SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
That isn't the narrative though, the Nazis committed the Holocaust, not the Germans.

@DaGaffer I think we agree... I'm not implying that the Americans have conducted war crimes on the scale of the Japanese (civilian casualties not included), I'm just suggesting that it's pretty ridiculous for America to try to project this message across the world that they're their somehow the flawless saviours of the world and that gives them the right to criticise everyone else.

As for Japan white-washing their history, much like the Nazis, I think they've totally disassociated their selves with previous regimes, which means that they're not directly responsible, which I can kind of understand - the PM apologising for slavery hundreds of years ago is somewhat ridiculous. I think they're also pretty miffed that America got away with annihilating two of their cities and nobody cared.
The Nazis were partof germany. Without Germany the nazis wouldnt have had power. Not every German agreed with the reich. But the German nation aas a whole facilitated it.

Along with the France, British etc and appeasement.

And yes Hitler was originally Austrian. But its where he found the cracks and used the population. The Nazis might have orchestrated it but the German nation carried it out. In isolation to begin with. Then withthe axis powers once they had invaded and brutalized the poles, czechs etc.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
37,540
I mostly agree Gaff but:
As for the atom bombs, see my previous post, the Americans have nothing to apologise for, and probably did the Japanese a favour.
Indescriminate mass murder of a civilian population is absolutely something to apologise for.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
20,148
I mostly agree Gaff but:
Indescriminate mass murder of a civilian population is absolutely something to apologise for.

It's another 'what if' question - and the current popular response suits America surprisingly enough.

I disagree though, the Russians got involved in the war, and they would have over ran China extremely quickly and Japan would be starved of natural resources and they would have surrendered after a few bombing campaigns. The issue was that the Americans didn't want to have to share the Pacific peace treaty with the Russians, so they wanted to end it quickly and claim all the credit. Which could be justified, but it's still a political move - it's not about saving lives.

Let's not forget that Allied bombing campaigns in Germany killed more than the atomic bombs, difference is that strategic bombing was about bombing the work force that supplied the factories - whereas the Nuclear bombs were just a straight up fear/political tactic.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Well 99% of creatures are killed by others.
Practically nothing dies if old age in the wild.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,635
I mostly agree Gaff but:
Indescriminate mass murder of a civilian population is absolutely something to apologise for.

Not indiscriminate, and not murder. Whether you like it or not, both cities were legitimate targets with factories, docks and troops.

If the allies had had to invade, millions of soldiers and probably tens of millions of Japanese, would have died. The Battle of Okinawa showed what invasion of Japanese home territory was going to be like; 50% of the civilian population died, not because the Americans were attacking them but because they were killing themselves in droves. The Allies had nothing to tell them the invasion of the Home Islands would be different, and if anything it looked more likely the death rate would be worse.

So the Allies could have stayed in their ships and blockaded Japan. This is what the Navy wanted to do because they were already doing it, and doing it incredibly well (far more effective than the Kriegsmarine against the British), but they estimated it would take at least two years to force a surrender, and once again, millions of deaths, just this time slowly from starvation (see what happened to Germany in WW1 for an example, and this would have been worse).

There were no good solutions for defeating Japan, the Bomb worked.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
20,148
Not indiscriminate, and not murder. Whether you like it or not, both cities were legitimate targets with factories, docks and troops.

If the allies had had to invade, millions of soldiers and probably tens of millions of Japanese, would have died. The Battle of Okinawa showed what invasion of Japanese home territory was going to be like; 50% of the civilian population died, not because the Americans were attacking them but because they were killing themselves in droves. The Allies had nothing to tell them the invasion of the Home Islands would be different, and if anything it looked more likely the death rate would be worse.

So the Allies could have stayed in their ships and blockaded Japan. This is what the Navy wanted to do because they were already doing it, and doing it incredibly well (far more effective than the Kriegsmarine against the British), but they estimated it would take at least two years to force a surrender, and once again, millions of deaths, just this time slowly from starvation (see what happened to Germany in WW1 for an example, and this would have been worse).

There were no good solutions for defeating Japan, the Bomb worked.

Japan would have collapsed far quicker than 2 years, that was an estimation from an administration that was eager to drop the A-bomb to assert their global dominance.

Germany in WW1 is a poor comparison, since there wasn't much going on in the West and the Germans were still full of belief because they beat the Russians, a Japanese Empire restricted to the homeland would have collapsed within months.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
Japanese were more fanatical than the germans when it came to fighting to the last. All the honour bullshit.

As shown in iwa jima and all the islands leading up to japan
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
20,148
Japanese were more fanatical than the germans when it came to fighting to the last. All the honour bullshit.

As shown in iwa jima and all the islands leading up to japan

That was the Army, they're expected to die. As for the 'Japanese' on the islands - they were seen as sub-Japanese anyway, disposable.

The Emperor was a pussy 'ole, as soon as the Allies would have started doing some real damage to the Japanese infrastructure, he would have demanded that the Government committed seppuku and had a peace treaty where he remains in power.

Also, it was an experimental weapon, the Americans could have done way more damage, and the still 'the US did them a favour' argument would still be used.

Because America won.
 

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,475
And the fact that USA were dying to test their nukes on a live target were simply a coincidence right? :)

Japan had already sent out peace feelers months prior to those bombs. USA ignored them for three reasons, Truman demanded an unconditional surrender which the nukes theoretically could provide and the allied scientists could get unique insight on what the bombs did to actual real cities and people.

Nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the last choice actions to end the war. We know this for a fact because nobody responded to Japan's peace feelers.

Or rather, USA wanted to end the war on IT'S terms... And if that meant prolonging the war half a year:ish and roasting 200.000 odd Japanese civilians and a few soldiers then so be it.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,635
Japan would have collapsed far quicker than 2 years, that was an estimation from an administration that was eager to drop the A-bomb to assert their global dominance.

Germany in WW1 is a poor comparison, since there wasn't much going on in the West and the Germans were still full of belief because they beat the Russians, a Japanese Empire restricted to the homeland would have collapsed within months.

The two-year estimate came from the Department of the Navy and Ernest King, the people who wanted to carry on the blockade and not use the Bomb.

Germany in WW1 is a perfect comparison! "Wasn't much going on in the West?" What the fuck are you talking about? The Ludendorf Offensive had failed, the Americans had arrived and the Allies had carried out the "Hundred Days" campaign; but what drove the Germans to the negotiating table was their people were dying of starvation in the streets in Germany. The problem is the Japanese seemed capable of taking a lot more hardship than the Germans.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,635
And the fact that USA were dying to test their nukes on a live target were simply a coincidence right? :)

Japan had already sent out peace feelers months prior to those bombs. USA ignored them for three reasons, Truman demanded an unconditional surrender which the nukes theoretically could provide and the allied scientists could get unique insight on what the bombs did to actual real cities and people.

Nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the last choice actions to end the war. We know this for a fact because nobody responded to Japan's peace feelers.

Or rather, USA wanted to end the war on IT'S terms... And if that meant prolonging the war half a year:ish and roasting 200.000 odd Japanese civilians and a few soldiers then so be it.

All the Allies had agreed they wanted unconditional surrender of the Axis as early as January 1943, before the Bomb was even designed and the Manhattan Project was barely four months old. That would be some pretty prescient thinking to predict events two and half years down the line.

NB. Japan never once sent out a peace overture that didn't insist on the preservation of existing Japanese Government and Society (and no occupation). They weren't taken seriously because they weren't serious. Even after Hiroshima, the Army was preparing to stage a coup rather than let the Government surrender.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
20,148
Is it me or are lots of small shops shutting down?

Recession pt 2 inc?
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
Is it me or are lots of small shops shutting down?

Recession pt 2 inc?
So no admittance of mind changing in the discussion thats happening.

Losing the discussion so change the subject.

Love internet debates.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
20,148
So no admittance of mind changing in the discussion thats happening.

Losing the discussion so change the subject.

Love internet debates.

I'm sorry love.

I think that you are wrong and that I am correct, I think this through information that I have gathered about this period of time, I can understand why you have come to the conclusions that you have come to, but it is my belief that your opinion is the current narrative of war winners, as they continue to write the history, and to make their selves look positive.

You have made it clear that you disagree with my opinion, which is fine, but rather than having the regular angry circle jerk arguments which happen on this forum on a regular basis I thought I would post about something else.

Sorry if I offended you.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Fuck windows..fuck Microshite..fuck them to death.
 

BloodOmen

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
18,420
amBN9Zd_700b.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom