Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America, You’ve Much to be Proud of... but Drop the World-Leader Idea
One of the many entertaining contributions from Tommy Sheridan, on the recently concluded Celebrity Big Brother, was his reaction to watching Barack Obama's presidential inauguration. Turning to the three tearful American housemates he declared: "At last. America has something to be proud of."
What, this choice of president, and nothing else? Nuts to all that other stuff, like the moon landing, F Scott Fitzgerald, Elvis, Sidney Poitier, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, satellites, Stephen King, Edwin Hubble, Aaron Copeland, the Cadillac, Jackson Pollock, Shirley Jackson, Jerry Seinfeld, Maya Angelou, The Wright brothers, Pixar, Francis Ford Coppola, Tiger Woods, Gene Kelly, Thomas Edison, Harper Lee, John Bardeen sorry, am I boring you, because this could run to many hundreds of pages? Nothing much to be proud of there? Yeah, right on Tommy. The Americans. What a bunch of losers.
But regardless of our favorite, hairy Trotskyite's preposterous anti-Americanism, most other people who celebrated last Tuesday's historic inauguration eliminated any undercurrents of recrimination. Democracy allows the people to make mistakes, and then to make amends. Given Bush's demonic two terms there is certainly a lot to make amends for. But the American people voted to do just that, and in this respect they are no different from any other free democracy. In Europe, we too vote in the occasional psychopath, and then vote them back out again. It's just that ours are less powerful, hence proportionally do less damage.
So if the world watched the beginning of this new presidency with a tearfully optimistic eye, did we approve of everything US citizens were promised? However events may shape Barack Obama's character in the future, the American people appear to have pulled off that rarest of achievements, and elected a thoroughly decent man. And in recognition of such, the big day was an emotionally charged, joyous, creative triumph.
Making the corpulent preacher precede Obama's address by asking God to forgive everything America had done under Bush was a stroke of genius. Of course he didn't actually mention Bush by name, but we got the message. And Obama's speech was sublime. So much so that even all the daft god stuff was just about bearable. To many, particularly in Britain, the president's religiosity is one small source of disappointment, revealing, as it does, a seam of emotional weakness. Of course there may be a small, outside chance that, as the Clintons are suspected of doing, he's just pretending. Outrageously, no atheist or agnostic can currently succeed to high office in the US, hence it would be political suicide for a candidate to reveal they possessed so much as a shard of free-thinking. But even if he skipped the Enlightenment in history classes and is indeed a genuine believer, this infantilism should not overly concern us, since his speech reassured us that his superstitions will not, unlike Bush, be informing his policy decisions. So go right ahead, Barack. Knock yourself out with prayer. Especially if it helps you give up smoking.
For there was much else in his address to delight. "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Brilliant! Did you hear that New Labor? "There is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task." You're damn right. And so say all of us Presbyterian-leaning Scots. Get those teenagers out of bed. Hooray! "The world has changed and we must change with it." Yes, you really, really must. "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers." Whoops! What about the Scientologists? You just lost Tom Cruise as the lead in your biopic.
But then, in this finely crafted, tightly honed speech, where not a word was out of place, we had this: "Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more." Sorry to be a stickler for accuracy, but aren't there two little words missing from that sentence? Shouldn't it end in "by example"? Because the omission of those words implies that the president of the United States of America is president of the world, and given that this was not a speech written on the back of a gum packet minutes before Obama took the stage, we must assume that sentence means what it says.
Now there's no doubt that everything America does has an effect on the world, catastrophically so under Bush, from his wholesale slaughter in the Muslim world to the sly undermining of democracy in South America. The US can indeed change the global economy, global climate, international peace, and it will bring about those changes mostly as a consequence of protecting its own interests. But precisely in what sense does it "lead"?
Had Barack Obama been standing for election here I would doubtless have camped out all night to vote him in. In addition to the integrity of his character I'm particularly fond of his ears. But since we rightly had no say in his election, representing as he does his America citizens and not us, he's going to have to watch it with that "leading the world" stuff.
The British are not in the habit of being led by people over whom we have no power of democratic censure. There's much gloomy speculation that Obama will pull in the drawstrings and create Fortress America, a very bad thing, so say all the economists, for trade, democratic ethics and global prosperity. I disagree. The example he should set is by fixing its own house, ceasing the manipulation of others, and spending that unquenchable American energy, that has made it one of the most dazzlingly creative countries in the world, on regaining the country's common decency. You're not our leader, Mr President, but you have the opportunity to be our inspiration.
Now, where were we Tommy? Oh yes. Marvel comics, Dizzy Gillespie, Lance Armstrong, Woody Allen, Rosa Parks, Ambrose Bierce, Katharine Hepburn...

89 Comments so far
Show AllYes, the world leader obsession has got to go.
However, being an example of peaceful, caring, and intelligent actions, that of course would be laudable.
Do we choose to be the world leader or does the world choose us? Its a fair question.
"There's much gloomy speculation that Obama will pull in the drawstrings and create Fortress America, a very bad thing, so say all the economists, for trade, democratic ethics and global prosperity. I disagree.
I almost wish we would, just so the critics could find out how it would impact them....to the negative in every case.
The example he should set is by fixing its own house, ceasing the manipulation of others, and spending that unquenchable American energy, that has made it one of the most dazzlingly creative countries in the world, on regaining the country's common decency."
Perhaps its time for Europeans to look at their own house before throwing rocks at ours. UK going to elect a Paki Prime Minister anytime soon? Want to compare histories of violence and oppression?
We may screw up a lot, but we have been far, far better than they were.
Hey Thomas! Good to see you on here again!
You are correct about Europe's past behavior. But I'm sure you would agree with me that regardless of whether the USA is 'better' or 'worse' we all have to make an honest effort to strive toward the ideals that founded our nation.
We have failed in that quest the entire history of our country. But that does not invalidate the quest nor does it mean we should abandon it.
That is like the old story of the quest for the holy grail. In the end, the point of the story isn't the grail at all. The point is the quest itself. The journey and the struggle are as important as the end goal.
Personally I don't care if the USA is or is not a 'leader'. Indeed we shouldn't be getting all above ourselves and thinking that way. It was precisely that lack of humility and over-abundance of pride that caused quite a large fraction of us to think we could invade any country we liked and get away with it. So I don't care if we are leaders or not and we shouldn't think in those terms.
I live in Europe and unfortunately there does seem to be way too much willingness to look to the USA for leadership when Europe is perfectly capable of leading itself.....or not. some of the problem certainly is that other countries are looking to the USA...looking for a savior or rescue from above...and they really ought to be spending a lot more time solving their own problems than waiting for a rider on a great white horse to come make things better.
In many ways the last 8 years were good on that score, it has made many people realize that the USA is NOT working for their interests and likely never will. Hopefully they will stand up to the USA more often. This would be a good thing in my opinion.
Please let me know why Europe refuses to cancel those free trade deals with the US if it is really ashamed of the US's behavior. And by the way, thanks for admitting the truth about Europe.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Of course the world doesn't choose you, but if you makes you feel better to pose such questions please carry on.
Finger pointing about who is or was worse merely highlights an infantile mindset, which is far too common. It's tedious to read certain elements beat their chests and proclaim their superiority irrespective of what country or continent they come from.
Also you should note that using 'Paki' to speak of Pakistanis is a derogatory term which you would be wise to avoid.
barra, it seems you miss the point in your desire for perfection which none of us claim to be proprietors of.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
if i had any idea what you are on about then i might be interested in your projection.
ps....some so called friends slyly put rocks in their snowballs.
"ps....some so called friends slyly put rocks in their snowballs."
LOL !! True that !!
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"you miss the point in your desire for perfection which none of us claim to be proprietors of. "
I can say the same of you on the Nader article. When I ask that you Obama bashers give the guy a chance, you expect perfection. Quite a double standard.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Show me where I said I expect perfection?? Our standards for government have degraded to the point where anything different gives hope to you, and I applaud you for your hope, but that anything different is far from where we want to be, just to be in a normal range of meeting our criteria for America established 230 years ago, and the criteria that our President himself has set. There is no reasonable explanation for sitting back and expecting him to do it alone, he has petitioned for our help. What form our help comes in includes critical feedback, that is the food of a democracy, we need not starve it in the name of give the poor guy a chance.
Also you misquoted me to advance your position, I said "it seems you miss the point"
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"There is no reasonable explanation for sitting back and expecting him to do it alone, he has petitioned for our help."
I'm trying to get more local pols who share progressive and moderated views to office and there has been some success. Did you ever consider that idea? You know, running on a local level and using that clout to go up the ladder just like Obama did from community organizing to State Senator to US Senator and then the White House? Progressives could learn to use the existing structure and turn it around for the better.
"What form our help comes in includes critical feedback, that is the food of a democracy, we need not starve it in the name of give the poor guy a chance. "
Ok, but I don't take kindly to overrated Obama bashing especially when he has barely started his first term. That's all.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Sounds good to me Terrance, I just don't get the "bashing" as it supposedly exists here on CD. I just hear thoughtful criticism and understandable skepticism.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
" I just hear thoughtful criticism and understandable skepticism."
I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something somewhere. I tell you what though. If Obama screws up as some predict, then he'll lose my support. However, I seriously doubt he could do worse than Dubya as he's not amoral but willing to listen to all sides before jumping to decisions. I would have loved to see Obama surrounded by Kucinich, Nader, Mckinney, Paul, etc ... for a lot of their wonderful ideas but I know that it's just not possible. Lincoln and FDR both campaigned as moderates and then took slow but steady steps once each of them made it to office. So far, I see similar patterns in the new Obama administration and I just think both sides are totally misunderstanding him and even treating him badly. I guess my only two sins were learning all about the history of compromise and moderation throughout US history and converting from conservative Republican to moderate liberal. Hopefully the misunderstanding will clear up as he progresses through the term.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Bravo!! Thomas, bravo!!!
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"We may screw up a lot, but we have been far, far better than they were."
tell that to the slaves, native americans, vietnamese, etc., etc., etc.
I think that nowadays Europe is ahead of the US in practically everything.
I'm a civil engineer, and I know first hand that we are practically a third world country compared to Europe's transportation infrastructure - particularly rail and urban pubic transit - and the technologies used to build them. And our continued clinging to a utterly backward measurement system is positively embarrassing - and a source of possible disastrous engineering error.
Europe is forging ahead with well funded advanced science programs like CERN's large Hadron Collider and the ITER fusion reactor - the holy grail of clean energy.
They are also way ahead of the US in development of wind and solar energy, and in fuel effeciency. When a Eurpoean has to drive at all, they are likely to drive a car with fuel economies in 50-60 mpg range, while over here GM tries to tell us are such fuel economies are technologically impossible. And yes, European motor vehicle safety standards are at least as tough as the US.
The multiparty parliamentary systems in Europe are far more democratic than the US system with it's two party duopoly and entirely too powerful President.
The European union, while it can be rightfully criticized as a vehicle for corporate neoliberalism, is otherwise a model for the unification and harmonization of diverse cultures.
The package of social benefits many EU countries provide - health care, free university education, $13-17/per hour minimum wage, and extensive public facilities of all sorts provide a superior standard of living when compared to USAns by every measure.
To US can solve it's problems to the extent that it can emulate Europe's solutions to them.
---USAn---
I think most Americans would accept that Europe's transportation infrastructure is superior to that in the US. In the past couple of years I have done a bit of traveling in China, and, speaking as a non-engineer (an attorney), it seemed to me that China's transportation infrastructure, particularly within the cities, is beginning to surpass that of the US. Now that realization might stick in the American craw.
Nobody's transportation infrastructure will surpass the USA's. We're moving on up to 5 ton SUVs with 350 hp, 10 mpg, and built-in movie theater, gaming console and mobile office. Standard equipment includes built-in HAL 9000 supercomputer, serving as secretary, preacher, attorney, AND valet! God Bless the United States of America!
LOL!
Thanks for still having a sense of humor...
---USAn---
additionally - while china NOW rivals the USA in pollution as a result of the rush to "neo-liberalize" - as China also grapples the its challenges in its rise -- it has - FAR MORE QUICKLY in the space of little more than 2 decades of this very quick rise (compared to the USA's 2 centuries of fundamentally capitalist mode) --
in DEALING with Pollution.
if anything , china is ALREADY among the first nations to DIRECTLY deal with the resulting pollution by accelerating studies and developments of technologies that go with its rise that eventually are geared away from pollutions as the USA has NOT DONE .
again this is an issue where the USA CAN NOT possibly dare to raise its finger in pointing at countries as "leading polluters".
IF THEY ARE -- they are LARGELY a result - indirect or as a consequence of america's OWN exportation of ITS ne0liberal capitalism that force countries to "play the game".
but china, as well as europe -- having each played THAT game , respectively are FAR , FAR AHEAD of the "leading champion" of capitalist expansionism - the USA - in ALREADY dealing with global warming, pollution and other environmental issues in connection with their own economies.
europe and china do not , clearly, "deal with global warming or pollution and the environment" to try to stem the effects from the economies because of the desire to be "NUMBER ONE". they do it INSPITE of any such desires.
THE USA "deals" with such things ONLY because , less than the desire to deal with the environment, it does not wish to be removed from its "leadership" in ANYTHING -- even if it is ALREADY being LEFT BEHIND. to the USA it is a question of POWER.
to the europeans and chinese as leading economies - it is a question of realizing that they can not continue to prosper while ignoring the effects of that prosperity -- whether they are "leaders" or not.
I want to point out somthing to americans:
for DECADES -- as far back as 1960's = when , after the world war europe embarked on a SOCIAL WELFARE system -- americans have repeatedly predicted and "observed" that "europe's socialist system is causing europe to FAIL.........
uhmmmmmm--- apart from the largely neo-liberal model EXPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as the "prize" for its "leadership" in world war 2 and afterwards --
EXACTLY WHICH SYSTEM IS FAILING?............
food for thought.
admit it: they do make the best implements of death.
"Perhaps its time for Europeans to look at their own house before throwing rocks at ours ... We may screw up a lot, but we have been far, far better than they were."
THANK YOU ! France and Germany I hear were going to do business with Saddham Hussein before Bush invaded Iraq. I don't support Bush's invasion of Iraq but given that France and Germany stood silent while America was crushing Iraq for oil, I'm lead to believing that France and Germany would have been just the same if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
And what about the Palestinians, Afghans, and the non-Muslims in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Bangladesh who have faced mass murders and ethnic cleansing? Europe silently supports it all the while acting like hypocrites chiding the US for being mean to Muslims.
And when it comes to immigration, it's easy for Europeans to illegal enter the USA but if Americans choose to move to Europe, there are so many immigration restrictions and stipulations. Plus, unlike America, there are rarely stores open past 8 PM even on weekdays !!
Finally, at least America proudly and STRONGLY electing an African American for PRESIDENT OF THE USA !! I don't see anything close to that happening in Europe
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
According to Greg Palast in his book "Armed Madhouse"... France & Germany wanted to buy Iraqi oil with euro dollars, which would have chalenged the Saudi's control of OPEC, which declares that all oil must be sold in US dollars, which has been propping up the US economy since Nixon left the gold standard...
The US invaded and occupied Iraq in order to keep the oil IN the sand... By opening up the spigots, Saddam would have produced a glut on global oil supply, which would have driven oil prices down, and also weakened the US dollar...
I believe that the "war" in Iraq was "successful" from a Texas or Saudi oil billionaire's perspective...
As a civil war and depleted uranium will ensure that the oil will stay in the sand until they need it for future resource wars...
For how long have Pakistanis voluntarily emigrated (and were not dragged there in chains, mind you) to the UK and for how long have blacks BEEN emigrated to America?? Only a difference of 300 years, right?
So how long after Africans were transported to America did it take America to get there? And you demand something of other countries which they've only dealt with for a few decades?
