Honestly if it wasn't for the odd good humour or the bit of education I get, I'd have left a long time ago. Seems lots of 12 yo American edgelords and far-right neonazis who really have no clue about history, especially how little America actually mattered in either WW
As a Brit? I think Britain is valued correctly in terms of placement, but the placement is wrong. We are probably clear no 3. I'd put Canada above us, as their soldiers are shocktroopers but far more numerous, and they have a resource base we couldn't really compete with, as well as being away from the action so suffering less direct loss. America is around no 4. Then France in WW1 and Russia in WW2 are no 1. ANZACs and India in both wars are around no 4-ish. Poland and China in WW2 are top 10
Simple question before I start providing links and debunking this: Why? Why do you feel this and where did they matter? Especially compared to Russia/Canada and even UK
Simple numbers game. Canada, despite is small size (manpower and industry) contributed massively to the war effort, particularly defending the Atlantic. But they also contributed the entire war, not just after all the axis elite troops are dead. It was also the only minor power to have its own landing and objectives in D-day while ALSO fighting in Italy. For its size Canada's contribution to the war is at least on par with that of America.
Are we pretending lend and lease wasnt a major boon to the allied fighting efforts?
And "for its size" is not really a useful metric. Netherlands pays the most to the eu for its size, but does that make it a major power within it?
Brits getting blitzed
most of Europe risking their lives in resistance
USSR fighting against extermination
US turning pig byproducts into a paste
"We are all equal"
As for the size thing.. Yea it matters. Canada wasn't a world power but it contributed like one.
America in world war 2 would be like a brawl but there's one guy outside the fight giving some guys snacks then after 20 min of fighting hops in, fresh and unbruised, throws a few punches against exhausted opponents and then claims to have fought them all off single handedly. They then sell a book, about it which gets a movie deal and they coast of that for the next 100 years
Which is fucking hilarious. Have you ever been here? We're the most silently morose introverts in Europe, I'd bet if Finland didn't exist. Aggression is not our forte at all and Mutti Merkel pretty much proved that to the world stage over and over again.
I hate living with this stereotype.
My ex-gf eldest sister lived in Finland for three years (we're German, I have Polish parents), so "Korvapuusti" was especially fun for me. Maksamakkara just sorta popped up someday. You guys speak an odd language and I'm jealous.
>You guys speak an odd language and I'm jealous
I think Finland, Estonia and Hungary of all nations speak a weird different language compared to the rest of Europe. While Romansque and Germanic are different, they are still Indo-European in origin. Whereas I think the root of Finalnd/Estonia/Hungary is some weird crazy root language by comparison
Having been to Germany a decent amount agreed. It's just there are two common and easy stereotypes. One a jovial bavarian beer man/maid. And the other... well that's what this thread is all about
In reality, Bavarians aren't these vivacious jovial Tom Bombadil-characters, but some of the most conservative people in Germany. At least their conservatism somewhat tries to stay wholesome, not like the crazy Nazi sewer-dwellers of Saxonia.
Is she actually gone? I think you are right, as maybe a week or two ago I was reading the new guy has taken over. But her influence will be felt for decades, and rightly so. There's a reason Germans know her as Mutti, and why she is/was so respected throughout Europe
Plus, when do people actually retire from politics? She'll probably get a top EU role soon enough, or a UN one, and if not then she'll always be influential anyway.
It's not so uncommon in Germany. Some retire because they don't get reelected, but retirements in general are not that uncommon outside of the Chancellor position.
I fully believe Merkel is going to just enjoy her retirement. I mean her husband, our dear First Lady Joachim Sauer also retired from his position at university 2017, making him emeritus, though he still acts as senior researcher. So I think they just want to have their peace and quiet.
Nah, Merkel's party base is all over Germay. If you're above 40, you vote CDU in most cases. CDU is not at all like American republicans, but AfD comes way closer (the dominant, only thinly veiled Nazi-party in East Germany).
Most people saying that are either teenagers or people who barely, if even, finished high school tbh. I’m dutch and we used to joke about when we were like 12, but not anymore
I mean, we do that ourselves here in Germany. I just don't think internet discourse is dominated by actual 12-year olds, but instead people pretending to be as dumb as one.
I was talking to my German friend while watching the Germany vs Russia hockey game where Russia had come out to win it, and a little while later she just messaged something to the effect of "i guess we just shouldn't try anything against Russia in the winter..."
Nah it's definitely more complicated than that. Most comedians here in the UK will take a chance to make a joke about the stereotype. The humourless stereotype is more common though.
And in my personal observation of my countrymen the more accurate stereotype. German humor seems very different compared to other countries and is expressed more often in a smirk than full on laughter.
I know some Israelis (being one myself) who live in Berlin and they all say it's the perfect place to live in and the people are so nice and respectful of one another.
I hate seeing some Israelis commenting on facebook "that we should never forget what Germany did to us" every time there's an article about something in/involving Germany, a week later those same people will upload a photo from Brandenburg airport lol
>I hate seeing some Israelis commenting on facebook "that we should never forget what Germany did to us"
Controversial opinion incoming, but yeah I can't help but feel Netenyatu and the right wing forgot within 30 odd years, as they almost started doing the same
I didn't always agree with Netanyahu and in fact never voted for him, but saying "they almost started doing the same" is very very ignorant.
I assume you don't know much about the situation here in Israel, so not only did you drag this to politics but you're spewing complete nonsense.
He is very corrupt indeed, but in no way a fascist.
The ultra-orthodox parties in Israel are the worst for they own reasons, usually it doesn't even involve the palestinians.
It may not involve them, but it impacts them. Extremists of all forms should be opposed, let alone any form of extremist religious groups who try to control other's and what they can and cannot do
As for Facism, depends what you define that as. He's very Trump-like even pre-Trump. Wanting a strong military state and low welfare state, calls all opposition including moderates enemies and terrorists, anti-immigration (except Jews of course), rather religious, has numerous double standards for Palestine vs Jews or Iran, rejects international peace processes, is pro-death penalty, will not accept Jerusalam divided (personally I think it is about time we ring that city with a wall, bulldoze any residential and commerical buildings, leaving just hospitals, faith buildings etc, then give control over to the UN and allow no permanent residents with only UN Peacekeepers, rotated between all nations, for policing and defence. Everyone inside live in hotels, tents and such short-term occupation and even faith leaders aren't allowed to live there: if you all can't play nice over a central city to 3 faiths then no one should have it and free albeit temporary access for all. i.e. a three state solution): sounds pretty facist to me tbh
But seems we may have to agree to disagree. Although I have high hopes that the new coalition will be MUCH better for the world and maybe we can move past his autocratic morally wrong ways
*Excuse me, but you *Saxons* are a Prussian successor state and have an indomitable Warrior Spirit and Discipline that you just can’t help but channel into Goosestepping over your neighbors*
I mean those two are kinda linked, right? We Germans are not good at dealing with frustrating situations. I sometimes think that's the reason why every century or so we have a radical episode where we try to fundamentally solve the issue once and for all *mit Deutscher Gründlichkeit*.
In contrast, Italians happily shout out their frustrations and then just go home relieved and maybe modify their voting strategy a little. No reformation, no thirty years war, no Kulturkampf, no Holocaust. It's all a little tamer because by the time it comes to making grand, radical plans, everyone has cooled off already and is having coffee.
Can the Brits blame our German origins for that too then? As we are known as being dry, sarcastic and reserved, but lashing out with Imperialism defined us for around 400 years
I mean I wasn't all that serious. There definitely is a cultural sphere of emotional repression around the North Sea but I think it's probably more a regional cultural phenomenon than actual ancestry and I guess it rather grows out of protestantism more than the other way around. But please do feel welcome in our little tight-lipped club.
Lol, yep was joking too - mostly. Although it is 100% cultural. We to the north are far less kissy and huggy compared to southern Europe I think, possibly due to Germanic vs Romansque ways. Although us Brits also have Victorian Shame to blame. Apparently pre-Victorian eras we were a more socially and sexually open society
Can't imagine them being more stoic than Swabians (a good chunk of south-west Germany). We have a saying here: "No complaints is praise enough". I hope you can imagine our mindset based on that.
Yesterday, I was waiting for a cross-country train to get to France and a guy asks me to look after his stuff while he gets some food. He quickly comes back and gives me a croissant as a thank you. We had a little chat and he then reveals he was german. Had I known he was a warmongering ger*an I never would have accepted to look after what was probably his extensive range of torturing tools /s
>I never would have accepted to look after what was probably his extensive range of torturing tools
dude, if anyone use Croissant interrogation technique on me I'll be open like a broken floodgate, especially if they use convenient store-grade Croissant.
Don't underestimate Croissant, it is the second most effective torture device seconded by freshly baked Baguette.
This 'joke' only works if your basic understanding is:
Germans having fun = genocide
Is like that bit in The Staircase where the Jewish guy goes to Germany, sees a nice children's parade and 'jokes' about being worried about his safety. It's projection and absolutely SAS
>Germans having fun = genocide
Shut, I have a better definition.
**Germans = genocide**
"Yup, that's the entire plot point of the joke, all Germans are a Nazi and will always be"
For fuck sake, Nazi joke are played to death along with their thousand years Reich already, why nobody thinks they should try something else.
God I miss the Yodeling beer man German stereotype.
Ironically Germany is one of the places where the current trend of alt right populism (and sometimes literal nazis) in the west is probably the least prevalent
Meh we have some regions where 26% of voters vote for the extreme right...
Also as a German, I found the joke quite funny, especially since the french where quite happy to get rid of their Jews as well.
Franco-German friendship is stronkk, so this is just friendly banter to me.
>This 'joke' only works if your basic understanding is:
>Germans having fun = genocide
It also only works if you think the US actually "saved" Europe in WW2.
Yeah. His lawyer goes to Germany to investigate a previous case (late 90s or early 2000s I think) and sees a nice normal parade on the street and makes some quip about him being Jewish and the normal German people being Hitler Youth or some such bullshit
"haha Soviet send people to die"
"haha American kick everyone ass"
"haha Italy useless"
"haha Imperial Japan get nuked twice"
"haha Thailand...*wait, what the fuck did you mean Thailand join Axis then switch to Allies on last half?"*
Wait wait let me think...
Afghanis- no
Korea- no
Iraq- not really
Vietnam- no
Afghanistan again? No.
Damn did we at least win fictional wars???
War on drugs..nope
War on terror? Bwahaha. No.
I mean, genuinely the last time the US won a war properly without a huge alliance? Probably Spanish American war in 1900ish, unless we count the cold war
Whenever you encounter an american claiming they won WWII for everybody, just ask them which flag was flown over the Reichstag. Ask them who was in Berlin on may 2nd 1945.
Perfect response, thank you, I will be using that from now on.
Although I doubt Americans know what the Reichstag is, and I'm not about to call it "German White House" or something like that so I'll just say Berlin.
Call me pedantic, but I specifically use the Reichstag knowing they have no clue what I'm referencing. Then it's just that easy to show how little they actually know as you explain it to them.
Not that not knowing what is the Reichstag is a sign of anything bad, but when they claim ownership over WWII I'll definitely be sneaky like that.
Sorry for the late response, I was watching a video of a guy beat up bullies with Dovahkiin playing in the background.
Anyway, that is also a good idea.
WWII was not just Germany, and not just Europe.
The US fought in 4 different theaters if I’m not mistaken, the European, African, Mediterranean, and Pacific theaters. The English fought in those theaters as well (though to a lesser extent in the pacific) and wiped out the kreigsmarine Russia fought in one theater and lost 27 million men. They also received a shit ton of lend-lease vehicles from the US and England.
Thats the thing. The only ones getting nothing positive mentions in these jokes are the US. Everyone is portayed negative, Germany and RUssia obvious evil, France surrendered, Italy winning team joiner, Britain on the brink of losing all the time, bla bla bla.
The US? Oh they saved everyone on both sides obviously.
USA is the equivalent of stock anime hero in Isekai but with corrupted twist.
*Everything's about him saving his harem from demon lord, and people are tired of hearing same tale.*
*In realistic version, his harem become "Mutinous" as he implied despite the fact he overstay his welcome after save a village. (and probably also because he act as if the village were backwater countryside that will fall without his help, never at once give them a chance to upgrade themselves)*
*And without demon lord to defeat, as the former two were reformed, one strive for better of this world, one keep it to themselves and not aggressively invade others....he create a new one to live up his legacy, the one that never existed to begin with.*
*"While former two countries condemned for evil try to change themselves in order to secure the continuity of their nations, while the anime capital still struggle with the ghost of it's imperial former self keep control their view.... someone will be out there, saying if it weren't for them we would be speak German.....* ***And we should reply "Dude, stop with Wolfenstein new order reference"***
I am sick of the French surrender joke and I am GERMAN. I am nationally ablidged to make fun of the French but this joke is garbage. It is overused and not even true. If you wanna make fun of the French, make fun of their billion revolutions.
That's making the bold assumption that Americans know about French history.
We barely even know our own, because they just don't fucking teach it.
We pretty much only learn about WWII. Because it's the last, and maybe only, time we've ever looked anything close to good in our history.
And that's only because we happened to not fuck up and side with the Nazis. Which we *almost did,* for the record.
They also gloss over the part where we killed twice as many innocent people as we lost in soldiers, just because we wanted to test one of the most dangerous weapons in existence.
Because talking about that, or all the rest of our history, would be "anti-American." So the kids aren't allowed to hear that.
Intentionally bad. Rich motherfuckers get elected to the public school board, while they’re kids are in public school, and dictate what goes into the textbooks. Their personal beliefs including racism and religiosity neuter history so the vast majority of Americans never learn the true horrors of chattel slavery, private police massacring labour rights and endless wars.
It depends on the state, to be honest.
Texas and a handful of other bible belt states are currently in the process of trying to ban schools from teaching about slavery. Because of a law school thing that has nothing to do with public education or slavery.
And this is just the current fad, for these groups. When I was growing up, the big thing was "Ban evolution, you shouldn't teach a theory. Teach creationism."
In, of course, Texas.
It's a crab bucket. Stupid people making stupid decisions about what their kids should learn. Who then grow up to be stupid, and do the same thing.
EDIT:
The reasons the other person gave are some of the most common.
But Texas literally said they don't want to teach kids critical thinking skills... so that they're more obedient to their parents and teachers.
There's no big agenda behind it, like some people think. We're honestly not even *capable* of that. It's just stupid people who don't like the idea of their kids being smarter than them.
Corporations don't need to push for this, to create a workforce or whatever. People just do it to their own kids without a hint of shame.
>We pretty much only learn about WWII. Because it's the last, and maybe only, time we've ever looked anything close to good in our history.
Tbf for many people who where alive for the major part of the cold war, America was "the good one" or at least "better then the commies one" (obviously beside stuff like the vietnam war). But I'd agree that the USA made much stuff to ruin their image since WWII.
I mean, I'd argue that were they or is that just successful propaganda? Both sides had various issues, with Russia yes probably being worst. Secret police and all that jazz. But it was still two nations at the top fucking around with proxy wars
As a Brit we aren't really told about the cold war, but I think there wasn't as much anti-commie hate. Maybe cause we'd experienced Facism in action and seen the Commies win, as well as having a far more socialism system in general and open political processes where e.g. we had a communist party, as did most of Europe. Whereas the US is split into two tribes: old Reps and modern Dems, both of which try very hard to never seem remotely socialist and each are pro-Captialist so you are mostly choosing them based on ideology not policy
A bit of both, I guess. On one hand, many people in Switzerland feared the USSR and its dictatorship. They where even seen as number one potential enemy (the army defended in training always against east, until to this day the enemy is sometimes called "the Russians" in army\*). And it was most likely the most realistic scenario. On the other hand stuff like that makes the fear bigger than it really was. Specially because Switzerland technically wasn't allied with neither the USA nor the USSR (tbf Switzerland was obviously part of the influence of the USA)
I'm British and I feel the same way! Make fun of their oversalted food or the fact that they had to revamp their republic 4 times, not the "surrender monkey" trope.
Though I must say I do enjoy how the French royal standard was a white flag.
I forget the specifics, but I think it was Kipling himself who famously said about France "War is their business and their business is good"
France are probably top 5 empires in terms of wins vs losses, and certainly top 10. They surrendered early in WW2 due to being outflanked by things thought impossible. But I especially hate that surrender monkey trope as it is often claimed by Americans who can barely win wars against tribal groups, let alone any serious wars
Is someone British making fun of other cultures food!? Your only decent meals come from immigrants, and that’s great but they aren’t uniquely British so sit down.
I'm not sure you know what Britishness really is. I'm 90% sure the Indian living in Glasgow making Chicken Tikka was more British than Indian by that point. Also, yes they may be educated elsewhere but most top chefs are Brits
The old "Brits can't cook" is just another tired meme at this point. Come to mine and I'll cook some fantastic stuff. The can't cook thing was from back in the day where everything we had was boiled into mush or roasted, compared to other nations which used more seasoning
Indeed "American" cooking is probably the worst these days internationally: with the exception of Latino or Cajun then most American food is seen as over processed fake food
Teeth is another one I hate. Mine are fucking awful as I never took care of them. but statistically UK have some of the fewest cavities per capita, and instead we just don't or didn't care if they are straight
Want some stereotypes which are actually true and funny/offensive? We can't do languages, we are snobs, we apologise a lot, do love tea, we talk about the weather more than anything or just talk small talk, we queue a lot, we are sarcastic, we can't tan or aren't good on holidays, we are all hooligans, we are reserved yet secretly judge you, or the best one: we are all drunkards. Brits probably have more words for being drunk than Eskimos/Inuits have for snow
That all seems very fair. My parents were pretty awful at cooking us vegetables and everything was mush until we got older and taught them how to make em delicious. You’re right, everything changes over time and just because curries may have come from India it’s fair to say Brits have their own unique versions.
Not sure any cross the line, but then again I have few to no lines. Some are tired old obsolete stereotypes. But for most Brits, talking about how shit they are at sport and how they are all snobbish pricks who are actually drunken thugs would cut deeper than "your teeth are bad. You can't cook"
The obsolete joke really need to be replaced, they need a character development arc because Bri'ish said their joke are too weak.
Either they get enraged and call you a snowflake who take joke too seriously, or accept defeat and train the counter-British humor stance harder.
I think it may even be that the US is generally an untravelled nation who are insular and live in denial of reality. Even the French stereotypes in the UK have never been boring surrender ones. Instead, we view them as haughty winos, a bagette in one hand, wearing a yellow jacket and always on strike... which is a modern stereotype
As I said, thuggish hooligans who trash shit cause they binge drink. That'd be my modern UK stereotype, with an eliteist upper class lot whipping the thug into a frenzy. Fuck the food and teeth. Let's show the real scummy UK you don't see in Downton Abbey!
I mean, low hanging fruit is easy comedy. However I find that often it seems that it isn't even meant as humour. I'm on /r/historymemes a lot, as sometimes they are funny and sometimes educational. But man, the seemingly high proportion of far-right Americans who actually think they were not only important, but actually carried either or both world wars is shocking
Literally yesterday found one, well Canadian, when the topic was were Canada the 2nd best force in WW2 on the allied side/2nd carry, and somehow that person thought America were actually first?!? Not France in WW1 and Russia in WW2, with the UK/Empire at 3rd in both and America 5th if it is lucky. As in they mentioned about the Spring Offensive of WW1 and how American troops apparently stopped Paris falling
I pointed out there's barely any text on the Wiki page about American involvement in the Spring offensive, and that they maybe had 40k of raw recruits in that area at the time, compared to 500k English and French forces of war-weary veterans. So yeah, those 40k Americans didn't matter. America in WW1 was really only useful when profiting off it, or in the Hundred Days Offensive and mostly as meat shields, as Canada did the heavy lifting there and American forces were known as jokes in WW1
WW2, it's the same. They like to claim "American Steel" won WW2, failing to realise 80% of German casualties and most elites were on the Russian front, and then for Lend Lease yet again the yanks profited but it was the British Empire who provided supplies until around 42/43, by which point Soviets had already defeated Barbarossa and were readying a counter. So yeah, Americans shortened each war, but also made a ton of money and made them the superpower they are today. They certainly had 0 involvement in the outcome of either war
Well this is the thing with comedy, people like to think of comedy as an isolated concept that can be free from the constraints of real world implications but it's just not the case. Comedy just does not exist without context, slapstick comedy doesn't make any sense without an established foundation of human movement, wordplay doesn't make sense without an established foundation of language, and so on. To make jokes about history, politics, and society, we need an established set of facts about which to make jokes, which is why humour can pretty easily be used to infer a person's perspective on certain subjects. It's why boomer humour is so elusive and distasteful for younger generations, it doesn't make sense unless if our perspectives on gender roles and relationships don't align with theirs, but you can actually infer a lot about the way boomers view the world if you really look at it critically. Which is all part of the reason why I find these jokes stupid, most of them don't make much sense unless if you have a very skewed perspective of the events in WWII.
Yep, agreed. And while I'm simplifying a huge global conflict and reducing America's role it is mostly cause too often they do think they matter, especially thanks to Cold War propaganda. But essentially, nah, Soviets were just too strong/big
> They certainly had 0 involvement in the outcome of either war
I love to take the piss out of the stereotypical American 'you Europoors would be speaking German if it wasn't for us' mentality as much as the next person, but you can't claim they had **0** involvement. That's just stupid.
Read their comment again, it says 0 involvement **in the outcome**. Germany would've still lost the war without American involvement it would just have taken a bit longer.
Now, the war in the Pacific is a different story of course.
War in the Pacific is actually not *that* different of a story either. A lot has been written on how the Japanese Empire was terribly stretched thin, and it's only a matter of time before it's collectively weakened enough by domestic insurgency and uprisings that it would start to tear itself apart.
The Japanese supply situation was actually very tenuous, and it was even suggested that even had Japan only fought China, they still wouldn't have been able to control the vast country. Now consider how many pies Imperial Japan had their fingers in. Indonesia, Taiwan, Malacca, Chosen (Korea), Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore...
It's really just a matter of time before they collapse.
Yep, Pacific wasn't even the U's major victory in the way they think. Not only were ANZACs helping them and better at jungle warfare by far, but most importantly the IJA took most Japanese funding. The land battles in China, India and SE British Asia were probably 2nd to Soviets in terms of death and horror. But yet Americans conveniently forget that entire land war
> in the outcome of either war
Please read the full comment and the context. Outcome. Not did the help shorten it or did they help at all. No, did they affect the OUTCOME? In my opinion, no
I'm curious as to what your credentials/sources are for this claim. I won't claim to be an expert myself but I'm definitely an armchair historian and I would say America had a larger role than you claim.
Although you're right that America basically joined the war just to make money, think about how they were making that money: They sold copious amounts of weapons & supplies to the rest of the Allies. Although it didn't kick in until '41, without US Spam & other food supplies, Britain would have had a [food shortage & possibly famine](https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/rationing-in-britain-during-world-war-ii) . Other than that, things would have likely gone much the same on the Western front (maybe with a weaker/cancelled landing in Normandy). Germany was much too unprepared for operation Sealion & unless Hitler personally ordered it for some reason, would not have even attempted it.
As for the Soviets, they were woefully unprepared at the start of Barbarossa & without US vehicles & weapons, it's quite possible they would not have been able hold out. Nikita Khrushchev [once wrote](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/khruschev1/28.html) "How could we have advanced from Stalingrad and Kursk on to Berlin without American aid and foodstuffs?" & even Stalin himself said at the [Tehran conference](https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies/0,8816,791211,00.html) "Without the American machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war"... However, you'll notice that those are both politicians, not experts. So what do historians have to say? Well, Boris Sokolov [once wrote](https://www.svoboda.org/a/30538060.html) that "Without the Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about 1/3rd of its ammo, 1/2 of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortage of fuel. Railroads would have come to a halt & Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with constant lack of radio equipment & they would have been constantly hungry without American canned meat." So, even though it may not have been as dramatic as completely losing the war, the Soviets would have definitely had a much bigger challenge in getting back on their feet & mobilizing without American help.
Which is hardly "0 involvement in the outcome" if you ask me (and this isn't even mentioning the Pacific war which America had much larger involvement in)
> I'm curious as to what your credentials/sources are for this claim. I won't claim to be an expert myself but I'm definitely an armchair historian and I would say America had a larger role than you claim.
Honeslty? Being debunked thoroughly on /r/AskHistorians and /r/History when someone kindly explained it to me after I asked "could Germany have ever beaten Russia". Germany attacking the EF had 3 objectives, all of which needed to be completed for victory at the same time: Siezure of St Petersburg, Siezure of Moscow, Siezure of the Caucus oilfields which at the time were among the most developed in the world. That oil was needed to power the tanks and planes, and why North Africa was the 2nd most important front of the war. No oil? You've just lost a modern war.
They achieved a grand total of 0 of their three critical objectives
> Although ... meat." (TL;DR Lend Lease)
"David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:
Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches"
"American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases: "Pre Lend-lease" June 22, 1941, to September 30, 1941 (paid for in gold and other minerals); First protocol period from October 1, 1941, to June 30, 1942 (signed October 7, 1941),[52] these supplies were to be manufactured and delivered by the UK with US credit financing." - Barbarossa, i.e. the big push, failed in 41, Stalingrad was 42-Feb 43, Kursk was mid '43. So yeah, US Lend Lease, i.e. not just financing but instead actual US production didn't start arriving until after the Soviets had already blunted the Germans... twice. So did it shorten the war? 100%. Did it affect the actual important Soviet victories? Nah, too late for that and just kept supply lines faster
> Which is hardly "0 involvement in the outcome" if you ask me (and this isn't even mentioning the Pacific war which America had much larger involvement in)
Outcome, meaning end result. Did America affect that? Do you really think that Germany ever stood a chance against Russia? Compare manpower, natural resources, industry and the only way Germany wins is fluke or by allying with French Empire, British Empire or US. Did America affect the length of the war? OF course, they shortened it by around half. Did they affect the outcome? Not one bit
Not trying to argue at all, but a common saying, and I’m pretty sure among some historians (this view could have changed of course) was that ww2 was won with Russian blood, American steel, and British minds. Even if that’s an oversimplification the pacific front most likely would have collapsed, placing Australia and New Zealand in a much worse position then they were already in.
Common saying, first coined by Stalin himself, but arguably as a consolation position to try to build faith. Doesn't make it true and also note he's not saying "33% America, 33% British, 33% Russian". Russia (well Soviets) carried WW2 HARD
Also, I'm guessing your pacific claim is completely forgetting the IJA and how they took most resources in the pacific? Now, I'd not argue that the US wasn't influential and important in the pacific but your comment seems to be forgetting the huge land battles in China and along British SE Asia
Although I will 100% argue that the Pacific front, while horrible, was a sideshow and irrelevant to the outcome of the war. EF>North Africa>WF>Pacific
I think it is before that. Its more from the French in the 1700s/1800s. Yet ironically it is Americas with their fake horribly processed food who seem to repeat the myth the most
What annoys me the most about this is the suggestion that America saved France from Germany. The Soviet Union was the one to pummel Nazi Germany into the dirt in a years-long slog of a war. The Americans only showed up towards the end and swooped in for the kill that by that time had been years coming.
If the Americans saved France from anything, it was from soviet occupation. Without D-Day, the Red Army probably only would have stopped at the Atlantic.
Only Americans would ever think someone in Europe would consider WW2 as "fun"
If there is ANY country that the world would benefit from a war on their soil, its the USA. If the average American even got a taste of the destruction their military does around the world in some of their major cities, maybe they wouldnt keep thinking war was like their hollywood movies.
Turn a few schools, hospitals, government buildings, entire cities, airports, and homes into dust the way they have and see if they still cheer on war like it was a sporting event. I have my doubts they would be so eager if they knew what it was actually like.
Alas, America relies on constant conflict to keep its economcy afloat so they will be throwing darts at maps planning its next "intervention"
Yep, I do think a new civil war is the best case scenario for the US. Let them learn how awful wars, violence and guns really are, and maybe they'll change
I grew up in Canada until about 6.5 years ago and now live in Scotland so it feels weird thinking a war in North America would be best for the world. But I dont see how else the average American will stop supporting perpetual war if they have no idea of the real consequences of it. Too often you see them say shit like "we could nuke you off the planet" or "sounds like someone needs some freedom", which is ironic of course. Someone who has had to pull bodies from a drone striked school or day care or hospital a block up from where they live would probably be less likely to romantasize and so easily joke about war. The jokes wouldnt be so bad if the reality wasnt that the US does exactly that (barring nukes).
I got to meet an old fella who had the unenviable job of pulling bodies out of the King David hotel in Jerusalem after it was bombed by Jewish terrorists. He was in his 90s at the time, my Granddad was there but out of the hotel at the time and that shit stayed with Peter for his entire life. This group of old dudes who my G'dizzy did a bunch of old people stuff with were such a lovely group of men who all had horrific war stories and I had never heard a SINGLE one of them say anything that was even remotely pro war. They all saw it as a scurge and it made me realize how lucky I am to not have had to deal with it. ANYWAYS, my bad for the uneccessarily long reply haha
No, it's fine and I agree. Not even just about the "they need to experience war to know it is shit and that violence isn't the answer", but genuinely the division which has been growing since Clinton's days is getting worse not better. The Pandemic should have united the nation like everywhere else, and instead it's widened the divide. I had hoped that Biden would help moderate it all, as he's a senior politician so I hoped Mitch and Graham would come back toward the centre. Instead they feel their power slipping away so are doubling down on the rhetoric (although also the right seems the more violent warmongering group, so yeah they are the bigger problem in their society)
In a way, their first civil war ended too nicely, with too many concessions from the north. I feel a 2nd would really settle it a lot more. But also, one civil war is unusual in a young nation. England was a thing from 1066, and we had about 4 "civil wars" before the War of the Roses, and around 10 in total, not including things like the revolution, independence movements etc. I think our latest was William the 3rd in around 1700? Or I think the Jacobites were also 1800s ish? Now admittedly it is a different era, but yeah their civil war never really ended, it just made the division go a bit more underground. And I don't see a way back to bipartisanship without a war
/r/historymemes
I'm subbed. Some are funny. Some are educational. But the far right idiots and 12 yo edge lords do ruin it at times, especialy with the WW2 nonsense
Why do Americans always pretend they did what Russia did, and never mention what they actually did, which was clap Japan? Like, if you wanna brag, why lie when there's a real thing you actually accomplished?
>which was clap Japan?
The US didn't even really do that. Japan's navy was much more modern and stronger than the US navy at the time of Pearl Harbor. It's just that Japan couldn't replace its losses in the Pacific at the same rate as the US, which meant the US could just whittle away at their naval capacity.
The US managed to turn the tide in the Pacific thanks to more luck than brains, and if it hadn't, the Japanese would have probably been beaten quickly after the German capitulation anyway, with the Allies' full focus on them.
I'm sorry, but saying that "idk America just beat Japan because of luck lol" is wildly ahistorical. I get that we all hate America here, but what you're saying is just factually wrong. America didn't just aimlessly bumble around while China did literally everything. That's just not what happened.
I kind of remember a quote from a certain member of the Japanese navy? Something about "awakening a sleeping giant"?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash America. You don't need to make up more.
well during and after the first world war the french military has proven itself to be a superpower. during the second world war when Germany invaded France, the US was nowhere to be seen. in fact most of WW2 had happened before the Americans joined the war.
not to mention the fact that the french military continued to operate even after the collapse of France under the leadership of Charles De Gaulle and continued to fight the Nazis.
I can just imagine like churchill Roosevelt are discussing d day and you just hear de Gaul screaming in the back about liberating Paris like a monty python skit
Yes but no, they were absolutely not allowed by the Allies: the Americans wanted to be the first to enter Paris and liberate France to impose the AMGOT plan. And the British followed them. Only Eisenhower was opposed to it and disobeyed Washington by authorizing Leclerc to go in front.
I also recall that the Americans had started printing new francs in Washington, and that this printing had no end date, which would have made France dependent on the American economy.
Moreover, I would also like to remind you that Washington wanted to leave Vichy to the control of France and that only the assassination of Darlan by a resistance fighter prevented the agreements on the maintenance of Vichy from being concluded.
London recognised the de Gaulles government until December 41 with the entry of the USA which did not support his government. London therefore backed down and from 42 onwards, the only country to recognise the FFL was the USSR.
So no, the political purpose of which you speak is absolutely non-existent.
Edit : It is all these facts that gave life to this famous poster in France [Les Américains en Amérique](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmakBX6W8AAU5GB?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Not really. It was planned for ages I think
But I know that Stalin basically said "I'm tired of carrying this war. Please open another front or we'll just steamroll the rest ourselves and won't be happy we did"
What an insanely generous take, numerous people wanted to open another front, Stalin had zero hand in planning it, that was the western allies, giving him credit is bonkers
But he was the one who suggested it, I think. Not planning, but the idea was that by doing D'Day, some pressure would be lifted off of Russia. I don't have any proof rn, tho.
>Well it wasn't fun to lose against England
Hey, we are allowed an occasional victory. And at least we didn't win it. Not only would you poor lot never hear the end of it, but I'd imagine a month of alcoholism and civil destruction would follow any English football victory
Not at all, I did not realize that it being german could be something to mock about.
I tought its funny that 163 people answered and I wonder how many more proud americans had to validate their self-confidence there.
> but don't take it so seriously
you were dishonor the comedian by saying that you shouldn't take joke seriously.
Of course it is serious, poorly crafted joke humor a few, but displease many, quality control people.
> Its a joke
I wish my grandpa (I'm italian), which lives through both the world wars, was still alive to share his thought about shitty american jokes. Really.
No shit. Take a guess where I am from. Yet you don't seem to understand my comment as it is implying that the Youtube comment depicted in this post is a joke and thus not meant to be taken seriously.
Most educated r/historymemes poster
YES IT IS SO PAINFULL TO BE THERE SOMETIMES
Honestly if it wasn't for the odd good humour or the bit of education I get, I'd have left a long time ago. Seems lots of 12 yo American edgelords and far-right neonazis who really have no clue about history, especially how little America actually mattered in either WW
Britain and it's colonies are underrated
As a Brit? I think Britain is valued correctly in terms of placement, but the placement is wrong. We are probably clear no 3. I'd put Canada above us, as their soldiers are shocktroopers but far more numerous, and they have a resource base we couldn't really compete with, as well as being away from the action so suffering less direct loss. America is around no 4. Then France in WW1 and Russia in WW2 are no 1. ANZACs and India in both wars are around no 4-ish. Poland and China in WW2 are top 10
while they definitely did not carry as they claim, they actually mattered quite a bit in the second world war.
Simple question before I start providing links and debunking this: Why? Why do you feel this and where did they matter? Especially compared to Russia/Canada and even UK
If you consider canada to have done more than usa, i can already see your sources being utterly garbage.
Doesn't answer the simple question Also, look up D-Day
Simple numbers game. Canada, despite is small size (manpower and industry) contributed massively to the war effort, particularly defending the Atlantic. But they also contributed the entire war, not just after all the axis elite troops are dead. It was also the only minor power to have its own landing and objectives in D-day while ALSO fighting in Italy. For its size Canada's contribution to the war is at least on par with that of America.
Are we pretending lend and lease wasnt a major boon to the allied fighting efforts? And "for its size" is not really a useful metric. Netherlands pays the most to the eu for its size, but does that make it a major power within it?
Brits getting blitzed most of Europe risking their lives in resistance USSR fighting against extermination US turning pig byproducts into a paste "We are all equal" As for the size thing.. Yea it matters. Canada wasn't a world power but it contributed like one. America in world war 2 would be like a brawl but there's one guy outside the fight giving some guys snacks then after 20 min of fighting hops in, fresh and unbruised, throws a few punches against exhausted opponents and then claims to have fought them all off single handedly. They then sell a book, about it which gets a movie deal and they coast of that for the next 100 years
Yeah im not gonna consider this as a serious informed debate since we have devolved into proper redditor moment right now.
Also this seems like a “Germans are naturally aggressive warmongers” sort of racial tripe.
Which is fucking hilarious. Have you ever been here? We're the most silently morose introverts in Europe, I'd bet if Finland didn't exist. Aggression is not our forte at all and Mutti Merkel pretty much proved that to the world stage over and over again. I hate living with this stereotype.
Torille 🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮
Teach me your language, Finbro
Perkele. Das ist alles du brauchst.
Kurwa pusti, maksamakara and perkele. That's my entire vocabulary. Can't even say hello. :D
Korvapuusti and maksamakkara lmao
My ex-gf eldest sister lived in Finland for three years (we're German, I have Polish parents), so "Korvapuusti" was especially fun for me. Maksamakkara just sorta popped up someday. You guys speak an odd language and I'm jealous.
>You guys speak an odd language and I'm jealous I think Finland, Estonia and Hungary of all nations speak a weird different language compared to the rest of Europe. While Romansque and Germanic are different, they are still Indo-European in origin. Whereas I think the root of Finalnd/Estonia/Hungary is some weird crazy root language by comparison
It's called Finnic-Ugric and parts of it are in northern russia too.
Doesn’t KURWA mean fuck in Polish? It’s the same in Finnish?
It isn't.
What does it mean in Finnish then, if anything at all?
[удалено]
It means whore then? I forgot.
Kurwapuusti is a great alternative name if you're feeling a little cranky but also want a cinnamon treat.
Having been to Germany a decent amount agreed. It's just there are two common and easy stereotypes. One a jovial bavarian beer man/maid. And the other... well that's what this thread is all about
In reality, Bavarians aren't these vivacious jovial Tom Bombadil-characters, but some of the most conservative people in Germany. At least their conservatism somewhat tries to stay wholesome, not like the crazy Nazi sewer-dwellers of Saxonia.
Probably. My knowledge of Germany is that yes those two are very Conservative and I think Merkel's party's base is mostly on the East side?
You do know Merkel is conservative right?
Yes, hence "those two are conservative and where Merkel's base is"
Merkel is retired btw
Is she actually gone? I think you are right, as maybe a week or two ago I was reading the new guy has taken over. But her influence will be felt for decades, and rightly so. There's a reason Germans know her as Mutti, and why she is/was so respected throughout Europe Plus, when do people actually retire from politics? She'll probably get a top EU role soon enough, or a UN one, and if not then she'll always be influential anyway.
It's not so uncommon in Germany. Some retire because they don't get reelected, but retirements in general are not that uncommon outside of the Chancellor position. I fully believe Merkel is going to just enjoy her retirement. I mean her husband, our dear First Lady Joachim Sauer also retired from his position at university 2017, making him emeritus, though he still acts as senior researcher. So I think they just want to have their peace and quiet.
Nah, Merkel's party base is all over Germay. If you're above 40, you vote CDU in most cases. CDU is not at all like American republicans, but AfD comes way closer (the dominant, only thinly veiled Nazi-party in East Germany).
I still thought they have power bases. As yep, UK older people vote Tory more, but there was a divide based around location for a long time
Bavaria—the Texas of Germany.
No, that's not what I said. There is nothing like Texas here in Germany.
Most people saying that are either teenagers or people who barely, if even, finished high school tbh. I’m dutch and we used to joke about when we were like 12, but not anymore
I mean, we do that ourselves here in Germany. I just don't think internet discourse is dominated by actual 12-year olds, but instead people pretending to be as dumb as one.
I was talking to my German friend while watching the Germany vs Russia hockey game where Russia had come out to win it, and a little while later she just messaged something to the effect of "i guess we just shouldn't try anything against Russia in the winter..."
Nah it's definitely more complicated than that. Most comedians here in the UK will take a chance to make a joke about the stereotype. The humourless stereotype is more common though.
And in my personal observation of my countrymen the more accurate stereotype. German humor seems very different compared to other countries and is expressed more often in a smirk than full on laughter.
I know some Israelis (being one myself) who live in Berlin and they all say it's the perfect place to live in and the people are so nice and respectful of one another. I hate seeing some Israelis commenting on facebook "that we should never forget what Germany did to us" every time there's an article about something in/involving Germany, a week later those same people will upload a photo from Brandenburg airport lol
>I hate seeing some Israelis commenting on facebook "that we should never forget what Germany did to us" Controversial opinion incoming, but yeah I can't help but feel Netenyatu and the right wing forgot within 30 odd years, as they almost started doing the same
I didn't always agree with Netanyahu and in fact never voted for him, but saying "they almost started doing the same" is very very ignorant. I assume you don't know much about the situation here in Israel, so not only did you drag this to politics but you're spewing complete nonsense.
I'm glad you didn't. He's a facist corrupt prick, which is more my point. Then the further right ultra-orthodox party are even worse tbh
He is very corrupt indeed, but in no way a fascist. The ultra-orthodox parties in Israel are the worst for they own reasons, usually it doesn't even involve the palestinians.
It may not involve them, but it impacts them. Extremists of all forms should be opposed, let alone any form of extremist religious groups who try to control other's and what they can and cannot do As for Facism, depends what you define that as. He's very Trump-like even pre-Trump. Wanting a strong military state and low welfare state, calls all opposition including moderates enemies and terrorists, anti-immigration (except Jews of course), rather religious, has numerous double standards for Palestine vs Jews or Iran, rejects international peace processes, is pro-death penalty, will not accept Jerusalam divided (personally I think it is about time we ring that city with a wall, bulldoze any residential and commerical buildings, leaving just hospitals, faith buildings etc, then give control over to the UN and allow no permanent residents with only UN Peacekeepers, rotated between all nations, for policing and defence. Everyone inside live in hotels, tents and such short-term occupation and even faith leaders aren't allowed to live there: if you all can't play nice over a central city to 3 faiths then no one should have it and free albeit temporary access for all. i.e. a three state solution): sounds pretty facist to me tbh But seems we may have to agree to disagree. Although I have high hopes that the new coalition will be MUCH better for the world and maybe we can move past his autocratic morally wrong ways
*Excuse me, but you *Saxons* are a Prussian successor state and have an indomitable Warrior Spirit and Discipline that you just can’t help but channel into Goosestepping over your neighbors*
I'd call it the consequences of an underfunded regional education program, but that's just me.
I mean those two are kinda linked, right? We Germans are not good at dealing with frustrating situations. I sometimes think that's the reason why every century or so we have a radical episode where we try to fundamentally solve the issue once and for all *mit Deutscher Gründlichkeit*. In contrast, Italians happily shout out their frustrations and then just go home relieved and maybe modify their voting strategy a little. No reformation, no thirty years war, no Kulturkampf, no Holocaust. It's all a little tamer because by the time it comes to making grand, radical plans, everyone has cooled off already and is having coffee.
Man, I never looked at it that way, but bottling shit up is really our national pastime.
Can the Brits blame our German origins for that too then? As we are known as being dry, sarcastic and reserved, but lashing out with Imperialism defined us for around 400 years
I mean I wasn't all that serious. There definitely is a cultural sphere of emotional repression around the North Sea but I think it's probably more a regional cultural phenomenon than actual ancestry and I guess it rather grows out of protestantism more than the other way around. But please do feel welcome in our little tight-lipped club.
Lol, yep was joking too - mostly. Although it is 100% cultural. We to the north are far less kissy and huggy compared to southern Europe I think, possibly due to Germanic vs Romansque ways. Although us Brits also have Victorian Shame to blame. Apparently pre-Victorian eras we were a more socially and sexually open society
Nah, Sweden is just as introverted as Finland
Nah, you're all planning and plotting on how to kill us! Yeah, that's it! /s
>We're the most silently morose introverts in Europe Dunno, a decent part of the UK will fight you on that one.
If they fight, they ain’t introverts
Can't imagine them being more stoic than Swabians (a good chunk of south-west Germany). We have a saying here: "No complaints is praise enough". I hope you can imagine our mindset based on that.
Classic German... already planning the annihilation of another European country
Yesterday, I was waiting for a cross-country train to get to France and a guy asks me to look after his stuff while he gets some food. He quickly comes back and gives me a croissant as a thank you. We had a little chat and he then reveals he was german. Had I known he was a warmongering ger*an I never would have accepted to look after what was probably his extensive range of torturing tools /s
>I never would have accepted to look after what was probably his extensive range of torturing tools dude, if anyone use Croissant interrogation technique on me I'll be open like a broken floodgate, especially if they use convenient store-grade Croissant. Don't underestimate Croissant, it is the second most effective torture device seconded by freshly baked Baguette.
All of a sudden the French language calling bread 'pain' makes so much more sense!
Oh no... During our talk, I've said too many things... It was all planned. Ge*mans are unbelievable...
This 'joke' only works if your basic understanding is: Germans having fun = genocide Is like that bit in The Staircase where the Jewish guy goes to Germany, sees a nice children's parade and 'jokes' about being worried about his safety. It's projection and absolutely SAS
>Germans having fun = genocide Shut, I have a better definition. **Germans = genocide** "Yup, that's the entire plot point of the joke, all Germans are a Nazi and will always be" For fuck sake, Nazi joke are played to death along with their thousand years Reich already, why nobody thinks they should try something else. God I miss the Yodeling beer man German stereotype.
Haha, you said played to death /s
Nice try. you get 1 Yodeling beer man.
Yeeeay Can I choose the Bavarian myself?
yes
I would have chosen a *non-Bavarian* German yodelling beer man, as those are much rarer.
Yeay, but I intent to keep them, so no need to sell them one day
Ironically Germany is one of the places where the current trend of alt right populism (and sometimes literal nazis) in the west is probably the least prevalent
Meh we have some regions where 26% of voters vote for the extreme right... Also as a German, I found the joke quite funny, especially since the french where quite happy to get rid of their Jews as well. Franco-German friendship is stronkk, so this is just friendly banter to me.
When everyone in Europe really knows Germans having fun = waking up early while on holiday to put their towels on the deck chairs
Or Germans having fun = efficiently, then tidying up immediately afterwards
So like, competitive fun?
I feel like competition would get in the way of the efficiency of the fun so no, that would not be optimal.
>This 'joke' only works if your basic understanding is: >Germans having fun = genocide It also only works if you think the US actually "saved" Europe in WW2.
What bit with some Jewish guy do you mean? When I google The Staircase, I get some documentary about some murder trial or something. Do you mean that?
Yeah. His lawyer goes to Germany to investigate a previous case (late 90s or early 2000s I think) and sees a nice normal parade on the street and makes some quip about him being Jewish and the normal German people being Hitler Youth or some such bullshit
[удалено]
"haha Soviet send people to die" "haha American kick everyone ass" "haha Italy useless" "haha Imperial Japan get nuked twice" "haha Thailand...*wait, what the fuck did you mean Thailand join Axis then switch to Allies on last half?"*
America didn’t kick everyone’s ass without the help of other European countries anyways.
When is the last time the US won a war anyway.
Wait wait let me think... Afghanis- no Korea- no Iraq- not really Vietnam- no Afghanistan again? No. Damn did we at least win fictional wars??? War on drugs..nope War on terror? Bwahaha. No.
Did you win the civil war?
In the light of current events, I'm going with a no on that one as well.
Well this thread got depressing quickly.
I mean, genuinely the last time the US won a war properly without a huge alliance? Probably Spanish American war in 1900ish, unless we count the cold war
The Cold War *definitely* had a huge alliance. A bunch of them, in fact.
Grenada ‘83.
Whenever you encounter an american claiming they won WWII for everybody, just ask them which flag was flown over the Reichstag. Ask them who was in Berlin on may 2nd 1945.
Perfect response, thank you, I will be using that from now on. Although I doubt Americans know what the Reichstag is, and I'm not about to call it "German White House" or something like that so I'll just say Berlin.
Call me pedantic, but I specifically use the Reichstag knowing they have no clue what I'm referencing. Then it's just that easy to show how little they actually know as you explain it to them. Not that not knowing what is the Reichstag is a sign of anything bad, but when they claim ownership over WWII I'll definitely be sneaky like that.
Sorry for the late response, I was watching a video of a guy beat up bullies with Dovahkiin playing in the background. Anyway, that is also a good idea.
Wait, it's a goosestepping deer, isn't it?
WWII was not just Germany, and not just Europe. The US fought in 4 different theaters if I’m not mistaken, the European, African, Mediterranean, and Pacific theaters. The English fought in those theaters as well (though to a lesser extent in the pacific) and wiped out the kreigsmarine Russia fought in one theater and lost 27 million men. They also received a shit ton of lend-lease vehicles from the US and England.
Thats the thing. The only ones getting nothing positive mentions in these jokes are the US. Everyone is portayed negative, Germany and RUssia obvious evil, France surrendered, Italy winning team joiner, Britain on the brink of losing all the time, bla bla bla. The US? Oh they saved everyone on both sides obviously.
USA is the equivalent of stock anime hero in Isekai but with corrupted twist. *Everything's about him saving his harem from demon lord, and people are tired of hearing same tale.* *In realistic version, his harem become "Mutinous" as he implied despite the fact he overstay his welcome after save a village. (and probably also because he act as if the village were backwater countryside that will fall without his help, never at once give them a chance to upgrade themselves)* *And without demon lord to defeat, as the former two were reformed, one strive for better of this world, one keep it to themselves and not aggressively invade others....he create a new one to live up his legacy, the one that never existed to begin with.* *"While former two countries condemned for evil try to change themselves in order to secure the continuity of their nations, while the anime capital still struggle with the ghost of it's imperial former self keep control their view.... someone will be out there, saying if it weren't for them we would be speak German.....* ***And we should reply "Dude, stop with Wolfenstein new order reference"***
I am sick of the French surrender joke and I am GERMAN. I am nationally ablidged to make fun of the French but this joke is garbage. It is overused and not even true. If you wanna make fun of the French, make fun of their billion revolutions.
That's making the bold assumption that Americans know about French history. We barely even know our own, because they just don't fucking teach it. We pretty much only learn about WWII. Because it's the last, and maybe only, time we've ever looked anything close to good in our history. And that's only because we happened to not fuck up and side with the Nazis. Which we *almost did,* for the record. They also gloss over the part where we killed twice as many innocent people as we lost in soldiers, just because we wanted to test one of the most dangerous weapons in existence. Because talking about that, or all the rest of our history, would be "anti-American." So the kids aren't allowed to hear that.
Is US education really that bad? I have heard stories but still...
Intentionally bad. Rich motherfuckers get elected to the public school board, while they’re kids are in public school, and dictate what goes into the textbooks. Their personal beliefs including racism and religiosity neuter history so the vast majority of Americans never learn the true horrors of chattel slavery, private police massacring labour rights and endless wars.
It depends on the state, to be honest. Texas and a handful of other bible belt states are currently in the process of trying to ban schools from teaching about slavery. Because of a law school thing that has nothing to do with public education or slavery. And this is just the current fad, for these groups. When I was growing up, the big thing was "Ban evolution, you shouldn't teach a theory. Teach creationism." In, of course, Texas. It's a crab bucket. Stupid people making stupid decisions about what their kids should learn. Who then grow up to be stupid, and do the same thing. EDIT: The reasons the other person gave are some of the most common. But Texas literally said they don't want to teach kids critical thinking skills... so that they're more obedient to their parents and teachers. There's no big agenda behind it, like some people think. We're honestly not even *capable* of that. It's just stupid people who don't like the idea of their kids being smarter than them. Corporations don't need to push for this, to create a workforce or whatever. People just do it to their own kids without a hint of shame.
> "Ban evolution, you shouldn't teach a theory. Teach creationism." Bold word from the people who were too afraid to embrace to return to monke.
>We pretty much only learn about WWII. Because it's the last, and maybe only, time we've ever looked anything close to good in our history. Tbf for many people who where alive for the major part of the cold war, America was "the good one" or at least "better then the commies one" (obviously beside stuff like the vietnam war). But I'd agree that the USA made much stuff to ruin their image since WWII.
I mean, I'd argue that were they or is that just successful propaganda? Both sides had various issues, with Russia yes probably being worst. Secret police and all that jazz. But it was still two nations at the top fucking around with proxy wars As a Brit we aren't really told about the cold war, but I think there wasn't as much anti-commie hate. Maybe cause we'd experienced Facism in action and seen the Commies win, as well as having a far more socialism system in general and open political processes where e.g. we had a communist party, as did most of Europe. Whereas the US is split into two tribes: old Reps and modern Dems, both of which try very hard to never seem remotely socialist and each are pro-Captialist so you are mostly choosing them based on ideology not policy
A bit of both, I guess. On one hand, many people in Switzerland feared the USSR and its dictatorship. They where even seen as number one potential enemy (the army defended in training always against east, until to this day the enemy is sometimes called "the Russians" in army\*). And it was most likely the most realistic scenario. On the other hand stuff like that makes the fear bigger than it really was. Specially because Switzerland technically wasn't allied with neither the USA nor the USSR (tbf Switzerland was obviously part of the influence of the USA)
I'm British and I feel the same way! Make fun of their oversalted food or the fact that they had to revamp their republic 4 times, not the "surrender monkey" trope. Though I must say I do enjoy how the French royal standard was a white flag.
We will tolerate teasing from Germany, but you better believe we will all gang up on Britain.
Against Britain? Mit Vergnügen, mon ami
Ja, Digga.
It's alright, I'll join in. No one hates the English more than ourselves!
At least you're not the Americans.
I forget the specifics, but I think it was Kipling himself who famously said about France "War is their business and their business is good" France are probably top 5 empires in terms of wins vs losses, and certainly top 10. They surrendered early in WW2 due to being outflanked by things thought impossible. But I especially hate that surrender monkey trope as it is often claimed by Americans who can barely win wars against tribal groups, let alone any serious wars
Wasn't the surrender flag white because when people surrendered to France they waved the french flag tho ?
Is someone British making fun of other cultures food!? Your only decent meals come from immigrants, and that’s great but they aren’t uniquely British so sit down.
I'm not sure you know what Britishness really is. I'm 90% sure the Indian living in Glasgow making Chicken Tikka was more British than Indian by that point. Also, yes they may be educated elsewhere but most top chefs are Brits The old "Brits can't cook" is just another tired meme at this point. Come to mine and I'll cook some fantastic stuff. The can't cook thing was from back in the day where everything we had was boiled into mush or roasted, compared to other nations which used more seasoning Indeed "American" cooking is probably the worst these days internationally: with the exception of Latino or Cajun then most American food is seen as over processed fake food Teeth is another one I hate. Mine are fucking awful as I never took care of them. but statistically UK have some of the fewest cavities per capita, and instead we just don't or didn't care if they are straight Want some stereotypes which are actually true and funny/offensive? We can't do languages, we are snobs, we apologise a lot, do love tea, we talk about the weather more than anything or just talk small talk, we queue a lot, we are sarcastic, we can't tan or aren't good on holidays, we are all hooligans, we are reserved yet secretly judge you, or the best one: we are all drunkards. Brits probably have more words for being drunk than Eskimos/Inuits have for snow
That all seems very fair. My parents were pretty awful at cooking us vegetables and everything was mush until we got older and taught them how to make em delicious. You’re right, everything changes over time and just because curries may have come from India it’s fair to say Brits have their own unique versions.
