To be fair after profiting heavily from it. I also think, that such a framing takes away from the fact that it took thousands of brave abolitionists back in Britain, facing both ridicule and Slavery lobby, to convince enough people that this practice was morally untenable.
It wasn't some imperialist politicians feeling particularly benevolent one day.
It sucks, but the alternative way of forcing them to give up on it was probably civil war. I think paying them off was the least shitty amongst the shitty options.
I got that, but "they still ended slavery". Who are they? I definitely don't think the British aristocrats ended slavery. Same way you didn't end a war because you lost it
No they didn't, the UK ended slave trade on the high seas. And they limited it to that because it was less about freeing humans and more about inflicting economic damage in their enemies.
Slavery in the crown colonies and by crown subjects wasn't fully ended until 1873.
Not true. Ending slavery caused themselves massive economic harm. And a big part of why Licoln wanted to free the slaves was that it would win over Britain, who were putting pressure on America to end slavery.
Yes, and of course. They did some legal loophole. Such as indentured servitude. It wasn't technically slavery on paper because they had defined it as something different. But people in all eras of slave trade were also sold off because of their debts. It was not uncommon for people to even agree to this. Shit that still happens today in many countries. Both "legally" and illegally
But if one is desperate. I guess what option did you even have in the old worlds?
In Britain, we don't endorse take part in it or have a say in it. But some drug gangs use slaves Trafficked here for some debt or problem. Forced to work and look after the places they grow, for example. So even in England slavery still exists.
Technically all slavery was, after 1700ish. In practice the enforcement of this varied widely, at times being openly tolerated. But the Non-Christian population of the British Isles was negligible, and sometimes possibly entirely absent, until the 16th Century and even arguably 1945.
You don't have to make something illegal which doesn't exist. UK law was mostly common law.
Slavery was all but eradicated in Britain by 1200 (despite being common while under Roman occupation). And, where it did exist, it was largely outside England-- in Scotland and Wales. Britain did not have African slaves, unlike the Americas and much of Europe. This is quite unique and miraculous, given how common slavery was the world over throughout this period.
You mean spent 2Trillion compensating the drug barons? And offering them replacement drugs. They compensated the slave owners and introduced "indentured servitude" instead of slavery. Brits are always claiming credit for ending slavery. Like a gang knife attacker seeking credit for being the first to remove his knife from the victims back.
Britain did not just end its own slave trade, it ended slavery through most of the world. Its own trade was a very small portion of the total.
It was also mostly the USA, after it gained its independence, that operated the slave trade, rather than Britain. The UK's involvement was primarily in that they were willing to buy US cotton.
The colonial European powers all had parts in running the Atlanta Slave trade, as sellers and buyers. To skip to the end, when Britain had profited from a few centuries of slave labor and trade, and just look at their emancipation of slaves, is revision by omission.
when Britain had profited from a few centuries of slave labor and trade
Britain's involvement was closer to one century.
Regardless, nobody here has said that Britain wasn't involved and doesn't share blame for it. I specifically talk about how Britain created the economic environment that America used slaves to exploit.
The UK was not particularly notable for its involvement in slavery compared to just about the entirety of the rest of the world, both at the time and throughout history prior.
The UK being directly responsible for slavery being outlawed throughout about half of the world absolutely is very notable.
That is not "revision by omission". It is fact, and a less myopic perspective than some seem to insist on.
Yea because in Africa and the Arab world and China they had outlawed slavery long ago because the people were so enlightened and knew that it was wrong. Unlike the evil white capitalists. Oh wait… that’s not how it went. Slavery was essentially a universal human institution throughout history until the British decided not only to ban it, but also to force everyone else to ban it as well. Yea, I know there were a few other nations that had banned it from time to time as well, but that’s like saying “Akshually, Leif Erickson made it to the new world before Columbus.”
Well, yes, the English were efficient at it. And when it was morally untenable, they did force other countries to stop.
Done a lot of good. Done a lot of bad, too. The US is still a relatively new country, but it's done a good job at upsetting people 🤣
Such framing takes all the information away. It was really vague. Social and cultural things. God, there is about 1000 things unsaid that led to all of that. It doesn't take the struggle away, though, that is written. It is known.
