• Should the US gotten involved sooner in WWII?
    142 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;21998020]From what I know about WW2, we came in to save Europe from the Soviets, not the Nazi's. The Soviets saved Europe from Germany and the U.S. saved Europe from the Soviets. America actually did relatively little(compare to the Soviets) in the fight against the Nazi's.[/QUOTE] No. Germany was split in two, the end. [editline]05:07AM[/editline] The soviet union lasted decades after the world war, america did nothing against that. The only thing they did was start the cold war between themselves and the soviet.
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;21998073]No. Germany was split in two, the end. [editline]05:07AM[/editline] The soviet union lasted decades after the world war, america did nothing against that. The only thing they did was start the cold war between themselves and the soviet.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the cold war. I'm talking about how if America hadn't saved Western Europe from Germany, the Soviet's would've conquered all of Europe. Instead, they only got Eastern Europe.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;21997930]how does it feel living in a country we could wipe off the face of the earth in 20 minutes[/QUOTE] An Attack On One Is An Attack On All, Everyone would take this chance to invade the united states. btw in such event Canada dibs burning the whitehouse. I also call dibs on using c4 on statue of liberty.
[QUOTE=doonbugie;21996711]No, Because the US is the best example of stupid. Cant even explain how stupid the US is. They have mastered stupid fucking stupid. Congratulations. GAME OVER U.S. OF ASS. PS: Fucking Fuck.[/QUOTE] I second this.
We decided to not get involved in foreign affairs after WWI. It wasn't until Japan got smug and bombed us that it made us get involved. [editline]11:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sirias;21997834]Herp derp America England and France are stupid for beating the shit out of germany after WW1. thus causing WW2..[/QUOTE] I really hope you are kidding. [editline]11:46PM[/editline] [QUOTE=doonbugie;21996711]No, Because the US is the best example of stupid. Cant even explain how stupid the US is. They have mastered stupid fucking stupid. Congratulations. GAME OVER U.S. OF ASS. PS: Fucking Fuck.[/QUOTE] Your avatar in conjunction with your post makes me question your intelligence. [editline]11:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=doonbugie;21998301]An Attack On One Is An Attack On All, Everyone would take this chance to invade the united states. btw in such event Canada dibs burning the whitehouse. I also call dibs on using c4 on statue of liberty.[/QUOTE] You make me sad, knowing people such as yourself exist.
[QUOTE=doonbugie;21998301]An Attack On One Is An Attack On All, Everyone would take this chance to invade the united states. btw in such event Canada dibs burning the whitehouse. I also call dibs on using c4 on statue of liberty.[/QUOTE] Your grammar hurts my brain. Your outlook on politics makes it hurt more.
[QUOTE=doonbugie;21998301]An Attack On One Is An Attack On All, Everyone would take this chance to invade the united states. btw in such event Canada dibs burning the whitehouse. I also call dibs on using c4 on statue of liberty.[/QUOTE] you're too fuckin stupid to argue with, goodbye
Wasn't this not so long after the Great Depression? Roosevelt needed the increase in industry, and I guess he tried to capitalise on the war like they did in WWI.
[QUOTE=doonbugie;21998301]An Attack On One Is An Attack On All, Everyone would take this chance to invade the united states. btw in such event Canada dibs burning the whitehouse. I also call dibs on using c4 on statue of liberty.[/QUOTE] Congratulations!! You just earned yourself the title of the dumbest person on the Internet. Please, if you are going to post, making it fucking intelligent; instead of wasting webspace with your disgusting carapace. Back on topic, no, the US should not have gotten involved earlier in the war. It would just cause even more lives to be lost.
[QUOTE=Doom14;21996529]If you want to argue saving lives, look at the atomic bombs. [U]Was it really worth causing the wanton destruction, misery and torment to end a war? [/U] You could argue yes, because it brought about a quicker halt to the proud Japanese and kept up from using our back up plan, a full-scale invasion. You could also argue no; that a with the right tactics and both military and political maneuvering, we could have avoided the nuclear horrors. It all really boils down to opinion. Don't pick which one you like the best, pick which one you can back up the best and with the most info. That's what teachers want to see in your paper: solid, organized support.[/QUOTE] I think the atomic bomb was necessary. The full scale invasion was the first plan, but analysts predicted that if the invasion would have killed at least a million of our soldiers. I'm not completely sure which faction would invade, but the Army had at least 16 million soldiers and the Navy had 4 million sailors. Either way, it would have dealt a crippling blow to both, especially the Navy. No matter how much political maneuvering there could have been, there would have not been an agreement. The Japanese were in WWII because they needed to expand into Manchuria. Once they did, they didn't stop. They wanted more, which is why the Rape of Nanking and Pearl Harbor happened. On top of that, the Japanese were brainwashed, if you will, to entirely devote their lives to the emperor. If the emperor said to take down a ship, you would try to use up all your ammo and if all else fails, Kamikaze. It was considered the greatest honor. Without the bombs, the Japanese just wouldn't quit. When people talk about the Atomic Bombs today, they treat it as if the US gave no warning to the Japanese about the incoming bombs two weeks prior to the bombing. The emperor said nothing. Bye bye Hiroshima. Next Targets: Tokyo and Nagasaki. Nagasaki being the secondary bombing site. Flyers were dropped on both cities. After bad weather prevented a bombing of Tokyo, Nagasaki got bombed and almost Immediately, Japanese surrendered. [editline]02:39AM[/editline] [QUOTE=:smug:;21999153]Wasn't this not so long after the Great Depression? Roosevelt needed the increase in industry, and I guess he tried to capitalise on the war like they did in WWI.[/QUOTE] That's how they got out of the depression. IMO the best way to get out of a bad economy is a war. It gives virtually everyone jobs.
No. They should have let Russia take care of those damn Nazis.
No. It wouldn't of mattered. France and Britain shouldn't of let Hitler take the Rhineland. Then maybe Hitler wouldn't of slowly taken back it's colonies and WW2 maybe wouldn't of ever happened. [editline]09:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jettan;21999704]No. They should have let Russia take care of those damn Nazis.[/QUOTE] Russia wasn't exactly in a state to fight Hitler. If it wasn't for the Russian Winter things could of been different.
[QUOTE=ashxu;22000181]Russia wasn't exactly in a state to fight Hitler. If it wasn't for the Russian Winter things could of been different.[/QUOTE] Don't forget that an awesome russian sniper that killed like 100 germans.
I find it hard to believe that the USSR could've lost. The Soviets would have came down an crushed Hitler sooner or later. The prospec of them losing as a very far-fetched idea. They have too much man power, they would have won by virtue of sheer force. [editline]05:36AM[/editline] [QUOTE=jaybuz;22000223]Don't forget that an awesome russian sniper that killed like 100 germans.[/QUOTE] It was more like 1000.
They took part when they did not due to some idea of justice or a perceived wrong, but because they were attacked. Simple as that, basic selfishness.
[QUOTE=Jettan;21999704]No. They should have let Russia take care of those damn Nazis.[/QUOTE] Russia would not exist, and the USSR would be the single most powerful nation on the face of the earth today.
[QUOTE=Matt PL;21996531]roosevelt was scared of nazis,nazi germany had the biggest and best army at that time[/QUOTE] this Roosevelt knew the if Britain fell to Nazi Germany there was nothing stopping Nazi Germany striking America.
I asked myself the same question when I was 12. My answer? No. If we did get involved earlier on we wouldn't of had the proper aircraft,tanks, and even boats to take on the Germans. Not only this, if we took on Germany first you know what would happen? Australia,New Zeland,and China all may of been under control of Japan. Also, by attacking earlier on we would of sustained significant more casualties ,and even if we did manage to beat the Germans we would then have to redirect our attention to Japan which at that time was planning a land invasion on Alaska. (Which they landed on the islands ,but not mainland) [editline]03:00AM[/editline] [QUOTE=jaybuz;22000223]Don't forget that an awesome russian sniper that killed like 100 germans.[/QUOTE] 229 actually.
inb4 this thread gets swarmed with 13 year old CoD players.
Wouldn't have changed anything. Russia had the war in Europe on lockdown by the time USA joined.
Being fucked from both the East and the West, it doesn't really matter.
Whether the United States should've gotten involved earlier doesn't really matter. Going to war was heavily unpopular until the bombing at Pearl Harbor, so entering any earlier than Pearl Harbor would've been catastrophic.
No, the decisions that the President made then were good. Roosevelt was a smart sumbitch, and I don't doubt every decision was the best possible option. America is doing pretty okay not 3/4 of a century later. What was done was obviously what was best for us.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;22000476]I asked myself the same question when I was 12. My answer? No. If we did get involved earlier on we wouldn't of had the proper aircraft,tanks, and even boats to take on the Germans. Not only this, if we took on Germany first you know what would happen? Australia,New Zeland,and China all may of been under control of Japan. Also, by attacking earlier on we would of sustained significant more casualties ,and even if we did manage to beat the Germans we would then have to redirect our attention to Japan which at that time was planning a land invasion on Alaska. (Which they landed on the islands ,but not mainland) [editline]03:00AM[/editline] 229 actually.[/QUOTE] Actually at the beginning of WW2 America was giving Canada hundreds of planes under the radar. (AKA "We'll just leave this plane here at the border, hope no one takes it.") So yes, America was prepared, they just didn't want to get involved in a war that wasn't threatening them at the time.
:siren:WALL OF TEXT:siren: First of all, why are we discussing the war in europe when america got into the war because of pearl harbor. America joined the pacific theatre, ofcourse they sent troops to europe, although the Soviet Union would have won none the less. You guys seen "der untergang" it was about the last stages of the war. the USSR outnumbered the wehrmacth 5:1 so naturally USSR would have taken berlin easliy. that was offtopic. Ontopic: President eisenhower had that isolation thing going for him so naturally there was no need to join in before anything happned to america. and emperor hiroto(think that was his name) only saw the pacific fleet as a danger, since he only wanted to be in charge of the transport routes over the pacific. plus what contributed alot to attacking THE JAPANESE(cant stress this enough) was that alot of american seamen lost their lives in the attack and america cried for war. But if i think that they should have joined in sooner. NO! They just only had a finacial crisis in 1929. and like Trenchfoot said President eisenhower ofcourse did what was best for america TL;DR Look at what trenchfoot said.
Yes they should. If they had, we probably wouldn't have been blitz'd the fuck up. Mind you, we still held out. Score one for Us limeys, that.
When the Germans invaded the USSR they lost the war. USA defeated Japan in war, They did [B]NOT[/B] win in Europe. USSR and the UK were always the major player in Europe. FACT: Half the men who fought in France were British
[QUOTE=Hick2;22002927] [b]FACT: Half the men who fought in France were British[/b][/QUOTE] And what did the french give us in return? Smelly cheese.
No, I don't think they should have..
[QUOTE=BagMinge101;21996486]It was, but think of the lives that we could of saved if the war ended earlier.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the States were just looking out for themselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.