Where would world be without America and its military?

Question

A question mainly for those Europeans who delight in criticizing America -- If it weren't for American might, which language listed below would you be speaking today...?

1. German?
2. Japanese?
3. Russian?

Agreed that America, just like EVERY nation that's ever existed, has lots of faults, but ain't it nice to have 'em around when Europe needs somebody to save their worthless butts?

Just thought that those of you who took the time to post thoughtful, intelligent answers (both pro- and anti-American) would like to get a taste of how some imbecilic morons respond. This jerk probably celebrated our 9-1-1 massacre.

"...You cheeky mohter fcuker, England had won the battle for their own skins before your ailing president had even got his morning injections.

We would not be talking some bastardised version of Yankee siht if Germany had one, and i doubt the world would be such a dangerous place now.

You people ARE the danger, you fcuking idiot..."

The BIGGEST mistake America has ever made was back when we were the only nation on Earth with the A-bomb and the means to deliver it. Too bad we didn't tell the rest of the world that from now on things were going to be done our way. Period. Like it or have your nation turned into glass for our next gazillion coke bottles.

Answer 1

VERY PEACE FULL
from a dad with a son in Iraq

Answer 2

I suspect that without American help during WW2 we (UK) may have had to reach an accommodation with Hitler.

That said King George VI did say that history would be his judge & that he rather lose the Empire than let his people be enslaved by the Nazis. So maybe the UK would have continued to fight on its own even if occupied. (For more on this & the UKs secret guerilla force go to Google & search Auxillary Troops+Home Guard).

I think your comment about 'worthless butts' is a bit silly really. I seem to recall that France saved the 'continental states' during your war of independence! Maybe if France had not saved the worthless butts of the Minute-men etc the world would be a better place. The USA would not have copied the French government system & so you would not have has an all powerful president. So the liklihood of so much war in the 20th & 21st centuries may have been reduced?

By the way, lets not forget the role played by the USSR in WW2. They suffered 16 times as many casualties as did the USA.

I dont think many Europeans DO critise American . What p*sses people off is the holier than thou ATTITUDE of the USA. An attitude that, I'm afraid to say, your question fully illustrates

Answer 3

Good answers particulary from
kenhallonthenet
qchan05
clive
robespierre.
I agree there is nothing more the Americans like to do than help (exploit) a friend in need. Come in at the very last minute and then help dictate the terms. The British would have always given back the Empire, it would never last forever, but the handling of the Suez crisis by the Americans was disgraceful and accelerated the break up even more.
To this day I believe that The U.K still owes the U.S money from WW2. Perhaps that is why Blair is so far up Bush's ****. The Americans love to help alright (and they will always get what they want out of it). Still the majority of Americans I know are good people. The minority are bigheaded and annoying though.
Have a nice day now!

Answer 4

Okay, let me clear a few things up, here.

Yes, we did help during WWII, and if we hadn't gotten involved in the European theater, the allies might have been beaten. However, WE DID NOT SAVE THE WORLD FROM HITLER. It was the Soviets. Let me put it this way: they had more CASUALTIES than we had troops. In fact, they suffered the largest loss of life of the entire war.

Also, just what in God's name did we do during the Cold War? As far as I can tell, that war was the military equivalent of two people sitting on opposite sides of the room glaring at each other. We (and the Soviets, mind you, we're not ENTIRELY at fault here) nearly caused a nuclear war. And honestly, would that REALLY have been wise?

Also also, there's a reason the war in the Pacific isn't mentioned as often as, say, the Holocaust. That was because the European war was more morally justifiable, at least in our minds today. Sure, the Japanese did horrid things to the Chinese, the Koreans, and POW's, but for God's sake, it's not like we were any better. We put people in concentration camps too, you know, and for equally ridiculous reasons as the ones used during the Holocaust. The Holocaust, in fact, was all but ignored by the US. And was it REALLY necessary to drop the A-bomb TWICE in TWO cities? Honestly, I think they got the idea the first time.

Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on Vietnam or Iraq.

There are two sides to every coin, my friend. I'm glad that you realize that we're not perfect, but we're not quite the saviors you think we are.

EDIT: Christina, you make your points well. However, I am not denying the US's involvement. That we were over there and that we helped win the war in Europe is indisputable. But we were NOT the only ones there; if it had just been us, we would have been soundly beaten by German forces. The Soviets made up the bulk of the force, and the Americans were a catalyst. And while your comments on culture were right on the money, that isn't QUITE what the asker was referring to. There could be connections made, of course, but we're talking strictly military, here. And if you want to use culture, you could also argue the same thing about most of Europe (a point which you have already touched upon). These effects (military and cultural) are both positive and negative, however, so either way the asker's arrogance is uncalled for.

Answer 5

I already do read, write and speak German, beside five other languages. I also do understand some Russian, but just a little as well as Polish. I think that I should speak my mother language as well as today, as I do not think that neither The Third Reich and the Master race should be able to get hold of the whole of Europe for more than 50 years nor the Russians. That's what the history teach us.

Answer 6

Frederick the Great of Prussia once said that one of Europe's greatest mistakes was allowing the United States to exist. If the American Colonies had failed in their attempt to gain independence, or if the South emerged triumphant in the Civil War, the world would be very different today. My guess is that German interests would control a good part of the world, as would Japanese interests. This is something the detractors of the United States don't realize.

Answer 7

As early as 1940 the American "ailing president" was defying the will of the American populace to help Britain any way he could. America gave 50 destroyers to the British and started "lending" them arms so they could conduct war. They also helped keep trade open on the Atlantic by combating the German navy. 18 months before Pearl Harbor the USA had mobilized for war. Military historians attribute a "crucial and decisive part in the outcome of the war" to this early military and logistic effort.

Attributing the American efforts in the nuclear bomb program to anyone but America is a simple slight that shows intent only to defame Americans and not any basis in actual fact.

Troop casualties is not a good indication of who saved whom - only who fought well and who suffered most. There was a truly staggering loss of life on the Eastern front (most of which was civilian). Meanwhile, the British and American air forces were relentlessly pummeling the German military industrial complex. Lets also not forget how the Soviets kicked off the war - by invading Eastern Poland in coorperation with Germany, attacking Finland in the Winter war, and seizing the Baltic States.

The USA then proceeded to give billions of dollars to Europe to help it rebuild.

And for those that think world peace could be achieved if only the Americans would go away, I think you should take a better look at the bloody whole of human history.

Answer 8

The world would obviously be a very different place if America was not around, or a primary world player. I don't think that fact is very disputable. Some of the above comments concerning the US and its apparent lack of invovlement (or positive involvement if there is such a thing) in major conflicts and wars is woefully unsupported. The comments about Russia losing more people in WWII are true but you neglected to mention the incredible toll taken on the Russian people by Stalin and his economic and social "experiments." The US joined late, ableit, and had a primarily isolationist stance on foreign affair not unlike Japan prior to the war, but when the US got engaged, we fought in two separate theaters of operations to assist in stopping both the European and Pacific threats. We were one of the (if not the) primary agent in concluding the Pacific theater war. I suppose we could banter forever but facts and history tend to be written by those on the winning sides...

As far as effect the US and its culture has had on the world, it is immense. No one can dispute the overarching effect the US has had on globalization, specifically economics and culture. It is not a direct imposition of our culture onto others (at least it didn't so much start that way) but one wrought from trade and politics. Unlike many European nations, the US is not homogenous thus cultural ideas, innovations, etc, tend to be far reaching and impactful primarily due to this unusual blend of ethnic/cultural diversity (i.e. you can relate it to team diversity coming up with a solution set of the best possible solutions versus that of a single individual). It is a beautiful thing and one embraced in far too few nations.

In short the world's economy would be drastically different, governments would be different, capitalism would probably have taken on a different spin, technology and innovations would have changed, etc. Of course, one could argue the some for most developed countries to some degree or another...

EDIT: QChan05. I understand where you are coming from with regards to not being the only elements/influencers in WWII. I threw in cultural context because from every aspect, even the military one, a socio-cultural context is critical. War is in base ways, politics through other means... The US utilizes four basic instruments of national power to enable national security strategy in handling US interests abroad. They are (in order of preferred use): Diplomatic, Economic, Informational, and Military. So you see, the military is just one piece in the big picture which involves society and the say/will of the people (well it should at least). Oh and we can discuss Vietnam, Iraq or any other military operation you wish!

Answer 9

Much better off I hope.Not all europeans speak English.Africans and Asians speak English more than Europeans. Looks like u mean the British when you say Europeans coz not all Europeans follow Americans, its more of a British problem. Other countries e.g. Canada are fighting American wars! Americans are the biggest cowards coz they go away and start wars but when they cant handle the heat they want to drag the whole world to fight a small Iraq.

Answer 10

Prior to US belated involvement in WW2, UK was supplied with some rather ancient ordinance by Roosevelt for which we had to relinquish bases to the US and sell our US investments at prices well below the market value. There is nothing the Americans like better than a friend in need. Even before the was was over, Roosevelt told Churchill that the British Empire was to be dismantled as soon as Hitler had been defeated. Without the Americans, be it win loose or draw with the the Axis powers, I believe the the UK would have been better off in the medium and long term. Hitler would have needed the resources of the British Empire to continue his quest and such utilisation could only have been effective with cooperation from the UK.
As for language, I would rather have to learn German than listen to people
'meet with someone' - 'with' not required
or send 'invites' instead of invitations. To quote two from hundreds of examples.
Were it not for Churchill's American ancestry, I wonder if it would been a different story.

Answer 11

Presence of US is causing too much trouble to the existence of peace on this earth. Without the assistance/help of US, each and every country can exist safer than it is now. It could be better or even best for America to get out of other countries' business.