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.
England are better than america at everything
england dont get any credit for anything its always america that get it and we get walked straight over and the americans are douchbags to thier citenzens because if u go in hospital for a couple of weeks youve got a bill of like 200,000 dollers to pay which can ruin lives, and to be honest Football is better than NfL only slightly tho.
Because the British Empire totally won both world wars all by themselves. I'd say conquering 1/4th of the world and creatign the most powerful military over 500 years and then being reduced to a nation the size of Michigan with a few islands that are essentially just resorts for fat tourists counts as losing something...
"Because the British Empire totally won both world wars all by themselves."
I didn't say we won all our wars by ourselves, you Americans just like to hop aboard the our side when you realise that we're winning.
Anyway, my point was that America has yet to win a war by itself.
"I'd say conquering 1/4th of the world and creatign the most powerful military over 500 years and then being reduced to a nation the size of Michigan with a few islands that are essentially just resorts for fat tourists counts as losing something..."
Well some countries had to bear the cost of fighting 2 World Wars, but then again you Americans wouldn't understand that...
I didn't say we won all our wars by ourselves, you Americans just like to hop aboard the our side when you realize that we're winning.
Anyway, my point was that America has yet to win a war by itself.
In WWI the war was at a stand still, we just broke that stand still. In WWII, it was not very clear who was going to win the war until 1943, until then, most leaders we would have to come to some sort of agreement with the Axis.
Well some countries had to bear the cost of fighting 2 World Wars, but then again you Americans wouldn't understand that...
The UK had a total of 450,900 deaths. The US had a total of 418,500. Now as I also remember, it was the US that bailed the UK out and supplied them with weaponry.
"In WWI the war was at a stand still, we just broke that stand still. In WWII, it was not very clear who was going to win the war until 1943, until then, most leaders we would have to come to some sort of agreement with the Axis."
After joining in 1917 (halfway through the war), the United States only partook in handful of battles, and weren't vital to their success either. Even before you joined the war we were already recapturing territories.
"The UK had a total of 450,900 deaths. The US had a total of 418,500. Now as I also remember,"
Now, if we look at those deaths in proportion to population, the UK had a significantly higher contribution and thus a significantly higher loss. Britain also suffered attempts at direct invasion and had lost a lot of infrastructure and industry to the war. As I said, you Americans cannot possibly compare your loss to ours.
"it was the US that bailed the UK out and supplied them with weaponry."
Which we've only just finished paying for, we were the ones who suffered the major cost of the war, you Americans saw to that.
After joining in 1917 (halfway through the war), the United States only partook in handful of battles, and weren't vital to their success either. Even before you joined the war we were already recapturing territories.
Yes, that is true, but it was a stale mate at that point. Both the Allies and Central Powers were stalling out and would have likely came to an armistice if America didn't come in and break the stale mate. I don't think they should have because Britain and France were very unfair to Germany in the treaty and planted the seeds for WWII.
Now, if we look at those deaths in proportion to population, the UK had a significantly higher contribution and thus a significantly higher loss. Britain also suffered attempts at direct invasion and had lost a lot of infrastructure and industry to the war. As I said, you Americans cannot possibly compare your loss to ours.
I never said that the US did all the work. But you have to remember, two things:
1. Before the US entered the war, America started a proxy war with the Axis and supplied the UK and USSR with funds and equipment.
2. It was you Europeans who were appeasing Hitler and waited till the last minute to try and stop him.
Which we've only just finished paying for, we were the ones who suffered the major cost of the war, you Americans saw to that.
What about China? What about all of the islands in the Pacific? You should read the book Rape of Nanking to see who really got it worse. These people got dissected while they were still living and had chemical and biological weapons tested on them. Camps like this were all over Japanese territory.
Americans are British. They just don't realize it. They think the same, they fuck the same. A lot of fucking shit in common. They're just not as good at being British as the British are. There are niggers and Jews in both countries, so both will ultimately fail. Fuck 'em. There's always Canada.
Please don't take Bloise's attitude, spelling and grammar to be typical of the British, he stands for everything that is bad in the UK at the moment, luckily his brand of racism and poor grasp of the language is in the minority and will hopefully stay they that way. Thinking all British people are like him would be like thinking all Americans have the same views as the KKK.
I know, I just found it hugely ironic how he is saying the British are " betterer" than the Americans, it sort of defeats the point.
And by the way, I am British and would rather live in Britain than America, I just had to say I am not a biased imbecile who will 'love my country, warts and all', the man was clearly an imbecile, and I was making it clear I thought so!
And again, by the way, I don't really stand for any country, my passport may be British, but I'm not one for all the patriotism..!
I don't have a problem with patriotism I'm English and proud of it and don't think there is anything wrong with that but patriotism and being proud of your country does not have to mean hatred, racism and separatism, I have no time for that shit and have fought against it for years.
Sir you misunderstood me. I am not saying patriotism leads to any of those things, I am simple stating that I am not at all a very patriotic person, but can pretend to be if it favours me in a debate :P
I'm sorry I did not mean to suggest you did, I was just saying that a lot of people do though, its probably the fault of the far right they seem to have hijacked the whole patriotism and flag thing
im actually a female not a male and im not racist i actually have alot of friends that are differents races and coulours so dont suggest that im racist i said i support ukiep and edl but edl actually only protest against muslims i dont agree with the way they carry out there extremisem but i agree with some of there beliefs
You told me you supported the EDL and the BNP, both of whom are racist if you don't realise that you need to look a little deeper into what they stand for. UKIP have their share of racist MP's so whilst not as far right as the BNP they are heading in that way.
If you don't want to be accused of racism then don't support racists and how is xenophobia better than racism.
thanks for your apology well you know i think we both have are opions on the edl and bnp i do support ukip and edl i don't really know much about bnp to be honest, I'm not a racist but I'm not completely against i think that some of there views are valid i mean there's a reason behind there beliefs earlier you touched upon the KKK the KKK just didn't like black people because they wasn't white thats the only reason to be honest if mps are starting to become racist how can you possibly ever stop racism i guest.
We have the best Call of Duty players in the world. Have you ever wondered why we dont have an olympic American Football team? It because our guys would terrorize and dominate.
Seeing as how I lived with one of the best for about 4 months, I'd have to bet on America if it ever came down to a Call of Duty tournament... nay, a video game tournament in general. I'm not sure whether I should be proud of that or not, but my inner geek doesn't give a fuck.
You only got 2 assists and lost? Dude you fucking suck ass. Nuketown 2025, went 26-6 on some asians in a party. They couldnt handle the Swarm. But dude if you lose and only get two assist you should practice offline. Because you truly suck balls. Whats your K/D like 0.50 or something? 0.75?
I know. I put "your" there on purpose. I put what you said. Seems like you have low literary skills too. Dont worry. Just go home and get an "English For Dummies" book and go practice playing Call of Duty.
You made the first ignorant comment. Then proceeded to claim that the Asians are better and you gave me zero evidence for you claims. Then started the insults. You are a complete idiot. An idiot beyond comparison. Call me what you want. I will go look up Joe if you pull your head out of your ass and chill the fuck out.
Whilst I am biased towards england because i'm an Englishman debates like this are stupid and pointless, yes England is better than America at some things America is better than others and its pointless comparing the two unless you are comparing things they both do for instance the quality of healthcare maybe better in America but I think the British system which gives healthcare to all not just those that can afford it is the better system.
Not necessarily. I like the NFL just fine thank you (even though Football is an incorrect term for it). A bill of $200,000 is like you getting cancer treatment for 10 years! Nobody charges that much for a visit. It is more expensive than other countries. But we have the best doctors, that's why people come to America to get surgery and treatment. America did kick Britain's butt twice, and saved them during WW2, so we've got that. We have a more powerful military. You guys do have Scotland, which is nice (but is going to end soon). We aren't all jerks. Depends on which state you go to, like Nebraska! Nebraska is awesome and has great people!
A bill of $200,000 is like you getting cancer treatment for 10 years! Nobody charges that much for a visit
Actually that figure would be for 20 days in a intensive care unit. You're sentiment is right though - only the extremely ill people can't afford the health care they need. The slightly ill that only need to get to their family doctor or something once a month will probably be able to afford it.
Course you did... wanna say when because I bet that isn't the case.
and saved them during WW2
America did not save the British. The USA did make contributed considerably to the war, but Russia and Britain did far more in the war. Also it would be unlikely that Germany would have invaded Britain considering we had the most powerful navy. We may not have gotten France back but I doubt Germany would have invaded Britain.
I don't agree with the question, but I don't think you were correct.
First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! Other than that we took loans from the Dutch and Spain. Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans.
I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German. Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel.
I don't actually agree with this debate, so I chose to clarify. You, however, do have some problems with your argument.
In the war of 1812, the Americans won about the same amount of battles Britain did. Also it was ended in a peace agreement, but not before the British entered and burnt Washington DC(specifically, the white house). Also the British were at the same time, at war with napoleon.
As for World War 2, The USA would have fell if it wasn't for the United Kingdom; likewise the United kingdom would have fell if it wasn't for the USA.
If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen. Canada, the US, and maybe Mexico, would have united their forces to defend North America. Japan and Germany would have never been able to get troops across the Atlantic and even if they somehow did, the North American military plus the hundreds of millions of armed citizenry would have beat back any invasion with ease.
"If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen. Canada, the US, and maybe Mexico, would have united their forces to defend North America. "
Sorry, you're suggesting that British Canada and Nazi-influenced Mexico would have immediately sided with the USA if Britain had fallen in WWII?
"Japan and Germany would have never been able to get troops across the Atlantic and even if they somehow did,"
Boats?
"the North American military plus the hundreds of millions of armed citizenry would have beat back any invasion with ease."
That's only if Germany and Japan had attacked instantly, if they had waited a few months and built up their resources then that USA would be facing a war with the whole of Europe and East Asia, not including the British colonies,
Canada would have had no choice. Germany would have made them a target since Canada would still be at war with them, Mexico is iffy, but that's why I said maybe.
Yes, you can cross the Atlantic with boats. But, Germany didn't have a super large navy compared to Japan, and I don't think they had aircraft carriers either. America would be able to just bomb them to oblivion. No German air support, no invasion.
If the Axis had waited, they still wouldn't have been able to. Germany wouldn't have recruited a large amount of soldiers in their occupied territories because having a whole bunch of ticked and angry soldiers would not make a good army. They could field an army of maybe several million. Plus Japan's couple million, against a several million manned army and 200 million plus armed citizenry. Pretty good odds for America.
"Canada would have had no choice. Germany would have made them a target since Canada would still be at war with them, Mexico is iffy, but that's why I said maybe."
I still fail to see how you can claim that the USA and Canada could have defeated the Japanese and German forces "with ease".
"Yes, you can cross the Atlantic with boats. But, Germany didn't have a super large navy compared to Japan, and I don't think they had aircraft carriers either. America would be able to just bomb them to oblivion. No German air support, no invasion."
They seemed to pass by your naval escorts with their U-boats quite easily.
"No German air support, no invasion."
Why would Germany not have any air support?
"If the Axis had waited, they still wouldn't have been able to. Germany wouldn't have recruited a large amount of soldiers in their occupied territories because having a whole bunch of ticked and angry soldiers would not make a good army"
I think you'll find that Hitler and the Nazi's had a way of persuading people to fight for their cause even if they didn't believe in it.
"They could field an army of maybe several million. Plus Japan's couple million, against a several million manned army and 200 million plus armed citizenry. Pretty good odds for America."
You're literally making up statistics on the spot and using these fantasy facts to support your argument.
If the British Empire had fallen then there would be a huge amount of resources at the Axis' disposal, Ports in East Asia, Middle East with all its oil (etc.)
I think they could do it with ease because North America is far away from both Europe and Asia (plus Hawaii for that matter). The supply line for an invasion force would need to rely on the navy, which in the pacific and Atlantic is spread very thin. It can easily be broken, therefore cutting off any invasion force that landed. The Americans/Canadians would have a numerical and technological advantage as well as being on home terf on the defensive. The Axis would have never been able to occupy North America.
Naval escorts are a different matter compared to a full-on armada.
Germany wouldn't have any air support because they wouldn't have land based aircraft in range and they didn't have aircraft carriers.
Yeah, I see a whole bunch of Frenchmen and Britons jumping at the chance to join the Nazis and fight America.
I'm not making up numbers. Based on WW2 figures I am making guesses of what could face America. The population of America plus Canada was about 180,000,000 people. The combined armies would entail about 4 million Americans in 1942 and 2.5 million Canadian soldiers. However, by 1945 those numbers went up to 15 million trained soldiers. This shows how much America and Canada could muster up.
The Japanese had about 1.5 million soldiers in 1941 and 5.5 million in 1945. Germany had 15 million soldiers during WW2.
Now comes the technical aspects. Assuming Germany occupied all of Europe, including Britain and Russia, it would need an occupational force. The same goes for Japan in Asia. This takes away from the invasion forces, thus bringing the numbers down. However, I could see the Axis fielding around 12 million men to take on America (though I dont know how they would be able to get them there). Germany would need a very large navy to be able to invade America. In 1942 Germany didn't have a large enough navy to transport several million troops ocross the Atlantic. They could count on the French navy for help, but not Britain. I would have guessed that the British navy would have sunk their ships before capture or sailed them to America or their colonies in Africa and the Carribean. America and Canada had around 1400 naval war ships in 1942. Plus America would have probably wooed the British navy into helping them.
The supply lines for the Axis would have been stretched very thin (as stated before). This leaves them weak. The Ocean has been America's greatest ally for preventing invasions. It wouldn't let them down.
North America also has a rich amount of resources, like oil, coal, minerals, and food producing areas. This makes their supply lines shorter and easier to handle.
From these figures I can see no success for an Axis invasion of North America.
A few arguments ago you said "If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen.".
Now it appears that you're arguing 'If the UK fell, but gave the majority of their resources, colonies and armaments, while joining the French in actively fighting against the Nazis, the US wouldn't have fallen."
I'm kind of going for both. I would say that the US would survive if Great Britain was totally annihilated, but if they weren't their help would be nice.
How on Earth could the USA have survived on its own if Britain had fallen?
If Britain had fallen, Germany would have been able to concentrate all their forces on their Russian invasion, allowing them to successfully invade before the winter had occurred, ultimately giving them Western Russia, the Balkans and several other eastern European nations. Japan would probably gain East Russia and a few more countries over there. After the British and French had fallen Italy would probably have gone to sweep up most of the colonies and territories in North Africa and the Middle East, obtain vital resources such as oil.
Now let's suppose that these 3 empires decided not to invade North America at this point (though they had good reason to), USA would still have a huge problem in that they have hardly any trading partners and that they've lent out huge sums of money to the French and British which they now wont get back, the reason America got out of the Great Depression was because they were able to develop their industry and the government could hire lots of unemployed people when they joined the Second World War, if Britain had fallen the USA would still be in a depression.
Overall, even if the US weren't crushed through military invasion, they would still be destroyed economically.
The USA would. Have you read how the USA struggled when they first entered the war? If Britian fell, the USA would not only be vunerable agaisnt a Japanese invasion, but also a German invasion. Both the USA and Britian were very fortunete when Hitler invaded Russia. If he had invaded later, he would have crushed Russia. However, he didn't crush Britain first. Britain prevented the Germany from getting too powerfull. The USA weren't as powerfull in World War 2 as it was said.
No, the USA wasn't, that's true. However, Germany wouldn't have been able to invade North America because their navy would have had to traverse the entire Atlantic, without much air support (unless they built some carriers), but the air forces of America would be able to knock them out. Once a force set sail, America would have known they were coming, and at the beginning of the war America was already starting to conscript troops, so they would already have a large army. Plus the 200 million armed citizenry. Yamamoto didn't want to invade the US because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Same reason Germany didn't invade Switzerland immediately, it would cost too much. It would be just like Russia, but with more people in their way.
When the USA first joined, their navy, air force, and army was smaller than the Japanese, and German air force. It would have been too much for the USA. The USA wasn't actually as strong as it was said at the start of the war. Also, Why would the German navy need to move around the Atlantic? We are assuming Britain was conquered. If they had control of Britain, they would have control of it's air bases and naval bases. They would have all of Britain resources. All they would have to do is invade the USA from Britain.
The Japanese wouldn't need to worry about invading the USA, if the Germans invaded as well!
When they first started, yes. But you can see how fast and how much they produced in such a short amount of time when they did enter the war.
If they invaded the USA from Britain, they would probably have to do it from the Atlantic. Britain is an island, surrounded by the Atlantic. They have an ocean to cross. They wouldn't be able to have land based air support, because they have to cross an ocean.
America only had their chance to become strong, because of the UK. Germany was very strong(stronger than the USA). Why did you defeat Germany? Because the Germans were against the Russians, the British, and the Americans. Not because of America's power. America has never had a army of 3 million invade anywhere, Germany has. In fact, it was Russia who won the battle that destroyed Germany, not the USA.
If the British empire surrendered, then Canada would. The Germans could also cross through Iceland and Greenland(they were actually fighting the British there).
Even if Canada didn't surrender, they would fall very soon. Too soon for America.
The United Kingdom survived the war in 1940. The USA joined the war 1941, and they were already struggling.
Now, your country may be the most powerful country in the world right now, but it wasn't then. Why do you dismiss all the other countries in the war, and say it was won because of your country?
I said that if America had no part in supporting Britain and Russia, I thought that they would have fallen, I'm not saying it is guaranteed. America was weak in the military sense compared to Germany, but America was superior in material wealth and goods. America had more factories, mines, land for food, and financial wealth. America used this to her advantage by helping out Britain and Russia. Then she later committed troops. Plus Hitler never listened to his Generals, so that helped out the allies a lot.
I know Russia took the most beating from Germany. Really 75% of the war was fought there. They took over 22 million casualties. And you are right, because Germany was facing against 3 World powers it was defeated. However, The reason Germany had an army of 3 million to invade is because, well, Russia was right next door. They were neighbors. America had the Pacific and Atlantic to cross to get anywhere. That usually prevents a lot of invasions. And if America was ever threatened with invasion, they would use that to their advantage. Truthfully, I could never see Britain just surrendering after London falls. They would just high-tail-it to Canada, India, or South Africa and continue fighting. And Canada would have no reason to just give up. They haven't been invaded, or attacked, or lost that many men. If Germany did invade via Greenland, it would be like Russia all over again. Harsh winters, icy terrain (all year round), fighting in a foreign land. Guerrillas. Both the Canadian and American army facing them with more advanced and better weapons than the Russians (except tank wise, the Russians sure knew tanks). Thin and long supply lines. Really, I can't see it. If they did do it, they would have failed.
I said that if America had no part in supporting Britain and Russia, I thought that they would have fallen, I'm not saying it is guaranteed.
If there wasn't any country to supourt, the USA would have fallen too.
America was weak in the military sense compared to Germany, but America was superior in material wealth and goods.
Germany had almost all Europe to itself, that is a lot of resources.
Plus Hitler never listened to his Generals, so that helped out the allies a lot.
If Britian wasn't there, he would have focased completly on Russia.
I know Russia took the most beating from Germany. Really 75% of the war was fought there. They took over 22 million casualties. And you are right, because Germany was facing against 3 World powers it was defeated. However, The reason Germany had an army of 3 million to invade is because, well, Russia was right next door. They were neighbors
That wasn't the only reason. Germany had been employing troops for the army before other countries were.
America had the Pacific and Atlantic to cross to get anywhere. That usually prevents a lot of invasions. And if America was ever threatened with invasion, they would use that to their advantage.
The USA was never actually invaded(aceapt from it's earliest wars, but these countries had soldiors nearby the USA). One of the reasons Hitler didn't invade America, is because Britian was between them both. Germany, along with Japan, would have quite easilly invaded together, both were stronger than the USA, espicially Germany.
Truthfully, I could never see Britain just surrendering after London falls. They would just high-tail-it to Canada, India, or South Africa and continue fighting. And Canada would have no reason to just give up. They haven't been invaded, or attacked, or lost that many men. If Germany did invade via Greenland, it would be like Russia all over again. Harsh winters, icy terrain (all year round), fighting in a foreign land. Guerrillas. Both the Canadian and American army facing them with more advanced and better weapons than the Russians (except tank wise, the Russians sure knew tanks). Thin and long supply lines. Really, I can't see it. If they did do it, they would have failed.
They would move further up Britian, and be conquered in a few weeks just like France. Greenland and Iceland wouldn't have been like Russia. The harsh winter was a factor of Russia victory. However, another fact was it's strengh. Iceland and Greenland were weak.
There were secret orginisations in Europe, but no gurillas's armies.
America's millitary was no where near Germany's.
Now, as for thin and strong suply lines, remember the U-boats? Also they could just take a lott of suply's with them for a quick invasion of Greenland and Iceland.
Now, you must understand my arguement. No doubt was the USA and Russia a major factor, however I am argueing that the United Kingdom was as well
If there wasn't any country to supourt, the USA would have fallen too.
If they weren't any countries to support, that would mean more supplies for the USA to use.
Germany had almost all Europe to itself, that is a lot of resources.
North America still has a lot more.
If Britian wasn't there, he would have focased completly on Russia.
That's true. And probably could have taken Moscow for that matter.
One of the reasons Hitler didn't invade America, is because Britian was between them both. Germany, along with Japan, would have quite easilly invaded together, both were stronger than the USA, especially Germany.
And I'm saying that they couldn't do it because of the distance between Japan and Europe from America. They wouldn't have been able to support the manpower needed for invasion, plus America was the same militarily of both countries combined in 1945. Naval power and supplies would be stretched thin, and the USA has numerical and technological advantage.
However, another fact was it's strengh. Iceland and Greenland were weak.
Yes, but Canada and the US wouldn't just let them waltz on over via Greenland. They would halt them either in Greenland or in Northern Canada. Use the terrain to their advantage like Russia did.
America's millitary was no where near Germany's.
I beg to differ. By 1945, America had the same number of men that Germany had at its peak, vastly bigger navy and Air Force, plus better technology in certain areas.
Now, as for thin and strong suply lines, remember the U-boats? Also they could just take a lott of suply's with them for a quick invasion of Greenland and Iceland.
You should know this better than anyone that U-Boats did squat in trying to besiege and starve Britain during both World Wars while keeping Germany's open. America's coast line is way bigger than Britain's, plus America's larger navy, would make that impossible.
Now, you must understand my arguement. No doubt was the USA and Russia a major factor, however I am argueing that the United Kingdom was as well
They were during WW2, they were a part of the Big Three. But if things went they way we are discussing, Britain would have put up a good fight, but eventually been steamrolled.
If they weren't any countries to support, that would mean more supplies for the USA to use.
It would mean that USA would be alone, and conquered.
North America still has a lot more.
We are talking about the USA, not north America. Anyway, if Britain fell(1940), America(1941) would follow. They wouldn't get enough time, they would fall too
soon.
And I'm saying that they couldn't do it because of the distance between Japan and Europe from America. They wouldn't have been able to support the manpower needed for invasion, plus America was the same militarily of both countries combined in 1945. Naval power and supplies would be stretched thin, and the USA has numerical and technological advantage.
In 1941, the USA was struggling against Japan. How much worse would it be if they were fighting Germany too. And also, when America joined, they had a small navy, air force, and army. Also, do you remember the German spring offensive? The Germans would have taken Canada quicker than they did then. And America wouldn't be there at the time(Britain would have fell half-way through 1940, and Iceland, Greenland, and Canada would follow soon that year, America joined 1941).
Yes, but Canada and the US wouldn't just let them waltz on over via Greenland. They would halt them either in Greenland or in Northern Canada. Use the terrain to their advantage like Russia did.
The USA wouldn't have been in the war then, so Canada would be alone.
I beg to differ. By 1945, America had the same number of men that Germany had at its peak, vastly bigger navy and Air Force, plus better technology in certain areas.
This 1945, Britain had survived, and America had enough time, and Germany was in a bad position, against all three big nations, even then they weren't easy to conquer. The time we are talking about is 1940-1942. Germany was stronger then.
You should know this better than anyone that U-Boats did squat in trying to besiege and starve Britain during both World Wars while keeping Germany's open. America's coast line is way bigger than Britain's, plus America's larger navy, would make that impossible.
Britain was a protection for America, if Britain had fallen, then America would suffer from the U-boats. Also, the German Navy was actually very strong(1941).
They were during WW2, they were a part of the Big Three. But if things went they way we are discussing, Britain would have put up a good fight, but eventually been steamrolled.
And America would follow, the reason why World War 2 was won, was because of many major factors. I am not denying America was important, mt point is that without Britain, or Russia, or USA, the war would have been lost.
I disagree, Germany and Japan, were, when USA joined stronger than America. If America didn't have Britian too supourt them in 1941, they also would have fell.
But America showed how fast they could mobilize their forces and factories toward the war effort. They could easily defend and turn an invasion. Germany and Japan never had that much power to do it that fast. They had to take around a decade. America did it in less than two years.
I've actually decided to clarify instead now because as someone else has also said I don't agree with this debate.
First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! Other than that we took loans from the Dutch and Spain.
When you say in the battles it seems as if you are insinuating that America won every battle, which isn't true.
The Spanish attacked other areas of the empire as well as the french. The dutch as far as I know only loaned money and gave supplies, as you said.
Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans.
I will like to point out, you may already know that the United states declared war, and the treaty of Ghent meant the conditions at the beginning of the war were kept. I don't see how you can claim any sort of victory in the war. Also during the war Britain had actually gained land, which was returned in the treaty. You name two battles, when there were plenty in the war that you lost as well.
I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German.Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel.
Russia may have have eventually have defeated Germany anyway, but anyway I don't think that Germany would have invaded Britain. I'm not sure that we would have pushed them back through France without the Americans help though.
Also without America's help the other allies would have sustained far more damage, but I do think considering we are an island, they would not have been able to invade us like they did France or anyone else, I think our navy would have been enough to at least stop an invasion, if the Germans even attempted one.
I will add I am not belittling the importance of America in ww2, they were an important ally in the war. The war would have probably been lost or taken far longer without the Americans, however I don't think it is likely that Hitler would have attempted to take Britain. Bombed the hell out of us yes, but they'd have to take the channel first and that would have been a task.
I know America didn't win every battle, but the British forces suffered many defeats that prevented them from taking over the entire colony. Saratoga, Washington's Christmas attack, the Carolina campaign, and Yorktown were won with American troops in the lead. Spain really didn't do much. They just annoyed Britain.
The same applies for the War of 1812. Though the Candadian invasion was botched up, most of the land battles were claimed by the Americans. Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power for America, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed.
Okay, onto WW2.
Your navy may have been able to stop a NAVAL invasion, but not necessarily an air one. Granted, invading Russia was an error on Germany's part because it focused attention away from Britain. If Germany never invaded Russia, they would have eventually come knocking on the Queen's door. They would have been able to take Britain over by air if they really committed the resources to it. Plus, Goering was being a hard-ass and not thinking like a soldier. But because of Russia and Germany dragging America into the war (and Goering's stupidity), Britain still speaks the Queen's English.
"I know America didn't win every battle, but the British forces suffered many defeats that prevented them from taking over the entire colony. Saratoga, Washington's Christmas attack, the Carolina campaign, and Yorktown were won with American troops in the lead. Spain really didn't do much. They just annoyed Britain."
If you're saying that Spain "annoyed" Britain, then you might as well just say that the American colonies were 'annoying' Britain. You cannot deny that if the American rebels didn't have support from other nations that they couldn't have won the war.
"The same applies for the War of 1812. Though the Candadian invasion was botched up, most of the land battles were claimed by the Americans. Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power for America, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed."
Britain immediately stopped caring about the War of 1812, because they then went on to defeat Napoleon at Trafalgar.
"Your navy may have been able to stop a NAVAL invasion, but not necessarily an air one. "
We did stop an air invasion...
"Granted, invading Russia was an error on Germany's part because it focused attention away from Britain. If Germany never invaded Russia, they would have eventually come knocking on the Queen's door. "
The invasion of Russia is not the variable we are discussing, its whether WWII could have been won without American support. Of course, if Hitler hadn't hated communism, hadn't invaded Russia and decided to invade Great Britain (a country he admired) then maybe he would have succeeded. Likewise, if France or Britain had decided to attack Germany when they aggressively militarised the Rhineland, WWII would never have happened.
"They would have been able to take Britain over by air if they really committed the resources to it. "
As I said previously, Battle of Britain.
"Plus, Goering was being a hard-ass and not thinking like a soldier."
Neither was Hitler.
" But because of Russia and Germany dragging America into the war (and Goering's stupidity), Britain still speaks the Queen's English."
What? How can you claim that Britain could only have been lost to Germany if Hitler hadn't decided to invade Russia, and then claim that Britain's success in repelling invasion was down to America (who only joined after Britain had defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain).
The argument was what would happen if America didnt support anyone in WW2. I seriously believe if we hadn't given Britain planes, money, and supplies they would have lost. One of the main factors that helped you win the Battle of Britain was American financial and military support (plus some pilots).
"First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! "
Actually, the French gave you everything, money, arms, uniforms, ammunition, etc. The Spanish and Dutch gave you naval support.
" Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans."
We were busy fighting Napoleon, then when we did bother to fight you were burned down your capital. Also, the main reason you declared war was to try conquer Canada (which you couldn't do) I fail to see how you can conclude it as an American victory.
"I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German. Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel."
Which war are you talking about, in WWI, American assistance wasn't vital to winning the war and you only joined in when we started to win. In WWII, even when you weren't supporting us the Germans still failed to invade Britain in the Battle of Britain.
Also, you're just randomly speculating. Nazi Germany had very little military power which was also spread thin across the whole of Europe. Thanks to British secret operations, we managed to trick the Nazis into thinking we were attacking in random places, and we also had the gigantic USSR on our side, who successfully defeated the Nazi's on their own front.
Both did. Eisenhower with Montgomery and Morgan. It was a British plan, used with American experience in landings in the Pacific, Africa, and Italy. Duel credit is due.
"Both did. Eisenhower with Montgomery and Morgan. It was a British plan, used with American experience in landings in the Pacific, Africa, and Italy. Duel credit is due."
America failed miserably on D-Day, their generals launched the amphibious tanks too early (in a clear defiance of British orders) causing the majority of them to sink. Then the American airstrike missed the German defences on the beach by 3 miles.
If you compare casualties,
the American 'Omaha Beach' lost 3,000 soldiers; whereas the British/French 'Sword Beach' lost under 700 soldiers; the Canadian 'Juno Beach' lost under 400, British 'Gold Beach' lost 400 soldiers and the British/American 'Utah Beach' lost only 200 soldiers (though there were fewer German defences there).
Failed miserably? It wasn't because they launched early. The terrain on Omaha had more cliffs and rocky terrain than the other landings where they had a nice beachfront to lounge on. There also were more defenses on Omaha, it actually went better than expected. The commanders thought they would lose way more troops than they did, so it was actually a major success.
I only have a couple of things to disagree on the first is which two times did America kick Britain's butt, if your referring to the American Revolution you only managed that with the help of France and Spain, the revolution would have failed if it was America on their own against Britain. Secondly America may have a bigger military and bigger military spending but the training techniques are British and there has been at least one US marine that has said that you can keep Spetsnaz, Seals and all other countries Special Forces as he'd rather have a British squaddie having his back in a warzone because they just don't give up in his own words when the going gets tough a British squaddie just lights up his cigarette and says "come on you Wanker we've got a job to do"
The Revolution we won the land battles and France helped us out with her navy. Spain, didn't really do much in the way of support other than give us some money and a pat on the back.
The second time we did it during the War of 1812. We won a lot of ocean battles as well as battles on the Great Lakes, New Orleans, and "Old Ironsides". We got what we wanted from it and Britain lost a few thousand soldiers and sailors and their pride.
The training wasn't all British. Most armies worldwide (especially special forces) derive their training from American, British, Russian, German, and Israeli tactics. They combine all of them, it's an international deal.
In the war of 1812, the USA didn't get what you wanted from it. They wanted Either a part of Canada, or all of it; however, they didn't get it. Instead, Washington DC was burnt.
We didn't initially want Canada. Our primary reason was because of the illegal impressment of American sailors in the British navy and the damage of trade the UK caused. We achieved that by defeating the British navies in various battles (hence Old Ironsides, Don't Give Up The Ship) as well as land battles (New Orleans, Tippacanoe, Boston). Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed.
The Amemricans didn't benifit from it at all, the USA was defeated just as many times as Britian was. Also Britian was busy fighting Napoleon anyway. If the British weren't at war with france, I am sure they would have Defeated the USA.
The USA may have got their trade, but in exchange, their capital was burnt. In the end it ended with a peace agreement.
The capital burning wasn't a huge defeat. We just rebuilt it (now look at it). And I told you how we benefited from it. It was more of a success than you think.
It's really not America's fault that they all chose to side against the British. Except I think the French were waiting to see who might come out on top before they lent their aid, to be fair.
I'm not a huge history buff, but for at least part of the war we were on our own, and we did quite well all things considered. But of course, you're probably using the British schoolbooks, which tend to be biased against the Revolutionary War.
I cannot even remember learning much if anything about the revolutionary war at school. We would do ww1 and 2, the Napoleonic wars and the British civil war if any. I didn't take history far at all at school, so they may have learnt that, but I am not sure.
Around two years at most America was on their own, I wasn't denying this. The person who used the revolutionary war used it as an example of America being better than Britain (I'm taking England in this debate to mean Britain). I just pointed out that they had the french, Spanish and Dutch on their side. So it isn't a good example.
However I don't agree with the debate, because there are things at which America are better and there are others at which Britain is better.
I wouldn't neccarilly say this. The UK is a safer place to live in, but the USA is much more powerful; for example, GDP of the UK is 2 trillion, USA is 15 trillion.
America is better at American Football (obviously).
England is better at not having weapons.
America is better at using weaponry.
England sucks at invading countries these days (LOL).
America is the world police these days (LOL).
So no, actually. America would be "better" at some things than England, but I must say England is probably better at voter turnout rates, less crime over there I imagine, perhaps better education for the younger chaps, healthcare, who knows.
WE TWERK BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
The correct spelling and grammer would be as follows: "England is better than America at everything." (Give or take a few grammar rules, but in this form it's at least tolerable).
And now for your next lesson. Repeat after me: The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
just to clarify my friend actually posted this debate i did not know also i dont agree with him anyway i think there both equally good just england has some good points and bad points vise versa.
