Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!

In article ,
Alan Pollock wrote:

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting
for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

OH?? I've been hearing just the opposite from the right-wing kooks on
this NG. Everyone ELSE is lazy & can't fight, and we win all their wars.

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

That is not what *I* am saying. I believe the American troops fought
bravely and were led as well as any other of the Allied troops. What
*I* am saying is that the American culture has been taught that they
won the European war on their own and that is absolutely not true.

For example, Juno beach was a tougher slug than Sword or Gold, so the
Canadians and British did meet their D-day's objective. What I am
saying is that American media and history ignores (and sometimes
actually misrepresents) the sacrifices and accomplishments of other
nations - and unfortunately many Americans do not know the real
history.





+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

That is not what *I* am saying. I believe the American troops fought
bravely and were led as well as any other of the Allied troops. What
*I* am saying is that the American culture has been taught that they
won the European war on their own and that is absolutely not true.

For example, Juno beach was a tougher slug than Sword or Gold, so the
Canadians and British did meet their D-day's objective. What I am
saying is that American media and history ignores (and sometimes
actually misrepresents) the sacrifices and accomplishments of other
nations - and unfortunately many Americans do not know the real
history.





+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dave Smith wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote:



Considering that smaller nations all have their images to uphold, and take
national stories like the above and hold them up as emblems, I wonder how many
stories we're Not hearing, since the opposite isn't really needed in the US?
You rarely hear a US national emblematic war story about how others were so
damned bad and the US was so damned good in comparison.

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I would suggest that the problem is the Hollywood image that so many Americans have
accepted as true, that they single handed saved Europe on 2 world wars, and out of
the goodness of their hearts. This is hardly the case. The truth is that Americans
were reluctant to get involved in either conflict and would have preferred to stay
out of them entirely.

I've seen analyses of WW2 that clearly demonstrate that without US help at
first, and without the US entering the war a little later, Britain and much of
Europe would look very different today. I don't think it's disputed except by
the most ardent anti-American polemicists.

As for the US not entering the war till '41, why should it have? The US was
not part of the Commonwealth. The US was already helping Britain with
*massive* amounts of materiel. France had already gone belly-up with heroic
Monsieur Petain in Vichy. Benelux was gone. Hell, the internal discussions in
the US were fast and furious, which is exactly as it should have been.

Lots and lots of German and Italian descended Americans. Early variations of
the holocaust (and other German atrocities) were not yet public knowledge. The
partisan press had dolled-it all up so much the first time round that reports
of German inhumanity in WW2 were viewed with skepticism at first.

Eventually it became obvious that the US could not have stayed out. But to
presuppose a knee-jerk entry in '39? The height of folly - a total
misunderstanding of how independant the US felt, and was.

For Canada to even Declare war against Germany independantly was a wondrous
event:

"On Sept. 9, 1939, Canada's Parliament voted to declare war on Germany.
Canada's separate declaration of war was a measure of the independence granted
it in the 1931 Statute of Westminster; in 1914 there had been no such
independence and no separate declaration of war. The vote was nearly
unanimous, a result that rested on the assumption that there was to be a
limited liability war effort .."

(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=43011)

Underscores the closeness between Canada and Britain back then. Of Course
Canada went in immediately. Of Course the US didn't rush in headlong. It did
help out *significantly* though (Lend lease etc) before going in.


I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

And please remember the question and not what you Think the question is. How
true are the general (often self-serving it seems) characterizations? Not a
few examples which have nothing to do with troops and everything to do with
making money producing movies for a particular market. Nex

The general characterizations as presented in Hollywood productions are mostly false
and self engrandizing. Sadly, they are the impressions that many Americans
demonstrate as being held as truths.

However they're not what's taught in schools, colleges and universities. It's
not what you find in the scores of historical books that come out every year
in the US and which are so immensely popular these days. You won't find
knowledgeable Americans saying these things. But you will find Hollywood
saying them, for reasons having more to do with market demographics than any
kind of patriotic fervor or wish to denigrate other countries. Hollywood
doesn't actually Have much national feeling when all is said and done, unless
it's good economics and that's just good old capitalism. Perhaps Hollywood has
grown so influential that the problem lies in folks basing cultural and
historical theories about a large varied populous country on its fantasy
product!

I'm veering away from the orginal topic I know, but face it. Canadians and
Europeans get a lot their knowledge of the US from what they see in movies and
TV. Hollywood. The US is not One Thing, and Hollywood is not the US. How many
times in Europe have I spoken to folks who insist - often surprisingly - that
certain modes of behaviour or qualities of character are 'typically American',
only to find out after a little digging that they got these views -
certainties in many cases - from 90210, or Friends, or some self-important cop
show. Pretty absurd, wouldn't you say? Nex

Dave Smith wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote:



Considering that smaller nations all have their images to uphold, and take
national stories like the above and hold them up as emblems, I wonder how many
stories we're Not hearing, since the opposite isn't really needed in the US?
You rarely hear a US national emblematic war story about how others were so
damned bad and the US was so damned good in comparison.

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I would suggest that the problem is the Hollywood image that so many Americans have
accepted as true, that they single handed saved Europe on 2 world wars, and out of
the goodness of their hearts. This is hardly the case. The truth is that Americans
were reluctant to get involved in either conflict and would have preferred to stay
out of them entirely.

I've seen analyses of WW2 that clearly demonstrate that without US help at
first, and without the US entering the war a little later, Britain and much of
Europe would look very different today. I don't think it's disputed except by
the most ardent anti-American polemicists.

As for the US not entering the war till '41, why should it have? The US was
not part of the Commonwealth. The US was already helping Britain with
*massive* amounts of materiel. France had already gone belly-up with heroic
Monsieur Petain in Vichy. Benelux was gone. Hell, the internal discussions in
the US were fast and furious, which is exactly as it should have been.

Lots and lots of German and Italian descended Americans. Early variations of
the holocaust (and other German atrocities) were not yet public knowledge. The
partisan press had dolled-it all up so much the first time round that reports
of German inhumanity in WW2 were viewed with skepticism at first.

Eventually it became obvious that the US could not have stayed out. But to
presuppose a knee-jerk entry in '39? The height of folly - a total
misunderstanding of how independant the US felt, and was.

For Canada to even Declare war against Germany independantly was a wondrous
event:

"On Sept. 9, 1939, Canada's Parliament voted to declare war on Germany.
Canada's separate declaration of war was a measure of the independence granted
it in the 1931 Statute of Westminster; in 1914 there had been no such
independence and no separate declaration of war. The vote was nearly
unanimous, a result that rested on the assumption that there was to be a
limited liability war effort .."

(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=43011)

Underscores the closeness between Canada and Britain back then. Of Course
Canada went in immediately. Of Course the US didn't rush in headlong. It did
help out *significantly* though (Lend lease etc) before going in.


I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

And please remember the question and not what you Think the question is. How
true are the general (often self-serving it seems) characterizations? Not a
few examples which have nothing to do with troops and everything to do with
making money producing movies for a particular market. Nex

The general characterizations as presented in Hollywood productions are mostly false
and self engrandizing. Sadly, they are the impressions that many Americans
demonstrate as being held as truths.

However they're not what's taught in schools, colleges and universities. It's
not what you find in the scores of historical books that come out every year
in the US and which are so immensely popular these days. You won't find
knowledgeable Americans saying these things. But you will find Hollywood
saying them, for reasons having more to do with market demographics than any
kind of patriotic fervor or wish to denigrate other countries. Hollywood
doesn't actually Have much national feeling when all is said and done, unless
it's good economics and that's just good old capitalism. Perhaps Hollywood has
grown so influential that the problem lies in folks basing cultural and
historical theories about a large varied populous country on its fantasy
product!

I'm veering away from the orginal topic I know, but face it. Canadians and
Europeans get a lot their knowledge of the US from what they see in movies and
TV. Hollywood. The US is not One Thing, and Hollywood is not the US. How many
times in Europe have I spoken to folks who insist - often surprisingly - that
certain modes of behaviour or qualities of character are 'typically American',
only to find out after a little digging that they got these views -
certainties in many cases - from 90210, or Friends, or some self-important cop
show. Pretty absurd, wouldn't you say? Nex

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 02:13:10 +0000 (UTC), Alan Pollock
wrote:

hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

That is not what *I* am saying. I believe the American troops fought
bravely and were led as well as any other of the Allied troops.

That's fair enough, which is why I didn't ask that question Nex

I thought I did answer your question..."do we think US troops were
lazy or let others fight for them?".

I think the answer is "no" - they did fight bravely. But then I added
that "Hollywood" and "American popular history" ignores the fighting
of other nations. This may be why there is that negative (and
incorrect) backlash about the American troops.

One other media example is the HBO "Band of Brothers" series. During
the showing of the episodes on Canadian TV, Canadian veteran
paratroopers were interviewed as to their experiences. They of
course bravely fought along side the 101st Airborne and experienced
the same horrors of war. Tom Hanks tells the story of the men in
"Easy" company and does not mention any other countries so it is so
easy for American audiences to misinterperate that the US
"singlehandedly" liberated Europe.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alan Pollock wrote:

I would suggest that the problem is the Hollywood image that so many Americans have
accepted as true, that they single handed saved Europe on 2 world wars, and out of
the goodness of their hearts. This is hardly the case. The truth is that Americans
were reluctant to get involved in either conflict and would have preferred to stay
out of them entirely.

I've seen analyses of WW2 that clearly demonstrate that without US help at
first, and without the US entering the war a little later, Britain and much of
Europe would look very different today. I don't think it's disputed except by
the most ardent anti-American polemicists.

I don't doubt at all that things might have different if the US had not eventually got
involved. However, the objection that many people have is the often demonstrated belief
among many Americans that they attained the victory single handed.



As for the US not entering the war till '41, why should it have? The US was
not part of the Commonwealth. The US was already helping Britain with
*massive* amounts of materiel. France had already gone belly-up with heroic
Monsieur Petain in Vichy. Benelux was gone. Hell, the internal discussions in
the US were fast and furious, which is exactly as it should have been.

A good reason would have been to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was
heavily influenced by the US. Some of the European leaders knew about Hitler's master
plan and saw it hatching, and in violation of the terms of their surrender. While not
prepared for another major war with Germany, they did draw a line in the sand and carried
through on their threat to wage war if Germany went into Poland.

The US was not helping with the Lend Lease program. That did not come into being until
October 1941, more than 2 years after the war started. France had only recently. The war
went on for almost a year before Germany invaded France. Meanwhile in the Pacific, the US
was rattling sabers with Japan/ The Japanese launched their attacks on Pearl Harbor
because US reticence in Europe convinced them that they could get away with it, that the
Americans would not fight.

Lots and lots of German and Italian descended Americans. Early variations of
the holocaust (and other German atrocities) were not yet public knowledge. The
partisan press had dolled-it all up so much the first time round that reports
of German inhumanity in WW2 were viewed with skepticism at first.

There were few Resistance fighters in the early stages of the war. Most of the opposition
had already been rounded up and shipped out to prison or concentration camps. But the
German intend to get rid of the Jews had begun before the war even started. Jews had been
fleeing Germany since the mid 30s.

Eventually it became obvious that the US could not have stayed out. But to
presuppose a knee-jerk entry in '39? The height of folly - a total
misunderstanding of how independant the US felt, and was.

It also allowed them to maneuver themselves into a world power at the expense of the
European powers. Be that good or bad.

Underscores the closeness between Canada and Britain back then. Of Course
Canada went in immediately. Of Course the US didn't rush in headlong. It did
help out *significantly* though (Lend lease etc) before going in.

Yes, but Lend Lease was Oct.41, just a month and a half before the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor.

