[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh no. Actually, two superpowers emerged from WWII.

Edit: Oh, and a number of nations have (or have had and abandoned it) the power to "b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground." The US is not and hasn't ever been the only country with WMD or the ability to deliver them to other nations.

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your grasp of history. No wonder you�re aptly named.

NUCLEAR superpower doofus.

The US ended WWII with the use of 2 bombs. Perhaps you should look it up sometime -in an ACTUAL history book, not the crap biased sources you use, or more often, your own imagination. In 1945, no one else had the bomb, nor the means of delivering one. The Soviets didn't until 1949. Indeed, I know it�s hard for your imagined history to grasp- but yes Virginia, the US was the only nuclear superpower at the end of WWII.

Everyone's wishful thinking about what great and wonderful things may or may not have happened had the US not entered the war against Germany don't change the facts- we developed the bomb first. We may have been even able to do so even sooner, without fighting a two-front war all over the world.

Quite frankly, I�m beginning to like the scenario a lot better of the US not having shed a drop of blood saving idiot Europeans from themselves. Waiting it out, letting all you bloodthirsty numbnuts kill yourselves in massive droves with your latest 'ism' fad, and then us calmly stepping in, lighting up a few German cities in mushroom clouds, forcing Germany�s unconditional surrender. It might have indeed been a better way to end WWII that saved us a lot of lives- and all things considered, maybe even some of you Euros as well given that in actuality a few nuked cities would have probably been fewer casualties than ground forces and years of bomber campaigns.

No matter what dippy 'what-if' theory anyone wants to come up with about the US's role in WWII- we could have kept all you warmongers in line in the way we actually did end the war- with a couple of bombs.

Keep dreaming of a scenario that trumps this fact.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your grasp of history. No wonder you�re aptly named.

NUCLEAR superpower doofus.

The US ended WWII with the use of 2 bombs. Perhaps you should look it up sometime -in an ACTUAL history book, not the crap biased sources you use, or more often, your own imagination. In 1945, no one else had the bomb, nor the means of delivering one. The Soviets didn't until 1949. Indeed, I know it�s hard for your imagined history to grasp- but yes Virginia, the US was the only nuclear superpower at the end of WWII.

Everyone's wishful thinking about what great and wonderful things may or may not have happened had the US not entered the war against Germany don't change the facts- we developed the bomb first. We may have been even able to do so even sooner, without fighting a two-front war all over the world.

Quite frankly, I�m beginning to like the scenario a lot better of the US not having shed a drop of blood saving idiot Europeans from themselves. Waiting it out, letting all you bloodthirsty numbnuts kill yourselves in massive droves with your latest 'ism' fad, and then us calmly stepping in, lighting up a few German cities in mushroom clouds, forcing Germany�s unconditional surrender. It might have indeed been a better way to end WWII that saved us a lot of lives- and all things considered, maybe even some of you Euros as well given that in actuality a few nuked cities would have probably been fewer casualties than ground forces and years of bomber campaigns.

No matter what dippy 'what-if' theory anyone wants to come up with about the US's role in WWII- we could have kept all you warmongers in line in the way we actually did end the war- with a couple of bombs.

Keep dreaming of a scenario that trumps this fact.

[Logic]

Crash:

How is it to live your life so terribly bitter all the time? Does it have any effect on your overall health?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Crash:

How is it to live your life so terribly bitter all the time? Does it have any effect on your overall health?

look who's talking

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The US ended WWII with the use of 2 bombs. Perhaps you should look it up sometime -in an ACTUAL history book, not the crap biased sources you use, or more often, your own imagination. In 1945, no one else had the bomb, nor the means of delivering one. The Soviets didn't until 1949. Indeed, I know it�s hard for your imagined history to grasp- but yes Virginia, the US was the only nuclear superpower at the end of WWII.

Saying that at the end of WWII, the US was the only nuclear superpower is not the same thing as saying out of WWII only one nuclear superpower emerged. But if what you meant is that for a brief period of a whole 3 and a half years, the US was the only nuclear superpower, then I concede that point. I don't see what it proves, but I concede the point.

However, you must concede that that is an advantage they held for the blink of an eye in historical terms. I've never read any historical textbook ever that said out of WWII a single nuclear superpower emerged because that little period of advantage is inconsequential from an historical perspective. When the dust had settled from WWII, there emerged two nuclear superpowers.

PS What are these biased sources that I quote. I expect you can provide me with a list of them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
Saying that at the end of WWII, the US was the only nuclear superpower is not the same thing as saying out of WWII only one nuclear superpower emerged. But if what you meant is that for a brief period of a whole 3 and a half years, the US was the only nuclear superpower, then I concede that point. I don't see what it proves, but I concede the point.

However, you must concede that that is an advantage they held for the blink of an eye in historical terms. I've never read any historical textbook ever that said out of WWII a single nuclear superpower emerged because that little period of advantage is inconsequential from an historical perspective. When the dust had settled from WWII, there emerged two nuclear superpowers.

PS What are these biased sources that I quote. I expect you can provide me with a list of them.

Whoosh. Context isn't a real strong point of yours either, is it? Go back and read again- and pay attention this time.

The context is WWII. That's 1939-1945. More specifically, US involvement in WWII. No one else had nuclear weapons during the war, and therefore couldn't have affected its outcome as a nuclear super power. The US ended the war because it was a nuclear superpower. Is that too much information for you to keep track of or something?

I have no idea what your sources are- you never seem to source anything, rather just make things up. It's up to you to provide sources to back up your non-arguments, not me.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
It has nothing to do with luck or with hard work. It has to do with the fact that the North pursues a completely different societal model and development model to that traditionally pursued in Africa and other developing nations.

If you want to know why Africa is in the state it is now, you have to learn some meta history.

There was a time in our history when humankind was totally immersed in the bond with the Natural order. You may have heard of paganism and animism - the belief that humankind lives in harmony with the natural order. It is more than just a religion or a way of life however. The ancients lived in a way which was sustainable. They were nomadic, hunter gatherers who lived off nature but left it intact. They roamed large territories, their culture focussed on the community and their religion centred on mythical and spiritual incarnations of the natural order. For the most part they didn't farm and if they did, then it was subsistence farming. This culture soon roamed beyond Africa which is the cradle of mankind.

In Europe there was a split though. Certain of the humans that wound up in Europe, for whatever reason, went against one of the pillars of contemporary civilisation and started hoarding food. They started excluding other animals and other people from certain pieces of land. They cut out all of the plants and animals that they didn't like, blocked access to the land and replaced what was there with food they could eat. This is known as totalitarian agriculture. The increased food lead to a population explosion which meant they needed more space. In getting that space, they had to exclude other humans from it and war was born. They needed technology which focussed on excluding access, moving distances and killing people. Technology which largely didn't exist before. The Europeans became people who took more than they needed, thus devastating nature and infecting themselves with envy and competition.

When the European colonists arrived in Africa (and North and South America), they found largely animist cultures. In Africa, people's lives were governed by "ubuntu" - a focus on the good of the collective. Europeans at that stage had made the shift to a culture that focussed on the individual, to one that dominated nature and other peoples. Europeans were out to expand, to get more food, to get more stuff and they built ships and invented technology and fought wars to get it. European religion encapsulated the idea that man was different to the animals whereas African spiritualism (and American mysticism) saw man as an intrinsic part of the natural order. Africans weren't lazy, they weren't unhappy and they weren't unlucky. They were performing relatively well agains the set of development objectives and societal aims that they had set for themselves. Famine was rare, wars even rarer.

But the European totalitarian agriculture system works. Killing off competition for your food and controlling access to it, makes you pretty strong. It motivates you to develop technology for waging war which animist societies don't have. The Africans couldn't resist. The nomadic ones would come into an area they had traditionally used and find Europeans had fenced it, removed all of the food and planted crops. Famine resulted. When they tried to access the land, they were killed. War resulted.

What took millions of years to happen in Europe - the shift from an animist society to a totalitarian agriculture society, was happening in Africa and the developing world in a condensed time period. The conflict and famine that you see in Africa today is a result of the shift to the Northern development and societal organisation model. Not only that, but the North has always had an interest in keeping these places underdeveloped. Africa was colonised so that more food could be produced or so that access to more food could be achieved. Keeping that food (today food includes a variety of resources) flowing means making sure the people there don't take the food for themselves or give it to others. You need to keep them in a state of under development. The Cold War which played itself out in Africa was much like colonialism. That is, the North has never had an interest in bringing the rest up to their standard. Their society is based on the notion of competition, on the individual over everyone and everything else.

The Africans only look under-developed when judged against the model we have. They didn't have land ownership, they didn't have crops, they didn't have ships and guns. They had other things but not those we consider important. I think we're only just starting to recognise that our model for development is intrinsic to the value built into our society, religion and culture that you must go forward, take more, horde more and increase your share of power and land and money and well ultimately food. I'm not sure the development model we're following works but questioning it would mean questioning religion, culture and the very basis of our society. What is clear is that the more we pursue this way of life, the more we recognise a need to develop sustainably and the more we incorporate the ideas that the animist cultures already used millions of years ago. But that is a debate for another thread. The point here is just that you can't say the Africans were lazy or didn't work hard. They just had no need to build ships or guns and go off looking to conqeur people and get more land so they could have more food. Africans (and the same applies to the American Indians and many other cultures) had, for the most part, already learned to live in harmony with what they had.

Your insight is wasted on this forum, great post.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The context is WWII. That's 1939-1945.

No it's not! You were talking about what "emerged from WWII". That means the period AFTER WWII, clever boy! Just to remind you what you said, here it is:

"One nation, and one nation alone emerged from WWII a nuclear superpower, able to b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground- the US."

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I have no idea what your sources are- you never seem to source anything, rather just make things up. It's up to you to provide sources to back up your non-arguments, not me.

Let me quote you once again:

"the crap biased sources you use"

Now just so I get this straight, in consecutive posts you accused me of using biased sources and then accused me of using no sources at all. Please tell me which one of your last two posts is bullsh1t because they can't both be gospel.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
No it's not! You were talking about what "emerged from WWII". That means the period AFTER WWII, clever boy!

Heh. This is so typical of people like you that try to shore up for being completely wrong by mounting goofy semantic arguments as a smoke screen -as if arguing over semantics actually changes history. It�s an amazing thing to witness; that someone can so willfully obtuse and think it�s not obvious. EMERGE- means to exit from. WWII is the context of what is being exited (otherwise it wouldn�t be mentioned as the set time frame!) I could say a boxer emerged from the ring victorious, and you'd be arguing like an idiot about what he did the following year!

The US was the only nation that emerged from WWII as a nuclear superpower, just as I said. It�s the only nation that was a nuclear superpower DURING the war. Smokescreen your way around that! If not, would you care to enlighten everyone what other nation fits the bill? I�ll wait.

The point of course -that you�ve launched into this whole dippy non-argument semantic silliness in order to try and smokescreen- is that as the only WWII nuclear power, the US alone had the trump card over all other nations. We proved we�d use our nukes against an Axis power. So all of the history revision crowd�s �the Germans maybe would have done this and beat the US blah blah� history re-write blather is trumped by the fact that the US developed the true war-winning weapon first, and in fact DID end the war with it.

I guess maybe you think if you blather on with revisionist bullcrap long enough, or throw up semantic smokescreens that history will somehow change- but I�ve got news for you, it won�t.

Now just so I get this straight, in consecutive posts you accused me of using biased sources and then accused me of using no sources at all. Please tell me which one of your last two posts is bullsh1t because they can't both be gospel.

You�re right, I gave you too much credit assuming that you even use biased sources. It appears you merely make things up entirely, without even checking any source, and then try to smokescreen your way around the facts that don�t fit your fiction.

[idjeff]

hehehehehehehhehehe...dude.....

[Spliffdaddy]

word up, CRASH

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The US was the only nation that emerged from WWII as a nuclear superpower, just as I said. It�s the only nation that was a nuclear superpower DURING the war.

"One nation, and one nation alone emerged from WWII a nuclear superpower."

=

"It�s the only nation that was a nuclear superpower DURING the war."

Thank you for explaining Crash-speak to me. In English those two sentences mean two completely different things as in �When the dog emerged from the box it was black,� is not the same as �When the dog was in the box it was black.� Essentially though, the problem with your first phrase is that it is virtually identical to the stock phrase used by historians and international relations academics, namely that two superpowers (no one else draws a distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear superpowers) emerged from WWII.

"Two superpowers emerged from World War II: the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." - Military News

"Two superpowers emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union. Former allies, the two were now actively hostile, but they repeatedly stopped short of a full-out war. The prospect of a nuclear confrontation was too awful to contemplate." - The Online Learning Center

Google Link for more. Anyway, since you are allergic to arguing semantics, I take it the discussion is closed.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
... as the only WWII nuclear power, the US alone had the trump card over all other nations. We proved we�d use our nukes against an Axis power. So all of the history revision crowd�s �the Germans maybe would have done this and beat the US blah blah� history re-write blather is trumped by the fact that the US developed the true war-winning weapon first, and in fact DID end the war with it.

That's a much more interesting point. As I said earlier (and you agreed), I don't think there's any point in what-ifs. Any number of things could have happened differently and affected the outcome of WWII. England may not have developed the Spitfire and the Battle of Britain could have been lost. The Russian winter may have been milder or Hitler may have given his troops better uniforms. Together that would have meant battling Germany from the other side of the Atlantic and pretty much excluded nukes from the arsenal. The US's development of nukes is just one a whole series of what-ifs. It didn't end the main campaign in fact and we will never really know how things might have turned out if it had had nukes at the relevant time.

I made a post that is actually ON TOPIC and no one responded. My point was that Africa�s position today has nothing to do with Africans being lazy or unlucky. Perhaps you want to address that point.

PS Apology accepted for accusing me of presenting biased sources.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And we�d have still ended the whole shebang with maybe 4 bombs, instead of 2.

All the WWII �what-if� posturing is entirely pointless. One nation, and one nation alone emerged from WWII a nuclear superpower, able to b1tchslap entire nations and armies without setting a boot on the ground- the US.

All the other �what-if� WWII bullcrap takes a distant backseat to that fact.

Your own point of 'what-if' does not apply to you?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
*semantic smokescreen blather*

Troll you�re just being purposely thickheaded and still playing your semantic games. Now go back, read, (try a little comprehension while you�re at it) and add back in the ONE operative word that I�ve already pointed out to you, and stop acting so stupid you can�t fathom the point.

At least I�m assuming it�s an act.

Another thing for you to consider is that your whole wishful-thinking that the Soviets also emerged from WWII as a nuclear superpower (they didn�t)- skirts around the whole subject of the US vs. the AXIS powers. You might want to look it up; the Soviets weren�t our enemies in WWII. You�ve merely tried to shift the timeline ahead to the Cold War in all your semantic �pretend you can�t understand the point� smokescreen blather.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Your own point of 'what-if' does not apply to you?

How is the US being the only nation to emerge from WWII a nuclear superpower a 'what if'?

It's a fact. Look it up.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Troll you�re just being purposely thickheaded and still playing your semantic games.

No I'm not. You're the one who insists on aggressively defending your stance that �When the dog emerged from the box it was black,� is the same as �When the dog was in the box it was black.� I realise that your substantive point is different and I have already told you that I'm prepared to debate your substantive point now that it is clear. But if you insist on labelling the difference between those statements as semantics, then it seems you do want to have a semantic argument and we can carry on ... just as soon as you post an actual argument rather than attack me.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You might want to look it up; the Soviets weren�t our enemies in WWII. You�ve merely tried to shift the timeline ahead to the Cold War in all your semantic �pretend you can�t understand the point� smokescreen blather.

I do understand your point. Your point is that Germany could never have won the war because the US had nuclear weapons. My reply was that we can't really say that because any number of changes in the course of events could have changed the way the war turned out.

For example, there were a number of limitations on nukes that you have to bear in mind such as delivery systems and unsuitability in areas where allied forces operated on the ground. Japan and Europe were very different in that respect. Secondly, once Hitler knew that nukes worked (after Hiroshima), it wouldn't have taken him long to develop them. Thirdly, if you've read up on the legendary meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in Copenhagen (or seen the play) then you know that there are indications that the German scientists may have already known how to make nukes and that Heisenberg apparently believed that if the Manhattan Project didn't scuttle the US's plans the way he was scuttling Germany's then Heisenberg would have no choice but to give Hitler the technology. I'm not entirely sure that's factual, but since we're in the realm of chance, there was a possibility that Heisenberg could and would have given Hitler nukes if German citizens had been bombed with a nuke or if he knew that the US had them. Finally, Hitler perhaps didn't need nukes. His advances in other areas like rockets and jet engines could have changed the course of events too.

All of that said, it's likely that as things stood in 1944, there would have had to be some major changes in the progression of the war, for American nuclear weapons not to have been a major factor in ending the war.

As it turns out, nuclear weapons had no influence on Germany's defeat.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
How is the US being the only nation to emerge from WWII a nuclear superpower a 'what if'?

It's a fact. Look it up.

Now you're acting dumb. Your what-if is what if Germany hadn't been defeated without nukes and what if America had used nuclear weapons on Germany. No one knows what the answer to that is.