it to the limit so to speak.

The Cold War was obviously, already such a concern that Congress had passed a secretive funding project of literally hundreds of billions of US dollars to develop and produce small numbers of the all-titanium A-12 Mach 3 reconnaissance vehicle, which had a cruising altitude of 80,000 feet and was impervious to interception in 1963. Due to knowledge of the impending MiG-25 and another project, the Sukhoi Mach 3 strategic bomber (which never got beyond the prototype stage and that never made it past 1.8 Mach in any case), the US decided to develop the A-12, now called the Blackbird due to a new, radar absorption paintjob, into an interceptor derivative and what later became the Tomcat's Pheonix missile system was developed for it. Unfortunately the cost of a single aircraft to be produced and a single mission flown by it was exactly equivalent to a NASA space launch. In fact NASA ground control systems were requisitioned to control Blackbird missions, due to the complexity and high performance of these exceptional craft. It was impossible to conceive this warplane as a front line military aircraft of any kind. It would break the economy.

In the meantime a YF-12A prototype set the world speed record at 3.134 Mach during a high speed supersonic dash, in May 1965.
So a MiG-25 set the world absolute speed record over 1000km (ie. a high speed cruise) at 2.806 Mach in 1967 and had already entered front line service, both in reconnaissance and interceptor variants. In 1969 the engines were further upgraded and a precision supersonic bombing capability added, the aircraft rated at 2.8 Mach with a two-ton external bomb load. It also broke the world altitude record for an airbreathing craft without rocket assistance which stands to this day, at 118,898 feet.
Even the absolute speed record stood until 1976 in fact, when the SR-71 finally took it back at 3.204 Mach over 1000km. And the cost of doing this can only be described as astronomical.

At the time US defence Chiefs simply didn't understand it. How could the Soviets have this kind of performance in mass production, without some unknown, new aerospace technology?
In 1973 an Israeli ground station clocked a MiG-25 sold to Egyptians doing 3.2 Mach evading interception, and passed this information on to Americans. US. Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans declared the MiG-25, "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today."

In 1976 sure enough, when Belyenko defected it was discovered for the first time the shortcomings of the Foxbat. It was a human-guided strategic defence system, literally a missile with a man in it, designed to carry two large warheads to 80,000 feet or four to 70,000 feet and fire them up to 90,000 feet in as short a time as possible, a few minutes from a cold runway start. It wasn't even supersonic at sea level, its engines were terrifically prone to overspeeding and would experience "runaway rpm" if pressed beyond 2.5 Mach during normal flight operations. It had analogue instruments and no new technologies save for an immensely powerful radar set (it used to cook rabbits to death on the runway, and was so powerful it is still said it is perfectly capable of literally burning through any ECM attempt...but cannot determine targets at lower altitudes due to ground clutter and poor electronic translation). It was a one-shot, one-use defence system designed to counter a nuclear attack and not fight a conventional war.
However Belyenko at the same time, warned the US of a new derivative under current development, the MiG-31 Foxhound which entered service around 1990, with MiG-25 high performance and F-15 low altitude performance, and the weapons system of the Tomcat. It was coined the SuperMiG and remains the highest performing warplane throughout the envelope to enter front line service in history. It is also the most expensive, though nothing like the cost of a Blackbird and not significantly higher performing than an F-15 for the money, in an overall sense.

If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR. Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.
Actually I'm quite right, and you're very wrong (you seem to have the commercial media version, uncomplicated popularity before primary sourced). This one is going to be a seriously long conversation, so I'll come back to it. I assume we'll be using references, and it's going to get very extensive. Unfortunately at worst we'll arrive at the conclusion of an impasse, at best a begrudging acceptance of an impasse with clear reservations, but I'm utterly confident having just completed two years of research for my current publication, I've a subject library of things like diary transcripts (Gen Halder, etc.) that stacks as tall as me and have been all over every related site on the web...that being said, I've reached plenty of impasses on these sites before, sometimes due to ignorance but sometimes due to an equally qualified, however completely differing series of contentions. I do not deny that history can often back a variety of arguments. This then, I'll come back to, but tonight I'm already a little tired.

