3 ms·

Sure, US played a huge role in freeing Europe from Nazism. Which doesn't mean they played a bigger role in it that URSS. EDIT: >> However I am grateful I am f

by bausson 13y ago

Sure, US played a huge role in freeing Europe from Nazism. Which doesn't mean they played a bigger role in it that URSS. EDIT: >> However I am grateful I am from a country that fell under US influnce than one that fell under USSR influence. As a Western European, I can relate. I am just pointing that picking WW2 intervention is not the best way to crown US over URSS.

tome 13y ago
That is indeed true. However I am grateful I am from a country that fell under US influnce than one that fell under USSR influence. YMMV. Still, many of those who are now lauding Russia here will actually be glad they didn't grow up in the former Eastern Bloc, and that strikes me as a somewhat inconsistent viewpoint.
tome 13y ago
Not sure why you edited your post rather than replying to mine, but ... [EDIT: Perhaps it's because the 'reply' link seems to take a while to appear. If so I always get around that by clicking on 'link' and then replying there!] > As a Western European, I can relate. I am just pointing that picking WW2 intervention is not the best way to crown US over URSS. It's not the intervention per se, but the spirit of the intervention, what its aims were and what it led to. Those of the US were far superior to those of the USSR from my point of view.
- bausson 13y ago
  Couldn't find the reply button (new account, first post, after two years as a leacher) With my limited knowledge in history, I can't objectively compare the spirit/motivations of USA/URSS intervention. Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff. That doesn't invalidate the possibility that the winners might have actually been in the right though. It just means you cann't use the fact that a nation won to implicate that the nation was therefore morally right.
gadders 13y ago
Well, the big difference is is that the US didn't retain defacto control of the part of Europe that it drove the Nazis from in the way the USSR did.

by bausson 13y ago

tome 13y ago

That is indeed true. However I am grateful I am from a country that fell under US influnce than one that fell under USSR influence. YMMV. Still, many of those who are now lauding Russia here will actually be glad they didn't grow up in the former Eastern Bloc, and that strikes me as a somewhat inconsistent viewpoint.

tome 13y ago

Not sure why you edited your post rather than replying to mine, but ... [EDIT: Perhaps it's because the 'reply' link seems to take a while to appear. If so I always get around that by clicking on 'link' and then replying there!] > As a Western European, I can relate. I am just pointing that picking WW2 intervention is not the best way to crown US over URSS. It's not the intervention per se, but the spirit of the intervention, what its aims were and what it led to. Those of the US were far superior to those of the USSR from my point of view.

bausson 13y ago
Couldn't find the reply button (new account, first post, after two years as a leacher) With my limited knowledge in history, I can't objectively compare the spirit/motivations of USA/URSS intervention. Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff. That doesn't invalidate the possibility that the winners might have actually been in the right though. It just means you cann't use the fact that a nation won to implicate that the nation was therefore morally right.

gadders 13y ago

Well, the big difference is is that the US didn't retain defacto control of the part of Europe that it drove the Nazis from in the way the USSR did.