Why everyone in Germany is so against the U.S.

Ooops.

Sometimes you have to look at what experiences these people have had with americans. i was told that i as an american should be ashamed of who i am and my place in the world. I found out later the guy had spent a year in America learning all about our culture - in some hicktown in the middle of nowhere were the only entertainment was going hunting and being a redneck (no offence to anyone implied). No wonder he had that mentality. Im just saying that steroetyping does normally come from something.

As for the military bases- they wouldn't very likely be anywhere else other than the american parts of Germany. And keep in mind, the germans still have military bases in Kosovo. So they can't very well point any fingers

but everyone has to admit, there's nothing more cringe-worthy than the american tourists in the u-bahn. And why do they always wear fannypacks and leggings?

If you'd actually read my post, you'd have found that I wasn't pointing fingers. I mentioned US military bases as one of the things that make Germans get into contact with Americans. I did not say that US military bases are a bad thing, nor did I claim that they are a reason to hate Americans.

You know - it's this kind of knee-jerking reaction which really makes me wonder what to think when Americans claim that they've come across huge numbers of Germans making anti-American statements. If you don't listen to what people actually say but rather read things into things to make them sound offensive - don't blame us.

The problem is that of the people we tend to encounter (rather, those who seek us out to vent their frustrations), 99% are deutschbags while 1% actually have something to say. If you're that 1%, then Awesome-O 2000.

Makes me wonder why you're so attractive for douchebags...birds of a feather?

The site [www.doublestandards.org] is specifically to explain to Americans why their own government's foreign policy makes the country unpopular. The article you quoted had nothing to do with that really so it's hard to see why it's on there at all.

I don't think outlining some of the shitty things US governments have done is being vitriolic, as long as the information presented is factual. If the site was just abuse or the incidents they refer to have been distorted to make the US look bad then it might qualify as vitriol. Might.

Listen to what one of those deutschbags has to say ... his grandfather emigrated fro Kallstadt (Pfalz) to the US of A:

Trump: Bush is the Worst President in History

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno

Wake up, it's 2007. There is no American occupation of Germany.

EDIT: Furthermore there are still a large number of US installations in what was the French occupation zone.

The French occupation zone was originally (before to everyone´s surprise it was detected that the French actually won the war) - and is now once again - part of the American occupation zone ...

The bit about the French being discovered to be winners does make me chuckle, but I am curious as to how many other people on Toytown agree with your ridiculous statement that there is "the American occupation zone" in Germany? Comments, anyone?

For the 2:30 at Kempton Park? What are the odds? Who's riding them?

Technically speaking, conquistador, Berlin is still occupied, but the rest of Germany is not. Correct me anyone if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen

After the reunification of Germany on October 3, 1990, the presence of U.S. military forces in Berlin was no longer necessary, but was retained (along with the British and French forces) until the Russian military withdrew from eastern Germany. USAB was inactivated in July 1994 with President Bill Clinton participating in the casing of the colors ceremony. Since then, USAB housing areas, schools, and the Army Hospital have reverted to civilian use, some for German citizens, and others being taken over by the U.S. Embassy ...

Since when is an embassy an "occupation zone"? By that standard, almost every country in the world is "occupying Berlin." Miwild's original posts on the matter were about American military bases, none of which are anywhere near Berlin. BTW, the US embassy is moving to its new location next to the Brandenburger Tor next year.

I think the topic and the comments need to be much more generalized here, alright!!!?

I do not experience any of this stuff in either country... Most of my American friends are jewish and do not hold being German or half-German against me. It's the opposite. On both sides is curiosity about the other faith and culture...

Where do you guys live and experience this?

I don't, which is why I took that comment as referring to the former American occupation zone although that wasn't explicitely stated.

Little Sprite, it did not sound to me like 'former' was the intention here, especially when you consider by the time the French protectorate in the Saarland ended in 1956/57, the occupation of the rest of western Germany was over and the BRD had been founded. As for the French occupation zone in southern Baden-Württemberg, as far as I know it ended, along with those of the US and UK, with the founding of the BRD in 1949. If there was no more American occupation zone, how could anything revert back from the French occupation zone to a non-existent American occupation zone?

just because I haven't read the thread! Well, eh, we are bigger (canada) and we are on top ! so deal with it bitch"

Thank you miwild, that vid was quite entertaining. Although personally I do not think that Donald can speak with authority. He's just a filthy rich guy in NY who has access to the media.

Anyway, I was really shocked to read the following about one Englishman whose TV shows I enjoy tremendously, a fellow called Jeremy Clarkson:

Anti-American remarks
Throughout Top Gear, Clarkson has made Anti-American remarks, often stereotyping Americans as fat and dull-witted. For example, in September 2005 Clarkson wrote an editorial for The Sun: "Most Americans barely have the brains to walk on their back legs".[42] He has also said on Top Gear when comparing a rural British village with a rural American village that "In rural America, the town would be full of people doing… whatever it is they do. Incest, mostly".[43] One of Clarkson's most famous remarks was made during the 'American Odyssey' episode of Top Gear, where he stated 'In some parts of America people have begun to mate with vegetables.' In addition to this, a U.S. version of "Top Gear" has been halted because of Clarkson's refusal to live in America during its filming.
And since it seems to be the habit here to look up all and sundry in Wikipedia, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

Mind you: he hates Germans, but that's something for www.toytownengland.com...

He hates everyone though. Maybe yanks a little more, but from a car POV you can understand why.

*sigh* Somebody (I'm too lazy to check who) claimed that Germans don't actually know much about Americans, I mentioned US military bases in Germany as one (minor) example of how Germans actually get to meet Americans, wrongly stating that there are US bases "all over" Germany. The next poster pointed out (correctly) that I'm wrong and that they're "only in the US occupation zone". For me, that statement in that context seemed to refer to the former US occupation zone, simply because - as I said before - somebody claiming that there still is a US occupation zone seems a bit absurd. I missed out on it. You asked what other Germans here think about the idea that there might still be a US occupation zone - I told you how absurd it seems to me - so absurd that it didn't even register with me that this is what was claimed.

I read this today and then just read it through again now. I believe it sums things up far better than I could: Anti-American Sentiment Grows Worldwide. It's a worthwhile read explaining (in their view) the root causes of current Anti-Americanism.

Hope could be a change of government.

Germans with whom I have dicussed anti-Americanism in Germany have told me to a man that it is jealousy of the US, rather than anything to do with foreign policy that is the primary driver of negative feelings, meaning it has deeper roots . I was rather surprised about this, but it could explain the following


I have felt for quite some time that a change in administration would be no panacea, although a new president would find it easier to plan a US withdrawal from Iraq and implement other policies beneficial to US interests. There will always be complaints about the US, and it would be interesting to note what made anti-US feelings "mainstream" during the 1980s. The article provided by Sin from which I quoted above also says that Iraq is the primary driver of anti-Americanism. Even after a withdrawal, those countries and individuals who see themselves as having strategic interests diametrically opposed to the US, will continue to use anti-Americanism in their pursuit of their strategic interests, which is, at its heart, what anti-Americanism, and for that matter SCO, is really all about. Russia, in particular, China, and Iran are not likely to ever see their strategic interests align with those of the US, hence a perception that causes anti-Americanism. European anti-Americanism is derived primarily from ideological and cultural differences, but there are increasingly economic causes as competition in foreign trade heats up- a side-effect of globalization.

Much of the criticism of the US stems from our efforts to protect allies and to promote democracy. Scaling back such efforts would actually be in most cases a matter of pursuing US national interests with less regard for those other nations. I have a hard time seeing how a wholesale move in that direction would be for the better for European nations and other allies such as South Korea. That said, it is clear that there needs to be a comprehensive review of strategic US foreign and defense policies and a variance in tactical policy in these two realms as well.

Well said Conquistador. A new President will lead to a lessening of anti-americanism for only a brief time. Then some other excuse to hate us will suddenly emerge.
While Bush is the villian of choice, and I am not defending him. I did vote for him, I have stated that before. He is not the underlying reason for anti-americanism.

Jealousy and a lack of a real understanding of american people and government are closer to being the reason, in my opinion. I don't see any real lasting change in
this situation in the forseeable future. Hillary, Obama, Rudy, or McCain will not be the answer.

LHM, I should congratulate you for your post, as you were much more succinct than I. Anyway, if anticipation of the new US president helps internationally, I'll take it!

EDIT: in case anyone is interested:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070823/wl_t...exingitsmuscles

Disclaimer: this article does not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions.

Conquistador and LHM, whether or not a new president will do anything concrete to calm anti-American sentiments is not the point. The very fact of a new president and the mere hope that he or she might do better by the international community's standards will improve matters. Especially if the new president is not Republican.

I don't know if either of you were in Germany when the results of the 2004 election came down. If so, you might remember the feelings of utter shock and almost betrayal from a lot of ordinary Europeans that the Americans actually definitively re-elected George W. Bush. We got a free pass for the first four years due to the irregularities of the controversial 2000 election results. But when it became clear that he had won re-election, the gloves were off as regards ordinary Americans and their responsibility for their president's actions. That was my experience, anyway.

I was actually in the US at that time. I know that you are only telling us your own experience, but it is ludicrous for anyone to feel that we 'betrayed' Europe by re-electing Bush. Since when does anyone have the right to promise Europe who will be elected President? I have heard so much banter from European friends and relatives about him and Republicans since 2000, that I can tell you that no Republican is acceptable to them, but who cares? I think Zapatero is pathetic, but do I tell my relatives in Spain that they had better not re-elect him and his party?
My experience is that virtually all Europeans see the US through a European lens. No wonder they are flabbergasted- most Democrats are actually to the right of your average center-right party in Europe. Bush narrowly won in 2004 because Kerry was a poor candidate (i.e., campaigned worse than Bush) who was not coherent, seemed wishy-washy on national defense, and appeared to worry more about what Europeans thought than what Americans, the people who would elect him, thought about the issues. European interests are of little to no concern for the electorate- those types of things get addressed by the State Department, White House foreign policy advisors, and think tanks, in short, the foreign policy community. Nothing unusual there- do Europeans pick their leaders with US perception of them in mind? No way, nor should they.

My view is that ALL politicians are full of rubbish- so it doesn't matter who is President, the special interests will rule.

Goodness, this is total political propaganda, you're like the female equivalent of Eurovol: Eurovolette or something...

It's a shame that you have bought this everything-was-rosy-until-Bush-came-along BS hook, line and sinker, because if you go back and read up on Cold War politics you'll see for yourself that it just ain't the way it is.

What the article points out, and which is something that I have been harping on about ad nauseam since I have been on this board, is that anti--Americanism has alternated between simmering on low heat and boiling over for several decades. Bush's policies and diplomatic tactics may have added fuel to the fire, but we shouldn't kid ourselves when we look at the overall picture. One can go back as far back as the 1980s, but what about all the hoopla in the late 60s/early 70s at the height of the Vietnam War with protests on a scale similar to what was witnessed a couple of years ago minus the Internet? All this under (1) a Democratic administration with the (2) benign and peace-loving presence of the USSR on the world scene, valiantly providing the counterbalance to unbridled US imperialism that is missing and allegedly needed is this day and age. That yesterday's Soviet Union is today's Iran or China is indeed as pathetic and desperate as it sounds.

Jealousy?

Have you ever considered seeking professional help?

Maybe you didn't read what I posted correctly, which doesn't surprise me. At any rate, as JW has pointed out, anti-US feelings in Germany long predate any involvement in Iraq.

Then again, anyone who thinks the Russian bear is not to be feared should be the one seeking professional help.

See! There you go again presupposing that we don't fear the Russians. Are you actually on this planet?

Well Sin, I made a general (EDIT and conditional) statement without having you or any other specific individual in mind. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, discard it. Maybe you have expressed fear of the Russian bear, but I haven't seen it. At any rate, if I single someone out, I make it obvious by mentioning them by name. I also often put more than one thought in a single post, as was the case above.

While we are on the subject, what are your thoughts on Russia? Do you fear it in geopolitical and geoeconomic terms?

Actually, Putin is on the payroll of the US defense industry; He's being paid to act like a crazed post-commie expansionist in order to create more favourable political conditions for son of Star Wars funding.

You're Welsh, aren't you Dafydd?


Fear? I'm not sure that would be the correct word, but they are worth keeping a close eye on. Whoever has The Power will seek to maintain that power and probably even increase it. Russia sits on huge natural resources, and has many neighbours doing the same. I don't see Russia being the same military threat as The USA purely because they haven't been putting much stick about of late, whereas The USA has. I'm not saying this will always be the case, but I very much doubt we'll ever see a Soviet Union again. I firmly believe that the current US administration has been very bad for The USA in both geopolitical and geoeconomic terms, and I am not even convinced they have the best intentions for their own citizens. I do wonder what would have happened if the neocons hadn't rattled the world cage. Would China and Russia have increased defence spending quite so much? I think though that I can reasonably safely say that I don't believe either Russia or China would be up for any unilateralism at this time, whereas the current US administration doesn't seem to think twice about this, and said unilateralism is part of the root causes of some anti-Americanism. Of course, when speaking about anti-Americanism one should also not forget US military bases on foreign soils. This is and has never been of great popularity amongst the local majorities. I hope that the current hiccup will see the USA withdraw all military bases within Europe. If you're up for being a pain in the arse, we'd rather your arse not be parked on our chair if the boot starts flying in.

Sin, if the current US sdministration is the problem, why all the Sturm und Drang about what a military threat the US poses; i.e., if it is only beacuse of Bush, why the ritual hysteria about the US? EDIT: I mean, if SCO is about preventing US military action in SCO member nations, as you imply, why the worry since Bush has less than 17 months left in office? Military alliances take time to develop, and if the putative threat is time-limited, why bother?

Also, I doubt that there is real concern on your part about Russia- if there really were you would not be advocating for a withrawal of US troops from allied NATO countries.

As for US troop withdrawals, South Korea and Iraq should be at the top of the list. I'd like to see US troops out of Kosovo soon as well. As for other parts of Europe, the important German and Italian bases would have to be replaced by comparable facilities elsewhere, but if you build ones in Bulgaria and Romania, Putin the Paranoid will use that for propaganda purposes.

If US troop withdrawals from NATO countries is so salient an issue, why hasn't any of those governments asked the US military to leave since France in the 1960s? Of course, such a request would mean that the US cannot be expected to contribute to the Kosovo peacekeeping mission any longer-it is a bit ridiculous to insist that the US not have any basing rights in Europe at the same time there are NATO peacekeeping missions in progress. Furthermore, if Article V of the NATO treaty actually had to be put into effect to protect an European member, how much longer do you think it would take to reestablish US military logistics in Europe if all US bases in NATO lands were closed? Maybe longer than a few months, and that would cost lives.

Sin, I suggest taking the point of view of a policymaker. Perhaps then it will make a bit more sense to you.

EDIT: another reason to be concerned about a revanchist Russia is European energy dependence on it:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/artikel/661/129442/

Oh good grief... Is this thread still active? Y'all should join the 'Why every (expat) in Germany is against the Germans' thread.

This board seems to be full of victims these days...

I think you miss the detail on a regular basis, mate. Maybe that's the problem with being in denial. I advocate a united European defensive force to replace US troops and to defend Europe against any potential future threat... including the USA.

The USA a threat to Europe? Sin, perhaps YOU should seek counseling. Good luck with your idea, though- you will need it.

Anyway, change of topic, here is a incisive bachelor's thesis on anti-Americanism written by a American who studied in Germany:

http://www.berresheim.com/bweigandt/Senior...%20Weigandt.pdf

I doubt the anti-US crowd will be bothered to read it since it doesn't predict the immediate demise of the US economy nor does it liken Bush to Hitler

You have got to be joking!

We are all aware that the Anti-US administration sentiment has been around for a long time, much longer than the Bush theives have been in office.

Is it possible in your "Defend the US at all costs" logic that this long running anti-US sentiment is because the US Admin has been meddling in world affairs for a very long time and often not for the benefit of anyone other than the US admin itself, one could even argue that it is not beneficial to US population due to the resultant negative effects.

When speaking only for myself, I have major problems with the US administrations foreign policy...

It is detrimental to the future of my children (when I eventually have some) and our planet's safety.

What kind of flawed logic other than "Do as I say and not as a do" can explain the US's actions in relation to nuclear weapons?

Jealousy of the US has got to be the weakest argument you have yet presented in your unending defence of what clearly has been successive, aggressive US Adminstrations.

I don't fear the Russians at all. Long-term, the intention is that they'll join the EU. There may be bumps along the way, but it'll happen.

Pleb, since you don't agree with me you aren't likely to find my arguments strong. If you have actually paid attention to what I have posted, you would know that I have posted more than once that I have disagreements with some aspects of US foreign and domestic policy. I have said that there should not have been military action in Iraq in 2003 unless Saddam brandished WMDs. That said, what we have on Toytown is daily criticism of the US which is reflexive and simply reflects a hatred beyond simply disliking the actions of the Bush administration.

If you think Iran's nuclear weapons program is of no concern, perhaps you should ask yourself why the EU3 are carrying out negotiations with Iran and why the issue has been taken up by the UN Security Council.

I don't see too many of those criticizing the US offering any alternatives. Sin, to his credit, has, although it is, in my opinion, not a good one.

EDIT: Wheel, I cannot imagine Russia either qualifying for EU membership or wanting it, much less needing it. Russia's exports are primarily arms and commodities, so they probably don't even need a customs union with the EU. I do not see their export base diversifying much anytime soon either. To tell you the truth, I thought back in the 1990s that they could become a player in high-tech and biotech, but they decided that their traditiional export sectors were the way to go- probably because of a lack of property rights there. Anyhow, Russia has a huge democratic deficit and its justice system, among others, would need a complete revamp before even seriously considering EU membership. There are also huge human rights issues, esp. Chechnya, and I don't see Russian nationalism capitulating to EU bureaucrats' demands for changing its institutions to fit EU norms. Plus, don't they still have capital punishment? In sum, Russia is not a fit for EU membership.

I don't think the US bases in Europe should be downsized much further. Apart from strategic reasons, that would make the concept of allies even more abstract and probably strengthen isolationist tendencies in the US. A certain amount of interaction between "real people" is necessary to cooperate.

A European army couldn't replace the US – that's just misjudging the relations of power. But Europe should act more as a link between Russia and the US. Russia is not a threat now, but as a only partially developed democracy its political future is not very predictable.

As to the assumed widespread anti-americanism: it's the people who don't miss an occasion for bashing the US/the current administration who get noticed. I think very often the US is an easy target for general criticism of globalization (don't forget that the people in the GDR were under constant anti-american propaganda; the standard formula in newspapers etc. was "the imperialist USA"); and yes, there was incomprehension about the sudden rise of neoconservative thinking and its consequences in foreign policy. With this ideology on the decline now, there could again be a change in european-american perceptions.

That particular point I have read from you previously, so granted but the overall feel from you is defend at all costs.


I think every nuclear weapons program is of concern...
In no way should any nation be omitted from it's responsibilities in removing this threat to out survival.
For the US to say disarm and to continue creating it's WMD's is once again "do as i say not as i do".


There are many alternatives but i doubt they will be implemented from this forum...
Any of these alternatives should include removing the possibility of making money from war or defence.

I think we should drag this down to something simple enough for some people to understand:

You come home and the wife/girlfriend is mad at you for something. Do you argue that she shouldn't be mad at you or she's just jealous of you or do you try to ascertain why she might be mad at you before any potential counter argument?

And I'll put it another way: You're an alien observing the Earth as a school playground. You're sitting up there in space monitoring all world activity. Who is the playground bully?

I suppose anything is possible.

Pleb, sorry, I am no fan of defense industries per se, but your suggestion about doing away with military spending and R&D is completely unrealistic. I much prefer the use of diplomacy, but it cannot solve everything, especially if there is little credible threat of hard power to back it up. EDIT: BTW, US nukes serve as a deterrent.

Sin, if I thought my country was a bully, I would agree with you. I don't think so- what you see is a US effort to defend allies and protect itself. Does that mean that mistakes are made sometimes? Yes, and I will criticize them, but you are seeing US actions with a jaundiced eye as far as I can tell, and that colors your analysis. Try to see it within context. I have suggested some prudent changes, of which you have previously signaled some agreement.

...but not before hell freezes over.

No. Again, that's what YOU see, and NOT what I see. You are NOT in my head and you do NOT look through my eyes.

I'm not absolutely sure you could ever see a pile of shit even if your nose was buried in it.

Russia is the end goal of the EU project. It's culturally more European than Turkey, and has a similar proportion of its landmass on the European continent. Once it's on board the chances of a major intra-European conflict diminish almost to zero, which is the main reason the EU was set up after all. The Russians are playing up at the moment, but they want European wealth and have failed several modernisations of their own going back to the 19th. C. It is very likely to happen in the next 15 years.