NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060517111307954

Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — The United States long has been a source of irritation for the rest of the world, but the news is worse this year.

While Europeans and Asians and Arabs increasingly have disliked U.S. policies or specific U.S. leaders in recent years, Americans were liked and admired.

Polls show an ominous turn. Majorities around the world think Americans are greedy, violent and rude, and fewer than half in countries such as Poland, Spain, Canada, China and Russia think Americans are honest.

"We found a rising antipathy toward Americans," said Bruce Stokes of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which interviewed 93,000 people in 50 countries over four years.

Few analysts expect more than marginal improvements, short of another Sept. 11.

"In my judgment, you're going to see a lot of this hostility disappear only when various countries really feel they need friendly relations with the United States, probably for their own security," said Richard Solomon, a veteran diplomat and negotiator who is president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a federally funded nonpartisan think tank. "It will probably take some major event for that to take place."

The dislike is accelerating among youth, Stokes said. For example, 20 percent of Britons younger than 30 have an unfavorable opinion of Americans, double the percentage of 2002.

The problem, Stokes said, "is Americans, not just [President] Bush."

In increasing numbers, people around the globe resent U.S. power and wealth and reject specific actions such as the occupation of Iraq and the campaign against democratically elected Palestinian leaders, in-depth international polling shows.

America's image problem is pervasive, deep and perhaps permanent, analysts say, an inevitable outcome of being the world's only superpower.

Stokes and his colleagues at the Pew Research Center, a respected, nonpartisan public-opinion group in Washington, D.C., found that fewer and fewer people see the United States as a land of high ideals and opportunity. More than half those asked in France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Britain said the "spread of American ideas and customs" was a "bad thing."

This represents a major challenge for the United States, which, after a period of aggressive "go-it-alone" foreign policy, again is coming to rely on allies and international partners.

For example, the United States has counted on Britain, France, Germany and the United Nations to persuade or coerce the Iranian government to abandon its nuclear program. And it shares its military burden with 9,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan and 20,000 in Iraq.

Yeah, I know, it's an anarchist site, but the article itself isn't particularly connected to anarchism itself. Personally, I'm quite depressed. I was hoping that if things got ugly, I could always leave the US, but it looks like that may not be an option, anymore.

Do you want me to punch you in the face? Give me that. Why am I even talking to you?

THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! America...the counrty everyone loves to hate...the one that stopped the Naazis in World War II. We saved the French, the English, the Jews, and the Russians (well at least THEY think we're honest...so does China...we saved them too).

The World has flipped. Do you agree?

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060517111307954



Yeah, I know, it's an anarchist site, but the article itself isn't particularly connected to anarchism itself. Personally, I'm quite depressed. I was hoping that if things got ugly, I could always leave the US, but it looks like that may not be an option, anymore.

Don't be silly. You're the kind of American we like.

EDIT: To the guy above: you're the kind we don't.

THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! America...the counrty everyone loves to hate...the one that stopped the Naazis in World War II. We saved the French, the English, the Jews, and the Russians (well at least THEY think we're honest...so does China...we saved them too).

The World has flipped. Do you agree?
The World is tired of us bringing up the good deeds from our past. They'd like some recent contributions.

THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! America...the counrty everyone loves to hate...the one that stopped the Naazis in World War II. We saved the French, the English, the Jews, and the Russians (well at least THEY think we're honest...so does China...we saved them too).

The World has flipped. Do you agree?

You didn't save the English and you came in late. Stop bringing up WW2 already- one right foreign policy decision doesn't negate all the rest of the US's actions since and before then (thinking Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada etc)

Liasia']You didn't save the English and you came in late. Stop bringing up WW2 already- one right foreign policy decision doesn't negate all the rest of the US's actions since and before then (thinking Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada etc)

I believe he was being ironic....

THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! America...the counrty everyone loves to hate...the one that stopped the Naazis in World War II. We saved the French, the English, the Jews, and the Russians (well at least THEY think we're honest...so does China...we saved them too).

The World has flipped. Do you agree?

FDR was a decent president, but that doesnt excuse the rest of them.

I believe he was being ironic....

I'm not so sure. But if he was... dammit.

The rest of the world ftw!

These kind of stories always make me giggle. I think is quite amazing that to be so hated we have an illegal immigration issue. Tell me who immigrates to a country they hate? No one.

Two words to those that hate us, jealousy and envy.

These kind of stories always make me giggle. I think is quite amazing that to be so hated we have an illegal immigration issue. Tell me who immigrates to a country they hate? No one.

Two words to those that hate us, jealousy and envy.
They never said that they didn't like American Dollars.

These kind of stories always make me giggle. I think is quite amazing that to be so hated we have an illegal immigration issue. Tell me who immigrates to a country they hate? No one.

Two words to those that hate us, jealousy and envy.

I'm pretty sure you'd be on your way to Canada right now however you felt about it if it offered more jobs, better healthcare, better education etc

They never said that they didn't like American Dollars.

Damn hypocrits! :p

Meh.

Everyone hated the Cowboys when they won all those SuperBowls too.

When you're the biggest and baddest, everyone who isn't on your bandwagon hates you. It doesn't help that our government likes to act like jackasses though.

These kind of stories always make me giggle. I think is quite amazing that to be so hated we have an illegal immigration issue. Tell me who immigrates to a country they hate? No one.

Two words to those that hate us, jealousy and envy.

Ever been to Mexico? The people who come here from Mexico, both legally and illegaly, live in squalor. This is the closest and most accessible country to come to, so they do.


Getting back to the topic... The country is pretty much divided. I'd say it's about half shitty people, and half good, with only about 20% being *truly* good. That's to say, the 20% I'm talking about aren't in favor of the type of government we have, nor are they (myself included) "up" with closing our borders and engaging in apathy.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060517111307954



Yeah, I know, it's an anarchist site, but the article itself isn't particularly connected to anarchism itself. Personally, I'm quite depressed. I was hoping that if things got ugly, I could always leave the US, but it looks like that may not be an option, anymore.

If it was up to me, americans like you would be more than welcome. The ones we don't like are the Bush supporters, not people like you ;)

Liasia']I'm pretty sure you'd be on your way to Canada right now however you felt about it if it offered more jobs, better healthcare, better education etc

Not in my lifetime, I've been to Canada.

FDR was a decent president, but that doesnt excuse the rest of them.
I'm pretty fond of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Nixon sucked, but his Secretary of State was one of the best ever.

Liasia']You didn't save the English and you came in late. Stop bringing up WW2 already- one right foreign policy decision doesn't negate all the rest of the US's actions since and before then (thinking Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada etc)

Psst, Vietnam was a French screw up. Had they let them become independant the Vietnam war would not have happened.

I'm pretty fond of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Nixon sucked, but his Secretary of State was one of the best ever.

I cant agree on Kennedy. He wasnt terrible, but I cant see why people give him as much praise as they do. And Nixon, besides the whole watergate thing, wasnt a bad president.

Everyone hates the biggest, strongest, and richest guy. Even if we were pure as the driven snow, people would hate us for that.

Psst, Vietnam was a French screw up. Had they let them become independant the Vietnam war would not have happened.

No. Vietnam would have still been Communist. And fitting the Domino Theory, sooner or later a US Administration would have gotten involved.

Psst, Vietnam was a French screw up. Had they let them become independant the Vietnam war would not have happened.

No one made the US go in, or prolong it and use the tactics they did. Fighting communism= shitty escuse to cause 75,000 American and 3 million (i read somewhere) Vietnamese deaths.

Not in my lifetime, I've been to Canada.

Yes, i said if. besides, i know where i'd rather go on holiday. *flies to Canada*

Well, America certainly has an...odd taste in leaders, but I've been down there before. (Hailing from Canada, here.) And, really, the people really aren't that bad. Just as many assholes up here anyway; just that America has a bigger population. More population inherently means more assholes. :rolleyes:

I even have American family members, and I like them! I have an Uncle, and Aunt, a Grandmother, and even a brother who are all Americans, and they act just like the family members I have here in Canada. So, really, you can't judge a whole country because of what you hear or what the most recent stereotype is. You gotta meet the people first, THEN judge em. That's what I say, anyhoo.

Sweet, now I can justify my hate for the rest of the world.:gundge:

The World is tired of us bringing up the good deeds from our past. They'd like some recent contributions.

Bosnia-bailing out the muslims there
Tsunami
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea

Ambassador Bolton

Personally and as an American, I could not care what the world thinks. Even if that world shows up at my front door with a blue helmet.

Liasia']Yes, i said if. besides, i know where i'd rather go on holiday. *flies to Canada*

Oh Canada is an awesome country don't get me wrong, absolutely beautiful. I wouldn't go to live no matter what they offered simply because I can't stand the climate. :p

It doesn't matter to me what opportunities might be in any other country, I am an American this is my country good or bad issues I love it.

It's official: The world hates America

It's official: America doesn't care.

Bosnia-bailing out the muslims there
Tsunami
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea

Yeah, you single handedly did all that. :rolleyes:


Ambassador Bolton
You're proud of him?!


Personally and as an American, I could not care what the world thinks. Even if that world shows up at my front door with a blue helmet.

Thats cool. No one reallys cares what you think either.

THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! America...the counrty everyone loves to hate...the one that stopped the Naazis in World War II. We saved the French, the English, the Jews, and the Russians (well at least THEY think we're honest...so does China...we saved them too).

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Don't mess up history. USA started to fight against the nazi only when USSR victory was nearly certain. And for saving the French and the English... we weren't needing your help. Don't forget that most of France was liberated by either the french people, oragnised in Resistance networks (especially the FTPs, the biggest resistance network, started by the Communist Party, which liberated Paris), or by African soldiers from the colonies.

Oh, sure, you quickened the end of the war by a few years, and we are very glad of that. But that's where we start to dislike you: when instead of just stating the truth ("we arrived and quickened the end of the war, saving many lives") you can't resist acting as if you were the superheros who did all the work and saved everyone. That's the kind of attitude that pisses us off.

And don't forget who paid the price of the victory, too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

It's official: America doesn't care.

I do care. If things take a turn for the worst, I really don't want to have to spend the rest of my life running. I will if I have to, but I would prefer being able to escape.

Liasia']No one made the US go in, or prolong it and use the tactics they did. Fighting communism= shitty escuse to cause 75,000 American and 3 million (i read somewhere) Vietnamese deaths.

There's never a bad time to cause trouble and mayhem for a system of thinking that calls for MY elemination. (Look at Stalin and Mao's record)

Bosnia-bailing out the muslims there
Tsunami
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea

Ambassador Bolton

Personally and as an American, I could not care what the world thinks. Even if that world shows up at my front door with a blue helmet.

All either multi-national, or in the case of Iraq a major scewup. What exactly has the US been up to in Iraq and North Korea?

I do care. If things take a turn for the worst, I really don't want to have to spend the rest of my life running. I will if I have to, but I would prefer being able to escape.


You think even 2% of Americans actually care? Hell I wouldn't bet my pocket change that 2% of us could find Canada on a map of Canada. Americans are ignorant to world affairs and international opinion.

Though the more I learn about international politics the more I wonder why the fuck we should care.

~snip~

I don't really want to get into this, because some of your points are accurate and they most definately are not taught in American schools. But for those of you (like you) who go to the other extreme and basically state the U.S. was an afterthought, I would like to sincerely thank you for all your help with the Japanese. :rolleyes:

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Don't mess up history. USA started to fight against the nazi only when USSR victory was nearly certain. And for saving the French and the English... we weren't needing your help. Don't forget that most of France was liberated by either the french people, oragnised in Resistance networks (especially the FTPs, the biggest resistance network, started by the Communist Party, which liberated Paris), or by African soldiers from the colonies.

Oh, sure, you quickened the end of the war by a few years, and we are very glad of that. But that's where we start to dislike you: when instead of just stating the truth ("we arrived and quickened the end of the war, saving many lives") you can't resist acting as if you were the superheros who did all the work and saved everyone. That's the kind of attitude that pisses us off.

And don't forget who paid the price of the victory, too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png


:headbang:

There's never a bad time to cause trouble and mayhem for a system of thinking that calls for MY elemination. (Look at Stalin and Mao's record)

Shame that a)the policy wasn't really successful- Vietnam fell anyway
b) US soldiers would have been calling for your elimination, were you unfortunate to live in a place the cold war was 'going hot'

Everyone hates the biggest, strongest, and richest guy. Even if we were pure as the driven snow, people would hate us for that.

Excelent my precious little thing, nothing like a little bit of emotional blackmailing. Just don't forget that single tear...

Remember, God is in the details.

The US has been ignoring world opinion for years. What exactly makes people think they're about to actually welcome it and believe it, even when reality is staring them in the face?

There's never a bad time to cause trouble and mayhem for a system of thinking that calls for MY elemination. (Look at Stalin and Mao's record)

How can you dare to say that defending the USA against the Vietnameses ? Should I remember you that after winning two wars (one agaisnt the french, once against the USA), including in which their oponent used massively chemical weapons killing millions, they still came to help the people of Cambodge to kick the insanous Red Khmer who were genociding their own people... with the support of USA !

