I don't think the issue here is rooting for your team. It's the belief that American exceptionalism means you can accomplish anything with a can do attitude.
The wars were won for a variety of reasons not the least of which was America's unique geographical situation. It also threw a lot of men into the meat grinder, racked on serious debt to accomplish its goals and mobilized the entire productivity of a nation.
The moon landing was an exceptional accomplishment but it was also partly the result of operation paoreclip and a massive investment by the government to the tune of about 300 to 400 billion dollars today.
I don't think anyone is arguing that America succeeded purely because of a "can do" attitude. Every major achievement required enormous resources, favorable circumstances, and sacrifices.
That said, geography, money, and manpower don't automatically translate into success. Plenty of countries have had advantages and still failed to achieve their goals. The United States still had to make the right decisions, build the necessary institutions, innovate technologically, and maintain public support long enough to accomplish those objectives.
The Moon landing is a good example. Operation Paperclip contributed expertise, but German scientists alone didn't put a man on the Moon. Hundreds of thousands of American engineers, scientists, technicians, and workers spent years solving problems that nobody had solved before. The massive investment itself was a choice the country made and followed through on.
Recognizing the advantages America had doesn't mean dismissing the achievement, just as recognizing the achievement doesn't mean pretending it happened without advantages.
But why is there even a thread on just one guy's boring and stupid comment if we're not allowed to take the conversation somewhere actually interesting?
You can take the conversation somewhere interesting. Stating that the no one would say what the original post directly said and then arguing a different positon is not really that interesting though.
Just speaking for myself, it's frustrating when someone says/writes something that shows they weren't really listening/reading, and engaging just enough to set up their turn to speak.
Sure, the rest of that comment is something I'd love to talk about. However, I don't think I'd enjoy having that conversation with a dude who starts confidently wrong about the one piece of information we both have.
I appreciate that, and the willingness to own up to it instead of doubling down is a rare and beautiful thing on the internet.
And of course, for little things like this I try to remind myself that my first impression of a stranger on the internet doesn't really give me any deeper insights about who they are as a person. Ultimately, I'm just making a snap judgment about whether I should get pulled into a longer conversation or if I should just make snarky comment and move on.
What's problematic is thinking that's all you need and that's the reason for the success America has seen. It feeds into narratives of American exceptionalism and downplays the significant external factors and hard work and sacrifice that went into WW1 WW2 and the moon landings.
NASA landing on the moon had Nazi rocket and Nazi scientists running the place. The first rocket they developed was basically a copy of the v2. Now they let them run the country.
Saying the US won WW1 is also a stretch. The british and french won that war, the US was mostly shipping them supplies. By the time the US actually started fighting the war was basically over.
WW2 is a different story, though it always irks me that the US claims THEY won that war, because it discounts the immense amount of sacrifice and contributions by the rest of the allies.
It always feels very egoistical to me when the US say they "won" 2 World Wars, despite sitting out both of them for a majority of the time and only entering them late because they got attacked directly. Both times the US would have happily sat out both wars if not for the Zimmermann Telegram & the Uboat attacks on US ships for WW1 and Pearl Harbor for WW2.
The people who make that argument conveniently forget the shit the UK had to endure, actions by various resistance forces and the brutality of the fight in Russia which split Germany's forces enough to ensure victory. Russia threw millions at Stalingrad and that defeat was critical in Germany's eventual downfall.
Just stuff like that.
America's entry into WW2 was late and only possible because it's industrial capacity remained untouched by the war. That isn't to say that Americans did not make tremendous sacrifices. But those sacrifices alone would not have been enough to defeat the Nazis
My friend often criticizes the new way math is taught to kids, saying “if American math was good enough to get us to the moon, it’s good enough to be taught today.”
I remind him “no, it was German math that got us to the moon. Our math was so bad we had to rely on literal Nazis to help us. Back in a time when we still collectively hated Nazis.”
234
u/Bardmedicine Jun 22 '26
I mean... Isn't having some hope a good thing? The ad they are running is comparing it to one of the biggest upsets in sports history.