That is not exactly true. Check out the Truman Doctrin. That does not take anything away from the american contribution, though.
And coming to the education question. No, americans are not "less" educated, they just have other priorities in education.

While OT, I don't believe the people inside government that were really pushing for said war really believed it would solve things so much as push an agenda. They just had a sucker for a commander in chief.

PD

Elaboration requested. :)

PD

Ask, and you shall recieve :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine

"...The Truman Doctrine is a proclamation by Harry S. Truman, President of the United States on March 12, 1947. It stated that the U.S. would support the Kingdom of Greece and Turkey economically and militarily to prevent their falling under Soviet control. Truman called upon the U.S. to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,"[1] which generalized his hopes for Greece and Turkey into a doctrine applicable throughout the world. The Soviet Union was clearly at the heart of Truman's thoughts, but the nation was never directly mentioned in his speech. As Edler states, Truman was attempting to solve Eastern Europe's instability while making sure the spread of communism would not affect nations like Greece and Turkey."


"The Truman Doctrine was the first in a series of containment moves by the United States, followed by economic restoration of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and military containment by the creation of NATO in 1949. In Truman's words, it became "the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Using a framing rhetoric that continues to have resonance today, Truman reasoned that because these "totalitarian regimes" coerced "free peoples," they represented a threat to international peace and the national security of the United States."


"The Truman Doctrine can also be compared to the rationale for America's first involvements in the Vietnam War. Starting shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, Truman attempted to aid France's bid to hold onto its Vietnamese colonies. The United States supplied French forces with equipment and military advisors in order to combat Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh movement."


As you can see, the US got itself a mission. This mission worked out for Europe, and we are thankful for that. But in no way was it bestowed upon the US. Remnants of this doctrin, the involvement in other countries for the bringing liberrty and democracy, are quite alife to this very day.

Yes, but because of that mission Europe felt it didn't REALLY need to provide for its defense because of American assurances. The US on the other hand bought itself the most capable military the world has seen, until recently with the intent of defending Europe from Soviet armies.

I guess I'm just kicking myself really for a massive investment in a defense establishment that is several times more massive than any other and has yet to do anything besides save Saudi Arabia.

Heading OT, I know.

PD

That Europe didn't deem it nessecary to provide it's own defenses is floating around quite a bit, but that's wrong and more a cliché born out of defense budget cuts in the post cold war era then the cold war itself.

Taking the Bundeswehr as an example:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr

"During the Cold War the Bundeswehr was the backbone of NATO's conventional defense in Central Europe. It had a strength of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The Army consisted of three corps with 12 divisions, most of them heavily armed with tanks and APCs. The Luftwaffe owned significant numbers of tactical combat aircraft and took part in NATO's integrated air defence (NATINAD). The Navy was tasked and equipped to defend the Baltic Approaches, to provide escort reinforcement and resupply shipping in the North Sea and to contain the Soviet Baltic Fleet."


http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/2005...undeswehr.html

"There was also a support force of reservists. These were organized into three commands that in the event of a general mobilization could be increased by 12 additional fighting brigades, of which two were fully operational in peacetime and assigned to the army, with a further four semi operational. In total the army was made up of 422 battalions. After reunification, with the integration of the (East) German Democratic Republic’s forces, the army for a short period increased to 490 battalions, before starting a period of swift contraction. In terms of weapons (not counting equipment that was never taken over from the East German army) there were 5,119 tanks, 2,100 armed infantry vehicles, 432 armored anti-aircraft vehicles, and 143 armored anti-missile vehicles, 1,062 pieces of artillery of 100-plus millimeters and 235 missile launchers with both middle- and long-distance capability (MARS and LARS)."


http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4996.html

"Prior to unification, the armed forces of East and West Germany were considered among the shock troops of their respective alliances. The leaders of NATO and the Warsaw Pact-- the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively--each maintained powerful forces based in the two Germanys, the presumed battleground. In terms of tactics, force organization and structure, and equipment, superpower influence on each German military was pervasive. On the Soviet side, with more than 400,000 troops, the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG) was far larger than the NVA itself and was the Warsaw Pact's most potent military force outside the Soviet Union. The United States was clearly the most important member of NATO, but only a small portion of its total military forces were stationed in West Germany or in Europe. Unification changed the Bundeswehr's situation dramatically and in the process added about 30 percent more territory and hundreds of kilometers of Baltic Sea coastline to the task of preserving the territorial integrity of the enlarged country."



Also, keep in mind, in case war broke out, Germany and Europe would have been completly devastated. Germany "was" the frontline. And despite the russian offer for unification for the price of becoming neutral, comparable to what happend to Austria, we stuck with the western Alliance. We rearmed after the expiriences in WW2 despite a populationwide attitude to never go to war again. The heck, we even provided great support to american bases in Germany later in the Iraq war despite beeing completly opposed to that war. We also activly participate in the Afghanistan war, as do several other european countries. Who is not thankful to whom is a question we could debate all week long, but it's by far not as one sided as the US folks make it out to be all the time.

P.S. About OT, I think we left the lands of recession a long time ago already =)

P.P.S. May I ask where these rumors Europe didn't/doesn't do anything for it's self defense come from? These rumors are spread to a degree one really wonders who's behind this nonsense.

Square and fair. Though I then have to adjust this perception by adding this has nothing to do with shame and beeing ashamed, but common sense and the lack thereof. Because by what you said, the average american does not care what his government does. Or considers his government's foreign policies as too unimportant to bother.

Fine with me, as long you guys don't complain and whine about ppl abroad getting angry at the US.

I believe it was by comparing military expenditures with gross national product or something like that.

Good point Bewolf has there.
In cold war times, it would've been Germans who took up the lion's share of manpower in NATO, at least on the ground.
The Bundeswehr of cold war days ranks fairly equal among the larger german armies.

Re the expenditure today, serveral points:

Most european nations do not maintain serveral very expensive weapons systems like strategic bombers, ICBMs and nuclear aircraft carriers. We don't have to spend the money for their upkeep, replacement and readiness.
Those european forces that have such weapons like France and Britain only have small numbers of them.
Also, European defense procurement may be a mess (A-400m, 'nuff said), but our defense contractors are amateurs in screwing over our governments compared to the US. If the US would get the same amount of "bang for buck" as Germany or Britain, it wouldn't have to spend so much money.
And except for britain, european nations did not privatize their military R&D and their procurement apparatus the way the US did.

To me, the "europe doesn't care for defense" statement is a myth.
It was true in the early 1990s, but then the Clinton administration did pretty much the same in the US.
And with regards to germany, OUR defense budged is slightly increasing while all those bigger spenders have to drastically slash their military in face of the economic crisis.
I wouldn't be too surprised if italian or spanish aircraft carriers go up for sale or something.