|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted January 31, 2004 03:39 AM |
|
|
|
Vycka1234
Known Hero
|
posted January 31, 2004 09:40 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson i have to admit i didnt even entered those sites.I know what Atom Bomb can do. Atom bomb was the most brutal thing americans can even think of! And British did a great job while holding agains Nazis the sea was filled with blood of germans, but they dindt landed on England.Is it was the Finland who had that graet barrier which holded of the russians till they gave up attacking it?
____________
|
|
pietjebell
Promising
Known Hero
positive
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 10:01 AM |
|
|
I got it all first hand..
My father fought in the War, his father too, although I didnt know him.
My mother was in a camp, her father was there when the nuke dropped. My grandad spend most of his life dealing with it.
Actually, my father and mother too, but not as much as he did. Although the subject came on at least once a week!
And as for the pics requested, I was trying to make a point, I will not show family photos here..
Quote:
I respect your opinion; however, I think our grandparents and their generation would be best suited to answer this particular question.
True.. and so they did, almost every day..
But I know you are having a discussion here, for me its somewhat 'closer' hence my post. You dont have to react to it, I just had to say this.
I can only hope that the people who talk about a war as a sollution or even as something good, know the impact it has..
Most of us haven 't seen the terror up close, we should be down on our knees thanking God, or whatever you believe in.
Ask the people who know 1st hand, that will change your view..
BTW: do you know how much days, after WWII it took before another war (elsewhere) was started?
Love, Peace = hapiness
Thanks
____________
BOOT: what U give yur computer to start
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I know what Atom Bomb can do. Atom bomb was the most brutal thing americans can even think of!
The atom bomb killed signifigantly less than 700,000 to a million people I believe. I also do not see how dropping such a bomb is any worse or better than firebombing Japanese cities and starving populations to death. If you can find a better alternative to the bomb, please tell us, but until then, every choice facing the allies would have either continued to destabalise the region or inflict massive casualties. The bomb inflicted the least, therefore it was the best choice.
Oh and btw, something I forgot to mention, the figure of 700,000 to a million? That was based on just a 90 day campaign fought over ONLY 1 island of Japan (the southernmost to be precise) not the entire country. Multiply the figure by 2-3 to get the right figure, of which up to maybe 500,000 would be dead allied soldiers and you may get close to how many would die in an allied invasion.
Still think that the Atom bomb was the most brutal thing?
Quote:
And British did a great job while holding agains Nazis the sea was filled with blood of germans, but they dindt landed on England.
Hitler almost certainly had no plans to ever invade England. Maybe if the army that escaped at Dunkirk was lost, and the RAF had been beaten he might have tried, but the Battle of Britain did not save Britain from invasion, by it's height, Hitler had turned his eye to the east. Hitler was not entirely stupid, he recognised the folly of invading Britain given the woefull lack of amphibious landing craft Germany had and their smaller navy. What he did not realise was that the Luftwaffe was not at all suited to bombing a country into submission when said country posessed decent fighter planes. His folly in continuing the Battle of Britain cost him many of his fighters and light bombers, planes that would have been much handier in Russia.
Quote:
Is it was the Finland who had that graet barrier which holded of the russians till they gave up attacking it?
Not entirely. Finland and Russia went to war prior to WWII when the Russians invaded. They fared dreadfully due to a lack of winter equipment and superior Finish tactics in their home territory. Eventually, sheer weight of numbers told and the Russians forced a peace (1939 I think) that ceded land to them. When Germany struck east, Finland joined in and drove the Russians back out of the lost land before attacking them around Leningrad and that area, but to little avail. Eventually, with Germany retreating, Finland could no longer hold back the Russians and retreated, taking some German troops who had been sent there to support them along with them. I'm not sure, but around then I think Finland sued for peace, keeping the land they retook, but to do so they had to attempt to capture the Germans on their land.
A farcical situation then occurred, the Finns had no intention of capturing the entire German force there, but could not simply allow them to evacuate unhindered. A system was set up whereby the Finns followed the Germans in their wake, never really catching them, but occaisionally taking prisoners and keeping on their heels. I think pressure eventually meant some small scale actions, but eventually the Germans left mostly unhindered.
Quote:
I can only hope that the people who talk about a war as a sollution or even as something good, know the impact it has..
Most do, I've been to and seen many a war cemetary, of all countries, I've read countless books, not on the text information, but on soldiers stories of the war. I've spoken with my own grandparents, both vetrans of it along with numerous older people that I know. War is a solution? Perhaps, you look at what was defeated in WWII, the attitudes of Nazi Germany overall, and Imperial Japan in wartime and you have to admit, war was a solution unavoidable in 1939/1941, and certainly, of all history's wars, this was the one most justified. It certainly was not perfect, it left half of Europe and some of Asia under dictatorship rule and doomed the world to the chaos and problems of the cold war, but I find that easier to swallow than the notion of a Nazi state continuing to this present day. Ideally stopping it before 1939 would have been best, long before, but even this is hard. I've yet to see how you could stop Japan though, little reason prior to 1941 existed to justify the peacefull attempts at changing the system in Japan, and the system was so ingrained, chances to do so were nil.
As for the pictures, well it's hardly the point in some ways. Of course the bomb was a dreafull solution. Do you think there was a better one though? All countries suffered in this war, my own Grandfather was sent to Belsen concetration camp to deliver supplies a day after it's liberation, I assure you that mental scars like that ran deep for the rest of his life. But it gains nothing to have a competition for which country or who's relatives suffered more as you point out. Being critical of a decision such as the bomb is easy, actually saying what you might have done instead in that position and defending how it would be less painfull/cause less losses is much harder. Being critical of war is even easier, but again, you talk with hindsight. Now it is easy to look back and say war should not have been an option, then it seemed the only choice.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 09:06 PM |
|
|
I think that using any kind of weapons of mass destruction lays out of moral of simple human being. May anybody use this power to attack target anywhere? Any votings and polls were not take place anywhere for this subject. But if you can notice all great invetions in phisic, chemistry, mathematic, biology are going to serve on military necessities. So it follows military science must be the most leading. But. Dynamite, napalm, nucleus bomb, anthrax - where are something that may stop the war, reduce damage of attack, restore destructions from debris? I see only destructive elements and I draw a conclusion that in future we all will die. For example, someone storehouse with biological weapon will be blasted and only several chosen ones will stay alive because they would have antidote. That is why spreading of weapons of mass destruction in the world is so danger. Who knows what kind of thoughts are in head of S.Korea's, Iran's, Pakistan's etc. leaders. And God will forgive us if we will stop spreading of radical ideas in beginning. Even though this will require victims. Consequences can be unpredictable. That is why world needs any high council, but not only one man which consider god himself.
Do you know him?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that using any kind of weapons of mass destruction lays out of moral of simple human being. May anybody use this power to attack target anywhere?
No, they may not, nor was that the point or topic. I merely forwarded the conclusion that the allies had a number of choices, the least evil of which they chose. The rest you loose me on, nor do I suspect are they on topic in the slightest.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 10:24 PM |
|
|
|
There is exist such point of view that WW2 was won by US because they first used nuclear blast. May anybody tell me what was in society after it happened?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 03:20 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Impressive knowledge about the War there, privatehudson. Thank you for the many things I didn’t know. There are some things I just don’t agree with. I do support your view on who’s the most important, though in my opinion (1.USSR 2.UK 3.USA) I gave a short description of Yugoslavia’s contribution in the war (my former beloved homeland).
Yugoslavia’s contribution
In the pre-war period the Balkan states were ruled by small monarchies which were imperialist in character and didn’t have much support among the people. That’s why when the Axis submitted ultimatums to them they either joined them (Romania, Bulgaria) or fled the country with a lot of money when they were attacked, without organizing real resistance (Yugoslavia, Albania). One exception was Greece, because it has always been a close British ally. It had nothing to do with the “democratic” authority that was in power (general Metaxas).
The biggest and most important anti-fascist resistance in all these countries was organized by the Communist parties which operated inside. Many of these maintained close relations with Moscow, but the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) also had relations with London. The Communist party organized guerilla forces, known as partisans all over the country, mainly from the ranks of the peasantry and the common people. The leader of the Yugoslav resistance was Josip Broz Tito, the man who came to power after the war and remained there until his death 1980. He was the national hero, initiator of the non-allied movement during the Cold War and leader of Yugoslavia’s post-war impressive economic and cultural development.
The partisan resistance managed to give the occupying nations (Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary) a hard time maintaining control over the country. “Freed territories” started to emerge, which led eventually to the liberation of the entire country in 1945.
Although the main burden of the liberation of Yugoslavia was taken by the CPY and the partisans, they were helped militarily by the Anti-Hitler coalition, and the Soviet army took some part in the liberation of Yugoslavia.
“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?”
Same question goes for the pre-war period, when Germany and Italy did several agressions on sovereign countries. They feared from the Communism from the east and wanted to have a buffer-zone between USSR and the West. They are partially responsible for letting Hitler grow too powerful and not stopping him earlier. They even encouraged Germany’s military build-up in the years after WW1.
“I strongly suspect that the rumours you heard of USSR being the next target is nothing but cold-war propaganda.”
“Some claim that British spies reported that in early 1945 Stalin had plans drawn up to continue westwards in 1945.”
In your own words, pal – Cold War propaganda. Neither was USSR going to attack the Western countries, nor the Western countries were gonna attack the USSR. So, in this prospect, the a-bomb didn’t stop anything from happening.
“Being critical of a decision such as the bomb is easy, actually saying what you might have done instead in that position and defending how it would be less painfull/cause less losses is much harder.”
How can you say that wiping out a huge civil population is justified?! The purpose of the a-bombs were civilians only, not military targets! Does this make US any better than the Nazis and their death-camps? Even if it saved more lives (which is not true!), we are talking about civilians here, not soldiers.
It was obvious that Americans were the winners, because the Japanese were badly weakened, although they didn’t want to surrender. They kept on fighting just to get more acceptable surrender terms.(not a speculation, Japanese government officials have said this) The Americans wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, no matter the cost. They wanted “unconditional surrender” and to spare as much American lives as they could. In the minds of Truman and his advisers at the time, ending the war and saving even a relatively small number of American lives was simple justification for using the bomb. Other alternatives were to get help from the Soviet Union, who declared war on Japan in August, but they didn’t want a disbalance in power in the Far East. Another alternative was to offer peace terms with more acceptable conditions (to keep the emperor), which the Japanese would have accepted. Even an invasion wouldn’t have been as costly as the bombs (over 100 000 CIVILIANS dead).
“That is why spreading of weapons of mass destruction in the world is so danger. Who knows what kind of thoughts are in head of S.Korea's, Iran's, Pakistan's etc. leaders.”
Ironically, weapons of mass-destruction have saved many lives also. Who knows what would have happened to the world during the Cold War, if it hadn’t been the fear from nukes. An all-out war, I guess.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 04:38 AM |
|
Edited By: IYY on 1 Feb 2004
|
I believe that USSR was the country that won the war. They definatly sacrificed much more than the other allied countries (not that Stalin was so concerned with the welfare of the world or anything, but the Union was under the most serious threat from Germany so it was their only option) and defeated Germany, the strongest axis country. I believe that the US only entered the war for their benifits and profit and would not have minded to let Hitler rule (they only joined when they were the ones who were being attacked).
As for the nuclear bomb, I believe that it should not have been dropped. First of all, the war was pretty much over when the US saw the need to test their new toy. If they didn't drop the two bombs, Japan would have surrendered in weeks (if not days). How could Japan keep fighting against the entire world without the rest of the Axis on their side? I know that they care a lot about honour and such but they are not insane. Their power (as seen in the charts below) was nothing in contrast to all the Allies combined and they certainly knew this. So did the US. But of course, dropping the bomb was very profitable for the states as it made them seem as though they were involved in the war and helped defeat the axis while at the same time also tested the new weapon and demonstrated their power to the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. Quite convinient for them, quite unfortunate for the Japanese.
There are some more statistics:
ARMED FORCES PEAK STRENGTHS OF THE PRINCIPAL ALLIED POWERS
Australia: 680,000
Belgium: 650,000
Canada: 780,000
China: 5,000,000
Denmark: 25,000
France: 5,000,000
Greece: 414,000
India: 2,150,000
Netherlands: 410,000
New Zealand: 157,000
Norway: 45,000
Poland: 1,000,000
USSR: 12,500,000
Union of South Africa: 140,000
United Kingdom: 5,120,000
United States: 12,300,000
Yugoslavia: 500,000
ARMED FORCES PEAK STRENGTHS OF THE AXIS POWERS
Bulgaria: 450,000
Finland: 250,000
Germany: 10,200,000
Hungary: 350,000
Italy: 3,750,000
Japan: 6,095,000
Romania: 600,000
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 02, 2004 09:18 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 11 Sep 2004
|
The Truth, Be It Painful Or Joyous
Quote:
"I was part of a crew of people that went into Hiroshima. This was about a month after the bomb had been dropped. There was a smell to the city - and total silence. It was amazing to see the utter and indiscriminate devastation in every direction, and to think just one bomb had done it. We had no comprehension of the power of that bomb until then. When we landed, the little kids saw we weren't going to kill or shoot them, so they began to gather around. We realized they were very hungry, so we took our lunches and broke them up and gave them to as many kids as we could."
~Mark Hatfield, U.S. Navy ensign, United States Senator(Oregon)
This was very hard for me to copy down. The truth is the truth, be it painful or joyous.
To this day there is no greater threat to our existence. We Americans dropped those bombs. My grandfather was U.S. Navy in WWII. There is no apology that will ever bring these people back. There is no mathematical equation that justifies this. As an American citizen I have the right to freedom of speech. At this time it is with no small amount of sorrow nor shame that I apologize to the world for this act of war from my country. 1945 is not so long ago. I have asked myself why this would happen from the first day I was told it in school when I was younger. They say that 'all is fair in love and war'. I will never agree that this was justified nor will I ever agree to it in the future. If men lead lives of quiet desperation then let this be their awakening to boisterous civility. No longer can we afford to lead a sheltered life focused on our own self-centered personal obstacles. Here is our chance to rise up like those of the greatest generation and face life as true heros. As I sit and wait for my own life to move on and eventually end its cycle I wonder, "what could I have done if I were alive when that happened". If I am the man that my family and friends know me by then let me be defined by my character. In no way would I ever allow something this monstrous to ever occur were I to have a say in the matter. I may only be one man but if I don't stand up for what I believe then let shame take me while I die in dishonor. For all those that came before me and those that follow after, I am here today and today will be the day that I cry out for humanity to be each their own hero.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 09:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In your own words, pal – Cold War propaganda. Neither was USSR going to attack the Western countries, nor the Western countries were gonna attack the USSR. So, in this prospect, the a-bomb didn’t stop anything from happening.
Not entirely true, propaganda or not, Stalin had proven in the past willing to take advantage militarily of weak neighbours or good military situations. In 1945 the situation was as good as it was going to get for a long time, without the Bomb there was precious little the West could do to stop the Red Army if it did attack...
Quote:
How can you say that wiping out a huge civil population is justified?!
Any more justified than wiping them out through starvation and/or firebombing?
Quote:
The purpose of the a-bombs were civilians only, not military targets!
True but irrelevant, this was total war, the Japanese were showing ZERO sign of surrendering, they brought the action on themselves. Coincidentally, both cities were of military importance btw.
Quote:
Does this make US any better than the Nazis and their death-camps?
Uhmmmm YES! The death camps were something specifically designed to kill civilians who no matter their action did nothing to justify such things. The camps also had no military logic, nor did they do anything to bring the opposing countries to the surrender table. The atom bombs on the other hand saved lives (ironically) and stopped the war.
Quote:
Even if it saved more lives (which is not true!), we are talking about civilians here, not soldiers.
Sorry, but wrong on the lives issue. Read again the previous page. The US' own studies showed that using simple logic an invasion of ONE island of Japan would cost well over 500,000 casualties, of which somwhere in the region of perhaps 200,000 would be Japanese civilians. That's before you throw in the fact that the allies would have continued to firebomb the Japanese cities (which killed more than the bombs in Tokyo) and possibly starve the country also (which would have added even more). Stop burying your head in the sand, simple facts show that in comparison to that, the bombs were small casualties.
As for civilians, studies of Okinawa would show you that if they did ever invade Japan, many (though not all) of these civilians would either form militia and fight to the death or prefer death to surrender. Japan was quite prepared to start arming these civilians for the invasion believe you me.
Quote:
They kept on fighting just to get more acceptable surrender terms.(not a speculation, Japanese government officials have said this) The Americans wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, no matter the cost. They wanted “unconditional surrender” and to spare as much American lives as they could.
I've seen the terms the Japanese considered, they basically put were the Emporer's position to continue unchanged (something that would hinder post war democracy), no Allied occupation (possibly the most on paper acceptable one, but might lead to a revival of Japanese millitance after the war) and war crimes conducted by Japan, in Japan, something unnaceptable to anyone in the allied camp. Apart from that offering any conditions was pointless and time wasting, they knew from Experience with Germany the allies fought for unconditional surrender.
Quote:
Even an invasion wouldn’t have been as costly as the bombs (over 100 000 CIVILIANS dead).
Based on what? Every study I've seen says at least twice that for 1/4 of the country...
Quote:
As for the nuclear bomb, I believe that it should not have been dropped. First of all, the war was pretty much over when the US saw the need to test their new toy. If they didn't drop the two bombs, Japan would have surrendered in weeks (if not days).
Uhmmm nope, first written, recorded proveable Japanese consideration of considering allied unconditional surrender was 1 day after Hiroshima.
Quote:
How could Japan keep fighting against the entire world without the rest of the Axis on their side?
Simple, on the above study I mentioned, inflicting somewhere around 147,000 casualties (minimum) per 90 days, possibly per island would have been quite sufficient to put all but Russia off.
Quote:
So did the US. But of course, dropping the bomb was very profitable for the states as it made them seem as though they were involved in the war and helped defeat the axis while at the same time also tested the new weapon and demonstrated their power to the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. Quite convinient for them, quite unfortunate for the Japanese.
So without the bomb, as far as you're concerned the US contribution was neglible? Interesting, I'll have to get back to you on that one.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 01:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ironically, weapons of mass-destruction have saved many lives also. Who knows what would have happened to the world during the Cold War, if it hadn’t been the fear from nukes. An all-out war, I guess.
Some countries can not feel any fear such as North Korea and Iran because there are very zombied citizens which will go to the Hell for theirs leaders.
Quote:
Quote:
How can you say that wiping out a huge civil population is justified?!
Any more justified than wiping them out through starvation and/or firebombing?
Did not you think that may be they would prefer to starvate than see B-52 in the sky?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did not you think that may be they would prefer to starvate than see B-52 in the sky?
Hardly the point, more would have starved to death than died in the bomb attacks. That's not to mention the firebombing raids...
Consis: I respect your attitude, but in this respect I find it to be wrong. Unless you can forward another way in which the war would have ended with less casualties, suffering and destruction, whilst still maintaining the unconditional theory then your point is a moot one given hindsight. As I said, it's very easy to be critical of the decision, it's dreadfully hard to be able to give a alternative that would have been better, for Japan and the world.
Quote:
There is no mathematical equation that justifies this.
The facts are not mathematical equations, think of them more as saying if the allies had chosen another course, your guilt at your country would be twofold or more. Unless of course your guilt is that it was so sudden or so violent, but I can think of no logic to support this. The guilt from killing twice that number in an invasion, or more in starvation would be equal to me to guilt in the bombs.
Quote:
They definatly sacrificed much more than the other allied countries (not that Stalin was so concerned with the welfare of the world or anything, but the Union was under the most serious threat from Germany so it was their only option) and defeated Germany, the strongest axis country. I believe that the US only entered the war for their benifits and profit and would not have minded to let Hitler rule (they only joined when they were the ones who were being attacked).
I kind of hate to be critical and mean no offense, but I find this to be a little simplistic. Take your point on the US entry, they were in reality in WWII long before the Germans declared war, it was US tanks, ships and planes that kept Britain alive long enough during the war for one. I certainly think that the US would have minded loosing Western Europe to one country, such a nation could easily rival the US for resources and power, and no US president was going to think that a good idea.
Whilst I agree Russia suffered numerically the higher, other countries paid their own price for WWII. The war (along with WWI) effectively ended the British Empire and doomed the country to financial ruin after the war, followed by decades of repayments to the US of our war debts (with interest I may add....). It's hard to define who paid the highest price for the war in reality, though I do agree Russia's price was terrible.
As for "defeated Germany" on what basis is this on? For one you would have to prove that Russia could have done without the other allied nations. My contention is that unless this is taken from 1944 or 1945 then this is incorrect. Russia was on the brink of collapse in 1941 and 1942, Stalin was contemplating abbandonning Moscow, and whilst German losses were high, even in 1943 the initiative still to some degree rested with Germany. Throughout these years it was Allied support in terms of tanks, trucks and similar that kept Russia in the war, and still in 1945, whole divisions of the reserve were using solely American equipment! This alone would indicate that Russia would have struggled alone.
Now you have other factors, starting with the one front belief. Hitler's waging of war on 2 fronts was madness, it prevented reforming of armour, split forces and supplies and generally was highly costly. Without either of the US or UK this would not have been a problem, Germany's whole might would have been thrown at a Russia without Western support. Then add in the fact that German factories would not have been hindered by serious bombing raids. This would not only have perhaps increased production, but also released vast numbers of fighters to contest the skies over the battlefield, something that would have wreaked havoc on Russia's war plans.
I could continue for some time, but you get the picture.
Perhaps it seems not as important as the ground numbers on paper, or Russia's price that they paid, but in reality the contribution of the western allies to ending WWII is much more than a simple Nuclear bomb or two at the end to justify their efforts.
That's before I get started on the theory that even if Russia had somehow defeated the Germans alone (say after d-day failed) I fail to see how Stalin and his cronies occupying the whole of (or as near as be damned) continental europe counts as the world being saved...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 10:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said, it's very easy to be critical of the decision, it's dreadfully hard to be able to give a alternative that would have been better, for Japan and the world.
Alternative does exist. It is prevent all evil beginnings at their starting. But I can not agree that only one side will decide what is evil and what is good. Of course main influence on it have to be the moral and not the economical or territorial interests or any religious.
About US entering in WW2. When whole Europe was in fire and there was some developments of nuclear bomb US could not stay far from it and let make dangerous power based on German Empire. Especially that USSR has asked the help from US and it was like requirement.
Quote:
This alone would indicate that Russia would have struggled alone.
Stalin and his cronies occupying the whole of (or as near as be damned) continental europe counts as the world being saved...
Exactly right. And till present days it shows that in unilateral order noone can resist good prepaired attack. Especially in that time USSR was weak because several revolutions ruined the Russian Empire.
But it is true that US occupied whole Western Europe and created NATO for some reasons they knows only which.
|
|
Vycka1234
Known Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 11:09 AM |
|
|
US entered the war because they were afraid that Germany will take Russia(as you know Russia has countless recourses)
and helped russians with medical, food suplies and war equipment.Now the question why the almighty America was afraid of Germans taking Russia cuz if Germans had teken Russia Germans would have resulted taking and America and rest of the world using countles Russia natural recources. Another question why dind Russia used the those suplies itself, because Russia is stupid country(too many thieves, drunkcards).
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted February 03, 2004 04:42 PM |
|
|
Don't be blind before the facts
“In 1945 the situation was as good as it was going to get for a long time, without the Bomb there was precious little the West could do to stop the Red Army if it did attack...”
Oh, yeah! The communist demons were sure going to invade the West if it was not the bomb that spooked them. Americans saved the world, once again!
“quote:
The purpose of the a-bombs were civilians only, not military targets!
True but irrelevant, this was total war, the Japanese were showing ZERO sign of surrendering, they brought the action on themselves.”
I can’t believe you are saying this. Wiping out civilians is irrelevant?! Was it crucial for the victory? Killing civilians in war is considered barbaric, monstrous, evil. You wanna know the similarities between the bombs and the death-camps? Mass extinction of civilians, no military effects, innocent civilians died because of their nationality.
You asked for alternatives, I gave you the alternatives. They are all much less painful than the decision. Germany surrendered in May, the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9, the USSR declared war on August 8. Look how patient the US were. They didn’t want Soviet interference, because of the disbalance in power.
“Apart from that offering any conditions was pointless and time wasting, they knew from Experience with Germany the allies fought for unconditional surrender.”
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Japan surrendered and kept the emperor in place. So the surrender was conditional. If the Japanese had known that they could have kept the emperor, they would have surrendered. So says a decoded message from July 1945 by the Japanese foreign minister to his Soviet ambassador that the emperor wanted to end the war, the obstacle was US hard policy on unconditional surrender.
So, why didn’t the US send a declaration with a promise to the Japanese people to keep the emperor? The truth is cruel. It’s because public opinion in US was against that.
“Hardly the point, more would have starved to death than died in the bomb attacks.”
You give the second alternative yourself. Naval blockades, international pressure and the severe hardships Japan already had, would have ended the war if only given a chance. How can you claim that more would have starved to death than died from the Nukes? The limit of dead civilians before Japan’s surrender would have then be decided by the Japanese themselves, not the Americans. Maybe Japan would have surrendered after several thousand people starved to death. And do you honestly believe that the Japanese morale was so high to continue fighting for many months? This was not in line with the statements the Japanese officials had given before the surrender.
The US' own studies showed that using simple logic an invasion of ONE island of Japan would cost well over 500,000 casualties, of which somewhere in the region of perhaps 200,000 would be Japanese civilians.
As for the worst possible scenario, the invasion, it’s clear that 200,000 killed Japanese civilians is a wild guess of yours. (“…perhaps…”) The number of killed civilians depends on the army that invades. Also, 500,000 dead is much exaggerated. I’ve read about American military experts studies which show in the worst case tens of thousands killed Americans. My guess – twice more on the other side. And we are talking about soldiers, not civilians. Japanese estimates show about 240,000 dead civilians, as opposed to 100,000 from the US, civilians killed from two small devices.
One thing is clear, the Americans did chose the best and least dangerous solution, but for them, not the world. They sacrificed hundreds of thousands Japanese civilians to save much much fewer American lives, to keep power in Japan and assure public support in their homeland.
This trend of American international policy continues forward to this day, always led from their national interests and not giving damn care about other countries.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can’t believe you are saying this. Wiping out civilians is irrelevant?! Was it crucial for the victory? Killing civilians in war is considered barbaric, monstrous, evil. You wanna know the similarities between the bombs and the death-camps? Mass extinction of civilians, no military effects, innocent civilians died because of their nationality.
That truly is a shame, but still irrelevant as PH says. It was a terrible barbaric thing, yes, but was the rest of the war strait as an arrow? I don't think so. Japanese prison camps were right up there with Hitler's consentration camps. Don't kid yourself, the Japanese were not innocent. Civilians maybe, but not the country.
Nagasaki was not an innocent city either. It was a city for building battleships in the 30's and 40's, so there was some military goal there.
Quote:
This trend of American international policy continues forward to this day, always led from their national interests and not giving damn care about other countries.
Can you honestly say that the other countries fighting in WWII cared about the other countries? Come on now, Stalin? I bet he could care less about other countries, he didn't even care that much about the people living in his own country. Hitler, that's an obvious one. Japan, yeah they cared about the Chinese people in Manchuria. Britain in WWI cutting boundaries in the Middle East, disregarding ethnic differences. Everyone did it, don't put all the blame on one country, please.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, yeah! The communist demons were sure going to invade the West if it was not the bomb that spooked them. Americans saved the world, once again!
I didn't say they would, I said it was the best time for Stalin to have done so (without nukes that is), and another equally good time would not occur for decades. Stalin was no-one's fool and was hardly the most peaceful of rulers, I'm just pointing out that in the grand scale cold war power or percieved power was vital, and since the US did not have it in 1945 conventionally, it needed less conventional means to protect itself. And if you read my first post I very much do NOT think that the US was the sole saviour of the world, I do on the other hand consider the bomb to have been important to protecting from the designs of Stalin.
Quote:
I can’t believe you are saying this. Wiping out civilians is irrelevant?!
Civilians of a regime that point blank refused to surrender in a total war. Add that to the military value of the cities, and the fact that other options would kill MORE civilians, not less and yes, I find your comment irrelevant. I don't however find killing innocent civilians irrelevant, but **** happens in total war. Given the options I don't like that they had to choose the a-bomb, but I can certainly understand why they did.
Quote:
Was it crucial for the victory?
Yes, or to be more precise crucial to a victory that would not involve Japan being divided as in Germany was, and a victory that didn't involve over a million casualties. Or alternatively a victory that wouldn't result in Japan escaping pretty much scott free along with all her war criminals.
Quote:
Killing civilians in war is considered barbaric, monstrous, evil.
It's total war, again, **** happens, it's especially that case when the civilian population is heavily in support of a nation showing no sign of surrendering. You might just as easily criticise the bombing of London. In the modern era, armed forces are stationed within cities, towns etc. This is a common practice, as is civilian losses in war common because of this. Again though, total war, and majority support for the governments actions make the hitting the enemy's fighting ability impossible without also hitting their civilian population, though I would certainly they rather had hit a millitary target, I'd like you to find me a Japanese area the size of Hiroshima without civilians in it....
Quote:
You wanna know the similarities between the bombs and the death-camps? Mass extinction of civilians, no military effects, innocent civilians died because of their nationality.
Uhmmmmmmmmm NO. Military effects were immediately obvious. 400,000 allied soldiers didn't have to die to get the same effect as the bombs. The war ended quickly and relatively painlessly for Japan. Repeating the same worn out, incorrect points on no military value makes your argument look rather thin on logic I'm afraid. I can also think of a whole stack of reasons seperating the two events you suggest, chief amongst which is that the Jews did absolutely damn all, and had zip to make them all deserve what happened to them.
Japan on the other hand did and was doing something that resulted in the Bomb. It's governments lack of will to surrender and it's people's will to die in support of this is a direct action that brought about the consequence of the bomb.
Oh and the Jews then were not a nationality, they were a religion.
Quote:
You asked for alternatives, I gave you the alternatives. They are all much less painful than the decision. Germany surrendered in May, the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9, the USSR declared war on August 8. Look how patient the US were. They didn’t want Soviet interference, because of the disbalance in power.
And your alternative is presumably to allow Russia to overrun land in the far east and possibly even Japan itself? Let me remind you of a little fact, during Russia's occupation of Manchuria, 376,000 of Japan's 2.7 million nationals in the region either died in Russia's occupation or Dissapeared. Let's assume for a moment that Russia occupied say Hokkaido, one of Japan's Islands and forced a surrender. Congratulations, using those figures, you've just forwarded a theory that condemns 400,000 Japanese people to death. Now try telling me that that alternative was better. Unless I've misread you and you somehow trust Stalin to simply wait for the Western Allies to parlay with Japan until the war ended.
And you misread me, I asked for what you would have done to end the war, not launch another assault on why the bombs was dropped. I don't doubt for one moment that somewhere on Trueman's mind was the notion that he had to show Russia America's new might, but I find the notion that this was the sole reason akin to you acting like an ostrich in the face of facts.
Quote:
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Japan surrendered and kept the emperor in place. So the surrender was conditional. If the Japanese had known that they could have kept the emperor, they would have surrendered. So says a decoded message from July 1945 by the Japanese foreign minister to his Soviet ambassador that the emperor wanted to end the war, the obstacle was US hard policy on unconditional surrender.
So, why didn’t the US send a declaration with a promise to the Japanese people to keep the emperor? The truth is cruel. It’s because public opinion in US was against that.
A japan with an emporer would not have learnt the error of it's ways in fighting the war in the first place and would have been not that different to Germany post WWI. The allies had learnt their lessons well. As for the coded messages, to me they hold little relevance. Contacting Russia was hardly a serious attempt, especially not when you consider preparations were also continuing to defend Japan at the same time. Then I should add that whilst that may have occurred, it was done by the Emporer, and not the true seat of Japanese power, the council of 6 members were divided right down the middle right up until the day before Hiroshima, with some wanting even more conditions. The nature of the council meant that no surrender could occur unless they had a unanimous decision from them, not split 3 one way, 3 the other.
Besides all that Japan knew without a shadow of a doubt that the Allies didn't "do" conditional surrender, and pretty quickly they'd learn that Russia wasn't so trustworthy either. Why we should take seriously an attempt that Japan must have known would be rejected out of hand? The allies did not fight for 4-6 years only to allow such a dangerous and outright evil regime to remain in control of their enemy country.
Oh and btw, some claim that the "evidence" for the true nature of the Russian link to ending the war is scant and badly researched.
Quote:
You give the second alternative yourself. Naval blockades, international pressure and the severe hardships Japan already had, would have ended the war if only given a chance
After precisely how many years? And just when was stalin planning to strike into Japan? that would be mid august 1945, so your point is a moot one.
Quote:
How can you claim that more would have starved to death than died from the Nukes?
Destruction of Rail systems in Japan would stop the flow of food from the areas that it was grown in to the cities like Tokyo. In 1946 calories in Tokyo were just over 1000 a day, and that was with proper working railways and a decent administration. None of this would have occurred if the allies had continued to bomb the infrastructure of Japan. Oh and I claimed that starvation AND firebombing would be more grevious, and firebombing in Tokyo killed more alone than both bombs. Therefore, not doing both saved lives.
Quote:
The limit of dead civilians before Japan’s surrender would have then be decided by the Japanese themselves, not the Americans.
I hardly think this would matter, they didn't seem to care much about civilian losses in Okinawa or Tokyo, what makes you think they'd sue for peace any quicker if the allies slowly persuaded them too? (only to see Russia jump the gun)
Quote:
Maybe Japan would have surrendered after several thousand people starved to death. And do you honestly believe that the Japanese morale was so high to continue fighting for many months?
I don't need to believe, their own planning proves it. Japan's military leadership devised a plan more than committed to fighting on despite heavy losses. Anyone need to be told what profession most of the big 6 in the council came from? That would be the military...
Quote:
As for the worst possible scenario, the invasion, it’s clear that 200,000 killed Japanese civilians is a wild guess of yours. (“…perhaps…”)
Uhmmm NO again. I was trying to recall the figure before I re-read the book actually. Now I have it to hand I'll tell you. The theory is simple, they studied a possible invasion of Kyushu (Japan's southernmost Island) and based it on a 90 day campaign, and planned that it would capture JUST Kyushu.
Okinawa saw high levels of civilian losses, using it as a sample, saying that 10% of the civilians in an area of fighting would die was hardly excessive. 10% of the civilian populations in the allied plan (basically most of Kyushu) was 380,000. I underestimated. That would be based on logical experience of previous similar areas, not a wild guess.
American losses were based on a figure of what number of men per 1000 would die/be wounded/go missing every day. They then looked at the pacific and European theatres to develop a number for this. The pacific (using simple statistics from previous fighting) figure was 7.45 soldiers in every thousand, per day would be a casualty, of which 1.78 would be dead. Now knowing that, you can simply multiply the figure by the number of troops involved, then the number of days (90). The result of that for your information was 134,000 dead allied soldiers. Ths is simple logical statistics based on previous campaigns.
I grant you my memory was out by 13,000 soldiers there, I do appologise for that, it was, as I said off the top of my head.
Now so far we have 134,000 dead allied troops, 380,000 civilians. That would be 514,000 dead before we start, but I've not finished yet. Estimates of Japanese army losses given Okinawa btw usually range about the 30-40% mark dead, and most historians believe Japan had something like 680,000 troops on Kyushu. Even if I'm charitable you'd be talking 200,000.
Shall I end here or add to the total the potential losses that Russia would inflict in their invasion, what was it now... 400,000 based on Manchuria as an example?
You'll find 500,000 is quite an under-estimation actually. Considering the source, and the logic they used when drawing such figures up, your argument falls on it's face. I'll take their statistics based on previous experience over your estimatations any day of the week and twice on sundays thank you 
Quote:
One thing is clear, the Americans did chose the best and least dangerous solution, but for them, not the world. They sacrificed hundreds of thousands Japanese civilians to save much much fewer American lives, to keep power in Japan and assure public support in their homeland.
Uhhmmm, what 200,000 died in the bombs? Against 134,000 US soldiers who would have died taking one island. Hardly comparable really now is it?
Quote:
The number of killed civilians depends on the army that invades
Not as much as it depends on the fact that Japan was planning to mobilise virtually their entire adult population to fight and/or support the military. Under those conditions it depends much more on the fact that civilians would in many cases no longer be true civilians.
Quote:
I’ve read about American military experts studies which show in the worst case tens of thousands killed Americans.
I'd certainly like to see them. And especially since the one I quote from was conducted in WWII and was enough to persuade Nimitz and King to privately dump the whole plan of Operation Olympic.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 12:02 AM |
|
|
Well, what would have happened had each of the three largest players of the Allies fallen or sat out?
UK falls shortly after France:
Germany can focus entirely on USSR. This means very few troops even pretending to defend the western part of Europe. All of North Africa and the Middle East become essentially German. Even if the US wants to, it can't affect the European front because it doesn't have anywhere to base its troops or bombers. Germany goes from fighting on the West, South and East to fighting only on the East. Maybe, MAYBE the USSR could have still stopped the German armies, but pushed them back? Remember, no having to rush troops back to fight the Battle of the Bulge, Rommel's on the Eastern front instead of Africa or Normandy. All of Germany's power focused on one enemy instead of three...
The USSR is an interesting one because while you can point out that if the USSR hadn't inflicted so much damage on the German war machine than Germany would have never been defeated. However, on the other hand, what if the Partition of Poland never happened? What if Stalin hadn't given Hitler such a free reign in the East so that Hitler had time to wipe out France?
Japan claims Pearl Harbor was a misunderstanding. US accepts Japanese apology, sits this one out:
Dunno. I guess it depends on whether Japan decided to really take on the USSR from the East. If so, I don't see how the USSR could survive. Then it depends on whether Japan and Germany remained allies once they ran into eachother. I'd imagine the end result of the US sitting it out would be a world remarkably like the one that is described in Orwell's 1984 with 3 major powers vying for position.
I think it's probably fairly safe to assume that if either of the 3 major allies in World War II had not been fighting Germany and Japan, the world would be a much more unpleasant place right now.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 07:11 PM |
|
|
For the sake of this thread, I’m not going to reply any more to your posts, because you didn’t bring any new arguments in your last post and I doubt you will, and because I basically mentioned all of mine. If we make this go on any longer, it won’t be productive.
Your last post is full of speculations, he would have done that, which would have caused this… With all those number and stuff it does look impressive and scientific, but those ARE NOT THE FACTS. It’s no more than a play-out of historical pattern of events, which actually never happened, based on a book which was written by some American guy who gives his best to justify the gravest crime in the history of humanity, the biggest number of murders in one single moment caused by one device and country.
The facts are: we have an already defeated, demoralized Japan, only wanting to retain the emperor; and a victorious, encouraged US, wanting to end the war as quickly as possible, with no more lost American lives, not taking care about foreign innocent people.
Quote:
A Japan with an emperor would not have learnt the error of it's ways in fighting the war in the first place and would have been not that different to Germany post WWI.
When Japan surrendered in August they DID retain the emperor, although with much diminished powers, but that was nonetheless the goal of the Japanese, to keep the emperor no matter the cost, because he was divine for them.
And don’t give me that invasion crap, cause Japan wanted to get better surrender terms, not to fight against an invasion. Their most important term was to keep the emperor, which was granted in the actual “unconditional” surrender. No such offer has been offered before. Had it been, they would’ve surrendered.
Quote:
In the modern era, armed forces are stationed within cities, towns etc. This is a common practice, as is civilian losses in war common because of this.
And this is exactly why they don’t use nukes for military purposes. Military gains compared to civilian losses, no matter which city you nuke, would be insignificant.
Quote:
Repeating the same worn out, incorrect points on no military value makes your argument look rather thin on logic I'm afraid.
Don’t you even try to convince me that the intention of the bombs were military targets! It’s ludicrous!
Quote:
It's total war, again, **** happens, it's especially that case when the civilian population is heavily in support of a nation showing no sign of surrendering.
I should remind you that intentionally killing civilians in war is rigorously punishable by international law (which Americans don’t respect or subdue to, but that’s another topic) under war crimes. And who gave YOU the right to judge that all those people were in support of their government. And that’s a justification to kill them all? Even if they did, so much from freedom to choose who you support. If it’s not the Americans, kill them all.
Quote:
Can you honestly say that the other countries fighting in WWII cared about the other countries? Come on now, Stalin? I bet he could care less about other countries, he didn't even care that much about the people living in his own country. Hitler, that's an obvious one. Japan, yeah they cared about the Chinese people in Manchuria. Britain in WWI cutting boundaries in the Middle East, disregarding ethnic differences. Everyone did it, don't put all the blame on one country, please.
You are absolutely right. The most powerful countries have always been imperialistic towards smaller countries, allies or not. At least, you, as an American, admit that.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
