• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

As a non-American: How do you view the outcome of WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jubbe

Member
As much as I hate Stalin, without Soviet Union the war would never have won.


While I agree that the USSR was the biggest factor in Germany losing, without their involvement the US eventually would've started nuking Berlin.

The fact that America was the only country with atomic bombs at that time, and they were willing to use them, means there really wasn't any way America wasn't going to win.
 

Acorn

Member
What did the Americans expect in terms of losses in invading Japan? We still have purple hearts from that era we hand out, since so many were made.
"Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians would have resisted the invasion, estimates ran up into the millions for Allied casualties."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall?wprov=sfla1


Bit wooly but I'm sure the actual figures the US Army predicted to Truman are in this link somewhere.

Edit
"Given a troop list of 766,700 men and a 90-day campaign, the US Sixth Army could be expected to suffer between 514,072 casualties (including 134,556 dead and missing) under the "Pacific Experience" (1.95 dead and missing and 7.45 total casualties/1,000 men/day) and 149,046 casualties (including 28,981 dead and missing) under the "European Experience" (0.42 dead and missing and 2.16 total casualties/1,000 men/day). This assessment included neither casualties suffered after the 90-day mark (US planners envisioned switching to the tactical defensive by X+120), nor personnel losses at sea from Japanese air attacks. In order to sustain the campaign on Kyushu, planners estimated a replacement stream of 100,000 men per month would be necessary, a figure achievable even after the partial demobilization following the defeat of Germany. As time went on, other US leaders made estimates of their own:"
 
Even if the US was there ''day 1'' (whatever that even means, invasion of Poland?) it would present the problem of Soviets being much better geared toward their own invasion deeper into europe since Barbarossa wouldn't have happened. It could have resulted in even bigger disaster of communist rule in europe or anglosphere going to war with the Soviets.

if the US was there day 1 (this is a fantasy land scenario considering political realities on the ground, but I digress), that would have meant the fall of France was far less likely. Without France falling, the Wehrmacht is outnumbered and outgunned on land, sea, and air. The Italians did not want to get involved until it looked clear that victory was imminent, and they would have stayed neutral if the German offensive stalled, treaty or no treaty.

Germany was only such a terrifying military force in 1941 because it could draw on the resources of France, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Barbarossa was supplemented by Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks, the lot of them. In 1940, it was far weaker, low on military supplies, and lacking allies to help it. Economically speaking, 1941 would have been a complete disaster without being able to raid France for resources. A comparison of forces even in 1940 had the Allies outnumbering the Germans. With Americans to equip and supply more formations, as well as providing ground forces to act as a strategic reserve in 1940, the thrust through the Ardennes could have been countered, and become a trap for the German spearhead instead of the Allied armies.
 

DeanBDean

Member
Poland was never part of the Soviet Union.

Painting Soviet losses during World War II as the result of a "mad man" appraisal of that country's leader is extremely superficial, and acknowledging you're making a bad point immediately afterward doesn't change that you're making a bad point.

Poland was a puppet regime to the Soviet Union. I took the designation on the chart to include those, but if that's not what it meant then I'm mistaken.

How is it superficial? It is factual, the Soviet Union's losses were driven significantly higher because Stalin had no regard for the lives of his people. He did not allow for many strategic retreats that would have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives. Even in Stalingrad, he intentionally sacrificed many lives to lure the German Army into a trap. This is historical fact. I'm not saying it was a bad point, I'm saying that far more lives were lost than were necessary to defend the Fatherland. This is not a fault of the brave Russians/Slavs/other minorities defending their land. It is the fault of Stalin and generals who had the Stalin like mindset.

Further, Stalin's insane purges of the military leadership in the 1930s greatly weakened the Soviet Union's strategic military leadership. This also likely led to higher casualties than otherwise would have happened.
 
I am American, but I have been living in Hiroshima for the past 11 years. I see the Atomic Bomb Dome daily and I still can't say whether or not I think it was the right decision. I do think people saying the Japanese were ready to throw in the towel are wrong. Any country willing to use kamikaze techniques would surely end up fighting to the last man, and anyone who knows anything about Japan can understand why the Japanese would not give up. So in that sense I absolutely believe that the a-bombs ended up saving lives in the end. Also, as terrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, I would rather have been a part of that than been present during the Tokyo firebombings and similar such raids. I fail to see how those are any more humane, yet nobody has a problem with those. Nagasaki was most certainly overkill.

Finally, I find the Japanese attitude and mindset regarding their involvement in the war to be very disturbing. Nobody here feels like Japan did anything wrong. They are perpetually the victim. For as much whining as China and Korea do about stuff that happened in the past, I do feel that if I were Chinese or Korean, I'd probably hate Japan too.

Do you not think they could have dropped the bomb a couple of km off the coast in Tokyo. Everyone could see it and you wouldn't need to kill a load of civilians.
 
Great Post

Agreed on everything.

It's important to note that the US was the only country in the world with atomic weapons and by extension had a massive technological and geopolitical advantage in the immediate years following WW2. In hindsight, Truman could have exerted extreme pressure on the Soviets (Eastern Europe) and China (Korea) during those years (in my opinion without even using the bomb on cities), which would have avoided a lot of the problems we face even now (looking at you North Korea). The need to avoid another cataclysmic war was really high though, and the more conservative approach that was taken at the time is definitely understandable.

As DeafMutes said, the bomb should be seen as an extension of strategic bombing. By present standards, carpet bombing and using atomic weapons is definitely a war crime...but during WW2 and the 1940s? Not so much. Using the bomb wasnt some be all end all black and white event. Instead of using tens of thousands of bombs to level a city, the US figured out how to use just one. Dresden and Tokyo for example were catastrophic bombings probably on a scale larger than the nuclear bombs.
 
Americans portray themselves very heroically for the country who was happy to simply profit off the war for a long time and only got involved cause Japan overestimated themselves
 

MGrant

Member
I'm fine with the allies' actions stopping fascism's spread in Europe and toppling the leadership of Japan. Unfortunately after the war there were countless fuckups in the Middle East (putting Israel in the worst place possible), Asia (the division of Korea, supporting the fascist KMT and giving them Taiwan), and Europe (allowing violent Soviet repression to go unchecked, and watching the Stasi to come to power in East Germany). At least we got some good books and music out of the whole thing.
 

JordanN

Banned
"Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians would have resisted the invasion, estimates ran up into the millions for Allied casualties."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall?wprov=sfla1


Bit wooly but I'm sure the actual figures the US Army predicted to Truman are in this link somewhere.

It would have been a fight to the death. Japan had been teaching schoolgirls how to sharpen bamboo and use them as swords. They were that fanatical.

7wgiq2r.jpg


Also, can you imagine the emotional distress of allied soldiers being forced to kill hoards of children? There's no erasing such memory from your head.
 

matt360

Member
Do you not think they could have dropped the bomb a couple of km off the coast in Tokyo. Everyone could see it and you wouldn't need to kill a load of civilians.

Yeah, that probably would have been worth a shot. I still don't think Japan would have stopped even after seeing that, but they should have at least been given that opportunity.
 

Acorn

Member
Do you not think they could have dropped the bomb a couple of km off the coast in Tokyo. Everyone could see it and you wouldn't need to kill a load of civilians.
The fanatiscm to the emperor created kamikaze pilots, suicide instead of retreat and losing. The eventual capitulation that did take place was nearly scuppered after 2 A bombs on population centres.

I feel like years of X Dictator has fanatic army (Iraq's revolutionary guard likely NK too...) that isn't actually fanatic in reality has caused us to underestimate true fanatiscm such as that in Japan at the time.
 

LeonSPBR

Member
Do you not think they could have dropped the bomb a couple of km off the coast in Tokyo. Everyone could see it and you wouldn't need to kill a load of civilians.

And I'm sure many Japanese might see that as a weakness. That the USA don't have what it takes to target their city because of the civilian loss.

And an attack like that IMO would have made the Japanese fight harder so that the USA won't attack the mainland and they would have fought to the last men.
 

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Good riddance with the Nazis.

Then the US squandered all the good will they had earned by being as hypocritical as the Soviets with respect to influencing foreign governments, particularly in Latin America and the Middle East.

P.S. the nukes were a war crime.
 

Joezie

Member
Do you not think they could have dropped the bomb a couple of km off the coast in Tokyo. Everyone could see it and you wouldn't need to kill a load of civilians.

I mean...dropping bombs along the coast was an option.

Not one bomb
Not Two bombs,
Not even Three bombs.

If you're ok with seeing the Japanese home island coastal positions(and possibly cities along the coast) get nuked potentially at least 15 times in the opening phase alongside wide spread chemical attacks on farmland and major rivers with continued firebombing of cities...I guess this sounds attractive?
 

