America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Admiral Stukov

Sure we may have pushed Indians off their land (despite popular belief, we didn't massacre them... European diseases did), but around the same time Britian was busy annihilating the China because China wouldn't buy Opium. Honestly, some of you people should look at your own countries atrocities before you look at Americas.

Just one salient example of the non-disease extermination of Indians immediately comes to mind- ever hear of Wounded Knee?

In 1636, the Masschusetts Bay Colony sent a military force along with troops from Connecticut and with Narragansett allies and virtually wiped out the Pequot nation. Some surviving women and children were sold as slaves in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or transported to the West Indies.

In 1676, the heads of Philip of the Wampanoags and his relatives were displayed on Plymouth blockhouse, his wife and child sold into slavery in Bermuda, and the few hundreds of survivors of the massacres transported as slaves, to the West Indies or Spain. It was effectively the end of the Wampanoag nation.

The Indians of Ohio: 'are more nearly allied to the Brute than to the Human Creation...no reason to conciliate this execrable race. I am fully resolved to... extirpate them root and branch.'

-Jeffrey Amherst.

George Rogers Clark, with the Kentucky militia, from 1779 onwards, struck at the Shawnees, killing many of their people, destroying houses and crops in the fields, driving the Shawnees into Indiana.

In 1782, frontiersmen massacred Christianized Indians at Gnadenhutten in Ohio.

Henry Knox as Secretary of War, informed Congress that settlers from Watauga, seizing lands in the heart of Cherokee country, were carrying out unprovoked outrages, amounting to 'an actual though informal war.'

I could of course, go on to the appropriation of Indian territory under Andrew Jackson, by a variety of means, through force and inequitable treaties, the various campaigns against the Plains Indians, massacres of Californian Indians (some for 'sport'), but I think the gist can be gathered from the early examples I've listed. I'm not singling out Anglo-Americans, because undoubtedly the Spanish and the Russian traders on the Pacific seaboard were equally bad, but blaming it on smallpox and influenza- did Colt manufacture viruses in those days?

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Admiral Stukov
The last ditch forum tactic of a debate... bail out while putting words in your opponents mouths to justify the retreat.

I told you exactly what I thought. But both in the post I referred to and in most others all you do is saying 'he sais this, but this is what he really means.' Talking about putting words in your opponents mouth...

edit: Now let's continue with the real discussion.

Molly Bloom: It's true the Americans treated the Indians cruelly, just think of the Cherokee. And indeed, just like the Europeans did.

About the colony status: England never was a colony of the continent in the way America was, that is, a region politically controlled by a distant country and totally settled by immigrants. The same goes for China and the Middle-East.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Two things.

America IN Civ games: Why? Interesting and enjoyable to play - and TRADITION. America was one of the first Civs (in the first Civ), thus my heightened sense of tradition requires it to stay there. IMO future Civs should have MORE Civs, adding to but not taking from the old ones.

Now I know the conversation has moved on, and it looks like ppl are no longer attacking America/Europe, but I have the itch to post my views. So, for the few who will actually read this :

I like Americans. In fact I have found that ppl from all cultures are agreeable and not arrogant, even when they are talking about their own country. BUT American patriotism will piss me off like nothing else on Earth. Why? It feels very irrational, even to me, but I think I have found why.

I am slightly patriotic myself, and will sometimes engage in a mocking contest with some Aussies I know, particularly when they beat us again in the cricket or netball or whatever.
BUT their patriotism, and that of many other countries doesn't bother me. I think Americans are MORE patriotic about MORE aspects of their country and Civilization than almost any other place on the planet. Many will die for their country/cause, but so many will defend America verbally and, some would say, excessively so, that it annoys those from other cultures. I have also noted that many other nationalities are willing to accept criticism about their country, but Americans will not. It is a preponderance that they can dislike aspects of their country, but somehow still love it enough to feel that it is important to defend it to the death when someone ELSE brings this dislike up. This is an admirable quality, but certainly irritates the hell out of me, as it is far more patriotic than I can imagine going.

As for the US being an amalgamation of many different cultures - yes it is. But what about the vast numbers of ppl and areas untouched by foreign influences? I have visited the US (albeit briefly), and my impression was that, yes, the coasts are very cosmopolitan. But as I moved inland, the variations got less and less, and I saw the America that others love to hate, and that they cite as the problem with Americans. These Americans were not necessarily racist or suchlike, but they had contact with ONE culture and had minds restricted by this lack of connection with the outside. It is possible to live in the US for life with minimal other-country or other-culture contact, and I believe this is why Americans are sometimes seen as bigoted and arrogant.

