10 ms·

We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I

We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.

embedding-shape 10d ago
WW2 was long enough ago that no one you end up talking about it actually experienced it themselves, but it's recent enough that people who felt their country did "Good", can still ride that high wave without being pulled down by everything that came after.
- palata 10d ago
  What? My grandmother experienced it herself, she saw bombings.
  - embedding-shape 10d ago
    Right, I didn't mean "Everyone who was alive during WW2 is today dead", that's obviously not true, it was just 80 years ago or so. What I meant was that most people who discuss WW2 with others online, mostly talk from the perspective of not having experienced the war themselves, nor did the person who they speak to, most likely.
    - palata 10d ago
      I think it depends a lot on the country. If you go to countries that were invaded, people have been in contact with their grandparents. It's not "something that happened far away", it's "stories from family I've known". Of course in the US it's very different. That's possibly why Elon Musk can do Nazi salutes there and nothing happens. Of course not everybody cares: many people still buy Teslas in Europe. But I think the WW2 memory is not as far as you make it sound.
      - ciupicri 10d ago
        > US it's very different. That's possibly why Elon Musk can do Nazi salutes there and nothing happens. What should have happened? The US has put emphasis on freedom from its inception, although in practice it still had McCarthyism which to say at least, harrased communists.
        palata 10d ago
        > What should have happened? What do you mean? There are countries where one can go to jail for doing Nazi salutes. Just like in the US it is not tolerated to joke about shooting a kid at school (if you have seen the recent Snapchat story). What should have happened, if you ask me, is that a lot more people should have boycotted Tesla and his other companies.
        ciupicri 9d ago
        And there are countries where you can be sentenced to death for apostasy. Each country has its own laws, but if you personally don't like Elon's or Hitler's salute that's fine with fine. > in the US it is not tolerated to joke about shooting a kid at school (if you have seen the recent Snapchat story) I have no idea what are you talking about.
        palata 8d ago
        > Each country has its own laws That's exactly what I said to which you apparently opposed. It depends on the country. It's okay to do Nazi salutes in the US, it's not okay in Germany. > I have no idea what are you talking about. https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-snapchat-complaining-about-her-workday-an-hour-later-police-pulled-up-to-her-school https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-...
- cineticdaffodil 10d ago
  The good os also kind of is problematic. As in nazism was just a kind of hyper-imperialism by young countries to outrace other empires. And now 30 years after the "end of history" aka playing nice to bring down another empire, its back to the starting point.
0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
[flagged]
- Atariman 10d ago
  [flagged]
  - pjc50 10d ago
    Euromaidan was (a) good (b) organic (you cannot pay people enough to get shot in the street) and (c) to the extent that there was "US" sponsorship, it was mostly by the Open Society Foundation, which is run by a Hungarian Jew who fled the Nazis and therefore knows what oppression looks like, and has donated the majority of his fortune to the freedom of Eastern Europe. He's 96.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
    I doubt that. But there's a broader lesson here. Many critics of US foreign policy assume, without justification, that any US foreign policy involvement means the US is entirely to blame for any suboptimal outcome. Positive outcomes (for example, a long, unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in Europe) are conveniently excluded from the analysis. Of course, it's always possible to raise your expectations so that every outcome counts as "negative", so you always get a chance to blame the US. The Swiss are very clever. By staying quiet they avoid responsibility for anything or blame for anything. When the US stays neutral, we are told we are "complicit" or "abandoning allies".
- pjc50 10d ago
  Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it. Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
    "Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it." I didn't claim that Trump was reality-based. "Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means." It's a moral facade that allows them to dodge responsibility. The US has given far more than Switzerland, and also gets blamed far more, for not giving yet more. How does that make sense? As I said, the European worldview is not typically reality-based.
tedggh 10d ago
Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
- embedding-shape 10d ago
  Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral. I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?
  - watwut 10d ago
    There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little. And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter. Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
    - embedding-shape 10d ago
      > That does not make the comparison you made meaningful. Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss. > Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!
      - watwut 10d ago
philipallstar 10d ago
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you. This is a completely mad assessment. Haven't you noticed the massive issues with scientific, health, and social funding globally now the US taxpayer has stopped bankrolling it?
- noja 10d ago
  Bankrolling is an editorial word that implies almost a one way benefit.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
    Bailey: "Did you know that the US basically never does anything good for the world?" Motte: "Well when the US does something good for the world the US also benefits."
    - philipallstar 10d ago
      Yes, the world should get it for free, but that mean nothing because the US gets something back at all. It's mad. I'm not from the US, but it's obvious why cutting global funding was popular in the US.
  - jxntb73 10d ago
    All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us??
blitzar 10d ago
> funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2 Cut them some slack - its the last time they "won" a war.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
  When the US wins, it tends to be quick, clean, and easily forgotten. Consider our victories against ISIS, or against Saddam in the Gulf War. Both cases where an expansionist power violated territorial integrity norms by engaging in conquest, and was defeated by a US-led coalition.
  - disgruntledphd2 10d ago
    > against Saddam in the Gulf War I really hope you're referring to GW1, rather than 2. And yeah, if you weren't a Kurd who believed GW Bush, then that was a pretty effective war from the US (and global) perspective.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
      We won in Iraq 2 as well, and considering the fight against conventional Iraqi forces, they were quickly defeated.
      - disgruntledphd2 10d ago
        > We won in Iraq 2 as well, Only if you ignore the rise of ISIS and various militias, along with the collapse of Iraqi society (mind you, the sanctions had done a pretty good job of wrecking that before GW2 anyway).
        0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
        >the rise of ISIS and various militias Where is ISIS now? >the collapse of Iraqi society Iraq's human development index is currently higher than it's ever been. It has a fairly typical human development index for its region. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=line&country=~IRQ&mapSelect=~IRQ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?t... You guys will define "winning" so narrowly that if the Middle East continues to be volatile, that means the US must've lost. The type of victory that the US achieved in WW2 is an atypically high standard for "victory".
petesergeant 10d ago
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. As a non-Swiss, non-American, I can assure you you need to study both American and Swiss modern history. The Swiss were far, far too cozy with the Nazis, and the Americans have done a spectacular amount of good since WWII ended.
- palata 10d ago
  Genuinely interested: - Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Half of France was occupied for most of the war, after all. And enough people were collaborating. - Would you say that the UK was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They considered not fighting against them in the beginning. - Would you say that the US was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They didn't do anything for years, until Pearl Harbour, right? I think it's always more complicated than just blaming an entire country. I am not an expert in modern history, but my understanding is that Switzerland was entirely surrounded. I guess they did their best to avoid getting occupied? Certainly some assholes in Switzerland profited from the war, but that's true in many (most? all?) other countries.
  - petesergeant 10d ago
    > Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Vichy France? Yes, of course. It's taught to French school children as a deeply disgraceful chapter of French history, despite it being under significant pressure. The North was under military occupation, having put up a fight. Collaborationist politicians were put to death after the war. > the [UK/US] was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? ok bro.
    - palata 10d ago
      Well, "bro", I was trying to see what you consider "far, far too cozy". So apparently you consider that Switzerland was obviously just like Vichy France? At least obviously-enough to "ok bro" me?
- dh2022 10d ago
  Could you share some examples of Swiss being cozy with the Nazis? Wikipedia seems to make the counter case [0]. Switzerland did trade energy with Nazis - but they were dependent on Germany for their coal needs. Switzerland also kept the gold Nazis stuffed in their country-but that is OK I think for a neutral country. Switzerland let in their country (and thus saved the lives) of some Jewish people. They also hosted Allied airmen. They hosted the famous Lucy spy ring - which helped Russians incommensurably. To me it seems the Swiss helped the Allies more than can be expected from a neutral country, not to mention they were completely surrounded by Axis powers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I...
Cthulhu_ 10d ago
USAid did "good" for the world, but because people took it for granted and it wasn't in the news until it was stopped (which has cost lives).
- Theodores 10d ago
  [flagged]
  - Gud 10d ago
    You’re deluded.
    - Theodores 10d ago
      [flagged]
      - emj 10d ago
        You do not show much insider knowledge though. If you want to make a point do it, do not say things that will only evoke emotions.
      - throwawayqqq11 10d ago
        https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/how-many-kills-does-doge-have-how https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/how-many-kills-does-do... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b2dd7NFZg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b2dd7NFZg You are full of it.
  - lwkl 10d ago
    [flagged]
    - Theodores 10d ago
      [flagged]
      - 10d ago
bigDinosaur 10d ago
The US has been by far the largest funder of medical and other scientific research since WW2 which has benefited billions immensely.
- mordae 10d ago
  Sure. Even more so the handful of patent holders in the US. Want to ignore those patents? Unless you have nukes you're not.
  - deleted 10d ago
    [deleted]
  - NetMageSCW 10d ago
    Do EU countries not have patents for what they research? Are the people helped or cured less helped or cured because the developers retained rights?
  - 486sx33 10d ago
    [dead]
ImJamal 10d ago
I mean a few years after WW2 the US stopped the communists from taking over South Korea. Maybe that isn't good for the "world" but it was good for the millions of South Koreas.
chinathrow 10d ago
Neutral and lucky. Others (e.g. Belgium) not so much.

We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.

embedding-shape 10d ago

WW2 was long enough ago that no one you end up talking about it actually experienced it themselves, but it's recent enough that people who felt their country did "Good", can still ride that high wave without being pulled down by everything that came after.

palata 10d ago
What? My grandmother experienced it herself, she saw bombings.
- embedding-shape 10d ago
  Right, I didn't mean "Everyone who was alive during WW2 is today dead", that's obviously not true, it was just 80 years ago or so. What I meant was that most people who discuss WW2 with others online, mostly talk from the perspective of not having experienced the war themselves, nor did the person who they speak to, most likely.
  - palata 10d ago
    I think it depends a lot on the country. If you go to countries that were invaded, people have been in contact with their grandparents. It's not "something that happened far away", it's "stories from family I've known". Of course in the US it's very different. That's possibly why Elon Musk can do Nazi salutes there and nothing happens. Of course not everybody cares: many people still buy Teslas in Europe. But I think the WW2 memory is not as far as you make it sound.
    - ciupicri 10d ago
      > US it's very different. That's possibly why Elon Musk can do Nazi salutes there and nothing happens. What should have happened? The US has put emphasis on freedom from its inception, although in practice it still had McCarthyism which to say at least, harrased communists.
      - palata 10d ago
        > What should have happened? What do you mean? There are countries where one can go to jail for doing Nazi salutes. Just like in the US it is not tolerated to joke about shooting a kid at school (if you have seen the recent Snapchat story). What should have happened, if you ask me, is that a lot more people should have boycotted Tesla and his other companies.
        ciupicri 9d ago
        And there are countries where you can be sentenced to death for apostasy. Each country has its own laws, but if you personally don't like Elon's or Hitler's salute that's fine with fine. > in the US it is not tolerated to joke about shooting a kid at school (if you have seen the recent Snapchat story) I have no idea what are you talking about.
        palata 8d ago
        > Each country has its own laws That's exactly what I said to which you apparently opposed. It depends on the country. It's okay to do Nazi salutes in the US, it's not okay in Germany. > I have no idea what are you talking about. https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-snapchat-complaining-about-her-workday-an-hour-later-police-pulled-up-to-her-school https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-...
cineticdaffodil 10d ago
The good os also kind of is problematic. As in nazism was just a kind of hyper-imperialism by young countries to outrace other empires. And now 30 years after the "end of history" aka playing nice to bring down another empire, its back to the starting point.

0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago

[flagged]

Atariman 10d ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 10d ago
  Euromaidan was (a) good (b) organic (you cannot pay people enough to get shot in the street) and (c) to the extent that there was "US" sponsorship, it was mostly by the Open Society Foundation, which is run by a Hungarian Jew who fled the Nazis and therefore knows what oppression looks like, and has donated the majority of his fortune to the freedom of Eastern Europe. He's 96.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
  I doubt that. But there's a broader lesson here. Many critics of US foreign policy assume, without justification, that any US foreign policy involvement means the US is entirely to blame for any suboptimal outcome. Positive outcomes (for example, a long, unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in Europe) are conveniently excluded from the analysis. Of course, it's always possible to raise your expectations so that every outcome counts as "negative", so you always get a chance to blame the US. The Swiss are very clever. By staying quiet they avoid responsibility for anything or blame for anything. When the US stays neutral, we are told we are "complicit" or "abandoning allies".
pjc50 10d ago
Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it. Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
  "Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it." I didn't claim that Trump was reality-based. "Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means." It's a moral facade that allows them to dodge responsibility. The US has given far more than Switzerland, and also gets blamed far more, for not giving yet more. How does that make sense? As I said, the European worldview is not typically reality-based.

tedggh 10d ago

Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.

embedding-shape 10d ago
Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral. I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?
- watwut 10d ago
  There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little. And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter. Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
  - embedding-shape 10d ago
    > That does not make the comparison you made meaningful. Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss. > Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!
    - watwut 10d ago

philipallstar 10d ago

> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you. This is a completely mad assessment. Haven't you noticed the massive issues with scientific, health, and social funding globally now the US taxpayer has stopped bankrolling it?

noja 10d ago
Bankrolling is an editorial word that implies almost a one way benefit.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
  Bailey: "Did you know that the US basically never does anything good for the world?" Motte: "Well when the US does something good for the world the US also benefits."
  - philipallstar 10d ago
    Yes, the world should get it for free, but that mean nothing because the US gets something back at all. It's mad. I'm not from the US, but it's obvious why cutting global funding was popular in the US.
- jxntb73 10d ago
  All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us??

blitzar 10d ago

> funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2 Cut them some slack - its the last time they "won" a war.

0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
When the US wins, it tends to be quick, clean, and easily forgotten. Consider our victories against ISIS, or against Saddam in the Gulf War. Both cases where an expansionist power violated territorial integrity norms by engaging in conquest, and was defeated by a US-led coalition.
- disgruntledphd2 10d ago
  > against Saddam in the Gulf War I really hope you're referring to GW1, rather than 2. And yeah, if you weren't a Kurd who believed GW Bush, then that was a pretty effective war from the US (and global) perspective.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
    We won in Iraq 2 as well, and considering the fight against conventional Iraqi forces, they were quickly defeated.
    - disgruntledphd2 10d ago
      > We won in Iraq 2 as well, Only if you ignore the rise of ISIS and various militias, along with the collapse of Iraqi society (mind you, the sanctions had done a pretty good job of wrecking that before GW2 anyway).
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 10d ago
        >the rise of ISIS and various militias Where is ISIS now? >the collapse of Iraqi society Iraq's human development index is currently higher than it's ever been. It has a fairly typical human development index for its region. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=line&country=~IRQ&mapSelect=~IRQ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?t... You guys will define "winning" so narrowly that if the Middle East continues to be volatile, that means the US must've lost. The type of victory that the US achieved in WW2 is an atypically high standard for "victory".

petesergeant 10d ago

> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. As a non-Swiss, non-American, I can assure you you need to study both American and Swiss modern history. The Swiss were far, far too cozy with the Nazis, and the Americans have done a spectacular amount of good since WWII ended.

palata 10d ago
Genuinely interested: - Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Half of France was occupied for most of the war, after all. And enough people were collaborating. - Would you say that the UK was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They considered not fighting against them in the beginning. - Would you say that the US was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They didn't do anything for years, until Pearl Harbour, right? I think it's always more complicated than just blaming an entire country. I am not an expert in modern history, but my understanding is that Switzerland was entirely surrounded. I guess they did their best to avoid getting occupied? Certainly some assholes in Switzerland profited from the war, but that's true in many (most? all?) other countries.
- petesergeant 10d ago
  > Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Vichy France? Yes, of course. It's taught to French school children as a deeply disgraceful chapter of French history, despite it being under significant pressure. The North was under military occupation, having put up a fight. Collaborationist politicians were put to death after the war. > the [UK/US] was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? ok bro.
  - palata 10d ago
    Well, "bro", I was trying to see what you consider "far, far too cozy". So apparently you consider that Switzerland was obviously just like Vichy France? At least obviously-enough to "ok bro" me?
dh2022 10d ago
Could you share some examples of Swiss being cozy with the Nazis? Wikipedia seems to make the counter case [0]. Switzerland did trade energy with Nazis - but they were dependent on Germany for their coal needs. Switzerland also kept the gold Nazis stuffed in their country-but that is OK I think for a neutral country. Switzerland let in their country (and thus saved the lives) of some Jewish people. They also hosted Allied airmen. They hosted the famous Lucy spy ring - which helped Russians incommensurably. To me it seems the Swiss helped the Allies more than can be expected from a neutral country, not to mention they were completely surrounded by Axis powers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I...

Cthulhu_ 10d ago

USAid did "good" for the world, but because people took it for granted and it wasn't in the news until it was stopped (which has cost lives).

Theodores 10d ago
[flagged]
- Gud 10d ago
  You’re deluded.
  - Theodores 10d ago
    [flagged]
    - emj 10d ago
      You do not show much insider knowledge though. If you want to make a point do it, do not say things that will only evoke emotions.
    - throwawayqqq11 10d ago
      https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/how-many-kills-does-doge-have-how https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/how-many-kills-does-do... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b2dd7NFZg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b2dd7NFZg You are full of it.
- lwkl 10d ago
  [flagged]
  - Theodores 10d ago
    [flagged]
    - 10d ago

bigDinosaur 10d ago

The US has been by far the largest funder of medical and other scientific research since WW2 which has benefited billions immensely.

mordae 10d ago
Sure. Even more so the handful of patent holders in the US. Want to ignore those patents? Unless you have nukes you're not.
- deleted 10d ago
  [deleted]
- NetMageSCW 10d ago
  Do EU countries not have patents for what they research? Are the people helped or cured less helped or cured because the developers retained rights?
- 486sx33 10d ago
  [dead]

ImJamal 10d ago

I mean a few years after WW2 the US stopped the communists from taking over South Korea. Maybe that isn't good for the "world" but it was good for the millions of South Koreas.

chinathrow 10d ago

Neutral and lucky. Others (e.g. Belgium) not so much.