• Would Japan have won WW2 if the US didn't have or use any atomic weapons?

    Best answer: No. From what I know, Japanese military and navy were in hopeless condition by the time U.S. dropped the atomic bombs. This is because in 1944 U.S captured the Mariana Islands from Japan. Since these islands were near Japan, it meant that Japan could now be a reached by plane. U.S. used these islands as airbases... show more
    Best answer: No.
    From what I know, Japanese military and navy were in hopeless condition by the time U.S. dropped the atomic bombs. This is because in 1944 U.S captured the Mariana Islands from Japan. Since these islands were near Japan, it meant that Japan could now be a reached by plane. U.S. used these islands as airbases and intensely bombed majority of Japanese cities between 1944 & 1945. Also after all that, the Soviet Union joined the U.S. against Japan in august 1945. So even before any nuclear bombing, Japan was facing an impossible military challenge on 2 fronts.

    To be honest, I came across claims that Japan was researching nuclear weapons around 1945. I think it was cancelled either because it did not make progress or because the war was already lost.
    51 answers · 3 days ago
  • What was the world like before 9/11?

    53 answers · 4 days ago
  • Has it become much more common knowledge that Adolf Hitler was covertly controlled by "Elite" rich people?

    Best answer: Hitler was funded By the Rockefeller's in the Belief Hitler would Go to war with the Communists he took the Money and Honored the Agreement the USA never did anything to stop him whilst the UK was Trying Appeasement Hitler took all this as approval and of he went America with the collusion of the... show more
    Best answer: Hitler was funded By the Rockefeller's in the Belief Hitler would Go to war with the Communists he took the Money and Honored the Agreement

    the USA never did anything to stop him whilst the UK was Trying Appeasement

    Hitler took all this as approval and of he went

    America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Göring's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of everything and such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?

    For the government did sanction dubious transactions—both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.

    Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading. For example, ITT was allowed to continue its relations with the Axis and Japan until 1945, even though that conglomerate was regarded as an official instrument of United States Intelligence.

    No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious.

    Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.

    And it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; ITT had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. Though it would have been more patriotic to have allowed Nazi Germany to confiscate these companies for the duration—to nationalize them or to absorb them into Hermann Göring's industrial empire—it was clearly more practical to insure them protection from seizure by allowing them to remain in special holding companies, the money accumulating until war's end. It is interesting that whereas there is no evidence of any serious attempt by Roosevelt to impeach the guilty in the United States,

    reason FDR was afraid of Upsetting Corporate USA whose Cooperation was desperately needed to win the War in the Pacific
    7 answers · 2 days ago
  • Is macedonia greek?

    15 answers · 3 days ago
  • Was Adolf Hitler smart?

    8 answers · 60 mins ago
  • Where did Saigon go?

    I could have sworn that there was a place called Saigon when I was growing up. All I remember was that it was involved in the Vietnam war somehow
    I could have sworn that there was a place called Saigon when I was growing up. All I remember was that it was involved in the Vietnam war somehow
    8 answers · 4 hours ago
  • How come mass shootings are getting deadlier?

    Best answer: High capacity magazine weapons of war designed for one purpose ... kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.
    Best answer: High capacity magazine weapons of war designed for one purpose ... kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.
    33 answers · 5 days ago
  • Was Che Guevara good or bad?

    22 answers · 4 days ago
  • Would you rather live in America in the 1860s or now?

    Best answer: Now of course. When I was young we lived without AC, I don't want to do that again. If I have to go somewhere I would much rather drive than walk or ride a horse and I do know how to ride. The Doctors and medical care is much better now. etc etc etc.
    Best answer: Now of course. When I was young we lived without AC, I don't want to do that again. If I have to go somewhere I would much rather drive than walk or ride a horse and I do know how to ride. The Doctors and medical care is much better now. etc etc etc.
    15 answers · 3 days ago
  • What forces drove the Barbarian Invasion?

    7 answers · 16 hours ago
  • How come mass shootings weren't as publicize back then as it is now?

    Best answer: The media gets popular off of tragedy stories. People just can't look away. As well, much of the media will use these tragedies and exploit the poor families to push whatever agenda they have. It's really lame.
    Best answer: The media gets popular off of tragedy stories. People just can't look away. As well, much of the media will use these tragedies and exploit the poor families to push whatever agenda they have. It's really lame.
    8 answers · 2 days ago
  • Was Oliver Cromwell not concerned about the consequences in the afterlife for overthrowing and executing Charles First.?

    Best answer: Charles Stuart, that man of blood was a phrase used by Independents, during the English Civil War to describe King Charles I. The phrase is derived from the Bible: "And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood... show more
    Best answer: Charles Stuart, that man of blood was a phrase used by Independents, during the English Civil War to describe King Charles I. The phrase is derived from the Bible:
    "And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man." — King James Bible 2 Samuel 16:7,8. This and another verse were used to justify regicide: "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." — King James Bible Numbers 35:33. The Army leadership felt deeply betrayed by the King because they thought that while they had been negotiating in good faith he had duplicitously gone behind their backs in making The Engagement with the Scots and encouraging a new civil war. At the end of the meeting the Grandees of the Army accepted that it was their duty "to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account for that blood he had shed, and mischief he had done".
    7 answers · 4 days ago
  • The ‘80s vs ‘90s, which decade would you argue is superior and why?

    Best answer: The ‘80s wins this won. I remembered my oldest grandchild being born (1989). Back then, my wife and I would go to a local bar and we’d laugh with 4 other friends during Saturday nights. Now, if you go to a bar, your friends will most likely be on their phones. The ‘80s was also the best decade when it comes to... show more
    Best answer: The ‘80s wins this won.

    I remembered my oldest grandchild being born (1989). Back then, my wife and I would go to a local bar and we’d laugh with 4 other friends during Saturday nights. Now, if you go to a bar, your friends will most likely be on their phones. The ‘80s was also the best decade when it comes to entertainment, the movies, sitcoms, and gaming were perfect.
    25 answers · 6 days ago
  • Would it have been possible for someone born in the 19th century to have been on an airplane/flight?

    Best answer: yes of course lots, a life can reach 100 years or more you could be born in 1890 and reach 1990 1950 /60s commercial flights were every day things
    Best answer: yes of course lots, a life can reach 100 years or more you could be born in 1890 and reach 1990 1950 /60s commercial flights were every day things
    10 answers · 3 days ago
  • Did Hitler have a booming economy?

    13 answers · 3 days ago