Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So we are basically doomed?

Remember, the USSR was fulfilling it's obligations from Tehran and Yalta by attacking Japanese forces in Manchuria with 89 divisions simultaneous to dropping the bombs.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
en.wikipedia.org...



Making an US/UK attack on their own ally unlikely, as the war aims were already met.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Remember, the USSR was fulfilling it's obligations from Tehran and Yalta by attacking Japanese forces in Manchuria with 89 divisions simultaneous to dropping the bombs.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
en.wikipedia.org...

Making an US/UK attack on their own ally unlikely, as the war aims were already met.

The objective in this hypothetical (that Patton actually advised) is to remain the only nuclear power indefinitely not win ww2

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So we are basically doomed?

Long term yea. Unless we evolve past all war between nations pretty soon.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

The objective in this hypothetical (that Patton actually advised) is to remain the only nuclear power indefinitely not win ww2

Which hypothetical?

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

The objective in this hypothetical (that Patton actually advised) is to remain the only nuclear power indefinitely not win ww2

Which hypothetical?

If the United States should have conquered the world between 1945-1950. To ensure there was ever only one nuclear world power, thus eliminating the threat of a global nuclear war today.

If you only have one nuclear power (which prob requires an empire), then you never have WW3.

I was explaining the facts on the ground, not the hypothetical.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I was explaining the facts on the ground, not the hypothetical.

Well you might should have read the op lol.

I did.

The title:

Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

...and from the body:

Should the US have conquered the world in the short window we were the only atomic power on the planet??

My reply was to point out the situation on the battlefield and it's relationship to their allies at this exact point in time. The reader can infer for themselves how that relates to the other posts in the thread. Maybe that's where you got lost, because it is otherwise on-topic.

Maybe you can highlight a specific part of the "OP" which my post doesn't relate to. The "OP" does go back and forth quite a bit. A quick review of it may help clarify your point.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because America did not have to TPTB were already in control, and if you require proof simply look at who profited from both sides.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I did.

The title:

Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

...and from the body:

Should the US have conquered the world in the short window we were the only atomic power on the planet??

My reply was to point out the situation on the battlefield and it's relationship to their allies at this exact point in time. The reader can infer for themselves how that relates to the other posts in the thread. Maybe that's where you got lost, because it is otherwise on-topic.

Maybe you can highlight a specific part of the "OP" which my post doesn't relate to. The "OP" does go back and forth quite a bit. A quick review of it may help clarify your point.

TheOP was about the war aims changing to revolve around a new primary objective, not the real life situation on the ground back then.

In a nutshell the OP was "what if the US used their gap as the only nuclear power(1945-50). To conquer the world thus assuring you can never have a global nuclear war between the great powers.

So the war aims were what the op changed, so what they were originally is meaningless
"

That's fine, if you take the OP as a whole.

My answer was to explain why the war aims were unlikely to change, and that's because of the conditions in the Far East theater. Nobody mentioned it in several pages of discussion, it seems like an obvious thing to point out. Even to leave it to subsequent posters to apply to the discussion. I don't usually justify my posts to anyone except mods....but it's ok.

This disposition of force subject slots in with the idea of High Command who made the logical analysis that a theater level conflict with USSR would result in a condition where Japan, still in control of Manchuria, becomes allied with the Soviet Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

Axis & Allies is a series of World War II strategy board games. Originally designed by Larry Harris and published by Nova Game Designs in 1981,[1][2] the game was republished by the Milton Bradley Company in 1984 as part of the Gamemaster Series of board games. This edition has been retroactively named Axis & Allies: Classic to differentiate it from later revisions. In 1996, Axis & Allies: Classic was inducted into the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design Adventure Gaming Hall of Fame.[3] Games magazine also has inducted Axis & Allies into their buyers' guide Hall of Fame, an honor the magazine extends to "games that have met or exceeded the highest standards of quality and play value and have been continuously in production for at least 10 years; i.e., classics."[4]
Axis & Allies: Classic was the most successful of the five Gamemaster Series of board games. Long after the Gamemaster name was retired, A&A: Classic lives on having been moved to the Avalon Hill lineup following the acquisition of Milton Bradley Company and Avalon Hill by Hasbro. The game itself has gone through several revisions, most recently in 2013. The object of the game and its spinoffs is to win the war by capturing enough critical territories to gain the advantage over the enemy in a recreation of World War II.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: JoshuaCox



Thoughts

The Germans almost had the nuclear bomb before the US. Can you imagine the outcome of World War 2 if Hitler had gotten the bomb?

No. No, they didn't. The Nazis did not even have the basics to make a bomb, nor did they have an idea of how to make one.

Nuclear weapons and massive destructions weapons of the same kind work better as a deterrent than anything else..

originally posted by: Substracto
Nuclear weapons and massive destructions weapons of the same kind work better as a deterrent than anything else..

So far they have worked better..

It's not fair to say that about the future, espeacially when you can only crap out once.

a reply to: Bedlam

I hope to god proteus is never publicly fielded...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because Russia did not let them

Is there a difference between Einstein in the US and einherjar in Germany?

America was taken over by the RED NET spy network. a group of people that are connected through an idea rather then through heritage. they have been using encoded books with message on how to build highly advanced tech in order to keep the development of earth in their hands.