Could Japan have beaten America in WWII?

Firstly, Rice farmers backed by the Soviets.

Secondly, requiring aid from our allies isn't exactly losing the war. There's a reason Japan was lining up a surrender before the nukes ever fell.

As said, the best Japan could've hoped for was to draw out the US for as long as possible until the people back home no longer wanted to fight (the same that happened in Vietnam.)

Now fuck off you weeb shitter.

Nukes were just time and body efficient we would have won regardless. Nukes help prevent a possible Connie northern Japan from happening

The incredible waste of manpower of the IJA and IJN makes me fucking sick. Instead of using their heads, all they did was banzai again and again. Kuribayashi had the right idea.

>Unable to complete this heavy task for our country
>Arrows and bullets all spent, so sad we fall.

>But unless I smite the enemy,
>My body cannot rot in the field.
>Yea, I shall be born again seven times
>And grasp the sword in my hand.

>When ugly weeds cover this island,
>My sole thought shall be the Imperial Land.

t. delusional mart sharters

>be a stupid gook
>beat up couple failed states and dying empires
>think that you're now a real great power
>pick a fight against a nation with 100 times industrial capacity compared to yours and actually educated population instead of inbred rice farmers
>wonder why you get your arse kicked

There was no way they would have "beaten America". The only reason for their success was that they were facing island countries and China which had very weak armies and tanks/planes from the immediate post-WWI era! As such, they didn't need to advance much technologically to beat their enemies and so they didn't. Hitler and the nazis had to constantly evolve their fighting machines to keep the upper hand on Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union and so the arms race between those four countries made their armies far superior to that of Japan. The only way Japan would been even somewhat successful is if they didn't attack the US, but eventually the US would get involved no matter what. We weren't about to let the UK fall. And as soon as Japan expanded into Australia, New Zealand, or India they would face immediate retaliate from the US and UK and ultimately fall.

Remember this: the M4 Sherman tank, a tank widely regarded as weak and flammable albeit mechanically efficient in Germany was completely invincible to everything the Japanese could throw at them, even in 1945. And if you are going to say anything about the IJN, the industrial capacity of the United States stood well over that of Japan's. They could build much more ships in the same time so eventually their Navy would be superior even if a battle like Midway wouldn't happen. Also, we had tactical bombers, again something the Japanese didn't have since there was no use for them against island people armed with AA guns from 1917.

No. Far less close than Germany vs USSR.

Neither Axis power had a snowball's chance in hell of actually invading the US. A draw was unlikely for Germany and near impossible for Japan.

To win the Axis really needed a neutral US and a knock out blow to the USSR.

ayy lmao

Now *this* is how you b8.

>(1975)-(1945)
>30 years
>"two decades later"

And you shit on OUR education system...

...

Why bother even mentioning IJN when it was outmatched in battleships, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, escort ships, auxiliary crafts, or in other words, pretty much all things that weren't battlecruisers and even then that was only because USN never completed any of those.

Their war strategy was literally "hurt America to the point where they give up because if they have any real fighting spirit we're boned".

>. Nukes help prevent a possible Connie northern Japan from happening
This shit again. The Soviets had no navy worth mentioning to support an invasion. If things go on longer, they'll almost certainly invade Japanese holdings in northeastern China and Korea, which would have other post-war effects, but they don't have the capacity to even take Hokkaido, let alone anywhere else.

>And even then that was only because USN never completed any of those.
The Alaska class, while internally designated as "Large cruisers" were basically battlecruisers. Then again, I don't think either the Alaska or Guam actually ever fought a naval engagement.

if they had this guy

People always talk about how the Japanese would fight to there last man thanks to there nationalism, are there any countries that would do that today? America feels like it could feasibly be invaded by someone, and every town or city that got invaded would revolt against there invaders. Of course that could just be my nationalism giving me false hope for my people

This is quite good bait.

>America feels like it could feasibly be invaded by someone
Completely ignoring the likelihood that such an attempt (or more specifically, a hypothetical *successful* attempt) would probably lead to nuclear war, the logistics of invading and occupying the US makes any sort of invasion not only pointless, but practically impossible.

Why are you so buttmad?

Just let him live in his Red Dawn/Homefront fantasies where USA isn't a nuclear power with the largest navy in the world surrounded by 2 massive moats.

Ironically, they could have done that by ignoring Pearl Harbor and just seizing the European colonies.

Except they couldn't have.

The US embargo was more or less going to eventually grind their war machine to a halt plus the US may have eventually gone to war with enough European pressure.

>gone to war with enough European pressure.
Funny enough it was the US who put pressure on Britain and Netherlands to follow up with embargoes on Japan, and the US got the European countries to do that by forging a defensive pact.

Not him, but the reason that the Japanese attacked was to seize what's not Indonesia and the oil therein; thinking that the U.S. would interfere with that. That's where they got their oil for the duration of the war. They very well could have and did in fact do, since the attack on the Dutch East Indies was already in motion when the bombers hit Pearl.

Again, the Dutch refused to sell oil to Japan only because the US promised to enter a war against Japan if Japan moved against the Dutch. You should stop forming interpretations without the aid of any facts.

Were they going to beat the Americans to the a-bomb? Then no.

...

Why not ask the Japanese of WWII?

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'

Thanks for the info user, got anywhere I can easily read up on this? Always looking to learn more.

FDR promised to attack Japan if the Japanese attacked, but Congress didn't. It was not 100% clear that he could have actually followed through and protected the Dutch. And even if he did, we now have a fundamentally different war on our hands.s What hope (and it's a slim hope) the Japanese have is based on tiring out the Americans, of letting the home front force the U.S. to peace.There's going to be a fundamentally different reaction in the U.S. itself over losses in a war to protect a Dutch colony than there is to get back the filthy, backstabbing nips for what is perceived as an unprovoked attack.

Plus, assuming you wrote , they very well could have attacked the DEI directly without attacking Pearl (and the Philippines) first. It might or might not have been a good idea, but it was definitely a possible one.

I'd actually recommend Power at Sea, volume 2, by Lisle Rose. It's not directly about the pre-war tensions between the U.S. and Japan, being more of an overview of naval power ,strategy, and war in general from the close of WW1 to the close of WW2, but it goes a LOT into the various political machinations between great naval powers and what they did, when and why.

Thanks user, I'll be sure to give it a read when I get the chance.

Did Japanese troop and supply ships even have the operational range to get to the U.S. west coast?

>they very well could have attacked the DEI directly without attacking Pearl (and the Philippines) first. It might or might not have been a good idea, but it was definitely a possible one.
They decided against it because it's a dumb fucking move to leave the US forces sitting in the Philippines which can easily interdict and defeat any attempts to supply an invasion thousands of miles away from Japan.
Unlike you, the Japs knew the facts and circumstances they were working against, and they knew that to do anything in the SEA they had to subjugate the Philippines first.

>pathetic state of unreadiness
You are so ignorant it hurts to read your posts. The very fact that the PacFleet was at Pearl Harbor for a year meant the US was at heightened readiness for war against Japan. US had 100 B-17 bombers to send to Philippines, and all island bases were being supplied with aircraft and munitions.
In 1941 the US was deeply into rearmament of the scale Japan could only dream of.

Please learn to read before you participate in discussions like this. Specifically, learn the difference between "can" and "should". Furthermore, it is far from clear that the U.S. forces in the Philippines can substantially interfere with the DEI operation, nor is it clear that shooting at a bunch of obsolescent battleships in Pearl Harbor would actually help with that sort of thing, which is, after all, what the thread was about.

> it is far from clear that the U.S. forces in the Philippines can substantially interfere with the DEI operation
This is amazingly the dumbest post in this thread full of dumb posts.

All these threads where people ask "Could [combatant who lost] have won??" are so fucking stupid.
If they could have won, they would have.
They didn't win.
End of fucking story.

Had they known better, they could have taken out the entire 7th fleet, taken Hawaii, and used it as a refueling stop.

That was a quote, dipshit.

No.

I hate to say this, but Japan was still a developing country that got a little too big for its britches.

>have to use nukes like a coward instead of fighting honorabu battles

Dude, invading and occupying the continental United States due to geography alone is impossible.

This, yanks should had done the honorable thing and starve japs to death instead of using cowardly weapons like nukes.

Popeye would beat that little twink's ass.

Without specifying any a-historical conditions, the question "Could [losing party] have won?" is moot and already has an answer.
Change the prompt, then the question makes more sense.
Could the Japanese have won if the US hadn't nuked them?
No.

I agree with the sentiment that these threads are stupid, but that doesn't mean all such questions in this format aren't worth discussing as they could help the questioner gain a better understanding on the topic. For instance:
>Could the Union have won the Battle of Bull Run?
>Maybe, if they hadn't made tactical errors here, here, and here etc.

They had what? 100ish strategic bombers (not tactical land or naval bombers) and one cruiser. What fighters they had could not cover the B-17s as far out as somewhere like the DEI or to somewhere like Hainan, so they'd be pretty much useless. Nor would they work quickly, it's not like these weapons are instant kill buttons. A carrier force could easily protect itself from that sort of attack, if the bomber force even found the invaders, which is far from certain.

And it's not like the invasion of the Philippines required a lot of time once the intitial preparations had been done. Historically, the DEI was hit a day after the Philippines invasion started. If the Japanese did it the other way around, exactly how much damage do you think they could do? But do go on, dazzle us with your brilliance.

Considering how much trouble they had invading Wake Island, which was both closer to their own nodes of support and far more lightly defended, I have grave doubts they could have taken Hawaii.

Negative. Japan face only 10% of war effort from EUA and have a long list of problems.

>compare theWWII with Vitnam war
No, just no.

the (((US))) was already going to war with Imperial Japan to enforce (((their))) East Asia tariffs. Pearl Harbour was nothing but a preemptive strike against the mobilizing (((American))) invasion force.

no

t. Hiroshima Nagasaki-chan

There was nothing there. They made the wrong strategy; hit and run. They should have dedicated more planes to make more hits, and to hit the ships that were not docked.

This is '41; the American War Machine has not even begun to be cranked up. There was nothing there but targets of opportunity.

As always, in war, strategy > tactics.

>There was nothing there
That is completely incorrect. history.army.mil/books/wwii/Guard-US/ch6.htm

>The War Department's stand also reflected the fact that Oahu, in comparison with other overseas bases or with the continental United States itself, was already well provided with defenses, and especially with the means for resisting invasion. It had a full infantry division, a heavy concentration of coast defense guns, and from 1938 onward the more or less constant protection of the United States Fleet.

> They should have dedicated more planes to make more hits, and to hit the ships that were not docked.
None of that will help you actually conquer the island and use it as a base, even if it was successful.

>As always, in war, strategy > tactics.
You clearly have no idea what either of those words mean.

they had a plan called the tanaka memorial

>In order to take over the world, you need to take over Asia
remember shintoism was a religion where the japanese literally thought they were minor gods, and the emperor was a god. one of the emperors decreed that japan should take over the would in like the 12 century or something. it was something on their mind for a long time
>In order to take over Asia, you need to take over China
for the manpower
>In order to take over China, you need to take over Manchuria and Mongolia
for the coal and other resources
>If we succeed in conquering China, the rest of the Asiatic countries and the South Sea countries will fear us and surrender to us.
that will give them oil, rubber, and more raw materials.

their next move would have been america to take over their production, then they could take over the world. reminder that japan was literally crazy.

look up the tanaka memorial
no they thought they could actually win

>to-the-death nationalism
it wasnt nationalism, it was religion. they believed if they died, they would become warrior ghosts (shintoism thought is that the dead are ghosts who do everything normies do, but are invisible). and would be enshrined in a tomb that even the emperor visited and bowed to.

no they actually wanted to conquer them. it was part of the master plan.

look up hakkō ichiu

their religion, not nationalism, even though they were intertwined it was their religion (devotion to the emperor and belief of an afterlie) that made them willing to die before surrendering

The US only "lost" Vietnam due to changes in Cold War policy (shift from brinksmanship to detente under Nixon) and an unwillingness to commit genocide.

Make no mistake, the US was willing to commit genocide in Japan to end WW2. Had the nukes not worked, the main island would have been completely firebombed before V-day, which would have resulted in a bloody march to Tokyo. Northern Japan would face an even worse enemy: Communist Russian and Chinese soldiers out for revenge. It would have been a total bloodbath and Japan would have been split like Korea was in real life.

>They had what? 100ish strategic bombers (not tactical land or naval bombers) and one cruiser.
Two cruisers (one in Borneo) and one cruiser from the Pacific Fleet in the area. And, most importantly, most of the US's modern submarines. All the Salmons and Sargos, and most of the Porpoises.

This was actually tested in real life and it turns out nope.

The American industry was unbeatable. Japan would have had to have very limited victory conditions to be able to declare victory.

I dont believe it was "impossible" but you would have to change so many factors that make it just about impossible.

If the Japs in 1942 had cracked allied signals, triple their money and the most competent commander and politican appropriately allocated they still wouldnt be able to win.

navsource.org/Naval/usf06.htm

I'm counting 25 submarines in and around the Philippines. If you think that can stop the IJN, you're insane, especially with all the air power they can bring to focus in the area.

Plus, it's not like the historical invasion overran all the submarine pens right away. Manila didn't fall until until the 24th of December in any event, which is more than enough time to sortie with the submarines if the U.S. wants to do that, surprise attack or no surprise attack.

ITT: one guy baiting as hard as he can while everyone else falls for it

They would have to have won every single battle for two years.

>all these posts equating Japan/Pearl Harbor as some serious attempt by an otherwise legitimate Japanese army

If the Japs didn't have so much into China and other lands around that they invaded - and only focused 100% on the USA - shit would have been FAR FAR different.

Different situations. Rice farmers were not spread out like the Japanese empire. Said rice farmers also got aid from others and did not face the full might of industrial strength.

If the Japs didn't attack somewhere like China to open up all those primary resources they didn't have in Japan proper, you'd free up a bunch of manpower, to be sure, but at the cost of making the Japanese even more laughably under-equipped than they were already. Good bye things like planes and artillery pieces that I'm pretty sure they're going to neeed.

The american navy was so bloated and unnecessarily strong that japan stood bo chance
The one thing that all americans can agree on is don't tred on me and japan tried to tred and got fucked up

Except to focus on the USA they would still have to spread themselves over islands.

Yes, but it would not have been easy.

I recommend the book "Rising Sun Victorious" for explanations how.

One guess. Starts with J and ends with E.

Assuming the Eastern Front goes better than OTL, if the Japanese played their cards right they could have drawn an armistice by annexing much of east asia, Philippines,Solomon islands, and marshal islands.

Let us assume that during pearl harbor the Japanese commit more bombers than OTL and destroy 3-4 carriers, all 8 destroyers stationed there, as well as navy repair yards, oil tank farms, submarine base, and the old headquarters building. Of course this means Yamamoto receives better intelligence and does not underestimate the US.

Japan has to win some pretty decisive battles to completely demoralize the US after Pearl Harbor.

Now the Japanese have more time, they can occupy and fortify more of the Islands they had and build more carriers.

Now the Japanese have win four battles decisively.

Instead of splitting their naval forces they could have ganged up and destroyed the concentrated US forces in both Coral Sea and Midway. That is, instead of actual dispersal, the Japanese only feign it and attack in concentrated columns. If this is done, and the Japanese sink ALL the aircraft carriers, then the US is in deep shit. Had this battles resulted in a crushing defeat for the US, then the next crucial battle in the Philippine sea would not have been so overwhelming for the Japanese and have a more equal carrier to carrier ratio with the US, also committing Yamato there would also help the chances for a victory. Changing the naval codes and committing better intelligence would also improve their chances.

Some other things that could be done like committing more men in Guadalcanal and making it a grave for the US marines, or occupying Siberia with the northern china and manchuria armies. Cutting off lend-lease shipments to Vladivostok and occupying it. Air raids in Hawaii, biological warfare in the US.

basically making the US shart in mart, and Roosevelt to get a heart attack.

Not in anything that resembles the world War two we know.

>thinking Japan could fight the ussr, China, and the United states all at once and some how magically win.

Really short of just magically winning everything the japs could never win, the Japanese would have been mad to use chemical weapons the allies had far more and would not hesitate to use them if they were employed against them.
The Japanese some how magically sink the Pacific fleet twice over, well guess the Atlantic fleet will need to transfer over assets.
Japan was way out of its league, they would need to have United with China and pacified them entirely and then built a larger fleet with the resources and industry, they would also need to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese to increase their manpower instead of depleting it dealing with guerilla actions.
They would need to invest into better equipment, and find a way to get oil without antagonizing the west.
And lastly they would need to keep the Siberian rump state propped up to keep vladistock out of the hands of the ussr which is a major change to the end of the Russian civil war.
So much needs to change that it would be an entirely different war and the Japan in question would look nothing like the one we knew.

Jap originally design Katana because he want to reduce population of Japan.

This is why Katana useless in modern age
Katana need two hands to operate and reduce population
Modern Jap has figured out to treduce population with one hand, by sit in bedroom and masturbate hikkimori and not get girlfriend because he ugly Jap

Jap originally design Katana so strike fear into western heart

Now, he just make porn video, and loud squeel of ugly Jap woman give weaboo westener fear fear that his mother can hear porn play

Katana most pointless weapon in world, most pointless other than 'Penis shrinking ray' shot at Jap who dick already so small. Why you keep brag on your fucking shit weapon? Nobody impressed.

>implying japan had a chance

Yeah that's definitely what happened good one, god i hate this fucking board

>Let us assume that during pearl harbor the Japanese commit more bombers than OTL and destroy 3-4 carriers
How? Carrier space is very limited.

>and destroy 3-4 carriers
There were only 2 carriers assigned to be based in Pearl, and neither of them were there, as they were delivering aircraft to Wake and Midway so the number of bombers the Japanese have is irrelevant to destroying them.

>all 8 destroyers stationed there
I hope you mean battleships. Not that any of the BB at Pearl were particularly important, being obsolescant vessels too slow to keep up with the pace of Pacific operations.

> as well as navy repair yards, oil tank farms, submarine base, and the old headquarters building. Of course this means Yamamoto receives better intelligence and does not underestimate the US.
And a couple of Lancasters perhaps, because it turns out, tiny CVP torpedo bombers are crap at destroying port facilities.

>Japan has to win some pretty decisive battles to completely demoralize the US after Pearl Harbor.
Clearly, things like the Phillipines and Coral Sea and Guam weren't enough, and in fact made no noticeable impact on American morale. What exactly would be enough?

> Had this battles resulted in a crushing defeat for the US, then the next crucial battle in the Philippine sea

Philippine Sea was in 1944, when the U.S. had spat enough Essex class vessels out to outweigh the entire IJN's carrier air force, even if every single pre-war carrier was destroyed (and given that only 2 of them survived in Pacific service up to that point, they're not really that important).

You are completely retarded. Please kill yourself. If you're not honorabu enough for sudoku, at least refrain from posting in threads like this.

>3-4 carriers
There were only 3 carriers in the Pacific and one of them was undergoing modernization and maintenance for about a year. Which means only two carriers in December had Pearl as their homeport.
Japan was never going to knock out more than 2 carriers if they had been there at Pearl.
This is why some officers had some misgivings about the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan knew only two carriers at most would be there. But no one truly tried to challenge the plan even with that knowledge.

t. american LARPing as 50 cent army

>Why bother even mentioning IJN when it was outmatched in battleships, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, escort ships, auxiliary crafts, or in other words, pretty much all things that weren't battlecruisers and even then that was only because USN never completed any of those.
Well technically the Pacific Fleet was outmatched by the Japanese Navy for most of if not all of 1942. Yes there was the Atlantic fleet but they were a non-factor due to other priorities.

Unlike the faggots here on Veeky Forums I actually do read history books and yes the Japanese could have beaten the US and forced them to the negotiating table as planned. The war with America was a gamble for Japan and could have gone either way but luck wasn't on Japan's side and they lost.

Please, elaborate on how this is possible. With your sources. I could use a good laugh.

I did not say Hawaii was defenseless.

I said the Japs could have taken Hawaii, and destroyed the entire 7th fleet, if they had perfect knowledge to know it was possible.

>I did not say Hawaii was defenseless.
Hawaii being defeneseless is more or less a pre-requisite for the next bit.

>I said the Japs could have taken Hawaii, and destroyed the entire 7th fleet, if they had perfect knowledge to know it was possible.
How the fuck is this going to be possible? Say yes, we wave a magic wand, and the Japanese know EVERYTHING, down to where the last box of ammunition is stored, about American defenses. They then need to assemble an invasion force, project it at least 3,900 km if they're going from somewhere in the Marshalls, and way the fuck farther if this force is being assembled further back, say in Japan proper. They then need to assault a rather heavily fortified island, a process that could take weeks if not months, all the while attempting to resupply from this absurd distance. All the meanwhile, you need to keep this invasion force hidden and prevent the Americans from reinforcing.

Raiding an island and bombing it is several orders of magnitude easier than sticking around and invading it with ground troops and holding it. There is no fucking way that the Japanese could have invaded Hawaii and taken it for themselves absent no defenses at all. I mean for fuck's sake, look at this, even if it's just wiki.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island

It took them over two weeks, multiple attempts, and considerable damage just to overrun tiny Wake Island. Which is closer to their center of power, flatter, and defended by about 22 times as many troops. Sealion had a better chance to work.

Correction, I meant to say defended by about 1/22 as many troops, not that Wake's garrison is 22 times the size of Pearl's garrison.

>thread
>retards shit posting with out sources
>asks for them from dissenting voice
>kek

No I'm not gonna to my library and pull out my books to indulge a bunch of shit posters.

Despite having an economy smaller than Brazil's, the Japanese at that point were the worst enemy America had ever encountered.

Yamamoto was right about Americans, the American public wouldn't stand for a bloody and prolonged war. Towards the end, despite being at war for only 4 years, Americans were exhausted and wanted the war to end. There were riots over material shortages which translated to race riots, and riots broke out over high-casualties in operations like Tarawa. One of the reasons by the A-bombs were dropped was because the US gov knew that an invasion of the home islands, while successful, would have been bloody and would have destroyed political and military careers.

>No I'm not gonna to my library and pull out my books to indulge a bunch of shit posters.

Or in other words; you are pulling shit out of your ass and hope that no one will question whatever shit you happen to post.

I've been sourcing my stuff, and if you want to see some particular point more finely detailed, I'll be happy to provide it.

>Yamamoto was right about Americans, the American public wouldn't stand for a bloody and prolonged war.
Except for them in fact doing so.

>owards the end, despite being at war for only 4 years, Americans were exhausted and wanted the war to end.
Yes, this is actually normal for a society. But they were also continually increasing war production and enlistment in the military, which means that resistance to the war effort wasn't nearly close to being a material factor.

>here were riots over material shortages which translated to race riots, and riots broke out over high-casualties in operations like Tarawa.
Bullshit. Name one riot over material shortages, or any riot over what happened at Tarawa. There were race riots, but that was because of American race relations, and they would continue (and intensify) as the war was over.

>One of the reasons by the A-bombs were dropped was because the US gov knew that an invasion of the home islands, while successful, would have been bloody and would have destroyed political and military careers.
Really? Whose career seemed to be threatened by such an action?

t. average Veeky Forums poster

The amount of mental-gymnastics in this post is cringeworthy

>Except for them in fact doing so.

The war dragged not because the American public wanted it to but because the US government wanted to see it to the end.

>Yes, this is actually normal for a society. But they were also continually increasing war production and enlistment in the military, which means that resistance to the war effort wasn't nearly close to being a material factor.

America wasn't even affected majorly by the war and yet Americans were ready to call quits only after four years, which is nothing. Yamamoto was spot on with his observations that Americans were incapable of dealing with the hardship brought on by war.

>Bullshit. Name one riot over material shortages, or any riot over what happened at Tarawa.

Why don't you open an actual book on the domestic effects of the war instead of watching shit on the History Channel and getting all your info on history from video games

>The war dragged not because the American public wanted it to but because the US government wanted to see it to the end.
No they didn't. Prove that.

>merica wasn't even affected majorly by the war and yet Americans were ready to call quits only after four years, which is nothing
No they didn't. Prove that.

>Why don't you open an actual book on the domestic effects of the war instead of watching shit on the History Channel and getting all your info on history from video games
Because they didn't. Prove your fucking point you fucking jackass liar.