Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "The Infographics Show" channel.

  1. B... but... etiquette is not silly at all
    33
  2. Agreed, I've noticed a lot of fake smiles and friendliness in the US, as a European. It's so strange and feels so wrong, like someone is lying to your face. Just act like you genuinely want to!
    32
  3. C´mon, you have to admit Americans are generally pretty loud-talking people. It´s culture differences, nothing wrong with it
    30
  4. We have different cards in Europe, usually. Credit cards charge afterwards at the end of the month and the most used kind of card here just charges directly so you know how much you have left. I never understood the added value of credit cards. You have no idea how much you spent until the end of the month, it just makes no sense and is asking for trouble.
    29
  5. The last part is true for most countries. I think the reason is the difference in culture between US and European countries. In Europe, people generally looked up to nobles, royalty and such and because of this, etiquette is a fairly important part of culture in most European countries (and etiquette differs greatly within Europe, but in principle every country does have similar ones). In America, the middle class is more like "the thing to be", if you will, and I guess that´s why American culture is more centered around the normal individual rather than following posh rules. You never idolised kings and queens, you idolised the normal people, which is respectable. But as a European I still think etiquette and manners are important in societies. I think that the fact that Americans generally think of etiquette as less important and tend to follow it less created all this mocking of "rude" Americans
    22
  6. They can't fight, both cities are already warzones themselves
    21
  7. It is even more fake than soap operas, tbh
    21
  8. +Hybrid Theory I'll stay in Europe, thank you very much. You know, that place that is even more developed than you and with zero neighbourhoods you're likely to die in. That you have to compare to Africa says it all, really. I think it's funny how you never see a European say something as ignorant as "my country is full of glory" in a dead-serious way. It's obnoxious and is more telling of a superiority complex than anything. You're offended by not being in the top 20 so you start yelling about being superior. Typical.
    20
  9. +Hybrid Theory Hmm, I think the one that says "my country and all of its glory..." is the one that has a nerve hit. Got a bit of a superiority complex there with that overcompensation.
    19
  10. That is rude... ironic
    19
  11. There are multiple articles about Dutch, Swedish and German subs having managed to sink almost entire Carrier Strike Groups (sinking the super carrier itself plus several escort ships all while being actively hunted) in such training and getting away, all with just one sub. Those are easy to just google. And if those navies can, I'm sure the Royal Navy can too. As for the radar being better, the UK has had a significantly better radar than any other country since it was invented (radar for military use was invented by the UK) and it could be that they quite simply never lost their advantage. I believe that the new F35 II's electronics, including radar systems, are British made so that implies the Americans had a reason to outsource that to Britain. Especially since it's not something America likes to do without reason. While I don't know whether these specific stories about the UK always detecting the subs are true, it does sound plausible
    13
  12. Europeans know about important things happening all over the world, though. We know what happens in America just like we know what happens in our neighbouring countries. You can even see it in US vs European world news channels. On CNN they talk almost exclusively about things happening in America, with sometimes something international and call it "world news". When I watch something like BBC world news they actually talk about a range of things happening all over the world
    12
  13. Tell me why Europeans would wish to be American? We have: higher quality of life, much better governance, more money, a larger economy, better education (except universities, the USA has the best) and much more. You have... ? A big military?
    11
  14. Quality of life, lower. Western Europe is better. Like, objectively better, as shown in quality of life research and more. We're happier and have higher standards of life here and that's a stone cold fact. Sorry to burst you bubble, but it's true
    10
  15. I'm pretty sure he cherry picked the worst weight stats from the EU and several other things too. Also he mentioned plenty of things that the US does better than Europe, so don't get your knickers in a twist.
    10
  16. Fun fact: even after the taxes and usually lower income (US income is huge), most EU countries' citizens are richer than Americans at the end of the day. In income stats the US is the highest, but in wealth stats (as in how much money you keep after the bills. How much you own) the US is one of the lowest in the western world. This could be because of very high bills in the US but also due to something as simple as Americans liking to spend all their money.
    10
  17. I have never before heard anyone pronounce Celts as "selts"
    9
  18. so long story short I think it´s just Europeans being kind of snobbish, haha
    9
  19. Global power is not just about hard power, it's about soft power too. For example, if you need to get China to do something, who is more likely to get them to do it? The UK is a global power because it influences you when you do something together, it influences the EU (for now) when the EU decides on something and it influences a multitude of countries when it engages in talks with the G20 and such and because it generally has good relationships with countries that make those countries sympathetic to the UK's cause. The UK is a global power because its voice is heard everywhere and because it influences everyone in some way, and of course its vast number of alliances. Ask yourself, if things ever escalate between the UK and US, who will be more likely to build a big alliance? The UK will almost certainly have the entire EU backing it (in or out doesn't even matter much), if China had to choose between the US and EU they'd more likely pick the EU at this point, if Russia had to choose they'd more likely side with Europe, if all of the African countries had to choose they'd more likely side with the one who gave them by far the most foreign aid (EU), etc. etc. etc. And what countries could the US count on? South Korea and Japan? Even Canada is questionable at best The ability to build a strong alliance through soft power beats hard power. In a US vs the world scenario your hard power is useless. Hell, in an EU + Russia scenario alone your hard power is already useless. Hard power is something that needs to be combined with soft power if you want to be a true global power. Another example is Russia vs US. One on one you might say Russia's military is so powerful that they even have a chance against the US, but if you take soft power into account... the EU is highly likely to side with the US (at this point it's already RIP Russia), China is a lot more likely to side with the economies it's become dependent on than Russia, etc. etc. etc. And what does Russia have? Belarus and maybe a few countries like Kazachstan? Comparing power is not about hard power only. Hard power probably is even less important than the ability to draw countries to your side to form one big block of hard power. There is an official list of countries with the most soft power and countries like France and the UK are always on top. Why? They have a very strong diplomatic network and a lot of countries that would love to help them if they ever need to get something done. The US obviously also is strong on this list, but not above those two. Think of any possible country attacking the UK that is capable of surviving the following alliance of countries that is likely to side with the UK; there is none. It's always pretty much the world vs that one country
    6
  20. Well keeping your hand in your pocket nonchalantly while shaking the other hand with a world leader is pretty bad imo. It´s like the person who shakes hands doesn´t even care. Very very wrong
    6
  21. The Netherlands is a much better place to live than the US. Belgium is probably better too
    5
  22. America loses that HARD. They should do NATO vs the world, that one has a chance
    5
  23. Random Saitama Everything from eating with knife and fork to capitalism and socialism to the financial system we have today are European inventions. 81% of all significant scientific inventions are from Europe, at least if Wikipedia is to be believed. Almost everything, from the most basic things to some of the most impressive inventions/events in history, comes from Europe. Europe shaped the world into what it is today and continues to shape it
    5
  24. The stereotype is that Parisians are rude, not all French
    5
  25. MsJoshisfat That's what we're trying to do! But those pesky *insert country here* won't allow us to invade and rule them! On a serious note, humans can never be united under one government. We have our differences. The best we can do is unified continents à la EU and even that is difficult to achieve. A unified world is fantasy. And as long as incompetent governments exist, so will starvation. We already help Africa a lot, be it with food or money. Their governments are too incompetent to create self-sustaining countries. It's a continent riddled with corruption and greed. A lot are starving, but it isn't for lack of trying to save them from it. The only way to fully see through that their countries are run properly would be to bring back colonialism...
    5
  26. Not really... The Nazis attempted to EXTERMINATE AN ENTIRE RACE FOR NO APPARENT REASON. The British let millions die because of bad management. Both are responsible for millions of deaths, but the one that tried to put an entire race in concentration camps to systematically murder them is obviously a lot worse
    5
  27. The Roman empire is pretty much the basis for all of European civilisation, which today is by far the most dominant one in the world. The British empire brought industrialisation to this civilisation, essentially creating the modern world we have today. In my opinion, the basis of European civilisation is more impressive than a very important improvement upon European civilisation. After all, where would we (including the British empire itself) be without the basis?
    4
  28. Yet America has lower quality of life than most of Western Europe, some Asian countries, Australia, Canada... Sure we´re all jealous of people who have lower quality of life...