And when will America have its first indigenous president???? I.e. an American Indian?
See: We have indigenous presidents all the time!
We could have an interesting discussion about what constitutes an "indigenous" European. Are the Germanic peoples now populating most of Western Europe "indigenous" or are they "recent" (within 2,000 years) newcomers? But your point is understood. However, Western Europeans cannot absolve themselves from having benefitted greatly from black-chattel slavery.
I should have used the word "native" instead ;-).
As i have said a few times before, i saw Obama on C-SPAN a couple of months ago. It was a video from 2005. He was speaking in nyc at Barnes&Noble on a book tour. He made a point of stating "I do believe in American exceptionalism". I thought that spoke volumes right there.
I never understood the whole "God bless America" and manifest destiny, etc. It reminds me of a religious exceptionalism. My God is *the* God. It lends to hedgemony and 'democratization' "for their own good". It parallels the Christian missionaries who knew that the indigenous of the world were waiting for the word of Jesus and forced their beliefs on others with disastrous results. This is just another spin on the ball. What this actually does is make Americans naive and accepting of whatever 'America' does. We torture--Well, we must have a good reason for it, after all, we are America and we are the 'good guys'. If we do it, it is right. I mean, the Church tortured how many, "for the good of their souls". When you claim exceptionalism you are on shakey ground indeed.
Why would a country want to play Pope to the world? At the very least, it reminds me of the "We're number one!" jock mentality that is so pervasive among Americans. It is really childish and quite immature, from my point of view. I don't see that we are such a great role model. I mean, our kids don't even know where Canada is, for heaven's sake. Why not get real and realize we live in a global community already?
THE USA is the WORLD LEADER in exportation of DEATH.
its greatest export is Militarism....weapons for killing...divisiveness...disruption of age-old cultures and regions in their own ways of balancing their challenges...the USA is LEADER in ONE thing:
throwing rocks into placid waters or poisoning them or making things WORSE than they are or have to be. PERIOD. the USA is world leader in POKING its nose in other people's business and THEN BLAMING those people for the consequences.
it is also FIRST in having created the most polluting lifestyle that , by forcing other countries to "compete" in this - has now brought us ALL to the brink of self-destruction by poisoning ourselves and This Wonderful, precious, ONLY MOTHER EARTH we ever have....
sometimes it makes me wonder:
if it was even RIGHT that the USA was born as a nation AT ALL. because its ideas of s0-called democracy have become the MOST DANGEROUS single ideology the world has ever seen....because the DESTRUCTIVENESS of the USA model has become so frightening not LEAST because it has come on the wings of "liberty" and "justice" and "freedom" -- SUPPOSEDLY - and whose destructiveness - materially, economically, environmentally, culturally , humanly, ecologically -- has NO COMPARISON from ANY other region in its scope, its breadth and extensiveness and depth.
It is certainly FIRST in taking bounty or plenty of the earth and turning it into an instrument of creating artificial LACK through its global capitalism's institutions and methods.
it is FIRST in CORRUPTION.
the USA as "leader" of the world?
preposterous idea. it is like giving "leadership" for something that no one can lead and which is likely NOT even necessary for being an aberrant "idea" in itself -- to a spoiled, immature brat who thinks the world is his sandlot.
do you give a match to a child who LOVES to burn things?
THIS is the USA.
"a spoiled, immature brat who thinks the world is his sandlot"
I'll pass that along to my grandfather who lost his leg in Normandy so you could live in freedom...you are so extreme bro, you need to calm down and try thinking rationally for a change.
teddy is absolutely correct and you are very much in error. Oh, and thanks for letting us know how old you are.
1. Well-crafted argument. Thank you for your deep insight.
2. You're welcome, old man.
Nicely played, peck. Good observation.
: "Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."
Surely he meant BLEED once more . . . in Afghanistan . . .
Let's see, the last "psychopath" voted to power in Europe was Hitler, and he certainly wasn't voted "back out again:" and we should note the writer used "them," which is to imply more than one psychopath--Blair, perhaps? Or maybe Thatcher, Churchill? Killers all. Then one must consider the straw man chosen for this essay: "At last...," as if the phrase means for all time. And Scientology IS a non-belief system, so Tom Cruise was included, although I don't see how he could play Obama, Cruise being white and ....
