• 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.

Live updates: Iran launches missile attack on airbase in Iraq housing US troops

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,764
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
This situation has made one thing very clear.

There is an amazing amount of people that are very mad (just hate filled) that we are not going to war.

Do you need a nuclear Armageddon to be correct about something?
They wanted the economy to collapse, for the world to end in 12 years, and for Trump to be a Russian agent to be correct about something. Nuclear armageddon seems like the next logical step.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
USSR was there, with tens of millions of soldiers with war experience and overwhelming number of tanks/aircraft/artillery (and still pumping more).
Do you honestly think Japan would have been better off with a Russian land invasion? For fucks sake.

That is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard. Were you even alive before the Berlin wall fell? Do you know the atrocities the Russians did to people who fell behind the Iron Curtain after WW2? All that happened in East Germany, Poland, etc would have looked like Disney compared to a Russian Occupied Japan.

Every woman and child from Hokkaido to wherever the Russian army stopped would have been raped during the occupation.

We are literally on the side that has bombed Dresden which as no military/industrial facilities whatsoever and declared killing civilians an official tactic (yes, on the eastern front).

It's a good tactic. It may not be a "moral" tactic, but the goal of war is to win, and win decisively and as quickly as possible. There is nothing moral about war.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,111
2,716
495
We are literally on the side that has bombed Dresden which as no military/industrial facilities whatsoever and declared killing civilians an official tactic (yes, on the eastern front).
What were you asking, again?
I'm saying WW2 was nasty, as were 99% of wars that came before it. Singling out the US for your 90's-2000's moralizing is just putting blinders on. The Germans, Soviets, and Japanese were especially brutal even in the context of all of the atrocities of WW2. To pretend that the US was the ultimate bad guy in the war for being 100% done with Japan's shit and dropping 2 atomic bombs on them is silly.

The US developed their doomsday weapon first, and used it. Everyone else had doomsday weapons either planned or somewhere in the production pipeline, and had no qualms about it. If you're looking to make a list of everyone's atrocities during WW2, The US is definitely not going to appear at the top of the list. Please stop pretending otherwise.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
Do you honestly think Japan would have been better off with a Russian land invasion?
No. I was answering to "but we had to deal with Japan".

Every woman and child from Hokkaido to wherever the Russian army stopped would have been raped during the occupation.
Come on...

The Germans, Soviets, and Japanese were especially brutal...
It was a British general who came with a brilliant idea to kill as many civilians as possible, to, you know, "demoralize the enemy". US played a major part in those attacks.
So, please, give me a break.

As for moralization in this thread, the disagreement point was whether killing 200k+ civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war.
It's obvious to me, that it was not.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
I'm not making shit up.



 

Nymphae

Member
Jun 3, 2013
9,453
10,150
940
Canada
I'm not making shit up.



“Our fellows were so sex-starved,” a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, “that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty - much to these grandmothers’ surprise, if not downright delight.”
Uh, wow.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Shizumapower

Member
Jan 18, 2015
536
943
490
United States
Ugh.. to following the above.

Here is some 🙄



Just a reminder, he owns 9 homes.

 

Shizumapower

Member
Jan 18, 2015
536
943
490
United States
I'm not making shit up.



Just horrific what has happened. :messenger_anxious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,461
39,571
1,170
  • Like
Reactions: Shizumapower

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,111
2,716
495
It was a British general who came with a brilliant idea to kill as many civilians as possible, to, you know, "demoralize the enemy". US played a major part in those attacks.
So, please, give me a break.

As for moralization in this thread, the disagreement point was whether killing 200k+ civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war.
It's obvious to me, that it was not.
Again, WW2 has plenty of atrocities to go around. The US is nowhere near the top.

Necessary or not, the bombs dropped, the war ended very quickly. The US had the capability to strike the enemy without putting their own troops in harms way. In a war, that is the course of action you take. Especially, in the case of this particular war, you are now aiming guns at your ally of convenience, the Soviet Union. Preserving your ability to fight is at the top of the priority list.

Would you feel better about it if the US had instead invaded the mainland, and instead killed 2+million more Japanese, and lost 100,000+ US troops in the process? Maybe Japan would have stalled for better terms, faced with conventional warfare. Who knows? We can armchair general all we want, I guess.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
It was a British general who came with a brilliant idea to kill as many civilians as possible, to, you know, "demoralize the enemy".
Please, killing civilians has been part of warfare since humans picked up their first rock to bash against Neanderthal skulls.

Ghengis Khan wiped entire cities off the map if they resisted his rule.

Sherman is famous for his march to the sea. Do you really think Atlanta wouldn't have been firebombed if he had modern weaponry at his disposal? Sherman's march to the sea helped the union defeat the confederates, because it wiped out economic support for the war and crippled supply lines.

What was done in WW2 was nothing new. It was just far more efficient with industrialization, and population growth made the numbers larger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,083
262
480
We are literally on the side that has bombed Dresden which as no military/industrial facilities whatsoever and declared killing civilians an official tactic (yes, on the eastern front).
What were you asking, again?
Oh, please, a large city in a nation waging total war, less then 100 miles from the front has no military/industrial facilities whatsoever ?

. Zeiss Ikon’s Dresden factories were the biggest producer of armaments in the city during WW II, employing about 6,000 workers.

Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians".[43]
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,934
19,821
855
Did......did Trump just force us out of the Middle East, while also forcing both parties in Congress to curtail the power of the Executive Branch over its insane ability to embroil us in war on a fucking whim?

I have no hope in Congress to retrieve it's balls from the Executive purse, but can you imagine a future where Trump's legacy is that he obliterated the undue power the Executive Branch has slowly acumulated over the past 50 years. He could go down in history as the man who forced the very definition of a coward to discover their spine.
A man so nice, I'd vote for him thrice. [Which means I have 3 more to go].

But seriously, the louder the media screeches, the better things work out for trump. Again and again, his plans work out. I am pretty much convinced he is playing 4D chess at this point, the pile of wins are just too high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
I'm not making shit up.
I specifically highlighted killing children en mass.

Oh, please, a large city in a nation waging total war, less then 100 miles from the front has no military/industrial facilities whatsoever ?
Yeah, merely Kurt Vonnegut, who happened to be POW stationed right there, said so.

Please, killing civilians has been part of warfare since humans picked up their first rock to bash against Neanderthal skulls.
DELIBERATELY targeting civilians has been declared to be a war crime (yes, there are laws of war) for a reason.

The US is nowhere near the top.
English speaking world should be less naive about "our take on history is the only right one"
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
I specifically highlighted killing children en mass.

DELIBERATELY targeting civilians has been declared to be a war crime (yes, there are laws of war) for a reason.
Yeah yeah, please think of the children. I'd nuke a hundred thousand enemy infants if it saved the lives of a hundred thousand of my people.

Deliberately attacking civilians ends conflicts quickly. That is why it is illegal.

If you are always having to build and sell new million dollar tanks to replace the ones blown up by million dollar missiles, you have just created a profit center.

The goal is eternal conflict, not an end to hostilities now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,111
2,716
495
English speaking world should be less naive about "our take on history is the only right one"
I'm pretty sure there's no rational ambiguity about any of this. Whose take on history is correct, then? Russia Today (RT)? Japanese public school indoctrination? I'm sure you could find someone spouting off about 'AmeriKKKa' with a pet conspiracy theory about how Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Soviet Union were secretly benevolent in WW2, and the US was an evil racist warmongering power bent on _____(insert theory here).

If you have a pet theory, throw it out there and back it up. Otherwise the argument of "the English speaking world's history is wrong" falls about as flat as "ancient Chinese medicinal secret baffles Western medicine".
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
It actually is mostly pointless.
It is illegal because it's inhuman.
Civilians support the war effort. Why wouldn't you neutralize the blacksmith making arms for your enemy, or the farmer giving food to the enemy army, given the chance?
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
Civilians support the war effort. Why wouldn't you neutralize the blacksmith making arms for your enemy, or the farmer giving food to the enemy army, given the chance?
You need to kill to many, for this tactic to be effective.

I'm pretty sure there's no rational ambiguity about any of this
Assessment of atrocities, let alone list of facts pointed out/suppressed is not changing from a country to a country, eh? Or is it that USA is the "rightes of them all" and, unlike others, is totally not biased in its assessments?
Heck, what do you even learn about WWII at US schools?
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
481
713
590
  • LOL
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Gp1

Member
Sep 17, 2019
185
245
305
Love all those "what if's" with a post 2000 civil sense discussing a conflict in the 40's.

We have to deal with facts (all of this can be proved):
1- Japan wasn't so sure of a unconditional surrendering even after Tokyo being heavily fire bombarded more than 15 time just in 1945
2- Japan received the content of Potsdam declaration (surrender now or face utter destruction) more than 10 days before the Hiroshima.
3- Japan was trying to mediate a conditional surrendering with USSR even after potsdam.
4- Japan didn't believed the US has the atomic bomb, and didn't believed that USSR would invade the northern territories
5- After Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the soviet invasion os the island. The japanese big 6 were still deliberating between surrender or add conditions to Potsdam
6- Tokyo was heavily firebombed by more than 1000 B-29
7- After 2 days of Nagasaki, Japan responded to Potsdam with demands that the emperor must retain his rights.
8- Almost a week after Nagasaki, the emperor breaked the deadlock and decided to surrender.

Want a bitter truth?
2 atomic bombs saved more lives in Japan and Europe, maintained they entire western europe/japan free from socialism in the next 70 years than killed on those 2 days.
Take a look at the allied forces in Europe spring 1945 and you guys would probably know whats going to happend if the west didn't accept the soviet terms in Europe.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
You need to kill to many, for this tactic to be effective.
And that is why it is so effective. Most rational actors will surrender facing annihilation. (or you know, not start shit in the first place)

Love all those "what if's" with a post 2000 civil sense discussing a conflict in the 40's.

We have to deal with facts (all of this can be proved):
1- Japan wasn't so sure of a unconditional surrendering even after Tokyo being heavily fire bombarded more than 15 time just in 1945
2- Japan received the content of Potsdam declaration (surrender now or face utter destruction) more than 10 days before the Hiroshima.
3- Japan was trying to mediate a conditional surrendering with USSR even after potsdam.
4- Japan didn't believed the US has the atomic bomb, and didn't believed that USSR would invade the northern territories
5- After Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the soviet invasion os the island. The japanese big 6 were still deliberating between surrender or add conditions to Potsdam
6- Tokyo was heavily firebombed by more than 1000 B-29
6- After 2 days of Nagasaki, Japan responded to Potsdam with demands that the emperor must retain his rights.
7- Almost a week after Nagasaki, the emperor breaked the deadlock and decided to surrender.

Want a bitter truth?
2 atomic bombs saved more lives in Japan and Europe, maintained they entire western europe/japan a free from socialism in the next 70 years than killed on those 2 days.
Take a look at the allied forces in Europe spring 1945 and you guys would probably know whats going to happend if the west didn't accept the soviet terms in Europe.
And don't forget, the military was so committed to the cause that they attempted a coup to prevent surrender.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,613
7,223
460
You need to kill to many, for this tactic to be effective.


Assessment of atrocities, let alone list of facts pointed out/suppressed is not changing from a country to a country, eh? Or is it that USA is the "rightes of them all" and, unlike others, is totally not biased in its assessments?
Heck, what do you even learn about WWII at US schools?
well, we actually learn what happened during the war, including the shit we did. Unlike some countries who commit atrocities like the rape of NanKing and pretend it never happened
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,979
40,764
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
USA is one of the very few "empires" that not only rebuilds a nation after conquering it but also allows them to maintain their sovereignty as long as the new form of gov't is one that we like. Yes yes we certainly made sure terms were favorable toward us but for 99% of history in 99% of wars this isn't what happens.

We are talking about war after all, not losing in a Yu Gi Oh battle where the worst that happens is you lose your deck of cards or your soul gets sent to the shadow realm.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,111
2,716
495
Assessment of atrocities, let alone list of facts pointed out/suppressed is not changing from a country to a country, eh? Or is it that USA is the "rightes of them all" and, unlike others, is totally not biased in its assessments?
Heck, what do you even learn about WWII at US schools?
If you want to argue in bad faith, I guess that's one way to end a conversation. If you want to debate actual facts, I'm happy to. If not, w/e.

Either way; derail successful. Back to the regular scheduled program.

So all, how bout them Iranian missile attacks?!?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910

jonnyp

Member
Jan 12, 2008
2,459
559
1,090
Are you telling me that whoever decided to bomb actual people, instead of just demonstrating the power of the bombs, knew, that there were only super short window of opportunity to force Japan to surrender?
What would happen if demonstratively bombing terrain wouldn't have worked?
Bombing of actual cities.

What would be wasted in this case? A couple of nukes.

This kid didn't have to die:

They would not have surrendered. Are you seriously really that naive? We can do whataboutisms all day long. What about the pregnant women Japanese soldiers raped and then bayoneted their pregnant stomachs as training? Again, read some history and get some perspective. I'm done discussing this with you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,934
19,821
855
Yeah, merely Kurt Vonnegut, who happened to be POW stationed right there, said so.
So? He was a POW. Dresden is widely recognized to be a significant military target for being a transportation hub alone, let alone it's factories. Now, we can discuss the actual bombing, which set fire to residential areas and generally missed the industrial district, but the British were trying to break the back of the Nazis. Under 25k were killed, and Goebbel's used Dresden as a propaganda tool and successfully claimed 300k civilians were killed. Thus, while it was certainly awful that 25k died, the use of Dresden to villify Allied powers is actually well recognized as highly successful Nazi propaganda.

I agree hitting civilian targets was horrific. But Allies were not guaranteed to win the war, and the German will was strong [Japanese will was too]. England also had suffered through the London bombings, and likely wanted a touch of revenge, or, at least, felt German action justified their action. The US actually wanted no part of civilian bombing and were opposed to British action during this period [though US bombers did end up hitting some civilian targets in Dresden because by the time they got there the smoke obscured all ability to target.

English speaking world should be less naive about "our take on history is the only right one"
You have a particularly bad take on the actualities of WWII. Those discussing the atrocities of the Japanese, for example, are not being "naive" about the awful reality of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Nobody is denying the horror of those two events. The issue is that some seem unwilling to recognize the sheer amount of death and atrocity risked being 5, 10, or higher worse if those bombs didn't drop.

High range modern estimates of the death toll from both bombs [including later radiation deaths] are around 280k. The Japanese would have killed that many civilians across Asia in a month or so. It is estimated they killed 3 to 10 million [not thousand] Chinese civilians alone, more when you consider the other land controlled.

This is comparable to the holocaust. Every day the Japanese didn't surrender caused atrocity beyond belief, and that does not even include the horror a land invasion would have caused. That is to say, you don't even need to add US casualties to the scale to start considering the bombs a good idea. Just Chinese civilians [and other Asian countries], and even just Japanese civilians if Russia had a chance to invade.

WW2 was inhuman. Period. Be happy the Allies won. Be happy that, after the war, America and Japan found a way to befriend each other.

I do not like being put in the position to defend hitting civilian targets with fire bombs or atomic weapons. But that doesn't mean we close our eyes to the reality of the war. I despise war. But i don't just despise war because Atom bombs are horrific. I despise war down to my bones because the Atom bombs the US dropped were a good idea that saved lives. That's how bad the situation was. That's how horrific war is.

I don't even remember the little girl.
I agree with most of your post, but i definitely do. The supposed Iraqi atrocities against Kuwaiti children were all over the media. She was claiming Iraqis were killing babies in incubators... it was a huge motivator for public buy in, like WMDs later.

No. They would not have surrendered. So what if there were only 3 days, why would they need more than 3 hours to realize they should surrender after that? They almost didn't even after the second one.

Look, moral posturing is easy but please read history and understand Japanese culture before doing so.

Unlike most of you, I have lived and worked in different parts of Asia for almost 7 years now - I know very well why the Japanese are still hated in Asia because of the horrific war crimes of they commited. They were butchering people left right and center - how long would you tolerate what they were doing in cities like Nanjing? Read the book the Rape of Nanking to truly understand what atrocities were going on.

