By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Could America have taken over the World after World War 2? Should they have?

mountaindewslave on 01 January 2015
COKTOE said:
No, America could not have taken over the world. Russia alone.....do you have any idea what Operation Unthinkable was? The American casualties were not as high, per capita as some other countries, but they were hurt too. Not the best post I've seen lately, and I'm restraining myself. A lot.


any war hypothetically immediately after WW2 the USA would have had a massive advantage in though; like some mention they suffered limited casualities in the World Wars and obviously infrastructure wise weren't effected at all

that's the thing, when you have the ocean on both sides of your nation you are very difficult to penetrate and attack



Around the Network
mountaindewslave on 01 January 2015
QJ said:

America/England have pretty much taken over the world all ready. There are no foreign military bases in the United States, however, the United States has more military bases in more countries (over a 100) than any other world power by far and we have the most domestic prisoners. Also, American corporations such as Mc Donalds, Subway and Starbucks extend our influence even further. Where we land we don't leave. It is a world of corporations that we live in, it is no longer about nation vs nation; that is old primitive thinking. Hundreds of our corporations alone have more money than most of the nations on earth. Friggin walmart by itself is the worlds 25th largest economy, If they wanted to they could higher a private army and win a war. What about J.P. Morgan, Exxon Mobile, Goldman Sachs, Apple, Microsoft, Chevron, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, IBM, Intel, Coca Cola etc... The United States of America or The United Empire of Earth. Even all of the United States printed money comes from a foreign bank (corporation) called the Federal Reserve. It is a corporate world. I love the place I live but I hate the people in charge. p.s. China's elite love us because we make them billions. China being our enemy is nothing but sensationalist headlines of archaic design. The corporate owned American news channels (all of them both republican and democrat) talk all day about China to take away from the fact that it is the corporations who control the shots, not nations. All of our products wouldn't be made in China if we weren't the absolute greatest of business partners. The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Corporate + Nation = Corporation


agree with this 100% though, corporations certainly run America, so in a sense the biggest powerhouse on the planet are the American corporations or 1%



Jon-Erich on 01 January 2015
Ka-pi96 said:

Not a chance. It wasn't just Europe and Russia that had a lot of problems, the war damaged the American economy a lot as well, they wouldn't have been able to keep it up. Besides, Europe and Russia wouldn't have just fell down and died. If America had invaded Russia then they would have had the exact same problems Germany did, it's a fucking huge country, with people that will defend it fanatically. As for Europe, Britain just held off Germany and lets not forget they still had colonial territory at this time, so any offensive against Europe/Britain would have immediately put the US at war with the whole of the commonwealth, Canada in particular would have been problematic what with being neighbours to the US and all.

Not to mention all the other countries that are in the world. The US couldn't win in Korea or Vietnam when they were at their strongest, so how could a country exausted from war with Germany and Japan manage to win there?

If MacAurthor would have had his way, the US would have won Korea. He wanted to drop dozens of atom bombs on China. It would resulted in millions of dead Chinese and possibly war with the Soviet Union, but Korea would be fully united today. Since President Truman felt threatened by MacAurthor's popularity (Truman was a Democrat facing re-election and MacAurthor was a Republican and rumored potential competing condidate) he fired MacAurthor to the dismay of the American public and even the Japanese who had come to respect MacAurthor. Also, the US was not at it's strongest in Vietnam. The technology was there but the soldiers at that time were not fully trained for jungle warfare. There was this idea starting in the 1950's that a nuclear weapon would be the means of quickly ending a war and the army would be there to clean up the mess. Also, most analysts felt that World War III was going to be fought in European cities and that's the kind of war Americans were being trained for. 

As for taking over the world, the US could have deinitely taken Japan, probably most of China and South East Asia as well as all of the Pacific. Maybe even Australia. North America would have remained exactly as is. Canada was still in good shape. Mexico wouldn't have been woth the effot. South America would have been left alone since it was almost untouched by the war. I'm also thinking chunks of Africa and large portions of Europe could have gone to America. I don't think the US could have taken the Soviet Union with heavy usage of the atom bomb and even then, they probably wouldn't have captured the entire Soviet Union. The worst thing that would have happened would be the US taking small chunks of the USSR while the Soviet Union as a whole fragments and dissolves. Then each newly independent republics would probably be able to fend off an American invasion. Britain definitely would surrender without a fight and it would be a hell of a fight. The only major problem with Britain is that they were completely after the war. 

I think if there were any other resul that's more realistic, that would be America forming an alliance with the rest of North America, South America, and Britain to seize and divide the rest of the world amongst themselves under the guise of bringing peace to a chaotic world.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

nanarchy on 01 January 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
mountaindewslave said:

the USA debt is actually almost equally owed to China AND Japan, something people often conveniently forget to mention. only about 10 % of their debt has been borrowed from China and 10% from Japan. the vast majority of the USA debt is actually internal, pulled from the country's own social security system. essentially the USA for the most part is not in debt in the traditional sense. They have in a way axed and damaged internal programs in the future, but do not in fact owe other countries that much

again something likle 80% of the USA debt is internal, borrowed from their own programs

anyone claiming that China or the like could stronghand the USA economy by requesting their money back is delusional because A: it's really not that much (again 10% or so of debt) and B: the Chinese economy relies almost entirely on imports sent to the USA

I think its also important to bear in mind that the USA GDP is large enough that if legislation was passed to dramatically change government programs, the debt could be dealt with very effectively in a 5-10 year plan. of course thats easier said than done, but few countries in the world are capable of fixing their own problems like the USA potentially can

eh? How does that even work? I don't think debt works that way?

You can incur debt that way. When money that is owed to others is used for purposes it wasn't meant for, in effect they are borrowing/stealing from the american people. however the silly part of that statement is not the debt, it is the implication that the china and Japan debts are small, a trillion dollar debt is massive even if it is only a small part of what they owe and would definitely have a huge economic impact, not to mention that is only the public part of chinese and japanese investment, there is trillions more in property and commercial investment that could be withdrawn as well if they really wanted to hurt the US economy.



garywood on 01 January 2015

It did take over the world. And now it's realising that empires, almost by their very nature, tend to fall apart. Or they rule so successfully and for such a long period of time that their constituent parts naturally diverge, as the Roman empire did.



Around the Network
MoHasanie on 01 January 2015

Nope. USSR was still powerful.
And Dubai hardly owns anything in America.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

POE on 01 January 2015

I knew this was a thread made by you. You are delusional man.



DexInDaJungle on 01 January 2015
spurgeonryan said:
bubblegamer said:
You do know that you don't have to make a thread about EVERY random thought that crosses your mind, right?


Been told to me for years, I always just wonder when ya'll are going to stop wasting your time telling me this?


Maybe they just want them delicious posts like you, so they use this as an easy +1



Bet With Goodnightmoon

Kerotan on 01 January 2015

I agree that empires cost a lot long term. The UK has suffered as a result of their colonial history.



generic-user-1 on 02 January 2015

its not like the US won because they were good at war, , they won the war because there were no soldiers left on the german side, the us army faced old man and children and needed allmost a year to win the war in the west, there is no chance in hell that they could take over the world by force.