Why the US will stay on top of the world despite the economy

I hope you know that the US was stopping the germans while they had the best chance to do so... because the war would soon be on their shores after europe was conquered. They also had a luxury(thank goodness) of mass production of military vechiles and equipment with no interference from bombers or other such strikes, which was an extreme advantage. In short the US got into WW2 looking out for themselves, you noticed they only declared war on germany after germany did first and after the pearl harbour attack?

It's no misconception. Stalin's great numbers wouldn't mean squat, seeing as how they were being mowed down in droves. The Germans had superior equipment and machinery (e.g. most of their fighter aces were scoring 100, 200, even 300 kills each on the Eastern front). And what do you mean they needed luck to win against the allies? They didn't win, and it's pretty certain that if their forces weren't in the East, they would've won.F1_2004

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]It's no misconception. Stalin's great numbers wouldn't mean squat, seeing as how they were being mowed down in droves. The Germans had superior equipment and machinery (e.g. most of their fighter aces were scoring 100, 200, even 300 kills each on the Eastern front). And what do you mean they needed luck to win against the allies? They didn't win, and it's pretty certain that if their forces weren't in the East, they would've won.Bitter_Altmer

Regarding Hitler making mistakes, I can't really say that he could have won WW2 if he simply avoided making obvious mistakes. That's hard to say, although there's a possibility.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]It's no misconception. Stalin's great numbers wouldn't mean squat, seeing as how they were being mowed down in droves. The Germans had superior equipment and machinery (e.g. most of their fighter aces were scoring 100, 200, even 300 kills each on the Eastern front). And what do you mean they needed luck to win against the allies? They didn't win, and it's pretty certain that if their forces weren't in the East, they would've won.Bitter_Altmer

Yes he probably would have, remember russia was neutral until they attacked, and the russians were pushing them back on the eastern front.. if they devoted all their resources to the western front they may have won, I'm not gonna guarantee anything with that statement though, just seems logical. Also I wonder how many people knew countries like croatia,spain and finland were on the axis?

[QUOTE="Bitter_Altmer"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]It's no misconception. Stalin's great numbers wouldn't mean squat, seeing as how they were being mowed down in droves. The Germans had superior equipment and machinery (e.g. most of their fighter aces were scoring 100, 200, even 300 kills each on the Eastern front). And what do you mean they needed luck to win against the allies? They didn't win, and it's pretty certain that if their forces weren't in the East, they would've won.F1_2004

To me UK was much more selfless than the US and Russia. Right away the UK fought, they had to always give aid to countries really far away all the time like Greece and Poland. On the other hand, the Americans had the comfort of knowing that Germany couldn't just walk in like they could to almost all the other countries. And even then the US only joined seriously in 1941. And Russia didn't exactly feel like helping out too, and if I remember correctly, they even fought Finland, almost as if on Germay's side. The Russiand then only joined after Hitler got cocky. Of course the UK had the advantage of the British Channel, but I'm just saying Britain did a hell of a lot of work.

But really, the US, UK, and Russia were the three biggest allies; they along with every other country who fought against the axis deserve the utmost of respect and gratitude. For each individual from every country that fought did the same as someone else, but it was a matter of how many guys were next to you, and how smart the man behind you was.

To me UK was much more selfless than the US and Russia. Right away the UK fought, they had to always give aid to countries really far away all the time like Greece and Poland. On the other hand, the Americans had the comfort of knowing that Germany couldn't just walk in like they could to almost all the other countries. And even then the US only joined seriously in 1941. And Russia didn't exactly feel like helping out too, and if I remember correctly, they even fought Finland, almost as if on Germay's side. The Russiand then only joined after Hitler got cocky. Of course the UK had the advantage of the British Channel, but I'm just saying Britain did a hell of a lot of work.

