March 17, 2005
Europe: The UN-America
What does it mean to be European? The answer seems simple until you try to formulate it. The sad truth is that the current most important component of European identity is NOT being American. Like 7-UP was advertised as the un-cola, Europe is the un-America and this irritates U.S.-European relations.
I just returned from a week in the heart of old Europe and I can allay American fears. Most Europeans don't hate us. They don't think about us that much at all. Why should they? It would be vanity to think they do. And I encountered no real hostility. Of course maybe they could not easily identify my nationality. I can order alcohol in most Euro languages without a noticeable accent. Being a drunkard makes you a citizen of the world. But seriously, I tried to find out what it meant to be a European - without real success except to find that it was not being an American.
Look for a historic Europe and all you find are dozens of nations routinely at war with each other. Europeans most often got to know each other intimately only on battlefields. The bayonet was a weapon with a European on both ends.
The first and longest European unification - the Roman Empire - was a Mediterranean affair that spilled over into Asia and Africa, but hardly touched what is now the heart of Europe north of the Rhine and Danube. Until the advent of the EU only two leaders envisioned a united Europe more of less along the current lines. Both Napoleon and Hitler provoked fierce hostility and their plans crashed in ignominious defeat.
But Europe is a cultural area, right? European civilization was once a cultural area more or less coterminous with Christendom, but it later expanded to cover most of North and South America, Australian and Oceania and made inroads everywhere else so that now many key aspects of Euro civilization are more enthusiastically practiced outside the old continent. Think of the hallmark of Euro civilization, Christianity.
Europe is also not an ethnic or linguistic untiy. Major Euro language like English, Spanish, French and Portuguese have many more speakers on continents other than Europe. Ethnic? A Scandinavian is more likely to have family in the U.S. or Canada than in Greece or Spain and most Italians would find the cultures, traditions and architecture in Argentina or Uruguay more familiar than in Poland or Lithuania.
A nation is more than a state. Many states don't encompass nations and some nations (like the Kurds) don't have a state. Europe is well on the way to creating a state, but is still far from having the identity of a nation and must still define the nation by what it is not. For now, the European nation is the un-America. (It is also the un-Argentina or the un-Brazil etc. but those things don't come up often.) Un-America does not have to mean anti-American. As the Euro nation develops other markers, the need to be the un-American will diminish. I hope this happens soon.
European integration is in American interest and the European unity enterprise is truly exciting. But for now, the usually unacknowledged hurt feelings on both sides of the Atlantic add too much emotion, almost like sibling rivalry, to what should be normal disagreements between grownup countries.
Europeans and American have so much in common. Even a short visit to Europe reminds you of that. We don't want to lose sight of this no matter what the current tensions.
It is possible to be not America and still value the differences.
First and foremost, Europe owes the United States their lives! Thousands died at Normandy to save their butts from the Reich! Europe is ungrateful, selfish and boring!
Posted by: stivdi at March 17, 2005 08:55 PMGood topic and good beginning on exploring what it is to be European.
True enough, Americans and Europeans have much in common. But, too, Euros are significantly different that Americans in some significant ways all stemming from the history each teaches their young.
Americans grow up with indoctrination to “greatest nation” concepts and rugged individualism of the old west and the falsity of US boundless resources and vast open spaces. These notions were true once, but less so with each passing year after WW I.
In fact, the split between Democrats and Republicans is kind of like the Euros and American differences. Democrats are largely an urban population where space is a bit cramped, crowding a daily experience, and a perpetual reminder that leaving ones front door requires tolerance and mutual cooperation among strangers in order to go about one’s daily life in the public arena with some sense of security.
Republicans tend to come from more rural cultural identity with gospel and country music, small and separate towns and villages, where security is more a matter of personal responsibility than trust of others given the distance and time between oneself and police or sheriffs. Strangers are easily spotted and suspect and small towns are slow to include newcomers who may harbor ideas and values and abilities not shared by the established more homogenized community.
Euros have very limited space, and come largely from the urban identification. Too, Euros have centuries old histories with each other which they have largely had to learn to accept and forgive in order to live with a sense of security in the 20th and 21st century. Euros are far more amenable to multi-linguism, multi-culturalism, and tolerance based on living with visible and cultural difference in daily life with largely no negative security problems.
Americans grow up with the gun settling disputes. Vast volumes of American movies have revenge as justice as central themes. Euros grow up with dialogue and compromise and humor as their primary weapons for settling disputes. Benny Hill anyone?
Euros also do not carry the burden of Puritanism the way America does with its short cultural history and foundings a mere few hundred years ago. Europeans have great pantheistic, hedonistic, and pagan ancestry and history attached to their cultures - not so with Americans.
So, as you say, there is much in common, but, there are significant perceptual, psychological, eduational and historical differences that will continue to distinguish Europeans as Un-American and continue to foster American views of Europeans with a sense of moral superiority.
stivdi
We owe a lot to Europe; Europe owes a lot to us. We share the same civilization. The European-American partnership is the most successful association among nations in the history of the world. We have to be careful not to throw out years of productive cooperation because of today’s frustrations.
…but the U.S. owes its independence to the French.
Stivdi, do you mean to say “EUROPEANS are ungrateful, selfish and boring”? I might buy that Americans are a lot harder working. I do happen to know that most Europeans don’t like snobby American tourists who talk loudly and make no attempt at learning the local dialect. How do you feel about Hispanics in the U.S. who do the same thing? Maybe they think we owe them their lives because we took Texas from them :)
Posted by: Gandhi at March 17, 2005 09:26 PMGhandi,
Are you comparing tourists to immigrants? or are they both tourists?
Posted by: dawn at March 17, 2005 09:35 PMOh… good question Dawn. I hadn’t thought of that. I suppose hispanics might be both :)
But you’re right; I don’t think we have a lot of Mexican “tourists” in the U.S. as it’s rather expensive for most of them, given their reduced purchasing power.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 17, 2005 10:29 PMUnification is rather difficult when we keep referring to them as, “old Europe,” especially as it only serves to perpetuate the idea that Americans are insensitive snobs.
But what’s all this talk about Mexicans? The focus here was supposed to be Europe and Mexico isn’t anywhere near Europe ^_^
Posted by: Zeek at March 17, 2005 10:47 PMMr. Remer’s comments indicating that Democrats are more like urbane, tolerant, multi-cultural, multi-lingual Europeans, while Republicans are a bunch of isolated, puritan country-bumpkins is simplistic.
Democratic leaders would have us believe that their constituents are the oppressed and downtrodded, hard-working, blue-collar time-card-punching, no-insurance-having lower classes. They also portray Republicans as rich, elitist, Ivy-league old-boys-club big-shot fat-cats who play golf all day and make high-powered deals around long tables in smoke-filled rooms.
Hmmm. Then again, many Republicans identify strongly with the rural, red-state, patriotic, truck-driving, barbecuing, troop-supportin’, rootin’-tootin’ gun-totin… well you get the idea. And many democrats/greens/progressives readily identify themselves as urban, sophisticated, intellectual, cheese-eating, wine-sipping Euro-philes— even though most actually moved to hip coastal cities from their quaint red-state towns…
Ahh, I ramble. What is clear is that the Deocrats do often model themselves after Europeans— they tend to live in crowded cities, prefer socialism, and display a desire to bow before any two-bit dictator who happens on the scene while blaming the United States for all the world’s ills.
Jack -
Having lived in Holland and having two Euro-born grandparents, I’ve always felt almost at home in Europe as in the U.S. The incredible thing there now is the openness between societies - it’s truly becoming one federation. However, though it may assume one government, it is, as you implied, not one nation. I would say that what makes Europeans similar is their shared histories. The common trauma of the two world wars and the mind-numbing tension of the Cold War has had common effects across the continent, and means that Europeans understand each other far better than most other nations understand one another.
To me, England remains the most amazing country on earth. Watching the collective soul of a nation that ruled much of the world until 1947 and is now torn between Euro-unity and Anglospheric harmony is simply fascinating. It’s like continental Europe in that it has a large post-peasant class, who have very different attitudes than America’s society of freeholders. However, its leaders and ideas have more in common with their American counterparts than they do with the Eurocrats. Which way England turns during the next 10 years could be a harbinger of where the “center” of the world is moving in the 21st century.
Posted by: Chops at March 17, 2005 11:25 PMEurope? Those Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast and Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys? They must never be allowed to send Troops into Iraq. Those Losers will just Lose. Iraq is an American Fight and the US will Go It Alone!!! Bring It On, I say!!! The US of A can easily bear any cost inthe name of Oil/Freedom!!!
Posted by: Aldous at March 17, 2005 11:40 PMChops:
You do know England is Led by those evil Liberals? And the odds of the Conservatives getting Power in the next 10 years is nearly ZERO?
Posted by: Aldous at March 17, 2005 11:42 PMLet me make my position crystal clear. The relationship we have with the Europeans is important and historic, however today it more than some emotional ancesteral link. There is no cold war need for the United States to remain as their, so to speak, “big brother”. Americans are hard working, free spending and proud, our European cousins just can’t seem to accept that. I have traveled extensively in Europe, always trying to remain polite, sensitive and understanding. I have seen the “rich American” acting like a fool, but have always tempered my reaction to that.
The United States has earned the right to demand the respect of our European cousins, a fact that no American should ever forget. We should never bow to any nation or group of nations, just as we never “dip” our colors to any. We owe them nothing.
As for the borders of the United States. We are a soveriegn nation. We have the right to protect our borders and an obligation to do so. These borders are not an imaginary line, they are real and necessary. No one should be allowed to freely cross them without following the procedures and regulations our people have established to gain legal admission to this wonderful country. Anyone who illegally enters this country should be considered an invader and dealt with as such. Everyone citizen has the right to protect his or her property with deadly force if required. I believe this applies to the nation’s borders as well. Enter legally or face the possibility of deadly force.
stivdi:
You sound ex-military. You wrote the truth & you are a great American.
Posted by: Blaine at March 18, 2005 07:57 AMAldous -
We were having an intelligent conversation. If all you plan on doing is insulting us, please pipe down. I don’t know if it’s outside your realm of imagination that a bunch of conservatives could have an intelligent conversation on Europe; if so, watch and learn.
It’s interesting that, even after the cold war ended, the big split with Europe didn’t happen until the current administration took power.
It’s also interesting that anyone would bring up sacrosanct borders after the invasion and occupation of Iraq - unless you’re arguing that Iraq deserved to be invaded because Iraqis couldn’t defend their borders against the US. Might makes right?
