The US has navigated perhaps the most anti business regime in recent memory. Perhaps  the most radical  anti merger government ever. But four years later these are the results:

Nominal GDP capita

US $86000

Germany $55000

UK $52000

France $48000

Japan $33000

China $13000

R&D

US $839 billion

China $ 434 billion

Japan $ 166 billion

Germany $16 4 billion

Number of Tech companies>$ 1 billion in net income

US 48

Japan 8 

Eurozone 7

China 7

Productivity per worker

US  $171000

Taiwan  $154000

Germany $120000

China $ 47000

It’s a stunning set of statistics, showing the benefit of free capitalism. Europe is fading. China is trapped in the demise of government expenditure and an aging country. Even the most incompetent President in 50 years  couldn’t stop the great tech explosion.

But the bureaucrats in Brussels and the Chinese Communist Party have made it easy. 

But never wish for the EU to be dissolved because that is a fascist way to think.

It really is a crying shame because though they are doing well France and Germany should be doing a lot better than they are.

What I have found funny over the last few years is watching countries like Poland and Hungary flip EU leadership the bird.

Instead of being good little beggars and taking what they get, they stood on their morals and fought back against Brussels.

I love to see it.

Those who don’t learn from too much legislation are doomed to repeat too much legislation.

Europe just wanna to be good little soldiers and do as they're told.

Whether it's a throwback from developing under monarchies, I don't know.

As someone who is neither of those, I see modern Europeans as "get your head down and work" and Americans as "look up and fight".

Neither is a bad strategy, but one is certainly better than the other.

True capitalism is competition, not monopolies through acquisitions - competitors merging. 
The 3 economic states of capitalism are: Monopoly, Oligopoly, and Perfect Competition. 

Perfect competition or even an Oligopoly with up to 8 competitors with over 80% market share is better - at least from a Democratic and long-term perspective. 

America is ahead because of Big Tech Oligarchs, but centralisation of power and wealth does not work well for the long term. It is pushing backwards rather than forwards. California carries allot of the US output. 

Are you actually gonna compare QOL in Europe to that in the States?

You having a laugh?

Most European people live in small apartments and cramped houses. The Yanks have space, weather, variety, beaches with actual waves...

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that one.

ButtPlug, I have surfed in Europe - and the waves are better than in the US.
The East Coast of America has crap waves. The US West Coast is good - Southern California mostly- but it is not comparable to Portugal, Canary Islands, Ireland's West Coast or France.

"ButtPlug, I have surfed in Europe - and the waves are better than in the US."

As someone who is neither of those, I see modern Europeans as "get your head down and work" and Americans as "look up and fight".

European's work less than the Americans. Part of the reason why American's earn more. European's simply have a better work life balance than the yanks. Its the Europeans that look up and fight, that's why the average European worker has far more rights and protections than the American worker.

Rooinek, That is true, I did forget about Hawaii...

Although Hawaiians compete in the Surfing World Tours as Hawaiins- not Americans.
They even have a Hawaiian flag. 

‘Not obsessed with money over quality of life’. But you woke people keep on banging on about the misery of poverty. Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you a good Wagyu steak.

I tend to agree the ‘land of the free’ thing and American exceptionalism are a bit obnoxious.  But so is Aussie jingoism, I guess immigrants who find a country they can finally trust, tend to be a bit over the top.

If you look up and fight then why have you become so bad at brining new things to market? That yanks are trouncing Europe.

See the stats Moz provided.

I think Europeans are generally pretty jealous of the Yanks. They're bigger, stronger, richer...

I certainly noticed an unjustified dislike for Americans when I was in Europe. It always felt a little side and based in jealousy. No, I'm not saying that is everyone. But it was noticeable.

Are you actually gonna compare QOL in Europe to that in the States?

I'm not saying Europe doesn't have good QOL. I've been almost everywhere in Europe and lived there for ages.

I'm saying that the US is way out of your league.

...cos it is.

The Europeans pretend to be grateful to America for saving them twice….but a fair percentage just don’t like the Yanks. Which I have always found rather distasteful. What would have happened if Roosevelt hadn’t produced the Lend-Lease Act. Britain would likely have lost the war and real Nazis would have been walking down Piccadilly.

Europe is fading, their great companies aren’t keeping up. As somebody said recently it seems to be heading towards a fate as one big open air museum.

But you woke people keep on banging on about the misery of poverty. Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you a good Wagyu steak.

This whole woke/anti woke shit is an invention of the American right a bunch of angry old men yelling at clouds. The irony of saying European's are woke when its the American right who won't shut up about it and are desperate to export this war on wokeness around the world.

Of you look up and fight then why have you become so bad at brining new things to market? That yanks are trouncing Europe.

Because bringing new start up thing to market isn't the sole measure of continent's national character. Nor is wealth. I'm not saying that the EU is perfect and that everyone of its regulations is necessary or helpful and it could be part of the reason and that can be looked at. However at the same time the EU does actually significantly reduce red tape. Take trade. Before Brexit a UK exporter could load up a truck with goods for 5-6 countries and just do up one set of export documents before sending to the Netherlands. Now the same exporter has to deal with the custom regulations of 6 different countries, do up all the required documents and pay all the required fees. Its become an absolute nightmare for SME's in the UK.

I think Europeans are generally pretty jealous of the Yanks. They're bigger, stronger, richer...

I certainly noticed an unjustified dislike for Americans when I was in Europe. It always felt a little side and based in jealousy. No, I'm not saying that is everyone. But it was noticeable.

I think the dislike comes from how loud they are and how generally uniformed they are of things outside the US.

I'll give you two examples. On a bus trip home from Dublin few years back an America was onboard explaining how joining the US military was the best decision he ever made. He explained how before joining he lack confidence. He had a crush on this girl in his neighborhood but could never bring himself to ask her out. When he came back from his first tour, he went straight up to her door in his uniform, knocked and asked her out. She said yes and they have been a couple ever since.

