Does US ever take over the Allied faction?

[Surimi]

Also, not sure why people are disagreeing with my literal quotes from the BBC.

Well, for one, you're completely misrepresenting the site you linked to.

You're trying to argue that because Britain was a signatory to the Atlantic charter, this constituted:

a) The acceptance by Britain of a concrete commitment to decolonisation.
b) The establishment of a general subordinate relationship between Britain and the United States in which the latter assumed "leadership" over the former.

Your singe piece of evidence for this is a reference to a BBC website which describes the negotiation of the Atlantic Charter.

"Roosevelt added to Churchill's version of the Charter, broadening its interpretation. He was effectively forcing the British Empire into granting independence to its colonies."

So let's look int this shall we:

Firstly, as the site itself points out, the Atlantic Charter was not a treaty or binding document, it was a press release which spelled out the shared ideological goals of the USA and Great Britain regarding their shared overall objectives. The charter has about as much legal weight as Sean Murray saying that there would be multiplayer in No Man's Sky, less in fact because at least Murray could be taken to court.

Secondly, here is the text of the Atlantic Charter press release: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_16912.htm

As you can see, Roosevelt's amendments did not make it into the final document. As you can see, the document is a compromise between churchill's original wording and Roosevelt's ammendment. Neither made it in intact. This is normal in negotiations, the goal is to reach an acceptable compromise.

Thirdly, how on earth are you getting broad statements about the hierarchical position of countries from a set of private conversations between two leaders regarding the wording of a press release? Just.. in what universe is that a sensible basis for making these kinds of judgements? Where in the BBC website you linked to does it evidence that connection?

Oh, and people are disagreeing with you because you still haven't substantiated anything.

 

[melkor88]

Plus even

The US wasn't even the main military power of the Western Allies in Europe until 1944 (Late 43 if you want to argue Italy, but either way it's certainly debatable) and it certainly wasn't the political leader. I would certainly argue that the UK remained the political leader of the Allies right up until the Yalta conference (when Churchill was the primary negotiator with Stalin).

The US was of course the leader in terms of military might and industrial power post late 42 (not to mention their huge lend lease contribution to the soviet effort), but being a faction leader is a political position, and it is at the very least highly debatable whether the US ever assumed the role as leader of the allies.

Post World War 2, the US used the leverage it came to swiftly and ruthlessly knock the UK from its perch and assume its role as western leader, but during world war 2 that is a much more contentious statement.

The comments regarding the "US Textbook" is fairly easy to explain. Many Americans (not saying you) have a grossly distorted view of World War 2, whereby they were the primary fighting force and were the primary belligerents in every single theater that they fought in. This is understandable given the lack of hollywood airtime given to the Soviets or the British. Very few Americans would know for example, that the British lost 50,000 men fighting the Japanese in Burma, or that on D-Day more commonwealth forces landed than American (80,000 vs 70,000 I believe?), and that air and naval power for D-Day was overwhelmingly British, or that the British had as many (almost?) war dead as the Americans (from a vastly smaller population). All this without even mentioning the lack of airtime given to the Soviet Union!

I'm not accusing you of doing any of those things, just trying to give perspective of why people are often quick to accuse Americans of having a bias/distorted view.

Yeah you are right, The UK had more troops fighting then the US right up until D-day, so it was only the last year of the war the Americans did a lot of fighting. And obviously the Allies all put together didn't do as much fighting as the Soviets. Too many of our Western histories wiped the fact that the Soviets actually won the war. The Allies came 2nd.

 

[War_lord]

A few things:

When one is evaluating a source, the first thing to do is to check who the author is, at the bottom of the page it says "The fact files in this timeline were commissioned by the BBC in June 2003 and September 2005. Find out more about the authors who wrote them.". The short version is that People's War was an early wiki project by the BBC, and those timeline entries were written by one of 5 freelance researchers. Something does not automatically become truth because the top of the page says "BBC". The BBC are reliably neutral, not infallible. But that's beside the point because...

That article isn't saying that the final text of the Atlantic Charter "was effectively forcing the British Empire into granting independence to its colonies" it's talking about Roosevelt's proposed revisions of the Charter, which didn't actually make it into the final wording. And aside from that, I still disagree with the author's assertion, if Churchill had accepted Roosevelt's wording, it would have caused a political headache later on, but ultimately the Atlantic Charter was a fluffy press release, not a treaty, those have to be signed.

 

[hkrommel]

Yeah you are right, The UK had more troops fighting then the US right up until D-day, so it was only the last year of the war the Americans did a lot of fighting. And obviously the Allies all put together didn't do as much fighting as the Soviets. Too many of our Western histories wiped the fact that the Soviets actually won the war. The Allies came 2nd.

Yikes. So many historical simplifications and a total lack of understanding of how interwoven global events are. Not to mention the use of vague and ill-defined terms such as "won," not defining whether you mean Europe or Europe and the Pacific and China.

 

[heliostellar]

Plus even


Yeah you are right, The UK had more troops fighting then the US right up until D-day, so it was only the last year of the war the Americans did a lot of fighting. And obviously the Allies all put together didn't do as much fighting as the Soviets. Too many of our Western histories wiped the fact that the Soviets actually won the war. The Allies came 2nd.

Again, I'm not sure why people are talking about the USSR since they already lead their own faction. Also, aren't you forgetting about all the American war materiel that the Brits were fighting with?

The discussion is really about the HOI4 faction leader since in the game that nation gets to decide who joins. Considering all those parts of the free world that were either not already under attack from the Axis or part of an empire only joined after Pearl Harbor. See below in line green.

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

 

[spartansociety]

The point trying to be made is that America contributed 'less' than several other nations to the Axis defeat and America was not recognised as the defacto politcal leader of the war. The increased contribution of American soldiers and industry in the later part of the war did give the US more weight in negotiations between Allied nations as the war dragged on. An obvious example of this is the selection of Eisenhower as the overall, allied commander. The gradual increase in the American contribution was especially important towards the very end of the war, when Britain could not maintain the level of mobilisation it had in the past.

BUT many other factors strengthened British political clout. In my opinion, the biggest of these was the prestige of the British Empire, all players had grown up in a world dominated by the Empire and its political decisions. Nations all around the world looked to Britiain for leadership and protection. Yes, events like the Fall of Singpaore were changing the way nations like Australia would view Britain, but at this stage, these changes had yet to fully play themselves out. Britain was the 'leader' of these nations throughout the war.

 

[heliostellar]

Well, for one, you're completely misrepresenting the site you linked to.

You're trying to argue that because Britain was a signatory to the Atlantic charter, this constituted:

a) The acceptance by Britain of a concrete commitment to decolonisation.
b) The establishment of a general subordinate relationship between Britain and the United States in which the latter assumed "leadership" over the former.

Your singe piece of evidence for this is a reference to a BBC website which describes the negotiation of the Atlantic Charter.

"Roosevelt added to Churchill's version of the Charter, broadening its interpretation. He was effectively forcing the British Empire into granting independence to its colonies."

So let's look int this shall we:

Firstly, as the site itself points out, the Atlantic Charter was not a treaty or binding document, it was a press release which spelled out the shared ideological goals of the USA and Great Britain regarding their shared overall objectives. The charter has about as much legal weight as Sean Murray saying that there would be multiplayer in No Man's Sky, less in fact because at least Murray could be taken to court.

Secondly, here is the text of the Atlantic Charter press release: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_16912.htm

As you can see, Roosevelt's amendments did not make it into the final document. As you can see, the document is a compromise between churchill's original wording and Roosevelt's ammendment. Neither made it in intact. This is normal in negotiations, the goal is to reach an acceptable compromise.

Thirdly, how on earth are you getting broad statements about the hierarchical position of countries from a set of private conversations between two leaders regarding the wording of a press release? Just.. in what universe is that a sensible basis for making these kinds of judgements? Where in the BBC website you linked to does it evidence that connection?

Oh, and people are disagreeing with you because you still haven't substantiated anything.

You seem to be offering mostly opinion as evidence. At least I provided some original sources that comport with what I'm saying. Oh, and you think these points are consistent with maintaining British domination?

"They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.

They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."

 

[spartansociety]

You seem to be offering mostly opinion as evidence. At least I provided some original sources that comport with what I'm saying. Oh, and you think these points are consistent with maintaining British domination?

"They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.

They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."

His main point is rather valid though. If Britain felt capable of keeping its empire in the decades that followed, that document would have meant nothing. There is a reason most people are disagreeing with your contention and that is because it was the British who were politically dominant throughout the war. If we are going to use sources on such a complex topic with such a huge amount of scholarship devoted to it, we should probably look to well respected secondary sources and the conclusions they make. Most general and academic histories I have read have described the relationship as one where the British maintain significant political power (albeit, with Churchill fighting uphill to try and keep as much of it as possible from disappearing).

PS and no I don't have anything on me at the moment...I tend to toss books out after reading them. If Secret Master is a lecturer in this area, maybe he could chime in on what is the generally accepted perspective.

 

[RedPaladin50]

Butthurt Texan! Chill out boy, you're going to get mad too if I tell you the USSR did more to win the war than the USA? Because I think that too!

I don't know why people get so sensitive when discussing Allied cooperation. Usually it's people jumping on the "Hate America" "Americans are Stupid" "America did nothing" "American Textbook propaganda" bandwagon to sound cool. The U.S and UK worked very closely together and the Allies didn't exactly have an official leader. It was a team effort to bring down the Axis and each did it in their own way.


People are always saying that America takes credit for everything when in reality we don't. We just take a lot of pride in what we do without belittling other countries in what they did. Europeans that are saying Americans are selfish and are always talking trash should take a good look at themselves first.

 

[spartansociety]

I don't know why people get so sensitive when discussing Allied cooperation. Usually it's people jumping on the "Hate America" "Americans are Stupid" "America did nothing" "American Textbook propaganda" bandwagon to sound cool. The U.S and UK worked very closely together and the Allies didn't exactly have an official leader. It was a team effort to bring down the Axis and each did it in their own way.


People are always saying that America takes credit for everything when in reality we don't. We just take a lot of pride in what we do without belittling other countries in what they did. Europeans that are saying Americans are selfish and are always talking trash should take a good look at themselves first.

As an Aussie, I would say its partly a response to the fact that most TV and films are made in America. That influences the popular perception of the war throughout much of the Western world. Americans tend to overstate the importance of American in the war because of the pop culture (cant comment on the education systems contribution to this ) but so do many people in other nations. Almost all the films I watch are based on the American experience. It's easy to blame American culture for this and conclude that all Americans are zelots.

Having said all that, the film, tv and literature I read tends to suggest that there is a type of overt nationslism expressed by many Americans, that is not as often expressed by Europeans. Whether this is the case, or simply the media portraying Americans in a certain way I cannot say, as I have not spent anywhere near enough time in the nation to be able to make an informed opinion. This 'narrative' of Americans as insular and nationalistic, i'm sure also plays into interpretations of American contributions to the war.

 

[Surimi]

You seem to be offering mostly opinion as evidence. At least I provided some original sources that comport with what I'm saying.

Can you perhaps explain exactly how your sources accord with what you're saying? I think that would be a helpful start.

Oh, and you think these points are consistent with maintaining British domination?

British domination of where? Which part of the Empire, specifically, did it apply to? What was the concrete timetable of decolonization and when was it agreed to by the British, how was decolonization enforced by the Americans since they clearly must have done so.

See, let me explain the real issue I have with this. The British empire was a thoroughly atrocious and horrible institution. It continued to be a thoroughly atrocious and horrible institution after the war. One of the nastiest events in the Empire's history was the Mau Mau rebellion which began in 1952 and ended in 1960. There's also the Malayan emergency, 1948 to 1960. In the former case, the USA did nothing, in the latter case, the USA gave material support and fought on the same side as the colonial government against communist insurgents. It turns out that not letting people choose their government is considerably better than letting them choose the wrong government!

In fact, do you want to know the absolute worst thing about this..

In 1961, the UN enacted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This was, in fact, exactly what you seem to imagine the Atlantic Charter was, in that it was a concrete commitment by the United Nations to end colonialism and restore sovereignty to all colonial states. Almost all UN members voted in favour of it, only nine countries abstained from the vote. The USA was one of those countries.

The idea that the USA forced Britain to liberate the colonies is not insulting because it offends my national pride as a British person to hear the British Empire insulted, it's insulting because it denigrates and actively distorts the real history of the struggle against British colonialism, which was not resolved by FDR giving a press conference and in which the USA, more often than not, was squarely on the side of colonial oppression.

 

[hkrommel]

As an Aussie, I would say its partly a response to the fact that most TV and films are made in America. That influences the popular perception of the war throughout much of the Western world. Americans tend to overstate the importance of American in the war because of the pop culture (cant comment on the education systems contribution to this ) but so do many people in other nations. Almost all the films I watch are based on the American experience. It's easy to blame American culture for this and conclude that all Americans are zelots.

Having said all that, the film, tv and literature I read tends to suggest that there is a type of overt nationslism expressed by many Americans, that is not as often expressed by Europeans. Whether this is the case, or simply the media portraying Americans in a certain way I cannot say, as I have not spent anywhere near enough time in the nation to be able to make an informed opinion. This 'narrative' of Americans as insular and nationalistic, i'm sure also plays into interpretations of American contributions to the war.

That media wouldn't be created if it didn't sell, and you admit to consuming said media yourself. I would hardly judge Americans based on what you can glean from media, which is almost always inaccurate. Personally I would love for more films regarding WWII to be made by other countries, but the problem is that a lot of the ones I've seen frankly aren't good. Several European ones in particular try to be edgy and nihilistic to the detriment of the plot which is just boring. There are a few good ones here and there (Das Boot, A Bridge Too Far which was a joint venture, etc.) but the fact of the matter is that the majority of good-quality films on the subject come from the United States. Again, if people didn't buy them that would be a different story.

Out of curiosity, what films do you think actually portray Americans as "winning the war"? Nothing that comes to mind for me (Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Band of Brothers, etc.) makes that claim, it's just that American films unsurprisingly portray the American experience, but is that actually worthy of criticism? I would expect Russian films to portray the Soviet experience, French films the French experience, and so on.

 

[spartansociety]

Rommel . I mostly am in agreement with what you say. Not trying to blame anyone nor cause offence. Australian movies glorify the Australian role in the wars , blame the Brits for all Australian mistakes etc. The difference is everyone is exposed to American movies where as the audience for other nations films largely comes from that nation itself. This applies even more to films in languages other than English. In this context it is easy for people to assume a greater than historical role for America in the war. Equally, it's possible to have push back, where people who know better respond in a more agresive manner than they otherwise would to statements which overplay American participation.

 

[hkrommel]

Rommel . I mostly am in agreement with what you say. Not trying to blame anyone nor cause offence. Australian movies glorify the Australian role in the wars , blame the Brits for all Australian mistakes etc. The difference is everyone is exposed to American movies where as the audience for other nations films largely comes from that nation itself. This applies even more to films in languages other than English. In this context it is easy for people to assume a greater than historical role for America in the war. Equally, it's possible to have push back, where people who know better respond in a more agresive manner than they otherwise would to statements which overplay American participation.

In total agreement there. While the idea that America won the war singlehandedly is wrong, so is the Stalin fanboy pushback that sometimes rears its head on these forums. The reality is much, much more complicated (even more so if you include the Chinese front!). I'm still curious though as to what films and the like you're referring to that exaggerate America's role (not challenging you here, I'm just genuinely curious)?

 

[Surimi]

Nothing that comes to mind for me (Saving Private Ryan, Fury, Band of Brothers, etc.) makes that claim, it's just that American films unsurprisingly portray the American experience, but is that actually worthy of criticism? I would expect Russian films to portray the Soviet experience, French films the French experience, and so on.

Well, if you want a really, really insulting example there's U-571, the plot of which revolves around an American operation to capture a German submarine and steal the first intact enigma machine captured by the allies.. yeah..

But I think it's interesting that you accuse European war movies of being edgy or nihilistic, like they're just doing it for the sake of it. I mean, it's a war. It's a war where lots of incredibly horrible things happened. Europeans, and especially continental Europeans, can't always separate themselves from those horrible things happening because the bad things were happening on their doorstep rather than half way around the world. It wasn't a manly adventure where we went over and kicked Nazi butt for freedom. Even here in Britain, the most iconic images of the war which we all grow up with are of bombed buildings and burning cities.

I think what people actually mean when they accuse Americans of being arrogant about the war is partly about tone. When Americans say things like "we saved your butts in WW2" or "without us you'd all be speaking German" (and I've heard both those things being said with deadly seriousness) it's not even that there isn't a grain of truth in it, but well.. not all of our butts got saved, and some of us did have to live under occupation. Look closely at the films and stories you see as nihilistic and you'll generally find that they're actually pacifistic, because that was the overwhelming take away from the war in most European countries. War totally sucks. It is kind of miserable and pointless and morally very messy.

I feel like I'm being kind of mean to Americans here, actually, because there are some great examples of American fiction dealing with similar themes (Slaughterhouse 5 and Catch 22 spring to mind) but the thing about those stories is that they were both written by veterans. That whole thematic lesson of world war 2, that war really, really sucks, never seems to have permeated through to the general population of the US in quite the same way.

 

[hkrommel]

That whole thematic lesson of world war 2, that war really, really sucks, never seems to have permeated through to the general population of the US in quite the same way.

On this part I'd say that's because for Americans there is such a thing as an unacceptable peace. That can mean many different things for different people but Americans generally will not accept a "peace" in which the Nazis can run rampant, and more modern-day Americans usually will not accept a "peace" where terrorists have a decent chance of striking on American soil when it can be prevented, or another country gets away with the kinds of things we can't talk about on this forum. The US proper being generally safe from conventional war plays a part in what you're perceiving, but Americans are also inherently morally motivated. Whereas Europe has a history of power struggles for the sake of power, corruption, etc. everything in America has been motivated by a "cause" of some sort, whether that's defending freedom and democracy in the War for Independence, defeating slavery in the American Civil War, or defeating the Nazis in World War II. War is less arbitrary for Americans because we generally wage it for less arbitrary reasons. That's not to say there haven't been morally arbitrary wars (Manifest Destiny), but the driving factor of American foreign policy has always been a kind of idealism (look no further than Wilson's points after WWI for a prime example of this).

That's why there's always a hint of optimism in American war films, even ones where just about everyone dies like Saving Private Ryan, because at the end of the day all those people died for something. I'm going to channel my inner Burke here and venture to say that the particulars of the United States and the traditions we have are the root cause of this.

But I think it's interesting that you accuse European war movies of being edgy or nihilistic, like they're just doing it for the sake of it.

Note that I clarified that as being nihilistic to the detriment of the plot. Das Boot was nihilistic, but also was a fantastic movie. There was one Finnish movie about the Winter War that I can't remember the name of that was also pretty dark, but was a good movie. There was also this one movie about Stalingrad that was melodramatic and preachy as all hell about how pointless everything was that I got sick of hearing/seeing it. The cardinal rule of good storytelling is "show, don't tell." If war is pointless and everything sucks, I should be able to perceive that without it getting shoved down my throat. I want to see a war movie, not a movie about people moping around staring into the middle distance. That can certainly be a part of it but some movies just revel in that to the point where it's utterly excessive and doesn't add to anything.

 

[spartansociety]

Rommel, Fury and Pearl Harbour are the two Hollywood films that spring to mind. Pearl Habour's ending is especially cringe worthy. But it is also just the quantity of big budget films that deal with the American experience that give a distorted view. Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers are all great, but off the top of my head the only big films I can think of that are not based on the American experience are Inglorious Bastards, Stalingrad and Black Book.

I disagree with your comments about America being more morally motivated, but this is not the space to have those arguments!

Surimi, I agree with your comment about tone. I am really keen to see 'Land of Mine' when it comes out, and looks like it would fit very well into your argument about nihilistic films actually being pacifist.

 

[Tacticus101]

Rommel, regardless of whether your post is right or wrong, I think you just perfectly illustrated the attitude that a lot of non-Americans have a problem with.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Plus even


Yeah you are right, The UK had more troops fighting then the US right up until D-day, so it was only the last year of the war the Americans did a lot of fighting. And obviously the Allies all put together didn't do as much fighting as the Soviets. Too many of our Western histories wiped the fact that the Soviets actually won the war. The Allies came 2nd.

Why do you say right up until D-Day? The majority of the troops in the Normandy invasion were commonwealth, effectively the UK. Then let's not ignore the fact that the vast majority of transports used, even for the US troops, were supplied by the royal navy, and the royal navy gave virtually all of the air and sea support.

The fact of the matter is that the British single-handedly took down the German battleships and provided the naval security for the lend-lease to be possible. It also largely nullified the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, meaning that the USSR was not completely overwhelmed in the air on the eastern front, which given the tactics of the German Army would have definitely tipped the balance there also.

Also, aren't you forgetting about all the American war materiel that the Brits were fighting with?

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

This is such a stupid argument in my opinion. The Americans didn't give the British anything. We paid for those war materials, and were repaying for them up until a few years ago... The lend lease agreements actually benefited the US as much as they benefited the recipients. One of the reasons the US emerged from WW2 with such economic prowess was because it sustained no damage during the war, and that it was able to profit off the countless countries trying to rebuilt in the aftermath. I'm not disputing the fact that it was essential for the war to be won, but I really despise the way that Americans portray themselves as knights in shining armour when they talk about the lend-lease agreements.

Edit:

To be honest I think this entire debate is just a childish 'shoe size' measuring contest. The fact of the matter is that the the war was not won by a single nation, and without the contribution of any of the main constituents the outcome would have been different. Without the manpower of the USSR victory was not possible. Without the strength of the Royal Navy and the RAF, or the decryption of Axis intelligence, victory would not have been possible. Without the production efficiency and supplies from the US, victory would not have been possible. You cannot say one country contributed more than the others.

It's the exact same way in which the US take all credit for the pacific theatre, completely ignoring the efforts of the commonwealth nations and the other allies.

 

[hkrommel]

Rommel, regardless of whether your post is right or wrong, I think you just perfectly illustrated the attitude that a lot of non-Americans have a problem with.

Meaning? I made no claims to superiority or anything of the kind, simply to the prevalence of demonstrably morally-based casus belli (even the Spanish-American War, which was a total power/land grab, was waged under moral pretenses regarding the Cuba situation) and post-war agreements that indicate a sort of moral idealism. Personally I think this is misguided and disingenuous, hence why I made no value statements whatsoever.

I also did not mean to imply that Europeans were willing to tolerate any "peace." That was more in response to the pacifism claim, since pacifism literally means "the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means."

As for my comments about Europe I was simply postulating. Europe clearly has a lot of history of wars that weren't even couched in moral terms, but were simply about who gets what. Beyond that, war has been a part of the European experience far longer than the American one (obviously because the US is less than 300 years old), and has been far more destructive. I could be wrong, but that seems like a recipe for nihilism to me, though I personally wouldn't go that route.

Rommel, Fury and Pearl Harbour are the two Hollywood films that spring to mind. Pearl Habour's ending is especially cringe worthy. But it is also just the quantity of big budget films that deal with the American experience that give a distorted view. Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers are all great, but off the top of my head the only big films I can think of that are not based on the American experience are Inglorious Bastards, Stalingrad and Black Book.

I disagree with your comments about America being more morally motivated, but this is not the space to have those arguments!

What was wrong with Fury? It didn't particularly portray anyone in a good light, just the SS in a terrible light (which is justified). As to the last bit, America isn't necessarily motivated that way, but Americans generally are. Key difference regarding justification for war and the reasons it's actually waged.

IIRC Pearl Harbor was a total flop, and Tora Tora Tora is more well-known and a much better movie. As a side note I'm curious to see what Nolan does with Dunkirk, namely what they're going to fill screentime with since the trailers don't focus on the rearguard action at all.

On the larger note, people keep saying the US takes all the credit for X, Y, or Z, but then say that some people say stupid things as evidence for that. There are stupid and ignorant people in every country, doesn't it take something a little more...solid to back up the claim that the US takes credit for everything?