NationStates Jolt Archive

I know alot of you belive that the real UN is a failure with all of the wars and diseses in the world. So please state your opinon and if needed how the real UN should be changed.

Less so than the Provisional UN.

I don't like polio so I guess its rather good

The Real UN as oppose to the... what?

The Real UN as oppose to the... what?

the model UN of course, words cannot describe my opinion of that particular institution

The Real UN as oppose to the... what?
Lego UN.

the model UN of course, words cannot describe my opinion of that particular institution

Lego UN.

I deserved that, didn't I? :)

I deserved that, didn't I? :)

The league of nations i guess. I suppose what the question really should be is what is your opinon of the un.

The UN isnt effective at all......unless sticking their thumb up their but is their primary aim. My logic behind this is anytime the UN decides to use military force, they always send a force of 80% US forces and 20% everybody else in the whole wide world. Which leads me to believe the US should leave the UN because really what are they capable of??? It's to big of a hassle for the us to stay in my view.

I guess no one really wants to discuss the un :(

i was i offered a valid opinion lol what do u think?

Wow this must be like, the third or fourth thread in 4 weeks discussing the exact same topic, "How Useless/Effective is the UN?".

Normally I'd be overjoyed about an interesting UN-related discussion. If only this wasn't just retreading the same ground. Kudos though, for bringing the subject up regardless.

My two cents. It's the only organisation in the world that is impartial in all matters diplomatic, and effectively prevents conflict and humanitarian disaster with it's vast network of aid organisations and peacekeeping missions.

In fact, demand for UN peacekeepers to be involved in solving long-term conflicts has soared in the last decade.

Which leads me to believe the US should leave the UN because really what are they capable of??? It's to big of a hassle for the us to stay in my view.

did you fail history class?

*imports US steel*

I guess no one really wants to discuss the un :(

thread was done a few days ago

The UN isnt effective at all......unless sticking their thumb up their but is their primary aim. My logic behind this is anytime the UN decides to use military force, they always send a force of 80% US forces and 20% everybody else in the whole wide world. Which leads me to believe the US should leave the UN because really what are they capable of??? It's to big of a hassle for the us to stay in my view.

It could be because the US has a population over 300 million, making it one of the most populous nations on earth, so their military is proportionate to that number, whereas, Canada barely has 32 million, so, why would we contribute the same number of troops? We might match the percentage but not the numbers.

15 Most Populous Nations

China: 1.32 billion (about 20% of world population)
India: 1.12 billion (about 17%)
United States: 300 million (about 4.6%)
Indonesia: 225 million (about 3.5%)
Brazil: 186 million (about 2.8%)
Pakistan: 165 million (about 2.5%)
Bangladesh: 147 million (about 2.3%)
Russia: 143 million (about 2.2%)
Nigeria: 135 million (about 2.1%)
Japan: 128 million (about 2.0%)
Mexico: 108 million (about 1.7%)
Vietnam: 87 million (about 1.3%)
Philippines: 86 million (about 1.3%)
Germany: 82 million (about 1.3%)
Egypt: 75 million (about 1.2%)

And before you complain, remember that the US also squashed Japan's ability to muster a large force that would be able to do anything. So, of course Japan can't do much. As for Germany, probably a sour aftertaste from the Nazi era. The rest in that list aren't in NATO or would willingly stick it to the US when given the opportunity and the UN.

There are many reasons why a nation doesn't contribute as much in terms of military power. Don't whine without knowing.

SNIP

it worries me you put that much effort on the Internet :p

[QUOTE=Call to power;13378570]did you fail history class?

*imports US steel*



failed history class lets think back to the first gulf war who bailed kuwait out???mostly US troops

did you fail history class?

*imports US steel*



thread was done a few days ago


oh

it worries me you put that much effort on the Internet :p

I'm bored.

It could be because the US has a population over 300 million, making it one of the most populous nations on earth, so their military is proportionate to that number, whereas, Canada barely has 32 million, so, why would we contribute the same number of troops? We might match the percentage but not the numbers.

15 Most Populous Nations

China: 1.32 billion (about 20% of world population)
India: 1.12 billion (about 17%)
United States: 300 million (about 4.6%)
Indonesia: 225 million (about 3.5%)
Brazil: 186 million (about 2.8%)
Pakistan: 165 million (about 2.5%)
Bangladesh: 147 million (about 2.3%)
Russia: 143 million (about 2.2%)
Nigeria: 135 million (about 2.1%)
Japan: 128 million (about 2.0%)
Mexico: 108 million (about 1.7%)
Vietnam: 87 million (about 1.3%)
Philippines: 86 million (about 1.3%)
Germany: 82 million (about 1.3%)
Egypt: 75 million (about 1.2%)

And before you complain, remember that the US also squashed Japan's ability to muster a large force that would be able to do anything. So, of course Japan can't do much. As for Germany, probably a sour aftertaste from the Nazi era. The rest in that list aren't in NATO or would willingly stick it to the US when given the opportunity and the UN.

There are many reasons why a nation doesn't contribute as much in terms of military power. Don't whine without knowing.

I know all about it BTW look what japan done with its military power they had??? They tried to conquer the world. The US always bails out the rest of the world and if you were in the military you would understand my sentiment

Wow this must be like, the third or fourth thread in 4 weeks discussing the exact same topic, "How Useless/Effective is the UN?".

Normally I'd be overjoyed about an interesting UN-related discussion. If only this wasn't just retreading the same ground. Kudos though, for bringing the subject up regardless.

My two cents. It's the only organisation in the world that is impartial in all matters diplomatic, and effectively prevents conflict and humanitarian disaster with it's vast network of aid organisations and peacekeeping missions.

In fact, demand for UN peacekeepers to be involved in solving long-term conflicts has soared in the last decade.

What kind of question should be asked then?

And don't try to tell me that a majority of the troops in kuwait werent American trust me i was there, thats all i seen was Americans although i did see some brit's and canadians. The brits and canadians are the only countriess in the world i have any respect for.

To say the UN does or doesn't work is meaningless in and of itself. Whether it works or not is dependant on the foreign policy of a handful of its member states, and a reflection of it.

BTW as far as the humanitarian actions....what about Darfur??? Which leads me to believe it doesnt matter if you mass murder people, it just matters "WHO" you mass murder. BTW im not rascist im jewish myself before somebody throws that one at me

What kind of question should be asked then?

Sorry if I seem rude, it's just whilst I do enjoy UN threads, we've had a few over the past few days, all practically the same. It's not your fault at all, and I'm sorry if I seemed like a right asshole.

Anyway, as far as discussing the UN goes, nobody ever seems to be too interested unless the rabid Anti-UN fanatics are about. The topic question is fine.

I know all about it BTW look what japan done with its military power they had??? They tried to conquer the world. The US always bails out the rest of the world and if you were in the military you would understand my sentiment

The US does not always bail out the rest of the world. If it did, we wouldn't still be hearing about Darfur, for example. And before you say it, the US had no qualms about ignoring the rest of the world when it came to invading Iraq, why should it be different with Sudan? Just one example.

Yes, I know what happened when Japan had a full size army, and simply pointing out that despite having a population that could support a large force, it doesn't happen so their contributions are less. So, there should be no complaints here because this was the choice made by the US and Japan had no choice but to agree to it.

Would you back up your claim with proof; stats that verify that the US ALWAYS bails out the rest of the world. Otherwise, this is just a meaningless hyperbole. It's a baseless absolute, and with no proof it's just conjecture.

And don't try to tell me that a majority of the troops in kuwait werent American trust me i was there, thats all i seen was Americans although i did see some brit's and canadians. The brits and canadians are the only countriess in the world i have any respect for.

If you look at the raw numbers, it does look like the US brought more troops in. Now about you find us the numbers to support this. Perhaps the numbers we need to see if we are to know if the US is really contributing more are the percentage of the forces dedicated by each country who helped to bail Kuwait out.

BTW as far as the humanitarian actions....what about Darfur??? Which leads me to believe it doesnt matter if you mass murder people, it just matters "WHO" you mass murder. BTW im not rascist im jewish myself before somebody throws that one at me

What does being Jewish have to do with anything? You can be Jewish and still be a racist prick. Being Jewish doesn't make you immune to being a racist. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.

You are right about humanitarian efforts, it does seem to be selective at times.

Expressing my views of the UN and not liking it makes me a FANATIC??? Did YOU have to take commands from officers that werent you nationality?? No, i bet not. Trust if your a MILITARY man you dont wanna listen to some colonel who isnt in your chain of command, its actually aggervating

Sorry if I seem rude, it's just whilst I do enjoy UN threads, we've had a few over the past few days, all practically the same. It's not your fault at all, and I'm sorry if I seemed like a right asshole.

Anyway, as far as discussing the UN goes, nobody ever seems to be too interested unless the rabid Anti-UN fanatics are about. The topic question is fine.

Ok thanks for your input i just didn't realize that this same topic had been used before. As for the anti UN people I want to see what they think will make the UN better.

failed history class lets think back to the first gulf war who bailed kuwait out???mostly US troops

yes the US does seem rather willing to prop up such bastions of freedom however if it wasn't for the SAS hunting Iraqi scuds the coalition would of collapsed

I'm bored.

this is the Internet your either bored or have work to be doing :p

And don't try to tell me that a majority of the troops in kuwait werent American trust me i was there, thats all i seen was Americans although i did see some brit's and canadians. The brits and canadians are the only countriess in the world i have any respect for.

1) oh God here we go
2) so whats wrong with the French :confused:

Expressing my views of the UN and not liking it makes me a FANATIC??? Did YOU have to take commands from officers that werent you nationality?? No, i bet not. Trust if your a MILITARY man you dont wanna listen to some colonel who isnt in your chain of command, its actually aggervating

I never called you a fanatic, and I'm sorry if that's what you thought I meant. There are just some members of the board who are simply irrational when it comes to arguing against the UN.

