What country do you care the least about?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

well ww1 and ww2 was America.... not a coalition of nations.. it was Americans coming in and saving them.

swizz-the-gamer

Please tell me you're joking. :|

i'm not brainwashed.

you're just too proud to say that without America Germany would have won.

once again i'm not saying that america saved them with one swoop and won it themselves, but without America's manpower and resources, the war would have been lost.

Europe didn't have the resources to keep waging a war against germany.

i'm not saying that the US single handedly saved everyone. But if they hadn't of entered the war, Germany would have won..

without the resources and manpower, Britain would have most likely lost.

jlh47

Kazakhstan what have they ever done for me!FlaminDeath

but they brought us Borat!

i'm not brainwashed.

you're just too proud to say that without America Germany would have won.

once again i'm not saying that america saved them with one swoop and won it themselves, but without America's manpower and resources, the war would have been lost.

jlh47

And all i'm saying is, that to be arrogant enough to say "america saved you" is an insult to the british soldiers and pilots who fought off a gargantuan army alone for so many years, as well as the tens of millions of soldiers who died in the liberation of europe; of which america was just one.

And honestly; i dont think the war would have been lost without america. I think it would have taken a damn sight longer to bring down nazi germany, but the suicidal actions of hitler as well as the german military's inability to truly penetrate russia will have inevitably resulted in his defeat. It simply will have come much later and at the cost of far, far more lives.

Nobody is "too proud" to say that america played a pivotal role in the war. I just find that everybody recalls a horrible six years of war and death, finally brought to an end thanks to the bravery of so many young men from so many countries. America however, far too often ignores this in favour of "We saved your ass!"

Slovenia.

I see where this thread is going; it'll be the majority of Americans claiming that the U.S saved Europe - while everyone else says otherwise.

I assume that, in this scenario, the British Empire is still brought under threat by Japan in the pacific theatre - but they do not attack the U.S - highly unlikely.

In Europe, without American intervention, Britain had held Germany at the Channel and had pushed Italy out of Eygpt. The Soviet Union had pushed Germany away from Moscow; and held them at a stalemate for the time being. Germany had no way of reaching across the Channel, and the airwar was moving in British favour from 1941 onwards - before U.S entry into it.

Britain would have to adapt quicker, but the facts all remain that Germany had no chance of taking Britain. The RAF was raiding Axis Europe by day and night before the famed "Mighty 8th" came on the scene. It wasn't all Britain; as we had our entire Empire to fall back on - which kept up supplies of man and machine all through the war.

The war would have been harder won, but it's obvious that Germany would have not had total victory. Obvious to anyone with a brain.jointed

Wowsers; somebody passing sweeping judgement on six years of conflict who actually knows what they're talking about.

Thank you! :P

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

War may have saved the US economy, but it sure as hell didn't help Britian, which had to borrow lots of money, weapons and equipment from the US. And did you really think Hitler would have completely given up Britian? With all the new-found resources of Europe under his control?

I never insulted British soldiers, you're putting words in my mouth. You think its an insult to need saving, or be saved? Great, you just insulted every ****ing victim of oppression or violence or accidents in the world. Nice job. See, I can do that too.

The Liberation of Europe may have been a world effort, but a large part of it goes to both the US and the Soviet Union. Without us, Europe would still be part of Nazi Germany. It's not arrogance, when it's true. The US and the Soviet Union did save Europe, and the US did save China, the Philippines and various other Far East nations.

Ninja-Hippo

He DID give up on britain. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. He pulled out forces from northern france, replacing it with a defensive line, and relocated everything to the east to fight russia. No attempt was made to invade Britain at all following the battle of britain.

No offense, but comments like "We saved you" are simply arrogant. They are. There's no denying that. I'm not insulting anyone.

Imagine a guy gets into a fight. He's ambushed. A huge guy with the fighting prowess of chuck norris beats him senseless. All of his buddies drop instantly, leaving him to fight by himself. He doesn't stand a chance. He battles on for hours though, refusing to go down, while another buddy of his stands by, bigger, stronger, able to help, but doesn't. His buddy instead uses the opportunity to make money, now that his friend is in a fight and thus cant do his usual job.

Finally, once enough money has been made, you jump into the fray. You help your buddy, beaten and battered from battling all alone all this time against impossible odds, and you and a bunch of your friends club together to beat up this guy who attacked him in the first place.

Would you really boast to your friend afterwards, that you saved him?

What do you think he would do after Russia?

Do you think he would sit idly by?

And your analogy fails, especially since the US helped Britian out financially before they even entered the war. Hell, the only reason Britian was able to "fight" as long as it did was because the US loaned a lot of money to Britian for war reparations from the previous World War. And that was despite Britian and the rest of Europe unfairly forcing Germany to pay for reparations becaude of the Treaty of Versailles (Germany couldn't pay it anyways...which somehow escaped the European leaders). So the US had to do it.

If it was not for the financial and armed support of the US and the armed support of the Soviet Union, Europe would not be what it is today.

Uzbekestan. They were mean to Borat.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

War may have saved the US economy, but it sure as hell didn't help Britian, which had to borrow lots of money, weapons and equipment from the US. And did you really think Hitler would have completely given up Britian? With all the new-found resources of Europe under his control?

I never insulted British soldiers, you're putting words in my mouth. You think its an insult to need saving, or be saved? Great, you just insulted every ****ing victim of oppression or violence or accidents in the world. Nice job. See, I can do that too.

The Liberation of Europe may have been a world effort, but a large part of it goes to both the US and the Soviet Union. Without us, Europe would still be part of Nazi Germany. It's not arrogance, when it's true. The US and the Soviet Union did save Europe, and the US did save China, the Philippines and various other Far East nations.

The_Ish

He DID give up on britain. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. He pulled out forces from northern france, replacing it with a defensive line, and relocated everything to the east to fight russia. No attempt was made to invade Britain at all following the battle of britain.

No offense, but comments like "We saved you" are simply arrogant. They are. There's no denying that. I'm not insulting anyone.

Imagine a guy gets into a fight. He's ambushed. A huge guy with the fighting prowess of chuck norris beats him senseless. All of his buddies drop instantly, leaving him to fight by himself. He doesn't stand a chance. He battles on for hours though, refusing to go down, while another buddy of his stands by, bigger, stronger, able to help, but doesn't. His buddy instead uses the opportunity to make money, now that his friend is in a fight and thus cant do his usual job.

Finally, once enough money has been made, you jump into the fray. You help your buddy, beaten and battered from battling all alone all this time against impossible odds, and you and a bunch of your friends club together to beat up this guy who attacked him in the first place.

Would you really boast to your friend afterwards, that you saved him?

What do you think he would do after Russia?

Do you think he would sit idly by?

And your analogy fails, especially since the US helped Britian out financially before they even entered the war. Hell, the only reason Britian was able to "fight" as long as it did was because the US loaned a lot of money to Britian for war reparations from the previous World War. And that was despite Britian and the rest of Europe unfairly forcing Germany to pay for reparations becaude of the Treaty of Versailles (Germany couldn't pay it anyways...which somehow escaped the European leaders). So the US had to do it.

If it was not for the financial and armed support of the US and the armed support of the Soviet Union, Europe would not be what it is today.

I kinda doubt there would be an after taking Russia.Once the nazis decided to invade Russia they had lost any chance of winning the war.

[QUOTE="jlh47"]

i'm not brainwashed.

you're just too proud to say that without America Germany would have won.

once again i'm not saying that america saved them with one swoop and won it themselves, but without America's manpower and resources, the war would have been lost.

Ninja-Hippo

And all i'm saying is, that to be arrogant enough to say "america saved you" is an insult to the british soldiers and pilots who fought off a gargantuan army alone for so many years, as well as the tens of millions of soldiers who died in the liberation of europe; of which america was just one.

And honestly; i dont think the war would have been lost without america. I think it would have taken a damn sight longer to bring down nazi germany, but the suicidal actions of hitler as well as the german military's inability to truly penetrate russia will have inevitably resulted in his defeat. It simply will have come much later and at the cost of far, far more lives.

Nobody is "too proud" to say that america played a pivotal role in the war. I just find that everybody recalls a horrible six years of war and death, finally brought to an end thanks to the bravery of so many young men from so many countries. America however, far too often ignores this in favour of "We saved your ass!"

stereotyping ftl...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=221

That night, confident that with the United States now in the war victory was inevitable, Churchill enjoyed "the sleep of the saved and thankful."

what i'm sick and tired of is people saying "well america helped, but not much. we would have still won easily"

i get that all the time in my history lectures.

and britain was running out of supplies because they had to make the Lend Lease agreement in march of 41.

A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion. Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of this sum.

the war was on a teeter totter. america pushed it over the edge...

that's all i'm trying to say.. sorry if i was a bit too harsh at first, but it gets on my nerves when people try to belittle what america did..

Canada.

They hate america, so i guess i hate them. Fair game?

stereotyping ftl...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=221

That night, confident that with the United States now in the war victory was inevitable, Churchill enjoyed "the sleep of the saved and thankful."

what i'm sick and tired of is people saying "well america helped, but not much. we would have still won easily"

i get that all the time in my history lectures.

and britain was running out of supplies because they had to make the Lend Lease agreement in march of 41.

A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion. Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of this sum.

the war was on a teeter totter. america pushed it over the edge...

that's all i'm trying to say.. sorry if i was a bit too harsh at first, but it gets on my nerves when people try to belittle what america did..

jlh47

And at no point did i say that, so you have no reason to be offended. I apologise if you felt generalised, as i'm well aware that there are plenty of people who know what they're talking about. I was simply talking about the typical comment thrown around far too much of "we saved your ass in the war!" I find it arrogant and disrespectful; and i apologise again if you felt like i was saying all of america harbours such a belief. I dont think it does at all.

EDIT: again, i'm not belittling what america did. Much like you are annoyed by that, i'm simply annoyed by the opposite end of the spectrum whereby people with no knowledge on the topic exaggerate what america did, basically forgetting all other involvement in the war in favour of this mythical idea that america saved the day.

During WW2, the USA was originally planning to send about 215 army divisions to Europe in 1943 to remove the Nazis. But they worked out that this would negatively impact their economy. So they changed their plans and sent only 90 divisions in 1944. As a result, the US economy improved during the World War II, while the economy of Europe contracted by about 25%. The USA finally invaded Europe after it was clear that the Soviet Union was winning against Germany.

The US entry into WW2 was in the US interests too, not an altruistic act. The US only decided to take the side of democracy in Europe when it was also in the USA's self-interest to do so.

During WW2, the USA was originally planning to send about 215 army divisions to Europe in 1943 to remove the Nazis. But they worked out that this would negatively impact their economy. So they changed their plans and sent only 90 divisions in 1944. As a result, the US economy improved during the World War II, while the economy of Europe contracted by about 25%. The USA finally invaded Europe after it was clear that the Soviet Union was winning against Germany.

The US entry into WW2 was in the US interests too, not an altruistic act. The US only decided to take the side of democracy in Europe when it was also in the USA's self-interest to do so.

Tykain

Same with WW1. They sold arms to both sides, then entered the war when they could see which side was likely to win.

wwii was lost because hitler didt promote new better weapons he also attecked russia i the winter and didt go after Moscow if he took out moscow it might have turned out differently

The US helped Europe in North Africa and Eastern Europe alot because Russia was only interset in Western Europe

for all the France haters France hepled America in the Revolutionary War and was key in the Battle of Yorktown

[QUOTE="Tykain"]

During WW2, the USA was originally planning to send about 215 army divisions to Europe in 1943 to remove the Nazis. But they worked out that this would negatively impact their economy. So they changed their plans and sent only 90 divisions in 1944. As a result, the US economy improved during the World War II, while the economy of Europe contracted by about 25%. The USA finally invaded Europe after it was clear that the Soviet Union was winning against Germany.

The US entry into WW2 was in the US interests too, not an altruistic act. The US only decided to take the side of democracy in Europe when it was also in the USA's self-interest to do so.

Ninja-Hippo

Same with WW1. They sold arms to both sides, then entered the war when they could see which side was likely to win.

Exactly. And this created the military-industrial complex. In both world wars America developed a huge armaments industry and profited massively. This hugely succesful arms trade during both world wars is arguably the reason America rose to super-power status, not a very ethically sound foundation for a nation's prosperity. After the end of the second world war this huge arms industry would have become largely obselete and collapsed which would have destroyed the economy. The answer to this problem was that further conflicts were needed to feed this inflated and abhorrent industry.

Here's a video of President Eisenhower's farewell speech in which he explicitly warns us about the danger of the military-industrial complex.

[QUOTE="jlh47"]

stereotyping ftl...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=221

That night, confident that with the United States now in the war victory was inevitable, Churchill enjoyed "the sleep of the saved and thankful."

what i'm sick and tired of is people saying "well america helped, but not much. we would have still won easily"

i get that all the time in my history lectures.

and britain was running out of supplies because they had to make the Lend Lease agreement in march of 41.

A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion. Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of this sum.

the war was on a teeter totter. america pushed it over the edge...

that's all i'm trying to say.. sorry if i was a bit too harsh at first, but it gets on my nerves when people try to belittle what america did..

Ninja-Hippo

And at no point did i say that, so you have no reason to be offended. I apologise if you felt generalised, as i'm well aware that there are plenty of people who know what they're talking about. I was simply talking about the typical comment thrown around far too much of "we saved your ass in the war!" I find it arrogant and disrespectful; and i apologise again if you felt like i was saying all of america harbours such a belief. I dont think it does at all.

EDIT: again, i'm not belittling what america did. Much like you are annoyed by that, i'm simply annoyed by the opposite end of the spectrum whereby people with no knowledge on the topic exaggerate what america did, basically forgetting all other involvement in the war in favour of this mythical idea that america saved the day.

i know you didn't, and i'm sorry if i was making generalizations as well. (i do that when i get upset), but thanks for your courtesy in this matter.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Tykain"]

During WW2, the USA was originally planning to send about 215 army divisions to Europe in 1943 to remove the Nazis. But they worked out that this would negatively impact their economy. So they changed their plans and sent only 90 divisions in 1944. As a result, the US economy improved during the World War II, while the economy of Europe contracted by about 25%. The USA finally invaded Europe after it was clear that the Soviet Union was winning against Germany.

The US entry into WW2 was in the US interests too, not an altruistic act. The US only decided to take the side of democracy in Europe when it was also in the USA's self-interest to do so.

bradleybhoy

Same with WW1. They sold arms to both sides, then entered the war when they could see which side was likely to win.

Exactly. And this created the military-industrial complex. In both world wars America developed a huge armaments industry and after the end of the second world war this huge arms industry would have become largely obselete and collapsed which would have destroyed the economy. The answer to this problem was that further conflicts were needed to feed this inflated and abhorrent industry.

Here's a video of President Eisenhower's farewell speech in which he explicitly warns us about the danger of the military-industrial complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU

Army of Two... dum dum dum!!!

that game could have been so good...

Great speech. reminds me of one of the old presidential commercials. I like Ike!

The World. Since i dont belong to it.