Is America The Best Country In The World?

[Jinwoy]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
8) WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

[KASSRD]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

Wasn't the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria helpful in getting the Japanese to surrender?

[Organized States]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

Wasn't the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria helpful in getting the Japanese to surrender?

Helpful, yes. Essential, no. After LeMay's ruthless firebombing, and then, the atomic bomb. On top of the Emperor being extremely against the war, the US basically smacked Japan around the Pacific due to the fact that Japan could not sustain a prolonged war (on top of counter insurgency/keeping territory in China).

[Blakk Metal]

Ahh yes, the soviets, now tell me where would all those Western German fighting forces go if there was no driving force in the west? Either invading A. England or Reinforcing B. Eastern Fronts.
Most likely invading England then transferring back over leaving I would estimate about 25% of their force to police the locals while the other 75% would head back to the Easter front and fight the soviets along the already hardened East front German forces.
Also remember even after retaking Stalingrad Russian logistics and resources were.... well for lack of a better description just plain shit. They were waiting for comrades to die before getting a rifle. Not to mention Japan could intervene and use their forces to subdue Asia before combating Russia as well as committing continual genocide in Asia.
To describe the dire need of American involvement Winston actually fabricated fake Intel to try and force America into the war.

Now if by some miracle in this hypothetical that Russia DID fight Germany back, how many MORE losses would all Nations have suffered? As well as Russia engulfing large portions of Europe perhaps even farther then Germany causing even more increased friction with Britain and Winston.
Not to mention the death toll would probably be higher considering that Japan during all this would still be killing people.

So if by any chance not essential, it sure did work alot better then the alternatives possible.

Without the Soviets, I highly doubt the western allies could have won. Britain could have held out at least long enough for the Soviets to turn the tide of the war. Although I agree a world without the soviets asking control of all mainland Europe is not a preferable one.

The Nazis had deficient logistics and no surface navy, and the Western Allies, and only the Western Allies, were blowing up everything they had. There was no way they could have lasted long.

[Immoren]

Ahh yes, the soviets, now tell me where would all those Western German fighting forces go if there was no driving force in the west? Either invading A. England or Reinforcing B. Eastern Fronts.
Most likely invading England then transferring back over leaving I would estimate about 25% of their force to police the locals while the other 75% would head back to the Easter front and fight the soviets along the already hardened East front German forces.
Also remember even after retaking Stalingrad Russian logistics and resources were.... well for lack of a better description just plain shit. They were waiting for comrades to die before getting a rifle. Not to mention Japan could intervene and use their forces to subdue Asia before combating Russia as well as committing continual genocide in Asia.
To describe the dire need of American involvement Winston actually fabricated fake Intel to try and force America into the war.

Now if by some miracle in this hypothetical that Russia DID fight Germany back, how many MORE losses would all Nations have suffered? As well as Russia engulfing large portions of Europe perhaps even farther then Germany causing even more increased friction with Britain and Winston.
Not to mention the death toll would probably be higher considering that Japan during all this would still be killing people.

So if by any chance not essential, it sure did work alot better then the alternatives possible.

Without the Soviets, I highly doubt the western allies could have won. Britain could have held out at least long enough for the Soviets to turn the tide of the war. Although I agree a world without the soviets asking control of all mainland Europe is not a preferable one.

I remember someone once claiming that only reason British needed military help of America was because Japanese forced them to two front war by attacking everyone in Pacific, and without Japanese Meddling British could've crushed Germans in Western Europe alone.

[Bonosov]

Without the Soviets, I highly doubt the western allies could have won. Britain could have held out at least long enough for the Soviets to turn the tide of the war. Although I agree a world without the soviets asking control of all mainland Europe is not a preferable one.

I remember someone once claiming that only reason British needed military help of America was because Japanese forced them to two front war by attacking everyone in Pacific, and without Japanese Meddling British could've crushed Germans in Western Europe alone.

You sir are funny. Not flaming here, but I know WW2 good, the British would have eventually been defeated without the help of America, for one, sure, they had factories but lacked raw materials, the US provided the Britts with raw supplies to help them keep fighting. If America decided not to help, there wouldn't have been lend lease materials. So if the US didn't help, one the British would have eventually been overwhelmed and invaded. And Two the soviets would have had it harder since the US helped them as well. And if we didn't do lend lease, we wouldn't have had the war industry when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which again, the shift to making tanks isn't something done over night. But again, the Brits had a decent naval fleet, however the Germans were sinking them with their U-boats and without the help from America, including sonar, the Germans probably would have destroyed their naval power. And I can go on and on, but I believe I made my point.

[United States Kingdom]

I remember someone once claiming that only reason British needed military help of America was because Japanese forced them to two front war by attacking everyone in Pacific, and without Japanese Meddling British could've crushed Germans in Western Europe alone.

You sir are funny. Not flaming here, but I know WW2 good, the British would have eventually been defeated without the help of America, for one, sure, they had factories but lacked raw materials, the US provided the Britts with raw supplies to help them keep fighting. If America decided not to help, there wouldn't have been lend lease materials. So if the US didn't help, one the British would have eventually been overwhelmed and invaded. And Two the soviets would have had it harder since the US helped them as well. And if we didn't do lend lease, we wouldn't have had the war industry when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which again, the shift to making tanks isn't something done over night. But again, the Brits had a decent naval fleet, however the Germans were sinking them with their U-boats and without the help from America, including sonar, the Germans probably would have destroyed their naval power. And I can go on and on, but I believe I made my point.

I sir disagree with you in the British not having raw materials. The British Empire as much as I hate this fact was a world superpower and had colonial holdings in Africa and the Middle East as well as some of Asia although Hong Kong isn't really a 'strategic'.

[Jinwoy]

I remember someone once claiming that only reason British needed military help of America was because Japanese forced them to two front war by attacking everyone in Pacific, and without Japanese Meddling British could've crushed Germans in Western Europe alone.

You sir are funny. Not flaming here, but I know WW2 good, the British would have eventually been defeated without the help of America, for one, sure, they had factories but lacked raw materials, the US provided the Britts with raw supplies to help them keep fighting. If America decided not to help, there wouldn't have been lend lease materials. So if the US didn't help, one the British would have eventually been overwhelmed and invaded. And Two the soviets would have had it harder since the US helped them as well. And if we didn't do lend lease, we wouldn't have had the war industry when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which again, the shift to making tanks isn't something done over night. But again, the Brits had a decent naval fleet, however the Germans were sinking them with their U-boats and without the help from America, including sonar, the Germans probably would have destroyed their naval power. And I can go on and on, but I believe I made my point.

I don't think you have, and here's why you're wrong:
One - the Americans were severely lagging on tech - they couldn't take on the Germans alone, ESPECIALLY when they first entered the war.
This is where Britain comes in.
Britain and America wouldn't be able to take on Germany together - invading either England or France via the English channel would be a logistical nightmare and would be a spectacular failure for one side.
If the Nazi invasion of the USSR hadn't occurred, the allies would've very damn well lost the invasion at Normandy - if not then, a German counter offensive would've led to a steady war of attrition.
I mean, its not like the US could just send more troops to reinforce Normandy, considering America also had the contend with the naval superiority of Imperial Japan too - fighting a offensive-turned-defensive war on two fronts is what caused Germany to lose, remember?

With those in mind, lets down our attention to the pacific - With Britain reinforcing the motherland with her imperial navy from the then superior German navy, her lovely colonies where at immediate risk of invasion from Japan - Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. None of these countries could defend themselves (arguably, they still can't) and so had to turn to the US for help. A successful move, because all turned out well when the invasion of Normandy was a success... but what if it wasn't?
USA was not good with tech. It was outdated. The whole reason they were able to get the tech necessary to even THINK about facing the Germans toe to toe was because the British were able to ship it to them. It confuses me when I think about how the Germans had Great Britain on lock-down and somehow the British still managed to smuggle out the tech plans, but I digress.
Had the Germans sunk that faithful ship, the war would've turned out very differently for the US. Probably on the side of axis occupation, if not outright destruction.

[Bonosov]

You sir are funny. Not flaming here, but I know WW2 good, the British would have eventually been defeated without the help of America, for one, sure, they had factories but lacked raw materials, the US provided the Britts with raw supplies to help them keep fighting. If America decided not to help, there wouldn't have been lend lease materials. So if the US didn't help, one the British would have eventually been overwhelmed and invaded. And Two the soviets would have had it harder since the US helped them as well. And if we didn't do lend lease, we wouldn't have had the war industry when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which again, the shift to making tanks isn't something done over night. But again, the Brits had a decent naval fleet, however the Germans were sinking them with their U-boats and without the help from America, including sonar, the Germans probably would have destroyed their naval power. And I can go on and on, but I believe I made my point.

I sir disagree with you in the British not having raw materials. The British Empire as much as I hate this fact was a world superpower and had colonial holdings in Africa and the Middle East as well as some of Asia although Hong Kong isn't really a 'strategic'.

That may be true, but how did they get raw materials? Merchants that were being sunk by the German U-boats. They would hold out, but eventually they would have came to the fate of the rest of their European allies.

[Jinwoy]

You sir are funny. Not flaming here, but I know WW2 good, the British would have eventually been defeated without the help of America, for one, sure, they had factories but lacked raw materials, the US provided the Britts with raw supplies to help them keep fighting. If America decided not to help, there wouldn't have been lend lease materials. So if the US didn't help, one the British would have eventually been overwhelmed and invaded. And Two the soviets would have had it harder since the US helped them as well. And if we didn't do lend lease, we wouldn't have had the war industry when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which again, the shift to making tanks isn't something done over night. But again, the Brits had a decent naval fleet, however the Germans were sinking them with their U-boats and without the help from America, including sonar, the Germans probably would have destroyed their naval power. And I can go on and on, but I believe I made my point.

I sir disagree with you in the British not having raw materials. The British Empire as much as I hate this fact was a world superpower and had colonial holdings in Africa and the Middle East as well as some of Asia although Hong Kong isn't really a 'strategic'.

Wrong again.
The Imperial Navy could not simultaneously defend against the Japanese and the Germans. The Homeland got top priority when it came to defence, and so her colonies had to look for allies in the region for defence - which at the time was America only.

[Blakk Metal]

Had the Germans sunk that faithful ship, the war would've turned out very differently for the US. Probably on the side of axis occupation, if not outright destruction.

Or they could have remailed it.

[TriStates]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

^ Brought to you by a Historian near you.

Good show

[SaintB]

At one point in time we may have been but its since been squandered by irresponsible practices. The US isn't even the best at convincing everyone it's the best.

[TriStates]

At one point in time we may have been but its since been squandered by irresponsible practices. The US isn't even the best at convincing everyone it's the best.

Meh, we just need to convice ourselves. Then it becomes fact

[Decius]

Nein Deutschland ist das größte Land in der Welt.

[Blakk Metal]

Nein Deutschland ist das größte Land in der Welt.

Germany is the grosst land in the world? No long it has so many germs.

[Herrebrugh]

Of course not. To put it in Van Gaalian terms: that's a stupid question.

There is no best country in the world. Not until someone establishes an internationally recognised measure of goodness.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

I've changed my opinion recently from anti-US to pro-US.

The USA does so much good for the world and even if we are behind in some areas, I think it's at least in the top ten for all-around everything good. America is the world's oldest republic and has the longest lasting constitution.

The best? I'm not sure. One of the best? Definitely.

[Decius]

Nein Deutschland ist das größte Land in der Welt.

Germany is the grosst land in the world? No long it has so many germs.

Deutschland ist das beste Land der Welt.

[Kiruri]

I've changed my opinion recently from anti-US to pro-US.

The USA does so much good for the world and even if we are behind in some areas, I think it's at least in the top ten for all-around everything good. America is the world's oldest republic and has the longest lasting constitution.

The best? I'm not sure. One of the best? Definitely.

More like top 20. I don't think It'd be in the top ten.. well.. maybe #10...

The US is pretty cool, but there are far better places ^^ Anyway.. to each their own... I mean.. it's not like there's a right/wrong answer xP

[Padnak]

Everyone here is stupid


Russia is the best country in the world

Fact.

[Jinwoy]

Had the Germans sunk that faithful ship, the war would've turned out very differently for the US. Probably on the side of axis occupation, if not outright destruction.

Or they could have remailed it.

They barely had the resources to do it the first time. That's why I'm surprised they were able to break the German hold.

[Antarticaria]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

Ahh yes, and now I can say these great words so rare on NS.
I agree.

[Trygg]

It once was and it can be again, but right now it is not, and that is unacceptable.

I second this.

The motion is passed.

[KASSRD]

I have no idea where this is going but I'm going to say this:
1) Russia certainly put more effort in their war effort than the west. Doesn't necessarily make it better, because Quantity =/= Quality and all that.
2) Without Russia, an allied invasion of Europe would've been dang near impossible since, of course, Naziland could just relocate all their armies to counter the allied invasion of Normandy.
3) Without allied help, Russia would've lost the war. Easily.
4) The US was lagging behind in modern technology until the British gave them access to their tech.
5) It wasn't all the US. The US isn't the sole reason for winning the European theatre, but it is the sole reason for the victory in the pacific theatre. You can't count on Australia for much. You couldn't count on Britain for much. It was all about the US in the pacific.
6) Naziland was evil.
7) Tactical and Logistical failure by Nazi military leaders meant that defeat was inevitable by a joint Soviet-West invasion.
WHO TOOK BERLIN? ARGUABLY THE MOST HEAVILY DEFENDED CITY IN ALL OF GLORIOUS DEUTSCHLAND! PROBABLY THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE WAR (Aside from defeating Japan, thanks America!)

Then there's the aftermath:
1) Which power spawned the great Soviet vs. West problem? Answer: UK under passionate anti-communist Winston Churchill
2) Which power spawned hardcore stalinist states with a tendency to slaughter dissidents like the scum they are? Answer: USSR under the glorious Joseph Stalin
3) America? Answer: Not any better than anyone else.
*Drops mic*

Ahh yes, and now I can say these great words so rare on NS.
I agree.

Impossible. It goes against the laws of physics that people on nationstates can agree with each other.