I have yet to form my opinion concerning yourself, but I am confident we can approach this subject with rationality and intelligence.

That's interesting. So you served under the UN colours in Iraq, I presume? How did you come to be under the command of anyone except an American officer? In Iraq 1991, every nationality was under it's own Military Area Command. And overall command was American.

1. Its not the US place to bail ppl out. We dont always i'll give you that one but look at how the world would have been had we not bailed out britian and france.......twice. So to try to menegate the US is crazy. And dont say we had to bail britian out we didnt, we could have easily have ignored Hitler's declaration of war. At that time they had no possibility of attacking us. Their plane "The America Bomber" at best could have been finished by 47. Even then the main technical problem was to carry enough fuel or bombers, because air to air refueling which the Germans were also researching. Would not have been possible to the early 50's. We could have easily have just fought off Japan and not of had to fight on two fronts. As far as Germanys naval strenth they had not developed an aircraft carrier by 42' Meaning after designing one, then constructing it would have took till 48 or 49. And with the strained German economy that was fighting a two front war, along with the support they were secretly sending to the middle east. Probally not then either. Even if they could have the American atlantic fleet by 48 or 49 would have been easily able to repel the over extended German fleet. Which might i add was pretty well dealt with by the royal navy by 43, except for a few U-boats. So as you see we really didnt have to bail britian and france out, it was just better for future trade and the economy to do so

this is the Internet your either bored or have work to be doing :p

Why do you assume I have a job? :p Do I look like I'm useful?

The UN isnt effective at all......unless sticking their thumb up their but is their primary aim. My logic behind this is anytime the UN decides to use military force, they always send a force of 80% US forces and 20% everybody else in the whole wide world. Which leads me to believe the US should leave the UN because really what are they capable of??? It's to big of a hassle for the us to stay in my view.
Aye, exactly, for example UNIFIL or UNPROFOR. Oh... wait... no, that's wrong.

And, of course, the UN's role in cutting down on malaria and polio is completely useless, as are its food aid programmes, right?

BTW as far as the humanitarian actions....what about Darfur??? Which leads me to believe it doesnt matter if you mass murder people, it just matters "WHO" you mass murder. BTW im not rascist im jewish myself before somebody throws that one at me

actually there is currently a massive UN operation being undertaken in the area with the support of primarily A.U troops

so thats that then

Expressing my views of the UN and not liking it makes me a FANATIC??? Did YOU have to take commands from officers that werent you nationality?? No, i bet not. Trust if your a MILITARY man you dont wanna listen to some colonel who isnt in your chain of command, its actually aggervating

1) being a *tears of shirt* military man no I have experienced being ordered by an Australian and its all good

2) I thought you where bitching about the US doing all the work :p

I was fighting under the UN colors in the first gulf war but i had to take command from some brits in this last one. Thats what i meant by being commanded by different nationalities. Sorry i didnt clarify that. Kind of unrelated i guess to the UN.

That is about all the UN does that useful fighting disease i'll give you that one;)

BTW as far as the humanitarian actions....what about Darfur??? Which leads me to believe it doesnt matter if you mass murder people, it just matters "WHO" you mass murder. BTW im not rascist im jewish myself before somebody throws that one at me
The UN is about to send in some troops to help the AU guys that are stationed there at the moment, which should sort the situation out somewhat.

Also, I was unaware that being Jewish prevented one from being racist, irrelevant as that is both to your and my argument.

HOW SHOULD THE UN BE MADE BETTER!? Thats i'll i'm asking of you.

HOW SHOULD THE UN BE MADE BETTER!? Thats i'll i'm asking of you.

It's absolutely fine as it is. Oh! Except one thing. It should be able to recruit a standing Peacekeeping force under it's own command.

I was fighting under the UN colors in the first gulf war but i had to take command from some brits in this last one

Really? Interesting. Although technically the Second Gulf War wasn't a UN sanctioned force until after the invasion.

That is about all the UN does that useful fighting disease i'll give you that one;)
"All it does"?

Malaria kills over 30,000 per day, polio is also a fairly large contributor to human tragedy in poor areas. I'd say that those things are pretty important.

HOW SHOULD THE UN BE MADE BETTER!? Thats i'll i'm asking of you.
Letting them hire their own troops and taking away veto powers from the permanent members of the Security Council would go quite a long way to setting it right.

"All it does"?

Malaria kills over 30,000 per day, polio is also a fairly large contributor to human tragedy in poor areas. I'd say that those things are pretty important.

What about HIV/AIDS and the forced diamond mining, are we going to forget about that?

f you look at the raw numbers, it does look like the US brought more troops in. Now about you find us the numbers to support this. Perhaps the numbers we need to see if we are to know if the US is really contributing more are the percentage of the forces dedicated by each country who helped to bail Kuwait out.

We did bring more troops i dont need numbers. I saw for myself

What about Starvation too?

never said that malaria isnt important because i did.....fighting disease i said was important

never said that malaria isnt important because i did.....fighting disease i said was important

Sorry I thought that you were only focusing on a few diseases.

1. Its not the US place to bail ppl out. We dont always i'll give you that one but look at how the world would have been had we not bailed out britian and france.......twice.

oh your so sweet suffering a surprise attack 3 years into a global conflict counts as a rescue now?

odd wasn't that over 60 years ago now

So to try to menegate the US is crazy. And dont say we had to bail britian out we didnt, we could have easily have ignored Hitler's declaration of war.

no I think I will, for you see thats what happens in war

At that time they had no possibility of attacking us. Their plane "The America Bomber" at best could have been finished by 47. Even then the main technical problem was to carry enough fuel or bombers, because air to air refueling which the Germans were also researching. Would not have been possible to the early 50's.

stop watching the history channel please its all bunk

more pointless WWII rambling

*yawn* I'm not

starvation..... They send food to these african nations and set by because there not allowed to fire as african warlords take it all for themselves. There are millions in africa starving, thousands die everyday

What about HIV/AIDS
Since we don't have a proper cure for it, the education we're giving the people of Africa on how not to catch it is pretty helpful.

As to antivirals, I have slightly mixed feelings about them. Keeping people alive is nice, if expensive, my only problem is that a lot of those people then go on to infect others, which is pretty un-spiffing.
and the forced diamond mining, are we going to forget about that?
Conflict diamonds aren't a particularly large problem, and some of the larger companies, such as De Beers, stay as far from them as they can.

The UN can only run so many programmes effectively, you know.

What about Starvation too?
There are very extensive food aid programmes going on from the UN, and also from a lot of other large NGOs. The fact that a lot of this is taken by those who have the guns to make it so isn't really the UN's fault, and the fact that at at least some does get through to the general population is pretty positive.

it was a rescue....france and england would be speaking what???GERMAN- as far as the history channel goes you mean....Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews and Japan didnt attack pearl Harbor. Oh im not done yet Abraham Lincoln was killed by JW booth wow if all thats bunk you have alot to teach me about history please teach away......my whole teaching degree is bunk.

We haven't engaged in a Global Thermonuclear War that encompasses the earth in nuclear winter(which might be a radical solution to Global Warming. ;) ) and wipes out most of humanity.

So far so good, I'd say. :)

We did bring more troops i dont need numbers.

everyone needs numbers for you see we live in the land of science and maths

before anyone says then why arent you teaching im saving that for after i retire next year. Just got a degree to keep my GI bill from being a waste. Something to do in the mid 90's while there wasnt a war

*World War 2 business*
As you said, it was primarily for economic reasons.

Incidentally, we were doing pretty alright as soon as the USSR got involved, those being the people who actually won the second world war. Before that, US aid wasn't particularly important and after that, it was just speeding up the inevitable. Still, erm, cheers or something.

And to your Amerikabomber point - they couldn't reasonably have lauched any without going past the UK's RADAR bases, and hey presto, time wasted. That or the SOE would have sabotaged it, or got their best scientists shot or whatever.

Also, if the war had dragged on to 1947, the Russians would be dancing around in Sevilla, to to be quite honest. From Kursk onwards, the outcome of the war was inevitable.

If armies are population based....which they are and somebody had a pretty chart earlier. Might have been you....And the US is the largest country in the UN which i was "told"earlier then how couldnt we have sent more troops. Because that was you guys first argument.....so which is it?

it was a rescue....france and england would be speaking what???GERMAN- as far as the history channel goes you mean....Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews and Japan didnt attack pearl Harbor. Oh im not done yet Abraham Lincoln was killed by JW booth wow if all thats bunk you have alot to teach me about history please teach away......my whole teaching degree is bunk.
Alright, then.

France was completely lost in 1940. Something the US did nothing to stop. Britain was saved in 1940, something the US had a minimal impact on. Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, something the US had a minimal impact on.

That the British colonies in the pacific would be speaking Japanese is certain, but India and Burma weren't going to be Japanese any time soon.

starvation..... They send food to these african nations and set by because there not allowed to fire as african warlords take it all for themselves. There are millions in africa starving, thousands die everyday

Wrong. UN forces are impartial, not neutral. When peacekeeping was still in it's infancy during the days of Rwanda, UN forces were not given an unambiguous mandate as they are now.

UN troops in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo cracked down heavily on criminal gangs with force last year, even using the heavy machine guns mounted on thier IFV's against gang members that threatened the populace, and themselves.

UN force's, despite popular thinking, can and do indeed fight back.

Hey wait a minute if the US hadnt have jumped in on britians side germany would have been able to move 80% of his force to the eastern front which would have slowed down the red army almost to a halt. Even if it didnt hitler could have made a styand almost anywhere with the forces freed up western front. Because without the US britian couldnt have made D-day a success and as far as the french army goes ROTFLMFAO

Wrong. UN forces are impartial, not neutral. When peacekeeping was still in it's infancy during the days of Rwanda, UN forces were not given an unambiguous mandate as they are now.
Also, the people that the French sent to Rwanda didn't help out when they should have. But there we go.

Minimal impact what???are you nuts it would have been only a matter of time before the luftwaffe bombed britian enough to invade. Hitlers only mistake was his tactic to use terror bombing, had he not done that and allowed the RAF to rebuild britian was part of the reich.

it was a rescue....france and england would be speaking what???GERMAN- as far as the history channel goes you mean....Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews and Japan didnt attack pearl Harbor. Oh im not done yet Abraham Lincoln was killed by JW booth wow if all thats bunk you have alot to teach me about history please teach away......my whole teaching degree is bunk.

1) no we wouldn't operation sea lion was long canceled by the time America came to the rescue (with the obvious intention of also saving Poland but nevermind)

2) are you actually attempting to defend the history channels factual base...erm you do know this is the same channel that brought about that global apocalypse in 2012 as predicted by the Mayans clap-trap?!

So far so good, I'd say. :)

I need hard science for this, lets see if we can start a thermonuclear war ;)

Hey wait a minute if the US hadnt have jumped in on britians side germany would have been able to move 80% of his force to the eastern front which would have slowed down the red army almost to a halt. Even if it didnt hitler could have made a styand almost anywhere with the forces freed up western front. Because without the US britian couldnt have made D-day a success and as far as the french army goes ROTFLMFAO
Not really.

Hitler was deployed in Finland to help out the Finns to prepare for the inevitable second war against the USSR there, North and East Africa to help out the Italians against the British, in Yugoslavia and Greece to keep the partisans subdued, in France to cut down on partisan activity and in Norway to keep Sweden on-side.

That 80% of his forces could have been moved to Russia is a slightly ridiculous statement, and the logistics of supporting that many troops in Russia after the scorched earth policy enacted by the Russians there would be unfeasible.

Minimal impact what???are you nuts it would have been only a matter of time before the luftwaffe bombed britian enough to invade. Hitlers only mistake was his tactic to use terror bombing, had he not done that and allowed the RAF to rebuild britian was part of the reich.
Not really, since Göring ordered raids over Britain to stop so that the pilots could get some rest in and so that the air fleet could have a refit for the Eastern Front.

By 1943-ish, the Luftwaffe was completely overpowered by the Russian airforce, who could produce more and better planes than the Germans and although they weren't so well trained, the sheer weight of numbers was enough to tip the balance.

as far as the french army goes ROTFLMFAO

ah the typical US stereotype of pissing on French veterans graves, did you not learn about the Free French on the history channel?

and this WWII fapping is making me sleepy do you have anything else to throw up or must we continue to pretend the world stopped in 1946?

Minimal impact what???are you nuts it would have been only a matter of time before the luftwaffe bombed britian enough to invade.

12 are we?

On 17 September 1940, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, and became convinced that the operation was doomed. Control of the skies was unavailable, as Britain had won the Battle of Britain, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of question.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion)

Hitlers only mistake was his tactic to use terror bombing, had he not done that and allowed the RAF to rebuild britian was part of the reich.

no it wouldn't Hitler never planned to rule Britain hence why he always left the peace option open

So what your trying to say is a defensive front couldnt have been made.... Germany could have easily have freed up enough troops to stop stalin had the western front been pretty much closed (which without the US it would have)because as i said before theres no way britian could have invaded europe without the US and have been successful. As far as logistics go, what about the Bulge. pretty good logistics there, the largest force of german troops in the whole war( invasion of the soviet union aside) and nobody knew it untill it was too late.

As far as the mayan thing yea that is nuts. but because of that you cannot say everything on their is bunk

How did a thread about the UN's effectiveness be warped into a typical, "The US won the Second World War! WOOOOOOO!" thread?

The thread train has been derailed...

No crap i know hitler left that option open...anybody with 1/3 of a brain knows that Himmler made pleas for peace with britian just weeks before hitler commited suicide. Russia making better planes nope sorry, just alot more of them same with tanks. Russia just had numbers..... Also check your books but who helped modernize the soviets so they could make planes,tanks and everything needed to fight a modern war......US money my friend without it stalin couldnt have modernized his nation of farmers.

So what your trying to say is a defensive front couldnt have been made.... Germany could have easily have freed up enough troops to stop stalin had the western front been pretty much closed (which without the US it would have)because as i said before theres no way britian could have invaded europe without the US and have been successful.

ah so not only are you abusing the corpses of French veterans you also take the offensive on British commando raids in Norway and France that tied down huge numbers of German troops and the whole North African theater

As far as the mayan thing yea that is nuts. but because of that you cannot say everything on their is bunk

and the September 11th conspiracy's...

So what your trying to say is a defensive front couldnt have been made....
Yes, because the USSR is huge, and if the Germans made a very strong defensive line, the Russians would just have sent their troops a thousand kms south.
Germany could have easily have freed up enough troops to stop stalin had the western front been pretty much closed (which without the US it would have) because as i said before theres no way britian could have invaded europe without the US and have been successful.
Not really. The Red Army was absolutely huge, and by 1943/44, increasingly well-led, with its junior officers being a lot more capable than at the start of the war.

They couldn't free up enough troops because they were bogged down in the Balkans fighting partisans, in France to safeguard from any threat on the coasts (we were sending commandoes up the coasts from 1941 upwards, to keep the Germans A Bit Worried About Things) and in north and east Africa, because the Italians were getting hammered there.

So aye, from 1941 onwards, victory in Europe wasn't going to happen.
As far as logistics go, what about the Bulge. pretty good logistics there, the largest force of german troops in the whole war( invasion of the soviet union aside) and nobody knew it untill it was too late.
Western Europe has roads. The USSR at the time had very little other than dirt tracks, which turn into a boggy Rasputitsa in Autumn and Spring. You can't send lorries around with supplies on with any great efficiency in 2 seasons of the year, in summer the Russians had IL-2 ground attack planes all over the place, and in winter things start to freeze up.

How did a thread about the UN's effectiveness be warped into a typical, "The US won the Second World War! WOOOOOOO!" thread?

The thread train has been derailed...

Derailed and set upon by axe wielding natives. Now the natives are chanting 'AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!' and beating their victory drums.

French veterans...... You mean they were in the war long enough to have them lmao. Look how many brits and americans died

French veterans...... You mean they were in the war long enough to have them lmao. Look how many brits and americans died

...

The thread train has been derailed...

who left those pennies on the tracks?!

No crap i know hitler left that option open...anybody with 1/3 of a brain knows that Himmler made pleas for peace with britian just weeks before hitler commited suicide.

thus we where doing fine without captain America your claims grow thinner like a 30 year old hair

Russia making better planes nope sorry, just alot more of them same with tanks.

T-34's revolutionized tank warfare and some of the tank models the soviets put forward where miles ahead

as opposed to the Sherman

but who helped modernize the soviets so they could make planes,tanks and everything needed to fight a modern war.

Stalins industrialization and then re-armament policy

French veterans...... You mean they were in the war long enough to have them lmao. Look how many brits and americans died

and in one fell swoop you render your whole argument meaningless, tell me do appreciate the French help in the American war of independence or is that fact too inconvenient for you?

How did a thread about the UN's effectiveness be warped into a typical, "The US won the Second World War! WOOOOOOO!" thread?

The thread train has been derailed...

Yea why don't we get back to people opinon of the UN and what, if any, changes need to be made to it.

No crap i know that russia wasnt very modern and had few roads. But heres my point had the US not have entered the war, there would have been NO D-day or any chance of an invasion into fortress Europe free'n up hundreds of thousands of german soldiers and italian i might add(because no US no invasion of sicily, no move onto the boot of italy)they could have easily have formed a defensive line and the germans retreating from the Soviet Union could have joined those lines. When the T-34'S would have met all of the free panzers that would not have been in western europe (because d-day would have happened the brits had not enough men or supplies without the US ) they would of been crushed the panzer to t-34 kill ratio was in the neighborhood of like 1-25 and the wiermacht and the SS could have mowed down alot more russians. As did happen on the eastern front, like i said the russians had numbers that all. They didnt have adequet training and these numbers wouldnt have lasted forever because they would have been fighting a war of atrition

The UN has it's uses, such as the example given earlier in the thread of fighting dieases. Obviously that kind of thing is good. For everything else, as long as they don't screw us over I'm indifferent.

Letting them hire their own troops and taking away veto powers from the permanent members of the Security Council would go quite a long way to setting it right.
Giving them their own troops.... I'm not too knowledgeable on what the implications of that may be so I'll sit on the fence for that. As for the other point, I agree that it is perhaps unfair that certain members have a veto in the security council. But as Britain is one of those members you won't be getting too many complaints from me!

French veterans...... You mean they were in the war long enough to have them lmao. Look how many brits and americans died

Now they've started their traditional 'lol, teh french r surrenderfags' dance, in which the deride they combat prowess of other tribes.

yes i know the t-34's had sloping armour. which is used in nearly all tanks today but they could only take so much still, hence the high kill ratio of panzers to t-34's

what the tradition of the french becoming nazi's during the occupation and having a crappy military???Great tradition

Russia making better planes nope sorry, just alot more of them same with tanks. Russia just had numbers.....
Erm, no.

The T-34-85 was the best tank in the whole war, apart from maybe the Panther, which had the huge disadvantages of being difficult to maintain and also very fuel hungry, and it was the Russians who made that one.

The Lavochkin La-5 was also one of the best fighter aircraft in the war, and was capable enough to shoot down Me262s. So that's that one pretty much bunked.
Also check your books but who helped modernize the soviets so they could make planes,tanks and everything needed to fight a modern war......US money my friend without it stalin couldnt have modernized his nation of farmers.
Err, no. From about 1927 onwards, Stalin closed up the economy, which is the reason that it didn't do too badly out of the Great Depression, and his industrial reforms were what made the USSR able to win the second world war.

yes i know the t-34's had sloping armour. which is used in nearly all tanks today but they could only take so much still, hence the high kill ratio of panzers to t-34's

Damn it! stop talking about wether or not America won WW2 for everybody else.

ok i'll stop i have to get my kids off of the bus anyways but without the US you all would have been speaking german deny it all u want because without the us to u think stalin would have really stopped in berlin?Think about that one and the 262 was not really that good of a plane and was constructed hurriedly at best the 109 is a different story but thats enough.

Germans made the panther or were they just copy'n the russians by continuing to make versions of the panther tanks even today

No crap i know that russia wasnt very modern and had few roads. But heres my point had the US not have entered the war, there would have been NO D-day or any chance of an invasion into fortress Europe free'n up hundreds of thousands of german soldiers and italian i might add(because no US no invasion of sicily, no move onto the boot of italy)
Since we were landing commandoes on the shores of occupied France from 1941 onwards, the Germans had to defend it - also, they needed the French factories, hence they had to keep it occupied.

Since the British were also easily the most powerful force in the Med, they needed to keep troops garrisoned in Italy and its various islands, as well as in Yugoslavia, so that the British couldn't just invade from the south upwards.
they could have easily have formed a defensive line and the germans retreating from the Soviet Union could have joined those lines.
No, no they couldn't.

You can't "easily" form a defensive line that will stop a Russian advance right from the north to the south of Russia, because it'll be much to thinly spread to do anything.
When the T-34'S would have met all of the free panzers that would not have been in western europe (because d-day would have happened the brits had not enough men or supplies without the US )
The Germans were sending all of their proper kit to the Eastern Front. The kind of tanks active in the occupied regions were Pzkpfw IIs and a few IIIs, which weren't of any use except for COIN purposes.
they would of been crushed the panzer to t-34 kill ratio was in the neighborhood of like 1-25
Erm, no it wasn't.
and the wiermacht and the SS could have mowed down alot more russians.
Wehrmacht, and not really, no.
As did happen on the eastern front, like i said the russians had numbers that all. They didnt have adequet training and these numbers wouldnt have lasted forever because they would have been fighting a war of atrition
The USSR won the war of attrition. A war of attrition hurts both sides, not just one or the other, and the Germans simply didn't have enough manpower to win it.

The Panther (listen (help·info)) was a tank fielded by Germany in World War II that served from mid-1943 to the end of the European war in 1945. It was intended as a counter to the T-34, and to replace the Panzer IV and III, though it served along with them and the heavy tanks until the end of the war. see told ya get your facts straight but bye bye

Apparently somebody here should start a thread about what kind of role the US played in ww2.

ok i'll stop i have to get my kids off of the bus anyways but without the US you all would have been speaking german deny it all u want because without the us to u think stalin would have really stopped in berlin?Think about that one and the 262 was not really that good of a plane and was constructed hurriedly at best the 109 is a different story but thats enough.
The 262 was pretty superb. The 109 was getting plastered by the end of the war, because the Allies were producing faster planes and heavier armaments, with fuel-injection so that they could follow the 109s when they dived to run away.
Germans made the panther or were they just copy'n the russians by continuing to make versions of the panther tanks even today
The Germans made the Panther, which was half Russian and half German, but all unreliable. It had a decent gun and heavy armour, and could, on paper, move around the place fairly quickly. On the other hand, it was too heavy for the engine, and was a nightmare to maintain.

Also, they don't make versions of the Panther any more, no. It was a heavy tank, an idea abandoned by the mid-1960s by every military power in the world.

Unless the discussion about the un continues im done here c ya.

This, along with superior German tactical skill[citation needed], crew training, and the good ergonomics of the Panzer III all contributed to a rough 6:1 favorable kill ratio for German tanks of all types in 1941 ok 6:1 heres facts

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

Its done ok with diseases, and not much else.

...but without the US you all would have been speaking german deny it all u want because without the us to u think stalin would have really stopped in berlin?Think about that one...
Ok.

The Russians speak German now?

This, along with superior German tactical skill[citation needed], crew training, and the good ergonomics of the Panzer III all contributed to a rough 6:1 favorable kill ratio for German tanks of all types in 1941 ok 6:1 heres facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III
In 1941, the Russians were still using their T-26 tanks, a bunch of crazy multi-turreted beasts such as the T-28 and tankettes such as the T-27, all of which got a decent thrashing.

On the other hand, the T-34 and KV-1 couldn't be penetrated at all in 1941 and early 1942 by any German tanks, except from the rear aspect of the KV-1 or the side turret and rear aspect of the T-34.