In another example I was in a restaurant when an American explained his past sexual exploits including the time he did with a guy "just as an experiment".

Okay whats the problem with this you ask. Well here's the thing I wasn't having a conversation with these people. On the bus I was trying to sleep down the back but this f*cking moron who was half way up the bus 8 or 9 rows of seats wouldn't shut the fu*k up.  And in the restaurant I wasn't at that guys table, he placed himself at table in the middle of the restaurant and just obliviously blurted this crap out for everyone to here,  I remember looking round and seeing all the Irish people in the restaurant also looking round with a look of WTF on their face.

...amazing...

I'm not saying Europe doesn't have good QOL. I've been almost everywhere in Europe and lived there for ages.

I'm saying that the US is way out of your league.

...cos it is.

In your opinion. I wouldn't want to live in the states if you payed me. They can keep their chlorinated chicken and mass gun shootings.

The Europeans pretend to be grateful to America for saving them twice….but a fair percentage just don’t like the Yanks. Which I have always found rather distasteful.

Might have something to do with modern obnoxious right wing American's who didn't actually fight in World War 2 (and piss off with the glory hogging of World War 1, they came in at the end when the Germans where already on the verge of collapse.) keep bringing it up every time there is an disagreement between the US and Europe. These people who died fighting the Nazi's actually fought for freedom, there wasn't a condition attached saying well we will free you but from now on you have to agree with everything we do. Its actually distasteful for the modern generation to ride the coat tails of the people who actually fought in the conflict. Whether it be British, American or Russian bragging about we won the war, its all obnoxious stuff, when the correct thing to say is the Allies won the war.

What would have happened if Roosevelt hadn’t produced the Lend-Lease Act. Britain would likely have lost the war and real Nazis would have been walking down Piccadilly.

Britain would of survived, because Germany had no navy to challenge the UK. The war would have been decided by rival tyranny's on the eastern front. 

But how long are the yanks going keep bringing this up for? 

Do you remember the American vilification of France when it opposed the Iraq war. The pouring of French wine down the drain, french fries renamed freedom fries and calls that the French where ungrateful for World War 2. Well did the fact that France was saved by American (and others) during world war 2 change the fact that France's position on the Iraq war turned out to be completely justified?

Europe is fading, their great companies aren’t keeping up. As somebody said recently it seems to be heading towards a fate as one big open air museum.

A moment in time. Europe will bounce back. It always does. And our museums are the best.

Nonsense. America entered WW1 in April of 2017. The war ended in November in 2018. In March of 1918 Russia withdrew allowing Germany to send large troop increases to the West….offset by US troops.

This is what Chat says:

And here’s Chat on Lend-Lease:

It's difficult to say definitively whether Britain would have survived World War II without the Lend-Lease Act (1941), but it is clear that the initiative was critical to Britain's ability to sustain its war effort, particularly during the early and middle stages of the conflict. Here’s an analysis of the situation:

1. The Importance of Lend-Lease

The Lend-Lease program provided Britain (and later the Soviet Union and other Allied nations) with essential supplies, including food, fuel, vehicles, aircraft, ships, and ammunition. By the end of the war, the U.S. had delivered more than $31 billion worth of aid to Britain (equivalent to hundreds of billions in today’s dollars).

Key Contributions:

• War Materials: Lend-Lease provided vital military hardware, such as tanks, aircraft, and naval ships. For example, Britain received around 15,000 aircraft through the program, which bolstered the Royal Air Force.
• Economic Support: The British economy was heavily burdened by the war, and Lend-Lease helped offset the financial strain, allowing Britain to maintain its military and civilian needs.
• Food and Fuel: Supplies of food and oil were critical for both civilian morale and military operations. U.S. shipments helped Britain avoid severe shortages during the German U-boat blockade.

2. Britain's Situation Without Lend-Lease

Without Lend-Lease, Britain would have faced serious challenges:

• Economic Collapse: Britain had already depleted much of its gold reserves and foreign assets by 1941. Financing the war without American support would have been nearly impossible.
• Limited Resources: The British Isles were highly dependent on imports for food, fuel, and raw materials. The loss of Lend-Lease would have exacerbated shortages and potentially led to famine and diminished war production.
• Difficulty Sustaining the Fight: The ability to replace losses in aircraft, tanks, and ships was critical, especially during key battles like the Battle of the Atlantic. Without American aid, Britain's industrial capacity would likely have been overwhelmed.

3. Potential Outcomes Without Lend-Lease

• Survival in Isolation: Britain might have been able to hold out in isolation, especially given its successes in the Battle of Britain (1940) and its strong leadership under Winston Churchill. However, its ability to go on the offensive or effectively counter Axis powers would have been severely limited.
• Increased Pressure for Peace: Without adequate resources, Britain might have faced growing pressure to negotiate a peace settlement with Germany, potentially allowing the Axis to consolidate its power in Europe.
• Prolonged War: If Britain had survived without Lend-Lease, the war might have dragged on longer, with greater suffering and loss of life.

4. The Role of Other Factors

Lend-Lease was vital, but it was not the only factor in Britain's survival. Other critical elements included:

• Geography: Britain’s position as an island nation made it difficult for Germany to invade.
• Royal Navy: Control of the seas was a key advantage, enabling Britain to maintain supply lines (albeit under threat).
• Allied Contributions: The entry of the Soviet Union into the war in 1941 and the U.S. in 1941/42 helped shift the balance of power against the Axis.

Conclusion

While Britain might have survived World War II without the Lend-Lease initiative, its ability to resist Germany and contribute to the eventual Allied victory would have been significantly diminished. The program ensured that Britain could remain a formidable force in the war, maintain civilian morale, and prepare for eventual Allied offensives. Lend-Lease was a game-changer and a critical pillar of Britain's endurance and success.

So in both wars Chat’s vast resources feel that the USA made crucial contributions to winning the war. Certainly more commitment than Ireland’s men  who spent WW2 sitting on their  hands, but now apparently view Fascism as a major evil.

But go ahead despise the modern Yanks and belittle America’s contributions to WW1, nobody over here much cares what you  think.

Nonsense. America entered WW1 in April of 2017. The war ended in November in 2018. In March of 1918 Russia withdrew allowing Germany to send large troop increases to the West….offset by US troops.

Didn't realize World war 1 only ended 7 years ago. .America entered the war in April 1917 but it took time for them to build up their forces and take part in significant fighting.

The final German Offensive of the war the Spring Offensive on 1918 was a tactical success for the Germans but a strategic failure as the causalities it sustained during the offensive effectively rendered the German army spent as an offensive fighting force. Those causalities where overwhelmingly inflicted by the British and the French though American's played a role towards the end of the offensive.

At this point Germany was done. Yes the Americans played a role in the final offensive that won the war, the Hundred Day offensive fielding some 1.9 million men, but that's the same number as the British committed to the offensive and less than 2.25 million the French committed to the offensive.

But even without the hundred day offensive Germany was done, the Allied blockade had it on the verge of starvation and all its allies had collapsed.

While the Allies might have eventually won the war without U.S. involvement, American entry likely shortened the conflict and prevented a potential stalemate.

No one is saying they didn't play a significant role, but to claim they saved Europe in World War 1 is just obnoxious and ignorant of history.

And here’s Chat on Lend-Lease:

It's difficult to say definitively whether Britain would have survived World War II without the Lend-Lease Act (1941), but it is clear that the initiative was critical to Britain's ability to sustain its war effort, particularly during the early and middle stages of the conflict. Here’s an analysis of the situation:

Explain to me how Germany was going to force Britain to surrender with a navy that probably wasn't even a fifth as strong as the Royal Navy. The U-Boat arm didn't even close to strangling Britain out of the war. Without lend-lease Britain's African campaign would of been dead in the water but that wouldn't have been fatal to Britain. They certainly wouldn't have beaten Germany on their own. Its possible the British without lend lease have come to an arrangement with the Germans, but that would have left Britain and the British Empire intact.

So in both wars Chat’s vast resources feel that the USA made crucial contributions to winning the war

Chat GPT the lazy man's way of debating. I wasn't arguing that American's did not make a crucial contribution in world war 2.  I was saying the Germans were all but defeated by French and British in World War 1, by the time Americas took part in the fighting on a large scale. 

Certainly more commitment than Ireland’s men  who spent WW2 sitting on their  hands, but now apparently view Fascism as a major evil.

40,000 Irish deserted the Irish Army and joined the British army to fight the Germans. Our neutrality was clearly biased in the favor of the Allies.

But go ahead despise the modern Yanks and belittle America’s contributions to WW1, nobody over here much cares what you  think.

I wasn't the one belittling the French ,British, Italian, Russian and all the other nations that fought in it by claiming America saved Europe, after entering the war over 3 years after it started and mobilizing a force that would roughly amount to  just 1/8 of the total amount of forces the Allies/Entente did.

Its your attitude that's European's find so distasteful. Ignorant of history, unwarranted boasting, coat riding off of previous generations and a constant expectation that the rest of the world should be bending over back words to tell you how wonderful and great you are.

And no one in Europe cares much about your threads on how wonderful American capitalism is. We we will keep our health care system that doesn't cripple people with years of debt for people having the nerve to to have bad health or an accident.

So you are saying the German offensive was successful but couldn’t be sustained. But if the Allies had no Americans or American equipment, 4.6 million men vs 6.5 million men….they would still have won. That despite the fact they could make no progress against a German army with up to a million less troops before Russia fell.

WW2 is a more difficult calculus because Germany collapsed from the East and West. But the first period of the war saw the collapse of France and its European allies. Britain was saved by the channel, but clearly in grave difficulty until the convoy system from America was established. It was no offensive threat without America and D Day.

Could the Russians have pulled it off in a single front war? Perhaps, the battle of Kursk has always been viewed as a major victory. But by then the German  forces were much eroded, operating with excessively long supply lines.

How formidable are the Russians, the Ukraine paints a different picture.

These are imponderables. But suppose Russia defeated Germany by itself, what sort of Europe would have emerged. Surely something more like East Germany. Once again the American role was indispensible and continued to be through the whole Cold War.

What is Woke Culture?

Beginning in the 2010s, it came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBTQ rights.

Hess describes woke as "the inverse of 'politically correct' ... It means wanting to be considered correct, and wanting everyone to know just how correct you are". The impact of "woke" sentiment on society has been criticised from various perspectives.

So what is critcized about it 

In theory what is really the  polem wih Woke culture isrepresents extremism in politics,    There  has been vast changes in society iro  racial injustice and is supportd b y mst pople in th world iro racial injustice and LGBTG  rights and sexism and what has happened  is and was implmented without bein g Woked by various political groupings ove rte ast 50 yesrs without cusing societal destruction.

So what is now the situation with regard to Wpkism  and why is it destructive.    Firstly it deal with history, culture and religion.    So history must be destroyed and that is often though violence and destruction of historical objects  such as homes, monuments and even paintings "to "bring attentionto scocietal wrongs" of what happened centuries ago before implementation of democracy.   So that must be destroyed b extremism.

In the process vilence is Ok when it is used in a political context and that has appened in all countries - so it m ust etail destructin of DEMOCRACY andanybody that is desribed a bin g agaibnst destruction of DEMOCRACY by all means imaginable must be destroyed and is used to destroy family life where the State nmmust become the sole custodian  of human control.   In othe words the only people that is ccorrecct is pepe who oppose history and culture and it is fine to destro national symbols like flags and loyalty to countries.

If people believes in ideas that is not WOKE must be destroyed and in the process violence and wars are correct and justified.     In the case of religion oppession must be implemented and Christianity must be destroyed aince it repesents basicically support human rights and is opposd o destruction of values in life that developed into Democracy,    This aspect does not apply to all religions like Islam, Buddissm and other religious believes - it is aginst Christianity in countries,     When people are are religious there freedoms is to be destroyed a a first moe to a world where only the political correct are extreme leftist ideologies and all people against it must be destroyed.

The system was used to  introduce Cmmunist Reign in Russia and China in the 20th centiury and lead to extreme regimes that oppressed all human rights in the countries concerned.   The regime caused the state murdering 75 million people in China and 52 million people in the USSR of the people the State regarded as opposed to the regimes and all religionsere banned and anybody opposing the Government was unacceotable,   

What is now the case is excly what leads to destruction of any difference of opinions of people opposed to the leftist must be destroed by the State nd Governments must be destroyed and a single wold G overnment based on extreme leftist ideas must be destroyed by all means immaginable.    It is ued as an excuse to destro whatsoeve is against leftist extremism must be destroyed as it is against extremism and that applies to all people opposed  leftist extremism.  

A practicl example can be ound on this site.   Anybody oposed t exteme eftism i regarded as Fsscists and attacked by the leftist media and people.    Eveybod against pen border policies and loyal to their countries are enemies of te orld and must be wiped out by all means imaginable and that include by wars if necessaryand in the interess of leftist ideology,   Any opposition of the leftist ideology must be destroyed if needed by violent means 

In the USA violence is promoted by the emdia as happened in 2020 and is suppored by organiztions with no political beleives and it caused majr death and destruction and all ove he world promoted by leftist media and organizations - in Europe the extreme leftists support the war in Ukraine  and oppose solution of probems through negotiation.    In practical means it relates to extrme measure - even WW3  hat would advance ulte-leftist believss,    

In the media ironically owned by billionaires the Woke idea is promted for teh selfish easons of the billionaire owners o prmote leftist policies and in te USA billions were donated to undemine any opposition to their ideas,     So extremism is promoted in the emdia and used o influence people - without any ideas to develop real uman rights,    

In he meantime extreme leftist ideology is used by scupelus people to promote the wold of real oppression to anybody opposed to their policies aimed at dictaorial control and people are influenced into believing the idde of people who opposed their ideas.of ho to control the world.  

In ac there is no WOKISM in reality - it is means to destoy DEMOCRACY by leftist exteremism and the establish of  new WORLD ORDER by the ulltra leftists to comtrol  the DEMOCRACY  by propagating exremism to get and retain con trol of people by all means possible.     The saying ties in with the saying  - the road to hell is paved by good intentions  and what si really the case is that people basically have good intentions is used to destoy DEMOCRACY in the world by all mesns possible.

                       .    ,   .                                         .    

So you are saying the German offensive was successful but couldn’t be sustained. But if the Allies had no Americans or American equipment, 4.6 million men vs 6.5 million men….they would still have won. That despite the fact they could make no progress against a German army with up to a million less troops before Russia fell.

I said tactical success for the Germans as in that they gained ground but ultimately it was a strategic failure as the ground gained wasn't that important and it effectively marked the end of Germany's offensive capability.

On November 11th 1918 when the hundred day offensive ended and Germany surrender German manpower stood at 3,562,000

This was pitted against 2,559,000 French, 1.9 million British, 1.9 million American and 190,000 Belgium troops.

As you can see the German where outnumber by the French and British alone.

If you look at the causalities, the French sustained 531,000, the British sustained 412,000 and the Americans 127,000.

Not to belittle the American contribution because it was significant, but when you look at the force strength after the battle and the casualties sustained, the American force was the smallest of the 3 main Allied armies, accounting for less than a third of the force that partook in the battle. So to claim America saved Europe, is an unjustified boast.

And of course we haven't even mentioned the fact that America played a much smaller role n the defeat of Germany's world war I allies, in Austria Hungary,  the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, where it was the combined efforts of the European allies including Italy that resulted in their defeat. This is to say nothing of Russia's and Serbia's war efforts as although they were ultimately beaten, the very fact they were in the fight at the start ensured France did did not fall.

So no one is belittling America's contribution to that conflict, I simply have issues with unwarranted boasting.

WW2 is a more difficult calculus because Germany collapsed from the East and West. But the first period of the war saw the collapse of France and its European allies. Britain was saved by the channel, but clearly in grave difficulty until the convoy system from America was established. It was no offensive threat without America and D Day.

Yes they where saved by the channel. Just as it had saved them against Napoleon. It was an insurmountable barrier that Germany could not overcome without a surface navy to match defeat the Royal Navy. The German U-Boat campaign caused concerned but it was always a manageable situation for the British. The German's never intended to be at war with Britain at that point and had too few U-Boats. Yes you can argue no offensive threat and no D-Day, although the British did launch offensives in North Africa with by and large British equipment.

Could the Russians have pulled it off in a single front war? Perhaps, the battle of Kursk has always been viewed as a major victory. But by then the German  forces were much eroded, operating with excessively long supply lines.

A difficult question to answer. I think they probably could of won the war on their own, but at much greater cost and a lot slower. Its also equally possible that some sort of peace deal could have happened with the two sides fighting each other to a stand still. The Germans had already lost the war before Kursk, it was just a question of timing, and more recent analysis of the Battle of Kursk point out that it wasn't that a significant battle in world war with causalities being relatively small compared to other battles on the Eastern front. Supply lines where an issue throughout the campaign into Russia, if you think they where bad at Kursk can you image how much worse they would have been when they were considerable further east.

How formidable are the Russians, the Ukraine paints a different picture.

Whatever about lend-lease Russia could not have survived World War 2 without Ukraine. As for the modern conflict between the two, it really doesn't say much about how formidable the Russian's war during World War 2, there was almost 80 years between the two conflicts.

These are imponderables. But suppose Russia defeated Germany by itself, what sort of Europe would have emerged. Surely something more like East Germany. Once again the American role was indispensible and continued to be through the whole Cold War.

Yes it was indispensable in the Second World War and Europe ending up in a much better place for it. But again it was a combined effort of several major powers that contributed to the defeat of Axis. Whether it be an American, British or Russia person saying we won the war (and be we, the person saying it didn't actually partake in the war his grandfather  might have), it comes across as obnoxious not to the acknowledge the effort of the other other major Allies. Could America have defeated Germany on its own without Britain or Russia. Maybe but at the cost of millions more of its own soldiers lives.

Stav eeht do  yu mean by the follwoing :-

Whatever about lend-lease Russia could not have survived World War 2 without Ukraine. As for the modern conflict between the two, it really doesn't say much about how formidable the Russian's war during World War 2, there was almost 80 years between the two conflicts.

Can you please give your source in that regard.    Ukrine at the time did not consist of what today is Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea  until 1953 - when th e rea was incorporated into the Ukraine for political reasons = eg to incease the Rusian population to balance out the majority of Ukraineinas in the Ukraine Soviet Republic,

I am really interesed to find out how Ukraine  cmtributed to Russia during nd after   WW2.

So a fairly constructive debate. Aspects which weren’t necessarily top of mind include:

At the end of WW1……3,562,000 Germans faced 4,640,000 British, French and Belgium troops. Throw in the 1.9 million fresh American troops and you have a strong advantage. Enough you say for an Allied win without America. 

But here’s the thing. Without America those were the best manpower odds Germany had for much of the war. And even with that numerical superiority the Allies were locked in a years’ long stalemate. Here’s Chat:

In 1916, during World War I, the Western Front saw some of the largest and most grueling battles, including the Battle of Verdun and the Battle of the Somme. Here's an estimate of troop numbers for both sides on the Western Front during that year:

Allied Troops

The main Allied forces on the Western Front were primarily composed of French and British troops, with smaller contingents from other nations (e.g., Belgium).

• French Army: Approximately 2.5 million troops.
• British Army: Around 1.2–1.5 million troops. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was growing in size as more troops were recruited and trained following the introduction of conscription in 1916.
• Belgian Army: Approximately 200,000 troops.
• Total Allied Strength: ~3.9 to 4.2 million troops on the Western Front in 1916.

German Troops

The German Army maintained a significant presence on the Western Front to counter the Allied forces.

• German Army: Approximately 2.5–2.8 million troops on the Western Front in 1916. This included frontline units and reserves stationed in the rear for reinforcement.

Force Ratios and Dynamics

• The Allies generally had a numerical advantage on the Western Front, particularly in manpower reserves. However, this advantage was not overwhelming and was offset by the German Army’s extensive defensive fortifications and strategic use of resources.

………..

That Chat analysis of 2016 describes perhaps the biggest effort of the Allies to break the stalemate. It failed with horrendous loss of life. It took the 1.9 million fresh American troops to secure victory. These young men who were fighting and dying were defending European cities, not their own.

Next with breezy confidence you say the German Submarine offensive was a concern, but it was always manageable. That’s not the view of war historians. Here’s Chat’s summary of the situation:

Yes, American convoys played a critical role in Britain's survival during World War II, particularly in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the supply routes maintained by these convoys, Britain would likely have faced severe shortages of food, fuel, and war materials, which could have forced it out of the war. Here's an analysis of their importance:

1. The Importance of Convoys

Convoys were groups of merchant ships escorted by warships to protect them from German U-boats and other naval threats. The convoy system, supported by the United States before and after its official entry into the war, was vital to Britain's war effort.

Key Contributions:

• Sustaining the British Economy: Britain was heavily reliant on imports for food, fuel, and raw materials. Convoys ensured these supplies reached the British Isles despite German attempts to blockade them.
• Maintaining War Production: Supplies like steel, oil, and machinery allowed Britain to sustain its industrial war effort, producing weapons, aircraft, and ships.
• Supporting the Military: Convoys transported troops, vehicles, and other military equipment needed for Britain's defense and for launching offensives.

2. America's Role Before Entering the War

Before officially joining the war in December 1941, the United States supported Britain through initiatives like the Lend-Lease Act (1941) and the Destroyers for Bases Agreement (1940). American merchant ships and naval vessels were already aiding Britain's survival:

• Escorting Convoys: U.S. Navy ships began escorting convoys in the North Atlantic as part of the Neutrality Patrols.
• Material Support: Under Lend-Lease, the U.S. provided massive quantities of food, vehicles, aircraft, and war materials transported via convoys.

3. The Battle of the Atlantic

The Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) was a prolonged struggle between the Allies and Germany for control of the Atlantic shipping lanes. German U-boats sought to sink Allied merchant ships and sever Britain's supply lines.

Key Points:

• 1940–1941 Crisis: German U-boats sank ships faster than they could be replaced, threatening to strangle Britain's economy.
• U.S. Intervention: The U.S. effectively entered the Battle of the Atlantic before formally declaring war. American warships began protecting convoys and engaging German U-boats, reducing the pressure on British naval forces.
• Turning the Tide: By mid-1943, advances in tactics (e.g., convoy escorts, air patrols, and improved sonar) and technology (e.g., long-range aircraft, escort carriers, and breaking German codes) began to turn the tide in favor of the Allies.

4. Convoys' Role in Major Campaigns

American convoys were essential for supplying British and Allied forces in various campaigns:

• North Africa: Supplies for the British Eighth Army and Operation Torch relied on convoys.
• D-Day Invasion (1944): The buildup for Operation Overlord was supported by vast quantities of American supplies delivered across the Atlantic.
• Soviet Support: Arctic convoys transported critical supplies to the Soviet Union via Britain.

5. Would Britain Have Survived Without American Convoys?

Without American support, Britain would have faced severe difficulties:

• Starvation and Economic Collapse: German U-boats might have succeeded in cutting off essential imports, leading to famine and a collapse of the British war economy.
• Military Weakness: Britain would have struggled to maintain its military operations and defend itself from potential invasion.

While Britain demonstrated resilience during the early war years (e.g., during the Blitz and the Battle of Britain), American convoys were crucial for its long-term survival and ability to go on the offensive.

Conclusion

American convoys, both before and after the U.S. entered World War II, were instrumental in saving Britain. They ensured the steady flow of resources, strengthened the Allied war effort, and helped turn the tide in the Atlantic. Without this lifeline, Britain's ability to continue fighting and ultimately contribute to the defeat of the Axis powers would have been severely compromised.

……….

The key point, Germany was sinking shipping after than it could be replaced. Again the American support was essential.

And I’m not sure whether you are really accepting the reality of the war. Without America, Britain could never have re-entered Europe for years. France’s military was under German control. Germany might have faced insurrections but not serious military threats.

Whether D Day could have happened if there wasn’t an Eastern front is questionable. Likewise  Russia fighting on it’s own, without the Allied bombardment of German munitions plants and supply lines the mirror image of Germany’s, would have really struggled.

But if the Allies had provided air power and Russia the ground forces, it would have left Europe in Russia’s hands. D Day was the foundation of a free Europe and without America D Day was impossible.

At least recognize that. And I have lived in America for 50 years and I have never heard Americans bragging about winning the war. Go to a Marine dinner and the humility and sense of duty is palpable. Later wars like Vietnam and Iraq are far more top of mind and acknowledged as tactical mistakes.

Chat is a cesspool of liberal propaganda. Political liberalism is riddled with contradictions. Want a bit of fun? Ask chat about the contradiction of a slaver society like the US declaring the fact of not being held in slavery as a universal human right. Chat will get messed up hard so bad it may end apologizing for ridiculous answers;

That Chat analysis of 2016 describes perhaps the biggest effort of the Allies to break the stalemate. It failed with horrendous loss of life. It took the 1.9 million fresh American troops to secure victory. .

2016?

Your own rational undermines your argument. Say that American's were not involved in the Hundred Days offensive and that the Germans held out, they sustained less casualties and the British and French sustained more. Where would that have left the Germans? Even in a best case scenario they would have less manpower still than the British and the French on the Western front, they would have been no way strong enough to defeat Britain and France in their own offensive. And that's even excluding the troops Britain and France would have access too after they where freed up with the conclusion of the campaigns against the Ottoman's and Bulgaria. And we haven't even got to the Italians who after the defeat of Austria Hungary could of added millions of more men and even opened up a front from the South. Germany was on the verge of starvation and its allies had collapsed or where on the verge of collapse. How with a numerical inferiority where they going win the war from that point.

American convoys, both before and after the U.S. entered World War II, were instrumental in saving Britain. They ensured the steady flow of resources, strengthened the Allied war effort, and helped turn the tide in the Atlantic. Without this lifeline, Britain's ability to continue fighting and ultimately contribute to the defeat of the Axis powers would have been severely compromised.

These young men who were fighting and dying were defending European cities, not their own.

As I said no is disputing the contribution we made. Just disputing the boast that they saved Europe in WW1.

Yes, American convoys played a critical role in Britain's survival during World War II, particularly in the Battle of the Atlantic.

American convoys? You mean before American war, British convoys to and from America conducted by the British Merchant Navy massively augmented by Norway (who provided over 1,000 ships after the fall of Norway).

The Germans and Italians sank about 1,100 Merchant ships between 1939 and the end of 1941, so all that effort would have amounted to approximately eliminating maybe just a little over what the British got from Norway.

But there is also a great irony in calling them American convoys. Then America Admiral Ernest King who was in charge of the US Navy absolutely hated the British. The US navy having no experience of direct Naval warfare when Germany declared war on it was led by a man who refused to listen to British advice to implement a convoy system with American ships for several months which resulted in what the German U-Boat commanders called the second happy time and unnecessary losses among the American merchant ships.

The key point, Germany was sinking shipping after than it could be replaced. Again the American support was essential.

"Nonsense. America entered WW1 in April of 2017. The war ended in November in 2018."

World War 2 issues are dicussed above,   The two biggest mistake in the istory of mankind both involved n attack on Russia - the first one was made by Napoleon and he entered Rusia with 600 000 troops snd fled from ussia with 38 000 troops.

The second mistske was  made by Hitler  when he attacked the USSR,  He used appocimately 3 million troops and they could not capture St Petersburg and Moscow - but attacked Stalingrad - nowadays called Volvograd - using 220 000 soldiers and once conquered the Rusians counter-attacked the German forces and after the bloodiest battle 91 000 Germna troops surendered - it was the bloodiest battle in the history of mankind..   The German losses  amointed to 129 000 soldiers and the Russian losses werw 1 100 000 soldiers,   

After that the Germans started to retreat from Russia and lost a major part of theur army in the process,    

However, there was a meeting between  Roosecelr, Churxchill and Stalin where Stali took the other two on a dream ride,   It was agreed that the UDA would provide aid toRssia in the form odd armaments and theyt ussians would attack and take omtrol of central Europe - eg  Litaue, Lithuania, and  Estonia on the Baltic Coast as well as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria Yugoslavivia and Albania and East Germany durig the war - whuich ended up in the Cold War which lasted until 1991 when the Communist egime in Russia collapsed.   

There are two things that destroy armies invading Russia and those are the size of the county and the winter weather conditions.    In both cases the invading armiss did not have suitable clothing to counter the winter conditions and tens of thousands of soldiers died as a result.

The problem in both cases was that in WW2 the allies won the war and managed to lose the peace afterwards,   The Marshall Plan stopped further conquests by the Russians and helped with economic recovey in especially West Germany,    Why did I say the allies won the war  and lost the peace is that the main winner happened to be the USSR,    They occupied the makor part of  Europe and won proxy wars in China, North Korea where the war became deadlocked and Cuba and the USAalso lost the Vietnam Warr supported by the Chinese - as well as  Laos and Cambodia,  The British empire fell appat wihin 15 years fom the end of the war.   

The Secretary od State Kissinger said that USForeigb policies should center around keepn the USSR and China apart and stopped thm from necoming allies,    Thatideo collapsed under Obama ad now Biden and we ave now a combination of people who basically are inalliance against the USA  in the BRICS.    India has problems with China - but also with the leftist Biden regime and so has Indonesia,    Both are more allied to Trump than to Biden and the  pasceful settlement in Ukraine could again move Russoa to be nearer to Europe than to China/   Brazil is a lost case due to interfernce in their last election in Brazil where the Biden Asminstration helped the Commnist to win he election and Brazil is now closely allied to Cjna and helping China to spread its influence from Meico southwatd and on the South America continent,   

So the world situation is unstable and getting worse by the day and  an increasing numbe of World leaders are hoping that Trump would help to re-establsh stability on the world.and prevent the start of WW3,               .                              

Facts means nothing to the Rooinek idiot - the doos is to stupid to understand anything.   

Here’s your problem Anger:

ChatGPT Search doesn't rely on just one source of information. Instead, it pulls from lots of data sources to give you thorough, up-to-date answers: Web pages: It searches millions of web pages to find relevant information for your questions

…..

So when I ask a factual question and your answer differs from Chat, I’m inclined to believe Chat.

So once again, here are the points you are missing.. .Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire and Austria all sued for peace within 2 months of Germany doing so. They sued for peace over a year after America entered the war, when the momentum was swinging in the allies favor.

The same numerical advantage you believe would have been decisive wasn’t decisive until American men and material broke the stalemate.

Here’s Chat on whether the Allies could have won without American help…

Anger your claim that using Chat is the lazy man’s way of debating  demonstrates incredible ignorance and inability to move with the times. A few years ago fellows like you were insisting on going to the library rather than using the net.

"demonstrates incredible ignorance and inability to move with the times"

Lol..... it's a common occurance with him

Very liberal. Chat only represents bieases that exist on the internet as stated: it takes from accessible sources. Again, for people interested in chat, one funny way is to force it through the multiple contradictions conveyed by political liberalism. The thing is that chat is based on logics to generate answers and will sooner or later collapse. When properly achieved, chat will start to remind what it is, an AI generated by human beings and when pressed more, apologizes for liberal shortcomings. To be tried as it is very funny.

nger your claim that using Chat is the lazy man’s way of debating  demonstrates incredible ignorance and inability to move with the times. A few years ago fellows like you were insisting on going to the library rather than using the net.

Liberals and confusion. Chat is a generative AI, going to the library or searching the internet does not generate answers. People must still craft them. At the end of the day, when all sides use a generative AI, that's generative AI vs generative AI. People are depersonalized. Which does not matter in a liberal world since dehumanization is part of the liberalist project.

Stav

"The way this worded.  Its like Bulgaria, Ottoman and Austria-Hungary all so amazed by the mere presence of America in the war that they just gave up. Nothing about the fact there armies had all but been destroyed due to various defeats inflicted on them by the French, Serb, Brits and Italians. Nothing about the fact they were all rapidly loosing territory, for the Ottoman's Constantinople the capital was under threat itself."

The most famous abttle against Turkey during WW1 was at Gallipoli and the Turks destroy the attacking force which fled in disgrace.    

After the war ended the Brits occupied Istanbul fpor 3 years and then had to flee because Ataturk was leading the Turkish army and treated the British like shit,     Before that he mved the Trurkish capital to Ankara - the Brits fled from Istanbul in 1923.    I rankly do nt know what batle the Itlians French and Brits wone against Turkey - so enlighten us n twhat Baattls they wn against he Turks in  WW1 and at the same time tell us about the battle won by the Serbs in WW1 against the A ustrian-Hungarian Empire.   

By the way the real reason fro the start of WW1 was when the serbs murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand - the heir to the throne in Sarajevo - but I know the war actually strted when the A strian Army shelled Belgrade after the murder.

But what battless did the Serb's won against the Aus trian-Hubgary army?         .   .  

Anger your claim that using Chat is the lazy man’s way of debating  demonstrates incredible ignorance and inability to move with the times. A few years ago fellows like you were insisting on going to the library rather than using the net.

If searching the whole field, millions of pages,  versus going to a few of your favorite biased sources is lazy…give me lazy every time.

Mike that stuff is easy to look up. Look up the Serbian Campaign of 1914 and the various battle in the Middle East during WWI.

The battle of Cer is probably what you refer to and that was certainly not a major victory that influence any outcome of the War - a year later Serbia was verrun by the German and Austro- Hungarian Empire soldiers and the Serbian army retreated into Macedonia. In  WWI what happened in Cer was a minor skirmish  against outposts against the Cer Mountin.

Nothing really significant even remotely cmparable to the Battle of Gallipoli/    In any event in 1919 the Allies created an artificial country called Yoguslavia that was kept together  until 1940 when it broke up into various regions fighing against the Serbs and was artificially reorganized by Tito,   After his well-deserved death the whole strucure collapsed and Serbia has never forgiven the USA fo bombing for four days running Belgrade by means of air attacks,   Tragic history - but Belgrade - initialy rebuilt by Prince Eugene of Savoy - was and remains a beautiful city in the Austro-Hungarian style.

In the end Serbians hate the EU and he USA and sympathize with the Russians in the Ukraine War,     The future is unclear - but with the EU being controlled by Germany and the German Government in collapse,  I can see some move to get Ausria, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Serbia becomng a Federal State that will be strong enough to combine into a country that could defend themselves against any potential enemies over the enxt decade - individually they are defenseless and will be overrum by Turkey the day the latter decides to start expanding their influece in Kosovo and Albania., as well as Bosnia - the latte three being Muslim Countries.

       .                  .        

So Anger I believe you made the argument that Germany was outmanned by France and the UK before America arrived. That to demonstrate America wasn’t crucial? Bolstered by the higher casualty rate for French and British troops…implication they were more engaged.

The point is those numbers existed for much of the war….and before Russia capitulated, they were even more in the Allies favor. And no victory on the Western front.

The obvious change, just before the German’s broke, was the addition of 2 million American troops and massive armament. There were probably other factors, but that was that was the obvious one…physically and in terms of morale.

So when Americans say they won the war…..they don’t mean they did it by themselves, they mean they were the catalyst that finished it. I believe that, Chat believes that.

And no outcome without America’s involvement that I can imagine, looks nearly as good as the outcome that was achieved. So back to my original point Europe owns America a bit of gratitude and a bit less acrimony.

So Anger I believe you made the argument that Germany was outmanned by France and the UK before America arrived. That to demonstrate America wasn’t crucial? Bolstered by the higher casualty rate for French and British troops…implication they were more engaged.

The point is those numbers existed for much of the war….and before Russia capitulated, they were even more in the Allies favor. And no victory on the Western front.

They did exist for most of the war, its why Germany mostly sat on the defensive on the Western front throughout the war. The defending side takes typically takes less losses.

The point I'm making is when you say America saved Europe in World War I it implies Germany would of won without their intervention. You say the American's provided a crucial manpower advantage that was decisive. Yet how was Germany supposed to win the war from a numerical disadvantage? Yes Russia had been eliminated from the war, but so too had Germany's 3 allies. It would of fighting alone and the Allied blockade would of continued, with the German Navy bottled up in port.

The obvious change, just before the German’s broke, was the addition of 2 million American troops and massive armament. There were probably other factors, but that was that was the obvious one…physically and in terms of morale.

As I said you can remove the American's from the Hundred Offesnive but still the best case scenario has the German's losing some ground and somewhat improving their numerical disadvantage but still being at a disadvantage. Yes it buys them more time. But what happens when the British and French have hundreds of thousands more troops freed up from other fronts and they arrive on the western front. The Italians alone could probably have matched the numbers the Americans ended up deploying.

I'm sure American troops did play a big role in the Hundred Day offensive and they took an immense tole on the Germans both physically and mentally. No one is arguing America's involvement didn't shorten the war.

So when Americans say they won the war…..they don’t mean they did it by themselves, they mean they were the catalyst that finished it. I believe that, Chat believes that.

Well its utterly clumsy and distasteful to say it, just as it is to say that Europe was saved by the American's in World War I.

And no outcome without America’s involvement that I can imagine, looks nearly as good as the outcome that was achieved. 

Wasn't arguing that point. I was arguing against the claim that America saved Europe in World War I.

So back to my original point Europe owns America a bit of gratitude and a bit less acrimony.

Oh Europe does show America gratitude and honors those who fought for its liberation. Why do you think they have the various remembrance events like at Normandy.

But that doesn't mean we have to like or agree with everything America says. You have a made a fair few threads criticizing aspect of Europe. But when a European criticizes aspects of American life...oh but we saved  you during the war...why are you lot so ungrateful!

American's are at heart generally a good people, my father was a private tour guide for a number of years and most of his clients were American and the vast majority of the American's he meet he got on with extremely well and positive things to say about them. Absolutely sometimes American's are unfairly dunked on, but they do have a number of character traits that can at time's rankle European's.

Well wouldn’t large groups of Germans or Chinese or Frenchmen rankle airdropped into the local pub? I was playing the 18th hole at Pebble Beach once when a bus disgorged a Japanese touring party that charged onto the green. They didn’t know and after a moment’s irritation we all had a good laugh.

People are people, but I grant you Americans tend to speak too loud….America is a country that loves noise. A tractor reversing in the middle of a forest still has its annoying beeper going.

I’ve lived on three continents in four countries and I’ve spent a lot of time in many more…people tend to be the same. And in each country there are good people and shits. But cultures tend to be different and can easily clash.

You said:

ChatGPT said:

China’s not old enough? I’ve tried to help Chat with some of his/her/their/ misconceptions….but with limited success.

Steve Buscemi great in 'Boardwalk' & outstanding in the 'Fargo' movie (as was Macy)  in my top 10 US  movies.

Stav, your Sean's Bar sounds safe but I read somewhere how pubs throughout Ireland are closing down at a rapid rate . Sounds sad does that .

Stav, your Sean's Bar sounds safe but I read somewhere how pubs throughout Ireland are closing down at a rapid rate . Sounds sad does that .

Yeah Sean's is an absolute gold mine. When they had to close during Covid they spent a couple of hundred thousand renovating it.

Yeah there has been a steady decline in the number of pubs in Ireland for a good few years for a number of reasons. Changing in drinking habits is one. More people drinking at home. Alot of pubs that where just getting by and breaking even where pushed over the edge when Covid came along. Another is rural pubs in the country side struggled when Ireland started actually enforcing drink driving laws. During my fathers generation driving while pissed drunk was common, and the local police would just wave you on, that's change thankful. But it did make rural pubs that you had to drive to less viable. Cost of a taxi isn't cheap either.

Its not necessarily the worst thing in the world we have less pubs as you could argue we simply had too many and Irish society revolved around the pub too much. The town I grew up had a population of less than 3,000 but had something like 17-19 pubs at one point. I'd say now it has 4-5 now.

Having said that your still not going to struggle to find a pub in Ireland.