Find some that don't - apart from TrumanSpark wrote:
You mean the ones that you agreed with a priori.
Fuck Israel
perhaps, my knowledge of said negotiations is pretty damn vague and imposed by hippie liberal history teachers.Spark wrote:
You mean the peace negotiations to end the war the USSR declared after Hiroshima had been bombed? And you mean the peace negotiations with a Stalin who had territorial amibitions in Japan and was executing a war plan to take them?
USSR invaded Manchuria after the first bombing... Still some big battles there.
yeah I'm aware of the battles that were fought between the USSR and Japan (from Khalkin Gol to the ending stages in manchuria), but I wasn't sure about stalin's ambitions with japan and crapHITNRUNXX wrote:
USSR invaded Manchuria after the first bombing... Still some big battles there.
I am just saying the single biggest conflict between Japan and the USSR happened AFTER the bombing, and neither side wanted to back down... So to say they were in peace negotiations before then may be accurate, but not meaningful... Kinda like how technically there are peace negotiations constantly going on between Israel and Palestine... But nobody takes them seriously.
Blaming the French for their own defeat is like blaming the Polish for being conquered. Who "won" or "lost" doesn't mean jack unless you put it into the appropriate context. Without a Soviet or Nazi style government their defeat was inevitable. The UK would have suffered the same fate were it not for the English channel protecting them.
Yeah, it makes you wonder whether anyone has successfully mounted a defense against a determined enemy without massive militarization of themselves. (brb making new thread)Spearhead wrote:
Blaming the French for their own defeat is like blaming the Polish for being conquered. Who "won" or "lost" doesn't mean jack unless you put it into the appropriate context. Without a Soviet or Nazi style government their defeat was inevitable. The UK would have suffered the same fate were it not for the English channel protecting them.
If the USSR had not joined in with the Allies then WWII would have been lost long before USA got involved. Yes USA helped but arguably their involvement was about the same as Britain. WWII was between USSR and Germany.
Yeah all those allied bombings of German factories and infrastructure didn't do shit.
Not to mention tying up the Luftwaffe
Not to mention tying up the Luftwaffe
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
wat. If we didn't do it the soviets would have anyways. Tying up the luftwaffe? Barbarossa and the ground support missions that were required destroyed the strength of most of the luftwaffe in engagements with the Red Air Force. The top Allied ace in WWII was a soviet.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah all those allied bombings of German factories and infrastructure didn't do shit.
Not to mention tying up the Luftwaffe
I think that statement is too bold, to be honest. If Germany only had one front, and Japan only had one front, then things might have gone a lot different on poor old Mother Russia.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
If the USSR had not joined in with the Allies then WWII would have been lost long before USA got involved. Yes USA helped but arguably their involvement was about the same as Britain. WWII was between USSR and Germany.
hey ok this is cool but the spitfire owned so just throwing that in the mix
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Japan didnt get involved till they saw USA with its pants down.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I think that statement is too bold, to be honest. If Germany only had one front, and Japan only had one front, then things might have gone a lot different on poor old Mother Russia.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
If the USSR had not joined in with the Allies then WWII would have been lost long before USA got involved. Yes USA helped but arguably their involvement was about the same as Britain. WWII was between USSR and Germany.
From modern day simulators it still wasnt quite as good as the German stuff.FatherTed wrote:
hey ok this is cool but the spitfire owned so just throwing that in the mix
Japan got involved in 1937 - long before the US were involved...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Japan didnt get involved till they saw USA with its pants down.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I think that statement is too bold, to be honest. If Germany only had one front, and Japan only had one front, then things might have gone a lot different on poor old Mother Russia.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
If the USSR had not joined in with the Allies then WWII would have been lost long before USA got involved. Yes USA helped but arguably their involvement was about the same as Britain. WWII was between USSR and Germany.
WW-II
70 million dead;
30 million Chinese dead, mostly at the hands of the Japanese
30 million Russian dead, mostly at the hands of Russians or Germans
6 million Jewish, 3 million of those Polish Jews
4 million everyone else
70 million dead;
30 million Chinese dead, mostly at the hands of the Japanese
30 million Russian dead, mostly at the hands of Russians or Germans
6 million Jewish, 3 million of those Polish Jews
4 million everyone else
Bertster7 wrote:
Japan got involved in 1937 - long before the US were involved...
...Although Japan was already at war with China in 1937,[2] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939
Also this is relevant to deaths above.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-05-16 13:45:52)
When Japan had already been involved for 2 years...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Japan got involved in 1937 - long before the US were involved......Although Japan was already at war with China in 1937,[2] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939
The date that WWII started is only considered to be 1939 because no one cared about East Asia. Many historians (the more sensible ones) now class 1937 as the start of WWII.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-05-16 13:44:36)
Might as well include Abyssinia and Spain then?Bertster7 wrote:
When Japan had already been involved for 2 years...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Japan got involved in 1937 - long before the US were involved......Although Japan was already at war with China in 1937,[2] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939
The date that WWII started is only considered to be 1939 because no one cared about East Asia. Many historians (the more sensible ones) now class 1937 as the start of WWII.
Don't you mean Italy...?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Might as well include Abyssinia and Spain then?Bertster7 wrote:
When Japan had already been involved for 2 years...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
...
The date that WWII started is only considered to be 1939 because no one cared about East Asia. Many historians (the more sensible ones) now class 1937 as the start of WWII.
They were the ones at war with Abyssinia...
Or do you mean the Spanish civil war? I certainly wouldn't count that - but Abyssinia, maybe. Italy were very involved in WWII, so it's certainly relevant.
But in any case, Japan were very involved in warring long before the US got involved and added a second front.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-05-16 13:53:15)
meant spanish civil war that was basically Germany vs USSR...and was still ongoing in 37..Bertster7 wrote:
Don't you mean Italy...?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Might as well include Abyssinia and Spain then?Bertster7 wrote:
When Japan had already been involved for 2 years...
The date that WWII started is only considered to be 1939 because no one cared about East Asia. Many historians (the more sensible ones) now class 1937 as the start of WWII.
They were the ones at war with Abyssinia...
Or do you mean the Spanish civil war? I certainly wouldn't count that - but Abyssinia, maybe. Italy were very involved in WWII, so it's certainly relevant.
But in any case, Japan were very involved in warring long before the US got involved and added a second front.
Missed the last point, Japan were involved but not in Europe.
If the question was how important was the US for ending the China/Japan war that would have a different answer :p
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-05-16 13:58:34)
England stubbornly stood their ground during WW-II, regardless of how grim the outcome looked.
Japan was nuked twice, then still had to think about whether or not to surrender, or keep fighting to the last woman and child.
(see also: isolated Japanese soldiers, left on minor islands, that kept fighting for 20-50 years after the war ended)
Russia kept fighting, despite losing so many men that their population still hasn't recovered completely.
France surrendered, fearing the Germans would otherwise destroy their priceless historical structures.
And that, folks, is how you take a fierce reputation as a former 1000 year world superpower, and turn it into a reputation as effete chain-smoking coffee-guzzling surrender monkeys in a year flat.
Japan was nuked twice, then still had to think about whether or not to surrender, or keep fighting to the last woman and child.
(see also: isolated Japanese soldiers, left on minor islands, that kept fighting for 20-50 years after the war ended)
Russia kept fighting, despite losing so many men that their population still hasn't recovered completely.
France surrendered, fearing the Germans would otherwise destroy their priceless historical structures.
And that, folks, is how you take a fierce reputation as a former 1000 year world superpower, and turn it into a reputation as effete chain-smoking coffee-guzzling surrender monkeys in a year flat.
Well, it's all semantics isn't it. I'd certainly consider the Sino-Japanese war a part of WWII rather than a totally distinct war as there was a lot of overlap and China was an Allied power and Japan was an Axis power - whereas in your examples that is not the case, they were over before 1939 (well, before the invasion of Poland anyway) - whereas the Sino-Japanese war ended on the same day as WWII.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
meant spanish civil war that was basically Germany vs USSR...and was still ongoing in 37..Bertster7 wrote:
Don't you mean Italy...?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Might as well include Abyssinia and Spain then?
They were the ones at war with Abyssinia...
Or do you mean the Spanish civil war? I certainly wouldn't count that - but Abyssinia, maybe. Italy were very involved in WWII, so it's certainly relevant.
But in any case, Japan were very involved in warring long before the US got involved and added a second front.
Missed the last point, Japan were involved but not in Europe.
If the question was how important was the US for ending the China/Japan war that would have a different answer :p
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-05-16 14:13:14)
I missed the "% of population" and read this as Lithuania had the second most military deaths in the war... I was about to go study like crazy... lolCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Japan got involved in 1937 - long before the US were involved......Although Japan was already at war with China in 1937,[2] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939
Also this is relevant to deaths above.
take that backCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
From modern day simulators it still wasnt quite as good as the German stuff.FatherTed wrote:
hey ok this is cool but the spitfire owned so just throwing that in the mix
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella