PDA

View Full Version : Super powers create.. Super powers


Esculas the Mighty
03-17-2009, 06:50 PM
now i have a theory if i can call it that

i believe that almost every super power was created by a superpower one way or another by influence or economically and that rising power probly would not have risen without that other superpower giving birth to it

to my knowledge

Rome gave influence and a ''kick-start'' to many european superpowers the British not only founded America but Americans heavily relied on British business to keep its economy going in the early 1900's until it obviously created it own big business in the late 1900's

which is the same thing the united states is doing for china which have prospered greatly from the jobs given by so many American business moving the production over to china ( :( )

now if u feel i am wrong correct me i only want to confirm this

p.s sorry for having hardly any puncuation

Joseph Visscher
03-17-2009, 07:21 PM
Hum. So your saying that Asia will be the next super power when North America goes bankrupt? Meh, what happens when all of its economy of exporting crap everywhere suddenly stops? Honestly I think the world will become more like a Risk game board, NAU (North American Union) UALA ( United Asian Liberation Army), and of course the already united Europe/UN. I don't know if any of that will happen, but all I know, things can't stay like this, change is inevitable.

Esculas the Mighty
03-17-2009, 07:32 PM
Hum. So your saying that Asia will be the next super power when North America goes bankrupt? Meh, what happens when all of its economy of exporting crap everywhere suddenly stops? Honestly I think the world will become more like a Risk game board, NAU (North American Union) UALA ( United Asian Liberation Army), and of course the already united Europe/UN. I don't know if any of that will happen, but all I know, things can't stay like this, change is inevitable.

wow i never thought of that eventually the world will began to produce its on things limiting the Chinese gain from export

true im not so sure how Canadians feel about a NAU let alone Americans still stuck on old glory

i believe the combined efforts of Canada and the United States is very powerful

and if Mexico is apart of this union i know America doesn't want that extreme gang war leaking over the borders

Bryan Oakley
03-17-2009, 09:46 PM
China's already a super power though?

Esculas the Mighty
03-17-2009, 10:56 PM
China's already a super power though?

they still have a long way to go but they are knocking the economic part out very fast

they still have to spread they're culture everywhere

throw military bases around the world

lead in technological development

szebus
03-18-2009, 02:33 AM
And what about Russia ? What do you think, how do they fit on the scene ?

Bryan Oakley
03-18-2009, 11:17 AM
And what about Russia ? What do you think, how do they fit on the scene ?

They don't need to fit the scene, in Russia, scene fits you.

Puppeteer
03-18-2009, 12:42 PM
Considering the length of time that existed between the fall of Rome and the start of the European empires called the 'Dark Ages', it's not always true. Sure, a legacy may be left behind, but it's not the super powers that create more super powers.

szebus
03-19-2009, 01:50 AM
The compaies creates super powers and the greed of menkind.

nickson104
03-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Considering the length of time that existed between the fall of Rome and the start of the European empires called the 'Dark Ages', it's not always true. Sure, a legacy may be left behind, but it's not the super powers that create more super powers.

Survival of the fittest I say! :p The Romans took Britain by storm, then the saxons took it then the normans took it and so on, each time Britain learnt a lot more of different cultures and ways of life and such. Britain has had its fair share of battles, many years ago it was very defendable its fertile and prosperous, it was a great land to own and then britain got skilled in warfare through its many conflicts external and internal... That has made Britain what it is today and so the rest of the world followed (it helps that most of the world was once part of the British Empire)

Survival of the fittest *nods*

Esculas the Mighty
03-19-2009, 05:10 PM
Survival of the fittest I say! :p The Romans took Britain by storm, then the saxons took it then the normans took it and so on, each time Britain learnt a lot more of different cultures and ways of life and such. Britain has had its fair share of battles, many years ago it was very defendable its fertile and prosperous, it was a great land to own and then britain got skilled in warfare through its many conflicts external and internal... That has made Britain what it is today and so the rest of the world followed (it helps that most of the world was once part of the British Empire)

Survival of the fittest *nods*

*joins in nod fest*

i read up on that islands history because i was curious on how they got away with putting great in front of their name

i now have far more respect for it then other European nations

Joseph Visscher
03-20-2009, 05:54 PM
I think what makes other super powers in this world is not from other super powers but rather one super power fails and burns to the ground, and a smaller one is always there to fill in that place and become the next.

MrBlack103
03-20-2009, 06:24 PM
All it takes to become a super-power, really, is to decide you are going to become a super-power (and be prepared to have patience), and have none oppose you until it's too late (for them). Take the Mongolian Empire, for instance.

LiTos456
03-20-2009, 06:37 PM
I think it really takes a lot of history and steps to take to become a superpower. It's really not easy, and I think other countrie's progress (or vice versa) always affects it. You need like a spot freed in order to fill it up, which means another empire has to fall first.

Esculas the Mighty
03-20-2009, 08:12 PM
i think alot of factors come into play when a nations rises above the rest to stand as a super power

much of these factors are decided by the world around it similar to America becoming war-like due to being dragged into both ww's during its emergence (even though it didn't know itself as being powerful until mid-ww2)

i think America wouldn't have become the super power without the world wars Russia would have

America would have just been a isolationist economic ''great'' power

but without the wars some European nation or nations may have risen so its highly debatable

nickson104
03-21-2009, 11:15 AM
i think alot of factors come into play when a nations rises above the rest to stand as a super power

much of these factors are decided by the world around it similar to America becoming war-like due to being dragged into both ww's during its emergence (even though it didn't know itself as being powerful until mid-ww2)

i think America wouldn't have become the super power without the world wars Russia would have

America would have just been a isolationist economic ''great'' power

but without the wars some European nation or nations may have risen so its highly debatable

Britain, France And Spain all had about a third of the globe each at one point...

America being isolationist and only joining the war due to the attack on pearl harbour is sketchy theres a lot of suspicions there, some think a conspiracy... why would america have most of their fleet on an island so close to another super power and all in one place? America did side with the allies by supplying armaments and loaning money but it wasnt until they were attacked that they could rightfully end their policy of isolationism... America seemed a bit 'too' ready for war considering it was meant to be concentrating ONLY on domestic affairs...

Russia should have become a super power :) I love the russians XD communism is a great idea... it just doesnt work... " we are all equal, but i am slightly more equal than you " hehe

Bryan Oakley
03-21-2009, 01:49 PM
Britain, France And Spain all had about a third of the globe each at one point...

America being isolationist and only joining the war due to the attack on pearl harbour is sketchy theres a lot of suspicions there, some think a conspiracy... why would america have most of their fleet on an island so close to another super power and all in one place? America did side with the allies by supplying armaments and loaning money but it wasnt until they were attacked that they could rightfully end their policy of isolationism... America seemed a bit 'too' ready for war considering it was meant to be concentrating ONLY on domestic affairs...

Russia should have become a super power :) I love the russians XD communism is a great idea... it just doesnt work... " we are all equal, but i am slightly more equal than you " hehe

It is true America was fully prepared for war and most likely joined in time. I believe the attack on Pearl Harbor just fast forwarded that join. However, if America didn't join the war, I strongly believe Europe(excluding Russia) would be under NAZI rule. Germany would have most likely conquered all of southern Europe then either bring most of the troops to the Russian border or invade (most likely unsuccessfully with how many Russian troops that were left) which probably would have forced a retreat to the boarder for a stalemate until both sides would grow tired and sign a non aggression pact with a no mans land between them. However, this is pure speculation and my opinion from hours upon hours of pondering in math class when the instructer in the front of the class wouldn't stop talking about numbers....

Puppeteer
03-21-2009, 02:46 PM
However, if America didn't join the war, I strongly believe Europe(excluding Russia) would be under NAZI rule.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Fighting on two-fronts will only reap benefits for so long. A Russian campaign would cripple the Nazis on the eastern side, and draw out too many men and resources. The combined forces of the British and the underground French movements would eventually break through into France, and establish a foothold on a port. It would be far more difficult for the Nazis to invade Britain than for the British to retake France. Without America, it may have taken longer, but would not have changed the leadership of Europe.

Esculas the Mighty
03-21-2009, 02:54 PM
Britain, France And Spain all had about a third of the globe each at one point...

