A WW 2 Thread

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Recently inspired by the WW I thread. I just got me thinking about how evil every country was during WW II. The Nazi's for reasons we all know. Russians for there brutality against the germans (but it's understandable since they had lost 20,000,000 people to them). The european allies for there pointless/unnecessary bombings against german towns of no importance. The American's for the brutal fire bombings of Japanese towns and the A-Bomb. That and the whole "pretending" pearl harbor was just a sucker punch that came out of know where.
(And I apologize if I offend anyone in advance but this shit happened).
I just started this thread because it's an issue that needs to be addressed, no one was really a hero in that war. But do the ends justify the means?

The Russian Counter-Attack: Axis-Soviet War:

Total Casualties on the Axis Side: 5,178,000+

Total Casualties on the Russian Side: 10,651,000

The British bombing of Dresden:

3,900 tons of incendiary bombs were dropped on the city of Dresden by the RAF and American Air force leveling 13 square miles of the city and killing between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians.

American bombings of Japan:

Bombings of Tokyo:

66 square miles of tokyo incinerated and an estimated 100,00 people killed.

Bombing of Kobe:

3 square miles incinerated
80,841 killed
650,000 homeless

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The most offensive thing about this is the sheer lack of material in your OP, Korps Kommissar. Please expand upon it significantly.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

The most offensive thing about this is the sheer lack of material in your OP, Korps Kommissar. Please expand upon it significantly.

Please direct me how so?
What should I include?

 

[Gooble]

I just started this thread because it's an issue that needs to be addressed, no one was really a hero in that war.

"In war there are no winners, only losers"

 

[Hazy]

It's war. Complaining about it now won't do anything, but we should be grateful that despite huge casualties several Tyrannical Dictatorship were stopped, and the world was better for it. There were heroes, the ones who spent time fighting in hell zones like D-Day or Guadalcanal. And I'm grateful for them.

Amen. We should respect the dead, they gave their lives for our freedom.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The most offensive thing about this is the sheer lack of material in your OP, Korps Kommissar. Please expand upon it significantly.

Please direct me how so?
What should I include?

More details on the various acts - the number of dead, wounded and so on is always a good start. Dates, links, some of your own opinions, reasonably made out and constructed in a coherent form, on each and every act, analysis of the decisions behind, say, the Dresden raids, the A-Bomb, Operation Barbarossa, the Warsaw Uprising...

 

[Pandalisk]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

 

[L4hlborg]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

 

[Pandalisk]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

 

[El Poncho]

The British bombed Germany because they were bombing them.

 

[L4hlborg]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

I don't know, they were running low on everything. So it would have been quite hard to actually fight back any more. And in every country, you get a slightly different version of history. In USA, I'm sure the use of the A-Bombs are justified more than in other countries. I'm not saying that Japan would have necessarily have surrendered, just saying, that you are being taught to think there was no chance they would surrender.

On the other hand, using the nukes caused the cold war. And it's one of the reason why we've got enough weapons in the world to destroy it hundreds of times. The reductions that are happening mean absolutely nothing, if a nuclear war would start.

 

[KSarty]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

Exactly, the people of Japan were still under the impression that their Emperor was a deity. One of the terms of the surrender was that he had to renounce his godhood (is that even a proper word?). They would have fought to the last man, and due to the level of sophistication in bombing/naval bombardment technology at the time (or lack thereof), EVERY Japanese city would have had to have been reduced to ash rather than 2 had we fought it out by conventional means.

The participants of the war did what they had to to win. The RAF's initial bombing operations were total failures, because they attempted to hit only military installations and they just couldn't do it. Only when they started carpet-bombing entire cities did they see any real success.

I don't know, they were running low on everything. So it would have been quite hard to actually fight back any more. And in every country, you get a slightly different version of history. In USA, I'm sure the use of the A-Bombs are justified more than in other countries. I'm not saying that Japan would have necessarily have surrendered, just saying, that you are being taught to think there was no chance they would surrender.

On the other hand, using the nukes caused the cold war. And it's one of the reason why we've got enough weapons in the world to destroy it hundreds of times. The reductions that are happening mean absolutely nothing, if a nuclear war would start.

They were running low on everything when they started the war, and it was actually their motivation. The U.S. had placed an embargo on Japan because of Japan's aggressive actions in China and subsequently redirected those supplies to Great Britain who needed them far more. Japan hoped that with Pearl Harbor and a string of victories they could convince the American government that they had bigger things to worry about (Nazi Germany) and couldn't waste time and resources duking it out on two fronts. Their hope was only to get the U.S. to re-establish trade with them.

 

[Pandalisk]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

I don't know, they were running low on everything. So it would have been quite hard to actually fight back any more. And in every country, you get a slightly different version of history. In USA, I'm sure the use of the A-Bombs are justified more than in other countries. I'm not saying that Japan would have necessarily have surrendered, just saying, that you are being taught to think there was no chance they would surrender.

On the other hand, using the nukes caused the cold war. And it's one of the reason why we've got enough weapons in the world to destroy it hundreds of times. The reductions that are happening mean absolutely nothing, if a nuclear war would start.

Im Irish... soooo yeah..ahah!

It doesnt matter if they were low on ammunation and the war was hopeless, the japanese Phycology at the time was not on self-preservation, they would Banzai charge fortifications, if they lost a battle they wouldnt surrender, they'd do a last charge and die, they were effectivly brain washed i guess you could say.

Propaganda was heavy as well, Japan effectivly saw americans as Demons who would rape and kill them all if they surrendered, women were reported killing there babies and jumping of cliffs even when the americans begged them to stop, there is no reasoning with a mindset like that, the generally beleived that death was preferable to defeat.

as for nukes, i agree, but really i dont see Russia or China threats, no thats just bullshit propaganda from an age past, the north and asia are profitable working together they would not threaten that.

The middle east is where your fear should be

 

[martin's a madman]

No more trying to condemn war from being inhumane. Humans kill Humans.

 

[KSarty]

Nuking Japan was necessary and saved lives. We gave them all the opportunities in the world to surrender, we dropped pamphlets telling them grave consequences would come if they did not surrender. If the invasion of Japan would have taken place it would have killed millions on both sides. The only thing they respected was force, and we showed it to them.

Actually Japan was on the Verge of surrendering, but it would have surrendered to the Soviet Union, and America is gravely anti-communist, so they had to have a massive show of force to get Japan to surrender to a capitalist nation.


I say that some sacrifices were necesary, but some were a bit too far.

You're on the right track, but your facts are a little skewed. Japan was not on the verge of surrendering, to anyone. However Russia was prepping to enter the war in the Pacific.

 

[L4hlborg]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

I don't know, they were running low on everything. So it would have been quite hard to actually fight back any more. And in every country, you get a slightly different version of history. In USA, I'm sure the use of the A-Bombs are justified more than in other countries. I'm not saying that Japan would have necessarily have surrendered, just saying, that you are being taught to think there was no chance they would surrender.

On the other hand, using the nukes caused the cold war. And it's one of the reason why we've got enough weapons in the world to destroy it hundreds of times. The reductions that are happening mean absolutely nothing, if a nuclear war would start.

Im Irish... soooo yeah..ahah!

It doesnt matter if they were low on ammunation and the war was hopeless, the japanese Phycology at the time was not on self-preservation, they would Banzai charge fortifications, if they lost a battle they wouldnt surrender, they'd do a last charge and die, they were effectivly brain washed i guess you could say.

Propaganda was heavy as well, Japan effectivly saw americans as Demons who would rape and kill them all if they surrendered, women were reported killing there babies and jumping of cliffs even when the americans begged them to stop, there is no reasoning with a mindset like that, the generally beleived that death was preferable to defeat.



as for nukes, i agree, but really i dont see Russia or China threats, no thats just bullshit propaganda from an age past, the north and asia are profitable working together they would not threaten that.

The middle east is where your fear should be

I'm not very afraid of the middle east, to speak the truth. And I'm not afraid of any particular country. Just the fact that there is fire power that huge in existance, makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I knew about the japanese propaganda, but I'm not sure how much it would make a difference, if their leaders realized that shit was hitting the fan hard. I mean I understand that surrendering was not really a good option, but to run out of all recources and have most of your population die away? Even a lunatic doesn't really see too much of an option there.

 

[martin's a madman]

Well would you prefer a long drawn out a terrible war? or one that was ended quickly as possible with minimal loss of life? i considered that with the whole A-bomb concept, its not nice, but its true.

I heard that the japanese were actually surrendering before they dropped the bombs. Not 100% sure, but sounds possible.

Punch whoever told you that

1940's Japan? surrendering to anything but an ultimate weapon of destruction? thats almost laughable

I don't know, they were running low on everything. So it would have been quite hard to actually fight back any more. And in every country, you get a slightly different version of history. In USA, I'm sure the use of the A-Bombs are justified more than in other countries. I'm not saying that Japan would have necessarily have surrendered, just saying, that you are being taught to think there was no chance they would surrender.

On the other hand, using the nukes caused the cold war. And it's one of the reason why we've got enough weapons in the world to destroy it hundreds of times. The reductions that are happening mean absolutely nothing, if a nuclear war would start.

Im Irish... soooo yeah..ahah!

It doesnt matter if they were low on ammunation and the war was hopeless, the japanese Phycology at the time was not on self-preservation, they would Banzai charge fortifications, if they lost a battle they wouldnt surrender, they'd do a last charge and die, they were effectivly brain washed i guess you could say.

Propaganda was heavy as well, Japan effectivly saw americans as Demons who would rape and kill them all if they surrendered, women were reported killing there babies and jumping of cliffs even when the americans begged them to stop, there is no reasoning with a mindset like that, the generally beleived that death was preferable to defeat.



as for nukes, i agree, but really i dont see Russia or China threats, no thats just bullshit propaganda from an age past, the north and asia are profitable working together they would not threaten that.

The middle east is where your fear should be

I'm not very afraid of the middle east, to speak the truth. And I'm not afraid of any particular country. Just the fact that there is fire power that huge in existance, makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I knew about the japanese propaganda, but I'm not sure how much it would make a difference, if their leaders realized that shit was hitting the fan hard. I mean I understand that surrendering was not really a good option, but to run out of all recources and have most of your population die away? Even a lunatic doesn't really see too much of an option there.

Well some of the Japanese fear of Americans was well founded. Germany for example in 1946 most people born there were products of allied rape. Now I know that the Russians did a HUGE amount of raping of German women even instituting a two week period where soldiers could rape the women as much as they wanted but after the two weeks if they did they would be killed. But I am certain every allied nation that was within the boundaries of Germany at the end of the war had soldiers behaving should we say "Unbecoming" of their homeland.

 

[ElephantGuts]

There was nothing evil about the Allies' strategic bombing raids. They did it to destroy the enemy's morale and hopefully end the war sooner. It might not have been the smartest or most effective tactic, but they did it with good intentions. Besides, more often than not the targets of the bombings were manufacturing facilities which had obvious importance to the enemy's war effort.

And stop whining about the atom bombs. Would you rather the US invaded Japan, costing the lives of roughly 1 million Allied soldiers and probably millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians, and devastating the entire country in the process? The Japanese had already intentionally proved their ability and willingness to fight a prolonged, defensive battle to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and the situation would only have been extraordinarily worse on their home island. They had been preparing and instructing their civilians to carry out an insurgency and guerilla attacks against Allied occupiers. The fighting and death could have gone on for years, and Japan would have taken a lot longer to recover, and I doubt it would be the successful country it is today. So thank God Truman decided to use the atomic bombs.

 

[Trivun]

The British bombed Germany because they were bombing them.

Well, yes and no. The British were bombed very heavily during the Blitz, that's true. There were so many casualties then, even when people thought they were safe in the air raid shelters (for example, the flooding of Balham Tube station). Most notably, 43000 people were killed during the three phases of the Blitz. But there was still no justification for the bombing of most German cities, under the guise of attacks on German military facilities and armament factories. For example, in the bombing of Dresden (October 1944 - April 1945), one of the worst atrocities to be commited in the war (though there exist cases both for and against the bombing), led to the deaths of over 25000 people, and countless more were killed in other air raid strikes on German cities. The British actions during the war were just as unforgivable as the Axis actions, and although it's easy to say that we bombed them because they bombed us, it isn't quite so easy to decide who commited worse acts during the six years of the war.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The British bombed Germany because they were bombing them.

Well, yes and no. The British were bombed very heavily during the Blitz, that's true. There were so many casualties then, even when people thought they were safe in the air raid shelters (for example, the flooding of Balham Tube station). Most notably, 43000 people were killed during the three phases of the Blitz. But there was still no justification for the bombing of most German cities, under the guise of attacks on German military facilities and armament factories. For example, in the bombing of Dresden (October 1944 - April 1945), one of the worst atrocities to be commited in the war (though there exist cases both for and against the bombing), led to the deaths of over 25000 people, and countless more were killed in other air raid strikes on German cities. The British actions during the war were just as unforgivable as the Axis actions, and although it's easy to say that we bombed them because they bombed us, it isn't quite so easy to decide who commited worse acts during the six years of the war.

As ye sow strife, ye shall reap a whirlwind. And by god, did they reap a whirlwind.

Dresden was bombed because, a) An object show of force would weaken German morale, and b) It was an important communications hub for Northern Germany.