Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net


Page 1 of 19 12345678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 271

Thread: How large was America's role in WW1 and WW2?

  1. #1
    jviehe is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    How large was America's role in WW1 and WW2?

    Quote Originally Posted by anobsitar View Post
    You are far from every reality. The way the USA went in the war in Iraq was a strong way of feelings to be allmighty, a slaveholder mentality and a way of dicatorship.

    I dicsussed a lot with Americans in this days and if some Americans are still alive today - while they sold their own soldiers to death - then maybe only because it makes no sense to destroy one's own monitor in case of discussions in the internet with unbelievable assholes. It seems to me all Americans forgot their unbelievable uncultivated and agressive behavior against all people of all nations in the world who tried to warn them to do not the wrong things on wrong reasons.
    I'm sure I never will be able to forget in my whole life the agressive nonsense lots of Amercans said to me in this days. Afterwards I did not speak with Amercians anymore the whole time Bush was president of the USA.

    Since Obama became president this changed now, but I never will forget in my whole life how Americans tried to attack Germany and tried to destroy the European Union - without any need or reason to do so. And still today the most Americans are not really able to recognice that fro example Guantanamo is nothing else than a concentration camp.

    No - to trust Americans can be very dangerous and to use such sentences like "the US easily forgives" are showing nothing else than an unbelievable arrogance and irrealism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJGZ2m4BVxU
    And yet, yours is the country that twice tried to take over the world, murdered millions, and had to be stopped by the US. And we still consider you an ally and will be there for you when needed. Imagine if the rest of the world was so dedicated to freedom and loyalty. We dont require that you like us, or even help us, to give you help when you need it. Thats just the way we are.

  2. #2
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by jviehe View Post
    And yet, yours is the country that twice tried to take over the world, murdered millions, and had to be stopped by the US. And we still consider you an ally and will be there for you when needed. Imagine if the rest of the world was so dedicated to freedom and loyalty. We dont require that you like us, or even help us, to give you help when you need it. Thats just the way we are.
    Lets try to keep this in the world of reality, and not make believe.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

  3. #3
    jviehe is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by ThorHammer View Post
    Lets try to keep this in the world of reality, and not make believe.
    Do you deny WW1 and WW2 happened?

  4. #4
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by jviehe View Post
    Do you deny WW1 and WW2 happened?
    Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

  5. #5
    reality is offline Secretary of State
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,532
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by ThorHammer View Post
    Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.
    i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

    the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
    No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.

  6. #6
    Imperator's Avatar
    Imperator is offline President
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    null
    Posts
    26,153
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by reality View Post
    i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

    the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
    No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.
    actually 3 times, you forgot the franco-prussian war...

  7. #7
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by reality View Post
    i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

    the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
    No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.
    Here we go....

    1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

    2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

    3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

    4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.


    I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

  8. #8
    reality is offline Secretary of State
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,532
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator View Post
    actually 3 times, you forgot the franco-prussian war...
    to bring up every historical defeat of the the french would take more time than i have. theyre an old land, defeats and victories abound.

    i was just counting the ones we bailed them out of, against germany.

  9. #9
    reality is offline Secretary of State
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,532
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by ThorHammer View Post
    Here we go....

    1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

    2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

    3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

    4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.

    I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.

    i shall point you to the bolded statement and humbly not make any other comments. Youre welcome europe.

  10. #10
    Imperator's Avatar
    Imperator is offline President
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    null
    Posts
    26,153
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by reality View Post
    to bring up every historical defeat of the the french would take more time than i have. theyre an old land, defeats and victories abound.

    i was just counting the ones we bailed them out of, against germany.
    I hear you.......you know what louis XIV had stamped ( inscribed ) on bis cannons?

  11. #11
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by reality View Post
    i shall point you to the bolded statement and humbly not make any other comments. Youre welcome europe.
    I can see you don't really understand what is being discussed then. Thank you for playing.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

  12. #12
    Tim
    Tim is offline President
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    Posts
    12,326
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by ThorHammer View Post
    Here we go....

    1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

    2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

    3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

    4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.


    I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.
    Your defense of, and apology, for Germany in the Great War is very odd at best. You sound like one of the Kaiser's entourage.

    Your comments regarding Barbarossa are even more peculiar. The idea that the Germans 'never intended to go beyond the Urals' is apparently intended as some sort of attmempt to minimize the Naiz plans for conquest.

    Your reference to the involvement of the US as 'minimal' in WWII goes far beyond an insult. It is despicable.

    It is trendy now to downplay, minimize and ridicule the involvement of the US in WWII. It is especially popular among Europeans who dislike Americans. Regardless of who is making the claim, it is sickening stuff.

  13. #13
    jviehe is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by ThorHammer View Post
    Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.
    Trying to claim something is fantasy or bogus because you disagree isnt helping. If you have a point to make, make it. The fact is Germany, with support, twice in the 20th century invaded neighboring countries in order to permanently control them, and the US was a significant factor in repelling them. And yet, we forgive and will defend Germany if it is ever needed or requested, even though they do not accord us the same friendship.

  14. #14
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    Your defense of, and apology, for Germany in the Great War is very odd at best. You sound like one of the Kaiser's entourage.
    No defense or apology here. Simply stating the strategic facts of their situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    Your comments regarding Barbarossa are even more peculiar. The idea that the Germans 'never intended to go beyond the Urals' is apparently intended as some sort of attmempt to minimize the Naiz plans for conquest.
    Not at all. I am simply pointing out that, contrary to what two other posters here would have us believe, Germany was not out to conquer the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    Your reference to the involvement of the US as 'minimal' in WWII goes far beyond an insult. It is despicable.
    Could you point out where I said US involvement in WW2 was minimal? No where did I say such a thing so spare me your 'insult' garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    It is trendy now to downplay, minimize and ridicule the involvement of the US in WWII. It is especially popular among Europeans who dislike Americans. Regardless of who is making the claim, it is sickening stuff.
    It is also trendy in American circles to overplay America's involvement.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

  15. #15
    ThorHammer's Avatar
    ThorHammer is offline Vice President
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    9,846
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: NATO allies under pressure to follow US on troop enforcement for Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by jviehe View Post
    Trying to claim something is fantasy or bogus because you disagree isnt helping. If you have a point to make, make it. The fact is Germany, with support, twice in the 20th century invaded neighboring countries in order to permanently control them, and the US was a significant factor in repelling them. And yet, we forgive and will defend Germany if it is ever needed or requested, even though they do not accord us the same friendship.
    Certainly true, in many cases, for WW2. Not, however, WW1.
    "The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
    courage must be the greater as our might fails"

Similar Threads

  1. Japanese Disaster and God's Role
    By Renton in forum Humanities Issues
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 09:56 AM
  2. Doctor shortage? 28 states may expand nurses' role~
    By Sunshine in forum Health Care
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 03:16 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 06:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •