Why do Europeans dislike Americans?

Factual Questions
41

BTW, you want me to read a book of history after posting this silliness?

By the time of the Normandy invasion, the primary purpose of the invasion was to keep the U.S.S.R. from sweeping all the way to the Atlantic, taking all of Germany and France (and possibly Finland, Norway, and Denmark) with it.

The threat to Britain was three years in the past and Germany was fighting a defensive war by the summer of 1944.

I do not minimize the American contributions, at all, but your claims that Eastern Europe should be ever so grateful to the U.S. or that Britain was “saved” by the Normandy invasion are simply not historically accurate.

42

Utterly wrong.

While Wilson certainly died while stumping the country on behalf of his peace plan, it made no difference. The treaty was dead in the US.

Wilson’s failure was caused not by illness, but by an inability to compromise and work with Congress. He was so sure that he was right and so ridiculously stubborn, that he poisoned his chances in Congress and failed to take any of their concerns into account.

43

Sorry guys. Just had to pop in to say how amusing I find it seeing someone lecture tomndebb, one of the most politically and historically astute posters here on the SDMB, about history. Nothing wrong with challenging an authority on the subject… just give your argument some substance, please. Carry on folks…

44

We don’t realize it because it isn’t true. Damn us Americans for not beleiving something an enlightened European such as yourself, just made up rather than actually researching. The League was actually Wilson’s Idea and it was the republican US Senate that rejected it. The US joining would have certainly added some weight to the League, but ultimately it would have probibly collapsed anyways because of the situations created by the silly retribution payments our European friends forced on the Germans. Which I might add the US was against for the most part. Europe placing most of blame on the US for WWII is pretty laugable. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

45

I think we know why (not just Europe) hates Americans… because of ignorant gits like this.

On a personal note: I used to hate Americans until i went there and realised they are slaves to their government and media.

Went i left i had nothing but sympathy for the brave American people and searing hatred from they vile industries that control them.

46

If only some enlightened foreigners could save lil’ ol’ ignorant me from the forces of evil. You sound like how Bush talks about other countries. Although I agree with your opinion on American ignorant macho BS, being condescending about it certainly doesn’t make me want to. We are not stupid children here in the states (exept for the children who happen to really be stupid), so please do not treat us if we are. Very few Americans will respond positively to this type of attitude. The only industry that controls me is the carmel colored suger water industry. mmmm camel colored suger water.

47

…and for her next trick, she’ll school Tamerlane in things Middle Eastern. Followed by demonstrating to Polycarp on how one can be a compassionate, thoughtful Christian.

As to the OP, the previous thread on this subject from a few weeks ago has many answers, in addition to the one’s here. You can find the thread here.

48

As for Hitler invading the UK, rubbish, absolute rubbish.

Even before the air war of the Battle of Britain, Hitler had begun issuing orders for military redeployment to attack Russia.His military priority was to avoid a war on two fronts and although the UK was still in there, it did not pose a significant enough threat to him to affect his East European war.

Most folk think that the Battle of Britain was Hitler’s attempt to destroy the RAF to gain air supriority for a landing on the English south coast, but this is not quite the truth.

The German plans to invade England were a complete lash-up, and the Germans knew it, they knew that Britain had 80 destroyers, 11 battleships, dozens of cruisers, dozens of submarines in UK waters available for immediate deployment.This is without Roayl Navy vessels from around the world being returned to home waters which would have doubled this total.

Add to this that big gun power turned out to be absolutely crucial to opposed landings and that Germany had a fleet of around one tenth that of Britain and certainly could not have brought enough heavy gunnery to bear.

Even the Germans own estimates reckoned that an unopposed channel crossing would have taken 20 hours, there were no plans for Germn armour to cross the channel, most of the barges had no engine power and would have had to be towed, making them incredibly vulnerable to heavy weather or attack,and when you actually think of the sheer scale of the Normandy landings and what went into them, which was a culminations of three years experience of opposed landings, the Germans simply did not have the knowledge nor the logistical means to undertake such an operation.

It would have taken over a week to get 140000 German troops across the channel, they would have been out of fuel and ammo within hours.

The main reason for Hitlers persuance of the Battle of Britain was in fact political, the aim was to pose such a serious threat that Churchill would have been removed from office by a vote of no confidence in parliament and his successor would then have been mandated to sign a peace treaty with Europe.

So to counter the following myth

Read your history.

Hitler had always taken the view that the world needed a colonial world naval power, which Germany was not nor had ever been.
His view was that Britain was best placed for this, and its ability to raise and maintain a land army in Europe was always sporadic, and that mainland Europe should be controlled by Germany.

49

How true, we are such clumsy oafs.

Everyone knows that when OTHER countries bomb people no one gets hurt but the bad guys. :rolleyes:

50

Susann, I suggest YOU should read some history books. By the time the US had entered the war, Hitlers invasion plans for Britain were already on permenant hold after the Luftwaffe were defeated in the Battle of Britain and the opening up of the Eastern Front.

51

That’s right. In fact, according to my authoritative sources on the football terraces, “if it wasn’t for the British, they’d be Krauts.” :wink:

52

How do i wake the sleep walker then ?

53

quote:

Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor
His failure can be attributed to illness.

I disagree, Neurotik.

The Isolationist Movement was carried out in Congress, not by Congressional resentment against Wilson, but by popular sentiment. The public was pressuring the Legislative Branch, but a public campaign could very well have turned things around.

54

I recall a conversation some friends and I had with a delightful Irish couple while traveling in Prague in November 2000. The conversation turned from the election debacle to the role of the US as world policeman. The Irish, who viewed the US participation as a good thing, were shocked when, to a person, we Americans were opposed to US intervention abroad. Our view was that it was expensive and caused resentment and we wanted other countries to take a greater share in their own defense.

It’s important to keep in mind that the intervention du jour was in Yugoslavia, not viewed as a threat to US security as opposed to the current intervention du jour, Iraq, which is viewed as a threat to US security.

It seems to many of us that we are damned for intervening when it is to our benefit and damned for not intervening when it is to someone elses.

55

To say that WWII was a victory by any one power is foolish, and even by any two powers, as Susann claims.

We (the collective allies) could not have won the war without the USSR, could not have won the war without the UK, could not have won the war without the US, and could not have won the war without the many French, Polish, Danish, and other resistance fighters that ate at Nazi Grmany from the Inside.

In speaking of Britians involement in the war, perhaps the most crucial points of conflict took place in Gibralter and Malta. Controlled by Britian, these small islands were responsible destroying millions of tonnes of German shipping. Were these islands under German control, Rommel would have easily won the North African campaign, Germany would have controlled the Med, and the North African army, along with greatly increased materiél, would have been free to fight elsewhere, perhaps in Russia, perhaps in the successful conquest of Moscow.

The war was won in North Africa. Without Britian, we would have lost.

56

The battle against ignorance is lost on this one guys, time to beat a dignified retreat.

Susanann, like many others (including Europeans, sadly) learn their history of WWII from films. Hollywood’s version of the war marginalises all Allied countries save the USA. Other countries’ citizens only appear in order to get shot or act as cheer-leaders for the boys from Uncle Sam.

As long as films like “U-571” are getting made, which completely write out British involvement and replace them with Americans, this is a battle against ignorance I fear we’re never going to win. It’s good example of those who write the history books winning the wars, except no-one bothers to even read the book while Saving Private Ryan is on TV.

57

I’m not sure this ever belonged in GQ.

I’m quite sure it doesn’t now. It’s closed.