Stop the America-bashing!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jasev
Not to mention the troubles that the germans would have had controlling a country with such mountains and about 300,000 war veterans. Napoleon discovered it for himself 150 years before

I thought that at first, but then thought its a double edged sword. Italy is very mountainous too, but the Germans seemed to maintain control fairly easily even after the switch over of allegiances. The defensive bonuses, once the Germans were in place, were amazing - look at the battle of Monte Casino for starters.

I imagine a similar situation may have occured in Spain if Hitler was originally "invited" by Franco, much like Mussolini invited Hitler to Italy.

[Salvor]

Hitler considered invading Spain simply as a means to take Gibraltar. He was talked out of it by his own intelligence chief, who was not acting in Germany's best interests.

By taking Gibraltar, Germany would have had a big advantage in the Mediterranean, and could likely have secured the middle eastern oil deposits and attacked the Caucasus from the south, giving Russia additional troubles.

But it didn't happen that way.

But back on topic, I'm a bit disappointed that all anyone can come up with for American culture is Big Macs and coke. Culture is really a function of leisure time more than anything else, and Americans certainly have a lot of leisure time. Things like McDonald's are the exact opposite of culture.

Even sticking to cuisine, there is a lot of wonderful culinary art in America. Most of it varies by region, since the country is such a large place. I, for one, marvel at the variety of local flavors available when I travel. The world would be a lesser place if I couldn't enjoy a Texas barbequeue, some Cincinnati chili mac, New England clam chowder (or lobster), Chesapeake blue crab, cajun crawfish, jumbalaya, blackened anything. The list goes on and on. Here in Chicago we've taken mundane items such as pizza and hot dogs and raised them to true art forms. Everywhere you go in this country, there's a local dish that will knock your socks off. And it doesn't come from McDonalds.

But culture is more than food (even yogurt). I'm not claiming we're better than anyone else, but we do exist, and we do have a culture of our own. We've had literary greats like Hawthorne, Whitman, Twain, Bellow; artists including Wood, Moses, even Warhol (like him or not, he's culture). Music from the roots of jazz and blues through big band and into rock & roll, with names like Billie Holiday, Louie Armstrong, Miles Davis, just to name a few.

Theater, well there is a street in New York called Broadway. And Hollywood, whether you like it or not, is culture. Some (okay, much) of it is mass-produced, shallow, and lacks meaning, but nobody can deny that there have been some truly meaningful films created there over the years. Whether it's Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, or any of a number of other favorites, there's definitely culture to be found there.

Sports, a leisure activity, is also a facet of culture. Now if you wanted to say that the US doesn't belong in the game because we suck at soccer, the world's #1 sport, then I'd have to give in. But there's more to sports than just soccer. We have a few home-grown sports here that are being successfully exported to other countries, including baseball, basketball, and to a lesser extent our own version of football. On the international scene, we've got a few up and coming F1 drivers (but NASCAR is true American culture). We always have a few contenders on the international scene in golf, tennis, gymnastics, and other sports, and we tend to do not-so-badly when the Olympic Games come around.

Beyond culture we have had some significant contributions to science as well. And it's more than just the bomb and the moon shot. We've got more than our fair share of citizens with medallions sporting the bust of Alfred Nobel. In medicine, we've got many top universities and medical centers, in addition to the CDC, Mayo clinic, etc. Our centers for higher learning draw students from around the globe, and we've also got places like Bell Labs, JPL, Los Alamos, and many others where our research is constantly and continuously pushing the envelope.

None of this is intended to portray arrogance or any feeling of being better than any other culture. I just wanted to raise awareness that our culture does not come with the tag line "would you like fries with that?"

[Dauphin]

Krusty Burger fiction, or McD's fact?

we tend to do not-so-badly when the Olympic Games come around
...
I just wanted to raise awareness that our culture does come with the tag line "would you like fries with that

Did McD's offer free fries/cokes/burgers to people with "scratchcards" stating any event for which an American won a Gold medal in the 1984 LA Olympics?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Salvor
But there's more to sports than just soccer. We have a few home-grown sports here that are being successfully exported to other countries, including baseball, basketball, and to a lesser extent our own version of football.

Hey don't you be taking credit for other people's endeavours. Basketball was invented by a Canadian who happened to be working in the US at the time.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Rosacrux


As far as I know, no French men joined the German army... or Greeks... or Serbs...

No, the French just formed a government that did everything the Germans told them to do. At least the Dutch tried to hide the Jews and help them. The French just handed them over to be slaughtered.

[Ironikinit]

Rock and roll, jazz, and rap are all "American" inventions.

Hollywood movies are at once a reflection of and influence upon "American" culture.

I don't like putting American in quotes but it's a poor term. America is at once a people, a nation, and a continent.

There really isn't a good substitute for American. United States citizen is over formal, and Yank offends some Americans.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
.... , and rap are all "American" inventions.

Well this example certainly doesn't support the idea that America has culture.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Willem


Well this example certainly doesn't support the idea that America has culture.

I disagree- 'high' and 'low' culture are both still culture after all. Shakespeare is now a world famous playwright and poet- yet used to be a jobbing 'entertainer' writing gaudy spectacles for the masses- 'Titus Andronicus', the early histories, for example.

Dickens was looked down upon by some ivory tower academicians for writing entertainments, in serial form, rather than worthy serious novels, like George Eliot and Henry James.

I don't like much of the rap music to which I have been exposed- but then not everyone likes Philip Glass or John Cage or The Velvet Underground. Jazz, the muscial genre that gave us Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday and John Coltrane was despised as 'jungle music' and decadent and primitive- and now is American heritage.

[Willem]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I disagree- 'high' and 'low' culture are both still culture after all. Shakespeare is now a world famous playwright and poet- yet used to be a jobbing 'entertainer' writing gaudy spectacles for the masses- 'Titus Andronicus', the early histories, for example.

Dickens was looked down upon by some ivory tower academicians for writing entertainments, in serial form, rather than worthy serious novels, like George Eliot and Henry James.

I don't like much of the rap music to which I have been exposed- but then not everyone likes Philip Glass or John Cage or The Velvet Underground. Jazz, the muscial genre that gave us Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday and John Coltrane was despised as 'jungle music' and decadent and primitive- and now is American heritage.

Hey, relax. I was just being sacrcastic.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Arrian
Serb,
Regarding the destruction and division of Poland by Germany and the USSR in 1939 - yes, I know it resulted in a common border between the USSR and Germany. However, that border was actually in what was formerly Poland. Poland was the buffer (or rather the eastern part of Poland). I didn't say it worked... just that was the idea.

I've just said that the reasons of his decision was slightly different. Poland was part of Russian Empire until 1918 like Finland and Baltic states, but territories which SU took after division of Poland (Western Ukraine, Western Byelorussia and Besorabia) don't even belong to province of Russian Empire- Poland, it belongs to SU until 1921. Was it unfair to return own lands?

Stalin right about needing Eastern Europe as a buffer zone? Clearly you can believe what you want, but I happen to disagree heartily. Just like I think the people in the USA who came up with the "domino theory" were paranoid fools.

I've mean a military aspect. USA spread its military bases all around the world. Was it unfair that Stalin establish soviet military installations in Eastern Europe? USA did the same in Western Europe.

You say that the world became more dangerous after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Perhaps that's true.

Yeah, that’s true. I mean, how many serious conflicts happens for the period of time since end of WW2 (1945) and before collapse of Warsaw Pact (1991)? Within 46 years it was: war in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. After collapse of SU and WP it was: Iraq, Bosnia, aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), NY September 11 (I think that collapse of SU one of the reasons why terrorism spread all around the world), war in Afghanistan, at the present time we can see events in Israel or events on Indian-Pakistan border. Isn’t it too much for ten years? NATO and WP neutralized each other, now WP is gone and world become unbalanced. It is very sad. Unbalanced, unstable mechanism blows up frequently.
[/QUOTE] But I don't think that "stability" justifies oppression (hence, I have major issues with some of the things my government is doing right now). Following WWII, Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR, and controlled indirectly from Moscow. [/QUOTE]
Of course "stability" do not justifies oppression and I believe strongly in individual freedom too, but Stalin has different point of view. Yes, Eastern Europe was controlled indirectly from Moscow, but I prefer use word "liberated from fascism" not "occupied". So what? Was it unfair? What you suggest Stalin must done? SU paid a highest price for victory in WW2, about 30 millions of people was slain, country was laid in ruins, and you suggest that after liberation of Eastern Europe (btw, Hitler used those countries industry, manpower and territory in war against SU) Red Army has to simply leave and take nothing in exchange? Everything has its price. Price for liberation from horrors of fascism was spread of soviet ideology and soviet military bases (btw it wasn't so hard to establish friendly governments in those countries, communists ideas was popular, because during fascists occupation most of resistance fighters were communists.). Btw did USA never has, and do not have now its own pocket governments? Its policy and policy is very dirty game, USA government and SU government did the same things (established military bases, place puppet governments), but in your case its count as normal and if SU government did the same it calls occupation, oppression, and something like this, only because SU has different ideology. It seems unfair for me.

I believe strongly in individual freedom. Therefore, though I acknowledge that the end of the Cold War and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and its satellite states resulted in a less stable, more dangerous world, I still think it was a good thing.

Sorry, I can not agree with that. I was born in that country, it is my motherland. How would you feel if say 15-20 states of USA one day declare independence and become a foreign countries? Or another example- what would you say if Alaska decide to return to Russia? Btw rent time is expired, its time to return this land to its owner! Return Alaska to Russia at once!!! Just kidding. So, I cant agree that collapse of SU “was good thing”, it was much better if we were capable to switch our ideology without collapse of the country.

Throughout history, governments have used safety and stability as reasons to do some pretty awful things.

Agreed, but it is much worse when governments use some pretty awful things to gain safety and stability.

p.s. Was the world really all that stable before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact? I mean, how about all those nuclear weapons pointed at each other (which, unfortunately, are still pointed at each other, for the most part).

Of course it was not. We were lived, and living now in very dangerous world. But, (I think its time to return to the topic of this post, and try to star.. I mean to stop bashing an Americans) tell me please if we (soviets) were so evil, aggressive, militaristic and you(USA) were so good and peaceful, then WHY ARE YOU REJECTING OUR OFFERS OF NUKES REDUCTION TODAY? Why not to make this world a little safe and reduce a number nukes as our president offer? Why are you rejecting it, is it the actions of good and peaceful, non militaristic country? And the most important question- what for you need those nukes? Or for whom?

P.S. Arrian,
I think last question must be addressed to your government, not you personally. I am sorry if you find something offending in my words.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Serb

I've just said that the reasons of his decision was slightly different. Poland was part of Russian Empire until 1918 like Finland and Baltic states, but territories which SU took after division of Poland (Western Ukraine, Western Byelorussia and Besorabia) don't even belong to province of Russian Empire- Poland, it belongs to SU until 1921. Was it unfair to return own lands?

Maybe the polish would say nice words to you for that, Serb. When (and, more important, how) did poland become part of the Russian Empire?

I've mean a military aspect. USA spread its military bases all around the world. Was it unfair that Stalin establish soviet military installations in Eastern Europe? USA did the same in Western Europe.

Well, the US did'nt invade a western european country like the SU did with Ceskoslovensko (I hope it's the correct name). Of course, if we were talking about Central and South America, the arguments would be different...

at the present time we can see events in Israel or events on Indian-Pakistan border.

Oh please, don't laugh at us. India and Pakistan fought during the cold war in, at least, two wars. The trouble between them is not a new conflict but an extension of an existing one.
The same with Israel and Palestina. Ever heard about the Six Days or Yom-Kippur? BTW, in these wars, the arab countries were armed with Soviet Weapons, including tanks and fighters.

So what? Was it unfair? What you suggest Stalin must done? SU paid a highest price for victory in WW2, about 30 millions of people was slain, country was laid in ruins, and you suggest that after liberation of Eastern Europe (btw, Hitler used those countries industry, manpower and territory in war against SU) Red Army has to simply leave and take nothing in exchange?

Just a thing: any of those countries had exiled governments, like Yugoslavia and Poland. What about re-stablishing them?

Btw did USA never has, and do not have now its own pocket governments? Its policy and policy is very dirty game, USA government and SU government did the same things (established military bases, place puppet governments), but in your case its count as normal and if SU government did the same it calls occupation, oppression, and something like this, only because SU has different ideology. It seems unfair for me.

It IS unfair. But there is a trouble: you lost, and the history is written by the winners. So get used to it.

tell me please if we (soviets) were so evil, aggressive, militaristic and you are (USA) were so good and peaceful, then WHY ARE YOU REJECTING OUR OFFERS OF NUKES REDUCTION TODAY? Why not to make this world a little safe and reduce a number nukes as our president offer? Why are you rejecting it, is it the actions of good and peaceful, non militaristic country? And the most important question what for you need those nukes? Or for whom?

Ejem... as I said before, they won the war, so they don't have to negotiate. They can impose their terms, because now Russia depends on foreign investments and credits just like almost every country in the world.

And they are so good and peaceful that we don't have to be worried about their nukes, because we can be sure they will use it only for good and peaceful causes.

[Serb]

[

Originally posted by jasev
Maybe the polish would say nice words to you for that, Serb. When (and, more important, how) did poland become part of the Russian Empire?

I would be glad to hear those words.
Poland become part of Russian Empire in 18 century, if I remember correctly in 1791 because of division of … damn I don’t know how this empire called on English so I type it on Russian ok? Rech Pospolitaya.

Well, the US did'nt invade a western european country like the SU did with Ceskoslovensko (I hope it's the correct name). Of course, if we were talking about Central and South America, the arguments would be different...

You forget about invasion in Vietnam and bombardments of Yugoslavia. Oops I suppose its different case, my mistake. I’ve forget that this was done by Americans and it can be wrong or bad, of course their have honorable and righteous reasons for those actions, not to install puppet governments.

Oh please, don't laugh at us. India and Pakistan fought during the cold war in, at least, two wars. The trouble between them is not a new conflict but an extension of an existing one.
The same with Israel and Palestina. Ever heard about the Six Days or Yom-Kippur? BTW, in these wars, the arab countries were armed with Soviet Weapons, including tanks and fighters.

Of course I’ve heard about it. This is exactly what I’ve mean. One side of conflict was supported by USA another side was supported by SU. Things were balanced. Nowadays USA feel free to do almost anything because of collapse of SU, absolute power is very dangerous thing, it may have very bad consequences.

Just a thing: any of those countries had exiled governments, like Yugoslavia and Poland. What about re-stablishing them?

It was the right of winner to decide it. Don’t make me laugh, everyone makes the same.

It IS unfair. But there is a trouble: you lost, and the history is written by the winners. So get used to it.

We will never surrender.

Ejem... as I said before, they won the war, so they don't have to negotiate. They can impose their terms, because now Russia depends on foreign investments and credits just like almost every country in the world.

Once in our history- 1917 we nationalized everything in our country and refused to pay foreign debts, and was able build very powerful country- Soviet Union, because we are self-sufficient country, we have enough resources for that. If USA do not want such flow of events they should be more fair with us.

And they are so good and peaceful that we don't have to be worried about their nukes, because we can be sure they will use it only for good and peaceful causes.

Like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I suppose?

P.S. I wish to thank you once again about this take-took-taken
stuff . It was very helpful.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Serb
You forget about invasion in Vietnam and bombardments of Yugoslavia. Oops I suppose its different case, my mistake.

We were talking about Europe, don't change the subject. I said the things were different on Latin America; add southeastern Asia to that argument and the result is the same. And the invasion of Yugoslavia was after the cold war, so it can't be taken in a comparative about the cold war. One of these days, if you want, we can talk about that bombardments or the american activities in Latin America and Asia.

It was the right of winner to decide it. Don’t make me laugh, everyone makes the same.

The only western european countries with true exiled governments were Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway (and maybe Luxemburg ), and those governments were re-stablished, so not everyone does the same.

We will never surrender.

You already surrendered, man. Yu can cry, you can protest, you can insult, but the SU flag is not at the masts.

Like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I suppose?

Of course, as I said: good and peaceful purposes.

P.S. I wish to thank you once again about this take-took-taken
stuff . It was very helpful.

When I said that, I was talking to Sagacious Dolphin, not to you. And if you repeat it again, I'll attack Russia with my mighty spanish army (in civ2, of course )

[Serb]

We were talking about Europe, don't change the subject. I said the things were different on Latin America; add southeastern Asia to that argument and the result is the same. And the invasion of Yugoslavia was after the cold war, so it can't be taken in a comparative about the cold war. One of these days, if you want, we can talk about that bombardments or the american activities in Latin America and Asia.

What the difference? I’ve wanted to said that USA makes the same actions, does it matter were or when?

The only western european countries with true exiled governments were Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway (and maybe Luxemburg ), and those governments were re-stablished, so not everyone does the same.

Well, I’ve mean something different. I’ve mean that winner have right to take benefits from victory, and to chose form of government he wish to establish.

You already surrendered, man. Yu can cry, you can protest, you can insult, but the SU flag is not at the masts.

But we have hymn of SU now. Oh man, I really love that song.
Edit: Almost forget SU union flag is the official flag of our army, the same old red banner.

P.S.Sorry almost forget.
I wish to thank you once again about this take-too…
Hmm…Did I type it earlier? Ooops I think it’s time to move out before I’ve put my country in troubles. See you later.

[Arrian]

Serb,

I think I've already acknowledged (many posts ago) that the USA did all sorts of ugly things during the cold war as well. I wasn't trying to say that USSR = bad, USA = good, with nothing in between. I'm appalled at some of the machinations of the CIA during the 50's and 60's (often in central/south america or the middle east).

You were born in the former USSR. Do you live in Russia now? I'm just curious, and if you do, I'm curious about one other thing - are you glad you can vote and communicate your thoughts freely to others? Those are things I tend to take for granted, but if I were to ever lose those basic rights, I would be unable to accept that loss. Stalin, as I recall, didn't give a damn about those rights (I imagine he feared them, actually, just like any other despot). One of the things that angers me most about my goverment's policies is that they seem to care about freedom & democracy just about as much as Stalin did when it comes to other countries (e.g. "Sure, go ahead and oppress your people, so long as you sell us oil").

You mentioned that you think I unfairly characterize what the USSR did as bad, "simply because SU has different ideology." Well, ideology is pretty important. And to be completely honest, I don't think much of that Soviet ideology. I was discussing oppression and/or the lack of personal freedom. Soviet ideology was totalitarian communism (and yes, I'm aware that "pure" communism was never meant to be totalitarian, but that's how the USSR/China/N. Korea ended up). The Soviet brand of government and economic policy was the antithesis of personal freedom and democracy, the things I hold dear. Stalin in particular was a brutal tyrant responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people. In my mind, he's one step removed from Hitler.

A quick thought about nukes. There is nothing I hate more than hypocrisy, and the USA is pretty damn hypocritical about "weapons of mass destruction" considering we're the only ones to every actually use nuclear weapons to kill people. I'm not particularly worried about governments having nukes... it's the fanatic with a mini nuke in a backpack that I see as a threat (not that I lose sleep over it... what's the point of that?).

As for the talks with Russia to reduce the number of nukes we've got, I was under the impression that Bush wanted to just unilaterally reduce the USA's nuclear arsenal and hope Russian reciprocated, with no formal treaty. I lost track of that issue after Sept. 11th, I admit, so I could be wrong.

-Arrian