Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PKPete

America Saved The World.

Recommended Posts

This is an interesting thread.

 

There are certainly a large number of opinions and lots of postings that have some facts, some gross errors, and much smudging for the grey areas.

 

First thing we need to consider in any war is the difference between the right thing to do and the moral thing to do. For the most of the 2nd war, prior to the American's envolvement, they did the right thing. They stayed out of somebody else's fight. However, in the 2nd war, the right thing to do was not the moral thing to do. The delay in American envolvement from a military stance caused the war to last much longer than it did. Is there any relationship here between the massive amount of money the americans were making off the war?

 

In retrospect too, had they not sat back accumulating this surplus in money and armorment, perhaps they would not have faired so well as they did. With each possible scenario and twist there are variables added that make it difficult to say whether they should have gotten envolved sooner or not at all. I am not anti-American, half of my family have been American citizens for more generations than I have been around for.

 

The Americans were chastised but much of the free world for taking so long to get involved. Perhaps this explains why every war that has taken place since, the americans have been the first to get involved. They have also learned that making money through arming participants gives the participants an advantage when the time comes that the americans wish the war to end. They can now operate and conclude a war rather quickly and make thier money in the clean up efforts after the war.

 

 

 

I would like to comment on the D-Day landing at Normandy.

 

The beach was divided into 5 arenas with the british and americans taking to 4 exterior arenas and fielded an estimated 100,000 troops per arena. The Canadians took the center arena and landed with fewer than 10,000 troops. Each of the 4 exterior arenas suffered military casualties of more than half thier troops whereas the Canadians lost but a small fraction of their entire landing force.

 

This is not to diminish any one particular life, as each individual when viewed as a human being, cannot have a value placed on them. All the wealth that has/will ever exist in the universe could not equate to the value of a single human life. From a military perspective, we need to see them as equipment that is expendable, at least during the planning and execution phases, or the battle cannot be won.

 

I would like to point out though, that the miniscule Canadian offering managed to invade some 12 times as far into the hostile territory as all for of the British and American offering combined manage to traverse. My point being that yes the success of the Allied forces was due in the most part by the combined effort of all nations and persons involved, and thier abilities to actually work together toward a common cause, the freedom of those who did not wish to give up thier freedom to a foreign invader.

 

At the same time, I think it is safe to say thet the success of the D-Day invasion is due in a large part to the Canadian effort. May they didn't have the hundreds of thousands of expendable equipment, both human and mechanical, that the great super powers had to weild, but they certainly made up for it with thier intelligence, wit, and determination.

 

 

As for the Americans being prompted into the war by the attack on Pearl Harbor, one possible opinion could be that Japan grew tired of the Capitalistic way the Americans seemed to be coping with the war. I have little doubt that the Americans would have remained out ot the 2nd war had it not been for the invasion at Pearl Harbor. Does this make the Japanese invasion right? I don't know but if there is any plausibility to this theory, then it would at least have been the Moral thing to do.

 

 

One negative thing I will say against the American war machine, not the country nor it's citizens, but most deservedly yes against her war machine. They spend a lot of time calculating out the success of the wars they engage in and do consider the monetary gain that can be achieved, just as any capitalistic society should. But, they spend very little effort in calculating the harm thier efforts will cause in the short term and absolutely no thought to the long term effects.

 

Case in point, when they dropped the 2 Atomic bombs in Japan. This seemed to bring a quick end to a war that could have become very devastating. What they stopped to realize is that Atoms where not formed with the intention of being destroyed. We have long known that Atomic masses can be mechanically or chemically changed into masses of different forms. As an off topic example...A carrot grows from the earth, we eat it, expell it as waste, it degrades to once again become earth, then grows another carrot.

 

At the molecular level alone, inertia is a powerful event. Remember the law of inertia is, A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest. At the atomic level though the Quarks that the Atoms are constructed of rather like staying permanently attached to the other quarks in thier particular atom.

 

My theory is that here we are some 62 years after the bomb was dropped on hiroshima, most of the world believes that war ended 60 years ago, but...and this is the big BUT, the atomic collisionns are still occuring. One only has to consider that all of the diseases that developed in Hiroshima in the first few years after the bomb, and realize that people everywhere are still becoming diseased with these same afflictions and still at ever increasing proportions.

 

It seemed to dwindle off to much of the world a few short years after the initial blast but that is because the blast zone caused so many people to become sick at once, so it seemed obvious where it originated from. As the blast zone continuesrevolving around the planet, it is weaker and effects fewer people per kilometer simply because the people too are more sparsely distributed. Each wave of this echoing blast zone then collides with other echoes thus causing further repititions of the reverberating atomic collisions.

 

I am not talking about small pox, HIV, or any of the transferable illnesses. One can look only at the many cancers that are not "catchable" as they only arise from damaged or mutated DNA, to get a glimpse at what I am describing here. This is the one war that will prove to be nearly impossible to beat and the sad thing is, it was not created by an event inteded to cause harm. It was in a moment of resentment and anger that a revengeful action was initiated, in response to what was viewed as a hostile action.

 

So I ask the Original poster, Who really won the Second World War?

 

 

Wee-Lamm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a Simpsons quote is appropriate here:
And here come the pride of the American air force. The British designed Harrier Jump Jet!

 

And here come the pride of the American air force. The British designed Harrier Jump Jet

All-American F-22 Raptor!

 

Seriously, we've never majorly commissioned the Harrier. Our JSF does everything the Harrier can, AND make toast.

 

I've not gotten involved in this discussion so far because it would take me too long to debunk both sides. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a Simpsons quote is appropriate here:
And here come the pride of the American air force. The British designed Harrier Jump Jet!

 

And here come the pride of the American air force. The British designed Harrier Jump Jet

All-American F-22 Raptor!

 

Seriously, we've never majorly commissioned the Harrier. Our JSF does everything the Harrier can, AND make toast.

 

I've not gotten involved in this discussion so far because it would take me too long to debunk both sides. ^_^

Really, like so many so-called "debates" around here, I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that America "saved the world" just as nobody is denying that they contributed an enormous amount to the allied victory in the second world war. There's nothing to debunk here, except perhaps the topic title, which has been repeatedly debunked in many previous posts, by both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will sum up a conclusion to this pointless debate.

 

America didnt saved the world during WW2. They helped save the world with the combine effort of Allied Forces against the Axis Powers everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians and Albert Einstein equally saved the world, there’s not much doubt in my mind that if Hitler didn't have two fronts to worry about, he would have pwned us. The Russians were the ones to actually occupied Berlin FYI. And we all know what Einstein did.

Edited by noobsauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we all know what Einstein did.

Wrote a letter to the president? Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we all know what Einstein did.

Wrote a letter to the president? Or am I missing something?

 

you know the atoms and the spliting and the Japan with the boom

Edited by noobsauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALLIES WON THE world not just america, and to the kid about americans killing british soldiers, your ignorance is grand I love it, I get a kick outta it. One you dont have close the the number of troops in iraq that we have, two we put out regulations and standards such as meter distance between our trucks and if you come within those meters your getting poped, ive been hit by two ieds, and my buddy was hit by an vbied, im being put in for an arcom with valor for pulling two guys outta a downed stryker, so before you tell an american were idiots and cowards think again and tell mommy to spank you a couple more times for me.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, i know its not the troops fault, thier acting under instruction, but i do think they over react.

 

At some danger of wandering off topic...

 

I had a look on google for "american friendly fire" and got this as a first hit

 

I particularly enjoyed the last two paragraphs of this (rather old) report:

British troops have been given warning against approaching American convoys because of the risk of being shot at. They are ordered to slow down to a snail's pace as they pull alongside a convoy. They are told to display the Union Jack and shout that they are British. "The problem is that most of these incidents happen in the dark," a military source said.

 

A British officer in Basra said: "The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction."

 

Edit I thought I'd look into how this was reported in the US press, and came across this article which seems largely aligned to the rest of the world's reporting. I was, however, particularly struck by the final sentence, which may well have created a few more terrorists:

The Pentagon later acknowledged that none of those killed were al-Qaida or Taliban, but Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld cleared the Americans of any wrongdoing.

 

If you look at the first quote form the Times Newspaper - which is a large newspaper in the UK, it clearly says the americans even shoot in broad daylight, when the truck is going at 2mph and waving the union jack out the window.

 

A meter between your trucks?

 

A meter! Surely thats close enough for you to go hmm, there obviously not terrorists, so why shoot them?

 

You go out to serve your country, but end up being killed by your so called 'allies'.

 

And what does the number of troops have to do with anything?

 

Some troops have even been bombed by Americans. If they can't even hit thier target (unless the troops were thier targets) they should recieve better training and be sent home.

 

I understand that accidents do happen, but not on this scale.

 

Back on topic

 

America did not save the world. <end>

Edited by Cream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we all know what Einstein did.

Wrote a letter to the president? Or am I missing something?

 

you know the atoms and the spliting and the Japan with the boom

Albert Einstein didn't take part in the Manhattan Project - please check your sources again before intervening into a debate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manh..._Project_people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the first quote form the Times Newspaper - which is a large newspaper in the UK, it clearly says the americans even shoot in broad daylight, when the truck is going at 2mph and waving the union jack out the window.

 

A meter between your trucks?

 

A meter! Surely thats close enough for you to go hmm, there obviously not terrorists, so why shoot them?

 

You go out to serve your country, but end up being killed by your so called 'allies'.

 

And what does the number of troops have to do with anything?

 

Some troops have even been bombed by Americans. If they can't even hit thier target (unless the troops were thier targets) they should recieve better training and be sent home.

 

I understand that accidents do happen, but not on this scale.

...Says Cream, the civillian who learns everything from biased newspapers, to Panzerpaul, a HERO who has actually been to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the first quote form the Times Newspaper - which is a large newspaper in the UK, it clearly says the americans even shoot in broad daylight, when the truck is going at 2mph and waving the union jack out the window.

 

A meter between your trucks?

 

A meter! Surely thats close enough for you to go hmm, there obviously not terrorists, so why shoot them?

 

You go out to serve your country, but end up being killed by your so called 'allies'.

 

And what does the number of troops have to do with anything?

 

Some troops have even been bombed by Americans. If they can't even hit thier target (unless the troops were thier targets) they should recieve better training and be sent home.

 

I understand that accidents do happen, but not on this scale.

...Says Cream, the civillian who learns everything from biased newspapers, to Panzerpaul, a HERO who has actually been to war.

In Heaven's name, DON'T bring rhetoric into this. :) I don't know what Panzerpaul does/is doing/will do, but you should know better than to generalize like this. Not all civilians learn from biased newspapers. Not all newspapers are biased. Not all soldiers are heroes. Not all heroes are soldiers. Of course people should respect soldiers as they are people that risk their life everyday for whatever their country thinks it's best for itself, but treating them as gods and taking their word as molten gold is personally silly. I've already said how decades-old wars still affects how people live here, and I don't think I need to say it again, anyway. :aware:

 

World War I fort ruins (Forte Verle - Werk Verle), less than 10 kilometres from Levico.

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the first quote form the Times Newspaper - which is a large newspaper in the UK, it clearly says the americans even shoot in broad daylight, when the truck is going at 2mph and waving the union jack out the window.

 

A meter between your trucks?

 

A meter! Surely thats close enough for you to go hmm, there obviously not terrorists, so why shoot them?

 

You go out to serve your country, but end up being killed by your so called 'allies'.

 

And what does the number of troops have to do with anything?

 

Some troops have even been bombed by Americans. If they can't even hit thier target (unless the troops were thier targets) they should recieve better training and be sent home.

 

I understand that accidents do happen, but not on this scale.

...Says Cream, the civillian who learns everything from biased newspapers, to Panzerpaul, a HERO who has actually been to war.

