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.
your problem with the seven more nukes comment is that after the nagasaki bomb was deployed, we had no more bombs. if we were going to invade, it would have been without nuclear weapons until we made more.
The invasion was planned for months after the Nagasaki bombing. More nukes were in the making.
And it isn't "my comment", as you say.
Do a search for Operation Coronet (invasion of Kyushu) and Operation Olympic (invasion of Honshu) for the particulars. These were the plans laid out in the broader Operation Downfall for the conquest of a Japan that wouldn't surrender.
Fortunately for them and everyone else involved, they did.
All things considered, Harry Truman made the right call. The only call.
perhaps, perhaps not. at that time making a nuclear bomb was not an easy process, even though we had made three of them. and beyond enriching the uranium, there is still the making of the triggers to properly detonate a bomb and have it go nuclear, the triggers at the time were not all that reliable.
but i do agree that truman made the right call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci
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.
very true. as i have noted, take out one of the big three pieces on the board, and world war two turns out very differently, with much of europe under nazi rule in a negotiated peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
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
without d day there would be no second front to take the pressure off the eastern front, and hitler would have moves at least 15 divisions there to stop the soviet advance. so while the war would have still ended, it would have been a negotiated end, and as i noted before much of europe would be under nazi control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci
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.
actually it was the battle of midway. japan lost four fleet carriers, and went on the defensive for the rest of the war. that was the turning point of the war in the pacific.
The US War planners nailed the date of Hitlers defeat almost to the day back in ‘42. They had another date if Russia lost and Great Britain too. But the war was going to be won.
And Russians and Germans killing each other was not a bad thing for us back then.
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.
Compared to the Germans, Japans war machine, men and tactics where laughable..
The US War planners nailed the date of Hitlers defeat almost to the day back in ‘42. They had another date if Russia lost and Great Britain too. But the war was going to be won.
And Russians and Germans killing each other was not a bad thing for us back then.
Patton was right. We should have re-armed the Germans, and attacked the Soviet Union.
Patton was right. We should have re-armed the Germans, and attacked the Soviet Union.
The Germans loved Patton because he talked like a man. They respected him, and he despised the Russians so they had that in common.
I get so sick of this stupid argument that the Russians won the war because they killed so
many Germans. Like sending an entire generation of your men to die in wasteful battles is somehow a good thing.
The US would have defeated Germany. And they wouldn’t have lost 20 million soldiers doing it.
Wouldn't have worked. The numbers weren't feasible.
The U.S. had total air dominance in Europe, and would have against the Soviet Union. The Russians would have been bombed into submission. Their tanks would have disappeared from air attacks as would their troops. Also, we were the only country with THE BOMB.
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.
