Korean apts. look like 'exploding twin towers'.

[Gandalf]

And they are not fucking facts, they are projected estimates. Those are not facts.

[El Kabong]

And they are not fucking facts, they are projected estimates. Those are not facts.

Operation Overlord, look it up...hell look at the casualties from Guadalcanal and Okinawa and tell me invading Japan proper would have been easy or cost less lives that the bombs.

Out of 36,200 soldiers on the ground for Japan 31,000 were KIA in Guadalcanal, only 1,000 were captured...at Okinawa a Japanese force of 117,000 men suffered north of 95,000 KIA, only between 7,400-10,755 captured and the mass suicides of the civilians which numbered somewhere between 42,000 and 150,000.


Oh but invading Japan proper (which has never been done) would have been nothing compared to the 2 bombs we dropped....I like to dream too miles, but the guilt you push off on The Allies is unwarranted and undeserved. It was war, we told Japan what we would do, we fucking showed them the tests and they took it....not once, but TWICE before surrender and yet an invasion would have saved lives eh


The only problem with the bomb was that nobody knew about fallout and how that would affect everyone.

[Gandalf]

And they are not fucking facts, they are projected estimates. Those are not facts.

Operation Overlord, look it up...hell look at the casualties from Guadalcanal and Okinawa and tell me invading Japan proper would have been easy or cost less lives that the bombs.

Out of 36,200 soldiers on the ground for Japan 31,000 were KIA in Guadalcanal, only 1,000 were captured...at Okinawa a Japanese force of 117,000 men suffered north of 95,000 KIA, only between 7,400-10,755 captured and the mass suicides of the civilians which numbered somewhere between 42,000 and 150,000.


Oh but invading Japan proper (which has never been done) would have been nothing compared to the 2 bombs we dropped....I like to dream too miles, but the guilt you push off on The Allies is unwarranted and undeserved. It was war, we told Japan what we would do, we fucking showed them the tests and they took it....not once, but TWICE before surrender and yet an invasion would have saved lives eh

Dropping the bomb was the greatest crime of the last century. I suppose we could expect nothing more of a nation that bred itself on killing the natives.

Still wrong and no excuses should ever be made for immoral and outrageous acts of wanton bloodshed.

[El Kabong]

And they are not fucking facts, they are projected estimates. Those are not facts.

Operation Overlord, look it up...hell look at the casualties from Guadalcanal and Okinawa and tell me invading Japan proper would have been easy or cost less lives that the bombs.

Out of 36,200 soldiers on the ground for Japan 31,000 were KIA in Guadalcanal, only 1,000 were captured...at Okinawa a Japanese force of 117,000 men suffered north of 95,000 KIA, only between 7,400-10,755 captured and the mass suicides of the civilians which numbered somewhere between 42,000 and 150,000.


Oh but invading Japan proper (which has never been done) would have been nothing compared to the 2 bombs we dropped....I like to dream too miles, but the guilt you push off on The Allies is unwarranted and undeserved. It was war, we told Japan what we would do, we fucking showed them the tests and they took it....not once, but TWICE before surrender and yet an invasion would have saved lives eh

Dropping the bomb was the greatest crime of the last century. I suppose we could expect nothing more of a nation that bred itself on killing the natives.

Still wrong and no excuses should ever be made for immoral and outrageous acts of wanton bloodshed.

"Hello, my name is miles and I wish I wasn't a white guy"

Ah, yes The United States the ONLY place EVER in the history of the world where people killed off indigenous peoples and had slaves


The fire bombing of Dresden was probably worse than ther 2 nukes, BUT once again we (and by "we" I mean "you and people like you") look at those events through the prism of the present and not as things they way they were at the time. The 20/20 Hindsight View of History is a dangerous one and it's irresponsible it brings about falsities like "The American Civil War was always and only about Slavery" or that "Dropping the bombs on Japan was horrible and it cost more lives".

