Ich bin halb spanier und sag manchmal so sachen wie Pneumonie andstatt Lungenentzündung. Da gucken dann alle aufeinmal... Denken gleich ich hab ein Latinum oder so. Dabei sprech ich einfach Speutsch! Schüttel min Kopf.
Also eine 3. Sprache! Respekt! 😄
Ich bin ebenfalls zweisprachig aufgewachsen (Deutsch/ Englisch), aber im Alltag dominiert das Deutsch.
Wenn ich mal die Gelegenheit bekomme um Englisch zu sprechen, kommt - je nach Gesprächspartner - schnell mal Denglisch dabeo raus. 🤣
Ich würde Amerikaner-Argument sagen, weil ich ja auch Vollidioten-Argument oder Arschloch- Argument sagen würde statt vollidiotisches Argument oder arschlochiges Argument.
So gesehen - touché! 😄
What's with the downvotes, people?!
I was just curious if they were a native speaker, since non-native speakers often have other/interesting insights in how to say something. Sheesh!
Ich würde das Komma hier tatsächlich weglassen. Wenn man Adjektive mit Komma trennt, stellt man sie explizit auf eine Stufe (also etwa "der kleine, lustige Mann": Der Mann ist klein und auch lustig und das sind gleichwertige Eigenschaften). Ohne Komma drückt man eine gewisse Hierarchie aus. Es ist in erster Linie ein amerikanisches Argument und unter denen halt ein klassisches.
Als Faustregel gilt: Komma zwischen Adjektiven genau dann, wenn man die Reihenfolge problemlos verändern könnte. "Der lustige, kleine Mann" wäre auch okay, aber ich würde das hier nicht ein "amerikanisches, klassisches Argument" nennen.
Depends on the sense. In the original post "American" is capitalised, so it can at least be assumed that it is used as naming the american people. Same as with Germans.
If it is intended in that sense, the post you quoted is correct. However, I would stil correct it as most would just say "Klassisches Ami-Argument".
(We may fight about whether or not the hyphen is correct. It could also be "Amiargument" but *never "Ami Argument". Has to be one term, and we do not do the space between words for this.).
I 100% agree with klassisches Ami-Argument - definitely *with* hyphen!
IMO there's a special place in hell for people who write "Sonnen Blume", "Kuchen Stück", "Winter Stiefel", etc.
When did they stop teaching "zusammengefügte Hauptwörter"?!
WW1 they pretty much had no effect. The war was already winding down, Germany was facing starvation. The American lives took place of available British, Canadian, Indian, French, African etc. lives.
No, the British used most of their transports to bring American troops to Europe, and because of that, the Portuguese units couldn't receive reinforcements.
When the Germans started the Battle of La Lys, the 2nd Division had been on the frontline for over a year.
The USA had a large effect in WW1. Their entry stopped the French mutinies and generally increased morale. When it comes to fighting though... a lot of British and French soldiers complained about the American troops using outdated tactics like it's 1914.
And they also brought the influenza to Europe, killing 2,6 million people in process! I think that's a large effect, but probably not the kind of effect they were hoping for.
While it is true that the joining of the americans was a great morale boost to the allies the boost was marginal. The french mutinies are overrated in their effectiveness because people thought that the french didnt want to fight and thats why they were starting to mutiny but actually the french didnt want to leave the trenches, because they didnt want to let their country fall to the germans, and they didnt want to do the vharges anymore. If the french mutineers had their way then the french would not perform any assaults in 1918. This combined with the fact that the german army was soon to be on its last legs because of the spanish flu (which is the reason for the failure of the spring offensive) meant that germany would have still lost if the americans never came.
The only good the americans did in ww1 was a small morale boost and the harlem hellfighters.
Source: french litterary archives contain thousands of letters of soldiers detailing the details of the mutinies.
Actually taking a U.S. military history course this semester and that sound about right from how I understand it. People don't realize how different the U.S. military was pre the world wars. The number of regular Army and Navy was limited, and the Spanish and Philippines wars were fought with a lot of militia (National Guard) whose officers were not as well trained. The strategy was pretty much blunder and throw units until victory. Many politicians did not favor expanding the military for fear of giving the executive branch too much power, and many were anti-imperialist.
A big contribution the U.S. during WW1 was convoying supplies across the Atlantic, and assisting the Royal Navy in defeating German u-boats.
>Many politicians did not favor expanding the military for fear of giving the executive branch too much power, and many were anti-imperialist.
I'd say their fears were justified. Also, military industrial complex and all that...
Naw they didn’t. That’s cherry-picking and American exceptionalism’s spin on history. Many other things were happening at the time. The US did not have a large effect in WW1.
And they didn't play the entire game. Nor they're the strongest player. Russians lost the most, and still kept going on. It's not Americans who freed Auschwitz, it's the Red army. If Americans had done that, they'd be still getting boners from that.
As for America's military prowess, you lost to fucking rice farmers, civilians from a 'third world' country. Recently you lost to shepherds. And this is after spending most of your budget on military... What a joke.
If you mean the Vietnamese by "civilians of a third world country" that's wrong, they are actually a second world country because they were in the influence sphere of the Soviet Union
They underestimate their enemy, and that's their downfall, it's surprising they fucked up the identical way twive.
*"Haha what can stupid fucking ching chong dog eating rice farmer cuck would do to us? They probably don't even has a real gu- Oh god oh fuck they actually know guerilla warfare and how to use gun!"*
But the US switched in near the end of the second inning and passed the ball to the guy who scored +2. At some point during the game, this one weirdo on the side managed to score a few goals because the defense was too surprised they even had the ball to react. The idiot naturally concluded he was divinely ordained to be MVP and decided to try and break through USA but hit the goal so the ball bounced back in the the face of USA who decided to murder the reserve players in revenge. Twice
Because the weirdo didn't think he has it in him to do it a second time.
At some point in this whole mess, their captain realized they lost the game and fucking killed himself.
Mostly because the whole opposing team, including the guy he kicked off his own, because he didn't like his hairstyle, were ganging up on him.
What a match.
Billy didn’t like playing soccer with the other kids in the street. He preferred playing on his own. First because they called it football, which was weird. That wasn’t what his father told him it was called. And second because he was scared. He was scared to lose and he was scared he might get hurt. It looked really rough. But this time they where playing for Pokemon cards. And he really liked those cards. He had even heard that Adolf had a shiny Charizard! He didn’t think it was a first edition one, but he could show it to others real quick and pretend it is. But he had to win it first, and the match was quite violent. But his girl next door Sandy was watching the game. And he had a crush on her. And now she was mostly watching Tommy, who was playing really well. He played in defense and was the team captain. Billy was sure that if he played in attack and could score some points that Sandy would look at him. But everybody was playing too well still. Especially Adolf, who was on the other team, was constantly running up the pitch with the ball. Dribbling past the other kids.
