• Should the US gotten involved sooner in WWII?
    142 replies, posted
[QUOTE=jesseluver93;22013539]Don't think so. Explain how the U.S. provoked the Japanese into attacking them. Personally I think the U.S. joined in at the perfect time, just like in WW1, the US wasn't looking for a war, but was dragged into it. Regardless of other motives, the prime motivation of joining both wars, I would say, is for greater good. Also, I don't know how the war would have ended up if the U.S. hadn't joined, but it most definitely would have gone a lot differently. I think what would have happened was that Germany would not have ever been able to stem the Soviet victory. I think that after Germany failed to subdue them, that it was sort of inevitable that U.S.S.R. was to be successful in the war. The soviet goal was always to let the nazis destroy capitalism, then come in and destroy the nazis with communism. That probably what would have ended up happening. Because the U.S. entered the war, they ended up meeting at Berlin.[/QUOTE] LOL wasn't looking for war? Oh cmon. They NEEDED that war to pull them out of the depression that they were in. War makes countries economies boom (unless of course you are on the losing side) I will have to look it up in more detail but the US were just simply being dicks to Japan trying to provoke them. Denying trade, moving ships around where they shouldn't be going, etc. [QUOTE=ballsy;22018381]It's funny how you all portray America as the big superpower in the world. Economically yes. Military- wise no, the fact of the matter is that Russia has more advanced nuclear technology, more active & reserve nuclear warheads ready to fire within a moments notice. Every fucking war you cunts get yourself into, you expect other countries to run to your god damn rescue, i.e Vietnam, Korea, Cold War, Middle East. But when it comes to other countries asking for your support, you turn a cold shoulder and tell them to get fucked. I for one wouldn't shed one tear or think anything bad if you ignorant fucks were to get nuked in the next decade. kthx.[/QUOTE] Biased much? Russia versus USA is an impossible thing to argue because you will never really know until it truly happens. I'm Canadian but I can admit the US is top tier when it comes to militarys worldwide, not sure what you are talking about. And well economy wise the US is in rather big trouble currently. Russia is too but not to the catastrophic amount the US is. [QUOTE=Aedan1;22018588]Atomic Bomb is ironic because the Germans invented it. :eng101:[/QUOTE] True that. The Germans already had the knowledge to build the atomic bomb in 1943, but there were still some bugs to work out and the harsh fact that they didn't have all the resources necessary to undergo the project. Then Russia and the US forcibly grabbed all the German scientists they could and got them to work for them
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;21998177]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] what the fuck are you talking about
[QUOTE=Dank Dave;22026307]what the fuck are you talking about[/QUOTE] What he is saying is that say the US never got involved and if it was just Russia vs Germany, and Russia won Russia wouldn't have stopped at the German borders and would have annexed everything around them.( not sure if I believe this ) Although they pretty much did do that at the end of WW2. Grabbing Poland, Estonia, Belarus, Serbia, Romania, etc.
[QUOTE=Matt PL;21996531]roosevelt was scared of nazis,nazi germany had the biggest and best army at that time[/QUOTE] Yeah but they were spread thinner than a condom's latex lining
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22026386]Yeah but they were spread thinner than a condom's latex lining[/QUOTE] Roger that. Even when spread thin they were still rock hard. Assuming Germany went through with it and knocked either the UK or Russia out of the war, I doubt the US would have gotten involved. That is also assuming Japan wouldn't have attacked. Germany could withstand a 3 v 1 barely and slowly lost, but if it was a 2 v 1 things might have been different.
[QUOTE=Dan The Man;21996619]It certainly didn't have the biggest army. Neither the best. They were victor only over Poland, the low countries and France. Their broad tactics were very good and they had good battle tactics but ultimately their armies were far overstretched and the US army far outmatched them in conflict when it did ensue.[/QUOTE] Germany had an AMAZING war force, and though their efforts would probably have been stopped by the soviet union, hitler was a bloody idiot and blew his general's plans
[QUOTE=Dan The Man;21996619]It certainly didn't have the biggest army. Neither the best. They were victor only over Poland, the low countries and France. Their broad tactics were very good and they had good battle tactics but ultimately their armies were far overstretched and the US army far outmatched them in conflict when it did ensue.[/QUOTE] Sorry but you are wrong. Biggest I guess not but 18.5 million (and this 18.5 million is one of the most technologically advanced armies of the time) at its full strength isn't something to just laugh at. Some German forces were already 4 year veterans when the US entered the war and they were completely green. The Germans throughout the whole war always had the upper hand when it came to tactics and veterancy. And victory wise, well lets list them. - Annexed multiple smaller countries - Took over Poland in less then a month - Took 4 countries in the span of 2 months (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway) - Took Greece and Malta - Smashed the BEF and British Commonwealth to pieces in France and in North Africa - Terrorized the UK to the point of them preparing to defend for an invasion/surrender/peace talks (That almost happened) - Utterly rolled the USSR almost all the way back to their capital Then after that it slowly went downhill.
They should've assassinated Hitler in the 20s.
[QUOTE=Elgrand;22019692] I don't think there was anyway the US could have 'lost' WW2 tbh.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Even as a normal American citizen I account for the fact without the help of Australia ,and Canada the war would of been easily lost. How? Australia provided multiple bases of operation for naval ,and marine forces belonging too the United States. Canadian forces helped American raider forces regain the Alaskan Island Chain. Not only that they also were willing too go against something the British said so that America could get a bigger labor force too help build an air-strip on a sand bed in northern Alaska. They also offered several airfrields to the Americans which was rejected ,but like said earlier on America left aircraft on the border saying basically, "Hey guys... Take these and bomb the fuck out of Japanese ships for us. Kthxbai." Without doubt. Without the Canadians, and Australians we would of lost WW2 ,and Australia ,and Alaska would be in Japanese control.
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;22026996]They should've assassinated Hitler in the 20s.[/QUOTE] He wasn't very popular back then. Small time guy; no one really knew who he was. Way to know your timelines though.
Anyone here take GCSE History here? You learn all about WW2 and why it happened, it's great.
[QUOTE=latirCole;22027122]Anyone here take GCSE History here? You learn all about WW2 and why it happened, it's great.[/QUOTE] No idea what that is. I assume it's a UK thing. I like to think I am pretty knowledgeable on WW2 in general.
[QUOTE=mfb412;22026499]Germany had an AMAZING war force[/QUOTE] If the Viet Cong beat the Nazi SS in Deadliest Warrior, I'll fucking rage. But in all seriousness, the German war machine was a force to be reckoned with. I absolutely hate it when people assume that the Nazis were poor soldiers just because they lost.
[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] Get out.
I'm personally mixed on this, part of me thinks the US joined at the perfect time while another part thinks that if they had joined sooner they could have shortened things. I find these "What if..." discussions interesting and I do enjoy reading peoples opinions in these threads however stupid and angsty they may be. [QUOTE=latirCole;22027122]Anyone here take GCSE History here? You learn all about WW2 and why it happened, it's great.[/QUOTE] I took it back in 06 but we focused on Medicine Through The Ages :frown:, but we learned about WWII back in 04 and you are right, it's a great and important subject.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;22027386]If the Viet Cong beat the Nazi SS in Deadliest Warrior, I'll fucking rage. But in all seriousness, the German war machine was a force to be reckoned with. I absolutely hate it when people assume that the Nazis were poor soldiers just because they lost.[/QUOTE] That show is a fucking joke, it appeases to 12 year old boys with a sugar high from drinking a can of coke. The "experts" are fucking fools. They could hire me for the show and I would do a better job. I simply just out right refuse to watch it cause it would make me facepalm way to hard. Please don't mention that show. It butchers firearms and history way too much :frown:
[QUOTE=Aman V;22027593]That show is a fucking joke, it appeases to 12 year old boys with a sugar high from drinking a can of coke. The "experts" are fucking fools. They could hire me for the show and I would do a better job. I simply just out right refuse to watch it cause it would make me facepalm way to hard. Please don't mention that show. It butchers firearms and history way too much :frown:[/QUOTE] Lol I know how you feel. Although I personally find their tests on ancient/mideival weapons to be much more fair. But when it comes to more modern weapons, like firearms or explosive, that's when shit gets biased.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;22027818]Lol I know how you feel. Although I personally find their tests on ancient/mideival weapons to be much more fair. But when it comes to more modern weapons, like firearms or explosive, that's when shit gets biased.[/QUOTE] I've only ever watched 2 episodes and they just left me staring the blank screen with bleeding eyes and ears.
aman half your list applies to [quote]- Annexed multiple smaller countries[/quote] you put in a fair amount of filler TBH
[QUOTE=Conscript;22028381]aman half your list applies to you put in a fair amount of filler TBH[/QUOTE] Well does that not constitute a victory? What exactly is considered a victory
[QUOTE=slippp22;22007719]In WW1 US entered without being asked[/quote] That's a really vague statement. In the beginning, the US chose a strict policy of neutrality, treating all of the warring nations just as they had been treated in the pre-war years. Unfortunately, the US had better trade relations with the Triple Entente powers (Britain, France, Russia) than the Triple Alliance powers (Germany, Austria, Italy), which was a definite advantage for the former but a severe disadvantage for the latter. Now, because the US had better relations with the Triple Entente (at least until Russia suffered a revolution and dropped out), there was considerable pressure to join the war on their side. Additionally, there was considerable sentiment within the US to join because the Triple Entente, in American eyes, were the "good" guys. To the American people, the German-led Triple Alliance was the aggressor who started the war in the first place. Combined with the German assault on American ships and the Zimmerman telegram, the US decided Germany had overstepped its bounds and, such, joined the war on the side of the Triple Entente powers. You see, there's a lot more to the story. Wars aren't started by asking permission to join. [quote]Germans were still losing but America just ass raped them, Allied would of won WW1 if America wasn't involved, it just was quicker.[/quote] By the time the US entered, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance powers were locked in a stalemate. Germany's original strategy was, essentially, to zerg rush Paris by invading Belgium in order to flank and avoid the defenses along the French-German border. Germany made some excellent progress, but were eventually blocked by Triple Entente forces. Germany then tried to flank these forces, but were blocked again. This continued, all the way until the fortifications hit the sea. This is where the traditional image of World War One is created- stalemate, trench warfare, et cetera. When the US got involved, the Triple Entente powers were given the extra manpower to make another push, and this time it succeeded. American forces, although they played a smaller and shorter role than the forces of other nations in the war, were definitive in breaking the stalemate that had bogged down the war's progress... but again, the number of committed American forces was much lower than, say, the number of committed forces from France or Britain. If anything, WW1 was more of a joint victory than WW2 was. [quote]In WW2 im sorry but it wasn't just America that won in Europe, it was the Alliance. Everyone had a part. In the pacific it was America and Britain. I'm tired of people saying America does everything, they don't[/QUOTE] Do you know how high American industrial production was in the Second World War? At its peak, American industrial output was twice that of all of the other nations in the war... combined. Through programs such as Lend-Lease, the United States almost singlehandedly financed the Allied war effort. Don't tell me that doesn't count for something. The Pacific front, while still a joint effort, was mostly made up of American forces- British forces were still largely committed to victory in Europe, a more necessary and important goal for a European country. Other nations certainly helped, but the Pacific war was influenced most by American actions. I'm not saying the United States won the war singlehandedly, of course, but you'd be stupid to deny that the United States was probably the most influential force in deciding the war's outcome. Yes, yes, we know the Soviet Union beat back German forces on the Eastern Front and captured Berlin- I'm not denying the Soviet Union almost singlehandedly defeated Germany. However, an ungodly amount of financial and military support the Soviet Union received was through the Lend-Lease program, courtesy of the United States. There are many, many different factors that decide a war's outcome. You'd be wise to understand what they are before blurting out your opinion. [editline]4:42PM[/editline] And this is only the condensed version, mind you. [QUOTE=wuzzimu;22007690]The isolationist policy the US had originated all the way back to George Washington, who essentially advised such a policy in his farewell address. There was a major precedent to avoid such a large scale foreign conflict, which was why the US delayed fighting in both world wars.[/QUOTE] True, but World War One was the biggest reason the US pursued such a policy when the WW2 broke out. It's why Chamberlain opted for appeasement rather than force when dealing with Hitler. You have to remember World War One was not remembered as World War One, but as The Great War. No one had seen such devastation on such a large scale- everyone was determined to see it should never happen again.
US policy was isolationist in both wars. Couple this with FDR's promise that "Your boy's won't die in foreign wars" and you get a highly unlikely chance America would want to commit to a war.
[QUOTE=ballsy;22018381]It's funny how you all portray America as the big superpower in the world. Economically yes. Military- wise no, [/quote] I beg to differ. The United States, as much as the military has shrunk from Cold War-era levels, is still the number one fighting force in the world, no matter how you look at it. Numerically, the United States might have fewer active soldiers than nations such as North Korea or China, but owns the world's largest and most advanced air force. The USN has roughly sixteen aircraft carriers (which are huge, expensive beasts), more than the navies of the rest of the world combined. American military policy has, since the conclusion of World War Two, been centered around the constant capability to wage a major two-front war... besides, he United States spends much, much more on defense than any other nation on the planet. The US may be bogged down in two wars and a recession but, as Lankist said, that does not severely affect the military's ability to fuck shit up. [quote]the fact of the matter is that Russia has more advanced nuclear technology, more active & reserve nuclear warheads ready to fire within a moments notice.[/quote] The Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenal is aged. The Soviet Union may have developed more warheads than the United States, but were severely disadvantaged when it came to delivery systems and missile technology. [quote]Every fucking war you cunts get yourself into, you expect other countries to run to your god damn rescue, i.e Vietnam, Korea, Cold War, Middle East.[/quote] Vietman was pretty much a US + South Vietnamese effort only. Korea was a UN effort. The Cold War wasn't actually a war. The First Iraq War (is that its name?) was also a UN effort. I think the Iraq and Afghanistan are the only ones that really apply here. Even then, there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. I'd go into the whole 9/11 + NATO's "Attack on one is an attack on all" clause bit and how the invasions were seen as justified but, truth be told, I'm too lazy and don't really understand it all that well, due to how recent it is. Perhaps in a few years. [quote]But when it comes to other countries asking for your support, you turn a cold shoulder and tell them to get fucked.[/quote] Such as what? There are plenty of instances where administrations did not do as American allies had hoped (such as the Obama administration's decision to scrap the missile defense system in Poland), but I can't think of any wars were US assistance was requested and denied. [quote] I for one wouldn't shed one tear or think anything bad if you ignorant fucks were to get nuked in the next decade. kthx.[/QUOTE] Even if you're not an citizen of a NATO country, let alone an American citizen, chances are any situation that would result in the United States getting fucked over would result with your nation getting fucked over just as hard. Food for thought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.