CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
"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".
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.
"Ah. It was just the title that implied that it was entirely a British effort, entirely a British war."
Sorry, I had made the original version of this debate nearly 2 years ago and I had probably been more ignorant then. When i remade this debate I guess I didn't change the title even though my view on the matter had changed.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
I believe that the USSR wasn't at war with Japan until the americans brought them in, in 1945.
You seem to have a lack of knowledge of World War 2. Japan invaded the USSR in July of 1938.
you did nothing to aid the chaos in Europe.
Good job dismissing the deaths of every American who died in battle in Europe in World War 2. This is why I mentioned the lend-lease program; its implementation gave a critical advantage to the Allies.
So while the rest of us are busy fighting you're making lots of money from the wepaons we buy off you
lol I'll explain this later.
Hitler was a worse threat than Japan.
That is completely irrelevant. lol is Hitler a worse threat than both Hitler and the Japanese combined?
due to your country's envy of our power.
lol, well first that is irrelevant. Second, Britain was unable to hold on to its colonies because it was not powerful enough.
Causing us to owe you $760billion.
You are blatantly unaware of the fact that the American people did not ask for its $760 billion back. This is what I'm talking about when I say you have a lack of knowledge of World War 2.
As far as I know the UN wasn't in WW2
Its good that you know that, but he wasn't referring to the UN we know today. This was said at the Tehran Conference of 1943, before the United Nations even existed. Here is the link: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,791211,00.html
"You seem to have a lack of knowledge of World War 2."
I'll have you know that I have studied WW2 just not in depth, I've not studied about "how great America did defeating Japan"
" Japan invaded the USSR in July of 1938."
WW2 started at 1939
"Good job dismissing the deaths of every American who died in battle in Europe in World War 2. "
Let's have a look at early 1940, shall we?
"Germany invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940, the same day Neville Chamberlain resigned as British Prime Minister. The Netherlands and Belgium were overrun using blitzkrieg tactics in a few days and weeks, respectively. The French fortified Maginot Line was circumvented by a flanking movement through the thickly wooded Ardennes region, mistakenly perceived by French planners as an impenetrable natural barrier against armoured vehicles. British troops were forced to evacuate the continent at Dunkirk, abandoning their heavy equipment by the end of the month. On 10 June, Italy invaded France, declaring war on both France and the United Kingdom; twelve days later France surrendered and was soon divided into German and Italian occupation zones, and an unoccupied rump state under the Vichy Regime. On 3 July, the British attacked the French fleet in Algeria to prevent its possible seizure by Germany.
In June, during the last days of the Battle of France, the Soviet Union initiated staged elections in the Baltic states and forcefully and illegally annexed them, followed by the annexation of the region of Bessarabia in Romania. Whereas the increased cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany, which included broad economic cooperation, limited military assistance, population exchange and border agreements made the former a de facto German ally, Soviet takeover of the Baltic states, Bessarabia and North Bukovina had been seen with dismay and disquiet by Germany, This, as well as growing tensions over spheres of influence demonstrated the impossibility of further expansion of Nazi-Soviet cooperation, and both states had begun the countdown to war."
In the briefest of terms, France and most of Europe was conquered by the Nazi's, Russia was already occupied and busy dealing with the Axis far in the east. Britain's left to stand on it's own waiting for the Luftwaffe to bomb them and where's USA?
Oh yeah, they don't want to fight...
"lol I'll explain this later."
Nice to see that you can make jokes out of the Second World War.
"That is completely irrelevant. lol is Hitler a worse threat than both Hitler and the Japanese combined?"
No, Hitler and Japan combined is a bad threat, apart from the fact that you hardly helped us defeat Hitler.
"lol, well first that is irrelevant. Second, Britain was unable to hold on to its colonies because it was not powerful enough."
It's hard to maintain control of 1/4 of the world when you've just lost the world's biggest war and the president of america is hell bent on destroying it (http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/FDRlw95.htm)
And now you have to fight another war...
As you can see from the source your president envyed our power.
"You are blatantly unaware of the fact that the American people did not ask for its $760 billion back. This is what I'm talking about when I say you have a lack of knowledge of World War 2."
I lack knowledge about the american side of things, here in Britain we learn about the actual fighting, you know the bit's that actually conquer land.
And anyway, if would have been far better if ou had used your weapons and supplies to fight yourself instead of relying on us to do it.
"Its good that you know that, but he wasn't referring to the UN we know today. This was said at the Tehran Conference of 1943, before the United Nations even existed. Here is the link: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,791211,00.html "
That's good to know, either way the quote was from Stalin, Stalin later turned out to be the enemy, just in a different war.
I've not studied about "how great America did defeating Japan"
hmmmm interesting. You have not studied America's war with Japan in WW2, but you are willing to come to the conclusion that the Japanese would not be a threat to the other Allies.
WW2 started at 1939
Yes that is when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Japan and the USSR had several conflicts before WW2 officially began, so war was inevitable between the two.
where's USA?
Oh yeah, they don't want to fight...
The fact that the US did not enter the war as soon as either Britain or France does not justify your disrespect for the Americans who lost their lives.
Nice to see that you can make jokes out of the Second World War.
lol no that was a joke about you.
you hardly helped us defeat Hitler.
Nice argument. I can see that its backed up by some serious facts.
It's hard to maintain control of 1/4 of the world when you've just lost the world's biggest war and the president of america is hell bent on destroying it
I am not blaming Britain for not being able to hold on to its giant empire, but obviously you blame the US for Britain's loss. I will not continue to argue against you in this because that is another debate completely.
either way the quote was from Stalin, Stalin later turned out to be the enemy, just in a different war.
That has nothing to do with anything.
The post I am replying to introduced no new information on how the lend-lease program or the destruction of the Japanese did not matter in helping the Allies win the war. You need to remember the original argument: you believe Britain did not need America's help in winning WW2. I am arguing that it did need our help because of the lend-lease program as well as the fact that the US destroyed the Japanese military. None of what you just said refutes either of those assertions. For your next reply you need to stick to whats relevant: how was the aid in the lend-lease program and the destruction of the Japanese military unsubstantial in effecting the outcome of WW2, especially considering the fact that one of the Allied leaders said that without the lend-lease program the Allies could not have won?
"hmmmm interesting. You have not studied America's war with Japan in WW2, but you are willing to come to the conclusion that the Japanese would not be a threat to the other Allies."
Anyone can look at a globe and see that Japan would either have to cross America or Asia to get to Europe.
"Yes that is when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Japan and the USSR had several conflicts before WW2 officially began, so war was inevitable between the two."
But from what I believe, at the start of WW2 Russia and Japan agreed to a cease-fire. I know that's only temporary, so I will admit that Russia went to war with Japan on it's own accord.
But you ignore the fact that Britain helped you defeat the Japanese Empire.
"The fact that the US did not enter the war as soon as either Britain or France does not justify your disrespect for the Americans who lost their lives."
If America had joined the war at the start, France and other countries might not have been conquered saving countless amounts of French, Belgian, British etc soldiers dead, I think this overshadows the tiny amount of american lives lost when the U.S decdided to help us march into Berlin (a job we could have done without your help).
"lol no that was a joke about you."
It wasn't really a joke then, if only you understood it and only you laughed.
"Nice argument. I can see that its backed up by some serious facts."
This is coming from the guy who never provides sources for any of his statements. And anyway, you complain that I ignore your miniscule contribution to defeating Hitler when you claim that the USA defeated the whole Japanese empire with small help from Russia, ignoring the amount of work Britain did.
"I am not blaming Britain for not being able to hold on to its giant empire, but obviously you blame the US for Britain's loss. I will not continue to argue against you in this because that is another debate completely."
It's not a whole other debate, it's a sub-debate contributing to the overall outcome of this one.
"That has nothing to do with anything."
I think you'll find it does.
"The post I am replying to introduced no new information on how the lend-lease program or the destruction of the Japanese did not matter in helping the Allies win the war. "
That's because you've just brushed aside all the disagreements I made with you, such as the fact the Hitler was a worse threat than Japan, it's nice to see how you can't own up to being wrong.
Yes I might have not stuck to the orginial statement but I'm arguing how america doesn't deserve half as much credit at it's getting, which is completely relevant to the debate.
"You need to remember the original argument: you believe Britain did not need America's help in winning WW2. I am arguing that it did need our help because of the lend-lease program as well as the fact that the US destroyed the Japanese military. None of what you just said refutes either of those assertions. "
I've clearly stated in previous arguments that:
1) you could have done far better than just lend us money, so much that you might as well not have bothered.
2)The U.S contribution to defeating 1 of the axis, is also very small compared to the work done by the rest of the Allies and tey might as well not have bothered again.
"For your next reply you need to stick to whats relevant: how was the aid in the lend-lease program and the destruction of the Japanese military unsubstantial in effecting the outcome of WW2, especially considering the fact that one of the Allied leaders said that without the lend-lease program the Allies could not have won?"
Your giving me advice? oh wait, you're actually telling me what to write? You think I joined an hour ago or something? because I knwo that if I write what you tell me you'll have already prepared an argument against it (that's if you're good at debating)
Anyone can look at a globe and see that Japan would either have to cross America or Asia to get to Europe.
Lol Russia is less than 200 miles away from Japan. The Japanese would not have had to go to cross Asia to attack the Allies. Even if that was the only way, Japan had a navy to transport its troops to Europe.
Britain helped you defeat the Japanese Empire.
In what way?
It wasn't really a joke then, if only you understood it and only you laughed.
So you were next to the people who might have read my argument and did not hear them laugh? lol
It's not a whole other debate, it's a sub-debate contributing to the overall outcome of this one.
Please explain how a debate on whether or not the US tried to take away Britain's empire could contribute to a debate on how Britain did not need the US's help in WW2.
That's because you've just brushed aside all the disagreements I made with you
The disagreements you made with me were irrelevant bits of separate arguments.
such as the fact the Hitler was a worse threat than Japan
Germany might have been a stronger enemy than Japan, but Russia would not have been able to hold off both at the same time.
Yes I might have not stuck to the orginial statement
That is why I constantly have to tell you that what you are saying is irrelevant.
I'm arguing how america doesn't deserve half as much credit at it's getting
Wow you do not even know what you are arguing. You are actually arguing that America does not deserve any credit for WW2, hence the title that implies America was not needed for the Allies to win.
you could have done far better than just lend us money, so much that you might as well not have bothered.
First we did not lend you money, we lent you supplies and equipment. Second, we did not "just lend" you equipment, we destroyed the Japanese military and fought in Europe and Africa as well. Third, America, through the lend-lease program, spent over $760 billion (in 2008 dollars) on the Allies, which is a very substantial amount of money; it was so substantial, in fact, that an Allied leader said the Allies could not have won without it. You need to understand that by saying that the United States' help did not affect the outcome of the war you are disagreeing with Joseph Stalin, a leader in the middle of WW2. Please present evidence to prove that he is wrong.
The U.S contribution to defeating 1 of the axis, is also very small compared to the work done by the rest of the Allies and tey might as well not have bothered again.
The United States, if you are unaware, fought all of the Axis powers in addition to basically defeating one of them on its own. In addition, it does not matter how small the work is compared to others, but how crucial the work was in determining the outcome of the war. For example, consider what could have happened if the US, by itself, produced and used the atomic bomb on the Axis powers in 1943. America's "work" would be considered minimal compared to the loss of life sustained by the other Allies, but it definitively put the war in the Allies favor.
oh wait, you're actually telling me what to write?
No, I am telling you what points you need to prove invalid.
I knwo that if I write what you tell me you'll have already prepared an argument against it (that's if you're good at debating)
Nice imagination but that's wrong as well. The best argument never has a valid opposing argument, therefore you will not be able to create a valid argument.
"Lol Russia is less than 200 miles away from Japan. The Japanese would not have had to go to cross Asia to attack the Allies."
I think you'll find that the debate title clearly states Britain not Allies"Even if that was the only way, Japan had a navy to transport its troops to Europe."
Once again, they'd either have to travel all the way around Asia and Africa or sail around North and South America.
"In what way?"
British India and other British colonies helped defeat the Japanese empire, and in the process we had to sacrifice most of our eastern colonies.
"So you were next to the people who might have read my argument and did not hear them laugh? lol"
I'm here to argue with you, not to listen your rubbish, american comedy.
"Please explain how a debate on whether or not the US tried to take away Britain's empire could contribute to a debate on how Britain did not need the US's help in WW2."
The fact that your country didn't like our country as much as you pretend to, therefore your "help" could have done more harm than good.
And the fact that you didn't join us at the start shows how unhelpful you are, and since you only joined when we started to win, you might as well not have bothered.
"The disagreements you made with me were irrelevant bits of separate arguments."
"If America had joined the war at the start, France and other countries might not have been conquered saving countless amounts of French, Belgian, British etc soldiers dead, I think this overshadows the tiny amount of american lives lost when the U.S decided to help us march into Berlin (a job we could have done without your help)."
I think that paragraph is very relevant to the argument you originally made.
"No, Hitler and Japan combined is a bad threat, apart from the fact that you hardly helped us defeat Hitler."
This statement you ignored the concept about and tried to avoid it by pathetic sarcasm.
"That is why I constantly have to tell you that what you are saying is irrelevant."
Coming from you? that's almost an insult.
"Wow you do not even know what you are arguing. You are actually arguing that America does not deserve any credit for WW2, hence the title that implies America was not needed for the Allies to win."
Are you blind or something?, the debate title clearly says Britain did not need americas help, not allies.
"First we did not lend you money, we lent you supplies and equipment."
Supplies and equipment you could have used yourself, the amount of "help" your country provided was very minimal compared to the amount they could generate, so they might as well not have bothered.
"Second, we did not "just lend" you equipment, we destroyed the Japanese military"
Just you? I think you'll find you had a huge amount of help from Britain and her eastern allies.
"and fought in Europe and Africa as well. "
I'd like to see evidence of this, come back with a list of battles in Europe and Africa which your country helped with.
"Third, America, through the lend-lease program, spent over $760 billion (in 2008 dollars) on the Allies, which is a very substantial amount of money; it was so substantial, in fact, that an Allied leader said the Allies could not have won without it. "
I'm sure anyone would have rather had this amount invested in lives instead of currency.
"You need to understand that by saying that the United States' help did not affect the outcome of the war you are disagreeing with Joseph Stalin, a leader in the middle of WW2. Please present evidence to prove that he is wrong."
fact that we (Britain) are still paying you until only recently (2006).
"The United States, if you are unaware, fought all of the Axis powers in addition to basically defeating one of them on its own. In addition, it does not matter how small the work is compared to others, but how crucial the work was in determining the outcome of the war. For example, consider what could have happened if the US, by itself, produced and used the atomic bomb on the Axis powers in 1943. America's "work" would be considered minimal compared to the loss of life sustained by the other Allies, but it definitively put the war in the Allies favor."
Nuking Japanese civilians didn't do any harm to the Japanese military apart from making them more angry, in fact the atom bomb was completely unnecessary, as japan was planning to surrender months before you dropped it, it was blantantly an attempt to boast US superiority (as the rest of us was half dead from the war) and to scare the hell out of Russia, don't try to pretend it was part of the "war effort".
"No, I am telling you what points you need to prove invalid."
I'll talk about all of your points, but only if you treat me with the same respect, and I haven't seen any of that so far.
"Nice imagination but that's wrong as well. The best argument never has a valid opposing argument, therefore you will not be able to create a valid argument."
The whole point of an argument it that you expect a reply, if you honestly believe that your argument cannot be swayed then you write a conclusion.
I think you'll find that the debate title clearly states Britain not Allies
Had the USSR fallen to the Axis powers, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable. There would be nothing to stand in the way of them.
they'd either have to travel all the way around Asia and Africa or sail around North and South America.
Ok? Is that impossible?
British India and other British colonies helped defeat the Japanese empire, and in the process we had to sacrifice most of our eastern colonies.
The following link has a list of the major campaigns and battles that took place in the Pacific Theater. In other words, it displays a list of battles that were crucial in the outcome of an Allied victory in that area.
Only one of the ENTIRE list(the battle of Okinawa) had a British contribution, and even that was minimal. Also if you want to consider Canadians help, they also gave very minimal support to the Aleutians Islands Campaign.
I'm here to argue with you, not to listen your rubbish, american comedy.
Yeah, nice comeback. Why do you hate America so much?
This statement you ignored the concept about and tried to avoid it by pathetic sarcasm.
Because it is a ridiculous argument and you should be able to see that on your own. As I said, it does not matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan, but that the two together would be unbeatable.
Are you blind or something?, the debate title clearly says Britain did not need americas help, not allies.
Your a genius, huh? If America helped the USSR, Britain would benefit. If America killed Nazis, Britain would benefit. Americans helped both Britain and the USSR so much, that we pushed the war into the Allies favor.
the amount of "help" your country provided was very minimal compared to the amount they could generate, so they might as well not have bothered.
You just don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what we could have given to the war, but what we gave that affected the outcome. I already explained this to you but you just can't accept it. I'll give you another example: the US spent $760 billion on the Allies, basically defeated the Japanese, and fought in Europe and Africa. Let's consider what it could have done: we could have given you all the equipment we could possibly manufacture(probably over a trillion dollars worth), forced every single American to fight by giving them a gun and sending them to Europe, and performed suicide attacks against the Axis powers. Should this have been done? No because it would be unnecessary and too costly. From now on, you cannot say we did not give enough because you have not proven what we gave was too little.
I'd like to see evidence of this, come back with a list of battles in Europe and Africa which your country helped with.
Europe:
Operation Overlord which includes:
Invasion of Normandy
Battle for Caen
Battle of Carentan
Battle of Cherbourg
Battle of Villers-Bocage
Operation Goodwood
Operation Atlantic
Battle of Verrières Ridge
Operation Spring
Operation Cobra
Operation Totalize
Operation Lüttich
Operation Tractable
Battle of Hill 262
Falaise pocket
Battle for Brest
Operation Dragoon
Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine
Operation Market Garden
Battle of Arnhem
Lorraine Campaign: September - December 1944
Battle of Metz
Battle of Nancy
Battle of Moerbrugge
Battle of Hürtgen Forest
Battle of Overloon
Battle of Aachen
Battle of Crucifix Hill
Battle of the Scheldt
Battle of the Bulge
Battle of St. Vith
Battle of Kesternich
Losheim Gap
Elsenborn Ridge
Siege of Bastogne
Operation Bodenplatte
Operation Nordwind
Colmar Pocket
Operation Veritable
Operation Plunder
Operation Varsity
Ruhr Pocket
Battle of Groningen
Africa:
Operation Torch which includes:
Battle of Casablanca
Operation Blackstone
Operation Brushwood
Operation Goalpost
Battle of Arzew
Operation Reservist
Battle of Tafarquay Airfield
Battle of Youk-Les-Bains Airfield
Battle of Algiers
Operation Terminal
Tunisia Campaign which includes:
First Battle of Medjez
First Battle of Djedeida Airfield
Battle of Djebel Abiod
Second Battle of Medjez
Second Battle of Djedeida Airfield
First Battle of Tebourba
Battle of Maknassy
Battle of Longstop Hill
Second Battle of Tebourba
Battle of Faïd pass
Battle of Kasserine Pass
Battle of Sidi Bou Zid
Operation Ochsenkopf
Operation Capri
Battle of Medenine
Operation Pugilist
Battle of Mareth
Battle of El Guettar
Operation Supercharge II
Battle of Tebaga Gap
Battle of Wadi Akarit
Operation Vulcan
Operation Strike
Well so much for you knowledge of WW2.
I'm sure anyone would have rather had this amount invested in lives instead of currency.
As I've told you before, it was not $760 billion in cash, but $760 billion in equipment and supplies.
Sure most of it was WW1 debts but you still can't claim that as "help"
War debts does not prove Stalin wrong in his assertion that the Allies could not have won without the lend-lease program. Consider this example: a country at war with another country needs tanks to fight or they will lose. At a time of desperation, they spend huge amounts of money on tanks from another country. These sums are so huge it will take decades to pay back. The result, however, is that the tanks win them the war. So, they could have chosen to go into debt and exist, or they could have chosen to keep their money and be destroyed. You still have failed to prove Stalin wrong.....
Nuking Japanese civilians didn't do any harm to the Japanese military apart from making them more angry
In my example I asked what would have happened if the US nuked all of the Axis powers. You misunderstood...
"Had the USSR fallen to the Axis powers, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable. There would be nothing to stand in the way of them."
That situation actually happened in WW2 as I said, France had fallen, Russia was preoccupied(and falling), USA was just not bothering and Britain was getting hammered by the Luftwaffe, but we won the Battle of Britain on our own and then we started to conquer back land.
"OK? Is that impossible?"
What kind of idiot would travel all the way around the world to attack a small island? It's more likely that Japan would conquer North America or Asia first.
"The following link has a list of the major campaigns and battles that took place in the Pacific Theater. In other words, it displays a list of battles that were crucial in the outcome of an Allied victory in that area.
Only one of the ENTIRE list(the battle of Okinawa) had a British contribution, and even that was minimal. Also if you want to consider Canadians help, they also gave very minimal support to the Aleutians Islands Campaign."
OK, but lets look at the war with Japan on a whole:
(I'm going to count any flag with the Union Jack on it as under influence of the British Empire, and therefore wouldn't be involved without us)
In the south east of Asia, Britain launched it's own campaign against Japan without any american soldiers present, these are:
Burma Campaign
Battle of the Malacca Strait
The New Guinea campaign (Britain represented by Australia):
Battle of the Coral Sea
Kokoda Track Campaign
Battle of Milne Bay
Battle of Buna-Gona
Battle of Wau
Battle of the Bismarck Sea
Battle of Lae
Operation Cartwheel
Finisterre Range campaign
Huon Peninsula campaign
Attack on Rabaul
New Britain campaign
Admiralty Islands campaign
Western New Guinea campaign
The campaign of Madagascar:
Battle of Madagascar
We also aided in: the Guadalcanal Campaign,the Solomon Islands campaign, the Bombing of South East Asia, 1944-45,the Philippines campaign,the Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign & the Borneo campaign.
To say that the US defeated the Japanese empire on it's own is discarding away the millions of british lives lost in helping defeat japan, and I will not stand by and let the United States take credit where it doesn't deserve it.
"Yeah, nice comeback. Why do you hate America so much?"
Why I hate america is another debate...
"Because it is a ridiculous argument and you should be able to see that on your own. As I said, it does not matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan, but that the two together would be unbeatable."
Britain was one of the main fighters against Hitler(US not being 1 of them), and helped largely with the destruction of Japan.
America acts like it killed them both solely on it's own. It does matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan as it clearly shows that Britain could have finished the war without USA's help, as I said before Japan was hardly a threat.
"Your a genius, huh? If America helped the USSR, Britain would benefit. If America killed Nazis, Britain would benefit. Americans helped both Britain and the USSR so much, that we pushed the war into the Allies favor."
1) USSR turns against us almost immediatly after the war, conquering Poland which was the reason Britain entered the war in the first place. I don't see how that benifits us?
2) USSR dealt with Hitler easily anyway, it didn't matter how much help they got, the German army just couldn't deal with a Russian winter.
3)You didn't kill the Nazi's when they were bombing us to bits, you only come aid us when we're storming into Berlin, you can hardly call that "help".
4)You helped us so much did you? as I've said before you might as well not have bothered.
"You just don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what we could have given to the war, but what we gave that affected the outcome. I already explained this to you but you just can't accept it. I'll give you another example: the US spent $760 billion on the Allies, basically defeated the Japanese, and fought in Europe and Africa. Let's consider what it could have done: we could have given you all the equipment we could possibly manufacture(probably over a trillion dollars worth), forced every single American to fight by giving them a gun and sending them to Europe, and performed suicide attacks against the Axis powers. Should this have been done? No because it would be unnecessary and too costly. From now on, you cannot say we did not give enough because you have not proven what we gave was too little."
That situation actually happened in WW2 as I said, France had fallen, Russia was preoccupied(and falling), USA was just not bothering
Okay there are several things wrong here. First, that situation never happened as Britain had always had some country on its side. Second, it is true that Russia was preoccupied, but it was preoccupied with attacking the Germans, thereby taking German forces away that would otherwise be used against the British. Third, of course the US was bothering. While you were getting bombarded we were lending you equipment and supplies to stay alive. Meanwhile, we were also keeping the Japanese away from you and Russia.
What kind of idiot would travel all the way around the world to attack a small island? It's more likely that Japan would conquer North America or Asia first.
Wow you really belittled Britain there. It wasn't just a "small island" it was the headquarters of one of the main Allies. What is the point of conquering North America? In this situation the US would not be involved at all, therefore there would be no reason to expend resources on an area that is not in opposition to the war you are trying to fight.
OK, but lets look at the war with Japan on a whole:
There is a reason why I listed the CRUCIAL battles that took place and it is because those are the ones that mattered. The battles that I listed determined the outcome of that part of the war. The battles you listed, which were mostly little skirmishes, barely contributed to the final outcome. And consider that a Pacific Theater would not have been opened at all without the US.
In the south east of Asia, Britain launched it's own campaign against Japan
That was basically a fight for India. Had the British not done this, the Japanese would have pulled out anyway as Americans were heading for the Japanese mainland.
Out of all the battles you listed, which were supposed to be evidence that Britain had a comparable presence to the US in the Pacific Theater, only one battle did not involved the US. In fact, some operations, such as Battle of the Coral Sea, Operation Cartwheel, the Attack on Rabaul, Admiralty Islands campaign, and Western New Guinea campaign were LED BY the United States. In addition, Douglas MacArthur, an American General, was the Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific Area. From this, we can draw the conclusion that Britain's help in the Pacific Theater was minimal at best.
Didn't I give you a list of European battles in which the US was involved as well? lol
I will not stand by and let the United States take credit where it doesn't deserve it.
O of course you could never let the United States take credit for fighting in World War II. You are trying to make the deaths of all Americans in that war pointless.
Why I hate america is another debate...
Not really. The effort you put forth to take away credit from the US during WW2 could arise from some irrational prejudice you have with Americans.
America acts like it killed them both solely on it's own.
I live in America and NOBODY thinks that. This is probably where part of your hatred for America comes from.
It does matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan as it clearly shows that Britain could have finished the war without USA's help
It does not clearly show that and you cannot come to that conclusion. Even if Hitler was less strong than Britain, the added threat of Japan would make the Axis stronger than Britain. I'll do it mathematically to help you understand: on a number scale let's say that, in relation to strength, Britain has a 2, Germany has a 1.5 and Japan has a 1. If Germany and Japan were to gang up on Britain, they would have a strength of 2.5 compared to Britain's 2, which means they are stronger. Do you understand the logic now?
1) USSR turns against us almost immediatly after the war
What happens after the war is irrelevant. This debate is concerned with what happens to end the war.
2) USSR dealt with Hitler easily anyway
WOW. This really shows how much you know about World War 2. Have you studied anything about that war? 8 to 10 million Russian soldiers died in addition to 12 to 14 million civilians. Are you seriously calling that "easy"?
3)You didn't kill the Nazi's when they were bombing us to bits, you only come aid us when we're storming into Berlin, you can hardly call that "help".
We only help you when your about to enter Berlin? Are you fucking kidding me? Nice fucking disrespect for all the Americans who died fighting to get to Berlin along Britains side. You're dumb piece of shit. Without the United States, the D-Day invasion would have never occurred, which means you would have never gotten to Berlin. Have some fucking respect for those who died in defense of the Allies, which includes Britain.
4)You helped us so much did you? as I've said before you might as well not have bothered.
Over 400 thousand Americans died fighting the Axis Powers. The US lost more soldiers than Britain, and you come to the conclusion that America "might as well not have bothered." Just fucking say "thank you" and let's be done with it.
"Okay there are several things wrong here. First, that situation never happened as Britain had always had some country on its side. "
This is pretty useless if the country cannot help you when you're getting hammered.
"Second, it is true that Russia was preoccupied, but it was preoccupied with attacking the Germans, thereby taking German forces away that would otherwise be used against the British. "
I'm finding it amusing how since I haven't yet mentioned the year you can somehow come up with statements like this. Well I'll tell you that this happened in 1940, at this point the Soviet union was fixing elections in the Baltic states.
"Third, of course the US was bothering. While you were getting bombarded we were lending you equipment and supplies to stay alive."
Yay thanks for that, while I'm about to get bombed at least I know that I won't die of starvation or malnutrition.
"Meanwhile, we were also keeping the Japanese away from you and Russia."
At this point in time, you were selling them oil and fueling their empire expansion.
"Wow you really belittled Britain there."
Are you saying Britain isn't a small little island? It was compared to the German Empire, (of which you did nothing to prevent).
"it was the headquarters of one of the main Allies. "
Yes it was the Headquarters of the largest empire the world had ever seen, the problem with this is this "gigantic empire" had lost all it's funding paying for WW1.
"What is the point of conquering North America? "
There's more point to conquering this huge peice of fertile land instead of going all the way around the world to attack this small island.
"In this situation the US would not be involved at all,therefore there would be no reason to expend resources on an area that is not in opposition to the war you are trying to fight "
Japan didn't care whether you were involved or not, it just wanted to expand it's empire.
"There is a reason why I listed the CRUCIAL battles that took place and it is because those are the ones that mattered. The battles that I listed determined the outcome of that part of the war. The battles you listed, which were mostly little skirmishes, barely contributed to the final outcome."
What battles were crucial and what weren't is merely a matter of opinion,most of the battles I listed involved the death of many Japanese while the casualties of the Allies remained small. Mots of the battles helped prevent the increase of the Japanse empire thus reducing the possible resources and military eqipment that Japan could have got if they were successful in the battle, also most of the "skirmishes" was actually us conquering Japanese land, you cannot claim that the defeat of the Japanese empire was solely done by the US.
"And consider that a Pacific Theater would not have been opened at all without the US."
As I said before the Pacific Theater was the United States own, private war, the only fact that it was related to the main part of WW2 was that Japan was an ally of Hitler and America was an "ally" of Britain.
"That was basically a fight for India. Had the British not done this, the Japanese would have pulled out anyway as Americans were heading for the Japanese mainland."
If we had not defeated those Japanese at India, there would have been more for you americans to fight.
"
Out of all the battles you listed, which were supposed to be evidence that Britain had a comparable presence to the US in the Pacific Theater, only one battle did not involved the US. In fact, some operations, such as Battle of the Coral Sea, Operation Cartwheel, the Attack on Rabaul, Admiralty Islands campaign, and Western New Guinea campaign were LED BY the United States. In addition, Douglas MacArthur, an American General, was the Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific Area. From this, we can draw the conclusion that Britain's help in the Pacific Theater was minimal at best. "
You cannot claim that because America led the battles, Britain's contribution was minimal. All you can conclude from that fact is that, America was in command at the time.
"Didn't I give you a list of European battles in which the US was involved as well? lol"
I apologise that I wasn't able to complete your argument earlier, as I had something of higher priority to do. I was planning on completing it afterwards but you had disputed it by then.
"O of course you could never let the United States take credit for fighting in World War II. You are trying to make the deaths of all Americans in that war pointless."
The United States can recieve credit where it's due, what I'm trying to make a point about is that the US contribution wasn't needed.
"Not really. The effort you put forth to take away credit from the US during WW2 could arise from some irrational prejudice you have with Americans."
I am not prejudice towards americans, I just hate the United States, I would only dislike patriotic americans.
"I live in America and NOBODY thinks that. This is probably where part of your hatred for America comes from."
You're clearly don't understand the difference between a country and the country's inhabitants.
The reason I state this, is that in modern day media many images or movies about the second world war, imply that the US was equally(if not more) involved with the war as Britain and France was.
"It does not clearly show that and you cannot come to that conclusion. Even if Hitler was less strong than Britain, the added threat of Japan would make the Axis stronger than Britain. I'll do it mathematically to help you understand: on a number scale let's say that, in relation to strength, Britain has a 2, Germany has a 1.5 and Japan has a 1. If Germany and Japan were to gang up on Britain, they would have a strength of 2.5 compared to Britain's 2, which means they are stronger. Do you understand the logic now?"
I'll help you by correcting your "logic"
Britain has 2, Germany has 1.5 and Japan has 1
Since Japan is on the other side of the world Japan's result is now made to 0.1
0.1+1.5=1.6
2>1.6
Do you understand the logic now?
"What happens after the war is irrelevant. This debate is concerned with what happens to end the war."
What happens after the war proves that most of your "help" did more harm than good, for example you fueled Russia with military equipment , money and supplies but while they where in WW2 Stalin was already making secret pacts with Hitler and exapnding the Soviet Union, Immediatly after the war teh USSR conquers Poland (the reason Britain entered the war in the first place) causing our whole contribution (including the rationing of our food, death of millions, end of the empire, etc.) to be completely pointless.
"WOW. This really shows how much you know about World War 2. Have you studied anything about that war? 8 to 10 million Russian soldiers died in addition to 12 to 14 million civilians. Are you seriously calling that "easy"?"
Hitler couldn't deal with the snow, there was hardly any "real fighting" going on, I'ld say it's a pretty easy battle if the enemy retreats because of the weather.
"We only help you when your about to enter Berlin? Are you fucking kidding me? Nice fucking disrespect for all the Americans who died fighting to get to Berlin along Britains side. You're dumb piece of shit. Without the United States, the D-Day invasion would have never occurred, which means you would have never gotten to Berlin. Have some fucking respect for those who died in defense of the Allies, which includes Britain."
I have every respect to the lyal soldiers who died for their country, what I hate is the fact that the death of 495,000 british lives, the conquest of France, Belgium, the Balkans, Denmark,Norway and Finland could have all been prevented if the US had been fucking bothered to join the war FROM THE START.
"Over 400 thousand Americans died fighting the Axis Powers. The US lost more soldiers than Britain, and you come to the conclusion that America "might as well not have bothered." Just fucking say "thank you" and let's be done with it."
Lets look at the whole amount of deaths shall we, Britain 495,000, to US's 413,000. I think you'll find that we lost more people in total.
This is pretty useless if the country cannot help you when you're getting hammered.
They actually were helping you by taking German forces away that would otherwise be attacking you. If Russia was not in World War 2, Britain would have gotten taken over just like France. It would have been a lot worse if Britain had no Allies at all.
I'm finding it amusing how since I haven't yet mentioned the year you can somehow come up with statements like this. Well I'll tell you that this happened in 1940, at this point the Soviet union was fixing elections in the Baltic states.
You're talking about one battle, I am talking about the war as a whole like we should be. This is not about the beginning of the war, this is about the whole war.
while I'm about to get bombed at least I know that I won't die of starvation or malnutrition.
The majority of British civilians did not get killed by bombs, therefore they survived to eat the next day. Which food did they eat? The food that came from America. Your welcome.
At this point in time, you were selling them oil and fueling their empire expansion.
You really need to stay with what is relevant. That was before the US entered. I am talking about the war as a whole, where the US was destroying the Japanese military, thereby refusing to allow it to attack its Allies.
It was compared to the German Empire, (of which you did nothing to prevent).
What do you mean we did nothing to prevent?
Yes it was the Headquarters of the largest empire the world had ever seen, the problem with this is this "gigantic empire" had lost all it's funding paying for WW1.
blah, blah, blah. This is irrelevant keep it out please.
There's more point to conquering this huge peice of fertile land instead of going all the way around the world to attack this small island.
lol nice try. No, it is much more important to attack a weaker country that stands in your way, than a huge country that does not oppose you. Your an idiot.
Japan didn't care whether you were involved or not
Japan did not want the US to be involved, but they were forced to involve us.
What battles were crucial and what weren't is merely a matter of opinion
Lol, no its a matter of fact. Consider what separates the Battle of Stalingrad, in terms of magnitude, with the Battle of Nanos? Nobody would consider Nanos to be more important to Stalingrad, so it is not determined by opinion. Sorry.
you cannot claim that the defeat of the Japanese empire was solely done by the US.
Basically it was. America had barely any help in fighting the Japanese. You have not proved me wrong yet, sorry.
As I said before the Pacific Theater was the United States own, private war
It would have been brought to Europe if America was not involved. Japan would not just sit in the Pacific waiting to see if its Allies won or not.
America was an "ally" of Britain.
Your welcome.
If we had not defeated those Japanese at India, there would have been more for you americans to fight.
More Japanese to surrender Americans. Those added Japanese troops would not have been able to stop the United States on its way to the mainland.
You cannot claim that because America led the battles, Britain's contribution was minimal. All you can conclude from that fact is that, America was in command at the time.
Im not. Americans were both leading the battles and devoting most of the troops for them.
I was planning on completing it afterwards but you had disputed it by then
No. You're too afraid.
The United States can recieve credit where it's due, what I'm trying to make a point about is that the US contribution wasn't needed.
LOL that's the dumbest sentence I have ever seen. You basically just said "The US can have some credit for World War II, but it's help in WW2 was unnecessary so Americans died for nothing."
I am not prejudice towards americans, I just hate the United States, I would only dislike patriotic americans..
Lol so you hate the United States, but you don't hate the people that make it what it is. Why do you hate patriotic Americans? I don't hate fervent Britons.
You're clearly don't understand the difference between a country and the country's inhabitants.
Lol so you hate the land the US is on? A country is made up of its inhabitants.
imply that the US was equally(if not more) involved with the war as Britain and France was.
Casualties were just about equal. The US lost more soldiers. Is that implication false?
Since Japan is on the other side of the world Japan's result is now made to 0.1
lol. Just because its on the other side of the world does not mean you can divide its strength by ten. I could also reduce Britain to a 0.1 since America would not be giving it supplies for free.
for example you fueled Russia with military equipment , money and supplies
Did those contribute to the destruction of Britain? Nope, which means its irrelevant.
Immediatly after the war teh USSR conquers Poland (the reason Britain entered the war in the first place) causing our whole contribution (including the rationing of our food, death of millions, end of the empire, etc.) to be completely pointless.
You joined the War because Germany was going for you.
Hitler couldn't deal with the snow, there was hardly any "real fighting" going on, I'ld say it's a pretty easy battle if the enemy retreats because of the weather.
Lol its like you only think Britain was the one fighting in World War 2. According to you, no other country did any "real fighting." You are not credible at all.
I have every respect to the lyal soldiers who died for their country, what I hate is the fact that the death of 495,000 british lives, the conquest of France, Belgium, the Balkans, Denmark,Norway and Finland could have all been prevented if the US had been fucking bothered to join the war FROM THE START.
Your just an irrational idiot who has noone else to take his anger out on. If you literally blame the US for 495,000 deaths of its own Ally, then you clearly do not understand the war. Your judgement is clouded by hatred. You cannot see what I can see, or what any other normal person can see. I'm sure most other British people are on my side.
Lets look at the whole amount of deaths shall we, Britain 495,000, to US's 413,000. I think you'll find that we lost more people in total.
It's a tragedy that so many British civilians died in war, but after the US entered it expended more of its soldiers lives fighting Britains enemies than Britain did fighting its enemies. We deserve an equal amount of respect as Britain. You are welcome.
By the way, if World War 3 comes, don't be afraid, Americans will protect you from any country that tries to harm you.
"They actually were helping you by taking German forces away that would otherwise be attacking you. If Russia was not in World War 2, Britain would have gotten taken over just like France. It would have been a lot worse if Britain had no Allies at all."
We Britons won the battle of Britain on our own, as I said before the Russians were messing around in the Baltic states when this happened.
"You're talking about one battle, I am talking about the war as a whole like we should be."
And I was talking about 1 situation, you disputed that situation claiming it was incorrect, and now you're trying to claim that you were talking about the war in the whole.
Anyway, the situation I was talking about showed that we didn't need your help.
"This is not about the beginning of the war, this is about the whole war."
This may have been nearer to the beginning time wise, but this was the turning point in the war, after defeating the Luftwaffe this Britain started conquering back land, before you even joined the war.
"The majority of British civilians did not get killed by bombs, therefore they survived to eat the next day."
The majority of British civilians new at least 1 person who was killed by a bomb, this caused a huge decrease in moral.
"Which food did they eat? The food that came from America. Your welcome."
The food you sent had to be protected by our navy, the only reason we started rationing was that you failed to protect your own ships from German U-boats.
"You really need to stay with what is relevant. That was before the US entered. I am talking about the war as a whole, where the US was destroying the Japanese military, thereby refusing to allow it to attack its Allies."
This is such a sick american way of thinking, "Just because the U.S wasn't there it doesn't count as part of the war", of course it does you shithead, and at that point when everyone else was fighting you were selling supplies to fuel the Japanese empire.
Don't try claim that you made up for it by nuking them afterwards.
"What do you mean we did nothing to prevent?"
When Nazi Germany started to conquer Eastern Europe, you didn't bother to do anything, even though the League of Nations, whihc your president set up, was supposed to prevent that sort of thing.
Then Britain had to join a war they didn't want because you left us to lead the League of Nations.
"blah, blah, blah. This is irrelevant keep it out please."
What can't admit the truth?
"lol nice try. No, it is much more important to attack a weaker country that stands in your way, than a huge country that does not oppose you. Your an idiot."
I'm an idiot? this is coming from someone who believes it's logical to travel all the way around the world to attack someone whose fighting your ally but can do no harm to you, and even less logical to attack the one country that has an entire naval base threatening the expansion of your empire.
You can already see what option Japan actually chose.
"Japan did not want the US to be involved, but they were forced to involve us."
They were only forced to involve the US because the US forced them to.
"Lol, no its a matter of fact. Consider what separates the Battle of Stalingrad, in terms of magnitude, with the Battle of Nanos? Nobody would consider Nanos to be more important to Stalingrad, so it is not determined by opinion. Sorry."
Thats because they were single battles and they are so different in scale that everyone would agree in opinion, whereas you came up with a list of battles then claimed those were all the important ones.
"Basically it was. America had barely any help in fighting the Japanese. You have not proved me wrong yet, sorry."
I have provided lists of proof, involving battles and whole countries, I'ld like to see you prove that the U.S was the only country that was involved in defeating Japan.
"It would have been brought to Europe if America was not involved."
Why do you keep bringing this possibilty up, that I have so many times proved incorrect.
" Japan would not just sit in the Pacific waiting to see if its Allies won or not."
Yes I know. it would conquer either Asia or North America, maybe even Australasia.
"Your welcome."
You reply sarcasm with sarcasm, how pathetic.
"No. You're too afraid."
Nice claim for you to make, considering that I had already highlighted one of your statements and was about to smash it, when I had to submit my work and carry on with life.
"More Japanese to surrender Americans. Those added Japanese troops would not have been able to stop the United States on its way to the mainland."
Once again you exaggerate the actual power of the United States, where did you learn that fact? Saving Private Ryan?
"Im not. Americans were both leading the battles and devoting most of the troops for them."
As you should, Japan was your own private war. You expect us to fight your enemy when you couldn't even be bothered to stop Hitler conquering us?
"LOL that's the dumbest sentence I have ever seen. You basically just said "The US can have some credit for World War II, but it's help in WW2 was unnecessary so Americans died for nothing.""
The exact same message your trying to spread about the British involvement of your own war with Japan.
"Lol so you hate the United States, but you don't hate the people that make it what it is. Why do you hate patriotic Americans? I don't hate fervent Britons."
I'm a patriotic Briton, America has done many things to make our country the A.S.B.O ridden, dirt bowl it's now been infested with.
"Lol so you hate the land the US is on? A country is made up of its inhabitants."
Yes a country is amde up of all it's inhabitants, not the infdividual ones who have a slightly different opinion to the collective whole.
"Casualties were just about equal. The US lost more soldiers. Is that implication false?"
You lost a couple of thousand more soldiers than us, we lost 10,000s more civilians than you did.
"lol. Just because its on the other side of the world does not mean you can divide its strength by ten. I could also reduce Britain to a 0.1 since America would not be giving it supplies for free."
How does paying for supplies prevent a country from being a threat, it would raise the level since it has more supplies and military equipment.
"Did those contribute to the destruction of Britain? Nope, which means its irrelevant."
Now you're just aking up things, Britain was never destroyed so nothing could ever contribute to it.
"You joined the War because Germany was going for you."
You really are a dumb peice of shit who knows nothing about WW2, here's what happened that cause Britain to join the war.
1)Hitler gets into power
2)Hitler starts breaking the treaty whihc your president made but you left for Britain and France to enforce.
3)Britain and France (who are still trying to rebuild their countrys after WW1) tell Hitler they'll let him off if he leaves Poland alone
4)Hitler conquers Poland
5)Britain and France declare war on Germany.
"Lol its like you only think Britain was the one fighting in World War 2. According to you, no other country did any "real fighting." You are not credible at all."
Letrs look at the Aliies then:
France: conquered
Soviet Union: busy expanding their communist empire
USA: to lazy to pull a trigger
That leaves Britain and her Empire.
"It's a tragedy that so many British civilians died in war, but after the US entered it expended more of its soldiers lives fighting Britains enemies than Britain did fighting its enemies. We deserve an equal amount of respect as Britain. You are welcome."
As a percentage of your total population your contribution was minimal, you couldn't even be bothered to help us when we were losing, and suddenyl you take loads of credit for helping us win?
"By the way, if World War 3 comes, don't be afraid, Americans will protect you from any country that tries to harm you."
OMFG, XD
You still think the US is the world's strongest power? XD
You people start crying when a plane crashes into a building.
Anyone who hates America, and therefore Americans, is irrelevant in all aspects of world affairs. You, for example, are too biased and too prejudiced to even be considered a rational thinker.
Since you don't even have a credible understanding of Americans, or even the slightest understanding of a normal person in general, I will give you the accepted perspective of World War II. First, Britain does not deserve most of the credit. If credit were to be
divided up, Russia would take more than both the US and the UK. This is shown through its enormous casualties. The hundreds of thousands of American and British casualties don't even compare to the millions lost by Russia. Although you probably believe Britain took the brunt of the Axis forces, the sheer loss of life in Russia clearly shows that more enemies were attacking them. For all intents and purposes, the English Channel was the only thing that protected Britain from take over at the beginning of the war. Russia didn't have a channel of water protecting it from its enemies. It was forced to fight them on a battlefield. The viability of a ground war induced Hitler to send more forces to Russia since it would have seemed easier to conquer. Had Hitler succeeded in conquering Russia, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable. Nevertheless, Russia won in the end. It is important to look at how they won, however, to see who influenced an Allied victory. The United States' help, according to the leader of Russia during World War II, was the most important factor in Russia's victory over Germany. Since Americans pushed the favor into Russia's hands, we directly and substantially contributed to Allied victory even before we joined the war. Also considering the fact that the fall of Russia would destroy all other resistance to an invasion of Britain, the US indirectly contributed to Britain's survival; this is, of course, not including the fact that more aid went to Britain than Russia. You need to consider this: if enough American money was spent on Russia to influence the Russian leader to say that the money was what determined his victory, then how substantially did the US contribute to Britain's victory by giving them even more money than they gave to Russia? All of this, however, excludes an entire military: the Japanese. It is true that Britain helped a little in the destruction of the Japanese, but if the United States was not involved, Britain would have had to fight Japan all by itself while being attacked by Germany. A British victory of this sort would be highly unlikely. Whether you want it or not, Americans helped Britain just as much as Russia helped Britain and one British victory at the beggining of the war is not evidence against this fact.
Now to address your hatred of Americans in general. Your responses to some of my comments brings out the true you. They show that you are easily willing to go lengths that morally-bound people will never go to. For example, to get a rise out of you I said that the US will protect you if WW3 comes. In response, you give me this "You people start crying when a plane crashes into a building." This is none other than utter apathy to American tragedy. Normal would not say this. Americans in general would not say this about a British tragedy. I don't even know how to respond to that, its
just.....fucked up. You're fucked up. Thousands of people died on 9/11 and you respond with "oh get over it." You have even completely disrespected and disregarded the deaths of every American who died from World War II. There is seriously something wrong with you. Your dislike for America even goes so far as to be self-destructive: "You still think the US is the world's strongest power? ". The US is your greatest ally, why would you want us not to be the strongest country in the world? I have no idea where your hatred for America comes, or why you try to blame all of Britain's problems during World War II on one of its own Allies, but I do know that if you think this way, there is no reason for anyone to even consider your opinion on any world situation.
"Anyone who hates America, and therefore Americans, is irrelevant in all aspects of world affairs. You, for example, are too biased and too prejudiced to even be considered a rational thinker."
I could equally state that you patriotism blinds your logic and therefore you too are too biased to be considered a rational thinker.
"Since you don't even have a credible understanding of Americans, or even the slightest understanding of a normal person in general, I will give you the accepted perspective of World War II."
Every country has their own perspective of WW2, your american version is probably full of propaganda.
"First, Britain does not deserve most of the credit."
Britain and France were the only countries to enter the war purely because they thought it would be the righteous thing to do, we were there at the start and we were there at the end.
"If credit were to be divided up, Russia would take more than both the US and the UK."
USSR didn't join the war until the US did, how can you claim that they deserve more credit then we do?
"is shown through its enormous casualties. The hundreds of thousands of American and British casualties don't even compare to the millions lost by Russia."
Can you stop putting the US and Great Britain next to each other? you make us appear to be allies.
Britain may not have lost casualties but we lost our Empire, how can you compare a few million men to the largest empire the world has ever seen?
And how can you leave out France? they were conquered by the Nazi's causing a huge amount of land to be wrecked and whole peices of history to be destroyed.
"Although you probably believe Britain took the brunt of the Axis forces, the sheer loss of life in Russia clearly shows that more enemies were attacking them. "
It was clear from the start that Nazi Germany planned to attack Russia, it didn't help when Stalin made a secret pact with Hitler.
"For all intents and purposes, the English Channel was the only thing that protected Britain from take over at the beginning of the war."
He even thought that British people were part of his superior race, Hitler had no intention of attacking us, but we declared war on him.
"Russia didn't have a channel of water protecting it from its enemies. It was forced to fight them on a battlefield. "
As we were when we aided France.
"The viability of a ground war induced Hitler to send more forces to Russia since it would have seemed easier to conquer.Had Hitler succeeded in conquering Russia, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable."
As I have constantly repeated in reply to the statement you keep moaning about: Hitler lost to Russia because he wasn't prepared for their winters, America didn't feature in this in anyway.
"Nevertheless, Russia won in the end. "
By mere chance, luck and lots of bloodshed.
" It is important to look at how they won, however, to see who influenced an Allied victory. The United States' help, according to the leader of Russia during World War II, was the most important factor in Russia's victory over Germany"
Stop going on about that, you keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, get some new facts for once.
"Since Americans pushed the favor into Russia's hands, we directly and substantially contributed to Allied victory even before we joined the war. "
Once again claiming credit where you don't deserve any,
"Also considering the fact that the fall of Russia would destroy all other resistance to an invasion of Britain,"
You are too full of crap, we destroyed a large amount of german military in our fight to attempt to save France.
You know what? you sicken me I can't be asked to read the rest of the censored peice of shit your government have taught you.
"Now to address your hatred of Americans in general. Your responses to some of my comments brings out the true you. They show that you are easily willing to go lengths that morally-bound people will never go to. For example, to get a rise out of you I said that the US will protect you if WW3 comes. In response, you give me this "You people start crying when a plane crashes into a building." This is none other than utter apathy to American tragedy. Normal would not say this. Americans in general would not say this about a British tragedy."
I have heard many americans mock the death of Princess Diana, your view on the world in general is filtered to your own country. You insult my country by claiming that we need protection from your useless pile of shit.
" I don't even know how to respond to that, its
just.....fucked up. You're fucked up. Thousands of people died on 9/11 and you respond with "oh get over it." You have even completely disrespected and disregarded the deaths of every American who died from World War II. There is seriously something wrong with you. Your dislike for America even goes so far as to be self-destructive: "You still think the US is the world's strongest power? ". The US is your greatest ally, why would you want us not to be the strongest country in the world? I have no idea where your hatred for America comes, or why you try to blame all of Britain's problems during World War II on one of its own Allies, but I do know that if you think this way, there is no reason for anyone to even consider your opinion on any world situation."*
The only reason that the US is the strongest country in the world is that they abused the world wars as a way to make money and to watch the colonial powers fall, you disgust me so much I'm banning you.
There is only one reason why you would reply to my comment and then ban me from the debate: you are afraid.
I could equally state that you patriotism blinds your logic and therefore you too are too biased to be considered a rational thinker.
I'm not the one pushing the other Allies aside and saying my country deserves all the credit for WWII.
your american version is probably full of propaganda.
If knew anything about America, this might have a possible chance of being true.
I have heard many americans mock the death of Princess Diana
That's a lie. What reason do we have to mock her death? I remember when she died and all I saw were people crying.
I also remember September 11, 2001, the worst day that Americans have experienced during my lifetime. The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive. I am relieved that you are one in million in Britain. Although you make it seem as though British people share your views of the world, nothing could be further from the truth. The world does not work the way you want it to. When Americans suffer Britons cry; when Britons suffer Americans cry. Our country's are the greatest allies the world has ever seen and any hardship only makes that alliance stronger.
You may blame Americans for the loss of Britain's power, but there is noone to blame. The United States just happened to be at the right place at the right time, that is how the world works. I do not blame British people for anything, even fighting us in the Revolutionary War. It is just the way the world works.
You insult my country by claiming that we need protection from your useless pile of shit.
I am not degrading the pride of your country. The United States was happy to help a friend in need. The UK is our greatest ally and I am grateful for that.
I do not need to beat you in this debate because you truthfully have nothing important to say. Your view of World War II is warped and there is no arguing that. Again, I do not know why you continually try to attempt to disrespect the Americans who died, but the world is on my side when I say: Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II.
"I'm not the one pushing the other Allies aside and saying my country deserves all the credit for WWII."
The USSR deserves all the dredit for WW2, Britain or America deserve relatively little credit by comparison.
"If knew anything about America, this might have a possible chance of being true."
Not possibel but statistically, highly probable.
"I also remember September 11, 2001, the worst day that Americans have experienced during my lifetime."
Im going to let Professor Noam Chomsky address this: "nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, but we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example... n the late 1990s, some of the worst terrorist atrocities in the world were what the Turkish government itself called state terror, namely massive atrocities, 80 percent of the arms coming from the United States, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, hideous repression, that's international terror, and we can go on and on. mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them."
"The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive."
Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out, and large parts of the western world feared what retaliation the US would engage in and its implications for global security, the idea that the rest of the world wept with you is a complete fantasy either concocted by you alone or assimilated by you from your media.
"I am relieved that you are one in million in Britain."
Again to the best of my knowledge he is far from 1 in a million, in fact if you recall 1 million people marhced against the Iraq war in Britain(and roughly half the population were completely against it, im not saying they are america haters, i dont consider myself an american hater in fact quite the opposite) but they do hate american foreign policy of which you are most certainly a proponent.
"Although you make it seem as though British people share your views of the world, nothing could be further from the truth. "
How do you know?
"The world does not work the way you want it to."
To be honest while i do not agree completely with Axmeister i think it is more fitting for him to say this to you.
"When Americans suffer Britons cry; when Britons suffer Americans cry."
What kind of moral equivalency argument is this?
"Our country's are the greatest allies the world has ever seen"
WTF?
"he United States just happened to be at the right place at the right time, that is how the world works. "
No its really not in fact statistically very few things happne by conincidence, that why when something does happen by coincidence it is called an outlier, you really couldn't be more wrong on this piont if you tried your claiming the exact opposite of what takes place in reality.
"It is just the way the world works."
You can say it a million times but unfortunately for you it doesn't acquire any more meaning with each repitition.
"Your view of World War II is warped and there is no arguing that."
Ill agree with this but unfortunately i think you should apply the same logic to yourself.
"Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II."
One more time, America and Britain needed the Soviet Union otherwise Hitler would not have been beaten.
The USSR deserves all the dredit for WW2, Britain or America deserve relatively little credit by comparison.
Yes, give "all the credit" to one country. Ingenious.....
Im going to let Professor Noam Chomsky address this:
That entire statement by Chomsky does not oppose my argument. I am not saying the United States is innocent, but that it did not deserve 9/11.
Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out
It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions. Here is my source: http://www.september11news.com/InternationalReaction.htm. Just so you know, even Gadhafi said the attacks were "horrifying." Nice try, anyways.
Again to the best of my knowledge he is far from 1 in a million
Are you saying that it is average for Britons to believe that the United States joined at the end of WWII and did basically nothing to help the Allies? I don't think so.
american foreign policy of which you are most certainly a proponent.
Why? Because I believe the US was needed in WWII?
How do you know?
It is highly unlikely that most Britons look past the facts to conclude that America did nothing to help them in WWII.
What kind of moral equivalency argument is this?
What makes you think its an argument?
WTF?
Nice opposing argument.
in fact statistically very few things happne by conincidence
I'd like to see a source for this "fact."
that why when something does happen by coincidence it is called an outlier
Axmeister was arguing that the US took Britain's power away. I am saying that Britain lost its power because the Axis were attacking it.
you really couldn't be more wrong on this piont if you tried your claiming the exact opposite of what takes place in reality.
You didn't really oppose what I said at all. All you wrote was that very few things happen by coincidence. You didn't prove anything.....
One more time, America and Britain needed the Soviet Union otherwise Hitler would not have been beaten.
Why would you assume that I disagree with this?
I'm not really sure why you chimed in here. You didn't prove anything and you didn't bring any new facts to the argument. You argument was just commentary that is pretty much irrelevant.
"Yes, give "all the credit" to one country. Ingenious....."
You knew exactly what i meant by that statement, the fact that i used "all" instead of "most" doesnt mean i beleive they deserve all the credit, but you knew that.
"That entire statement by Chomsky does not oppose my argument. I am not saying the United States is innocent, but that it did not deserve 9/11."
I never suggested they somehow deserved 9/11 i just think you americans think 9/11 set some kind of precedent and gave you carte blanche, you use it in a very similar way to the way Isreal justifies its actions by using the Holocaust.
"It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions"
I don't think the families of the 1.2 million Iraqis that have been killed since the start of the invasion in 2003 would consider it a ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion.
(this study done by the John Hopkins School of Public health is widely acknowledged as being the most accurate estimate of Iraqis dead)
"Just so you know, even Gadhafi said the attacks were "horrifying." Nice try, anyways."
I don't understand how in your head this disproves what i have said, the link contains only comments from world leaders who obviously condemned the attack, this reminds me of the lies that came from the US state department (and subsequently perpetuated by your corporate controlled media) saying that arab's were really afraid of Iran and that the US (or its guard dog Isreal) wasn't perceived as a real threat, that Iran was the threat and thus they would support an invasion when in fact it was the arab dictators (most of whom had been propped up by the US) who were saying this.Nice try, anyways;)
"Are you saying that it is average for Britons to believe that the United States joined at the end of WWII and did basically nothing to help the Allies"
No not at all but it is also follish to think that most Britons support american actions cause i can tell very few do.
"Why? Because I believe the US was needed in WWII?"
No, i got that impressioni from reading your posts, Jesus relax.
"t is highly unlikely that most Britons look past the facts to conclude that America did nothing to help them in WWII."
No i completely agree, i was never really arguing with this, they contribted alot to the winning of WW2, but it is proportionally insignificant when compared to that of the USSR, and to be honest he propbably does have a bit of a piont, it is quite naive to think that american actions in WW2 weren't completely motivated by self interest.
"What makes you think its an argument?"
Well i naturally assumed, you are on a debate website.
"Nice opposing argument."
To be honest it was such a ridiculous statement i didn't really know how to respond to it.
"I'd like to see a source for this "fact."
It doesnt need a source, its called logic, cause and effect, all events are connected this way, a coincidence is simply an event that lacks a definitive causal connection. As most events can be explained by investigating the chain of causality linking them together. As most events don't lack a causal link the ones that do can be said to occur much more infrequently and thus are
People are always creating conincidences, the fact is very few of these are actually coincidence's but are based only on how the people perceive certain events. The US weren't just in the right place at the right time and to be honest i cannot understnad how you can even think this.
"Axmeister was arguing that the US took Britain's power away. I am saying that Britain lost its power because the Axis were attacking it."
I would say both explanations have merit, you are debating complex geopolitical events that definitely don't have one simple explanation.
"You didn't really oppose what I said at all. All you wrote was that very few things happen by coincidence. You didn't prove anything....."
I don't need to prove anything, the fact is anyone can realise that being in the right place at the right time has nothing to do with americas involvment in WW2, there involvment (as well as the imperialist empire you have cultivated since based on the victory) was based on high level strategic planning and executed with precision.
"Why would you assume that I disagree with this"
You disagree implicitly by trying to insinuate that americas contribution was significant realative to the USSR, or comparable in terms of signifcance, this is simply false, and i don't need a degree in histry to make such a blanket statement. Also, when you make statement like: ""Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II." it gives poeple the impression you think you won the war.
I don't think the families of the 1.2 million Iraqis that have been killed since the start of the invasion in 2003 would consider it a ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion.
This statement along with the source that followed does nothing to disprove what the international community felt on 9/11. All it does is examine how Muslims feel during the war on terror, which is irrelevant since its after 9/11.
I don't understand how in your head this disproves what i have said, the link contains only comments from world leaders who obviously condemned the attack
You said that the Muslim community had no sympathy for the US, I gave you a source that showed that its leaders reacted in sympathetic ways towards Americans, how does that not disprove you? If an extremist like Moammar Gadhafi called that attacks horrifying and called for aid for the US, then it would be highly probable that his citizens would feel the same way. I mean even the Taliban leaders were against the attack.
No not at all but it is also follish to think that most Britons support american actions cause i can tell very few do.
This debate is not about modern American foreign policy; its about how much the US was needed in WWII.
they contribted alot to the winning of WW2
Well lol thats what this debate is about. I do not understand why you are on the other side.
it is proportionally insignificant when compared to that of the USSR
Did you actually read my posts? The success of the USSR in WWII was based upon American intervention. Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany, therefore the US was needed in WWII. That is what this debate is about.
It doesnt need a source, its called logic, cause and effect, all events are connected this way, a coincidence is simply an event that lacks a definitive causal connection. As most events can be explained by investigating the chain of causality linking them together. As most events don't lack a causal link the ones that do can be said to occur much more infrequently
Just because an event lacks a causal connection, does not mean that that event was planned to occur. This is the difference: you are arguing that the US's ascension to world superpower was an effect of WWII, a planned event, so it was, in effect, planned to occur; I am arguing that nobody planned it, so it was never supposed to occur as part of some plan. I dont think something like determinism is applicable in this situation.
The US weren't just in the right place at the right time and to be honest i cannot understnad how you can even think this.
Think of it this way: the US, at the beginning of WWII, was in a very favorable position relative to other industrialized countries. It did not face the threat of the standing Axis armies invading its borders, therefore it was not anywhere near as affected as the next strongest countries in the world. It was also in the position to make money off of the war since its industrialized processes were not affected by the war and were not fully needed by the US itself. Was it planned by Americans to make enough money to be the strongest country in the world? No. Was it planned by Americans to start a country far enough away from Europe to avoid WWII? No, therefore we just happened to be in the most favorable position during the war.
You disagree implicitly by trying to insinuate that americas contribution was significant realative to the USSR
The USSR's victory was based off of American intervention. The Russian's would not have won had the US not helped. This debate is about whether or not the US was needed in WWII. All I am saying is that Americans contributed enough to WWII to be considered necessary for Allied victory.
Also, when you make statement like: ""Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II." it gives poeple the impression you think you won the war.
The only reason why I worded it that way was because that idiot Axmeister told me something like: Britain didnt need America's help to win the war but the Allies did need its help to win. I get pushed into these ridiculous situations because Axmeister really is not intelligent at all. He just doesn't get it.
"This statement along with the source that followed does nothing to disprove what the international community felt on 9/11. "
I never said it did, the piont i was making is that you have no way of knowing what the international community felt after 9/11, sure i don't think anyone was happy about it (except the extremists) but to say the world was weeping is only your own ego talking and your own over exaggerated sense of self worth. The fact is the entire arab world probably felt you had finally gotten a taste of your own medicine while most others were probably more fearful of your retaliation and its implications for world security, but hey this is just my opinion, i don't have any survey's of public opinion to back that up but neither do you so if you want to label what im saying a ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion fair enough but you'll have to apply the same standard to your own fantasy cause a few comments of condemnation from world leaders just ain't gonna cut it unfortunately.
"If an extremist like Moammar Gadhafi called that attacks horrifying and called for aid for the US, then it would be highly probable that his citizens would feel the same way"
Highly probable, really you think it is highly probable his citizens, i don't even need to rebuke this statement.
"Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany,"
Source please.
"This is the difference: you are arguing that the US's ascension to world superpower was an effect of WWII, a planned event, so it was, in effect, planned to occur; I am arguing that nobody planned it, so it was never supposed to occur as part of some plan.."
The US used WW2 to achieve superpower status, the remade the western world, and yes i do beleive it was planned maybe not every detail obviously they were reacted to situations as they were unfolding but their motivations were self interested and they laregly achieved what they set out to achieve, it isn't really controversial to say that the US supplied the USSR to keep the blood of Nazis and the Russia's flowing thinking that it was altruistic behaviour or somehow for the greater good is naive.
" I dont think something like determinism is applicable in this situation"
Well i do, every thing the US in WW2 was planned and it was planned in order to maximise the advantage if the US over everyone else.
"Was it planned by Americans to make enough money to be the strongest country in the world?No "
Yes it was it did not happen by accident, this is a completely ridiculous statement, you clearly think the world works in a very different way to me, i am a realist, when i see a nation acquiring great power and wealth im not naive enough to think it happened by accident, nothing like that happens by accident.
"therefore we just happened to be in the most favorable position during the war."
It was a hell of a lot more than just being in a favourable position.
"The USSR's victory was based off of American intervention."
Not true.
"The Russian's would not have won had the US not helped. "
You have no way of proving that.
"This debate is about whether or not the US was needed in WWII"
I beleive they were, at least in order to assure victory in the time frame within which is was achieved
"All I am saying is that Americans contributed enough to WWII to be considered necessary for Allied victory."
Yes i agree, im not saying without them the war would not have won, you cannot say that but it definitely would have been harder and definitely would have been going on longer.
"The only reason why I worded it that way was because that idiot Axmeister told me something like: Britain didnt need America's help to win the war but the Allies did need its help to win."
the piont i was making is that you have no way of knowing what the international community felt after 9/11
I believe the source I gave you examined that. I could give you more if you wish.
sure i don't think anyone was happy about it (except the extremists) but to say the world was weeping is only your own ego talking
Yeah, it was a hyperbole.
The fact is the entire arab world probably felt you had finally gotten a taste of your own medicine
My argument is backed up by sources. Your argument is a guess as seen with the word "probably."
i don't have any survey's of public opinion to back that up but neither do you
"In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
"Iranian women light candles in Tehran's Mohseni Square in memory of the victims of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Even the most hardline Islamic clerics, who despise the United States, have been shocked into silence by the attacks"
their motivations were self interested and they laregly achieved what they set out to achieve
The US gave away $760 billion(adjusted for inflation) and asked for none of it back; that doesn't seem very "self interested" to me.
every thing the US in WW2 was planned and it was planned in order to maximise the advantage if the US over everyone else.
We produced equipment and supplies for the Allies for free and lost more money and over 400,000 soldiers fighting the Axis. That doesn't seem very advantageous.
when i see a nation acquiring great power and wealth im not naive enough to think it happened by accident, nothing like that happens by accident.
World War II destroyed the nations more powerful than the United States. Our manufacturing processes were not harmed and we were able to expand production to supply other countries in need. Was it planned for other countries to be destroyed so the US could build them back up again? No.
I beleive they were, at least in order to assure victory in the time frame within which is was achieved
Then why are you agreeing that "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the war(WWII)"?
im not saying without them the war would not have won
Refer to the source I gave you on Stalin's comments.
I wasn't informed that you had responded to this argument so i never replied, since you are banned from this debate its probably a bit unfair of me to dispute it but i suppose you can respond to me in another debate.
"I believe the source I gave you examined that. I could give you more if you wish."
I don't beleive the source proves anything, and i already told you why (i.e. world leaders responded in exactly the way that was expected, they condemned the attacks, the fact that Gadhafi condemned them aswell only proves that he was sucking up to the US at the time (to his own detriment, i bet they wouldn't be dropping bombs on him now if he hadn't given up his nuclear weapons program to try to cosy up to the west), comments from world leaders does not reflect public opinion it reflects the opinion of the elites and they just say what they are supposed to say, and what they are expected to say. If you disagree that the views of world leaders aren't aligned with those of the general public id be happy to write extemporaneously on the issue to prove my point but you should really be well aware of this fact.
If you can give me a poll or statistical survey of public opinion in a predominantly muslim country proving what you assert (i.e. the hearts of everyone in the world melted at the tragedy of 9/11) i will accept your claims, and i would also be very very impressed. The truth is people were more worried and scared of the US response after 9/11 than anything else as they were worried you were going to go full retard with your military, and thus WW3 would ensue.
"My argument is backed up by sources. Your argument is a guess as seen with the word "probably.""
What you fail to realise is that those sources don't prove anything, maybe you think they do but they don't.
"In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
"Iranian women light candles in Tehran's Mohseni Square in memory of the victims of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Even the most hardline Islamic clerics, who despise the United States, have been shocked into silence by the attacks"
Again i have to reiterate this doesnt prove what you seem to think it does, nobody was going to praise the attacks, no country is that extreme, also the lack of specific details leads me to beleive that these stories are exaggerated as there is no mention of the numbers, either way Iran was merely playing a geopolitical game, nothing more, if you think any Iranian people wept at 9/11 you're are very naive indeed, i think the more relevant quote (and the one that is reflective of real public opinion in Iran) is: "Anti-American protests in Tehran are a regular event"
Look im not saying nobody cared about 9/11 but you give me the impression that you think its the only atrocity ever to be committed, all you americans tend to overplay the event as its really the only time you've had to deal with the kind of terrorism you are so often inflict on peoples of other countries ,i can tell you your own great nation has done far worse to far more people, to say that the world wept with you is simply false, other westernised countries sympathised as it was as much an attack on western civilisation as it was on the US but again i feel you are really overstating this, if the world really wept in the way that you seem so desparate to want to beleive why did world opinion turn so dramtically against you once you started iniating your imperialistic foreign policy with 9/11 beign the excuse i.e. http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm37.html
"Oh of course. Better to not try I guess..."
Ok, so you actually beleive this statement:"If an extremist like Moammar Gadhafi called that attacks horrifying and called for aid for the US, then it would be highly probable that his citizens would feel the same way"
You think that when Gadhafi proclaimed his sadness at the 9/11 tradgedy that the rest of the country was thinking the same, i mean the fact that you even think Gaddafi gave half a shit about 9/11 amazes me, and then you demonstrate your incredible naivety by assuming his people were going through the exact same thing, WOWis all i can say.
"Source please."Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
I think we can both agree thats a little different from ;"Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany"
I knew when i read that statement that it had to be false, i knew you had either made it up or manipulated it in some way, now im not going to disagree with what he actually said, the munitions and military equipment supplied by the US to the USSR (in particular) played big part in the USSR being able to win the battle of the eastern front (which effectively won the war) but the majority of their war machine was produced from the industrialization of the Urals and central Asia. You see american aid made a difference to the soviet troops theres no doubt about that but this comprised only a fraction of their arsenal the reality is that the existence of a nationalised planned economy and stalins 5 yr plan allowed the soviets to rapidly build up their military and industrial capacity i.e.In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis, with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft. (See V. Sipols, The Road to a Great Victory, p. 132.)
"The US gave away $760 billion(adjusted for inflation) and asked for none of it back; that doesn't seem very "self interested" to me."
You really need to look past what they did and start asking why they did it, if you would allow me i will explain what i mean. You see Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) and Moscow immediately and repeatedly called for a second front to be opened up against the Nazis but Britain was in no hurry and america hadn't even joined the war. You see British and american rulers calculated that the USSR would eventually be defeated by the Nazis but that the defeat would cripple the Nazis militarily thus killing two birds with one stone (its no secret the level of mistrust that existed between the soviets and the western imperial powers), this is also why america supplied the USSR (i.e. in order to keep the blood flowing on both sides not for some greater good as im sure you'd like to believe), but the allies underestimated the soviets, their resolve, their military capacity, and the amount of men they were willing to sacrifice in order to obtain victory. This is part of the history that was re-written by the west during the cold war. The second front was opened up in 1944 which was after the USSR had already beaten the Nazis on the Eastern front with the turning piont at Stalingrad and the decisive blow being dealt at Kursk in July 1943.The truth is the allies were afraid of the advance of the red army, keep in mind (f you doubt what im saying) that as quoted fron wikipedia;
"The Eastern Front of World War II was a theatre of World War II "
"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history",
"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."
"It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
So when the USSR defeated the Nazis (single handly if you exculde the aid given the USSR which i already established was mainly given to keep the blood flowing on both sides to produce a stalemate or a soviet defeat so that the allies could then come in and defeat a severly weakened Germany) in the greatest military offensive in human history and then began to advance across Europe Washington and London were rightly worried, this is the reason the second front was opened up in France as the British and americans knew that if they didn't the red army would advance all the way towards the english channel.
The following quote tells its own story; "In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious." (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p. 133.)
Even the american chief of staff during the war George Marshall admitted the second front was primarily setup to stop the soviet advance, he expressed the hope that Germany would "facilitate our entry into the country to repel the Russians", the British was rightly against it thats why it took until 1944 to materialise. I have no doubt you see WW2 as being a just war fought by the "good" guys to defeat facism and protect democracy, the reality (that any realist can see) is that there were no good guys in the war, it was a war fought by great power and everybodies actions were motivated by their own self interested agenda.The US wanted to replace Britain as the worlds leading power after Germany and Japan were defeated, this is no secret, and is the reality of what eventually transpired.
"We produced equipment and supplies for the Allies for free and lost more money and over 400,000 soldiers fighting the Axis. That doesn't seem very advantageous."
What are you talking about do you seriously beleive that anything the US did in WW2 was done for the benefit of others, this is a fantasy, you actions as always were motivated by pure self interest, as was all the powers in WW2, the history taught to us in school in the west and perpetuated by the media and culture (e.g. moives like saving private ryan) complete neglects the reality of the war i.e. it was largely a war fought between the USSR and Germany, for most of the war the British and american were mere spectators. The victory of the USSR surpised everyone in WW2, the allies (mainly the US as you rightly piont out) supplied the USSR but this was only to weaken Germany and themselves as they never believed the USSR would succeed over the advanced, organised and sophisticated military might of Germany. Keep in mind that this was probably the greatest military ovctory in history and it was won by the USSR, their economic and military success generated alot of fear amongst the allies i.e. *"The outstanding fact [that] has to be noted is the recent phenomenal development of the heretofore latent Russian military and economic strength – a development which seems certain to prove epochal in its bearing on future politico-military international relationships, and which is yet to reach the full scope attainable with Russian resources." (FRUS, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, pp. 107-8.)
They even planned on going to war with Russia before Hitler was defeated but they correctly realised that even with Britain on side they could not defeat the USSR.
"World War II destroyed the nations more powerful than the United States. Our manufacturing processes were not harmed and we were able to expand production to supply other countries in need. Was it planned for other countries to be destroyed so the US could build them back up again? No."
Although this argument is not without substance it just doesnt explain what the US did to solidify their power, the MArshall plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Early_criticism) was put in place to rebuild europe but what was the real effect of the marchall plan? I think if you watch the following video you will gain a greater understanding of US motivation and action post WW2. Nothing done by the US was altruist or for the greater good i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMbqL3xuCo
"Then why are you agreeing that "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the war(WWII)"?"
Im not i don't think the contribution of the US or Britain really mattered that much relative to that of the USSR, the question should really be whether the USSR needed Britain or americas help to defeat the Nazis, this would be alot more true to the actual war, in fact i found a good post about this very question with some very interesting views if you have the time to read it:
"Refer to the source I gave you on Stalin's comments."
Again Stalins comments refer to war as it transpired, if the US had not intervened the war would have dragged on for another couple of years but i do not beleive there intervention was necessary to defeat the Nazis. It is standard practive among historian motivated more by political consideration than historical truth (and there are many) to exaggerate the importance of things like American aid to the Soviet Union.The fact is that the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow – before any supplies had reached the USSR from the USA, Britain or Canada.The soviets would still have been able to defeat the Nazis but at a much greater cost.
"There is only one reason why you would reply to my comment and then ban me from the debate: you are afraid."
Afraid of what?, I'm just bored of your arrogance and rudeness.
"I'm not the one pushing the other Allies aside and saying my country deserves all the credit for WWII."
You're claiming that your country deserves an equal share, for less work and involvement.
"That's a lie. What reason do we have to mock her death? I remember when she died and all I saw were people crying."
Your country constantly claims that Britain is soft for having a monarchy.
"I also remember September 11, 2001, the worst day that Americans have experienced during my lifetime. "
I also remember the day of 9/11 but you're the only country to repeatedly remind the world that you got attacked by terrorists, several other countries(including Britain) has also has bombing attacks but we manage to carry on and live with it.
" The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive."
How naive are you? the world did not weep only the U.S and maybe a few others were sad about it, this is one reason why americans are so dumb to think that the whole world shares their opinions.
"I am relieved that you are one in million in Britain. Although you make it seem as though British people share your views of the world, nothing could be further from the truth."
The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is that american media has a lot of influence here.
"The world does not work the way you want it to. When Americans suffer Britons cry; when Britons suffer Americans cry. Our country's are the greatest allies the world has ever seen and any hardship only makes that alliance stronger."
Any hardship? what about both World wars?, where was america at the beginning of both of them?
"You may blame Americans for the loss of Britain's power, but there is noone to blame. The United States just happened to be at the right place at the right time, that is how the world works. I do not blame British people for anything, even fighting us in the Revolutionary War. It is just the way the world works."
It wasn't "right place at the right time" you waited for the European colonial powers to beat each other to weakness and abuse that situation to make money and expand the interests of your own country.
"I am not degrading the pride of your country. The United States was happy to help a friend in need. The UK is our greatest ally and I am grateful for that.
I do not need to beat you in this debate because you truthfully have nothing important to say. Your view of World War II is warped and there is no arguing that. Again, I do not know why you continually try to attempt to disrespect the Americans who died, but the world is on my side when I say: Britain needed America's help to win World War II just as much as America needed Britain's help to win World War II"
That is only what they teach you in basic history, do some research and tyou might learn the truth.
I don't want to destroy a relatioship between two countries which has lasted for centuries, thus I will no longer argue about this subject.
"Afraid of what?, I'm just bored of your arrogance and rudeness."
Im sure they are tired with dealing with your biased idiocy.
"You're claiming that your country deserves an equal share, for less work and involvement."
Less work? Bullshit.
"Your country constantly claims that Britain is soft for having a monarchy."
To my knowledge Britain's "monarchy" is just symbolic, they have a full senate(or parliamentary) that makes the laws do they not?
"I also remember the day of 9/11 but you're the only country to repeatedly remind the world that you got attacked by terrorists, several other countries(including Britain) has also has bombing attacks but we manage to carry on and live with it."
You've had a Boeing slam into a center of world commerce? Maybe you hear about it more because we launched the world's largest manhunt because of it. Carry on and live with it? Fuck that, we hunt the bastards down.
"How naive are you? the world did not weep only the U.S and maybe a few others were sad about it, this is one reason why americans are so dumb to think that the whole world shares their opinions."
Actually the leaders of Europe all had appearances on television either pledging their aid in finding those responsible or asking their country to pray. You must have not been hold enough to remember which might also explain your horrible understanding of WW2.
"The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is that american media has a lot of influence here."
Sure it is, we know how to make some baddass movies.
"Any hardship? what about both World wars?, where was america at the beginning of both of them"
You are an idiot. One of the ideas the US was founded upon was the idea of neutrality(which has been forgotten apparently by everyone). We joined when we were attacked by Japan, and because Japan made the biggest mistake of WW2, the Allies won.
"It wasn't "right place at the right time" you waited for the European colonial powers to beat each other to weakness and abuse that situation to make money and expand the interests of your own country."
So you are degrading us because we took the greatest moment to obtain our freedom? Is that what they teach you to belief in Britain? "make money and expand the interests of your own country." sounds like what the British Empire did. Too bad you guys aren't good at keeping territories at all. I mean the US, Ireland, India, Africa, you guys are either the biggest dushbags on the planet or you really have no management skills. You don't see Puerto Rico complain about being a US territory, ever.
"That is only what they teach you in basic history, do some research and tyou might learn the truth."
I've gone through your arguments on this debate and nothing is more obvious then the only one who needs to do research is you.
"Im sure they are tired with dealing with your biased idiocy."
"They"? I'm arguing with 1 person, and may I ask when i appeared in anyway to be an idiot.
"Less work? Bullshit. "
America joined halfway through the war, with a smaller percantage of their population getting involved, I'ld say that's less work.
"To my knowledge Britain's "monarchy" is just symbolic, they have a full senate(or parliamentary) that makes the laws do they not?"
The British form of government is irrelevant, some U.S citizens claim we're soft for still having a monarchy when they rebelled against it hundreds of years ago.
"You've had a Boeing slam into a center of world commerce? Maybe you hear about it more because we launched the world's largest manhunt because of it. Carry on and live with it? Fuck that, we hunt the bastards down."
You hunt them down?, something which took you 10 years to do, and you immidiatly disposed of any evidence of doing it? sounds a bit fishy to me.
"Actually the leaders of Europe all had appearances on television either pledging their aid in finding those responsible or asking their country to pray. You must have not been hold enough to remember which might also explain your horrible understanding of WW2."
You haven't related of the previous statements to the actual debate, please refrain from diverting the topic we're arguing about.
"Sure it is, we know how to make some baddass movies."
Which is one of the main reasons why we get so many "baddass" youths.
"You are an idiot. One of the ideas the US was founded upon was the idea of neutrality(which has been forgotten apparently by everyone). We joined when we were attacked by Japan, and because Japan made the biggest mistake of WW2, the Allies won. "
Such a twisted american way of thinking, you join the war when we start to win, then claim the reason we're winning is that you joined.
"So you are degrading us because we took the greatest moment to obtain our freedom? Is that what they teach you to belief in Britain? "make money and expand the interests of your own country." sounds like what the British Empire did. Too bad you guys aren't good at keeping territories at all. I mean the US, Ireland, India, Africa, you guys are either the biggest dushbags on the planet or you really have no management skills. You don't see Puerto Rico complain about being a US territory, ever. "
When you've just fought 2 whole world wars against the largest empires the world has ever seen(excluding our own), it's very difficult to keep control of the world when you've invested all your money protecting your own, at least we're not sick enough to ditch our allies.
The only reason countries revolted agaionst us is that we enforced our religion onto them, Ghandi himself said the British Empire was a important force in the world, as did Hitler and many other world leaders.
"I've gone through your arguments on this debate and nothing is more obvious then the only one who needs to do research is you."
I'm one of the very few people who has actually got more information than the history you learn at school, you're clearly an imbecile.
""They"? I'm arguing with 1 person, and may I ask when i appeared in anyway to be an idiot"
I am referring to the other people debating with you, it seemed that gary and this other character were both going at you at the same time.
"America joined halfway through the war, with a smaller percantage of their population getting involved, I'ld say that's less work"
You are judging the work and effectiveness based on the amount of time fought? The most effective punch is one you only have to throw once.
"The British form of government is irrelevant, some U.S citizens claim we're soft for still having a monarchy when they rebelled against it hundreds of years ago."
No it's not irrelevant as it puts input of my understanding of the British form of government when it is implied by you that US citizens call you soft because of your form of government.
"You hunt them down?, something which took you 10 years to do, and you immidiatly disposed of any evidence of doing it? sounds a bit fishy to me"
And the killing of a certain royal family member is killed in a tunnel after she enters a relationship with a Saudi Arabian noble man sounds fishy to me.
"You haven't related of the previous statements to the actual debate, please refrain from diverting the topic we're arguing about."
Actually it was quite relevant, you said none of the rest of the world mourned, I corrected you. Please try to keep from attempting to remove air of relevancy from my arguments, you don't do well at it.
"Which is one of the main reasons why we get so many "baddass" youths."
Im sure your an expert on the subject of misbehavior in teens due to media. Sorry pal, research is still inconclusive on the subject and is still a hot topic with the people who figure pointless things out while ignoring the problems that actually need to be figured out.
"Such a twisted american way of thinking, you join the war when we start to win, then claim the reason we're winning is that you joined"
Such an arrogant British way of thinking. Give me a source that says that we take all the credit for WW2 that isn't from a universally accepted idiot. Never has anyone sane person I have met claimed that the US won WW2. The allies won WW2. The US, Britain, U.S.S.R, they are all responsible for WW2 being won and all made great contributions, whether it be in lives, products, or tactics. Do we act like we won it? Yes just like many Russian students I have met that believe that the Soviet Union won WW2. Pride is spreads like a disease didn't you know?
"When you've just fought 2 whole world wars against the largest empires the world has ever seen(excluding our own)"\
Your fault.
"it's very difficult to keep control of the world when you've invested all your money protecting your own, at least we're not sick enough to ditch our allies."
Really? You guys ditched the Native Americans(before you even try to dispute that I recommend you keep track at when Britain in america ends and the US begins)
"The only reason countries revolted agaionst us is that we enforced our religion onto them"
While religion was a big part, it wasn't the deciding part. The seperatists and such may have left due to religion, but the further department from British control was the fact that we made the product, and you made most of the money for it. Call it cutting out the middle man if you will. The american revolutionary war was fought for the money being made in america. not for religion.
"I'm one of the very few people who has actually got more information than the history you learn at school, you're clearly an imbecile"
I didn't learn my WW2 from school(or I did but I always hated learning such things in school) I learned from reading(not just US readings in case you suggest that). I am a little rusty in my WW2 now, I am an expert on the United States Civil War. You say that the US is biased in its teaching of the events of WW2? It is. Every country is biased in its representation of international events. Imbecile? I am not the one saying my country would have won WW2 without any of the allies help. You are.
"I am referring to the other people debating with you, it seemed that gary and this other character were both going at you at the same time."
Going at me? Gary is arguing the same point of view I am.
"You are judging the work and effectiveness based on the amount of time fought? The most effective punch is one you only have to throw once."
You clearly read only half the sentance, I origanally stated "America joined halfway through the war, with a smaller percantage of their population getting involved, I'ld say that's less work"
Now as you can clearly see I'm judging amount of work, by time spent and amount of effort inputed into the job.
"Really? You guys ditched the Native Americans(before you even try to dispute that I recommend you keep track at when Britain in america ends and the US begins)"
The Native americans didn't give birth to our empire.
"While religion was a big part, it wasn't the deciding part. The seperatists and such may have left due to religion, but the further department from British control was the fact that we made the product, and you made most of the money for it. Call it cutting out the middle man if you will. The american revolutionary war was fought for the money being made in america. not for religion. "
All we did was tax people, I will however admit that during those times, we had an insane Georgian King (from Germany might I add) who taxed everything ridiculously.
"I didn't learn my WW2 from school(or I did but I always hated learning such things in school) I learned from reading(not just US readings in case you suggest that). I am a little rusty in my WW2 now, I am an expert on the United States Civil War. You say that the US is biased in its teaching of the events of WW2? It is. Every country is biased in its representation of international events. Imbecile? I am not the one saying my country would have won WW2 without any of the allies help. You are."
The U.S wasn't Britains only ally.
"And the killing of a certain royal family member is killed in a tunnel after she enters a relationship with a Saudi Arabian noble man sounds fishy to me. "
You are sick, I'm banning you for this.
"Actually it was quite relevant, you said none of the rest of the world mourned, I corrected you. Please try to keep from attempting to remove air of relevancy from my arguments, you don't do well at it. "
Corrected me? You merely enforcement a claim using your own country's idealism.
"Such an arrogant British way of thinking. Give me a source that says that we take all the credit for WW2 that isn't from a universally accepted idiot. Never has anyone sane person I have met claimed that the US won WW2. The allies won WW2. The US, Britain, U.S.S.R, they are all responsible for WW2 being won and all made great contributions, whether it be in lives, products, or tactics. Do we act like we won it? Yes just like many Russian students I have met that believe that the Soviet Union won WW2. Pride is spreads like a disease didn't you know?"
I am not claiming that Britain was the sole conquerer of the Second world war, I'm stating that the U.S is taking to much credit for less involvement than the rest of the Allies.
"Your fault."
No, it's just that the U.S is a completely immoral and unethical nation, then they make themselves appear as the Good Samaritan.
"Going at me? Gary is arguing the same point of view I am"
I saw some early disputes of his and it seemed otherwise. Strange you give a shit about such a meaningless comment.
"You clearly read only half the sentance, I origanally stated "America joined halfway through the war, with a smaller percantage of their population getting involved, I'ld say that's less work""
Ah apologies. Still, the question is whether that apparently small percentage of time and people weren't needed by Britain to help win WW2. The answer is that they were most definitively needed.
"The Native americans didn't give birth to our empire"
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? They were still your ally when you first came to the americas. And you did some extreme ditching then.
"All we did was tax people, I will however admit that during those times, we had an insane Georgian King (from Germany might I add) who taxed everything ridiculously"
Taxes, money, precisely. Religion played a superbly small role in the actual declaration of independence. And what does the king being German have to do with anything? Germany throughout history has been just as influential as Britain has and they are doing MUCH better off economically then Britain right now despite going through 2 massive downfalls from both world wars.
"The U.S wasn't Britains only ally."
Which is why I pointed out "any" of the allies, they were all needed for the allied victory.
"You are sick, I'm banning you for this"
I hope you aren't serious, after you accuse the US of "crying" over a plane hitting a building and you are pissing over one life.
" Corrected me? You merely enforcement a claim using your own country's idealism"
Seeing the world leaders all go on TV to urge prayer and aid to the US is idealism? I never knew.
"I am not claiming that Britain was the sole conquerer of the Second world war, I'm stating that the U.S is taking to much credit for less involvement than the rest of the Allies."
Less involvement maybe but not less important and not less risky. And how is the US taking to much credit? Im sure Britain has the same attitude as does Russia when it comes to war pride. And btw what good does thinking us taking credit do? So what? The allies won, the axis lost. Happy day.
"No, it's just that the U.S is a completely immoral and unethical nation, then they make themselves appear as the Good Samaritan."
Immoral? No we are no different then the nations of Europe in that regard. Unethical? Based on what? Actions? You can't criticize the actions of the US without being prepared to criticize the action of Europe to an equal extent. You say we are bad for over extending our power over situations? How many thousands people have died because of Europe's ignorant need of "peace keeping"? Where was the peace in Rwanda? Huh? You may not like it but Britain and every other major Eurpean power are just as bad as the US. Im sick of this. Your claims to have a superior knowledge of WW2 are obviously false. Your beginning argument was based on idiotic logic and your defense to your arguments is nothing short of deplorable. I hope you do ban me, gives me a reason to stop dealing with your biased idiocy, which otherwise I will be forced to reply to prevent you from having the last word. You claim that I am the one under patriotic idealism, however I have not played the defensive US citizen here and have not presented any of my insight into my country's actions, therefor your accusation is meaningless. You keep arguing as if I was saying the US didn't need Britain, and I have said twice now(maybe more) that NONE of the allies could have defeated the axis without the aid of every ally that was involved.
Afraid of what?, I'm just bored of your arrogance and rudeness.
No your just bored of getting proved wrong.
Your country constantly claims that Britain is soft for having a monarchy.
You really know nothing about Americans.
several other countries(including Britain) has also has bombing attacks
Were any as destructive as 9/11? Nope.
but we manage to carry on and live with it.
So do we....
the world did not weep only the U.S and maybe a few others were sad about it, this is one reason why americans are so dumb to think that the whole world shares their opinions.
This has nothing to do with opinions. People died on 9/11 due to an act of terror. Nobody, at least nobody important, had an opinion that it was good.
The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is that american media has a lot of influence here.
The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is because they are not insane.
where was america at the beginning of both of them?
Where were we at the end?
you waited for the European colonial powers to beat each other to weakness and abuse that situation to make money and expand the interests of your own country.
The United States was the strongest country outside of Europe during the wars. We did not have to worry about being bombed. We were at the right place at the right time. Don't be paranoid. We did not plan it so we could come out on top.
That is only what they teach you in basic history, do some research and tyou might learn the truth.
You're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You're too stubborn to believe in the facts because your inherent hatred for America blinds you. Whether you want it or not, the entire world accepts my point of view and disregards yours. Some conspiracy doesn't make the world wrong, its the fact that they are rational thinkers. They can do something you cannot, weigh the facts on different sides appropriately. You should just know that if you continue to try to argue your point of view its a waste of time because nobody will believe you and nobody will have an reason to do so. As an American speaking to a Briton in terms of WWII, all I have to say is your welcome.
I can see what your being shown on your media, and the many patriotic americans I've met.
"Were any as destructive as 9/11? Nope."
As a percentage of your total buildings and land, yes.
"So do we...."
Not without constantly reminding the world "today's the anniversary of 9/11".
I doubt you can recall what date the bombings in London happened.
"This has nothing to do with opinions. People died on 9/11 due to an act of terror. Nobody, at least nobody important, had an opinion that it was good."
But many,many,many people just didn't care.
"The only reason why many Britons share their views with the U.S is because they are not insane."
Once again a very americanistic idea "if you don't think the U.S is the greatest, your insane"
"Where were we at the end?"
Taking all the credit
"The United States was the strongest country outside of Europe during the wars. We did not have to worry about being bombed. We were at the right place at the right time. Don't be paranoid. We did not plan it so we could come out on top."
Actually your president(FDR) hated the British empire, and seized the world wars as an oppotunity to watch it fall, you were not the worlds strongest country before WW1.
"You're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You're too stubborn to believe in the facts because your inherent hatred for America blinds you."
There is no conspiracy, how is the fact that america's help wasn't needed in WW2 a conspiracy? your mad you are.
"Whether you want it or not, the entire world accepts my point of view and disregards yours."
Another disgraceful americanisitc statment, I'm banning you now.
" Some conspiracy doesn't make the world wrong, its the fact that they are rational thinkers. They can do something you cannot, weigh the facts on different sides appropriately."
Once again, there's no conspiracy.
"You should just know that if you continue to try to argue your point of view its a waste of time because nobody will believe you and nobody will have an reason to do so. As an American speaking to a Briton in terms of WWII, all I have to say is your welcome."
You're pathetic, you haven't done the slightest bit of research into real WW2, choosing only to use the most basic history they teach you at school of the american side of things as a way of backing up your arguments.
You must be mental to think we just sat and cried because of the twin towers? Why do you think we pushed to war in Iraq, and the funny thing is Britain helped us, your mind tells you hate Americans but noone else gives two fucks what you think, get over it ,Britain doesn't sure as hell care, also if Americans never entered the war the outcome of casualties that Britain would have suffer, would be probably 2x as many deaths as it was, just stop crying that "America didn't need to be involved in the war" and Thank us, for Christ sake.
Thank you? thank you?! A majority of the stupid population that infests america holds the demented belief that USA was the sole reason that the allies won WWII, this debate is to correct that huge myth.
"1. You are still relying the geographical position of the United States to aid your war effort."
This has nothing to do with american aid in Europe, if america is fighting Japan in the Pacific that isn't going to destroy Hitler.
"2. Japan was already crossing much of Asia as it was."
But being halted by the British Empire's eastern colonies.
"3. Or more likely, Japan would have simply focused their attacks on British common wealths or British territories."
As it was already doing.
"4. Japan may have also focused their attacks on Russia. Having to fight both the Japanese and the Germans, would not bode well for the allies."
If Japan and Germany had both concentrated all their forces on the USSR, then it would have been easier for Britain to reconquer France (without the help of the U.S).
Either war, I orginally said that statement to prove that it would be completely illogical for Japan to be a greater threat to Britain when compared to Hitler.
Your first mistake; The Soviet Union and Japan waged battles in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland.
Actually, that was your second; had Japan taken over the Pacific, there was nothing stopping them from steaming to the Atlantic.
Envy of what power? The UK got its rear handed to them in the Pacific and the Germans soundly kicked you rear off the Continent at Dunkirk.
Had the UK not borrowed money, materials and machinery they would have starved. I've read letters from my in-laws relatives who were in England in the early 40s, and they were in dire straits.
You really think the UK, Canadians, ANZACs and the refugees from the conquered countries could have pulled off Salerno, let alone D-Day? You're dreaming if you think they could have. The Allies would have had their hands full battling the Germans in Africa. The men, money, machines and materials supplied by America turned the tide in Europe. Where was England going to get their raw materials from had they not received them from America? How were they going to transport them from where ever they found them back to England? How were they going to pay for them? And let's not forget the leadership. Who was going to lead the Allies? Monty?? Don't make me laugh. Ike threw him a bone and Monty gave us Market Garden. A total fubar. Now, let's talk post war. Who made it possible for Europe to rebuild? Who fed Europe? England was rationing food until the mid 50s, even WITH our help. And if it wasn't for the American military being on the Continent, you'd be speaking Russian, no ifs, ands or buts. So a simple "thank you" will suffice. You're welcome.
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.
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.
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.
i'm not sure if you'r saying the US helped or not but, Japan was the US own private war, and the US didn't do nothing really to help in Europe, and by cutting off the oil for Japan, led to the bombing of pearl harbor.
So tell me, what you did to aid the war in Europe except for killing a few Nazi's.
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.
" 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."
He would have still taken over the British state just as he did Austria. You still would have been, in every thinking of the word, conquered.
"He would have still taken over the British state just as he did Austria. You still would have been, in every thinking of the word, conquered."
Hitler didn't launch the same offensive against Britain than he did the Soviet Union, and that's probably because he wanted to eradicate the world of communists.
"Hitler didn't launch the same offensive against Britain than he did the Soviet Union"
That has nothing to do with it. Hitler would have taken over ALL areas he could and installed his government. Was Britain on his keep list? Yea but you would have been conquered in order for him to implement his plans.
