why did the grand alliance suck a great military success in would war II?
360830
I don't understand your question
690471
No it was not.  It singled out Germany for punitive measures and not the Austro-Hungarian Empire for such measures.  It so financially was hard for Germany and led to WWII.
161738
It's difficult to say, but it probably would have lasted another year or so, and there would have been millions more casualties on both sides had the Allies fought Japan to defeat with conventional weapons and tactics.\nDespite having been driven out of their island conquests in the south Pacific, the Japanese militarists were prepared to use every last man, woman, and child in the defense of "Dai Nippon."  They just simply did not acknowledge that Japan was defeated and had already lost the war, much like the Romans did not when attacked by Hannibal.  Had we not dropped the atomic bomb and forced - yes, FORCED - the Japanese to surrender, the ultimate result might have been similar to that of the Punic Wars, with the Allies as Carthage.\nThe militarists of Japan had to be unconditionally, utterly defeated, brought to trial, and some of them made to pay the ultimate price for their crimes against humanity in order for Japan to become the peaceful, democratic society it is today.  Half-measures and fighting "just enough" would simply not have worked.\nJapanese scholarship has revealed that the militarists thought America was bluffing, that we didn't have another atomic bomb to drop, after the first one was dropped on Hiroshima.  But after the second one was dropped on Nagasaki, they realized we weren't bluffing; this gave the advantage to the "peace party" in Japan, and the Japanese government then sued for peace.\nThe atomic bombs saved thousands and thousands of lives, both Japanese and Allied.
619392
Historically, bad economic times brings out the very worst in people. World War-II began after a very lengthy economic depression and hunger brought tyrants to power.\n\nThe coming commodities crunch - record prices for oil, copper, other important stuff; prices doubling for gold, silver, platinum - along with a Social Security System which now promises retirees NOTHING, is as good a harbinger as any of global war within very few years. That, plus dozens of nuclear-armed countries and terrorist groups.
429850
inreality non of those ,the war was to make money for the european powers and especialy Rothchild.\nwww.infowars.
156470
In war you have to be no less ruthless then your adversary.  When you are dealing with a dictator who for decades ruled thru terror, force and corruption you have to respond with greated force.  He felt if you wanted to defeat an army you have to kill an army.  What great military leaders weren't ruthless?  Ruthless - Yes.  A bastard - please do some research and form your own opinion.
962550
One main one was his failed attack on Russia, for it was during the winter, and because the russians had a war strategy that consisted of burning everything down and destroying everything and then migrating to the next town when they were about to be attacked, so by the time Napoleon's army arrived there, there was nothing there, no food, no supplies, and because of this Napoleon had to ride back to france with a lack of supplies, causing a vast amount of his army to starve on the ride back to france.
735761
It was a miserable failure.  The failure started at the very top because our not so bright secretary of Defense forgot the meaning of the slogan, "loose lips sink ships".  This non-military genius that GWB insists on keeping around gets top honors for the reason so many of our troops died in October.  The second highest death count, of any given month this year.\n\nYou see, Mr. Rumsfeld thought it was important, and the world needed to know that he was sending more troops into Baghdad to clear out the insurgents.  Little did he realize that he didn't scare the crap out of the insurgents by announcing this, but he certainly did alert them to the fact, so that they too could rachet up their activity to be more effective against even more American GI's.  Bush, this guy has got to go!
898300
Yes the destruction of the pearl harbor during ww2 was the victory for united states and it's allies during the second world war because it made united states to get up and fight back and help those allied nation in trouble, but some other people recognize that the attack in pearl harbor was a lose because united states didn't preapare for the surprise attack, true all of this are true but losing in the first place making you recognized how to lose and stand up like a person, the attack on pearl harbor was a great lose of life for american navy but this lose is just the begining for u.s they now feel how the war really mean to everyone during ww2 all the lose of american navy during ww2 was paid for Blood, and winning the war had become a matter of time and of lives!
808442
Because he wants to be a cowboy and invade countrys to be a hero.  But hes really a dumbass who probably wouldve started the second holocaust and third world war if he had total power.
71776
Because there is evil in the world that doesn't respond to talk.  There are rulers that have a conquerers mentality, but are incredibly brutal.  Sometimes to stop their slaugher is force of arms
431391
The Germans made a deal with the Japanese that if they attacked America then they (the Germans) would help the Japanese fight against the U.S. This did not happen.The Germans wanted the Japanese to keep the U.S. busy while the Germans did there thing. America had a deal with Great Britain that the U.S. would send equipment and supplies to help in the war. It was called "lend and lease". This would help the war effort and keep the Americans from the fighting. This was working to some point until the raid on Pearl harbor. There is speculation that the Brits knew of the attack on pearl but didn't say anything because they wanted the U.S. to join the war. There were a few stipulations G.B. had to agree to for the U.S. to officially join in the war effort. The most important was that G.B.(great Britain) would have to remove it's self from ALL of it's colonies. such as India and others.
1133876
This question is best considered separately for Japan and for Germany.\n\n1. Japan, which was historically a militaristic society, wished to develop economically to a status similar to that of the Western powers. However, as an island state Japan has very few natural resources. It is notably lacking in oil, but more generally it has to import raw materials such as metallic ores. Therefore Japan wished to conquer territory in South East Asia to control resources. This initailly brought Japan into conflict with China, an ancient enemy, and then Dutch, English and American possesions in the Far East.\n\n 2. The war in Europe resulted from  Germany's agressive actions. In part it had economic causes: Germany had punitive financial conditions imposed upon it by the Versilles Treaty which end the First World War in 1919. France in particular pressed for these conditions, but the Treaty was the joint responsibility of all the allied powers. The main ones, which formed a sort of inner cabinet that actually agreed the Treaty, were the United States, France, United KIngdom and Italy: there were also various minor players such as Greece. The consequences of the Versailles Treaty were made worse by international economic decisions that resulted in massive unemployment in the developed world continuously between 1919 and 1939. Hitler was the only leader to address this, by expanding his arms industries, but this led to War becuase the output was geared to foreign agression and because without War Germany's credit would have run out. Another problem which encouraged war was that the First World War was not fought on German soil, but French, and a myth developed in Germany as a result that their country had been treated as the loser when they had not really been defeated.\n   The above describes the causes of the Second World War in general terms,  but at another level Hitler was hugely responsible as an individual. He whipped up military feeling and hostility towards foreign nations and races as a means, in the early days of his rule, of courting political popularlity.\n    Technically, England and France declared war on Germany in 1939 over the invasion of Poland. It is arguable that more competent politicans between the wars in these two countries would have stopped Hitler without a major War, e.g. by calling Hitler's bluff when he entered the Rhineland in 1936.\n\nCulpability for the Second World War in Europe is now really a historical question. The countries and people today who threaten world peace are quite different from  those whose evils caused the Second World War. \n  .
131980
Basicly, the reason of the fail was that a nation of 10 million uprised against the whole communist block and the free world in those days,for little interests, betrayed Hungary. Without strong allies Hungary was doomed....
96203
No, Japan's military was basically defeated by the time the A-bombs were dropped. American bombers could fly over Japan almost completely unmolested, and the Japanese only contolled their home islands (Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu).\n\nJapan had absolutely no ability at that point to go on an offensive. But what they did have was the willingness to fight to the death to defend their homeland, and the military government refused to surrender because of their Samurai "honor". So any conventional invasion would have had a huge cost in terms of casualties (I think US war planners estimated greater than 2 million total, but I'm not sure). The A-Bomb was dropped to force the Japanese into surrender without the bloody land war.
1151861
It is a massive case of an national inferiority complex. They lost two world wars. Their national car is the uglest thing since ... forever.
839130
Woodrow Wilson's'  League of Nations was a dismal failure that did lead to the Second World War.