Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dienekes96 wrote:Are the limeys illiterate as well as gay, whatwhat? My text was clearly presented and readable.

I recommend you try again. After you finish the bonesmuggling, my good man.

oh har de har. No you see when I say I lost you, I don't mean I don't understand. I mean I lost any care in anything you had to say.

dienekes96 has decided to play the part of an 11 year old today, for the benefit of our own research on tolerance. That's my guess.

Where I live they have signs that say "JAPANESE ONLY" or "NO FOREIGNERS". How's that for racism? Renting an apartment: No smokers, no pets, no foreigners. Just in case someone decides to bring up the possibility of the Japanese only defending their culture, as a French tourist staying with a friend of mine in town less than a week ago, there is the whole whale/culture argument.

A lot of intolerance on all sides exist because most people are so self absorbed and self centred that they are just incapable of understanding the position of someone else. Also , I think a lot of these problems exist because the politicians and the powers-that-be whip up public sentiment to build support. If the masses are divded, they are easily ruled.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:"America won world war two cause we nuked Japan"

Didn't we?

I mean, we ended the war in that fashion. Victoriously.

Russia won WW2. If Uncle Joe hadn't used up millions of his own people to soak up Nazi bullets, the entirety of Europe, including the UK, would have fallen to the 3rd Reich. USA would not have had the ability to wage a war on both oceans.

Only a monster like Stalin beat a monster like Hitler. That's what broke the back of the axis, the Nazi war on the Eastern Front.

Body count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

No need to tell me that.

However, "win" can mean a lot of things. Being the most significant force in a fight can mean you've "won" it (You can argue for either the USA or the USSR for that status; The USSR would have been fighting on two fronts too if the US had instead remained neutral). Finishing the war can also mean "winning" it, and while the nuclear bombings didn't do much to swing the tides, they did finish the war.

To use a Warhammer 40,000 example, your 500 points of biker nobs killed 1,000 points of troops, and killed off all of your opponent's scoring units before dieing. However, a squad of grots, your last scoring unit, ran onto your objective at the end of the turn. Did the nobs or the grots win the game for you? You could say either one did.

Lord-Loss wrote:Seems like a waste of human life. Did those people deserve to die?

No, but more people died in the Nanking Massacre than from the nuclear bombs. More civilians died from conventional firebombing by the US. than they did from the nuclear bombs. At least as many civilians died from bombing in Europe as Japan, nuclear bombs included.

I have a feeling he was being sarcastic/trying to be funny.

Lets just return to the question of intolerance and steer clear of the gak storm I can see on the horizon of this thread atm.

I think I can be prejudiced, I certainly make assumptions based on many things when first encountering someone and one of those things will be their ethnic group or social outlook. If I met someone of, say oriental features, I would wonder in my head if that meant chinese, japanese, korean etc. I have always said that the colour of someone's skin isn't relevant to me, I do consider it, but it should not adversely affect my judgement of them.

Religion is a different kettle of fish though, I do hold a particularly negative view on Islam, mostly because I feel it holds a particularly negative view on me, every one i know and anyone else in the world who isn't in the club. I have met a few muslims who I have conversed with and who I have enjoyed their company, but non that I could sit down and discuss Islam as i see it and ask them to either help me understand or justify how I see that religion behaving the world over.

People of different countries use culturally accepted methods of showing this through their emotions and more importantly their actions.



And a bit more refined and determined version of the exact same thing... maybe, kinda, sorta.



This one goes to 11 though... what, I do not understand why that does not make sense....

Orkeosaurus said:
However, a squad of grots, your last scoring unit, ran onto your objective at the end of the turn. Did the nobs or the grots win the game for you? You could say either one did.




Did you just describe America as a squad of Grots

I love grots. I made a whole army of them.

Lord-Loss wrote:Seems like a waste of human life. Did those people deserve to die?

Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.
This actually dovetails nicely to the intolerance thread since the Japanese notions of superiorty at the time led to such gems as the rape of Nanking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking

My father had also heard about and seen a lot of fairly nasty stuff that had been done in the Phillippines by the occupying Japanese forces.

This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.

What makes this interesting to me is the fact I had a Japanese room mate whose father fought in China in WW2. The first time he and his friends had ever heard about this, the Baatan death march or Korean comfort women was from a news special talking about WW2.

My irony meter almost broke when reading this thread, which has received multiple Mod Alerts in its short life.

I'm not sure how this can stay On Topic and remain polite, so, I guess this means that this thread is on notice.

And so is everyone posting in it.

Relapse wrote:
Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.

And yet they didn't fight to the last man. They actually gave up after losing 220,000 people. The notion that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man simply doesn't jive with history. That said, the entire question of 'was it right to drop the atomic bomb' really misses the point. To the extent that total surrender was the only possible outcome of the war (which is debatable) there was going to be some terrible loss of life in bringing it about. Once you start arguing what was more terrible, dropping the atomic bomb or an amphibious assault followed by a protracted ground campaign, you're just splitting hairs.

Relapse wrote:
This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.

It wasn't even the greatest Allied sin of the war. When considering relevance to the overall aim of victory Dresden was much, much worse.

To ask if intolerance and racism is our future, one must have absolutely no idea what the worlds past has been. We live in far better conditions than in the past, and while that is not true everywhere it is true of most places.

And here is how much guilt I feel over dropping Fat Man and Little Boy: ZERO. Is it a shame? Yes. Did we kill plenty of civilians (I find the term innocent pointless in a debate about war on a scale the likes of which no one in this thread can even comprehend)? Yes. Is that regrettable? Yes. Did my grandfathers have to fight on the Japanese mainland against a fierce and dedicated foe after a brutal campaign in Europe? No. Anyone so inclined may also use the above website to peruse the war crimes committed during WWII. My country certainly committed it's fair share (as did all of the Allies), which is shameful. But the crimes committed by the Axis countries (and to a lesser extent Russia in the aftermath of Germany's downfall) were so far beyond that, that if any country did actually deserve the nuke (and none did), it was Germany and Japan.

And in facing evil dienekes96 has no problem in becoming evil. This is not a sign of weakness of morality, rather it's a weakness of character. Sacrificing ideals for ease of continued existence.

Intolerance is a fact of life, and we just have to tolerate it.

In other words, if you have a brain, you shouldn't give a flying feth about intolerant comments.

Many people mention America's intolerance. Here's to show that the feeling is mutual towards us.

Alpharius wrote:My irony meter almost broke when reading this thread, which has received multiple Mod Alerts in its short life.

I'm not sure how this can stay On Topic and remain polite, so, I guess this means that this thread is on notice.

And so is everyone posting in it.

The thread originally was asking something else , but knowing how badly i word things , it probably was read as something else.

I was asking " with racism , and sexism having immediate and harsh consequences , are the intolerant type of people that used to
be associated with those 2 listed , moving onto a more acceptable target. "praying" on other powerless countries for fun and chuckles .

ShumaGorath wrote:To ask if intolerance and racism is our future, one must have absolutely no idea what the worlds past has been. We live in far better conditions than in the past, and while that is not true everywhere it is true of most places..

Yes now there are consequences , that doesnt mean people actually morally changed. As far as im concerned people are still just as much jerks and asses now
then before.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.

And yet they didn't fight to the last man. They actually gave up after losing 220,000 people. The notion that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man simply doesn't jive with history. That said, the entire question of 'was it right to drop the atomic bomb' really misses the point. To the extent that total surrender was the only possible outcome of the war (which is debatable) there was going to be some terrible loss of life in bringing it about. Once you start arguing what was more terrible, dropping the atomic bomb or an amphibious assault followed by a protracted ground campaign, you're just splitting hairs.

Relapse wrote:
This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.

It wasn't even the greatest Allied sin of the war. When considering relevance to the overall aim of victory Dresden was much, much worse.

You seem to be missing the part where I said this was the image Japan projected at the time.