    4
  29. America is the greatest country in the world! has lower quality of life than western Europe, much less working rights, a less healthy population, no proper social security and a ridiculous amount of shootings and deaths in cities like Detroit and Chicago
    3
  30. At this point, yes.... because the 2nd amendment gave guns to the criminals and it'd be too difficult to take them back again...
    3
  31. I'm not British, I'm Dutch. But it makes sense for me to mention soft power's importance because it's the EU's main focus. Anyway, soft power is hugely important and shouldn't be forgotten. Especially in everyday situations, soft power is a lot more useful. This is no longer a world of empires that use hard power to expand their influence, this is the world of using soft power to get others to do what you want them to and to get others to follow your agenda. Let's look at the Iran deal, for example. Why is it that when talks came to a conclusion, the big news was announced in a joint press conference by the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister despite the US and other major powers being part of the talks? Why is it that this year, it was the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister that were nominated for a nobel prize for their role in the Iran deal and not anyone from the US? Because the EU shaped that deal. The EU got iran, Russia, China and the US to agree on that deal. The EU acted as a mediator between the world and Iran. Even the US was influenced into doing what the EU wanted them to do in that deal, even though Iran is just about their arch enemy. That is real power, not having a bunch of tanks that you can't realistically use against anything other than some 3rd world country. Even Syria's soft power could counter America's attempts at regime change by bringing in Russia. America's hard power has been made useless by Syria's soft power. As soon as Russia was present in Syria, the US using hard power against Syria was already no option anymore.
    3
  32. Wow, an American that is proud of her own country WITHOUT looking down on others. Not all seem to understand that those two don't have to go together
    3
  33. +dr mandora Re-read my comment. It was positive towards her. She loves her country but at the same time realises that this doesn't have to go paired with hatred for and/or feelings of superiority over other countries. That is a good thing
    3
  34. Yeah that was such a rude thing to do lol
    3
  35. It´s illogical. Waiters have irregular income because of it and in my opinion it´s insulting, but that is of course just because of me being European
    3
  36. Wow, so the Scottish have conquered themselves? They are Brits too, y´know...
    3
  37. +AC.507 N True. For like 80% of the war, the US was either not present or a minor contribution to the war effort in Europe. North Africa saw 36.000 dead British (not even Commonwealth, just UK), 16.000 dead French resistance and 2.700 dead Americans for example. Even a resistance force did more than the US professional army in North Africa, significantly more. In Italy, US forces made up a little more than one fourth of the total forces. British Commonwealth forces made up roughly three fourth, the Poles were there too as well as other Europeans. Poland alone was about half the size of the US presence, despite being just a resistance force at that point. The truth is that until D-day, America was one of the minor armies that supported the British Commonwealth, comparable to Poland. After D-day, the Americans came in numbers and were part of the main force. They had roughly 3 million men all over Europe in april 1945, the British Commonwealth roughly 1.1 million in North-West Europe only. In Italy there were roughly 1.3 million men by then, of which the grand majority were British Commonwealth. So let's say about 3.4-3.5 million Americans overall and 2 million British overall. This includes Americans stationed in Britain btw (doing nothing), but excludes British military stationed in Britain (also doing nothing). So 3.4 million Americans stationed in Europe, fighting or not fighting. 2 million British Commonwealth fighting at the front. Not the huge difference people like to imply it was, even if we assume 100% of the stationed Americans actually fought (which they didn't). And if you count the French, which had 1 million men fighitng again in 1945... The British military alone did WAY more fighting in Europe than the US, let alone all European allies combined. The US, in turn, did more in the Pacific
    3
  38. Ahaha so many poeple trying to come up with excuses
    3
  39.  @blackbirdfrost  Russia is geographically, culturally, historically and ethnically European. It;s absolutely ridiculous to call them non-European. They are Slavic people that conquered parts of Asia.
    3
  40. +GamingLegendary Hurr durr, when America does something positive it's Americans and when it does something negative the European settlers did it. Part of the reason for the revolution was to expand westwards, which the British did not want to do.... Europeans never genocided native populations like the US did AFTER the revolution. Europeans set up trading stations and conquered part of the land and traded with native populations. Yes, with a lot of violence and cruelty, but no not with all out genocide. Later on, Europeans took control of full countries too and ruled over native populations, but again not with genocide. What America did was murder all of them and replace them as the main inhabitant of that land. The ONLY European territory where settling could arguably be called genocidal is Canada, and generally people do NOT refer to what happened there as genocide. What the Canadians did was force native children into education so they would grow up as part of western civilisation. Some call this cultural genocide (they educated the children, but in doing so also caused their own culture to die out). This is the closest any European territory came to genocide. YOU wiped the native Americans out, not "European settlers". YOU wanted to expand westwards and even fought against your European leadership to be able to do so. Britain wanted to keep the coastal areas trade with inland natives, YOU wanted absolute destruction and full control.
    3
  41. I hope India will develop its economy and increase living standards when they're a superpower, instead of wasting money on military like the US
    2
  42. Ross Penny Exactly. The EU spends 90 billion of the total worldwide 130 billion foreign aid budget, the US spends 30 bn. China doesn't hand out the money for free but rather loans it to those countries for a profit, and I'm sure that's billions as well. Especially the foreign aid is useful, as it's a yearly fee those countries get for free and in principle whoever gives it is free to stop it at any time. The EU is currently using this power to make African countries enter into deals with the EU to keep migrants from coming, for example. These are deals that these countries actually don't want to engage in, but if they don't the EU will cut their foreign aid. This is how power is projected nowadays, not by military means. And if we're to measure soft power, the EU would be first place, the US second place and China probably third place. Those three countries/unions have immense power to make others follow their agenda, including world powers
    2
  43. It isn´t annoying at all. The only rule about kissing in public is that you should not go too far (full-on tongue kissing for prolonged periods of time, etc.). A normal kiss or a bit more is just fine and in no way disturbing to those around you
    2
  44. No you weren't.... nor was the US navy even the strongest navy at the time.... wow
    2
  45. LPforFun I meant the Royal Navy
    2
  46. +John Santola Firstly, I'm not British. Secondly, the US has today the biggest navy in the world, if you don't count the EU. In the past, this was very different and the UK was known to have the biggest. Just pointing out someone's mistake. That guy literally said the US was the only one to have aircraft carriers in WW2, I mean come on...
    2
  47. American independence, 14 July 1815. Napoleon rode atop a unicorn accross the atlantic to help the US kick out Britain
    2
  48. Which is pretty funny since the EU has a higher GDP than the US
    2
  49. No.
    2
  50. +Tengo Tapwater You are not the only ones to be proud of or brag about your country, but you ARE the only ones to literally think you are the best of the world and put other countries down! Normal people are just proud and don't feel the need to develop a superiority complex with it... That is the main problem with Americans in general. And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I have family in the US and I've been there plenty of times. My personal experiences confirm some of the stereotypes. It's the only place I ever actually heard a real life person say their country is the best in the world.
    2
  51. +Warlord25100 I have insurance too, but I can't pay for it because I'm a poor student right now. You know who pays it? My society. We care for eachother, we look out for eachother. I had my wisdom teeth pulled a moth or two ago and guess what? I'm don't have a 5000 euro debt from one dentist visit, nor did I have any reason to skip dentist visits like a lot of destitute Americans do. It's because we care about eachother here. When I'm done with my law study and go to work, I get to pay taxes to help others in my society too. But helping one another is not something you would understand, it's founded in thousands of years of shared history, all the way back to us being barbaric tribes. Not something you have with other Americans, living in a melting pot, so I suppose you feel no connection or sympathy whatsoever for eachother there
    2
  52. The British invented computers, the US just built one. But yeah, if you take Europe and North America alone we are responsible for 97% of the world's scientific accomplishments. Quite bizarre if you think about it
    2
  53. Sure, but the UK and France dividing the Middle East amongst themselves didn´t cause terrorism. Terrorism is not created by that, but by American interventionalism. America invaded countries like Iraq and governed is terribly, making horrible decisions such as firing all military personel, who now are often found in ISIS. The UK invaded countries like Iraq too, but didn´t govern it even close to how horrible the US did
    2
  54. Exactly. America tortures people, holds people prisoner without trial, has a horrible election system (it's possible to win with less votes than your opponent...) and only two parties to choose from. America is barely worthy to be called a western country, because they've shown complete disregard for EVERY principle the west is supposed to stand for. If you want to see what western countries are supposed to be like, look at Europe, Canada and Australia, NOT America
    1
  55. Nonsense. If the entire world acquires military presence in South America and Canada and subsequently invades, the US is done for (nukes not considered, because any country that has nukes is strictly speaking impossible to invade). Nobody can take on the world. Even a US-Russian war would see both sides having a chance at winning (even if the odds favour the US, victory is not a given), let alone the EU, China, etc. against the US.