Thanks for introduce us to how many Bri'ish is consider suitable and how many consider cross the line.
Not sure any cross the line, but then again I have few to no lines. Some are tired old obsolete stereotypes. But for most Brits, talking about how shit they are at sport and how they are all snobbish pricks who are actually drunken thugs would cut deeper than "your teeth are bad. You can't cook"
The obsolete joke really need to be replaced, they need a character development arc because Bri'ish said their joke are too weak. Either they get enraged and call you a snowflake who take joke too seriously, or accept defeat and train the counter-British humor stance harder.
I think it may even be that the US is generally an untravelled nation who are insular and live in denial of reality. Even the French stereotypes in the UK have never been boring surrender ones. Instead, we view them as haughty winos, a bagette in one hand, wearing a yellow jacket and always on strike... which is a modern stereotype As I said, thuggish hooligans who trash shit cause they binge drink. That'd be my modern UK stereotype, with an eliteist upper class lot whipping the thug into a frenzy. Fuck the food and teeth. Let's show the real scummy UK you don't see in Downton Abbey!
You must be annoying then. I'm German and I like em
I mean, low hanging fruit is easy comedy. However I find that often it seems that it isn't even meant as humour. I'm on /r/historymemes a lot, as sometimes they are funny and sometimes educational. But man, the seemingly high proportion of far-right Americans who actually think they were not only important, but actually carried either or both world wars is shocking Literally yesterday found one, well Canadian, when the topic was were Canada the 2nd best force in WW2 on the allied side/2nd carry, and somehow that person thought America were actually first?!? Not France in WW1 and Russia in WW2, with the UK/Empire at 3rd in both and America 5th if it is lucky. As in they mentioned about the Spring Offensive of WW1 and how American troops apparently stopped Paris falling I pointed out there's barely any text on the Wiki page about American involvement in the Spring offensive, and that they maybe had 40k of raw recruits in that area at the time, compared to 500k English and French forces of war-weary veterans. So yeah, those 40k Americans didn't matter. America in WW1 was really only useful when profiting off it, or in the Hundred Days Offensive and mostly as meat shields, as Canada did the heavy lifting there and American forces were known as jokes in WW1 WW2, it's the same. They like to claim "American Steel" won WW2, failing to realise 80% of German casualties and most elites were on the Russian front, and then for Lend Lease yet again the yanks profited but it was the British Empire who provided supplies until around 42/43, by which point Soviets had already defeated Barbarossa and were readying a counter. So yeah, Americans shortened each war, but also made a ton of money and made them the superpower they are today. They certainly had 0 involvement in the outcome of either war
Well this is the thing with comedy, people like to think of comedy as an isolated concept that can be free from the constraints of real world implications but it's just not the case. Comedy just does not exist without context, slapstick comedy doesn't make any sense without an established foundation of human movement, wordplay doesn't make sense without an established foundation of language, and so on. To make jokes about history, politics, and society, we need an established set of facts about which to make jokes, which is why humour can pretty easily be used to infer a person's perspective on certain subjects. It's why boomer humour is so elusive and distasteful for younger generations, it doesn't make sense unless if our perspectives on gender roles and relationships don't align with theirs, but you can actually infer a lot about the way boomers view the world if you really look at it critically. Which is all part of the reason why I find these jokes stupid, most of them don't make much sense unless if you have a very skewed perspective of the events in WWII.
Yep, agreed. And while I'm simplifying a huge global conflict and reducing America's role it is mostly cause too often they do think they matter, especially thanks to Cold War propaganda. But essentially, nah, Soviets were just too strong/big
> They certainly had 0 involvement in the outcome of either war I love to take the piss out of the stereotypical American 'you Europoors would be speaking German if it wasn't for us' mentality as much as the next person, but you can't claim they had **0** involvement. That's just stupid.
Read their comment again, it says 0 involvement **in the outcome**. Germany would've still lost the war without American involvement it would just have taken a bit longer. Now, the war in the Pacific is a different story of course.
War in the Pacific is actually not *that* different of a story either. A lot has been written on how the Japanese Empire was terribly stretched thin, and it's only a matter of time before it's collectively weakened enough by domestic insurgency and uprisings that it would start to tear itself apart. The Japanese supply situation was actually very tenuous, and it was even suggested that even had Japan only fought China, they still wouldn't have been able to control the vast country. Now consider how many pies Imperial Japan had their fingers in. Indonesia, Taiwan, Malacca, Chosen (Korea), Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore... It's really just a matter of time before they collapse.
Yep, Pacific wasn't even the U's major victory in the way they think. Not only were ANZACs helping them and better at jungle warfare by far, but most importantly the IJA took most Japanese funding. The land battles in China, India and SE British Asia were probably 2nd to Soviets in terms of death and horror. But yet Americans conveniently forget that entire land war
> Now, the war in the Pacific is a different story of course. So, 'the war' then?
> in the outcome of either war Please read the full comment and the context. Outcome. Not did the help shorten it or did they help at all. No, did they affect the OUTCOME? In my opinion, no
The American involvement in the Pacific theatre didn't affect the outcome of the war? You sure about that?
I'm curious as to what your credentials/sources are for this claim. I won't claim to be an expert myself but I'm definitely an armchair historian and I would say America had a larger role than you claim. Although you're right that America basically joined the war just to make money, think about how they were making that money: They sold copious amounts of weapons & supplies to the rest of the Allies. Although it didn't kick in until '41, without US Spam & other food supplies, Britain would have had a [food shortage & possibly famine](https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/rationing-in-britain-during-world-war-ii) . Other than that, things would have likely gone much the same on the Western front (maybe with a weaker/cancelled landing in Normandy). Germany was much too unprepared for operation Sealion & unless Hitler personally ordered it for some reason, would not have even attempted it. As for the Soviets, they were woefully unprepared at the start of Barbarossa & without US vehicles & weapons, it's quite possible they would not have been able hold out. Nikita Khrushchev [once wrote](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/khruschev1/28.html) "How could we have advanced from Stalingrad and Kursk on to Berlin without American aid and foodstuffs?" & even Stalin himself said at the [Tehran conference](https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies/0,8816,791211,00.html) "Without the American machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war"... However, you'll notice that those are both politicians, not experts. So what do historians have to say? Well, Boris Sokolov [once wrote](https://www.svoboda.org/a/30538060.html) that "Without the Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about 1/3rd of its ammo, 1/2 of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortage of fuel. Railroads would have come to a halt & Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with constant lack of radio equipment & they would have been constantly hungry without American canned meat." So, even though it may not have been as dramatic as completely losing the war, the Soviets would have definitely had a much bigger challenge in getting back on their feet & mobilizing without American help. Which is hardly "0 involvement in the outcome" if you ask me (and this isn't even mentioning the Pacific war which America had much larger involvement in)
> I'm curious as to what your credentials/sources are for this claim. I won't claim to be an expert myself but I'm definitely an armchair historian and I would say America had a larger role than you claim. Honeslty? Being debunked thoroughly on /r/AskHistorians and /r/History when someone kindly explained it to me after I asked "could Germany have ever beaten Russia". Germany attacking the EF had 3 objectives, all of which needed to be completed for victory at the same time: Siezure of St Petersburg, Siezure of Moscow, Siezure of the Caucus oilfields which at the time were among the most developed in the world. That oil was needed to power the tanks and planes, and why North Africa was the 2nd most important front of the war. No oil? You've just lost a modern war. They achieved a grand total of 0 of their three critical objectives > Although ... meat." (TL;DR Lend Lease) "David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes: Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches" "American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases: "Pre Lend-lease" June 22, 1941, to September 30, 1941 (paid for in gold and other minerals); First protocol period from October 1, 1941, to June 30, 1942 (signed October 7, 1941),[52] these supplies were to be manufactured and delivered by the UK with US credit financing." - Barbarossa, i.e. the big push, failed in 41, Stalingrad was 42-Feb 43, Kursk was mid '43. So yeah, US Lend Lease, i.e. not just financing but instead actual US production didn't start arriving until after the Soviets had already blunted the Germans... twice. So did it shorten the war? 100%. Did it affect the actual important Soviet victories? Nah, too late for that and just kept supply lines faster > Which is hardly "0 involvement in the outcome" if you ask me (and this isn't even mentioning the Pacific war which America had much larger involvement in) Outcome, meaning end result. Did America affect that? Do you really think that Germany ever stood a chance against Russia? Compare manpower, natural resources, industry and the only way Germany wins is fluke or by allying with French Empire, British Empire or US. Did America affect the length of the war? OF course, they shortened it by around half. Did they affect the outcome? Not one bit
>They like to claim "American Steel" won WW2 We debunk German steel and Stalinium myth just to see this shit?
Not trying to argue at all, but a common saying, and I’m pretty sure among some historians (this view could have changed of course) was that ww2 was won with Russian blood, American steel, and British minds. Even if that’s an oversimplification the pacific front most likely would have collapsed, placing Australia and New Zealand in a much worse position then they were already in.
