CreateDebate


Debate Info

98
92
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:190
Arguments:136
Total Votes:235
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (69)
 
 Disagree (66)

Debate Creator

Axmeister(4299) pic



Britain didn't need Americas help to win the war(WWII) (revisited)

This is one of my more ancient of debates and I decided to bring it back up for 2 reasons a)there's loads of new members now and b) the other one is full up too much. I'm not going to delete the other one because it will cause many people (mainly me) to lose lots of points.

 

Agree

Side Score: 98
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 92

In the same sense that America didnt need an atomic bomb to end the war with Japan, but it did help bring about an easier, faster resolution with less loss of life. America helping Britain against the Nazis helped to end the war faster and easier.

That being said Britain did need Russia's help to defeat the Nazis. If the German war machine hadn't been hopelessly outnumbered and fighting on several fronts (for which they can only blame themselves, but still), they would've steamrollered right over Britain, though admittedly not with the ease of conquest they were met with in France and Spain.

Whenever i picture this debate i picture Britain as a proud macho-man, struggling to carry a heavy something they can barely lift, shooing away those who offer help and belittling the efforts of those that do. By contrast, America seems to have an overly high opinion of it's aid to Britain, but i remain convinced that this is simply because D-Day has been something of a WWII video game staple ever since WWII video games started coming out, and Americans cant help but feeling bad-ass every time they virtually retake Europe for the Europeans.

2 years ago | Side: Agree
1 point

"Whenever i picture this debate i picture Britain as a proud macho-man, struggling to carry a heavy something they can barely lift, shooing away those who offer help and belittling the efforts of those that do. By contrast, America seems to have an overly high opinion of it's aid to Britain, but i remain convinced that this is simply because D-Day has been something of a WWII video game staple ever since WWII video games started coming out, and Americans cant help but feeling bad-ass every time they virtually retake Europe for the Europeans."

I didn't create this debate to suggest that Britain could have single handedly thrash the Germans, but I believe that the British Empire could have lasted a lot longer if it hadn't had to take on the evil empires of Italy, Japan and Germany. I've always tried to argue that Britain deserves a lot mroe credit for WWII than just being "rescued by USA".

2 years ago | Side: Agree

Ah. It was just the title that implied that it was entirely a British effort, entirely a British war.

Downplaying the sacrifice and struggle of the British in WWII would be foolish, I agree, and they weren't so much 'rescued' as they were 'helped' which is, after all, what allies are supposed to do.

The French, though... the French were rescued.

2 years ago | Side: Agree

Really, I agree, I'm fed up with the "The US wan the war and saved everyone!". The Americans war was practically against the Japanese and hardly against the Nazi's. In a way, the US helped a bit, But not allot, we were handling the war good, and I think if it wernt for the Germans attacking Russia and having to take their forces off of the western front in drastic numbers, we would have lost.

Around about 26 million people died fighting in WW2, and about 20 million of them were Russian. So all in all, If it wernt for the Russians wanting to save their "Mother Land" the Germans would have pushed through and took Europe and the Americans would have finished up their war with Japan and left.

My opinion anyway...

1 year ago | Side: Agree
3 points

A lot of people have said on here that the Allies could not have won the World War 2 without American supplies, these supplies that America sent us were not from the kindness of Americas heart they were on a lease-lend agreement which put Britain hugely in debt to America and which was finally paid back in 2006, I wonder what would have happened if the Germans had come up with another deal? The reason Hitler lost the war was his invasion of Russia. After The RAF won The Battle Of Britain Germany made no attempts to invade Britain, so Britain saved itself from German invasion. So in short Hitlers invasion of Russia lost him the war, American involvement in supply of arms and men was the tipping point to ensure victory.

2 years ago | Side: Agree
2 points

Britian was never going to be conquered by the Nazi's.

