3 ms·

> Europe should stay civilized, for the sake of its people. Yeah, what a shame those driven over-working puritans went and exported their Americanism to those

> Europe should stay civilized, for the sake of its people. Yeah, what a shame those driven over-working puritans went and exported their Americanism to those civilized Europeans in 1944. Edit: I'll make the point more explicitly in response to the downvoting. (1) It's easy to decry efficiency and hard work in times of peace. But liberté, égalité, fraternité requires not having your society conquered by Hitler or Stalin. France failed that test and would've been a Nazi puppet state if not liberated by a harder-fighting more determined force than the Germans. (2) Anti-Americanism is really lame; America's achievements in the last 80 years have done so immensely much good, while being probably the most benevolent, cooperative, and pro-social world hegemon of all time -- it's not even particularly close. America has its problems, but is an amazing country and our citizens should be proud of our achievements.

vacri 11y ago
But liberté, égalité, fraternité requires not having your society conquered by Hitler or Stalin. ... France failed that test and would've been a Nazi puppet state if not liberated by a harder-fighting more determined force than the Germans. Your comment ironically misses that the bulk of the work to bring down Hitler came from Stalin. There's a lot of American Exceptionalism in your comment, and you're handwaving away a lot of inconvenient points - not the least of which is that the French were surprised by brand new tactics in WWII, just like everyone else. The US had the luxury of years of time to figure out how to respond, plus had an immense industrial base that the enemy could not touch. France was plenty willing to fight hard - witness their WWI experience. The US is awesome, and has tons of awesome people. But you should be exhorting folks to see the full picture rather than papering over the cracks and providing a doctored view of history.
- lionhearted 11y ago
  > ... the least of which is that the French were surprised by brand new tactics in WWII... You're joking, right? The Nazis followed almost exactly the same attack path as World War I, violating Belgian neutrality... again. Oh, how surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#German_forces_in_Belgium_and_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#German_forces_in_B... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Similarity_to_Schlieffen_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Similarity_to... > Your comment ironically misses that the bulk of the work to bring down Hitler came from Stalin. No, it doesn't. The United States has broadly been a defender of European culture and institutions for the last 80 years, both from Nazism and Sovietism, contributed immense amounts of funds to rebuild Europe after WWII, and has broadly been very respectful of European culture and cooperative with European countries even while having immense amounts of power. So yeah, Anti-Americanism is lame. > But you should be exhorting folks to see the full picture The context is someone whinging about American "puritanical drive to overwork" and "moral decrepitude" potentially messing up European culture -- a dumb statement of the kind of fashionable anti-Americanism that's so unfortunately prevalent today. Again, America isn't perfect -- but Americans should be really proud of our achievements. If you want to call that American exceptionalism, so be it.
  - vacri 11y ago
    You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Do you think that Germany's 'superior tactic of going through Belgium' helped them steamroller Poland, perhaps? It wasn't the move through Belgium that was new, it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen. Likewise, it was well-known that the Maginot Line was supposed to extend along the Belgian border as well; it's just that it was extremely expensive, and France was short on money and manpower. If you want to call that American exceptionalism, so be it. Being proud of achievements wasn't the bit I was labelling American Exceptionalism. It's the whole "we're so awesome, if it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking kraut" and "those Frenchies are so dumb and useless at war" crap. It's a plastic, shallow version of history. has broadly been very respectful of European culture and cooperative with European countries Yes, post-WW2, the Marshall Plan was very friendly to Europe, but it also wasn't charity - it was part of the Cold War. But in the last 30 years? Nothing 'very respectful' in particular - it's actually been somewhat hostile. US military aid goes to furthering US political interests, not altruism. If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa. Instead we have the US going on wars of adventure to shore up domestic support, and when US allies don't blindly charge in with them, the US political environment turns hostile. Fancy a Freedom Fry? Not to mention that the US tries to strongarm it's economic and terrorism laws on anywhere in reach (economic laws like those around IP, for example), with varying success in Europe. I'm not seeing actions that I would call "very respectful" - I'm curious as to what you're thinking of here?
    - lionhearted 11y ago
      > You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Actually I'm a pretty serious amateur historian who has given briefings to some pretty important people in the US on historical topics. > it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen. Nazi Germany didn't really pioneer much at all with blitzkreig. Industrialized fast movement warfare in the German tradition was developed under von Moltke, who had been a close observer of what Napoleon got right and integrated railroads, telegraph, and decentralized command -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/0891415750 http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/08... Of course, the French were very aware of both of those eras, given that Napoleon was dominant until he eventually couldn't stop expanding, and Moltke and Bismarck overran France and proclaimed the German Unification in Versailles. Meanwhile, the maneuvers into France from Belgium just followed von Schleiffen's plans pretty closely with a lot of commitment. The French should have been better prepared, given that they were the ones to declare war. There were significant changes in hardware, but blitzkreig's strength was not in the hardware, but in the flexible orders style and deep penetration behind enemy lines... which in itself wasn't new and was modeled on Napoleon and adapted by Moltke to industrialization. Rocketry and airplanes saw huge advances, but most of why the Germans were fast was in logistics, communications, and intangibles around Auftragstaktik type stuff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins > If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. They tried in Mogadishu, there was no strategic interest there for the US. Serbian campaign was anti-strategic for the US, done for human rights. It's tough. I'm glad I don't have to make foreign policy. As for counter terrorism and intellectual property, these are again complicated. I don't claim the US is perfect, but I think the US does okay in these areas. I do stand by what I said in that I don't think there's any world hegemon in history as generally benevolent, cooperative, and pro-social as the US has been.