    1
  56. We have more and better rights than you under the European Convention of Human Rights and more (privacy much better protected, right to a fair trial much better protected, no "exceptions" to the right to live as there is in America, and many other things). We don't have a 2nd amendment but all across Europe you can buy guns, the only difference is that you need a licence (which you get if you're 18+, mentally stable and acquire some experience in a shooting range, or if you study to become a hunter). Most farmers have rifles here too, for example, but guns aren't popular amongst people who don;t need them for anything. Your income tax rate is low (and income itself high), but in terms of wealth you stand low compared to other western countries. So a lot of the western world is richer anyway at the end of the day (high bills in America?). I live in a European country with privatised health care, so there's that. And a socialised health care system isn't by definition slow. That the one in Canada has that particular problem doesn't mean elsewhere in the world this problem isn't fixed. But I don't know enough about the waiting times to actually compare them with the US. And you ARE flooded by refugees. More than Europe, in fact. 11 million illegals and counting, with the government being clueless on where they are and are incompetent in stopping them from coming (best "solution" yet, build a wall and have Mexico pay lol). That on a population of 300 million. In the EU, 2.5 million refugees came on a population of 500 million, and ALL of those have given finger prints and have been photographed upon arrival so they're in our system. Unlike the US, we know who they are and also where they live (we obviously provided that for them so we'd know). Moreover, the refugee stream from the ME has already been stopped by the EU with the Turkey deal. The EU stopped it within months, the US... like 20 years and counting lol
    1
  57. Hmm, I wonder who lead the EU... oh wait, it's the bloody member states themselves, smartass. Member states bully themselves by voting for laws that are bad to themselves or by forming demands that annoy themselves? Seriously dude...
    1
  58. I´m a man and I weigh the same as the average US woman lol
    1
  59. Sure, buddy
    1
  60. Well, four or so wars led to the Dutch invading Britain and installing him as king, so yeah. And even when we were friendly, our empires still competed, with or without wars
    1
  61. And how much is total defence spending of the US' GDP?
    1
  62. That´s not something to be proud of, imo. I respect Britain more because they did NOT attempt to conquer all of Europe, even when they could.
    1
  63. There´s also this story of an American doing the hitlergruß somewhere in Germany and getting the crap beaten out of him afterwards. Happened this summer
    1
  64. "Hey the most popular sport in the world is called football, let´s call this new sport I just created (and kinda copied from rugby) football, even though feet are rarely even used in the first place!"
    1
  65. America owns nothing, they´re not even the most influential country in the world at the moment
    1
  66. Islands like Guam, territories such as the Phillipines, protectorates such as Puerto Rico. Yup, empire
    1
  67. Definition of empire: an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state. America: a sovereign state that controls islands like Guam, has protectorates such as Puerto Rico. Empire. Though a small one even by today´s standards.
    1
  68. The British shaped the modern world with industrialisation. 90+% of inventions come from Europe, take Britain out of that and you lose a lot of important advancements
    1
  69. I´ve heard of people disliking people wearing shoes in their home, but people getting mad for taking off your shoes... ? Wow
    1
  70. All of Europe did that, not just you. 90% of modern inventions/concepts are from Europe
    1
  71. Sure... and if you´re visiting European countries they are not "rich and free" so things that can be done in America can´t be done here? You´re making no sense whatsoever. It has NOTHING to do with riches or freedom
    1
  72. Not even a contest
    1
  73. Oh yeah? We´ll see about that... starts WW3
    1
  74. IT'S AN ASIAN PLOT TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM SUPERIOR
    1
  75. This is a pretty good video. As a Dutchmen I found no big misconceptions, everything is at least partly true
    1
  76. +_enoeletnom Which country has a constitution that says that rights are god-given? I'm gonna go with the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (1581), which the Declaration of Independence copied. They are... oddly similar :) Okay, it's not a constitution, but still
    1
  77. Americans, eh? shrugs
    1
  78. Well we call it Netherlands in Dutch without THE (though technically both is correct in Dutch)
    1
  79. Uh huh, sure
    1
  80. +Lil Beaver I don't know if you're trolling but there is no one "best" country. America is lacking in many areas, but is good in others. The same holds true for other countries. There is no one country that is objectively better than all the others. There only is a group of countries that can be called better than the rest; the first world. Beyond that, you can't really say one of them is the best. America has lots of issues, way too many to be called the best and arguably even too many to be called one of the best (talking about quality of life, healthcare, education, things like that). Some European and Asian countries are consistently at the very top of those lists and can be called the best of the world (but still not one of them is the best country, they are way too similar in their performance), while the US is sometimes at the top, mostly in the lower top, occasionally even at the bottom. The US scores too inconsistently on the quality of life, etc. indices to call it the best. And even the countries that are consistenly at the top can't be objectively called better than the other countries that are also consistently at the top.
    1
  81. Professor Toaster Firstly, you call yourselves America all the time. Secondly, the Americas is short for North and South America, not just America. America is used much more commonly to refer to the USA. The Americas also makes more sense for the continent
    1
  82. nothingwithlimits The EU can't really be compared to anything else on earth. It's unique. It can't be called a country, but it also can't be called an international organisation. It's something inbetween. The member states are in charge of what happens in the EU, it's not a federal government or something. It's not a federal government that is in charge and grants its states some freedoms (like in the US), it's kind of the other way around. The EU member states are in charge and if something needs to be done together, they do it in the form of the EU. The most important institutions of the EU are literally just the member states sitting together (Council of the EU is literally just ministers of each member state sitting together and voting on something, the European Council is the heads of state of member states sitting together and debating on where the EU goes next, etc.). Besides that, it's also not one entity. I'm Dutch, which means that I have Dutch citizenship, ut also EU citizenship. I essentially have two governments and two citizenships that each give me certain rights. It's kind of complicated
    1
  83. Technically, you would have to be stronger than the US + EU if you want to oust the West as the current superpower. And nobody is even at half our strength. If we streamline our foreign policies, nobody will ever outweigh our power.
    1
  84. +Marc Renel You're wrong... Your own country, France, is listed as having MORE soft power than the USA. So does the UK. In terms of economy, the EU and US are equal. The difference in hard power between the EU and US is also not big, but the US has the edge there. Innovation? I'm gonna give you a list of a few modern inventions (1990s+) of my tiny country, the Netherlands: bluetooth, blu-ray disk, DVD, wi-fi and more. You tell me what the US has invented lately. According to wikipedia the most impactful inventions they had are the scrollwheel for the PC mouse and a battery that is more energy efficient. Can't even equal a tiny country. Morals? European countries are the centre of upkeeping western morals. The US needed only ONE terrorist attack to chimp out and betray on some of the most important values we have: no imprisonment without trial and no torture! Yes, very christian of them to go around abducting and torturing suspected terrorists (with an unknown amount of innocents among them, to boot). And sure, giving everyone firearms and allowing them to shoot and kill anyone that enters their property is full of respect for human life... And the fact that people always go out of their way to greet veterans with a "thank you for your service", yet leave veterans to sometimes literally die on the streets or at least without the (psychological) care they at times need really reveals their "morals". But hey, America and taxes/social security don't mix, not even for their beloved veterans. Unlike you, I'm NOT trying to say that X country is superior to Y, only that there is no such thing as a "best country". Remember I didn't even mention America's weak spots here (poverty, crime, zero consideration for poor people, their position on most quality of life indices, primary school education quality, their "democracy" riddled with blatant corruption, etc.), only their supposed strong points. America is a country just like any other. It has its strong points and its weak points. Other countries outshine it in many areas and it outshines other countries in other areas. All you can say is that they're one of the better countries in the world, being part of the 1st world. Beyond that... you can't really say one country is "the best". There is no such thing, only a group of countries that are clearly of the better part of the world.
