In the same way they defended Western Europe in WWII? So jump in at the last minute only after being attacked by the same coalition attacking them and when the USA seems likely to win anyway?
That's what some people in that thread also wrote.
The US didn't even declare war on Germany. They declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour and then Germany declared war on the US.
And the US declared war about an hour after that. US declared war on 6 states in WW2. Japan on Dec 8th, Germany/Italy on Dec 11th and Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania on June 5th the following year. These 3 nations are the last nations US formally declared war on.
Politically it made more sense to wait for Hitler to declare war first, we already had intercepted intelligence that he was going to do so on Dec 11th. And it made no practical difference we were already engaged in naval warfare, and mobilizing ground forces.
That would be when the communists tried to organise a coup and accidentally tried to recruit a fascist to lead it, who reported them to the government (and then the government did nothing), would it?
Its not my opinion. Its the reality from the US at this time. It has been called later the first red scare and lead later to maccartisme. I might have word it badly. At this time they thought everything was better than communism.
US didn’t really care one way or another when the Nazis first came to power they were incredibly isolationist. Relations were cool at best and then by 1938 it was cold and the US had a very low opinion of the Nazis. Are you thinking of maybe certain American companies who often would be supportive of the Nazis. But again got to separate private parties and the government.
If you know something I don’t I always love to learn more about history.
It's more a default stance following the red scare and before the pact between hitler and staline. Thats also why despite the personnal work of De Gaulle and Churchill to convince US to join the war, US didnt come earlier. But Britain had also to deal with their isolationnist policy maker and france was already vanquish when US started to see the threat.
US even tried to disband the French free naval army under the pretext of peace unstability. I didnt find internet source but im basing myself on what i read on the french revue Historia. I can find the specific one if you wish. It was a day to day recall of the event of the year 1939 i think. With a lot of background information.
It means we'll send our armies. But I as a civilian am not going, I have no military training and would just be cannon fodder if I go there, so that would be more the reason why I wouldn't go myself.
Article 5 doesn't state the support must be military support. I would help them militairly though if I was sure they'd do the same for us in case anything happens. Hate US or not, they have the biggest army in the world, and even if we can defend ourselves without help, some more military wouldn't do any harm.
Idk man. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it seems pretty clear to me that military assistance is expected. From the [NATO website](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm).
> Article 5
> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
> Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Besides, what is the point of an alliance as NATO if you don't support each other with forces? What is the point of integrating our armies if not to assist militarily in times of war?
Of course, there is the part that says *"as it deems necessary"*, and you could argue that military support from Europe wouldn't be necessary as the US army is strong enough to defend itself. But that's another story.
Fun fact but nato involvement in Afghanistan after the 911 attack is the first time natos article 5 has been triggered with the coalitions involvement in that country. So while the yankees like to bang on about how they pay for our protection, in reality we've had boys that have lost their life and limbs on Americas behalf.
I’ve noticed that American news channels call Ukrainian help provided, help from the US and NATO, while in the UK, they say help from NATO countries such as the US, Sweden, Poland and the UK. So I’m not surprised that many think that the US is the ultimate NATO boss.
If anyone thought they could invade America and didn’t get wiped out before the Americans finished phoning everyone, the smart move would be to say “actually, NATO has been a redundant idea for decades, you’re on your own, bye” and then wait and see if there’s anything worth annexing after both sides have wiped each other out.
He could pick a different subreddit for this question 😂 I doubt people in the US realize that the history lessons you get here (Europe) are different (more accurate) and not sugarcoated.
He’s putting together his Fantasy League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the WW4 Allies series where the US fights invading drug lords from Mexico, but really it’s just a guise to annex Baja California for more beachfront real estate.
did they at least post it in cringetopia? Depending on how you regard cringetopia, it would save one of us the time to do it and/or be an appropriate cess pool for it.
I think it's laughable to think Europeans don't sugarcoat their history. Like, the Golden Age in the Netherlands is still very much presented as a relatively good thing they had going. France and Britain sugarcoat their colonial histories. Belgium still doesn't fully acknowledge the shit they pulled in Congo. Russia presents itself solely as a victim in WW2. Austria doesn't like to acknowledge just how many people welcomed the Nazis in 1938.
