Actually no...that's not what I'm arguing. My argument is simple....

[QUOTE="mealex"]

if it weren't for the USSR there wouldn't be a western democracy a USA

LJS9502_basic

This is what I'm arguing.....

Look at what that statement means. 'If it weren't for the USSR' can simply be rephrased as 'if the USSR hadn't done anything'. It implies that the efforts and actions of the USSR be completely disregarded. If that is not done, the statement is simply saying that there isn't a western democracy by the name of the USA, which is of course rediculous.

So that is where you have me confused. You claim to be arguing against the statement, yet don't seem to have interpreted it properly.

Besides, this argument has gotten stupid. I'm going now.

[QUOTE="OrC4n_"]

The point of his statement was that had the USSR not been involved, then the US wouldn't exist. Therefore, to debate his point you have to ignore the USSR. Sure, Hitler would have attacked them next, but by definition we have to assume he left them alone for the sake of the argument, as being attacked makes them 'involved'. Besides I was never arguing that the US would have ceased to exist, merely that it is concievable that it could have been beaten. Which is a very significant difference.

Of all the countries Hitler invaded, only the USSR put up any kind of fight worth mentioning. None of the other battles had much in the way of detrimental effect on Germany and its future capacity to wage war. The slightly difficult issue is what would have happened with Britain. Do you assume Germany could have won if it hadn't turned its attention away? In time I think it would have been inevitable, however If Britain hung on it would have been a valuable ally to America.

Germany never attacked America because it was never in the position to do so. If he could have done, Hitler would have attacked. Infact he despised the fact that American civilians were so disconnected with the loss of life being experience by every other country in the war and subsequently tried to work out ways of bombing New York. He failed of course.

To be honest I think this argument has gotten a bit stupid. I'm being too theoretical and you aren't at all, as a result I can't see it ever finishing.

LJS9502_basic

Why should I ignore the USSR...they contributed yes...but they couldn't and wouldn't have stopped Hitler alone either. Second...his entire point was that without the USSR the US wouldn't exist...and none of you have one shred of factual proof to back up that assumption.

You should ignore the USSR because that was the purpose of the statement you are arguing against. The statement was that if it wasn't for the USSR, and hence if they hadn't been involved in the war whatsoever, then the US might not exist. You cannot build up a counter argument without appreciating that fact.

I don't think the USSR would have beaten Hitler alone either. Just as my entire point has been that I also do not think the US could have beaten Germany and Japan alone. I even doubt both the US and Britain could have achieved that, although that conflict would have been much closer.

Nobody can give you factual evidence to the contrary because there is none. Just as there is no factual evidence for your argument. The situation is entirely speculative and theoretical. Hence why I agree with you that his statement was flawed in the first place (I replied "he kind of has a point" rather than "i agree entirely"), I agree because he was presenting it as fact. Therefore I am of the opinion that you presenting the opposite as a fact is also wrong.

Point one....his statement was that without Russia...the US wouldn't exist. That is incorrect since as I pointed out.....had Hitler successfully conquered Europe...he would turn his attention to Russia(USSR correctly) next....and not the US. So what about his point was correct? Nothing....

Point two.....he was invaded western powers...therefore he couldn't be left to his own devices against them. They WOULD defend themselves.

Point three....and? Hitler never attempted to come here to fight. Political postering.

Point four....I don't underestimate them....but after fighting in Europe AND the USSR....they would be running on empty...while the US was relatively fresh. Supplies and money would be tight for Germany as well.

LJS9502_basic

The point of his statement was that had the USSR not been involved, then the US wouldn't exist. Therefore, to debate his point you have to ignore the USSR. Sure, Hitler would have attacked them next, but by definition we have to assume he left them alone for the sake of the argument, as being attacked makes them 'involved'. Besides I was never arguing that the US would have ceased to exist, merely that it is concievable that it could have been beaten. Which is a very significant difference.

Of all the countries Hitler invaded, only the USSR put up any kind of fight worth mentioning. None of the other battles had much in the way of detrimental effect on Germany and its future capacity to wage war. The slightly difficult issue is what would have happened with Britain. Do you assume Germany could have won if it hadn't turned its attention away? In time I think it would have been inevitable, however If Britain hung on it would have been a valuable ally to America.

Germany never attacked America because it was never in the position to do so. If he could have done, Hitler would have attacked. Infact he despised the fact that American civilians were so disconnected with the loss of life being experience by every other country in the war and subsequently tried to work out ways of bombing New York. He failed of course.

To be honest I think this argument has gotten a bit stupid. I'm being too theoretical and you aren't at all, as a result I can't see it ever finishing.

[QUOTE="OrC4n_"]

He kind of has a point. If the Germans had been left to their own devices in europe (by whichI mean Britain and Russia weren't in the war) they may well have developed nuclear weapons first. They also developed rockets first,even thoughtheir research facilities were continually being bombed. Taking that into acount and considering that pearl harbour would still have happened regardless,I thinkan aloneAmerica might have had some serious problems.

LJS9502_basic

No....he doesn't have a point. First off...when you go to war against other countries....how are you "left to your own devices". Second....you can't rewrite history....and you can't make assumptions that have no basis in fact. For his statement to be true....the US would have had to do nothing to defend itself.

I find that hard to believe......especially since if Hitler conquered Europe...he was getting the USSR next...NOT the US.

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was merely arguing that it isn't impossible to envisage a situation where Hitler could have defeated the US. I wasn't trying to present facts or rewrite history, but rather use knowlage of the situation to make not altogether unreasonable assumptions about what could have happened, not what definately would have happened. My basis for arguing such being to show that it is not a completely forgone conclusion that the previous poster was making a rediculous claim.

As for what I mean by 'left to their own devices'. I simply meant that they were left unopposed by the western powers to invade countries like poland and checkoslovakia, and then to subsequently build up their industry and military in whatever way they saw fit.

I do agree with you that Hitler would have attacked Russia next and not the US. That is quite obvious considering what actually happened. However 'if it weren't for the USSR there wouldn't be a western democracy a USA' implies that in this particular 'what if' situation, we are disregarding the presence of the USSR. As for Hitler attacking America? It was Germany that declared war on the US right after pearl harbour, not the other way round.

"For his statement to be true....the US would have had to do nothing to defend itself."

While it would have been a very difficult war for Germany to win, I think you underestimate them. You have to remember that Japan would also have been fighting, which would be a great help to the Germans. I will also make the point again that Germany had fantastic technology (rockets, jets) before everyone else.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that while I am speculating and that it is true that making assumptions is always a bit dodgy, I think that the points I have made help to show that it is naive not to recognise how important the contribution that the USSR made in World War 2 was to the future of the world outside of europe, as well as in.

[QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="mealex"]

if it weren't for the USSR there wouldn't be a western democracy a USA

LJS9502_basic

No it didn't, but without it, the world would be a very different place. In terms of actual fighting, the russians were the largest contributors by far. 80% of all axis forces in the war fought exclusively against the ussr and it's 2 allies tanu tuva and mongolia.

Without everyone fighting the world would be a different place. Second....Hitler sent his troops to fight in the USSR poorly outfitted for winter......which contributed as well. Had he not done that...the world may be a different place. The conclusion of the war was reached by a variety of events.

And for the last time......I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PART I BOLDED.

He kind of has a point. If the Germans had been left to their own devices in europe (by which I mean Britain and Russia weren't in the war) they may well have developed nuclear weapons first. They also developed rockets first, even though their research facilities were continually being bombed. Taking that into acount and considering that pearl harbour would still have happened regardless, I think an alone America might have had some serious problems.