Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-14-2019, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Central Washington
1,664 posts, read 866,379 times
Reputation: 2941

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
You are assuming the A-Bomb ended the war.
They did. From Hirohito's speech:

Quote:
The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2019, 11:29 AM
 
585 posts, read 489,299 times
Reputation: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
You are assuming the A-Bomb ended the war.

No I am not assuming, it's a fact that two of them did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2019, 12:05 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,029,785 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
did you read my link in post #212?
yep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2019, 12:06 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,029,785 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjinnj View Post
No I am not assuming, it's a fact that two of them did.
Fact? An assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2019, 06:34 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 3,984,277 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Fact? An assumption.
so the emperor was lying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 03:54 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,029,785 times
Reputation: 2154
He was told what to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 06:50 AM
 
585 posts, read 489,299 times
Reputation: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
He was told what to say.

So for those of us that think differently than you, please fill us in on what you think caused Japan to surrender? Why the emperor was lying? Who fed him the lies? Why did they feed him the lies? Please do not assume we know the version you believe, be specific with facts to back up your statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,584,231 times
Reputation: 17966
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
He was told what to say.
By whom?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 11:23 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,029,785 times
Reputation: 2154
You think he made that speech up by himself? Please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,672,350 times
Reputation: 19314
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
The real issue is with Hitler taking his focus off Britain and turning to Russia. If he puts 100% into Britain they win and Stalin would have been kept at bay.
There are two things wrong with this idea.

First, Germany put everything it had into the Battle of Britain. It wasn't enough. The RAF was downing more Luftwaffe planes than vice versa, while the UK was producing more new aircraft than Germany. An absolute prerequisite to invasion would be air superiority. But even that wouldn't have been enough in this particular instance, because the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy regardless of the situation in the air. And one of the Kriegsmarine's real strengths - u-boats - was irrelevant in the case of invading Britain because the English Channel is too shallow and narrow for them to operate safely. Really, the whole idea of Hitler's flotilla of river barges floating troops across the Channel in the face of the Royal Navy is beyond ludicrous.

The only chance Germany had to bring the UK to her knees would be a blockade. That would have taken years to work, and would only have worked had the supply line to North American not been kept open by the U.S. and Canada, and even with the U.S. not in the war, they weren't going to let that critical link be severed.

Second, Hitler wasn't just looking at the chessboard of Europe and wondering who to invade next. For nearly two decades he had preached that the Bolsheviks were Germany's mortal foreign enemy and that territory in the east must be seized for German settlement. At the same time, Hitler had repeatedly claimed - in Mein Kampf and countless speeches - that Britain and Germany were natural allies. He was wrong (he really didn't understand what made Britain tick) but he admired their exploitive imperialism on a scale the world has never seen before or since, and their Germanic-ness. Hitler was surprised when the UK and France went to war over Poland. His moves West in 1940 were to check the threat to his flank so he could then proceed East. Even when Germany defeated France, it didn't annex it, save for German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine. The farmland is relatively poor in western Europe generally compared to the coveted granaries of Ukraine, and it's even worse on Britain. Hitler had no interest in major territorial acquisitions in the West. His moves there were to eliminate threats that might interfere with his Eastern designs.

So the whole idea of Hitler ignoring the USSR and focusing on the West is nonsensical in the context ofwho Adolf Hitler was and what he believed. Furthermore, the USSR was going to be less vulnerable in 1942 than it was in 1941. Waiting would have made Germany's prospects at victory in the East even dimmer. Hitler at least saw that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Without Britain as a basis the Americans would have had a far far more difficult time gaining footholds in Europe. Likely in that case we would have had to focus on fighting Japan at first. Meaning a much more naval focused war with likely far far higher death tolls.
Again, Germany had no way of seizing Britain. It simply could not cross the Channel. The Royal Navy would have utterly mauled the ad hoc flotilla Germany was planning to use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top