Liasia']All either multi-national, or in the case of Iraq a major scewup. What exactly has the US been up to in Iraq and North Korea?

Hey, the other nations couldn't help but join once they saw our mad crazy skills.

To be honest, I think we do too much, but that's just me.

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Don't mess up history. USA started to fight against the nazi only when USSR victory was nearly certain. And for saving the French and the English... we weren't needing your help. Don't forget that most of France was liberated by either the french people, oragnised in Resistance networks (especially the FTPs, the biggest resistance network, started by the Communist Party, which liberated Paris), or by African soldiers from the colonies.

Oh, sure, you quickened the end of the war by a few years, and we are very glad of that. But that's where we start to dislike you: when instead of just stating the truth ("we arrived and quickened the end of the war, saving many lives") you can't resist acting as if you were the superheros who did all the work and saved everyone. That's the kind of attitude that pisses us off.

And don't forget who paid the price of the victory, too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

Hmm, you sound as if we only came to help shorten the war. Seems you forget Hitler declared war on the US and the reason why.

Hitler's declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941, (which arguably was called for by Germany's treaty with Japan) set him against a coalition that included the world's largest empire (the British Empire), the world's greatest industrial and financial power (the USA), and the world's largest army (the Soviet Union).

We did your damndest to stay neutral.

I'm pretty fond of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Nixon sucked, but his Secretary of State was one of the best ever.

You mean the war-criminal guy?

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Don't mess up history. USA started to fight against the nazi only when USSR victory was nearly certain. And for saving the French and the English... we weren't needing your help. Don't forget that most of France was liberated by either the french people, oragnised in Resistance networks (especially the FTPs, the biggest resistance network, started by the Communist Party, which liberated Paris), or by African soldiers from the colonies.

Oh, sure, you quickened the end of the war by a few years, and we are very glad of that. But that's where we start to dislike you: when instead of just stating the truth ("we arrived and quickened the end of the war, saving many lives") you can't resist acting as if you were the superheros who did all the work and saved everyone. That's the kind of attitude that pisses us off.

And don't forget who paid the price of the victory, too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

Hey, don't forget we British supplied your resistance groups and helped organise a lot of then - we did our bit as well, even if a lot of Americans pretend otherwise...

Fuck the rest of the world. What have they ever done for us? Well, France helped us get our independence, but what have they done for us within the last two hundred years?

You think even 2% of Americans actually care? Hell I wouldn't bet my pocket change that 2% of us could find Canada on a map of Canada. Americans are ignorant to world affairs and international opinion.

Though the more I learn about international politics the more I wonder why the fuck we should care.

I saw a funny video the other day. Americans were asked if their military should invade Iran, then asked to place in a pin in Iran on a map. Almost all of them said yes, and i think one person of about 10 knew where the damn country was- someone pointed to Australia.

There was another one where some boys went around a prestigious girls school asking them to sign a petition to 'end women's sufferage'. one girl of about 30 knew what that meant and refused to sign it.

www.thatvideosite.com- i think theyre both on there.

I don't really want to get into this, because some of your points are accurate and they most definately are not taught in American schools. But for those of you (like you) who go to the other extreme and basically state the U.S. was an afterthought, I would like to sincerely thank you for all your help with the Japanese. :rolleyes:

Take into account that the British and Australians were already pushing back the Japanese in Southeast Asia and China.

The Japanese had very little in the way of natural resources outside of their home islands, which is why their fuel and weapons were of increasingly poor quality near the end of the war (they were of poor quality to begin with, save for a few of their aircraft and ships).

The British and Australians, combined with the forces of Russia in 1945, could've beaten the Japanese in about a year or so without the United States, and without killing innocent people with nuclear weapons.

You think even 2% of Americans actually care? Hell I wouldn't bet my pocket change that 2% of us could find Canada on a map of Canada.

Close.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/

nearly one-third of young Americans recently polled couldn’t locate Louisiana on a map and nearly half were unable to identify Mississippi.

Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 fared even worse with foreign locations: six in 10 couldn’t find Iraq

The British and Australians, combined with the forces of Russia in 1945, could've beaten the Japanese in about a year or so without the United States, and without killing innocent people with nuclear weapons.

OOO here we go *puts on flame retardant clothing*

Liasia']Shame that a)the policy wasn't really successful- Vietnam fell anyway
b) US soldiers would have been calling for your elimination, were you unfortunate to live in a place the cold war was 'going hot'

Yup. 'cause I would have been the enemy-pure and simple.

Communism calls for my elemination because I'm educated, I own land, I'm middle class (Bourgeouise) and I hate communism.

Nixon screwed over the Vietnamese badly. If I remember correctly, some years ago a city in Texas used it's symbol (A red STAR!) to put on highway support collumns. A vietnamese group went crazy because it looked just like the Vietnamese commie symbol. The article went into some depth about the anger and frustration that some of them felt over losing their homeland, even after 30 years.

Red Khmer who were genociding their own people... with the support of USA !
That's where your revisionist history loses all credibility. The US was kicked out of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. Remeber the embassy airlift? They weredeidedly NOT supported by the US. Remember next time you read yoru propaganda - just because it's anti-American doesn't mean it's true.

You think even 2% of Americans actually care? Hell I wouldn't bet my pocket change that 2% of us could find Canada on a map of Canada. Americans are ignorant to world affairs and international opinion.

That's part of the problem. My fellow Americans hate me because I don't have their ignorance. Yes, they do hate me. I have been told to go to North Korea before because of my politics several times and a few say they would strangle me with my own entrails if it were legal.

In increasing numbers, people around the globe resent U.S. power and wealth

Suck it, people around the globe. We fucking rule! USA! USA! USA!

Hey, don't forget we British supplied your resistance groups and helped organise a lot of then - we did our bit as well, even if a lot of Americans pretend otherwise...

Yes, sure, the UK did a lot in this war. I was mostly speaking of the US. But don't worry, I will never forget the job UK did, nor that the home of the Free French Forces was the UK, and even if I side politically much closer to the (communist) Resistance than to De Gaulle's Free French Forces, I still have a lot of respect for him and what he did during this time.

Take into account that the British and Australians were already pushing back the Japanese in Southeast Asia and China.

The Japanese had very little in the way of natural resources outside of their home islands, which is why their fuel and weapons were of increasingly poor quality near the end of the war (they were of poor quality to begin with, save for a few of their aircraft and ships).

The British and Australians, combined with the forces of Russia in 1945, could've beaten the Japanese in about a year or so without the United States, and without killing innocent people with nuclear weapons.

More civilians would have been killed in an amphib invasion and the shelling of Japan then the two nuke bombings. Easy.

Fuck the rest of the world. What have they ever done for us? Well, France helped us get our independence, but what have they done for us within the last two hundred years?

Much of the world helped us in WW2.

You mean the war-criminal guy?
Are you referring to Kissenger?

Well, America certainly has an...odd taste in leaders, but I've been down there before. (Hailing from Canada, here.) And, really, the people really aren't that bad. Just as many assholes up here anyway; just that America has a bigger population. More population inherently means more assholes. :rolleyes:

I even have American family members, and I like them! I have an Uncle, and Aunt, a Grandmother, and even a brother who are all Americans, and they act just like the family members I have here in Canada. So, really, you can't judge a whole country because of what you hear or what the most recent stereotype is. You gotta meet the people first, THEN judge em. That's what I say, anyhoo.

First: Welcome to NS

Second: DEAD ON! I thank you.

More civilians would have been killed in an amphib invasion and the shelling of Japan then the two nuke bombings. Easy.

Got a link to back that up?

More civilians would have been killed in an amphib invasion and the shelling of Japan then the two nuke bombings. Easy.

Japan was about to resign before you dropped your nuclear weapons. The real reason of the slaughter of millions of Japanese civilian was not to end the war. It was to scare the USSR.

Are you referring to Kissinger?

Yes.

See, we're an island all to ourselves really. We have an island mentality. We don't have to worry about obnoxious neighbors and their problems, so we don't really care about people thousands of miles distant.

More civilians would have been killed in an amphib invasion and the shelling of Japan then the two nuke bombings. Easy.

At least give the people the chance to defend themselves. That's better than burning them alive.

Do you not remember our countless firebombing missions over Tokyo? No, we didn't go for military installations. We went for residential districts. In all, about 300,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo.

Ah, but that's a good thing, because our "brave" Marines didn't have to go and fight! :rolleyes:

Yup. 'cause I would have been the enemy-pure and simple.

Communism calls for my elemination because I'm educated, I own land, I'm middle class (Bourgeouise) and I hate communism.


Only autoritarian regiemes masqureading as communist would. You hate an entire political ideology?

"They never said that they didn't like American Dollars."

What American $'s are you talking about?!?

America is in more debt than any other country.

For all of us who are American (myself included)--

It is easy for us to say that the world is jealous of us while we sit at our Asian made computers, get out of European cars, watch Clive Owen and Jude Law light up our screens (on our foreign TV's), while we eat pasta w/ marinara sauce (Italian recipe--Spanish grown tomatoes)

Yeah the world's got a lot to be jealous of...

Much of the world helped us in WW2.
No, you've got it backward. We helped much of the rest of the world. If all of Europe went Nazi it wouldn't have hurt us. As for the Pacific theater, the European collonies there were quickly falling to Japanese aggression. The only nations that really did help out were Asian nations like the Phillipines, who were fighting a guerilla war vs. the Japanese, and Australia. Maybe New Zealand.

No, you've got it backward. We helped much of the rest of the world. If all of Europe went Nazi it wouldn't have hurt us. As for the Pacific theater, the European collonies there were quickly falling to Japanese aggression. The only nations that really did help out were Asian nations like the Phillipines, who were fighting a guerilla war vs. the Japanese, and Australia. Maybe New Zealand.

Yeah. It would have.

Liasia']Only autoritarian regiemes masqureading as communist would. You hate an entire political ideology?

Is it so hard to believe that? I mean, I hate the entire ideology of fascism and I'm sure plenty of people do as well. What's so strange about that?

Yeah. It would have.
How so? We just would have had a cold war against Nazis rather than Soviets.

How so? We just would have had a cold war against Nazis rather than Soviets.

Their goal was to conquer the entire world. Or did that just slip your mind?

They were using the Japanese to help secure the war. Luckily, it didn't work out, thanks to the Soviets.

No, you've got it backward. We helped much of the rest of the world. If all of Europe went Nazi it wouldn't have hurt us. As for the Pacific theater, the European collonies there were quickly falling to Japanese aggression. The only nations that really did help out were Asian nations like the Phillipines, who were fighting a guerilla war vs. the Japanese, and Australia. Maybe New Zealand.


Hitler was perhaps a few years from nuclear capable. His engineers had designed long range bombers capable of hitting the east coast. Yes, he would of hurt us eventually.

The World is tired of us bringing up the good deeds from our past. They'd like some recent contributions.
*YAWNS* So what is THEIR "recent contributions"?

Is it so hard to believe that? I mean, I hate the entire ideology of fascism and I'm sure plenty of people do as well. What's so strange about that?

Seems a bit extreme to damn anyone who believes in communism when they may well have policies which you might agree with. Same with fascism- although i guess i wouldn't agree with many fascists.

That's where your revisionist history loses all credibility. The US was kicked out of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. Remeber the embassy airlift? They weredeidedly NOT supported by the US. Remember next time you read yoru propaganda - just because it's anti-American doesn't mean it's true.

That happened at the start, when the Red Khmer took power. But once the Vietnamese began their attack on the Red Khmer, the USA sided with the Red Khmer, recognizing their authority even long after their defeat, and giving them support.

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Actually...you are wrong. The United States has been with Britain almost from the beginning. After all we were lending you military hardware. Thanks to FDR and Lend-Lease. We were not neutral by any stretches of the imagination.

Don't mess up history.

Actually...you're the one messing up history.

USA started to fight against the nazi only when USSR victory was nearly certain.

false.

And for saving the French and the English... we weren't needing your help. Don't forget that most of France was liberated by either the french people, oragnised in Resistance networks (especially the FTPs, the biggest resistance network, started by the Communist Party, which liberated Paris), or by African soldiers from the colonies.

Talk about messing up history! 1) US, Britain, French, Polish, Checz, and Canadian forces landed in a place called Normady. Perhaps you heard of it? US Forces got the most difficult beach of Omaha. Yes there was a French Resistence and it made the allies job of retaking France easier. 2) It was Charles De Gaul that kept the communists from liberating Paris.

Oh, sure, you quickened the end of the war by a few years, and we are very glad of that. But that's where we start to dislike you: when instead of just stating the truth ("we arrived and quickened the end of the war, saving many lives") you can't resist acting as if you were the superheros who did all the work and saved everyone. That's the kind of attitude that pisses us off.

