What would the world be like without the United States?

[The Dark Lord]

Japan or Germany would have won WWII.

 

If there was one that is.

 

Unless France didn't deliberately piss off and mistreat Germany like it did after World War I... :roll:

 

Besides, I don't think that you can, without a shadow of a doubt, state that the Axis would have won the war without the US involved. If the British lost England and the Isles, they would have salvaged what they could and would have fought a massive war from their vast empire.

[Skull]

There's no way to accurately answer this question, therefore this thread is just going to be filled with [bleep]ing.

 

I'll admit though, I never understood the language issue that people from England have with America. I mean yeah, a few letters and pronunciations are different, but other than that it's the same thing. I mean no one complains about Scottish English and that's practically an entirely different language from what I've heard :lol:

[Alg]

Japan or Germany would have won WWII.

There's that whole Russia thing to consider...

[RSBDavid]

World hunger, fresh water shortages, and wars would end.

 

Look at it this way. We are 1/8th (12.5%) of the world. We use over 25% of the resources (that's what they learn us in school).

 

We would probably just be part of the EU/GB.

[stonewall337]

Makes me wonder if England would be a superpower by now, if America didn't exist. And I do agree that if they hadn't been invented by Americans they were bound to be invented some other time or place - even if it was years and years later.

 

I want to try and keep this thread from turning into a USA vs World argument, debate these things nicely please :P

 

And oh yeah, if America didn't exist - neither would Twilight and Disney channel. :thumbup:

 

Maybe not having those would be worth it TBH.

[Giordano]

I'd like to think its more than just chance. Not saying Americans are anything special, but I think location had more to do with it. And the style of gov't. With more freedom geographically, and in a sense politically I think it had a sub conscious affect on the mind, (or maybe conscious) allowing it to "wander," and invent.

I was going to say because of economics. We didn't had to worry about food or water and our more basic luxurious items are met. The only thing political about it was the lack of wars on our soil, compared to the middle east or such.

[Dizzle229]

Without the US, the UK remains a superpower for a while longer, and probably remains imperialist. With that kind of power, and utilizing the resources found after the country was freed, they could easily have taken more land elsewhere and eventually been the first empire to rule the world. It would eventually be destroyed from the inside.

[Arcantica]

Food would be pretty dull.... (if there was no north or south america)

 

 

Tomatoes, potatoes, chocolate, turkey, corn, and hundreds of other things wouldn't exist.

[Georgelemmons]

Food would be pretty dull.... (if there was no north or south america)

 

 

Tomatoes, potatoes, chocolate, turkey, corn, and hundreds of other things wouldn't exist.

 

They'd all exist just fine without the US. The colonists didn't come to to Americas to begin secretly bio-engineering new plants - they found them already cultivated in many areas by indigenous peoples. (We're just talking about the country, not completely wiping the continent off the face of the Earth).

 

If the English never colonized this area, it would likely be an extension of Mexico or another Spanish colony that fought for freedom. I'd be interested to see what the globalized pop culture would end up looking like without the distinctive influences of the US.

[i_love_burritos]

A much better question is where would the world be without Scotland?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions

 

Considering the size of our nation, I'd say we've given more to the world than most nations. It's okay you don't need to thank us :wink: .

 

The most "citation neededs'" I've seen in one wiki article. But I guess your Adam Smith makes up for it. :thumbup:

 

Actually, I think I've mentioned this before...

[Pirate_Felix]

No war in the middle east.

[Furah]

Japan or Germany would have won WWII.

 

If there was one that is.

America didn't "win the war." If there was a single country who won the war, it would have to be Russia.

 

Well, if you go all the way back to the first dividing little cell, we're all related. Hell, we're all the same organism. Everything.

 

Stupid way to think of stuff. I don't want to think a girl is technically my cousin if we're doing the sex sometime in the future. Unless she really is my cousin - then I run.

Step cousin?

[tortilliachp]

Surprised noone has yet mentioned open door economic policy or the cold war.

 

 

But it's all on a tangent to the main topic at hand: no USA. However, i find it a lot more interesting to think about why Americans are so disliked in today's world. It's not like you can be that hated for over a century without having done something to aggravate people and nations around the world. Just look at how quickly it's passed for Germany, who are (for the second running year) the country most globally appreciated in terms of world impact.

[Giordano]

No war in the middle east.

I'm pretty sure Britain would of continued the trend.

 

Japan or Germany would have won WWII.

 

If there was one that is.

America didn't "win the war." If there was a single country who won the war, it would have to be Russia.

You think Russia could of survived a two-front war? (Germany in the west, Japan in the east)

[tortilliachp]

No war in the middle east.

I'm pretty sure Britain would of continued the trend.

 

 

Or the League of Nations, who were the ones to collectively sit down and agree that there should be a Zionist state in the Middle East.

 

Japan or Germany would have won WWII.

 

If there was one that is.

America didn't "win the war." If there was a single country who won the war, it would have to be Russia.

You think Russia could of survived a two-front war? (Germany in the west, Japan in the east)

 

Well, it all depends on how far back you choose to draw your historical lines: I would argue that the causes of WW2 would have to be analyzed, not just the actual fighting, as the terms on which the countries would be at war would be vastly different. The Washington Naval conferences and the 5:5:3 principle lead to Japan's domination in the pacific, this would not have happened without the United states on the world scene. The Great Depression would not have happened, thus there would be no economic incentive for Japan, Italy or Germany to become aggressive states, and no power to cause war. Embargoes by the League of nations could be enforced, as the US / soviet / german axis of major powers outside the league would have a much smaller importance globally, league members would dominate, and goods such as oil, coal and steel might actually be included in embargoes. Following that argument to its conclusion: The Italian invasion of Absyssinia, and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria could have been effectively sanctioned by a League of Nations that would resemble the United Nations a lot more closely, and Hiter would never assume (falsely) that the invasion of Poland would be interpereted as an act of war by the Allies (Remember Czechoslovakia).

 

The war quite simply wouldn't have happened in those terms, and the world would be a very different place in terms of collonialism, imperialism, power politics, and English as the Lingua Franca. The german economy could easily have led to german attaining that role, who knows?

[Alg]

World hunger, fresh water shortages, and wars would end.

 

Look at it this way. We are 1/8th (12.5%) of the world. We use over 25% of the resources (that's what they learn us in school).

 

We would probably just be part of the EU/GB.

Wonder how much the country produces to balance that then? (Not trolling, honestly curious)

[demby123]

World hunger, fresh water shortages, and wars would end.

 

Look at it this way. We are 1/8th (12.5%) of the world. We use over 25% of the resources (that's what they learn us in school).

 

We would probably just be part of the EU/GB.

How would world hunger and water crises end?

War will never end, not as long as human beings exist.

[Alg]

Overpopulation might be a bigger problem too. That's a lot of space that people could have lived in.

[meol]

Overpopulation might be a bigger problem too. That's a lot of space that people could have lived in.

It's not that the area would be unpopulated, the Spanish would have conquered it as well. You'd just have 4 or so smaller countries instead.

 

I suppose Communism would have expanded a lot more. I doubt the English would have stood up against it as fiercely as the Americans, to the point of entering that many proxy wars and financing contra-revolutionary militias, and Russia/USSR might still be a superpower.

[lordkafei]

Alternative history novels can be a good read.

 

The Years of Rice and Salt is a good one.

 

It's the 14th century, and the Black Death has swept through Europe, killing not 30% or 40% of the population but 99%. With Europeans now no more than a historical curiosity, the empires of China and Islam spread rapidly across the world.

 

If this sort of fiction really interests you, here's a broad article on the subject.

[Saru Inc]

World hunger, fresh water shortages, and wars would end.

 

Look at it this way. We are 1/8th (12.5%) of the world. We use over 25% of the resources (that's what they learn us in school).

 

We would probably just be part of the EU/GB.

 

 

WAIT! Remember the huge genocide us pilgrims committed? If America never existed those asians would have never crossed over the prehistoric land bridge and so what, those 12.5 million dead? Would all be in asia, multiply that by a few centuries please.

[Asmodeous4]

Different.

[Dexek]

The sea level would drop.

[IeatWindex]

Way I see it, any invention made here in the U.S. could have been made anywhere else, just matters who invents it first.

[The Dark Lord]

Overpopulation might be a bigger problem too. That's a lot of space that people could have lived in.

It's not that the area would be unpopulated, the Spanish would have conquered it as well. You'd just have 4 or so smaller countries instead.

 

What about New France and Louisiana?