You ought to know that the US Armed forces produced so many Purple Heart medals in preparation for Operation Downfall that they are still giving out the medals produced then and still have over 200,000 left to give out......oh, but it would have been more "humane" to invade rather than drop bombs.....my bad miles....I guess I'll go do my ritualized self flaggelation for my continued sin of not being an oppressed minority

[VictorCharlie]

Two different times with different ideas of acceptable warfare. WWII was total war. Nation vs Nation not just two nation's militaries. When the amount of bombing (particularly fire bombing) Japan's mainland had already endured w/o surrendering is viewed along with the amount of casualties the Allies had already absorbed in the Pacific and the estimated casualties from a mainland invasion it was the only decision to make. There were no easy decisions in WWII. Either way you went lots of people were going to die. Doubtful we will ever see this kind of bloodshed again but it is also unlikely you will see the kind of fascist evil that was the Japanese Empire and Third Reich. I guess you could throw in Stalin too since no one will ever get close to his body count.

[El Kabong]

There's a long list of things liberal just can't let go, some of which include: The Trail of Tears, Sacco & Vanzetti, The Rosenburgs, Christopher Colombus, The Bombing of Japan, and the fact we were indeed winning in Vietnam.....but I digress


If America folded up tomorrow those liberal bastards would be happy for about 2 seconds before they realized how great they had it......subversive little shits

[CFH]

And they are not fucking facts, they are projected estimates. Those are not facts.

Operation Overlord, look it up...hell look at the casualties from Guadalcanal and Okinawa and tell me invading Japan proper would have been easy or cost less lives that the bombs.

Out of 36,200 soldiers on the ground for Japan 31,000 were KIA in Guadalcanal, only 1,000 were captured...at Okinawa a Japanese force of 117,000 men suffered north of 95,000 KIA, only between 7,400-10,755 captured and the mass suicides of the civilians which numbered somewhere between 42,000 and 150,000.


Oh but invading Japan proper (which has never been done) would have been nothing compared to the 2 bombs we dropped....I like to dream too miles, but the guilt you push off on The Allies is unwarranted and undeserved. It was war, we told Japan what we would do, we fucking showed them the tests and they took it....not once, but TWICE before surrender and yet an invasion would have saved lives eh


The only problem with the bomb was that nobody knew about fallout and how that would affect everyone.

I literally could not care less about your and Miles argument, but the issue about the atomic bomb is not nearly so black and white.

Japan was in extreme turmoil near the end of the war. I believe one leadership coup of sorts had already been attempted and I also believe the governing body was split regarding whether or not to surrender or keep fighting. I know a lot of historians feel that Japan would have given up without the bombs being dropped. If highly educated professionals feel that way, it certainly isn't '100% fact'.

That being said, the nuclear bombs were no worse than the firebombings that the Allies had been using against both the Japanese and the Germans, it's just the nature of the bomb itself and the age which it ushered in which are so shocking.

[El Kabong]

I literally could not care less about your and Miles argument, but the issue about the atomic bomb is not nearly so black and white.

Japan was in extreme turmoil near the end of the war. I believe one leadership coup of sorts had already been attempted and I also believe the governing body was split regarding whether or not to surrender or keep fighting. I know a lot of historians feel that Japan would have given up without the bombs being dropped. If highly educated professionals feel that way, it certainly isn't '100% fact'.

That being said, the nuclear bombs were no worse than the firebombings that the Allies had been using against both the Japanese and the Germans, it's just the nature of the bomb itself and the age which it ushered in which are so shocking.

Liberals also never take into account that nukes are more than likely reason #1 the Cold War stayed cold.

[CFH]

I literally could not care less about your and Miles argument, but the issue about the atomic bomb is not nearly so black and white.

Japan was in extreme turmoil near the end of the war. I believe one leadership coup of sorts had already been attempted and I also believe the governing body was split regarding whether or not to surrender or keep fighting. I know a lot of historians feel that Japan would have given up without the bombs being dropped. If highly educated professionals feel that way, it certainly isn't '100% fact'.

That being said, the nuclear bombs were no worse than the firebombings that the Allies had been using against both the Japanese and the Germans, it's just the nature of the bomb itself and the age which it ushered in which are so shocking.

Liberals also never take into account that nukes are more than likely reason #1 the Cold War stayed cold.

Maybe, maybe not. That's not something which can be easily proven. Even so, it still came pretty close to outright war on a couple of occasions.

To make a sweeping generalization - neither country really wanted to go to war with one another, even without nukes the death tolls would have like made WW2 look like a tea party (alibeit a genocidal one ).

[El Kabong]

Maybe, maybe not. That's not something which can be easily proven. Even so, it still came pretty close to outright war on a couple of occasions.

To make a sweeping generalization - neither country really wanted to go to war with one another, even without nukes the death tolls would have like made WW2 look like a tea party (alibeit a genocidal one ).

Well the US made plans to get Germany back on it's feet, get those soldiers and Panzers, and plow on through Moscow....never materialized, but it WAS on the table. The only thing I could think of that would have been a deterrant either way was the threat of nuclear attack.

[CFH]

Maybe, maybe not. That's not something which can be easily proven. Even so, it still came pretty close to outright war on a couple of occasions.

To make a sweeping generalization - neither country really wanted to go to war with one another, even without nukes the death tolls would have like made WW2 look like a tea party (alibeit a genocidal one ).

Well the US made plans to get Germany back on it's feet, get those soldiers and Panzers, and plow on through Moscow....never materialized, but it WAS on the table. The only thing I could think of that would have been a deterrant either way was the threat of nuclear attack.

What time period are you talking about? The Russians didn't even have the bomb, let alone large stockpiles, until 1949.

One thing that I found incredibly interesting when I was studying American history was the ways in which domestic attitudes towards the Soviets changed over the course of the war. Prior to 1943/44, they were depicted as heroes and there was a lot of good will felt towards them by most Americans. It ended up changing very dramatically in a very short period of time.

[VictorCharlie]

FDR's mancrush on Stalin had worn off by then. The fact that the whole thing kicked off over Poland and by the end everyone knew Poland was just trading murderous despots I think it left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

[El Kabong]

FDR's mancrush on Stalin had worn off by then. The fact that the whole thing kicked off over Poland and by the end everyone knew Poland was just trading murderous despots I think it left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

Hell I've heard people liberated from Nazi prison camps say the Nazis treated them better than the Soviets

Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well wikipedia says it was a British plan, but I know full well Patton had wanted to drive on through the USSR, granted Patton was the Mad Dog General that Ike kept on a short leash, but everyone knew the Soviets were going to be a threat post WW2.

[VictorCharlie]

I've read maybe 10-12 books on the European theater so I was skeptical when my old man gave me a copy of Armageddon by Max Hastings. It is truly one of the most detailed and objective accounts I've ever read and highly recommend it to WWII buffs. Unlike Ambrose or other British writers Hastings is in no way a Allies cheerleader or Montgomery groupie. He is very critical of the Allies war effort and has incorporated an unbelievable amount of first hand accounts. After reading this it is very clear to me that the Soviets won the war and the rest of the allies just provided a distraction to Germany. It also leaves no doubt in my mind that a continuation of the war against the USSR would have been disastrous. Lyle I've also done a lot of reading on Vietnam. If it interests you pick up Bright Shining Lie. Hands down best book I've read on it.

[El Kabong]

I've read maybe 10-12 books on the European theater so I was skeptical when my old man gave me a copy of Armageddon by Max Hastings. It is truly one of the most detailed and objective accounts I've ever read and highly recommend it to WWII buffs. Unlike Ambrose or other British writers Hastings is in no way a Allies cheerleader or Montgomery groupie. He is very critical of the Allies war effort and has incorporated an unbelievable amount of first hand accounts. After reading this it is very clear to me that the Soviets won the war and the rest of the allies just provided a distraction to Germany. It also leaves no doubt in my mind that a continuation of the war against the USSR would have been disastrous. Lyle I've also done a lot of reading on Vietnam. If it interests you pick up Bright Shining Lie. Hands down best book I've read on it.

History has shown that attacking the USSR (at least from the west) is not the brightest of ideas (Japan had great success against them in the East, so much so it was one of the main causes of the Bolshevik Revolution). However, attacking Russia from the east means you've got loads of ground to capture and hold until you start squeezing their forces and the places you're holding are almost uninhabitable. The Allies didn't have the money or the manpower to continue the war effort at that point in time and as they waited, the Ruskies got the bomb so it was a moot point by then.

The Soviets had the ONLY tank capable of handling the Panzers, the Sherman tanks were effective only due to their numbers (and Patton at the helm). The T-34's were very solid.

I'll have to check that Vietnam War book out