Why didn't the British stopped America from nuking Japan? (Roman, economic, Russian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lots of revisionist history. For the thousands of American servicemen who did not have enough overseas service points from Europe to be discharged there was the prospect of amphibious landings on the Japanese home islands. Something like a million casualties were forecast. It was kill or be killed.
Because the Brits were a wasted, worn-damaged nation that had been saved by the U.S. and the Russians. They were in no position of power, beyond Churchill's puffed out lower lip.
These 'wasted Brits' fought Hitler ALONE while the rest of Europe and the wider world coward! Both the Americans AND Russians can thank what Churchill called 'the few' for defeating Hitler in the Battle of Britain or there would have been NO Dday and NO second front.
Because the Brits were a wasted, worn-damaged nation that had been saved by the U.S. and the Russians. They were in no position of power, beyond Churchill's puffed out lower lip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
These 'wasted Brits' fought Hitler ALONE while the rest of Europe and the wider world coward! Both the Americans AND Russians can thank what Churchill called 'the few' for defeating Hitler in the Battle of Britain or there would have been NO Dday and NO second front.
While I don't agree with the first poster's condescending tone, the fact is that these two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. The British stood strong and held the line against Hitler, and set the indispensable groundwork for the ultimate victory over the Nazis. But in so doing, they completely wore themselves out, and ultimately needed to be saved by the Americans and the Russians.
This is one American whose admiration for British courage and tenacity during World War II will never fade. If anyone truly deserved to be saved, it was them.
But that’s not the question. The issue was ending the war immediately and the nukes along with the invasion of the Soviet Union finally gave Japan no choice.
They were at a high risk of being wiped off the face of the map. They did not have the personnel like he Soviet Union (or China) to just stomach endless defeats. That was the last war for empires and colonialism.
While I don't agree with the first poster's condescending tone, the fact is that these two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. The British stood strong and held the line against Hitler, and set the indispensable groundwork for the ultimate victory over the Nazis. But in so doing, they completely wore themselves out, and ultimately needed to be saved by the Americans and the Russians.
This is one American whose admiration for British courage and tenacity during World War II will never fade. If anyone truly deserved to be saved, it was them.
They did not, the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain would not be invaded, the British would most certainly NOT have had the power to invade Europe in 44 without the Russians and the US (and others) is true but there again neither would the US or Russia without Britain, the US likes to think it 'saved our ass' (surprise surprise eh) that is apparent the reality is though that the RAF 'saved our ass'. Or as Churchill so eloquently put it - Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
They did not, the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain would not be invaded, the British would most certainly NOT have had the power to invade Europe in 44 without the Russians and the US (and others) is true but there again neither would the US or Russia without Britain, the US likes to think it 'saved our ass' (surprise surprise eh) that is apparent the reality is though that the RAF 'saved our ass'. Or as Churchill so eloquently put it - Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
But for American involvement The "Battle of Britain" would have only delayed the inevitable. Without lend-lease and later, direct support from the US, England would have been starved into submission or at the very least bottled up on their island.........
But for American involvement The "Battle of Britain" would have only delayed the inevitable. Without lend-lease and later, direct support from the US, England would have been starved into submission or at the very least bottled up on their island.........
But for American involvement The "Battle of Britain" would have only delayed the inevitable. Without lend-lease and later, direct support from the US, England would have been starved into submission or at the very least bottled up on their island.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
And you base this on what exactly!?
This is a topic that has come up on this forum before.
The reality is that the UK had done a pretty good job of fighting the Germans off during the Battle of Britain.
I am an American and the role of America in World War II was critical, but we take too much credit for "saving Britain". Its true that the Americans provided aid to Britain, but its probably too strong a statement to claim that "Britons would have been starved into submission".
All of this also ignores the role of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany.
The difference America probably made in the war was t he difference between a stalemate in the war and the actual defeat and occupation of Nazi Germany and Japan.
Perspective is critical. I really wish citizens in all the countries that opposed Germany and Japan would realize that there is glory enough for all. World War II is the story of countries with many diverse interests banding together to defeat the country that posed the single greatest threat to civilization. All of us did our part. All of us deserve credit.
This is a topic that has come up on this forum before.
The reality is that the UK had done a pretty good job of fighting the Germans off during the Battle of Britain.
I am an American and the role of America in World War II was critical, but we take too much credit for "saving Britain". Its true that the Americans provided aid to Britain, but its probably too strong a statement to claim that "Britons would have been starved into submission".
All of this also ignores the role of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany.
The difference America probably made in the war was t he difference between a stalemate in the war and the actual defeat and occupation of Nazi Germany and Japan.
Perspective is critical. I really wish citizens in all the countries that opposed Germany and Japan would realize that there is glory enough for all. World War II is the story of countries with many diverse interests banding together to defeat the country that posed the single greatest threat to civilization. All of us did our part. All of us deserve credit.
This is a topic that has come up on this forum before.
The reality is that the UK had done a pretty good job of fighting the Germans off during the Battle of Britain.
I am an American and the role of America in World War II was critical, but we take too much credit for "saving Britain". Its true that the Americans provided aid to Britain, but its probably too strong a statement to claim that "Britons would have been starved into submission".
All of this also ignores the role of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany.
The difference America probably made in the war was t he difference between a stalemate in the war and the actual defeat and occupation of Nazi Germany and Japan.
Perspective is critical. I really wish citizens in all the countries that opposed Germany and Japan would realize that there is glory enough for all. World War II is the story of countries with many diverse interests banding together to defeat the country that posed the single greatest threat to civilization. All of us did our part. All of us deserve credit.
Yes very good post, no UK no Dday, no US no Dday, no Russia no Dday, and that doesn't take into account the Canadians or Aussies or the rest of the allies - without the work the resistance did behind enemy lines would Dday have succeeded? The fact is its notoriously hard to invade from the sea, that's why the UK has been able to fight off its European 'friends', the Spanish Armada, Napolean and Hitler (among others) when they tried to invade, that's why, when it comes to its 'forces' the UK has always put most of its 'money' into the navy, the Dday invasion took the COMBINED might of all of the Allies, a bit of trickery in throwing the Germans off the scent AND some luck to succeed and even then it was a close run thing, it wouldn't of succeeded without the combined effort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