So the writer's whimsical straw man attacking essay is fallacious, and omits a whole host of potential themes about why US leadership is a bunch of Bull Shit and very dangerous for the planet and its people.
Actually Hitler was never voted to power. He was appointed. His party did not win a majority in any election.
Not that I disagree with the premise of your arguement. Europe, outside the Scandinavian countries, has a long ways to go yet before IT can lead by example.
Yes, Hitler wasn't "Voted-in" in any normal meaning of that phrase. However, he gained power through votes in the Reichstag. Wikipedia has a very good synopsis of how he gained power.
I can assure you that nobody in Europe spends half a second thinking about leading the world.
We leave that to those who are in dire need of that feeling.
This article needs to be ripped apart.
Should Americans, including the political elite, stop seeing itself as world policeman? Obviously.
America nevertheless has tremendous economic and military strengths beyond even its closest counterparts.
So let's not generalize the status-quo and pretend that America and the West is simply bullying -- invading and occupying and so forth. We do plenty of that, but we do what is in our self-interest in far more subtle ways as well.
The most important task is to unveil the workings of power. The most powerful institutions are those most invisible to society... transparency is dangerous to the maintenance of things as they are. This article is more an exercise in political correctness than in providing information - which really should be the antithesis of commondreams.org!
America should lead by example but it is dangerously modest to pretend that it is anywhere but at the top of a neo-liberal world order that leaves two-thirds of the worlds population in severe hunger and poverty.
I'm sorry, but 'leading by example' demonstrates an extremely poor understanding of how 'government' works.
Why does the Executive branch in the U.S. wield so much power in the 21st century?
What accounts for the massive militarization of the country?
Why is the class-system not a prominent matter of discussion even during its 'economic crisis?'
How is it that Obama can appoint safe, mainstream, neo-liberal advisers without fear of serious public scrutiny?
Why is it that the so-called wealthiest 'democracy' on earth leaves a public that is almost completely de-politicized and uneducated?
I want to see more articles and opinion-pieces on this website that offer us historical analyses and political and philosophical insights that are critical of the way we seem to arrive at easy conclusions and alarmingly stupid talking-points like those summed up by this article.
Members of the "First World" number just over 1 billion, while there are almost 6.5 Billion inhabiting the planet. And probably just over half Billion of the remainder don't enjoy "severe hunger and poverty."
I thought it good of CD to post this article because it "needs to be ripped apart." Did you catch the Straw Man argument?
Hear, Hear.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
DAMN RIGHT DUDE !! America saved Europe's bacon back in WWII and still Europe is relying on our military bases when we should withdraw those bases and let them fend for themselves. If they crumble, then that's their fault because I'm so sick and tired of watching our taxpayer money go towards maintaining military bases in Europe, Middle East, Asia, etc ... in addition to occupying Iraq. And right now, Europe is still hiding between those free trade deals with America and acting like an international welfare queen.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
err TMinSD,
from what I read the Soviets played a far bigger part and price in defeating the Nazi war machine than the Americans. The Germans that I have talked with have had little respect for the quality and ability of the American soldiers in WWII, and the Brits gave up their empire to survive the conflict, the American support of bacon not being entirely free and benevolent.
Would it help you feel better if the European countries would maintain bases in the USofA to help defend America? With all that the US has done for Irak, the least they could do in return would be to maintain an regiment in America to help defend it.
Oh, and Happy Chinese New Year!
Only a strongly pro-Communist textbook would write such bullshit. Russia didn't do jack squat until the USA came in and helped and only then did Russia even try.
"Would it help you feel better if the European countries would maintain bases in the USofA to help defend America?"
No need for that. The Europeans can fend for themselves while the US fends for itself.
"With all that the US has done for Irak, the least they could do in return would be to maintain an regiment in America to help defend it."
Typical communist doublespeak. Take two aspirins and call me in the morning !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
actually you are wrong....
hitler WANTED russia from the very beginning of the war. that was the REAL reason he TOOK poland as the gateway to russia -- AND its OIL and NATURAL gas to feed Hitler's army ....when he tried to EXTEND INTO russia -- going against the treaties signed by HIMSELF with Stalin AND roosevelt and churchill -- he ran smack against a wall and his GREATEST DIVISIONS in his army was TRAPPED in stalingrad and the russian winter....
THIS weakened him SO SEVERELY -- that it LEFT his WESTERN front VULNERABLE
and THAT"S how the USA and england managed to "carpet bomb" and provide multifront assaults .
HITLER also overextended himself INTO greece and THIS removed his forces tht were needed to support the Italian Fascists -- THAT left open italy for american invasions...and which necessiated hitler to call up Field Marshall Erwin Rommel from the Egyptian and Middle east fronts..but by the time Rommel arrived in northern europe - and to help "fix" the mess in russia -- it was too late.
the BIGGEST SINGLE BLOW to hitler that began his final descent -- and destruction of his military might WAS Russia...
NOT the United States.
I recommend you stop using the CAPS LOCK function in your writing. It makes you sound like a petulant teenager.
I think you are mistaken. Russia lost something like 20 million people fighting Hitler's armies. Look up Battle of Stalingrad on Wikipedia to get a taste of what went on. Wikipedia is not a communist website, far as I know.
Joe
this is correct -- what actually SEVERELY weakened the Hitler Regime's army -- which was of course the foundation of the Nazi regime's conquest of europe -- was its running up against the wall of the Russians...people forget that at the height of Hitler's power - he was NOT satisfied -- and pushed on into the USSR - and THERE, in stalingrad -- and the "russian winter" just like Napoleon before him - the greatest part of Hitler's army was destroyed...with a great price to the RUssians naturally .
Hilter NEVER recovered from THAT -- and by the time the blanket Allied Bombings were decided on - which in the meantime, the Hiler brigades in russia being occupied bought TIME for the allies to put things together (this is where the vaunted "american greatness" comes in) --
the "WAR OF HITLER" was effectively over .
in fact -- the allied bombings of german cities were no longer REALLY necessary to bring hitler to his knees..but -- LIKE in JAPAN where the USA nuclear bombed 2 cities --
they were more for a SHOW OF FORCE and "victory" rather than the ACTUAL REASONS for the demise of hitler in europe of japan in the east.
the RUSSIANS were the ones that actually produced the CRITICAL power-balance changing actions..NOT the americans.
by the time the americans "liberated france" , denmar, holland, italy, etc....hitler NO LONGER had the regiments to maintain those conquered nations and was ALREADY on the DEFENSIVE position as a RESULT of the debacle happening in the "Russian front". he could put up no lasting resistance in the "western front" and that was why the AMericans came in with their version o f "shock and awe" and looked like "the liberators of europe".
BUT OF COURSE the PRICE to pay came later:
ENGLAND was to give up its claim upon the Pound Sterling as the World's prime currency of exchange -- and the US DOLLAR would be installed --
THIS was the TRUE WAR behind the war...the REAL war that america was fighting was for the WAR OF DOLLAR HEGEMONY...upon which to build its ensuing "past wartime global empire".
and it was the REAL reason the United States ENTERED the war...seeing that once it was over -- and surely hitler would never be able to go any further, that much was clear anyway since HIS OIL DEPENDENCY on the middle east was under stress -- and NORWAY was not cooperating -- and WHERE would he get his army's OIL? -- the BRITISH EMPIRE would be effectively DEAD..............
to be replaced by the United States EMPIRE -- COMPLETE with its dominance of EUROPE -- and its GLOBAL CURRENCY DOLLAR HEGEMONY
that TODAY we are LIVING UNDER and seeing its effects.
americans need to learn a LITTLE BIT MORE abouot world history before embarking on a "america is so good and the savior of the world" nonsense.
Nauseating.
You wouldn't even have the chance to bash the USA if we hadn't saved your country back in 1945.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota