10 Things Most Americans Don?t Know About America

[DJjaffacake]

The Attack on Moscow was broken for many reasons, including allied resistances in western Europe, funded and trained by the US and UK. Even before the US's major involvement FDR was essentially bypassing/violating the constitution by assisting rebel groups and supplying both the UK and Western European resistances.

Allied resistance forces had almost nothing to do with the failure of the attack on Moscow. It was everything to do with an underequipped German Army and an unexpected Soviet counterattack.

My point being that without the distraction provided by the allied nations, Hitler likely would have won on the Russian Front is quite valid. Also, just because the western front of the war was smaller does not mean it was meaningless. You cannot count lives lost like a sports score to compare which side won. The real reason so many lives were lost in Russia compared to the western front is simple: the Geneva Convention. Western European nations had protections for captured soldiers. While Russia did not for its troops. Meaning that both the German and Russian troops fought to the last man in fear of being captured, while by the end of the war the Germans would surrender honorably to the first western patrol that they saw, as the Geneva Convention often demanded they be treated better in POW camps than they were being treated by their own government. While in Russia, the extreme bloodshed brought on by a lack of the Geneva Convention caused civilian atrocities to occur, raising the death count of the failed defense-in-depth strategy to unbelievable numbers.

The extent of allied actions against the Germans was a relatively minor campaign in North Africa and resistance movements in Occupied Europe, insignificant compared to the conflict in Russia.

The reason more people died had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention and everything to do with a) the scale of the conflict, and b) the conflicting ideologies driving the combatants to extreme violence. The Germans did not observe the Geneva Convention on the either front, large numbers of prisoners of war were executed by the Germans, entire towns were exterminated.

 

[DrOswald]

Prove there's no reason to be offended by it if it is untrue. That'll be a fun one. Hint: It's your subjective view on it. Hint 2: Offense isn't necessarily based on reason. Now that you have a tiny bit of knowledge for a change, want to actually think before you spew bullshit?

It's a fairly simple exercise of logic.

1) A statement is made, and it can be either true or false.
2) If it's false, there's two possible responses: Get butthurt or proceed with your life.

One of those responses requires no further effort on the part of anyone, the other wastes the time and effort of everyone involved, for no discernible gain. Since time is a commodity, you are throwing away a highly limited resource for no reason.

Ergo, getting offended by a false statement is a waste of time and energy.

Furthermore, that's beside the point. My original point was simply that you are reacting as if the whole article was a direct, personal insult, when it's fairly clearly a sweeping generalization of one of the most diverse and hard-to-generalize cultures in existence. Such reactions are usually only had in people who are afraid said generalization applies to them more than they would like.

So which is it? Does the stereotype fit, or are you just wasting everyone's time?

PS - You're seemingly mortally offended by Joe Q Random's opinion that was posted on the internet because they don't like you. How the hell do you manage in life with such thin skin?

Getting offended by a false statement is not a waste of time and energy, especially when so many seem to be taking that false statement seriously.

Imagine if (and I must stress to the best of my ability that I do not believe this, that I am saying this just to prove a point) someone posted an article titled "10 things you don't know about black people" and the first thing on the list was "All black people love fried chicken and whiskey." Can you imagine the shit storm? It would be furious and totally appropriate.

But that isn't even the worst part. You read the entire completely misinformed and ridiculous article and write it off as the racist rantings of an isolated idiot. But then you read the comments and everyone seems to be buying into this trash. People are saying things like "LOL, those crazy African Americans!" and "This is a really informative and interesting article."

It is very easy to see why this would be distressing to not only black people but any correct thinking individual. I certainly wouldn't let something like that slide, and I would be disappointed in anyone who would. Things like this need to be corrected so ignorant stereotyping does not continue. But by your own argument, the only reason a person would do so is because the stereotype fits. This is frankly a disgusting thing to say.

Advocating truth is never a waste of time, especially when you are arguing against ignorant stereotyping.

 

[Verzin]

snip

I'm very startled by the length and quality of your thread.
I think I agree with you about almost everything you wrote here. I recognize many of the 'Americanisms' you speak of in myself.
Depressing.

I hope you realize I didn't actually write that article, I found it and shared it. Unless you were writing to the actual author, you might want to do it on the website I linked on the same post.

LoL. I must have missed that part . Move along everyone. Nothing to see here....forget.......forget.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Allied resistance forces had almost nothing to do with the failure of the attack on Moscow. It was everything to do with an underequipped German Army and an unexpected Soviet counterattack.

The extent of allied actions against the Germans was a relatively minor campaign in North Africa and resistance movements in Occupied Europe, insignificant compared to the conflict in Russia.

The reason more people died had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention and everything to do with a) the scale of the conflict, and b) the conflicting ideologies driving the combatants to extreme violence. The Germans did not observe the Geneva Convention on the either front, large numbers of prisoners of war were executed by the Germans, entire towns were exterminated.

The "scale" of the conflict, as I said in the very post you quoted, cannot be determined by lives lost. It also seems that you have no idea what the Geneva Convention is: a treaty. Germany signed, the US and UK signed, but Russia did not. The differences between how US and USSR soldiers were treated is clear. Germany simply held to the convention for nations that had signed it, and did not to nations that had not signed. Though it did not keep them from breaching the convention in cases involving civilians. The Nazi party understood that the convention -at least when it comes to soldiers- saved lives, so they grudgingly held to it when they could.

I could go on, but this sophomoric discussion about WWII is wearing me out. Peace out everyone.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Allied resistance forces had almost nothing to do with the failure of the attack on Moscow. It was everything to do with an underequipped German Army and an unexpected Soviet counterattack.

The extent of allied actions against the Germans was a relatively minor campaign in North Africa and resistance movements in Occupied Europe, insignificant compared to the conflict in Russia.

The reason more people died had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention and everything to do with a) the scale of the conflict, and b) the conflicting ideologies driving the combatants to extreme violence. The Germans did not observe the Geneva Convention on the either front, large numbers of prisoners of war were executed by the Germans, entire towns were exterminated.

The "scale" of the conflict, as I said in the very post you quoted, cannot be determined by lives lost. It also seems that you have no idea what the Geneva Convention is: a treaty. Germany signed, the US and UK signed, but Russia did not. The differences between how US and USSR soldiers were treated is clear. Germany simply held to the convention for nations that had signed it, and did not to nations that had not signed. Though it did not keep them from breaching the convention in cases involving civilians. The Nazi party understood that the convention -at least when it comes to soldiers- saved lives, so they grudgingly held to it when they could.

I could go on, but this sophomoric discussion about WWII is wearing me out. Peace out everyone.

They did not hold to the Convention. They executed French POWs as reprisals for resistance attacks, they tortured and executed British Commandos. Look at this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#World_War_II]. There are plenty of examples of breaches of the Geneva Convention on the Western Front.

 

[Kathinka]

Allied resistance forces had almost nothing to do with the failure of the attack on Moscow. It was everything to do with an underequipped German Army and an unexpected Soviet counterattack.

The extent of allied actions against the Germans was a relatively minor campaign in North Africa and resistance movements in Occupied Europe, insignificant compared to the conflict in Russia.

The reason more people died had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention and everything to do with a) the scale of the conflict, and b) the conflicting ideologies driving the combatants to extreme violence. The Germans did not observe the Geneva Convention on the either front, large numbers of prisoners of war were executed by the Germans, entire towns were exterminated.

The "scale" of the conflict, as I said in the very post you quoted, cannot be determined by lives lost. It also seems that you have no idea what the Geneva Convention is: a treaty. Germany signed, the US and UK signed, but Russia did not. The differences between how US and USSR soldiers were treated is clear. Germany simply held to the convention for nations that had signed it, and did not to nations that had not signed. Though it did not keep them from breaching the convention in cases involving civilians. The Nazi party understood that the convention -at least when it comes to soldiers- saved lives, so they grudgingly held to it when they could.

I could go on, but this sophomoric discussion about WWII is wearing me out. Peace out everyone.

in a war of production and masses, numbers of casualties and material lost are actually pretty good indicators of how important a given section of the conflict is.
there is no denying that western pows were treated better than soviet ones, but that had more to do with racial ideology and less with the geneva convention. and it most certainly doesn't make a large difference in the numbers. that had more to do with that the western allies faced mainly two second rate armies in the west, while more than 18 armies of vastly superior quality and a substanital ammount of ss were concentrated on the eastern front.

also, a single author of entertainment literature is hardly a the best historical source.
i'm not a fan of the soviets myself, but history revisionism isn't the way.

this is exactly what the original post was partially about. people too stubborn and too ignorant to actually check the facts and just repeat what they were fed, even when having access to the actual truth only a few pages in a book or a few clicks on wikipedia away.

 

[w00tage]

Yeah no kidding. I had a culture shock moment when I moved to San Diego. I walked down the street in the morning and a total stranger said "Good Morning!" to me as he walked by. I was freaked, and more so that I was unable to respond with anything.

Last time ever. I don't live in the NE anymore, and that's on purpose. I want to be the kind of person who can give a cheerful "Good morning!" to a total stranger and not think anything of it. You can't do that unless the people around you will accept it. I live in Austin TX now, where we smile at each other when we make eye contact in passing, and we wave at pedestrians to cross in front of our cars. That's my kind of normal.

Not just uninitiated eye contact, but a hello? How intruding! Most of that stuff is incredibly artificial, and/or shallow kindness though. The "smile on eye contact with a stranger" creeps me right the fuck out.

Please feel free to actually try it before you condemn it in your own imagination as "creepy". It's friggin' awesome to be able to, regardless of the fact that you do not actually know another person, freely confirm with your behavior that they are people existing in your world, and to have that returned to you in full by them. The smile further signifies that should any relationship ever begin between you for any reason, it will start as a friendly one.

All in a single passing moment with no commitments asked or required at the time. Best community culture ever.

 

[Inkidu]

Yay, half generalizations, half poorly supported opinion of what everyone thinks about America. What I did know, I've known, and the rest is just (to use a friendly little word from across the ocean) bollocks. Bollocks I say!

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Generalisations.

Generalizations as far as the eye can see.

From sea to shining sea.

This whole thread can be summed up by the first post. I don't think anything else needs to be said, really.

To the OP, you're so grossly misinformed it's insane. Seriously...good...lord...

 

[minimacker]

2. Few People Hate Us

That statement I can agree with.

I've never hated America, like the post said, I rarely think about it.

I've met some decent Americans over the years throughout my travels and i've met some arseholes .... same as every other country.

I don't hate America either. I'm just disappointed of it.

 

[Crazycat690]

I see that some Americans here disagree because "Whaaa...? I don't think like this!?", ever considered that you are actually a part of the elite who don't? Or perhaps you're blind to this, as is kinda the point of the article?

I'm from Finland, and we have some of these problems, like we suck at showing affection, but it's overall nice living here. Although compared to the US? Finland is pretty much a peaceful utopia. Alot of the TV here is stuff from the US, you know how many different kinds of Cop shows there are? They're about everything from horrible murders to drunk drivers and speeders. I rarely watch Finnish TV because I don't know alot of Finnish and it's not as fun, but once I saw the Finnish version of the "Cops" thingy, you know what they did? They made teens pour out alcohol because it's illegal to carry alcohol in public areas, that is what the police deals with in my country.

I don't live in a big town myself, about 20.000 people, but next week there's a festival which attracts many people, even from neighbour countries, mainly Sweden. You know how many cop cars watch over everything? Two, and even with all that craziness you'll never see out of controll stuff like you see on the US shows.

Of course I understand that things aren't that black and white, I'm just saying that for a country that makes fun of "Eurotrash", most of it is literally quite shitty compared to where the rich elite lives.

 

[Callate]

There's some truth to some of this, but one thing I have to note in my own experience with international travel:

If you ask someone from, say, Ivory Coast, they probably won't have much of an opinion about Argentina. Or if you ask someone from Argentina, they won't have much of an opinion about Thailand, and people in Thailand won't have an opinion about people from Spain, and so on.

But in most any country with a modern media, all of these people will probably have some kind of opinion about America.

I'm not saying it's the subject of all their conversations, or even that it comes up on a weekly basis. But they probably will have one.

 

[Raesvelg]

Doawww, someone got out to see the world and abruptly thought they had it all figured out by playing tourist.

That's adorable.

Really.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

11 Most americans don't even know their roots, for example ask people in new york why brooklyn is called brooklyn and harlem is called harlem and they will have no clue where the hell those names came from or who founded those parts of the city

 

[Syzygy23]

All of a sudden I want to travel.

(Australian, by the way, but a lot of those things apply to us too.)

If there is ever a reason to travel from Australia to the U.S., let it be the fact that in the U.S. you don't have to worry about a funnel spider tearing your throat out in your sleep. Or drop bears mauling your face while walking through the forest. Or box jellyfish torturing you when you go swimming. Or sharks. Or crocodiles (outside of Florida and parts of Louisiana at least)

 

[The Pinray]

Please let this be joke.

I live in America. And I lived in the UK for awhile.

Know what I noticed about the people in the UK? They're self-centered, status-obsessed, and blissfully ignorant. Just like us.

Seriously, people. Let's put it back in our pants.

 

[Soulfoodman]

Thank you for showing me this website. 20 minutes of casual reading and I feel like I have so much to learn from it. Seriously, thanks.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

1. Few People Are Impressed By Us

Unless you?re speaking with a real estate agent or a prostitute, chances are they?re not going to be excited that you?re American. It?s not some badge of honor we get to parade around. Yes, we had Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison, but unless you actually are Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison (which is unlikely) then most people around the world are simply not going to care. There are exceptions of course. And those exceptions are called English and Australian people. Whoopdie-fucking-doo.

As Americans, we?re brought up our entire lives being taught that we?re the best, we did everything first and that the rest of the world follows our lead. Not only is this not true, but people get irritated when you bring it to their country with you. So don?t.

What does he mean by the English and Australian people thing? Does he mean we are impressed by Americans or does he mean that people are impressed by us?

 

[jamesbrown]

I feel TV tropes would have something to say on the issue; oh they do; you my friend are obviously an not-american looking in and seeing flavor 2; go home and come back when you see the diverse set of opinons and people that compose america and not the sterotypes from whereever you get them http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Eagleland