I have been to the nuclear bomb museum in Hiroshima (yes, it was a sad and sobering experience). but it's really silly to think that things could have been done another way that would have spared more people. Had they invaded on the ground, millions of people would have lost their lives. Also silly to say that nuclear bombs somehow is much worse than the bombing campaign of say cities like Dresden etc. It was war and the Nazis and the Japanese were commiting crimes against humanity on a previously unknown scale known to man.
I think many people have only heard bits and pieces - the Holocaust, sure, and 'atom bombs' but know very little of actual death tolls, atrocities, etc. Or how different everything could have turned out if only this event or that battle had gone slightly differently.

Do you honestly think Japan would have been better off with a Russian land invasion? For fucks sake.

That is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard. Were you even alive before the Berlin wall fell? Do you know the atrocities the Russians did to people who fell behind the Iron Curtain after WW2? All that happened in East Germany, Poland, etc would have looked like Disney compared to a Russian Occupied Japan.
In addition, it's also worth noting that post-War Asia might look totally different. Had the Russians claimed part of the victory in Japan, and earned a big seat at the table, we might have seen a divided Japan post War, or some other alternate future/history.

But yes, land invasions of Japan would have caused far, far more civilian deaths than our chosen path.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,425
5,289
1,575
Best Coast
In addition, it's also worth noting that post-War Asia might look totally different. Had the Russians claimed part of the victory in Japan, and earned a big seat at the table, we might have seen a divided Japan post War, or some other alternate future/history.
Given how historically bad sharing territory with Communists has been, I'm glad Japan didn't turn out the way East Berlin or North Korea did.
 

Gp1

Member
Sep 17, 2019
185
245
305
And don't forget, the military was so committed to the cause that they attempted a coup to prevent surrender.
This was a small offspring in the military but the fact that the big six ministers were still deadlocked in a 3-3 decision even after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tokyo firebombing and the soviet invasion show how much Japan was commited to war until the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cybrwzrd

Gp1

Member
Sep 17, 2019
185
245
305
This thread took a detour but I think we can all agree that one of the big issues with using the nukes in Japan is that we never got to see the bat bomb in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
this is more likely why we never saw the bat bomb...


"Errant bats from the experimental bat bomb set fire to the Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base in New Mexico."

lol
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Cybrwzrd

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,331
7,797
1,590
I'm not making shit up.



My grandmother was German and went through WWII, and I was around her German friends a lot growing. Some of them were from urban areas, including one who was in Berlin when the Soviets invaded. I know from things I heard and my grandmother suggested that the Soviets were absolute monsters. It is a shame that the US did not reserve a nuke for Moscow once the European and Pacific campaigns were finished - instead, they got enshrined as one of the good guys when they were just an evil faction competing with the Nazis for who would have power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,583
1,212
920
Oh, please.
USSR was there, with tens of millions of soldiers with war experience and overwhelming number of tanks/aircraft/artillery (and still pumping more).
Not that one needed that many, as even after the last mobilization, Japanese army in August 1945 was 7.2 million soldiers, many of them, inexperienced young men.

Sakhalin:

700–2,000 killed 18,202 surrendered
Because, centuries of Samurai dominance or not, people don't want to die.



Kuril Islands, 1 thousand killed, 50 thousand surrendered.



Hokkaido invasion was called off to avoid possible conflict with US/UK.


Japan didn't formally surrender until 2nd of September. Nukes were dropped in the beginning of August.

US have nuked about quarter a million of people with just two bombs, most of them civilians.
There were plans to use bombs as soon as they are produced, imagine what figures we would have had by now.

On the other hand, US own estimates of potential casualties, if not waiting for Stalin to faceroll Japan, but taking it over quickly (similarly to what happened in Europe) would mean about 500k dead American soldiers.

Now, I understand "my people > your people, even civilians", but let's not pretend there was nothing b



We are literally on the side that has bombed Dresden which as no military/industrial facilities whatsoever and declared killing civilians an official tactic (yes, on the eastern front).
What were you asking, again?
But the population of Japan was 100 million. And if you think US and Russia would have an easy time pacifying Japan you are more certain then the people back then.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
Uh, that country which sent 12 years old kids into war, and fought for every quarter inside its surrounded capital? Really?

They would not have surrendered.
According to your theories, the would not surrender no matter what.


What about the pregnant women Japanese soldiers raped and then bayoneted their pregnant stomachs as training?
Mind blown. How on fucking earth can this be an excuse for nuking civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
What part of US should we nuke to "compensate" for atrocities committed by US soldiers?

He was a POW. Dresden is widely recognized to be a significant military target for being a transportation hub alone
He was a POW who could see first hand, what the fuck was inside the city.
And people need to make up their minds on whether it was a major industrial city, or "transportation hub".

England also had suffered through the London bombings, and likely wanted a touch of revenge, or, at least, felt German action justified their action.
That is the crux of it.
And so did Soviets, not some Generals (heck, I wish I remembered the name of the British general who pushed that "let's kill as many civilians as we can, to 'demoralize' them") but soldiers, many of which were taking revenge for their own families. It doesn't mean it is justified though.


In addition, it's also worth noting that post-War Asia might look totally different. Had the Russians claimed part of the victory in Japan, and earned a big seat at the table, we might have seen a divided Japan post War, or some other alternate future/history.
USSR had claimed part of the victory in Japan, see the maps on the previous page.
But I agree with your point in general, as parts of Japan that USSR took, stopped being Japanese.

High range modern estimates of the death toll from both bombs [including later radiation deaths] are around 280k. The Japanese would have killed that many civilians across Asia in a month or so..
USSR retook control of whatever Japan had on the mainland, so there was no threat to China. There was no active Japanese offensive anywhere at that point.


But the population of Japan was 100 million. And if you think US and Russia would have an easy time pacifying Japan you are more certain then the people back then.
75 million or so.
The "they'd rather die, than surrender" was largely propaganda, as seen in numbers. (1k dead, 50k surrendered etc).

If they were too crazy and wouldn't stop even if bombed with nukes, they wouldn't have stopped regardless of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
And if they were rational enough to see they'd be annihilated, one didn't have to kill quarter a million of people with two nukes, to make them realize how powerful a weapon was in hands of US.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
Uh, that country which sent 12 years old kids into war, and fought for every quarter inside it's surrounded capital? Really?
Germany surrendered unconditionally, they weren't annihilated. What are you talking about?
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
Germany surrendered unconditionally, they weren't annihilated. What are you talking about?
Lost in translation I guess. I was asking which country has surrendered because "too many of our civilians were killed".
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,583
1,212
920
Uh, that country which sent 12 years old kids into war, and fought for every quarter inside its surrounded capital? Really?


According to your theories, the would not surrender no matter what.



Mind blown. How on fucking earth can this be an excuse for nuking civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
What part of US should we nuke to "compensate" for atrocities committed by US soldiers?


He was a POW who could see first hand, what the fuck was inside the city.
And people need to make up their minds on whether it was a major industrial city, or "transportation hub".


That is the crux of it.
And so did Soviets, not some Generals (heck, I wish I remembered the name of the British general who pushed that "let's kill as many civilians as we can, to 'demoralize' them") but soldiers, many of which were taking revenge for their own families. It doesn't mean it is justified though.



USSR had claimed part of the victory in Japan, see the maps on the previous page.
But I agree with your point in general, as parts of Japan that USSR took, stopped being Japanese.


USSR retook control of whatever Japan had on the mainland, so there was no threat to China. There was no active Japanese offensive anywhere at that point.



75 million or so.
The "they'd rather die, than surrender" was largely propaganda, as seen in numbers. (1k dead, 50k surrendered etc).

If they were too crazy and wouldn't stop even if bombed with nukes, they wouldn't have stopped regardless of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
And if they were rational enough to see they'd be annihilated, one didn't have to kill quarter a million of people with two nukes, to make them realize how powerful a weapon was in hands of US.
It was the Emperor who surrendered. And you’re viewing this in hindsight, I’ll tell you again it was very uncertain and dismissing the Japanese morale /nationalism/fanaticism whatever you call it in the early 20th century as propaganda is wrong as well. Wars aren’t won by calculating the minimal amount of destruction necessary to make your opponent surrender, that’s crazy talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
Lost in translation I guess. I was asking which country has surrendered because "too many of our civilians were killed".
They don't surrender because too many of their civilians are killed. They surrender because they don't want their civilization to be wiped from the planet. And I guarantee if the Germans had refused to surrender in WW2, they would have been.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,973
4,343
775
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
1) Nobody but Emperor could.
2) Seeing overwhelming power was convincing
3) It wasn't necessary to apply it to people, to demonstrate it <= let's agree to disagree here

And I guarantee if the Germans had refused to surrender in WW2, they would have been.
How would it look like, technically?

