• 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.

World War II |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
GTP_Daverytimes

GTP_Daverytimes

Member
I think it is criminal that we don't have a thread dedicated to the greatest war in human history, i will not list the events that took place (i am assuming most of you know atleast some part of the war) since there are just too many of them. This is a thread were we talk about the events that started world war, facts about the war, the most important aspects of the war, the controversial decisions that were employed during the war, hypothetical situations and outcomes of the war, conspiracy theories, the effects the war has had on modern society and so much more. I wanted to start the discussion with one of the most controversial decisions of the 20th century, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. was it the right thing to do and how has it affected us today, the discussion can be changed to any other thing but i just wanted to get the ball rolling.

Theaters of War
The Pacific Theater of war
The Pacific Ocean theatre was one of four major naval theatres of war of World War II, which pitted the forces of Japan against those of the United States, the British Commonwealth, the Netherlands and France.
The theater included most of the Pacific Ocean and its islands, excluding the Philippines, Australia, the Netherlands East Indies, the Territory of New Guinea (including the Bismarck Archipelago) and the Solomon Islands (which were part of the Southwest Pacific area.) The Pacific Ocean theater also excluded China and mainland Southeast Asia. It takes its name from 30 March 1942[1] when it became the major Allied command in the theater, known simply as "Pacific Ocean Areas".

European Theater
The European Theatre of World War II was a huge area of heavy fighting across Europe from Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 until the end of the war with the German unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945 (V-E Day). The Allied forces fought the Axis powers in three sub-theatres: the Eastern Front, the Western Front, and the Mediterranean Theatre.
Click to expand...


For those who do not know anything about World War II here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
http://facts.randomhistory.com/world-war-ii-facts.html
Click to expand...

Fun Info graphs:
General idea of the main players during the war (not everyone involved is listed)
world_war_2_infographic_by_mastastealth-d39kncp.png

World_War_II_Casualties2.svg
Click to expand...


Documentaries/mini-series/podcasts
Band of Brothers
The Pacific
YVictory at Sea
WWII in HD
The World at War
Ken Burns' The War.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History- Ghosts of the Ostfront I -IV (check under "older episodes available for sale")
Click to expand...
 
Indrid Cold1

Indrid Cold1

Member
From what little I know the atomic bombing saved a ton of Allied lives by avoiding a costly invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. So it was the right thing to do in my opinion.

Great idea for a thread, subscribed.
 
A

Alpha-Bromega

Member
you could have put some effort into the thread, some formatting, some links... link to that twitter thing where he posts all the events of world war II in real time as they happend. maybe some people don't even know much about WWII at all!
 
S

Salvor.Hardin

Banned
Cozzy said:
From what little I know the atomic bombing saved a ton of Allied lives by avoiding a costly invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. So it was the right thing to do in my opinion.

Great idea for a thread, subscribed.
Click to expand...

Around 230,000 people died. Mostly civilians. You'd have to be a right prick to think those bombings were justified.
 
Meus Renaissance

Meus Renaissance

Member
g1cs3s2.jpg


Follow up

"I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood."
 
S

Sir Hamish

Member
Desmond said:
In my opinion nuking was never the ''right'' thing to do, but then again I didn't live in the 40s.
Click to expand...

I had an argument with my cousin about this exact same thing. He thought it was wrong to drop the nukes, whilst I think it was the right thing to do.

It would have cost thousands more lives to invade the islands. Dropping the nukes achieved the same result, ending the war, but with a smaller death toll. Remember Japan attacked the U.S. first, the Americans had every right to end the war in a way that preserved as many American lives as possible. Having the nukes and not using them would have been irresponsible. Obviously this only stands when the alternative was an invasion of Japan, diplomacy is always preferable.
 
Indrid Cold1

Indrid Cold1

Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Around 230,000 people died. Mostly civilians. You'd have to be a right prick to think those bombings were justified.
Click to expand...

Vs estimated 250,000 - 1,000 000 casualties from an invasion of the home islands? Plus immediate execution of all approx 100,000 POWs currently in Japanese captivity? You'd have to be a right prick to accept losses like that with a conventional invasion if you had another option.
 
M

Martian

Member
Isn't that picture partly wrong? Excuse for being that guy, but wasn't Vichy-France Axis territory?

Also a question: Is it true that at the end of WW2 the Russians and Americans already began to feel disputes rising up? That the taking of Berlin started to become a race?


Sir Hamish said:
Dropping the nukes achieved the same result, ending the war, but with a smaller death toll.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is true. The bombs were dropped (at least, thats what I heard) when the war was already in the favour of the Allies. They dropped the bomb to see what kind of effect a nuclear bomb had, if it were dropped onto a city.
 
A

AAequal

Banned
Sir Hamish said:
I had an argument with my cousin about this exact same thing. He thought it was wrong to drop the nukes, whilst I think it was the right thing to do.

It would have cost thousands more lives to invade the islands. Dropping the nukes achieved the same result, ending the war, but with a smaller death toll. Remember Japan attacked the U.S. first, the Americans had every right to end the war in a way that preserved as many American lives as possible. Having the nukes and not using them would have been irresponsible. Obviously this only stands when the alternative was an invasion of Japan, diplomacy is always preferable.
Click to expand...
There really was no need to invade Japan. Embargo would have taken longer for them to surrender but they would have eventually surrendered since they were already in short of food. No need for the fire bombings and atom bombs.
 
M

MIKEAL

Banned
Salvor.Hardin said:
Around 230,000 people died. Mostly civilians. You'd have to be a right prick to think those bombings were justified.
Click to expand...

I would argue any action in war, in any capacity, is unjustifiable. Whether it be one life, or thousands of lives. I wouldn't ever argue the ethics behind dropping the atomic bombs over Japan, but neither would I berate my country for doing so. That was a long, tireless war, and it could have gone on much longer had they invaded instead. It would be hard for me to ask a young man whom just served in Europe to pack his bags and head off to invade Japan for me, when a bomb could end the war tomorrow. They offered Japan the chance to surrender and they declined, those civilian deaths are on their hands.
 
B

Big-E

Member
Why isn't Canada mentioned in that infograph? I am pretty sure Canada decided to help and declared war against the axis on our own terms and not like in World War I where we were in a war because England was in war.
 
J

JzeroT1437

Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Around 230,000 people died. Mostly civilians. You'd have to be a right prick to think those bombings were justified.
Click to expand...

Let's keep pretending the Japanese were in any way willing to negotiate a peace treaty and overlook their "to the last man" fighting mentality. Let's continue to overlook Japanese Death Camps and events like the Bataan Death March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March). Let's keep letting modern Japan jade our perception of what the generals in WWII were dealing with.
 
C

Captain Tuttle

Member
Big-E said:
Why isn't Canada mentioned in that infograph? I am pretty sure Canada decided to help and declared war against the axis on our own terms and not like in World War I where we were in a war because England was in war.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And I'm not even Canadian.

OP needs more detail for such an epic historical event.
 
Goldrusher

Goldrusher

Member
47786-050-0292fab242jae.jpg


20060523141424_cambri4akh1.jpg


american_military_cemxokxe.jpg


img_0237oij8l.jpg


la_cambe_vue_d_ensembs7jri.jpg


soldatenfr_champigny_ozj20.jpg


p1010046uajqq.jpg



Every photo is a different cemetery. There are hundreds of these across Normandy, Flanders, England, Holland, etc.


We still find bombs and grenades every week.
 
K

Kabouter

Member
Martian said:
Isn't that picture partly wrong? Excuse for being that guy, but wasn't Vichy-France Axis territory?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a lot wrong with this picture. It doesn't show many allies, some Axis territory (most notably Korea and Manchuria) etc.

Also a question: Is it true that at the end of WW2 the Russians and Americans already began to feel disputes rising up? That the taking of Berlin started to become a race?
Click to expand...
True

Not sure if this is true. The bombs were dropped (at least, thats what I heard) when the war was already in the favour of the Allies. They dropped the bomb to see what kind of effect a nuclear bomb had, if it were dropped onto a city.
Click to expand...
While the war was in favour of the Allies, and had been since the Battle of Midway, Japan had no intention of conforming to the demand for unconditional surrender. The alternative was an invasion of the home islands. This would have meant several things, even outside of the catastrophic civilian casualties that would have inevitably followed. For one thing, it would have meant that the Soviet Union would have seized Hokkaido, and either have created a Japanese SSR or a nominally independent puppet state. It would also have meant unjustifiable American military casualties.

-COOLIO- said:
didnt canada enter the war before the US?
Click to expand...

Yes, around a week after the United Kingdom iirc.
 
M

MjFrancis

Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Around 230,000 people died. Mostly civilians. You'd have to be a right prick to think those bombings were justified.
Click to expand...
We couldn't go eight posts without resorting to name-calling in this thread. This is why we can't have nice things.

Still, I've subscribed to this thread, looking forward to further conversation on WWII. This armchair general is ready.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Martian said:
Also a question: Is it true that at the end of WW2 the Russians and Americans already began to feel disputes rising up? That the taking of Berlin started to become a race?




Not sure if this is true. The bombs were dropped (at least, thats what I heard) when the war was already in the favour of the Allies. They dropped the bomb to see what kind of effect a nuclear bomb had, if it were dropped onto a city.
Click to expand...


To the first part, the end of the Europaen campaign did start the Cold War. Near the end it became aparent that Stalin would not return his army to pre-war borders. To compund that was all the German intellect in weapons and manufacturing and nuclear research (the KGB infiltrated the Manhattan project early on). Numerous world changing innovations came from the fall of Berlin, like the AK-47 based on the German STG-44, and the modern Space program (first rockets developed by the German who designed the V-2). Even in the end of the Pacific Stalin's army was already starting an invasion of Manchuria and the fear was the "Iron Curtain" would extend over modern Korea and Japan because they would participate in the eventual invasion of Japan.


Which brings me to a second point of the bombs. The point of the war was that the Japanese were by all military factors , defeated. The allied bombing runs were unopposed, no fighters and minimal FLAK. The issue was that Japanese was in no mood of surrender, Iwo Jima and Okinawa proved that with both Isalnd defenders fighting till the last man and in Okinawa mass civilian suicides with the allied victory. The fear was that would be a mass scale with an invasion of mainland Japan. The point of the A-bombs were to decisively end the war by breaking he Japanese will. The allies were estimating 1,000,000+ allied deaths during a ground campaign and an untold amount of Japanese deaths. It also was to end the war quickly with fear of Stalin's advance in Manchuria being an eastern Soviet Bloc.



I was discussing it with some friends a while ago the even they were villainous, the Nazi army is the greatest army to engage to warfare. They propelled modern concepts of the mechanized warfare, air warfare ( specifically close air support) para-warfare, armored warfare, and the unified advance of air, land, and sea. Tactics and designs used by modern militaries today. To see the stuff they had on the field such as an all aluminum fighter (bf-109) when the allies were still flying wood frames, it was amazing and decades ahead of what anyone else had.
 
M

MadraptorMan

Member
Do you people who think dropping the bomb was the right thing to do realize that Japan was basically already willing to surrender before Hiroshima, and certainly before Nagasaki? A lot of historians these days seem to prescribe to the notion that the US rushed in with the bomb to stop the Soviets from having any say in the surrender and occupation of Japan, which isn't exactly a good justification for killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.
 
Indrid Cold1

Indrid Cold1

Member
MadraptorMan said:
Do you people who think dropping the bomb was the right thing to do realize that Japan was basically already willing to surrender before Hiroshima, and certainly before Nagasaki? A lot of historians these days seem to prescribe to the notion that the US rushed in with the bomb to stop the Soviets from having any say in the surrender and occupation of Japan, which isn't exactly a good justification for killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

Source? As far as I knew one of the main reasons the bombs were dropped was because Japan was unwilling to surrender under any circumstances.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674022416/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Boston Globe said:
On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.

In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.
Click to expand...

Boston Globe said:
Hasegawa - who was born in Japan and has taught in the United States since 1990, and who reads English, Japanese, and Russian - rejects both the traditional and revisionist positions. According to his close examination of the evidence, Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, as the revisionists argued, nor was it ready to give in immediately after the atomic bomb, as traditionalists have always seen it. Instead, it took the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, several days after Hiroshima, to bring the capitulation.

...

By the summer of 1945, the Americans had cornered Japan and assembled a final invasion plan, codenamed Operation Downfall. The first stage was scheduled for the fall, and would have opened with the landing of more than 700,000 troops on Kyushu, the southernmost of the big four islands. It would have been a larger operation than D-Day, certain to result in a bloody slaughter.

Americans, then and today, have tended to assume that Japan’s leaders were simply blinded by their own fanaticism, forcing a catastrophic showdown for no reason other than their refusal to acknowledge defeat. This was, after all, a nation that trained its young men to fly their planes, freighted with explosives, into the side of American naval vessels.

But Hasegawa and other historians have shown that Japan’s leaders were in fact quite savvy, well aware of their difficult position, and holding out for strategic reasons. Their concern was not so much whether to end the conflict, but how to end it while holding onto territory, avoiding war crimes trials, and preserving the imperial system. The Japanese could still inflict heavy casualties on any invader, and they hoped to convince the Soviet Union, still neutral in the Asian theater, to mediate a settlement with the Americans. Stalin, they calculated, might negotiate more favorable terms in exchange for territory in Asia. It was a long shot, but it made strategic sense.
Click to expand...

Boston Globe said:
As Hasegawa writes in his book “Racing the Enemy,” the Japanese leadership reacted with concern, but not panic. On Aug. 7, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo sent an urgent coded telegram to his ambassador in Moscow, asking him to press for a response to the Japanese request for mediation, which the Soviets had yet to provide. The bombing added a “sense of urgency,” Hasegawa says, but the plan remained the same.

Very late the next night, however, something happened that did change the plan. The Soviet Union declared war and launched a broad surprise attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria. In that instant, Japan’s strategy was ruined. Stalin would not be extracting concessions from the Americans. And the approaching Red Army brought new concerns: The military position was more dire, and it was hard to imagine occupying communists allowing Japan’s traditional imperial system to continue. Better to surrender to Washington than to Moscow.

By the morning of Aug. 9, the Japanese Supreme War Council was meeting to discuss the terms of surrender. (During the meeting, the second atomic bomb killed tens of thousands at Nagasaki.) On Aug. 15, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting argument by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa about the significance of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is important to remember that the fireboming of Dresden killed between 200,000-500,000 people and the firebombing of Tokyo killed around 100,000 people.

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

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

The hardest aspect of WW2 for me to wrap my mind around is the scope of the devastation. Thousands of casualties in a single battle was commonplace compared to modern conflicts where 10 or 20 soldiers being killed in a single battle is considered unbearable.
 
A

AAequal

Banned
BTW is there any numbers how many people firebombings killed? Not in just Tokyo but all over Japan, I know there were many towns that were almost completely wiped-out and many of the big cities were half burned.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
SmartBase said:
Finland taken over? What?
Click to expand...

That's where this guy came in:

200px-Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.png


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

Wikipedia said:
Simo Häyhä (December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002), nicknamed "White Death" by the Red Army, was a Finnish sniper. Using a modified Mosin–Nagant in the Winter War, he has the highest recorded number of confirmed sniper kills – 505 – in any major war.

Häyhä used a Finnish militia variant, White Guard M/28 "Pystykorva" or "Spitz", of the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, because it suited his small frame (5 ft 3 in/1.60 m). He preferred to use iron sights rather than telescopic sights to present a smaller target (the sniper must raise his head higher when using a telescopic sight), for more reliable visibility (a telescopic sight's glass can fog up easily in cold weather), and aid concealment (sunlight glare in telescopic sight lenses can reveal a sniper's position). Another tactic used by Häyhä was to compact the snow in front of him so that the shot would not disturb the snow and reveal his position. He also kept snow in his mouth, so that the vapor of his breath would not give him away.
Click to expand...
 
L

Little Old Man

Member
Reasons the nuke was dropped as I see it:

To end the war, and so therefore save American lives by not needing to invade mainland Japan.
A chance to use a nuclear weapon in a real situation, thereby giving valuable information to the military and scientists alike.
A show of power to Russia.
To stop Russian expansion into Japan. For some time since VE, Russia had been moving masses of troops east towards Japan to get involved in that front. If the US had committed to a ground invasion, this would have given time for Russian forces to mount their own offensive on Japan, thereby giving them reason to claim a stake in Japan at what would be then the end of the war. Dropping the bomb meant America/the West had sole territorial control over Japan.

I have read conflicting reports over the Japanese leaders at the time. Seems to be some supporting that they were thinking about surrender before the bombs were dropped. Others stick to the honour code of the Japanese military, making surrender unlikely.

Oh and inb4 someone posts the statistical summary from the Winter War (Finland v. Russia).
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
MadraptorMan said:
Do you people who think dropping the bomb was the right thing to do realize that Japan was basically already willing to surrender before Hiroshima, and certainly before Nagasaki? A lot of historians these days seem to prescribe to the notion that the US rushed in with the bomb to stop the Soviets from having any say in the surrender and occupation of Japan, which isn't exactly a good justification for killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

What evidence was there of an immenent surrender? Even as Hirohito was to signal a surrender there was a failed attempt of a coupe by Japanese generals to stop the surrender and continue fighting. Okinawa and Iwo Jima showed just how far the military was willing to go in the face of imminent defeat. 200k is an enourous number but put that in comparison to figure of 1000000 + on the allied side alone and you have a tough choice but one that is lesser of two evils. Also if you look at photos of the aftermath of Hiroshima/ Nagasaki and. Compare it to any other allied target city and the difference would be minimal. The main difference was the A-bomb was in 1 strike. It was the factor of the end of the war and ensured the end of the conflict. Looking back in hindsight maybe the Japanese would have surrendered without it, but the choice of the A-bomb was the best at the time.
 
M

MadraptorMan

Member
Cozzy said:
Source? As far as I knew one of the main reasons the bombs were dropped was because Japan was unwilling to surrender under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

I am mainly speaking from what I learned at University, but I think this Wikipedia article does a decent job of providing a broader picture of the events leading up to the bombs being dropped. There were many possible paths to peace ahead that could have avoided the use of an atomic bomb (or two).

I think one of the biggest ironies of the whole ordeal is that one of the sticking points for the Japanese and Americans seemed to be the status of the emperor after surrender, with the US unwilling to accept the Imperial family remaining as part of the terms of surrender, yet in the end the emperor remained anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Call of Duty: Vanguard is skipping E3 as Warzone prepares for World War II
Rumor
34
3K
Jibran#one replied
[PlayStation Plus Game Catalog for January] Resident Evil 2, Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands, Hardspace: Shipbreaker and more
News Platform 2
66
4K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
50 Cent & Live Nation Announce "The Final Lap" Global Tour To Celebrate Get Rich Or Die Tryin's 20th Anniversary (90 Concerts)
News
3
1K
Beer Baelly replied
Kotaku bitching about CoD Vanguard - it's too woke, apparently, to the point it defies history ... *SPOILERS*
Opinion Spoilers Drama 2 3 4 5
204
27K
Spukc replied
Gran Turismo 7 Update 1.29 includes PS VR2 upgrade, a race against superhuman AI, a classic GT track and 5 new cars
News Trailer 2 3 4 5
212
15K
Romulus replied
Top Bottom