Take note that Britain, though key for victory of the allies, played second banana to the US army and resources. The Soviet Union, a superpower after the war, well, became a superpower. Mostly thanks to its army and the area it controlled. We all know what happened to France.....
[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]You are saying that the EU will be a stronger union in 2030, but just look what happened to the Soviet Union. I disagree with your opinion that you have made about EUs Amy being the strongest of all. Before anything can be done it needs to START. foxhound_fox
The Soviet Union had two massive flaws... it was run based on Communism and it was run based on Communism by an insane man who didn't follow the ideals of the societal process.
And the strength of an army doesn't determine how powerful a nation is. That is just an illusion. The economy and government popularity among the people is what determines a nations true strength.
Just because you can bully other countries doesn't make you powerful... or smart.
True, but military strength dose play a major role in determining the overall power in a nation. Just look at many of greatest empires that were built in are worlds past history and military strength played the most vital part in their success.(Ex Britsh Empire and the Romen Empire)
muppet1010, did I say that? Huh? Maybe I should elaborate for people of your intellectual level: the US was on the winning side of both world wars, as an integral player in both, and physically was almost unaffected by both wars, Hence, it "WON" both wars, and came out stronger than ever. There you go
peter1191
I simply took a quote from your post... you said and I quote (again) "the US went through and won the two biggest wars in Human history" which DOES suggest it was the US which won the wars... it was not the US which won the wars. It was the Allies, your post suggests america singlehandedly won teh wars when in truth they were late to join both and were arguably not needed to win either. That being said they were obviously a very big factor in winning both wars they were by no stretch of the imagination the only reason both wars were won. It is alos worhty of note that the two wars were really European wars which became world wars because of Europes power. over the world. i.e. each side dragged in allies for example Britain called upon its commonwealth so canadian, African, Australian troops and many, many more were fighting under the Union jack.
Take note that Britain, though key for victory of the allies, played second banana to the US army and resources. The Soviet Union, a superpower after the war, well, became a superpower. Mostly thanks to its army and the area it controlled. We all know what happened to France.....peter1191
How did it play second banana? More troops were fighting under the Union jack, If britain didnt hold out it is very possible we would all be speaking german today. By the Time america reluctantly joined the war Britain already had D-day engineered and planned and Russia had began to push Germany back. Russia was the key country in WW2 as they drew and bore the sharp end of Germanies might and still managed to push them back to Munich. Without the Russian pressure D-Day would have been a spectacular failure. I should also point out that it was Curchill who was able to forge the temporary and war winning alliance between Britain, America and Russia.
America is like a pimp/bully who stands in the back, knowing full well what he could do to everyone else in the room. he just sits there going "say my name, say it" and other people say his name, and then they get pimpsmacked
America is like a pimp/bully who stands in the back, knowing full well what he could do to everyone else in the room. he just sits there going "say my name, say it" and other people say his name, and then they get pimpsmackedpageiszepplin
to respond to muppet1010, while you are completely correct-that both wars are European wars- the US was a major factor in winning both. IF it wasn't for the US, a stalmate would have remained in Europe during WWI, likely broken by Germany thanks to Russia becoming a non-factor after 1917. Without the US's aid, aside from the impressive industrialization of the SOviet Union before the war, the Soviets would have a hard time pushing back the Germans (not impossible, but still hard). Britain would have capsized, notwithstanding their amazing resistance during the bombing of London and their impressive airmen and radar during the battle over London. Indeed, I say the US "won" the wars because it came out the most successful and most important of its allies.
All counties were integral to winning the war. This wasn't a US effort alone. That said, the US is the "most" victorious after the war, because it is physically unhurt and stronger than nearly every other nation. OF course, if it wasn't for RUssia or Britain, if it wasn't for Churchhill and, to some extent, Stalin, the war would not have been won. Again, the US won, not because it played the most important role, but because it played the most integral role.
[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]The future doesn't have a superpower. Governments take a backseat to corporate domination. Global capitalist control by a handful of corporations is the future.KillaHalo2o9
I actually agree with this.. Take the United States for instance.. Big business has entirelly too much control in politics through lobbying.. Haliburton is proof of this.. How much has their practices costed the United States? Its really disgusting what that company is doing over there.. Did you know that semi's licensed over there do not have filters on their engines, nor carry any spare tires.. So what happens if one breaks down or gets multiple flats? The soldiers are forced to destroy it so it does not fall in to enemey hands.. The US pays for these replacements at $80,000 a pop.. I am by no means for communism or socialism.. But I do see a immense problem happenign with big business..
If business practices do get out control than the government will step in and stop them.
Thats believable, the government did it in the 1800's
True, but military strength dose play a major role in determining the overall power in a nation. Just look at many of greatest empires that were built in are worlds past history and military strength played the most vital part in their success.(Ex Britsh Empire and the Romen Empire) KillaHalo2o9
The British Empire was built on the exploitation of the cheap economies of third world countries. For the most part, they just walked in, claimed themselves rulers and pretty much drained everything they could out of the country without hardly ever lifting a finger.
The Roman's of course used warfare to gain power, this is most obvious. But without a strong economy and popular governmental figures, that military would never have had enough support to do what it did. You really think an overbearing military based dictatorship that has no promise of religious tolerance, free rights, protection and roads like those of the Roman Empire would have been as successful?
I would say that economy is easily the biggest factor in determining a countries "power" in relation to its neighbours and the world... military strength is only a single facet of the overall structure... and one that isn't required. Without a strong economy both domestically and internationally, you will fail as a country.
to respond to muppet1010, while you are completely correct-that both wars are European wars- the US was a major factor in winning both. IF it wasn't for the US, a stalmate would have remained in Europe during WWI, likely broken by Germany thanks to Russia becoming a non-factor after 1917. Without the US's aid, aside from the impressive industrialization of the SOviet Union before the war, the Soviets would have a hard time pushing back the Germans (not impossible, but still hard). Britain would have capsized, notwithstanding their amazing resistance during the bombing of London and their impressive airmen and radar during the battle over London. Indeed, I say the US "won" the wars because it came out the most successful and most important of its allies.
peter1191
not only that, but the Empire of Japan was moving freely through Asia until the US stepped in and pushed them back, the United States has always played a major role in huge world conflicts or situations and the US will prob. maintain this behavior for as long as it exists
the US is the "most" victorious after the war, because it is physically unhurt and stronger than nearly every other nation.peter1191
the US is other side of the world so obviously they came out unhurt...at the end of the day if the Allies lost US would have came out "unharmed" . I say the Soviet Union was the most important component to vicory as they neighboured germany, had to cope with deaths in the tens of millions and yet still pushed germany back and over its own borders. Ater What russia went through It seems incredible to think that they didnt implode as a nation. Instead they became a very real threat to the US's power. they had to cope with far more loss than the US yet still came out fighting.
Right..we find some lost technology from a long lost race...and become a dominant force in the galaxy. OR the world end in the year 2012. Oh...and of course there is always the possibility where China will take over the world...which is most likely.
[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]True, but military strength dose play a major role in determining the overall power in a nation. Just look at many of greatest empires that were built in are worlds past history and military strength played the most vital part in their success.(Ex Britsh Empire and the Romen Empire) foxhound_fox
The British Empire was built on the exploitation of the cheap economies of third world countries. For the most part, they just walked in, claimed themselves rulers and pretty much drained everything they could out of the country without hardly ever lifting a finger.
The Roman's of course used warfare to gain power, this is most obvious. But without a strong economy and popular governmental figures, that military would never have had enough support to do what it did. You really think an overbearing military based dictatorship that has no promise of religious tolerance, free rights, protection and roads like those of the Roman Empire would have been as successful?
I would say that economy is easily the biggest factor in determining a countries "power" in relation to its neighbours and the world... military strength is only a single facet of the overall structure... and one that isn't required. Without a strong economy both domestically and internationally, you will fail as a country.
You have made good points and I agree, but a nation with both a strong military and economy is the best. ;)
not only that, but the Empire of Japan was moving freely through Asia until the US stepped in and pushed them back, the United States has always played a major role in huge world conflicts or situations and the US will prob. maintain this behavior for as long as it existsMarineXXII
The US wasn't needed to defeat Adolf, not only was the German military already collapsing due to the crushing defeat in Russia but the Soviets themselves were racing towards Berlin and could not have been stopped. If the US hadn't stepped in, the Soviets would have taken all of Europe for themselves and not had much trouble doing it. The only reason they stopped was because they didn't want to start yet another war with the US as they had already lost tens of millions of troops.
The Japanese, yet again, were falling apart from within due to their massive imperial takings throughout Asia like Germany in Europe. Neither power had the economy nor the substantial leadership required to hold such vast territory. Of course there were significant battles but in the end, neither nation was actually defeated from without but collapsed from within. The only thing the Allies did was step in and claim victory.
World War II was all about attrition, not honourable warfare. Even though the Allies claimed victory, we as a race of beings all lost. There was never a "winner." World War II was a pointless loss of life used to satisfy the egomania of a few people. If the League of Nations had actually done their job reinforcing the Treaty of Versailles, Adolf would never had risen to power and WWII never happened.
[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]The future doesn't have a superpower. Governments take a backseat to corporate domination. Global capitalist control by a handful of corporations is the future.2good2betrue
I actually agree with this.. Take the United States for instance.. Big business has entirelly too much control in politics through lobbying.. Haliburton is proof of this.. How much has their practices costed the United States? Its really disgusting what that company is doing over there.. Did you know that semi's licensed over there do not have filters on their engines, nor carry any spare tires.. So what happens if one breaks down or gets multiple flats? The soldiers are forced to destroy it so it does not fall in to enemey hands.. The US pays for these replacements at $80,000 a pop.. I am by no means for communism or socialism.. But I do see a immense problem happenign with big business..
If business practices do get out control than the government will step in and stop them.
Thats believable, the government did it in the 1800's
When and why is up for speculation, but eventually the United States will not be the leading military or economy any longer, and I think we ought to have some humility and make the transition a smooth one. In economic terms, I think east asia will be the new hot spot. Europe is on the way out in terms of global influence.
Log in to comment