A world without America

[thatwasamoment]

Thoughts?

JwAtNILh6uY

[Ambulance Y]

Good video.

[aminorthreat55]

Good video.
Yep, it was completely accurate.

Let's be honest, no one has any idea how this world would be if America didn't exist. Not this video, not you, not me, no one. The entire world history from 1776 (or arguably 1619) on would be completely different.

[atticus1492]

Yep, it was completely accurate.

Let's be honest, no one has any idea how this world would be if America didn't exist. Not this video, not you, not me, no one. The entire world history from 1776 (or arguably 1619) on would be completely different.

This is true.

[xXfobXx]

wow it would be just lyke that, l0l.

[Shatter590]

propaganda, but interesting nonetheless

while were at it, what would the world be like if Christianity never spread? or If Caeser never was killed?

[MotionIsntMeaning]

Typical American self-righteousness. You can make any country look good if you whitewash their history.

[Shatter590]

Typical American self-righteousness. You can make any country look good if you whitewash their history.

hence the term propaganda.

to quote The Descendents:

"Im proud and ashamaed/every 4th of july/youve got to know the truth/before you say that youve got pride"

im proud of my country's heritage, but not of its current government and policies

[MotionIsntMeaning]

hence the term propaganda.

to quote The Descendents:

"Im proud and ashamaed/every 4th of july/youve got to know the truth/before you say that youve got pride"

im proud of my country's heritage, but not of its current government and policies

As you should be, America has done some very good things. But most people seem to ingore the "truth". You could make a similar video showing how much better off the world would be without America, and both videos would be correct.

Sadly, I don't think the American image/influence/dominance will ever recover from what the current aministration has done. And that's a shame.

[Low Level Owl]

that was dumb.

[Shatter590]

As you should be, America has done some very good things. But most people seem to ingore the "truth". You could make a similar video showing how much better off the world would be without America, and both videos would be correct.

Sadly, I don't think the American image/influence/dominance will ever recover from what the current aministration has done. And that's a shame.

you never know.

[concernedparent]

That ranks among the most retarded videos I've ever seen.

[richter915]

Thoughts?

JwAtNILh6uY
ahahaha, what a joke.

a world without Israel? I won't complain.

[IAPAI]

that was retarded.

Did anyone else notice at the end they listed "Denim Jeans" as something the world would be missing out on?

Give me a fucking break.

[selftitled85]

ok lets be real here...

without america:
allies would have lost ww2, aliies would have never recovered from marshall plan, many countries currencies would have no one to loan them money, europe would be so overcrowded that there would be widespread poverty and famine, you would have to form your own army, you would not be able to put as much money towards healthcare and education, i think EVERY nobel prize winner this year is from the us...therefore you would lose the best access to technology, medical breakthroughs, entrepreneurs, etc.



this is ridiculous. if you truly think the world would be better without the us then you are off your rocker and should probably go on meds.

[selftitled85]

not to mention it is the first working democracy...the longest lasting constitution in the world...then you have the monroe doctrine...etc


now i am not saying america does not have its bad spots. but the world overall is a much better place with america. all the producer of that ad...a british man...was to show that.

[Lueda Alia]

that was retarded.

Did anyone else notice at the end they listed "Denim Jeans" as something the world would be missing out on?

Give me a fucking break.
Haha seriously. I thought it was a joke at first.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

instead of saying "the world would be better without america" we should work to improve the parts of america that need improvement, still recoginizing the many positives that america brings to the world.

[aminorthreat55]

ok lets be real here...

without america:
allies would have lost ww2, aliies would have never recovered from marshall plan, many countries currencies would have no one to loan them money, europe would be so overcrowded that there would be widespread poverty and famine, you would have to form your own army, you would not be able to put as much money towards healthcare and education, i think EVERY nobel prize winner this year is from the us...therefore you would lose the best access to technology, medical breakthroughs, entrepreneurs, etc.



this is ridiculous. if you truly think the world would be better without the us then you are off your rocker and should probably go on meds.
The problem with this video is that it assumes the world would develop the exact same way, just merely without us, which is fucking ridiculous. Our accomplishments are amazing, you're right, but the a world without us ever having existed would be completely different, so any such claim that this world would be fucked without us is fucking stupid.

[Broken Parachute]

Noooooo!

Denim Jeans!

[youcomebeforeyo]

The problem with this video is that it assumes the world would develop the exact same way, just merely without us, which is fucking ridiculous. Our accomplishments are amazing, you're right, but the a world without us ever having existed would be completely different, so any such claim that this world would be fucked without us is fucking stupid.

Ding ding!

How can people expect world history to develop EXACTLY as it has now if the USA didn't exist?

There would be completely different geo-political conflicts, ideaologies and technologies.

[BlackButterfly]

ok lets be real here...

without america:
allies would have lost ww2, aliies would have never recovered from marshall plan, many countries currencies would have no one to loan them money, europe would be so overcrowded that there would be widespread poverty and famine, you would have to form your own army, you would not be able to put as much money towards healthcare and education, i think EVERY nobel prize winner this year is from the us...therefore you would lose the best access to technology, medical breakthroughs, entrepreneurs, etc.



this is ridiculous. if you truly think the world would be better without the us then you are off your rocker and should probably go on meds.

US helped the allies win ww2 thats just one war, what about all the other wars who US have started....
the dude who won the nobel peace prize was from india. and I'm quite shure it was more than him who diddnt come from US who won a prize.
have you ever been in europe? its a lot of rich countries there. Its just a part of europe who is poor (old svojet) but the rest of the countriws is quite rich.
What about Kina? I think they would hae something to say when it comes to thecnology.
Its not jujst american sienticts ( ihave no idea how to spell that word) who works in US.

Im quite shure im not on meds.
and maybe the world woulddnt have been a better place, but it shure as jell would have been a diffrent place.

[lew_1987]

hmmm, there is no way you can predict something like this. and why would the prime minister suddenly think saddam hussein is ok? he would have still committed those crimes. thats stupid. and whos to say all the inventions wouldn't have been invented by someone else? other countries were probably working on them at the same time/would have invented them soon after. well at least the sioux would still be alive without america eh? nice idea though

[lew_1987]

Noooooo!

Denim Jeans!

erm i think these were actually invented by the french. and levi strauss was german. that is... if you're saying there would be no jeans without america. hmmm...

[lew_1987]

Your spelling is atrocious.

and you do realise that Europe would probably be under Nazi occupation from 1943 had the USA not joined the war, although they did it for personal reasons not to save Europe.

yeah they only joined the war because they got attacked. the war was nearly over anyway but to be fair it ended a lot quicker with the americans on board

[BlackButterfly]

Your spelling is atrocious.

and you do realise that Europe would probably be under Nazi occupation from 1943 had the USA not joined the war, although they did it for personal reasons not to save Europe.

My spelling is bad and I know it, unlike you I'm not born in anny english speaking contry.
Maybe europe would maybe not. somethings you can't know...

[Lueda Alia]

Your spelling is atrocious.

and you do realise that Europe would probably be under Nazi occupation from 1943 had the USA not joined the war, although they did it for personal reasons not to save Europe.
That's just an assumption, not a fact.

[fromwithin]

i could do without america from about 1900 on, the country is a disgrace.

[catscradle]

yeah they only joined the war because they got attacked. the war was nearly over anyway but to be fair it ended a lot quicker with the americans on board

you are so wrong on so many different levels with this statement.

[Lueda Alia]

you are so wrong on so many different levels with this statement.
Which statement? He's right about the US joining only after Pearl Harbor. I don't believe the US cared much before that.

[The Revisionist]

Sadly, I don't think the American image/influence/dominance will ever recover from what the current aministration has done. And that's a shame.I don't automatically think of ethnic cleansing when I think of Germany...

[selftitled85]

yeah they only joined the war because they got attacked. the war was nearly over anyway but to be fair it ended a lot quicker with the americans on board

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*pause*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

dumbest statement i have ever heard regarding wwII in my entire life

That's just an assumption, not a fact.

actually it is a well known fact that had america not intervened in the war, europe would have been under nazi control. now you cant say with certainty that it would still be under their control now...but europe as we know it would be a completely different place.

Which statement? He's right about the US joining only after Pearl Harbor. I don't believe the US cared much before that.

wrong again.

look up churchill-roosevelt correspondence during the years 1939-1941. you had the lend-lease act which effectively saved england numerous times...you had america for a while feeding the british troops, etc.





if you truly believe that england could have won the war without america you are dumber than the dumbest american. im sorry...but nationalism is cool and all...but try to be realistic.


and even hitler knew he was screwed once america got involved. he was furious when he found out that the japanese bombed pearl harbor.

[selftitled85]

and dont forget that besides the africa campaign and india...every major battlefield...italy, germany, and france were run by american generals with british generals offering assistance.

once america entered england was officially put on their backs.

[lew_1987]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*pause*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

dumbest statement i have ever heard regarding wwII in my entire life

you haven't heard many statements then have you? lolz x 28. i'm not a nationalist, neither do I pretend to know everything about ww2, because no one does. if any of us were nationalists we would have said england could have won it without the other allies. what i said was that i think the allies would have won the war without the americans, just the americans helped to speed the process up. i'm not saying they didn't help. and i was talking strictly on battlefields alone, not politics. no need to be an arse about it

[thejetstolehome]

you haven't heard many statements then have you? lolz x 28. i'm not a nationalist, neither do I pretend to know everything about ww2, because no one does. if any of us were nationalists we would have said england could have won it without the other allies. what i said was that i think the allies would have won the war without the americans, just the americans helped to speed the process up. i'm not saying they didn't help. and i was talking strictly on battlefields alone, not politics. no need to be an arse about it

there were no Allies until the US and Russia got involved in the war.

[lew_1987]

there were no Allies until the US and Russia got involved in the war.

oh... so

Poland
Australia
New Zealand
France
Nepal
South Africa
Canada
Norway
Belgium
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Greece
Yugoslavia
and
Tanna Tuva

weren't part of the allies? thats just before pearl harbor

[Lueda Alia]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*pause*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

dumbest statement i have ever heard regarding wwII in my entire life



actually it is a well known fact that had america not intervened in the war, europe would have been under nazi control. now you cant say with certainty that it would still be under their control now...but europe as we know it would be a completely different place.



wrong again.

look up churchill-roosevelt correspondence during the years 1939-1941. you had the lend-lease act which effectively saved england numerous times...you had america for a while feeding the british troops, etc.





if you truly believe that england could have won the war without america you are dumber than the dumbest american. im sorry...but nationalism is cool and all...but try to be realistic.


and even hitler knew he was screwed once america got involved. he was furious when he found out that the japanese bombed pearl harbor.
I'm pretty sure Hitler knew he was screwed when he attacked Russia. You give America more credit than you should.

No, it's not a fact that Europe would have been under Nazi control if America hadn't been involved. It's your opinion, not a fact.

[Lueda Alia]

and dont forget that besides the africa campaign and india...every major battlefield...italy, germany, and france were run by american generals with british generals offering assistance.

once america entered england was officially put on their backs.
Oh? Let's forget all the things that other countries like Canada did. It's all America's work!

[thejetstolehome]

oh... so

Poland
Australia
New Zealand
France
Nepal
South Africa
Canada
Norway
Belgium
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Greece
Yugoslavia
and
Tanna Tuva

weren't part of the allies? thats just before pearl harbor

Poland and France were taken over in about a month total. their fighting forces were essentially nothing. the same can be said for all the other European countries. before the invovlment of the United States and Russia, England/UK was the only nation that the Germans hadn't taken over yet. there was no way it could have sustained its fight without the aid of the Americans or Russians. while on the subject, the Russians don't get enough credit for what they did to help win the war.

[Lueda Alia]

Poland and France were taken over in about a month total. their fighting forces were essentially nothing. the same can be said for all the other European countries. before the invovlment of the United States and Russia, England/UK was the only nation that the Germans hadn't taken over yet. there was no way it could have sustained its fight without the aid of the Americans or Russians. while on the subject, the Russians don't get enough credit for what they did to help win the war.
Seriously. I find it ridiculous how some people give all credit to America. Russia did a lot.

Note: England would have never lasted as long as it did without Canada's help. I suppose that doesn't matter either since it's not America.

[thejetstolehome]

I'm pretty sure Hitler knew he was screwed when he attacked Russia. You give America more credit than you should.

No, it's not a fact that Europe would have been under Nazi control if America hadn't been involved. It's your opinion, not a fact.

what's funny is that he didn't know he was screwed. he thought he was going to be able to march straight through to Moscow with no trouble. woops. some people should read more history; Hitler obviously didn't learn from Napolean. i've said it for a long time--the Russians don't get enough credit for what they did to win the war.

[thejetstolehome]

Seriously. I find it ridiculous how some people give all credit to America. Russia did a lot.

Note: England would have never lasted as long as it did without Canada's help. I suppose that doesn't matter either since it's not America.

honestly, i don't know much about Canada's involvement in the war--i do know they were responsible for one beach-head at Normandy, though.

[Lueda Alia]

honestly, i don't know much about Canada's involvement in the war--i do know they were responsible for one beach-head at Normandy, though.
Well, Canada played a major role in both World Wars. If anyone says other wise, they don't know anything about Canada's involvement. I think it's sad how countries like the UK and US get all the credit when other countries played big roles too.

If Bryan wants to say that Europe would be under Nazi control without the US, I could say the same thing about Canada. As I said, the UK would have not lasted as long as it did without Canada's help. If the UK hadn't lasted, we all know what would have happened.

[chronomic]

Mexico ftw!!!!! goddamn those tacos, soooo gooood.

[aminorthreat55]

Seriously. I find it ridiculous how some people give all credit to America. Russia did a lot.

Note: England would have never lasted as long as it did without Canada's help. I suppose that doesn't matter either since it's not America.
How many Russians died? 26 million I think?

[lew_1987]

How many Russians died? 26 million I think?

erm what's your point?

[thejetstolehome]

erm what's your point?

that they gave an incredible sacrafice to win the war and a lot of people overlook it.

[lew_1987]

that they gave an incredible sacrafice to win the war and a lot of people overlook it.

yes they did. and yes they do. was just checking to see if he was making a point other than that ;-)

[MotionIsntMeaning]

I don't automatically think of ethnic cleansing when I think of Germany...

Good for you. My point was that the American empire has passed its peak and will never return to the level of influence/dominance/image that it once had. I didn't mean that it will be remembered as a blood thirsty tyrant.

[theESCO]

ok lets be real here...

without america:
allies would have lost ww2.

Actually, a good number of American infantry (more than you would probably believe) never fired their weapon. And it is well documented that the German army were FAR more superior. Honestly, without the Soviets, allies would have lost WW2.

Yea, some things about this country are great. But don't give where you live too much credit just because it's where you live. The real history of this country is enough to make any man sick.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

You wanna talk about ethnic cleansing, has everyone forgotten about the indegenous peoples you slaughtered.

I'm not sure where you're going with that one. North America was founded by the British and French so technically your country slaughtered the indegenous. Not to mention England wasn't exactly a saint in its colonial days. Every country has its ugly side.

[catscradle]

Actually, a good number of American infantry (more than you would probably believe) never fired their weapon. And it is well documented that the German army were FAR more superior. Honestly, without the Soviets, allies would have lost WW2.

Yea, some things about this country are great. But don't give where you live too much credit just because it's where you live. The real history of this country is enough to make any man sick.

actually USSR was completely unprepared for the nazi invasion that ensued. Stalin truly believed that hitler would never invade russia. He didnt think they would tangle with other imperial powers and try to profit off the war, so when the day actually came the soviets were completely unprepared. Though the soviets largely outnumbered nazi forces, nazi forces actually faired well until the impending russian winter making a decent push into western russia. Had the U.S not created a second front, the soviets would've possibly been completely inundated by the whole nazi force and god knows what the outcome would've been w/o another front. The soviets had been waiting for that second front for a long while and actually were pretty ticked that it took so long to happen.

[theESCO]

actually USSR was completely unprepared for the nazi invasion that ensued. Stalin truly believed that hitler would never invade russia, so when the day actually came the soviets were completely unprepared. Though the soviets largely outnumbered nazi forces, nazi forces actually faired well until the impending russian winter making it all the way to the outskirts of moscow. Had the U.S not created a second front, the soviets would've possibly been completely inundated by the whole nazi force and god knows what the outcome would've been w/o another front. The soviets had been waiting for that second front for a long while and actually were pretty ticked that it took so long to happen.

Which also supports my point that the Nazis were far better soldies than anyone else fighting that war...we came in third in that race.

[catscradle]

How many Russians died? 26 million I think?

i have 28 million, 20 million being civilian which is pretty crazy if you think of that in terms of if something like this happened today.

Even crazier is the loss of life in china. Over 30 million people died by the end of WW2

[catscradle]

Which also supports my point that the Nazis were far better soldies than anyone else fighting that war...we came in third in that race.

i'd say we were a little ahead of the soviets, the soviets lacked a lot of the supplies that the u.s. had and were using a lot of american products, such as trucks and whatnot before the u.s. even got involved in the war. But yea, they were definitely a force to be reckoned with and no doubt about it had hitler had not as much control over nazi forces things may have been different as they were far superior to all other forces.

[theESCO]

i'd say we were a little ahead of the soviets, the soviets lacked a lot of the supplies that the u.s. had and were using a lot of american products, such as trucks and whatnot before the u.s. even got involved in the war. But yea, they were definitely a force to be reckoned with and no doubt about it had hitler had not as much control over nazi forces things may have been different as they were far superior to all other forces.

Yea, I'm not really talking supply-wise, or even about our special forces (who were top notch). But the average infantry man. We were far behind both the soviets and the germans.

[selftitled85]

I'm pretty sure Hitler knew he was screwed when he attacked Russia. You give America more credit than you should.

No, it's not a fact that Europe would have been under Nazi control if America hadn't been involved. It's your opinion, not a fact.

ok its not a fact since it never happened.

but it is easy to speculate that it would have happened because there was only england left of the european countries remaining that was not taken over. the only reason hitler had not attacked england beforehand was because he knew if he tried a frontal assault on the british beach heads...he would eventually win but with a huuuuuuuge death toll of his armed forces.

not to mention i have the words of almost every prominent leader at that point, many key historians, book writers, etc on my side. all you can say is "it didnt happen you dont it would." the truth is all the evidence points to a defeat for england...although bloody...it would eventually happen.

the only battle the british were winning up to the point when the us entered was the war in the air. the only decisive battle england had won up to that point in the war was the battle of britain. all the land battles were complete failures to that point.



now russia was important...yes...but like someone said...had america not initiated a second front on the russians they would have been destroyed. russia was completely unprepared for battle and were completely out strategized, out gunned, our maneuvered...you get the point.

the avg life span for a new russian solder in leningrad was less than a day...

[selftitled85]

Yea, I'm not really talking supply-wise, or even about our special forces (who were top notch). But the average infantry man. We were far behind both the soviets and the germans.

no way. soviet infantrymen were literally thrown into the conflict with pretty much no previous experience. the soviets became some of the best troops later on...more or less after the victory at leningrad and started pushing the germans back...but overall the american troops were better equipped...better ordered...


the americans were not experienced war wise...as most (all) had not seen any action before wwII, they were quick learners and had some of the best units.

[lew_1987]

I'm not sure where you're going with that one. North America was founded by the British and French so technically your country slaughtered the indegenous. Not to mention England wasn't exactly a saint in its colonial days. Every country has its ugly side.

first of all, there were more countries than just those two. and isnt it convenient how it's our country all of a sudden?

[selftitled85]

oh... so

Poland
Australia
New Zealand
France
Nepal
South Africa
Canada
Norway
Belgium
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Greece
Yugoslavia
and
Tanna Tuva

weren't part of the allies? thats just before pearl harbor

the ones in bold you cant count...more or less it was little underground things and pretty much the best they could do was give the allied units the area in which the enemy was located.

australia, new zealand, and canada altogether put in less than a tenth of the allied force.

yugoslavia was more an underground force like france.


please this is just like with george bush "and dont forget poland"

[catscradle]

You wanna talk about ethnic cleansing, has everyone forgotten about the indegenous peoples you slaughtered.

sure, as long as you want to talk about india and china.

[lew_1987]

i really wanna play c & c red alert now. lol

[selftitled85]

first of all, there were more countries than just those two. and isnt it convenient how it's our country all of a sudden?

well technically the british are initially at fault for the colonies. you took over indian land...killed many of them and put us in a position where we would have to take care of ourselves and fight the indians ourselves.

yes america was awful in the way it handled the indian problem but we had great teachers in england, france, and spain.

all three of those have terrrrrrible histories when it comes to imperialism. so dont go saying america has been awful when your country sucks in the department too.

[catscradle]

well technically the british are initially at fault for the colonies. you took over indian land...killed many of them and put us in a position where we would have to take care of ourselves and fight the indians ourselves.

yes america was awful in the way it handled the indian problem but we had great teachers in england, france, and spain.

all three of those have terrrrrrible histories when it comes to imperialism. so dont go saying america has been awful when your country sucks in the department too.



thank you.

[selftitled85]

sure, as long as you want to talk about india and china.

and their colonies in africa...and some of the things they did to the irish and scottish...

[lew_1987]

well technically the british are initially at fault for the colonies. you took over indian land...killed many of them and put us in a position where we would have to take care of ourselves and fight the indians ourselves.

yes america was awful in the way it handled the indian problem but we had great teachers in england, france, and spain.

all three of those have terrrrrrible histories when it comes to imperialism. so dont go saying america has been awful when your country sucks in the department too.

haha funny. I KNOW "my" country's history is pretty terrible. i'm in no sense of the word a nationalist, and i never said america has been awful. either way i think its a shame the american indians were massacred.

[.jm]

what is the deal with america?

[lew_1987]

and their colonies in africa...and some of the things they did to the irish and scottish...

well... i blame the vikings, celts, romans, and normans, they were there first

[.jm]

And how would be a world without portugal?

[selftitled85]

well... i blame the vikings, celts, romans, and normans, they were there first

ok you can blame them. sounds good.

[.jm]

"A world without america would be a poor world"

the best fuckin joke ever.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

I know my country is a disgrace too but i dislike when people pretend Germans are the only people to go round operating mass killings

Fair enough.

first of all, there were more countries than just those two. and isnt it convenient how it's our country all of a sudden?

What other countries? Those were the two main founders. As well as Spain to some extent. I wasn't saying your country was the problem. He brought up the Indians and I was pointing out that your country's history was not perfect and that some of the North Amecian settlers who slaughtered the Indians happend to be from England.

[theESCO]

no way. soviet infantrymen were literally thrown into the conflict with pretty much no previous experience. the soviets became some of the best troops later on...more or less after the victory at leningrad and started pushing the germans back...but overall the american troops were better equipped...better ordered...


the americans were not experienced war wise...as most (all) had not seen any action before wwII, they were quick learners and had some of the best units.

I'm getting my information from a veteran, yours from a textbook.
Just saying..

[Lueda Alia]

no way. soviet infantrymen were literally thrown into the conflict with pretty much no previous experience. the soviets became some of the best troops later on...more or less after the victory at leningrad and started pushing the germans back...but overall the american troops were better equipped...better ordered...


the americans were not experienced war wise...as most (all) had not seen any action before wwII, they were quick learners and had some of the best units.
It's funny that you mentioned the last part because I was going to say the same thing. I hesitated only because it was my history professor who said something along those lines and I could not link any website. He basically said that Americans suffered big losses in the beginning because they had no experience; they were hurting themselves more than anything so it wasn't until later that they really started helping.

Anyway, you should not underestimate the role that Canada played during the war. I feel like that fact is often overlooked because of the UK. I've said it twice already but I'll say it again: the UK would have never lasted as long as it did without Canada's help.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

there is nothing noble in saying "our country has an awful history in dealing with indigionous people", sometimes i get sick of seeing people fall over themselves to criticize their own countries past so that they look enlightened. the indians are dead, the people who massacred them are dead. the trail of tears, and other such treatment of the indians truly is a disgrace. but why dont we at least talk about the failures of people in our countries who are alive, there are plenty of those to go around, and we can actually play a role in changing them.

[richter915]

that was retarded.

Did anyone else notice at the end they listed "Denim Jeans" as something the world would be missing out on?

Give me a fucking break.
yo, stop hating freedom. Wearing jeans is pretty american...it helped Bush win many votes.

