Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World
Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · NEXT»
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 30, 2004 06:00 PM bonus applied.
Edited By: Consis on 22 Aug 2004

WWII : Who Saved The World

World War Two was the last great war that involved the every nation on this planet. The outcome of the war decided who would rule the Earth. It was the Axis nations against the Allied nations. The Axis nations had such a strong and evolved military that one could argue, had it not been for any specific reason that occurred, they would have won and in turn ruled the world. The question is, who saved the world from the Axis nations? Which country do you think made the greatest impact to the outcome of the war on the whole. Perhaps it was a series of jointly conducted battles that won the war. Perhaps it was the superb performance of Great Brittain's Royal Navy that caused the greatest impact. Perhaps it was the growing resistance movement within Europe itself. Perhaps it was the overwhelm-with-superior-numbers strategy used by the Soviets. Perhaps it was because the U.S. was the first to create the atomic bomb. If you believe your country won the war then let this thread be the place to prove it. I shall provide some World War Two statistics to help with the debate.

Here are the World War Two statistics that include both the European and Pacific theatres:

The categories shall continue as follows:

Country/Total Deaths/% of Prewar Population/Military Deaths/Civilian Deaths

USSR/20,600,000/10.4%/13,600,000/7,000,000
China/10,000,000/2.0%
Germany/6,850,000/9.5%/3,250,000/3,600,000
Poland/6,123,000/17.2%/123,000/6,000,000
Japan/2,000,000/2.7%
Yugoslavia/1,706,000/10.9%
France/810,000/1.9%/340,000/470,000
Greece/520,000/7.2%
UnitedStates/500,000/0.4%/500,000
Austria/480,000/7.2%
Romania/460,000/3.4%
Hungary/420,000/3.0%
Italy/410,000/0.9%/330,000/80,000
Czechoslovakia/400,000/2.7%
GreatBrittain/388,000/0.8%/326,000/62,000
Netherlands/210,000/2.4%/198,000/12,000
Belgium/88,000/1.1%/76,000/12,000
Finland/84,000/2.2%
Australia/39,000/0.3%
Canada/34,000/0.3%
Albania/28,000/2.5%
India/24,000/0.01%
Norway/10,262/0.3%
NewZealand/10,000/0.6%
Luxembourg/5,000/1.7%

Total deaths = 52,199,262

If you will notice, from the above statistics, Poland lost the most of its people(17.2%) and India lost the least amount of its people(0.01%).
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lord_Woock
Lord_Woock


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
posted January 30, 2004 06:17 PM

Quote:
World War Two was the last great war that involved the every nation on this planet.

Oh, I don't know. Did Switzerland have any role in the war? Also, how many South American countries were involved in the conflict?

Quote:
from the above statistics, Poland lost the most of its people(17.2%)

Well, poop
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hamsi128
hamsi128


Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
posted January 30, 2004 06:53 PM

russians ofcourse...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted January 30, 2004 07:32 PM

Of course with those Treated paranoid Stalin,Mae, Hitler,Saddam syndromes
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 30, 2004 08:18 PM bonus applied.
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 Jan 2004

LW: I believe at least Brazil and another nation involved themselves on the allied side, but waited until 1944 to do so (ie when it was obvious who would win). Interestingly, America feared that the facist-like leadership of Brazil would ally themselves to hitler at one stage in the war, and actually prepared plans to invade the country in such an event.

Switzerland was, as almost always neutral, though at times it quite heavily leaned towards the axis powers. Their end of/post war actions with regard to war criminals from the Reich and the Jewish survivors was disgusting to be frank. A bit of trivia here though, the Swiss got repeatedly annoyed with the Americans because US planes all too frequently missed their targets and unloaded over Swiss territory, the Swiss were not amused.

To the question, I forward the following nations:

USA: Sheer economic/production might that provided the ability of both Britain and Russia to survive as long as they did. Provided a large chunk of the allied forces on all fronts they had influence in, and in some places more alone than the combination of their allies. The USAAF arguably contributed considerably to the reduction in German production of war material as it tended to do precision air raids as opposed to the RAF's carpet bombing. The pacific would have been a Japanese duck pond without the US navy's presence up until the defeat of Germany (after that the RN turned up in large numbers). BTW, I personally don't think the a-bomb saved the world as such, but rather ironically Japan. It caused less casualties and allowed for quicker recovery than other options.