And it pisses me off too. What also pisses me off is people like you who try to rewrite history. Refresh my memory...who won the Pacific War pretty much alone? Here's a hint. It wasn't the French or the Brits.

And don't forget who paid the price of the victory, too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

Yep, this is about the only accurate thing you spouted all post.

As for me, i love America, anyone who doesnt like us well....you can all burn!!

Hitler was perhaps a few years from nuclear capable. His engineers had designed long range bombers capable of hitting the east coast. Yes, he would of hurt us eventually.
Like the Soviets did?

Their goal was to conquer the entire world. Or did that just slip your mind?

They were using the Japanese to help secure the war. Luckily, it didn't work out, thanks to the Soviets.
Yeah, the Soviets wanted to conquer the world too.

Well, it's interesting to see even more confirmation that the people living outside of the US are equally as capable of being ignorant, xenophobic, and stereotypical as any of the Americans they encounter. I guess the Hesse quote applies: When one hates a person, they hate something in that person that is also part of one's self.

I am definitely interested in knowing how many of them actually know an American personally...it seems that the people most inclined to prejudice are those with the least experience with and knowledge of ordinary Americans, but then again, ignorance does breed hatred. I try not to stereotype or dislike people based upon their national origin, culture, religion, or even government, and I expect the same in return. People whose opinions of others are based upon cultural stereotypes or national origin are no better than members of the KKK or any hate group.

As for me, i love America, anyone who doesnt like us well....you can all burn!!

*sings* America! Fuck yeah!
:rolleyes:

How so? We just would have had a cold war against Nazis rather than Soviets.
Cold War with the Nazis? A Cold war with one of modern history's most militarist regimes- hell bent on the domination of the 'pure' race and subjegation of 'mongrel' groups?

How long do you thing the peace would last between the 'pure' Germans, and the ethnically diverse US?

Hey, don't forget we British supplied your resistance groups and helped organise a lot of then - we did our bit as well, even if a lot of Americans pretend otherwise...

Yep. The Brits did assist in setting up the French Resistance. Thanks for the reminder Skinny :)

Like the Soviets did?
I would hardly compare the two. Hitler was bent on taking over the World, and creating the "master race". The Soviets thought much smaller. Simply because you have nucular weapons, doesn't mean you are a Hitler.

Cold War with the Nazis? A Cold war with one of modern history's most militarist regimes- hell bent on the domination of the 'pure' race and subjegation of 'mongrel' groups?

How long do you thing the peace would last between the 'pure' Germans, and the ethnically diverse US?
Considering the threat of mutually assured destruction? The peace would last forever.

The British and Australians, combined with the forces of Russia in 1945, could've beaten the Japanese in about a year or so without the United States, and without killing innocent people with nuclear weapons.

Oh I would love to see proof of this rediculous statement. It isn't anywhere steeped in facts.

Considering the threat of mutually assured destruction? The peace would last forever.

Considering MAD wasn't even contemplated until post-1962, yeah, it wouldn't have lasted.

Considering the threat of mutually assured destruction? The peace would last forever.
Oh, like Hitler cared. He was a DICTATOR. He could do whatever he wanted, he wouldn't give hoot about a nucular war.

wait, you mean US policy of defying the international community, supporting brutual regimes, and ignoring or participating in human rights violations around the world isnt popular? shocking, really.

I would hardly compare the two. Hitler was bent on taking over the World, and creating the "master race". The Soviets thought much smaller. Simply because you have nucular weapons, doesn't mean you are a Hitler.
I didn't say the soviets were hitler. I just said that they were bent on world domination. For example, they kept all of Eastern Europe under their control, they tried to expand into Afghanistan, do you really think they wouldn't try to spread further?

Yes, sure, the UK did a lot in this war. I was mostly speaking of the US. But don't worry, I will never forget the job UK did, nor that the home of the Free French Forces was the UK, and even if I side politically much closer to the (communist) Resistance than to De Gaulle's Free French Forces, I still have a lot of respect for him and what he did during this time.

How do you think Britain survived the war? US was assisting in supplying them with the supplies they needed to survive. Heck, we were even supplying the USSR with materials as well.

wait, you mean US policy of defying the international community, supporting brutual regimes, and ignoring or participating in human rights violations around the world isnt popular? shocking, really.
Why don't we hear about North Korea, and Hugo Chavez? OH NO, THEY'RE GOOD!

Oh, like Hitler cared. He was a DICTATOR. He could do whatever he wanted, he wouldn't give hoot about a nucular war.

And Stalin wasn't? :eek:

Considering MAD wasn't even contemplated until post-1962, yeah, it wouldn't have lasted.Sure it would have.

Oh I would love to see proof of this rediculous statement. It isn't anywhere steeped in facts.

Neither is the "need" for the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese.

The fact is, the Brits and Aussies were pushing the Japanese out of mainland Asia. And, by the time Russia declared war on Japan, they had no significant footing on the mainland.

The three countries' militaries combined far outnumbered the Japanese military. And, even before we dropped the bombs, they were ready to surrender.

Got a link to back that up?

Do we have to go through this again?

Japan was about to resign before you dropped your nuclear weapons. The real reason of the slaughter of millions of Japanese civilian was not to end the war. It was to scare the USSR.

That is revisionist nonsense. Especially since the U.S. diplomatic efforts were refused. In case you don't know- the Japanese were warned about a new attack, and offered a chance to surrender- and they refused.


I invite you to read these primary documents: those in section III are most applicable here.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

I didn't say the soviets were hitler. I just said that they were bent on world domination. For example, they kept all of Eastern Europe under their control, they tried to expand into Afghanistan, do you really think they wouldn't try to spread further?
They were FAR more practical. They migh have realized that blowing up the world, and destroying themselves would NOT be world domination...something that never occured to Der Fuher.

Japan was about to resign before you dropped your nuclear weapons. The real reason of the slaughter of millions of Japanese civilian was not to end the war. It was to scare the USSR.

Millions? Oh brother! *Dies of laughter*

More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than the 2 atomic bombs combined.

Talk about messing up history! 1) US, Britain, French, Polish, Checz, and Canadian forces landed in a place called Normady. Perhaps you heard of it? US Forces got the most difficult beach of Omaha. Yes there was a French Resistence and it made the allies job of retaking France easier.

And ? Yes, allied forces landed in Normandy. And yes, he speeded the end of the war by a lot. But most of France was still not liberated by you. The south part was liberated by the Free French Forces from the colonies (mostly from Africa), while Paris and its suburbs and some other cities were liberated by a popular insurection, organised and made possible by the FTP, the communist resistance networked.

2) It was Charles De Gaul that kept the communists from liberating Paris.

The Second Armored Division of General Leclerc, composed mostly from Algerian, under the command of General De Gaulle, came to reinforce the FTPs once they liberated Paris, that's what happened. The FTPs were good at breaking the Nazi war effort, they were good at organising an insurrection, but they were not that good in defending a city (they were not an army). So De Gaulle sent reinforcement to them. From Africa... not from USA.

That confirms what I said. USA did a good job in helping and shortening the war. But they were far from being the most important or critical job.

And it pisses me off too. What also pisses me off is people like you who try to rewrite history. Refresh my memory...who won the Pacific War pretty much alone? Here's a hint. It wasn't the French or the Brits.

Sure, the Chinese didn't fight in it. They didn't lose like 10 times the amount of soldiers you did.

At least give the people the chance to defend themselves. That's better than burning them alive.

Do you not remember our countless firebombing missions over Tokyo? No, we didn't go for military installations. We went for residential districts. In all, about 300,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo.

Ah, but that's a good thing, because our "brave" Marines didn't have to go and fight! :rolleyes:
Every country in WWII engaged in carpet bombing because there were no such thing as laser guided cruise missiles. This wasn't unique to the US. Ask anyone living in Berlin at the end of the war.

Oh, like Hitler cared. He was a DICTATOR. He could do whatever he wanted, he wouldn't give hoot about a nucular war.
Whereas Stalin always took into account the will of the people. The millions of starving people, the people exiled to gulags, the people waiting to get a bullet in the head in the basement of the KGB building, and the people who just disappeared.

And, even before we dropped the bombs, they were ready to surrender.

Revisionist crap. See above post and link to primary sources.


edit: I guess it's five post or so up- everyone posting at once

At least give the people the chance to defend themselves. That's better than burning them alive.

Do you not remember our countless firebombing missions over Tokyo? No, we didn't go for military installations. We went for residential districts. In all, about 300,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo.

Ah, but that's a good thing, because our "brave" Marines didn't have to go and fight! :rolleyes:

Yep. I see we have to go through the culture of Japan and how their industrial capacity worked. Guess what Potarius? EVERYONE WAS TARGETING CIVILIANS!!

That is revisionist nonsense. Especially since the U.S. diplomatic efforts were refused. In case you don't know- the Japanese were warned about a new attack, and offered a chance to surrender- and they refused.


I invite you to read these primary documents: those in section III are most applicable here.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Yes yes yes, We've gone through this before. The offer was the wrong one to make.

www.doug-long.com

Liasia']Seems a bit extreme to damn anyone who believes in communism when they may well have policies which you might agree with. Same with fascism- although i guess i wouldn't agree with many fascists.

Hating an ideology doesn't neccessarily equate to hating a person. Everyone has time for redemption. One or two agreements doesn't mean you shouldn't be any more tolerable of the ideology as a whole.

Whereas Stalin always took into account the will of the people. The millions of starving people, the people exiled to gulags, the people waiting to get a bullet in the head in the basement of the KGB building, and the people who just disappeared.

I'm not sure that Stalin was determined to purify the world.

They were FAR more practical. They migh have realized that blowing up the world, and destroying themselves would NOT be world domination...something that never occured to Der Fuher.
First of all, what shape would the Nazis have been in after fighting across Russia? Second, I thought all you "America was worthless in WWII" folks believed that Russia could have single handedly kicked the Nazi's ass?

Sure it would have.
Great comeback.

You have me convinced.

Yes.
While not excusing the South American stuff to which you are reffering, I would point out that Kissinger was single handedly responsible for Detente and for formalizing relations with China. It was his diplomatic skill that, I believe, helped prevent an actual war with the USSR.

Revisionist crap. See above post and link to primary sources.


edit: I guess it's five post or so up- everyone posting at once

'Tis, is it? Hirohito was willing to surrender, but his advisors were speaking out against it until the very end. He was going to do it before the bombs were dropped...

...However, they were, and then, even his advisors agreed that surrender was the way to go. Even so, it was Hirohito's word above all else. Whether or not it would've been a quick surrender is to be debated.

How do you think Britain survived the war? US was assisting in supplying them with the supplies they needed to survive. Heck, we were even supplying the USSR with materials as well.

Yes, USA helped with material... but they also helped the nazis, before the war. Without the extensive trade with USA, the nazi would have been much slower to rebuild their army - and the speed of their rebuilding and of their initial attack was, by far, their strongest advantage.

I'm not sure that Stalin was determined to purify the world.
What's the difference if it's Nazi purification or Communist "liberation"? It still works out to wars of conquest.

Shit, this thread is moving along fast....

Why don't we hear about North Korea, and Hugo Chavez? OH NO, THEY'RE GOOD!

North Korea and Hugo Chavez, compared in the same sentence... are you trying to win the prize of the most ridiculous comparaison ?

Great comeback.

You have me convinced.
See? Americans always win. Even NS debates.

Yes, USA helped with material... but they also helped the nazis, before the war. Without the extensive trade with USA, the nazi would have been much slower to rebuild their army - and the speed of their rebuilding and of their initial attack was, by far, their strongest advantage.

The American government or American corporations? And didn't the Brits and French help the Nazis a bunch too by letting them conquer a few nations? Appeasement anyone?

Cold War with the Nazis? A Cold war with one of modern history's most militarist regimes- hell bent on the domination of the 'pure' race and subjegation of 'mongrel' groups?

How long do you thing the peace would last between the 'pure' Germans, and the ethnically diverse US?

Well, during the War the US still had racial segregation, did it not?

But anyway, it would probably happen anyway because:

1) Hitler probably wouldn't get to 'conquer' the UK and possibly not all of France. We'd be more likely to reach some sort of peace deal with Hitler similar to Versailles and have a puppet-ish government to police the Empire. If Germany took the British Empire, the US would immediately take Canada, which would prove useful later if war would happen. If 'Britain' still controlled 'her' Empire, the capture of strategically useful territiry would be less likely.

2) The USSR and the World were deadly enemies at one point, with the UK, France, the US and Japan invading at one point (Which pushed it into dictatorship, but I digress) and hated each other intensely. But they still ended up in a cold war, despite idelogical differences.

3) With the huge distancee between them, and possible similar size/power, any all out war would be impossible with conventional weapons, and unlikely with WMD.

At least, that's my theory.

What's the difference if it's Nazi purification or Communist "liberation"? It still works out to wars of conquest.

Wars of Conquest? No, that doesn't= Nazi purification. Not in the slightest.

Russia 'liberated' :rolleyes: East Europe because it just had two invasions stem from there in the previous 20 years. Its understandable to be wary of it happening again.

They're not equatable.

Neither is the "need" for the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese.

The terms were simple. Unconditional Surrender. They didn't want that. Ignore terms of surrender at your own peril.

The fact is, the Brits and Aussies were pushing the Japanese out of mainland Asia. And, by the time Russia declared war on Japan, they had no significant footing on the mainland.

No one did. And that was AFTER Hiroshima.

The three countries' militaries combined far outnumbered the Japanese military. And, even before we dropped the bombs, they were ready to surrender.

You forgot that the US FAR OUTNUMBERED the Japanese as well.

See? Americans always win. Even NS debates.

Touche ;)

Millions? Oh brother! *Dies of laughter*

More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than the 2 atomic bombs combined.

If you count the immediate death, yes. If you remember that people are still dying or getting birth difformed thanks to the bombing 60 years ago, definitely not. That's the most horrible part of nuclear bombing: it continues to kill people for decennia, even those who weren't born at the time of the bombing.

I don't really want to get into this, because some of your points are accurate and they most definately are not taught in American schools. But for those of you (like you) who go to the other extreme and basically state the U.S. was an afterthought, I would like to sincerely thank you for all your help with the Japanese. :rolleyes:

He was wrong about the part about the US entering the war once it became certain that the USSR would defeat the Germans. The Unites States declared war on December 8th 1941. The Germans didn't begin to lose ground until after the battle of Stalingrad, almost a year and a half later.

Wars of Conquest? No, that doesn't= Nazi purification. Not in the slightest. Why not? Both nations killed millions of their own people. Neither were kind to conquered people.

Russia 'liberated' :rolleyes: East Europe because it just had two invasions stem from there in the previous 20 years. Its understandable to be wary of it happening again.

They're not equatable. Ok, so the US has been targeted by middle eastern terrorists multiple times in the last twenty years. I guess we can just annex the whole middle east.

The terms were simple. Unconditional Surrender. They didn't want that. Ignore terms of surrender at your own peril.

Which was the wrong thing to offer. The US knew that at the time.

You'll notice that the final 'suurender' had conditions- why the change of heart, even though they already won?

Oh right, they had now used their little toys.

Sure, the Chinese didn't fight in it. They didn't lose like 10 times the amount of soldiers you did.

First off, I said the PACIFIC WAR and not the CHINESE WAR. I was talking about the big naval battle in the Pacific. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The war in which Admiral Yamamoto said he could garuntee victory for 6 months? Yep. He was right. They were winning for 6 months then the tide of war changed and they went on the defensive. Refresh my memory...who was basically fighting alone in the pacific? Oh yea...it was the United States of America.

What's the difference if it's Nazi purification or Communist "liberation"? It still works out to wars of conquest.

Exactly the same for US behavior since 60 years...

If you count the immediate death, yes. If you remember that people are still dying or getting birth difformed thanks to the bombing 60 years ago, definitely not. That's the most horrible part of nuclear bombing: it continues to kill people for decennia, even those who weren't born at the time of the bombing.
The radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are normal today. How the fuck are there still birth defects attributable to the nuclear attacks.

Why not? Both nations killed millions of their own people. Neither were kind to conquered people.
Simplistic view of it. Disregards.... well, everything.


Ok, so the US has been targeted by middle eastern terrorists multiple times in the last twenty years. I guess we can just annex the whole middle east.

I don't know. Does the Middle East border the US? Did the US lose 30ish million people?

Exactly the same for US behavior since 60 years...
So what? What the fuck are you going to do about it? Right, nothing.

The radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are normal today. How the fuck are there still birth defects attributable to the nuclear attacks.

Its passed on through genetics. They are 'untouchables' in Japan. Can't remember the word for them at the moment....

Simplistic view of it. Disregards.... well, everything.



I don't know. Does the Middle East border the US? Did the US lose 30ish million people?
One American life is worth many foreign lives.

Yes, USA helped with material... but they also helped the nazis, before the war.

And Britain and France let Hitler get away with militarizing the rhineland, taking chzechoslovakia, annexing Austria, and re-arming itself for their European domination crusade of 1939. mmmmm... I guess you forgot about that policy.

Without the extensive trade with USA, the nazi would have been much slower to rebuild their army - and the speed of their rebuilding and of their initial attack was, by far, their strongest advantage.

Here's a tip..look up appeasement.

Its passed on through genetics. They are 'untouchables' in Japan. Can't remember the word for them at the moment....
Well if nobody's touching them how are they getting pregnant?

The American government or American corporations? And didn't the Brits and French help the Nazis a bunch too by letting them conquer a few nations? Appeasement anyone?

You are indeed correct and it was corporations. What does one expect from a global community.

One American life is worth many foreign lives.
:D

Well if nobody's touching them how are they getting pregnant?

Touche :D

What's the difference if it's Nazi purification or Communist "liberation"? It still works out to wars of conquest.

I still don't think Stalin would have declared war with us for no reason. I can, however, see Hitler going to war with us to "cleanse" the world.

Yeah, I know, it's an anarchist site, but the article itself isn't particularly connected to anarchism itself. Personally, I'm quite depressed. I was hoping that if things got ugly, I could always leave the US, but it looks like that may not be an option, anymore.


WOW!

What a little quisling you are.

Why don't you save us the trouble and move now?

The American government or American corporations?

Corporations, mostly, with kind support of the governement - after the depression, every way to help the economy was good and supported, even if it meant dealing with the devil.

And didn't the Brits and French help the Nazis a bunch too by letting them conquer a few nations? Appeasement anyone?

I never said French and UK governement didn't do mistakes either. I would remember you that the party I'm member of (the french communist party) stopped supporting the "Front Populaire" (leftish coallition) governement in 1936, when the prime minister Léon Blum refused to help the Spanish Republicans, against Franco coup, which was supported by Hitler. The PCF then created the "International Brigads" to fight agaisnt fascism in Spain.

If the "democratic" governements of that time, be it the USA, UK, France, ... would have supported the spanish, Franco would have been defeated, and Spain would have been one of the allies against Hitler...

And ? Yes, allied forces landed in Normandy. And yes, he speeded the end of the war by a lot. But most of France was still not liberated by you. The south part was liberated by the Free French Forces from the colonies (mostly from Africa), while Paris and its suburbs and some other cities were liberated by a popular insurection, organised and made possible by the FTP, the communist resistance networked.



The Second Armored Division of General Leclerc, composed mostly from Algerian, under the command of General De Gaulle, came to reinforce the FTPs once they liberated Paris, that's what happened. The FTPs were good at breaking the Nazi war effort, they were good at organising an insurrection, but they were not that good in defending a city (they were not an army). So De Gaulle sent reinforcement to them. From Africa... not from USA.

That confirms what I said. USA did a good job in helping and shortening the war. But they were far from being the most important or critical job.



Sure, the Chinese didn't fight in it. They didn't lose like 10 times the amount of soldiers you did.
Blah, blah. The most important material support for WWII came straight from the USA. It was called the East Texas Oil Field. It basically meant that the Allies, even before the USA got involved, had a virtually unlimited supply of cheap and abundant energy. Hitler was spending enormous amounts of energy making fuel from coal while the Allies were sipping light, sweet crude oil. Why do you think Hitler tried to take Siberia? Who would want that? It's a wasteland - except for all the oil.

He was wrong about the part about the US entering the war once it became certain that the USSR would defeat the Germans. The Unites States declared war on December 8th 1941. The Germans didn't begin to lose ground until after the battle of Stalingrad, almost a year and a half later.

Actually...we only declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It wasn't until Germany declared war on us on the 11th that we declared war on Germany.

I still don't think Stalin would have declared war with us for no reason. I can, however, see Hitler going to war with us to "cleanse" the world.
Pure speculation on your part.

He was wrong about the part about the US entering the war once it became certain that the USSR would defeat the Germans. The Unites States declared war on December 8th 1941. The Germans didn't begin to lose ground until after the battle of Stalingrad, almost a year and a half later.

I didn't say "enter the war", I said "fought against the nazi". For most of the war, USA fought nearly only against Japan, not against the nazi. They started to really fight the nazi only after Hitler's army was broken in parts.

The reasons for it may be many, and can be completly understandable, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the USSR, and not the USA, who defeated the nazi.

Which was the wrong thing to offer. The US knew that at the time.

It wasn't just a US thing either PM. I'm surprised you would say that.

You'll notice that the final 'suurender' had conditions- why the change of heart, even though they already won?

Actually...on August 15, they agreed to the Potsdam Declaration which was...unconditional surrender.

Why do you think Hitler tried to take Siberia? Who would want that? It's a wasteland - except for all the oil.

Siberia eh?

Shit, never heard the Southern Oil fields around the Caucasus and Stalingrad called that before.

It is self-evident that the world hates Americans from the United States of America.
The very fact that I have to make that distinction only backs up my statement.
It is fun, not to mention cool, to dislike everthing remotely USian these days.

The radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are normal today. How the fuck are there still birth defects attributable to the nuclear attacks.

Simple. You're born in 1970. The radiation level is still high, you're a baby and very fragile. Your reproductive organs are damaged by the radiation. 36 years after, you're an adult, and you've a baby. He has birth defects...

That's especially true for women, since the ovules already exist (in a primitive form) at birth, and can be damaged by radioactivity at that time.

Blah, blah. The most important material support for WWII came straight from the USA. It was called the East Texas Oil Field. It basically meant that the Allies, even before the USA got involved, had a virtually unlimited supply of cheap and abundant energy. Hitler was spending enormous amounts of energy making fuel from coal while the Allies were sipping light, sweet crude oil. Why do you think Hitler tried to take Siberia? Who would want that? It's a wasteland - except for all the oil.

Back in the 40's, wasn't oil at like 100:1 or some huge number? Even coal only got 30:1 at best, so that was a huge advantage during the war.

Hitler did have the Ploesti refineries and drilling complexes, but those were also bombed pretty hard throughout the war. Japan was even worse off because coal was not abundant in Japan; I don't know for sure, but I believe the annexation of Manchuria was to ensure a steady supply of resources to Japan's war machine and to threaten USSR/China.

Still, their progress in FT synthesis was pretty remarkable; while simultaneously figthing the war they were able to make around 300,000 bpd of oil from coal and of that they were able to produce a farily decent amount of high-octane airplane fuel.

I hate america!

I didn't say "enter the war", I said "fought against the nazi". For most of the war, USA fought nearly only against Japan, not against the nazi.

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh brother... North Africa Campaign anyone? Oh my god. This is now getting funny. Revisionist History run amuck. Learn History my friend. Apparenlty, you need it.

They started to really fight the nazi only after Hitler's army was broken in parts.

I'm sure the troops in North Africa would love to hear that. They weren't broken yet. They weren't broken on the Western Theater either.

LOL jealousy?

England's healthcare is better than the United States, and whilst the US economy is larger, the pound is still worth more than the dollar.

I hate america!


Awww, that's OK. We hate you too. ;)

It wasn't just a US thing either PM. I'm surprised you would say that.



The U.S. government was not ignorant of the importance of the Emperor to Japanese surrender. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew had explained this to President Truman in person on May 28, 1945

Actually...on August 15, they agreed to the Potsdam Declaration which was...unconditional surrender.

Then my dear fellow, how was the Emperor still in charge ;) The terms changed to allow him to remain.The proclamation demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces" (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position

Then my dear fellow, how was the Emperor still in charge ;) The terms changed to allow him to remain.

The proclamation demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces"

Thank you for proving my point in regards to Unconditional Surrender. Have a nice evening.

Then my dear fellow, how was the Emperor still in charge ;) The terms changed to allow him to remain.
How did he retain his position? He was no longer a god. He got demoted bigtime.

Simple. You're born in 1970. The radiation level is still high, you're a baby and very fragile. Your reproductive organs are damaged by the radiation. 36 years after, you're an adult, and you've a baby. He has birth defects...

That's especially true for women, since the ovules already exist (in a primitive form) at birth, and can be damaged by radioactivity at that time.

AND gnentic defects caused by radiation can be hereditary, I think.

However, i'd have rather have two bombs dropped on Japan, and the world knows what evil shit they are, than we not know what they do, and later on the USSR/China and NATO lob 100s at each other unknowingly. Nuff said.

I hate america!

Unfair. I hate the US Government intensely, and the politics of a few right wing nutters, but I don't judge all Americans on that. Firstly, when I visited the USA I never had a spot of trouble and were far more accomodating and polite than Europeans. Secondly, the US government is hardly representative of it's people. No way.

Thank you for proving my point in regards to Unconditional Surrender. Have a nice evening.

Wait for it.... wait for it....

On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty"

However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand, known as the Potsdam Proclamation

BAM!

Then my dear fellow, how was the Emperor still in charge ;) The terms changed to allow him to remain.

Actually, the Japanese were hoping for a "decisive battle" in the war with the US to negotiate a surrender and somehow keep some of their gains, thereby making the war a net gain at the time of surrender.