Acorn

Member
It would have been a fight to the death. Japan had been teaching schoolgirls how to sharpen bamboo and use them as swords. They were that fanatical.

7wgiq2r.jpg


Also, can you imagine the emotional distress of allied soldiers being forced to kill children? There's no erasing such memory from your head.
Agreed. I'm of the opinion the A bomb was unfortunately necessary.

It's morally objectionable but all out war always is.
 

DeanBDean

Member
Also, can you imagine the emotional distress of allied soldiers being forced to kill hoards and hoards of children? There's no erasing such memory from your head.

Sadly much of the Waffen-SS, the SS, and many complicit civilians in Eastern Europe would know exactly what it was like to be responsible for the death of hoards of children.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
Canadian here.

I feel like using the bombs was okay as a show of force to force a quick surrender to save lives on both sides, but I think was wrong to use them on civilian targets.

If the US was worried about counterarguments about the bombs possibly missing due to technical issues, they could have dropped the bombs somewhere prominent but less populated as a warning shot. The message would have been the same as what was accomplished with Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Surrender now, or we will systematically nuke you off the map.

Finally, I find the Japanese attitude and mindset regarding their involvement in the war to be very disturbing. Nobody here feels like Japan did anything wrong. They are perpetually the victim. For as much whining as China and Korea do about stuff that happened in the past, I do feel that if I were Chinese or Korean, I'd probably hate Japan too.
Being Chinese, this really bothers me too. Yes, the atomic bombs caused a lot of death and suffering, but Japan always insists on playing the victim while attempting to handwave away all of their own crimes. Many stories show Japan as the victim. The government still constantly denies their war crimes, and as I understand it, Japanese war crimes are left out of their education system. The new generation is mostly completely unaware that their country did any wrong during the war.

I don't hate Japan or the Japanese because I recognize that the current generation has nothing to do with those crimes. But I understand why older Chinese and Korean people still have a lingering hatred for the Japanese.
 

Acorn

Member
Sadly much of the Waffen-SS, the SS, and many complicit civilians in Eastern Europe would know exactly what it was like to be responsible for the death of hoards of children.
Plus Nazis using hitler youth and oap in the German homeland defence towards the end iirc.
 
I'm fine with the allies' actions stopping fascism's spread in Europe and toppling the leadership of Japan. Unfortunately after the war there were countless fuckups in the Middle East (putting Israel in the worst place possible), Asia (the division of Korea, supporting the fascist KMT and giving them Taiwan), and Europe (allowing violent Soviet repression to go unchecked, and watching the Stasi to come to power in East Germany). At least we got some good books and music out of the whole thing.

Mao winning the civil war was a lot worse for China and its neighbors than if the nationalists had won.
 
Atom bombs were entirely justified. There is no proof that Japan would have surrendered due to the Soviets alone.

Also, it's awful just how many people forget that Japan basically committed an "Asian holocaust". It's no wonder so many people from Asia hate Japan.
 

Acorn

Member
Read up on unit 731 to find out one reason amongst hundreds that Japanese unconditional surrender and destruction of current regime was necessary.

Not for the faint of heart though.

Helps you to understand even more why Chinese view Japan's current ww2 attitudes disgusting. There are innumerable amount of other examples within the field.

The empire was evil to the core, if Hitler didn't exist they'd be Hitler essentially.
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
As an American, I can say that we could not have come in there to save the day if it was not for the actions of multiple countries. And maybe without us, the European and Africa fronts of the war could have been won without us.

France and Great Britain in particular were the good guys who drew a line in the sand. Yes France rolled over when they were overwhelmed, but they had been building barriers for years before that. And along with several other nations were aware and vocal about the nazi threat.

I say fuck Russia, because while their contribution was huge to winning the war, they were totally complicit in the early days supporting the German regime. If Hitler had not attacked them straight up, they would have done nothing while Europe burned. They would have taken the leftovers of the nazi regimes destruction, and gone with it.

I have to give the most credit to the U.K. Because they saw the world burning, and asked for help, and the US at the time was against participating in another giant war. But to the United States credit, it took Pearl Harbour to get us in the war. And instead of going after Japan immediately, we went to the Eoropean front. We realized Germany was the main threat. And our allies were in more dire need of support then the shit happening in the East.

So it took us awhile, but we entered the war. And while Great Britain was surffering bombings, and France had a whole underground resistant movement. The US enters with backup support. And our entire country switches its industry to fighting a war.

I could go on and on.

But the bravery of the U.K. And France kept the Nazis at bay. The Russians weakened their forces with Hitler's idiotic play into Russia. And the US who was lucky enough not to be on the front, came in and wiped up with a giant military infrastructure that was not really under attack or on the defensive.

Then came taking care of Japan, and the US sustained the major burden of that. Not to say that our allies had no part in this, but they were hit much harder by the war. We rebuilt our navy. Fought Island by island to destroy the ability of the Japanese military to function. And yes dropped two nukes to finish the war.

But in conclusion, if Great Britain had not stood up, I think we would be living in a very different world right now.
 

reckless

Member
Read up on unit 731 to find out one reason amongst hundreds that Japanese unconditional surrender and destruction of current regime was necessary.

Not for the faint of heart though.

That isn't a great thing to bring up since we gave them immunity in exchange for their research...
 

DocSeuss

Member
Mao winning the civil war was a lot worse for China and its neighbors than if the nationalists had won.

I don't know how anyone who knows literally anything about the history of China could agree that Mao was the best choice, or even the lesser of two evils. He was, by far, the worst possible outcome out of the options at the time.

And maybe without us, the European and Africa fronts of the war could have been won without us.

There is no universe where Europe is won without the US. The British were committing war crimes in the form of ineffective bombings of civilian centers, and the Russians would have faced a total collapse if not for the massive food and oil supplies delivered with Lend-Lease. Russia would have lost without American involvement. That doesn't even include our military machinery. That's JUST food and oil. Some of Russia's most effective machinery was American-made as well. Like, don't get me wrong, the Il-2 Sturmovik is a gorgeous plane, and the single most produced airplane of all time, but Russia needed those P-39s and P-63s.
 
Ya...But that discounts the people. They by all reports were tired of war. But the American military was protraying them as mindless savages willing to die man woman and child. I firmly believe that wasn't true. I also believe the Hawks were in the minority and didn't include the emperor. America wanted to test it's shiny new weapon..Both types, and wanted the world to know about it. Japan was largely raised to the ground at that point. Its navy decimated. A navy blockade was all that was needed. Truman wanted to wave his new bomb around.

Unfortunately we have to discount "the people" because they were largely viewed as fodder by their own leadership. Part of the reason Japanese civilians were targeted by allied bombings in the first place was because the munitions manufacturing were moved from traditional factories to neighborhood factories, their leaders literally painted a target on them.

All the major armed forces created propaganda that dehumanized the enemy to disgusting degrees, Japanese propaganda wasn't any different than the American version. The bombs were built to drop a very white Nazi Germany first, it just happened the Nazis fell before the bombs could be used.

You seem to be completely ignorant of "The Kyūjō incident" which happened after the bombings, but right before the surrender was announced. There was not a completely unified peace movement period, even after when it was all but decided.

Japan was in comparatively better shape and was more intact than Germany, which was truly razed to the ground between two allied bombing forces and the efforts of the very pissed off Soviet Union.

Naval Blockades killed millions during WW1, why is vaporizing civilians in an atomic fireball especially worse than slowly starving them?

What you believe is meaningless when viewed in the larger context of what actually happened.
 

temp

posting on contract only
Poland was a puppet regime to the Soviet Union. I took the designation on the chart to include those, but if that's not what it meant then I'm mistaken.

How is it superficial? It is factual, the Soviet Union's losses were driven significantly higher because Stalin had no regard for the lives of his people. He did not allow for many strategic retreats that would have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives. Even in Stalingrad, he intentionally sacrificed many lives to lure the German Army into a trap. This is historical fact. I'm not saying it was a bad point, I'm saying that far more lives were lost than were necessary to defend the Fatherland. This is not a fault of the brave Russians/Slavs/other minorities defending their land. It is the fault of Stalin and generals who had the Stalin like mindset.

Further, Stalin's insane purges of the military leadership in the 1930s greatly weakened the Soviet Union's strategic military leadership. This also likely led to higher casualties than otherwise would have happened.

I'm sure those figures wouldn't include "puppet regimes" because the definition of a puppet state is that it is considered exactly that: a separate state.

Also, I feel like your point about the USSR is superficial because the strategy of that country wasn't defined by the sociopathology of its head of state. Given the superiority of the German military machine, it seems like a given that the USSR's strategy would have to be to hold fast in the face of overwhelming casualties, and even with that they barely survived.

The reasoning that Stalin sacrificed his people just because he didn't care is ridiculous. Obviously the head of state of a country would care about his people if only because they're the source of the country's army, and afterward, the basis of its economy. The only explanation for that decision would have to be that he was a madman, and that's not usually a useful analysis of history.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
That isn't a great thing to bring up since we gave them immunity in exchange for their research...
This grinds my gears the most. The fuckers in charge of this? They got away with it by selling their "research."

They, of all people, got to live out the rest of their lives in peace.

Those. Fuckers.
 

reckless

Member
This grinds my gears the most. The fuckers in charge of this? They got away with it by selling their "research."

They, of all people, got to live out the rest of their lives in peace.

Those. Fuckers.

Yeah, finding that part out was pretty fucking disturbing.
 

Hexa

Member
I mean...dropping bombs along the coast was an option.

Not one bomb
Not Two bombs,
Not even Three bombs.

If you're ok with seeing the Japanese home island coastal positions(and possibly cities along the coast) get nuked potentially at least 15 times in the opening phase alongside wide spread chemical attacks on farmland and major rivers with continued firebombing of cities...I guess this sounds attractive?

I don't think we had more than two bombs at the time with a pretty long build time for more but we wanted to give off the impression we could fire off as many as we wanted.
 

DocSeuss

Member
I'm sure those figures wouldn't include "puppet regimes" because the definition of a puppet state is that it is considered exactly that: a separate state.

Also, I feel like your point about the USSR is superficial because the strategy of that country wasn't defined by the sociopathology of its head of state. Given the superiority of the German military machine, it seems like a given that the USSR's strategy would have to be to hold fast in the face of overwhelming casualties, and even with that they barely survived.

The reasoning that Stalin sacrificed his people just because he didn't care is ridiculous. Obviously the head of state of a country would care about his people if only because they're the source of the country's army, and afterward, the basis of its economy. The only explanation for that decision would have to be that he was a madman, and that's not usually a useful analysis of history.

I mean, Stalin did proceed to kill more people than the Nazis did. Some estimates place this at, what, 20-30 million people? As opposed to Hitler's 'mere' 11.2 million?

I don't think we had more than two bombs at the time with a pretty long build time for more but we wanted to give off the impression we could fire off as many as we wanted.

iirc we had three bombs ready to go for Bockscar.
 

Acorn

Member
That isn't a great thing to bring up since we gave them immunity in exchange for their research...
Should be as common knowledge as the immunity and citizenship given to various German scientists by all allies.

Even 'good guys' have to have their hideous actions remembered.
 

DeanBDean

Member
I'm sure those figures wouldn't include "puppet regimes" because the definition of a puppet state is that it is considered exactly that: a separate state.

Also, I feel like your point about the USSR is superficial because the strategy of that country wasn't defined by the sociopathology of its head of state. Given the superiority of the German military machine, it seems like a given that the USSR's strategy would have to be to hold fast in the face of overwhelming casualties, and even with that they barely survived.

The reasoning that Stalin sacrificed his people just because he didn't care is ridiculous. Obviously the head of state of a country would care about his people if only because they're the source of the country's army, and afterward, the basis of its economy. The only explanation for that decision would have to be that he was a madman, and that's not usually a useful analysis of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

The strategy of the country was absolutely defined by the sociopathology of the head of state. Strategic retreat in the face of a superior, faster moving enemy was the tactic many generals wanted to take, but literally were not allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge_of_the_Red_Army_in_1941

Stalin decimated his own military leadership before the war. Then, Stalin literally purged his own army in the middle of an invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_Berlin

Stalin intentionally set his generals in an unnecessary Race to Berlin. There were battles were Zhukov drove men to their death by the tens of thousands with unnecessary decisions done for speed and not for the safety of his men.
 

MGrant

Member
Mao winning the civil war was a lot worse for China and its neighbors than if the nationalists had won.

True, but the KMT was (and is) corrupt to the bone and murdered thousands of political dissidents in China and Taiwan. We should have either given Taiwan its independence, made it the 51st state, or given it back to Japan, and stayed the hell away from the dumpster fire of Chinese leadership at the time.
 

Hexa

Member
iirc we had three bombs ready to go for Bockscar.

I think we both kind of misremembered. They didn't have any more bombs after Nagasaki, but could have had one by August 17th.

Truman returned to Washington from Potsdam on the evening of 7 August and was immediately caught up in a whirlwind of activity generated by Groves, who was determined to proceed as quickly as possible with a second bombing of Japan. He and Admiral William Purnell, Groves writes in his autobiography, 'had often discussed the importance of having the second bomb follow the first one quickly', so that the Japanese would not have time to recover their balance'. This second bomb would have to be of the Fat Man type, there being no chance of assembling another uranium bomb at this stage (in fact, the Little Boy remained one of its kind; the Fat Man design, despite its complicated assembly, being easier to manufacture, safer to transport and more powerful). After the success of the Trinity test, the only thing standing in the way of using a Fat Man bomb in Japan was the availability of plutonium. Groves had originally been advised that a plutonium bomb could be ready to use on August 20. At the end of July, this was revised to 11 August. Groves, however, was too impatient to wait that long and, somewhat against the advice he was given by the scientists, saw to it that the bomb was assembled, loaded and ready to use by the evening of 8 August [...]

Immediately after the Nagasaki bombing the Allies did not possess any more atomic bombs. It is true, as Groves puts it, 'our entire organization both at Los Alamos and at Tinian was maintained in a state of complete readiness to prepare additional bombs', but, as he himself reported to General Marshall, the earliest data at which the next bomb could be assembled for use was 17 August, and almost everybody expected the war to be over by then.

https://history.stackexchange.com/q...tes-have-a-third-atomic-bomb-to-drop-on-japan
 

DeanBDean

Member
Plus Nazis using hitler youth and oap in the German homeland defence towards the end iirc.

Forgot about that, yeah all to appease Hitler's suicidal tendencies they sacrificed their children in an unnecessary Battle of Berlin.

Should be as common knowledge as the immunity and citizenship given to various German scientists by all allies.

Even 'good guys' have to have their hideous actions remembered.

Absolutely, this a thousand times. My Lai, napalm, American World War II war atrocities, the Trail of Tears, the support of the Shah, all these and more should be taught in American schools. Sweeping these things under the rug leads to a false sense of superiority. That in turn can lead to someone approving an atrocity, because "we just don't do that." When we absolutely have.
 

reckless

Member
Should be as common knowledge as the immunity and citizenship given to various German scientists by all allies.

Even 'good guys' have to have their hideous actions remembered.

Nah I mean't not a great example of why unconditional surrender was needed when we turned around and gave those monsters immunity.
 

Joezie

Member
I don't think we had more than two bombs at the time with a pretty long build time for more but we wanted to give off the impression we could fire off as many as we wanted.

This is correct. We didn't have more than 2 bombs at the time.

Downfall however was not scheduled to launch for another few months and the materials to produce them were available and ready. 4 were on their way in September with an additional 3 in October. Give or take however, there could be expected 3/month steadily increasing as time would go on.
 
After WW2 it only took he US 4 years to start fucking shit up in other countries and became the bad guy and they didnt stop until this day and they keep going
 

android

Theoretical Magician
Unfortunately we have to discount "the people", because they were largely viewed as fodder by the leadership. Part of the reason Japanese civilians were targeted by allied bombings in the first place was because the munitions manufacturing was moved from traditional factories to neighborhood factories, their leaders literally painted a target on them.

All the major armed forces created propaganda that dehumanized enemy to disgusting degrees, Japanese propaganda wasn't any different than the American version.

You seem to be completely ignorant of "The Kyūjō incident" which happened after the bombings, but right before the surrender was announced.

Japan was in much better shape and more intact than Germany, which was truly razed to the ground.

Naval Blockades killed millions during WW1, why is vaporizing civilians in an atomic fireball worse than slowly starving them?

What you believe is meaningless when viewed in the larger context of what actually happened.
The Kyuju incident was a handful of junior officers lead by a 22 yr old major. It was doomed to fail and being after the bombs completely irrelevant to the discussion. The miltary especially the "Big Six", government nor Emperor didn't support not surrending. I say they wanted that before the bombs.
Also if I remember correctly Japan had zero or next to no navy..Therefore no abilities to project their power beyond their island especially during an sustained Allied bombing campaign...Therefore...Soon to be completely raised to the ground. They would have surrendered without invasion or the bombs.

American Japanese propaganda was racist to say the least. They didn't lock up German or Italian citizens taking their property as they did to those ofJapanese descent.



And a very large number of the casualties from the bombs weren't killed instantly. They melted horribly, the skin sliding off their bodies. If they were lucky their deaths were from cancer or radiation poisoning down the road. Its nice to think an atomic bomb is a quick painless death...It really isnt for most.
 
There is no universe where Europe is won without the US. The British were committing war crimes in the form of ineffective bombings of civilian centers, and the Russians would have faced a total collapse if not for the massive food and oil supplies delivered with Lend-Lease. Russia would have lost without American involvement. That doesn't even include our military machinery. That's JUST food and oil. Some of Russia's most effective machinery was American-made as well. Like, don't get me wrong, the Il-2 Sturmovik is a gorgeous plane, and the single most produced airplane of all time, but Russia needed those P-39s and P-63s.

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Lend Lease shipments did not increase to levels of significance until after Stalingrad, by which point the Germans were essentially defeated. The most important aid in 1941 came not from the Americans but the British in the form of badly needed tanks. Again, in the early years, critical supplies of Aviation Fuel came from Britain and Canada, rather than the US. Food was the most important contribution arguably, equaling perhaps as much as 10% of Soviet production in 1942.

Part of what America contributed could have been sourced from the Commonwealth instead of America. There would not have been absolutely zero food shipments without America, although the decline would have been quite high. More people would have been needed to be redirected from critical war industries to food production but even that would not have been enough. They would have risked Famine. But a famine would not have defeated the Soviet Union. The war was not that close by the winter of 1942/1943. The Germans had the piss pounded out of them and their dying gasp would be Operation Citadel the following year (which doesn't go well in any universe, even without LL). This is also assuming that some of these items could not have been directly purchased from the United States, rather than LL'd. Food in particular may have been sourced through conventional purchases even if America was neutral and unwilling to sell armaments.

The British Commonwealth and Soviet Union combined had enough strength to defeat the Germans, albeit at a higher cost in lives and over a longer timespan. The principle outcome is that the Soviet Union's 1944 offensives are much less effective than they were historically because of more limited fuel and mechanization of the armies. 1943 is also impacted, but less dramatically. The march to Berlin may have taken a year longer. There is no victory in 1945 without America, but there is still victory.
 

DocSeuss

Member
Forgot about that, yeah all to appease Hitler's suicidal tendencies they sacrificed their children in an unnecessary Battle of Berlin.



Absolutely, this a thousand times. My Lai, napalm, American World War II war atrocities, the Trail of Tears, the support of the Shah, all these and more should be taught in American schools. Sweeping these things under the rug leads to a false sense of superiority. That in turn can lead to someone approving an atrocity, because "we just don't do that." When we absolutely have.

I was taught most of these things in school. The American WWII war atrocities were practically nonexistent compared to others (the Japanese internment was, I believe, far worse than killing the Dachau guards, for instance).

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Lend Lease shipments did not increase to levels of significance until after Stalingrad, by which point the Germans were essentially defeated. The most important aid in 1941 came not from the Americans but the British in the form of badly needed tanks. Again, in the early years, critical supplies of Aviation Fuel came from Britain and Canada, rather than the US. Food was the most important contribution arguably, equaling perhaps as much as 10% of Soviet production in 1942.

Part of what America contributed could have been sourced from the Commonwealth instead of America. There would not have been absolutely zero food shipments without America, although the decline would have been quite high. More people would have been needed to be redirected from critical war industries to food production but even that would not have been enough. They would have risked Famine. But a famine would not have defeated the Soviet Union. The war was not that close by the winter of 1942/1943. The Germans had the piss pounded out of them and their dying gasp would be Operation Citadel the following year (which doesn't go well in any universe, even without LL). This is also assuming that some of these items could not have been directly purchased from the United States, rather than LL'd. Food in particular may have been sourced through conventional purchases even if America was neutral and unwilling to sell armaments.

The British Commonwealth and Soviet Union combined had enough strength to defeat the Germans, albeit at a higher cost in lives and over a longer timespan. The principle outcome is that the Soviet Union's 1944 offensives are much less effective than they were historically because of more limited fuel and mechanization of the armies. 1943 is also impacted, but less dramatically. The march to Berlin may have taken a year longer. There is no victory in 1945 without America, but there is still victory.

You're right about the fuel, I was misremembering. Still, without Allied support, Russia would have not been able to perform as it had. The US was still instrumental in cutting off Germany's resources and industrial sector, especially with the air raids on Romania. Without British tanks, Russia would likely never have been able to get T-34 manufacturing up to speed, and without the US seriously weakening Germany's oil and industry, Germany would have performed much better against the Russians. Russia would have lost Moscow without the Allies for sure.

The Russians are vastly overcredited just because lots of them were killed and because they got to Berlin first.
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
I don't know how anyone who knows literally anything about the history of China could agree that Mao was the best choice, or even the lesser of two evils. He was, by far, the worst possible outcome out of the options at the time.



There is no universe where Europe is won without the US. The British were committing war crimes in the form of ineffective bombings of civilian centers, and the Russians would have faced a total collapse if not for the massive food and oil supplies delivered with Lend-Lease. Russia would have lost without American involvement. That doesn't even include our military machinery. That's JUST food and oil. Some of Russia's most effective machinery was American-made as well. Like, don't get me wrong, the Il-2 Sturmovik is a gorgeous plane, and the single most produced airplane of all time, but Russia needed those P-39s and P-63s.

I have it as a big maybe.

But yeah because the US was not really under direct attack in our homeland, we were able to build a military infrastructure with little resistance. But it took Russia, France, Great Britain and dozens of other allies prolonging the war for us to really have the time to go in like we did.

And in that war the British committing war crimes? Really? Yes some of their tactics were not exactly kosher, but they were fighting an enemy who was doing much worse. And Japan and even Russia were on a whole other level. And these war crimes from the British were done in defense from an agressor that they did not ask for. Everyone in that war commited war crimes.
 
As someone from Holland the praise the Soviet Union gets for doing most of the heavy work in defeating Nazi Germany is not balanced nearly enough by their essential support given to Hitler before the war. Simply put, without Stalin's crucial war materials WW2 could not have happened and all the losses suffered by the Soviet Union and all other countries can be partially blamed on Stalin's actions.

”Over and over on the eastern front, the same ironic
scene was played out. German soldiers fed by Ukrainian grain, transported by Caucasus
oil, and outfitted with boots made from rubber shipped via the Trans–Siberian railroad
fired their Donetz–manganese–hardened steel weapons at their former allies. The Red
Army hit back with artillery pieces and planes designed according to German
specifications and produced by Ruhr Valley machines in factories that burned coal from
the Saar."

Edward E. Ericson III, Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi
Germany, 1933–1941

As far as nuclear bombs are concerned my main problem with them is that they were not finished a year earlier and used on Berlin. It's 2017 now and it's weird how dumb myths like 'Japan was about to surrender' and 'the Soviets were about to conquer Japan so Truman used the bomb' stay alive.
 

Acorn

Member
Forgot about that, yeah all to appease Hitler's suicidal tendencies they sacrificed their children in an unnecessary Battle of Berlin.

Absolutely, this a thousand times. My Lai, napalm, American World War II war atrocities, the Trail of Tears, the support of the Shah, all these and more should be taught in American schools. Sweeping these things under the rug leads to a false sense of superiority. That in turn can lead to someone approving an atrocity, because "we just don't do that." When we absolutely have.


Indeed, there was no level of depravity to which Hitler would not sink for his own ego even with defeat inevitable.

Yep, simarly here some of Churchill's actions and views towards the colonies is overlooked in service of presenting him as unimpeachable national hero. Colonial history is generally taught well in high school but the actions we took that have led to current conflicts when we exited places like India and Palestine are often overlooked. Those are just some examples from the top of my head. Uncomfortable truths that need to be known.

Nah I mean't not a great example of why unconditional surrender was needed when we turned around and gave those monsters immunity.
Ah, I follow. Apologies for that.
 

DeanBDean

Member
I was taught most of these things in school. The American WWII war atrocities were practically nonexistent compared to others (the Japanese internment was, I believe, far worse than killing the Dachau guards, for instance).

As was I, but I run into people all the time who tell me they were never taught these things in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II

And we had our share. Certainly nothing comparable in scale to German/Japanese/Soviet war crimes, but nonetheless they should be taught. I wasn't counting the Dachau guards to be honest, because while that is technically a war crime, it may be the most understandable war crime.
 

DocSeuss

Member
This always seemed really crazy to me

I can't read French, so I don't know what the chart is about.

As was I, but I run into people all the time who tell me they were never taught these things in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II

And we had our share. Certainly nothing comparable in scale to German/Japanese/Soviet war crimes, but nonetheless they should be taught. I wasn't counting the Dachau guards to be honest, because while that is technically a war crime, it may be the most understandable war crime.

As terrible as this sounds: American War Crimes were easily the least bad of anything being done. The "take no prisoners" attitude is, I think, way 'better' (if it can be called that) than stuff like the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanking. On the Allies side, the British night bombing was an atrocity, especially in regards to Dresden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom