Why is it that the U.S. always gets involved in other foreign countries' affair?

I love how other countries pretty much hate the US and don't want us to interfere, yet we are the first ones they call, and they expect us to intervene everytime something goes wrong in the world.

peaceful_anger

alot of it has to do with the reason for the "interference",

did you expect the US to get lots of love after ridiculous claims about 9/11 and then attacking a country which didnt have anything to do with it?

-

also solving problems is one thing, solving problems in a primitive way is another.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

I love how other countries pretty much hate the US and don't want us to interfere, yet we are the first ones they call, and they expect us to intervene everytime something goes wrong in the world.

Half-Way

alot of it has to do with the reason for the "interference",

did you expect the US to get lots of love after ridiculous claims about 9/11 and then attacking a country which didnt have anything to do with it?

-

also solving problems is one thing, solving problems in a primitive way is another.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

I love how other countries pretty much hate the US and don't want us to interfere, yet we are the first ones they call, and they expect us to intervene everytime something goes wrong in the world.

SF_KiLLaMaN

alot of it has to do with the reason for the "interference",

did you expect the US to get lots of love after ridiculous claims about 9/11 and then attacking a country which didnt have anything to do with it?

-

also solving problems is one thing, solving problems in a primitive way is another.

> Osama hiding in Afghanistan

> Attack Iraq

makes perfect sense

Because, we're United states...'nuff said.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

alot of it has to do with the reason for the "interference",

did you expect the US to get lots of love after ridiculous claims about 9/11 and then attacking a country which didnt have anything to do with it?

-

also solving problems is one thing, solving problems in a primitive way is another.

Half-Way

> Osama hiding in Afghanistan

> Attack Iraq

makes perfect sense

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] Osama was hiding in Afghanistan, that is why we went there..... SF_KiLLaMaN

> Osama hiding in Afghanistan

> Attack Iraq

makes perfect sense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo

also recommend you watch "why we fight" - a great documentary, that might even open your eyes.

Well me personally it's really none of our business to get involved in other countries' affairs like relgious wars or if an earthquake or tsunami wrecks them up.

We have our own problems that we need help with

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="Hemmaroids"]It's not like China or Russia or Georgia or Brazil or Morocco or France or Great Britain or Poland or Germany or North Korea or India gets involved in other countries affairs! Only the blasted USA!Hemmaroids

Thats because we are the most powerful country in the world.

As the saying goes "With great power comes great responsibility" or something along those lines.

Not the most powerful military countries though, which we know is the U.S. Fact.

The other countries don't want to take the responsibility, nor do they want to clash with the U.S.

My saying stands....

Well me personally it's really none of our business to get involved in other countries' affairs like relgious wars or if an earthquake or tsunami wrecks them up.

We have our own problems that we need help with

slamminjammin69

Being the most powerful country unfortunately makes these other countries feel like we have an obligation to help them.....which by the way people from other nations (including some people on this board) conveniently forget :roll: when we do help out.

Personally, maybe we should say forget these other countries and help ourselves internally, make our country even stronger, and watch these other countries b*tch and moan and try to deal.

[QUOTE="slamminjammin69"]

Well me personally it's really none of our business to get involved in other countries' affairs like relgious wars or if an earthquake or tsunami wrecks them up.

We have our own problems that we need help with

AFBrat77

Being the most powerful country unfortunately makes these other countries feel like we have an obligation to help them.....which by the way people from other nations (including some people on this board) conveniently forget :roll: when we do help out.

Personally, maybe we should say forget these other countries and help ourselves, and watch these other countries b*tch and moan and try to deal.

I guess they claim that whatever is going on has an affect on US... not sure though. Some cases are legit but a lot aren't.

America attacks anyone who does not like America. Just look at the taliban - they are friends of America back in the day, and they even went on a sightseeing tour to Mount Rushmore. But as soon as they said they didn't like America anymore, they were suddenly "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". optiow

Thats called protecting your interests......if you suddenly aren't liked by someone, you need to keep an eye out.