However they're not what's taught in schools, colleges and universities. It's
not what you find in the scores of historical books that come out every year
in the US and which are so immensely popular these days. You won't find
knowledgeable Americans saying these things.

Not the knowledgeable ones, that's true. Just the vocal types, many users of news groups
and the right wing media. We have heard enough comments about how the US saved Europe's
bacon twice and cheese eating surrender monkeys.



But you will find Hollywood
saying them, for reasons having more to do with market demographics than any
kind of patriotic fervor or wish to denigrate other countries. Hollywood
doesn't actually Have much national feeling when all is said and done, unless
it's good economics and that's just good old capitalism. Perhaps Hollywood has
grown so influential that the problem lies in folks basing cultural and
historical theories about a large varied populous country on its fantasy
product!

I think that we understand the marketing behind it, and the indoctrination process. They
feed on each other and the result is generations of viewers who have a warped view of
history and a warped view of the current situation based on that misinformation.

Dave Smith wrote:
Not the knowledgeable ones, that's true. Just the vocal types, many users of news groups
and the right wing media. We have heard enough comments about how the US saved Europe's
bacon twice and cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Not twice, but once. WW2, not WW1. The US helped in 1, but was a much less
significant factor in the eventual victory. In WW2, the US was the main
factor, giving the Soviet Union materiel (The Soviets suffered more than any
other nation in WW2), and engaging in all the other battles we all know about,
as well as arming the allies, providing trucks, communicatinos equipment, food
and all those good things needed to conduct a series of campaigns to eventual
success. Without the US, the war could not have been won. Period.

So: bacon saved once, not twice.

'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys', a comical term that I wouldn't use. However
it has meaning, considering the behavior of the French in the last few years.
Since it's a comical put down, like most political humor it's a caricature, an
exaggeration even according to the point of view that birthed that inelegant
phrase. Canadians know All about that kind of thing, trust me. The CBC may be
a touch more subtle, but subtlety creates More damage as it's semi-stealth.

But believing that France acted dishonorably in the last couple of years is
not a 'Right' point of view, nor is it 'Left' really, because it has nothing
to do with economics. The democratic party of Scoop Jackson and John F Kennedy
is gone, hopefully to emerge again. That certain shades of the spectrum have
taken positions on this does not make those positions the building blocks Of
those ideologies, although some are trying hard to imbue the Left with a
Derrida-besotted worldview where other than the class struggle, nothing has
value.

As for the US entering the war in '41 *in order* to gain economic advantage
*after* the war, I figure your wording just made it seem that way.

You imply that events such as Kristallnacht made it imperative that the US
declare war on Germany in '39. Well the Commonwealth sure didn't care, they
entered the war for entirely different reasons, so why should the US? The
Holocaust wasn't a known entity yet.

It's easy to look back and give motives to countries, motives they just didn't
have. It's just as easy to give motives to the US because of what Hollywood
puts out. Both are wrong. Nex

Alan Pollock wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:
Not the knowledgeable ones, that's true. Just the vocal types, many users of news groups
and the right wing media. We have heard enough comments about how the US saved Europe's
bacon twice and cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Not twice, but once. WW2, not WW1. The US helped in 1, but was a much less
significant factor in the eventual victory. In WW2, the US was the main
factor, giving the Soviet Union materiel (The Soviets suffered more than any
other nation in WW2), and engaging in all the other battles we all know about,
as well as arming the allies, providing trucks, communicatinos equipment, food
and all those good things needed to conduct a series of campaigns to eventual
success. Without the US, the war could not have been won. Period.

I don't dispute that American involvement was a major factor, or that it was much appreciated
when it finally arrived. Bear in mind that Hitler abandoned his plans to invade Britain and
turned on the soviets after two years.

So: bacon saved once, not twice.

Helped to save .... eventually.


You imply that events such as Kristallnacht made it imperative that the US
declare war on Germany in '39. Well the Commonwealth sure didn't care, they
entered the war for entirely different reasons, so why should the US? The
Holocaust wasn't a known entity yet.