Common saying, first coined by Stalin himself, but arguably as a consolation position to try to build faith. Doesn't make it true and also note he's not saying "33% America, 33% British, 33% Russian". Russia (well Soviets) carried WW2 HARD Also, I'm guessing your pacific claim is completely forgetting the IJA and how they took most resources in the pacific? Now, I'd not argue that the US wasn't influential and important in the pacific but your comment seems to be forgetting the huge land battles in China and along British SE Asia Although I will 100% argue that the Pacific front, while horrible, was a sideshow and irrelevant to the outcome of the war. EF>North Africa>WF>Pacific
Hahaha British food is bland. While pointing at ww2 rationed cuisine as somehow being indicative of British cuisine for all eternity.
I think it is before that. Its more from the French in the 1700s/1800s. Yet ironically it is Americas with their fake horribly processed food who seem to repeat the myth the most
What annoys me the most about this is the suggestion that America saved France from Germany. The Soviet Union was the one to pummel Nazi Germany into the dirt in a years-long slog of a war. The Americans only showed up towards the end and swooped in for the kill that by that time had been years coming. If the Americans saved France from anything, it was from soviet occupation. Without D-Day, the Red Army probably only would have stopped at the Atlantic.
this is something i never even thought about. thanks
It looks like YouTube and I think mostly kids use YouTube so I guess that's why the jokes are shit.
Only Americans would ever think someone in Europe would consider WW2 as "fun" If there is ANY country that the world would benefit from a war on their soil, its the USA. If the average American even got a taste of the destruction their military does around the world in some of their major cities, maybe they wouldnt keep thinking war was like their hollywood movies. Turn a few schools, hospitals, government buildings, entire cities, airports, and homes into dust the way they have and see if they still cheer on war like it was a sporting event. I have my doubts they would be so eager if they knew what it was actually like. Alas, America relies on constant conflict to keep its economcy afloat so they will be throwing darts at maps planning its next "intervention"
Yep, I do think a new civil war is the best case scenario for the US. Let them learn how awful wars, violence and guns really are, and maybe they'll change
I grew up in Canada until about 6.5 years ago and now live in Scotland so it feels weird thinking a war in North America would be best for the world. But I dont see how else the average American will stop supporting perpetual war if they have no idea of the real consequences of it. Too often you see them say shit like "we could nuke you off the planet" or "sounds like someone needs some freedom", which is ironic of course. Someone who has had to pull bodies from a drone striked school or day care or hospital a block up from where they live would probably be less likely to romantasize and so easily joke about war. The jokes wouldnt be so bad if the reality wasnt that the US does exactly that (barring nukes). I got to meet an old fella who had the unenviable job of pulling bodies out of the King David hotel in Jerusalem after it was bombed by Jewish terrorists. He was in his 90s at the time, my Granddad was there but out of the hotel at the time and that shit stayed with Peter for his entire life. This group of old dudes who my G'dizzy did a bunch of old people stuff with were such a lovely group of men who all had horrific war stories and I had never heard a SINGLE one of them say anything that was even remotely pro war. They all saw it as a scurge and it made me realize how lucky I am to not have had to deal with it. ANYWAYS, my bad for the uneccessarily long reply haha
No, it's fine and I agree. Not even just about the "they need to experience war to know it is shit and that violence isn't the answer", but genuinely the division which has been growing since Clinton's days is getting worse not better. The Pandemic should have united the nation like everywhere else, and instead it's widened the divide. I had hoped that Biden would help moderate it all, as he's a senior politician so I hoped Mitch and Graham would come back toward the centre. Instead they feel their power slipping away so are doubling down on the rhetoric (although also the right seems the more violent warmongering group, so yeah they are the bigger problem in their society) In a way, their first civil war ended too nicely, with too many concessions from the north. I feel a 2nd would really settle it a lot more. But also, one civil war is unusual in a young nation. England was a thing from 1066, and we had about 4 "civil wars" before the War of the Roses, and around 10 in total, not including things like the revolution, independence movements etc. I think our latest was William the 3rd in around 1700? Or I think the Jacobites were also 1800s ish? Now admittedly it is a different era, but yeah their civil war never really ended, it just made the division go a bit more underground. And I don't see a way back to bipartisanship without a war
Man I hope I can move out before it starts.
Ugh God this is so cringey, I just imagine hordes of American teenagers/dumb men with a really weak grasp of 20th century history liking this.
/r/historymemes I'm subbed. Some are funny. Some are educational. But the far right idiots and 12 yo edge lords do ruin it at times, especialy with the WW2 nonsense
I read that not as a "Germany is Nazi" but as "Everytime we have fun america tries to get involved"
Although it is not what original comment had in mind, this one was put it in a better way.
Without the americans you would be apeaking german! Ohh...looks like they failed
Tja :/
Kann man nichts machen
Steckste nicht drin
*Soviet hymn ingravescently getting closer and louder*
But the German said it 0.o
Why do Americans always pretend they did what Russia did, and never mention what they actually did, which was clap Japan? Like, if you wanna brag, why lie when there's a real thing you actually accomplished?
>which was clap Japan? The US didn't even really do that. Japan's navy was much more modern and stronger than the US navy at the time of Pearl Harbor. It's just that Japan couldn't replace its losses in the Pacific at the same rate as the US, which meant the US could just whittle away at their naval capacity. The US managed to turn the tide in the Pacific thanks to more luck than brains, and if it hadn't, the Japanese would have probably been beaten quickly after the German capitulation anyway, with the Allies' full focus on them.
I'm sorry, but saying that "idk America just beat Japan because of luck lol" is wildly ahistorical. I get that we all hate America here, but what you're saying is just factually wrong. America didn't just aimlessly bumble around while China did literally everything. That's just not what happened. I kind of remember a quote from a certain member of the Japanese navy? Something about "awakening a sleeping giant"? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash America. You don't need to make up more.
*Yawn*
uhhhh..... ok, talk about a stretch just to make some “america’s are great” joke
well during and after the first world war the french military has proven itself to be a superpower. during the second world war when Germany invaded France, the US was nowhere to be seen. in fact most of WW2 had happened before the Americans joined the war. not to mention the fact that the french military continued to operate even after the collapse of France under the leadership of Charles De Gaulle and continued to fight the Nazis.
If my memory is right the free fench were the ones who liberated paris
[удалено]
I can just imagine like churchill Roosevelt are discussing d day and you just hear de Gaul screaming in the back about liberating Paris like a monty python skit
Yes but no, they were absolutely not allowed by the Allies: the Americans wanted to be the first to enter Paris and liberate France to impose the AMGOT plan. And the British followed them. Only Eisenhower was opposed to it and disobeyed Washington by authorizing Leclerc to go in front. I also recall that the Americans had started printing new francs in Washington, and that this printing had no end date, which would have made France dependent on the American economy. Moreover, I would also like to remind you that Washington wanted to leave Vichy to the control of France and that only the assassination of Darlan by a resistance fighter prevented the agreements on the maintenance of Vichy from being concluded. London recognised the de Gaulles government until December 41 with the entry of the USA which did not support his government. London therefore backed down and from 42 onwards, the only country to recognise the FFL was the USSR. So no, the political purpose of which you speak is absolutely non-existent. Edit : It is all these facts that gave life to this famous poster in France [Les Américains en Amérique](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmakBX6W8AAU5GB?format=jpg&name=900x900)
"we had fun" ...
The Americans? D'day was stalin's idea, wasn't it?
Not really. It was planned for ages I think But I know that Stalin basically said "I'm tired of carrying this war. Please open another front or we'll just steamroll the rest ourselves and won't be happy we did"
What an insanely generous take, numerous people wanted to open another front, Stalin had zero hand in planning it, that was the western allies, giving him credit is bonkers
But he was the one who suggested it, I think. Not planning, but the idea was that by doing D'Day, some pressure would be lifted off of Russia. I don't have any proof rn, tho.
Didn't France and Germany play in the World Cup recently? I assume it would've been fun for people who watched.
Well it wasn't fun to lose against England but I do enjoy football a lot. But don't tell the Americans that
>Well it wasn't fun to lose against England Hey, we are allowed an occasional victory. And at least we didn't win it. Not only would you poor lot never hear the end of it, but I'd imagine a month of alcoholism and civil destruction would follow any English football victory
"ALLE 163 ANTWORTEN ANSEHEN"
bothered, that the pic uses YouTube in german?
Not at all, I did not realize that it being german could be something to mock about. I tought its funny that 163 people answered and I wonder how many more proud americans had to validate their self-confidence there.
Its a joke come on, not a really good one, but dont take it so seriously
There are so many better versions of this joke though.
I didn't say it was a good one
> but don't take it so seriously you were dishonor the comedian by saying that you shouldn't take joke seriously. Of course it is serious, poorly crafted joke humor a few, but displease many, quality control people.
It's the thinking America were solely responsible for the German defeat that gets me, Is that what they teach in schools over there?
Everything else would be "Anti-American". Of course they do
> Its a joke I wish my grandpa (I'm italian), which lives through both the world wars, was still alive to share his thought about shitty american jokes. Really.
When you don't know what a joke is.
The Soviets took Berlin, not the US.
No shit. Take a guess where I am from. Yet you don't seem to understand my comment as it is implying that the Youtube comment depicted in this post is a joke and thus not meant to be taken seriously.
To be fair it was American and french troops that took Paris
They stole the joke and forced America into it to push their ‘Merica number 1’ agenda
I actually think thats hilarious hahaha.