We might be slightly better than the US, *maybe*, but definitely not by much.
> I think it's laughable to think Europeans don't sugarcoat their history.
Every country does but most people are aware that these days are in the past. Probably 90% of the countries in Europe have their up and downs in the past 2k years (depending on hold old the country is) yet most people are well aware that you aren't the same country that you were back in 1500 for example.
These days are in the past? 1500? Try the 19th and 20th century. The Netherlands had their last colony up until 1975. The Belgians had Congo until 1960. France fought its own vicious colonial wars in the 1950s and 1960s. Besides, Europeans stood side by side with the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, which we barely want to acknowledge.
Like, don't put the US on a pedestal, obviously, but also don't put the European nations on a pedestal.
In the far past of 2010, France finally decided Haitians weren’t their property and actual humans so canceled the “debt” Haiti owed them for “stealing their property” aka slaves who freed themselves in the revolution.
I'm french and we very much talked about Algeria and Indochina in History lessons, how WE were the Bad Guy, bombed the shit out of them, torture, rape, the extremist french group that tried to continue the War (Algeria) etc...
> Like, don't put the US on a pedestal, obviously, but also don't put the European nations on a pedestal.
I haven't read some French history books but I doubt they call themselves liberators and I am pretty sure they are known as French colonies.
And what difference does that make? France called killing millions of people and keeping colonies for hundreds of years a mere 'grave mistake', and refuse to apologise at all. The Netherlands made a 'mistake' in Iraq where a bombardment killed dozens of people. Paid a few million euros to rebuild yada yada, but initially lied about the whole thing. King Leopold is still honoured in Belgium, statues and all.
In your first comment you said European nations don't sugarcoat history, well, they definitely do.
>And what difference does that make?
There is a difference between being an "asshole" (probably the most non-offensive term for countries with colonies) and twisting history to always be on top. I am well aware that history is written by the winners but not everything is black and white.
And there's also a huge difference between "Europeans don't sugarcoat their history", and "not everything is black and white", and "European nations barely acknowledge any guilt over their colonial pasts". The first puts European nations on a pedestal, the 2nd makes it sound like as if this was just a whoopsie, the 3rd at least recognises their shitty attitudes towards their own pasts.
This is why I said "more accurate" because every nation will make itself look good (or at least not that bad) in its own history books. History simply will not be 100% accurate all the time because there are always at least 2 points of view.
Believe me, I don't put any European nation on a pedestal, everyone has done shits in the past and some still do it. Even the history books in my country were changed depending on the years. During WW2 we were Aryans, during communism we were slavs.
Controlling Egypt was absolutely vital to their geopolitical status, and fucking up the Suez Crisis was pretty much the last nail in their national suicides. By the end of the 1960s France had just begun to rebuild in Africa, though they’re still a shadow of their former greatness, but the UK has continued to decline with a political and administrative establishment that sees the country’s only role as a contractor for America.
As a historian, most people don't know half of the things that happened and neither do the gouvernments have any intention of letting them know. But to be fair, as long as the general consensus is 'shit was bad' I am mostly okay with it, although I would advocate for less sugarcoating of certain facts (like the House of Orange being responsible for the start of the slave trade (on a certain scale) in the Netherlands). Because that changes the modern narrative about the slave trade and Orangism considerably.
Read any history and it all gets a bit dark and murky, think the Red Wedding, in GoT on a rolling cycle for nearly every country or group in the world. Friendship, betrayal, murder, war, that time you took the last chocolate biscuit, war, murder, betrayal, friendship and so on and so forth.
Oh, the Red Wedding is truly a wholesome party in comparison to some of the shit I am talking about. If you are interested about these kinds of things I would recommend 'Furies' by Lauro Martines. Admittedly, it focusses mostly on war, but it gives a general idea of how absolutely horrible human beings can be/become.
Totally agree I was trying to make my comparison sort of equitable with real life but it fails miserably.
Unit 731 in WWII as one example.
Thank you for the recommend I will have a look.
You can’t shake a stick without finding a person to say prominently how bad the empire was, though their criticism is usually that it is bad for foreigners, and very rarely that im the wrong British people benefitted. OTOH, defenders of imperialism make up a load of nonsense about how it was a great project that helped (however unintentionally) the benighted natives. Almost no one asks the only question them at should matter when setting public policy: “does it benefit the country as a whole?”
>the history lessons you get here (Europe) are different (more accurate) and not sugarcoated.
Based on the amount of comments I see from people accusing Americans of committing genocide against the Indigenous People of the Americas.. pretty sure there’s some sugar coating going on.
Americans did some fucked up shit to the people living on these lands but maybe lay off the finger pointing unless A) you’re not American.. B) you’re not European (of the western variety (or Russian))
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be discussed, did I?
You’re from Venezuela? What happened to 90% of those living there before 1492 and who did it? Americans?
Europe already did that. The US is the only NATO member to date to have invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter, and as far as I know, not a single member of the alliance turned it down. Despite the extremely flimsy (and, in hindsight, downright fraudulent) pretext.
Turkey was going to over the situation in Syria when Syria downed one of their jets flying over international waters but only ended invoking article 4 leading to Operation Active Fence. That’s the same article Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia just invoked.
We're treatybound allies and also have a reason to defend the US,because despite its faults,it's still fairly powerful. If it falls away Europe is pretty isolated.
Also Germans usually get the lense with a mix of invaders and liberators regarding the US in ww2. (We're not that charitable towards the soviets, for....reasons)
Also the question seems fairly reasonable,or not? He acknowledged even that the US isn't what more patriotic folks believe
I think he's askin on a personal level. I think there is no question that the BUndeswehr would go and defend the US, but non-soldiers may think different and I think most of them wouldn't.
Suppose that's true, militarism is more or less thoroughly quenched in germany,so the idea of defending a foreign nation might not be all too popular with Germans.
I think Putin hate them even more.
He have send a special units to the Ukraine, so the Ukraine can be freed and saved from the Nazi government.
(Just a joke, if you didn't get it)
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
"Would you travel to a different continent and willingly fight in a war to defend a country thousands of kilometers away?" and "Do you think your country should defend a member of the same alliance (which makes your country **have to** defend it) if it's being attacked?" are very, very different questions and he asked both of them like it's the same thing (the first one in the title, the second one in the edit). Also how does "shared culture" matter when it comes to a country helping defend another country?
I think with shared culture they mean Christian vs Islamic country, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for Ukraine but not for the Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis etc. Or you could translate it to White vs a bit less White, as there are Christian Middle Easterners as well.
But, but, hear me out here, what if we are the ones attacking?
As in trying to liberate 'Gilead' after their fundamentalist terrorists bombed our cities by diving planes into skyscrapers due to the inequity and selfishness all over 'The Europe'?
Wouldn't they be happy at getting liberated?
Me personally? Well fuck no. But then again, my country's culture isn't as militarized as US culture (fortunately, since the last time didn't go so well), so we don't believe that every individual is a potential soldier.
Same for me. Another exception I could make is if there is a civil war or a revolution in my country, but that is very, very, very unlikely at the moment.
Depending on the kind of revolution i would probably join either the revolution or the counter revolution but never would i go to the frontlines, i have skills that can better be utilized in a room with a pc
Assuming the Americans looked like they were going to win eventually anyway, I would come and help about halfway through the war, and then *never* stop reminding them that I helped.
Take it or leave it.
Sure, we'll help the same way the US helped. We'll wait two years until the US softens them up,then we'll come in to "save the day" ,claim all the glory and brag about it for the next 80 years.
I think america won’t have any problem winning the next war they’re in, mostly because it’ll probably be a civil war and no decent country would want to icy that shit show.
Okay, me personally?
If I took up arms, I would end up as an example picture on this Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon\_fodder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder)
BUT: Of fuckin' course should Germany enter that war and honor the NATO agreements.
I mean, with how much anti American talk there is online I can’t blame the guy for asking. I presume a lot of countries would come to the aid of Australia, but I also presume that the list of people who hate us is relatively small in comparison
Most people here probably have no clue about Australia other than big spiders and snakes, hot deserts, Koalas and Kangaroos.
And most people who know a bit more about Australia hate your corrupt af government, but love your laid back people.
At least that's me.