The sheer prevalence of Americana in the world today, especially thru such media as TV makes others feel that their culture is being sidelined. This is because Americans get on with American life, and we happen to see it overseas. I'm sure Americans would feel the same about my country, New Zealand, if they had to sit thru rather crap TV shows and movies made by Kiwis FOR Kiwis.

/sniif/ Can't we all just... get along now?

[Harovan]

Just a few small remarks:

The Americans I know are friendly and polite people and I really like them, although their (doubled after 9-11) patriotism (I call it nationalism) and this "Who-isn't-with-us-is-against-us" attitude sometimes sucks. And some might complain, but I don't count Hollywood (esp. after WWII) a big cultural achievement. (Right, the Oktoberfest in Munich isn't one either )

But that's not the point. The main subject of this thread is: Are the Americans worth to be a tribe in Civ3. And here's my humble opinion - yes they are! Right, Lincoln looks funny in the fur cap (a bit reminds Daniel Boone) and a summit of Abe with Cleo is something I grin about, but it isn't more ridiculous than a Babylonian aircraft carrier, threatening to bomb the Aztecs back to stone age. The ancient age with the Americans may look strange, but I can't think to play in the Modern Age without Uncle Sam.

Keep them in the game God bless America (never thought I would say this words some day...)

Just my 2 Euro-Cent.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
America IN Civ games: Why? Interesting and enjoyable to play - and TRADITION. America was one of the first Civs (in the first Civ), thus my heightened sense of tradition requires it to stay there. IMO future Civs should have MORE Civs, adding to but not taking from the old ones.

I am attached to traditions too - but I also think old mistakes should be corrected.

I don't have very much time right now so I can't react to the rest you said. But I agree with most of your other points - you gave a good and rational explanation.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The Americans I know are friendly and polite people and I really like them, although their (doubled after 9-11) patriotism (I call it nationalism) and this "Who-isn't-with-us-is-against-us" attitude sometimes sucks. And some might complain, but I don't count Hollywood (esp. after WWII) a big cultural achievement. (Right, the Oktoberfest in Munich isn't one either )

You take the words out of my mouth.

But that's not the point. The main subject of this thread is: Are the Americans worth to be a tribe in Civ3. And here's my humble opinion - yes they are! Right, Lincoln looks funny in the fur cap (a bit reminds Daniel Boone) and a summit of Abe with Cleo is something I grin about, but it isn't more ridiculous than a Babylonian aircraft carrier, threatening to bomb the Aztecs back to stone age. The ancient age with the Americans may look strange, but I can't think to play in the Modern Age without Uncle Sam.

But wouldn't it be better to let the Americans come in the game later, after an independence war? This has been said before, and it's a compromise which would improve Civ greatly.

At last some nice comments made by those who don't agree with the sentence in the title of this thread.

[oriel94]

America isn't old enough to be in Civ3?:

USA = 1776 (or 1587 if you count the date of first English colonisation)
Germany = 1871
United Kingdom = 1707 (or 1603 if you take it from the reign of James I, who was also James VI of Scotland)
India = 1947 (prior that that the British Empire, prior to that the Mughal Empire, prior to that the Persian Empire etc etc)

Sure, as civs the Germans, English and Indians are older in some available senses. But so are the Americans. Their civ, like those of the English, French, Germans and Russians are rooted in a broader and older European culture/civilisation. Euro-lefties resent the Americans in much the same way that a layabout on social welfare resents his younger, pushier, brasher, more optimistic, richer, more influential, stronger, more successful, and (supposedly) less sophisticated younger brother. This accounts for the chippy tone of many of the European contributers, and for the brash tone of many of the Americans.

And if we don't let the Americans come onto the scene until the 18th century, how about ensuring that the Egyptians, Romans, (Ancient) Greeks and Aztecs all disappear at about their alloted times. And what happens to dear old Portugal and Spain, for a two or three dazzling centuries both were world-wide superpowers. I could go on pointlessly like this for pages.

Civ 3 is just a game. It's not 'realistic' in a number of important ways, of which America's presence in 4000 BC is not the most noticeable. America's presence makes the game more fun. Isn't that enough?

For a much more realistic historical sim, try Europa Universalis 2. This is more historically life-like than Civ3, but IMHO less fun to play because it is more historically rigid (e.g. the Americans must fight their war of independence).

Anyway, I think America is now (the most important) part of a larger global Civ which consists of all the Anglophone democracies (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ; the 'Anglosphere'). That's just a general observational point that has nothing to do with appropriate game-play decisions for toys like Civ3.

[muppet]

Originally posted by oriel94
America isn't old enough to be in Civ3?:
And if we don't let the Americans come onto the scene until the 18th century, how about ensuring that the Egyptians, Romans, (Ancient) Greeks and Aztecs all disappear at about their alloted times. And what happens to dear old Portugal and Spain, for a two or three dazzling centuries both were world-wide superpowers. I could go on pointlessly like this for pages.

Fresno (see quote above):

I've waited a few days for a real reply to my intial post and vote, which I tried to word a little humorously/sarcastically to avoid a flame war.

This is where I get really confused about this whole colony and schism thing, and oriel94's questions/statements about the matter make it even more difficult for me to understand.

If America should not be introduced until we historically came into being, what about the European nations?

What do I do if I want to play Germany? Keep hitting the End Turn button until 800AD comes around? Then what? Voila! A settler appears in some remote un-settled island somewhere?

Who do I play against during the pre AD years if I choose to play China or Egypt or something like that? The point is, some of the European nations in the game weren't around either when Egypt and Greece were around.

I'm beginning to feel like oreil94 on this matter. It just feels like racism to me.

If you could explain this to me I'd be grateful. If I'm just in the way of a traditional flame war don't bother responding.

[Harovan]

This is not meant as a flame, and I voted for America, but I can also follow some arguments of the people who are against it. The initial tribes in Civ(I,II,III,CtP,CtP2) are not countries, but culturally and ethnically linked communities of people. That is what all other Civ3 tribes have and the Americans lack. They are an amalgam of almost all other cultures/ethnics. That doesn't make them bad of course (at the countrary!), but if we would strongly define the Civ3 tribes as ethically linked communities, the Americans are out.

Originally posted by muppet
What do I do if I want to play Germany? Keep hitting the End Turn button until 800AD comes around?

Ummmm... Who do you think was Hermann the Cheruskian (the Romans called him Arminius), who did badly beat up Varus and his legions in 9AD and stopped Rome's further expansion to the north? "Varus, Varus, give me my legions back". I know, in Civ3 categories they could be defined as "Barbarians", but Arminius was a leader of one of the Germanic tribes. And these tribes existed much longer. They may have been not so high cultures as Romans, Greeks and Egyptians, but nevertheless they existed.

[oriel94]

Oh dear ... Am I being drawn back into this never-ending thread?

The Americans are perhaps the only country to have created an 'ethnic' identity out of civic ideals. It is the constant reference by Americans to some of those civic ideals which irritates some of the 'blood and soil' Euro-bunch.

The ethnic identity might be a conscious creation, deliberately perpetuated through the generations, but that doesn't make it unreal.

Some European countries have done something similar - or tried to. Many Englishmen and even some Scots prefer to think of themselves as 'British'. Northern Italians have more in common with their non-Italian neigbours than people from Sicily. But the Italian State has tried hard to deliberately create an Italian 'people'.

Enough, enough! I feel the old madness returning.

It's just a game.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by oriel94
Oh dear ... Am I being drawn back into this never-ending thread?

I think you returned by your free will.

Originally posted by oriel94
The Americans are perhaps the only country to have created an 'ethnic' identity out of civic ideals. It is the constant reference by Americans to some of those civic ideals which irritates some of the 'blood and soil' Euro-bunch.

Without the Euro-bunch having taken away the native tribe's soil in a bloody way, neither USA nor Australia would exist the way the do at present.

Originally posted by oriel94
The ethnic identity might be a conscious creation, deliberately perpetuated through the generations, but that doesn't make it unreal.

Agreed.

Originally posted by oriel94
Some European countries have done something similar - or tried to. Many Englishmen and even some Scots prefer to think of themselves as 'British'. Northern Italians have more in common with their non-Italian neigbours than people from Sicily. But the Italian State has tried hard to deliberately create an Italian 'people'.

Neither Britain nor Italia are tribes in Civ3. I think there are far too much tribes in Civ3. I think, especially the European tribes should be reduced, may be having besides the classical civs (Romans/Greens) only one "Central/Northern European" or so tribe and remove English, French and Germans. May be making one more African, a Southern American and (yes!) an Australian or Oceanian tribe instead. The European cultures are not different enough.

Originally posted by oriel94
Enough, enough! I feel the old madness returning.

Three words: Increase your medication

Originally posted by oriel94
It's just a game.

Right, so let's play and not argue.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by oriel94

United Kingdom = 1707 (or 1603 if you take it from the reign of James I, who was also James VI of Scotland)

The civ is the English, not the British. There is a line of English Kings going back for over a millenium.

[muppet]

Oriel94 and Sir Ralph:

Thank you both!

Your recent posts have enlightened me greatly as to both the European and American sides of this debate. There is just too much noise and not enough music in the other posts.

Whether or not I agree or disagree with anything both of you have posted is entirely irrelevant -- I just like learning.

Thank you.

[Roadkill Quiche]

The game itself offers one rational criterion for American inclusion -- the modern wonders. Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Program are each major American achievements. Though most find it half-baked, the SETI Program is also American, and America was a major moving force behind the United Nations. While I doubt that there will ever be a single "Cure For Cancer" or "Longetivity in a Bottle," the human genome project (primarily American with minor European contribution) would likely provide the foundation for those wonders.

So, no America, no Modern Wonders -- unless you want to replace them with the Chunnel, the Euro, ABBA, or the 99% income tax.

[oriel94]

As I read it, the question which forms the title of this thread is quite clear. Is 'America' 'old enough' to be a civ in Civ3. Most contributors simply do not address this question at all, but employ the thread as a platform to air a number of opinions about quite different matters.

The question refers to 'America' and not 'the Americans'. This must mean the 'United States of America', and that interpretation would fit with the game civ's leader, its city names and its unique unit.

So, is the USA old enough to be in Civ3. The US was founded in 1776. If 'America' is not 'old enough' to be in Civ3, then neither is 'India' (1947) or 'Germany' (1871). If you're happy with that outcome, then fine - go ahead and argue that 'America' isn't old enough to be in Civ3.

You may object that 'the Indians' and 'the Germans' are the civs in Civ3 and that they are much older than the independent countries which bear their names. You might also add that the game includes 'the Americans' and not 'America'. You would be right, of course, but your objection would not be to the point: It would not address the question actually posed in the title to this thread.

For those uninterested in discussing the question actually put in the thread's title, might I suggest starting another thread with a more accurate title. How about, 'The Americans should be excluded from Civ3 because of their youth, success and crassness'. I would still argue against it, but at least we would be in the correct thread.

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by oriel94
You may object that 'the Indians' and 'the Germans' are the civs in Civ3 and that they are much older than the independent countries which bear their names. You might also add that the game includes 'the Americans' and not 'America'. You would be right, of course, but your objection would not be to the point: It would not address the question actually posed in the title to this thread.

Keeping in mind that 'the Americans' are now 510 years old as a people (1492). I think that fact, by itself, qualifies America as a Civ.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
The game itself offers one rational criterion for American inclusion -- the modern wonders. Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Program are each major American achievements. Though most find it half-baked, the SETI Program is also American, and America was a major moving force behind the United Nations. While I doubt that there will ever be a single "Cure For Cancer" or "Longetivity in a Bottle," the human genome project (primarily American with minor European contribution) would likely provide the foundation for those wonders.

So, no America, no Modern Wonders -- unless you want to replace them with the Chunnel, the Euro, ABBA, or the 99% income tax.

Methinks you do protest too much. The Manhattan Project was an international effort, in response to an international threat- Szilard, Fermi, Teller and Bohr being Europeans, as were the British scientists working on the project. Canadian First Nations bands dug out uranium ore, the Belgian Congo supplied uranium, and so on and so on.

The Human Genome Project is also primarily an international effort, involving amongst others, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan...

One also wonders where the American Apollo program would be without German rocket science. Vorsprung durch technik....

