|
While the Japanese atrocities were pretty horrid, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was quite simply larger.
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
|
On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
He never said we didn't drop two.
|
On January 02 2012 12:20 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion We dropped two atomic bombs, you know. He never said we didn't drop two.
By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
|
On January 02 2012 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:20 armada[sb] wrote:On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion We dropped two atomic bombs, you know. He never said we didn't drop two. By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
Actually it is quite likely that Japan would have surrendered even without the use of atomic bombs rather quickly. One of the big reasons for Japan surrendering was apart from atomic bombs the fact that Soviet Union ended their non-aggression pact and entered the war against Japan quickly conquering their holdings in Manchuria and Korea. But anyway I do not see much reason to justify the usage of the bombs. Carpet bombing of cities was common occurance anyway so there was no pretending that targets were of only military nature for a long time before atomic bombs were dropped. Their usage changed nothing, except the number of bombs required to achieve the same goal. And of course long-term effect, but those were still quite unknown at that point in time.
|
On January 02 2012 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:20 armada[sb] wrote:On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion We dropped two atomic bombs, you know. He never said we didn't drop two. By that I mean you have to justify both bombs. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Japan was willing to surrender after the first one, but they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened to their city.
no. senior japanese military officers were preparing to instate martial law to PREVENT surrender, and were getting ready for a campaign vs the soviets who had declared war after the bomb was dropped.
the emperor and his cabinet were considering surrender granted 4 conditions: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japanese_realization_of_the_bombing)
if there was an invasion of japan and they fought to the tooth as was done in germany, there is no doubt that the number of casualties would have been far higher.
the fire bombing actually resulted in more casualties than the atomic bombs if you want to talk of scale of destruction.
when the emperor finally gained assurance that the kokutai wouldn't be removed as per agreements, he agreed to the surrender terms.
|
Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians.
|
On December 31 2011 05:34 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes. You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day. Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK. Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ZLlX.png) Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia) From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them. The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered. This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart. And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight. Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that.
As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
|
On January 02 2012 12:46 whatever292 wrote:
Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians.
the role of the russians launching an invasion played a similarly if not larger role in their surrender, as the best case scenario at that time would be a more peaceful end due to russian intervention.
granted, if the russians did not invade, the use of the bombs would probably be justified for the argument that they were the sole and main cause for a japanese surrender (if they did surrender).
history tends not to be black and white as such. either way, the worst case scenario for all parties was a full scale land invasion and probable annihilation of japanese infrastructure to a degree far worse than what did happen.
|
On January 02 2012 12:54 Navi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:46 whatever292 wrote:
Actually the use of both bombs is entirely justified since it is known that the Japanese government didn't so much as blink an eye after the first one. The U.S. dropped the second one several days after the first to give the illusion that they basically had an unlimited supply of the a-bomb event though it was their last. Even after the Japanese emperor, NOT the Japanese government, came out and told the Japanese people they were surrendering several members of the government tried to stage a coup in an attempt to prolong the war further. So yea, it took the fear of these bombs to end the war. If an invasion had taken place the U.S. had estimates of well over half a million U.S. casualties alone, not to mention a much higher estimate of Japanese military and civilians. the role of the russians launching an invasion played a similarly if not larger role in their surrender, as the best case scenario at that time would be a more peaceful end due to russian intervention. granted, if the russians did not invade, the use of the bombs would probably be justified for the argument that they were the sole and main cause for a japanese surrender. history tends not to be black and white as such. either way, the worst case scenario for all parties was a full scale land invasion and probable annihilation of japanese infrastructure to a degree far worse than what did happen.
Not to be disrespectful but I am glad that they surrendered then because if not we wouldn't get any animes
|
The atomic bombing of Japan is hardly morally discernible from any other military action that would result in large scale civilian casualties, and even if there is a significant moral difference between the use of atomic weapons and terribly inaccurate carpet bombing of industrial centers that killed civilians, that difference is irrelevant because the end result is still the same: dead civilians. The outrage is more emotional than logical
|
The atom bombings are not quite so simple it's true.
There are two motives not mentioned that I think played a role as well.
The first was our desire to test the weapons on military targets. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively unscathed by the carpet bombing that was done against most other Japanese military targets. This was so that the Americans could get an accurate picture of the damage that the weapons would cause.
The second was to demonstrate this power. The message was pointed: We possess the most awesome weapon in the history of warfare, and we are willing to use it. Though the usage may have been justified militarily, there was no secret to whom this message was being set: the Soviet Union.
|
On January 02 2012 12:51 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2011 05:34 LaughingTulkas wrote:On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes. You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day. Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK. Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too. Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia) From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them. The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered. This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart. And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight. Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here. Most of what you wrote is actually incorrect. France lost because they were militarily defeated, not because they "lost the will to fight" , whatever that cliche means. Blitzkrieg worked in Poland and France, but could never have worked in the same vein in Russia just simply because of scales involved. There was no way for Germans to win in the East at all, no matter what decisions of Hitler's you change. There was no way to fix the biggest problem of logistics and industrial power. It is no accident that Germans ended their push where they did, they were at the farthest possible distance they could actually fight the war logistically with any reasonable efficiency. It is actually more likely that Germans did much better than they should, oftentimes thanks to problems on the Soviet side. So no, Germans on the Eastern front did not underperfom much, much more likely they actually overperformed compared to reasonable expectations. Only completely unexplained surrender by Soviet leadership could have changed that, but Soviets were never really too close to even thinking about that. As for the "human factor" you try to employ, no, in case of such economic disparity as was the case here, long total war is always decided purely by industrial might and no other factors matter in determining who wins. And this was a total war for all major parties concerned.
I'd argue that Germans could have taken the East if they held off Operation Barbarossa until the Spring of 1942 or even 1943--once they had secured oil from the Middle East as well as rare mineral/rubber resources from central/southern Africa. There was no indication that the USSR would have broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
|
If you are really interested about Europe and WW2 you should watch a Norwegian movie called "Max Manus".
In this movie it's not about the wars where they fight on the beach etc (save private ryan f.ex). This movie is more about the secret groups that developted to stop the germans from taking Norway(Kompani Linge), sinking ships, burning safehouses and bombing archives. His group was also the group that sinked Ms Donau.
|
On January 02 2012 12:14 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion This, a million times over. What the Germans did was unthinkable, but the Japanese did the same thing with much more ferocity and much less discrimination. They enslaved women to be used by soldiers as sex slaves, forced fathers to rape their own daughters, and murdered anybody who showed an ounce of resistance.The rape of Nanking in itself is one of the most disturbing events in human history, and there were many other incidents just like it all over the Pacific. As for the atomic bomb dropping, the calculations made by the U.S. military estimated that deaths from the planned "Operation Downfall" might run into the millions, and that's just Allied deaths, the Japanese numbers surely would have been much higher, as there were many more Japanese soldiers killed than surrendered during the course of the war. EDIT: couldn't find the statistic i had seen to support my figure.
Well, you can pretty much use the number of Purple Hearts prepared for that possible invasion (of which stocks only ran out a few years ago) to gauge how much casualties they were expecting for the two initial invasions alone.
|
On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose.
No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared.
|
On January 02 2012 19:27 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose. No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared.
and yet all have failed, first Napoleon then Hitler
|
On January 02 2012 19:30 Mvrio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 19:27 Grettin wrote:On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose. No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared. and yet all have failed, first Napoleon then Hitler
And why was that? Oh yeah, because they weren't prepared and geared well enough!
|
On January 02 2012 19:32 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 19:30 Mvrio wrote:On January 02 2012 19:27 Grettin wrote:On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose. No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared. and yet all have failed, first Napoleon then Hitler And why was that? Oh yeah, because they weren't prepared and geared well enough!
I know... i was agreeing with you...
|
On January 02 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:While the Japanese atrocities were pretty horrid, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was quite simply larger. Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion We dropped two atomic bombs, you know.
The Holocaust wasn't "quite simply larger". Chinese civilian casualties in WWII alone were far greater than Holocaust casualties.
|
On January 02 2012 19:30 Mvrio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 19:27 Grettin wrote:On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose. No. Don't attack Russia on winter, Ever... unless you are well prepared. and yet all have failed, first Napoleon then Hitler
Crimean war wasn't a failure o.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
