LeSving wrote:
To this observer it’s always the same from US and to some degree UK. A bunch of sideline spectators who have never really participated in the game. Even to this day there is a large tendency, particularly in the US, to define themselves as “not part” of the rest of the world.
Really? Spectators??
Without the 451000 British and 420000 US personnel killed in WW II you’d be speaking German today…
And lets not forget the Cold War. I seem to remember quite a few US and British personnel based across many European countries ostensibly defending Europe.
And right or wrong depending upon your view, Id say the US in particular, and often the UK, has been involved in multiple actions around the world, most recently Afghanistan & Iraq, before that the Balkans… Cant really say the same about “Europe” can we? In fact Id say there is significant negativity towards the US & UK entirely BECAUSE of involvement around the world in “other peoples problems” often with cries of “dont be the worlds policeman”…
Edit to add : Im actually wondering if you really meant your post to be how it came across to me…
LeSving wrote:
To this observer it’s always the same from US and to some degree UK. A bunch of sideline spectators who have never really participated in the game.
Strange statement. Both the UK and the US were heavily involved in many wars.
The only thing I can imagine is that neither were ever occupied and, in the case of the US, have had foreign invasion in their lands. So they don’t know what it is to be occupied and fight for getting territory back. But other than that, both the UK and US were the main actors in winning the cold war.
Not in the 20th or 21st centuries, but the US was invaded a number of times before that. The UK narrowly escaped in WW2.
skydriller wrote:
In fact Id say there is significant negativity towards the US & UK entirely BECAUSE of involvement around the world
That this negativity is there on the part of the adversaries is understandable, but it has always been difficult for me to understand why this would happen within European states, most of which owe their existence post WW2 to NATO, which for most part means the US and UK and France initially, in terms of military power. Then again, I’ve long stopped trying understanding some of my fellow humans. It’s just too tiresome.
To this observer it’s always the same from US and to some degree UK. A bunch of sideline spectators who have never really participated in the game.
WW2 casualties, military personnel vs civilians:
Norway 3,000 9,500
Soviet Union 10,700,000 9,000,000
United Kingdom 383,600 450,700
United States 416,800 418,500
Yugoslavia 446,000 1,000,000
The last four were the ones who took the largest burden within the allied forces. The first one looks as a spectator to this observer.
I think it’s a fair point that Britain and the USA have not been occupied countries in living memory. Many died or made great sacrifices in WWII, but that leaves different scars from being an occupied country.
skydriller wrote:
In fact Id say there is significant negativity towards the US & UK entirely BECAUSE of involvement around the world in “other peoples problems” often with cries of “dont be the worlds policeman”…
I have some sympathies in that direction, but note that without recent British, US and EU intervention, Russia would have had the run of a large chunk of the Middle East and North Africa in the recent decade. The war in Ukraine is in a sense a continuation of this conflict, but it is direct and clear cut and close to home and it is easy to support as there is a reasonably functional government in the Ukraine as opposed to much of the world where you have to back the least worst despot.
I have found my attitudes to our adventurism softening, as I recognise that without it, Russia would have a lot more influence than it has today.
Ok, I can see this can be understood in other terms.
The game = living in Europe together with other countries, and where every single one can “turn evil” faster than you can change undergarments.
In this game (inside Europe) is where politics is created. Not outside by spectators. Spectators always “know best”. The reason is they aren’t part of the game, no risk. What is the game all about? Unless you are the one “turning evil”, then the game is all about having some kind of relationship that prevent evilness from escalating.
skydriller wrote:
Without the 451000 British and 420000 US personnel killed in WW II you’d be speaking German today…
Well, instead I speak English, same difference. I also speak enough German to get by. I don’t see the point. Sending soldiers to other places to fight is very different from being invaded where women, children, hospitals, schools, the entire country is being destroyed piece by piece. It’s not even remotely similar in any way whatsoever. Besides, Britain had it’s empire to defend in any case. An empire that was created for the same reasons that Putin is making war today.
Jacko wrote:
To this observer, it seems that a large part (if not a majority) of German industry, politicians and people still crave better relations with Russia than with Ukraine.
This is what I’m talking about. Putin is the enemy. Russia is not. Ukraine before the war, wasn’t exactly everyone’s pet, and for good reasons. It was a place that could go bad in some way or the other just like that, similar to Belarus. All this talk about the Russian gas. How on earth would closing off relationships with Russia prevent Putin from going bad/mad? It’s just nonsense, and has nothing to do with Putins behavior. A typical sideline spectator comment.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
That this negativity is there on the part of the adversaries is understandable, but it has always been difficult for me to understand why this would happen within European states, most of which owe their existence post WW2 to NATO, which for most part means the US and UK and France initially, in terms of military power.
The past is another country, and I don’t think that having saved the world in the past, gives the UK, the USA and NATO the right to expect unquestioning loyalty in the future. At the start of my career I met many elderly soldiers and airmen. It is to them that we owe our debt of gratitude, rather than to states or institutions that have changed beyond recognition since those times.
It is quite rare, these days, to meet anyone who fought in WWII.
Emir wrote:
The last four were the ones who took the largest burden within the allied forces. The first one looks as a spectator to this observer.
A good point perhaps, when disregarding what actually happened. Norway was swamped with 1/2 million German soldiers. One German soldier per every 6 or 7 Norwegian. They stayed here all through the war. They didn’t do much except playing socker and building roads and airports, seriously. That and keeping the population in a tight grip. It’s actually one of the oddest things that happened during the war. Why on earth would Germany bind up so many soldiers during the entire war doing nothing? What was the reason? Nobody knows.
How a country sees the use of military power as a tool of foreign policy is probably to some large degree a function of their past experiences.
Hence e.g. the UK and the US are more willing to use military force as it has served them well in the past, e.g. from the time of Napoleon to Suez for the UK and at least from the Spanish-American war to the Gulf War in the US. It was even matter of necessity for the UK in WWII, the closest that country got to being invaded since 1066.
In Germany it is the complete opposite, as the world wars led our country into disaster and halved our territory. The most recent mission to Afghanistan, while comparatively low in intensity, was also a failure.
Other countries are probably somewhere in-between, as they have experienced the horrors of occupation up close but have also learned that some degree of defence spending is necessary to avoid that happening again.
Still, most of Europe was – and to some degree remains – content to hide under the NATO umbrella, mostly held by the US, without a sizeable own contribution to their defense. As a measure of economic capacity, Germany is probably the worst offender, which is – again – a function of deeply entrenched pacifism after WWII.
However, in the long run, Europe’s collective defense cannot work adequately without sizeable German rearmament. Something but Germans and their neighbours need to accept if they really want to be able to defend themselves without the US.
