Why do Europeans hate Americans so much?

[Fantomas]

How did paleoconservatism destroy Europe? Paleoconservatism is isolationist, the one thing that might have kept us out of the world wars - and would have if it hadn't been for the Zimmermann note and Japanese aggression. America was very opposed to both wars, which we saw as European infighting unworthy of our involvement - and that in spite of obvious genocidal goings-on in WWII. Heck, if our stupid rulers today had one eighth the evidence of genocide they had in the '40s, we'd be squandering our men and money right and left.

Interestingly, I view your WWII as a major moment in the destruction of America, so I could get testy myself. Had it not been for the ballooning of our government to fight that silly war (and the Depression as well, of course) and Europe's virtual implosion, America wouldn't have become the world hegemon that it is. Our law enforcement agencies wouldn't be pulling their dirty tricks, we wouldn't be flexing our waning strength at every opportunity, and we wouldn't have felt the need to enact the Marshall Plan, or whatever it is you think destroyed your war-ravaged continent.

No, i didn't say paleo-conservatism destroyed Europe. I said European "paleo-conservatism" blame America of destroying Europe. And they agreed with your isolationists, then and now, that US must stay away from wars. Japs were agreed with isolationists as well, thinking that US wasn't supposed to prevent them in their new Pacific empire building.

But isolationist vision was not the only option before war. Acccording to opinion polls there was almost consent of americans to help Allies in this conflict. Yes,not sending troops to the theatre of operations yet, but it is the steady path to the full participation in war.



And i really doubt that it's the result of geopolitical visions. Allies entry to WW2 in 1939 at all was rather due to abstract reason, moral choice and responsibility, than geopolitical ultimate purpose to destroy Reich finally. so American public opinion was a logical follow-up in the process

[Fantomas]

Yea the only reason why America was so prepared for WW2 was we were isolationist afterward we screwed the pooch and introduced way too many foreign concepts and ideas.

Remembering part in the WW1, tons of migrants and refugees and expansionist policy in Pacific, the word isolationism sounds here like a bad joke

[Fantomas]

He is a neocon... not a paleonconservative. Look up the differences between the two (and there are many as the two can't stand the sight or even the smell of each other).

He called himself so. And he's supporting isolationism. Isn't it traditional conservative characteristic? Neocons for active foreign policy

[Karol Klačansky]

I didnt say completely but the health craze didnt start in europe. The popularization of gyms and the culture of going to work out as a hobby which jogging is a part of started in the 80s in the U.S or was made wildly popular in the u.s. and then spread to the rest of the world with hollywood and especially with actions movies. Obviously sports existed in europe before and people did train things like martial arts etc but it was done by athletes or cult type followers not normal every day hobbyists as it was in the u.s.

And yea many of those diets are unhealthy but im talking about the attitude of being health conscious when eating and the start of different eating trends. This attitude also started in the 70s and 80s in the U.S and spread to the rest of the world and still exists in my opinion in a more extreme way in the u.s. I think many Europeans seem to forget that the media plays a crucial role in spreading ideas and with the exception of the UK to a certain extent, the US dominated the music and film industry, it does even until today but during the 80s even into the 90s it wasnt even comparable in much of europe. Besides, some metropolitan hubs in continental europe, the rest of the continent had much more of a village(esque) type of feel and wasnt nearly as modern as the U.S. This is also where much of the American superiority complex comes from, because the rest of the world to much of americans looked like an old world stuck in the past while the U.S was a completely modern country with a completely modern way of thinking and style. This has changed in the past 2 decades especially but im just explaining where this mindset comes from, and why until recently europe worshiped the U.S for much of the 20th century.

[Smitty]

No, i didn't say paleo-conservatism destroyed Europe. I said European "paleo-conservatism" blame America of destroying Europe.

Ah, I see.

And they agreed with your isolationists, then and now, that US must stay away from wars. Japs were agreed with isolationists as well, thinking that US wasn't supposed to prevent them in their new Pacific empire building.

But isolationist vision was not the only option before war. Acccording to opinion polls there was almost consent of americans to help Allies in this conflict. Yes,not sending troops to the theatre of operations yet, but it is the steady path to the full participation in war.

84% opposed to sending the military. That's pretty unequivocal to me. You can argue the slippery slope, but sending food and materiel is not the same. And even so, the latter was not supported by a huge majority. Furthermore, we let the war drag on for over two years before joining it and that only after thousands of our servicemen were brutally killed without call on our own soil. That slope must have had a very low grade.

And i really doubt that it's the result of geopolitical visions. Allies entry to WW2 in 1939 at all was rather due to abstract reason, moral choice and responsibility, than geopolitical ultimate purpose to destroy Reich finally. so American public opinion was a logical follow-up in the process

I'm not sure I agree. England and France had existential reasons to declare war. Russia most definitely didn't have any moral motivations. And America joined out of self-defense. Heck, even Germany had to declare war on us before we did on them. I don't see any altruistic motives on any side, but I'm open to an education.

[Fantomas]

84% opposed to sending the military. That's pretty unequivocal to me. You can argue the slippery slope, but sending food and materiel is not the same. And even so, the latter was not supported by a huge majority. Furthermore, we let the war drag on for over two years before joining it and that only after thousands of our servicemen were brutally killed without call on our own soil. That slope must have had a very low grade.

I'm not sure I agree. England and France had existential reasons to declare war. Russia most definitely didn't have any moral motivations. And America joined out of self-defense. Heck, even Germany had to declare war on us before we did on them. I don't see any altruistic motives on any side, but I'm open to an education.

Being practically a home front for Allies means to participate in war, people cannot fail to understand it, declaration of war become just a formality in this case. Sending troops to war is a last resort, there must be valid reasons for that and after June 1940 desire to intervene in war started to increase rapidly. And there's no reasons for Americans to help'em except some altruistic motives. I never believe that ordinary people support entry to war to become world's policeman or to build some new base somewhere in Japan or Iceland. Anyway majority of Americans 58-74% did not show passivity and isolationism already in Sep.1939
By the way, i'm sure most of ordinary peoples in France and UK did not support a real war in 1939 as well, furthemore Axis leaders strongly assured that they don't have pretensions beyond Western Wall, though elected governments of Allies decided to begin war, just because that was right. The same in US.

[Smitty]

Being practically a home front for Allies means to participate in war, people cannot fail to understand it, declaration of war become just a formality in this case. Sending troops to war is a last resort, there must be valid reasons for that and after June 1940 desire to intervene in war started to increase rapidly. And there's no reasons for Americans to help'em except some altruistic motives. I never believe that ordinary people support entry to war to become world's policeman or to build some new base somewhere in Japan or Iceland. Anyway majority of Americans 58-74% did not show passivity and isolationism already in Sep.1939
By the way, i'm sure most of ordinary peoples in France and UK did not support a real war in 1939 as well, furthemore Axis leaders strongly assured that they don't have pretensions beyond Western Wall, though elected governments of Allies decided to begin war, just because that was right. The same in US.

I looked it up. You're right that American public opinion shifted in those first years. It looks like the Battle of Britain was perhaps the catalyst. (Interestingly, France's defeat had no impact.) And that fits with your altruism argument. The polling I found is fairly open-ended, which makes it hard to judge exactly where people stood. But I think it's probable that Americans weren't fully committed until Pearl Harbor. They wanted to support England financially and materially, even at risk of joining the war, but it took something personal to actually join, and that is a meaningful distinction to me. But I'll admit it's not strict isolationism either.

[Fantomas]

I looked it up. You're right that American public opinion shifted in those first years. It looks like the Battle of Britain was perhaps the catalyst. (Interestingly, France's defeat had no impact.) And that fits with your altruism argument. The polling I found is fairly open-ended, which makes it hard to judge exactly where people stood. But I think it's probable that Americans weren't fully committed until Pearl Harbor. They wanted to support England financially and materially, even at risk of joining the war, but it took something personal to actually join, and that is a meaningful distinction to me. But I'll admit it's not strict isolationism either.

It's absolutely normal inherent dialectic and contradiction, declare the war is a too serious decision for people to categorically say yes, especially when it's not concerns their country directly, for the same time they're finding that something must be done to stop aggressor. Almost the same can be said of Western Allies a bit earlier, i can't rule out here traditional western national hatred toward 'Huns", but it's impossible to imagine that it could be the main reason for real war.
Seems like limited frames of 'Battle of Britain' don't explain growing shift toward help. Before April 1940 situation was not in favour of Reich, because Allies seemed much stronger and Reich was surrounded by real and possible enemies, but already in June 1940 context had changed dramatically, when almost whole of Europe was under different Nazi/Fascist regimes which got potential access to almost all of European resources and Britain became under siege


http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf

83% of Americans wanted Britain and France to win the war against Germany
In the same poll, taken at the beginning of the War in 1939, only 1% would admit to hoping for a German victory. It is of note that the proportion of Americans who did not express support for Britain - 17% - is very close to the percentage of the US population who were substantially of German origin, suggesting that even the dissenting minority was inspired as much by Teutonophilia as by Anglophobia
Initial opposition to American involvement stemmed from the experience of the First World War
Initially there had been a strong public consensus that aid to the Allies was unwise (with only 20% supporting this) and this was reflected in government policy. This reflected a massive interwar consensus against American involvement in all wars – and a belief that, as in the First World War, American aid risked dragging the United States into a huge war with disastrous results. The degree of general anti-war sentiment can be seen by the fact that in January 1939 only 43% of Americans wished to defend neighbouring Mexico and 27% Brazil from attack. Support for aid to Britain rose massively as the UK suffered devastating setbacks early in the war and after Norway, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Belgium and France fell to the Nazis. In June 1940, American opinion was split two-to-one in favour of staying out of the war even if it meant Britain losing. But by November 1940 a majority was in favour of aiding Britain even at the risk of war. By the summer of 1941, half of Americans rejected any negotiation with Germany (with 38% in support). This response suggests that much of the initial lack of support for risking war was based on the view that the Allies could win without American help. The American public consistently believed by margins of 20% or more that there would be a British victory, even during some of Britain’s darkest moments in the war - with the exception of a few months in mid 1940 when public opinion was evenly divided
https://americaintheworld.typepad.co...t-1.html#_ftn4

[Graham]

Thread turned to the wars, achh well that's the thread finished. Am Oot, bye bye

[Fantomas]

Thread turned to the wars, achh well that's the thread finished. Am Oot, bye bye

Wars is valid excuse and possibly the main reason to explain why some Europeans hate Americans so much