I know about kohlkhin gohl. Where the HEAVILY outgunned japanese lost. What's your point?

Really? Because according to Antony Beevor's "The Second World War", pg 14. Zhukov's forces numbered 58,000 and caused 61,000 Japanese casualties, while receiving 23,000 casualties of their own.

They were "afraid" to open a front because they were fighting the US and china. It would have been idiotic for them to open a 3rd front. Germany and japan got too greedy and overconfident and they lost. Had they invaded russia together and left the US alone, then russia would not exist today.

No, the battle directly influenced the decision making of Japan to attacking the US instead of USSR. There were factions within the Japanese Government and military, and after the battle the "strike north" faction received a massive setback, allowing factions for striking elsewhere to gain dominance.

Had they invaded russia together and left the US alone, then russia would not exist today.

Yes, if any of the major allies didn't take part in the war, then the allies would have lost. That's my argument. If Russia didn't take part in the war, then the US wouldn't have won.

Moron. That was AFTER the nuking of japan. They were pretty much done. Whether russia attacked manchuria or not, the war was over.

This is extremely debatable actually. But in any case, it demonstrates that the Soviet's were extremely capable in fighting against the Japanese. In fact, if you consider the amount of territory gained against such a well-armed foe (the most well-armed force left outside of Japan), then the Soviet's were MORE competent at fighting the Japanese - which makes sense considering they'd had more experience historically.

America was one of the most populous countries in the world moron. We had the potential to create the largest army backed by the most resources.

Yes you did. Except the US military was completely inadequate for the task from 1939-1941 and without allies would be facing two of the most advanced, trained and populous armies in the world.

Furthermore you seem to miss the point. The US has a big population. But their population isn't bigger than all the allies combined. There is now way they could teleport hundreds of thousands of troops to Siberia. Not to mention is Russia wasn't involved as you said, then the Americans would not have access to Siberia anyway.

Also let's not forget China. Despite being greatly outmatched in technology, how do you suppose America would keep hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers preoccupied as China did?

When you control the seas, air and nukes that's how you win wars.

Except you didn't until 1945. I demonstrated that. You could not have gained that control without the other allies. You would have no airbases in the UK. No Royal Navy to defend your transports, no access to mainland Asia through Siberia, and a completely inadequate military at the onset of war.

We had the potential to create the largest army backed by the most resources. .. We didn't NEED britain or russia. Heck britain and russia could have allied with germany and japan and we'd still win.

Really? Because according to Mark Harrison's "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", the total combined GDP of Japan, Russia, the UK, Italy and Germany in 1939 was $1,477,000,000,000 against the US alone being $869,000,000,000. So clearly the US could not produce enough weaponry to outmatch that at all. HERE YOUR ARGUMENT IS DISPROVEN ENTIRELY.

This is where you get delusional. Could you please find me a Ph.d. historian which actually supports this statement? Just one?

So when the outbreak of war happens. And you have the 4 major world superpowers with the most advanced army (germany), navy (Britain) and air force (Germany/Japan) attacked the incompetent and small US military, do you really expect the US would have enough time to train hundreds of thousands of soldiers and produced thousands of tanks, ships and aircraft WHILST BEING ATTACKED ON ALL SIDES?

You said Japan would have been stupid to open a three way war, SO HOW COULD AMERICA SURVIVE THAT THEMSELVES?

We didn't NEED britain or Russia

You still haven't explained how the US could have got airbases in Europe.

The Battle of Kursk ALONE caused enough German casualties to match HALF of the entire US casualties in the ENTIRE WAR.

So fuck off.

Why? If I'm wrong why can't you just prove it to me? Here's a list of things to prove.

• That the US could have acquired air bases in Europe with no friendly countries

• That the US could have invaded Europe via crossing the entire Atlantic in one voyage

• That the US could produce enough weaponry to outmatch the combined GDP of Germany, Japan, Russia and Britain, Italy and Austria, even though the statistic say they clearly couldn't

• That the US could have produced nuclear weapons whilst being invaded from both sides

• That the US could have trained hundreds of thousands of soldiers competently whilst being invaded.

I'll wait.