[QUOTE="optiow"]America attacks anyone who does not like America. Just look at the taliban - they are friends of America back in the day, and they even went on a sightseeing tour to Mount Rushmore. But as soon as they said they didn't like America anymore, they were suddenly "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". AFBrat77

Thats called protecting your interests......if you suddenly aren't liked by someone, you need to keep an eye out.

we are in 2011, its time to let go off the tribe wars. People still believe that their country is an island lol. Well i guess they wont see any consiquences anywas. afterall we are only f*** the world up for our children.

U.S. wants to spread it's Government to be a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. New World Order.

America attacks anyone who does not like America. Just look at the taliban - they are friends of America back in the day, and they even went on a sightseeing tour to Mount Rushmore. But as soon as they said they didn't like America anymore, they were suddenly "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". optiow

U.S. wants to spread it's Government to be a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. New World Order.

Gaming-Planet

If they wanted that they would be taking over countries instead of giving them their own governments.

America attacks anyone who does not like America. Just look at the taliban - they are friends of America back in the day, and they even went on a sightseeing tour to Mount Rushmore. But as soon as they said they didn't like America anymore, they were suddenly "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". optiow

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="optiow"]America attacks anyone who does not like America. Just look at the taliban - they are friends of America back in the day, and they even went on a sightseeing tour to Mount Rushmore. But as soon as they said they didn't like America anymore, they were suddenly "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". Half-Way

Thats called protecting your interests......if you suddenly aren't liked by someone, you need to keep an eye out.

we are in 2011, its time to let go off the tribe wars. People still believe that their country is an island lol. Well i guess they wont see any consiquences anywas. afterall we are only f*** the world up for our children.

We have crap presidents that are elected for the wrong reasons.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Thats called protecting your interests......if you suddenly aren't liked by someone, you need to keep an eye out.

l4dak47

we are in 2011, its time to let go off the tribe wars. People still believe that their country is an island lol. Well i guess they wont see any consiquences anywas. afterall we are only f*** the world up for our children.

Its 2011. Despite the fact that our weapons evolved, it seems like our mind is still stuck in the bronze age. We have our little tribal fights. We attack eachother, knowing that everything we destroy is simply our own race. We believe that our country could provide us with all the luxury we need, without the help of foreign countries. We believe we are an Island.

But its far from the truth.

It seems like our primitive way of thinking has no consequences, Simply because we live in the present, unable to picture the future with our limited mind. Not knowing that our ways of dealing with problems actually damages the future our children will live in.

The human race is destined to kill itself. We have to rely on a few brightened individuals to help us.

First of all, lol at anyone that think the U.S defeated Germany. Russia did, face it, embrace it, accept it. They fought against 80% of the German armed forces and the Allies on the western front faced the rest and even then the battles they waged were hard.

These are not frabricated lies I made up inside my mind, but facts.

And second of all, the U.S is safe. There is no industrial nation in the world that would attack a country with over thousands of nuclear weapons, not to mention the size of America. The reason why you lot are hated is hypocrisy. The U.S preach about spreading democracy and freedom, while at the same time supporting dictators.

Here is something for you lot to read, so can cut the BS of "That's just your opinion". It's a report from the U.S Defense Science Task Force Board, read and signed by Paul Wolfowitz.

If you want to skip the legal jargon, head to page 13

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

I love OT politics. It takes incredibly complex matters and simplifies them to elementary school levels so some point can be shoehorned in. :D

Keep dat pseudo-intellectualism flowin'.

Because it's the U.S.A's God-given duty to bring Democracy, Freedom and Justice to the countries unfortunate enough to lack it.

I love OT politics. It takes incredibly complex matters and simplifies them to elementary school levels so some point can be shoehorned in. :D

Keep dat pseudo-intellectualism flowin'.

Verge_6

ya because thats not how real politics work at all :P especially when it comes to undecided voters and politician speeches

the overusing of words like freedom and choice is an clear example of this , derp

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

I love OT politics. It takes incredibly complex matters and simplifies them to elementary school levels so some point can be shoehorned in. :D

Keep dat pseudo-intellectualism flowin'.

Half-Way

ya because thats not of real politics work at all :P especially when it comes to undecided voters and politician speeches

the overusing of words like freedom and choice is an clear example of this , derp

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

I love OT politics. It takes incredibly complex matters and simplifies them to elementary school levels so some point can be shoehorned in. :D

Keep dat pseudo-intellectualism flowin'.

Verge_6

ya because thats not of real politics work at all :P especially when it comes to undecided voters and politician speeches

the overusing of words like freedom and choice is an clear example of this , derp

The problem is simply that you cant blame people. The way politicians present their cases to the public is the way the public is going to observe the cases.

If you want people to take something serious, you present it in a serious way. Simple.

As for the comment that politics is something complex, that might be true, about as complex as anything else if you care enough to go deeper. But the question is always, what are the core values? And do i support them?

First of all, lol at anyone that think the U.S defeated Germany. Russia did, face it, embrace it, accept it. They fought against 80% of the German armed forces and the Allies on the western front faced the rest and even then the battles they waged were hard.

These are not frabricated lies I made up inside my mind, but facts.

And second of all, the U.S is safe. There is no industrial nation in the world that would attack a country with over thousands of nuclear weapons, not to mention the size of America. The reason why you lot are hated is hypocrisy. The U.S preach about spreading democracy and freedom, while at the same time supporting dictators.

Here is something for you lot to read, so can cut the BS of "That's just your opinion". It's a report from the U.S Defense Science Task Force Board, read and signed by Paul Wolfowitz.

If you want to skip the legal jargon, head to page 13

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

m25105

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

AFBrat77

Dude, the U.S.S.R. had a military industry that could actually match the U.S.'s at the time (A.K.A. several times larger than Nazi Germany) , and it didn't have disadvantage of having a giant ocean separating it from Germany. They took on four-fifths of the German army and still had an absolutely ludicrous military surplus. Even if the U.S. WASN'T around, they'd have turned the German Army into confetti (25% increase in military power is nothing when the other guy's got five times what you have) and marched into Berlin just like they did in real life.

Well, maybe a bit later. And most Europeans today would have been speaking Russian.

Either way, yes, it's true that the U.S. intervening in World War II provided a better outcome than if they hadn't. But to say that they played a larger part than the Soviets did in manhandling the Germans reeks of blind patriotism, and the idea that they were particularly pivotal in its victory (and the Russians weren't at all) is just hilarious. There's a good chance that if the Nazis had been able to concentrate their entire army on the Norman beaches that the Western invasion would have just bounced off the coasts on D-Day, in which case they'd have to come up with an entirely newfangled plan to get their army into Europe.

[QUOTE="m25105"]

First of all, lol at anyone that think the U.S defeated Germany. Russia did, face it, embrace it, accept it. They fought against 80% of the German armed forces and the Allies on the western front faced the rest and even then the battles they waged were hard.

These are not frabricated lies I made up inside my mind, but facts.

And second of all, the U.S is safe. There is no industrial nation in the world that would attack a country with over thousands of nuclear weapons, not to mention the size of America. The reason why you lot are hated is hypocrisy. The U.S preach about spreading democracy and freedom, while at the same time supporting dictators.

Here is something for you lot to read, so can cut the BS of "That's just your opinion". It's a report from the U.S Defense Science Task Force Board, read and signed by Paul Wolfowitz.

If you want to skip the legal jargon, head to page 13

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

AFBrat77

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

nationalism isnt a good- credible source

here are a few key parts which where pirticulary funny, and show that you havent done your reaserch.

Im not sure what you get in your text books at school, (only the parts that involve the US?) but most of the stuff you posted is pure nationalistic c***

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

Barbariser

Dude, the U.S.S.R. had a military industry that could actually match the U.S.'s at the time (A.K.A. several times larger than Nazi Germany) , and it didn't have disadvantage of having a giant ocean separating it from Germany. They took on four-fifths of the German army and still had an absolutely ludicrous military surplus. Even if the U.S. WASN'T around, they'd have turned the German Army into confetti (25% increase in military power is nothing when the other guy's got five times what you have) and marched into Berlin just like they did in real life.

Well, maybe a bit later. And most Europeans today would have been speaking Russian.

Either way, yes, it's true that the U.S. intervening in World War II provided a better outcome than if they hadn't. But to say that they played a larger part than the Soviets did in manhandling the Germans reeks of blind patriotism, and the idea that they were particularly pivotal in its victory (and the Russians weren't at all) is just hilarious. There's a good chance that if the Nazis had been able to concentrate their entire army on the Norman beaches that the Western invasion would have just bounced off the coasts on D-Day, in which case they'd have to come up with an entirely newfangled plan to get their army into Europe.

No one said the Russians didn't play as big a part in Allied victory as Americans did. Where did you get that idea? But the U.S. played just as much a part in victory in WW2 as the Russians did. We also had to tackle what was going on in the Pacific, something the Russians never did.

The United States was pivotal in the defeat of Germany, to deny that is folly. Had the United States stayed out the Russians would not have been able to handle the additional German troops from much of the Western Front, and without the United States there would not be the key daytime bombing raids that impacted much of Germany's industrial might (British attacked at night I believe, but the British raids would be easier to handle if the U.S. wasn't striking as well). Also, there would be no P-51 Mustangs in the war supporting the bombing raids, they were the best fighters in the war, and the Germans feared them.

Also, without the U.S. constant bombardments, I bet the Germans could have produced more Panther/Tiger II tanks, and perhaps even had more rocket-powered Me262's off the ground a bit earlier in the war.

Who the hell doesn't give Russia any credit at all? Certainly not me.

But you my friend do not give the U.S. the credit it is due.

here are a few key parts which where pirticulary funny, and show that you havent done your reaserch.

Half-Way

I stand by my statements, get your facts straight

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="m25105"]

First of all, lol at anyone that think the U.S defeated Germany. Russia did, face it, embrace it, accept it. They fought against 80% of the German armed forces and the Allies on the western front faced the rest and even then the battles they waged were hard.

These are not frabricated lies I made up inside my mind, but facts.

And second of all, the U.S is safe. There is no industrial nation in the world that would attack a country with over thousands of nuclear weapons, not to mention the size of America. The reason why you lot are hated is hypocrisy. The U.S preach about spreading democracy and freedom, while at the same time supporting dictators.

Here is something for you lot to read, so can cut the BS of "That's just your opinion". It's a report from the U.S Defense Science Task Force Board, read and signed by Paul Wolfowitz.

If you want to skip the legal jargon, head to page 13

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

Half-Way

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

nationalism isnt a good- credible source

here are a few key parts which where pirticulary funny, and show that you havent done your reaserch.

Im not sure what you get in your text books at school, (only the parts that involve the US?) but most of the stuff you posted is pure nationalistic c***

What the both of you are arguing is quite debatable. All though the Soviets did play a big role in the war without the U.S supplying the Soviet Im not sure how long they could of carried on through the German's primary assualt. But again you guys can argue that USSR played a bigger role in WWII all you want but the fact remains without the U.S your country would most likely be under a communisn puppet dictatorship that was seen in some Eastern European country. So be happy that the U.S even got involve in Europe since the Soviet would have most likely went pass Germany all the way to France and Britain

Because if the US sits back and does nothing the world criticizes them for not helping. But too bad the opposite is also true.

[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"][QUOTE="chris_yz80"] No just no, please go read some about tank warfare becasue this is just so wrong. now Im kind of busy so i will just make these 2 points. 1. USSR's industrial might was far greater than germanys, something that resulted in the USSR producing something like 4x the tanks annually. I dont care who you are but numbers do make a huge difference. 2. The blitzkreig relied on suprise and total air supremecy this is something that the germans lost arguablyl after teh battle of brittain. As such as the Russians got better working out the germans tactics they realised they could counter block the germans in, cut off their supply lines and force a retreat/surrenderAFBrat77

Exactly, people like to downplay the U.S. role in WW2 (which is ridiculous), despite the difference-maker we were in Europe and the Pacific. Common knowledge. People tend to be such haters towards the U.S., such a shame really.

No chance Russia would have won alone, wasn't going to happen.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

AFBrat77

Dude, the U.S.S.R. had a military industry that could actually match the U.S.'s at the time (A.K.A. several times larger than Nazi Germany) , and it didn't have disadvantage of having a giant ocean separating it from Germany. They took on four-fifths of the German army and still had an absolutely ludicrous military surplus. Even if the U.S. WASN'T around, they'd have turned the German Army into confetti (25% increase in military power is nothing when the other guy's got five times what you have) and marched into Berlin just like they did in real life.

Well, maybe a bit later. And most Europeans today would have been speaking Russian.

Either way, yes, it's true that the U.S. intervening in World War II provided a better outcome than if they hadn't. But to say that they played a larger part than the Soviets did in manhandling the Germans reeks of blind patriotism, and the idea that they were particularly pivotal in its victory (and the Russians weren't at all) is just hilarious. There's a good chance that if the Nazis had been able to concentrate their entire army on the Norman beaches that the Western invasion would have just bounced off the coasts on D-Day, in which case they'd have to come up with an entirely newfangled plan to get their army into Europe.

No one said the Russians didn't play as big a part in Allied victory as Americans did. Where did you get that idea? But the U.S. played just as much a part in victory in WW2 as the Russians did. We also had to tackle what was going on in the Pacific, something the Russians never did.

The United States was pivotal in the defeat of Germany, to deny that is folly. Had the United States stayed out the Russians would not have been able to handle the additional German troops from much of the Western Front, and without the United States there would not be the key daytime bombing raids that impacted much of Germany's industrial might (British attacked at night I believe, but the British raids would be easier to handle if the U.S. wasn't striking as well). Also, there would be no P-51 Mustangs in the war supporting the bombing raids, they were the best fighters in the war, and the Germans feared them.

Also, without the U.S. constant bombardments, I bet the Germans could have produced more Panther/Tiger II tanks, and perhaps even had more rocket-powered Me262's off the ground a bit earlier in the war.

Who the hell doesn't give Russia any credit at all? Certainly not me.

But you my friend do not give the U.S. the credit it is due.

No, you were the one who was insisting that the U.S. would have been fine without Russia and Russia couldn't have won without the U.S. (which directly translates into the U.S. being more important and more relevant to the war despite engaging only a fifth of the Wehrmact), whereas it's the other way around. I know that the U.S.S.R. would have had it HARDER without the U.S. doing that, but they still had a large enough industry to squash a fully operational Germany - a 25% troop influx is simply not enough to save the Eastern Front. Whereas a full concentration of the Wehrmacht (remember, this is a 5x increase in military power) along the Norman beaches would have doomed D-Day and pretty much forced the Western Front to find another, much harder way to get into Europe.

Also, the effectiveness of those bombing raids isn't conclusive and it's a matter of debate. Either way, it doesn't matter - even a fully operational Germany can't hold a candle to the U.S.S.R.'s industrial might. I'd easily agree that it would make it much more DIFFICULT for the Soviets to win the war (and Europe would be much worse off afterwards), but as a general rule a nation with a larger economy will always beat a nation with a smaller economy in a war. Except if the economically inferior nation has a vast terrain advantage, which was why the U.S. could not have won their part in the war without successfully getting Normandy.

Cause we are american cowboys and we like to shoot our guns and be at wars and then we win and rubbed it in ya faces and vietnam it was a tide or in short it america f*** yeah

America isn't going to those country's to help them are you kidding me america is doing it to stay in control and keep itself save.
SimplyIf you go into other countrys and make them your ally or keep them from being qonqueredyou don't have to worry about them becoming your enemy:P. Its why they went to europe and stop the germans andrussians. keeping most states democratic and allys of america is the best way to keep your own state save. Trying to qonquer the world won't work as it's proven many times but spreading your culture and ideals and getting many allys will work to keep yourself save and keep your own position strong.
Would you like it if america wouldn't have done anything against the spread of communism? Maby by now their would be a huge communist nationspanning russia, europe and asia trying to get america under it's control.

Churchill stated that without US involvement in Europe, they would have never won the war. It is also believed by other historians that Britain would have lost.

,,in 1941 Britain had no prospect of defeating Germany without the aid of the USA as an active ally.Ralph Raico

Source

I read WWII history and in the last 3 years, I have read at least 42 books on the subject. It all says the same thing, without the US, Europe would not be what it is today. As far as the Russians defeating the Germans, especially at Stalingrad, weather played a big part of it. The heavier oil Germany used to lubricate weapons, tanks and other vehicles became thick goo that stopped equipment from working whereas Russia used a lighter weight of oil (this is something that used to be done here in the US during the winter when there was only single weight oils available instead of the multiweight oils in use today) that didn't gum up rifles or tanks.

Once Russia was able to start pushing the Germans back, they did, but it took a helping hand from England and the US attacking up from Sicily and Italy.

This of course does not mention nothing of the Pacific. The Aussies had helped with some of the islands, but in the Southeast Pacific, ole Douglas didn't use them as well as he should have. The Central Pacific was entirely the US from Guadalcanal to Midway through the Carolines, Marshalls, Iwo Jima and others. Not one Russian, British or Australian ship took part until Okinawa when the British were able to get a couple of ships out that way. Burma was a US/British venture.

The US could have stayed neutral even after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the Japanese could have invaded Australia and the rest of the Pacific Rim nations, but no, they entered and played a major part in every theater of operations, to think otherwise shows how little anyone has really studied WWII.

Churchill stated that without US involvement in Europe, they would have never won the war. It is also believed by other historians that Britain would have lost.

[quote="Ralph Raico"]

,,in 1941 Britain had no prospect of defeating Germany without the aid of the USA as an active ally.

Source

I read WWII history and in the last 3 years, I have read at least 42 books on the subject. It all says the same thing, without the US, Europe would not be what it is today. As far as the Russians defeating the Germans, especially at Stalingrad, weather played a big part of it. The heavier oil Germany used to lubricate weapons, tanks and other vehicles became thick goo that stopped equipment from working whereas Russia used a lighter weight of oil (this is something that used to be done here in the US during the winter when there was only single weight oils available instead of the multiweight oils in use today) that didn't gum up rifles or tanks.

Once Russia was able to start pushing the Germans back, they did, but it took a helping hand from England and the US attacking up from Sicily and Italy.

This of course does not mention nothing of the Pacific. The Aussies had helped with some of the islands, but in the Southeast Pacific, ole Douglas didn't use them as well as he should have. The Central Pacific was entirely the US from Guadalcanal to Midway through the Carolines, Marshalls, Iwo Jima and others. Not one Russian, British or Australian ship took part until Okinawa when the British were able to get a couple of ships out that way. Burma was a US/British venture.

The US could have stayed neutral even after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the Japanese could have invaded Australia and the rest of the Pacific Rim nations, but no, they entered and played a major part in every theater of operations, to think otherwise shows how little anyone has really studied WWII.

Once Russia was able to start pushing the Germans back, they did, but it took a helping hand from England and the US attacking up from Sicily and Italy.

WhiteKnight77

I'd add the US bombing to the helping hand here. Without reading 42 books, I'd theorize that in a strategic sense, the toll that US bombers exacted on Axis industry played a major role in the overall war.

Churchill stated that without US involvement in Europe, they would have never won the war. It is also believed by other historians that Britain would have lost.

[quote="Ralph Raico"]

,,in 1941 Britain had no prospect of defeating Germany without the aid of the USA as an active ally.WhiteKnight77

Source

I read WWII history and in the last 3 years, I have read at least 42 books on the subject. It all says the same thing, without the US, Europe would not be what it is today. As far as the Russians defeating the Germans, especially at Stalingrad, weather played a big part of it. The heavier oil Germany used to lubricate weapons, tanks and other vehicles became thick goo that stopped equipment from working whereas Russia used a lighter weight of oil (this is something that used to be done here in the US during the winter when there was only single weight oils available instead of the multiweight oils in use today) that didn't gum up rifles or tanks.

Once Russia was able to start pushing the Germans back, they did, but it took a helping hand from England and the US attacking up from Sicily and Italy.

This of course does not mention nothing of the Pacific. The Aussies had helped with some of the islands, but in the Southeast Pacific, ole Douglas didn't use them as well as he should have. The Central Pacific was entirely the US from Guadalcanal to Midway through the Carolines, Marshalls, Iwo Jima and others. Not one Russian, British or Australian ship took part until Okinawa when the British were able to get a couple of ships out that way. Burma was a US/British venture.

The US could have stayed neutral even after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the Japanese could have invaded Australia and the rest of the Pacific Rim nations, but no, they entered and played a major part in every theater of operations, to think otherwise shows how little anyone has really studied WWII.

thank you, I'm tired of writing

The Germans could have possibly conquered most of Western Russia if they didn't make one grave mistake-invading it during the winter. They had better equipment, better soldiers and quality vehicles but none of them were made to withstand the harsh cold winter conditions.

And the Battle of Britain was what really doomed the Germans on the Western Front, mostly.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"] I never fully understood why people like to argue that Soviet Russia had the biggest impact in stopping Nazi Germany. The fact is without the U.S I'm pretty sure your country would either be a communist dictatorship or under Nazi Germany control. Take your pick since both option suckschris_yz80

Exactly, people like to downplay the U.S. role in WW2 (which is ridiculous), despite the difference-maker we were in Europe and the Pacific. Common knowledge. People tend to be such haters towards the U.S., such a shame really.

No chance Russia would have won alone, wasn't going to happen.

You lost all your credibility right there :lol:

right down the tube

and Kokoda trail was a nice victory, but it wasn't the greatest.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf and Guadalcanal were just as important. In fact it was the U.S. victory at Guadalcanal that prevented the Aussies from being invaded! Something to think about.

U.S. defeated heavily fortified Japanese at Iwo Jima in one of the greatest and bloodiest victories of WW2.

....and then there's Okinawa.

Funny how these victories are completely ignored.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

You guys just don't get it, Russia could not have done it alone. That's a fact.

And what about Japan? Who was the biggest player against the Japanese? You bet we were.

If the U.S. had not joined in, both Russia and eventually Great Britain would have gone down. Face it!

When the U.S. joined the war, the tide turned in the Allies favor. The U.S. stumbled at first against the Japanese but we got our bearings.

Do you even think D-Day would have worked without the U.S.? You are dreaming. And without Germany having any concern for the Western front, Russia would have been doomed.

Russia played no part in the defeat of Japan. Yeah, they declared War on Japan alright, after we dropped the first atomic bomb. A tad late.

AngelNeo00

nationalism isnt a good- credible source

here are a few key parts which where pirticulary funny, and show that you havent done your reaserch.

Im not sure what you get in your text books at school, (only the parts that involve the US?) but most of the stuff you posted is pure nationalistic c***

What the both of you are arguing is quite debatable. All though the Soviets did play a big role in the war without the U.S supplying the Soviet Im not sure how long they could of carried on through the German's primary assualt. But again you guys can argue that USSR played a bigger role in WWII all you want but the fact remains without the U.S your country would most likely be under a communisn puppet dictatorship that was seen in some Eastern European country. So be happy that the U.S even got involve in Europe since the Soviet would have most likely went pass Germany all the way to France and Britain

that part i can agree with

America actually gave japan and germany a set of rules and a Democratic government. The even better thing was that the USA didnt influence the evolution of the countries much and countires that where occupied by german forces where also pretty much left alone by american influence. They could do whatever they wanted, which made them evolve into more socialistic governments, despite americas false beliefs about marxism. Socialised healthcare is a matter of huge importance. Same goes for a more even tax system. Which dosent let a small % of the population own the whole country.

I think that the outcome might have not been the best, but everyone can agree that it could have been worse. It should also be noted that Stalin's version of Communistic government is not at all what Karl Marx was talking about when he made his economical theory. (for those who dont know much about communism)

-

-

however the "america did the most work in WW2" argument is simply nationalistic nonsense.