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.
The U.S. did. Though not without a great deal of help. And I guess it's not really the same thing, because our fronts were not on the soil of the continental United States, as Germany's ended up being for their country.
England provided some of the most important pieces of technology for winning WW2 other than the atom bomb. They helped develop radar, sonar, the modern computer for code breaking and the basis for the proximity fuze. Without question Alan Turning's work and the proximity fuze saved a ton of lives. The Soviets were too decimated to provide a lot of technical contributions, they did the most to defeat Hitler on the battlefield though. As always, these threads devolve into stupid arguments of who 'won' WW2. The allies don't win without the US. The allies don't win without Russia. The allies don't win without the UK. It was a team effort.
Last edited by fibonacci; 05-11-2018 at 02:16 PM..
once again reading comprehension is not your strong point is it? you seem to forget that is said "if you take the US out of the war" part.
and it was the two bombs, specifically the second bomb, that convinced the emperor to capitulate and surrender to the allies. up until the dropping of the first bomb on hiroshima, the emperor was still all for staying in the war, despite the damage to the infrastructure. you see he realized that the ENTIRE japanese population would get into the fighting, in fact they were being trained to fight by the military using what ever weapons they could get their hands on.
and that meant that instead of fighting just the military of perhaps what 2 million soldiers, we would have had to fight the ENTIRE population of japan amounting to something more like 50 million or more.
that first bomb gave the emperor pause that one bomb could level a city and kill 80 thousand people. but he didnt react fast enough for truman, so the second mission was sent, and nagasaki was leveled with another 100 thousand killed. even then however, there were elements in the military that refused to surrender, and they attempted a palace coup against the emperor. the emperors forces prevailed though and the surrender was sent.
Lol. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. You might want to work on yours though. What I said was that without D-day, it would have taken longer, but Germany defeat was unavoidable, and no additional divisions could have changed the outcome at that point.
Again, it was not those two bombs that did it. Japanese infrastructure was already long destroyed by huge amount of conventional bombing. They knew, it was over.
Well, to quote someone who was there: The Japanese soldier who tried to kill him in Burma on August 4th didn't seem ready to give up. He was emaciated, had rags for a uniform and an improvised bamboo spear as a weapon - but he still tried to charge a British rifle section. And died.
Even when higher command levels made proper tactical decisions to withdraw, the individual soldiers simply did not surrender when faced with an enemy.
Interesting fact: US officers in Allied high command didn't want formal surrenders where Japanese soldiers in ranks saw their officers hand over swords to Allied officers. It would cause the officers to lose face, possibly to the point of suicide, and their men might no longer obey them.
Field Marshal Slim ignored that directive and said after the war that loss of face was the point of the exercise, that every Japanese officer wishing to commit suicide would be given ample opportunity, and that he separated men and officers anyway. And that General Kikura's sword looked good on his mantelpiece.
Hitler and Europe were also only half the battle though. People in the west routinely ignore the fact that the Chinese suffered nearly as much as the Russians,and it pretty much WAS the US that defeated the Japanese empire. If we weren't so western centric, the war in the Pacific would be talked about much more.
Lol. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. You might want to work on yours though. What I said was that without D-day, it would have taken longer, but Germany defeat was unavoidable, and no additional divisions could have changed the outcome at that point.
Stalin didn't Island hop, had no viable air craft carriers or submarines and airforce to control the Pacific. What really broke Japan's back was the largest Naval battle in history - the Battle of Leyte Gulf - which crippled Japan from having vital access to a lot of oil.
Stalin didn't Island hop, had no viable air craft carriers or submarines and airforce to control the Pacific. What really broke Japan's back was the largest Naval battle in history - the Battle of Leyte Gulf - which crippled Japan from having vital access to a lot of oil.
Not in this sense. They were trying to negotiate with the Soviets before that. For better surrender terms. Once Soviet Union declared war on them, there was no way forward
Lithuanians are Slavic, a race, Baltic is an area, a sea. Lithuanians in Britain look the same as Poles , Latvians, even Russians. The Brits look like Brits
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.