Tommycat
12-11-2008, 06:09 AM
In the meantime a YF-12A prototype set the world speed record at 3.134 Mach during a high speed supersonic dash, in May 1965.
So a MiG-25 set the world absolute speed record over 1000km (ie. a high speed cruise) at 2.806 Mach in 1967 and had already entered front line service, both in reconnaissance and interceptor variants. In 1969 the engines were further upgraded and a precision supersonic bombing capability added, the aircraft rated at 2.8 Mach with a two-ton external bomb load. It also broke the world altitude record for an airbreathing craft without rocket assistance which stands to this day, at 118,898 feet.
Even the absolute speed record stood until 1976 in fact, when the SR-71 finally took it back at 3.204 Mach over 1000km. And the cost of doing this can only be described as astronomical.

Just so you know the top speed of the SR-71 is still classified(most likely TS SCI). Her top cruising altitude is also classified(also likely SCI). Any numbers you get are officially accepted numbers, but so far the maximum capabilities will be classified probably until I'm dead. A couple of very important things to note: It takes time to declassify the speed of an aircraft... Especially a high speed reconnaisance plane. Note that the speed record was beaten by just enough to hold the record.

Not saying she was a perfect aircraft. Heck it took a buick engine just to get the thing started. She'd drip fuel on the tarmac and had no ability to have guns(it was tried and the thing shot herself down) or external armaments(again tried, but made her too unstable). She had a turn radius larger than the Sea of Japan at cruising speed. But she wasn't designed as a fighter. She was designed as a high altitude recon plane. Which sadly(or maybe not so sadly) that job has been taken over by UAV's and Satelites.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2008, 02:22 PM
How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.I'm not saying it isn't that, because uniformity does have its advantages. However, it's the attitude of 'keeping out the foreign words because it might corrupt our language' that comes through. The French are very proud of France and their 'French-ness', and that came through loud and clear when I visited there for a month. That does, at times, translate over as an air of superiority.

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard means that someone thinks himself superior to another nation (English words are in fact taking more and more space in the French language...How long did it take for the language agency to finally accept 'le weekend' as part of the language when it finally realized that it's a lot easier to say 'weekend' instead of 'fin de semaine'? A number of years.

English countries certainly feel that this kind of "attitude" is less relevant since English has become today's business language and no "protection" measures" are needed.One of my friends who does a lot of international business says a lot of business is conducted in English because he feels it's a more efficient than the Romance languages or even German. He knows a number of people who are fluent in multiple languages, but they invariably conduct business in English because it takes them twice as long or more to say the equivalent in Italian, French, or German.


Anyway, I see the issue more as when someone goes to another country and try to impose their own rules or judge the local customs/culture traits based on what is going on in their own country (on the individual as well as a corporate or national level...)
That is problematic for Americans. I'll be the first to admit that Americans can be rude (or perceived as such) when traveling or doing business in other countries. We're loud, expect everyone to speak English, and are very direct, which comes across as rude. When I went to France I tried to speak French as much as I could, and I was treated with a great deal more respect and politeness than my American counterparts who didn't even _try_ to speak French but instead expected everyone to cater to them. Even I found that offensive.

@j7--I agree with you--attacking Russia in winter was foolish for both Napoleon and Hitler, and one of, if not the, single biggest contributors to Germany's loss. I don't think they would have been able to beat USSR at any time anyway--while Germany clearly had better-trained troops, better equipment, and better quality supplies, at some point they would just have run out of people. Stalin had no problem throwing millions upon millions of troops at Hitler, and eventually sheer numbers would have won the day.

Tommycat
12-11-2008, 10:53 PM
The Germans never fully capitalized on their air superiority. They never invested in long range bombers and that is part of the reason that the push into Russia failed(dead people don't fight much). Granted a good amount of the reason Germany couldn't capitalize on the air superiority was the allies dropping metric craploads of bombs on the factories and depots. Germany had the best designed tanks, but they took too long to build. The Allies (primarily)used the Sherman which was outclassed by the german tanks but could be mass produced to insane numbers. I heard somewhere that our tanks outnumbered the german tanks something like 1000 to 1. I could be wrong(and probably am), but the advanced tank was too difficult to produce in vast numbers.

Germany also gave new equipment and supplies to the new recruits rather than the experienced soldiers. They were flat out silly in many areas. Germany was really doing it's best to lose the war.

Don't get me wrong I know how much our long range bomber force really helped to make sure that they couldn't capitalize on their strengths. Combine that with all the allies efforts, and the war in Europe was really won by all of us. Working together. The US was in the war long before war was declared. Mostly in shipping supplies. As for the battle of Britain. I have two words for ya: Eagle Squadrons.

CommanderQ
12-11-2008, 11:28 PM
Well, Jae, you are very right about the Russians and their hordes of inexperienced conscripts. But the problem with the Nazis goes farther than troops and equipment.


Nazi ideology practically dedicated itself to the destruction of the Russian people for their inhuman mongrel attitudes as Hitler's Mein Kampf put it. The Russian people, at first, greeted the Nazis as liberators because the Soviet Government was actually, in a way, worse than the Nazis.

Now Russians have never been good about invading people due to their disloyalty and sometimes utter hatred of their own Soviet Government. However, after the Nazis began to execute Russian men, women, and children, the Russian people became dedicated to defend their land, lives, and people. The fight was about patriotism for them, not for their "Glorious Leader, STALIN!" In fact, they were acting on revenge when the hordes of Russia decended on the German people and waged a war far worse than something Hitler had dreamed of. Now, if the Nazis had somehow won the Russian peoples hearts by acting as liberators{something impossible, for if the Nazis had that attitude, that war would never had occured}, the Russian people would've turned against their own government, provided they were encouraged. I'm glad, though, that the Russian people did rise in patriotism, otherwise, WW2 would've been a different, darker, story, the future would've been bad.

jonathan7
12-12-2008, 05:56 PM
Stay on-topic nudge ;) If you would like me to split all this air-craft chat into a separate thread please let me know :) Otherwise the discussion was about "Insular America", Thanks. -- j7

EDIT: Split topic off, please continue discussion of "Top Secret Aircraft" etc here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2565093#post2565093 - Thanks -- j7

vanir
12-12-2008, 06:33 PM
In that case I'd like to advise browsers to at least pop into the split topic. It is illustrative of US military evolution, and the forces which were driving its tremendous funding and almost subcultural industry. A penultimate point is the genuinely frightening nature of the Soviet military at the time, hardly a case of sheer US military superiority...but certainly a continuing commitment in trying to achieve military superiority (arguably achieved at some instances and under certain circumstances).

Tommycat
12-12-2008, 09:23 PM
Well we could just make mention that quite a bit was spent on both sides to achieve military superiority. At times the US held an advantage. At other times the USSR had the advantage. From both sides it was a matter of national pride to beat the other. It fueled the space race, the arms race, and of course drove us to develop tech. And of course the now infamous Star Wars project.

Speaking of which.... Our movies are better :D

vanir
12-13-2008, 07:59 PM
Well then getting back to the first pointed discussion of the topic posting, US military superiority in the WW2 European environment. In fact anything other than the summary I described of the Allied Expeditionary Force, a very limited German superiority, followed by Soviet military superiority in Europe during this period until such time as US strategic superiority was funded by the MRBM and ICBM nuclear projects (encompassing the domestic space program and local defence industry).

I think it might be most illustrative if we take specific moments and examine European military superiority at those times.

Let us start with say, beginning 1938. The European continent. Let's open the board for discussion.
I say, loosely:
No. 1: France.
No. 2: Soviet Union.
No. 3: Great Britain.
No. 4: Germany, close tie with Czechoslovakia and Italy.
No. 4.5: Poland
No. 5: Belgium, Rumania, the Baltics, Finland and the Balkans

Meanwhile world military powers at this time, again loosely:
No. 1: Great Britain
No. 2: USA
No. 3: Japan
No. 4: Soviet Union
No. 5: France closely tied with Italy

I'm going to consider world colonial powers irrelevent where this did not directly contribute to world military status.

Tommycat
12-13-2008, 11:40 PM
I dunno, Force Projection is a pretty big thing, but the sheer manufacturing capabilities of the US in 1938 combined with their large naval fleet really should have put it ahead of GB. We also had long range bombers. Namely the B17.

Also I'm surprised you put GB ahead of Germany in the European military superiority. I mean at the time GB was really unprepared for war where as Germany had been in full war production long before. VERY surprised by you placing the Soviet Union ahead of anyone considering how few suplies they had at the time. I have no problem with France being listed at the top, but I would suggest

1) France
2) Germany
3) Italy
4) Great Britan
5) Soviet Union

My reasoning: France had a large military, and lots of equipment and of course air support. Germany, well they had been building up for it a long time, technical superiority. Italy almost the same thing as Germany(minus the technical superiority). Great Britain, more troops trained, large Naval Force, but lacked the equipment and manufacturing capability. Soviet Union had LOTS and LOTS of people, but that's about it(well that and the T-26:D).

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.

What forum?


Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

This is actually something that can be successfully argued. Britain lacked the resources needed to actually challenge the Nazis for control of Europe. They needed the United States to provide the strength necessary to turn it into a two-front war.


I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

Depends on the school, many schools teach Americans are the cause of every problem in the world.

I'm going to say statistically the United States donates more money to charity than any other country in the world.


This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

Well based on your statements, I'd say very few of the Americans you consider to be objective to even be remotely objective.

Does America have its faults, yes it does, but it is hardly the monster that a lot of people both within the United States and outside the country constantly try to portray it as.

President Bush isn't the monster that people try to paint him as either.

jonathan7
12-16-2008, 04:11 PM
Moved WW2 - discussion here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194547 -- j7

vanir
12-16-2008, 11:26 PM
<snipped>

Well based on your statements, I'd say very few of the Americans you consider to be objective to even be remotely objective.

Does America have its faults, yes it does, but it is hardly the monster that a lot of people both within the United States and outside the country constantly try to portray it as.

Hmm. Interesting. Do you often find yourself asking and answering a question as part of a leading statement? Does it make you feel comfortable doing this? You said a lot of people constantly try to portray the United States as a monster, both within and outside the country. Which people exactly? At the local bank or convenience store? At school or in the workplace? In your home? Immigrants? People outside the country indeed, but which countries in particular are they from? Are some of these emigres? Are they illegal immigrants? How does this make you feel? Do you sometimes wish to hurt people? Do you wish to hurt foreigners, would you like to make them pay for the pain they have caused you? Black people? Asian people? Slavic? French? Do you feel Mexicans are stealing American jobs? How do you feel about Native Title? What is your opinion of the Patriot Act?


President Bush isn't the monster that people try to paint him as either.
Ah, a character referee. And how many years have you personally known Mr Bush? Would you describe your relationship with Mr Bush as close or more an acquaintence?

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 10:48 AM
<snipped>


Hmm. Interesting. Do you often find yourself asking and answering a question as part of a leading statement? Does it make you feel comfortable doing this?

Only when it's a rhetorical question.


You said a lot of people constantly try to portray the United States as a monster, both within and outside the country. Which people exactly? At the local bank or convenience store? At school or in the workplace? In your home? Immigrants? People outside the country indeed, but which countries in particular are they from? Are some of these emigres?

Actually, it's primarily from the mainstream media and the loony left, I'm even going to throw the majority of political science professors (as well as liberal arts professors in general) into the mix.


Are they illegal immigrants?

If they are illegal immigrants, I think it's perfectly reasonable to kick them out of the country, I have no problem with immigration as long as it is legal immigration.


How does this make you feel?

Annoyed.


Do you sometimes wish to hurt people?

I actually don't like hurting people, I even have problems playing a darkside charecter on KotOR I or II.


Do you wish to hurt foreigners, would you like to make them pay for the pain they have caused you? Black people? Asian people? Slavic? French?

Say wha? The only foreigners I'd want to be hurt are the ones responsible for attacking this country and/or trying to create a second holocaust. I don't blame Muslims in general, I know a few Muslims whom are descent people. Seriously, you just demonstrated the stereotype propaganda that the media tries to indoctrinate people with, where they claim Republicans are racist. Seriously, most Republicans don't care what color someone's skin is.


Do you feel Mexicans are stealing American jobs?

Because they enter the country illegally, yes. It also enables unethical employers to exploit them because they are afraid of being reported to INS. If they entered the country legally, and got a descent wage (the same wage that it would be required for Americans), then I wouldn't care one way or the other.

How do you feel about Native Title?

Say wha?


What is your opinion of the Patriot Act?

If we weren't at war, I'd be opposed to it. Since we are at war I do believe it is necessary as long as it wasn't abused.


Ah, a character referee. And how many years have you personally known Mr Bush? Would you describe your relationship with Mr Bush as close or more an acquaintence?

I'm not personally associated with President Bush, however it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the media has an objectivity problem when it comes to the President. They try to paint him as a complete and total idiot, then they try to paint him as some evil genius out to take over the world, then they paint him as an idiot that is as dumb as a box of rocks yet is also an evil genius out to take over the world.

If you study history (and I've been taking a Constitutional History class), you'd find the President that President Bush most closely resembles would arguably be President Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, something our current President (at least when they are United States Citizens) has not done.