Without the United States, what would the world look like?

[elvis]

with american supplies.

Maybe so. But Hitler still would historically screw up and make the same mistake as Napoleon. It's like I said, with no U.S, basically you'll have a bigger British Empire and maybe even France in North America. They wouldn't just sit idle by.

But it's like I said in my second post, it's higher likely with no U.S. that Hitler ever comes to power. No Hitler or Treaty, no World War II.

Yep. And then all the companies in France that produced white flags would've gone bankrupt.

France didn't wave any flags. no one did. an armistice was signed.

 

[bucs90]

Have you heard the story about the American military general visiting french military schools, and when discussing tactics in a classroom, they have in their plans that if the enemy breaches their 1st, 2nd lines of defense, the response is "Fortify and hold on until the Americans arrive".

 

[cad]

this reminds me of the "was george steinbrenner good for baseball" argument.

sure he made a bunch of mistakes. got kicked out of the league a few times. spent a bunch of money that no one else could afford. dominated the game to the point where others hated him. but in the end, the owners were better off with george around, and the players were sure as hell better off with george around. he may have helped create a system of "haves and have nots" but the have nots sure had a ahelluva lot more than they did before george was round.

 

[Modbert]

Yep. And then all the companies in France that produced white flags would've gone bankrupt.

The 5 Most Statistically Full of Shit National Stereotypes | Cracked.com

Ask Rudyard Kipling, who once famously said about the French: "Their business is war, and they do their business." And boy howdy, a quick glance at France's history shows business is booming:

Since 387 BC, France has fought 168 major wars against such badasses as the Roman Empire, the British Army and the Turkish forces. Their track record isn't too shabby, either: They've won 109, lost 49 and drawn (or as close as you can "draw" a war) 10 times. Professional boxers have been crowned world champions on shittier records than that.

And while it is true that France surrendered to Germany relatively early in WWII, that was only because they hadn't picked themselves up after WWI yet. And WWI (despite being an entire "I" lower) wasn't exactly an anemic playground chickenfight--the French suffered about 5.7 million casualties (the war killed or wounded an incredible 37 million people worldwide).

So yes, the next time around they let the Germans take over officially, but they never actually stopped fighting: the French resistance was one of the most enduring symbols of Nazi opposition in Europe. The resistance was the originator of the archetypal trench coat wearing merchants of bloody death you see in countless action movies and video games today. They blew up bridges, staged daring night raids, slit German throats while generally looking fantastic (if a little ennui-stricken) while doing it.

And not a damn thing's changed since then: France is the most underestimated military force in the world, with the third highest military spending on the planet and an estimated 300 nuclear warheads at their disposal. So basically... we might want to knock off the "coward" talk now, lest we find the impeccably-styled death squads smoking their thin cigarettes on our doorstep.

 

[cad]

Yep. And then all the companies in France that produced white flags would've gone bankrupt.

The 5 Most Statistically Full of Shit National Stereotypes | Cracked.com

Ask Rudyard Kipling, who once famously said about the French: "Their business is war, and they do their business." And boy howdy, a quick glance at France's history shows business is booming:

Since 387 BC, France has fought 168 major wars against such badasses as the Roman Empire, the British Army and the Turkish forces. Their track record isn't too shabby, either: They've won 109, lost 49 and drawn (or as close as you can "draw" a war) 10 times. Professional boxers have been crowned world champions on shittier records than that.



So yes, the next time around they let the Germans take over officially, but they never actually stopped fighting: the French resistance was one of the most enduring symbols of Nazi opposition in Europe. The resistance was the originator of the archetypal trench coat wearing merchants of bloody death you see in countless action movies and video games today. They blew up bridges, staged daring night raids, slit German throats while generally looking fantastic (if a little ennui-stricken) while doing it.

And not a damn thing's changed since then: France is the most underestimated military force in the world, with the third highest military spending on the planet and an estimated 300 nuclear warheads at their disposal. So basically... we might want to knock off the "coward" talk now, lest we find the impeccably-styled death squads smoking their thin cigarettes on our doorstep.

i think the philosopher janet jackson said it best" what have you done for me lately?"

what's your next argument. mongolia is a great superpower?

 

[Dr Grump]

More importantly, who cares....

 

[bucs90]

Dang, can't even make a well placed France joke anymore without it turning to a big ole debate.

Well, I know their most brutal military force, the French Foreign Legion, shows what the modern Frenchman is really capable of. Er.........wait a minute

 

[bucs90]

Dr Grump, where did you get that avatar pic. Pretty damn cool. That wave would be a helluva surf.

 

[eots]

Without the United States, what would the world look like

there would be world peace and meaningful communication with all life forms and together we would all sing kumbaya.....in harmony

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No United States? World War one would have dragged on for several more years with either a German victory in France or a settlement between all parties. 1 million German soldiers joined the west front from the east front in 1918 and the only thing that stopped them from a breakout near Paris was fresh American troops.

While Hitler probably would not have risen to power with a settlement, the Germans would not have been convinced their war like ways were wrong either. There would have probably been another war between Germany and France dragging in the British ( though with Belgium gone they would have no common defense).

Eventually there would have been a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. With possible help from other Western nations.

In other words who knows what would have happened after the US did not stop the break out in 1918 in France.

 

[rdean]

first off, where are you pulling those "odds" from, other than your ass?
secondly, WTF is your point? refer to the title of this post you idiot.

PEW reports that only 6% of scientists identify themselves as "Republican" and less than 9% as conservative.

Since the goal of conservatives is the opposite of enlightenment, of course it's no surprise.

The greatest science centers are based in Blue states so it should be no surprise. Especially since those in Red states want to push mysticism and the occult over science. It's just the way it is. What can you expect from those that believe the "supernatural" is "real"?

Thats a good stat. And seeing as most college campuses, and their professors, lean left, it's no suprise scientists are political liberals. And thats fine. Theres a place in America for everyone, and I don't mind liberals. They provide great debate usually, and it's great a country can host so many viewpoints without violent conflict, unlike the rest of the world. My issue is when your ideals take power and start taking money out of my pocket to fund failed programs.

As for science, as a big reader and wonderer of science and religion, what do you think of the very recent trend of science and religion blending? Not a political question, but more and more books I'm finding and reading in recent years show that the deeper scientists dig into science and space, the more and more they become convinced that there is a God or some higher conscience or power. In other words, the more enlightened the scientists become, the less likely they are to be atheist.

You're making that up. Science and religion are exact opposites.

What is especially funny, you can go on the Internet and find a "Gay" Scientist organization, "Women" Scientist organization, "Black" Scientists organization and right on down the line of diversity.

I have yet to find a Scientific organization made up of "Conservatives".

 

[xotoxi]

Without the United States, what would the world look like?

There would probably be less denim.

 

[R.C. Christian]

For all the hate in recent years for the power of the United States and it's richness, I wonder, what would the world look like if the USA had crumbled, say, 80 years ago? Yeah, lets say we never recovered from the Great Depression. Lets say a massive plague hit America in the 1920's, wiping the country nearly out, and it broke down into a bunch of 8-10 smaller, South American size like nations. Here is how I believe it may have the world looking:

- The Nazis would've taken Europe, and eventually regrouped and beaten the Russian military. Japan would've taken the South Pacific, and established a large presence on the Chinese coastal areas, before settling for what that had conquered. Europe would still be dominated by Germany- the world's economic superpower.

- Japan would not be as economically as powerful as today, as they would not have US protection post-ww2 and would have to fund a massive military to fend off hated China and Russian threats.

- There would be no Israel.

- Iraq would've moved from it's takeover of Kuwait, and become more and more powerful until eventually destroying Iran. It's unchecked aggression is not stopped, as it has an alliance to supply Nazi Germany with oil in exchange for weapons and the Germans allowing them to dominate the Middle East. Iraq eventually takes Saudi Arabia, who surrenders to the Iraqis to avoid a war against the Iraqi military- supplied by Germany.

- Mexico is eventually colonized by the Germans. The Mexican people are still struggling, as there is no America for their poor and desperate to flee to. Both the Germans and Japanese have eyes on the resources of North America.

- Canada continues to bolster it's military in response, while it's people beg for national healthcare. But paying for a massive military to defend itself, while also trying to pay for social entitlements, puts the Canadian gov't on track to bankruptcy.

- The 8 nations of the former United States are doing well, but none are strong enough to stand up to any invasion on their own. They form an alliance with Canada, which the Japanese and Germans take seriously, as they do not want to enter a bloody war on the vast continent.

Anyway, just thought maybe we'd toss some ideas of what the world may look like if the evil, rich, greedy USofA was not around.

Wild speculation. You have no way of knowing what the world would look like anymore than anyone else. The fact that you think you do only drops your already low IQ. Go stroke your fantasy on the short bus. Maybe you can impress the drooling downies with your divine all knowingness.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Without the United States, what would the world look like?

There would probably be less denim.

There would certainly be less retards on this site making wild speculations.

 

[Big Fitz]

A better scenario would hae been what if we had listened to Conservatives of the 30's and 40s who advocated a hands off foreign policy and free market response to the Depression

The US economy would hae floundered, we would have remained an isolationist second rate power while either Germany, Russia or Japan filled the power void. We would still maintain a Monroe Doctrine control oer the Americas but the Soviets would have controlled Europe and Japan would have controlled Asia

The US stepping up and filling the power vacuum created by the war made us an economic and military super power

Lies LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES

Free Market response ended the 1920 Recession in a year. Hoover Central Planning deepened the later recession and FDR turned it into a depression

Here's the FDR data set, show me when Progressive Central Planning ended the Great Depression

1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%.

Still eating that Right Wing revisionist nonsense that the recession of the early 20s was the same magnitude of the Great Depression of the 30s?

It was Coolidges blindness to big business and financial industry excesses that dumped the Depression on poor Hoover

After Harding, Collidge and Hoover.......nobody elected a Republican president for 20 years

Who could blame them

Historical numbers like that ain't negotiable. FDR and Hoover's Keynsian philosophies made it worse.

All depends on when the US disappears from the world stage.

In WW1, Austria/Hungary holds on and possibly wins the war spreading the Kaiser's power over at least continental europe. It probably couldn't have maintained it for longer than 20 years as all militarily gained empires eventually collapse. The Soviet Union would have still arisen from czarist Russia, and those two tyrannical forces would eventually have duked it out for ownership of Europe. England MAY have remained free and Fortress Europe would have been created 20 years early. Depending on the Isolationist US, our trade with Austria Hungary would go on and a good chance that Wilson wold have forged an alliance with them, seeing as they were very like minded. Remember, progressivism was very popular in the US at that time, and although fascism like we saw through Hitler may never come, some form of Mussolini's 'corporatism' would eventually win out.

We probably would never see the rise of Nazism because a tyrant was already in place there. We wouldn't have seen Islamofascism either because Islam would have been stopped by Austro-Hungary much more effectively. In Japan, militarism spawned by the Japo-Russo war would still have inspired them towards global conquest, and eventually have fought America for her possessions in the Pacific, and there still would have been a Pacific War as Japan tried to invade and conquer Australia as well, and that would have involved the British empire more, allowing them to focus on helping crush imperial Japan.

Scientifically we would be about 30-50 years behind in technology, for the rapid expansions of tech from WW2 would not have existed, depending on when the war in the Pacific will be fought. Radar, Meteorology, Aeronautics, Astronomy, Rocketry, materials tech, communications, the atomic age itself would be strongly stunted. These achievements would have eventually come to pass, but not in a rapid succession like we've become accustomed to.

That would be one example of how the world would have changed had the US stayed out of WW1.

The game of what if is fraught with peril, because everyone votes with their biases. Although we can doubt what could have happened, we cannot refute the numbers of what DID happen. It does no one favors to lie about the past for the sake of political pandering in the present.

 

[cad]

PEW reports that only 6% of scientists identify themselves as "Republican" and less than 9% as conservative.

Since the goal of conservatives is the opposite of enlightenment, of course it's no surprise.

The greatest science centers are based in Blue states so it should be no surprise. Especially since those in Red states want to push mysticism and the occult over science. It's just the way it is. What can you expect from those that believe the "supernatural" is "real"?

Thats a good stat. And seeing as most college campuses, and their professors, lean left, it's no suprise scientists are political liberals. And thats fine. Theres a place in America for everyone, and I don't mind liberals. They provide great debate usually, and it's great a country can host so many viewpoints without violent conflict, unlike the rest of the world. My issue is when your ideals take power and start taking money out of my pocket to fund failed programs.

As for science, as a big reader and wonderer of science and religion, what do you think of the very recent trend of science and religion blending? Not a political question, but more and more books I'm finding and reading in recent years show that the deeper scientists dig into science and space, the more and more they become convinced that there is a God or some higher conscience or power. In other words, the more enlightened the scientists become, the less likely they are to be atheist.

You're making that up. Science and religion are exact opposites.

What is especially funny, you can go on the Internet and find a "Gay" Scientist organization, "Women" Scientist organization, "Black" Scientists organization and right on down the line of diversity.

I have yet to find a Scientific organization made up of "Conservatives".

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

how are those exact opposites?

 

[rdean]

Thats a good stat. And seeing as most college campuses, and their professors, lean left, it's no suprise scientists are political liberals. And thats fine. Theres a place in America for everyone, and I don't mind liberals. They provide great debate usually, and it's great a country can host so many viewpoints without violent conflict, unlike the rest of the world. My issue is when your ideals take power and start taking money out of my pocket to fund failed programs.

As for science, as a big reader and wonderer of science and religion, what do you think of the very recent trend of science and religion blending? Not a political question, but more and more books I'm finding and reading in recent years show that the deeper scientists dig into science and space, the more and more they become convinced that there is a God or some higher conscience or power. In other words, the more enlightened the scientists become, the less likely they are to be atheist.

You're making that up. Science and religion are exact opposites.

What is especially funny, you can go on the Internet and find a "Gay" Scientist organization, "Women" Scientist organization, "Black" Scientists organization and right on down the line of diversity.

I have yet to find a Scientific organization made up of "Conservatives".

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

how are those exact opposites?

Because science deals with what can be quantified.

Religion, the supernatural, spirits and the occult have no basis in reality.

One is "right there" the other is "no where".

 

[cad]

You're making that up. Science and religion are exact opposites.

What is especially funny, you can go on the Internet and find a "Gay" Scientist organization, "Women" Scientist organization, "Black" Scientists organization and right on down the line of diversity.

I have yet to find a Scientific organization made up of "Conservatives".

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

how are those exact opposites?

Because science deals with what can be quantified.

Religion, the supernatural, spirits and the occult have no basis in reality.

One is "right there" the other is "no where".

how does believing in a divine creator contradict anything in science?

 

[Dr Grump]

how does believing in a divine creator contradict anything in science?

Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

 

[cad]

how does believing in a divine creator contradict anything in science?

Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?