3 years ago | Side: agree
sirius(366) Disputed Banned
4 points

It's irrational and unreasonable to be confident with the assertion that Britain could have never fallen to the Germans. Having said that, I dont believe you are considering all of the facts. First, the Allies(basically the UK and the USSR) would have the added threat of the entire Japanese military. For the most part, the United States defeated the the forces of the Empire of Japan with the exception of some small battles between the USSR and Japan. In addition, Japan would be stronger now that they have a constant supply of oil. Before Pearl Harbor, the United States cut off Japan's supply of oil, which severely weakened them. With the US completely out of the picture as a neutral power, Japan would have kept its oil and gone directly for the other allied powers. It is questionable what its strategy would be for doing this, but the USSR would not be able to hold back the full force of the Japanese military in addition to already holding off the German military. It is less likely that the Japanese would go after Britain, but in the event that they chose to do so, it is probably true that the British would not have come out victorious. Besides the demise of the Japanese, however, the United States brought other advantages to the Allies. First, there was the cash and carry program which later turned into the lend-lease program. The lend-lease program supplied the allies with about $760 billion(inflation adjusted) in supplies. Britain received over sixty percent of these supplies. From 1943 to 1944 about a quarter of all British munitions came from lend-lease. The USSR was also greatly helped, receiving over twenty percent of the supplies. The Red Army was highly dependent on rail transportation but was only able to make 92 locomotives. The lend-lease program gave them 2,000 locomotives to use. Stalin said himself that "without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."

So, minus American involvement, Britain and the USSR would be weaker against a stronger enemy. The USSR may have took the brunt of the Axis powers military, but its own leader admitted that without America's help it would have failed in its efforts.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
3 points

"First, the Allies(basically the UK and the USSR) would have the added threat of the entire Japanese military."

Japan was on the other side of the world from us (Britain) and I believe that the USSR wasn't at war with Japan until the americans brought them in, in 1945.

" For the most part, the United States defeated the the forces of the Empire of Japan with the exception of some small battles between the USSR and Japan. "

Japan was your own private war, you did nothing to aid the chaos in Europe.

"In addition, Japan would be stronger now that they have a constant supply of oil. Before Pearl Harbor, the United States cut off Japan's supply of oil, which severely weakened them."

And thus provoked the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

"With the US completely out of the picture as a neutral power,"

So while the rest of us are busy fighting you're making lots of money from the wepaons we buy off you.

"Japan would have kept its oil and gone directly for the other allied powers."

Hitler was a worse threat than Japan.

"It is questionable what its strategy would be for doing this, but the USSR would not be able to hold back the full force of the Japanese military in addition to already holding off the German military. It is less likely that the Japanese would go after Britain, but in the event that they chose to do so, it is probably true that the British would not have come out victorious. "

While I admit that the eastern colonies of our empire might have fallen it would have happened anyway due to your country's envy of our power.

" Besides the demise of the Japanese, however, the United States brought other advantages to the Allies. First, there was the cash and carry program which later turned into the lend-lease program."

So after the war we would be indebted to you, exactly like after WW1.

"The lend-lease program supplied the allies with about $760 billion(inflation adjusted) in supplies"

Causing us to owe you $760billion.

"Stalin said himself that "without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.""

As far as I know the UN wasn't in WW2

"So, minus American involvement, Britain and the USSR would be weaker against a stronger enemy. The USSR may have took the brunt of the Axis powers military, but its own leader admitted that without America's help it would have failed in its efforts."

You hardly helped us at all with the war in Europe and act as though your own private war with Japan saved us all! and then you act like getting us indebted to yuo helped us!

3 years ago | Side: agree
1 point

The USA aid was irreplaceable and could not have come from anywhere else. We were instrumental to the overall victory whether it be in the Pacific, North Africa, or Europe.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
geminigeek(1) Clarified
1 point

First we all must define "winning" and "losing".

We must take into consideration what kind of Europe we would like to have today. If the US didn't intervene, it's fair to say that "winning" would rely heavily on Soviet intervention (as there was). We all know what the Soviets did to the Easter Block countries.

I fear to speculate on what "losing" would be defined as.

