[BasDirks]

The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.

[selfmodruntime]

This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany. They fought the hardest battles, lost the most soldiers, fought for the longer time and were first in Berlin.

The public just believes otherwise because of 70 years of US propaganda [1]. The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees of which we have to take care of and for which we are ridiculed by US politicians and their citizens alike.

[1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...

[StephenJGL]

Ahhh, hammer and anvil. The tools are different. They look different. The purpose and effect are different, but basically useless without the other in most circumstances.

The role of the US and Russia are inextricably linked at the end of WWII and to pretend either was irrelevant, or either "really did all the work", is to simply ignore history.

[adwn]

> [The soviets] lost the most soldiers [...]

To be fair, the major reasons for this were that the Russian military leadership was utterly incompetent during the earlier stages of the war [1], and that they suffered from a serious lack of equipment and material. "Number of casualties" and "years spent fighting" aren't good indicators of military effectiveness.

[1] That's what happens when you liquidate your military elite or put them into gulags because they are on the wrong side of your class war.

[BasDirks]

Without the soviets, the war would not have been won, but how about we celebrate and honor this without shitting on America?

[yyyk]

I suspect the OP feels the US saved them (also) from the Soviets, and that there was no need to replace one murderous ideology with another.

[smhost]

> The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees

Don't forget the military bases and the half-secret spy networks linked to terrorist attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

https://www.italy24news.com/local/143373.html

[mejutoco]

Unfortunately in these topics there are rarely saints on either side. While acknowledging its importance, one should not idealize the soviet liberation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_o...

[rasz]

Occupied, not liberated. Does this look like US propaganda to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

WW2 was started by Germany and USSR hand in hand.

'Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September'

[purple_ferret]

American Lend-Lease kept the Soviets afloat. Stalin couldn't even supply his own army with cars.

[weimerica]

> This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany.

You're responding to another human, such that its a locality sensitive sentiment. To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.

As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...

[eitland]

> As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...

At least it is sure that many of them wished the Americans had liberated them, not Soviet.

The USSR for all its achievements was a harsh place to be for everyone except the luckiest ones.

"In America there is huge differences between rich and poor - in USSR everyone is equally poor".

[rvense]

> To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.

While the Soviet Union obviously never fought in Western Europe, the article that the person you are replying to quotes numbers from right after the war, where the majority of French people said that the soviets were the ones who were the most responsible for the outcome of the war. And that does make sense, considering for how long they bore the brunt of Nazi aggression, and the number of casualties speak for themselves.

There is a comparison with now, where of course most people would give most of the credit to the Americans. I think a lot of people in Western Europe aren't aware what the costs of the War in Russia were.

[koonsolo]

The Taliban is absolute horrible. US tried to do a good thing here. For me this is a failure of the Afghan people who are not willing to fight for their rights, especially the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters.

At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).

[BasDirks]

A failure of the Afghan people! Hahaha, OK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And ah, okay, the war in Afghanistan was to liberate women? Meanwhile the US is in bed with the Saudi's.

[hintymad]

Exactly. Afghanistan people want Taliban, yet we're telling them no no no, you want our democracy. The US was "a nation of hypocrites", and still is.

[kazen44]

some people in afghanistan want the taliban yes,

the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.

[chewz]

The US approach will never work. It is just naive to think it will.

Chinese approach to radical islam will work. But West will never admit that.

Chinese see islam as totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with Chinese values and competing communist totalitarianism.

[kingofpandora]

How would you like a foreign power invading and running your country? You better believe a large part of the Taliban are fighting not out of religious conviction but essentially (Pashtun) nationalism.

[koonsolo]

US did it during WW2, and it seemed to work out fine.

Only thing is that when they left, we made sure the Nazi's didn't come back.

Right now they were training Afghans to have their own military, but it's all so corrupt that it is just an impossible task. Those who can will flee the country instead of fighting for it.

[emilsedgh]

You are assuming Taliban _left_, and Afghans are letting them come back.

Initially, Taliban offered surrender. US denied their terms. So they kept on fighting and rebuilding.

They took over the country in less than a month. They never left. They were always there.

[kingofpandora]

They are fighting for it. It's just hard to see from you perspective because they are fighting against who you want to win.

[koonsolo]

So how do you explain all the Afghan refugees right now? Seems like they all love the Taliban so much they want to get out as soon as possible.

[lobocinza]

The many that collaborated with the US forces in any way fear retaliations. And if history provide insight, heads might roll. Look at what happened with French woman that slept with germans after WW2. Life is harsh and injust by default.

[rualca]

I wholeheartedly agree, and the effect this has on the perceived military capability of the US in particular and NATO in general can't possibly be downplayed.

[supergirl]

US only implanted itself in europe. that was a genius move. to this day they have huge military bases there. USSR fought the decisive battles though. 80% of german war casualties where in the eastern front. US just swooped in and filled the power vacuum in western europe