"That has nothing to do with it. Hitler would have taken over ALL areas he could and installed his government. Was Britain on his keep list? Yea but you would have been conquered in order for him to implement his plans."
How was Britain on Hitler's "hit list" I could equally claim that the U.S would have fallen to Japan is we hadn't aided you with our battles in East Asia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"becuase you spent the first half of the war making profit from it.
"
We have a habit of profiting from war, just like the British have a habit have profiteering from the colonization in near tyrannical terms. Need I mention names?
You only started to win because the U.S. was sending; planes,trains and automobiles, not to mention plenty of young, eager men, that felt a loyalty, nay an obligation to defend what they inherently knew to be right. Without the U.S. everyone would be speaking German, that is the ones that survived. Hitler was crazy ambitious and if he wasn't crazy, things would be a whole lot different. I've never lost a game of Axis and Allies before, when you take America out of the game, hell never even contemplated it as its ludicrous!
"You only started to win because the U.S. was sending; planes,trains and automobiles, not to mention plenty of young, eager men, that felt a loyalty, "
We British won the Battle of Britain (halting Nazi Germany's advancement in Europe) and started to renconquer land before the U.S even joined the war.
"nay an obligation to defend what they inherently knew to be right"
It's strange how they didn't feel this obligation at the started of the war, before France was conquered.
"the U.S. everyone would be speaking German, that is the ones that survived."
You claim the whole world would be conquered by germans if the U.S hadn't joined the war? Balderdash.
"Hitler was crazy ambitious and if he wasn't crazy, things would be a whole lot different. I've never lost a game of Axis and Allies before, when you take America out of the game, hell never even contemplated it as its ludicrous!"
Your silly claims haven't the slightest bit of reason supporting them.
no we joined so our best friend wouldnt get their @$$ kicked by the nazis besides we also joined be cause of germany trying to get mexico to attack the united states
We didn't only join when the allies started to win... What happened was that in that time the american society had an Isolationist view. Which was basically "They did no wrong to us we do no wrong to them." In all honesty America wanted to stay out of the war until it was over if at all possible. Mind you the entire time we were providing support and aid to the Allied countries. But the only reason we didn't stay neutral was the Atrocity that occurred at Pearl Harbor.
We didn't only join when the allies started to win... What happened was that in that time the american society had an Isolationist view. Which was basically "They did no wrong to us we do no wrong to them." In all honesty America wanted to stay out of the war until it was over if at all possible. Mind you the entire time we were providing support and aid to the Allied countries. But the only reason we didn't stay neutral was the Atrocity that occurred at Pearl Harbor.
"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.
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...!
You were bigger than the US in a war with Germany and Japan that intended the harshest. The Great Britain was in need of France initially but after it's fall it required assistance. And also, The Great Britain fought this war with all the help from it's colonies. Sri Lanka, Malaya, Singapore, India and etc. And, the World war was won by the cluster of nations which assisted differently throughout.
Britain was in need of help. And, there is nothing wrong with that.
"You were bigger than the US in a war with Germany and Japan that intended the harshest. The Great Britain was in need of France initially but after it's fall it required assistance. And also, The Great Britain fought this war with all the help from it's colonies. Sri Lanka, Malaya, Singapore, India and etc. And, the World war was won by the cluster of nations which assisted differently throughout."
All you are doing is repeating what I originally said in a format that appears different.
"Britain was in need of help. And, there is nothing wrong with that."
And we got that help from the Soviet Union and our own Empire.
All you are doing is repeating what I originally said in a format that appears different.
That is only cuz it has two aspects. I was only implying that Britain was indeed in need of all that it was assisted. Things would be different if it wasn't the way things were. The results could also be adverse.
And we got that help from the Soviet Union and our own Empire.
You see... That is exactly what I was emphasizing on. It wasn't just The Britain. Hence, anything that was a part of the war process was essential.
"That is only cuz it has two aspects. I was only implying that Britain was indeed in need of all that it was assisted. Things would be different if it wasn't the way things were. The results could also be adverse."
How could they laso be adverse?
"You see... That is exactly what I was emphasizing on. It wasn't just The Britain. Hence, anything that was a part of the war process was essential."
! point I've constantly kept through this debate is that america should have joined at the start of the war, since they joined halfway through their help wasn't needed, sure Britain needed help to defeat the Axis but we already had that help.
Allies not winning the war. What I was trying to say is that anything differently happening could have led to a different result. And what I think is just an assumption of'course.
sure Britain needed help to defeat the Axis but we already had that help.
And you got some more. Like I said before, you will know the difference only if you knew what would have happened if America hadn't entered.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I was stating how you didn't help Britain in their time of need"
What did we owe you? You think Britain is a better ally to the US then the US is to Britain? Sadly you are wrong.Your lucky we helped at all, we were close to remaining neutral, you should thank Japan for screwing up.
"What did we owe you? You think Britain is a better ally to the US then the US is to Britain? Sadly you are wrong.Your lucky we helped at all, we were close to remaining neutral, you should thank Japan for screwing up."
You are one of the worst allies Britain has ever had, you've been hell-bent on destroying our empire and have led us into constant wars in the Middle East.
Japan's only screw up was founding their empire in the first place the bombing of Pearl Harbour was inevitable due to a chain of events your country caused.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I know thats why i included "but" instead of ""and"", i should have just stated that independently, i can understand the confusion.
You have to admit that although its not all about numbers they do still have a massive effect on the outcome.The victory in Stalingrad had alot to do with the sheer number of Russians sacrificed in order to recapture the city. 2 million people lost their lives in that battle alone, the Germans never recovered from the losses incurred in Stalingrad, the fact is Hitler would have had a much better chance of winning WW2 if he had just pulled out of Stalingrad earlier. Heres the wikipedia page it pretty much echoes my sentiments:
I'm not disputing that... but if we hadn't pushed back on our side, primarily in France, then who knows? The Soviet Union may have made a deal with the Nazis and just screwed us over and you didn't even mention Japan where the US was doing the majority of the fighting...
Regardless, I agree that the Soviet Union's contribution was more than just significant.
Regardless, I agree that the Soviet Union's contribution was more than just significant.
Thats not exactly what im proposing, i saying that they did a hell of lotmore to win the war than the US or Britain, and its my contention that the facts bear that out. The war was won and lost on the Eastern front. The soviets disseminated their own forces but in doing they dealt the Nazis a blow they would not and could not recover from. Again i refer you to the wikipedia page on the eastern front, and this time im going to quote from it e.g.
"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history"
"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat"
"It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
"Though never engaged in military action in the Eastern Front, the United Kingdom and the United States (during the later phases of the conflict) both provided substantial material aid to the Soviet Union"
Once again Gary, you'll do anything you can to find a dispute where one doesn't really exist. I'm not disagreeing with this. I only replied to you in the beginning because you made it sound like the number of people killed determined who wins a war... You have since clarified that.
I only wanted to add two things and that is that WWII wasn't just on the eastern front as you know. We pushed into France and Italy and if we hadn't, things would most likely be very different. And America did the majority of the fighting with Japan, if we hadn't then the Soviet Union would have had to move resources to their east coast and may not have been able to fight off both Japan and Germany. (And, yes, I know the Russians did some fighting with Japan but it was nothing compared to what we did)
Ok fair enough, i just thought you might be one of those people who thinks america won WW2, there are many who think this way and they dont necessarily have to be american, alot of people think it was the input of Britain and the US that defeated the Nazis but inreality WW2 was largely a victory for the the Soviets.
And who was bankrolling and supplying the Soviets to allow them their victories? If Hitler hadn't made the colossal blunder and invaded the USSR, America still would have been able to defeat Germany. After we defeated Japan, we'd have had a couple of million men, mostly Marines, and war machines doing nothing. All we needed England for was as a base of operations.
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.
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.
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;
The blunder I refer to rather is the decision to split his forces in three and invade Leningrad and Stalingrad, if Hitler had taken Moscow the Soviets would have been routed. furthermore Soviet troops entered Berlin first only due to an agreement between the Brits the USA and the Soviets that stated the Soviets should be allowed to do it due to their immense loss of life and sacrifice.
Im sorry ive debated WW2 with far too many people on this site, im really not going to get into that again, not least because its really really tiring, i debated american1776 on this topic, and in my opinion i destroyed him, it started on this debate and picked up here when he was banned:
WW II was much more than northern Europe. There was a little skirmish going on in the Pacific, which America took a\care of almost all by themselves.
Yes, the Soviets fought hard and sacrificed much in their battle with Germany, but they couldn't have done it without the US. There's more to winning wars than what happens at the front. The best fighting force in the world is nothing if they don't have the means of supplying that army. If the Soviets would have had to build transportation networks and the vehicles necessary to move those supplies, that would have taken a lot of manpower, time, materials and money away from their manufacturing of tanks, planes, etc. And where did they get their means of transportation? America. Oh, one more thing, the weather and the Germans lack of planning for it had as much to do with their defeat as anything the Soviets did.
"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.
"You only emerged greater because you only joined when we started to win."
You really aren't educated on WW2 are you? You don't seem to know the reason the US was in the war and you seem the think that you could have survived the onslaught by the Japanese had they decided to not provoke the US. You want your country to seem strong but the fact is US involvement and the struggle in the Soviet Union were the major contributors to the Axis retreat.
I'm sure that I haven't a degree in the "history" you're taught in america.
"You don't seem to know the reason the US was in the war and you seem the think that you could have survived the onslaught by the Japanese had they decided to not provoke the US. You want your country to seem strong but the fact is US involvement and the struggle in the Soviet Union were the major contributors to the Axis retreat."
1)the U.S was in the war because they were bombed by Japan.
2)it would have been completely illogical for Japan to sail around the world to attack a country that wasn't threatening them.
3)The British Empire was the largest empire in the world, though weakened after the burden of the first world war (which the U.S had little involvement in as well)
You want your country to seem as though the victory of the allys was down to you, well it wasn't and that's what this whole debate is about.
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.
"then the Britsh started to conquer back land in Africa and other places."
The turning point of WW2 was the Battle Of Stalingrad. If yo must have some shred of evidence from me then read the book "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor I believe. The battle of Stalingrad is regarded as the turning point for many reasons, one in particular being that it ruined the Nazi offensives in the Caucasus which had such event not taken place the war would have been much more expanded.
"The turning point of WW2 was the Battle Of Stalingrad. If yo must have some shred of evidence from me then read the book "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor I believe. The battle of Stalingrad is regarded as the turning point for many reasons, one in particular being that it ruined the Nazi offensives in the Caucasus which had such event not taken place the war would have been much more expanded."
You clearly don't understand the term "turning point", that means when they stop conquering land and we start to conquer it back. We won the Battle of Britain and started to reconquer land before you even joined the war.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"Gee maybe you'd also like for me to predict when WW3 will happen. Who the fuck knows!"
Then I could equally say that Germany, Japan and Italy would all have been destroyed by tsunamis, don't make up probablities and pretend they're facts.
"No it was the Battle of Stalingrad."
Any evidence of this?
"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."
"Then I could equally say that Germany, Japan and Italy would all have been destroyed by tsunamis, don't make up probablities and pretend they're facts."
I'm going to pretend that I didn't see you try to compare my probability and yours and think that the probability you presented makes the probability I presented unverifiable. You actually think that Britain would have won WW2 without the US? People have been put into asylums for far less.
"Any evidence of this?"
Yes, elsewhere in this debate I believe. I feel no need to re justify a fact accepted by every major nation in the world(I have talked to people from Russia, Germany, and even Norway that all acknowledge that Stalingrad is the accepted turning point of the war. The battle you keep referring to may have been Britain's turning point beginning their successful offensive, but Stalingrad was the big red one that officially put the axis on it's heels.
"This debate isn't about Russia."
I know I redirected your idiotic statement and made an actually factual one.
"I'm going to pretend that I didn't see you try to compare my probability and yours and think that the probability you presented makes the probability I presented unverifiable. You actually think that Britain would have won WW2 without the US? People have been put into asylums for far less. "
I was being sarcastic, and for you to claim that because I challenge the things we're taught makes me a lunatic, is very naive indeed.
"Yes, elsewhere in this debate I believe. I feel no need to re justify a fact accepted by every major nation in the world(I have talked to people from Russia, Germany, and even Norway that all acknowledge that Stalingrad is the accepted turning point of the war. The battle you keep referring to may have been Britain's turning point beginning their successful offensive, but Stalingrad was the big red one that officially put the axis on it's heels. "
As I've said to many of your fellow arguers, this debate isn't about the Allies it's about Britain.
"I know I redirected your idiotic statement and made an actually factual one."
I laugh at your attempts to elevate yourself above me with pathetic insults.
"I was being sarcastic, and for you to claim that because I challenge the things we're taught makes me a lunatic, is very naive indeed."
And I was being humorous. You honestly thought I gave your probability any actual ground on mine?
"As I've said to many of your fellow arguers, this debate isn't about the Allies it's about Britain."
You can't break it down like that because WW2 was not fought by just Britain. The topic is whether or not Britain would have won WW2 without the US. And the answer is no, if any of the major allies had been absent, the axis would have won.
"I laugh at your attempts to elevate yourself above me with pathetic insults"
Successes are not considered attempts here in the US, don't know how it works in Britain. An insult to your statement does not imply anything of your actual person, so I will rephrase your statement, I elevate myself above your logic on this subject, with great success.
"And I was being humorous. You honestly thought I gave your probability any actual ground on mine? "
Your right, it was a mizstake to assume that you're a rational thinker.
"You can't break it down like that because WW2 was not fought by just Britain. The topic is whether or not Britain would have won WW2 without the US. And the answer is no, if any of the major allies had been absent, the axis would have won. "
You need to actually get it into your head what WW2 actually was, the Pacific war played a minor part to the clashing of empires in Europe.
"Successes are not considered attempts here in the US, don't know how it works in Britain. An insult to your statement does not imply anything of your actual person, so I will rephrase your statement, I elevate myself above your logic on this subject, with great success."
Your logic is this: "this is what my governemtn tells me therefore it must be true", you've provided no sources in your arguments and have had little success as I'm still smashing your arguments. Stop acting as if you've won this debate(though that may be the way americans think).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