Jeremy Rifkin’s “The European Dream” is an interesting book on this topic.
First and foremost, Europe owes the United States their lives! Thousands died at Normandy to save their butts from the Reich!
Actually, Europe owes its existence to Russia far more than to the U.S. if that’s the measure.
Oh wait, you’ve seen the America-centric movies and Ruskies are bad people, so nationalistic chest beating means more than actual history.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 10:42 AMActually, Stalin signed a treaty with Hitler. When Hitler broke the treaty & attacked the eastern front, Stalin simply dropped back, burnt the cities & crops, & waited for the Germen logistics to stretch so far that mud, winter, & lack of supplies did the rest. From that point it was a mad rush by Stalin to see who could gain control of Berlin.
I don’t understand how Russia was the savior of Europe when 1 in 10 Russian peasant soldiers had rifles & the rest carried pitchforks.
Posted by: Blaine at March 18, 2005 11:02 AMAP
Post – 9/11 in general exacerbated U.S. – Euro relations. It wasn’t only Iraq. German leftists were criticizing the U.S. “response” to 9/11 in late September before there even was a U.S. response. There is a latent well of anti-Americanism in Europe: on the left from the old communist and socialist who don’t like American style free markets and on the right from traditionalists who don’t like the revolutionary aspects of American society. Some fixtures of these things have been in place for two centuries.
It is also true that Euro publics were skeptical U.S. actions in the 1990s. Even the Kosovo conflict created much anxiety around Europe and in that case the U.S. essentially fought a humanitarian war on the behalf of Europe. The exercise of U.S. power makes many Europeans nervous. In fact, the exercise of ANY power makes many of them nervous. If you have not done so yet, take a look at the now (in)famous essay “On Paradise and Power” by Robert Kagan re. He exaggerates, but not much.
All that said, I do concede the point that President Bush has made them more nervous than usual. Some of it is unavoidable. In the 1990s we took a bit of a break from history. In the post-cold war euphoria, many Americans as well as Euros thought we could follow the Rodney King advice and just all get along.
Nobody like the bearer of bad news and Bush was that. The peaceful dream of the 1990s ended in 2001 and Bush brought the news. Beyond that, his personal style grates on Euro nerves and the administration didn’t pay enough attention to the niceties of consultations and visits. This is on the way to being rectified. Condoleezza Rice visited Europe just after her confirmation and Bush followed. Many lesser officials are now taking the flights across the ocean on a regular basis.
We have some structural factors that will make the U.S. and Europe less close in the next decades than we were in the last ones. The danger is that we let these irritants push us farther away than need be. I worry as much about the U.S. as Europe in this respect.
So far (despite freedom fries) the U.S. population has been much less conscious Euro disrespect than Europeans have been of Americans. The danger is that Americans start to thing that they would be better off generally without strong Euro ties. We can’t forget that many of our most reliable friends are in Europe and even when we are arguing about some things, we are cooperating along an amazing range of other subjects.
A simple example, when U.S. troops left Germany to fight in Iraq, the German public and many politicians loudly protested. U.S. bases in Germany were left without the usual services the U.S. military would perform. These tasks were quietly assumed by the German military. Without this cooperation, our deployment to Iraq would have been much harder. They disagreed, but they were still friends and still fulfilled their end of the bargain we had made many years ago.
Blaine,
Because the standard given was that thousands of Americans died in Europe, so Europe owes us fealty. In fact, the Soviet Union lost over 8 million soldiers and 16 million civilians in the European theater, whereas the U.S. lost fewer than 300,000 in both theaters combined. [Wikipedia]
Further, the Soviet Union was at war with Germany six months before Pearl Harbor, so they fought longer, too.
So, they sacrificed over 80 times as many people as we did to win that war. Saying that Europe is free of Nazism more because of us than because of the Soviet Union has no basis in reality.
Of course, the Soviet occupation of central and eastern europe was disasterous, but Stalin did much more to destroy Hitler than we ever did.
If you’re talking about certain countries like France, Italy, and the low countries, then the U.S. (along with Australia, Canada, Britain, and others) deserves the credit. However, that’s a small part compared to what the Soviet Union did.
I don’t understand how Russia was the savior of Europe when 1 in 10 Russian peasant soldiers had rifles & the rest carried pitchforks.
Relevance?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 11:21 AMLawnboy
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom. But about the Soviet Union…
The Soviet Union indubitably lost 20-25 million people during the period, but most of those losses came as a result of communist atrocities before and during the war. In addition, the Soviet-Nazi pact made the war possible. They divided Poland and the Soviet Union kept its part after the war. In addition to conquering the Baltic States and carving off a slice of Finland. The Soviet communists achieved their political goals through the war they helped provoke and there is no indication that they felt the price in the blood of their own people was too high.
The U.S. could not have defeated Hitler without the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union could not have defeated Hitler without the U.S. We got the better deal. The U.S. paid more in supplies and materiel. The Soviets paid in blood. BUT there is no indication that the communist government had any sleepless nights about spilling blood. At least 10 million Soviets were dead before the first German divisions ever crossed the frontier.
The democracies faced a dilemma in the 1930s. Fascists and communists controlled most of the continent of Europe. Neither could be defeated without the help of the other. The Nazis turned out to be the more immediately dangerous of the evil regimes, but make no mistake that the Soviets were in the same league. We made a deal with the one devil to defeat the other. Russian and Soviet people endured and struggled heroically. Too bad their government was not worthy of its brave people.
Jack,
You’re right that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union (and others) were necessary to defeat Germany. You’re right that the U.S. used technology and industry to militarily defeat Germany, and the Soviet Union used humans as cannon fodder to grind out a victory of attrition.
You’re also right that the Soviet Union was a horrible devil. I have a Russian Studies minor and have studied this a lot. You’re absolutely right.
What I was objecting to was the American-centric and arrogant view that Europe owes the United States their lives! Thousands died at Normandy to save their butts from the Reich! America contributed to defeating Hitler, and victory probably wouldn’t have happened without America. However, the same could be said for the USSR, the UK, and probably a couple other countries. Many countries lost many more warfighters and civilians than the U.S. while working towards that victory. However, it seems only Americans expect all of Europe to feel the debt eternally.
Implicit in stivdi’s whine seems to be the idea that Europe should feel eternally grateful to us for what we did for them in history, ignoring what they did for us in history (founding our nation, the French declaring war on Britain to assist our independence, etc.) and ignoring the fact that we’re not the only ones who have done good things over time.
Because of this expectation of eternal gratitude, people like stivdi get huffy whenever Europeans have goals, desires, plans, and experiences different from ours. It’s as though Americans expect Europeans nations to be nothing more than satellite puppet states as a result of our liberating them 60 years ago. Well, we weren’t the only ones who liberated them, and liberating them so they can be our puppets is not a liberation.
Nice Python quote.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 01:18 PMActually, of the Allied nations I think we have more to thank the UK for than anyone else.
If they had quietly made a deal with Hitler in 1940/41, they could have kept their remaining empire and still been one of the most powerful nations on the planet. The US would never have joined the war against Germany, because there would have been no need or incentive to - they could have concentrated their might in the Pacific against the Japanese, and the world would be a very different place today. Instead, England chose to stand on principle. They effectively bankrupted themselves fighting the war and gave their position of international political preeminence to the US. We should be thanking them, not the other way around.
LawnBoy:
If the United States had been within range of Hitler’s V-1s, V-2s, or bombers, we would have taken a lot more casualties. As already discussed, many of the Russian dead were civilians. Don’t blame the US for fighting a smart war. Troop loses were bad enough, but it is true, the Russian peasants were cannon fodder. The relevance of the 1 in 10 soldiers was that Russia was so industrially backward; they did not have enough rifles. For every soldier who had a rifle, 9 more were without.
Mark:
Churchill stood alone. He was a lot like President Bush trying to explain to a bunch of democrats about the threat of the enemy. Don’t give too much credit to the British government. Give the credit to Churchill.
Don’t blame the US for fighting a smart war.
I never did. I’m not saying the U.S. didn’t do a good job. I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to expect Europeans today to see Americans as their sole liberators and become puppet states for us when many other countries sacrificed as much or more.
The Soviet Union, due to technology and bad governance, did not adequately supply its troops, leading to many more deaths than might have been necessary. That doesn’t mean that we can expect Europeans to never disagree with us.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 02:41 PMBlaine,
There were times and places where the Russian army was woefully under-equipped. At the beginning of their war they were also very poorly led. I would be interested in your source for the 1 in 10 with pitchforks number, however, since it does not correspond with what I have learned.
The Russians were not industrially backward. Some of the best equipment available to any nation in 1941 was Russian (e.g. the T-34) and it was available in relatively large numbers. They also increased their production levels at a rate unmatched by any country, while moving large amounts of their industrial capacity by rail to places out of reach of the Germans.
Regarding Churchill - I would really hesitate to compare Bush to him in any context.
Posted by: Mark at March 18, 2005 02:53 PMBlaine,
The war between the Soviet Union and Germany dwarfed the western front.
The scale of the conflict dwarfs all others in World War II. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had hundreds of divisions in action, while other theatres of the war measured their commitments in tens of divisions or less.[Wikipedia]
While the American effort was noble and important, and spending D-Day in Normandy is wonderful experience because of the true gratitude, it is inaccurate to claim that Europe owes the United States their lives. That’s what I’m commenting on, not saying that America didn’t do enough.
Further, your impression of Soviet fighting techniques is incomplete, as Mark noted.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 03:07 PMAfter this many years of Euro-American friendship, we don’t “owe” each other anything. After 60 years of marriage, who owes what. But as friends, we should cut each other a little slack once in a while.
In the interests of slack cutting, I think the Euros sometimes fail to understand (sometimes willfully) how much peace and security in their neighborhood is predicated on the willingness of the U.S. and the U.S. taxpayers to support the common defense. Their aversion to the use of force seems noble at times, but pacifism is at its base not a good basis for policy. They took too much from the lesson of the last war. The cat that sits on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again; but he will never sit on a cool one either. There are good reasons to fight and those that try too hard to avoid wars provoke them.
On the other hand, we Americans sometimes are too impatient. We roll up our sleeves to punish the evildoers a little too fast. We are used to solving problems. That is great for problems that can be solved. But some problems cannot be solved with today’s tools or under today’s conditions and some can’t be solved at all. Sometimes inaction is the proper course. We can call it watchful waiting, if we want.
