First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
America
Posted 5/22/10
God this forum is a pile of shit.

America is a garroted wasteland. There, I said it.

With that, I might never post here again. Unless someone want to challenge my views of the United States.

Tah-tah!
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/22/10
FDR’s policies where self destructive to this nation, and Obama is building on them buy now pay latter has never worked well. If WW2 did not happened the depression would have gone longer. If it was not the gold being sent to us from Britain to pay for materials they needed. Most of the government works projects as big as they where helped a handful of people. Wage freeze set by the government put companies to offer health insurance and even housing to get employees way from other companies. Something most people do, not know how health insurance even became part of today economy. Most people think they are entitled to cheap or no coast health care, it which is wrong. If the FDR would have let the privet sector do its job pay would have gone up but the entitlement mentality would not exist. Buy now pay later from any intuitions is silly Government, corporations, unions. If people do not have to shoulder their own responsibility and can say (NOT MY JOB) nothing learned. This one thing on FRD would take its own topic. If WW2 did not happen FDR would have never seen third term. This is 20/20 hind sight of course. Russia went on a land grab, after the war (you) may have heard of it the SOVIT UNION once Germany was defeated and we did not use the bomb. Russia would expand as far as they could go. There factories were putting out better tanks and more of them at the end of the war. The tension between allies and Russians was intense at best. The lend lease act also include china as well did the Russian ever honor their end? You did make some point but way off the mark? Do think the people of, Poland, East Germany, and so forth, wanted to be enslaved through communism. Think it through, and if the Russians went towards Japan how much of Asia would have become there states. I do agree that FRD used Pearl Harbor to go into in Europe. I will have to check on when Japan singed in with Germany and Italy on paper, before or after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Wise Wizard
99871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/23/10 , edited 5/23/10

tarakelly wrote:
Think it through, and if the Russians went towards Japan how much of Asia would have become there states. I do agree that FRD used Pearl Harbor to go into in Europe. I will have to check on when Japan singed in with Germany and Italy on paper, before or after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If we had not used the 2 atomic bombs, and instead had to proceeded with the invasion of Japan, there is a high probability Russia would have invaded Japan from the north, and the world would have almost certainly ended up with a North Japan and South Japan, as happened with Korea, with the possibility of a subsequent war in that area.

Regarding Pearl Harbor and our entry in the war in Europe, actually, we did not need an excuse. Germany declared war against the United States on December 11, 1941. At that point, we had not declared war against them.

In verifying the date was correct (I thought it was 2 days after our declaration of war against Japan, but it turned out to be 3), I also found out that apparently Italy declared war against us, as well, probably just following Germany's lead.

As to why Germany would declare war against the U.S., it is speculated that Hitler was hoping this would lead to Japan in return declaring war against the Soviet Union. Of course, that didn't happen. Japan wisely decided they had enough on their hands with the United States.

I expect we would have eventually declared war against Germany and Italy, but how soon? I also expect it wouldn't have been the quick nearly unanimous vote received for the declaration of war against Japan.

Yes, for those reading this who don't know, the vote to go to war with Japan was not unanimous. There was one person in the House of Representatives that voted against it. Although I easily recalled this, I could not recall who it was. For those who are curious, here is a bit of info about it:
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/one-vote-against-war-japan.html

1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


tarakelly wrote:
Think it through, and if the Russians went towards Japan how much of Asia would have become there states. I do agree that FRD used Pearl Harbor to go into in Europe. I will have to check on when Japan singed in with Germany and Italy on paper, before or after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If we had not used the 2 atomic bombs, and instead had to proceeded with the invasion of Japan, there is a high probability Russia would have invaded Japan from the north, and the world would have almost certainly ended up with a North Japan and South Japan, as happened with Korea, with the possibility of a subsequent war in that area.

Regarding Pearl Harbor and our entry in the war in Europe, actually, we did not need an excuse. Germany declared war against the United States on December 11, 1941. At that point, we had not declared war against them.

In verifying the date was correct (I thought it was 2 days after our declaration of war against Japan, but it turned out to be 3), I also found out that apparently Italy declared war against us, as well, probably just following Germany's lead.

As to why Germany would declare war against the U.S., it is speculated that Hitler was hoping this would lead to Japan in return declaring war against the Soviet Union. Of course, that didn't happen. Japan wisely decided they had enough on their hands with the United States.

I expect we would have eventually declared war against Germany and Italy, but how soon? I also expect it wouldn't have been the quick nearly unanimous vote received for the declaration of war against Japan.

Yes, for those reading this who don't know, the vote to go to war with Japan was not unanimous. There was one person in the House of Representatives that voted against it. Although I easily recalled this, I could not recall who it was. For those who are curious, here is a bit of info about it:
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/one-vote-against-war-japan.html



Russia declared war to Japan in the last days of wwII and they occupied that half island kamchatka?, I think, which was oldest Japanese "colony", if you could call it like that. There were few natives and land is not very hospitable at best.
The Wise Wizard
99871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

orangeflute wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


Baka_Gaijin wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:

I wish I had the power to make the United States disappear from the world around the beginning of the 20th century, but leave all those alive now in other countries with the memories of this reality. It would be interesting to check in 10 years later and see how many people thought the world was worse, vs. those that think it was better.


Then who would have defeated Nazi Germany? England? Canada? France? I doubt it. Maybe China, but I think since America was able to do what it did when the world was in need, we can rest assured that it wasn't/isn't a total wash.


With the U.S. completely out of the picture (well before the war), England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation. France was already occupied, and China, despite its population advantage, had more than enough problem trying to stave off Japan.

Arguably, the Soviet Union might have, but I think you see the problem there.

On the one hand, it is almost certain that without the aid offered by the U.S. lend/lease program, the Soviets would have fared substantially worse against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union is a huge country, however, so the best Germany could likely have obtained would have been a negotiated peace, with Germany retaining possession of most of the western Soviet Union.

Assuming Germany did prevail, unless the remnant of the Soviet Union was enough to provide a common enemy, the would likely eventually come in conflict with the other great power of that world, their former ally, Japan. This would be an even more likely outcome if the Soviet Union prevailed in Europe.

Frankly, the further one gets from the divergence from current history, the more difficult it is to predict what would happen. That is why I wish it could be made to really happen, as there could then be no debate.


FYI, you overlooked that that with the U.S. out of the picture since the beginning of the century, the outcome of the first World War would have been different. It is probable that the Nazi movement may have never occurred, and World War II in Europe would have never happened. It is also probable, however, that all the countries involved would be so weakened by an even longer war, and their remaining populace so sickened by it, that they would be left easy pickings for a Soviet Union that might remain much like the one in our own reality.



I'm sure that the survivors of the Blitz will totally agree with you, seeing as, I don't know, 90% of London was totalled. And it would've been a hundred if not for America's contribution, look up 'Lend and Lease' and 'Cash and Carry'. And how would World War I end without us? With all of Europe completely destroyed, its population dead or dying, in a great economic recession as a result of the war, with no victory on any side. How would Asia fare? Will Japan kill all the Chinese and Koreans or just most. Our finest and most valiant days shall not be insulted by the likes of yourself.


Regarding lend/lease, see the first section of text I bolded in my message you quoted.

Regarding the outcome of WWI without the U.S., see the second section of text I bolded in my message you quoted.

Regarding Asia, I don't recall if I mentioned that scenario, but I thought it should be rather obvious that with the U.S., Japan would have almost free reign over the Pacific. While the colonial powers with territory in the area (such as the U.K.) would had reacted, with their probable state after WWI, it is unlikely they could have provided a significant resistance. The real wild card is the Soviet Union. Would they eventually invade a weakened eastern Europe before it could gain strength again, or would they turn their eye toward the aggressive neighbor to the southeast?

As to your final sentence, I request you explain how I have insulted "our finest and most valiant days".