I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.

Something I learned through all of this, though is how badly a lot of South Koreans hate North Koreans. With everything Japan did in Korea, a friend of mine from Korea still said she'd marry a Japanese before she married a North Korean as a way to show what she thought of those from the north.
Like was stated earlier, there are many different kinds of intolerance. My guess goes with some of what's been said earlier, one group of people feels either threatened or has the need to lord it over another group. Look at any sports event, there's usually a good brawl going on somewhere between supporters of the different teams.

Orkeosaurus wrote:However, "win" can mean a lot of things. Being the most significant force in a fight can mean you've "won" it (You can argue for either the USA or the USSR for that status; The USSR would have been fighting on two fronts too if the US had instead remained neutral).

True, and the supplies (especially the trucks) given to the Soviets under the Lend Lease program were critical in their maintaining the war. But at the end of the day the Soviets built more tanks in 1943 than anyone produced over the entire length of the war. And the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted on the Germans were from the Soviets.

And being caught in the mire of China, it’s doubtful the Japanese could have committed to a meaningful attack on Russia. Even if they had it probably wouldn’t have achieved much, when the Japanese and Soviets did fight in Manchuria the Japanese copped a horrendous spanking. If the Japanese hadn’t fought the US and instead attacked the Soviets more often, I doubt it would have exhausted the Soviets much.

At the end of the day, I think the defeat of the Axis powers was likely without US intervention. The US certainly made it quicker and less bloody., but really what the US should be very proud of is stopping the USSR from expanding in Europe after the war.

Finishing the war can also mean "winning" it, and while the nuclear bombings didn't do much to swing the tides, they did finish the war.

That’s true, but when the OP is talking about kids on-line start declaring the US won the war by nuking Japan, I doubt those kids mean ‘while recognising the significant contributions of multiple parties during the war and that the war was all but over when the bombs were dropped, they were the acts that finished the war’.

Relapse wrote:I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.

True, we should be slow to condemn people operating with limited skills sets in life and death situations. I don’t condemn anyone involved for the dropping of the bomb on Japan (while Japanese defences weren’t that impregnable, that wasn’t known at the time, the US had projected hundreds of thousands of casualties).

But there is no shortage in the information set that justifies the bombing of Dresden. It had marginal strategic benefit, and was all about the Allied policy to focus on strategic bombing, targeting civilian centres to crush the German population’s will to fight. It was a stupid, bloodthirsty strategy that prolonged the war and got a lot of people killed.

Something I learned through all of this, though is how badly a lot of South Koreans hate North Koreans. With everything Japan did in Korea, a friend of mine from Korea still said she'd marry a Japanese before she married a North Korean as a way to show what she thought of those from the north.

Koreans I’ve known have been quite different. Despite the Korean war, despite a national identity based on resisting the Chinese over hundreds of years, the Koreans I’ve known have really, really hated the Japanese. That’s with the Japanese having only occupied Korea for a few years during WWII… it really tells you how horrible the Japanese were.

there is a lot of intolerance when it comes to people questioning religion : )

sebster wrote:
Koreans I’ve known have been quite different. Despite the Korean war, despite a national identity based on resisting the Chinese over hundreds of years, the Koreans I’ve known have really, really hated the Japanese. That’s with the Japanese having only occupied Korea for a few years during WWII… it really tells you how horrible the Japanese were.

Very true words, it's a major insult to a Korean to be mistaken for Japanese. My friend really hated North Koreans and she used that example to show the depth of her hatred. What's ironic is that I had both Korean and Japanese room mates at the same time and everyone got along well. It just goes to show how jacked and screwy things get in the world and what a complicated thing intolerance can really be.
I grew up thinking Russians were out to kill us all(nucular attack drills, civil defense literature, etc.) and then I got to be pals with some Russians later in life. Turned out they were science fiction geeks lile me and grew up thinking the US was out to kill them!

Relapse wrote:Very true words, it's a major insult to a Korean to be mistaken for Japanese. My friend really hated North Koreans and she used that example to show the depth of her hatred. What's ironic is that I had both Korean and Japanese room mates at the same time and everyone got along well.

Hmm, I was just thinking about my earlier point... the South Koreans I've known either left Korea a long time ago or are second generation migrants, so it's possible that among the Koreans living there N Korea has become enemy number one. I'm going to see District 9 with a mate who lived in Korea for a few years, I'll ask him if he noticed any nationalism and who it was generally opposed to.

It just goes to show how jacked and screwy things get in the world and what a complicated thing intolerance can really be.
I grew up thinking Russians were out to kill us all(nucular attack drills, civil defense literature, etc.) and then I got to be pals with some Russians later in life. Turned out they were science fiction geeks lile me and grew up thinking the US was out to kill them!

I was in India recently, and one Hindu family I stayed with for a night got talking about those Muslims over the border in Pakistan. It was odd because they were a Rajasthani family, many of their neighbours were Muslim. I had dinner with a Muslim family later on, and they spent a bit of time ragging on those Pakistanis, never mentioning religion.

I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.

Sebster wrote:I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.

This, in my eyes, is the core of true intolerance.

It becomes the goal rather than the direction, a vague yet very defined anti-you, or something along those lines. Most often intolerance can be directly attributed to how ignorant a person chooses to be, rather than how ignorant they happen to be. It is not a random action for people to override their emotional response circuit, or however you deem objectifying your rational interpretations of a situation that could stand to alter your perspective beyond what can be tangibly anchored into words. This is where you objectify your objectification, you are effectively denying any rational input to your thoughts, and you have altered your perspective in a very physical way, beyond that which a simple cup of coffee and a deep conversation could ever hope to achieve for most... like the fact that puddles are deeper than oceans because an ocean is an undefined mass with variables and... stuff besides simple ecosystems... yeah, I like dem beach.

So you take your misdirected perspective and apply to a group of people in order to bring them together, and more often than not the group will be mainly composed (or administrated and managed by) the most irate of these believers. Intolerance does manifest actual changes in the way you live your life, rather than being a monk (all of which live by a set of intolerance's that define what they see to be the true path, this is no insult, just an observation) you can simply allow your opinions and thoughts to take new forms as the information to do so arises.

Yeah, this is better over a cup of joe or something, I really cannot get my points across without funny faces that people choose to ignore until the funny just gets too loud. That is something that all of the debaters on here should practice, just get a partner and try to compete with their funny faces with a stone face. Unless you can just shut down and read (heh, intolerance with variables... funny stuff ) what you have trained your mind to create in a fashion that suits the debate, you will be trumped by the funny every time. Cheating? Well... not really, you just are not tolerant enough to let those funny faces walk by, or something along those metaphorical brain-frenzy lines.

sebster wrote:Hmm, I was just thinking about my earlier point... the South Koreans I've known either left Korea a long time ago or are second generation migrants, so it's possible that among the Koreans living there N Korea has become enemy number one. I'm going to see District 9 with a mate who lived in Korea for a few years, I'll ask him if he noticed any nationalism and who it was generally opposed to.


I was in India recently, and one Hindu family I stayed with for a night got talking about those Muslims over the border in Pakistan. It was odd because they were a Rajasthani family, many of their neighbours were Muslim. I had dinner with a Muslim family later on, and they spent a bit of time ragging on those Pakistanis, never mentioning religion.

I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.

I'll be interested to see what your friend says, and if anything has changed much since I lived with the Koreans. Your India story reminds me of when I lived in New Orleans. I was walking down Canal street one night and saw a black guy I knew that was a cab driver talking with a good ole' boy about the Vietnamese that lived in the city. They were both complaining back and forth about how all the Vietnamese did was get welfare, drive big cars, and cause crime. It was at that point I realized that at least that area of the south had changed, and led me to see that intolerance can happen when people feel threatened by strangers. Pretty much a few short years before the Vietnamese appeared on the scene, those two would have been at each other's throats.

sebster wrote:True, and the supplies (especially the trucks) given to the Soviets under the Lend Lease program were critical in their maintaining the war. But at the end of the day the Soviets built more tanks in 1943 than anyone produced over the entire length of the war. And the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted on the Germans were from the Soviets.

And being caught in the mire of China, it’s doubtful the Japanese could have committed to a meaningful attack on Russia. Even if they had it probably wouldn’t have achieved much, when the Japanese and Soviets did fight in Manchuria the Japanese copped a horrendous spanking. If the Japanese hadn’t fought the US and instead attacked the Soviets more often, I doubt it would have exhausted the Soviets much.

At the end of the day, I think the defeat of the Axis powers was likely without US intervention. The US certainly made it quicker and less bloody., but really what the US should be very proud of is stopping the USSR from expanding in Europe after the war.

Is America still willing to trade oil and scrap metal to Japan in the hypothetical scenario? I recall that being one of the big hamstrings in Japan's military industry (Germany produced about three times at much oil), but that's more what America didn't do than what we actually contributed.

Also, are you sure about that tank stat? Wikipedia seems to place America as having produced a similar number of tanks (although Russian tanks were more heavily armored), with Germany producing about half as many. Maybe "self-propelled guns" are throwing the numbers off.

This chart puts the US ahead in tank production, probably because of the lighter vehicles.

:EDIT: Ah, here's a better one that I missed before.

That’s true, but when the OP is talking about kids on-line start declaring the US won the war by nuking Japan, I doubt those kids mean ‘while recognising the significant contributions of multiple parties during the war and that the war was all but over when the bombs were dropped, they were the acts that finished the war’.

Probably not, knowing the type, but I still wouldn't take it out as an example of stupidity with the possibility of it being well-informed (and probably ill-expressed).

True, we should be slow to condemn people operating with limited skills sets in life and death situations. I don’t condemn anyone involved for the dropping of the bomb on Japan (while Japanese defences weren’t that impregnable, that wasn’t known at the time, the US had projected hundreds of thousands of casualties).

That's the big thing. The Japanese army was pretty well vested in maintaining an image of never surrendering no matter the odds, both to rally themselves and try and get the US to withdraw from their campaign. It may have worked a little too well in that regard.

I don't think the bombings were necessary, but I don't think Truman had any way of knowing that at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been terrible for both sides (something I think Japan was counting on as a defense).

Even fewer people know that Japan was studying about the atom bomb as well.

They maybe needed another week, part's the Nazis sent got taken.

Relapse wrote:
You seem to be missing the part where I said this was the image Japan projected at the time.

I thought that was implicit in my comment about the necessity of total surrender.

Relapse wrote:
I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.

I'm not one to judge any tactical choice based upon moral criteria, except in those instances where morality is important to the outcome of the conflict. I was simply using Dresden as a means of framing Hiroshima/Nagasaki in the context of a separate event with far less strategic relevance.

Every army , from every war have done their share of atrocious actions .

However , its up to the winner of the war to erase / emphasize the incidents.

What we need to remember , is its all in the past.
The generations now are innocent , and shouldnt be burdened with such grudge and hate.

Wrexasaur wrote:So you take your misdirected perspective and apply to a group of people in order to bring them together, and more often than not the group will be mainly composed (or administrated and managed by) the most irate of these believers. Intolerance does manifest actual changes in the way you live your life, rather than being a monk (all of which live by a set of intolerance's that define what they see to be the true path, this is no insult, just an observation) you can simply allow your opinions and thoughts to take new forms as the information to do so arises.

Yeah, selection bias reinforcing a pre-conceived notion explains a lot of intolerance. Witness the emphasis that some of the more vocal atheists on this board put on horrible Christians, or some of the more vocal Christians put on horrible atheists. Because they're looking for the people that reinforce their negative views.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is America still willing to trade oil and scrap metal to Japan in the hypothetical scenario? I recall that being one of the big hamstrings in Japan's military industry (Germany produced about three times at much oil), but that's more what America didn't do than what we actually contributed.

Yeah, that's a good question. I was moving on the assumption that the US did everything it did, but the Japanese didn't react to the embargoes, and instead of Pearl Harbour they focussed on pacifying China and marching into Russian territory. But you're right that US embargoes played a big part.

Also, are you sure about that tank stat?

Less sure now that you question it I might have been thinking of a comparison purely against Axis totals.

Wikipedia seems to place America as having produced a similar number of tanks (although Russian tanks were more heavily armored), with Germany producing about half as many. Maybe "self-propelled guns" are throwing the numbers off.

Yeah, those figures are off. 60,000 for the Russians is very small, that's not far off the production total for T-34s alone.

This chart puts the US ahead in tank production, probably because of the lighter vehicles.

:EDIT: Ah, here's a better one that I missed before.

That looks a lot more reasonable, although its pretty much just about the death knell for my claim on Russia's production in one year being greater than anyone else for the full war. Maybe if I use this, http://216.93.184.240/kr/encyclopedia/Soviet_tank_production_during_World_War_II, and switch my claim to 1944 and just the axis countries, and just tanks and not the self-propelled guns the Nazis cranked out... I'll be a little closer?

Probably not, knowing the type, but I still wouldn't take it out as an example of stupidity with the possibility of it being well-informed (and probably ill-expressed).

I don't know, when it comes to kids on x-box live isn't it pretty safe to assume they're idiots and wait for evidence to the contrary? (speaking of intolerance... whoops)

That's the big thing. The Japanese army was pretty well vested in maintaining an image of never surrendering no matter the odds, both to rally themselves and try and get the US to withdraw from their campaign. It may have worked a little too well in that regard.

It'd be kind of funny, if it didn't get so many people killed.

I don't think the bombings were necessary, but I don't think Truman had any way of knowing that at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been terrible for both sides (something I think Japan was counting on as a defense).

This is my opinion as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowbrand wrote:Even fewer people know that Japan was studying about the atom bomb as well.

They maybe needed another week, part's the Nazis sent got taken.

It's likely you're thinking of an old story about that relies on a funny coincidence. U-boat 234 was going to Japan when Germany surrendered, it subsequently gave itself up. On board was radioactive material, but it was almost definitely not weapons grade uranium (it was likely material for synthesising oil). The crate was labelled U-235 but this was likely a mislabelling of the sub's name.

Either way, having access to fissionable material doesn't mean you're capable of building a bomb. You still need heavy water, you still need to actually construct the mechanisms capable of creating fission at a sufficient ratio.

You just have to consider the scale of the Manhatten project to realise how many resources are needed to produce nuclear weapons quickly during war time. Both the Germans and the Japanese programs were a micro level compared to Manhatten, and they were being bombed at the time. Both were many, many years away from developing the bomb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Every army , from every war have done their share of atrocious actions .

However , its up to the winner of the war to erase / emphasize the incidents.

What we need to remember , is its all in the past.
The generations now are innocent , and shouldnt be burdened with such grudge and hate.

Sort of. But it would be a mistake to assume every army equally guilty. While there is Dresden and the atomic bombs, the Western powers were not the Russians, they weren't the Japanese and they weren't the Russians. It's important to distinguish the more moral from the less moral, and in turn from the utterly immoral, to maybe get more armies acting as morally as possible.

And while it's good to move on, we need to know what atrocities were done, and why. If only we spent the time to really know what war entails we might be less likely to charge into one next time.

Here's a chart I always thought was interesting:

DAAAAAAMN!!! that is one sexy chart mate... oooh right.

Very interesting though, and confusing... but still interesting.

Damn... look at all of the tiny countries who got totally owned... this is a no joke zone Wrex, keep your cool.

Yeah, I feel bad now, Lithuania I apologize, these other cats just don't know your pain... seriously though like 13% of the frakking population and stuff...

This chart is evil, it brings only more questions than it chooses to answer. This... is the chart of madness and despair and stuff... (twice heh)