National Power Projection

[Quackers]

The huge amount of American armaments (lend lease) which flowed into Britain prior to the American entry into the war. Just a glance at Wiki tells me we repaid that in only 2006. Maybe if you stayed out of it long enough, Britain would be paying you untill 2100?

So effectively British need for weapons and ammunition threw American industry into action (big multiplier effect) + a stream of annual payments from WW2 - 2006.

 

[Ayn Rand]

No, America gained nothing from remaining out of WWI and WWII. What exactly do you think the benefits were?

I think the benefits were seen in considerably reduced losses and increased global power.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, America gained nothing from remaining out of WWI and WWII. What exactly do you think the benefits were?

Fewer people died.

 

[Patroklos]

I think thebenefits were seen in considerably reduced losses and increased global power.

Fewer people died.

Unattested. If the US was at war from day one in WWII there is a good chance France never would have fallen, there never would have been an Eastern of North African Front, and the Pacific War never would have happened period. All the US staying out did was give Germany a greater probability of achieving it's early victories emboldening them to expand the war and convincing Japan we had no stomach for war.

As for economics, a quickly defeated Germany and non ruined Europe and thus a not victorious Soviet Russia would have pretty much made the Cold War impossible in any fashion that resembles actual events. The US was going to eclipse Europe regardless of WWII, how much effort was expended counterbalancing a mass threat to a helpless Europe post 1945?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Unattested. If the US was at war from day one in WWII there is a good chance France never would have fallen, there never would have been an Eastern of North African Front, and the Pacific War never would have happened period. All the US staying out did was give Germany a greater probability of achieving it's early victories emboldening them to expand the war and convincing Japan we had no stomach for war.

That's a pretty bold statement. Japan should have known the USA had a stomach for war, they just miscalculated the effectivity of their preemptive strick.
Germany was already overstretched and bogged down in Russia when the USA entered the war.
Flying Pig's choice of words was poor.
He wrote fewer people would died. this is wrong.
Fewer Americans died.
An early american entry would have shortened the war significantly, but at a greater cost and with less relative gain for the USA.

As for economics, a quickly defeated Germany and non ruined Europe and thus a not victorious Soviet Russia would have pretty much made the Cold War impossible in any fashion that resembles actual events. The US was going to eclipse Europe regardless of WWII, how much effort was expended counterbalancing a mass threat to a helpless Europe post 1945?

The US was bound to eclipse individual European nations, not Europe as a whole. You started losing your industrial dominance when Germany and Japan were rebuilt and today the combined GDP of the EU is larger than the GDP of the US.
The absence of the Cold War would also have reduced European dependancyand American power.

 

[Winner]

Are you seriously ignorant of the how much of the European economy is linked to South East Asia?

No. You just don't get my point.

In the case of a war between China and the US over some stupid thing in South China Sea (for example), Europe gains absolutely nothing by involving itself. In any scenario, trade with China will be seriously disrupted for a period of time - European involvement or non-involvement wouldn't change anything on that. Regardless of which side wins, trade links will be restored shortly after the conflict's conclusion (I judge the scenario of a prolonged blockade of China extremely unrealistic). Now, if Europe stays out and the US wins, all is fine for Europe. If it stays out and China wins, all is fine as well since China will have no reason to harbour any strong resentment towards Europe. On the other hand, if Europe involves itself and China still wins, it could have serious consequences. If Europe involves itself and the US wins, nothing is different from the outcome nr. 1, except that China now hates Europe as much as it hates the US.

Ergo, neutrality in such a conflict is the most logical course of action. Europe couldn't really do much in such a conflict even if it wanted, and the risks (political, economic, military) of involving itself just because the Yanks told it to are simply too great.

Not to mention Europe choosing to be a non player in the most important event in this century will not only make you irrelevant to the outcome, it will prove once and for all the fact that Europe is second string.

I hardly think sentimental arguments like that would convince anyone here. Rushing into wars from which you stand to gain little or nothing isn't good foreign policy, it is just stupid.

 

[Farm Boy]

As to the tangent, I am not certain exactly how much "early US entry" into WWII would have shortened anything. The US was woefully unprepared militarily to do anything of consequence even when it did directly enter. It certainly didn't have its stuff together enough at the time to provide a pivotal difference in the defense of France. Lend-Lease essentially was full American involvement. The what if scenario: perhaps the US could have arrived a bit earlier with an earlier declaration of war. In that situation most of the casualties transferred to American losses, if any, would almost certainly have been on the Russian front rather than the western.

 

[imperialman]

A little image gallery of Britain's naval power projection ship types.

Illustrious

Spoiler :

Ocean

Spoiler :

Albion Class

Spoiler :

Bay Class

Spoiler :

Argus

Spoiler :

Point Class

Spoiler :

 

[Patroklos]

Maybe its just me, but British surface warships just don't look menacing at all. The Daring is alright. Their names used to be awesome, but even that is going away these days.

British submarines are cool.

 

[Flying Pig]

Maybe its just me, but British surface warships just don't look menacing at all. The Daring is alright. Their names used to be awesome, but even that is going away these days.

British submarines are cool.

We don't need our ships to look, or to sound menacing. It's the division of bootnecks and paratroopers that pour out of them that should scare people!

 

[imperialman]

I quite like the Type 23 'Duke class'

Shown above is HMS Iron Duke. I do admit though, much of the fleet don't have very awe inspiring names, only some of the T45's and the Vanguard class SSBN's have such names.

 

[imperialman]

British submarines are cool.

SSN's
HMS Turbulent, HMS Tireless, HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent , HMS Triumph, HMS Astute and this is soon to be followed by HMS Ambush, HMS Artful, HMS Audacious, HMS Anson, HMS Agamemnon and HMS Ajax.

Trafalgar class (or T boats)

Spoiler :

Astute class (or A boats)

Spoiler :

SSBN's

HMS Vanguard, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant and HMS Vengeance.

Vanguard class (or V boats)

Spoiler :

 

[sophie]

I quite like the Type 23 'Duke class'

Shown above is HMS Iron Duke. I do admit though, much of the fleet don't have very awe inspiring names, only some of the T45's and the Vanguard class SSBN's have such names.

What, that little tiny thing in the foreground? No wonder the Brits do whatever we say. I bet even the Canadians could muster up a stalwart defense against that "battleship"

 

[imperialman]

What, that little tiny thing in the foreground? No wonder the Brits do whatever we say. I bet even the Canadians could muster up a stalwart defense against that "battleship"