vacri 11y ago

But liberté, égalité, fraternité requires not having your society conquered by Hitler or Stalin. ... France failed that test and would've been a Nazi puppet state if not liberated by a harder-fighting more determined force than the Germans. Your comment ironically misses that the bulk of the work to bring down Hitler came from Stalin. There's a lot of American Exceptionalism in your comment, and you're handwaving away a lot of inconvenient points - not the least of which is that the French were surprised by brand new tactics in WWII, just like everyone else. The US had the luxury of years of time to figure out how to respond, plus had an immense industrial base that the enemy could not touch. France was plenty willing to fight hard - witness their WWI experience. The US is awesome, and has tons of awesome people. But you should be exhorting folks to see the full picture rather than papering over the cracks and providing a doctored view of history.

lionhearted 11y ago
> ... the least of which is that the French were surprised by brand new tactics in WWII... You're joking, right? The Nazis followed almost exactly the same attack path as World War I, violating Belgian neutrality... again. Oh, how surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#German_forces_in_Belgium_and_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#German_forces_in_B... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Similarity_to_Schlieffen_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Similarity_to... > Your comment ironically misses that the bulk of the work to bring down Hitler came from Stalin. No, it doesn't. The United States has broadly been a defender of European culture and institutions for the last 80 years, both from Nazism and Sovietism, contributed immense amounts of funds to rebuild Europe after WWII, and has broadly been very respectful of European culture and cooperative with European countries even while having immense amounts of power. So yeah, Anti-Americanism is lame. > But you should be exhorting folks to see the full picture The context is someone whinging about American "puritanical drive to overwork" and "moral decrepitude" potentially messing up European culture -- a dumb statement of the kind of fashionable anti-Americanism that's so unfortunately prevalent today. Again, America isn't perfect -- but Americans should be really proud of our achievements. If you want to call that American exceptionalism, so be it.
- vacri 11y ago
  You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Do you think that Germany's 'superior tactic of going through Belgium' helped them steamroller Poland, perhaps? It wasn't the move through Belgium that was new, it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen. Likewise, it was well-known that the Maginot Line was supposed to extend along the Belgian border as well; it's just that it was extremely expensive, and France was short on money and manpower. If you want to call that American exceptionalism, so be it. Being proud of achievements wasn't the bit I was labelling American Exceptionalism. It's the whole "we're so awesome, if it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking kraut" and "those Frenchies are so dumb and useless at war" crap. It's a plastic, shallow version of history. has broadly been very respectful of European culture and cooperative with European countries Yes, post-WW2, the Marshall Plan was very friendly to Europe, but it also wasn't charity - it was part of the Cold War. But in the last 30 years? Nothing 'very respectful' in particular - it's actually been somewhat hostile. US military aid goes to furthering US political interests, not altruism. If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa. Instead we have the US going on wars of adventure to shore up domestic support, and when US allies don't blindly charge in with them, the US political environment turns hostile. Fancy a Freedom Fry? Not to mention that the US tries to strongarm it's economic and terrorism laws on anywhere in reach (economic laws like those around IP, for example), with varying success in Europe. I'm not seeing actions that I would call "very respectful" - I'm curious as to what you're thinking of here?
  - lionhearted 11y ago
    > You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history. Actually I'm a pretty serious amateur historian who has given briefings to some pretty important people in the US on historical topics. > it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen. Nazi Germany didn't really pioneer much at all with blitzkreig. Industrialized fast movement warfare in the German tradition was developed under von Moltke, who had been a close observer of what Napoleon got right and integrated railroads, telegraph, and decentralized command -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/0891415750 http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/08... Of course, the French were very aware of both of those eras, given that Napoleon was dominant until he eventually couldn't stop expanding, and Moltke and Bismarck overran France and proclaimed the German Unification in Versailles. Meanwhile, the maneuvers into France from Belgium just followed von Schleiffen's plans pretty closely with a lot of commitment. The French should have been better prepared, given that they were the ones to declare war. There were significant changes in hardware, but blitzkreig's strength was not in the hardware, but in the flexible orders style and deep penetration behind enemy lines... which in itself wasn't new and was modeled on Napoleon and adapted by Moltke to industrialization. Rocketry and airplanes saw huge advances, but most of why the Germans were fast was in logistics, communications, and intangibles around Auftragstaktik type stuff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins > If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. They tried in Mogadishu, there was no strategic interest there for the US. Serbian campaign was anti-strategic for the US, done for human rights. It's tough. I'm glad I don't have to make foreign policy. As for counter terrorism and intellectual property, these are again complicated. I don't claim the US is perfect, but I think the US does okay in these areas. I do stand by what I said in that I don't think there's any world hegemon in history as generally benevolent, cooperative, and pro-social as the US has been.