a debt of gratitude for American treasure and blood spilled. Just go back to the 20th century without America, you'd have a world divided by axis powers. I haven't seen that movie about a world without America but I'm guessing it hits on the same points. Or you'd have a world dominated by marxism. Look at a night satellite photo of North and South Korea and the contrast. Who do the South Koreans need to thank for that but the United States (along with our allies in that conflct)? We're not perfect, but we're better than all you fuckers.
America: the world owes us
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
Honestly if it wasn't for the US, I think the Nazis would still have lost WWII. It would have taken more time but in the end, the russians would have prevailed But who know what woud have happened then : Would all Europe have become communist ? Would communism have lasted during the '90 ? The '00 ? The '10 ?
Would the US have prevented the soviets to invade UK ? Would WWII have starte over when Stalin would have tried to invade the UK ?
Also, if your stat telling the world owes the US because of WWII, doesn't it owes Charles Martell for stopping the arabs from conquering all Europe ? Doesn't it owes the Greeks for stopping the Persians ? Doesn't it owes the Huns, the Wisigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Franks, the Vandals, the Saxons, etc. for putting and end to the Roman Empire ?
Would the US have prevented the soviets to invade UK ? Would WWII have starte over when Stalin would have tried to invade the UK ?
Also, if your stat telling the world owes the US because of WWII, doesn't it owes Charles Martell for stopping the arabs from conquering all Europe ? Doesn't it owes the Greeks for stopping the Persians ? Doesn't it owes the Huns, the Wisigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Franks, the Vandals, the Saxons, etc. for putting and end to the Roman Empire ?
And Gorgok defeated Shamrock while riding a mammoth setting forth a series of of events that led us to where we are now. But I'm talking relative recent history.
sorry for the multiple posts, but the board is being wonky again.
Without a D-Day invasion and the strategic bombing to worry about and only the Soviets and a winter to wait out do you think Germany would've still lost?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
If Hitler hadn't zigged when he should have zagged a few times the outcome, even with the might of the United States military and US military production could have ended very differently. I don't believe the Soviet Union would have come out on top without us, in any scenario.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
The Hitler and Germany you have been taught is a lie.
The bombing of Germany is a war crime.
The bombing of Germany is a war crime.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Would the Soviets have defeated the Germans on their own without the aid of lend/lease and a threat of a western front? It's intriguing which is why I like these conversations.
So then what stopped all of Europe from becoming a Soviet satellite then? The United States of America, that's who.
I'm mostly with Johan on this one. Though it would have taken longer the Russians would have polished Hitler off all by themselves. Remember, the crushing defeat at and retreat from Stalingrad began in Feb '43. In Feb '43 American troops were still 5 months away from first setting foot on European soil in Sicily.
D-Day was 15 months away. If Hitler hadn't been so heavily engaged on the eastern front D-Day probably would have ended up being a bloodbath for the allies.
Then again, that additional time Germany would have gained by facing the Soviets only might have been enough to complete their development of a nuclear weapon, so...
But would all of those divisions committed to defending France have made a difference if they were freed up for the eastern front? And Germany's ally Japan, would've had total dominance in the western Pacific without America and would've certainly opened an eastern front against the Soviets which would've been a game changer.
Or we could treat them like a Korean airliner.
Supafly
Retired Mod
The Fuck.
The USA involves itslf in foreign warfare and "democratic nationbuilding" simply for capital gains and geostrategical prposes. Quit telling yourself and others you are a samaritan.
It's not like there are at some points positive side effects for certain other states. But that is not BECAUSE you did the things you did and do.
- - - Updated - - -
The Fuck.
The USA involves itslf in foreign warfare and "democratic nationbuilding" simply for capital gains and geostrategical prposes. Quit telling yourself and others you are a samaritan.
It's not like there are at some points positive side effects for certain other states. But that is not BECAUSE you did the things you did and do.
The USA involves itslf in foreign warfare and "democratic nationbuilding" simply for capital gains and geostrategical prposes. Quit telling yourself and others you are a samaritan.
It's not like there are at some points positive side effects for certain other states. But that is not BECAUSE you did the things you did and do.
- - - Updated - - -
The Fuck.
The USA involves itslf in foreign warfare and "democratic nationbuilding" simply for capital gains and geostrategical prposes. Quit telling yourself and others you are a samaritan.
It's not like there are at some points positive side effects for certain other states. But that is not BECAUSE you did the things you did and do.
Fucking idiots (directed at all the 'Murica people)
I think while the importance of the U.S.'s role of the Allies winning WWII is exaggerated by the people of the U.S, I do think what we did after that in preventing more of Western Europe from being taken over by Russia isn't.
Something I do have to give us credit for today and something I think most other countries fail to take into account when they ridicule the U.S. for it's gigantic military and the vast amounts of money the U.S. spends on it is that we are effectively subsidizing the military force all the rest of our allies around the world, because they are unwilling or unable to do it themselves to a needed level. It's kind of unfair how they like to show how they spend all that money they don't have to spend on their military on social programs and infrastructure all the while we are essentially doing it for them. I have an idea. How about they send us all that savings they don't have to spend on their militaries because we do it for them, and we will promise to spend that money on things like education, social programs, health care, and infrastructure. I have a feeling we would end up better in those departments like most of them are now.
It's also irritating we are criticized for being the "policeman of the world" (for the sake of clarity I'm on of those people that think we meddle too much in too many places so I can somewhat understand that position) until we don't involve ourselves in something and then we are criticized for not doing anything and end up in a lose/lose situation that other countries don't have to deal with because they just aren't expected to do anything. A lot of the criticism we face seems to come from people that want it both ways.
Something I do have to give us credit for today and something I think most other countries fail to take into account when they ridicule the U.S. for it's gigantic military and the vast amounts of money the U.S. spends on it is that we are effectively subsidizing the military force all the rest of our allies around the world, because they are unwilling or unable to do it themselves to a needed level. It's kind of unfair how they like to show how they spend all that money they don't have to spend on their military on social programs and infrastructure all the while we are essentially doing it for them. I have an idea. How about they send us all that savings they don't have to spend on their militaries because we do it for them, and we will promise to spend that money on things like education, social programs, health care, and infrastructure. I have a feeling we would end up better in those departments like most of them are now.
It's also irritating we are criticized for being the "policeman of the world" (for the sake of clarity I'm on of those people that think we meddle too much in too many places so I can somewhat understand that position) until we don't involve ourselves in something and then we are criticized for not doing anything and end up in a lose/lose situation that other countries don't have to deal with because they just aren't expected to do anything. A lot of the criticism we face seems to come from people that want it both ways.
Exactly.
And how about whenever there's some natural disaster in the world, like say the Bandah Aceh earthquake, within days you have a U.S. carrier parked off the coast and flying in life-saving supplies. We're under no obligation to do any of that. And our involvement in Somalia in the early 90's. What was that other than purely humanitarian to stop millions of people from starving to death? We had no interest in Somalia, that forsaken patch of dirt. Yet, the U.S. paid for it in blood and treasure to help those people.
And I'll bite my tongue now.
But would all of those divisions committed to defending France have made a difference if they were freed up for the eastern front?
I think as long as we kept them tied down, which the threat of invasion alone did for many/most of them, that would have been sufficient. The Fly no doubt knows his country's history better than I, but it seems to me that after Stalingrad there was never any hope (apart from completing the development of a nuke) of Germany staving off ultimate defeat, US boots on the ground or not.
And Germany's ally Japan, would've had total dominance in the western Pacific without America and would've certainly opened an eastern front against the Soviets which would've been a game changer.
True if we were complete non participants, but in the scenario I was pondering we'd have been at war with Japan.
I second your
I think as long as we kept them tied down, which the threat of invasion alone did for many/most of them, that would have been sufficient. The Fly no doubt knows his country's history better than I, but it seems to me that after Stalingrad there was never any hope (apart from completing the development of a nuke) of Germany staving off ultimate defeat, US boots on the ground or not.
And Germany's ally Japan, would've had total dominance in the western Pacific without America and would've certainly opened an eastern front against the Soviets which would've been a game changer.
True if we were complete non participants, but in the scenario I was pondering we'd have been at war with Japan.
I second your
There are a lot of things we can "thank" the US for because of their involvement in WWII. Like the Nuclear Arms Race, the cold war, rise of both Russian and Chinese Communism, (to some extent) the situation in the middle east, and of course their influence on global affairs (both good and bad) ever since.
But there's some pretty good debate here about WWII, so let me throw this out there: Would Europe (& the world) really be that much worse if Germany wasn't defeated?
It's reasonable to think that without the US, at some point the other nations would have made peace with the Reich; I don't think anyone believes that all of Europe and Russia would suddenly become part of Germany. Hitler wasn't big on monarchs and even if he did have a child there's nothing to suggest that he wanted to keep a line of succession so you wouldn't have any fuckups like North Korea; at worst he would have wanted to keep the Nazi party in power. But there was a growing moderate movement within Germany (even the military), hence the assassination plots against him, so whether he was voted out, killed or just died (his health was messed up by the end of the war) he wouldn't have been in power for much longer anyways even if Germany didn't lose.
Then what? You could have a "Man in the High Castle" situation where the successors fought for control on the Nazi party. Would whoever eventually took over be guaranteed to be worse? What if you had a moderate Germany without a dominant USSR in Europe? Would that have been so bad?
But there's some pretty good debate here about WWII, so let me throw this out there: Would Europe (& the world) really be that much worse if Germany wasn't defeated?
It's reasonable to think that without the US, at some point the other nations would have made peace with the Reich; I don't think anyone believes that all of Europe and Russia would suddenly become part of Germany. Hitler wasn't big on monarchs and even if he did have a child there's nothing to suggest that he wanted to keep a line of succession so you wouldn't have any fuckups like North Korea; at worst he would have wanted to keep the Nazi party in power. But there was a growing moderate movement within Germany (even the military), hence the assassination plots against him, so whether he was voted out, killed or just died (his health was messed up by the end of the war) he wouldn't have been in power for much longer anyways even if Germany didn't lose.
Then what? You could have a "Man in the High Castle" situation where the successors fought for control on the Nazi party. Would whoever eventually took over be guaranteed to be worse? What if you had a moderate Germany without a dominant USSR in Europe? Would that have been so bad?
Supafly
Retired Mod
Best way:
Tell the russian ambassador how this will go down next time, on camera.
IF something like that happens next tiome, give a warning string of shots under the russian airplane that does the show-off.
Similar threads
