[DeEJaYMiND]

And if the Germans didnt over engineer basically everything the war could have had a different outcome. The Tiger tanks while vastly superior to the Allies Sherman tanks the Shermans outnumbered them greatly. Repairing the Tigers was a major pain in the ass and they were expensive to produce.

Yeah! It was all about numbers by the end. Even on soldiers. Just look at the numbers the Soviets sent to the front.

I would put the Mustang over the ME262. The Mustang gave that final edge to the Allies for complete air dominance far out weighing what the 262 did.

IMHO, I think that in equal numbers the Me 262 would had the upper hand ;)

[MechDX]

Yeah! It was all about numbers by the end. Even on soldiers. Just look at the numbers the Soviets sent to the front. IMHO, I think that in equal numbers the Me 262 would had the upper hand ;)

Just like my over Germans could have won if the didnt over engineer comment yours about the 262 is based on speculation. ;)

[GTP_Daverytimes]

I think the biggest reason wasn't necessarily the racism in America toward Japanese (which was pretty harsh) but because of fallout. You drop the bomb on Japan and it's on an island. You drop a bomb on a European city and the fallout could hypothetically blow over to one of their allies.

They didn't know anything about fallout at the time, remember they were planing to use Nukes as tactical weapons.

[weekend_warrior]

IMHO, I think that in equal numbers the Me 262 would had the upper hand ;)

Of course, it was far away the most advanced figter plane during the world. But it was too complicated and expensive to build, and the Nazi's probably been better off spending the money and time on building a larger fleet of conventional fighters. The Mustang on the other hand was incredible important in the war as a bomber escort.

[fizzelopeguss]

hitler was always a moron his elite posse of commanders were pretty much responsible for the military battle victories many of those commanders thought a russian invasion was batshit insane but hitler wouldn't listen

The generals also thought an invasion of france was insanity, hitler was a gambler and russia was a gamble one too many. If it wasn't for the t-34/kv tanks being all but invulnerable to german armour in those critial early stages...barbarossa probably would have been another hitler masterstroke.

[Alpha-Bromega]

The generals also thought an invasion of france was insanity, hitler was a gambler and russia was a gamble one too many. If it wasn't for the t-34/kv tanks being all but invulnerable to german armour in those critial early stages...barbarossa probably would have been another hitler masterstroke.

if you want to see a good insight as to why 200 years of Prussian brilliance somehow was prevented in military terms, watch Downfall (Untergang). The prussian sense of honor in the Higher Pseudo-Noble ranks kept many of the generals to Hitlers side to the very end because of their oath, even as he was moving imaginary companies on the map and the Russians were surrounding them.

In fact I think this is actually an often overlooked aspect of WWII, is that it was Hitler who finally ended the Prussian dominance (which was certainly not ended with the Weimar Republik) over Germany for he promised them a rebirth of the Military and a strong Germany, but replaced or got rid of the Prussian commanders after he finally took power.

[Something Wicked]

This may sound crazy but does anybody think that it may have been not so bad if Hitler won the war? I mean if he did Communism never would have spread and would have killed a lot less than "80-100 million people". Think about it: - No Great Leap Forward starvations - No Pol Pot - etc.

While I think you framed the alternative history scenario too openly and with a very unrealistic assumption, to me it still presents one of the ultimate "what if's" of history.

I think instead of saying "what if Hilter won the war," you could asked "what if: during Operation Barbarossa, the Germans went initially south to the Russian oilfields instead of attempting to capture Moscow. Then, if successful, regrouped and then attempted a Moscow assault in the spring of 1942. If successful, the Germans may have drove the Soviets to the Urals and then perhaps killed Stalin and many of the Soviet leaders by 1943. The Soviet government would have been destroyed and perhaps never reconstitute as it existed in actual post-WWII history.

However, a Soviet defeat would not likely ensure a German victory, as D-day still would have occurred and eventually the Allies would have nukes. If Germany had not surrendered by 1945, German cities would have been potential targets for nuclear strikes, as a Soviet defeat would not likely change the US/UK's air superiority over Germany.

So, then after the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan's defeats by 1945 (or perhaps 1946), the US would have been even more powerful relative to any other country in the world at the time. While the Chinese Civil War still would have resumed after WWII, the US could have supplied and aided the Chinese nationalists with more impunity without the fear of Russian Soviet retaliatory escalation. Also, other communist revolutions would either had to face American/British/French/...Russian/Chinese resistance or never see much backing from a foreign power."

So yeah, the world could have been much better off with Stalin's defeat, though many still would have died- just different people in far less numbers.

[fizzelopeguss]

However, a Soviet defeat would not likely ensure a German victory, as D-day still would have occurred.

If the soviet union fell britain would have signed a cease-fire.

[Something Wicked]

If the soviet union fell britain would have signed a cease-fire.

Yeah... no. You think Churchill would have signed a cease-fire with Hitler?...

Even if the Germans retreated back to their 1930s borders after a "victory" against the Soviets, the UK and US still would have bombed Germany proper, until the Nazi regime fell. Once Hitler sent his troops into Poland, his fate was sealed.

[Blackace]

Yeah... no. You think Churchill would have signed a cease-fire with Hitler?... Even if the Germans retreated back to their 1930s borders after a "victory" against the Soviets, the UK and US still would have bombed Germany proper, until the Nazi regime fell. Once Hitler sent his troops into Poland, his fate was sealed.

Nope, this is not true.. The US didn't enter the war at all until they were attacked. They might have joined and bombed them proper.. but the US gave a fuck about Poland...

[Boogie9IGN]

I've been watching WWII in HD Color and damn does it look pretty

[Something Wicked]

Nope, this is not true.. The US didn't enter the war at all until they were attacked. They might have joined and bombed them proper.. but the US gave a fuck about Poland...

The US entered the war in December 1941. In my alternative history scenario, Germany doesn't kill Stalin and much of the Soviet leaders in the Urals, until some point in 1943-probably no earlier than the summer. The US would already have forces fighting Germans in Africa and have many troops stationed in Britain preparing for D-Day.

In the words of General Anthony McAuliffe, the US/UK response to the Hitler asking for a cease-fire in 1943 would be "Nuts!"

[fizzelopeguss]

Yeah... no. You think Churchill would have signed a cease-fire with Hitler?...

Frankly it would have been taken out of his hands, the Eastern Front was the meatgrinder churning up the wehrmacht by the millions. A British front, with british and commonwealth troops dying anywhere near those sorts of numbers would have been unacceptable.

A hypothetical churchill still making flowery speeches of "we will fight them on the beaches" with an enemy now in control of the vast resources of the soviet union? he'd be making those speeches in a padded cell.

[weekend_warrior]

While I think you framed the alternative history scenario too openly and with a very unrealistic assumption, to me it still presents one of the ultimate "what if's" of history. I think instead of saying "what if Hilter won the war," you could asked "what if: during Operation Barbarossa, the Germans went initially south to the Russian oilfields instead of attempting to capture Moscow. Then, if successful, regrouped and then attempted a Moscow assault in the spring of 1942. If successful, the Germans may have drove the Soviets to the Urals and then perhaps killed Stalin and many of the Soviet leaders by 1943. The Soviet government would have been destroyed and perhaps never reconstitute as it existed in actual post-WWII history. However, a Soviet defeat would not likely ensure a German victory, as D-day still would have occurred and eventually the Allies would have nukes. If Germany had not surrendered by 1945, German cities would have been potential targets for nuclear strikes, as a Soviet defeat would not likely change the US/UK's air superiority over Germany. So, then after the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan's defeats by 1945 (or perhaps 1946), the US would have been even more powerful relative to any other country in the world at the time. While the Chinese Civil War still would have resumed after WWII, the US could have supplied and aided the Chinese nationalists with more impunity without the fear of Russian Soviet retaliatory escalation. Also, other communist revolutions would either had to face American/British/French/...Russian/Chinese resistance or never see much backing from a foreign power." So yeah, the world could have been much better off with Stalin's defeat, though many still would have died- just different people in far less numbers.

If Operation Barbarossa was more successful and Russia backed out of the war shorty afterwards, Germany would have been almost unbeatable. They would have so much more territory and resources, and without the pressure from the east they would amass a huge defensive front along Western France and Northern Africa. The Allies, and the US in particular, would have had to thrown so much at them to gain a foothold, and I'm really not sure the US would have been willing to do that. There is no guarantee we would have used nukes either, for a number of reasons. 1) No guarantee we would have been able to get the bomber over Berlin or any meaningful city, 2) in retaliation Hitler might have killed 10's of millions of POW's and civilian captures, and 3) Germany was close to their own nukes, which they would then not hesitate to use on London.

All things considered if the Allies didn't have the power of the Soviets pushing from the east I thing there's a good chance they would have signed a cease fire.

[Flying_Phoenix]

So yeah, the world could have been much better off with Stalin's defeat, though many still would have died- just different people in far less numbers.

Again while I was on your side I may be treading different. If Hitler won Nazi Germany would have taken Soviet Union's place as the other superpower. Not only that but they would have been notable more powerful than America (remember many of the scientists that led the military and space race of the Cold War were the Nazi scientists. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Hilter outsourcing totalitarian dictatorships to other nations in the form of "pure race society".

[Cat Party]

If Operation Barbarossa was more successful and Russia backed out of the war shorty afterwards, Germany would have been almost unbeatable. They would have so much more territory and resources, and without the pressure from the east they would amass a huge defensive front along Western France and Northern Africa. The Allies, and the US in particular, would have had to thrown so much at them to gain a foothold, and I'm really not sure the US would have been willing to do that. There is no guarantee we would have used nukes either, for a number of reasons. 1) No guarantee we would have been able to get the bomber over Berlin or any meaningful city, 2) in retaliation Hitler might have killed 10's of millions of POW's and civilian captures, and 3) Germany was close to their own nukes, which they would then not hesitate to use on London. All things considered if the Allies didn't have the power of the Soviets pushing from the east I thing there's a good chance they would have signed a cease fire.

I don't see any realistic alternate scenario were the war is not fought to the bloody end. The Russians would have kept fighting even if the Sixth Army made it to Moscow. The English would not have quit trying to avenge the Blitz.

Germany's successes stretched them out just as their failures did. The Allies would have had a much harder time fighting through France if the Germans had their elite troops in the West instead of the East, but that wouldn't have stopped the Allies. Once the US became involved, the showdown on continental Europe was inevitable.

[JohnTinker]

My grandfather on my mother's side was head over all logistics for D-Day. He died in 1989 and when my grandmother passed away a few years ago we went into the attic and found his handwritten notes for OPERATION OVERLORD dated 1944, with "TOP SECRET" stamped on the top & bottom of every page. We nearly had a heart attack when we found them. One of my uncles made copies of all of them, and we sent the originals to the D-Day museum in New Orleans, where they have put some of them on display (or so we've been told). Found out that Ike was his direct boss too.

[Loxley]

WWII was always my favorite subject in history class growing up. Maybe it's because both of my grandfathers served; one was a telecommunications operator on Iwo Jima and the other was an the infantry on Guadalcanal. I've always been fascinated by it, so consider me subscribed to this thread :)

Also, whenever I think of WWII, the first thing that comes to my head? This track from John William's SPR score. Hauntingly beautiful piece. Makes me tear up almost every time I listen to it.

My grandfather on my mother's side was head over all logistics for D-Day. He died in 1989 and when my grandmother passed away a few years ago we went into the attic and found his handwritten notes for OPERATION OVERLORD dated 1944, with "TOP SECRET" stamped on the top & bottom of every page. We nearly had a heart attack when we found them. One of my uncles made copies of all of them, and we sent the originals to the D-Day museum in New Orleans, where they have put some of them on display (or so we've been told). Found out that Ike was his direct boss too.

Wow, that's really an amazing find. Can't imagine what my reaction would be if I came across something like that.