There was more than Kristallnacht, and it's likely that people's views about Jews at the time
probably wouldn't make that an imperative. However, given the great influence that the US had
in drawing up the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and that Hitler had already moved into
Czechoslovakia, militarized the Rhine and invaded Poland, there was a need to enforce those
conditions. The parties to the treaty had promised military support for Poland if it was
invaded.

It's easy to look back and give motives to countries, motives they just didn't
have. It's just as easy to give motives to the US because of what Hollywood
puts out. Both are wrong.

Hollywood and national motives are entirely different matters. When it comes to the movies it
is a matter of cause and effect. You have to wonder if so many Americans have a particular view
about their involvement and successes because of what has been falsely portrayed in movies and
on television, or whether the movies are intentionally slanted because Americans simply won't
support a project that shows it any other way.

Dave Smith wrote:

There was more than Kristallnacht, and it's likely that people's views about Jews at the time
probably wouldn't make that an imperative. However, given the great influence that the US had
in drawing up the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and that Hitler had already moved into
Czechoslovakia, militarized the Rhine and invaded Poland, there was a need to enforce those
conditions. The parties to the treaty had promised military support for Poland if it was
invaded.


However that treaty had been broken long before; it had become a purely
European affair.

http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html

"The Second World War was caused by Fascist aggression and the failure of
democratic powers to stop this aggression.

The rearmament of Germany was a cause for war because it broke the Treaty of
Versailles (28th June, 1919)

The remilitarization of the Rhineland (7th march, 1936) was a cause of war
because it broke the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts (1925)

The Rome-Berlin Axis (October 1936) was a cause of war because it united the
aggressive fascist powers and divided Europe into hostile camps.

Chamberlain's appeasement policy (after may 1937 ? March 1939) was a cause of
war because it broke the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of St. Germain (10th
September, 1919)

The Anschluss of Germany with Austria (13th march, 1938) was a cause of war
because it broke the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of St. Germain (10th
September, 1919)

The Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland after the Munich conference (29th
September 1938) was a cause of war, because it broke the Treaty of St.
Germain.

The Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, cause war because it
defied the Munich agreement and ended Britain's appeasement policy.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact (29th August 1939) caused war because it sealed Poland's
downfall.

The Nazi invasion of Poland (1st September 1939) caused war because Britain
had guaranteed Poland's borders."



It's easy to look back and give motives to countries, motives they just didn't
have. It's just as easy to give motives to the US because of what Hollywood
puts out. Both are wrong.

Hollywood and national motives are entirely different matters. When it comes to the movies it
is a matter of cause and effect. You have to wonder if so many Americans have a particular view
about their involvement and successes because of what has been falsely portrayed in movies and
on television, or whether the movies are intentionally slanted because Americans simply won't
support a project that shows it any other way.


Let's balance this. Lots of historical movies from Hollywood Do portray facts
more or less (with dramatic enhancement no doubt) as they were.

The ones that portray facts differently do so for reasons, as I said, more to
do with demographics and economics than any dastardly intent. There's no
conspiracy here. It's loose and chaotic.

So it's a mixed bag. The US is a federal system of semi-automomous states each
with their own laws. The country has many centers of power, one of them being
the Hollywood entertainment Industry. The US is an open system of more-or-less
'shaped' chaos, and that's our great strength. Few straightjackets here
compared to many other nations.

For an Orwellian Ministry of Information to be installed to prevent some
countries from being offended by *some* Hollywood movies is to me, laughable.
Let the entertainment guys do their thang, because it's entertainment first.
Nobody is forced to watch any particular movie, be it from Hollywood or
Bollywood. If some movie is wrong historically there are always plenty of
pundits in each nation to point out the mistakes. And always they do, often
gleefully. Fine with me.

Of course now that the foreign distribution of movies has become so much more
important you'll see less of this kind of thing, because the studios have
perforce become more sensitive. That's fine too. But the black helicopters?
Nah. Nex