|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 5, 2018 4:50:53 GMT
Complete and utter bullshit. Germany surrendered May 7th 1945. WOW! MCU fans really are dumb! If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach, the Nazis continue to control central Europe, including France, and the Nazis may very well have developed the atomic bomb first. It was because the US led the invasion of Normandy beach that led to the beginning of the end for the Nazis and prevented the Nazis from possibly developing the atomic bomb first. I've heard of moving the goal post but you didn't do that you changed the sport. tell me what part of this: Says anything to the effect of: If the US hadn't invaded Germany and removing them from power then they would've developed the Atomic Bomb first. You said and I quote "Sure, the US had allies in fighting WWII, but if the US hadn't developed the atomic bomb first, then the Nazis probably develop the atomic bomb first and the Allies don't win the war. " We are conversing in English. In English there is a thing called a Conditional Sentence. A Conditional Sentence is one that express factual implications, or hypothetical situations and their consequences. Conditional Sentences contains two clauses: the dependent clause expressing the condition, called the protasis; and the main clause expressing the consequence, called the apodosis. Your Protasis was " if the US hadn't developed the atomic bomb first" and your apodosis was "then the Nazis probably develop the atomic bomb first and the Allies don't win the war. " Your Protasis states nothing to do with invasion, dismantling the German army nothing. The only condition you set was "if the US didn't develop the bomb first" That's your only condition. You state nothing about invading your whole condition on German Scientist not creating the Atomic Bomb and winning the war was that the US created their Atomic Bomb first. Which is whole heartily bullshit. If you are going to call someone dumb learn how to write. Now that we've proven your first assertion wrong lets look to what you changed it too. Now to your new Conditional Sentence: First you should really use a "then" in the sentence. As in "If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach THEN the Nazis continue to control central Europe including France, and the Nazis may well have developed the atomic bomb first." The lack of a "then" and the run on sentence aside, your condition or protasis here is: If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach. Your apodosis is that Nazi's stay in power and may develop the Atomic Bomb first. This is different than your first Conditional Sentence when you state that Nazi's probably develop the Atomic Bomb first and the Allies Loose the war. You walk that back to just that the Nazi's might develop the Atomic bomb first in your second apodosis. Now lets look at the facts. The US entered the war in December 1941. In the European Theater this was mainly to add funds and weapons to England. In the Pacific Theater more hands on Military Force was used in the Beginning. By the end of 1942 the US had entered the War in the European Theater in Italy but that's it. We also engaged in the North African Theater. This was later consolidated to the Mediterranean Theater. Hence, this is why most people say the US Entered the European Theater at Normandy. The Normandy Invasion occurred on July 6, 1944. We tested our first Nuclear Bomb on July 16, 1945. It is your condition that if the United States didn't invade on Normandy in 1944 when it did within roughly 1 year the Germans Probably develop the Atomic bomb. No back tracking and say that the US giving funds and tech to England or entering the Mediterranean Theater may have diverted Funds from the Nuclear Program. It didn't, but you specifically said Normandy Invasion. So we have to ask the questions: 1. How close was the Nazi Germans to creating the Nuclear Bomb in July 6, 1944? Could they have created, tested, and then deployed a working Nuclear Bomb by July 1945? If the US never invaded Normandy in 1944.(The Manhattan Project spun up in 1942 and had solved most of the infrastructure problems of creating the bomb by end of 1944.) 2. Did the Invasion at Normandy Beach and the US entering The European Theater divert Financial Capitol from the Nuclear Program? 3. Did the Invasion at Normandy Beach and the US entering The European Theater divert more importantly Intellectual Capitol from the Nuclear Program? 4. Did the US and Allies destroy Nuclear Program assets that would have slowed down the production of a Nuclear Bomb between July 1944-1945? Without this destruction would Nazi Germany had developed a Nuclear Bomb before the US in July 1945? Lets take these in reverse order. 4. Did the US and Allies destroy Nuclear Program assets that would have slowed down the production of a Nuclear Bomb between July 1944-1945? Without this destruction would Nazi Germany had developed a Nuclear Bomb before the US in July 1945? The answer to the first question is no. One of the Major blows to Nazi Germany's infrastructure to build Nuclear Fission (as a bomb or reactor) was the Moderator. It's part of the machine that slows down the reaction. Germany's Scientists chose to go with Heavy Water not Graphite. Making pure Graphite was almost impossible for Germany to make before the war let alone during. Norway had started to produce Heavy Water before the War this can be used as a Moderator. It was readily available, or so Germany thought. French Underground removed a lot of the Heavy Water, before Germany invaded Norway. Norwegian Spies and the Allies from 1940-1944 destroyed Norway's production of Heavy Water. This happened BEFORE the US was directly involved in the European Theater. The Other Blow to Nazi Germany's infrastructure to build Nuclear Fission machine was their ability to get Uranium Isotope as fissionable material. They first went down the wrong path scientifically. They didn't start down the path of Centrifuges to get the material until 1940. By then they were already short on funding and people at the beginning of the war. WELL BEFORE THE US ENTERED THE EUROPEAN THEATER OR WAR. By all reports the US did nothing in the year after Normandy that would've slowed down their Program. 3. Did the Invasion at Normandy Beach and the US entering the European Theater divert more importantly Intellectual Capitol from the Nuclear Program? The short answer is no. When the US entered the European Theater the Nazi Scientific community wasn't diverted to other aspects of the war machine from the Nuclear Program. It did happen though. It happened WELL before the US entered. The first such diversion happened in the 30's when Germany purged undesirables from the scientific community. That's not all, seeing how Germany was turning in the 30's a large percentage of German Academia left Germany. Another point I'll make later, but will touch on here is there wasn't much Political Will to create an Atomic Bomb. The Nazi's didn't see it as a viable option. They did see Nuclear Fission as a source of power as viable. 2. Did the Invasion at Normandy Beach and the US entering the European Theater divert Financial Capitol from the Nuclear Program? Again the short answer is no. Germany's War Machine was seeing war shortages throughout the Reich well before Normandy. The way Germany structured the Nuclear Department, they put most of the funding and scientists on Nuclear Fission Power Plants not bombs. In as such the Nuclear Program's funding for bombs didn't suffer at the hands of the Us entering the War or the losses it took at the beginning of US invasion. 1. How close was the Nazi Germans to creating the Nuclear Bomb in July 6, 1944? Could they have created, tested, and then deployed a working Nuclear Bomb by July 1945 if the US never entered the European Theater? Not very close at all. After purging undesirables and the academia leaving Germany in the 30's they were at a Intellectual Disadvantage. In the 30's the Government was supportive of Deutsche Physik aka Aryan Physics. This was seen as Classic Physics and was against the new physics of the day. The new Physics of the day was? Quantum Mechanics, Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The Reich was against the basic Science you need to understand to even create Fission. Throughout the 30's even with the backlash against "new" physics inroads were being made. In 1939 the Academic Pursuit of Nuclear Fission was overtaken by the Government. They structured it using 3 different Programs (The Reactor, Heavy Water Production, and Uranium 235 separation). It's thought that because they lacked Great Scientific Minds in 1939 the original plans were doomed. First they got sidetracked for 2 years on a way to separate Isotopes of U235 on a tangent that never would've worked. It's said that German Army Scientist didn't use Graphite as a Moderator, not solely because it would be neigh impossible to produce pure Graphite in 1939-44 Germany. One of the lead Scientists didn't think that Pure Graphite would work as a Moderator. Which Surprise it Can. In 1942 WELL BEFORE INVASION The Heereswaffenamt, The German Army Ordnance Office, decided that NUCLEAR FISSION WOULD NOT AS A WEAPON help end the war. The HWA turned that research over to The Reichsforschungsrat, Reich Education Ministry. It was the Academics that from 1942 onward studied Fission as a Weapon not the Ordnance Office. Under the REM they separated the study of Nuclear Fission as a weapon into 9 different departments with very little interaction between departments. They spread what little Intellectual Capitol they had even thinner. The Government didn't believe in the Nuclear Bomb so they intentionally put it on the back burner. They took it out of major funding and gave it back to the egg heads in Academia. Long Story short. Your first Conditional was wrong. Your Second Conditional was also Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 5, 2018 7:09:43 GMT
Complete and utter bullshit. Germany surrendered May 7th 1945. WOW! MCU fans really are dumb! If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach, the Nazis continue to control central Europe, including France, and the Nazis may very well have developed the atomic bomb first. It was because the US led the invasion of Normandy beach that led to the beginning of the end for the Nazis and prevented the Nazis from possibly developing the atomic bomb first. Yes US helped destroy the Nazi's, but USSR did a lot more. They would've continued to do more if the US didn't intervene. The outcome wouldn't have been as Favorable to us though. With the USSR in control of most of Europe. The US and England tends to down play USSR's role. They aren't who you think of when you think of the "Good Guys." So not good for propaganda and history texts for kids/teens. The US killed 400,000 Germans in roughly a year on the Western Front. The USSR killed 4 million Germans in little less than 4 years. The USSR went from 3 million trained troops on the Eastern European Front with a shit ton of people being fed to USSR's ARmy Training in 1941 to 7 million troops in 1943. Just under 7 million by the end of the war. Germany started off strong with 4 million troops on the Eastern Front in 1941 to a little less than 4 million troops by 1943 to under 2 million by wars end. The year between US entering the Western Front of the European Theater to when they created the bomb would've still gone badly for Germany. They weren't pushing for a bomb as I've pointed out before. Stalin gave no fucks at all at throwing men at the Eastern Front. Some estimates I've read put's Stalin and USSR in Berlin in about 3 months to a year after Germany and Hitler fell with the US not entering the Theater. Edit: The 4 million Germans killed by USSR from 1941 to 1945 doesn't include the millions they took into POW camps or the 100,000's of German Troops who died of disease, exposure, and suicide. Mostly the first 2. You can place Germany's downfall completely at the feet of Hitler when he turned against them. The USSR almost single handily caused Germany's short comings when it came to troops, armament and funds. Also what most American High School and even some College level courses won't tell you. Most likely Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was because USSR joined the Pacific Theater breaking their Neutrality Pact with Japan in between the two bombings. That's a lesson for another time.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 5, 2018 9:31:07 GMT
I chose the US winning World War II. What has the moon landing done for us? Why wasn’t I born on the moon? Why aren’t I living on the moon right now? Why am I not hanging out with Pluto Nash, Zenon, and Dr. Evil? Can I enlist in the Starship Troopers? No. I can’t. Damn you Armstrong. And I’ll see you in Hell, Buzz Aldrin. it's a matter of perspective and time.
Most scientist will pick the moon landing a the most important step from a scientific (not political) perspective. It is the first time mankind was able to reach another celestial body, and in the long run was the starting point to colonize the Moon and later Mars and/or Titan etc.
Then again, the first satelite in orbit and the first monky, dog and man in space might be equally relevant, but Sputnik, Gagarin and Russian pet names just sound less patriotic than Armstrong.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 5, 2018 10:15:33 GMT
I chose the US winning World War II. What has the moon landing done for us? Why wasn’t I born on the moon? Why aren’t I living on the moon right now? Why am I not hanging out with Pluto Nash, Zenon, and Dr. Evil? Can I enlist in the Starship Troopers? No. I can’t. Damn you Armstrong. And I’ll see you in Hell, Buzz Aldrin. The Tangible things? Well a lot of the technology we use today has roots in the Apollo missions which is the reason we have NASA. The start of miniaturizing computing power it may seem Archaic and Ancient, but NASA drove for smaller faster computers. This raised the demand for computer parts which made the economics of building Micro Computers for the Home a viable business. Tv Satillites Dishes, "fireproof" material for Firefighters, CT Scans/MRI, The F'ning Joy Stick for video games, Smoke Detectors, and Batt Operated Power Tools. The Apollo Missions drove NASA's creation and consolidated our best minds. NASA and thus Apollo is the reason we have GPS, Weather Satellites, and the proliferation of Communication Satellites. Some more intangible things. The way things are discovered/explored usually takes a pattern with humans. If it's something large first Government has to pave the way. It's too expensive for single people to do. The Government makes the first attempts which once it's done, private business comes in. Business makes a profit of it while bringing it to the masses. It could be The Catholic Church (a government entity in everything but name except when it was the Government) creating cross Country Banking during the Crusades in Europe. Governments exploring the Western Hemisphere then people coming after making money. The Internet and now Space Travel. If NASA didn't blaze the trail the Satellite grid we have in space used by the Private Sector wouldn't exist. Me personally I wouldn't have 35mbps down and 5mbps up speed internet. I would be stuck with dial up. I live in Bumbfuck SC which means 4G Cell Internet or Sat. Internet. My land sits on a large deposit of Iron Ferrite and is ferromagnetic. It fucks with Cell signals, but not Sat signals. Only option is Sat Internet. The Intangible. Apollo Missions, NASA, and to a degree the early Shuttle Program was always reaching for the future. The World of Tomorrow, The Home of Tomorrow, what are we doing now that is damaging our Future. The First Earth Day occurred in 1970. We were forward thinking during that time because what we were doing was Hard but with enough Human Ingenuity, National Treasure, and Hard Work we could make that future. We've lost that. We are so concerned with the Present or Past now. The Future now is a commodity we sell or mortgage so we can have a comfortable now. The Future seems like hard work and asks to much of us. Part of the problem might've been the order which we did things. Excuse the pun but we shot for the Moon then settled for space trucking. Literally that's what the Shuttle Program was thought of. We should've done the "Space Trucking" first then eventually go for the Moon. Then we would still be building. Maybe after space trucking, the moon landing, short term moon base, the longer term moon base, then business steps in where we go from there? Who knows. The Political Will at the time had to be the Moon, we had to prove our system of Government and Business was right. So we shot for the impossible and succeeded after that everything seems a step back.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 5, 2018 11:21:21 GMT
Considering that Germany had surrendered months before the first atomic bomb was dropped And who led the Normandy beach invasion that was the beginning of the end for the Nazis after the Nazis had pretty much taken control of most of central Europe including France? Wasn't it some guy named Eisenhower? Wasn't Eisenhower an American? Are you one of those "if it weren't for the USA in WWII you'd all be speaking German by now" types? You know, the ones that think only two or three countries were involved in Operation Overlord? The type that think the war in the Pacific was won by USA alone (amazing how many films on the subject ignore the Aussie, India, British, Chinese etc contribution). You know, the type that exposes an uglier, ignorant minority in the USA that gives their country a bad image.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 5, 2018 11:29:32 GMT
Complete and utter bullshit. Germany surrendered May 7th 1945. WOW! MCU fans really are dumb! If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach, the Nazis continue to control central Europe, including France, and the Nazis may very well have developed the atomic bomb first. It was because the US led the invasion of Normandy beach that led to the beginning of the end for the Nazis and prevented the Nazis from possibly developing the atomic bomb first. There you go kids...if you like MCU films, any history you believe in is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 5, 2018 20:56:56 GMT
Which was more important for humanity? I don't know about the importance for humanity, but Black Panther doing was well as it did is certainly the most flabbergasting (Yep, I said flabbergasting). Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but 700 mill domestic? Wow.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2018 23:12:34 GMT
Most likely Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was because USSR joined the Pacific Theater breaking their Neutrality Pact with Japan in between the two bombings. 1st, most likely USSR joined the Pacific Theater in between the 2 bombings because USSR realized that Japan was going to surrender and US was going to win the war in the Pacific and USSR wanted to join in on the spoils of war. 2nd, NO, Japan didn't surrender because of USSR joining the Pacific Theater. The Japanese value Honor above all else so USSR joining the Pacific Theater wouldn't have been enough to make them sacrifice their Honor by surrendering. Heck, 1 atomic bomb would've been enough to make any other country surrender immediately, but the Japanese valued Honor so much that not even 1 atomic bombe was enough to make them surrender immediately. It was only with the 2nd atomic bomb that they realized they had no other choice but to surrender, but only on the condition that the Emperor didn't have to abdicate since abdication would've been the ultimate dishonor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 0:04:46 GMT
The moon! That's the accomplishment that tells the other accomplishments to hold its beer.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 6, 2018 15:49:44 GMT
The Allied Powers winning World War II
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 6, 2018 17:48:38 GMT
WOW! MCU fans really are dumb! If the US doesn't lead the invasion of Normandy beach, the Nazis continue to control central Europe, including France, and the Nazis may very well have developed the atomic bomb first. It was because the US led the invasion of Normandy beach that led to the beginning of the end for the Nazis and prevented the Nazis from possibly developing the atomic bomb first. Yes US helped destroy the Nazi's, but USSR did a lot more. They would've continued to do more if the US didn't intervene. The outcome wouldn't have been as Favorable to us though. With the USSR in control of most of Europe. The US and England tends to down play USSR's role. They aren't who you think of when you think of the "Good Guys." So not good for propaganda and history texts for kids/teens. The US killed 400,000 Germans in roughly a year on the Western Front. The USSR killed 4 million Germans in little less than 4 years. The USSR went from 3 million trained troops on the Eastern European Front with a shit ton of people being fed to USSR's ARmy Training in 1941 to 7 million troops in 1943. Just under 7 million by the end of the war. Germany started off strong with 4 million troops on the Eastern Front in 1941 to a little less than 4 million troops by 1943 to under 2 million by wars end. The year between US entering the Western Front of the European Theater to when they created the bomb would've still gone badly for Germany. They weren't pushing for a bomb as I've pointed out before. Stalin gave no fucks at all at throwing men at the Eastern Front. Some estimates I've read put's Stalin and USSR in Berlin in about 3 months to a year after Germany and Hitler fell with the US not entering the Theater. Edit: The 4 million Germans killed by USSR from 1941 to 1945 doesn't include the millions they took into POW camps or the 100,000's of German Troops who died of disease, exposure, and suicide. Mostly the first 2. You can place Germany's downfall completely at the feet of Hitler when he turned against them. The USSR almost single handily caused Germany's short comings when it came to troops, armament and funds. Also what most American High School and even some College level courses won't tell you. Most likely Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was because USSR joined the Pacific Theater breaking their Neutrality Pact with Japan in between the two bombings. That's a lesson for another time. I was going to post this, thanks for saving me the effort. The 'beginning of the end' for the Reich was Hitler deciding to attack the USSR in the first place. Some modern historians have started to downplay America's role in WWII a bit too much, but I suppose it's only fair considering how the USSR has been written (at least here in the states) as an ally who happened to be there helping the United States as opposed to the major contributing factor in Germany's ultimate downfall. Quite honestly, the Allied push from the west was just as much about saving Western Europe from the USSR as it was about liberating it from Nazi control. (Just as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were more about raising eyebrows in Moscow than they were about getting Japan to capitulate.) Looks like WWII and geopolitics in general are just more subjects to add to the list of things DC Fan knows nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2018 2:57:06 GMT
Most likely Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was because USSR joined the Pacific Theater breaking their Neutrality Pact with Japan in between the two bombings. 1st, most likely USSR joined the Pacific Theater in between the 2 bombings because USSR realized that Japan was going to surrender and US was going to win the war in the Pacific and USSR wanted to join in on the spoils of war. 2nd, NO, Japan didn't surrender because of USSR joining the Pacific Theater. The Japanese value Honor above all else so USSR joining the Pacific Theater wouldn't have been enough to make them sacrifice their Honor by surrendering. Heck, 1 atomic bomb would've been enough to make any other country surrender immediately, but the Japanese valued Honor so much that not even 1 atomic bombe was enough to make them surrender immediately. It was only with the 2nd atomic bomb that they realized they had no other choice but to surrender, but only on the condition that the Emperor didn't have to abdicate since abdication would've been the ultimate dishonor. 1st USSR had secretly promised to join the Pacific Theater to the US at Yalta. 2nd As a concept the Japanese love Honor, but had been using USSR as a Neutral party in their part of the War. What had they been using them as a neutral party for? They were using the USSR as a go between since the end of 1944 to talk terms of Surrender with the Allies. 3rd. As a go between the USSR was ok to use, but if they were the Occupying Military the Ruling Class and the Aristocratic Class feared USSR invading Japan. Less than 50 years ago the USSR killed their Aristocrats. 4th The USSR swept through Japan's Puppet state of Manchukuo (NE China and Inner Mongolia today) in between the bombings. They would've done the same thing to Japan easily from Manchukuo. 5th Japan saw no difference of a destroyed city with 1 bomb vs 2000 bombs. Considering that the US dropped 150,000 tons of bombs on Japan 1, 2 or 6 more destroyed cities meant nothing. After the 1st Nuclear Bomb The Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (Japanese Big 6 War Council) didn't change anything and were planning on doing nothing different if the rumors of the US having 5-10 more nuclear bombs were true. What did change their plans? USSR entering the Pacific Theater. 6th The US had no Control or any Persuasion on what the USSR did in the War. When the USSR landed in Japan during an active war Japan knew that the USSR would go after the Ruling Class. 7th Why did Japan go to the US instead of the USSR to Surrender? They had been using the USSR as a go between to talk Surrender for better part of a Year. They knew they would get better terms from US not the USSR. 8th The US entering the European Theater (Funny how you dropped your moronic argument on that part of the war) was mainly about Germany, but it was also to stop USSR controlling more of Europe. The Bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more about the US showing the USSR what new Bomb we had more than ending the Japanese war sooner. Hoover even talked to Stalin about the Nuclear Bombs, something you don't normally do with an Ally. We knew through the talks that the Big 6 War Council of Japan with USSR that they wanted to Surrender well before the Bombings. 9th I said that it was MOST LIKELY that Japan Surrendered because of USSR entering the war. I didn't say it was only because of that. History isn't this set in stone thing most people think it is. It's created by people's actions and people act weirdly and counter intuitively. History is also dictated by the winners of the war. So It may not have been because of USSR. It Might've been solely because of the Bomb. It might've been a combination of the 2. All I know is the US and Allies (Churchhill) down played the USSR involvement in the European Theater. Showing that the USSR was the main reason why Germany was losing men, tanks, and land throughout the War wasn't something the Allies could use in Propaganda. It's safe to say that the USSR involvement in Japan surrendering and the use of the Nuclear Bombings, even in a small part, to show USSR what we had flew directly in the face of what the US wanted the story to be.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 7, 2018 3:40:47 GMT
Why did Japan go to the US instead of the USSR to Surrender? Because the US was the one dropping the atomic bombs.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2018 4:15:01 GMT
Why did Japan go to the US instead of the USSR to Surrender? Because the US was the one dropping the atomic bombs. On the world stage the US would've had to stop the bombings if Japan surrendered to any member of the Allies and stopped the War. The US then and now care about how the world stage views us. (Little Less now) It's the main reason that Japan got to keep their figurehead Emperor. How would it look if the US used the most devastating bomb ever on civilians, twice then they derailed the ending of the war talks when Japan wanted to keep him as a figure head? It would look horrible, so we let Japan keep him. Their main propaganda for using Nuclear Bombs was to stop the war. If Japan stopped the war by going to the USSR then the US had to stop the bombings or their justification of using the bombs would be nulled. So, no it wasn't because the US was the one using Nuclear Bombs. Edit: In the secret talks Japan had with the Allies their main contention was keeping the Emperor in some fashion. The Allies didn't want this. Meaning the Allies could've ended the war in the Pacific Theater in 1944 without use of the Nuclear Bomb if they let Japan keep the Emperor as a figure head Monarch. After the US used Nuclear Bombs "To End the War and Save Lives" they couldn't very well not let them Keep him to end the war. The USSR was poised to invade Japan and the US wasn't. (not within hours or days) A nuclear bomb could destroy yes, but the rumor at the time was that the US had 5-10 bombs at the most. Turns out we only had 2 and were making 4 more swiftly. What could do more damage to the people? (especially the ruling class?) There are things worse than death. And even by that point Stalin had a reputation. Yeah the US interned Japanese Americans, but the USSR put their own people in death camps. Also those German POWs I was talking about earlier? Every able bodied POW they got was death marched to Gulags. If you were part of what the USSR called the Bourgeoisie and you were about to invaded and controlled directly by them who would you choose? Considering the USSR, at least in public, hated the Bourgeoisie, there would have to be some public show of how the Proletariat dealt with them. The US was controlled by Industrialists, Business Men, and Powerful Men. Now the Japanese War Council and the Emperor had no other choice to deal with an Invasion by the USSR or Deal with the more Favorable, Rich Men ruled US. The US who showed they would intern their own people but wouldn't kill and torture their own like the USSR.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2018 5:14:52 GMT
Yes US helped destroy the Nazi's, but USSR did a lot more. They would've continued to do more if the US didn't intervene. The outcome wouldn't have been as Favorable to us though. With the USSR in control of most of Europe. The US and England tends to down play USSR's role. They aren't who you think of when you think of the "Good Guys." So not good for propaganda and history texts for kids/teens. The US killed 400,000 Germans in roughly a year on the Western Front. The USSR killed 4 million Germans in little less than 4 years. The USSR went from 3 million trained troops on the Eastern European Front with a shit ton of people being fed to USSR's ARmy Training in 1941 to 7 million troops in 1943. Just under 7 million by the end of the war. Germany started off strong with 4 million troops on the Eastern Front in 1941 to a little less than 4 million troops by 1943 to under 2 million by wars end. The year between US entering the Western Front of the European Theater to when they created the bomb would've still gone badly for Germany. They weren't pushing for a bomb as I've pointed out before. Stalin gave no fucks at all at throwing men at the Eastern Front. Some estimates I've read put's Stalin and USSR in Berlin in about 3 months to a year after Germany and Hitler fell with the US not entering the Theater. Edit: The 4 million Germans killed by USSR from 1941 to 1945 doesn't include the millions they took into POW camps or the 100,000's of German Troops who died of disease, exposure, and suicide. Mostly the first 2. You can place Germany's downfall completely at the feet of Hitler when he turned against them. The USSR almost single handily caused Germany's short comings when it came to troops, armament and funds. Also what most American High School and even some College level courses won't tell you. Most likely Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was because USSR joined the Pacific Theater breaking their Neutrality Pact with Japan in between the two bombings. That's a lesson for another time. I was going to post this, thanks for saving me the effort. The 'beginning of the end' for the Reich was Hitler deciding to attack the USSR in the first place. Some modern historians have started to downplay America's role in WWII a bit too much, but I suppose it's only fair considering how the USSR has been written (at least here in the states) as an ally who happened to be there helping the United States as opposed to the major contributing factor in Germany's ultimate downfall. Quite honestly, the Allied push from the west was just as much about saving Western Europe from the USSR as it was about liberating it from Nazi control. (Just as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were more about raising eyebrows in Moscow than they were about getting Japan to capitulate.) Looks like WWII and geopolitics in general are just more subjects to add to the list of things DC Fan knows nothing about. I didn't put the secondary goal of stopping Stalin in Germany or for us to show Stalin our new toy of destruction as I was getting long winded already. I made sure to put that in, in later posts. I also edited out that it wasn't always a known fact which side of the the War we would enter in WW1 or WW2. Japan kind of sealed the deal with Pearl Harbor though. Churchill had started a campaign to guilt trip the US into the war on England's side at the end of 1940. He wanted to gather every bit of English Gold from its people. Wedding Rings, Jewelry, Teeth, etc and present it to Roosevelt publicly in that form for help.
|
|