[Something Wicked]

Frankly it would have been taken out of his hands, the Eastern Front was the meatgrinder churning up the wehrmacht by the millions. A British front, with british and commonwealth troops dying anywhere near those sorts of numbers would have been unacceptable. A hypothetical churchill still making flowery speeches of "we will fight them on the beaches" with an enemy now in control of the vast resources of the soviet union? he'd be making those speeches in a padded cell.

If Operation Barbarossa was more successful and Russia backed out of the war shorty afterwards, Germany would have been almost unbeatable. They would have so much more territory and resources, and without the pressure from the east they would amass a huge defensive front along Western France and Northern Africa. The Allies, and the US in particular, would have had to thrown so much at them to gain a foothold, and I'm really not sure the US would have been willing to do that. There is no guarantee we would have used nukes either, for a number of reasons. 1) No guarantee we would have been able to get the bomber over Berlin or any meaningful city, 2) in retaliation Hitler might have killed 10's of millions of POW's and civilian captures, and 3) Germany was close to their own nukes, which they would then not hesitate to use on London. All things considered if the Allies didn't have the power of the Soviets pushing from the east I thing there's a good chance they would have signed a cease fire.

All right, in no likely alternative scenario would have the Germans have easily defeated the Soviet armies. It would have taken until summer of 1943 by the absolute earliest and more likely into 1944- perhaps after D-Day. Just as many, if not more, German troops would have died in the final pushes into the Urals and the last stand of Stalin's forces. Germany's forces would be stretched way too thin from defeating the USSR and Russian resistance groups would be harassing supply lines making Russian gains nearly worthless. The victory would have been a complete Pyrrhic one.

Meanwhile, the US war machine would already be well out-producing Germany and the combined US and British navies would still be winning against the same number of U-boats that Germany actually constructed during those times. US and British armies didn't fight like the Russians either- there would have been no "meatgrinder offensive." More German troops in the Western front would have had required the Allies to conduct more bombing runs and advance at a slower pace into Europe. Honestly, once the US entered the war, Nazi Germany's defeat was inevitable. Hitler's only shot was if he had many more U-boats produced, but such a massive expansion of naval stations would been seen by the Allies, alarmed them, and led them to conduct all-out assaults on those ports.

Also, Nazi Germany wasn't close to nuclear weapons. The German nuclear program was gutted from the top scientists, many of them being Jewish, bailing out of country.

[Draxal]

One of the more interesting things about WWII is the military production numbers.

1. Once the American production engine switched completely over to military, the numbers it was producing was insane, outproducing the Axis countries by itself(although the Lend-Lease does muck up the numbers a bit).

2. Albert Speer was a genius, he kept the German numbers up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II

[Kabouter]

One of the more interesting things about WWII is the military production numbers. 1. Once the American production engine switched completely over to military, the numbers it was producing was insane, outproducing the Axis countries by itself(although the Lend-Lease does muck up the numbers a bit). 2. Albert Speer was a genius, he kept the German numbers up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II

The US never switched over completely to military, and was even already switching back to consumer goods towards the end of the war. America's economy was so incredibly powerful that it didn't need to fight a total war like Germany or the USSR.

[ZZMitch]

Some that always kind of confused me about the World Wars was how Germany was able to build up such a formidable military between World War I and World War II. Did the allies just not enforce the Treaty of Versailles after the war or something? There were French troops stationed in the Rhineland right?

[Kabouter]

Some that always kind of confused me about the World Wars was how Germany was able to build up such a formidable military between World War I and World War II. Did the allies just not enforce the Treaty of Versailles after the war or something? There were French troops stationed in the Rhineland right?

The Rhineland, as far as I know, was demilitarized. And Germany was able to build a formidable military largely by ignoring Versailles, first in secret, then when Hitler saw France was not willing to fight, openly. Tbh, I still think France should have showed its teeth when Germany re-occupied the Rhineland, had it done so then, I think that would have scared Hitler off from messing around with Versailles too much, at least temporarily.

[Furoba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...uclear_weapons

Operation Downfall (invasion of the japanese home islands) would have been the craziest operation in history. Especially regarding the proposed 'tactical' use of nuclear warheads.

The US still has huge stocks left (+100.000 from the original 500K) of purple hearts that were made in anticipation of huge US military casualties.