In Heaven's name, DON'T bring rhetoric into this. :blink: I don't know what Panzerpaul does/is doing/will do, but you should know better than to generalize like this. Not all civilians learn from biased newspapers. Not all newspapers are biased. Not all soldiers are heroes. Not all heroes are soldiers.

 

Exactly

 

And all the evidence we have that Panzerpaul is in the army is his word, and if he is, he might not be a hero, he might have shot at his 'allies'.

 

How would you know i learn everything from biasased newspapers? ALL the newspapers in the UK report on it, and all the news channels.

 

A person who works with my dad, thier son was shot at by americans while they were in a van, waving a union jack and going under 10 mph and about 100 meters away from the Americans.

 

And i'm not, i say again as many people took no notice at all, are saying that all Americans are idiots and cowards who shoot thier own allies. I'm not blaming anyone. All im saying is it happens.

End of discussion, back on topic.

Edited by Cream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read some of the first page, and will respond to it.

 

Germany probably would have never defeated Russia, and the plans they had for a seaborne invasion of Britain would simply get them slaughtered.

 

Tons of British soldiers were killed on the mainland. They simply would not have had enough soldiers to defend against an invasion, especially since then, Germany would have had all of Europe under their control.

 

First off, they aren't that powerful. I mean look at Iraq.

 

This is stupid....Dumb, can't put it any clearer. Let's match up your country VS the USA, who would win?

 

Just to add in:

 

Regardless of the fact that World War 2 would have been won or lost by the Allies...

 

America did not "save the world", in fact they themselves were in fear of getting invaded and there was no other choice other than to go to war

For instance they did not join the conflict until they themselves had been attacked (which in itself does not seem like "saving the world") by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour

Had they not been attacked the chances are that the US would never have gone to war

 

In conclusion... America did not "save the world", they were simply doing as any other country was doing, fighting for their own cause

If the US hadn't joined the conflict then yes, maybe the outcome would not have gone the Allies way, but... By no means should they be considered the "saviour" of WWII for they had no intention of fighting for the freedom of the rest of the world, only due to their own soil being attacked

 

We were in fear of getting invaded? It would have been amost impossible to invade someone from across the ocean at that time. We only did it because of many months of preperation and planning. If you know anything about the invasion of Normandy, you would know how much time and effort we put into preparing for the invasion.

 

However, I do agree with you, if we were not attacked, we would never have entered the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Take This Post Seriously
I just read some of the first page, and will respond to it.

 

Germany probably would have never defeated Russia, and the plans they had for a seaborne invasion of Britain would simply get them slaughtered.

 

Tons of British soldiers were killed on the mainland. They simply would not have had enough soldiers to defend against an invasion, especially since then, Germany would have had all of Europe under their control.

 

First off, they aren't that powerful. I mean look at Iraq.

 

This is stupid....Dumb, can't put it any clearer. Let's match up your country VS the USA, who would win?

 

Just to add in:

 

Regardless of the fact that World War 2 would have been won or lost by the Allies...

 

America did not "save the world", in fact they themselves were in fear of getting invaded and there was no other choice other than to go to war

For instance they did not join the conflict until they themselves had been attacked (which in itself does not seem like "saving the world") by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour

Had they not been attacked the chances are that the US would never have gone to war

 

In conclusion... America did not "save the world", they were simply doing as any other country was doing, fighting for their own cause

If the US hadn't joined the conflict then yes, maybe the outcome would not have gone the Allies way, but... By no means should they be considered the "saviour" of WWII for they had no intention of fighting for the freedom of the rest of the world, only due to their own soil being attacked

 

We were in fear of getting invaded? It would have been amost impossible to invade someone from across the ocean at that time. We only did it because of many months of preperation and planning. If you know anything about the invasion of Normandy, you would know how much time and effort we put into preparing for the invasion.

 

However, I do agree with you, if we were not attacked, we would never have entered the war.

 

Actually, the Japanese were planning to invade us from the west coast. In fact, at one point there was preperation for a mass evacuation of California - whose mass confusion and hysteria would have caused the regardless death of thousands, I bet. :aware:

 

~Take This Post Thankfully Indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany probably would have never defeated Russia, and the plans they had for a seaborne invasion of Britain would simply get them slaughtered.
Tons of British soldiers were killed on the mainland. They simply would not have had enough soldiers to defend against an invasion, especially since then, Germany would have had all of Europe under their control.
Funny, fist time I looked at this topic in while and somebody responds to one of my points. :aware:

 

Well the probable failure of a German invasion lies on their plans. They just weren't that great, the Germans at this time had a superior military (read as: superior commanders on land) if the entire Wehrmacht turned up in England they would have won. But that's irrelevant the invasion plan called for 9 divisions to move across the channel on river barges supported by combat vessels inferior and less in numbers than the English home fleet, so most would probably end up dead and floating in the channel before[if] they reached land.

 

Even had the Royal Navy been neutralised, the chances of making a successful amphibious invasion across the channel were remote. The transport ships to be used by the Germans for landing were primarily river barges since the Germans had no specialized landing craft. This would have limited the quantity of artillery and tanks that could have been transported, and restricted operations to times of good weather. The barges were not designed for the open sea in any event, even with almost perfect conditions progress would have been slow and the craft would have been very vulnerable to attack. Nor were there enough barges to transport the first invasion wave and the following waves and their equipment. Without specialised landing craft, the Germans would have needed to immediately capture one of the ports, an unlikely situation considering the strength of the British coastal defences around the south-eastern harbours at that time. The British also had several contingency plans, including the planned use of poison gas, which would have made an invasion even more difficult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea...nces_of_success

 

Actually, the Japanese were planning to invade us from the west coast.
Plans that were unrealistic, thats resultd would have been along the lines of: Military losses for the Japanese, civilian and [small] military losses for America, the Japanese would probably be able to wreck parts of cities along the west coast with bombers and ships [Assuming they managed to wipe the US navy out of the pacific which they would have needed to launcch an invasion] In the end the Japanese would have just wasted the lives of soldiers and lots of money for the invasion, and then they would have weakened their hold over South East Asia. Edited by mystery_phill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasnt trying to say america could have won on its own. Because thats just stupid. All he's saying is that Europe would have been conquered if not for America.

 

I'm not sure if it would have been or not. Noone should be either, unless somehow you have a time machine and can go back in time and convince america to not fight which i SERIOUSLY doubt.

 

And Pete, America isnt as great as it used to be. It's freaking corrupt as hell. And you going on and on about how we can defend our country is exactly how Bush wants you to feel That way he can get away with bombing innocent countries.

 

I think one Saying sums up how Pete feels and how alot of Americans feel thank god im not one of them.

 

"America! F**k yeah!"

Edited by worlockjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read all 9 pages of this because I'm lazy. But america didn't "Save the world" they didn't enter the war for a couple of years until they themselves were attacked, how very heroic. ^_^

Nothing against America, but i think your views are wrong.

Edited by Kiwiwithbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Pete, America isnt as great as it used to be.
Why not?, they got rid of slavery, segregation, gave women and non-whites the right to vote they weren't the first, but they're all epic improvements since the nations begining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The french say the americans go to war to get what they want, the americans went to war to save france!

Edited by Un0
2 month bump...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America helped to save the world in WW2 and then spends the next 50 years sowing seeds of hate, discord, greed and imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world. Hooray for us, for liberating a plethora of nations in that war, but after that we went on an ego trip thinking that every war would be like the "good war". Whereas Europe had its morals and beliefs in colonialism and those old beliefs shaken and broken, they were humbled, and though it took a few years they resigned themselves to not returning back to their Imperialist past.

America vamped up its Imperialist Capitalist motives more than it was in the 1900's. We invaded countless nations, that did not need to be. And stuck our nose in nations affairs.

America is a land of hypocrisy, I cringe at the thought that I live here sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.