USSR: Sheer volume of troops. Inflicted by far the largest losses on Hitler in both men and ground material such as tanks. Drew most of the Wermacht against themselves for most of the war and repeatedly shattered their offensives. More tanks, Men and AFV's were on the Russian front than the west for the entire war (except during the battle of the Bulge) Their ressurection after the disasters of 1941 and early 1942 was little short of a miracle. A miracle that owed somewhat to their allies maybe, but nonetheless a miracle. Put simply, the allies would have needed many more years to retake Europe without Russia's involvement, and I'm not that sure it could have been done then. On the flip side, many will tell you that without either the US or UK, Russia would still have won. Not unless you take the western allies out of the equation in late 1944 or onwards would this have been feasible, by then the war was over anyway though in effect.

Poland: It was the poles that first captured an enigma machine, and in 1939 escaped into the UK to hand the secret to the British. This enabled the start of the code-breaking system that eventually brought much sucess. Polish forces continued to serve in a number of theatres after WWII, mostly in Russian (after Hitler invaded admitedly) and British armies, but in their own specific formations. Polish troops were heavily involved in maintaining the Falaise pocket in 1944, the trap that destroyed eventually the Wermacht in the west and left virtually nothing between the Rhine and the allied armies in Normandy capable of defensive operations.

Norway: Norwegian resistance fighters were able to discover the beginings of the german atomic bomb designs through their heavy water plants. They then located such plants, informed the British and helped to destroy them, thus delaying the development of such a weapon sufficiently. Admitedly some say that the method these plants would have used would have been inneficient, but the contribution of preventing such a weapon is not to be sniffed at. Norwegian people continued the war by serving in the Royal Norwegian navy from the UK.

France: Controversial perhaps as some consider their role to have been one of simple surrender in the war. Utter rubbish. Nearly as many French soldiers died fighting in 1940 as British/Commonwealth soldiers did in the entire war. They fought, and fought damn hard too. The resistance movement enabled the crippling of the Wermacht in the west through their actions, and French soldiers served in their hundreds of thousands in allied armies right through the war. They were more unfortunate than cowardly, every nation fought abysmally againt the Wermacht when it entered the war, France was unlucky enough to have fought them on their home soil. Criticisms would be their lack of offensive action during 1939 and partly the setting up of Vichy France, but overall, their contribution is hard to ignore. It should though be noted that until about Autumn 1944, the vast bulk of the Free "French" armies derived from African sources having been the garrisons of places like Algeria and Tunisia.

Czechoslavakia: They killed Hydriech, one of Himmlers most trusted and evil leutenants. Had he lived the final solution would have been much more terrible, many more would have died. I believe an entire village near to where he was assasinated was burnt down with population in it in retaliation. The morbid irony is that he died through German arrogance, had he received treatment from local doctors he would probably have lived. The Germans tried to fly a German doctor out to him, refusing local ones. He died.

Commenwealth Countries: (combined for ease, appologies, no offense intended here) Britain would have starved and/or been overrun without them. Nothing is clearer in importance than that. Commenwealth troops were vital on all fronts, especially in the Pacific were the empire had long rellied on local troops to do the military work for them. Canada provided vast numbers of trucks for the British Army and a large percentage of their male population volunteered for duty, mostly in Europe. Indian troops were essential in maintaining the frontier against the Japanese, though tens of thousands of them fought with the Japanese army also. Australian and NZ troops were vital parts of the African, Pacific and Italian campaigns and were truly brilliant troops. Ghurkas were fearlessly brave and remarkable examples of soldiers.

Australian boys it was that held of 4 times their own number of elite Japanese troops in atrocious conditions on the Kokoda trail to prevent an invasion of their own country. It wasn't their commander's brilliance that's for sure. MacArthur (for it was he) in his wisdom felt that the Australians were "cowards" for not attacking and pressed the Australian government to demote or spread the officers on the trail amongst other units. Only after the war did sense prevail and Australia recognise that it wasn't MacArthur, or necessarily Midway that saved their country, but a few thousand starved, diseased, but brave teenaged lads. Just a single example of Commenwealth contributions.

Last but not least, Britain:

Ok, so our forces were small in number, but our claim for influence on WWII is vast. The resistance movements we hear so much about? It was Britian who the vast majority of the time supported, armed, directed and set them up. The Enigma code that meant so much to the effort? It was partly British ingenuity that enabled this. British scientists built and put into production the first proper allied Jet fighter. Britain it was that lead the way in new ways and inventions of fighting the battle of the Atlantic. British ships enabled the lend lease system to Russia to ever even work. Britain's ability to maintain it's hold on the mediteranian prevented Germany/Italy from reaching the middle east oil fields.

No amount of US tanks, ships and planes could ever have achieved an invasion of the continent without Britain to stage it from. The Russian forces would have been even more mauled in 1941 and 1942 had the British not destroyed huge numbers of planes emminently suited to ground attack roles during the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy's influence it was that kept the Kriegsmarine in harbour much of the time, preventing her from intefeering with allied amphibious landings. The RAF was the effective counter-weight to the USAAF, ensuring "round the clock" air raids to keep pressure on the Germans.

British development lead to superior tank ammunition. It was Montgomery who planned D-day so well, not Ike who merely oversaw events and stamped his seal on them . It was British/commenwealth armies that faced 4 times the number of tanks the US ones did in Normandy, allowing the breakout to falaise. Britain it was that developed Radar properly and proved it's effective use. Britain first developed the convoy system to defend against U-boats, a system the USN ignored stubbornly to their peril in 1942.

I guess I could go on and on. I've elaborated most on the UK mainly because many in either the US or Russia seem to believe that our contribution was merely a side-issue, we helped a little, but really, the US and USSR could have done it alone. Sorry, but no, that's both simplistic and missing totally the point.

My conclusion, and it's not necessarily a popular one I admit, is that a combination of most of the above was vital to the sucess (such as it was) that was eventually achieved. Remove any of the above and problems occur, even the smaller nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. It depends on what you consider vital really. To win, perhaps only really the contribution of UK, US and Russia was needed. To win to a similar level as what happened, more nations must be added. To avoid heavier civilian (esp. Jewish) losses, the contribution of the resistance movements cannot be ignored, therefore civilian populations of the occupied countries are important.

To decide who saved the world you must first decide what level you accept the world as having been saved at IMO. I believe that all nations involved on the allied side, and some individuals on the axis side were involved and important in saving the world as you put it. If you accept that different scenarios were also "saving the world" such as Russia controlling more land, or more Jews dying, but Germany still falling, then less nations are needed.

Would you even say that the final result was saving the world? For fully 1/2 of Europe, the agony and repression that Hitler brought did not dissapear with the end of the war. Perhaps the war saved the world, but perhaps the bomb also saved it in the end. The threat of this weapon was what prevented Stalin from continuing Westwards to occupy the vast industrial heartlands of Europe. Had that happened, would that not have lost the world? And many of those on the Manhatten Project, ironically were of German descent.

Ok now my answer is descending into anarchy I guess I could conclude finally by saying the answer is every nation, but not all were saved.

Edit: I write to damned much
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lord_Woock
Lord_Woock


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
posted January 30, 2004 08:30 PM

Quote:
LW: I believe at least Brazil and another nation involved themselves on the allied side, but waited until 1944 to do so (ie when it was obvious who would win)

Which still means that the following statement:
World War Two was the last great war that involved the every nation on this planet.
Is not true. I mean, South America is more than two countries, don't you think?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 30, 2004 08:34 PM
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 Jan 2004

I didn't make that statement, or say it was all of south America. You asked how many were involved, I happen to have some idea, so answered you. I believe that he was wrong to state every nation*, he was probably just empahsising the effect of the war did occur globally and the effects was felt in nearly everywhere on the globe  rather than which nations were actually involved directly.

BTW to the above I will add that I have left out numerous nations such as Belgium, The Netherlands and so on. My appologies, consider the general remark about the contribution of the occupied nations to also extend to those countries. I believe that all of the occupied countries were important also.

*Though I'm pretty damned sure you'll find someone from almost every major country in the world serving in some army involved in some capacity
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 30, 2004 09:13 PM

Quote:

If you will notice, from the above statistics, Poland lost the most of its people(17.2%) and India lost the least amount of its people(0.01%).


Hey, guy you have to learn more hystory.
Atomic bomb did not stopped the war it was invented later.
Do You think USA losses (appr 50 000) is commensurable with USSR (20 millions). Of course I dont want minimize USA participation in help but main blow was inflicted to Soviets.
And change your statistic - I exactly know - the most losses was in Belarus - 25& population perished.
We never will find a point of view which would satisfy all of us.

Please dont spread about this.

BR

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 30, 2004 09:26 PM

WWII : Who Saved The World

I certain people won the war and nobody have not right judge whose contribution was greater. Every family which have died in WW2 relatives puts question on-other:
Why Nazi Germany was not stopped by Allies earlier?
What they did waited?
Did they waited for USSR down and dreamed enter to Russia elbowroom?

It is my personal opinion.

BR

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pietjebell
pietjebell


Promising
Known Hero
positive
posted January 30, 2004 09:28 PM

Quote:


Netherlands/210,000/2.4%/198,000/12,000




Nice list, but not at all accurate:

The Netherlands where involved for 3 days, those 3 days where due more to communications than to fighting.
What I mean, it took 3 days before all knew it was over.

We didnt even have an army as big as deaths claimed.


But dont matter, the Dutch allways have a tendency to think they mean a lot in the world..

But what I realy would like to say:

Are you all insane?
The bomb!!?? this is not a game, man!
you got any idea how long it will take before the nuclear fall out will be disappeared?
You ever think about them Japanese civilians? An their families?
You wanna see some pictures, of people who where there, who suffered for years..

Talking about it if it was the rescue of the world? a country?

Any country that drops/uses a nuke makes me sick!

Yeah, i konw, this will cuase some reaction, I know. But really, you guys know what you are talking about. You got the facts pretty accurate, in my oppinion.
Especially Private Hudson knows what he 's talking about

All this is just to say one thing:
But I dont think you know the impact of certain things. Be carefull what you say, because you might be harming people..
Some people are crying over this
____________
BOOT: what U give yur computer to start

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 30, 2004 10:09 PM

Quote:
Are you all insane?
The bomb!!?? this is not a game, man!
you got any idea how long it will take before the nuclear fall out will be disappeared?
You ever think about them Japanese civilians? An their families?
You wanna see some pictures, of people who where there, who suffered for years..



Do you have any idea just how many Japanese soldiers, civilians and US armed forces members would have died in an invasion? I do, something between 770,000 and over a million based on US army studies conducted during the war. Do you believe a divided Japan, similar to that of Germany would have enabled a fast recovery? Do you think that starving and fire-bombing the Japanese cities into submission is more humane? If so, you have a rather strange idea of my particular insanity. The allies had to choose the least of a number of evils. No-one's saying it was pleasant, I did though say that it saved to some extent Japan. Japan brought that result on themselves, they refused to seriously consider surrender, the blame falls on them as much as on the US. Whilst I do believe to drop the bomb was certainly a grevious decision, I do consider it to have been unfortunately necessary.

Quote:
Hey, guy you have to learn more hystory.
Atomic bomb did not stopped the war it was invented later.



Wrong. The two atom bombs landed on Japan just prior to the end of the second world war, ending the war in the Pacific. It might have been after the end of the European war, but WWII did not end in May 1945. Oh and it was "invented" much prior to it's first use against Hiroshima.

Quote:
Why Nazi Germany was not stopped by Allies earlier?



Peace-seekers, appeasers, and those simply afraid of what would replace the power vacume that Hitler's removal would cause. They all felt it better to wait and re-arm their respective countries in order to face him stronger. They all screwed up.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 30, 2004 11:12 PM
Edited By: CB_Duke on 30 Jan 2004

Quote:

Quote:
Hey, guy you have to learn more hystory.
Atomic bomb did not stopped the war it was invented later.


Wrong. The two atom bombs landed on Japan just prior to the end of the second world war, ending the war in the Pacific. It might have been after the end of the European war, but WWII did not end in May 1945. Oh and it was "invented" much prior to it's first use against Hiroshima.


I had in view 3 July 1944 when USSR was freed other liberations was allied.
Yes, one thing to invent another show in practic and that was directed to Japan. But I heard rumor that next target would be USSR for Europe influence.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 30, 2004 11:28 PM
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 Jan 2004

The Americans would never have dropped a bomb on Russia in the early years of post war europe. America and more importantly every single one of her European allies (including the UK) were worn out, stretched out and incapable of continuing the war to invade Russia. The threat alone of taking down say Moscow was enough to persuade Stalin and others that the US was too powerful to threaten. Some claim that British spies reported that in early 1945 Stalin had plans drawn up to continue westwards in 1945. It was the best time for Stalin, Western Europe was a mess, allied armies would be over-extended and possibly suprised, and Russian armed forces were strong. The sole advantage that the West possessed as a bargaining chip was the bomb as it upset these plans and placed them right back in the driving seat.

But given the state of Western Europe and others, the relatively small number of bombs the west had and could produce and other matters, I strongly suspect that the rumours you heard of USSR being the next target is nothing but cold-war propaganda.

It is interesting btw that you consider the end of WWII to be the end of the liberation of Russia, I'm afraid though that it's usually best to conform to the dates of WWII to be September 1939 to August 1945. Of course, not all nations spent all of this period in the war, it's just easier I find though.

On that subject though, want to know the only country who had troops fighting in pretty much every front in Europe of WWII? That would be Poland, their troops fought nearly everywhere. Under their own army they fought in the 1939 campaign to defend their country. They then served with Franco/British troops in the campaign in Norway (they sent some mountain troops), and the campaign in France and the low countries. Leaving France, they served with the British army in Africa, Italy and the whole of the NW europe battles. Under Russian control, poles also fought from 1941 onwards alongside their former attackers.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 31, 2004 12:14 AM
Edited By: CB_Duke on 30 Jan 2004

BTW I do not muddle notions WorldWar2 and War on USSR area. Just misunderstanding.
Can not argue with facts you present but ability to invade in Europe might be used. Apropos SU have got nuclear technology very fast after US may be this has postponed Day-X. Such stroked technological breakout has brought to Iron Curtain. Nobody knew what will be next invention and who will be first. Thank god this arms race stopped.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 31, 2004 12:22 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 Jan 2004

I think we can all thank whatever we believe in that that manic arms race ended. I think the US and Europe recognised that they could never militarily cope with Russia and because of this always looked for bargaining chips such as the bomb to balance things. I do think the Nato (as they became obviously) nations recognised that conventionally, Russia was too superior to either invade or strike with nukes at. At the start they lacked the number to make the strike effective, by the time they had numbers, Russia had built her own, partly through spy defections from the UK. Any invasion on the behalf of the west was simply suicide sooner or later, that is why I doubt they would have struck first in the post war period.

Anyway, enough on post war methinks, getting off topic I merely mentioned such post war effects to show that in reality, how much of the world was really saved? It is at best, an debateable subject to say whether the world was saved. Certainly sections avoided the misery of the Nazis, but equally sections suffered misery under a variety of reasons during the ensuing cold war.

I'd also like to say that I could find numerous other reasons for the countries I mentioned, I skimmed over the contributions of other countries, but feel theirs was very important also. I'm sure people from those countries, or some I missed like Yugoslavia and Greece could add a better perspective than I on their contribution
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 31, 2004 12:59 AM

Quote:

I think the US and Europe recognised that they could never militarily cope with Russia and because of this always looked for bargaining chips such as the bomb to balance things. I do think the Nato (as they became obviously) nations recognised that conventionally, Russia was too superior to either invade or strike with nukes at. At the start they lacked the number to make the strike effective, by the time they had numbers, Russia had built her own, partly through spy defections from the UK.


Only recently US have begun talks about their starwars. Earlier in agreements there was only large cities and some objects could have PRO (in eng mb its transl like Against Rocket Defence). SNV-2 (Strategic Offensive Armses) tells us that US may cover whole country and in unilateral order may block sky. Obiously noone country can not do the same. May be England would be able(small, island, US ally)
Nothing did stop...
So NATO now only seize Western Europe and some small countries and recooks in caldron to unify. When they will choke it will be "unpleasant" to all who are there.

on subject
Quote:

Norway/10,262/0.3%
NewZealand/10,000/0.6%
Luxembourg/5,000/1.7%
Total deaths = 52,199,262


Where did you find so precisely data even units and USSR's losses unknown 20 to 40 millions.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 31, 2004 01:32 AM

Some of the western countries had better record keeping I guess such as census' and so on. They'll never be exactly right for the larger countries, most are rough estimates.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
khayman
khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted January 31, 2004 02:32 AM

Walk A Mile In Their Shoes...

Quote:
Are you all insane?
The bomb!!?? this is not a game, man!
you got any idea how long it will take before the nuclear fall out will be disappeared?
I agree.  It was not a game.  I have no idea how long it will take to for the fall out to disappear, but I hope that this will never happen again.{quote]You ever think about them Japanese civilians? An their families?
I think about those Japanese civilians and their families often.  Perhaps the leaders of Japan should have thought about them more before engaging in a military campaign that involved genocide and world domination.
Quote:
You wanna see some pictures, of people who where there, who suffered for years..
No thank you.  I have already seen plenty of them.  Do you think those pictures are any better than the pictures of the dead, diseased, and starving concentration camp prisoners or the innocent civilians that the Japanese Army used for target practice or bayonet training?  Or perhaps even the photos of those prisoners of war who literally marched themselves to death in the Bataan Death March...
Quote:

Talking about it if it was the rescue of the world? a country?
Any country that drops/uses a nuke makes me sick!
I respect your opinion; however, I think our grandparents and their generation would be best suited to answer this particular question.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
CB_Duke
CB_Duke


Hired Hero
Gamer
posted January 31, 2004 02:58 AM

Khayman

Where I can find photos you talking about?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 31, 2004 03:19 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 Jan 2004

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~ehimchak/death_march.html





As a sample pictures from the site. Admitedly they're not from the march, one shows an execution of an Australian, another the state POW's were in when liberated.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0969 seconds