65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/23/10
I do enjoy pointing out Russia and Japan has been mixing it up from 1904 thru 05. Where they were beaten, two battles between Russian and Japan 1939 where the Japan was soundly wiped. You can look them up Battles of Khalkis Gal, and of Lake Khesns. Now what were what your point was? The Japan sued for peace after both defeats. By the way I did start a topic on war and the advancement of technology but i should have posted it better so I had it closed.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/23/10
Thank you for that statement i did forget Russia did declare war at the before the end on Japan
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


Baka_Gaijin wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:

I wish I had the power to make the United States disappear from the world around the beginning of the 20th century, but leave all those alive now in other countries with the memories of this reality. It would be interesting to check in 10 years later and see how many people thought the world was worse, vs. those that think it was better.


Then who would have defeated Nazi Germany? England? Canada? France? I doubt it. Maybe China, but I think since America was able to do what it did when the world was in need, we can rest assured that it wasn't/isn't a total wash.


With the U.S. completely out of the picture (well before the war), England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation. France was already occupied, and China, despite its population advantage, had more than enough problem trying to stave off Japan.

Arguably, the Soviet Union might have, but I think you see the problem there.

On the one hand, it is almost certain that without the aid offered by the U.S. lend/lease program, the Soviets would have fared substantially worse against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union is a huge country, however, so the best Germany could likely have obtained would have been a negotiated peace, with Germany retaining possession of most of the western Soviet Union.

Assuming Germany did prevail, unless the remnant of the Soviet Union was enough to provide a common enemy, the would likely eventually come in conflict with the other great power of that world, their former ally, Japan. This would be an even more likely outcome if the Soviet Union prevailed in Europe.

Frankly, the further one gets from the divergence from current history, the more difficult it is to predict what would happen. That is why I wish it could be made to really happen, as there could then be no debate.


FYI, you overlooked that that with the U.S. out of the picture since the beginning of the century, the outcome of the first World War would have been different. It is probable that the Nazi movement may have never occurred, and World War II in Europe would have never happened. It is also probable, however, that all the countries involved would be so weakened by an even longer war, and their remaining populace so sickened by it, that they would be left easy pickings for a Soviet Union that might remain much like the one in our own reality.



I'm sure that the survivors of the Blitz will totally agree with you, seeing as, I don't know, 90% of London was totalled. And it would've been a hundred if not for America's contribution, look up 'Lend and Lease' and 'Cash and Carry'. And how would World War I end without us? With all of Europe completely destroyed, its population dead or dying, in a great economic recession as a result of the war, with no victory on any side. How would Asia fare? Will Japan kill all the Chinese and Koreans or just most. Our finest and most valiant days shall not be insulted by the likes of yourself.


Regarding lend/lease, see the first section of text I bolded in my message you quoted.

Regarding the outcome of WWI without the U.S., see the second section of text I bolded in my message you quoted.

Regarding Asia, I don't recall if I mentioned that scenario, but I thought it should be rather obvious that with the U.S., Japan would have almost free reign over the Pacific. While the colonial powers with territory in the area (such as the U.K.) would had reacted, with their probable state after WWI, it is unlikely they could have provided a significant resistance. The real wild card is the Soviet Union. Would they eventually invade a weakened eastern Europe before it could gain strength again, or would they turn their eye toward the aggressive neighbor to the southeast?

As to your final sentence, I request you explain how I have insulted "our finest and most valiant days".



You make light of our efforts to help our Britain by saying that 'they would've held out', forgetting that it was through our two programs, the 'Cash and Carry' and 'Lend and Lease' programs, that they were even able to stave off the Nazis.
The Wise Wizard
99871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

orangeflute wrote:
You make light of our efforts to help our Britain by saying that 'they would've held out', forgetting that it was through our two programs, the 'Cash and Carry' and 'Lend and Lease' programs, that they were even able to stave off the Nazis.


Again from my message that you quoted:

"England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation".

1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/10 , edited 5/23/10

tarakelly wrote:

FDR’s policies where self destructive to this nation, and Obama is building on them buy now pay latter has never worked well. If WW2 did not happened the depression would have gone longer. If it was not the gold being sent to us from Britain to pay for materials they needed. Most of the government works projects as big as they where helped a handful of people. Wage freeze set by the government put companies to offer health insurance and even housing to get employees way from other companies. Something most people do, not know how health insurance even became part of today economy. Most people think they are entitled to cheap or no coast health care, it which is wrong. If the FDR would have let the privet sector do its job pay would have gone up but the entitlement mentality would not exist. Buy now pay later from any intuitions is silly Government, corporations, unions. If people do not have to shoulder their own responsibility and can say (NOT MY JOB) nothing learned. This one thing on FRD would take its own topic. If WW2 did not happen FDR would have never seen third term. This is 20/20 hind sight of course. Russia went on a land grab, after the war (you) may have heard of it the SOVIT UNION once Germany was defeated and we did not use the bomb. Russia would expand as far as they could go. There factories were putting out better tanks and more of them at the end of the war. The tension between allies and Russians was intense at best. The lend lease act also include china as well did the Russian ever honor their end? You did make some point but way off the mark? Do think the people of, Poland, East Germany, and so forth, wanted to be enslaved through communism. Think it through, and if the Russians went towards Japan how much of Asia would have become there states. I do agree that FRD used Pearl Harbor to go into in Europe. I will have to check on when Japan singed in with Germany and Italy on paper, before or after the attack on Pearl Harbor.


I am truly amazed at your confidence at our private sector, you know, the people at the time who did not want to hire. Pray, tell me how life was during the Gilded Age when we did decide to let the economy to itself, which, I presume, would be your ideal? I can assure you that you will be wishing it was Communism under such conditions. I also beg you, concerning your statement on how Government should let everything alone and continue with the laissez faire policies that lead to the depression in the first place and that the government has no duties to its citizen, which document provide that the duty of our government should be to guarantee 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'? And is not illness detrimental to both life and a jovial deposition, and is it not being bounded by the contract betwixt yourself and a organisation dedicated to the pursuit of maximising revenue not detrimental to liberty? Why then, is it wrong for the government to insure the health of its citizen, if we truly live in a country 'For the People and by the people.' Enough of current affairs-

You mentioned that the Soviets will go on a rampage, and will produce better weapons than ourselves had not we used the bomb, are you by any chance a Soviet under the guise of an Rightist? Certainly you should have more faith in our capitalist manufacture and the manufacture of our very capitalist allies than the communist Soviets, and in our superior fighting power. After all, according to your mentality, the market will decide what is best in the end, which goes against you current statement that the Soviets will make better weapons under a state controlled economy. So, having made yourself a fool with your absurd and contradictory logic, you should have ended there, but you continued by displaying great ignorance over the History of World War II, asking if Japan joined the Axis before or after Pearl Harbour. The answer certainly is obvious and, at least in my state, common knowledge to all, that they joined the axis before Pearl Harbour, and that, after we declared war on Japan, and all that formality, the Germans and the Italians declared war on us and we followed by declaring war on them.

Also, please elaborate on how FDR's policy is destructive to the nation when it has, clearly, reduced unemployment, and stimulated the economy somewhat.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/10 , edited 5/23/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
You make light of our efforts to help our Britain by saying that 'they would've held out', forgetting that it was through our two programs, the 'Cash and Carry' and 'Lend and Lease' programs, that they were even able to stave off the Nazis.


Again from my message that you quoted:

"England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation".



I am saying that they wouldn't because 1) London would've been totally destroyed from the blitz had not we aided them 2) Britain depended upon us for more Ships against the Nazis, signifying that there is a shortage of ships during their war time. Pray, how would Britain remain a sovereign nation under these imposed conditions? Certainly you don't expect James Bond to enter the scene, single handedly shoot down the entire Luftwaffe do you?
The Wise Wizard
99871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

orangeflute wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
You make light of our efforts to help our Britain by saying that 'they would've held out', forgetting that it was through our two programs, the 'Cash and Carry' and 'Lend and Lease' programs, that they were even able to stave off the Nazis.


Again from my message that you quoted:

"England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation".



I am saying that they wouldn't because 1) London would've been totally destroyed from the blitz had not we aided them 2) Britain depended upon us for more Ships against the Nazis, signifying that there is a shortage of ships during their war time. Pray, how would Britain remain a sovereign nation under these imposed conditions? Certainly you don't expect James Bond to enter the scene, single handedly shoot down the entire Luftwaffe do you?


Did you fail to understand that sentence? It means that them remaining a sovereign nation would be have been a long shot, at best. If you believe it means otherwise, consult with someone you trust that has a better command of the English language.

The one scenario I see that might have resulted in them remaining a sovereign nation would be if Germany decided that once they were no longer a threat, an invasion was not necessary, as they could be dealt with after the Soviet Union. If Germany was then ultimately unsuccessful against the Soviet Union, or won but their forces were exhausted and overstretched due to the vast territory that would be occupying, England would have even more time. Even in this "best case" scenario, however, England would have been a shadow of its former self, a nation reduced in population more by starvation than war, and depleted of many other resources. As Australia would have its own hands full with the Japanese, the only assistance they could expect would be from Canada.

1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/10 , edited 5/23/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
You make light of our efforts to help our Britain by saying that 'they would've held out', forgetting that it was through our two programs, the 'Cash and Carry' and 'Lend and Lease' programs, that they were even able to stave off the Nazis.


Again from my message that you quoted:

"England would have been doing quite well to even survive as a sovereign nation".



I am saying that they wouldn't because 1) London would've been totally destroyed from the blitz had not we aided them 2) Britain depended upon us for more Ships against the Nazis, signifying that there is a shortage of ships during their war time. Pray, how would Britain remain a sovereign nation under these imposed conditions? Certainly you don't expect James Bond to enter the scene, single handedly shoot down the entire Luftwaffe do you?


Did you fail to understand that sentence? It means that them remaining a sovereign nation would be have been a long shot, at best. If you believe it means otherwise, consult with someone you trust that has a better command of the English language.

The one scenario I see that might have resulted in them remaining a sovereign nation would be if Germany decided that once they were no longer a threat, an invasion was not necessary, as they could be dealt with after the Soviet Union. If Germany was then ultimately unsuccessful against the Soviet Union, or won but their forces were exhausted and overstretched due to the vast territory that would be occupying, England would have even more time. Even in this "best case" scenario, however, England would have been a shadow of its former self, a nation reduced in population more by starvation than war, and depleted of many other resources. As Australia would have its own hands full with the Japanese, the only assistance they could expect would be from Canada.



And there, I am in total agreement. It seems that I misread your statement, and, owing to my stupidity, I have read it as: 'England would be doing quite well as a sovereign nation.' So, I humbly apologise, please direct me toward your location so that I may properly kowtow to you.
The Wise Wizard
99871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

orangeflute wrote:
And there, I am in total agreement. It seems that I misread your statement, and, owing to my stupidity, I have read it as: 'England would be doing quite well as a sovereign nation.' So, I humbly apologise, please direct me toward your location so that I may properly kowtow to you.

No need, your understanding and apology is more than sufficient.

I had been thinking about creating an "What if the United States disappeared in 1900?" topic, but as it seems to have so thoroughly hijacked this one, I wonder if there would now be any point in doing that.

What say ye (and all others reading this)?

1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
And there, I am in total agreement. It seems that I misread your statement, and, owing to my stupidity, I have read it as: 'England would be doing quite well as a sovereign nation.' So, I humbly apologise, please direct me toward your location so that I may properly kowtow to you.

No need, your understanding and apology is more than sufficient.

I had been thinking about creating an "What if the United States disappeared in 1900?" topic, but as it seems to have so thoroughly hijacked this one, I wonder if there would now be any point in doing that.

What say ye (and all others reading this)?



Go for it. In this discussion, we mainly discussed the Role of America during the Second World War, but fail to analyse our role during the First, nor did we ever proceed very much after said Second World War.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.