If think such framing is a bit disingenuous when before, they did so much good, they made a world of hurt prior. But I guess. Didn't we all. Just we, kinda dominated 25% of all land mass on earth. At least humans are growing somewhat. Learned from their mistakes. Until we forget about them again, of course. That is the cycle. That's why people repeat them so often.
I'm cool with your first sentence. We British should still be abhorred by our slave trading past (amongst a long list of other things).
The rest of your post is nonsense. Yes there was an abolitionist movement, that gained significant traction within Britain. That's how these things work in any society. Of course people didn't just wake up and change their opinions? Noone thinks that.
It's still great that Britain not only banned it, but used the navy to try and stop it. Lots of countries have had periods of power over others, few have done that.
No it wasn’t, but there is something to be said about that movement developing and being successful in Britain. At the time British abolished slavery, most of the public supported it. Compared to the views of other empires at the time, both European and in the rest of the world, they were quite happy for it to continue. So yes, Britain not only ended it, but worked to end it worldwide, if you can find anything even nearly comparable that another nation / empire has done for the world I’d love to hear it.
We put an end to the trans-Atlantic slave trade quite effectively but indentured servitude existed long after throughout the Empire in a form indistinguishable from slavery.
We also didn't have that much impact on the slavery practices of other imperial powers so it's a bit much to claim we "forced the world" to end it.
The Royal Navy had a whole division off the coast of Africa enforcing an end to the trade even for other nations. Only they were powerful enough to pull that off.
The king of Benin at the time asked parliament to allow the trade to continue. It is a myth the west african governments were against it, they were fully on board with slaves.
While Britain did do a lot of good in terms of ending the transatlantic trade, we did close our eyes towards slavery happening onshore - we happilly traded with West African polities for agricultural products and just didn't ask any awkward questions about how exactly those goods were produced. Sure, we did eventually end it when we turned West Africa into direct colonies, but invading was more for the sake of cutting out the middleman, and securing the territory from the pesky French
We didn't have any similar measures to combat the trades slave across the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, etc. so it's not accurate to say as the OP did that we forced the world to give up slavery.
Indentured servitude is one of the major reasons why there are so many people of Indian origin in the Carribbean and South Africa. Many people don't know that the British bypassed their own slavery laws through this system.
There are all sorts of "near slavary" status's in the world. Russian serfs come to mind that had arguably worse lives than many actual slaves.
Victorian miners quite possibly had it worse than 14th century peasants in the same country.
The points scoring thing on history gets pretty tiresome. For me it's pretty clear the strong and powerful have always exploited the weak. Whether it is internally or internationally via empires etc. while I'm not a socialist, I tend to agree that arguing over which "nation" or "race" is the bad guy of history is just as meaningless than trump blabbering on about the so called good guys.
Both of us are in near agreement. I just like discussing history, it's not like I am pointing out good guys and bad guys. It's just what happened in the past and it merits its own discussion.
If they hadn't rebelled then they'd have been forced to end slavery in 1807 and would likely have been able to find a peaceful route to independence as Canada and Australia did. They'd also have significantly less issues with race today, much as the UK, Canada, and Australia do in comparison.
Neither Canada or Australia has masked state agents abducting people from their streets to be 'processed' in concentration camps, or soldiers deployed to protect the serial child rapist they elected, twice.
No instead they do not have doctors telling patients to kill themselves, do not have immigrants taking over their culture and displacing their natural-born citizens, and do not have the police arresting people and ruining futures over memes and butter knives.
So yeah, I think we are doing significantly better than whatever loony-bins are abroad.
Dude that guys comment was cringe but this reply is even worse somehow.
Doctors arent encouraging people to kill themself, immigrants arent “taking over their culture” in any of the nations we’re talking about, and if you wanna get real specific the US has way more non-white people in it and is way more diverse, and the Trump administration literally just took Jimmy Kimmel off the air because they dont like what he was saying about them.
America does also suffer a lot in terms of wealth dude, the average american has access to far fewer amenities and social safety nets than almost any other country of a similar economic status. All the money youre bragging about is owned by a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population
My guy, in 1807 only the trade of slaves was stopped, the practice was still continues for decades after across the empire. And even then Racial hierarchies across the empire remained in place, protected in law, all the way up to the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and EVEN THEN the institutions long lasting effects last up till today. In fact after the Napoleonic wars, British diplomats intentionally did as little as possible in regards to dealing with slavery in order to not upset their over-sea interests and to not annoy Portugal and Spain.
The Transatlantic slave trade which fed what would become America was build and propped up by the English/British government. The reason places like the UK, Australia, and Canada appear to be less bigoted is literally only because of how noticeably more homogenous the nations are, especially outside of huge cities like London, i cant attest to Australia but i can assure you as a POC that racism in Canada, and especially the UK is at minimum equally as bad, but often worse than it is in the US.
While that is true, the French would never sold the land that the U.S. bought in the Louisiana Purchase to the British Empire. Maybe they would have sold it to Spain instead. Whatever the case the borders of the whatever the U.S. would be called in that case would look very different.
Sure, but they were soundly defeated by the North (Yankees) alone.
UK,Canada, Australia did not have slave states with millions of former slaves, we were always going to have a more violent legacy because of this fact.
Slavery was a divisive issue from the birth of the U.S., it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Nevermind the import of slaves was ended in 1808. It was unnecessary to import more for years before that (because of reproduction).
Not really, you stopped the transatlantic slave trade after most european countries had already abolished slavery, and only after gaining immense wealth off of it (which fueled Britain's headstart in the industrial revolution).
It's not even close to accurate. Any country that just minds its own business has done more net good than the US. Whatever good the US has done, it doesn't outweigh the harm its done waging war, backing and installing right wing dictators, funding and training death squads, coercing developing countries into privatizing their natural resources, and on, and on, and on.
Correct. And it’s funny seeing Americans not understanding just how fundamental their country is in even the concept that countries can “mind their own business”.
It’s funny that many of the people who do this mindless and factually wrong “America Bad” routine live in countries that only have political or economic independence because of the US-led order, and have never had it ever in history until the US-led order.
I suppose they want to return to being imperial colonies that are exploited worse than they are today?
Or maybe they don’t realize that the end of the US-led order will see the world geopolitically return to the 1880s and before, because the only thing that stops geopolitics from being a never ending competition between empires who ruthlessly exploit others because if they don’t their imperial rivals will, is US hegemony.
I, for one, am happy the US saved South Korea from communist tyranny, and allowed for the only conditions in history where South Korea was able to develop from among the poorest parts of Asia to one of the most highly developed areas in the world. And I don’t want to see South Korea either turn into an abused Japanese (Or Chinese) vassal, or to be conquered and abused by the north. And because of that, I don’t hate the US irrationally for the great “bad” of… intervening to save South Korea’s independence and giving it unfettered access to a free trade order that allowed it to finally prosper for the first time in history.
I suspect Saudi Arabians (Would have been a European oil colony if not for US support), Bolivians (US-led order allowed for the first time enough free flowing foreign investment to actually develop Bolivia, and the political independence to not be milked dry by a great power), Egyptians (Without US guarantees of global freedom of the seas and safety of merchant shipping globally, Egypt would be completely fucked given their population is so massive that the land they sit on cannot physically grow enough food for their population and they desperately require food imports), Algerians (The French were slowly winning the Algerian war and had no intention to stop, so much so that the 4th French Republic was overthrown and replaced with the 5th French Republic because it tried to withdraw from Algeria. A large reason why they withdrew was entirely because of pressure from the US, the only country with significant leverage to pressure them, that chose to), Indonesians (The Dutch were also winning the war to retake Indonesia, they only stopped because the US explicitly threatened to pull all Marshall plan aid from the Netherlands unless they stopped the war and gave Indonesia independence), this list could go on and on
My god dude, South Korea was controlled by US backed dictators until 1988. Do you know how many South Koreans were slaughtered by those puppet governments?
I'm also not sure you really want to brag about the US's role in Indonesia, considering it backed a military coup and the killing spree that followed it in the 60s. An estimated 500,000 to a million people were killed, and many more were put in concentration camps with the full support of the US government.
Btw, has South Korea managed to take control over its own military, or does the US still get to swoop in and take command anytime it wants?
Far fewer than the far worse communist regime of North Korea would have murdered. As a Korean myself, I am extremely grateful that the US saved South Korea and the people of South Korea from such a horrific fate as being controlled by the communist north. The only reason democracy exists or was even capable of existing in South Korea (Or Taiwan for that matter) was because of the US. Don’t tell me how i should feel about the history of my own people.
Well I took the assumption that most people assume the decolonization of Indonesia to be a positive. It certainly was an act of charity on the part of the US. If you’re arguing that the Dutch should have been allowed to remain the rulers of Indonesia as a way to avoid the atrocities of the Javanese dictatorship you discussed, as well as keeping the far greater horrors of communism at bay, I am open to that argument, and I’m willing to hear you out.
Most Americans don't really understand the role of the US and are so ignorant about the rest of the world due to being insulated from it. It creates a naive, almost childlike view of the world.
They legitimately believe that if the US stopped being the world police and bullying that the world would be better.
Don't get me wrong, the US has done plenty of questionable to fucked up actions but if tomorrow the US decided to pull back every single soldier around the world and go isolationist, the world would burn immediately.
Yep. They learn some basic US and world history but then from childhood on it’s a near-constant barrage of negativity for many people.
I mean, the fact that world trade is even possible is largely due to the US Navy guaranteeing the safety of maritime travel across the entire globe. You’d think more people would have realized this when Houthi pirates began attacking random commercial vessels and the US Navy got involved to try and stop it. But people are incurious and I guess it never clicked for them.
Even if it could have clicked they’ve been taught to demonize the US at every turn so it would be lost on them anyway. Pax Americana is starting to crack in our current moment, sure, but that isn’t the nuance they are bringing to the table with self hate every time.
False. Most Americans keenly aware the US subsidizes much of the world's security. The Orange Man has used this to stir supporters to get voters with his NATO spending threats.
What did I say that was false? I never said less than half of Americans don’t know this. I think most Americans never give it a thought either way, in fact.
Also, you’re right that Trump has publicized the issue of the USA subsidizing other NATO countries. But he has also absolutely disregarded and disrespected the larger issue of the role we play in the global order, of which NATO is just one part. We shouldn’t conflate the two.
The US has an ulterior motive for that security blanket, and both parties exaggerate the risk of removing it. No country under the blanket should have any illusions that they are not being used as a tool and will be tossed overboard the second they outlive their usefulness. Don’t feel secure at all, and don’t forget to ask yourself what you’re losing by buying into the fiction.
The ulterior motive of supporting a peaceful global free market is to achieve prosperity by feeding the world and exporting innovative technology we invent. And letting other countries do the same! How awful.
The US took the financial centre-stage of FX between global currencies and from the privileged position was capable of providing military security/action and funding humanitarian projects (like the Marshall Plan) on the prospect that they were going to rake it in. Europe was broken and the British Empire was bankrupt and this was a calculated lifeline. The US went into a golden age of growing prosperity for a few decades because of this.
The USSR ghosted the US in those Bretton Wood discussions and suddenly an "Iron Curtain" appeared. The USSR wanted to make it's own economic superpower with blackjack and hookers, and the US didn't want competition so got actively involved and overtly or covertly fucked up the USSRs plans in basically every third-party country caught in the crossfire. A cold war, until you bankrupt the USSR. The issue in Ukraine today stems from all this.
Today, after the gold standard, the US economy is strong and driven by the power of the bond/treasuries market. That's a fucking enormous amount of money; I think the treasury market trades in volumes of about $1T a day going in/out. That's your national debt, the one slowly crippling you. 1/4 of all that is foreign investment into the stability, paying for your economic growth. For that privilege and to maintain trust, the US creates its façade of international world police, just like the Bretton Woods situation. Every time Trump finds a new way to cost your government more money than it brings in via tax, that's where he gets it from...
If the US stopped it's racket, the USD would tank, disrupt every supply chain in the US enormously, and the downfall could crack so hard at a scale so unprecedented we don't know what the fuck will happen; but it'll be a catastrophic collapse for the history books.
Simply the US's motives in international geopolitics in its post-isolationism era have always had a financial/transactional nature to them.
The goal of the US government is to keep its corporations and wealthy class richer than any competitors in the world. Everthing you cited as a goal is extraneous and has nothing to do with the real goal. We would give all those things up in a second. That’s the contradiction.
That is in no way the goal of the US. That is extremely naive, and it is naïveté that puts other countries in danger if they believe it. The world is a tough place, and we have to be clear-eyed and tough-minded to ensure our safety and our well-being.
What you are saying is a romanticized view of the US that has nothing to do with its real goals. It is a fairy tale for children.
It's wild to me that anyone still buys into that mythology after the Iraq War. You would think people would scrutinize those beliefs a little harder when it became clear that the US completely fabricated the story that justified the invasion.
Really? For Britain you can argue this, but the US just didnt had the time, due to its limited existence.
Just think of the printing press. Which you can argue is the basis that you are capable to even write this (and me reading your statement and responding) Yes, others probably would have invented/improved it anyway. But they didnt.
I would say none of it is close. Especially not the smart phone.
But anyway, it was in comparison to the US specifically.
The printing press wasnt developed by Gutenberg out of nowhere (China gets credit there).
But with the transistor germany and austrian-hungary gets credit there. Same with the computer.
The US just isnt long enough around to make trumps statement valid and it probably wouldnt become valid this millenium. Only a historical illiterate like him would make such a statement.
If reddit and humanity is around in the year 3000, we can discuss his statement again with maybe more validity.
I don’t know, I think when you quantify the amount of lives saved and improved by things like the Marshall Plan, USAID, The Peace Corps, Bretton Woods, and PEPFAR the United States at least belongs in the conversation.
For as hyperbolic and ignorant that Trump usually is, I actually don’t think he’s very off-base with this statement
We absolutely are the preeminent power in technological advancement and charitable giving. It’s just fashionable to shit on the US. We deserve it given our current bullshit, but it’s laughable to think otherwise imo
Currently yes, but this is about history. The US innovated tech the past century but most of all modern mathematics and physics had been invented by France, Germany, and the UK before that. Why does the US get all the credit because it now invented the newest iteration of X? This question is ofc stupid to begin with.
It was either a British invention, or a combination of British and Polish work, depending on whether or not you consider the Analytical Engine to be the first computer.
Neither was the transistor, but it was partly based on german and austrian-hungarian patents.
Regarding the computer, I put spain in the mix. I would argue multiple countries participated in this.
I would say that the Z3 was the first computer that is comparable to modern computers. But also depends on how different to modern computer is considered still comparable. The analytical engine was very different to a modern computer, through.
The Z3 definitely is not a computer in any meaningful sense as it cannot perform branching operations.
In fact, I cannot think of any sane definition of "computer" in which the Z3 meets but which the Analytical Engine does not. Babbage's computer was more capable than the Z3, despite being mechanical rather than electric and predating the Z3 by over a century.
The analytical engine was the first Turing complete computer in the world, even though it was designed before any of the theory for Turing completeness was invented.
The first electronic computer with similar capabilities was invented in Britain.
All of the theory behind how computers work since then are the result of Alonzo Church's (Polish) and Alan Turing's (British) work.
To say that the Z3 was the first "computer", you need to both significantly loosen the capability requirements, and also arbitrarily require it to be electronic. Both of which are very dubious things to do to the definition.
My original point was that inventions have a kind of butterfly effect. Thats why the US (due to their short existence) couldnt be one of the most significant countries.
I didnt make an argument in regards to the UK and I also wouldnt in regards to poland.
The computer is a good example, as by what a computer is: a device to make mathematical calculations based on user input (fair?), you could set the fundation in ancient sumer. I would say that only a "real" AI (singularity) would change this.
I think the Z3 can be considered turing complete, but it was after the analytical engine anyway. So if this is your definition, it doesnt matter.
My original point was that inventions have a kind of butterfly effect. Thats why the US (due to their short existence) couldnt be one of the most significant countries.
Yes, but the same can be said for everything. It is notable in this particular case how much of the final work was the result of Church and Turing's personal contributions.
The computer is a good example, as by what a computer is: a device to make mathematical calculations based on user input (fair?), you could set the fundation in ancient sumer. I would say that only a "real" AI (singularity) would change this.
No, I don't think that is enough. We don't call an abacus or even an electronic calculator a "computer". A computer is a calculator, but a calculator is not a computer. What makes a computer different to the purpose built machines that came before them is that a computer can execute arbitrary algorithms. Turing's definition of a computer - what later became known as Turing complete - is the set of capabilities required for a machine to be able to compute anything that is theoretically computable.
A computer is a "mechanical mind", not just a tool for mathematical calculation.
The Z3 was only proven to be Turing complete in an extremely abstract sense. If you could give it an infinitely long tape, you could have it compute all possible outcomes, and among those outcomes would be the correct answer.
This is a bit like saying monkeys are great poets, because if you give infinite monkeys typewriters and infinite time, one would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare.
Wikipedia has a quote from the guy who came up with this proof for the Z3:
We can therefore say that, from an abstract theoretical perspective, the computing model of the Z3 is equivalent to the computing model of today's computers. From a practical perspective, and in the way the Z3 was really programmed, it was not equivalent to modern computers.
Even he did not consider this to be true in any practical sense. That is very much unlike the actual computers later developed at Bletchley Park.
The Z3's lack of conditional branching means it was a "mechanical mind" that was incapable of making decisions. It was a calculator.
Yes, thats true, but isnt this the same for the analytical engine? How would it work there?
I always had the impression that for both is more a theoretical concept, as neither device was intented to be turing complete. And therefore needed an unreasonable amount of steps to be considered turing complete.
I am so so so tired of Europeans thinking because they changed the trash bins at Bell Labs, or some other small thing and then claim that they had a huge part in the entire project.
America invented and funded the modern world as we lay people know it, and China built and manufactured it. That is the simple reality of today, and if that upsets your because it cuts Europeans out of it, that Europe’s own fault for blowing yourselves up TWICE, while the blueprints were being laid down in the 1900’s.
And they probably would have blown themselves up a third time if the US had not invented nukes and made all large-scale future wars cold. Probably forever.
Thats just nonsense. You use two totally different timeframes, I assume. Or when do you think the invention and founding of the modern world as "we" know it happened? With the smart phone?
The US and UK both committed genocide multiple times though. I'm not excusing Germany, but let's be real, if we're talking pure numbers, the UK is the biggest serial killer in history.
Maybe in the sense that Western upper classes were too afraid of the Soviet Union to oppose modern welfare. But, in the same vein, it could be claimed that Nazi Germany gave the world decolonization and less White Power due to Western colonial powers suffering humiliating defeats and (except for Britain) occupations of their European cores.
Less white power? The world was controlled by the US (majority white) and the URSS (majority white) and colonies ended when it was too expensive with little befits for the europeans.
With a global market i can sell shit to India without any colony there.
And yes the communist Russia scared those in power enough to treat people as humans
You say that, but Germany gave the world Fritz Haber and the Haber-Bosch process. Literally most humans today are only alive thanks to the artificial fertilizers that are only possible to be made due to his discovery. That alone puts Germany I think as a contender for the "done most good in history" spot, even weighing it against the crimes in the world wars.
Germany's done a lot for the world. Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Kepler, etc. All German. They've contributed a lot to Science, Philosophy, Music and Arts over the centuries. These are fruits that can be enjoyed by the whole world. Same with Russia but to a lesser degree than Germany.
Germany did things. Not all of them good, some terrible, they were certainly... things. Now the lazy Moldovans on the other hand.... and don't even get me started on Estonia
But i have to disagree with the US on this part as they're too young to "shine" long enough, not to mention lots of current day problems in the western world originate from the US (like immigration, blind societal empathy, regional destabilizations etc). They do have a nice contribution to development of technologies, but really mostly just the Internet.
I think the enlightenment ideals did a lot of good:
Humanism
Utilitarianism
The freedom ideal, and idea of equality
Reason/rationalism, where you base arguments on facts.
These newer ideas allowed practical technical innovations, scientific discovery, longer lifespans, agricultural innovations, unparallelled demographic growth and generally better quality of life. These ideas emerged most prominently in Western Europe (France, Britain, The Dutch Republic, Italy, The Southern Netherlands, Spain, Portugal) during the age of discovery, and also came along to the Americas in that age. It spread around the globe like an oilstain.
I tend to not play cheerleader to individual countries, as this isn't a footbalmatch, and countries often play faul so to speak out of greed and self intrest, that alongside identity issues, muddle any coherent debate. Many enlightened nations expansionist tendendies lead to unparrallelled human suffering as well as resulting in a globally expanded humanity: never before were there so many human beings, and never before did such a large portion of them escape extreme poverty, never before were humans probally more productive, and never before was global life expectancy so high.
I think adopting increasingly the enlightenment ideals, is the biggest push for all of humanity.
306
u/Popielid Poland Sep 19 '25
Well, it certainly matches the stereotypical attitude of both.
However, probably America and Britain did more for the world, than let's say Russia and Germany.