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.

dogma wrote:The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary.

As well as attacking Russia.

Dumbass hitler.

On another note I was slightly worried when I heard from some random documentary that Churchill had to bribe the US into joining the war by offering military secrets of some sort.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...well...I think that kind of works like Pavlovas Response.

You mean PavloviaN response.

A Pavlovas response involves either a meringue and cream dessert OR dressing up in a tu-tu and doing a pas-de-deux.

I have no tolerance for intolerance. Does this make me emo and filled with self-loathing?

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary.

As well as attacking Russia.

Dumbass hitler.

On another note I was slightly worried when I heard from some random documentary that Churchill had to bribe the US into joining the war by offering military secrets of some sort.

I think Hitler was just going off the way Germany beat Russia all over the place and eventually saw them quit in WW1.

What did the Russians in WWI was the revolution in 1917, Great Britain did give a few secrets to the U.S in WWII, like the jet engine, radar, sonar and the Rolls Royce Merlin engine which was fitted into the Mustang which before it had said engine was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Vulkan77 wrote:Great Britain did give a few secrets to the U.S in WWII, like the jet engine, radar, sonar and the Rolls Royce Merlin engine

I object to this. They should have helped us anyway.

With what? Our engineless, radarless, metal bawkses?

Yes, damnit! We helped you realise you were better off on your own, you should be grateful for that! ;p

Well us Aussies didn't need no dirty military secrets, we beat the Japanese without any of your namby-pamby atomic bombs or tanks. We had nothing but grit, guns, and balls of steel (stainless so they didn't rust in the jungle of course).

Orkeosaurus wrote:With what? Our engineless, radarless, metal bawkses?

These were our reserves man... think of the carnage we could have cause, with the not having of the thick plates with the engine of in the tank...

Wait... new joke. Okay, what do you call an Orkeo that talks smack about the military?



Erm... priority target?

Vulkan77 wrote:What did the Russians in WWI was the revolution in 1917, Great Britain did give a few secrets to the U.S in WWII, like the jet engine, radar, sonar and the Rolls Royce Merlin engine which was fitted into the Mustang which before it had said engine was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

This is true, but the Germans were rolling all over the Russians in the meantime. Russian training at the time was fairly substandard for the most part. Their military exericises consisted of lining up opposite groups of soldiers and just marching them towards each other. The Russian army at the time was no match for the Germans.

On a side note, I've read that when the Germans went into Russia, they were at first hailed as liberators, especially in the Ukraine where Stalin had pretty much starved a large portion of the people to death.

i hate racism im native american and every teacher paises me alot its annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scalp the teacher, and let them know "its part of my cultural heritage I'm sharing with you! You should feel proud!"

Personally, I'm much more fond of Avenue Q's take on it: Everybody's a little bit Racist (Go on, check You Tube.)

Edit:
Economy's pretty tight here in the US. Quit flaunting those extra exclamation points.

I will state this, and you may hate me if you so wish. Lots of people already do.
I make jokes about races and gender. But I make them about my own race, my own gender. My buddies do too. But we aren't (that) stupid. Weknow only to do it behind close doors.
Remember kids, Rascism isn't funny. Except in small groups of close friends.

So put me on your ignore list if you so choose now. I'll still make jokes about me drunken, beer soaked Irish ancestry.

generalgrog wrote:Interesting....That's like saying Australia would have been fine fighting the Japanese by themselves, without US intervention.

Sebster, I'm really surprised that you would make that comment, I thought you knew more about history than that. Do you really think that Britain would have kicked Germany/Italy out of Africa and Itlay without the U.S.A.?

First up, the US forces hastened the defeat of Rommel, but victory was inevitable after the second battle of El Alamein, which occurred before the US showed up late in 1942. Second up, the African campaign was never more than a sideshow. Look at the scale of fighting in Africa, where the Germans at full strength had about 300,000 German troops (not completely certain, but there were 5 or 6 divisions…). On the other hand, there were around 18 million German soldiers in total, and around six million of them were killed in fighting on the Eastern front.

The Australians wouldn’t have done much to stop the Japanese by themselves. But logistics were already stretching the Japanese, and they were losing increasing numbers to Chinese guerrillas. The Japanese advanced as much as they could have given their capabilities. What would have happened from there is anyone’s guess, it’s a very good thing the US stopped that horrible regime from continuing as soon as they did.

