It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India/Pakista/Turkey Military Rankings

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
lol, the sino-japanese conflict started before 1937, and the war formally started on MAY 1937 after the Lugou Bridge Crisis, and ended on 1945 August, which has lasted eight years;

the Pearl Harbor incident happened on 1941 DECEMBER, and the US formally went to war with Japan in early 1942.

the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident.




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
lol, the sino-japanese conflict started before 1937, and the war formally started on MAY 1937 after the Lugou Bridge Crisis, and ended on 1945 August, which has lasted eight years;

the Pearl Harbor incident happened on 1941 DECEMBER, and the US formally went to war with Japan in early 1942.

the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident.


What about all the islands that the US took control of?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
the US did not declare war with any one before the pearl harbor incident, the US was in its isolationism at the time;
it has formally declared war with japan after the pearl harbor incident, and since japan was in the Axis alliance with nazi german at the time, the US automatically declares war with german as well, the this has formally draw the US into the Allied force.

the US pretty much did nothing more than selling weapons to europe before it formally joins the war. Pretty much all the real fightings the US did were after the Pearl Harbor incident.

Im just saying that this is the chronological order, but stilll, the US has played a crucial part in the Allie's victory. No less than the other 4 permanent UN nations.

[edit on 11/27/2006 by warset]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat

What about all the islands that the US took control of?


he said
"the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident"

Means before december 7th 1941



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by wildcat

What about all the islands that the US took control of?


he said
"the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident"

Means before december 7th 1941


They sold weapons and let the Allies borrow ships. England would of been dead without the US.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Not fully actually thinking about it.

Though it was quite messed up how USA sat out of the war when they infact knew that the Nazi's were aiming for world domination, and they knew the war would come too them, yet they thought they would sit on there arse and wait for the war too come to them, which it took Pearl Harbour to wake them up.......

Yes United Kingdom did get arms by US, but for what... cash and land after the war for US millitary bases?, US were simply using UK desperation for supplies for war against the Germans too there advantage to make cash, but still it's classed as help



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The USA gets crap for sitting out of wars and for being in wars......Which is it?

I did not see Britian not accepting weapons from the USA. If they were prepared themselves then they would not have needed them.

The USA is lucky in having two oceans as a protection. The English have the much narrower English Channel.

I do give Britan Props for standing up when they were facing some incredible odds in the beginning of the war. But don't bust on the USA for staying out of other peoples problems, when everyone complains the USA is in everyones business now.

I think Russia did the most suffering in World War II, but if the USA did not enter Germany and Japan had much better odds, as Russia would had to keep massive amounts of troops on the Manchurian border. So things like Stalingrad might not have happened.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Yes we took the supplies due too they were severly needed, and the reason you get criticised for the War in Iraq, is due to that was a war declared by lies, also it is not even classed as a war now, due to the fact America and UN is fighting Insurgency now not another world millitary. World War 2 was a war which if won or lost, it would change the face of the planet too which ever side wins...


Also England could of willingly joined Germany you know, when Hitler spent time in jail he researched alot, and admired Britain for conquering much of the world(could be even a inspiration knowing him...), Hitler offerd Britain alliance, but we declined, knowing the outcome if German won would be worse for the world. Just imagine though if England had joined Germany at that time, also France problly would follow England by joining Germany too. But thank god we didn't



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
They sold weapons and let the Allies borrow ships. England would of been dead without the US.


He SAID "the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident."

AND THEN YOU SAID
"What about all the islands that the US took control of?"

This has NOTHING to do with England



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by wildcat
They sold weapons and let the Allies borrow ships. England would of been dead without the US.


He SAID "the US did pretty much nothing in contribution to the anti-japanese war in those years before the Pearl Harbor incident."

AND THEN YOU SAID
"What about all the islands that the US took control of?"

This has NOTHING to do with England


lol, I was talking about something else.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
So, you sound like you are saying that the Chinese contributed more to the destruction of the Japanese Empire more then the US? Yes, no? chinawhite

[edit on 28-11-2006 by wildcat]

[edit on 28-11-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
well,
it's the group's effort that has destroyed japan (the allied force is not equalling to the US' force),
the US did not do significantly more than Russia or china did. (other than the bomb they dropped, but at the time when the US had the bomb, the japanese empire was already falling apart)

Japan at the time had its major force in manchuria(the state run by the remnants of Qing Dynasty), which had never being really destroyed despite the effort of ROC and USSR.

the major japanese forces were forced to surrender after the capture of Japan by the allied force.
most of the top japanese commanders were later sentenced to death at the UN court.

the US' role played in the anti-japanese war was to destroy the Japanese pacific naval force, and their pacific islands bases.

the major japanese base during WWII was built in manchuria-- a puppet state under japanese control. the location of the base was thoughtfully selected-- manchuria at the time lies between ROC and USSR, it makes itself an ideal location for the japanese force to invade both nations. It also shares boarder with Korean, which at the time was also controled by japan.

the pearl harbor incident happen 5 years after the start of the anit-japanese war, at the time the power of the japanese force was starting to decline. seen by the japanese as a potential threat to their naval superioriarity in the pacific, they decided to do a sneak attack to destroy the US' pacific naval fleet.

Unfortunately, the aircaft carriers were not in the harbor on the day of the operation. Not only has the japanese's operation failed to destroy the US' major pacific naval power, the incident has also led the US to join the war with the allied force, which furthure weakens the already declining japanese force, and eventually led to the destruction of the japanese empire.

[edit on 11/28/2006 by warset]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
well, it's the group effort that has destroyed japan, US did not do significantly more than Russian or china did for the effort. (other than the bomb they droped, but at the time when the US had the bomb, the japanese empire were already falling apart)



That's true, but I heard that the US didn't have to drop the bomb on Japan and it could of been resolved in peaceful ways.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
LooseLipsSinkShips
i dont think that i have posted something offensive against you...what makes you scream at me...i just gave some links that might help you to make a better analysis ...i dont know why did you get offended? You posted that Russia's Defense budget dosent rank among the top 20s ...i just proved that you were ignorant at this point .....I really cant understand what was there to scream about...if I am ignorant you must help me and if you are ignorant so will I ......perhaps there has been some misunderstanding



[edit on 27-7-2005 by prelude]


Lol, that still makes me laugh. You did have good proof and I vote you for both those things.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
i think the only reason why the allies won, was russia, imagine what would've happened if Normandy was fought when there was no eastern front, do you really think that the allies could've won, HECK NO! even i fteh US didn't join the war, there was a good chance of the war turning around in favor of teh soviets, and then because there would've been no normandy, the soviets would've had all of europe, instead of just eastern europe!



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
LooseLipsSinkShips
i dont think that i have posted something offensive against you...what makes you scream at me...i just gave some links that might help you to make a better analysis ...i dont know why did you get offended? You posted that Russia's Defense budget dosent rank among the top 20s ...i just proved that you were ignorant at this point .....I really cant understand what was there to scream about...if I am ignorant you must help me and if you are ignorant so will I ......perhaps there has been some misunderstanding




[edit on 27-7-2005 by prelude]


Lol that still makes me laugh. And you showed good proof too. I vote you for both those things.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
i think the only reason why the allies won, was russia, imagine what would've happened if Normandy was fought when there was no eastern front, do you really think that the allies could've won, HECK NO! even i fteh US didn't join the war, there was a good chance of the war turning around in favor of teh soviets, and then because there would've been no normandy, the soviets would've had all of europe, instead of just eastern europe!


I agree with you, the Russians were the main reason why Germany fell.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat

Originally posted by warset
well, it's the group effort that has destroyed japan, US did not do significantly more than Russian or china did for the effort. (other than the bomb they droped, but at the time when the US had the bomb, the japanese empire were already falling apart)




That's true, but I heard that the US didn't have to drop the bomb on Japan and it could of been resolved in peaceful ways.


what did you mean by "peaceful ways"? you call 8 eight years of war peace? what peace is that?

and BTW, Japan had is most force fighting with the chinese during WWII
the japanese sent approx. 2,000,000 people army to china. china at the time had a combind force of about the same size as the japanese force in china in terms of
manpower.

At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, japan had 51 divisions of which 35 were in China, and 39 independent brigades of which all but one were in China. This represented roughly 80% of the japanese army's manpower. and only the other 20% were sent through out the entire asian-pacific region, including guarding japan itself.

so off with the "US single-handed defeat the Japanese" theory. I'm sure they would eventually have that ability, after creating nukes, but that's not how WWII was fought, otherwise, the allied force could just easily bombed germany.

[edit on 11/28/2006 by warset]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset

Originally posted by wildcat

Originally posted by warset
well, it's the group effort that has destroyed japan, US did not do significantly more than Russian or china did for the effort. (other than the bomb they droped, but at the time when the US had the bomb, the japanese empire were already falling apart)




That's true, but I heard that the US didn't have to drop the bomb on Japan and it could of been resolved in peaceful ways.


what did you mean by "peaceful ways"? you call 8 eight years of war peace? what peace is that?


[edit on 11/28/2006 by warset]


I heard the Japan was already crippled and there just may of been a possibility that the war could be resolved with no more fighting.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
lol, I was talking about something else.


What was that?



So, you sound like you are saying that the Chinese contributed more to the destruction of the Japanese Empire more then the US? Yes, no? chinawhite


Im not making that argument so your hearing wrong. I clearly was warset you were talking to



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join