If you read about how Germany started both world war in quest for global domination, you will see how they went beyond their abilities. This inludes the amount of troops available for such a task, lack of strategical prowess, and eventually relying on children to fight the wars.\nThis is especially evident in WW II when the brave leader was hiding in a bunker with his leading officers, while their ground troops were getting decimated at an alarming rate. The "great war machine" could not even conquer Britain, even with their vaunted "blitzkrieg".\nIt was inevitable that Germany would fall, the allied troops only sped up the process.
204836
National zeal had a lot to do with it. Plus, never under-estimate the stupidity of our leaders....all you need is one crackpot with a chip on his shoulder to drag everyone else into a war......now where else have I seen that done recently?
249252
After World War II, Europe was broke because of the devastatoin of the war. Secondly, as these countries began an interest in their independence, the citizens of Europe weren't too thrilled about the idea of sending troops abroad again. Not to mention all of Europe's militaries were exhausted and thin.
408728
no, cos the two wars they fought with the oppostion haveing air and sea power proved america can not fight a country with those capabilities, the second world war the soviets won as even the german admitted after, the pacific war ,america resorted to use two atom bombs to make the japs surrender, there is a saying, "never fight an enemy who could hit you back twice as hard"
376695
We still have troops in Germany, South Korea, Philippines, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and numerous other countries.  WWII has been over since the mid 1940s.  It's called strategic positioning.  Removing our troops from that area puts us at a great disadvantage strategically.  I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that there are people/groups who don't like the United States of America and are looking for opportunities for our defeat.
499763
what about the french 100 year war?  what about England and France, What about Germany WW1 and WW11, what about Japan WW11? China?  these countries are far more bloody than the US as we haven't existed as long as they have..\n\nRemember WW1 and WW11 were both started by Germany.  Japan bombed the US in WW11.. pearl harbor, but oh yeah, we aren't allowed to defend our selves, just France and England and the rest of Europe.
433415
That is Europe for you. They want our help in time of war (WW  1, WW 2) but ask them in so called Peace time , forget it..Germany & France are the biggest offenders. They have not forgot we beat Germany & set free France in WW 2. Old grudges last long. Who are they going to blame the next time some nuts blow up a skyscraper in Berlin or Paris. Who will they Yell for help to? The terriost are going to LOVE the EU . THey have more rights to their money then you do yours.
158395
How about they lost 26 million people which is why they were so harsh in dealing with Germany after the war.\n\nOne of the more interesting but little known facts about the war was how the Russians dealt with the insurgency problem that existed in East and West Germany after the war.  \n\nNewly elected Mayors were being assassinated in East Germany by what were called German wolf packs.  The Soviets response to the same problem we are facing in Iraq today was to gather 200 randomly picked citizens from each town which had had its mayor assassinated and publicly execute them.  \n\nTheir belief, which apparently was correct, was that an insurgency can not exist without the aid of at least a few locals who in turn must be known to others living in the area.  \n\nThe thought of you yourself or your wife or your kids being summarily executed motivated people to assist in the eradication of the insurgents\n\nWhile the practice sounds horrendously brutal, in actuality it saved thousands of lives because it worked almost immediately. \n\nBecause we chose then to be more "humane," the problem persisted in West Germany at the cost of many lives for several years and prevented them from having a stable government for 10 years.  No doubt it will have the same result in Iraq.
216963
the reason why europe has been starting world wars is that they were the most advanced countries in the past and moreover europe being a congested continent with the countries so close to each other, they always had an issue with each other and with so many of them involved things used to become very tricky.\n\nanyways i think that the third world war would  not be started by europe.  it would most probably start from asia with the US playing a key role(not in positive sense)
560575
In the modern age it was British proto capitalism that paved the way for the US and the other great powers to scramble for resources in the name of nationalist greed. Unfortunately for Britain WWI and WWII doomed the empire and all that is left of their legacy is that of their language which is spoken by most of the world.
357323
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after. \n\nAlso, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us. \n\nTerrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best. \n\nAlso Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today. \n(I can stop here but... some other thoughts)\n\nSometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair). \n\nIraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists. \n\nThe mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.\n\nSomeone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The t
198343
As I see it, it wasn't a competition but a joint effort.\n\nI am sure other folks will remind you that American only joined in very very late and when they finally realised Germany was a threat to them (go and Google for the intercepted telegram that made America's mind up).  Also, what was the Civilian/domestic toll that America paid?\n\nOdd to use a war as a way of scoring points that one Country is 'better' than another.\n\n\nUPDATE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:\n\n"Subject: dumb \n\nMessage: dumb *** this is a question from my history test so next time if you can't answer the question correctly then don't answer"\n\nMy Response:\n\n1. Debate don't insult - it betrays your age\n2. Look at my response ... it is an answer just not framed in a multiple choice.  Think outside a basic question - maybe you will get respect for a pointing out that it was a joint effort not a competition.  You cannot look at one statistic in this sort of thing as a 'full' answer - maybe that is what your teacher is looking for.\n3. Appreciate people taking the time to write ANYTHING - if you don't like it then dismiss it and move on.\n4. Do your own homework!\n\n\nIn answer to your question:\n\nA)On the basis of casualties I would be astounded if the USSR didn't field massively more troops\nB) Russia lost c 10,000,000 (+12M civilian/Holocaust victims) US lost c400,000\nC) Looks way the most likely especially as the US wasn't domestically at war and could continue normal industry
227182
A little history lesson. Just prior to the start of WWII\na prime minister of Britain named Neville Chamberlain went\nto Germany to discuss friendship and peace with Hitler.\nHitler sucked him in and they all signed peace papers.\nChamberlain came back all smiles, waving his paper and\nexclaiming , "Peace in our time". Less than a year later\nHitler invaded Poland commencing WWII, making a fool of Chamberlain who resigned as prime minister shortly after.\n  The act of backing off from a threatening tyrant,\nthinking that he will be satisfied and stop his agressive\nmoves has come to be known as "appeasement" in international\npolitics. The world learned the hard way that appeasement\nonly encourages the appetite of the agressor. That the\nthreat of counter force is the only thing that will stop\nhim.  The US used the threat of counter force successfully\nagainst the belligerence of the Soviet Union during the\nBerlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Middle East\nCrisis. We also used it against Saddam the first time\nand probably stopped him from taking Saudi Arabia. \n  What Iran is playing now is called brinkmanship. You\ngo to the brink of war in a game of chicken, hoping the\nother side backs down. If they do, you win without\nfiring a shot. \n  Friendship with a Radical Fundamentalist Muslim\ngovernment is impossible. That isn't just name calling.\nThat's what they are self defined as. Their international\nvalues and needs are contrary to ours. Their enemies are\nour friends(i.e., Israel) and their friends are our\nenemies(i.e., Al Qaeda).
338515
They beat the English in 1066 in the battle of Hastings but no i don't think they have won a war since,they are wimps and it's a well known fact because they left the British to fight on their own in both world wars.The only good leader the French have had is Napoleon who was the Emperor of France and they did hardly anything in the second world war compared to Britain and America.They also lost the 100 year war with England(and Wales because Wales was the first country England took over to make the UK)and it just goes to show that France are rubbish and are not brave at all.
358861
It widened due to the expanisionist policy of the Nazis.  Simply: they wanted to go and invade everyone else.  This caused some people to get a bit peeved, and they started to fight back.  The more the Nazis threatened or invaded other nations, the more countries joined the allies.
117662
Most European nations were over run by the Nazis in WW2 and the French were at the front line on Hitler's plans to invade England. Some nations stayed nuetral, however Hitler was intent on not only conquering these nations, but plundering them as well.
79760
I thing we are already into the World War-III which is going on slowly engulfing more and more people, more and more nation in to it. This is solwer than the other two in spark but much much more hazardous in effect.You count the death tolls, thousands of people are being killed worldwide every year and this figure is increasing every year.\nThis WW is not centralised or polarised but is decentralised and spread out having its presence in each and every nation on the globe. This war is using the worst weapon which not only kills Human but the Humanity as well. \nWe are Killing and We are Dying.....
278569
You need to have a sense of perspective. Today people are freaking out of troop losses of less than 3000 over a period of several years in Iraq.\n\nIn World War One at the Battle of the Somme the British lost about 19,000 men killed in ONE DAY. \n\nIn World War II, some 62 MILLION people were killed, 37 million civilians and 25 million soldiers.\n\nTodays little brush fire wars are nothing compared to this.