Stalin in fact complained bitterly to the Allies as to what was taking them so long to attack mainland Europe. If you really think that the USSR could have beaten Germany without the pressure that the U.S./British combined, placed on them your crazy.

GG

Yes, and Stalin complained bitterly about the lack of support, and toured members of the high command of both around impoverished Russian regiments. In the meantime he secretly amassed an immensely powerful tank army for counter attack around Stalingrad. That’s just how Stalin rolled.

And yes, the Russians really would have beaten the Germans alone. That said, the US stopped the Russians from carrying on past Berlin and into France, so I’m not trying to discredit the achievements of the US, just putting the proportions in proper measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:I have trouble saying that anyone should harbor bad feelings toward someone of another nationality based on things their grandparents' generation did. That just seems like prejudice of the worst kind. But when you learn about how the Chinese and Koreans suffered under the Japanese, and how the Japanese -- unlike the Germans -- have generally been less than enthusiastic about apologizing or even showing remorse for their actions...

Well, it really makes me think about how I'd feel in that situation. It's complicated. I think most people would hesitate to forgive someone for something the other person doesn't really regret or think they need to apologize for. It doesn't make it right. But I recognize that kind of forgiveness doesn't really come naturally to human beings.

Yeah, it isn't good to harbour that kind of resentment, but on the other hand no-one from my family was ever worked to death in a slave camp so I'm not all that eager to tell other people how forgiving they ought to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I think Hitler was just going off the way Germany beat Russia all over the place and eventually saw them quit in WW1.

It had a lot to do with his ideas of race and the failings of the Russian people. In the early days of Barbarossa it might have looked like he had a pretty good point as well, Russian losses were horrendous.

What caught everyone by surprise was how the Russians were able to maintain production and replace losses so rapidly.

Not sure how to quote someone, but rue the Russian army was terrible after Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.

To quote someone hit the "quote" button.
To quote several posts hit the "multiquote" button on each post and then hit " reply".



Could it be considered intolerance if those fighting alongside the "axis" are ignored in this "who had / dished out more dead" competiton ?

@Generalgrog: Calm down, mate, only a bit of harmless trolling. But answer this, why is the war that most americans were killed in the American Civil War? It just doesn't seem they go hell bent on a war, joining it half-heartedly.

Funnily enough, D-Day (which was not just a US action) was not necessary at all. It was merely pressure from the allies to get to Berlin before the Soviets. Germany was already defeated. Italy was turning against it, Northern Africa was lost, but worst of all, the Eastern Front was shattered and Mother Russia was rolling up the jerries back yard. The reason for D-Day and subsequent reconquering of western europe? Mostly political.

And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulkan77 wrote:Not sure how to quote someone, but rue the Russian army was terrible after Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.

Actually, WWII was one of the moments where Stalin and the people were closest. Remember, Hitlers plans for Russia were little better than the other minorites, he also viewed these people as sub-human. The communist regime was much harsher pre and post war than it was during. Do you really think that Russia could have won without such losses? (BTW , Germany and Russia lost roughly the same amount of men, but the russians could replace them more easily.)

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
1. 700,000<25,000,000

Where are you getting 25 million from? The highest statistic I've ever heard was 11 million. Let's also not forget that there's a massive difference between executing 700,000 of your own people, and simply putting an end to a war.

Actually Frazzled is pretty accurate on this one. The 11 million you are thinking of is concerning military casualties, the 25 million is a rough estimate of total casualties, which of course includes civilians. At a lecture I went to last year, the scholar said that we will never know the full amount of death on the Eastern front, but he said 25 million was a rough MINIMUM. Due to the nature of the USSR info was limited and therefore not complete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_USSR

dogma wrote:
The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary. And yes, once the US joined the conflict the result was almost inevitable (70 million Germans against 700 million Allies, even Hitler was said to have balked). However, the course of the war on the Eastern Front had already been set by Jan. 1942 by the first Winter Offensive. The Germans might have shifted forces from Europe and North Africa, but that would only be feasible in the event that Britain had been overcome. All while fighting a Soviet Union that would only increase in strength.

This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US. Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan. Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had. An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

@JEB: Now, calm down, mate. The soviet would have crushed germany straight up. Help from US nice, but not vital. There's no denying that (like Napoleon 300 years before) the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front.

Japan is another matter. It is certainly possible (even likely) that Japan would have been able to consolidate it's power in asia and such areas unless America intervened, but they would not have gone on to conquer the world. In fact, the Japanese were not Nazis in WWII, they were colonials. Much like the British Empire had been. They were certainly too stretched to take on Australia single-handed. (They couldn't even take New Guinea).

I hate this view that (again) US came in guns blazing to save the day. In fact it sounds familiar...
*shuffle shuffle*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'ere we go!

Emperors Faithful wrote:
And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.

Actually there was a warming. The Potsdam Ultimatum warned Japan that if it didn't surrender it would suffer the, "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." While it wasn't explicitly said, "We will atom bomb you back to the Shogunate," I think that is a fairly sufficient warning. Second the bombing of Hiroshima was in fact a military and industrial target. Hiroshima, apart from being an industrial center, was also the HQ of the Japanese Army's 5th Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata, who was in charge of the entire southern defense of Japan. So it really was a significant military target. While yes, many civilians were killed as well, one has to ask the question: was it worth it? The Allied High Command did not order the bombing lightly. They were first presented the projections of casualties if the main islands of Japan were invaded, and the casualties to Allied troops ALONE were projected at at least 1 million, and that was just to invade and begin pacification. That does not include the Japanese armed forces and civilians population. I think that in an effort to avoid such staggering losses of human life, the bombs were necessary. They avoided the cost of millions of civilians' deaths etc. Were they horrific? Yes. Were they gruesome? Yes. Was it genocide? No. I don't like the legacy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have left, but I believe the decision to bomb them was ultimately right considering the alternative that was the invasion of the Japanese mainland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

Oh, I don't mean to be frustrated or high strung, I am just a historian and these topics really get me goin! I will concede that we didn't win WWI for Europe, although we certainly helped to demoralize Germany. But I must contend that the US was essential to an Allied victory in WWII. Again, I don't mean to be overly zealous here, but as a historian I really get involved in this stuff.

I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.

Nuclear weaponry has likely halted far more conflict and stayed the hand of the major military powers far more often than we realise.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.

Actually there was a warming. The Potsdam Ultimatum warned Japan that if it didn't surrender it would suffer the, "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." While it wasn't explicitly said, "We will atom bomb you back to the Shogunate," I think that is a fairly sufficient warning. Second the bombing of Hiroshima was in fact a military and industrial target. Hiroshima, apart from being an industrial center, was also the HQ of the Japanese Army's 5th Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata, who was in charge of the entire southern defense of Japan. So it really was a significant military target. While yes, many civilians were killed as well, one has to ask the question: was it worth it? The Allied High Command did not order the bombing lightly. They were first presented the projections of casualties if the main islands of Japan were invaded, and the casualties to Allied troops ALONE were projected at at least 1 million, and that was just to invade and begin pacification. That does not include the Japanese armed forces and civilians population. I think that in an effort to avoid such staggering losses of human life, the bombs were necessary. They avoided the cost of millions of civilians' deaths etc. Were they horrific? Yes. Were they gruesome? Yes. Was it genocide? No. I don't like the legacy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have left, but I believe the decision to bomb them was ultimately right considering the alternative that was the invasion of the Japanese mainland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

Oh, I don't mean to be frustrated or high strung, I am just a historian and these topics really get me goin! I will concede that we didn't win WWI for Europe, although we certainly helped to demoralize Germany. But I must contend that the US was essential to an Allied victory in WWII. Again, I don't mean to be overly zealous here, but as a historian I really get involved in this stuff.

I also have a love for history, but honestly JEB, your view on the bombings disgusts me. That was purebred sluaghter of thousands. (Not to mention the indiscriminate firebombing of Tokyo earlier). If it had been a military base then sure, but this was a city JEB. Men women and children were obliterated all becuase (in the high brass's eyes, 1 yank life was worth 1000 japs).

BTW, there was no warning of an atomic attack. How is that meesage was anything other than a vague threat? Very similar to Hitlers threats in Eurpoe in fact. (We actually had to do a whole course concerning this, not fun, and even less fun to see the victims of the bombings. Damn, does history repeat itself in about 20 years in Vietnam.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@MGS: A similar story about a Jap soldier who had been seperated from his force in Papa New Guenia (misspelt). In 1980's he stumbled out of the jungle onto a beach resort and surrendered. On the other hand, there was a lot of angst from the generals despite the bombings. I don't deny the fact that losses would be terrible if US had to do a land invasion of Japan, but why did they not give a demonstration at least? Aim it at a purely Miltitary target?

See MGS' statement. He is absolutely right. But a question for you EF: how would you then justify the millions of deaths, both military and civilian, that would have ensued from the invasion of Japan? I don't think you can, it isn't morally or ethically possible or responsible. The losses taken by Japanese would have been infinitely greater than those suffered by the Americans. Any professional historian, including myself, or military expert would agree that the number of deaths that would have ensued from an invasion would have been on an unimaginable scale. Also, I did point out why Hiroshima was a military and industrial target, not a random city that was bombed for no reason.

Damn my spelling sucks.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.

Nuclear weaponry has likely halted far more conflict and stayed the hand of the major military powers far more often than we realise.

You are absolutely right MGS. The lone Japanese story that you recall is just one of many stories. In instance a NatGeo team was shot at after they landed on an island by the 12 remaining men of an entire Japanese garrison. They had been forced to eating mush and drinking urine to stay alive. The Emperor of Japan himself had to come out to the island and convince the remaining soldiers that the war was over. I shudder to think of the level of carnage and destruction that would have ensued across Japan had Operation: Downfall actually taken place...

@JEB: As I recall, the yanks to not have a history of 'restraint'. What was the name of that German town that was utterly annihillated? Horishma and Nagasaki were not purely (or even predominantly) military bases. Pretty much every city would have had a military force or something present. These bombings were not a tactical strike, they were a demonstration of mass slaughtwer.

Also, who can play god and decide that a yank soldiers life is worth more than 10 jap civilians? Would it not have been possible to simply blockade Japan? Destroy thier airfields? There were other options other than wholescale slaughter.

Actually the city in Germany you were thinking of was Dresden, and that was firebombed mostly by the RAF, and I agree that the whole thing was disgraceful and saddening. I also think you are missing one of my main points. I am not trying to justify American lives vs Japanese lives. I am stating the fact that the deaths of millions of more JAPANESE through an invasion is not justifiable in comparison. The sheer prevention of the deaths of millions of JAPANESE is enough to convince me of the pragmatism of the nukes. And as MSG stated the atom bombs shocked the Japs into surrender. A blockade would have done nothing except let them starve themselves to death, which also could have resulted in the death of millions. It was also not a viable solution, as the war needed to end instead of drag on for several more years. I will never claim that the bombings were great or wonderful, I find them to be quite the opposite. But I must admit that they were the lesser of two evils in this situation.

Well, by Blockade I wasn't exactly thinking about starving them to death. I see your point, I really do. But why was there no warning or demonstration?

(P.S. That it was mostly RAF at Dresden is news to me)

BTW, do you honestly think that Japanese lives were a priority at the time?

Would you guys mind if i ask mod to close this thread?
( it really is off topic compared to what i was asking , not that i mind it been OT ) I just dont want to see people arguing over this matter when that wasnt the purpose or intention of this thread. Maybe make a new thread?

Hmm, I think we can come to a compromise and both be satisfied. I will concede that there should have been a more explicit warning or at the very least a demonstration. (Although some might make the argument that because it took two bombs to achieve a surrender of the Japs, this would have been meaningless.) I admit that I would see the issue as less abominable had there been something of what you suggest. As for your other point, frankly no. I doubt very much that the Allies were very worried about Japanese lives, but they definitely were worried about Allied lives. But that doesn't stop me from seeing the reality of the loss of life for both sides had the bombs not been dropped. It is hindsight evidence, but that does not negate the fact that it is true. There is no way I could justify the deaths of millions in the face of an invasion over the dropping of the bombs. One thing we must always remember though is what a tragedy and horrifying incident both bombings were, and fight for the prevention of any such future occurrences.