Inspect@hDeck wrote:
ATG wrote:
Inspect@hDeck wrote:
This is what I'm talking about. I don't even have to make fun of you anymore, you guys make yourselves look stupid.
What the fuck is your point?
Are you disputing what he posted or just being an argumentative prick?
This is debate and serious talk. Okay, you think Americans are stupid, we got that.
If we hadn't gotten involved what would the world be like? or are you too stupid to answer?
The world would be almost exactly the same as it would be today. The Americans didn't do much in WW1, and in WW2, you guys played a significantly larger part, but were still not necessary for the good guys to win. You won a lot of battles sure, but few actually contributed to the outcome.
hmm...lets remember something here, asshat. there were three major turning points in WWII. one was in Russia, one was in Western Europe, and one was in North Africa.
lets remember another thing here: throughout wwII, the US provided relief and weaponry to european nations
back on to the first one: if the allies had lost just one of those battles, hitler's jet enigne program, his nuclear weapons program, and several other nasty things would have been completed. he needed just 6 months m ore than he had.
the western europe front would have been a lost cause without US men. most of europe was conquered and just britain remained to fight back, and they were slowly starting to lose.
In North Africa, british troops existed that otherwise would not have had the US not been there to free them up.
thats two, count them, two, of the three most important battles in modern history. two battles that would have been almost definately lost had the US not been involved in the war.