It's simple. Create a formula that incorporates all events of WWII that led the allies Victory. To have a successful solution to the formula, in this case winning WWII, the US element must be replaced with another element of equal value. Were there other elements back then of equal value; value meaning other countries of equal military, economic/industrial strength. I personally don't believe so; or at least none that could have provided support so fast and in vast quantity. The Soviets benefitted from such support as well. What nation during that era could fight two full fledged wars around the Globe? The Pacific War was almost won "single handedly".

It is irresponsible to say that the US didn't play a major role or that Europe would have won without US intervention. I understand that many people in Europe believe that we have the "we saved your asses" attitude however don't believe everything you see in Hollywood films or comic books. But let's be truthful, we did "save" Europe's ass (not trying to be cynical). Europe today is an economic success (despite the current crisis) because of US post war economic aid. Yes we had a vested interest; we relied on trade from Europe. A healthy Europe meant good business.

Additionally, Germany and Japan are today free nations and economic superpowers. I think it is fair to say that not many nations in other wars that lost didn't prosper as much as Germany and Japan. In today's world, many people around the Globe are anti American because of their current foreign policy. But let's be realistic, many countries are reaping the benefits of oil that the US has secured. How many countries are willing to sacrifice their own people fighting to secure oil that we all unfortunately depend on? Please don't misunderstand me; I don't like that fact that wars are waged to secure resources but it is a reality of today's world.

Americans need to be less arrogant and the rest of world needs to be less ignorant to the important role that the US played in the past and to the role they are playing now.

1 year ago | Side: Agree
Mianico(1) Disputed
1 point

There are some key elements that are not being address in your argument. The fact is that Britain (and France) were greatly weakened during the Great War and were reluctant to enter WWII because of that. Afterall, both countries lost millions of men between the ages of 18 and 42 and could not afford to support another war. They wanted to avoid another WW1 at all costs. The other point is that in order to sustain its war effort during WWI many American businesses, merchants and banks in particular, loan a great deal of money to Britain so that they could obtain arms and materiel tosustain the war effort. This put Britain in great debt to the U.S. that they were never able, or didnt want to repay. For that reason the Treaty of Versailles was written so that the Germans would except total fault in WWI and would be forced to accept the responsibility of making reparations to Britain and France in the form of cash and raw materials (Iron, coal, etc). Because Germany after the rise of Hitler rendered the Treaty of Versailles null and void, Britain and France never got all the reparations that was due and therefore never repaid their debt to the U.S. This was one of the causes of the Great Depression in America. The fact is that once France was defeated in 1940, Britain was left to fight Germany on its own. It is very unlikely that they would have had the resources to fight Germany, hold off Japan and protect its interests in India and southeast Asia. Remember that once the French folded, they were force to cede French Indo-China to Japan putting the Japanese at the back door of British colonies in southeast Asia. Japan's goal was to get to Indonesia to retrieve the oil there which they desperately needed to support their war effort because of the U.S. oil embargo. So, if your saying they would have been able to accomplish this all on their lonesome, that would have made them an incredible fighting force indeed.

1 year ago | Side: Disagree
2 points

This is easy to say for something that is the unseen. We don't know what would have happen if America never entered the war.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
2 points

The reason I state that Germany would never have conquered Britain was that even though we were at war with him Hitler saw Britain as part of his superior race of blond haired blue-eyed people.

3 years ago | Side: agree
2 points

This was also because Hitler saw the British empire as an important strcutural force for the world, whereas FDR didn't, we might have been better off allying with Germany than recieved so called "help" from the US.

3 years ago | Side: agree
Libertarian1(1064) Disputed Banned
0 points

Im sorry, are you saying its better to ally with genocidal ideologist then business men?

"he British empire as an important strcutural force for the world,"

Yea. He saw the US and the Soviet Union the same way.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Bohemian(3464) Disputed
2 points

Britian was never going to be conquered by the Nazi's.

They wouldn't need to.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
3 points

What do you mean by this? and how is it disputing my original statement?