It is good to remember what America did for the Europeans. Our main fight was with the Japanese. We had much less incentive to fight Nazi Germany. More important, however, was the economic support we gave the Europeans AFTER the war, not to mention the millitary umbrella we gave them during the Cold War. In return for this, they are going to every length to make us look like idiots.
While it is true that they don’t, and shouldn’t, be our puppets, they might be a little less vocal condemming all of our actions.
Posted by: Tim at March 18, 2005 04:39 PMAll this talk of what America did for Europe is selective memory. It was the ALLIED FORCES that won the war in Europe of which the US was a part. All of the allied forces gave their all including large numbers of lives compared to their populations to win that war.
The US can take most of the Credit for VJ Day, but not VE day. VE day was earned by a whole host of nations, Canadians, Australians, British, not to mention the freedom fighters and guerillas and underground networks of non-uniformed militas in territories under Nazi control, French, Czech, Polish, Italian, etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 18, 2005 04:49 PMDavid
I agree. To put in a plug for my home team, if counting the numbers of soldiers, Poland fielded the fourth largest army in the alliance, but they were spread among the other armies. They fought in some of the bloodiest engagements and took heavy casualties at places like Arnhem and Monte Casino, wearing on their uniforms an insignia that said “for your freedom and ours.”
The Warsaw uprising of 1944 changed the course of postwar history. It was the largest insurgent uprising of the war. Stalin held up the advance of the Red Army to allow the Nazis to wipe out the Polish home army. He thought it would take only a few days. The Poles held out for 63 days. Warsaw was utterly destroyed. The Nazis executed 65,000 civilians outright and the death toll reached the hundreds of thousands with collateral damage. The 63-day delay pushed the Red Army past the fall season and slowed their advance. Otherwise they may have met the Americans at the Rhine instead of the Elbe. Imagine how different the post war world might have been.
After all that heroism and effusion of blood, Poland still ended up behind the Iron Curtain.
Blaine
Yes I am ex-military. 20 years in the Navy. One year on a PBR in the Mekong Delta, the next 19 as a Hospital Corpsman. Served with the Marine Corps and Seabees. I am glad you thought my comments were true, I usually see things in black and white. Great American? There are alot of great Americans. Thank you for your compliment.
CPO
Posted by: stivdi at March 18, 2005 06:35 PMLawnBoy
Interesting Handle. First, America-centric is a focus on the ideals of being an American. Those ideals have never shifted and should not. The most elegant document ever written was produced by a group of intelligent men coming together to outline the most basic principals of how society could govern itself without the need of some guiding hand on the throne of England. They composed a document that would sustain a nation though events they could never dream of. The philosphy of a nation was setforth in clear terms for every man and woman who believed in being a part of this new nation. If I am “America-centric”, I am proud to be so.
Russians are not bad people. The socialist philosphy is a bad philosphy. In my estimation “nationalistic chest beating” is practiced by every nation. I am not ashamed of being proud of my nation.
As for Europe owing their existence to Russia in World War II, I disagree.
The Lend Lease Act of 11 March 1941 allocated 50 Billion dollars to “sell, transfer, exchange and lend equipment” to our allies against the Axis Powers. 38 countries, including Russia, benefited from our help. Naval Convoys unloaded thousands of tons of war goods in Russian ports to sustain their efforts to stop the Germans. Stalingrad is one example of how our “back door” help enabled the Russians to survive the onslaught. Of course the winter weather did not help the Germans either.
From my point of view, a large number of Europeans suffered under the thumb of the Russian occupation and the suffering continued until the “wall” came down.
American Pundit
The “big split” took place during the Clinton Administration, when doing nothing seemed to be better than speaking straight. It appears to me that this split is older than you suppose, going back into the 1960s, when John Kennedy told the Russians to get out of Cuba. Europe was outraged that “we” would put them in such peril. Of course they conveniently forgot about the armoured divisions stationed there to protect their front door. Can you imagine the cost to the American taxpayer to maintain a force large enough to slow down the opposing force stationed there? I suspect not.
American borders do have a genuine sacred character, there is nothing “imputed” about it. Every country considers it’s borders to be sacred. If they did not feel this way, why would they spend huge sums of capital to protect them and legislate policy regarding them?
The fact that Iraq was invaded is supported by the simple fact that it was a threat to other nations in that geographical area. Was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction and had the means to obtain them. If you think for one moment that Sadam was not smart enough to understand his position, then you are uninformed. A search of Syria would probably produce the WMDs the intelligence community believed were in Iraq. Perhaps Syria’s sudden cooperation regarding the pull out of troops is just a hint of Syria saving face.
9/11 changed the face of international politics forever. I will tell you this, if I had been Commander In Chief on that day, you certainly would not have been pleased with my active response.
Mark & Lawnboy:
I told you a few paragraphs back that I saw the movie.
Boy, you guys sure have a way of screwing things up. The only comparison I made between Churchill & Bush was the fact that both dealt with & overcame pacifists.
We were involved in more than Normandy. US troops also pushed north from Africa, Sicily, Italy into southern France.
Tim is correct. The US taxpayer spent millions to not only rebuild the infrastructure of Europe, but also to build bases & protect them. We sent thousands of troops to Europe for many years & these troops pumped millions more into their economies. At the same time, they stopped spending altogether on their own militaries & used their own money to create every socialist program imaginable. Are you going to tell me it was the Russians that were protecting the Europeans from the Soviet Union? Since you want to give the Russians so much credit.
When I was in the military & spent some time in Europe, the old ones that lived through the war would cry when they thanked us for the sacrifice our fathers made. I met a man from the Philippines a few years ago & as I was talking to him, he began to cry & thank us for what we did for them during the war. The problem is we have a younger generation in Europe like the younger generation of ingrates in this country today. A lot of talk with no understanding of the price that was paid.
Stivdi: Navy here too. I was on an LST 3 1/2 years , 1967 to 1970.
I am 1st generation American on my mother’s side. She lived through the V-1s, V-2s, & bombs. She lived in London. Those bombs blew many of my family up. My dad was US Navy station in London and was injured by a V-2. I know how the old ones felt about the US. I talked to them. They loved us, & were grateful for the sacrifice we made.
Blaine:
Nice to see you Shipmate!
Thanks for the years of service!! You are a patriot!
Eric
Posted by: stivdi at March 18, 2005 09:39 PMI would agree that Clinton is to blame for some of the fallout we have had with the Euros. We were drug into the Yugoslov war at the request of the Euros. Clinton never really forced the issue of the US being the “leader” of NATO. We were just one of the guys under his term. He sent MADalin HALFbright around the world for cheese and wine. He ran from Somolia with his tail between his legs and decided to shoot a few missiles into empty tents. He spent nearly 10 yrs looking the other way on Saddam as our Euro buddies profited from the scandal. So when little George shows up with his riding whip after 911 the euros got all upset. He was actually going to do something. He was flexing american muscle. He was asserting American leadership. The euros did not want any of that. How dare Natos and the UNs largest military power, monetary contributor and overall benefactor take a LEADERship role. We are supposed to fork over the money, shut up and be just one of the guys. Europe or France and Germany in particular are not our puppets and if they did not want in this war that is fine. However, they actively tried to obstruct us in this effort when a simple abstention would have done just fine and I DO believe they owed us that!
Such disagreements should have happened behind closed doors.
Also, let me echo stivdi in saying had I been Commander-in-Chief my response would not have been nearly as measured as Mr Bush’s and the world would have seen the full force of American military might. We are wasting blood and treasure in a war that will cost us our superpower and economic status while a still communist china and an ungrateful europe wait in the wings.
America-centric is a focus on the ideals of being an American.
That’s not what I meant when I used the term. I didn’t mean patriotism. I meant a patriotism or nationalism blind to the ideals and contributions of other nations.
As for Europe owing their existence to Russia in World War II, I disagree.
I didn’t claim that Europe owes their existence exclusively to Russia. However, the Russian military inflicted vastly more damage to the German military than did the militaries fighting on the Western front. Could Russia have done that without our assitance through the Lend Lease Act? Very possibly not. However, that doesn’t diminish the extreme contributions of the Soviet military and society.
Stalingrad is one example of how our “back door” help enabled the Russians to survive the onslaught.It’s also a great example of the significant sacrifice and contribution that a country other than the United States made towards defeating Germany.
From my point of view, a large number of Europeans suffered under the thumb of the Russian occupation and the suffering continued until the “wall” came down.I don’t disagree at all. However, the quote that started the flame war was focused on WWII. The problems created by Soviet occupation and the Cold War are a different matter. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 11:14 PM
We were involved in more than Normandy. US troops also pushed north from Africa, Sicily, Italy into southern France.
You’re right, and I said If you’re talking about certain countries like France, Italy, and the low countries, then the U.S. (along with Australia, Canada, Britain, and others) deserves the credit. There’s no argument on that.
Are you going to tell me it was the Russians that were protecting the Europeans from the Soviet Union? Since you want to give the Russians so much credit.That’s not what I’m saying. I’m talking about WWII, not what happened afterwards.
When I was in the military & spent some time in Europe, the old ones that lived through the war would cry when they thanked us for the sacrifice our fathers made.
In many parts of Europe, we were the liberators. In a larger part of Europe, other countries were. That’s all I’m saying.
I met a man from the Philippines a few years ago & as I was talking to him, he began to cry & thank us for what we did for them during the war.We did great work in both theaters, particularly in the Pacific theater. I’m not trying to impugn our contributions.
A lot of talk with no understanding of the price that was paid.
And I’m saying that there’s a lot of talk without understanding of the price that was paid by other countries, too.
There seem to be two issues raised from the initial comment. One issue is the idea that America deserves all credit for liberating Europe from Nazi Germany. While it’s true that we made great sacrifices and contributions, it’s not true that we did it alone. Russia, the UK, Canada, Australia, Polish fighters, and other deserve as much (and in some cases probably more) credit for what they did.
The second issue is an implication that Europe owes us something for the liberation. I’m curious what is thought to be owed. In my opinion, after 60 years of working together as friends and taking into account what we owe Europe for the very existance and history of our country, they owe us no more than we owe them. In addition, if they owe us anything, they owe the same to many other countries as well.
I told you a few paragraphs back that I saw the movie.To what are you referring here? Unless you’re quoting Elton John, I’m lost. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 11:24 PM
Jack,
I’m sorry to have gotten this thread on such a tangent. I really appreciate your article. I’m probably going to be moving to Germany in May for 4-10 months, so I’m sure I will have a lot more to contribute to the conversation as I experience living there.
I think what unites Europe is a common history of horror and war. The two great wars of the first half of the century inflicted unprecedented carnage. Then they were followed by almost a half century of living on a knife’s edge. The shared experience of the horror of war is what I think is driving them together.
Britain, Germany, France, and Austria have hundreds of years of antagonism against each other. They have decided that it is better to be united as friends than to risk another great war that could ruin everything they’ve built.
The Cold War provided a very interesting space for the relationships to be built. With the impending threat of Soviet invasion, the western nations had to find common cause under joint and American protection, or else risk annihilation. When the threat disappeared in the early 1990s, they realized that they had been working together as allies for too long and built economies that were too inderdependent to risk losing what they had built.
European integration is a process of progress and pain. I believe that it is best for European and American interests for it to continue, but you’re right that it is not built on ethnic or linguistic unity. It is built on economic unity and a shared sense that the alternative is far worse.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2005 11:37 PMI think this Euro-bashing is pointless and counter productive, especially in the context of today’s war on terrorism. I think the Euro-Bashing wasted our moral high-ground following 9/11. Truth is, these people are rather hesitant about wars, because their last century was filled with a number of apocalyptic wars. These people were getting hit by terrorism long before the 1993 WTC attack.
We should go about this like mature folks. We don’t need this B.S. about reprogramming the European states to do as they’re told.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2005 12:16 AMLawnboy
Have you lived in Europe before? You are going at the right time. May is beautiful there. My favorite time is June/July because I am very fond of the smell of the lindens. The subtle sweet smell stays with you forever after. Germany, like much of Europe, is a very pleasant place to visit. It is less of a good place to make a living if you are not already established and/or would like something independent. Beyond that, Europeans seem to have forgotten how to produce babies, so they are turning their schools into old folks homes. Whole sections of the continent feel like a big museum. At first it is very nice, but it is like living in Colonial Williamsburg. And European and Americans (speaking very generally) think differently.
Americans are pragmatists. I don’t mean that we just do what is expedient. I mean that we believe in something like the scientific method for determining truth. We judge by what something does and how it works and we don’t have much patience for convoluted explanations.
Europeans are more concerned with forms and ideals. They more often judge by what the person says his goals are. That is why communism and socialism have always been more successful in Europe. Communism is wonderful in some ideal, but doesn’t work at all in practice. Americans just see a history of abject failure. Europeans tend to focus on the fine “intentions”.
Our philosophies diverged around 1900. Most Europeans (if they know him at all) think people like William James are shallow and too interested in practical results. Most Americans don’t know much about people like James, Charles Pierce or John Dewey, but they live by their sorts of thinking. Few Americans know much about people like Jean-Paul Sartre, but no real American can tolerate the man’s thinking when he gets to know it. We still speak in some of the same terms, but we mean different things.
Of course I am exaggerating, but not much. Have fun in Europe. I will be interested in your impressions after you have been there more than a month.
I’ve never lived in Europe, but I’ve spent a lot of time travelling there. Actually, if you follow the link associated with my name, you’ll see many pictures from the many trips I’ve taken (click on the Pictures link).
I’m really looking forward to experiencing actual life there. I want to experience the frustration of not being able to buy exactly what I want in the store because my language skills aren’t up to it and have it really matter. Before, I’d be out of the city in less than a week, so I could always just wait to find it. Now, I’ll have to actually learn the language and the culture and the daily life, not just see the museums and drink the beer and wine. I’m looking forward to it.
I mean that we believe in something like the scientific method for determining truth.The debate in the middle column on evolution and creation brings some doubt to this idea :) Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2005 01:20 AM
Lawnboy:
I am not saying that Europe owed us anything except support. As stated earlier, they could have abstained or even dealt with these issues behind closed doors. No, they were trying to make a public statement & it wasn’t to support us. Madeline Albright, made the statement a few years ago & memory will not allow me to quote it exactly, but it went something like this; she did not believe we should be the world’s only superpower. When reading some of the opinions on this site, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that the left is embarrassed because we are a superpower. We should lay down everything we stand for & bow to the intellect of the socialists of old Europe. Of course this is the goal of socialism & communism, to take from the haves & distribute to the have nots. Jack is correct that it sounds good in principle, but is impossible in a capitalist society.
“I think what unites Europe is a common history of horror and war. The two great wars of the first half of the century inflicted unprecedented carnage.”
What unites Europe is a desire to become a “United States of Europe”. They want to equal us economically & militarily. The problem is, they don’t have the resources for either. Check out the unemployment figures in Europe. Much higher than ours.
I don’t believe anyone is telling Europe what to do. I personally don’t care what they do. They just don’t need to be obstructionists. Always on the wrong side of history. Although, some of the European press have jumped on the bandwagon now that democracy seems to be taking a foot hold in the Middle East.
The difference between the two continents is in the history. Europe was a bunch of tribes which eventually became nation states if you want to call them that.They fought and fought each other until there was some consolidation.
They can brag about diversity and multiculturalism all they want. It just means they never could get past their history and were forced to be the way they are.
The US, after destroying the Indian nations, has an entirely different backgound and path to the present.
Posted by: Dee Lee at March 19, 2005 06:42 PMI am not saying that Europe owed us anything except support…They just don�t need to be obstructionists.
Where’s the line? Do they owe us support of any action and position we take, even if it’s not in their best interests? Or if they think our position is morally and pragmatically wrong? If so, they are required to be puppet states.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2005 06:56 PMDon’t you think the downfall of terrorism is in all our best interests. The Brits, even under the leadership of a liberal, supported us. There has been enough evidence presented to know the UN, France, Germany, & Russia had their hands in the cookie jar. Millions in oil for food were lining their pockets. I believe that disqualifies them when it comes to making a judgment on why we were going to war. It’s for certain why they did not want us to go.
Posted by: Blaine at March 19, 2005 11:08 PMYes, the downfall of terrorism is a goal that all civilized countries share. However, that’s very different from agreement on how to achieve that goal. Conflating the goal and the means does nothing to advance towards the goal. Disparaging others because they disagree on means to the end is counter-productive.
Americans have also been implicated in Oil-for-Food. If you can disqualify the judgement of those entire countries and governments, then you have to disqualify the Bush administration, as well. That doesn’t make sense, does it?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2005 11:22 PMThis may be a little off the subject line, if so, I apologize beforehand. I come from a very strong military family and was an army brat growing up. All bull aside, every nation in the world owes some form of gratitude to the USA, in one form or another they have benefited from us. The USA has slowly let the very foundation this great country was built upon become eroded due in part of not wanting to OFFEND anyone, etc. What about the brave men and women who have given their lives and still do to allow people to freely speak their opinions, bad or good, about the USA. I think we are committing a grave injustice here. We allow people to choose their native tongue and WE have to peacefully coexist and change our phone systems and hire bilingual employees, etc. USA has become a welfare system for the world. They want to dog us out if we make a mistake, but look out if they need any help. We had better be right in the middle of it. This double standard must be truly exhausting to the powers that be. Try living in Germany for 3 yrs. and speak no German and see how you will be treated and how far you will get. I can promise you it won’t be good. No other country is so lenient and liberal in all facets of life like the USA. We are truly only hurting ourselves. We have and will make mistakes, no country is perfect. Whether you agree with the wars past and present, we must put first what is most important. Stivdi & Blaine, thank you for your service. It is great Americans like you who allowed us to talk about things like this freely.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
No other country is so lenient and liberal in all facets of life like the USA.
That’s just not true, but broad generalizations never are :)
From drugs in the Netherlands to homosexuality in Belgium to healthcare in Canada, there are many counter-examples.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 20, 2005 12:03 PMLawnboy
The U.S. is a continental sized country with a population approaching 300 million. We have the world’s biggest economy and have for a long time. We produce most of the world’s patents and noble prizewinners in the sciences. This is boasting I know, but I do it to make a point. We currently don’t have a peer competitor.
You can’t compare the U.S. as a whole to Holland, Belgium or Canada. The closest comparison the U.S. has today is with the EU as a whole. When you go to live in Europe, you will learn first hand about racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and hostility toward immigrants. The U.S. has nothing to be ashamed of in comparison. You may also be a little careful about the quality of your healthcare in various parts of the Union. I don’t say this to trash the Euros. I admire many things about Europe and the EU enterprise is a great step forward. But we can’t cherry pick comparisons. It is like taking one of our small and prosperous states and comparing it to the EU. I am sure Minnesota or Connecticut compare favorably to Holland or Belgium on most social indicators.
The Dutch experiment with drugs is not necessarily a success and they have been rethinking some of their “liberal” policies.
Jack,
I didn’t start the comparison. Stephanie said No other country is so lenient and liberal in all facets of life. She started the comparison, so take it up with her if you don’t like the U.S. compared to other countries. I was pointing out that it was inaccurate.
You’re right that our situation is different than the situations of other countries. Re-reading Stephanie’s comment, I’m now curious if she meant in the aggregate instead of in every individual category, as I first read it.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 20, 2005 12:37 PMI like to compare the U.S. to others, but we have to be careful to compare what is comparable.
Didn’t mean to seem to be on your case. I enjoy you comments. Refreshingly intelligent and thoughtful.
Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2005 12:52 PMJack,
No problem. I appreciate your comments and posts, too. Although I definitely wouldn’t fit in on the same side of Watchblog where you live, I think we could talk about these issues over a couple beers without coming to blows.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 20, 2005 01:22 PMQuoted from Jack:
When you go to live in Europe, you will learn first hand about racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and hostility toward immigrants.
Riiiiight. As opposed to the U.S. where you will learn first hand about racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, hostility toward immigrants, and homophobia. (Ok, maybe not anti-semitism so much anymore, but we used to!)
My point is that your list is pretty universal. Show me one country that you can’t slap a similar label on and I’ll show you a country I’m moving to.
Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2005 11:47 PMZeek
Yes. These things are universal. But it surprises some people to find it among the politically correct, liberal Euros. Many of them talk the talk so well that we can’t see the problem from across the Atlantic.
Posted by: jack at March 21, 2005 12:24 PMStephanie:
Thank you for your comments and for your dad’s service to our country as well. My wife & son followed me to several military bases & I know the great sacrifice that the families of military men make. I know all Americans have a degree of patriotism, but I believe those who have worn the uniform have a different perspective.
Blaine
Posted by: Blaine at March 22, 2005 07:57 AM