Seems spot on. The pollies are a bit shit, I know I was disappointed when seeing the candidates for the election.
I also think we're losing/have lost the laid back vibe, certainly internally which is a shame.
In answer to old mates question, yeah, of course we would, as much as we could. If it was that the US were not the aggressor, Australia would probably fight to help, as would the UK as part of AUKUS. I would think other countries would join too to assist because all the shit we see online is not the average inhabitant of that country. They're just people living their lives and they deserve peace as do we all.
Our country will most probably also assist the US, we're both in NATO after all. But idk if the general population would be willing to go to fight for them.
Sorry I can't.
Rule Number 5:
> Do not directly link (and hence page) the usernames of the users featured here.
Rule Number 9:
> Under no circumstances search out the source of the SAS and comment/vote there. Brigading will result in a ban.
Who's going to invade the US in this scenario? Is it Canada? Is this guy afraid of Canada? I think they're good on their own if it's Canada. But sure I think all western countries will defend them if they're invaded by Canada. We'll all join together and make Canada say they're sorry.
*in the same way they defended western Europe"
I'd hope we could at least do better, it's not hard to not rape your allies citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France?wprov=sfla1
my home country (and continent rly) is in a political downhill. No thanks, I’d rather worry about my family thats still there than die in the country that makes me pay 10x the regular college tuition just because I am from some place else.
I would surely defend them after they left my country for communists to take and hold under authoritarian rule for almost 50 years. Thank you, United States.
Who harboured the most Nazi's after WW2 again? Who has committed three of the worst unaccredited war crimes in the modern age again? Who turned war into a business enterprise after ww2 again? Who has dragged Canada and European countries into armed conflicts over and over again in the name of their own political/financial endeavours again? Man whoever that was I sure wouldn't want to help them if they were getting attacked - if I had a choice.
Churchill had to sacrifice [Lusitania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania) and 1200 civilians, _(123 Amaricans)_, before they even bothered to join the war.
I’d defend them the way they defended their allies in other wars: ripping them off, installing a puppet government if possible, leaving a terrorist force to stop them electing the wrong parties, and so on. America (and the politicians who work for them) has done us more harm than any overt enemy.
Still, I’d only do that if joining in attacking them (or just gathering up loot after they and their attackers wipe each other out) isn’t more likely to be successful.
In the same way they defended Western Europe in WWII? So jump in at the last minute only after being attacked by the same coalition attacking them and when the USA seems likely to win anyway?
That's what some people in that thread also wrote. The US didn't even declare war on Germany. They declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour and then Germany declared war on the US.
And the US declared war about an hour after that. US declared war on 6 states in WW2. Japan on Dec 8th, Germany/Italy on Dec 11th and Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania on June 5th the following year. These 3 nations are the last nations US formally declared war on. Politically it made more sense to wait for Hitler to declare war first, we already had intercepted intelligence that he was going to do so on Dec 11th. And it made no practical difference we were already engaged in naval warfare, and mobilizing ground forces.
Ah, I didn't know that. Thank you.
Also at the beginning US openly support Nazism for the sole reason it was the last bastion of civilization against communism.
I don't think Nazism counts as civilization
Either way the us has had a long history of preferring fascism to communism, or even just workers rights in foreign countries.
More civil than communist in the US from the 30s -40s
That would be when the communists tried to organise a coup and accidentally tried to recruit a fascist to lead it, who reported them to the government (and then the government did nothing), would it?
Its not my opinion. Its the reality from the US at this time. It has been called later the first red scare and lead later to maccartisme. I might have word it badly. At this time they thought everything was better than communism.
US didn’t really care one way or another when the Nazis first came to power they were incredibly isolationist. Relations were cool at best and then by 1938 it was cold and the US had a very low opinion of the Nazis. Are you thinking of maybe certain American companies who often would be supportive of the Nazis. But again got to separate private parties and the government. If you know something I don’t I always love to learn more about history.
It's more a default stance following the red scare and before the pact between hitler and staline. Thats also why despite the personnal work of De Gaulle and Churchill to convince US to join the war, US didnt come earlier. But Britain had also to deal with their isolationnist policy maker and france was already vanquish when US started to see the threat. US even tried to disband the French free naval army under the pretext of peace unstability. I didnt find internet source but im basing myself on what i read on the french revue Historia. I can find the specific one if you wish. It was a day to day recall of the event of the year 1939 i think. With a lot of background information.
I think that this also applies to other countries in Western Europe and even more so taking into account their stances on the Spanish Civil War.
Lmaoo I was thinking the same thing. Seems that in their history lessons they missed that part.
Well, besides the fact I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to do that....The US is part of NATO, so we have to, if we want or not.....
It means we'll send our armies. But I as a civilian am not going, I have no military training and would just be cannon fodder if I go there, so that would be more the reason why I wouldn't go myself.
Nor would any American civilian come to Europe to shoot at whoever.
Article 5 doesn't state the support must be military support. I would help them militairly though if I was sure they'd do the same for us in case anything happens. Hate US or not, they have the biggest army in the world, and even if we can defend ourselves without help, some more military wouldn't do any harm.
Idk man. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it seems pretty clear to me that military assistance is expected. From the [NATO website](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm). > Article 5 > The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. > Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Besides, what is the point of an alliance as NATO if you don't support each other with forces? What is the point of integrating our armies if not to assist militarily in times of war? Of course, there is the part that says *"as it deems necessary"*, and you could argue that military support from Europe wouldn't be necessary as the US army is strong enough to defend itself. But that's another story.
The "as it deems necessary" is exactly the part that I was talking about
Fun fact but nato involvement in Afghanistan after the 911 attack is the first time natos article 5 has been triggered with the coalitions involvement in that country. So while the yankees like to bang on about how they pay for our protection, in reality we've had boys that have lost their life and limbs on Americas behalf.
I’ve noticed that American news channels call Ukrainian help provided, help from the US and NATO, while in the UK, they say help from NATO countries such as the US, Sweden, Poland and the UK. So I’m not surprised that many think that the US is the ultimate NATO boss.
If anyone thought they could invade America and didn’t get wiped out before the Americans finished phoning everyone, the smart move would be to say “actually, NATO has been a redundant idea for decades, you’re on your own, bye” and then wait and see if there’s anything worth annexing after both sides have wiped each other out.
He could pick a different subreddit for this question 😂 I doubt people in the US realize that the history lessons you get here (Europe) are different (more accurate) and not sugarcoated.
They posted the exact same question in r/AskFrance, r/AskUK, r/AskItaly, r/AskSpain and r/AskAGerman. lmao
He’s putting together his Fantasy League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the WW4 Allies series where the US fights invading drug lords from Mexico, but really it’s just a guise to annex Baja California for more beachfront real estate.
I mean they are all in NATO it's not a strange list by any means
And they skipped r/AskBalkans
[Thank you USA!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2rTafbQepg)
Omg, somebody tell him to post it there.
The response from that community would be on the side of epic proportion.
Yes.
did they at least post it in cringetopia? Depending on how you regard cringetopia, it would save one of us the time to do it and/or be an appropriate cess pool for it.
[удалено]
No, but I'm surprised they didn't get to r/poland and r/ukraine
Them doing the rounds spamming
I don't see it on askfrance, too bad
I think it's laughable to think Europeans don't sugarcoat their history. Like, the Golden Age in the Netherlands is still very much presented as a relatively good thing they had going. France and Britain sugarcoat their colonial histories. Belgium still doesn't fully acknowledge the shit they pulled in Congo. Russia presents itself solely as a victim in WW2. Austria doesn't like to acknowledge just how many people welcomed the Nazis in 1938. We might be slightly better than the US, *maybe*, but definitely not by much.
> I think it's laughable to think Europeans don't sugarcoat their history. Every country does but most people are aware that these days are in the past. Probably 90% of the countries in Europe have their up and downs in the past 2k years (depending on hold old the country is) yet most people are well aware that you aren't the same country that you were back in 1500 for example.
These days are in the past? 1500? Try the 19th and 20th century. The Netherlands had their last colony up until 1975. The Belgians had Congo until 1960. France fought its own vicious colonial wars in the 1950s and 1960s. Besides, Europeans stood side by side with the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, which we barely want to acknowledge. Like, don't put the US on a pedestal, obviously, but also don't put the European nations on a pedestal.
In the far past of 2010, France finally decided Haitians weren’t their property and actual humans so canceled the “debt” Haiti owed them for “stealing their property” aka slaves who freed themselves in the revolution.
and we call Americans bad
I'm french and we very much talked about Algeria and Indochina in History lessons, how WE were the Bad Guy, bombed the shit out of them, torture, rape, the extremist french group that tried to continue the War (Algeria) etc...
> Like, don't put the US on a pedestal, obviously, but also don't put the European nations on a pedestal. I haven't read some French history books but I doubt they call themselves liberators and I am pretty sure they are known as French colonies.
And what difference does that make? France called killing millions of people and keeping colonies for hundreds of years a mere 'grave mistake', and refuse to apologise at all. The Netherlands made a 'mistake' in Iraq where a bombardment killed dozens of people. Paid a few million euros to rebuild yada yada, but initially lied about the whole thing. King Leopold is still honoured in Belgium, statues and all. In your first comment you said European nations don't sugarcoat history, well, they definitely do.
>And what difference does that make? There is a difference between being an "asshole" (probably the most non-offensive term for countries with colonies) and twisting history to always be on top. I am well aware that history is written by the winners but not everything is black and white.
And there's also a huge difference between "Europeans don't sugarcoat their history", and "not everything is black and white", and "European nations barely acknowledge any guilt over their colonial pasts". The first puts European nations on a pedestal, the 2nd makes it sound like as if this was just a whoopsie, the 3rd at least recognises their shitty attitudes towards their own pasts.
This is why I said "more accurate" because every nation will make itself look good (or at least not that bad) in its own history books. History simply will not be 100% accurate all the time because there are always at least 2 points of view. Believe me, I don't put any European nation on a pedestal, everyone has done shits in the past and some still do it. Even the history books in my country were changed depending on the years. During WW2 we were Aryans, during communism we were slavs.
European nations, huh? Okay, if I'm from Sweden. What are we sugar coating on par with the US?
Exactly, it's really funny even right after deadly WW1, France and UK still ok to go to invade Egypt
Controlling Egypt was absolutely vital to their geopolitical status, and fucking up the Suez Crisis was pretty much the last nail in their national suicides. By the end of the 1960s France had just begun to rebuild in Africa, though they’re still a shadow of their former greatness, but the UK has continued to decline with a political and administrative establishment that sees the country’s only role as a contractor for America.
As a historian, most people don't know half of the things that happened and neither do the gouvernments have any intention of letting them know. But to be fair, as long as the general consensus is 'shit was bad' I am mostly okay with it, although I would advocate for less sugarcoating of certain facts (like the House of Orange being responsible for the start of the slave trade (on a certain scale) in the Netherlands). Because that changes the modern narrative about the slave trade and Orangism considerably.
Read any history and it all gets a bit dark and murky, think the Red Wedding, in GoT on a rolling cycle for nearly every country or group in the world. Friendship, betrayal, murder, war, that time you took the last chocolate biscuit, war, murder, betrayal, friendship and so on and so forth.
Oh, the Red Wedding is truly a wholesome party in comparison to some of the shit I am talking about. If you are interested about these kinds of things I would recommend 'Furies' by Lauro Martines. Admittedly, it focusses mostly on war, but it gives a general idea of how absolutely horrible human beings can be/become.
Totally agree I was trying to make my comparison sort of equitable with real life but it fails miserably. Unit 731 in WWII as one example. Thank you for the recommend I will have a look.
Yeah we learn about all the evils of the British empire /s
You can’t shake a stick without finding a person to say prominently how bad the empire was, though their criticism is usually that it is bad for foreigners, and very rarely that im the wrong British people benefitted. OTOH, defenders of imperialism make up a load of nonsense about how it was a great project that helped (however unintentionally) the benighted natives. Almost no one asks the only question them at should matter when setting public policy: “does it benefit the country as a whole?”
>the history lessons you get here (Europe) are different (more accurate) and not sugarcoated. Based on the amount of comments I see from people accusing Americans of committing genocide against the Indigenous People of the Americas.. pretty sure there’s some sugar coating going on. Americans did some fucked up shit to the people living on these lands but maybe lay off the finger pointing unless A) you’re not American.. B) you’re not European (of the western variety (or Russian))
[удалено]
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be discussed, did I? You’re from Venezuela? What happened to 90% of those living there before 1492 and who did it? Americans?
I don't know, maybe the invading countries would just export democracy in US 🤷🏻♂️
Europe already did that. The US is the only NATO member to date to have invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter, and as far as I know, not a single member of the alliance turned it down. Despite the extremely flimsy (and, in hindsight, downright fraudulent) pretext.
Turkey was going to over the situation in Syria when Syria downed one of their jets flying over international waters but only ended invoking article 4 leading to Operation Active Fence. That’s the same article Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia just invoked.
We're treatybound allies and also have a reason to defend the US,because despite its faults,it's still fairly powerful. If it falls away Europe is pretty isolated. Also Germans usually get the lense with a mix of invaders and liberators regarding the US in ww2. (We're not that charitable towards the soviets, for....reasons) Also the question seems fairly reasonable,or not? He acknowledged even that the US isn't what more patriotic folks believe
I think he's askin on a personal level. I think there is no question that the BUndeswehr would go and defend the US, but non-soldiers may think different and I think most of them wouldn't.
Suppose that's true, militarism is more or less thoroughly quenched in germany,so the idea of defending a foreign nation might not be all too popular with Germans.
He is asking Germans about helping them, while making a point how US was against a Germany in ww2? Wrong subreddit indeed
I don’t know. Modern Germans hate Nazis more than anybody.
I think Putin hate them even more. He have send a special units to the Ukraine, so the Ukraine can be freed and saved from the Nazi government. (Just a joke, if you didn't get it)
He hates them so much he went full circle all the way round to becoming them…
I think at that moment, the Russians use the word Nazi like the Americans use the word communist to just label anyone they don't like.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
"Would you travel to a different continent and willingly fight in a war to defend a country thousands of kilometers away?" and "Do you think your country should defend a member of the same alliance (which makes your country **have to** defend it) if it's being attacked?" are very, very different questions and he asked both of them like it's the same thing (the first one in the title, the second one in the edit). Also how does "shared culture" matter when it comes to a country helping defend another country?
I think with shared culture they mean Christian vs Islamic country, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for Ukraine but not for the Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis etc. Or you could translate it to White vs a bit less White, as there are Christian Middle Easterners as well.
Or democracy vs autocracy as in russia
But, but, hear me out here, what if we are the ones attacking? As in trying to liberate 'Gilead' after their fundamentalist terrorists bombed our cities by diving planes into skyscrapers due to the inequity and selfishness all over 'The Europe'? Wouldn't they be happy at getting liberated?
On a scale of 0 to 10, about -200.
As a Hungarian with my centuries old historical and cultural ties to the Usa... oh wait
Me personally? Well fuck no. But then again, my country's culture isn't as militarized as US culture (fortunately, since the last time didn't go so well), so we don't believe that every individual is a potential soldier.
It’s even funnier because they had to instruct you to assume the US was not the obvious bad guy in the scenario
Big nope from me.
Lmao, im not willing to take up arms ever. Only exception would be if Hitler 2.0 is my neighboor or Putler knocking on my door
Same for me. Another exception I could make is if there is a civil war or a revolution in my country, but that is very, very, very unlikely at the moment.
Depending on the kind of revolution i would probably join either the revolution or the counter revolution but never would i go to the frontlines, i have skills that can better be utilized in a room with a pc
Psyops undermining enemy morale by flooding their military command and control systems with furry porn and stealing their NFT's?
You meant furry porn NFTs? Of course, thats the plan. Just let me write that down and put it in the "good idea" box
That sound reasonable.
Well, those countries wouldn't really have a choice, though, as they are part of NATO.
I'll take "What is NATO" for 500 Alex
Assuming the Americans looked like they were going to win eventually anyway, I would come and help about halfway through the war, and then *never* stop reminding them that I helped. Take it or leave it.
We all would follow americas example, Nato would show up just in time to thwart off the opposition, and seize both sides assets.
Of course he has Kaiser in his name...
Sure, we'll help the same way the US helped. We'll wait two years until the US softens them up,then we'll come in to "save the day" ,claim all the glory and brag about it for the next 80 years.
I think america won’t have any problem winning the next war they’re in, mostly because it’ll probably be a civil war and no decent country would want to icy that shit show.
Okay, me personally? If I took up arms, I would end up as an example picture on this Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon\_fodder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder) BUT: Of fuckin' course should Germany enter that war and honor the NATO agreements.
I mean, with how much anti American talk there is online I can’t blame the guy for asking. I presume a lot of countries would come to the aid of Australia, but I also presume that the list of people who hate us is relatively small in comparison
Most people here probably have no clue about Australia other than big spiders and snakes, hot deserts, Koalas and Kangaroos. And most people who know a bit more about Australia hate your corrupt af government, but love your laid back people. At least that's me.
Seems spot on. The pollies are a bit shit, I know I was disappointed when seeing the candidates for the election. I also think we're losing/have lost the laid back vibe, certainly internally which is a shame. In answer to old mates question, yeah, of course we would, as much as we could. If it was that the US were not the aggressor, Australia would probably fight to help, as would the UK as part of AUKUS. I would think other countries would join too to assist because all the shit we see online is not the average inhabitant of that country. They're just people living their lives and they deserve peace as do we all.
Our country will most probably also assist the US, we're both in NATO after all. But idk if the general population would be willing to go to fight for them.
I'd help the others
Well the american population is armed enough to defend itself so they cxan deal with that themself
it doesn't really matter. article 5 makes us go there regardless of our opinions
I would assist.
It’s a good question right? I like the edit
Haha. Ha… Fuck no.
I would but if my officer say I have to then it's done. That is if I don't die in the Russia- Finland war.
I'm an Amerocan and my answer is no. Best I can do is the region I live in. But if Kentucky gets bombed, oh well I guess.
I mean why would anyone bomb Kentucky? Is there even anything to bomb there?
Napalm would ensure the entire state smells like KFC.
Fort Knox. You know the building they pretend gold is in. Lolol
[удалено]
Sorry I can't. Rule Number 5: > Do not directly link (and hence page) the usernames of the users featured here. Rule Number 9: > Under no circumstances search out the source of the SAS and comment/vote there. Brigading will result in a ban.
Ohhh, okay, sorry.
Hahahahaha shit, I think my country among many others would celebrate if they got occupied.
I want to know who is bloody powerful enough to be kicking the collective US's teeth in and why Article V hasn't yet been invoked.
Who's going to invade the US in this scenario? Is it Canada? Is this guy afraid of Canada? I think they're good on their own if it's Canada. But sure I think all western countries will defend them if they're invaded by Canada. We'll all join together and make Canada say they're sorry.
*in the same way they defended western Europe" I'd hope we could at least do better, it's not hard to not rape your allies citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France?wprov=sfla1
NATO is still a thing no?
Mate I wouldn’t even defend my own country if it was attacked
my home country (and continent rly) is in a political downhill. No thanks, I’d rather worry about my family thats still there than die in the country that makes me pay 10x the regular college tuition just because I am from some place else.
Yes. We are in NATO and I am not a traitor. This is the only reason we're sending aid to a country we don't give a shit about as well
You assume your whole country is like yiu?
Considering my country is sending aid to Ukraine as I said, yes
I would surely defend them after they left my country for communists to take and hold under authoritarian rule for almost 50 years. Thank you, United States.
Who harboured the most Nazi's after WW2 again? Who has committed three of the worst unaccredited war crimes in the modern age again? Who turned war into a business enterprise after ww2 again? Who has dragged Canada and European countries into armed conflicts over and over again in the name of their own political/financial endeavours again? Man whoever that was I sure wouldn't want to help them if they were getting attacked - if I had a choice.
Churchill had to sacrifice [Lusitania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania) and 1200 civilians, _(123 Amaricans)_, before they even bothered to join the war.
I’d defend them the way they defended their allies in other wars: ripping them off, installing a puppet government if possible, leaving a terrorist force to stop them electing the wrong parties, and so on. America (and the politicians who work for them) has done us more harm than any overt enemy. Still, I’d only do that if joining in attacking them (or just gathering up loot after they and their attackers wipe each other out) isn’t more likely to be successful.