"Hitler is dead"
"Himmler?"
"Also"
"Others?"
"Entire elite either dead or fled the country"
"But did they sign capitulation?"
"Why?"
"Because I need to know whether I have to fight or not."
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,111
2,716
495
My grandmother was German and went through WWII, and I was around her German friends a lot growing. Some of them were from urban areas, including one who was in Berlin when the Soviets invaded. I know from things I heard and my grandmother suggested that the Soviets were absolute monsters. It is a shame that the US did not reserve a nuke for Moscow once the European and Pacific campaigns were finished - instead, they got enshrined as one of the good guys when they were just an evil faction competing with the Nazis for who would have power.
Image result for patton gif


Patton agreed with you!
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,349
9,341
910
How would it look like, technically?

"Hitler is dead"
"Himmler?"
"Also"
"Others?"
"Entire elite either dead or fled the country"
"But did they sign capitulation?"
"Why?"
"Because I need to know whether I have to fight or not."
Ongoing gurilla warfare between what remained of the German army and the allies. We are talking a different timeline here where Hitler and company didn't just give up and commit suicide or run away.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,934
19,821
855
He was a POW who could see first hand, what the fuck was inside the city.
Show me a random industrial building and I can not tell you what is being produced inside.
Now, put me across town and I can not even know where that building is.
Now, put in a fucking POW camp and I can't even travel to see what is down the street, let alone across the city.

And people need to make up their minds on whether it was a major industrial city, or "transportation hub".
Huh? Industrial centers need railroads to import resources and export goods. Due to location Dresden was a hub. They are complimentary, not contradictory.

That is the crux of it.
And so did Soviets, not some Generals (heck, I wish I remembered the name of the British general who pushed that "let's kill as many civilians as we can, to 'demoralize' them") but soldiers, many of which were taking revenge for their own families. It doesn't mean it is justified though.
It was 'Bomber' Harris. I'm well aware of him.

Here is the issue in a nutshell:

1] The RAF Bomber force was arguably the best card the British could offer at that stage in the war, especially against targets deep in Germany.

2] Bombers sent during the day would be massacred by the remnants of the Luftwaffe and air defenses.

Bomber Command aircrews suffered a high casualty rate: of a total of 125,000 aircrew, 57,205 were killed (a 46 percent death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command_aircrew_of_World_War_II

Hell, bombers were such death traps Catch 22 is a masterpiece of anti-war fiction depicting the experiences of an American bomber during WW2.

3] The only chance of survival for the men was night raids.

4] Night raids had almost no visibility. This is before we had target acquisition, let alone modern navigation technology. This was literally 'fly towards target, hope you are over it, drop bombs'.

5] it was quickly realized these men were risking their lives for nothing, and missing targets, and the only real way to do anything at all were to drop bombs on targets that were 'unmissable'... aka, cities. They simply did not have the technology to be particularly precise. Harris was okay with this, and okay with destroying population centers, because he felt it was the best use of his military force in terms of breaking the back of the Germans and putting an end to the war.

You may not like this. I might not like this. But this was a World War, and it wasn't always clear the Allies were winning. These decisions were made without full knowledge of the future, and yes, I'm sure mistakes were made and atrocities committed. But to look back with 20/20 hindsight, clouded by the fog of changing times, and judge the morality of each decision is... well, just nonsense. We have no idea exactly what intel these decisions were made with, and it's difficult for us to relate to the limits of technology and the will of man during warfare. These leaders and commanders won the war and put an end to it. Different decisions could lead to different outcomes.

USSR retook control of whatever Japan had on the mainland, so there was no threat to China.
Japan committed atrocities to civilians beyond mainland China.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpartanN92