Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, having been born and raised in a US political system, and now studying out here in the UK, I've come across some major differences, and that got me thinking: what does the rest of the world think? I feel like while I try to stay informed, I've still managed to mainly get an American outlook on things (which is starting to bite me back now...) so yes, commentary is most wlecome on these topics.

Topic 1: Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Resources

In one of my debates with people in my flat, I made the statement: "It is not fair for the government to take away the money I make with my own hard work, and give it to someone else." Back home, at least in my brand of conservatism, that statement is totally accepted as true. The government's job is to ensure people have an equal start, and what they do with that start is up to them. It's not the government's job to bail you out of a bad decision, or a mistake you've made.

However, the impression I've gotten so far is that, at least here at Uni, the prevailing opinion is that the government should try to ensure equality of resources throughout someones life, instead of only ensuring an equal start. Is this accurate overall?

Topic 2: History of the 20th Century

Now, as an American patriot, I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars. Additionally, without US aid to Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan after WW2, the Soviet Union would have been able to spread rapidly Westward, and the Iron Curtain would have come to rest upon the Atlantic instead of where it actually did end up lying. However, my flatmates here seem to be of the mind set that the US didn't really help out, and that Britain would have been fine even without US aid, and that the only reason the US chose to help was because we wanted to weaken Britain.

One of them even described the idea of US aid being instrumental to winning either World War as 'ludicrous.'

Well then, discuss dakkaites from around the globe? Oh, and please....I'm more interested in what the world's outlook and opinions are...not whether those outlook or opinions are right or wrong. So yeah....

ChrisWWII wrote:The government's job is to ensure people have an equal start

Has anyone told them this? I think they missed class that day...

CT GAMER wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:The government's job is to ensure people have an equal start

Has anyone told them this? I think they missed class that day...

Well, that's my brand of conservatism, that the government's duties to the people is to ensure no one has an inherently unfair advantage. E.g. If you are born within the US, you have access to an education.

I will acknowledge right now that that statement is completely idealistic, and is gonna be one of those things that just won't happen in reality, but the government should try to create such an environment that Average Citizen #482391 has as much chance to succeed as Average Citizen #1297122. I'm kind of hungry right now, and will be going to dinner soon, so I can't really write a much more in depth explanation....but I'll try if it becomes important.

You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.

I'm American....I'm curious as to why you put people in quotes though...

99% or more of Dakka users are from North America or western Europe.

You will not get a "world" opinion here.

I'd be perfectly happy with a Western European outlook. I guess I'm just looking for a more 'non-American' view on things.

Heck, for my purposes here a Western European/British outlook would work the best. I say world just in case someone from a non-Western country has something interesting to say I'd love to hear what they think.

You can't really get world views. Different people will think differently, even people in the same country will think differently. Not everyone in country A feels B and so one. I can tell you from traveling to about 15 countries that you will see these feelings and words; hate, love, indifference, arrogance, entitlement, nosey, stupid, ignorant, hateful, bullies, etc etc etc.

One thing I have seen though, once someone visits or lives in America there views almost always alter, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

While I can't get the view of everyone in a nation, I can get a generalist view of what the average person of that nation thinks. It's that that I'm hoping for, especially in response to the topics described above. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people around the world what their view is on these topics, and I'm fairly certain there will be some trends out there.

Just like how within the the US, you can generally say that the Deep South is conservative based on prior voting history and a host of other factors. I recognize that not everyone has the same views. Hell, I'm a fiscal conservative from California, and I have a good friend whose an uberliberal from South Carolina. But, that doesn't mean I can't ask for general opinions and outlooks...

I can see what you are trying to get and understand. I was just pointing out who wildly they can very. On a side note you should also look for people who have visited oir lived here and see how, if at all, their opinions have changed. That would be neat to see as well.

Why would you think people's opinions change when they visit the USA, but not when they visit Italy or the Soviet Union or Japan?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why would you think people's opinions change when they visit the USA, but not when they visit Italy or the Soviet Union or Japan?

It absolutly will change their outlook on a country that they visit. I know I change my opinions about European countries after I visited. I merely asked about the USA because it seems those are the ideas that the OP was looking into.

I think anyone who has a idea or view on a country based purely off of media and second hand knowledge will have their views changed upon visiting said country.

Things you have to remember about university students:

1) They are usually far more liberal than they will be in later life.
2) They think they know a lot.

Things you have to remember about the UK:

1) We actually have politicians from across the whole political spectrum, including liberal politicians, rather than slightly less right wing politicians
2) Many people (and here I am using the term "many people" liberally) are mildly annoyed that the US appears to takes credit for pretty much everything, including military action, innovations in various sciences/devices/etc during WWI, WWII, and afterwards, whilst mostly ignoring or playing down the efforts of the rest of the world (kind of like we do with the French ).

Take a look in your university library in the historical reference section to see what texts they have on WWI/WWII/etc. The books they carry will probably give a reasonably European outlook on the events that took place.

Killkrazy, I don't think he was saying that they don't.

The implication (and it seems to be a reasonable one IMO) is that a lot of opinions -- good and bad -- about the USA get formed based on the way we export our culture. Then when they visit they get a few surprises -- good and bad.

I don't think the countries you named are thought of as being as evangelical about their culture, economic system, etc. as the USA is. So it might be little more magnified in our case. I mean, isn't the U.S. a lot more polarizing than Japan or Italy especially?

American here, but what the hell...

ChrisWWII wrote:In one of my debates with people in my flat, I made the statement: "It is not fair for the government to take away the money I make with my own hard work, and give it to someone else." Back home, at least in my brand of conservatism, that statement is totally accepted as true. The government's job is to ensure people have an equal start, and what they do with that start is up to them. It's not the government's job to bail you out of a bad decision, or a mistake you've made.

However, the impression I've gotten so far is that, at least here at Uni, the prevailing opinion is that the government should try to ensure equality of resources throughout someones life, instead of only ensuring an equal start. Is this accurate overall?

I don't see how this could be. Not in actuality, anyways, people may spout off rhetoric to that effect to gain cred with their political bent or something. Engels said "he who does not work shall not eat", so it wouldn't even seem like a real attempt at supporting socialist ideals. It would just be a completely unworkable doctrine, legitimately supported by a few utopians at most.

Now, there is a less extreme version of what you said that could be advocated, to the effect of "people need a safety net to help catch them when they make a particularly big mistake, because it's too hard for them to recover by themselves". This isn't really an uncommon sentiment in the United States though, hence unemployment insurance, welfare, and so forth. This sentiment could come from a variety of sources, I suppose. For instance, I would guess that increased difficulty in finding employment when fired would make people demand that the government help out the unemployed to a greater degree. A government with a focus on raising consumption may favor those programs to, to reduce personal savings. And I'm sure there is some cultural stuff in place, Americans have a history of greater independence from their government, thanks to the frontier, and so on.

Now, as an American patriot, I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars.

Ooh boy. As much as I'd like to consider myself a patriot, we were definitely not required to stop Germany's victory in WW1 (Germany probably would have lost in either case, the war had turned against them by the time we joined). We also weren't huge in the Eastern front of WW2. We were significant, to be sure, but the Soviet Union by far did most of the fighting later in the war, and the UK did a lot more to hold the Germans back until then. America defeated Japan pretty much singlehandedly, and they were a serious nuisance, so our actions in the Pacific were perhaps a lot more noteworthy than our actions over the Atlantic. I do also think it would be fair to say that America ended the war in Europe quite a bit sooner than it otherwise would have ended (thanks to our bombing), and did a lot to help Europe in that regard.

Additionally, without US aid to Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan after WW2, the Soviet Union would have been able to spread rapidly Westward, and the Iron Curtain would have come to rest upon the Atlantic instead of where it actually did end up lying.

This is definitely true. The main reason we actually bothered invading Europe was to stop Stalin's march westward. He was every bit as dangerous as Hitler had been, and Europe was lucky that we stopped him where we did (not that it wasn't also far better for us that we did so, of course!)

However, my flatmates here seem to be of the mind set that the US didn't really help out, and that Britain would have been fine even without US aid, and that the only reason the US chose to help was because we wanted to weaken Britain.

The UK would probably have survived the war, but they would have suffered more than they did if it wasn't for US aid. They certainly didn't become "less powerful" because of our aid, we did a lot to preserve their power (which was good, since they became a valuable ally against the USSR).

Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.

Well, it's nice to know that people keep an open mind rather than tossing 300 million+ people into one collective group.

ChrisWWII wrote:Topic 2: History of the 20th Century

Now, as an American patriot, I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars. Additionally, without US aid to Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan after WW2, the Soviet Union would have been able to spread rapidly Westward, and the Iron Curtain would have come to rest upon the Atlantic instead of where it actually did end up lying. However, my flatmates here seem to be of the mind set that the US didn't really help out, and that Britain would have been fine even without US aid, and that the only reason the US chose to help was because we wanted to weaken Britain.

One of them even described the idea of US aid being instrumental to winning either World War as 'ludicrous.'

Neither of those views are particularly accurate. I won't speak to WWI, that's not really my thing but I can speak to WWII.

Honestly, WWII in Europe was the Eastern Front. The Western Front was at best a sideshow. It boils down to Germany vs. Russia. Full stop. Now, the western allies did help out. Being forced to split their forces kept the Germans from slowing the Russians down even more bringing the war to a quicker end. The allies bombing campaign put a lot of pressure on German industry and bled the Luftwaffe dry. None of that ever really changed the fact that the Soviet Union was going to win. It might have cost them more and took them longer but once the Reds got their head of steam up the Germans weren't going to be stopping them.

The UK was never really under that much of a threat from Germany. The Germans just didn't have the commitment to make it happen. The Luftwaffe had no luck crushing the RAF and the Royal Navy was never in danger of losing control of the home waters. Without wiping out the RAF and driving off the RN Sea Lion was still born. It was never going to happen and once the Germans took a swing at the Soviet tar baby it was game over. So from that perspective I can see a Brit thinking the US didn't save them. We really didn't. That being said what America's entry into the war and the invasion of western Europe really accomplished was making the limit of Soviet expansion a lot farther east than it otherwise would have been. So while the UK would have probably not been invaded by the Germans they might have found the war over and everyone across the channel wearing red.

Orkeosaurus wrote:We also weren't huge in the Eastern front of WW2. We were significant, to be sure, but the Soviet Union by far did most of the fighting later in the war, and the UK did a lot more to hold the Germans back until then.

LOL. I've seen this "who won the war" discussion come up about a million times on hobby messageboards, and it's pretty ironic IMO that it's always the US and UK folks arguing when the Soviets almost certainly have a better claim to that title (at least for the European theater).

gorgon wrote:LOL. I've seen this "who won the war" discussion come up about a million times on hobby messageboards, and it's pretty ironic IMO that it's always the US and UK folks arguing when the Soviets almost certainly have a better claim to that title (at least for the European theater).

Almost no one with a clue would ever argue that it wasn't the Russians doing the lion's share to ensure victory.

Of course, nobody in Russia actually owns a computer, so they can't really defend themselves.

Tyyr wrote:

gorgon wrote:LOL. I've seen this "who won the war" discussion come up about a million times on hobby messageboards, and it's pretty ironic IMO that it's always the US and UK folks arguing when the Soviets almost certainly have a better claim to that title (at least for the European theater).

Almost no one with a clue would ever argue that it wasn't the Russians doing the lion's share to ensure victory.

I think the politics after the war had a lot to do with people not having a clue.

It is an odd thing to argue about as the answer is quite obvious: it was a group effort.

I also admit to some curiosity as to CT's opinion of Americans. I imagine he holds back because he has cherry picked only the best elements from our history and doesn't want to been as gushing all over us enthusiastically.

That's a fair point.

I don't see how it is relevant to the study of 20th century history, though.

Perhaps everyone whom ChrisWWII has met in the UK is merely a UK patriot.

My own view of the matters is based on historical reading.

WW1
Probably would have been won by the Allies without US help, however it would have gone on another year and been even nastier.

The Germans were being strangled by the Royal Navy blockade. Their U Boat campaign had failed.

The USA's entry into the war had the main effect of forcing the Germans to bring forwards their spring 1918 offensive, in order to make their last throw of the dice before substantial US forces arrived in Europe.

Whilst some small US forces were engaged in the campaign, it was basically defeated by the French and Imperial troops in the line.

If the offensive had been delayed, because US troops were not on their way, you have to assume it would somehow have become stronger, or that the Western Allies would have become weaker. There is no strong basis of facts to make either assumption.

Consequently, the likelihood is that the offensive might have happened in the summer or autumn, and still failed, but the Allied counter-attack campaigns would have been delayed until perhaps Spring 1919. By then the Germans might have folded, or suffered a revolution. Tthe Austrians might have folded (as the Ottomans did).

It's unlikely that the Allies couldn't have conquered the Germans militarily at this stage, since the advances made by British and French forces in mid to late 1918 were just as good as those made by US forces, which argues that German fighting spirit had been drained.

That is not to say that US help was not gratefully received, of course.

Hurrr.


WW2
It seems possible that the British Empire, plus Commonwealth, allied to the SU could have beaten the Germans and their allies without US intervention. They certainly had a large advantage in manpower, industrial capacity and resources. At the same time, Churchill was desperate to get the US in, for obvious reasons.

The entry of the Japanese upset the equation. The job would have become much more difficult than it already was. However it also forced the USA into the war.


The Marshall Plan
This was an economic event, and since I haven't studied it in any detail, I won't comment, other than to point out that it was sidely criticised at the time and later.

Certainly it was the presence of US troops in western Europe that discouraged any further adventurism by the Soviets, rather than economic aid.

Orkeosaurus: I'm guessing you're referring to the people who said that the government should apply equality of resources right? I'm not the one arguing that, at all. I mean, I recognize my own viewpoints are a bit idealistic, but I'd never advocate equality of resources. Heck, that's why the debate started in the first places. ONe of my flatmates said: "Chavez is awesome. He took from the rich and gave to the poor." and that kinda set me off...

As to the World War I claim, yes we didn't help as much as we could have, and there's no way we won the war single handedly. However, the threat of American reinforcement did cause the Germans to launch into their Kaiser Offensive, which wasn't as well planned. The lack of planning led to the defeat of this last German gasp, and that combined with the arrival of American reinforcements really did seal the deal for Germany

As to WW2, yes the main show was the Eastern Front, but I think that without the contributions of the United States, victory for the Allies would have been much more difficult to achieve. For one thing, Lend Lease to the Soviet Union no doubt helped them immensely. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I do know for one that the supplied of American aircraft such as the P-39, as well as supplies of trucks to the Soviet Army were no doubt important to the Soviet victory in the end. In fact, there's a quote from Stalin where he himself admits that: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war." ( Source )

Now, to Britain. Now, Sea Lion wasn't in any danger of occuring any time soon, but the main danger to Britain wasn't the threat of invasion, it was the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the assistance of the United States Navy, especially the commitment of Hunter Killer carrier groups towards the middle of the war. Additionally, US aircraft such as the Liberator were what allowed the mid Atlantic gap to be closed. Without US aid, the Battle of the Atlantic would have a far better chance of going the Kriegsmarine's favor, and THAT would have brought Britain to its knees no matter what.

Did the US single handedly win the war in Europe? Hell no. The Soviet Union gave up the blood and sweat to defeat Germany. However, the United States did provide a large supply of assistance both to Britain and the USSR which no doubt kept Britain afloat and gave the Soviet Union the extra edge it needed to so thoroughly crush the Germans on the Western front.

Anshal wrote:You do NOT what to know what I think about Americans, if you cant resist the urge to know my feelings for said "people" PM me.

You love us right? Particularly Texans after we helped out and kicked the crap out of the Nazis for you?

Ahtman wrote:It is an odd thing to argue about as the answer is quite obvious: it was a group effort.

The end result of the war that happened was obviously a group effort. However if you posit the question, "What would have been the outcome have been if the US hadn't become involved in Europe," the answer is Germany still loses, England isn't invaded, the main difference is where the iron curtain lands.

Tyyr wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It is an odd thing to argue about as the answer is quite obvious: it was a group effort.

The end result of the war that happened was obviously a group effort. However if you posit the question, "What would have been the outcome have been if the US hadn't become involved in Europe," the answer is Germany still loses, England isn't invaded, the main difference is where the iron curtain lands.

Maybe Germany was a group effort, but it was the United States that kicked the unholy out of Japan.
I'd proffer italy was a Brit/US group effort. The other nongerman axis powers were stomped like stupid Nazi puppies by the greatness of Mother Russia.

Tyyr wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It is an odd thing to argue about as the answer is quite obvious: it was a group effort.

The end result of the war that happened was obviously a group effort. However if you posit the question, "What would have been the outcome have been if the US hadn't become involved in Europe," the answer is Germany still loses, England isn't invaded, the main difference is where the iron curtain lands.

And if you pose the question , "what kind of salt should I put on the margarita", you would also get a different response. That wasn't the question asked or the statement that was made that we are discussing. "What if"" is fun for fiction but not for history. Better to understand what did happen than what didn't. What did happen was a group effort with deaths on all sides that lead to the eventual victory of the Allies (and I suppose Texas helped some).

ChrisWWII wrote:
Topic 2: History of the 20th Century

Now, as an American patriot, I firmly believe that without US intervention in World War I, World War II Germany likely would have one both wars...One of them even described the idea of US aid being instrumental to winning either World War as 'ludicrous.'

As I don't know much about politics or the cold war I'll just pitch in on this one.

Well, I wouldn't say that without the US Germany would have won but I also wouldn't say that US aid being instrumental in winning both wars is a ludicrous concept. In WW1 you help us out a lot with supplies and your intervention may very well have sped up the surrender of Germany. But lets face it, your generals wern't the brightest sparks in the box during WW1. I mean, they did order an attack on the Germans (where you lost quite a lot of men) the day the cease fire was signed. Said general also knew a cease fire was being signed.

After WW1 where you helped us out, comes the inter war period. Oh dear... with out the support of the US the league of nation falls apart. You do nothing while Chamberlain epically fails to control Hitler and the fascist dictatorships in Europe. I personally blame the treaty of versailles for WW2, a treaty we (the allies) all played a part in. see this for an unerringly accurate cartoon drawn around the time of the treaty

Then into WW2. You could have joined earlier and possible saved many live, but then again, Hitler could have instantly invaded Britain and won or joined with spain's fascist dictator which he helped put in place to win the war in Africa. IMO it is impossible to do 'what if' situations in WW2. You guys were just recovering from an economic crisis. If you'd gone to war it may have meant many more people had died. So what I'm trying to say is, although you helped, it is impossible to say that if you had joined earlier, or not joined at all, if the outcome would have been different.

So yeah, you helped, just don't go around saying 'we won both world wars for you' because it was a combined effort. You sped up the surrender of Germany in WW1, it is plausible to say that without your support in WW2 operation Overlord would never have happened but, IMHO, there is no evidence that you 'won' the wars.

Then again, if the politicians of the early 20th century wern't so stupid and blind both wars could have been avoided.

Thats my view on things.

PS: on Japan, I'll give that to Fraz, you did kinda win that one...

In Australia, the government is constitutionally bound to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. We do not have a bill of rights, but a strong constitution of Commonwealth and State law that determines the types of laws that can be made.

In fulfilling the basic protections, the various levels of the government exist in order to serve the people. Not everyone will agree with how this is done, but it favours the largest available demographic. If you make more money, you pay more tax per dollar. Education, Environmental and Emergency services are state-run.
Recently, legislation has begun to come into being that will more heavily tax the industries that take advantage of the country's vast mineral wealth, on the foundation that this native wealth it is the property of every Australian - not just those who invest in mining companies be they citizens or not.

Everyone is equally treated to government services - and overall we are taxed fairly heavily for them. There is 'free' (tax-funded) medicare, which is mandatory, supported by a strong private healthcare market.

Money and resourcefulness will always get you a bigger house and a better car, but Australians do not typically revere success as Americans do. Financial wellbeing is a very private matter, and national pride is typically reserved for atheletes and the recognition of other 'Aussie icons' - things that represent our aspirations and the country as a whole. We refer to ourselves as 'The Lucky Country' - although this is supposed to be ironic, because the majority of our 'luck' is due to our natural resources. The citizens themselves merely benefit from this fortune.


Australians generally recognise the help that the US provided, bolstering our northern defenses and taking command of the Pacific. This allowed us to focus more closely on national security and the islands closer to ours with our limited resources. Australia and America had in common that neither of our forces were particularly well trained or experienced in modern warfare - we had a lot more experience, but the Yanks had leadership and industry that more than made up for it. We had a lot to share and we both got a good deal out of it.

Australia has considered the US to be a strong ally since the Pacific campaigns. However, the majority of Australians today disagree with both the current military actions of the US, and the level of Australian involvement in these cicumstances.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:'Aussie icons' - things that represent our aspirations and the country as a whole.

Like this guy?