The Russians speak German now?
Da.

what the tradition of the french becoming nazi's during the occupation and having a crappy military???Great tradition

You clearly need to practice your reading comprehension. And learn to use the quote button while you're at it.

I Think that maybe it (sigh of relief)

The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's boot 'em out of the US and tell the world that we'll leave them in peace if they leave us in peace.

no organization that would even consider the sudan or cuba as nations fit to oversee human rights is worth supporting.

The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's boot 'em out of the US and tell the world that we'll leave them in peace if they leave us in peace.

America certainly has a record of keeping to itself.......

Minimal impact what???are you nuts it would have been only a matter of time before the luftwaffe bombed britian enough to invade. Hitlers only mistake was his tactic to use terror bombing, had he not done that and allowed the RAF to rebuild britian was part of the reich.

You say it as if Britain hadn't led a massive retaliation campaign (see: Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain)). Other nations had come to the aid of Europe, commonwealth nations, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand... you know, those guys? Yeah, the other allies that exist outside of the US; the nations who actually entered the war at the start in order to actually make a difference and not because some rogue nation bombed its vulnerable sitting duck navy.


ok i'll stop i have to get my kids off of the bus anyways but without the US you all would have been speaking german deny it all u want because without the us to u think stalin would have really stopped in berlin?Think about that one and the 262 was not really that good of a plane and was constructed hurriedly at best the 109 is a different story but thats enough.

Everyone's favourite argument. We'd all be speaking German... right. I find that hard to believe. Why? Because of a little tale I was told by an in-law (grandparent, forget which side) of mine who had been spared by the Nazis. He had been approached by a German officer who told him to take his family and leave because the Jews in that neighbourhood would be deported the next day. Taking his family, they trekked across Europe and because of that German officer, they speak English today.

Also, have you considered actually trying to write in English (ie: using proper punctuation, capitalisation, spelling et cetera), you know the language you seem to love so much, but are butchering it? You know the language you see us speaking in that would have supposedly been taken from us by the Germans if they had their way...

Graffiti I read in a youth-hostel bathroom during my post-college Wanderjahr:

I'd like to remind you Europeans that if it wasn't for us Americans, you'd all be speaking German!

I'd like to remind you Americans that if it wasn't for us Europeans, you'd all be speaking Navaho!

You stay out of this, Heinz!

It needs to be downsized and granted executive autonomy. Keep it voluntary, though, and allow it only to reprimand member states. Entice membership with a UN free-trade agreement (alongside international aid when required etc). Do *not* allow any country veto rights.

I know alot of you belive that the real UN is a failure with all of the wars and diseses in the world. So please state your opinon and if needed how the real UN should be changed.

UN fails a lot, still it's all we got.

Reforms? Yes, one: no more permanent seats and veto power in the security council.

Also, the EU should have a unique seat at the UN, not the current 27, but that's up to the EU countries, not to the UN.

Itd be more useful if key players didnt ignore it.

ok i'll stop i have to get my kids off of the bus anyways but without the US you all would have been speaking german deny it all u want because without the us to u think stalin would have really stopped in berlin?
I'm already speaking German. There are worse things that could happen to you, believe me.

That being said, I think it was a very good thing that the Americans got involved. I don't think the US saved Britain's arse, but it certainly saved the arses of the French and West Germans. I don't think the Commonwealth by itself would have been able to mount a D-Day-like operation, and certainly wouldn't have had the political clout to stop the Soviets from taking over much more of Europe. Considering what life was like in the Warsaw Pact, that's a good thing.

As for the UN...it's a medium for international cooperation. As such it's only as effective as the major players are willing to cooperate. So on some issues it's extraordinarily effective (Aid, World Food Program, documenting human rights abuses, World Health Organisation etc), on others not so much (actually doing something about human rights abuses for example).

I guess no one really wants to discuss the un :(


thread was done a few days ago

And the thread is still seven pages long. Yay redundancy!

As for the UN...it's a medium for international cooperation. As such it's only as effective as the major players are willing to cooperate. So on some issues it's extraordinarily effective (Aid, World Food Program, documenting human rights abuses, World Health Organisation etc), on others not so much (actually doing something about human rights abuses for example).

Those are my sentiments. People tend to think of the UN as a sort of God-like peace keeper, and stopping human rights abuses is certainly one of its duties. But to only think of those is to ignore all the work it's done with health, education, and others branches. Even its statistics should be appreciated; getting data from every country in the world is both difficult and helpful.

without the US you all would have been speaking german

:eek: Nein! Bitte, sagen es ist nicht so! NEIN!! :(

I know alot of you belive that the real UN is a failure with all of the wars and diseses in the world. So please state your opinon and if needed how the real UN should be changed.

They are very effective at doing nothing, graft, and corruption just like a lot of third world countries...oh wait...they are a super third world want to be country. :(

They are very effective at doing nothing, graft, and corruption just like a lot of third world countries...oh wait...they are a super third world want to be country. :(

Bollocks.