[ZZMitch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...uclear_weapons Operation Downfall (invasion of the japanese home islands) would have been the craziest operation in history. Especially regarding the proposed 'tactical' use of nuclear warheads. The US still has huge stocks left (+100.000 from the original 500K) of purple hearts that were made in anticipation of huge US military casualties.

Wow. That operation alone would probably have doubled the US fatalities from the whole war.

[Dmented]

Wow. That operation alone would probably have doubled the US fatalities from the whole war.

But it's still not a good reason for us to use nukes in a lot of peoples eyes. We should of just had a ground invasion and result in a ton more deaths.

[numble]

But it's still not a good reason for us to use nukes in a lot of peoples eyes. We should of just had a ground invasion and result in a ton more deaths.

Nuke the ocean.

[evil solrac v3.0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...uclear_weapons Operation Downfall (invasion of the japanese home islands) would have been the craziest operation in history. Especially regarding the proposed 'tactical' use of nuclear warheads. The US still has huge stocks left (+100.000 from the original 500K) of purple hearts that were made in anticipation of huge US military casualties.

using the nukes was the only way out. what if the operation had hit any number of snags/ what if people started to tire of it?

[Acid08]

My grandfather on my mother's side was head over all logistics for D-Day. He died in 1989 and when my grandmother passed away a few years ago we went into the attic and found his handwritten notes for OPERATION OVERLORD dated 1944, with "TOP SECRET" stamped on the top & bottom of every page. We nearly had a heart attack when we found them. One of my uncles made copies of all of them, and we sent the originals to the D-Day museum in New Orleans, where they have put some of them on display (or so we've been told). Found out that Ike was his direct boss too.

That's absolutely incredible.

[Blackace]

The US entered the war in December 1941. In my alternative history scenario, Germany doesn't kill Stalin and much of the Soviet leaders in the Urals, until some point in 1943-probably no earlier than the summer. The US would already have forces fighting Germans in Africa and have many troops stationed in Britain preparing for D-Day. In the words of General Anthony McAuliffe, the US/UK response to the Hitler asking for a cease-fire in 1943 would be "Nuts!"

by 1943, yeah.. in the 36 or 38 if they would have been happy with what they had I don't think the US messes with them

[Blackace]

using the nukes was the only way out. what if the operation had hit any number of snags/ what if people started to tire of it?

I think Hiroshima won the war but Nagasaki was overkill.. of course their are people who swear a land battle would have been better, but that is bollocks...

[Kabouter]

I think Hiroshima won the war but Nagasaki was overkill.. of course their are people who swear a land battle would have been better, but that is bollocks...

I think Nagasaki was valuable because it showed that within a very short timeframe, the US could do it again, implying that unless Japan signed an unconditional surrender, all its cities would be completely wiped out one at a time.

[vcassano1]

using the nukes was the only way out. what if the operation had hit any number of snags/ what if people started to tire of it?

It makes sense to have used the bombs in terms of the expected aggregate American casualties, but I'm firmly of the belief that it was because of the proposed Soviet invasion of Japan. The dates of the bombing and the invasion date are too close to be an accident. At least, that's my interpretation.

[markot]

The thing is. With Europe over, Britain sending some forces to the pacific to 'reclaim' its territory, the USSR opening up in the North and pushing fast, Japan could have easily realised that its time was up, and if it didnt want to face Germanys fate (Berlin in rubble) then it would have to surrender.

The bomb was also partly part of Americas chance to end teh war on its terms, had the Ruskies become even more involved, then we could have ended up with 'east' Japan or what not at the end of the war, a bigger Russian engagement or even territorial expansion in the East which wouldnt have been in Americas interest.

Its kinda a false idea to say it was either 'attrition to Tokyo' or the bomb. There was a hell of a lot more in play. Yes there were some in Japan willing to fight it out, or wait for a 'divine wind' or what nots, but there were powerful factions that wanted to avoid that blood bath and seek a peace.

[dschalter]

Some that always kind of confused me about the World Wars was how Germany was able to build up such a formidable military between World War I and World War II. Did the allies just not enforce the Treaty of Versailles after the war or something? There were French troops stationed in the Rhineland right?

kabouter's answer is good, but there's something else i think worth mentioning- there's a lot more to having a formidable military than having a ton of soldiers active and lots of guns and butter. things that can also help you immensely are:

a population that is good at following at orders. levels of rule following and obedience were quite high in germany; this is important because it is crucial once the war begins for soldiers to follow orders regardless of their personal situation- france, by contrast, had severe problems with morale and troops disobeying orders after a setback.

competent military leadership. germany had an extremely effective military elite and a well thought out command structure that allowed for individual initiative when needed (this goes back to prussia and it gave germany a significant advantage during world war i in battles of manuever) and that wasn't something that france could simply eliminate in the wwi peace terms (though they tried).

so while germany had to 'catch up' armaments wise (to point out an oft cited fact, germany did not have any advantage in tank numbers at the beginning of the war, their edge in mobile warfare came from concentration), it was far ahead of france in more intangible qualities.

france also had a much smaller population, which is responded to by conscripting a huge % of military age men, which had the effect of reducing industrial production and lowering the average quality of fighting men.

I think Nagasaki was valuable because it showed that within a very short timeframe, the US could do it again, implying that unless Japan signed an unconditional surrender, all its cities would be completely wiped out one at a time.

one of the most destructive bluffs in history is a nice way of describing it.

[Blackace]

I think Nagasaki was valuable because it showed that within a very short timeframe, the US could do it again, implying that unless Japan signed an unconditional surrender, all its cities would be completely wiped out one at a time.

i think they would have gotten it anyways... and they could have dropped it somewhere else besides a church..

[The_Hitcher89]

I'm not particularly well-educated on the war, but why couldn't they have dropped one of the bombs, and then given Japan say 48 hours to surrender under the threat of another?

[Blackace]

I'm not particularly well-educated on the war, but why couldn't they have dropped one of the bombs, and then given Japan say 48 hours to surrender under the threat of another?

The bombs were 3 days apart...

They pretty much did that the second bomb was scheduled for the 8th but was dropped on the 9th...

[Furoba]

I'm not particularly well-educated on the war, but why couldn't they have dropped one of the bombs, and then given Japan say 48 hours to surrender under the threat of another?

They did, it's called the Potsdam declaration.

Even without two nukes, Japan would have surrendered. The nukes were more a continuation of the terror bombing/strategic bombing campaign started earlier. The March Tokyo firebombing was the single deadliest air raid of World War II, before Nagasaki and Hiroshima (casualties from radiation excluded). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan

From June/July the Japanese tried to bargain in secret with the USSR for better conditions than the Potsdam declaration (which called for the abolition of the Emperor system). Then, the Japan-USSR neutrality pact became void when the Russians launched a surprise invasion of Manchuria, Korea, Sahalin and the Kuril Islands on the August 8/9th (Yalta called for this).

The fact that cities designated as a target for nukes were mostly excluded from regular bombings, means that they were meant to be used as nothing more than testing dummies.

[The_Hitcher89]

The bombs were 3 days apart... They pretty much did that the second bomb was scheduled for the 8th but was dropped on the 9th...

Wow, I was always under the impression that there was a matter of hours between the bombs. What a horrendous gap in my knowledge.

[KHarvey16]

They did, it's called the Potsdam declaration. Even without two nukes, Japan would have surrendered. The nukes were more a continuation of the terror bombing/strategic bombing campaign started earlier. The March Tokyo firebombing was the single deadliest air raid of World War II, before Nagasaki and Hiroshima (casualties from radiation excluded). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan From June/July the Japanese tried to bargain in secret with the USSR for better conditions than the Potsdam declaration (which called for the abolition of the Emperor system). Then, the Japan-USSR neutrality pact became void when the Russians launched a surprise invasion of Manchuria, Korea, Sahalin and the Kuril Islands on the August 8/9th (Yalta called for this). The fact that cities designated as a target for nukes were mostly excluded from regular bombings, means that they were meant to be used as nothing more than testing dummies.

They were not attempting to surrender. This myth has been debunked in every discussion the bombings have come up in. The council that ran the country was forced to go along with the surrender by the Emperor himself, and there was still an assassination attempt on the man. The goal of the council, the group of military leaders in charge of the country, was to prolong the fight as long as possible and force the American public to essentially do their job for them. They believed large casualty totals and a drawn out pacific engagement would make the civilian population demand the US and Allies accept surrender terms more favorable to the Japanese(and therefore more quickly accepted).

Surrender was not imminent.

[Blackace]

They did, it's called the Potsdam declaration. Even without two nukes, Japan would have surrendered. The nukes were more a continuation of the terror bombing/strategic bombing campaign started earlier. The March Tokyo firebombing was the single deadliest air raid of World War II, before Nagasaki and Hiroshima (casualties from radiation excluded). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan From June/July the Japanese tried to bargain in secret with the USSR for better conditions than the Potsdam declaration (which called for the abolition of the Emperor system). Then, the Japan-USSR neutrality pact became void when the Russians launched a surprise invasion of Manchuria, Korea, Sahalin and the Kuril Islands on the August 8/9th (Yalta called for this). The fact that cities designated as a target for nukes were mostly excluded from regular bombings, means that they were meant to be used as nothing more than testing dummies.

The USSR black balled them and they thought of digging for a land war before the first bomb

[Darklord]

I think Hiroshima won the war but Nagasaki was overkill.. of course their are people who swear a land battle would have been better, but that is bollocks...

Japan was still refusing to surrender after Hiroshima. They only did after they realized "holy shit, we're FUCKED".

[The_Hitcher89]

How far did Russia and Japan get in their quest for an advanced bomb before Hiroshima happened?

[CommonSense]

lessee..

Stalingrad singlehandedly eradicated much of the German Army.

England did a fantastic job holding out when every other european country was on the ropes.

US was like a cheap ass zerg rush late game.

Considering it's size japan fought extremely well.

The bomb either was or was not necessary depending on your point of view...

that about cover it?

[dschalter]

lessee.. Stalingrad singlehandedly eradicated much of the German Army. England did a fantastic job holding out when every other european country was on the ropes. US was like a cheap ass zerg rush late game. Considering it's size japan fought extremely well. The bomb either was or was not necessary depending on your point of view... that about cover it?

well, it was a catatrophe for the german army, but that's vast overstatement. england did well to fend off the german air attack, but it didn't really have that much to "do" strictly speaking. the USA indeed were the ultimate hackers- basically as much in industrial strength as the other countries combined. japan and germany both fought quite well relative to size, though measuring exactly how much is quite tricky.

[The_Hitcher89]

If Britain wasn't so geographically fortunate, the war would have been lost. Discuss :P

[Blackace]

Japan was still refusing to surrender after Hiroshima. They only did after they realized "holy shit, we're FUCKED".

They issued surrender orders to their soliders they knew they were fucked... In fact the Emperor was ready to surrender and was cock blocked by his people.

Even after he surrendered they tried to kidnap him to help him from himself..it was called the Kyujo incident

But allowing the emperor to live, which they did anyways, could have stopped the war...

Hindsight is 20/20 and all that tho...

[CommonSense]

They issued surrender orders to their soliders they knew they were fucked... In fact the Emperor was ready to surrender and was cock blocked by his people. Even after he surrendered they tried to kidnap him to help him from himself..it was called the Kyujo incident But allowing the emperor to live, which they did anyways, could have stopped the war... Hindsight is 20/20 and all that tho...

see I always hear this side and the "fight down to last male child".....guess we'll never know..

[CommonSense]

well, it was a catatrophe for the german army, but that's vast overstatement. england did well to fend off the german air attack, but it didn't really have that much to "do" strictly speaking. the USA indeed were the ultimate hackers- basically as much in industrial strength as the other countries combined. japan and germany both fought quite well relative to size, though measuring exactly how much is quite tricky.

i was referencing the Germam morale post Stalingrad. Gramps said it took the wind out of thier sails

Suddenly they realized intricate designs (the tanks were great...when they worked) and superior tactics fails to overcome mass production and an army who won't ever back down.