[richter915]

"A world without america would be a poor world"

the best fuckin joke ever.
It's funny because our economy runs by keeping many parts of the world poor (and parts of our own nation: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/letter.php )

[lew_1987]

there is nothing noble in saying "our country has an awful history in dealing with indigionous people", sometimes i get sick of seeing people fall over themselves to criticize their own countries past so that they look enlightened. the indians are dead, the people who massacred them are dead. the trail of tears, and other such treatment of the indians truly is a disgrace. but why dont we at least talk about the failures of people in our countries who are alive, there are plenty of those to go around, and we can actually play a role in changing them.

i actually agree. well said

[Jmagge]

Clearly this video is saying No America NO WORLD!! I think?

[.jm]

In the final part appears "Air Conditioning" saying that without america there would not exist air conditioners. I think it's true coz without america there wouldnt be Global Warming so we wouldnt need air conditioners.

[lew_1987]

In the final part appears "Air Conditioning" saying that without america there would not exist air conditioners. I think it's true coz without america there wouldnt be Global Warming so we wouldnt need air conditioners.

haha

[Lueda Alia]

In the final part appears "Air Conditioning" saying that without america there would not exist air conditioners. I think it's true coz without america there wouldnt be Global Warming so we wouldnt need air conditioners.
Hahahaha that made me laugh.

[concernedparent]

This video is so stupid!

[chronomic]

It's funny because our economy runs by keeping many parts of the world poor (and parts of our own nation: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/letter.php )

just like you cant have hot without cold you cant have rich without poor. i know it sounds kinda unfair and whatnot but thats how it works. the only way to get rid of the poor and the rich and have everyone on the same level is, well, communism. wich sounds great theoretically....

[selftitled85]

just like you cant have hot without cold you cant have rich without poor. i know it sounds kinda unfair and whatnot but thats how it works. the only way to get rid of the poor and the rich and have everyone on the same level is, well, communism. wich sounds great theoretically....

and completely impossible in the real world.

[richter915]

just like you cant have hot without cold you cant have rich without poor. i know it sounds kinda unfair and whatnot but thats how it works. the only way to get rid of the poor and the rich and have everyone on the same level is, well, communism. wich sounds great theoretically....
I understand the necessary evil argument but that doesn't justify that it's wrong for some to gain while many suffer.

[Jmagge]

In the final part appears "Air Conditioning" saying that without america there would not exist air conditioners. I think it's true coz without america there wouldnt be Global Warming so we wouldnt need air conditioners.

You are so right!! Stupid america destroying our world.

[Love As Arson]

There would simply be another dominant economic power, perhaps Germany, whose values would be distributed throughout the world, just as America's ideals are.

[Love As Arson]

just like you cant have hot without cold you cant have rich without poor. i know it sounds kinda unfair and whatnot but thats how it works. the only way to get rid of the poor and the rich and have everyone on the same level is, well, communism. wich sounds great theoretically....
Why can't you? These concepts are societally constructed, therefore subject to the whims of those within the society and may be changed when they so choose to do so.

and completely impossible in the real world.
This argument is repeated numerous times, yet nothing substantive is actually said.

[richter915]

How would that go about happening though? Wouldn't we need some sort of radical revolution (probably violent) in order to restructure the Capitalist social ladder? I'm not doubting that if the current divides were broken down, we could have a classless society but is it possible?

[Nortimus]

It's funny - even the smallest, most minute change in the past could theoretically alter a large part of history. And this video and everyone discussing it mentions stuff like WW2, Saddam Hussein, etc as if everything would've still happened.

You're talking about the removal of an entire continent - an entire country and super power - from over 200 years of history. Do you really think World War II would've happened the way it did, with the players it had? Surely I'm not the only one who realizes this?

Blair and Hussein coming to agreement because of nuclear weapons? Give me a break. We don't even know if the world would HAVE nukes at all, or by the 50s/60s. Ugh, the video is such propaganda it's ridiculous - but even more ridiculous is the non-stop arguing over something that quite probably would've never happened the way we know it with an entire country missing from the geo-political landscape for 200+ years.

[llwilliamsll]

without america: i'd be in taiwan still