No. Nearly all sources put the human cost of invading the home island in the millions.
Agree to disagree.
So, total Indian military contribution was 30 thousand dead out of 2.5million total casualties. I think my statement about their contribution stands.
Cool, I’ll give them equal credit (although I still think our material contribution was the deciding factor). Still makes us world war champs. AND Russia can’t claim WWI, so that makes us:
America: Back to Back World War Champs!
Post 1: …average IQ of 101. That got me to thinking…who is really smart? Here is a list of celebrity IQ’s…
Post 98: …you’re bad at reading, but there were 2.5 million soldiers in the indian army, not 2.5 million dead.; There were only 60-80 thousand Indian casualties (includes injuries) in WWII…
Nah…india " contributed" one million plus lives as roadkill But cause it wasnt some chestbeating nonsense it doesnt count eh. Burma and stalingard had pretty much disintegrated into trench warfare, street fighting an other elementary techniques. The greatest attrition remained human life. Russia- ww2 champs
Lol, you’re an idiot. You can’t even get your sh*t straight from one consecutive post to the next and you f*ck up the facts on your own country’s history. Nice try though.
Are you saying W lied to paint himself in the best possible historical light? That doesn’t sound like something a past president would do.
Nope youre the fking idiot cause you dont realize that if you say something so Stupid and nationalistic like world war champs you’re going to get a equally stupid flippant response. And maybe you should get that stick out of your ass cause you obv cant make Out when one post is pretty serious and the other is just being belligerent- again cause of your stupid ignorant statement. I know my countries history fine…just made a mistake which i accepted.mistakes happen. If you were normal you would know
So basically you’re saying you were simply being belligerent and flippant with no factual backing and you screwed up the one attempt you made to put some coherent logic together cause your feelings got hurt by something that didn’t involve you? Yeah, I’d agree with that. Also, I don’t make mistakes. Your logic is null.
America: Back to Back World War Champs… accept it.
Lol @ this thread,
Yo, when was America in WWI? I didn;t know they paticipated
Back when I was in high school in Europe, junior and senior year history classes were dedicated exclusively to studying European history in the period 1880 - 1945, the beginning of the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the Balkan wars and the World wars. Historical events were covered in painstaking detail (compared to say, how we glossed over US history in a couple of lessons). It was one of my least favorite classes and I am not a history buff at all, but what I clearly remember is that overall the US involvment, while extensively acknolwedged, was never emphasized as being such a dominant factor - especially so in WWI.
I’m saying this not to start an argument cause I don’t really care, but to emphasize that history lessons can be deceptively subjective, depending on who the teacher is! I guess there is a lot more to it than just presentation of dry facts and historical events, the same sequence of events can be viewed from so many angles and tainted with nationalistic or propaganda objectives. Who knows what kind of history version they teach in US schools, but don’t be fooled that it necessarily represents the most neutral and objective viewpoint.
Alucard,
Last 1.5 years of WWI. Turned the tide. 4.7MM soldiers deployed, ~320k total casualties ~110k killed.
I can’t really give Russia credit for WWI because they essentially surrendered (from Wikipedia):
“Discontent and the weaknesses of the Provisional Government led to a rise in the popularity of the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin, which demanded an immediate end to the war. The successful armed uprising by the Bolsheviks of November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first, the Bolsheviks refused the German terms, but when German troops began marching across the Ukraine unopposed, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. The treaty ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.”
Kin hell. How hard is it? The post which you quoted second to prove some shit point was flippant. I didnt get hurt…just thought its pretty ignorant. You seem to have picked up the one point which was a mistake and ignored everything else. Two theatres becoming wars of attrition of human life, japan’s progression stopped, indonesian nationalist army being formed etc. But whatever if it makes you happy mail the badge over,ill wear it
I really want to get involved with this post but the original post of IQs seem to have deviated to this top of war. Can someone provide an abridged version of these 4 pages of posts?
I hear you BS.
I don’t think I can give America any credit for either war though. Showing up late to both parties after the outcome is essentialy known and “turning the tide”.
OK, half a credit for participation.
Uh, in 1941, the outcome was hardly known, and the Pacific war started almost immediately. You can say that hanging out in the UK for a few years or fighting in Africa and Italy doesn’t count as “showing up,” but it kept many divisions of troops on watch in France and North Africa that would have been quite handy for the Germans to have on the Eastern Front. In addition, there was a good deal of Allied bombing of German production going on that would have made things even nastier on the Eastern Front if those factories had been producing full blast. Sure, the west didn’t lose 11 million people, but losing lives is not the only way to participate actively in a war.
And in 1917, it’s true that the US showed up pretty late in the game, but had there not been more troops coming, Germany may not have seen much value in an Armistice. And it’s hard to see that WWI’s outcome was “essentially known” when the US got involved. You don’t sign an Armistice if you know you are going to win, on either side.
You can also say that Germany signed the Armistice because of revolution within Germany, and that it would have happened even if the US hadn’t gotten involved, but that was hardly something that was “essentially known” to be on the horizon in April 1917.
To add to what Bchad’s saying, the US joined WWI in 1917, but Russia surrendered via treaty in 1918. Why would Russia surrender to terms it initially didn’t agree with (per my exerpt above) under threat of a German advance if the outcome was already known?
He’s being facetious…or trolling since we’re on the interwebs.