Should the US pull out of NATO?

[SimpleDon]

You are slipping Tom. Reading your post I kept expecting the cynical punch line.

But treating it as a serious comment and not a misfiring joke I have to say that you are right, that the main purpose of all of the US's defense spending is as a poorly disguised welfare, make work program benefiting the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class primarily, in pretty much that order. It wouldn't do to openly admit that, but wink, wink it is understood. Welfare and running the printing presses overtime to pay for it is bad, defense of the nation and taxing the poor and middle class to provide it is our honorable duty. .

Ya, it wasn't a joke. The US military spending is actually that fucked up. It should be based on the Pentagon saying what they need and then the Congress approving or not approving the funds for those things. Instead, the Pentagon says what it needs and then Congress may or may not take any of that into account as each congress member bases funding decisions on what will continue to funnel money into his or her district or to the people who've given them the most campaign contributions that week.

The really big prizes are weapons development and procurement. The Defense establishment now tries spread out of the process to as many states and Congressional districts as possible to make the program as bullet proof as possible because of the widespread support doing so provides the programs. Even though it makes the weapons more expensive in the end, as markups are piled on top of markups and the final assembler has to often rework the parts that they receive from the diverse and scattered sub-suppliers. Changes are almost impossible to make because of this.

 

[Togo]

See, when I say that I want America to stay the fuck out of Europe's problems it has nothing to do with exceptionalism. It has to do with history and the fact that Europe is by far the most violent continent to have ever existed in the history of humanity.

Measured how? It's been in fewer wars in the 20th century than the US has.... Granted there were two big ones, but then the US was involved in both of those.

Only since the U.S. has been there to watch over them have they managed not to continually war with one another or with nations far away from their borders.

I'm not seeing it's had much impact, except for Germany itself, which was divided and 'watched' over by both the US and the USSR. Where are you claiming US involvement started? It's been heavily involved in the continent since the end of World War I. Even since the second World War, there have been wars in North Africa, South America, the Far East, the Middle East, and so on, all of which have involved European powers - several of them at the US' direct request.

Maybe this should be moved to history? I feel that getting some kind of grasp of the history involved is overshadowing your point.

 

[dystopian]

Oh, I can assure you, ours isn't the short memory. It sometimes seems we're the only ones who remember that the US sat back for as long as it possibly could, only to come in at the last minute to pretend they were there from the start. Just because Americans have been indoctrinated by an idealized story about their involvement in WW2 and everything after doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly inclined.

I'm sorry. We should have been there holding your hands after Duke Ferdinand was shot, trying to prevent the first European inspired global war. And then we should have been there to prevent Hitler from doing all the things he did.

Yes, European death camps are the fault of the U.S.

Oh please, this is really the level of argument you're going with? For decades we've been listening to Americans damn near pretending they single handedly liberated Europe from the nazi's; and every time Europeans criticize the US in any way, Americans throw trite little phrases like 'Without us you'd all be speaking German' at us. They've convinced themselves they were the heroes while Europe could barely tie their own shoelaces, or worse, were outright cowards like the French. In actual reality, it was countries like France that immediately declared war upon Germany when they invaded Poland; while the US sat back for years pretending it could stay out of the conflict. They were opportunistic from the get go, only seriously getting involved when it was already clear the war would be won by the allies anyway. This is what the US has always done; pick on the weak and talk up a big game about international order and higher principles, then bug out when shit hits the fan.

The US let the allies bleed for years, and only once it was essentially decided did they bother helping out in a meaningful way; and we've been hearing about how awesome they were ever since. So yeah, we kind of take issue with the supreme bullshit of today's Americans trying to leave us hanging AGAIN on the basis that we're not grateful enough for the FIRST time they did it. It kind of speaks to a national character of deceit and unreliability.

 

[Underseer]

NATO is a remnant of the games of empire we were playing during the Cold War. NATO is something we use to bully the European nations into doing what we want, so yeah, we should pull out. Europe is clearly making better decisions than us in matters of foreign affairs anyway, but then they don't have anything like American protofascists (ahem, I meant to say "patriotic Real Americans^TM") influencing their politics.

 

[dystopian]

See, when I say that I want America to stay the fuck out of Europe's problems it has nothing to do with exceptionalism. It has to do with history and the fact that Europe is by far the most violent continent to have ever existed in the history of humanity. Only since the U.S. has been there to watch over them have they managed not to continually war with one another or with nations far away from their borders.

Bullshit. Us not having been at war with each other is yet another thing that Americans congratulate themselves on without good cause. The US had a role to play in the *Soviet Union* not waging war on the rest of Europe, that's it; it had nothing to do with the rest of Europe not fighting each other. If you want to thank someone for preventing Europe from erupting in war again, you have to look at the 5 countries who signed the Treaty of Brussels in '48 (none of which included the US), which would lead to the creation of NATO; as well as the nations that created the European Coal and Steel Community in '52, which would ultimately morph into the European Union. To suggest the peaceful coexistence of European nations is the result of US interference is to adopt a hopelessly ignorant and simplistic view of European history.

Well guess what: I'm sick of it. I want the U.S. to bring its troops home and adopt an non-interventionist foreign policy just like China has done;

You mean the same China that's violating just about every Asian country's maritime territorial integrity?

and just like the Swiss have done. Both of those nations are much admired here, so why should it be any different for the U.S.?

Because the US is not a tiny mountain-locked nation without antagonistic competitors; and because the US doesn't have an established history of neutrality. If Switzerland had, for years, involved itself on the world stage, making commitments and entering alliances, it could NOT then just turn around and say 'fuck everything, we're going to be neutral and isolationist now'. That would earn it a lot of enemies. What do you seriously think is going to happen if the US suddenly decided to break all its promises and withdraw from the world? What friends do you think you'd have left? The first thing that's going to happen is that Europe and other traditional allies of the US are going to redefine their political and economic relationship with you; to your detriment. It's something of a miracle this hasn't already happened with the friction between the US and EU that was growing even before Snowden. Next, the Dollar would soon be replaced as the world's reserve currency, more than likely by the Euro; when that happens, the US economy will collapse; US economic prosperity is entirely reliant upon it owning the reserve currency. What happens after that is anyone's bet; but what'd be certain is that the US would no longer have the means to influence it.

You're living in a fantasy world where you can just disengage from the rest of the world without consequences.

 

[4321lynx]

I'm sorry. We should have been there holding your hands after Duke Ferdinand was shot, trying to prevent the first European inspired global war. And then we should have been there to prevent Hitler from doing all the things he did.

Yes, European death camps are the fault of the U.S.

Oh please, this is really the level of argument you're going with? For decades we've been listening to Americans damn near pretending they single handedly liberated Europe from the nazi's; and every time Europeans criticize the US in any way, Americans throw trite little phrases like 'Without us you'd all be speaking German' at us. They've convinced themselves they were the heroes while Europe could barely tie their own shoelaces, or worse, were outright cowards like the French. In actual reality, it was countries like France that immediately declared war upon Germany when they invaded Poland; while the US sat back for years pretending it could stay out of the conflict. They were opportunistic from the get go, only seriously getting involved when it was already clear the war would be won by the allies anyway. This is what the US has always done; pick on the weak and talk up a big game about international order and higher principles, then bug out when shit hits the fan.

The US let the allies bleed for years, and only once it was essentially decided did they bother helping out in a meaningful way; and we've been hearing about how awesome they were ever since. So yeah, we kind of take issue with the supreme bullshit of today's Americans trying to leave us hanging AGAIN on the basis that we're not grateful enough for the FIRST time they did it. It kind of speaks to a national character of deceit and unreliability.

Hold on a minute.

1. The US would not have got involved even then, had not Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
2. It was not by any means certain in December 1941 that the allies were going to win.
3. It was Hitler who declared war on US first, on December 11th 1941, not the other way round. No way to know how difficult it would have been for Roosevelt to drag his people into that war against Germany at the time, whilst defending them against Japanese aggression.
4. Without either one or the other, that is without Soviet manpower and determination in their "Patriotic War" (as they call WWII), or without American industrial power and manpower, the war would certainly have been won by the Axis powers.
5. Without the A bomb in US hands in 1945 we, my dear Comrade Dystopian, would be talking differently, and I, if still alive and not in the Gulag, would not dare to be jokingly calling you Comrade.

This is not to deny that the US foreign policy is not a bloody idiotic mess. But what do you expect from a bunch of city-bred but still redneck fucking lawyers?

EDIT 4. Should read "Without BOTH, Soviet...... or American....." (That is to say IMO BOTH were necessary).

 

[dystopian]

Hold on a minute.

1. The US would not have got involved even then, had not Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

Which only goes to further my point, really.

2. It was not by any means certain in December 1941 that the allies were going to win.

I disagree; as would many historians. There was no way that Germany could ever win. The British and Soviets had fought them to a near standstill by the time the US entered the war; and the allies could ultimately call upon many more resources than the axis. German hopes of victory ended when the Blitzkrieg did.

3. It was Hitler who declared war on US first, on December 11th 1941, not the other way round.

I didn't say the US was the one to declare war; merely that they sat back until they didn't really have a choice in the matter anymore. Which is exactly what you're saying.

No way to know how difficult it would have been for Roosevelt to drag his people into that war against Germany at the time, whilst defending them against Japanese aggression.

Japanese aggression was preceded by aggression from the makeshift alliance between the US, the UK, and the Netherlands. We forced Japan's hand by embargoing them and freezing their assets while also rebuffing their attempts to end the conflict in China.

4. Without either one or the other, that is without Soviet manpower and determination in their "Patriotic War" (as they call WWII), or without American industrial power and manpower, the war would certainly have been won by the Axis powers.

Unlikely. I agree that American industrial output was highly significant in shortening the length of the war, but without it, Germany would still have faced eventual defeat; albeit a defeat more favorable to them than what they ended up with.

5. Without the A bomb in US hands in 1945 we, my dear Comrade Dystopian, would be talking differently, and I, if still alive and not in the Gulag, would not dare to be jokingly calling you Comrade.

This is simply historically inaccurate. Both the notion that Japan would not have surrendered with the atomic bombs (we know they were in fact about to do just that), and the notion that the Soviet Union would have just kept on going into the rest of Europe (there is zero evidence that this was ever the intent), are historical fiction that has been used to justify US actions but which is not supported by actual facts. It has simply been assumed as true by the post war propaganda machine. We know today, that Stalin had no plans for an invasion of western Europe (while the allies by comparison *did* have a plan to invade eastern Europe).

 

[4321lynx]

Which only goes to further my point, really.

2. It was not by any means certain in December 1941 that the allies were going to win.

I disagree; as would many historians. There was no way that Germany could ever win. The British and Soviets had fought them to a near standstill by the time the US entered the war; and the allies could ultimately call upon many more resources than the axis. German hopes of victory ended when the Blitzkrieg did.

3. It was Hitler who declared war on US first, on December 11th 1941, not the other way round.

I didn't say the US was the one to declare war; merely that they sat back until they didn't really have a choice in the matter anymore. Which is exactly what you're saying.

No way to know how difficult it would have been for Roosevelt to drag his people into that war against Germany at the time, whilst defending them against Japanese aggression.

Japanese aggression was preceded by aggression from the makeshift alliance between the US, the UK, and the Netherlands. We forced Japan's hand by embargoing them and freezing their assets while also rebuffing their attempts to end the conflict in China.

4. Without either one or the other, that is without Soviet manpower and determination in their "Patriotic War" (as they call WWII), or without American industrial power and manpower, the war would certainly have been won by the Axis powers.

Unlikely. I agree that American industrial output was highly significant in shortening the length of the war, but without it, Germany would still have faced eventual defeat; albeit a defeat more favorable to them than what they ended up with.

5. Without the A bomb in US hands in 1945 we, my dear Comrade Dystopian, would be talking differently, and I, if still alive and not in the Gulag, would not dare to be jokingly calling you Comrade.

This is simply historically inaccurate. Both the notion that Japan would not have surrendered with the atomic bombs (we know they were in fact about to do just that), and the notion that the Soviet Union would have just kept on going into the rest of Europe (there is zero evidence that this was ever the intent), are historical fiction that has been used to justify US actions but which is not supported by actual facts. It has simply been assumed as true by the post war propaganda machine. We know today, that Stalin had no plans for an invasion of western Europe (while the allies by comparison *did* have a plan to invade eastern Europe).

Oh my, too much revisionist history for me to answer. Spoken like a true Western European who knows little of what things were really like in December 1941, it is history for you. "You weren't there", though a trite saying since the Vietnam war is very much applicable in this argument.
We have to agree to disagree.
The Russians (they ran the Soviets just as much as the English ran Great Britain), the Russians were not sure of winning the war even at Kursk in 1943, never mind Moscow/Leningrad in 1941, or Stalingrad in 1942. Kursk was the key. And it took almost two years after that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, don't forget that if the US wasn't in WWII, it wouldn't have started it's super soldier program and the Nazis would have taken over the world by blasting their enemies with the power of the gods.

Unless, of course, one of those aforementioned gods happened to have some kind of ability to see everything that's happening on Earth and could say "Hey, there's that tesseract thing which used to be the jewel of our treasure room and that we've totally been looking to get back since we lost it a few hundred years ago due to all the destruction that it could cause if used unwisely in exactly the way that it's being used right now. Let's send Thor down at the head of an advanced alien army armed with swords so we can get it back". I've noticed that all the historical revisionists always just gloss over the fact that this didn't happen, which makes absolutely no sense because you'd figure it would.

 

[Bronzeage]

Which only goes to further my point, really.

2. It was not by any means certain in December 1941 that the allies were going to win.

I disagree; as would many historians. There was no way that Germany could ever win. The British and Soviets had fought them to a near standstill by the time the US entered the war; and the allies could ultimately call upon many more resources than the axis. German hopes of victory ended when the Blitzkrieg did.

3. It was Hitler who declared war on US first, on December 11th 1941, not the other way round.

I didn't say the US was the one to declare war; merely that they sat back until they didn't really have a choice in the matter anymore. Which is exactly what you're saying.

No way to know how difficult it would have been for Roosevelt to drag his people into that war against Germany at the time, whilst defending them against Japanese aggression.

Japanese aggression was preceded by aggression from the makeshift alliance between the US, the UK, and the Netherlands. We forced Japan's hand by embargoing them and freezing their assets while also rebuffing their attempts to end the conflict in China.

4. Without either one or the other, that is without Soviet manpower and determination in their "Patriotic War" (as they call WWII), or without American industrial power and manpower, the war would certainly have been won by the Axis powers.

Unlikely. I agree that American industrial output was highly significant in shortening the length of the war, but without it, Germany would still have faced eventual defeat; albeit a defeat more favorable to them than what they ended up with.

5. Without the A bomb in US hands in 1945 we, my dear Comrade Dystopian, would be talking differently, and I, if still alive and not in the Gulag, would not dare to be jokingly calling you Comrade.

This is simply historically inaccurate. Both the notion that Japan would not have surrendered with the atomic bombs (we know they were in fact about to do just that), and the notion that the Soviet Union would have just kept on going into the rest of Europe (there is zero evidence that this was ever the intent), are historical fiction that has been used to justify US actions but which is not supported by actual facts. It has simply been assumed as true by the post war propaganda machine. We know today, that Stalin had no plans for an invasion of western Europe (while the allies by comparison *did* have a plan to invade eastern Europe).

Wars are fought with the information one has at the time.

It was entirely possible that the frontlines in late 1941 could have stabilized and left most of Europe in the control of Nazi Germany. A that point, Germany had victory and there was no European power who could challenge them. Had the Germans not attacked Russia and been able to concentrate resources in France, the D-Day invasion might never have been attempted.
The only thing which insured German defeat was the political will to continue fighting. Germany did not have the resources to invade the UK, but they did have the resources to starve them. It almost happened in WW1 and certainly would have happened in WW2, if not for US intervention. If the US had not entered the war, Churchill would have been forced from government and a conciliatory Prime Minister put in his place. Germany would have plenty of time to loot the European countries and rebuild their stocks, making any attempt to drive them out doomed to fail.

As for choices, the United States was attacked by Japan and a few of our Pacific possession were seized. Our homeland was never in serious threat. No one ever bombed the continental US. The US made the choice to give Europe priority over the Pacific War. It would have been easy to argue that Europe was not really our problem, but we came anyway. You are welcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The really big prizes are weapons development and procurement. The Defense establishment now tries spread out of the process to as many states and Congressional districts as possible to make the program as bullet proof as possible because of the widespread support doing so provides the programs. Even though it makes the weapons more expensive in the end, as markups are piled on top of markups and the final assembler has to often rework the parts that they receive from the diverse and scattered sub-suppliers. Changes are almost impossible to make because of this.

Yup. Every so often we hear of weapons systems that Congress funds that the Pentagon has clearly said they don't want.

Then we get things like the F-35 turkey. It's everything for everybody--which means it doesn't do any mission well. And the Soviets haven't forgotten that old fashioned long-wave radar might not be all that accurate but it sees right through all our stealth systems.

 

[4321lynx]

Wars are fought with the information one has at the time.

It was entirely possible that the frontlines in late 1941 could have stabilized and left most of Europe in the control of Nazi Germany. A that point, Germany had victory and there was no European power who could challenge them. Had the Germans not attacked Russia and been able to concentrate resources in France, the D-Day invasion might never have been attempted.
The only thing which insured German defeat was the political will to continue fighting. Germany did not have the resources to invade the UK, but they did have the resources to starve them. It almost happened in WW1 and certainly would have happened in WW2, if not for US intervention. If the US had not entered the war, Churchill would have been forced from government and a conciliatory Prime Minister put in his place. Germany would have plenty of time to loot the European countries and rebuild their stocks, making any attempt to drive them out doomed to fail.

And given a little more time and a 'breather' from allied bombing, Hitler could have had an A bomb first.

 

[dystopian]

Oh my, too much revisionist history for me to answer. Spoken like a true Western European who knows little of what things were really like in December 1941, it is history for you. "You weren't there", though a trite saying since the Vietnam war is very much applicable in this argument.

Accusing me of historical revisionism is amusing. Nothing of what I've posted is revisionist at all; it's all either historical fact; or plausible conjecture that is shared by many historians. There's also a certain irony in a north-American accusing a western European of not knowing what things were really like; how many WW2 bombs do they still dig up on north-American soil? Oh wait, they've never done that; but we still stumble across them here on a regular basis. The scars of the world wars are still visible in the landscape here, and I can guarantee you that our schools teach our kids a hell of a lot more about the war than north-American schools teach theirs.

We have to agree to disagree.
The Russians (they ran the Soviets just as much as the English ran Great Britain), the Russians were not sure of winning the war even at Kursk in 1943, never mind Moscow/Leningrad in 1941, or Stalingrad in 1942. Kursk was the key. And it took almost two years after that.

The Russians *were* in fact assured of victory at Kursk, even if they themselves did not know so at the time; it was never going to work for the Germans by that point, and prominent axis leaders knew the whole operation was doomed to failure. In any case, I never said that the Russians themselves were sure of winning the war itself; a German defeat does not exclusive a Soviet defeat. Even if Germany had managed to beat the Russians early on, they wouldn't have been able to effectively occupy Russia and utilize its resources against the allies in a timely enough fashion to win the war. It is possible that they may have been able to force a favorable peace, but I seriously doubt they'd in that case be able to hold on to their various conquests long enough to secure their position.

 

[Sarpedon]

I second that. It is as clear as day that the German invasion of the USSR was losing steam.

1941, year 1: Massive invasions by three army groups, beseiging Leningrad in the north, approaching Moscow in the center, and capturing Kiev in the south.
1942, year 2: Full scale offensive by only 1 of the three army groups, repulsed at Stalingrad.
1943, year 3: No full scale offensive by an entire army group is possible. Operation Zitadel, around Kursk, was designed to eliminate a major enemy troop concentration and secure a defensible perimeter.

It was quite clear what was happening. Even if Kursk had been successful, it was nothing compared to what was accomplished in the first two years of the war.

 

[4321lynx]

Accusing me of historical revisionism is amusing. Nothing of what I've posted is revisionist at all; it's all either historical fact; or plausible conjecture that is shared by many historians. There's also a certain irony in a north-American accusing a western European of not knowing what things were really like; how many WW2 bombs do they still dig up on north-American soil? Oh wait, they've never done that; but we still stumble across them here on a regular basis. The scars of the world wars are still visible in the landscape here, and I can guarantee you that our schools teach our kids a hell of a lot more about the war than north-American schools teach theirs.

We have to agree to disagree.
The Russians (they ran the Soviets just as much as the English ran Great Britain), the Russians were not sure of winning the war even at Kursk in 1943, never mind Moscow/Leningrad in 1941, or Stalingrad in 1942. Kursk was the key. And it took almost two years after that.

The Russians *were* in fact assured of victory at Kursk, even if they themselves did not know so at the time; it was never going to work for the Germans by that point, and prominent axis leaders knew the whole operation was doomed to failure. In any case, I never said that the Russians themselves were sure of winning the war itself; a German defeat does not exclusive a Soviet defeat. Even if Germany had managed to beat the Russians early on, they wouldn't have been able to effectively occupy Russia and utilize its resources against the allies in a timely enough fashion to win the war. It is possible that they may have been able to force a favorable peace, but I seriously doubt they'd in that case be able to hold on to their various conquests long enough to secure their position.

I was ignoring your opinions and accusing the historians, not you, of revisionism.
And this "North American" was born in Eastern Europe, has relatives in Russia and was, believe it or not, fourteen years old in December 1941. My relatives were some in the Red Army, some in Moscow factories , some in the Gulag and some already executed by the NKVD, and some by the Germans. And my dad served in the RAF during the war, and no, I am not Jewish.

And, for armchair historians, RAF = Royal Air Force, British, don't you know, good show chaps, and all that.

All my respects for all historians but don't forget, the last word about Waterloo goes to Wellington . It was, he said, a damn close-run thing, sir.

 

[dystopian]

It was entirely possible that the frontlines in late 1941 could have stabilized and left most of Europe in the control of Nazi Germany. A that point, Germany had victory and there was no European power who could challenge them.

See, people don't seem to understand what I'm saying when I say that a German defeat was inevitable. They think that it's all a matter of battles being fought and won or lost. It doesn't *matter* if the frontlines would've stabilized; then it'd just have turned into a war of attrition; and that's a war Germany most definitely could not possibly win. They simply didn't have enough manpower to maintain such a war for more than a few years. It would've been hell for both sides, but the Allies would've had the longer breath. The only way the Germans could have conceivably won is if they'd succesfully blitzkrieged both the UK and the Soviet Union; but that'd probably leave them so overextended that their whole empire would collapse in on itself.

Had the Germans not attacked Russia and been able to concentrate resources in France, the D-Day invasion might never have been attempted.

They did attack Russia, though.

Germany did not have the resources to invade the UK, but they did have the resources to starve them.

Not exactly. The u-boats were highly succesful in attacking British shipping... at first. Later on however, British technological developments evened the playing field and the uboat fleet started taking serious casualties. Of course, the US entry into the war *did* have a great deal to do with this, but I question any notion that the Germans had a guaranteed long-term means of starving the British.

It almost happened in WW1 and certainly would have happened in WW2, if not for US intervention. If the US had not entered the war, Churchill would have been forced from government and a conciliatory Prime Minister put in his place. Germany would have plenty of time to loot the European countries and rebuild their stocks, making any attempt to drive them out doomed to fail.

You seem awfully sure of that, without any real cause to be. I concede that it is a possibility that he might've been forced from office if the war would drag on; I don't see any reason to think that inevitable. He was extremely popular with the public throughout the war, and I doubt people would have been so foolish as to think that Brittain could seriously expect to establish a peace with Hitler and then be left alone when the Germans would've firmly secured the continent.

It would have been easy to argue that Europe was not really our problem, but we came anyway. You are welcome.

It would, in fact, have been impossible to do so. Your leadership at the time was not composed of blistering morons; after all. They knew that it'd meant losing their only real export market after the war; and they knew that if Germany took Europe, the US would be faced with an axis dominated Eurasia; completely isolating the US and leaving them at the mercy of a superpower with a superior technological and industrial base and with no love of the US. A Japanese victory would've meant the US had to give up on its pacific ambitions; a German victory would turn into a long-term existential threat for the US. So please, don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to argue that US intervention was some sort of selfless act that we're still indebted to you for.

We *are* grateful to those Americans who came to our aid; but then *they* weren't self-righteous bastards about it who pretended they were big heroes coming to save the day, nor did they expect us to fall at their feet and worship them for the rest of time. The US did its part; a little late but better than never; their contributions were important, but not so massivey important that it means we can't rightly criticize your actions today or even your actions back then. Yes, *I* am grateful to the Americans that came and fought here... not those Americans who were born after the war and talk shit about what their parents and grandparents did whenever we speak up.

 

[dystopian]

I was ignoring your opinions and accusing the historians, not you, of revisionism.

The thing is, it's NOT revisionism just because it conflicts with whatever skewed notion people at the time may or may not have had; even less so just because it conflicts with what people who were barely old enough to shave at the time remember about it 70 odd years later; or are you suggesting that you as a 14 year old knew what kind of material the Germans had deployed where or what people like Guderian were saying behind closed doors? We know a LOT of things now about what went on behind the scenes that people didn't know at the time. That's not revisionism, that's just getting the full historical story.

 

[4321lynx]

I was ignoring your opinions and accusing the historians, not you, of revisionism.

The thing is, it's NOT revisionism just because it conflicts with whatever skewed notion people at the time may or may not have had; even less so just because it conflicts with what people who were barely old enough to shave at the time remember about it 70 odd years later; or are you suggesting that you as a 14 year old knew what kind of material the Germans had deployed where or what people like Guderian were saying behind closed doors? We know a LOT of things now about what went on behind the scenes that people didn't know at the time. That's not revisionism, that's just getting the full historical story.

You're assuming that no one here has read any history.

And as Bronzeage said

Wars are fought with the information one has at the time.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
We *are* grateful to those Americans who came to our aid; but then *they* weren't self-righteous bastards about it who pretended they were big heroes coming to save the day, nor did they expect us to fall at their feet and worship them for the rest of time. The US did its part; a little late but better than never; their contributions were important, but not so massivey important that it means we can't rightly criticize your actions today or even your actions back then. Yes, *I* am grateful to the Americans that came and fought here... not those Americans who were born after the war and talk shit about what their parents and grandparents did whenever we speak up.

You get to talk shit today because of what our parents and grandparents did. Again, you are welcome.

 

[dystopian]

You get to talk shit today because of what our parents and grandparents did. Again, you are welcome.

I don't owe *you* anything for whatever your ancestors may have done, let's get that very straight. If I did, then so would you owe *me* for the fact you didn't grow up having to utter the phrase 'God save the queen'.

You don't get to tell me 'you're welcome' as if you had anything to do with it whatsoever. You didn't; so stop taking credit and stop trying to hover it over our heads as if it actually means anything at all *today*. Modern Americans acting as if they personally fought in WW2 and we ought to be grateful to them is just embarrassing.