But really, the US, UK, and Russia were the three biggest allies; they along with every other country who fought against the axis deserve the utmost of respect and gratitude. For each individual from every country that fought did the same as someone else, but it was a matter of how many guys were next to you, and how smart the man behind you was.

ushotdead

Finland was on germany's side lol

If you don't get enough food, then no matter how much you exercise your musculature will degrade - in fact, without nutrition intake, exercising will speed up the process significantly. It's the same thing with the economy and the military. A country that doesn't earn enough to maintain its military will inevitably experience a weakening of the armed forces regardless of how it tries to affect the situation.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="Sonwhy"]

The US will stay on top because the US has the biggest and most powerful military in the world.

Sonwhy

Rome had the biggest and most powerful military in the world ...

I have the word "has" in that sentence. Its current.

history repeats itself. Great example is Napolean and Hitler.

[QUOTE="Bitter_Altmer"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]It's no misconception. Stalin's great numbers wouldn't mean squat, seeing as how they were being mowed down in droves. The Germans had superior equipment and machinery (e.g. most of their fighter aces were scoring 100, 200, even 300 kills each on the Eastern front). And what do you mean they needed luck to win against the allies? They didn't win, and it's pretty certain that if their forces weren't in the East, they would've won.Espada12

Yes he probably would have, remember russia was neutral until they attacked, and the russians were pushing them back on the eastern front.. if they devoted all their resources to the western front they may have won, I'm not gonna guarantee anything with that statement though, just seems logical. Also I wonder how many people knew countries like croatia,spain and finland were on the axis?

Britain couldn't hold out forever alone against Germany. But the Germans would have lost against the Russians regardless.

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

To me UK was much more selfless than the US and Russia. Right away the UK fought, they had to always give aid to countries really far away all the time like Greece and Poland. On the other hand, the Americans had the comfort of knowing that Germany couldn't just walk in like they could to almost all the other countries. And even then the US only joined seriously in 1941. And Russia didn't exactly feel like helping out too, and if I remember correctly, they even fought Finland, almost as if on Germay's side. The Russiand then only joined after Hitler got cocky. Of course the UK had the advantage of the British Channel, but I'm just saying Britain did a hell of a lot of work.

But really, the US, UK, and Russia were the three biggest allies; they along with every other country who fought against the axis deserve the utmost of respect and gratitude. For each individual from every country that fought did the same as someone else, but it was a matter of how many guys were next to you, and how smart the man behind you was.

Espada12

Finland was on germany's side lol

No, Finland was against Russia because Russia attacked them. Finland was always against Germany, Russia was not always an Allie in the war. Just because someone fought Russia doesn't mean they were on Germany's side.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

To me UK was much more selfless than the US and Russia. Right away the UK fought, they had to always give aid to countries really far away all the time like Greece and Poland. On the other hand, the Americans had the comfort of knowing that Germany couldn't just walk in like they could to almost all the other countries. And even then the US only joined seriously in 1941. And Russia didn't exactly feel like helping out too, and if I remember correctly, they even fought Finland, almost as if on Germay's side. The Russiand then only joined after Hitler got cocky. Of course the UK had the advantage of the British Channel, but I'm just saying Britain did a hell of a lot of work.

But really, the US, UK, and Russia were the three biggest allies; they along with every other country who fought against the axis deserve the utmost of respect and gratitude. For each individual from every country that fought did the same as someone else, but it was a matter of how many guys were next to you, and how smart the man behind you was.

ushotdead

Finland was on germany's side lol

No, Finland was against Russia because Russia attacked them. Finland was always against Germany, Russia was not always an Allie in the war. Just because someone fought Russia doesn't mean they were on Germany's side.

Well they fought russia with the germans so that's collaborating imo

The whole deal with America being the strongest this & that etc is a facade

I mean afterall, what might does a bankrupt nation have? The might that is lent to us by foreigners who continue to buy US Bonds ? lol Right.......

And what about when they stpp buying US Bonds, who will give us money? another stimulus package that isnt funded by china? America is hanging by a thread and to be honest, they should allow for that thread to give way and let USA sink and resurface. The more we put off the inevitable, the harder it will be to climb out when we finally do crash.