{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/23/2013 10:15:35 PM
13
Do you even keep up on current events, let alone History?
We have about as much chance of becoming like North Korea as North Korea has of becoming like the US.
Why do we need our military might? Ever since WWII it seems like a pretty good idea.
Who takes care of all the global BS and for the most part NATO? The US.
Yes, we have been involved in theaters where we do not belong. I do not condone everything our government has sent troops to. But without us, the USSR would still be a super power and would have likely taken over the whole of Europe 40 years ago.
Democracy is not a weapon. It's an idea.
American citizens wishing to posses guns has nothing to do with ANY of that. That is a domestic issue, not a world issue, unless you all want to start something and see just how much we do need what we have.
English
-
You are aware Russia would not have taken over Europe right? Europe had just fought the largest war in the history of man, they would be able to push the USSR back as well, the only reason we didn't bother was because the war was over and nobody wanted another so let the USSR keep control of the east.
-
Patton actually wished to continue the war, possibly hoping to rearm the remaining Wehrmacht and have their men ready there to march to Moscow and finish the job there.
-
[quote]Patton actually wished to continue the war, possibly hoping to rearm the remaining Wehrmacht and have their men ready there to march to Moscow and finish the job there.[/quote] I never fancied Patton as a strategist, he was only a good tactician.
-
[quote]You are aware Russia would not have taken over Europe right?[/quote] Without U.S. aid? Yeah, it would have. [quote]Europe had just fought the largest war in the history of man, they would be able to push the USSR back as well,[/quote] The only major military power, other than the U.S. and Russia, in Europe in the days after World War Two was the United Kingdom. The British military was no match for their Soviet counter parts, the Russians would have steam rolled Europe without American involvement.
-
Edited by lonepaul2441: 3/23/2013 11:46:56 PMStop sending Aid to the USSR and continue to send aid to the UK and the British Empire and the USA would have steam rolled the USSR. Remember if the USSR went to war with the UK and USA the occupied countries would also rise up so not only the USSR fighting a war against the 2 most powerful nations of the time but also revolutionaries. (Much stronger than themselves at the peak of military power) The USSR has no navy and a very weak airforce, the only advantage they would have is on land. Winston Churchill already wanted to go to war with the USSR months after WW2 so he must have been confident the USSR could have been beaten so soon after the war.
-
[quote]Stop sending Aid to the USSR and continue to send aid to the UK and the British Empire and the USA would have steam rolled the USSR. Remember if the USSR went to war with the UK and USA the occupied countries would also rise up so not only the USSR fighting a war against the 2 most powerful nations of the time but also revolutionaries. (Much stronger than themselves at the peak of military power) The USSR has no navy and a very weak airforce, the only advantage they would have is on land. Winston Churchill already wanted to go to war with the USSR months after WW2 so he must have been confident the USSR could have been beaten so soon after the war.[/quote] Ah, I took your post as an argument for unilateral British victory against the Soviet Union. My bad. I agree with you, then.
-
haha nah, I did say Europe would rise up and push back the USSR.
-
You do know that in the 50's they invaded several western European nations, right? do you think, had there not been a deterrent like the US and getting into the Cold War, that they would have stopped there? I don't think so.
-
Im going off history here. If the only thing that changed was USSR pushing into the west then Europe would go to war again and defeat a VERY weak USSR who only survived because the allies sent them weapons, vehicles and supplies. The Russian winter would not have saved them either. I don't think your going off of history.
-
Oh I think I am. I don't believe that Russia was that weak at the end of the war. They had less than impressive air power during the war, but then, the MiG. They already had a decent tank. By the 50's they had the man power too. Not only were they testing the waters by encroaching on western Europe, but who do you think we were at war with in the air in Korea? It is well known that American pilots were being killed by Soviets in the MiGs, until the F-86 Sabre. The Russians just didn't make themselves known on the ground, but their leadership was there. Cuba? I don't believe for a minute had the US not been ready, that the Soviets would not have made a move for the rest of Europe.
-
Like I said Winston Churchill was already planning a war with the USSR months after WW2 so with Britain and its Empire with the USA and France at their peak and economies already geared for war would have steam rolled the USSR.
-
Edited by Cobravert: 3/24/2013 12:11:46 AMHA! You said the French. Like manwith said, so did Patton as well .
-
[quote]Im going off history here. If the only thing that changed was USSR pushing into the west then Europe would go to war again and defeat a VERY weak USSR who only survived because the allies sent them weapons, vehicles and supplies.[/quote] More specifically, they survived because of American aid through the lend-lease act. Short of that, they most likely would have lost against the German military. However, they weren't the only ones dependent on American industry. The British received a great deal of industrial aid from the United States as well.