3 years ago | Side: agree

I'm fed up with the "The US wan the war and saved everyone!". The Americans war was practically against the Japanese and hardly against the Nazi's. In a way, the US helped a bit, But not allot, we were handling the war good, and I think if it wernt for the Germans attacking Russia and having to take their forces off of the western front in drastic numbers, we would have lost.

Around about 26 million people died fighting in WW2, and about 20 million of them were Russian. So all in all, If it wernt for the Russians wanting to save their "Mother Land" the Germans would have pushed through and took Europe and the Americans would have finished up their war with Japan and left.

My opinion anyway...

1 year ago | Side: Agree
3 points

You cannot really make an assumption right out like that. England lost a lot after the war. It faced a crisis. Most of the colonies gained independence. This war evidently did no good to UK or US but that is off the point. What I'm trying to emphasis is that UK was in a War that wasn't simple, it was constantly facing internal problems with the colonies, it was involved in a World war and it was in need of all the help that it received.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Uspwns101(436) Disputed
4 points

The war did do good for the USA we were the only country to emerge from that war far more powerful than we were before, it completely reversed the Great Depression.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
0 points

Your right. That didn't occur to me................................................................................!

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
0 points

You only emerged greater because you only joined when we started to win.

3 years ago | Side: agree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

"You cannot really make an assumption right out like that. England lost a lot after the war."

That doesn't make a difference whether USA helped or not, except from a few lives.

"Most of the colonies gained independence."

We knew that entering a war so soon after the Great War would be fatal for the empire, but Hitler had to be stopped.

" What I'm trying to emphasis is that UK was in a War that wasn't simple, it was constantly facing internal problems with the colonies, it was involved in a World war and it was in need of all the help that it received."

The help brought by the US was almost minimal, FDR actually despised the British Empire.

3 years ago | Side: agree
92nida(1398) Disputed
0 points

I understand that what UK did cannot be seen in a wrong jist. UK's contribution to the history of the World, I understand quite well. But, I'm trying to imply the fact that UK was in need of help. Was it big or small. Besides, the contribution was done in it's best itself. That War was a complex one. There is no wrong notion that I'm stressing on. The World just out of a previous war entering a new one...!

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

"and it was in need of all the help that it received."

Yet the US didn't give it until we started to win, some "ally".

3 years ago | Side: agree

The US strategy is and has always been clear, divide and rule. I have no doubt that the americans funded the Soviets primarily in order to keep the blood flowing between them and the Nazis, there plan is a simple one i.e. let them bleed each other dry then enter the fray, this is not hyperbole, watch out for this in future e.g. i have no doubt if a place like Lebannon falls into civil war, which is a strong possibility given the internal problems between the Hezzbollah and other muslim factions, you could very well see america funding both sides, when it looks like one is losing they will prop them up just to keep the blodd flowing and destroy the place, you could very easily see Hezzbollah being funded by the US, i am well aware this will shock many poeple but i would not say it if i did not firmly beleive it to be a real possibility. You need to look through the bullshit propaganda and look at the real motives of rapacious power!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 years ago | Side: agree
Libertarian1(1064) Disputed Banned
1 point

We didn't join because the Axis started to lose, we initially joined joined because Japan attacked us.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
2 points

Soviet Russia won the second world war, the sheer number of russian people sacrificed during te war tells its own story. Best estimates put it at 20 million comprising Russian, Ukrainians,Belarusians, and all other soviet nation troops. The west (US and UK) want desperately to beleive that it was them who dealt the decisive blow to the Nazis, this is just simply false. I think this has more to do with their own pride and the fact that WW" has been used to great effect as propaganda. Every war movie, (most) documentaries, pop culture, overlooks the massive soviet contribution, and effectively tries to insinuate that the UK and US won the war, in my opinoin this is complete garbage to anyone who takes history seriously.

Im not saying that the British contribution or the american contribution should be overlooked as insignificant or anything, but im sick and tired of hearing how america came to the aid of the UK in their hour of need and beat the Nazis, this is a complete distortion of history, and its a complete distortion that is widely beleived. Every russian knows exactly who really beat the Nazis, they know because they paid for THEIR victory in the blood of their country men. They sacrificed over 14% of their entire population, the only other countries to sacrifice anything close to this were Latvia and Lithuania who were practically part of the USSR anyway, especially Lativia who were annexed into teh USSR in 1940. This 14% is 4 times the number of any other country. Lets look at the US, they sacrificed 0.32% of their population, while 0.92% of the UKs population perished. Now i know its not all about the numbers but you have to admit they are pretty compelling.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

How are you disagreeing with the original statement?

3 years ago | Side: agree
4 points

Im not disagreeing with the original statement, the original statement is flawed as it overlooks the Russian contribution which in my opinion completely overshadows that of either the US or the UK, if you're going to create a debate related to the winning of WW2 Russia cannot be excluded.

In answer to the actual debate im not entirely sure, the US definitely played a part (although they liek to exaggerate that part to an unbeleivable extent), it seems to me that the Nazis would most likely still have been defeated had the US not intervened.

3 years ago | Side: agree
1 point

I don't doubt the sacrifice the Soviets Russians endured but I don't think the number of people killed can be an accurate way of measuring who won a war?

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
garry77777(1794) Disputed
4 points

I admitted it wasn't just a numbers game but the Russian recapture of Stalingrad was the turning piont of the war, no historian worth his salt would argue against this fact, that was the first time in th ewar the Nazis were pushed back, the losses suffered by the Nazis in trying to launch an assault on the USSR were what really crippled them, also it was the Russian who marched on Berlin. The soviet union played the biggest part in that war, their sacrifice makes that of the other nations look tiny, they were the ones who first pushed the Nazis back, they were the ones who forced the Hitler to commit large numbers of troops to a doomed fight in a harsh russian winter where they were slaughtered.

Its simple without the USSR WW2 would not have been won by the US and UK, therefore teh USSr won the war.

3 years ago | Side: agree
Uspwns101(436) Disputed
1 point

Russia got destroyed by Germany, they barely held on, Hitler made a massive tactical blunder that is the only reason he was unable to defeat the Russians, that blunder was made against the wishes of his generals, The fact that the Russians lost so many soldiers is a testament to their incompetence at fighting wars. I will admit they were determined but their performance was far from impressive. On a different note Britain would not have the arms necesarry to defeat Germany without the USA furthermore I get the feeling that eventually Hitler would have stopped bombing civilian centers and started bombing Radar sites in order to win the "Battle of Britain." However because America joined the war Hitler was put back on his heels.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

Russia got destroyed by Germany, they barely held on

While it is true that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union crippled the Soviet forces it did just as much damage to the Nazis, i think its very unfair to put it all down to a massive tactical blunder on the part of Hitler, hind sight is all 20/20. The fact is the Soviets succeeded in repelling the Nazis, they never reached Moscow, and the Soviets pushed them back after the war turned at Stalingrad, it seems to me that you're only trying to mask your own bias.

that blunder was made against the wishes of his generals

If you're referring to the invasion of the east then i have to disagree, that was made with the full consent of his generals, the fact is Hitler and his generals thought the best course of action was to eliminate the greatest threat, the one coming from the east i.e.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/hitler_russia_invasion_01.shtml

The fact that the Russians lost so many soldiers is a testament to their incompetence at fighting wars

While i would be very naive and stupid to try to make out that the Soviet war machine was half as accomplished or sophisticated as the Germans i still think this statement is very unfair. The fact is the nazis focused all their attention on the Soviet, they attacked them unchallenged and to be honest i doubt any other country would have faired out much better. If the Nazis decided instead focued their attention on launching a ground invasion of Britain they would have crushed them despite Britains Navy.

I will admit they were determined but their performance was far from impressive

Again i have to reiterate, thats very easy to say when you weren't the ones on the receiving end of the full brunt of entire Nazis war machine.

On a different note Britain would not have the arms necesarry to defeat Germany without the USA

It seems to me that you are just one of those people who likes to beleive that americas contribution effectively won the war. Look im not going to say that the US played an insignifcant part cause they didnt but in my opinion it was no greater than Britains, the USSR were the ones who won the war, the were the first to stop the expansion of Nazi Germany and actually push them back, they fought the war on the eastern front and any historian will tell you that victory won the war. They dealt the killer blow to Nazi germany, they were marching on Hitlers compund before US or UK troops had even entered Berlin. Despite what most americans think the Soviet contribution was far greater than any other in WW2, without the USSR the war would not have been won, if any country must be selected as being the one that won WW2 it must go to the soviets. Just read the first three paragraghs of this wikipedia page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

3 years ago | Side: agree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
0 points

"Russia got destroyed by Germany, they barely held on, Hitler made a massive tactical blunder that is the only reason he was unable to defeat the Russians, that blunder was made against the wishes of his generals,The fact that the Russians lost so many soldiers is a testament to their incompetence at fighting wars. I will admit they were determined but their performance was far from impressive. "

Either way they won that war without any involvement from america.

"On a different note Britain would not have the arms necesarry to defeat Germany without the USA furthermore I get the feeling that eventually Hitler would have stopped bombing civilian centers and started bombing Radar sites in order to win the "Battle of Britain." "

This, once again, has nothing to do with america at all, he chose to bomb civilians. He didn't choose to bomb civilians because america might have been in the war.

"However because America joined the war Hitler was put back on his heels."

the BoB was the turning point in the war, won solely by the British. America then joined after that when we started to win.

3 years ago | Side: agree
2 points

Without American Industrial might the war for the allies would have been quick and decisive in Germany's favor much like it was in the opening years of the war.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

What? you only joined when we started to win, your "industrial might" only happened because we were buying your goods and weapons.

3 years ago | Side: agree
Libertarian1(1064) Disputed Banned
1 point

Who is "we"? The Axis began to lose after the Battle of

Stalingrad. You give your country too much credit.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
2 points

Britain would have fallen at one point. The real statement is that the Allies would have lost WW2 without the Soviet Unions struggle, after all the turning point of the war was the russian victory at Stalingrad. If Germany had waited to attack the U.S.S.R. or even worse the U.S.S.R had joined the Axis powers, we would be in a whole different world.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Uspwns101(436) Disputed
2 points

Britain would have not fallen because they are an island fortress honestly however neither Britain nor the Soviet Union would have done as well without the USA it is my firm belief that without US industrial and technological aid the Brits and the Soviets would have been very hard pressed to continue the war, with particular emphasis on Britain, the Russians did defeat the Nazis however just because China suffered similar losses to Japan does not mean that they are the ones who ultimately defeated Japan.

3 years ago | Side: agree
cookieMUNCH1(31) Disputed
1 point

really, in a sense, you'r right about us needing to buy weapons to fight, but again, if it wernt for the soviets raising up and fighting so hard for their motherland, Hitler would not have had to remove so may soldiers from the western front allowing the allies (Britain) to push through and take back France.

1 year ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

"Britain would have fallen at one point."

Please explain when this point is?

"The real statement is that the Allies would have lost WW2 without the Soviet Unions struggle, after all the turning point of the war was the russian victory at Stalingrad."

No, it was the Battle of Britain.

" If Germany had waited to attack the U.S.S.R. or even worse the U.S.S.R had joined the Axis powers, we would be in a whole different world."

This has absolutely nothing to do with U.S involvment.

3 years ago | Side: agree
Libertarian1(1064) Disputed Banned
1 point

"Please explain when this point is?"

Gee maybe you'd also like for me to predict when WW3 will happen. Who the fuck knows!

"No, it was the Battle of Britain."

No it was the Battle of Stalingrad.

"This has absolutely nothing to do with U.S involvement"

No it doesn't, it was a statement saying Britain's contribution is nothing compared to Russia's. Had the war not been fought in Russia, the Axis would have crushed the allied powers.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
2 points

The UK almost fell and would have if Germany had persisted for just abit longer but had opened to many front lines to concentrate on. Even with USA's "help" if Germany had concentrated on fewer fronts they would have surely they would have won the war. In saying this, UK needed all the help they could get as Germany defeated its self....USA didnt really do so much in help defeat the germans....they only war the won was the civil war. They dropped a couple nukes on Japan and had some battles in the Pacific....nothing on the scale of what Britian did, the Yanks only assisted in the war when their own interests came into play....not in the name of freedom as they like to advertise. Their hollywood movies are good at exsaggerating how big a part they had to play in WW2 and saving the world.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
Axmeister(4299) Disputed
1 point

Hitler didn't have any real intention of invading Britain, if we hadn't sworn to help France he probably would have (as you said) concentrated on Russia before concentrating on bombing us.

But your argument seems to be agrreing with the statement more than disagreeing, several points you made I cannot agree more to.

3 years ago | Side: agree
1 point

The even greater question is why did we join the war in Europe at all? Our true enemy was Japan they were the ones who attacked us, you must take into account the American attitude, we did not wish for war and believed that this was a European affiar public disfavor is the main reason for the USA not joining the war sooner. Furthermore our military was in a sorry state when the war began they hardly would have been much help. The well oiled machine that emerged two years later was extremely capable producing perhaps the greatest duo of generals in the war in the form of Patton, the battlefield genius, and Eisenhower the logistics master.

Furthermore it was the USA that provided the lions share of resistance to the Soviet Union during the cold war, a nation that according to Garry defeated the nazis in the end could not defeat the USA.

3 years ago | Side: Disagree
garry77777(1794) Disputed
2 points

"Furthermore it was the USA that provided the lions share of resistance to the Soviet Union during the cold war, a nation that according to Garry defeated the nazis in the end could not defeat the USA."

I don't remember the USA and the USSR ever being involved in an all out war, now you can distance yourself from the truth if you like but any serious historian will admit that WW2 could not have been won without the USSR, they fought all the most significant battles, they won all of the most significant victories, they were fighting the Nazis in 1941 and begging the US and Britain to open up a 2nd front but the fact is the allies only helped the USSR in a the enemy of my enemy is my friend deal, they were rightly scared of the USSR, almost as much as the Nazis, and rightfully so, the USSR was a monster, they were the ones who marched on Berlin. I know the US proivded them with vital supplies, this was a major contribution, but this must be viewed in context, they were supplying them at a time when the Nazis were at their strongest, the allies never beleived the uSSR could beat the Nazis, thats why they suppplied them, to keep the blood flowing on both sides so they could alter swoop in and defeat there weakened enemies as they percieved them.

The american aid sent to the USSR was by far a bigger contribution in determining the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany than the actual americans who fought.

The fact is without US help the wat may still have been won, but without the USSR it would definitely have been lost, thats the difference.

3 years ago | Side: agree
1 point

The help provided by America was tremendous and can be pointed out in 3 major actions. First off the "Destroyers for Bases Deal", which gave Britain much needed Destroyer ships at that time. Being in constant threat of German invasion by sea Britain was in great need of any ships possible. Another problem from the time, was that Britain cargo ships were being sunk by German U-Boats. But when the United States set up the Hemisphere Defense Zone. It allowed them to still remain neutral while being able to pinpoint the German U-Boats and alerting British cargo ships. Finally the "Lend Lease Act" which was vital to the Allied war efforts. It gave not only Britain but all the allied countries much needed war supplies with only asking for them to be returned. These 3 actions helped to turn the tide of war during that time, and even later when America joined the War on the side of the allies, and took the Empire of Japan head-on, thus eliminating the need to fight an entire Empire allowing the rest of the Allied forces to focus on Germany and the Nazi's

1 year ago | Side: Disagree


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.