I've only just realised what is missing from this ad thing. The most important thing America has given the world - American dissenters. Not a single mention of Chomsky et al.
A world without America?
- Thread starter Kid_Eternity
- Start date
girl4music
New Member
a worls without america less freedom?!??
some other continent will take over and
NOThave bush elected and not bomb iran and not act like a fuking
bullshit president.bush is going to hell...
some other continent will take over and
NOThave bush elected and not bomb iran and not act like a fuking
bullshit president.bush is going to hell...
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
T & P said:
No US?
Britain conquered by the Germans, and eventually, a nuclear winter when Stalin and Hitler finally got around to nuking each other.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Do you write short stories, Johnny? Because this post is a short story that resembles Philip K Dick's The Man in the High Castle...only he deliberately produced a piece of fiction; whereas to you, fiction is truth.
The US supplied both sides with weapons in WW1 and supplied the Nazis with weapons until its entry into WW2 in 1940. I wonder how they became one of the richest nations on earth, controlling both the World Bank and IMF?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
With no US, the Germans would have taken Britain eventually, and the world would have been controlled by Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Really? The British did well in repelling the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain while US companies were supplying the Germans with materials. Furthermore, Hitler had talked of invading Britain but shelved the idea because of the costs iirc. Hitler was also rather, curiously fond of the British and actually wanted them to make a separate peace. As for Japan, they'd overstretched themselves by 1941.
Your narrative doesn't stand up.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
But without the US in existence, where would they have gotten the munitions and the money?
And without the US keeping the Japanese busy in the Pacific, they would have marched into India to finish off the Raj.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The US didn't enter the war before 1940 and the government did nothing to stop US companies from supplying the Nazi regime. Furthermore the US did nothing when Singapore and Hong Kong were invaded. They only moved when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. I wonder what would have happened if the Nazis had bombed a US base? Would the reaction have been just as aggressive?
The UK could have found the supplies elsewhere and may have even formed a pact with the Soviets.
I stand by my original point that Japan had seriously overstretched itself by 1941 and had not the materiel or the resources to mount a serious campaign in India.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Some interesting stuff about US companies and war-profiteering
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/dupont.html
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
http://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2
Let's also remember that it was because of Du Pont and William Randolph Hearst that we have such stupid anti-cannabis laws and the claptrap that goes with them.
http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/essay.html
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/dupont.html
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
http://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2
Let's also remember that it was because of Du Pont and William Randolph Hearst that we have such stupid anti-cannabis laws and the claptrap that goes with them.
http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/essay.html
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zoltan69 said:
Walt Disney was rather fond of the Nazis too.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zoltan69 said:Henry Ford ?
Ford? Goes without saying. He was a big supporter of the Nazis. His "Peace Ship" in WW1 was nothing but a PR stunt: he wasn't interested in peace but was worried that if the US went to war with Germany, he'd lose business.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
No they wouldn't, and the fact you think they would shows history to be a bit of a weak point for you. Firstly, Britain was uninvadable, second, the final solution & the conquest of russia would have taken all the resources necessary.Johnny Canuck2 said:
as a point of truth - the Battle of Britain was stage 1 in hitler's attempted conquest of the UK. and they lost
Red Jezza said:
Hitler needed ther UK on board to go for WORLD DOMINATION !- he needed UK control/ influemce over the commonwealth/ colonies etc - dont forget how much of the world we still ran in many ways - overunning and enslaving the UK would not help things go any easier
What makes you think that Britain was uninvadable? Uninvadable like Norway?
Guess all of those home defence preparations we made were all just to make us feel better.
The suggestions on this thread that we would somehow have been better off without America in World War II are absurd. Yes, many US firms, including all the people named, liaised and sympathised with the Nazis (as did many British members of the business elite). Yes, the US only intervened in the Second World War when it perceived its own interests to be directly threatened. Neither of these points mean that it would have been better for us if they had not intervened. They supplied immense numbers of men and immense amounts of material to the battle against Nazism. Whether their motives in doing so were pure as the driven snow or not, they still did it.
Guess all of those home defence preparations we made were all just to make us feel better.
