Forum
»
japan was the strongest army in ww2 before nukes
12-05-2023, 05:35 AM
-
#61
- ProudKraut
- Registered User
-
- ProudKraut
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Hessen, Germany
- Posts: 7,140
- Rep Power: 50098
-
-
Originally Posted By TomPaine⏩
It's still retarded.Yes, and that retard is you. I brought up population because people look at this and think that the US has a 100x more people than Japan had:
Again, if the US was SO much bigger, than Japan was retarded for attacking it and shifting the US population's opinion about staying out of the war.
The US would have defeated Japan with or without the bombs. They were used to save lives on BOTH sides. If the US didn't use them and ended up killing 10 million Japanese in a land invasion, then the Asian incels on here would be complaining about that too. (Why didn't they just use a nuke and end it earlier?)
Again, if the US was SO much bigger, than Japan was retarded for attacking it and shifting the US population's opinion about staying out of the war.
The US would have defeated Japan with or without the bombs. They were used to save lives on BOTH sides. If the US didn't use them and ended up killing 10 million Japanese in a land invasion, then the Asian incels on here would be complaining about that too. (Why didn't they just use a nuke and end it earlier?)
1. It is an 'insane' population difference
2. War is won through resources
3. The more land, the more resources
12-05-2023, 08:06 AM
-
#62
- TomPaine
- Registered User
-
- TomPaine
- Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2020
- Posts: 12,031
- Rep Power: 103471
-
-
Originally Posted By ProudKraut⏩
Nope, more simpleton points made by you.It's still retarded.
1. It is an 'insane' population difference
2. War is won through resources
3. The more land, the more resources
1. It is an 'insane' population difference
2. War is won through resources
3. The more land, the more resources
Its not a huge difference in population, considering the land size difference. Again, if the size of the US was too big, then they shouldn't have been retards and attacked. Its like a manlet complaining when he sucker punched a tall dude and get destroyed. Who's fault is that? For reference, Germany had 86 million people, but no one is standing up for them (whah they didn't have enough people).
At the height of the war, Japan had over 300 million under their control (over double what the US had). They still lost. Hmmmm.
Land does not necessarily equal resources. That was Germany's main issue. They had a large land mass, but that mass did not contain oil, which is part of the reason that they had to keep invading new lands. They needed the extra resources simply to keep their war vehicles powered. Probably part of the reason that they were looking into alternative power sources (supernatural, off-world, etc).
See, there a lot of nuances and details that determine outcomes. Quit defending the twisted little men who lost unconditionally.
12-05-2023, 08:15 AM
-
#63
12-05-2023, 08:52 AM
-
#64
- cobhc
- Structural Engineer Brah
-
- cobhc
- Structural Engineer Brah
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
- Posts: 44,106
- Rep Power: 281429
-
-
They lost their entire navy in one battle against America, LMFAO
The combat was tougher in Japan due to terrain and Japanese willingness to die but no one knows because the hardest fighting against the Germans was by the Russians.
The combat was tougher in Japan due to terrain and Japanese willingness to die but no one knows because the hardest fighting against the Germans was by the Russians.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
12-05-2023, 09:44 AM
-
#65
- ezmac31
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Michigan, United States
- Age: 43
- Posts: 20,166
- Subscribers: 1
- Rep Power: 248047
-
-
The US navy was superior to that of Japan. The US went island to island in the SP dispatching the Japanese one at a time, outdoing them in close combat. The US bombed Tokyo into submission. Then the ultimate FU with the Nukes (probably should’ve just been one dropped, but the angry incels wouldn’t surrender so it gave the MIC an opportunity to try some different tech)
I fail to see any argument for Japanese superiority here, in spite of the “lol actually we are the real winner bc reasons! Undefeated in war (even though the conditions of our total surrender meant we still have no military to this very day)!
I fail to see any argument for Japanese superiority here, in spite of the “lol actually we are the real winner bc reasons! Undefeated in war (even though the conditions of our total surrender meant we still have no military to this very day)!
12-05-2023, 09:48 AM
-
#66
- ProudKraut
- Registered User
-
- ProudKraut
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Hessen, Germany
- Posts: 7,140
- Rep Power: 50098
-
-
Originally Posted By TomPaine⏩
I'm not arguing who's at fault or defending anyone. Just pointing out that your math is retarded.Nope, more simpleton points made by you.
Its not a huge difference in population, considering the land size difference. Again, if the size of the US was too big, then they shouldn't have been retards and attacked. Its like a manlet complaining when he sucker punched a tall dude and get destroyed. Who's fault is that? For reference, Germany had 86 million people, but no one is standing up for them (whah they didn't have enough people).
At the height of the war, Japan had over 300 million under their control (over double what the US had). They still lost. Hmmmm.
Land does not necessarily equal resources. That was Germany's main issue. They had a large land mass, but that mass did not contain oil, which is part of the reason that they had to keep invading new lands. They needed the extra resources simply to keep their war vehicles powered. Probably part of the reason that they were looking into alternative power sources (supernatural, off-world, etc).
See, there a lot of nuances and details that determine outcomes. Quit defending the twisted little men who lost unconditionally.
Its not a huge difference in population, considering the land size difference. Again, if the size of the US was too big, then they shouldn't have been retards and attacked. Its like a manlet complaining when he sucker punched a tall dude and get destroyed. Who's fault is that? For reference, Germany had 86 million people, but no one is standing up for them (whah they didn't have enough people).
At the height of the war, Japan had over 300 million under their control (over double what the US had). They still lost. Hmmmm.
Land does not necessarily equal resources. That was Germany's main issue. They had a large land mass, but that mass did not contain oil, which is part of the reason that they had to keep invading new lands. They needed the extra resources simply to keep their war vehicles powered. Probably part of the reason that they were looking into alternative power sources (supernatural, off-world, etc).
See, there a lot of nuances and details that determine outcomes. Quit defending the twisted little men who lost unconditionally.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts