Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Who was the most powerful nation: USSR or USA?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by misterkingtiger, Oct 27, 2005.

  1. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    without lendlease the soviets would have surrendered ukraine and bellorussa in 42 or 43 and sued for peace like they did in 1917... without beans an bullets and gas and boots and trucks and raw materials the russians woulda been done ..no matter how many russian boys stalin stacked up like cordwood in front of the german guns ..fdr and winston were desperate to keep the russians in the fight , american boots and coat /russian body..and without the russian effort and blood , the normandy invasion would have been impossible not in 44, 47 or ever mabey ..the german army that was eaten up in russia would have made festung europa impregnable and without lendlease it would be heer doing the eating ,imo..with the russian grainerys and oilfields the nazis would have eaten england soon enough,if brittain fell the usa woulda been isolationist indeed ..the thousand year reich?
     
  2. bosworth gannaway

    bosworth gannaway New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    And why shouldn't the USA be as powerful as the rest of the world added together ! It fought the War for about half as long as the other combatants ( the same applies to WW1 - which, again, would have help preserve it's power base ) . Apart from a few balloon borne bombs that dropped on the Pacific Northwest, it never had a bomb or shell explode upon it's industries, and it had a population at least four times as big as Great Britains (for example). With those advantages, it SHOULD have been at least as powerful as the rest of the World put together ! The fact that the USA also imposed punitive post war financial loan terms upon Great Britain ( merely because the latter had elected a Socialist government )and (as always ) sought to conspire to undermine the British Empire, could only but have helped the USA achieve that position. The sad thing is, of course, that having achieved it, the USA didn't do more for the benefit of mankind, apart from seeking to expand it's own Empire, and with the dubious success that that venture enjoyed.
     
  3. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    bos:
    Tisk, tisk. You make it sound like a cake-walk.
    You belittle the USA because it's factories and mainland were never bombed, but don't acknowledge the amazing industrial output that made it possible to supply lend-lease to both our British friends, our Russian allies, and wage war against two major enemies at opposite ends of the globe, simutaneously.
    Quite an achievement if you ask me.

    your quote:
    "The sad thing is, of course, that having achieved it, the USA didn't do more for the benefit of mankind, apart from seeking to expand it's own Empire, and with the dubious success that that venture enjoyed."

    The only "Empire" extended was that of freedom and democracy, and the goal/policy was to contain the spreading tentacles of Communism. My understanding was that the USA forgave billions of dollars of war-debt in post-war Europe.

    If anything, we were very naive in our negotiations at the Yalta Conference with the Russians. For their short involvement in declaring war against the Japanese in the Far-East, Korea was divided into North and South... and we know how that developed into a struggle for influence in that part of the world. We continue to pay for that oversight to this day.

    Perhaps you could elaborate...

    Tim
     
  4. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    AH but you forget a few cues organised by US in their "spreading of freadom and democraty" against democraticaly elected goverments and military huntas and various faschist regimes supported all owere the world. Spreading "freedom and democraty"? Yeah right. You want to buy a bridge? Real cheap.
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    It's a shame that this is technically true, because something about the way you put it really ticks me off... It sounds like blatant propaganda.
     
  6. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    we have an empire woot. man i feel so "imperial" except the fact that we dont own these people and have them pay money to us and put tarrifs on them, but you know the "big bad wolf" America is only after everyone rights.

    compared to the British,German,French,Russian,Portuguese,Spanish,Roman,Byzantine,Ottoman,Austro-hungarian we cant be classified as an "empire".
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    That days r over. US did act like empire,but on diferent way,in "Silk gloves" to control as much they can (if u help to elect some goverment,they own u right?) etc,etc,etc world is full of exsamples.
     
  8. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Roel:
    Sounds like I stuck a nerve... thanks for showing me your "hot" button.
    :wink:

    US post-WW2 policy was to contain the spread of communism in that and other regions of the world. It doesn't mean decisions made were "black and white."
    We have historically supported the "lessor of two evils." The Iran-Iraq war comes to mind. At that point in time, we hated Iran and the Ayatollah more than Iraq and Saddam. In retrospect, it was a war we likely hoped BOTH would lose.
    The diplomacy game has always been one of compromise. Regardless of political philosophy and grounding, countries are governed by men/women who are obviously at risk of becoming intoxicated by the power and influence they command. The democratic system provides a level of checks and balances to prevent a Hitler or Stalin from assuming absolute power.

    Tim
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yet Hitler achieved his absolute power by being elected in a democratic republic.
     
  10. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Depends on the country. Let's see now
    Allende democraticaly elected president or gen. Pinochet who was more evil?
    US did the same shit as SSSR. Soviets were just more opened about it.
     
  11. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Now that's a new one. I don't recall the Russians/Soviets being "open" about much of anything.
    :roll:
    Tim
     
  12. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    What? The Germans in West Germany were happy the Americans were there unlike the east were the Soviets raped thousands of women and murdered thousands of innocent I dont think theres no were near a comparison.
     
  13. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
  14. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Guys, could we please not let this topic become another 'how clean is the USA's conscience' topic.
     
  15. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Sacrifices were made during the Cold War and I'm sure not all Americans are proud over guys like Pinochet, however there is no doubt in my mind who were the "bad guys". Compare East and West Germany. While the US did support some undemocratic regimes they did not actively help governments commit mass murder in the order of hundreds of thousands like the Soviets did in, for example Ethiopa under Mengistu.
     
  16. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Man read the second link in previous post about La Mozote massacer in El Salvador. State department didn't just covered it up they whitewashed it.

    Really? What about Guatemala (between 50.000 to 76.000 peasants + death squads victims in the cities) in the early 80's? They were scholled by the US (School of Americas) paid by US and had US training perssonell with them.
     
  17. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Like I said, I know about South America and I am not proud of it however American troops were not directly involved in those actions so I don't think they compare to the Ethiopan incident. During Mengistus forced collectivisation thousands of famine-struck farmers from the Wollo region were forced into Soviet cargo planes and flown off to their fate. Communist intervention in Mozambique, Angola, et cetera also has an extremely dirty history. In my opinion the US made some wrong decisions trying to do the right thing while USSR was doing the wrong thing all along.
     
  18. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Some of the officers in these countries trained in the US. They were trained in military operations. They were not trained to kill civilians.
    If they did some of the things that are alleged ( the mere allegation does not prove that they did) then they and their superiors (if they were involved) bear the responsibilty for their actions, not the US government.
    I attended some of the same training courses and knew others that did as well. The US military does not train soldiers to kill or abuse civilians. Quite the contrary. Soldiers are instructed that they must not intentionally harm civilians and are warned that they will be prosecuted if they do so.
     
  19. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    You were in School of Americas (or what is it called these days)?
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    No. But that wasn't the only location for training foreign nationals. They attended some of the same service schools as US soldiers/sailors/marines.
    The instructors at the School of Americas were trained in these schools as well.
     

Share This Page