In 1945, the Emperor was still saying there was no need to get peace unless they gained one more military victory. In fact, weren't the Japanese military waiting for the fall, when they could deal a serious blow to the Americans if they invaded Japan?

Wait for it.... wait for it....



BAM!

Your still not proving a thing. I said the Japanese Government accepted the Potsdam Declaratoin which was unconditional surrender. Why are you trying to dispute a historical truth?

Also show me where I mentioned the emperor?

I am not French.
however, this sentence really angered me:
"The French couldn't care less if they make people unhappy".
how does that fit in with the rest of the article?!
USA vs. France
...come on, that's old news (yeah, freedom fries, ha!)

Your still not proving a thing. I said the Japanese Government accepted the Potsdam Declaratoin which was unconditional surrender. Why are you trying to dispute a historical truth?

Also show me where I mentioned the emperor?

Japan never surrendered. Ever. Ever ever ever. The speech of Hirohito said:

...to bear the unbearable...

Not once is the word 'surrender' or 'unconditional' mentioned on the Japanese side. The Allies just brushed over that and said.. "eh, we won!"

The Emperor Corny, was the 'key' to the whole thing. As a god, he cannot 'step down' as the US originally wanted. They had to compromise the terms to allow him to stay on. It was never unconditional surrender.

These quotes adequately reflect the message that the rest of the world is getting from the US. Doesn't mean that is really what the US wants to tell the rest of the world, but it's what is getting out to people and it's kind of annoying.

Some of those quotes, I believe, we're sarcastic. I make no comment to them.

Personally and as an American, I could not care what the world thinks. Even if that world shows up at my front door with a blue helmet.
It's official: America doesn't care.
The World has flipped. Do you agree?
Two words to those that hate us, jealousy and envy.
Though the more I learn about international politics the more I wonder why the fuck we should care.
To be honest, I think we do too much, but that's just me.
Fuck the rest of the world. What have they ever done for us? Well, France helped us get our independence, but what have they done for us within the last two hundred years?
Suck it, people around the globe. We fucking rule! USA! USA! USA!
If all of Europe went Nazi it wouldn't have hurt us.
*YAWNS* So what is THEIR "recent contributions"?
As for me, i love America, anyone who doesnt like us well....you can all burn!!
One American life is worth many foreign lives.

LOL jealousy?

England's healthcare is better than the United States, and whilst the US economy is larger, the pound is still worth more than the dollar.

Firstly, it's the UK's Healthcare. UK ≠ England. Ooh, that makes me mad!

In any case, we're going down the road of the US anyway, thanks to our Thatcherite government.

And we have a shite economy. What happened to a real economy, based on building something, pull something out the ground, growing something, or putting something together? That's a real economy. Our ecomomy is based on Services and Banking. Great. Shelves at Tesco's and moving around someone else's debt. Plus, all 'British' companies are owned by Abroad. Great.

Rant over. And what does this have to do with America?

Japan never surrendered. Ever. Ever ever ever. The speech of Hirohito said:



Not once is the word 'surrender' or 'unconditional' mentioned on the Japanese side. The Allies just brushed over that and said.. "eh, we won!"

The Emperor Corny, was the 'key' to the whole thing. As a god, he cannot 'step down' as the US originally wanted. They had to compromise the terms to allow him to stay on. It was never unconditional surrender.
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1946/january_1_1946_106481.html

I didn't say "enter the war", I said "fought against the nazi". For most of the war, USA fought nearly only against Japan, not against the nazi. They started to really fight the nazi only after Hitler's army was broken in parts.

The reasons for it may be many, and can be completly understandable, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the USSR, and not the USA, who defeated the nazi.

Interesting who do you think helped break his army into parts? Does Patton ring a bell?

Japan never surrendered. Ever. Ever ever ever. The speech of Hirohito said:



Not once is the word 'surrender' or 'unconditional' mentioned on the Japanese side. The Allies just brushed over that and said.. "eh, we won!"

The Emperor Corny, was the 'key' to the whole thing. As a god, he cannot 'step down' as the US originally wanted. They had to compromise the terms to allow him to stay on. It was never unconditional surrender.

Oh then I guess the signing of the Instrument of SURRENDER never happened on September 2, 1945 on the USS Missouri? Seems like they surrendered to me. Do I have to teach you history as well? Again, show me where I mentioned the Emperor! I never did. I said that on August 15, 1945 they accepted the Pottsdam declaration which called for them to surrender unconditionally. What part of this is not getting through the brain?

The World is tired of us bringing up the good deeds from our past. They'd like some recent contributions.

Ah yes. Sorry about that. Let's completely ignore America's role in the single greatest conflict that humanity has ever faced, that which has affected the methodology of international politics to today, and past that. And then let's judge 300 million people because I disagree with their elected leader who's term is going to end!!! Yeah!!!

If it was up to me, americans like you would be more than welcome. The ones we don't like are the Bush supporters, not people like you

Why? Because you disagree with them?

Everyone hates the biggest, strongest, and richest guy. Even if we were pure as the driven snow, people would hate us for that.

Kind of like all the shit Bill Gates frequently receives.

Hey, ho. After helping the nazi a lot before the war (US corporations made a lot of very lucrative affairs with Hitler), USA finally began to fight them... once the Red Army was tearing in parts the nazi army !

Yes, you're right, we're wrong, sorry. It's very clear Europe and Russia would have resolved the war in a timely fashion, worked out their differences, and gone home happy had the United States simply stayed out. Tsk, tsk.

Oh well. I guess it's time to start being judgemental on 300 million people, they must clearly all be the same.

Americans are ignorant to world affairs and international opinion.

Of course they are.

The US has been ignoring world opinion for years. What exactly makes people think they're about to actually welcome it and believe it, even when reality is staring them in the face?

What reality?

Fuck the rest of the world. What have they ever done for us? Well, France helped us get our independence, but what have they done for us within the last two hundred years?

Well, you see, the rest of the world seems to think the United Nations is a good thing... so... yeah...

That's part of the problem. My fellow Americans hate me because I don't have their ignorance. Yes, they do hate me. I have been told to go to North Korea before because of my politics several times and a few say they would strangle me with my own entrails if it were legal.

Therefore, it's completely just for the rest of the world to hate 300 million people. We must all be the same. Except for you.

More civilians would have been killed in an amphib invasion and the shelling of Japan then the two nuke bombings. Easy.

That isn't remotely true. Common sense ought to tell you right now that the firebombings of Tokyo combined with the use of two nuclear weapons would not have exceeded the casualties amounted upon by a marine invasion.

Sorry, that is something our country cannot and should not be forgiven for. We helped with World War II, but that was perhaps our darkest moment.

Japan was about to resign before you dropped your nuclear weapons.

See, this is the world's problem. I'm sorry, "Kilobugya," "DesignatedMarksman" didn't drop any nuclear bombs on Japan. Neither did I. It is also, entirely likely, that we were both not alive when that happened, and that even if we were American citizens back then, we wouldn't have had any say in the matter. The atomic bomb was a weapon of utmost secrecy, was it not?

Liasia"]Only autoritarian regiemes masqureading as communist would. You hate an entire political ideology?

I disagree with it in it's philosophies, but it's just silly to hate Communism.

As for me, i love America, anyone who doesnt like us well....you can all burn!!

That's pretty dumb.

Considering the threat of mutually assured destruction? The peace would last forever.

You say that with considerable certainty. You're talking about Hitler here, a leader who took astrologer's advice ahead of that of his own military advisors regarding the Normandy decision.

Considering MAD wasn't even contemplated until post-1962, yeah, it wouldn't have lasted.

And therefore, since MAD in our current timeline was established then, it couldn't have happened any other way? Come on...

wait, you mean US policy of defying the international community, supporting brutual regimes, and ignoring or participating in human rights violations around the world isnt popular? shocking, really.

That's so true! I mean, the world has done so much in removing brutal regimes and attempting to stop human rights violations around the world, hasn't it? Yeah man, SANCTIONS. Nobody wants to deal with those. MAN that's a harsh punishment. I would HATE to be the leader of a country who gets SANCTIONS. Yipes.

Unfair. I hate the US Government intensely, and the politics of a few right wing nutters, but I don't judge all Americans on that.

Thank you. I, actually, very much enjoyed travelling to Europe.

Firstly, when I visited the USA I never had a spot of trouble and were far more accomodating and polite than Europeans.

We're all human beings. I wish more people would remember that.

Secondly, the US government is hardly representative of it's people. No way.

Sadly, that isn't true. Our government is an elected one, and to some degree we are responsible for it's being in power.

I felt inclined to post. From one American, living in America as a free thinking citizen (and proud to live in it), extending a hand of friendship to the rest of the world. The fact of the matter is, hating one another has never solved a problem. Not once. So what's the point? Let's just change how we elect leaders, and if we lose, grumble about the current administrations in a local pub.

Come on, people?

Its passed on through genetics. They are 'untouchables' in Japan. Can't remember the word for them at the moment....

The term is Burakumin, I believe. Personally, I'm no fan of Japan at all and could criticize it for days.

The term is Burakumin, I believe. Personally, I'm no fan of Japan at all and could criticize it for days.

Fuck the PS3. Fuck Sony. Nintendo FTW!!

<sniptified>
You say that with considerable certainty. You're talking about Hitler here, a leader who took astrologer's advice ahead of that of his own military advisors regarding the Normandy decision.



Reagan used advice from an astrologer too. He never attacked the Soviets.

These quotes adequately reflect the message that the rest of the world is getting from the US. Doesn't mean that is really what the US wants to tell the rest of the world, but it's what is getting out to people and it's kind of annoying.

Some of those quotes, I believe, we're sarcastic. I make no comment to them.

Sums it up, really.

But, we in the UK have flag-waving nationalist OMG I heart teh queen! Boo Europe! nutters too. Although it's less obvious (just a latent Nationalist/Conservative Streak) it's not that different. Us good, you bad. We pwn you. Etc, etc. It's maddening, whoever's doing it.

Fuck the PS3. Fuck Sony. Nintendo FTW!!

Well, my criticisms go much deeper than those.

Sums it up, really.

But, we in the UK have flag-waving nationalist OMG I heart teh queen! Boo Europe! nutters too. Although it's less obvious (just a latent Nationalist/Conservative Streak) it's not that different. Us good, you bad. We pwn you. Etc, etc. It's maddening, whoever's doing it.

I can agree with this argument.

Well, my criticisms go much deeper than those.

Oh.... damn. :(

All this tells me is that the foreigners have just as much of a capacity to mindlessly generalise as we do.

Seriously. How many of the people surveyed have actually been to the United States, encountered an American citizen in an informal, non-tourist social atmosphere, or even communicated with an American beyond giving directions to [insert historical ruin/farm cottage/monument here]?

No, you've got it backward. We helped much of the rest of the world. If all of Europe went Nazi it wouldn't have hurt us. As for the Pacific theater, the European collonies there were quickly falling to Japanese aggression. The only nations that really did help out were Asian nations like the Phillipines, who were fighting a guerilla war vs. the Japanese, and Australia. Maybe New Zealand.

Actually, if Europe had fallen, the US would have most likely fallen within a few decades. A Greater German Reich (Presuming the Germans won and not the Soviets) would have been near impossible to defeat due to its sheer size and military power, combined with its nuclear weapons and technology such as the Amerika Bomber, designed to target mainland America. Hitler even had plans for the invasion of the United States to purge it of Jewish Elements, as he stated in his 'sequel' to [I]Mein Kampf/I].

Hitler and his protoge, whoever that would have been (Himmler, perhaps), would have been determined to destroy the US, as it would have been the one major power left to challenge it. A nuclear first strike would have been the most likely of strategies, with perhaps a limited landing of German troops from Mexico, promising the Mexicans Texas and other territories for their cooperation. There would have been a limited struggle, ending more than likely in several more cities going up in mushroom clouds and a surrender, followed by a 'Vichy USA' of sorts.

The US may well have nuked the GGR back, although isolationist governments would more than likely have been driving the US by then. Even with an aggressive government in charge. the GGR would simply have had more weapons and troops than the US. Depending on when Britain had surrendered to the Germans, the British Empire might have remained to help the US, although a more realistic view would be Canada joining the US and the rest of the Empire either being granted independence (India, Palestine), being captured (Malta, Gibraltar) or going into Isolation politically (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa).

So, in short, the fall of Europe would have doomed the US to enslavement and invasion, at best remaining a weakened power subservient to the Greater German Reich.

Whereas Stalin always took into account the will of the people. The millions of starving people, the people exiled to gulags, the people waiting to get a bullet in the head in the basement of the KGB building, and the people who just disappeared.
He wasn't in power the whole cold war.

Actually, if Europe had fallen, the US would have most likely fallen within a few decades. A Greater German Reich (Presuming the Germans won and not the Soviets) would have been near impossible to defeat due to its sheer size and military power, combined with its nuclear weapons and technology such as the Amerika Bomber, designed to target mainland America. Hitler even had plans for the invasion of the United States to purge it of Jewish Elements, as he stated in his 'sequel' to [I]Mein Kampf/I].

Hitler and his protoge, whoever that would have been (Himmler, perhaps), would have been determined to destroy the US, as it would have been the one major power left to challenge it. A nuclear first strike would have been the most likely of strategies, with perhaps a limited landing of German troops from Mexico, promising the Mexicans Texas and other territories for their cooperation. There would have been a limited struggle, ending more than likely in several more cities going up in mushroom clouds and a surrender, followed by a 'Vichy USA' of sorts.

The US may well have nuked the GGR back, although isolationist governments would more than likely have been driving the US by then. Even with an aggressive government in charge. the GGR would simply have had more weapons and troops than the US. Depending on when Britain had surrendered to the Germans, the British Empire might have remained to help the US, although a more realistic view would be Canada joining the US and the rest of the Empire either being granted independence (India, Palestine), being captured (Malta, Gibraltar) or going into Isolation politically (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa).

So, in short, the fall of Europe would have doomed the US to enslavement and invasion, at best remaining a weakened power subservient to the Greater German Reich.
No fucking way. First of all, we would certainly nuke them back. Second, what kind of shape would the Nazis be in after fighting the Soviets? They'd take quite a long time to rebuild their military. Third, when faced with a Nazi super-state that likely has plans to invade us why the fuck would we have an isolationist government?

Interesting who do you think helped break his army into parts? Does Patton ring a bell?

I never said USA didn't do anything. I said I'm piss off to always hear "we saved everyone", while the role played by USA, if important, was not more so (and probably even less) than the role played by USSR, UK, China, resistants or African from the colonies.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1946/january_1_1946_106481.html
Well done.

I notice that is 1946.

I am talking about 1945.

Oh then I guess the signing of the Instrument of SURRENDER never happened on September 2, 1945 on the USS Missouri? Seems like they surrendered to me.
To you. To the Japanese... no.

Do I have to teach you history as well? Again, show me where I mentioned the Emperor! I never did. I said that on August 15, 1945 they accepted the Pottsdam declaration which called for them to surrender unconditionally. What part of this is not getting through the brain?

Postdam: Unconditional Surrender. This means, bye bye Emperor.

Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki:June 9, 1945, "Should the Emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. 'Unconditional surrender', therefore, means death to the hundred million: it leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man."

What the Japanese agreed to:August 11, 1945 Allied response referred to the Emperor's continuing role in Japanese government: "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers"

Therefore, Postdam, was not exaclty what Japans agreed to. The US allowed them wiggle room to keep Hirohito as head of gov.

Interesting who do you think helped break his army into parts? Does Patton ring a bell?

The Western Allies destroyed only a small part of the Wehrmacht, and did not face many of its most elite and veteran divisions, which were deployed on the Eastern Front. The USSR did do most of the fighting and winning. For example, whilst the Normandy Invasion was occuring, Operation Bagration was already in full swing on the Eastern Front, involving two to three times the number of divisions deployed on both sides in Normandy, and inflicting far more casualties than the whole of OVERLORD did.

Sadly, that isn't true. Our government is an elected one, and to some degree we are responsible for it's being in power.

Yeah, kind of. But, Al Gore won '01, not Bush. The people wanted the Democrats, but the Government via the EC became a Republican one. IMHO, if the 'loser' of an election wins office, it's not representative at all.

But the fact remains that baseing one's opinions of a people based on politics is poor indeed.

That isn't remotely true. Common sense ought to tell you right now that the firebombings of Tokyo combined with the use of two nuclear weapons would not have exceeded the casualties amounted upon by a marine invasion.

Sorry, that is something our country cannot and should not be forgiven for. We helped with World War II, but that was perhaps our darkest moment.




It ended war with Japan. Did you hear that Japanese civilians jumped to their deaths on some of the islands the marines invaded? Hundreds. Just jumped RIGHT off the cliff onto the rocks. Well, Marines ARE very terrifying if you are on the wrong side.

Don't forget the MILLIONS of Japanese who would have fought to the death against 3 million US troops invading Japan. I think Japan had 10 million militia and a few million regular army. This would make D-day look like a child's bathtub flotilla-floating a few million american marines and GIs to Japan for the world's largest fireworks and firefight show.

Our losses ALONE would have been more than both nukes, not to mention the japanese. That means the the nuke was a viable option then for ending the war.

And it did.

I never said USA didn't do anything. I said I'm piss off to always hear "we saved everyone", while the role played by USA, if important, was not more so (and probably even less) than the role played by USSR, UK, China, resistants or African from the colonies.

You really have a spur up your butt don't you?

But the fact remains that baseing one's opinions of a people based on politics is poor indeed.

Seconded. Now, I'm hungry, I've said my piece and I intend to fetch some eats. Good day, all.

He wasn't in power the whole cold war.
We were making a comparisson to hitler. Unless they really did save hitler's brain, he wouldn't have been in power throughout the cold war either. People get old, retire or die.

Actually, if Europe had fallen, the US would have most likely fallen within a few decades. A Greater German Reich (Presuming the Germans won and not the Soviets) would have been near impossible to defeat

It would have been impossible to defeat from outside, but I'm not that sure it wouldn't have collapsed by itself. There were strong rivalities between the nazi, and keeping an ironfist on so many people at once is very hard. Resistance would have continue to disrupt the nazi war effort from inside, and the nazi would have had to continue using enormous amount of forces to prevent the people from occupied countries from revolting.

But still, I think you're not too wrong, and it was very likely USA would have failed before the "Greater German Reich" imploded (like all empires end up, sooner or later).

Therefore, Postdam, was not exaclty what Japans agreed to. The US allowed them wiggle room to keep Hirohito as head of gov.

But when they asked the Allies about keeping the Emperor in a position of real power, the Allies responded:

"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms."

And the next day the Emperor told members of his cabinet:

""I have listened carefully to each of the arguments presented in opposition to the view that Japan should accept the Allied reply as it stands and without further clarification or modification, but my own thoughts have not undergone any change."

So if the people didn't know the difference, I'll bet the military and government sure understood that.

To you. To the Japanese... no.

Go ahead and rewrite history.

Postdam: Unconditional Surrender. This means, bye bye Emperor.

WRong. It didn'tmean that for you said it yourself that the emperor was NOT in the potsdam declaration.

The proclamation stated that the full force of the United States, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China would strike the final blows upon Japan. That like happened to Germany the power of the Allies would lead to "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan ended the war.

Militarism in Japan must end.
Japan would be occupied until the basic objective set out in this proclamation were met.
The terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out and Japanese sovereignty would be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as the Allies determined.
Japanese army would be completely disarmed and allowed to return home.
War criminals would be punished including those who had "visited cruelties upon our prisoners". Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
Japan should be permitted to maintain a viable industrial economy but not industries which would enable her to re-arm for war.
Allied forces would be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
The Potsdam Declaration is referenced by the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

Now where in here does it mention the Emperor?

No fucking way. First of all, we would certainly nuke them back. Second, what kind of shape would the Nazis be in after fighting the Soviets? They'd take quite a long time to rebuild their military. Third, when faced with a Nazi super-state that likely has plans to invade us why the fuck would we have an isolationist government?

Agreed. No Greater German Reich would draw more than Weimar Germany, Austria, Parts of Switzerland, Alsace-Lorraine and the Sudetenland into itself. Possibly the low countries, too. Plus, Italy, Spain and ?Portugal would be fascist, perhaps more. The rest would be occupied territory and puppet states. That would take enough time and energy, let alone ruling a united US/Canada (also impossible), after fighting the USSR, which would undoubtedly supported by the USA.

I never said USA didn't do anything. I said I'm piss off to always hear "we saved everyone", while the role played by USA, if important, was not more so (and probably even less) than the role played by USSR, UK, China, resistants or African from the colonies.

No actually you said

I didn't say "enter the war", I said "fought against the nazi". For most of the war, USA fought nearly only against Japan, not against the nazi. They started to really fight the nazi only after Hitler's army was broken in parts.

Which ignores that the US most certainly helped to break Hitler's army up.

Maybe the world "hates" us because every time we talk about our relationships with the rest of the world we end up totally unable to shut up about WWII.

Now where in here does it mention the Emperor?

The Emperor came up in separate communications between the Japanese and the Allies, I don't think it was part of the Potsdam Declaration.

You really have a spur up your butt don't you?

Nice counter argument. I like the way you laid out the historical facts and placed them in context so we could all understand them.

The Emperor came up in separate communications between the Japanese and the Allies, I don't think it was part of the Potsdam Declaration.

We have a winner. I have been going with Potsdam and nothing else. And here's something else. That separate communique was mistranslated and presented to the Emperor.

That wasn't my argument though. My argument was in regards to Potsdam and nothing else but Potsdam. :D

It would have been impossible to defeat from outside, but I'm not that sure it wouldn't have collapsed by itself. There were strong rivalities between the nazi, and keeping an ironfist on so many people at once is very hard. Resistance would have continue to disrupt the nazi war effort from inside, and the nazi would have had to continue using enormous amount of forces to prevent the people from occupied countries from revolting.

But still, I think you're not too wrong, and it was very likely USA would have failed before the "Greater German Reich" imploded (like all empires end up, sooner or later).

History would have been very different. WW2 is what turned the US's economic machine into high gear. Although I doubt Germany would have been able to cross an ocean and invade the US. I mean, Britian beat up on them during the battle of the blitz in the early 40s and they were only across the channel.

Nice counter argument. I like the way you laid out the historical facts and placed them in context so we could all understand them.

Not my fault he doesn't know his history.

No fucking way. First of all, we would certainly nuke them back. Second, what kind of shape would the Nazis be in after fighting the Soviets? They'd take quite a long time to rebuild their military. Third, when faced with a Nazi super-state that likely has plans to invade us why the fuck would we have an isolationist government?

Once Europe and the USSR had fallen, there would have been several decades of isolationism and rebuilding on the part of the GGR. Nuclear arsenals would have been built up for the inevitable conflict with the USA and Amerika-style bombers built, but these would not have been deployed until the 1960's, as rebuilding and quashing the last Soviet resistance would have taken that long.

The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would have been built up, utilising the rocket technology that the scientists stolen by Operation PAPERCLIP in 1945, including V3 technology and nuclear weapons created by Professor Heisenberg using heavy water from Norway and the other Scandinavian technology. Thus by the 1960's a technologically advanced GGR would have been present - remember, the US only got much of their rocket technology from the captured Nazi scientists, scientists that in this reality would be utilised by the Nazis themselves.

As to an isolationist government, for the US to not have intervened in 1940 would presume that Roosvelt was either not elected or replaced by another candiate that wanted Isolationism, of which there were no shortage of candidates and Congress would have fully supported. This tradition may well have been followed in the next few decades so as not to antagonise the GGR; remember that many in the US favoured the Germans over Europeans and Russians (Henry Ford and Jospeph Kennedy, for example), and so would have pressured for an isolationist view of the GGR whilst conducting business with it. If President Kennedy had taken office as he did historically, he may well have been influenced by his father enough to have taken an isolationist stance, as would many previous Presidents, there being no effectrive way to fight Germany without a European foothold such as Britain.

Once the war came, there may well have been a nuclear exchange (Presumably the GGR would have struck first), but with the sheer size of the GGR, stretching from Britain to the Urals, it would have been extremely difficult to force a surrender. The GGR may well have had more nuclear weapons, and with a limited land invasion from Mexico and possibly landings on the Eastern Seaboards, President Kennedy, or whoever was President then, may well have decided to surrender rather than seen any more of his people killed. There would have been continued resistance, of course, but one akin to the European resistance movements, and with no-one to supply them.

We have a winner.

Woo Hoo! I'm a winner! I knew 15 years in college would pay off someday!

Maybe the world "hates" us because every time we talk about our relationships with the rest of the world we end up totally unable to shut up about WWII.
Well I didn't start the WWII thing. I just made the innocent statement "People around the globe can suck it. America fucking rules!"

The Western Allies destroyed only a small part of the Wehrmacht, and did not face many of its most elite and veteran divisions, which were deployed on the Eastern Front. The USSR did do most of the fighting and winning. For example, whilst the Normandy Invasion was occuring, Operation Bagration was already in full swing on the Eastern Front, involving two to three times the number of divisions deployed on both sides in Normandy, and inflicting far more casualties than the whole of OVERLORD did.
This Russian applauds you for your good memory and knowledge. :fluffle:

Once Europe and the USSR had fallen, there would have been several decades of isolationism and rebuilding on the part of the GGR. Nuclear arsenals would have been built up for the inevitable conflict with the USA and Amerika-style bombers built, but these would not have been deployed until the 1960's, as rebuilding and quashing the last Soviet resistance would have taken that long.