America being isolationist and only joining the war due to the attack on pearl harbour is sketchy theres a lot of suspicions there, some think a conspiracy... why would america have most of their fleet on an island so close to another super power and all in one place? America did side with the allies by supplying armaments and loaning money but it wasnt until they were attacked that they could rightfully end their policy of isolationism... America seemed a bit 'too' ready for war considering it was meant to be concentrating ONLY on domestic affairs...

Russia should have become a super power :) I love the russians XD communism is a great idea... it just doesnt work... " we are all equal, but i am slightly more equal than you " hehe

i understand what you mean by the states being fully prepared for ww2 but they werent for ww1 they didnt really need to be

as for ww2 if america didnt prepare for war then they would have had to be extremely stupid

if the allies fell it was either America's or Russia's turn next then japan after Germany got what it needed out of them

LiTos456
03-21-2009, 03:42 PM
Russia is a super power.
In fact, the 2 main superpowers today are the United States and Russia.
Besides, I'm a soviet so I'm also pretty patriotic. (But I'm not a nationalist, which means I don't say Russia is better than everyone else).
I think that all countries are equal in something. I don't see why war has to be so important, conflicts, etc. I mean, war is cool and epic and even "fun" in video games but nothing more. I wish war in Iraq ended, and any other threats... And there's no such thing as a good president, because if there is, he gets shot, and so on.

nickson104
03-22-2009, 06:01 AM
Russia is a super power.
In fact, the 2 main superpowers today are the United States and Russia.
Besides, I'm a soviet so I'm also pretty patriotic. (But I'm not a nationalist, which means I don't say Russia is better than everyone else).
I think that all countries are equal in something. I don't see why war has to be so important, conflicts, etc. I mean, war is cool and epic and even "fun" in video games but nothing more. I wish war in Iraq ended, and any other threats... And there's no such thing as a good president, because if there is, he gets shot, and so on.

Agreed to it all :) Russia isnt the superpower it was but it still could do some damag, Britain however probably couldnt... although there is a statistic that says that each British soldier is worth 5 American soldiers thats the difference in skill level... also America has huge friendly fire incidents (trigger happy?) and the lowest is France... (its because they dont do anything!!! :p)

I also disagree that without America's help we would be Nazi ruled, the Americans predominantly fought in the pacific against the Japanese who were only in the fight for the spoils anyway, the Russians would never give up to Nazi rule and would have fought till the end. The Americans only joined the fight in Germany near the end after bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also the Germans wouldn't have attacked Southern Europe on a large scale for many years, the Schlieffen plan was to travel through Belgium and crush France from behind their own defenses so that Germany wouldnt be attacked from both sides. They never expected Britain to react so fast to the invasion in Belgium and their advance was pretty much halted there which is why thats where the trenches and graveyards are.

Esculas the Mighty
03-22-2009, 08:53 AM
Agreed to it all :) Russia isnt the superpower it was but it still could do some damag, Britain however probably couldnt... although there is a statistic that says that each British soldier is worth 5 American soldiers thats the difference in skill level... also America has huge friendly fire incidents (trigger happy?) and the lowest is France... (its because they dont do anything!!! :p)

I also disagree that without America's help we would be Nazi ruled, the Americans predominantly fought in the pacific against the Japanese who were only in the fight for the spoils anyway, the Russians would never give up to Nazi rule and would have fought till the end. The Americans only joined the fight in Germany near the end after bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also the Germans wouldn't have attacked Southern Europe on a large scale for many years, the Schlieffen plan was to travel through Belgium and crush France from behind their own defenses so that Germany wouldnt be attacked from both sides. They never expected Britain to react so fast to the invasion in Belgium and their advance was pretty much halted there which is why thats where the trenches and graveyards are.

true but im sure if America was in any real danger training would be greatly improved Britain couldn't afford a sec of poor training just in case

people always forget about the Japanese they were insanely strong just that America was on the rise bad match up

Qc_4ever
03-22-2009, 10:48 PM
and the lowest is France... (its because they dont do anything!!! :p)

Grrrrrr that's completly false, the frenchs DO something, they are human shields :D. But french canadians are the best. :cool:

LiTos456
03-22-2009, 10:55 PM
Agreed to it all :) Russia isnt the superpower it was but it still could do some damag, Britain however probably couldnt... although there is a statistic that says that each British soldier is worth 5 American soldiers thats the difference in skill level... also America has huge friendly fire incidents (trigger happy?) and the lowest is France... (its because they dont do anything!!! :p)

I also disagree that without America's help we would be Nazi ruled, the Americans predominantly fought in the pacific against the Japanese who were only in the fight for the spoils anyway, the Russians would never give up to Nazi rule and would have fought till the end. The Americans only joined the fight in Germany near the end after bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also the Germans wouldn't have attacked Southern Europe on a large scale for many years, the Schlieffen plan was to travel through Belgium and crush France from behind their own defenses so that Germany wouldnt be attacked from both sides. They never expected Britain to react so fast to the invasion in Belgium and their advance was pretty much halted there which is why thats where the trenches and graveyards are.

I approve to this post! Thanks for agreeing with me
And for once someone besides my mom says that America only came by the end of the war and barely done anything, thank god. Russia lost around 30 million people, while America counts every single one they lose in any battle they ever get into.
No offence, but it's kinda true.
Besides I just watched a ton of zero punctuation videos so my sarcasm level is all the way over and beyond the top.

Bryan Oakley
03-23-2009, 02:10 AM
The Americans only joined the fight in Germany near the end after bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


June 6,1944? It was "near the end" because America stormed the old war with fresh soldiers with high morale.


Anyways.

British were damn near trapped on their island from U-boats (subs), air combat was at a stalemate, and the french were crippled beyond repair. Russia was still standing strong with their motto of: "Keep charging! They'll run out of bullets sooner or...later...right?" It was only a one front war really until the Normandy invasions then it began again. It's true the Japanese wern't doing much but I garentee they would have completely crippled the british with their navel force if they still send it after America.

I will allow this healthy debate to continue so long as everybody keeps their cool. If this turns emotional/into a flame war, I will close this thread.

MrBlack103
03-23-2009, 04:33 AM
"Keep charging! They'll run out of bullets sooner or...later...right?"

And amazingly, that motto somehow started working after a while.:D

LiTos456
03-23-2009, 06:57 AM
Actually it worked for like forever, until the end of the war.
I wonder how the war ends, like in the middle of the battlefield?

Esculas the Mighty
03-23-2009, 08:24 AM
June 6,1944? It was "near the end" because America stormed the old war with fresh soldiers with high morale.


Anyways.

British were damn near trapped on their island from U-boats (subs), air combat was at a stalemate, and the french were crippled beyond repair. Russia was still standing strong with their motto of: "Keep charging! They'll run out of bullets sooner or...later...right?" It was only a one front war really until the Normandy invasions then it began again. It's true the Japanese wern't doing much but I garentee they would have completely crippled the british with their navel force if they still send it after America.

I will allow this healthy debate to continue so long as everybody keeps their cool. If this turns emotional/into a flame war, I will close this thread.


i feel its getting there

i feel like defending my country's military greatness during this war but that never goes smoothly

Puppeteer
03-23-2009, 12:35 PM
I do love the way that people proclaim that the Americans joined at the end of the war, as if the duration was fixed and it was all about inflicting as many casualties as you can before the deadline is met :p

British were damn near trapped on their island from U-boats (subs), air combat was at a stalemate
Not quite... Towards the end of the war, the production of British Spitfires & Hurricanes increased rapidly, and I think that 4 could be built for the same resources and for the same length of time as a bomber. The air combat was leaning in favour of the British. U-Boats weren't that much of a threat in 'trapping them on the island'. They threatened convoys, but that was about it. The reason why the British may have seemed 'trapped' was because there was no feasible option in establishing a foothold in France.

Esculas the Mighty
03-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I do love the way that people proclaim that the Americans joined at the end of the war, as if the duration was fixed and it was all about inflicting as many casualties as you can before the deadline is met :p


Not quite... Towards the end of the war, the production of British Spitfires & Hurricanes increased rapidly, and I think that 4 could be built for the same resources and for the same length of time as a bomber. The air combat was leaning in favour of the British. U-Boats weren't that much of a threat in 'trapping them on the island'. They threatened convoys, but that was about it. The reason why the British may have seemed 'trapped' was because there was no feasible option in establishing a foothold in France.

so your saying the British would have eventually drove the Germans out?

LiTos456
03-23-2009, 08:11 PM
Maybe with the naval force, yes, but i dont think much more...

Ginko
03-24-2009, 04:12 AM
could read the whole topic, so i only reda the first post, and i say, i must totally agree :)

ash12181987
03-24-2009, 11:14 AM
Dude Bryan, no worries. Every body is civil here, it's not like the Taleworlds forums, some one would have gotten shived by now with this discussion, if we were there. :cool:

I would like to interject one thing about the initial discussion before I continue: It was mentioned China being the next great power, and there is a great deal of evidence that says that Asia will be the next major power source in the world (Like the new world was this cycle of the universe, and europe was before). The immediacy of it all though I disagree with. Currently China's economy is tied directly to Americas, by means of currency values being locked between the two countries. The Chinese did this before the Euro if I'm remembering correctly, back when the Dollar was king, problem is that with the dollar falling the chinese currency is as well (Yen isn't it?). Not to mention with economies being world economies these days, if someone farts in wallstreet, it's felt in Beijing. And since someone screwed up Big time here, it's just as bad over there. Backing up to the points on what world powers up to rule next, I'm going to go with: Russia, China, India. Once india sorts out it's many political/idealogical/criminal/nuclear problems then they'll be well off, Russia is now and has always been a superpower on the sidelines, and China is the sure win, once they put their economy back on track.

Hrmm.. back on topic I suppose: World War II: I personally doubt that without American assistance that Europe would have been as well off as has been mentioned. I DO think that after Germany turned on Russia, about that time their resources would be stretched too thin. I'm not a historian of that period, but I think Britian would have fallen, and the germans would have become so stretched between reinforcing their rule across europe, and dealing with Russia that they would have fallen back and buckled down on everything, OR they would have burned out and been picked apart. Either way the war would have lasted a great deal longer, and undoubtfully the US WOULD have gotten involved reguardless at some point Japan or no Japan. The real Clincher would have been who developed nukes first though: the US or Germany, if it was Germany.. well then things would have been a whole lot more graphic, and they would have might maybe won the war, because I think we have seen given their prior actions that they didn't have quams about civilian casualties. And no, I'm not trying to sound high and mighty as an American, neither did we, and neither did anyone else in this time, but still.

Puppeteer
03-24-2009, 01:02 PM
but I think Britian would have fallen
I really don't see how. To me it appears as if defensively Britain was coping, but they would not have been able to advance far without allied intervention (either a large dedicated force including backup from former Commonwealth countries, or the US). The German bombings were the only threat to the British island, as Hitler ruled out an invasion of the "island fortress" until their war economy in eastern/central Europe was strong enough to cope with a surge of demand. If the Russian campaign had gone to plan, Britain may have fallen. However, the blunder of invading in Russian winter, the blunder of invading without much preparation in the first place and the not yet great enough yield of resources from captured lands meant that, regardless of US intervention, Britain would not have fallen (most likely). Of course, without the US, the stalemate could have meant that Europe would be severely weakened, as a union and as individual countries.

ash12181987
03-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Good point. Still, I think Nuclear development would have been important. You raise a good point though, referring to the economics of it all: Would Germany, even if Developing nuclear weapons, have the resources to construct bombs. There were the jets they had developed (And I think constructed maybe a squad of), which would have helped with the air war, but looking at that as an example: they couldn't make them fast enough or cheap enough Late in the war to make any difference. If they hadn't the strain of late war, but still had the technology, how much of it could have been implemented?

Esculas the Mighty
03-24-2009, 05:20 PM
could read the whole topic, so i only reda the first post, and i say, i must totally agree :)

thank you :)

fyro11
03-24-2009, 05:56 PM
The Nazis were basically fighting on far too many fronts. Cracks started appearing everywhere. They couldn't stand this pressure and so the cracks became holes that consumed them eventually.

szebus
03-25-2009, 05:49 AM
As far as I know, we don't call them enymore nazi, they are germans. But I could be wrong and we call only the soldiers, the army, the germans.

Ginko
03-25-2009, 07:32 AM
what? ofc we call them nazis...

nickson104
03-25-2009, 01:18 PM
what? ofc we call them nazis...

the leaders were nazi* the soldiers were just doing their job...

Germany was indeed fighting too many battles as well as internal ones...

Britain was blockaded and it seemed they would fall, David Lloyd George brought in an act which improved armament productions, forced merchants to travel in convoy WITH navy escorts (the number of merchant ships was dramatically reduced allowing supplies to arrive again) however you brought up the good point that Britain would not be able to set up on the continent sufficiently but as said before Britain is basically a floating fortress...

Bryan chill mate as ash said we are all civil here and no flaming is going on, at least not intentionally XD

Nuclear weaponry has changed the world, it has ended much conflict due to fear of them being used but it also has created tension between all countries. Nuclear warfare is not a game... Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples of that, and modern nuclear weapons are estimated to be 20 times more effective.

Kell Aset
03-25-2009, 03:32 PM
GThere were the jets they had developed (And I think constructed maybe a squad of), which would have helped with the air war, but looking at that as an example: they couldn't make them fast enough or cheap enough Late in the war to make any difference. If they hadn't the strain of late war, but still had the technology, how much of it could have been implemented?

Just to add, Schwalbe was the name of german jet, and they constructed more than thousand but most of them was destroyed sadly on ground.
Materials for engine were a problem, Schwalbe jest couldn't fly long with engines made of whatever they were made of, and their special fuel was not that available at time.
It is a strange sight to see that some of those airplanes still fly today, but of course with different engines and I doubt it is only difference.

Bryan Oakley
03-25-2009, 04:44 PM
The Nazis were basically fighting on far too many fronts. Cracks started appearing everywhere. They couldn't stand this pressure and so the cracks became holes that consumed them eventually.

There were many cracks in their fronts but by the time that those cracks appeared most of the places those cracks were at there was nothing to challenge them. It's been three years since my last history class but if I remember right the last push the Nazi's gave actually beat the hell out of the allied forces and was gaining strength. The thing that actually defeated the Nazi's was Nature, not the Allied forces. All of German's Panzer tanks ran out of fuel and/or the oil in their tanks froze.
(small topic change)Another factor that crippled the Nazi force was Hitler. It is believe that Hitler became mentally ill in the later years of the war. He suddenly was making incredibly stupid decisions that all of his generals disagreed on. Such as not retreating from Russia and only advancing. Also he picked out favorite weapons and refused to let any new ones be used. For example, he loved the MP40 and used it throughout most of the war even though the StG44(MP44/MP43) was vastly superior compared to any other weapon of it's category in WWII.
P.S. Luger P08 pistol - Was the fastest firing handgun during WWII, its one problem - dirt jamming the gun.

As far as I know, we don't call them enymore nazi, they are germans. But I could be wrong and we call only the soldiers, the army, the germans.

Nazi's are/were those who think that the the Aryan race is vastly superior to every other race(blond hair, blue eyes, thin nose, ect.). In fact every other race is nothing more then dogs to them. They also thoroughly believe that the Jewish people are the reason for all of their problems. They wanted to destroy everything that was weak or held them back, whether they be the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, Jews, or other governments that disagreed with them.


Bryan chill mate as ash said we are all civil here and no flaming is going on, at least not intentionally XD


It's a strong warning, nothing more.

Puppeteer
03-26-2009, 02:02 PM
It's been three years since my last history class but if I remember right the last push the Nazi's gave actually beat the hell out of the allied forces and was gaining strength. The thing that actually defeated the Nazi's was Nature, not the Allied forces. All of German's Panzer tanks ran out of fuel and/or the oil in their tanks froze.
Wasn't this "last push" akin to the Spring Offensive in WW1, a desperate attempt involving all their forces at hand? I would have thought a last desperate attempt could do damage, but would not have led to overall success due to poor organisation. I also do not believe that it was "Nature" that beat the Nazis, but poor choices. Eg. the defilement of the prohibition on the Anschluss led to the worst invasion in history, and also the invasion of Russia.

Bryan Oakley
03-26-2009, 06:31 PM
I also do not believe that it was "Nature" that beat the Nazis, but poor choices. Eg. the defilement of the prohibition on the Anschluss led to the worst invasion in history, and also the invasion of Russia.


Another factor that crippled the Nazi force was Hitler.

That's what I was trying to imply when I spoke about Hitler['s poor choices].