Some modern wonders discovered in Europe, and elsewhere- the helical structure of DNA. First test tube baby- Louise Brown of the United Kingdom. Synthetic blood created by Japanese scientist Ryochi Naito. First artificial satellite and first man in space, and first woman, too, the Soviet Union. First spacewalk- A. Leonov...of the Soviet Union.
First pulsar discovered by Jocelyn Bell of Cambridge University.
1991, Jodrell Bank detects planetary mass the size of Jupiter in orbit around a star...
Television? European. Radio? European and Canadian. Jet engines? European. The motor car? European. The hovercraft? European. First tidal flow power station? European. Tape cassettes? European.

After a while, this kind of chauvinist bean counting gets to be a drag, especially when you consider how much scientists and science rely on earlier inventors and discoveries, of whatever nationality or place of birth- anyone for the concept of zero, from India via Islam to the West?

Algebra?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by oriel94
For those uninterested in discussing the question actually put in the thread's title, might I suggest starting another thread with a more accurate title. How about, 'The Americans should be excluded from Civ3 because of their youth, success and crassness'. I would still argue against it, but at least we would be in the correct thread.

You did notice, that I voted for the Americans, did you? Your own words are, it's just a game, right? Ancient times are fun with Babs and Romans and the Americans seem a bit ridiculous, in modern times the American's are a must and Babs and Romans are a laugh. Look at Hammu's picture in the modern age . The American warrior or spear chucker is just as funny as the Zulu AEGIS cruiser.

Anyway. And what concerns your polemical issue about all these "Modern American Wonders": If even they were pure American achievements, it was a nice Golden Age, but the 20 turns are over since the mid of the 90's. Definitely. Just like the European GA is over long long ago. Like it or not.

[Dauphin]

molly bloom.

Have you heard of "Not invented there" syndrome?

Many countries peoples believe they are the first to invent something, and if they are not - well sometimes they just invent something slightly different so they can claim the invention for themselves.

Its also perpetuated by knowledge of one's own countries/regions history more than anothers. History lessons will often put disproportionate focus on one's own countries acheivements and inventions - giving the impression that other countries did next to nothing.

For example, I know a lot about the social and economic history of Britain from 1707 to modern day due to schooling, but I know next to nothing about the social and economic history of Spain or France during the same period.

[satyajedi]

By the way, it seems somewhat unfair to give the Americans any credit at all for the United Nations since it was the American Senate's opposition to the League of Nations that, among other factors, caused the league of nations to fail.

But hey guys, at least it is better than in Call To Power when the "Emancipation Proclamation" Wonder forced other nations to abolish slavery or face a tough diplomatic and domestic penalty. That had to be the biggest example of pro-American idocy ever. I mean, America *was* the first to abolish slavery, right? Oh wait, except for France. And Britain. And Germany (Germanic states) and Russia and Italy and pretty much every other nation in Europe. But man, once Lincoln signed the proclamation, the diplomatic pressure was really on Spain, let me tell you.

-Satya

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by satyajedi
By the way, it seems somewhat unfair to give the Americans any credit at all for the United Nations since it was the American Senate's opposition to the League of Nations that, among other factors, caused the league of nations to fail.

Doesn't that mean that the Americans effectively "made" the UN?

That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

Reminds me many failed UN resolutions. All countries "pro", one "contra" (US veto) and the whole thing is denied. I think, the USA should first pay their debts to the UN, before they use a veto again.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
molly bloom.

Have you heard of "Not invented there" syndrome?

Many countries peoples believe they are the first to invent something, and if they are not - well sometimes they just invent something slightly different so they can claim the invention for themselves.

Clearly, but some of the posters here have not- the notion that the Manhattan Project was an all-american affair is simply incorrect; I am not proselytising for some Eurocentric viewpoint, hence the reference to the transmission of the concept of zero, from India, via Islam, to Western Europe. Algebra,algorithms, gunpowder, paper- there are plenty of non-Western inventions and advances that get omitted, or 'unreferenced', as though the West or Europe or America were the 'fons et origo' of all scientific advancement. They ain't; they weren't; they won't be.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Clearly, but some of the posters here have not- the notion that the Manhattan Project was an all-american affair is simply incorrect; I am not proselytising for some Eurocentric viewpoint .

I didn't think you were, I was just trying explain the cause of the common misconception.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Doesn't that mean that the Americans effectively "made" the UN?
That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

And what is your statement with this? No country is perfect, but the power that America has, isn't used the way it should. Take the IMF for example, America forces poor countries to open their borders for American products. America ruins the global economy for their own goals. So I don't think this is an argument to keep them in.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oligarf
And what is your statement with this? No country is perfect, but the power that America has, isn't used the way it should. Take the IMF for example, America forces poor countries to open their borders for American products. America ruins the global economy for their own goals. So I don't think this is an argument to keep them in.

The original point I was answering was "the UN should not be credited to the US". My point was that the UN owes its ability to function to the US. You yourself have just said you beleive the US controls the UN for nefarious purposes.

Either way, the UN is *here because of/controlled by* the US. So should it not be partially credited to the US?

[Oligarf]

Sorry but that looks somewhat like saying the Jews got a home in Israel thanks to Hitler. Can't deny that, but to thank him for that, NO. The same for the US in the UN, there is no single reason to thank the US for the UN. As said, they ruined a same idea before the UN was founded.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oligarf
Sorry but that looks somewhat like saying the Jews got a home in Israel thanks to Hitler. Can't deny that, but to thank him for that, NO.

The situations are not the same and you know it.

The same for the US in the UN, there is no single reason to thank the US for the UN.

Would the UN exist without the US? I personally doubt it.

As said, they ruined a same idea before the UN was founded.

So you are saying that America has ruined the United Nations by its actions, and ruined the League of Nations by its non-membership?

There are problems with the US, it doesn't believe in a partnership where it is not the senior of the partner, it uses its power to exert authority etc... but despite the ills I still think the US has given more to the UN over the years than most countries.

If you can provide evidence (such as funds to the UN, troops provided to the UN etc) showing that other countries have done more for the UN than the US, please provide it, so that you may change my opinion.

[squeeze truck]

The problem here, it seems to me, is that people don't know how to distinguish a civilization from a nation-state.
America, England, France, and Germany are nations, not civilizations.

Think about it. Egypt, China, India, Greece, the Iriquois, the Zulu and the Aztecs all started from being pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer societies and grew into great empires with absolutely no outside help. (Some, of course, were greater than others...)

Persia and Babylon imitated Egypt, and Rome imitated Greece, but they developed independantly after that and could be called civilizations as well.

There is a European civilization, (sometimes called "Gothic" civilization), that developed after Rome collapsed. England, France and Germany are part of this civilization. They all have a common history, common ethnicity, common religion, and have developed along the same timeline (i.e., all converted to Christianity roughly together, all had their Renaissance and Enlightenment periods together, etc.)

America broke off from the English branch of Gothic civilization when England was close to the height of it's empire, and essentially hit the ground running. America never had to develop written language, religion, a legal system, a social order, a military system or anything -- they used the ones developed and perfected in Europe.
American wonders and achievements are further achievements of the 1000-year old Gothic civilization.

It is not at all unusual for one civilization to have many nations and languages. China recognizes over 50 dialects of chinese, and currently exists as 2 nation states (PRC, and Taiwan.) Indian civilization has just as many languages and exists as many more states (India, Bengaladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Pakistan.)

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Would the UN exist without the US? I personally doubt it.

Even if the US is responsible for the UN, who cares? What's so great about the UN?

The Allied powers created the UN after WWII by themselves, and made sure that they would stay in control of it. An extention of post-war empire is all it is, and there have been a hundred post-war treaties just like it.

UN resolution 242 is a perfect example. The UN "voted" to take a piece of land owned by one ethnic group, and give it to another ethnic group and called it Israel.

Do you think that the people who lived there or around there got to go to the wonderful UN and vote on that decision? Don't count on it.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There was a vested interest. I doubt the US would like to have woken up one day in the late 1940s to find a superpower Nazi Europe and a superpower Japanese dictatorship throughout Asia and the Pacific. America would probably enter the war at some point even if not directly attacked, out of necessity of stopping such a situation.

It might be worth remembering that if the Americans had not entered the war until a few years later (say 1944), they would have bombing raids and V3s raining down on Washington and New York in 1946.

That is false. Hitler lost WWII during the Russian campaign. (He was a better orator than strategist.) The the Americans and Brittish had an easy time landing at Normandy because Germany didn't have much left to send West.

However, even without Russia, Germany's "empire" was spread so thin and managed so poorly, even if they could have gotten off the continent I don't believe the "1000-year-reich" would have lasted more than 10 years. Armor is good for taking territory, but not very good at holding it.