    1
  85. +Darth Meerkat There is no push for patriotism to end, there's a push for idiots who think that being proud of your country equals thinking that other countries are inferior to piss off. Being proud of your country is good, but being so overly proud that you adopt some kind of delusional superiority complex is not good at all. And I love how you say the US had to clean up both world wars while both times they sat at the sidelines most of the time and fought the least of the major powers. WW1: British Empire & Commonwealth = France >> Russia =/> USA. WW2: Soviet Union > British Empire & Commonwealth > USA. But in both world wars you at least carried out the main final push, so I guess cleaning up is fairly accurate
    1
  86. +Warlord25100 What if you're in a car crash with your wife and child(ren) and all need to be hospitalised? Got enough funds then? What if one of your family members gets a terminal disease that requires very intensive ad above all, expensive treatment for a prolonged period of time? You can never cover all the risks and when you're unlucky you are brutally dropped by your society. Not something to be proud of. And always remember that there at any time are multiple "competent beings" that are faced with such circumstances that even the competent hard working individual can't financially cope with and viciously dropped by YOU. A society that only rewards competent beings is a cruel society, not a good one. And even competent beings can't protect themselves against every possible circumstance they may face.
    1
  87. If the US empire falls they lose Guam and that´s pretty much it lol
    1
  88. Wtf America...
    1
  89. +Kevin Madzima That the US entered the war in *1942 doesn't mean every won battle at that time should be credited to the US. In North Africa, the US forces were a very small part of a predominantly British Empire & Commonwealth force. The same goes for Italy, where the US were maybe 1/4 of all forces. The US plan was to not really get involved until D-day, which is what they did. In 1944, the US went all out. Before that, they always were a small part of a predominantly British Commonwealth force. The US joined just in time for the Allied counterattack, but missed the half the of the war where the Allies had to fight a superior Axis and turn the war around. The war was turned around by Stalingrad in the East and El Alamein in the Western front. The British and Soviets managed to gain the initiative so the Allies could counterattack, and the US essentially came just in time to join that counterattack. After El Alamein and Stalingrad, the Allies never lost again...
    1
  90. +John Spike Are you sure? During the later stages of the war, there were MORE Axis tanks trying to stop the British and Americans in the west, than there were in the east... Of course the British would still have landed in Normandy without the Americans and succeeded all the same (assuming that the US would at least send supplies to the UK, which they bought), but if we ignore that then the USSR would have to face TWICE the force they had to face. I don't think they would have coped. The invasion of Italy meant they had to send troops there to reinforce the defence, the landing at Normandy meant they had to send troops to defend the European coasts and inland all the way to Germany itself, etc. The western front was more important than you think. And if you look at the numbers... the western allies captured and killed about the same amount that the Soviet Union captured/killed. But because the SU killed a LOT more than the western allies, people tend to think they were a lot more important. In reality, both sides neutralised an almost equal amount of Germans, but the western side just captured most of them instead of killing them in bloody battles.
    1
  91. +julian frikken You forget the British Commonwealth, a highly important part of the European war effort, more so than the US. About the 50/50 thing, you are correct. People always look at the number of kills, but in reality both the eastern and western front took out about as many Germans. The Soviet Union killed 4.5 million Germans and captured 2.1 million, totalling 6.6 million Germans neutralised. The Western powers killed about 700-800k Germans together. The British captured 3.6 million Germans in total and the US 3 million. This totals about 7.5 million Germans neutralised for the West. But people tend to see that huge Soviet kill count and assume they must have taken care of the lion's share of the German army. In reality it's almost 50/50 between east and west.