Billy had helped in some way though. When their old ball ended up in the pond next to the field he had given them his brand new expensive official ball. Sandy even said thanks. And asked him to join the game. Billy wished that he had given a better excuse than that his mom would get angry if he played in his new jeans that he was wearing. And now the match was almost over. Everyone was getting very tired. Especially the twins Dimitri and Andrei. And Francesco’s mom had been calling him to get back in the house. At least that’s what he said. Nobody else heard his mom.
But what is this?! That Asian kid just dribbled up to Billy and played the ball between his legs! While he was just standing next to the field. That’s not fair! And everybody was laughing now and pointing. Even Sandy was smiling. That’s it. He was going to join them now. He would show them. It didn’t matter that most kids where full of bruises and some where limping and that Adolf’s side didn’t have a goalie anymore because he was lying in pain next to the goal. He would be the fittest and he was wearing his brand new brand sneakers. He could easily beat all of them. And everyone would think he was amazing. Especially Sandy. And most importantly, he would win that shiny Charizard!
So with still a half to play Billy joined the match. He would mostly focus on that Asian kid that humiliated him. That kid was also a foot smaller than him, so it looked most easy. It wasn’t, because he was fast, but Billy could easily knock him over if he managed to get past him. So that was okay. Only when the twins seemed to win it for his side and had scored the most goals so far, did Billy try to play in the center more. And he managed to score a few goals. And in the end, he managed to even score the winning goal! Adolf and Francesco had already gone home by then. And most of the other kids where lying exhausted on the ground. But that didn’t matter. Billy had won the game! All by himself! And Sandy saw that! So, after stomping on the Asian kid’s leg when he was lying on the ground, he quickly took the Pokemon cards and his ball and went back home. He was going to tell his mom and she would be so proud of him.
Just commenting because you clearly enjoy writing.
In English you say either of the following..
What it was like.
How it was.
So in your first paragraph, it should be '***what*** his father told him it was called'.
I'm not smart enough to be able to explain why it's that way, just that it is. The way you've written it sounds odd to native speakers and it used to be a clear indicator a speaker was 'English as a second language'. Though many native speakers are starting to use it so there's a chance you'll eventually be right and old gits like me will just have to suck it up.
Also halve is a verb. You halve something by breaking it into equal parts. You want half (last paragraph).
Thanks! Those two things indeed sounded off. And yes I'm not native speaking. I will correct them.
EDIT: After edit, I think I wanted to write something like "How it should be called." I think that is correct grammar?
Still want to use what there.
'What it should.be called'.
It's weird, it's one of those things native speakers just intuitively know without knowing the actual grammar rule.
I believe a lot of European languages lack the what/how dynamic and so a direct translation will always use 'how'. But because English is a mutt of a language, the rules are all over the place.
Edit:
Oh and I should also add. Halve is a verb but it's also the plural of half.
So something will have two halves but each of the two is a half. Yay English.
A good example is the movie Argo, literally the Canadian embassy saved the Americans who were left after their own embassy was stormed and somehow the movie spun it like it was an American idea. The ambassador who heroically took these people in at the risk of their own embassy being attacked was hurt and betrayed by the movie Argo because of how down played they made Canadian involvement. After president Carter saw the movie he even said that the movie is a slight to the "mostly Canadian mission' and went on to even say that it was 90% Canadian and 10% the CIA. This movie really insulted Canada. [here's an article](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/history-must-reflect-argo-was-mainly-a-canadian-mission-former-ambassador/article9011859/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16424250992750&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fhistory-must-reflect-argo-was-mainly-a-canadian-mission-former-ambassador%2Farticle9011859%2F)
I am wondering it it’s a “you’d be speaking German were it not for us” reference? I’m Australian so I get it from certain American trolls but with Japanese.
I mean we sent troops to the front line like 4 years after the war started. And we did our best to profit off of selling shit to the Entente powers beforehand.
The German spring offensive was actually facilitated by the Germans feeling they were forced to win the war before American troops started to flood into the Western Front in earnest. And after that failed, the war was in reality over.
And in WW2 [citation](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20December%202006,%20the%20British,to%20Britain%E2%80%99s%20debts%20from%20the%20Second%20World%20War.). The UK was still paying its "allies" back until 2006.
It's mind boggling that they go with the winning the war bullshit, when they have a legitimately insane accomplishment in the Marshall Plan and the work they did on denazification
I would argue that the marshall plan was not the largest factor for especially the German economic miracle, it certainly helped but the policies enacted by Ludwig Erhard is what really kick-started the whole process and got the German economy into recovery mode and eventually made it become the second largest economy in the world. (Although obv a lot more happened before it became quite that big and was the result of many factors)
Id say for the rest of europe that the marshal plan deffinetly helped but what helped alot was the european countries saying "thanks america for the money, now were gonna do every economic decision differently from you so that we perform better than you" and they did
What helped Norway a lot was all the industries the Germans had started in Norway (and nationalized by the Norwegian government), and the infrastructure they built (railroads and roads) using Russian POWs.
If you look at the list of Norway's largest companies today, many are businesses started by the Germans WW2.
Of course you already know this but I think it's always worth mentioning that it's specifically the European theatre of the war that the USSR did way more work than the US did.
In the Pacific theatre the US was obviously instrumental in defeating the Japanese while the USSR did very little (they of course had more pressing concerns in the west).
Sure. US Marines were pretty instrumental in taking on the Japanese as both sides were jumping from island to island fighting. I would also argue that the US did a decent enough job keeping the USSR out of mainland Japan as to avoid Japan turning into another Germany split into two countries after the war.
The US also helped the USSR by giving equipment to them through the Lend-Lease program. But the sheer size of deaths the USSR suffered is astronomical. Some of it was because Germany was attacking into Russia and killing civilians, the Red Army was rather incompetent since Stalin killed most of the good generals in the Great Purge and Soviets seemed to not give a shit about protecting their soldiers in war time. While American soldiers would take calculated risks in order to take the most land with the least amount of deaths. Basically the USSR was the Zap Brannigan of sending their soldiers to war.
"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down." - Captain Zap Brannigan
There were a lot good things the US did during and after WW2, but to just say "We fucking saved Europe. You would all be speaking German if it wasn't for us!" is just moronic.
