Why Do Foreign Countries Rely On The USA?

[JD]

I'm hearing that WW2 would've been lost to Hitler if the USA didn't step in.
Now the USA is required to help other nations to keep them afloat.
Why aren't your people stepping up and fighting your own battles?
When will your countries be self-reliant and stop asking for help?

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

he is too charismatic, i dont like how easy he sways crowds

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Face Diaper:

Why Do Foreign Countries Rely On The USA?

I'm hearing that WW2 would've been lost to Hitler if the USA didn't step in.
Now the USA is required to help other nations to keep them afloat.
Why aren't your people stepping up and fighting your own battles?
When will your countries be self-reliant and stop asking for help?

All great questions, especially since a lot of these people talk a lot of hate and trash about the US.

[Hobbit XIII]

Originally posted by Nargo:

What does the EU even provide to the USA apart from EUV technology + advanced chips (ASML, Zeiss, etc. Technology originally created in the USA btw) and political influence?

If the EU wants to keep NATO alive, then they must pay their fair share in money, manpower, and material. Intangibles can only go so far.

Frankly speaking, the EU has historically thrived on cheap oil from Russia and the Middle East + cheap manpower from Asia/Africa. Both of which they're losing their grip on. Hence their slow gradual decline in the world stage.

Europeans should just accept that the Global South is catching up in wealth and political power. And it's quite clear to the rest of the world that the US & their European allies are trying to keep the western hegemony alive by force through military action and attempts at monopolizing resources like oil.

This is why so many nations are trying to catch up on or restore their nuclear arsenal. Every nation that seemingly gives up their nukes gets invaded or wrecked. See Libya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUL8EvZkfEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_gTGJc7nQ

Give me a breakdown of every NATO country military expenditure and military infrastructure improvements and any reformations within each countries military from 2000 to 2022.

a lot of people with a lot of words, none have broken it all down.

except I did very basic one some time ago but let us see what these NATO haters got to say with all their research.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

do you have budget data on france n stuff couldnt find easily

health care total in billions
military spending total in billions

[Wolfmaron]

Originally posted by Face Diaper:

Why aren't your people stepping up and fighting your own battles?

those people did then US gov intervene cause the other side are "communists"

Originally posted by Face Diaper:

When will your countries be self-reliant and stop asking for help?

those people that tried did it then they got coup cause someone did not want to play fair at the free market or wanted a corporation to get crucial natural resource for absolutely free

[Hobbit XIII]

Originally posted by HypersleepyNaputunia:

do you have budget data on france n stuff couldnt find easily

health care total in billions
military spending total in billions

France population = 64.7 million
French military spending 53.6 billion

Healthcare expenditure % GDP 12.21 % in 2020.
France GDP 2020 aprox 2600 billion.

I would do the maths but running late into the night so adios will check back in about 9 hours.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Depends on the reason.

For example there are several islands in the Pacific that are under the United States banner but are known as sovereign territories of the US which is a situation where the US has only one job, to protect that nation till they can create their own military. For example Palau is its own nation but is a Sovereign of the United States which is a result of Palau not having its own military which is actually dealt with by the US.

Theres a good number of small islands and tiny nations that have bigger ones acting as their defenders, technically a good portion (outside of Hawaii) of the islands in the Pacific are not owned by the US, the US simply defends them while the islands themselves are their own independent nations

Oddly enough this is one of those situations that was caused by the UN, if a nation can't defend itself, then another one must defend them instead and really a number of small pacific islands do not have the means to form any military so they rely on the United States to oversee that duty.

The US is not the only one with soverign states but honestly going over which nations are or are not soverign's would take forever.

[ナルゴ]

Just call them what they are. Colonies.
Same with Puerto Rico.

[Disgruntled Cuttlefish]

The allies committed more atrocities during World War 2 than what is largely emphasized in most educational institutions and in entertainment, particularly against the Japanese but also the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden. They pretty much did that to every other significant populated area in Japan below a certain latitude.

I don't believe that educational institutions should lie to children about history just to push some jingoistic propaganda narratives.

Oppenheimer is probably a good example of what I mention. Keep in mind that Oppenheimer never actually apologized or expressed any shame about Japan or his role in bombing it.

That being said, the US and several other countries should be commended for mostly what American and other CIVILIANS did. Far more American civilians died (at sea, including before they got involved militarily) than all military personnel.

Also, hate to say it but the Russians bore the brunt of the war. I still believe the war was ended in the time frame it was due to American involvement, most definitely, so it helped the Russians out also (very obviously despite various forms of nationalism and chest pounding etc).

[Pocahawtness]

Originally posted by Nargo:

What does the EU even provide to the USA apart from EUV technology + advanced chips (ASML, Zeiss, etc. Technology originally created in the USA btw) and political influence?

If the EU wants to keep NATO alive, then they must pay their fair share in money, manpower, and material. Intangibles can only go so far.

Frankly speaking, the EU has historically thrived on cheap oil from Russia and the Middle East + cheap manpower from Asia/Africa. Both of which they're losing their grip on. Hence their slow gradual decline in the world stage.

Europeans should just accept that the Global South is catching up in wealth and political power. And it's quite clear to the rest of the world that the US & their European allies are trying to keep the western hegemony alive by force through military action and attempts at monopolizing resources like oil.

This is why so many nations are trying to catch up on or restore their nuclear arsenal. Every nation that seemingly gives up their nukes gets invaded or wrecked. See Libya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUL8EvZkfEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_gTGJc7nQ

You seem to misunderstand what NATO is.

NATO is not about cost, it is about deterrence.

It is a club in which all countries are safe because there is a threat that if any country is attacked, all countries will respond. The amount each country spends on defence is irrelevant because article five will never be invoked.

And it never has been invoked. Well, only ONCE and that was by the USA, and frankly, that was a misuse of Article 5 and kinda stupid.

The point of it is that while NATO exists no one would dare to attack a NATO country. How much each country spends on defence is a recommendation only.

Mr Trump just sees numbers, he doesn't get what NATO is really about. Any country that pulls out of NATO will be weaker, and that includes the USA. But NATO will continue, with or without the USA. That's not saying that the USA would not be missed, just that it won't affect the future of NATO either way.

[aka]

Originally posted by Hobbit XIII:

German Population 84 million
USA population 334 million

German military budget approved 2023 55 billion
USA military budget approved for 2023 782 billion

Wow, 782 billion is big.

Total Japanese Population 125 million.

The total Japanese military budget for 2023 was 6.82 trillion (oops, 9 times bigger ? )

You people better learn sticky rice ^^

Or maybe falafel, shawarma, and tabbouleh :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZr629Fq6PI

[SirKnechtalot]

Originally posted by Pirate☠️Pocah:

Mr Trump just sees numbers, he doesn't get what NATO is really about.

Nope the orange Uga-Uga! is just a rage quiting cheater. NATO´s the strongest military alliance that ever existed because of shared values not holding the biggest club available.

[ナルゴ]

Originally posted by Pirate☠️Pocah:

Originally posted by Nargo:

What does the EU even provide to the USA apart from EUV technology + advanced chips (ASML, Zeiss, etc. Technology originally created in the USA btw) and political influence?

If the EU wants to keep NATO alive, then they must pay their fair share in money, manpower, and material. Intangibles can only go so far.

Frankly speaking, the EU has historically thrived on cheap oil from Russia and the Middle East + cheap manpower from Asia/Africa. Both of which they're losing their grip on. Hence their slow gradual decline in the world stage.

Europeans should just accept that the Global South is catching up in wealth and political power. And it's quite clear to the rest of the world that the US & their European allies are trying to keep the western hegemony alive by force through military action and attempts at monopolizing resources like oil.

This is why so many nations are trying to catch up on or restore their nuclear arsenal. Every nation that seemingly gives up their nukes gets invaded or wrecked. See Libya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUL8EvZkfEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_gTGJc7nQ

You seem to misunderstand what NATO is.

NATO is not about cost, it is about deterrence.

It is a club in which all countries are safe because there is a threat that if any country is attacked, all countries will respond. The amount each country spends on defence is irrelevant because article five will never be invoked.

I understand NATO well.
You don't seem to understand that money, manpower, and material doesn't materialize out of thin air. If Europe wants the alliance to persist, then contribute. Otherwise the biggest contributors to the alliance (USA) will rightfully perceive the alliance as a money-burning farce with ungrateful non-contributing tenants.
USA granting security while barely receiving anything back. No. "Political influence" isn't enough.
Nevermind that the alliance was created for the USSR, which collapsed decades ago.
Russia has tried to and can still integrate with the west, but only if the west actually compromises. This entire conflict in Ukraine for instance, is the result of the collective west constantly throwing out diplomacy when terms are not 100% favorable to them.

[Xautos]

Originally posted by Face Diaper:

I'm hearing that WW2 would've been lost to Hitler if the USA didn't step in.
Now the USA is required to help other nations to keep them afloat.
Why aren't your people stepping up and fighting your own battles?
When will your countries be self-reliant and stop asking for help?

It's true, if Hitler hadn't fixed his gaze on Russia so soon and the Americans had stayed out of it, the UK would have been speaking German with Nazi flags all over the place and having to use the salute to "Mein Fuhrer". Spain would have fallen to the Germans along with many other European nations, including Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. once the whole of Europe is properly consolidated and resources moved where they are needed to, invade Russia and take them out of the picture with the full force of the German war machine. the side project of Africa would be a simple one and wouldn't require a lot of resources to steamroll local populations.

You know the next target for the ambitious Hitler would be the USA and fighting a battle hardened German military that can invade from two directions against a stagnant America held under an alcohol prohibition and thousands and thousands of foreigners flooding the country getting away from the German oppression is going to overwhelm their ability to react once invaded.

Keep in mind that the USA at the time isn't like it is today, it wouldn't have the defences, the military production capacity wouldn't have been pushed into second gear because they weren't at war, they had no set goal on what to do next and they wouldn't have seen the invasion until it was too late and then a rushed mobilisation, that's assuming German agents weren't already sabotaging things in the process in the USA.


The USA stepped in not just to help other nations but for themselves to defend against a threat that could one day eventually topple them.

- The American companies and war machine were driven up through the gears and the stagnant Americans were finally given a purpose.
- It drove on a lot of advances in military applications
- It give the American people something to do by driving up the economy.
- The war fostered a lot of understanding with other peoples including their old nemesis in the UK and uncertain partner in France. They ceased to be old rivals and part time friends and became full allies despite their current circumstances.
- America came out far better for it after the war ended, they went from unknowns on the world stage to a world superpower.

[ナルゴ]

Hitler would have lost regardless if the USA had intervened or not. They lacked critical resources, and it was the entire reason they attacked the USSR in the first place. They thought seizing the Soviet oilfields was feasible until they met a wall of 3 million soldiers and 11k tanks.
And no, Hitler would not have attacked Spain because Hitler was supporting Franco. Hitler wanted Spain's support as an Axis member.

Wall of creative writing smh.