The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would have been built up, utilising the rocket technology that the scientists stolen by Operation PAPERCLIP in 1945, including V3 technology and nuclear weapons created by Professor Heisenberg using heavy water from Norway and the other Scandinavian technology. Thus by the 1960's a technologically advanced GGR would have been present - remember, the US only got much of their rocket technology from the captured Nazi scientists, scientists that in this reality would be utilised by the Nazis themselves.

As to an isolationist government, for the US to not have intervened in 1940 would presume that Roosvelt was either not elected or replaced by another candiate that wanted Isolationism, of which there were no shortage of candidates and Congress would have fully supported. This tradition may well have been followed in the next few decades so as not to antagonise the GGR; remember that many in the US favoured the Germans over Europeans and Russians (Henry Ford and Jospeph Kennedy, for example), and so would have pressured for an isolationist view of the GGR whilst conducting business with it. If President Kennedy had taken office as he did historically, he may well have been influenced by his father enough to have taken an isolationist stance, as would many previous Presidents, there being no effectrive way to fight Germany without a European foothold such as Britain.

Once the war came, there may well have been a nuclear exchange (Presumably the GGR would have struck first), but with the sheer size of the GGR, stretching from Britain to the Urals, it would have been extremely difficult to force a surrender. The GGR may well have had more nuclear weapons, and with a limited land invasion from Mexico and possibly landings on the Eastern Seaboards, President Kennedy, or whoever was President then, may well have decided to surrender rather than seen any more of his people killed. There would have been continued resistance, of course, but one akin to the European resistance movements, and with no-one to supply them.
Meanwhile the US would be sitting around with it's collective thumb up it's ass humming Yankee Doodle Dandy, right?

Not my fault he doesn't know his history.

So demonstrate that you do, rather than resort to juvenile insults.

As it happens his grasp on the history of WWII seems to be rather better than yours, but meh, you will believe what you want to.

So demonstrate that you do, rather than resort to juvenile insults.

As it happens his grasp on the history of WWII seems to be rather better than yours, but meh, you will believe what you want to.

Sorry but I do not subscribe to revisionist history of his kind. I'm not the only who has shown him that he was wrong but to negate the importance of the United States in the fight against Italy and Germany is really doing an injustice to the whole world for the US was supplying much of the equipment that Britain and the USSR were using against the Germans.

I'm sorry you agree with his revisionist facts but that is not my problem.

Meanwhile the US would be sitting around with it's collective thumb up it's ass humming Yankee Doodle Dandy, right?

The precedent for isolationism was extremely strong in the United States - as shown by the opposition to Roosevelt's Lend-Lease programs in 1940-41, especially in Congress. Combined with pro-German personalities such as Henry Ford and Robert Kennedy, a period of isolationism and even attempted friendship with the GGR would not have been unlikely - there would have been no way for the US to fight against the Germans even if they had wanted to, as there was no European foothold. At the most they might have supplied resistance groups within the Western European countries, but even that might have been impossible with strong isolationist influences in Congress and the White House itself, not to mention businessmen and other politicians.

**** the rest of the world. What have they ever done for us? Well, France helped us get our independence, but what have they done for us within the last two hundred years?
Put her there pal!

Go ahead and rewrite history.

Look at the speech given by Hirohito to the Japanese public. Find me the words 'surrender' or 'unconditional'. They would be quite important!



WRong. It didn'tmean that for you said it yourself that the emperor was NOT in the potsdam declaration.

Ok.

Potsdam Proclamation included in its unconditional surrender terms the condition that the Japanese would be allowed to establish their own government. This is vague and gave the impression to the Japanese that this meant bye bye Hirohito.

This is even confirmed by Secof War, Henry Stimson:Perhaps the Proclamation could have gone a step further and stated clearly, as Sec. of War Stimson suggested, that the Japanese could retain the throne

So, with no guarantee that the Emp. would remain in place, they did not surrender.

ONLY AFTER the Allies made it clear that the Emp. would be allowed to remain as head of govt. did he make his radio address to they people of Japan.

Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty"

This was not included in the original Potsdam document. It was afterwards that the Americans tried to backpeddle and let the Japanese make a decision.


Now where in here does it mention the Emperor?
Oooohh. Wiki? And here I was using an actual source.

The precedent for isolationism was extremely strong in the United States - as shown by the opposition to Roosevelt's Lend-Lease programs in 1940-41, especially in Congress. Combined with pro-German personalities such as Henry Ford and Robert Kennedy, a period of isolationism and even attempted friendship with the GGR would not have been unlikely - there would have been no way for the US to fight against the Germans even if they had wanted to, as there was no European foothold. At the most they might have supplied resistance groups within the Western European countries, but even that might have been impossible with strong isolationist influences in Congress and the White House itself, not to mention businessmen and other politicians.
Scuze me, but I don't think the US would have wasted time navel-gazing while a Nazi super state bent on world domination stockpiled nuclear weapons. We would have been building a nuclear deterant, and working on our own air defenses and delivery systems.

This Russian applauds you for your good memory and knowledge. :fluffle:

Many thanks. Whilst in no way do I wish to denegrate the role of the United States in the conflict - their soldiers fought just as bravely as other allied troops, and their manufacturing facilities were vital to the war effort - a US and Western-centric viewpoint is misleading and wrong. The role of the USSR in the fighting must not be overlooked, and as a historian I cannot let that happen.

Scuze me, but I don't think the US would have wasted time navel-gazing while a Nazi super state bent on world domination stockpiled nuclear weapons. We would have been building a nuclear deterant, and working on our own air defenses and delivery systems.

Indeed so. The United States would have built up the stockpiles and defences, as you suggested. However they would have been limited somewhat by missing the scientists nabbed by PAPERCLIP, and may even have had treaties with the GGR similar to SALT to lower weapon numbers. You cannot ignore the pro-isolationist and pro-German influence of politicians and businessmen in the United States that would not have wanted a conflict with the GGR, as well as public opinion that would no doubt have turned against any type of war, especially with the pictures of Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Europe still in their minds.

Meanwhile the US would be sitting around with it's collective thumb up it's ass humming Yankee Doodle Dandy, right?


Apparently.


Now, if only Bush was President in 1945 if that all went down :D.....

Once Europe and the USSR had fallen, there would have been several decades of isolationism and rebuilding on the part of the GGR. Nuclear arsenals would have been built up for the inevitable conflict with the USA and Amerika-style bombers built, but these would not have been deployed until the 1960's, as rebuilding and quashing the last Soviet resistance would have taken that long.

The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would have been built up, utilising the rocket technology that the scientists stolen by Operation PAPERCLIP in 1945, including V3 technology and nuclear weapons created by Professor Heisenberg using heavy water from Norway and the other Scandinavian technology. Thus by the 1960's a technologically advanced GGR would have been present - remember, the US only got much of their rocket technology from the captured Nazi scientists, scientists that in this reality would be utilised by the Nazis themselves.

As to an isolationist government, for the US to not have intervened in 1940 would presume that Roosvelt was either not elected or replaced by another candiate that wanted Isolationism, of which there were no shortage of candidates and Congress would have fully supported. This tradition may well have been followed in the next few decades so as not to antagonise the GGR; remember that many in the US favoured the Germans over Europeans and Russians (Henry Ford and Jospeph Kennedy, for example), and so would have pressured for an isolationist view of the GGR whilst conducting business with it. If President Kennedy had taken office as he did historically, he may well have been influenced by his father enough to have taken an isolationist stance, as would many previous Presidents, there being no effectrive way to fight Germany without a European foothold such as Britain.

Once the war came, there may well have been a nuclear exchange (Presumably the GGR would have struck first), but with the sheer size of the GGR, stretching from Britain to the Urals, it would have been extremely difficult to force a surrender. The GGR may well have had more nuclear weapons, and with a limited land invasion from Mexico and possibly landings on the Eastern Seaboards, President Kennedy, or whoever was President then, may well have decided to surrender rather than seen any more of his people killed. There would have been continued resistance, of course, but one akin to the European resistance movements, and with no-one to supply them.
Damn. You're like, the Nostrodamous of hindsight.

Once Europe and the USSR had fallen, *snip*.

An interesting what-if scenerio. Those are always fun. ;)

Indeed so. The United States would have built up the stockpiles and defences, as you suggested. However they would have been limited somewhat by missing the scientists nabbed by PAPERCLIP, and may even have had treaties with the GGR similar to SALT to lower weapon numbers. You cannot ignore the pro-isolationist and pro-German influence of politicians and businessmen in the United States that would not have wanted a conflict with the GGR, as well as public opinion that would no doubt have turned against any type of war, especially with the pictures of Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Europe still in their minds.
We will never know exactly what would have happened, but I've got a feeling that we would be OK. Fact is, we've proven to be pretty good at defending ourselves and attacking others throughout history.

Damn. You're like, the Nostrodamous of hindsight.

Actually, I'm just an Alternate History buff who has researched this thoroughly over several years. It's my little hobby.

Sorry but I do not subscribe to revisionist history of his kind. I'm not the only who has shown him that he was wrong but to negate the importance of the United States in the fight against Italy and Germany is really doing an injustice to the whole world for the US was supplying much of the equipment that Britain and the USSR were using against the Germans.

I'm sorry you agree with his revisionist facts but that is not my problem.

All you have done is show that you cannot read English.

He, at no point denied that the USA was important, so what is your problem?

what he said was:
I never said USA didn't do anything. I said I'm piss off to always hear "we saved everyone", while the role played by USA, if important, was not more so (and probably even less) than the role played by USSR, UK, China, resistants or African from the colonies.

This simply indicates that he considers that the USA role in WWII was less significant than that of the USSR, the UK etc. You can argue about the relative importance of China, and Africa compared to the USA, and I would support you in this, but there is no historical doubt, whatsoever, that the roles of the UK and the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany were more important than that of the USA. This is not revisionism in any way.

Indeed so. The United States would have built up the stockpiles and defences, as you suggested. However they would have been limited somewhat by missing the scientists nabbed by PAPERCLIP, and may even have had treaties with the GGR similar to SALT to lower weapon numbers. You cannot ignore the pro-isolationist and pro-German influence of politicians and businessmen in the United States that would not have wanted a conflict with the GGR, as well as public opinion that would no doubt have turned against any type of war, especially with the pictures of Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Europe still in their minds.

Pro german? C'mon. We were renaming doxens and sauer kraut to get our german influence out!

The US would have built up it's army. That and start handing out the old WWI weapons to civilians. Granted, there WERE isolationists in congress and in government, but look what happened when dec 7th rolled around. German troops in North or South America? Noone could have slept through that, not even a hardcore isolationist.

Well, Cindy sheehan, but that's about it. Oh, and those anti-war protestors that were knocked around during WW2.

We will never know exactly what would have happened, but I've got a feeling that we would be OK. Fact is, we've proven to be pretty good at defending ourselves and attacking others throughout history.

I would challenge this. You have never been faced with a power that the GGR would have been. True, you had a 50 year Cold War with the USSR, but the Russian leaders never wanted open conflict, and only wanted war if they were provoked or thought an attack imminent. Say what you will of Khruschev and Gorbachev, but they were at least rational human beings. Even at the height of the Cold War with the Bay of Pigs incident, rationality overcame emotions and paranoia.

The GGR, on the other hand, would have been following the orders of Hitler before he died and Mein Kampf, and would have had a military just as large as the USSR and far better trained and motivated. Crucially they would also have wanted war, to cleanse the US of the 'Jewish elements' and eliminate their biggest and most dangerous rival. That war might not have been for several decades, but it would have inevitably occured, and the US would have faced an enemy just as powerful as it, perhaps even more so, and without any allies, with the possible exception of Canada.

Pro german? C'mon. We were renaming doxens and sauer kraut to get our german influence out!

The US would have built up it's army. That and start handing out the old WWI weapons to civilians. Granted, there WERE isolationists in congress and in government, but look what happened when dec 7th rolled around. German troops in North or South America? Noone could have slept through that, not even a hardcore isolationist.

Well, Cindy sheehan, but that's about it. Oh, and those anti-war protestors that were knocked around during WW2.
There were organizations like the German-American Bund (those fuckers owned a big tract of land used for rallys and such in North New Jersey), who lobbied the government to adopt pro-German positions, but they were looked down upon by many Americans.

All you have done is show that you cannot read English.

He, at no point denied that the USA was important, so what is your problem?

what he said was:
I never said USA didn't do anything. I said I'm piss off to always hear "we saved everyone", while the role played by USA, if important, was not more so (and probably even less) than the role played by USSR, UK, China, resistants or African from the colonies.

This simply indicates that he considers that the USA role in WWII was less significant than that of the USSR, the UK etc. You can argue about the relative importance of China, and Africa compared to the USA, and I would support you in this, but there is no historical doubt, whatsoever, that the roles of the UK and the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany were more important than that of the USA. This is not revisionism in any way.

We DID send TONS of supplies to the Commies, Brits, French, um..just about anyone who was fighting the germans plus intelligence.

Pro german? C'mon. We were renaming doxens and sauer kraut to get our german influence out!

The US would have built up it's army. That and start handing out the old WWI weapons to civilians. Granted, there WERE isolationists in congress and in government, but look what happened when dec 7th rolled around. German troops in North or South America? Noone could have slept through that, not even a hardcore isolationist.

Well, Cindy sheehan, but that's about it. Oh, and those anti-war protestors that were knocked around during WW2.

Said objects were only renamed in patriotic outburts once the war had started and the public swayed into supporting the war. Do not underestimate the influence of people like Joseph Kennedy and Henry Ford, powerful and influential men and with many supporters, who saw the Germans as decent people neccessary in the world.

As to the South American encroachment. This of course is more debatable, but looking at past German attempts to get Mexico into both world wars, promising Mexico Texas and other southern territories may well have swung the deal for the Mexican government. The build-up may have bee gradual, and the isolationist and possibly even pro-German US governments unable or unwilling to do anything to antagonise relationships with the Germans over such a buildup.

There were organizations like the German-American Bund (those fuckers owned a big tract of land used for rallys and such in North New Jersey), who lobbied the government to adopt pro-German positions, but they were looked down upon by many Americans.

Indeed. With a pro-isolationist and pro-German government, such organisations may have been encouraged and expanded upon, with anti-semitism encouraged to gain public support for such a policy.

There were organizations like the German-American Bund (those fuckers owned a big tract of land used for rallys and such in North New Jersey), who lobbied the government to adopt pro-German positions, but they were looked down upon by many Americans.

They sure succeeded there! Good goin' boys!

Actually, I'm just an Alternate History buff who has researched this thoroughly over several years. It's my little hobby.
Well, then you'd have to know that the infinite number of variables involved, including diseases, technological innovation, natural disasters, sunspots, internal strife, external strife, the lack of sufficient energy sources to spur economic recovery (the North Sea hadn't been explored yet and the tech necessary to get oil from the sea bed didn't exist), political upheaval, etc..., etc..., etc..., make your entire post a complete work of specualtive fiction and that, in reality, if the US had not gotten involved in the war, you have absolutely no clue at all what would have happened over the next 60 years but have to be pretty sure that, just because of chaos, entropy and probability, it would probably look nothing at all like what you described, right?

Well, then you'd have to know that the infinite number of variables involved, including diseases, technological innovation, natural disasters, sunspots, internal strife, external strife, the lack of sufficient energy sources to spur economic recovery (the North Sea hadn't been explored yet and the tech necessary to get oil from the sea bed didn't exist), political upheaval, etc..., etc..., etc..., make your entire post a complete work of specualtive fiction and that, in reality, if the US had not gotten involved in the war, you have absolutely no clue at all what would have happened over the next 60 years but have to be pretty sure that, just because of chaos, entropy and probability, it would probably look nothing at all like what you described, right?

Whilst Alternate History is by its very nature a speculative subject, the careful examination of historical fact and precedent can give us quite an accurate picture of what might have happened. In this case, the facts include a strong isolationist element in the United States coming from the end of the First World War and a strong pro-Nazi element in US including powerful figures like Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy.

Thus the use of these facts can give us a quite accurate depicition of what this reality would have been like - all based on historical fact and precedent. Indeed, this is not just me speaking. Eminent historians and historical novelists such as Len Deighton (SS GB) and Henry Turtledove (In The Presence Of Mine Enemies) have postulated this exact future, and they have done far more research than I have.

England's healthcare is better than the United States, and whilst the US economy is larger, the pound is still worth more than the dollar.
Relative monetary values mean nothing. And, incidentally, a weaker dollar means that American exports are more attractive.

Relative monetary values mean nothing. And, incidentally, a weaker dollar means that American exports are more attractive.
Exactly. Now a worthless GM car that will fall apart after 50,000 miles is almost cheap enough to make it worth buying.

Whilst Alternate History is by its very nature a speculative subject, the careful examination of historical fact and precedent can give us quite an accurate picture of what might have happened.And you test this conclusion, how?



In this case, the facts include a strong isolationist element in the United States coming from the end of the First World War and a strong pro-Nazi element in US including powerful figures like Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy.

Thus the use of these facts can give us a quite accurate depicition of what this reality would have been like - all based on historical fact and precedent. Indeed, this is not just me speaking. Eminent historians and historical novelists such as Len Deighton (SS GB) and Henry Turtledove (In The Presence Of Mine Enemies) have postulated this exact future, and they have done far more research than I have.
You mean the examination of selected facts, right? I saw no mention in your post of the enormous energy resources present in America and the exploding industrial sector fed by that all that oil wealth. This industrial explosion, contrary to popular belief, predated WWII. It was prompted by the New Deal which ran government deficits to promote public works and put people to work so that they would have money to go buy bread, butter, a car, a house, a TV... etc... and was also the result of the fact that the US was awash in oil in the early 20th century. In Texas oil was so cheap they actually had to create the Texas Railroad commission to set quotas to artificially support the prices. Couple that with the, at the time, vast amounts of untapped mineral wealth and you get an America that was destined to become an industrial powerhouse. Germany, on the other hand, woudl have to have gotten all of it's energy and materials from far away, occupied territories with more than a little resentment in the indigenous populations. Most of Europe's low hanging fruit, mineral-wise, was depleted from 2,000 years of exploitation. America's best natural resources, at the time, were still in the ground. Especially all that oil and natural gas. As for wether we copudl make our own missiles without the German scientists, well, we some how figured out how to make a nuclear weapon. I think we could handle making rockets. I don't even want to go into how many other things we invented.

All that aside, how would the spread of Marburgh have changed in a GGR Europe? How would migration routes have changed? How would teh Middle East have reacted to Germany trying to annex them, which it probably would have tried to do for need of oil - something it had very little of. What effect would the constant uprisings from formerly free and fiercly nationalistic peoples have had on Germany's advancment? Afterall, we weren't dealing with any armed insurrections. I think it's undeniable Germany would have.

Truth is you have absolutely no idea what would have happened and no way at all to test yoru speculations.

We DID send TONS of supplies to the Commies, Brits, French, um..just about anyone who was fighting the germans plus intelligence.

No, you SOLD tons of supplies to everyone, including the Germans pre 1939. However, the ethics of this aspect aside, I do not deny the importance of the USA as an industrial base, thus it ranks above China and the African nations in my view.
Intelligence was shared between the allied nations.

Actually...we only declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It wasn't until Germany declared war on us on the 11th that we declared war on Germany.
Your right, but it still doesn't change my point that US participation in the war was not initially motivated by fears of Soviet domination.

Your right, but it still doesn't change my point that US participation in the war was not initially motivated by fears of Soviet domination.

You are indeed correct. It wasn't. Sorry if I came of sounding condescending. I just love dates :D

I'm not suprised. I don't like us much either. Which is why I want to leave and I will leave when I get the chance.

Kind of Pathetic that people can just an entire group based off of their Government basicly.

Kind of Pathetic that people can just an entire group based off of their Government basicly.

And that we can't spell worth shit, you can't even spell basically correct.

Talk of the past is pointless.

The survey shows that people all around the world have a lower opinion of the USA today than at pretty much any time in the past. So even if you disagree with the actions of the USA with respect to any issues between the formation of the country and a few years ago, the general population of the world has still, in general, found them to be "alright people" regardless of what they have done. Now, things are changing. The change is due to the current state of the world, so arguing about history is pointless, because history isn't behind this change in opinion. The story has been reported here in the UK, with the issues behind the statistics as well as the statistics themselves, and the issues people quoted were all current issues. People around the world find fault in the USA for Guantanamo Bay; for the invasion of Iraq; for a percieved one-sidedness in it's attempt to help create peace in the Middle East; for scanning the eyeballs of anyone who holidays in the USA. Vietnam, the Boston Tea Party, use of atomic weapons, the US-Mexico war, or a "late arrival" to World War II were not issues that affected people's opinions.

I like 1940's Italy! So did the Americans. 'Specially Roma! :p

But regardless, I think that this entire topic is really, really ironic, considering the World War II-esque twist it's taken. Why don't we try considering what the Americans and Brits and Aussies and French of that time thought of each other? I think they were actually pretty friendly with one another. Granted, their leaders oftentimes had scuffles...but hey, they won the bloody war together! And here we are, sitting around trying to formulate reasons why America is this, and Europe was that, and so on and so forth.

The countries in question might have thought they hated each other before 1939. I mean, America being isolationist and totally abandoning it's own offspring (The League of Nations) MUST have pissed some Europeans/Canadians/Russians off, right? But look what happened the instant war broke out; America promises armaments beyond belief for all Allied powers, Canada jumps into the fray along with the Aussies and the Kiwis, and India is instantly ready to take orders from Britain to help defend the Empire. I mean, these guys became buddy-buddy very quickly, once they realized their little problems really didn't mean that much.

What I'm trying to say is that, in reality, if another terrible conflict on the scale of the Second War To End All Wars began, I am positive that any little economic, territorial, and behavioural problems we have with each other would evaporate into history.

Liasia']I saw a funny video the other day. Americans were asked if their military should invade Iran, then asked to place in a pin in Iran on a map. Almost all of them said yes, and i think one person of about 10 knew where the damn country was- someone pointed to Australia.

There was another one where some boys went around a prestigious girls school asking them to sign a petition to 'end women's sufferage'. one girl of about 30 knew what that meant and refused to sign it.

www.thatvideosite.com- i think theyre both on there.

I'm one of the people who know where it is... and I'm 15 years old... I agree that a lot of Americans set a bad example for other countries to see (look at Bush) which, unfortunately, results in the few who actually pay some attention to the rest of the world being considered just as bad. And no, I don't think we should pull another stupid stunt like Iraq. As for the person who thought Iran was Australia... :headbang:

blah blah blah...please tell me why the average guy living in Philadelphia should really give a shit ?

My stock value isnt affected.
My job isnt affected
Most people I know are not affected.

in fact the news effects most people ...unless they are actually THE news..about as much as a soap opera.

Actually I care more about my hemmoroids and I suspect the average European thinks the same .

Joking aside (you was all being so serious, I couldn't resist). I totally agree that judging one person on their country and a country upon some individuals with a poor knowlege of geography isn't right.
As for the American Government...I'm sure it's already been said.
I've not bothered to check out the previous pages.

blah blah blah...please tell me why the average guy living in Philadelphia should really give a shit ?

My stock value isnt affected.
My job isnt affected
Most people I know are not affected.

in fact the news effects most people ...unless they are actually THE news..about as much as a soap opera.

Actually I care more about my hemmoroids and I suspect the average European thinks the same .
Wrong. Goodwill is a fundamental part of any marketing campaign, and if you hold stocks in US companies then the attitude of other nationalities to the US will have an effect on your stock holdings.

But, you are obviously too insular to realise this.

It's official: The world hates America

Awwww...but don't worry...the poll also shows that India loves America and with our 1 billion population, we will make up for the world...:p :D

just remember to pass the nuke deal..;)

[QUOTE=Aryavartha] It's official: The world hates America

hey i live in America and i'm starting to worry. Hate may be to strong of a word but not to far off. America's really going down all things considered; our government really is that supported or liked by the people anymore, disease or disordering like obesity, education standards, immigration issues, high-offices empty,...its all just going to get worse.

Sounds like a slow news day. *yawn*
In other news,
"Chinese and South Koreans dislike Japanese"
"Sinhalese Sri Lankans dislike Tamil separatists"
"Darfuris resent Janjaweed crazies"
"Palestinians hate Israelis"
and, this one's the shocker "Black Africans think White Europeans are evil" :eek:

Even if Team America was supposed to be a satire instead of a salute to Real Americans™, it's sure ironically starting to reflect real-life attitudes in the States. I'm surprised "America, Fuck Yeah!" hasn't become the country's new national anthem.

The World is tired of us bringing up the good deeds from our past. They'd like some recent contributions.
And I'd like to see some of their recent contributions.

And I'd like to see some of their recent contributions.

I agree, personally I think the US started good then turned bad. They used to be the guys who came to the rescue whenever world issues came up, now they're the screwed up bastards that only care about money.

In fact America's become so useless that its appearing in some newspapers with facts that support the possibility of US itself may become a poor third world country.

http://www.google.com/search?q=America's%20fight%20for%20the%20future&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=iw

In fact America's become so useless that its appearing in some newspapers with facts that support the possibility of US itself may become a poor third world country.

And if anyone believes this, then they obviously do not know that the US economy is growing at or near 4% over the last several years. Unemployment rate is low. Jobs are being manufactured in high tech industries. 3rd world my butt.

And if anyone believes this, then they obviously do not know that the US economy is growing at or near 4% over the last several years. Unemployment rate is low. Jobs are being manufactured in high tech industries. 3rd world my butt.

the websites that appeared in his/her link were mostly hysterical left-wing trade union websites

the websites that appeared in his/her link were mostly hysterical left-wing trade union websites

And why I do not believe in unions. They always paint a bleaker picture than what is really going on. I have an uncle who used to believe everything the union told him. Of course, that was before he ran across me and I slammed him into the ground.