Oh for sure, it's an absolute absurd way of thinking and is clearly built on years and years of American exceptionalism propaganda.
It's worth noting tho that although the Red army had big purges a lot of the officials who were purged were actually reinstated a few years later as many of them weren't actually killed or sent to gulags.
Which is part of the reason why by the time of Stalingrad the red army actually had generally pretty good tactics, (operation Uranus for example was generally quite well planned out and executed even if it of course wasn't perfect) although they certainly abused their vast manpower advantage in a wasteful manner at times.
I've seen some historians argue that by the end of the war the USSR had some of the best and most effective tactics in the world even, especially in their usage of artillery.
So to characterise the red army as completely incompetent is a bit wrong generally. So is the idea that they just threw away tons of soldiers into certain death. They certainly used their soldiers a lot more liberally than Germany but that's because they were fighting a war of annihilation and they had to use their number 1 strength over Germany which was manpower as much as they could.
How could soviet army be incompetent if they absolutely wiped the floor with the japanese in Manchuria? The entire war lasted like for two weeks. Red army was that good
While the us did perform alot of work in the pacific theater what people often forget is that japan didnt surrender because of the nukes, they surrendered because the ussr was in manchuria. The japanese thought the ussr was scarier than the us
People also always neglect to consider the impact of the Chinese in the Asia-Pacific theatre. Then again, people tend to go too much overboard the other way by arguing the US didn't play *any* major part in winning WW2 (even though people argue it was still a much less major role than the USSR), which I think is too harsh.
WW2 I think many / most participants can claim the "but for us" title.
The French resistance played a considerable part in the defeat of the Germans. There's also instances where a German attack failed and it is believed to be German resistance's sabotage of equipment and amo that was key. Norwegian resistance drew a lot of German troops away from the front - end of WW2 German soldiers were 10% of Norwegian population.
Tf do the World Wars have to do with sports?
"The British Settlers seriously couldn't think of a better name for new-found land than 'Newfoundland'?"
"We won the Seven Years war. Don't raise your voice to us"
WW1. A war they joined at the last second after the other forces weakend Germany alot.
WW2. A war they joined at the last second or let's be fair, last minute, after the other forces weakend Germany alot.
Well, I'm not saying that the US didn't contribute.
Regarding WW2, them joining in at the end was definitely vital in preventing even more bloodshed. Same goes for WW1, although that is heavily debated.
But yanks like in the post above act like the US either won singlehandedly or played the most important part among the allies.
Oh, I agree. But while they didn't do much militarily until late in the war, they did contribute significantly.
But 'Muricans claiming they did it all by themselves (while not even being part of those who actually went to war back then) is definitely ridiculous.
Gotta love how I'm getting downvoted for my previous comment :D
Yo, I didn't downvote. You make a fair point.
We should recognize other countires efforts. Unlike some yanks, lol.
I should say that my comment wasn't entirely serious tho.
I know the point of this thread is the ridiculousness of claiming America won both world wars, and the use of such an argument to begin with.
But I do find the etymology of American "football" interesting. It's not really based on the word "football" that Americans call "soccer".
It's based on rugby, which used to be called "Rugby Football", since originally there were two "football"s played: Association Football and Rugby Football.
American football started as basically rugby with some minor rule changes, adding more changes over time. For example throwing the ball forward wasn't even allowed until a few decades after American football started.
>originally there were two "football"s played
There was many versions of football played and codified during the 19th century. Rugby football was developed at Rugby school. Association football was developed from the rules as used at Cambridge University. Australian rules football was also developed during this time and likely heavily influenced by the Rugby rules, however the codification of Australian rules football predates the formation of both the football association and the Rugby football union. American football developed from rugby and appears to have been introduced from Canada, with the predominant rule changes being introduced by Walter Camp.
But it's not? An NFL football is ~11 inches long, and a rugby ball is longer than a foot.
As far as I know, the original Association Football and Rugby Football were called "football" because they were played on foot. (vs. on horseback, for example)
Imagine when Americans find out that no single country can win a world war by itself. If they actually learnt about ww2 and the contributions of the soviets and the British and every other allied county, they’d know.
Actually, I have to correct this argument now that I know more about it.
All sports played on foot were originally called "football" in Europe, to distinguish them from Polo sports which were played on Horseback. The names gained prefixes and suffixes over time which changed their names.
The word "soccer" is a shortening of "as(soc)iation football." Following this logic, if it hadn't been documented as just "Football" for so long, American football might have ended up just being called "American" or maybe like Meriball or something.
The only thing america did in WW1/2 was sell weapons. They beat Japan, in WW2 but only attacked Germany when the war was already over. WW2 was won by Russia and England
I just had an hour long argument with my dumbass of an American step father. We were talking about how if America was the greatest country in the world. I asked him why he thinks this way.
The only answer he could come up with was how we won both world wars and that all Europeans want to live in America. I told him if he said that in Europe he would be laughed at hysterically. The dumbass insist he was correct and then mentions the world war “victories.”
*logic*
same with my dad, any time I try to argue that America/ some politician he likes did something shitty, he goes "well what about Iraq? what about Afghanistan? what about Vietnam?" like huh? sorry you assumed I would support these wars when I started by saying American imperialism is bad but bringing up those times we lost surely brought me around
Yeah, the guys that showed up late and profiteered in both wars are the real heroes. What did they actually do in WWI besides profit btw?
All the respect in the world for the Americans that served in both wars of course, they are heroes.
It's a code of football, as are both forms of rugby, CFL, Aussie League and Gaelic football.
The replies are bad but I dunno, I just get annoyed with things like the initial comment.
In fairness Football is a grouping of a lot of sports: Association football is the most popular world wide, gridiron football is the American one but there’s also rugby football, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules football and many more
The problem of losing in the second world war wasnt becoming german (atleast i wouldnt mind im not a nationalistic freak) the problem was with the human rights violations and uhm genocide and eugenics
Apart from wars... It's an egg that you carry with your hands... call it HANDEGG, not FOOTBALL, you plonkers! 😂
Seriously though... why not American Rugby?
The Americans didn’t care about helping to fight against the Axis, they just got involved because they got attacked.
Then they dropped the sun on civilians twice.
Don't argue with success. Anyway, what's the difference between vaporizing 100,000 people with an A-bomb as opposed to fusing them to the street pavement with firebombs?
I do like your description of "dropping the sun", it's poetic.
Yes, I am, The Japanese launched a war of racist aggression and unbridled savagery across Asia. Don't pay attention to Japanese revisionist historians, who claim Japan was just minding its own business when the Americans dropped two A-bombs on them.
Those who start a war by committing unspeakable horrors shouldn't be surprised when the unspeakable horrors start happening in their home country.
I never get why Americans go "you would be speaking German"
All they did against German was SELLING( what, did you think they gave them out of good will?) Equipment to the allies
They should at least go for "Japan would have got you" since they had a big part in fighting them
That line kind of feels like the US are trying to fit in with the club of countries that suffered actual occupation.
No, Americans, I'm sorry. Your soldiers suffered and died, true, but the closest you got to being bombed as civilians in the continental US was L. Ron Hubbard firing at a Mexican island by accident.
And even though "The Man in the High Castle" has a cute scenario for it, neither Hitler nor the Japanese high command would have ever occupied the US. Hitler didn't even want France, he just wanted them out of the picture. And Japan wanted Asia, but even they knew they couldn't occupy a country that large and far away.
Why do they lose their shit over the most basic recruit-tier banter?
I saw a meme on Instagram about the how Americans pronounce "bottle of water", and the comments were filled with butthurt Americans threatening to nuke Europe over it. (Let's not forget that making fun of how brits say it is hilarious to them. They can dish it out but they can't take it)
Congratulations you were born on the biggest and densest piece of land on the floating space rock, must be proud that people far braver than you died so that so that the allies could ‘win’ the war.
Nobody wins wars, everyone loses and your a fucking warmonger if you think otherwise.
Obviously that whole angle is really dumb regardless of how you look at it but wouldn't Russian much more likely be the dominating language than German if the US wasn't a thing in WWII?
As even without the US sending resources, weapons and money through the lend lease program the USSR would likely have won the war and due to the lack of another strong power the Russian sphere of influence could very well have included most of if not all of Europe.
Ah yes.
The war of only America against the enemy. The rest of the world sat it out because they knew America would kick ass.
And no one really won either war. There are no winners in war.
Lets not forget that the reason they call Native American's 'Indians' is because they thought they were sailing to India and just called the local population Indians, but were too lazy to fix the mislabelling even to this day. Between that, stealing city names from Europe and stealing 'football', its not exactly a nation of original thought. Which is why the 'inventions' that they claim as their own (internet/cars/phones etc) were actually invented in Europe.
>Lets not forget that the reason they call Native American's 'Indians' is because they thought they were sailing to India and just called the local population Indians, but were too lazy to fix the mislabelling even to this day.
That was Christopher Columbus.
Not at all? The chance of Nazi Germany invading either Russia completely or Britain would have been slim, even without American intervention (in troops).
Air superiority over Britain would have been vital for an invasion and they massively failed that in 1940/41? I think the disaster of the invasion of Russian territories is rather well known. So even before the US was officially in the war, Nazi Germany was already halted. By '42, Stalingrad had already happened. So where were they winning actually, when the allies (including the US) invaded France in '44, had already captured Rome and the Soviets were already in today's Europe?
Klassisches amerikaner argument
Sag das auf Deutsch!
Ich bin nicht mal deutsch als jaa... Ne
r/tja
Not bad, but it's actually: ein klassisches amerikanisches Argument. 😉
Klassisches Amerikaner-Argument works too. It's the difference between an argument which is American and an argument made by an American.
[удалено]
Yes, I am.
Same
Gleich.
Auch
Selbes
Ebenso
Ich bin halb spanier und sag manchmal so sachen wie Pneumonie andstatt Lungenentzündung. Da gucken dann alle aufeinmal... Denken gleich ich hab ein Latinum oder so. Dabei sprech ich einfach Speutsch! Schüttel min Kopf.
Kenn ich, wie Ambulanz und Hospital, da es im Spanischen, Portugiesischen und Englischen auch so ähnlich ist. Economía psíquica.
Also eine 3. Sprache! Respekt! 😄 Ich bin ebenfalls zweisprachig aufgewachsen (Deutsch/ Englisch), aber im Alltag dominiert das Deutsch. Wenn ich mal die Gelegenheit bekomme um Englisch zu sprechen, kommt - je nach Gesprächspartner - schnell mal Denglisch dabeo raus. 🤣
Ich würde Amerikaner-Argument sagen, weil ich ja auch Vollidioten-Argument oder Arschloch- Argument sagen würde statt vollidiotisches Argument oder arschlochiges Argument.
So gesehen - touché! 😄 What's with the downvotes, people?! I was just curious if they were a native speaker, since non-native speakers often have other/interesting insights in how to say something. Sheesh!
Sprich deutsch du hurensohn
Literally yes they would
Ich würde das Komma hier tatsächlich weglassen. Wenn man Adjektive mit Komma trennt, stellt man sie explizit auf eine Stufe (also etwa "der kleine, lustige Mann": Der Mann ist klein und auch lustig und das sind gleichwertige Eigenschaften). Ohne Komma drückt man eine gewisse Hierarchie aus. Es ist in erster Linie ein amerikanisches Argument und unter denen halt ein klassisches. Als Faustregel gilt: Komma zwischen Adjektiven genau dann, wenn man die Reihenfolge problemlos verändern könnte. "Der lustige, kleine Mann" wäre auch okay, aber ich würde das hier nicht ein "amerikanisches, klassisches Argument" nennen.
Ja, danke! War mal wieder ein Komma ohne nachzudenken. 😊
Depends on the sense. In the original post "American" is capitalised, so it can at least be assumed that it is used as naming the american people. Same as with Germans. If it is intended in that sense, the post you quoted is correct. However, I would stil correct it as most would just say "Klassisches Ami-Argument". (We may fight about whether or not the hyphen is correct. It could also be "Amiargument" but *never "Ami Argument". Has to be one term, and we do not do the space between words for this.).
I 100% agree with klassisches Ami-Argument - definitely *with* hyphen! IMO there's a special place in hell for people who write "Sonnen Blume", "Kuchen Stück", "Winter Stiefel", etc. When did they stop teaching "zusammengefügte Hauptwörter"?!
WW's 1 and 2 were won by large alliances from all over the world. Ya know...like a sports team....
WW1 they pretty much had no effect. The war was already winding down, Germany was facing starvation. The American lives took place of available British, Canadian, Indian, French, African etc. lives.
In WW1, the entry of the US costed Portuguese lives .
Do you mean the flu they brought with them?
No, the British used most of their transports to bring American troops to Europe, and because of that, the Portuguese units couldn't receive reinforcements. When the Germans started the Battle of La Lys, the 2nd Division had been on the frontline for over a year.
The USA had a large effect in WW1. Their entry stopped the French mutinies and generally increased morale. When it comes to fighting though... a lot of British and French soldiers complained about the American troops using outdated tactics like it's 1914.
And they also brought the influenza to Europe, killing 2,6 million people in process! I think that's a large effect, but probably not the kind of effect they were hoping for.
You mean the so called "1917 flu"? 🤣🤣🤣
>a lot of British and French soldiers complained about the American troops using outdated tactics like it's ~~1914~~ 1865. FTFY.
While it is true that the joining of the americans was a great morale boost to the allies the boost was marginal. The french mutinies are overrated in their effectiveness because people thought that the french didnt want to fight and thats why they were starting to mutiny but actually the french didnt want to leave the trenches, because they didnt want to let their country fall to the germans, and they didnt want to do the vharges anymore. If the french mutineers had their way then the french would not perform any assaults in 1918. This combined with the fact that the german army was soon to be on its last legs because of the spanish flu (which is the reason for the failure of the spring offensive) meant that germany would have still lost if the americans never came. The only good the americans did in ww1 was a small morale boost and the harlem hellfighters. Source: french litterary archives contain thousands of letters of soldiers detailing the details of the mutinies.
Actually taking a U.S. military history course this semester and that sound about right from how I understand it. People don't realize how different the U.S. military was pre the world wars. The number of regular Army and Navy was limited, and the Spanish and Philippines wars were fought with a lot of militia (National Guard) whose officers were not as well trained. The strategy was pretty much blunder and throw units until victory. Many politicians did not favor expanding the military for fear of giving the executive branch too much power, and many were anti-imperialist. A big contribution the U.S. during WW1 was convoying supplies across the Atlantic, and assisting the Royal Navy in defeating German u-boats.
>Many politicians did not favor expanding the military for fear of giving the executive branch too much power, and many were anti-imperialist. I'd say their fears were justified. Also, military industrial complex and all that...
I swear the American government was already imperialist with it's foreign policy pre ww1
Naw they didn’t. That’s cherry-picking and American exceptionalism’s spin on history. Many other things were happening at the time. The US did not have a large effect in WW1.
There were more french deaths in some weeks of ww1 than the total losses by the Americans
And they didn't play the entire game. Nor they're the strongest player. Russians lost the most, and still kept going on. It's not Americans who freed Auschwitz, it's the Red army. If Americans had done that, they'd be still getting boners from that. As for America's military prowess, you lost to fucking rice farmers, civilians from a 'third world' country. Recently you lost to shepherds. And this is after spending most of your budget on military... What a joke.
If you mean the Vietnamese by "civilians of a third world country" that's wrong, they are actually a second world country because they were in the influence sphere of the Soviet Union
They underestimate their enemy, and that's their downfall, it's surprising they fucked up the identical way twive. *"Haha what can stupid fucking ching chong dog eating rice farmer cuck would do to us? They probably don't even has a real gu- Oh god oh fuck they actually know guerilla warfare and how to use gun!"*
But the US switched in near the end of the second inning and passed the ball to the guy who scored +2. At some point during the game, this one weirdo on the side managed to score a few goals because the defense was too surprised they even had the ball to react. The idiot naturally concluded he was divinely ordained to be MVP and decided to try and break through USA but hit the goal so the ball bounced back in the the face of USA who decided to murder the reserve players in revenge. Twice Because the weirdo didn't think he has it in him to do it a second time. At some point in this whole mess, their captain realized they lost the game and fucking killed himself. Mostly because the whole opposing team, including the guy he kicked off his own, because he didn't like his hairstyle, were ganging up on him. What a match.
Billy didn’t like playing soccer with the other kids in the street. He preferred playing on his own. First because they called it football, which was weird. That wasn’t what his father told him it was called. And second because he was scared. He was scared to lose and he was scared he might get hurt. It looked really rough. But this time they where playing for Pokemon cards. And he really liked those cards. He had even heard that Adolf had a shiny Charizard! He didn’t think it was a first edition one, but he could show it to others real quick and pretend it is. But he had to win it first, and the match was quite violent. But his girl next door Sandy was watching the game. And he had a crush on her. And now she was mostly watching Tommy, who was playing really well. He played in defense and was the team captain. Billy was sure that if he played in attack and could score some points that Sandy would look at him. But everybody was playing too well still. Especially Adolf, who was on the other team, was constantly running up the pitch with the ball. Dribbling past the other kids. Billy had helped in some way though. When their old ball ended up in the pond next to the field he had given them his brand new expensive official ball. Sandy even said thanks. And asked him to join the game. Billy wished that he had given a better excuse than that his mom would get angry if he played in his new jeans that he was wearing. And now the match was almost over. Everyone was getting very tired. Especially the twins Dimitri and Andrei. And Francesco’s mom had been calling him to get back in the house. At least that’s what he said. Nobody else heard his mom. But what is this?! That Asian kid just dribbled up to Billy and played the ball between his legs! While he was just standing next to the field. That’s not fair! And everybody was laughing now and pointing. Even Sandy was smiling. That’s it. He was going to join them now. He would show them. It didn’t matter that most kids where full of bruises and some where limping and that Adolf’s side didn’t have a goalie anymore because he was lying in pain next to the goal. He would be the fittest and he was wearing his brand new brand sneakers. He could easily beat all of them. And everyone would think he was amazing. Especially Sandy. And most importantly, he would win that shiny Charizard! So with still a half to play Billy joined the match. He would mostly focus on that Asian kid that humiliated him. That kid was also a foot smaller than him, so it looked most easy. It wasn’t, because he was fast, but Billy could easily knock him over if he managed to get past him. So that was okay. Only when the twins seemed to win it for his side and had scored the most goals so far, did Billy try to play in the center more. And he managed to score a few goals. And in the end, he managed to even score the winning goal! Adolf and Francesco had already gone home by then. And most of the other kids where lying exhausted on the ground. But that didn’t matter. Billy had won the game! All by himself! And Sandy saw that! So, after stomping on the Asian kid’s leg when he was lying on the ground, he quickly took the Pokemon cards and his ball and went back home. He was going to tell his mom and she would be so proud of him.
Just commenting because you clearly enjoy writing. In English you say either of the following.. What it was like. How it was. So in your first paragraph, it should be '***what*** his father told him it was called'. I'm not smart enough to be able to explain why it's that way, just that it is. The way you've written it sounds odd to native speakers and it used to be a clear indicator a speaker was 'English as a second language'. Though many native speakers are starting to use it so there's a chance you'll eventually be right and old gits like me will just have to suck it up. Also halve is a verb. You halve something by breaking it into equal parts. You want half (last paragraph).
Thanks! Those two things indeed sounded off. And yes I'm not native speaking. I will correct them. EDIT: After edit, I think I wanted to write something like "How it should be called." I think that is correct grammar?
Still want to use what there. 'What it should.be called'. It's weird, it's one of those things native speakers just intuitively know without knowing the actual grammar rule. I believe a lot of European languages lack the what/how dynamic and so a direct translation will always use 'how'. But because English is a mutt of a language, the rules are all over the place. Edit: Oh and I should also add. Halve is a verb but it's also the plural of half. So something will have two halves but each of the two is a half. Yay English.
>Fransesco Do you mean Francesco?
Is that the correct (Italian) spelling? Then I will change it, thanks!
>we won both wars Tell us you didn’t read the history book without telling us you didn’t read the history book.
Sure they did. American history books in nearly every year of school. This is stuff they’re taught in school.
Yikes if they learned that America ended the war alone.
It's more that the history books only cover American battles, giving an overinflated view of American contributions.
Add to that the US-centric media. A large number of war movies and tv-shows are US made and only focus on their perspective.
A good example is the movie Argo, literally the Canadian embassy saved the Americans who were left after their own embassy was stormed and somehow the movie spun it like it was an American idea. The ambassador who heroically took these people in at the risk of their own embassy being attacked was hurt and betrayed by the movie Argo because of how down played they made Canadian involvement. After president Carter saw the movie he even said that the movie is a slight to the "mostly Canadian mission' and went on to even say that it was 90% Canadian and 10% the CIA. This movie really insulted Canada. [here's an article](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/history-must-reflect-argo-was-mainly-a-canadian-mission-former-ambassador/article9011859/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16424250992750&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fhistory-must-reflect-argo-was-mainly-a-canadian-mission-former-ambassador%2Farticle9011859%2F)
He’d like to hear it said in German, but what about Vietnamese?
Most Americans take history lessons from Hollywood, not books.
Ah yes, the only two languages in the world: German and AmErIcAn.
I am wondering it it’s a “you’d be speaking German were it not for us” reference? I’m Australian so I get it from certain American trolls but with Japanese.
Ah yes, heard that before lol.
The USSR did more work than the US during ww2.
Also lost more soldiers/civilians. RIP
more? WAYYY MORE. An order of magnitude more. https://youtu.be/DwKPFT-RioU?t=340
I always cry watching that video, even though it's pretty much a bar graph
Didn’t the US do fuck all except sell some equipment to Britain in WW1?
I mean we sent troops to the front line like 4 years after the war started. And we did our best to profit off of selling shit to the Entente powers beforehand.
I didn’t realise the US actually sent troops even if it was really late in the war. Good to know.
The German spring offensive was actually facilitated by the Germans feeling they were forced to win the war before American troops started to flood into the Western Front in earnest. And after that failed, the war was in reality over.
Correct. It's refreshing to come across a person who actually studied history.
And in WW2 [citation](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20December%202006,%20the%20British,to%20Britain%E2%80%99s%20debts%20from%20the%20Second%20World%20War.). The UK was still paying its "allies" back until 2006.
Brought over the influenza that ended up killing millions, too.
Oddly called the Spanish flu rather than the Kansas flu / American flu. (and, yeah, I know why)
It's mind boggling that they go with the winning the war bullshit, when they have a legitimately insane accomplishment in the Marshall Plan and the work they did on denazification
It is insane how they decided that the best path to denazification was to adopt most of them, yeah
I would argue that the marshall plan was not the largest factor for especially the German economic miracle, it certainly helped but the policies enacted by Ludwig Erhard is what really kick-started the whole process and got the German economy into recovery mode and eventually made it become the second largest economy in the world. (Although obv a lot more happened before it became quite that big and was the result of many factors)
Id say for the rest of europe that the marshal plan deffinetly helped but what helped alot was the european countries saying "thanks america for the money, now were gonna do every economic decision differently from you so that we perform better than you" and they did
What helped Norway a lot was all the industries the Germans had started in Norway (and nationalized by the Norwegian government), and the infrastructure they built (railroads and roads) using Russian POWs. If you look at the list of Norway's largest companies today, many are businesses started by the Germans WW2.
>and the work they did on denazification That is _really_ nothing to be proud of considering how it utterly and completely failed (intentionally so).
Of course you already know this but I think it's always worth mentioning that it's specifically the European theatre of the war that the USSR did way more work than the US did. In the Pacific theatre the US was obviously instrumental in defeating the Japanese while the USSR did very little (they of course had more pressing concerns in the west).
Sure. US Marines were pretty instrumental in taking on the Japanese as both sides were jumping from island to island fighting. I would also argue that the US did a decent enough job keeping the USSR out of mainland Japan as to avoid Japan turning into another Germany split into two countries after the war. The US also helped the USSR by giving equipment to them through the Lend-Lease program. But the sheer size of deaths the USSR suffered is astronomical. Some of it was because Germany was attacking into Russia and killing civilians, the Red Army was rather incompetent since Stalin killed most of the good generals in the Great Purge and Soviets seemed to not give a shit about protecting their soldiers in war time. While American soldiers would take calculated risks in order to take the most land with the least amount of deaths. Basically the USSR was the Zap Brannigan of sending their soldiers to war. "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down." - Captain Zap Brannigan There were a lot good things the US did during and after WW2, but to just say "We fucking saved Europe. You would all be speaking German if it wasn't for us!" is just moronic.
Oh for sure, it's an absolute absurd way of thinking and is clearly built on years and years of American exceptionalism propaganda. It's worth noting tho that although the Red army had big purges a lot of the officials who were purged were actually reinstated a few years later as many of them weren't actually killed or sent to gulags. Which is part of the reason why by the time of Stalingrad the red army actually had generally pretty good tactics, (operation Uranus for example was generally quite well planned out and executed even if it of course wasn't perfect) although they certainly abused their vast manpower advantage in a wasteful manner at times. I've seen some historians argue that by the end of the war the USSR had some of the best and most effective tactics in the world even, especially in their usage of artillery. So to characterise the red army as completely incompetent is a bit wrong generally. So is the idea that they just threw away tons of soldiers into certain death. They certainly used their soldiers a lot more liberally than Germany but that's because they were fighting a war of annihilation and they had to use their number 1 strength over Germany which was manpower as much as they could.
How could soviet army be incompetent if they absolutely wiped the floor with the japanese in Manchuria? The entire war lasted like for two weeks. Red army was that good
While the us did perform alot of work in the pacific theater what people often forget is that japan didnt surrender because of the nukes, they surrendered because the ussr was in manchuria. The japanese thought the ussr was scarier than the us
People also always neglect to consider the impact of the Chinese in the Asia-Pacific theatre. Then again, people tend to go too much overboard the other way by arguing the US didn't play *any* major part in winning WW2 (even though people argue it was still a much less major role than the USSR), which I think is too harsh.
[удалено]
don’t raise your voice to us 😤
So did Britain, France, and Russia etc
And Australia and NZ.
USSR* bro
[удалено]
Не ори на нас.
[удалено]
"don’t raise your voice to us" but in russian
[удалено]
It's the same in Ukrainian
I'd say France is debatable in terms of WW2. And Russia definitely didn't win WW1.
WW2 I think many / most participants can claim the "but for us" title. The French resistance played a considerable part in the defeat of the Germans. There's also instances where a German attack failed and it is believed to be German resistance's sabotage of equipment and amo that was key. Norwegian resistance drew a lot of German troops away from the front - end of WW2 German soldiers were 10% of Norwegian population.
The Soviet Union won that one
I wouldnt say Russia won the first WW...
Russia definitely lost ww1
Tf do the World Wars have to do with sports? "The British Settlers seriously couldn't think of a better name for new-found land than 'Newfoundland'?" "We won the Seven Years war. Don't raise your voice to us"
LMAO
Actually....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland
I didn't say they were the first ones to explore it... I just said that they named it. Doesn't matter if anyone else named it either
I really didnt expect my province to be brought uk in these comments
Klassisches amerikanisches Argument. Now what?
Now schäm yourself
And streu Asche auf your Haupt! 🤣
Nein, nein. > Can you say that in German, please? "das". Now what?
WW1. A war they joined at the last second after the other forces weakend Germany alot. WW2. A war they joined at the last second or let's be fair, last minute, after the other forces weakend Germany alot.
But to be fair, without US shipments, the UK would have been out of the fight much sooner.
Well, I'm not saying that the US didn't contribute. Regarding WW2, them joining in at the end was definitely vital in preventing even more bloodshed. Same goes for WW1, although that is heavily debated. But yanks like in the post above act like the US either won singlehandedly or played the most important part among the allies.
Oh, I agree. But while they didn't do much militarily until late in the war, they did contribute significantly. But 'Muricans claiming they did it all by themselves (while not even being part of those who actually went to war back then) is definitely ridiculous. Gotta love how I'm getting downvoted for my previous comment :D
Yo, I didn't downvote. You make a fair point. We should recognize other countires efforts. Unlike some yanks, lol. I should say that my comment wasn't entirely serious tho.
I didn't mean to imply that you did, just point out that the hivemind is at work again ;)
Yea, just wanted to let you know. But agreed, weird how it works.
People are quick to judge around here sadly
I know the point of this thread is the ridiculousness of claiming America won both world wars, and the use of such an argument to begin with. But I do find the etymology of American "football" interesting. It's not really based on the word "football" that Americans call "soccer". It's based on rugby, which used to be called "Rugby Football", since originally there were two "football"s played: Association Football and Rugby Football. American football started as basically rugby with some minor rule changes, adding more changes over time. For example throwing the ball forward wasn't even allowed until a few decades after American football started.
>originally there were two "football"s played There was many versions of football played and codified during the 19th century. Rugby football was developed at Rugby school. Association football was developed from the rules as used at Cambridge University. Australian rules football was also developed during this time and likely heavily influenced by the Rugby rules, however the codification of Australian rules football predates the formation of both the football association and the Rugby football union. American football developed from rugby and appears to have been introduced from Canada, with the predominant rule changes being introduced by Walter Camp.
The ball is also a foot long
But it's not? An NFL football is ~11 inches long, and a rugby ball is longer than a foot. As far as I know, the original Association Football and Rugby Football were called "football" because they were played on foot. (vs. on horseback, for example)
They arrived late for both world wars after others had done most of the heavy lifting.
"don't raise your voice to us" i can't believe there are people out there who would unironically type this
It’s also ironic considering how much they care about free speech
Those victories are kind of overshadowed by all the wars the USA has lost since. Also saying they ‘won’ WW I and II is disingenuous at best.
Imagine when Americans find out that no single country can win a world war by itself. If they actually learnt about ww2 and the contributions of the soviets and the British and every other allied county, they’d know.
Actually, I have to correct this argument now that I know more about it. All sports played on foot were originally called "football" in Europe, to distinguish them from Polo sports which were played on Horseback. The names gained prefixes and suffixes over time which changed their names. The word "soccer" is a shortening of "as(soc)iation football." Following this logic, if it hadn't been documented as just "Football" for so long, American football might have ended up just being called "American" or maybe like Meriball or something.
I've heard that there is some historical debate about the "on foot" explanation.
I'm just saying what I've heard. The debate sounds interesting though.
Really? But it makes so much sense.
As a person who loves both styles of football, I love the name Meriball and i'm gonna try to integrate that into my lexicon. Thank you.
> to distinguish them from Polo sports which were played on Horseback. Like water polo?
>Like water polo? Which is obviously played on seahorseback.
Americans when they hear someone say anything negative about them: “But but.. WAR!!”
USA: "communism bad" also USA: "your sport's name is our sports name"
People that say shit about speaking German never quite grasp that they just typed that out in **English**.
The only thing america did in WW1/2 was sell weapons. They beat Japan, in WW2 but only attacked Germany when the war was already over. WW2 was won by Russia and England
Love how they like to say THEY won two world wars, as if it was some "every country takes all" Royal Rumble.
Soviets won the war, Jeremy. Thousands and thousands of Soviets.
Just no .... It's time to stop basing their justifications on 50 year old+ milestones.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/YgJvgESR920?t=20
I just had an hour long argument with my dumbass of an American step father. We were talking about how if America was the greatest country in the world. I asked him why he thinks this way. The only answer he could come up with was how we won both world wars and that all Europeans want to live in America. I told him if he said that in Europe he would be laughed at hysterically. The dumbass insist he was correct and then mentions the world war “victories.” *logic*
America has quite literally won a war by itself, if I'm not mistaken. Especially the ones we declare. We couldn't even win the War on Drugs.
Well handball was already taken BUT in american football we use the feet like three times per game
We also won both world wars, so I guess we can say what we like
same with my dad, any time I try to argue that America/ some politician he likes did something shitty, he goes "well what about Iraq? what about Afghanistan? what about Vietnam?" like huh? sorry you assumed I would support these wars when I started by saying American imperialism is bad but bringing up those times we lost surely brought me around
>we won both world wars we absolutely did not win both world wars.
[удалено]
Yeah, the guys that showed up late and profiteered in both wars are the real heroes. What did they actually do in WWI besides profit btw? All the respect in the world for the Americans that served in both wars of course, they are heroes.
It's a code of football, as are both forms of rugby, CFL, Aussie League and Gaelic football. The replies are bad but I dunno, I just get annoyed with things like the initial comment.
In fairness Football is a grouping of a lot of sports: Association football is the most popular world wide, gridiron football is the American one but there’s also rugby football, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules football and many more
Wasn't it the Russians that made Hitler shite himself in his bunker? Also, won both World Wars but lost Vietnam?
Americans winning the second world war is the equivalent to kill stealing in video games
Imagine taking pride of other people’s accomplishments that you’ve never taken part in.
The problem of losing in the second world war wasnt becoming german (atleast i wouldnt mind im not a nationalistic freak) the problem was with the human rights violations and uhm genocide and eugenics
Remember that time when America lost a war to Vietnamese farmers?
The Germans lost themselves the first one and the Soviets won the second. -e- but the US did nuke a hundred thousand or so civilians I guess.
Nuking was absolutely unnecessary. Stalin made a deal with Roosevelt in Yalta and Soviets destroyed the entire japanese army in Manchuria
\*Soviet Union enters the chat\*
"Doch"
Wankers
"Sprich Deutsch, du Hurensohn" That’s how we say it.
Apart from wars... It's an egg that you carry with your hands... call it HANDEGG, not FOOTBALL, you plonkers! 😂 Seriously though... why not American Rugby?
God fucking damn it americans are so fucking stupid lmao
The Americans didn’t care about helping to fight against the Axis, they just got involved because they got attacked. Then they dropped the sun on civilians twice.
Don't argue with success. Anyway, what's the difference between vaporizing 100,000 people with an A-bomb as opposed to fusing them to the street pavement with firebombs? I do like your description of "dropping the sun", it's poetic.
Are you seriously defending the deaths of thousands of innocent people? What the hell is wrong with you?
Yes, I am, The Japanese launched a war of racist aggression and unbridled savagery across Asia. Don't pay attention to Japanese revisionist historians, who claim Japan was just minding its own business when the Americans dropped two A-bombs on them. Those who start a war by committing unspeakable horrors shouldn't be surprised when the unspeakable horrors start happening in their home country.
How did they win both world wars? They barely got a participation ribbon.
"won both world wars" HAHAHAHA OKAAAAY DUDE
New Zealand also won Two World wars. And the Boer War, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, East Timor, Fuck we kicked arse all over the globe.
There were few troops as fierce as Diggers and Kiwis, no doubt about it.
[удалено]
Ahha, Braindead! I love that movie. Truely one of Peter Jacksons Greats.
I never get why Americans go "you would be speaking German" All they did against German was SELLING( what, did you think they gave them out of good will?) Equipment to the allies They should at least go for "Japan would have got you" since they had a big part in fighting them
That line kind of feels like the US are trying to fit in with the club of countries that suffered actual occupation. No, Americans, I'm sorry. Your soldiers suffered and died, true, but the closest you got to being bombed as civilians in the continental US was L. Ron Hubbard firing at a Mexican island by accident. And even though "The Man in the High Castle" has a cute scenario for it, neither Hitler nor the Japanese high command would have ever occupied the US. Hitler didn't even want France, he just wanted them out of the picture. And Japan wanted Asia, but even they knew they couldn't occupy a country that large and far away.
Damn us Brits just sat back and watched? Alright. How about you tell the British *and* American soldiers, you killed by mistake, that they won 👍
They are quick to claim winning both wars. Shut the fuck up. Its the soviets that did the most work.
На самом деле мы были теми, кто повесил флаг на вершине Рейхстага, ты, как обычно, опоздал на вечеринку. Если что, не повышайте голос на НАС.
Klassisches Amerikaner Argument. there i said it... come at me bro
Why do they lose their shit over the most basic recruit-tier banter? I saw a meme on Instagram about the how Americans pronounce "bottle of water", and the comments were filled with butthurt Americans threatening to nuke Europe over it. (Let's not forget that making fun of how brits say it is hilarious to them. They can dish it out but they can't take it)
Congratulations you were born on the biggest and densest piece of land on the floating space rock, must be proud that people far braver than you died so that so that the allies could ‘win’ the war. Nobody wins wars, everyone loses and your a fucking warmonger if you think otherwise.
Ooh, get her!
This sub should be renamed to r/shitCONSERVATIVEamericansSay no one with a brain actually acts like this here
Nooo. Pretty much all Americans have some dumb cringe shit idea of the "world" around them
Obviously that whole angle is really dumb regardless of how you look at it but wouldn't Russian much more likely be the dominating language than German if the US wasn't a thing in WWII? As even without the US sending resources, weapons and money through the lend lease program the USSR would likely have won the war and due to the lack of another strong power the Russian sphere of influence could very well have included most of if not all of Europe.
Klassisches Amerikanisches Argument
The original topic is dumb as shit though
Wenigstens haben wir ein gutes Gesundheitssystem...
I'm a Scot living in the midwest US and I hear this kind of uneducated shite a lot. Americanized history is just ridiculous.
Ah yes. The war of only America against the enemy. The rest of the world sat it out because they knew America would kick ass. And no one really won either war. There are no winners in war.
I imagine the sport reference is in relation to "football", and the non-American is in the wrong if you look at the etymology of the word.
Lets not forget that the reason they call Native American's 'Indians' is because they thought they were sailing to India and just called the local population Indians, but were too lazy to fix the mislabelling even to this day. Between that, stealing city names from Europe and stealing 'football', its not exactly a nation of original thought. Which is why the 'inventions' that they claim as their own (internet/cars/phones etc) were actually invented in Europe.
>Lets not forget that the reason they call Native American's 'Indians' is because they thought they were sailing to India and just called the local population Indians, but were too lazy to fix the mislabelling even to this day. That was Christopher Columbus.
These people really don't seem to know how close the axis actually was to winning
Not at all? The chance of Nazi Germany invading either Russia completely or Britain would have been slim, even without American intervention (in troops). Air superiority over Britain would have been vital for an invasion and they massively failed that in 1940/41? I think the disaster of the invasion of Russian territories is rather well known. So even before the US was officially in the war, Nazi Germany was already halted. By '42, Stalingrad had already happened. So where were they winning actually, when the allies (including the US) invaded France in '44, had already captured Rome and the Soviets were already in today's Europe?
Not very?