I don't understand USA patriotism

[Zaap]

we didn't do that and we sure as hell didn't start wars to kill Jews or try to ensure their deaths (like the US).

LOL! I knew it! Give you some rope, and you'd hang yourself with it! That's a real gem!

By the way, your nation started wars to kill Arabs and depose their leaders over oil. Pretty much everything you and other idiots blame the US for- yup, t'was actually your country and other Euroweenie 'superpowers' playing at Empire building.

The Suez Crisis, also named the Tripartite Aggression (in the Arab world) and Operation Kadesh or Sinai War (in Israel),[16] was an invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel, followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power.[17] After the fighting had started, political pressure from the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations led to a withdrawal by the three invaders. The episode humiliated Great Britain and France[18] and strengthened Nasser.[19][20]

Its amazing that he can claim the US did something to show that his country was not as bad as us, and it turns out his evidence is the UK doing that thing, and not the US. It was not the US that sunk Jewish refugee ships, it was the UK that did that. So as it turns out its not the evil US, but the evil UK that did it. Stupid people.

Nothing really amazing or atypical about it, sadly it's VERY typical. People like him simply know NOTHING of their own nation's crappy history that they feel perfectly comfortable not only blaming the US for everything- but blaming the US for things their nations did. Because they aren't taught anything of their own history- not the real history. Anyone from the most western European nations that actually know history, knows fuck well they have not the slightest leg to stand on pointing fingers at the US without being the world's biggest hypocrites.

It's the world of history revision wackos- up is down, down is up, the sky is green and grass is pink with polkadots.

 

[realibrad]

That's assertion of fact is probably a little extreme, at least in Europe. The war in Europe was really an eastern front war. By the time of D-Day, the Soviet Union had already retaken Ukraine and were were knocking at the door in the Baltic. Far more men, on both sides, were expended in the east https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...military-deaths-in-Europe-by-theater-year.png.

The US supplies in Western Europe was the majority factor. There were also large battles in Europe that the US was a big factor, but supplies were what was important. Most of Western Europe was still rebuilding from WWI as well as going through a big recession. So while they had people, they did not have the means to fight back against Germany.

Hitler only went to Russia to get resources to finish off the West. That said, its still true that the US was the major factor in Europe in terms of stopping Germany. Had the US not gotten supplies into Britain, they would have fallen and the West would be lost. The only reason Russia could fight back was because Germany was split.

When you add up all resources and contributions, the US was the major factor in stopping Germany. That is not to say that they lost the most lives, or took the most damage, but in terms of what was the effective reason, it was the US.

You might be able to make the claim that the US did all the supplying, which is true to some extent. The Soviets mostly won the ground war with the famed T-34 (and countless men) and that was made in the SU, but perhaps with resources freed because they didn't have to make trucks and trains.

And that only happens when Russia fights a split Germany.

In the pacific, China actually lost more men than the US although you could claim the US had a larger impact. But it's probably unlikely Japan could've hoped for anything more than white peace after Pearl Harbor. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

You are correct that the losses by China were far greater than losses for the US. My point has and will be impact.

WWII was a battle of resources. Germany was the industrial leader going into WWI. Post WWI they were economically crippled but much of their industry was still there just not used. Once that industry started up again, they could out produce everyone else in Europe. Japan was also fighting a battle for resources. The US was slowed by a depression, but the battle was not on their soil. So as war started, the US economy started producing what the remainder of the world could not. This grew our industry and once that happened, we became the strongest. So once it was clear that Germany would not be able to stop the US, Japan had to try something. Had they actually destroyed the US Navy in HI, the outcome would have been very different.

Not many know this, but Japan was not far from their own bomb. A few more years and they would have had their own. Had the attack on PH gone to plan, they would have had a few years easily and that was the ultimate goal. Japan never expected to compete in terms of production because they could not. What they figured was they could do enough damage to get a treaty.

Interestingly, had PH been an attack on our oil instead of the ships, they would have done far more damage. That likely would have stopped our Navy and given them more than enough time to build their bomb. That all said, the US was still the biggest factor in WWII. Not because we were awesome, but because we had an economy that was not destroyed in WWI and left alone in WWII. Money is the biggest factor in war.

 

[BigDH01]

The US supplies in Western Europe was the majority factor. There were also large battles in Europe that the US was a big factor, but supplies were what was important. Most of Western Europe was still rebuilding from WWI as well as going through a big recession. So while they had people, they did not have the means to fight back against Germany.

I'm not stating that there weren't battles in the west or that the US didn't majorly contribute to those battles. There just weren't nearly as many and they weren't nearly as costly as those in the east.

Hitler only went to Russia to get resources to finish off the West. That said, its still true that the US was the major factor in Europe in terms of stopping Germany. Had the US not gotten supplies into Britain, they would have fallen and the West would be lost. The only reason Russia could fight back was because Germany was split.

The German invasion of Britain was never going to happen. The planning was about as serious as Operation Unthinkable. Sure, there was a plan, but it was never realistic. Also, the Soviet Union had turned the tide of the fight in the east before D-Day, long before. And the vast majority of German strength (particularly those divisions of full capacity) were on the eastern front. That sort of had to be the case, the Germans lost 6x more men on the eastern front than the western.

When you add up all resources and contributions, the US was the major factor in stopping Germany. That is not to say that they lost the most lives, or took the most damage, but in terms of what was the effective reason, it was the US.

That's just a very tenuous position to take. Yes, the US was a major factor in the destruction of Nazi Germany, but I would have to say the Soviets did more. They produced almost as many tanks, more artillery, and more mortars than the US. They lost almost 59x the number of men and killed over 7x the number of Germans. Even on the western front, both France and the UK lost more men. Again, this isn't to belittle the contribution of the US, but I'd have to say that the Soviets contributed more in the European theatre.

And that only happens when Russia fights a split Germany.

But this is ahistorical. The Soviets had turned the eastern front before the western front opened. Stalin kept begging the allies to relieve the pressure but the allies, for better or worse, stalled until much of the German army had been spent.

You are correct that the losses by China were far greater than losses for the US. My point has and will be impact.

WWII was a battle of resources. Germany was the industrial leader going into WWI. Post WWI they were economically crippled but much of their industry was still there just not used. Once that industry started up again, they could out produce everyone else in Europe. Japan was also fighting a battle for resources. The US was slowed by a depression, but the battle was not on their soil. So as war started, the US economy started producing what the remainder of the world could not. This grew our industry and once that happened, we became the strongest. So once it was clear that Germany would not be able to stop the US, Japan had to try something. Had they actually destroyed the US Navy in HI, the outcome would have been very different.

No, it wouldn't have. Read the article I linked to for some in-depth research. Japan was fighting a losing battle from the beginning, they simply didn't have the industrial capacity, the population, or the oil to sustain a long war. Their best (only) hope was a decisive victory and white peace. If the US didn't immediately capitulate, Japan was in serious trouble.

Not many know this, but Japan was not far from their own bomb. A few more years and they would have had their own. Had the attack on PH gone to plan, they would have had a few years easily and that was the ultimate goal. Japan never expected to compete in terms of production because they could not. What they figured was they could do enough damage to get a treaty.

They were very far. http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html They had blueprints, sure, but they could only get uranium from their territorial possessions. Kinda hard to do when the American blockade was starving them, as it was.

 

[Puffnstuff]

LOL! I knew it! Give you some rope, and you'd hang yourself with it! That's a real gem!

He certainly behaves a lot like Agent doesn't he?

 

[maddie]

I'm not stating that there weren't battles in the west or that the US didn't majorly contribute to those battles. There just weren't nearly as many and they weren't nearly as costly as those in the east.



The German invasion of Britain was never going to happen. The planning was about as serious as Operation Unthinkable. Sure, there was a plan, but it was never realistic. Also, the Soviet Union had turned the tide of the fight in the east before D-Day, long before. And the vast majority of German strength (particularly those divisions of full capacity) were on the eastern front. That sort of had to be the case, the Germans lost 6x more men on the eastern front than the western.



That's just a very tenuous position to take. Yes, the US was a major factor in the destruction of Nazi Germany, but I would have to say the Soviets did more. They produced almost as many tanks, more artillery, and more mortars than the US. They lost almost 59x the number of men and killed over 7x the number of Germans. Even on the western front, both France and the UK lost more men. Again, this isn't to belittle the contribution of the US, but I'd have to say that the Soviets contributed more in the European theatre.



But this is ahistorical. The Soviets had turned the eastern front before the western front opened. Stalin kept begging the allies to relieve the pressure but the allies, for better or worse, stalled until much of the German army had been spent.



No, it wouldn't have. Read the article I linked to for some in-depth research. Japan was fighting a losing battle from the beginning, they simply didn't have the industrial capacity, the population, or the oil to sustain a long war. Their best (only) hope was a decisive victory and white peace. If the US didn't immediately capitulate, Japan was in serious trouble.



They were very far. http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html They had blueprints, sure, but they could only get uranium from their territorial possessions. Kinda hard to do when the American blockade was starving them, as it was.

I agree with you.

And this is also why the OP will never have his answer. In the face of factual evidence we get these jingoistic beliefs that define the nationalism of the modern USA. Totally divorced from what really happens in the world.

By the way, some would say that the WW2 western front only happened to stop Stalin & the USSR from overrunning Europe entirely. Stopping him was a good thing in my view, but no need to fool oneself with false heroism and accomplishment.

 

[pmv]

LOL! I knew it! Give you some rope, and you'd hang yourself with it! That's a real gem!

By the way, your nation started wars to kill Arabs and depose their leaders over oil. Pretty much everything you and other idiots blame the US for- yup, t'was actually your country and other Euroweenie 'superpowers' playing at Empire building.




Nothing really amazing or atypical about it, sadly it's VERY typical. People like him simply know NOTHING of their own nation's crappy history that they feel perfectly comfortable not only blaming the US for everything- but blaming the US for things their nations did. Because they aren't taught anything of their own history- not the real history. Anyone from the most western European nations that actually know history, knows fuck well they have not the slightest leg to stand on pointing fingers at the US without being the world's biggest hypocrites.

It's the world of history revision wackos- up is down, down is up, the sky is green and grass is pink with polkadots.

Never understood this idea that European and American crimes cancel out and excuse each other, rather than adding.

Interesting that you mention Suez, as that was indeed a turning point, where the US fully grabbed the baton of imperialism and meddling in other countries from the Europeans.

France learned from that never to trust the US again, while the UK learned to not try and act independently as an imperial power, but instead reinvent itself as the sidekick and cheerleader for the US's imperial adventures.

 

[Puffnstuff]

the US's imperial adventures

We love them so much that they've inspired us to do many great things.

 

[FukLeftists]

Can someone explain it to this Canadian?

At this point, I don't understand American patriotism. You guys are the most powerful country in the world ,that uses it mostly to fund wars for profit, refuse to provide your citizens with health care and well funded education, imprison your population for profit, and elected an administration that claims climate change is a lie.

America is by far, BY FAR, the biggest threat to the survival of the species as has ever been formed on the planet. Now Trump wants to have NFL players fired for not bending a knee.

Thus sayeth thou from thy trailer. 70 by 8.

 

[hasu]

NM