    1
  92. +Salterino Kripperino WW1 was not the fault of either side and there were no good or bad sides. It was the inevitable and tragic result of our European culture of clashing empires in the industrial age. We were just going to have a nice war like we always did... but this time both sides had industrial production capabilities, which made it a bit too extreme compared to the wars we had before... I'm proud to be of a country that was neutral in the disgusting waste of human life that was WW1. WW2 was again not the fault of the British. The Nazis trampled the Versailles treaty and ignored it (good, it was a horrible treaty) and all seemed well because Britain and France actually accepted this... until Germany went too far. They could have stopped at taking back Austria, Czechoslovakia and rebuilding their military beyond the restrictions of the treaty (all of which Britain and France just accepted), but no. They went further. They took Poland after specific warnings not to. At this point armies were mobilised but still nothing happened. Then... they went even more out of bounds and started attacking the Nordic countries, the low countries, France itself.... It was absolutely the Germans that escalated WW2. The Nazis were evil bastards that wanted to get rid of democracy and kill out entire races. They fully deserved the war, even if they wanted to sign peace with Britain. They are heroes for risking their country when Axis was winning HARD. They could have signed for peace and lost some irrelevant colonies to Germany, but they stood for their principles instead (democracy, etc.) and risked a full invasion. The British were courageous in WW2 and fought like lions. They're twice the men Americans were in WW2, you would have YELLED for peace if Germany had a border with you
    1
  93. In Russia the government pays people to be positive about the government, in America the people are stupid enough to spread the propaganda all by themselves
    1
  94. +Monsuco You call generic Hollywood films (which are riddled with Europeans and Americans alike, btw) and modern consumerist music creative? Creativity refers to art, classical music, dance, fashion, architecture etc. etc. and not that nonsense. The point of Hollywood films and most modern music is money and popularity, not creativity and intricacy. And Europe is the centre for art, classical music, dance and fashion. As for technological inventions, do tell what the US has invented in modern day times (1990's+ or 2000's+). Perhaps even a single European country can beat it, let alone all of Europe.
    1
  95. Matias Makinen Well the aircraft on carriers are usually part of the Navy. In the UK you have Fleet Air Arm, literally the air arm of the naval fleet. It's part of the fleet, same in the US Navy
    1
  96. You can say what you want about aircraft carriers, but whenever a war is fought with a more modern military than that of the typical 3rd world country, all it takes is one submarine to create a billion dollar wreck. Better leave that thing at home in a real war
    1
  97. Several countries already have in training with the US. The Swedish navy once sunk a US carrier in training with a sub. The Dutch navy sunk half a Carrier Strike Group (or carrier support fleet) and got away unscathed sinking the carrier, a cruiser, a US nuclear submarine, several destroyers and frigates. I know that submarines from my country used to get right under the surface less than a metre from Russian warships during the Cold War to spy on them. In 2015, France sunk a carrier and "most" of its escorts (destroyers, other submarines, etc.), but it's unknown if that one got away. Canada sank one too, as did Australia and I think Germany. Submarines are extremely powerful if an attack is carried out correctly and not even a carrier strike group is safe. It literally only takes one submarine and a good crew. So whenever the US faces a country with a military more impressive than that of Saddam Hussein or a random terrorist group, better leave those carriers at home because you never know.
    1
  98. The very first sentence you uttered in this video already confirms that Americans are rude. Boasting about American culture being influential, really? That´s rude, arrogant and not to mention completely untrue
    1
  99. +GamingLegendary Of course the European powers colonised part of America and of course a lot of natives died by disease, but my point is that Americans went further. European conquered part of America only (coastal areas) and settled there and set up trading posts. The inland native population was mostly left alone and just traded with. What Americans wanted is more expansion inland, coupled with complete genocide of the native population. And that is what they did after the revolution. If you accidentally carry over some disease that kills millions you did not commit genocide, but if you yourself kill all native populations or purposefully spread those diseases then you did commit genocide. Americans killed the natives that SURVIVED the European diseases and took all their land by force. They murdered an entire race. Intentionally. Not all natives died when Europeans came, not by far. Afterwards, the Americans finished them off by killing them themselves. This was after that book you talk of.
    1
  100. Not even the Dutch AIVD/MIVD? You know why America even knows about Russian mingling with the elections? The AIVD managed to hack into a Russian secret service compound and monitor the entire mingling operation they ran from there. They sent this information to the CIA later on and now you have this Russian mingling political crisis unveiled. During the Cold War, Dutch intelligence was famous for its naval espionage. We had (and still have) extremely silent submarines that used to spy on Soviet ships by surfacing right next to it and listening in. Those submarines sometimes partially surfaced just 1-2 metres away from a Soviet ship to spy on them and they never noticed. Apparently we still do this, as a few months ago one was caught and chased off by a Russian ship! It was spying on Russian ships in the mediterranean that came to aid Syria. I guess the crew made a mistake and they were detected. This deserves a spot at 9 or 10 at least, definitely more interesting than some of the agencies you listed.
    1