The suggestions on this thread that we would somehow have been better off without America in World War II are absurd. Yes, many US firms, including all the people named, liaised and sympathised with the Nazis (as did many British members of the business elite). Yes, the US only intervened in the Second World War when it perceived its own interests to be directly threatened. Neither of these points mean that it would have been better for us if they had not intervened. They supplied immense numbers of men and immense amounts of material to the battle against Nazism. Whether their motives in doing so were pure as the driven snow or not, they still did it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zion said:
It's a question of degree though, isn't it? The post WW2 world is not a nice or as pleasant as so many think it was; a world of binary thought that was exemplified by the alleged East/West tension and the so-called struggle of competing 'ideologies' has claimed millions of lives - a great number of those have been claimed in the name of 'freedom and democracy" (itself one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated).
It isn't a case of whether or not Britain was "uninvadable". You seem to have avoided the point that Hitler wanted to make a separate peace with Britain and, was in fact, loath to invade the country. The Battle of Britain was a failure for Nazi Germany and it put paid to any lingering ambitions to invade.
The US has never intervened anywhere out of the "goodness of its heart" nor did the US government prohibit the supply of weapons and other goods to those countries who later became its enemies.
How many British companies did business with the Nazis prior to WW2? I can't think of many...in fact, I can't think of any.
zion said:
maybe uninvadable is too strong a word, but there is no doubt the sentiments are correct
The dream team combination for Germany would have been an Axis of with themselves & the UK.
Italy were not a great deal of use to be honest, apart form Leaders who had similar( ish ) lines of thought.
Japan & Germany were uneasy bedfellows, thrust together by fate , expansionist desires & having Russia on their doorsteps.
Germany + the USA was not going to happen, given the US isolationist policy & although a massive potential ally, would always side with the UK when it got messy.
UK & Germany = about half the world would be under the thumb directly, maybe another quarter on side , the US may not be as potentially belligerent and the Brits were very much anti "commie" - with the UK on board, accesss to Africa and Asia was eased, Raw material were guaranteed and Russia would be utterly isolated.
It was purient to have the UK on your side in geopolitical terms, the US was a side issue during this period
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
samk said:
Who's to say? Personally, I find these "What if...?" arguments a waste of time. There is a USA and that's the way things are.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:
If Britain didn't need the US, why did it sink itself into deep debt to the Americans in order to finance the war effort?
............
The debt was run up in two ways. When Britain stood alone in Europe against Nazi Germany, the prime minister, Winston Churchill, famously said to the US: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." In public it was a bold statement of defiance, while in private, Churchill knew the only hope of victory was with US involvement.
The US was reluctant to enter the conflict, but agreed to the Lend-Lease agreement, in which it provided Britain with ships and munitions, often not in the best of condition, and asked only that Britain pay one-tenth of the production costs of the equipment, with money lent by the US.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1928032006
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
"By the summer of 1940, the new British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was warning that his country could not pay cash for war materials much longer."
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047741/lend-lease
From the same article:
"Though lend-lease had been authorized primarily in an effort to aid Great Britain, it was extended to China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 nations had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49,100,000,000, amounted to outright gifts. Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8,000,000,000 worth of aid."
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047741/lend-lease
From the same article:
"Though lend-lease had been authorized primarily in an effort to aid Great Britain, it was extended to China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 nations had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49,100,000,000, amounted to outright gifts. Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8,000,000,000 worth of aid."
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That Johnny, he does love his cut and paste odysseys.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
It's the easiest and fastest way to explain basic history to the likes of you.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
There was me thinking it was the most convenient way for you to make yourself look halfway-knowledgable about subjects you know fuck all about.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
absolutlely agreed. you might as well ask 'what if the world was square'?nino_savatte said:
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
johnny, breaking news; just cos you found an article on the web saying something it doesn't make it true. especially not a 40-years-on piece by some local hackJohnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:There was me thinking it was the most convenient way for you to make yourself look halfway-knowledgable about subjects you know fuck all about.
But it isn't that. That's the sort of thought that stick in the mud drudge thinking will get for you.
Actually, I find it a waste of time typing out something that's been said succinctly elsewhere.
See, the point is that I already know it, now I just have to get the facts out to you in the fastest way possible.
Similar threads
