|
On November 04 2008 11:27 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 11:22 Frits wrote:
There are other ways to prove that you have more than 1 atom bomb than simply throwing it on a populated city.
Truman might not have given 2 shits but that's irrelevant. How would you use the 2 atomic bombs you had in your disposal? Keypoints: -Atomic Bombs were an untried weapon, could be a dud so use it wisely. The 2 atomic bombs are different concepts and 1 could work and the other could not. -The third Atomic bomb wasn't coming until at least September (this means what? 400,000-500,000 Allied deaths? [involving Chinese, Koreans, British, Canadian, U.S, Filipinos, etc..] -The Japanese Imperial Generals did not surrender after Hiroshima and was reluctant to do so even after the two atomic bombs -The recommendation paper given to you was two atomic bombs in a SHORT delay between the two so you can make it appear you have a whole stock of it. Knowing that a false decision will mean the death of hundred of thousands of civilians, are you telling me you are going to waste a nuclear bomb on let's say a small military base in Manchuria?
Well I was gonna say it depended on how much bombs they really did have at their disposal and how much they could produce in how much time.
I guess in the end it was the best chance of success they had. Though Im still not convinced about the amount of communication after the first bomb, I know there was almost a coup but afaik this was aborted and the imperial general comitted suicide.
|
On November 04 2008 11:34 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 10:48 Frits wrote:On November 04 2008 10:38 HeadBangaa wrote:On September 04 1934 10:22 Adolf Hitler wrote:
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. whoa You are so unrealistic sometimes. Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Iyeah they lost and got their balls cut off, that's what happen when you lose a war. And goddamn, don't: "this" |--X--------------------------------------------------------| "fine, this" |-------------------------------------------------------X---|
I don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
|
On November 04 2008 10:38 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 1934 10:22 Adolf Hitler wrote:
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. whoa
Well yeah basically the reason Germany went to war was that after WW1 you either 1) destroy the vanquished utterly so they cannot challenge you again or 2) help them and make them friends.
The allies did something in the middle, they screwed Germany over enough to make Germany hate them but not so much as to remove their capacity to wage war. After ww1 it was said that Versailles etc would probably lead to another war for this reason and they were proven correct.
|
On November 04 2008 11:27 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 11:22 Frits wrote:
There are other ways to prove that you have more than 1 atom bomb than simply throwing it on a populated city.
Truman might not have given 2 shits but that's irrelevant. Keypoints: -Atomic Bombs were an untried weapon, could be a dud so use it wisely. The 2 atomic bombs are different concepts and 1 could work and the other could not.
They had already tested the atomic bombs in the nevada desert. There explosive might was so potent that the scientists who created it were horrified and advised Truman against their use.
-The third Atomic bomb wasn't coming until at least September (this means what? 400,000-500,000 Allied deaths? [involving Chinese, Koreans, British, Canadian, U.S, Filipinos, etc..]
The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all.
-The Japanese Imperial Generals did not surrender after Hiroshima and was reluctant to do so even after the two atomic bombs
Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo.
|
On November 02 2008 15:05 brjdrb wrote:
i might be wrong in this, but considering how quickly the power of nuclear bombs expanded following ww2, perhaps it's best that their destructive ability was discovered while they were so weak. Had the nuclear powers not seen how devastating they were then, perhaps they might not have been so reluctant to use them later...in which case many more lives would've been lost. in retrospect, yes it was justified.
I totally agree with you for the first part but I don't see how that justifies anything?
it was not right to drop the bombs on civillian targets. Sure the japanese did some fucked up shit but it was the military and not the civillians.
|
holy shit 31 pages O_O
But No it wasn't
|
When your son or brother is going to have to be sent into a massive land invasion involving hundreds of thousands of casualties, you would think again.
|
On November 04 2008 11:41 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 11:34 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 04 2008 10:48 Frits wrote:On November 04 2008 10:38 HeadBangaa wrote:On September 04 1934 10:22 Adolf Hitler wrote:
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. whoa You are so unrealistic sometimes. Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Iyeah they lost and got their balls cut off, that's what happen when you lose a war. And goddamn, don't: "this" |--X--------------------------------------------------------| "fine, this" |-------------------------------------------------------X---| I don't know what point you are possibly trying to make. And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you. "that's what happens when you lose a war" So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231.
I feel you are the one being unrealistic. And Hitler was very manipulative in his rise to power, taking advantage of the Germans. No I don't think the Germans are bad people. I think they were hyper nationalistic and lost a world war, and, being the losers, had to accept the terms of the winners. I don't understand why this give carte blanche to retaliation by the Germans, I missed that part of your argument.
The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better?
Umm, yes dude. Them "thinking they deserve better" doesn't change the circumstances whatsoever, why would you make an emotional appeal like that? Man, counting the ad hominem, that's TWO fucking fallacies in your post.
|
On November 04 2008 13:21 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 11:41 Frits wrote:On November 04 2008 11:34 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 04 2008 10:48 Frits wrote:On November 04 2008 10:38 HeadBangaa wrote:On September 04 1934 10:22 Adolf Hitler wrote:
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. whoa You are so unrealistic sometimes. Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Iyeah they lost and got their balls cut off, that's what happen when you lose a war. And goddamn, don't: "this" |--X--------------------------------------------------------| "fine, this" |-------------------------------------------------------X---| I don't know what point you are possibly trying to make. And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you. "that's what happens when you lose a war" So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature. The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231. I feel you are the one being unrealistic.
The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is accepted as one of the leading causes of World War 2, you are proving Frits' point for him.
|
No man, that's controversial, and many historians don't believe it was too harsh. You're being assumptive.
|
On November 04 2008 13:28 HeadBangaa wrote:
No man, that's controversial, and many historians don't believe it was too harsh. You're being assumptive.
Maybe I was making it out to be fact when it is a controversial (although widely held) opinion, and for that I am sorry, but the point still stands.
|
Norway28705 Posts
thinking that ww2 was partially caused by the too-strict sanctioned placed on them after ww1 is not controversial. but you certainly cannot excuse how some of the extreme horrors that took place that easily.
|
Well,
Basically the hate towards Germany was really great after WWI finished and it showed in the treaty. The US government didn't want to necessarily have Germany take blame but it is what the European powers wanted.
The demands the European Powers made of Germany basically put their economy into the shits not that it already was because of the war. Also a fail system of loans was established which made the problem even bigger.
Hittler stepped in and took advantage of the peoples hate and came to power. Then the people got their revenge in form of WW2....
I also think that the Nuke Bombs were not really justified. No matter what the crime, dropping Bombs on Civilians is always a VERY BIG NO NO. Not to say that the Japanese were angels during WWII especially in China, still killing so many civilians was unnecessary....
|
So people would think it's justified if americans slaughtered japanese civilians on foot rather then a huge bomb? and have more unnecessary deaths? the point is the Japanese were killing everyone in Asia: Philippines, Korea, china , and a couple others i can't think off the top of my head, if the bomb wasn't dropped all those countries would be called japan today.
|
It's only justified if you believe killing some people to save more others is.
|
Japanese would strip the calf muscles of POWs down to the bone for food. This wouldn't kill the poor souls however. He would call out to jesus and mom in agony all night long as he was left in a shallow ditch with no restraints at all because he was completly helpless at this point anyway. The reason he was not killed is because the rest of the "meat" would start to spoil.
Greg Hilton is no longer considered with respect from his captors. Hes not viewed as a husband, a friend, a brother, a son, a father of a mentally handicapped boy, or an expectant father of healthy baby girl. Hes not even considered human. He's a ration of food, a fucking MRE to be flayed alive and fought over come breakfast time. When he called out for mercy and death in the night there was no answer or remorse. His captors were too busy fighting over his boots clothes and collecting seasonings.
Japanese did the most horrific shit in WWII considering all parties. Even trumping Germany. Thats pretty sick considering you would have to reach fucking low to trump Dr Mendal. They were so fanataical and would resort to such evil shit like this to keep fighting and killing even when it was certain defeat. Becuase they could not even consider the sane option of surrender.
It did not go through their head like this
A) Keep fighting
B) Surrender
It looked like this
A) Keep Fighting
....
Z) Declare myself a traitor and dishonnor my father, wife, kids, country and emporerer.
I'm not for Eye for Eye. But stuff like this shows how fanatical and messed up they were to keep fighting and taking lives. It justified to snap end that shit and save lives. With what was known at the time.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 04 2008 07:43 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The idea is not that during war, that morality must go out the window - but it must inevitably seem like moral rules are relaxed when all the decisions you have to choose from are horrific.
That may well be your argument but it is not the argument I was condemning. And the argument I was condemning is made and has been made in this very thread.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
With regard to the post-WWI arrangements causing later German aggression: there is a big difference between explaining historical events and tendencies by reference to complex confluences of circumstances and the effects they brought about, and excusing a person or a nation of the moral responsibility for their actions.
The wife-beater screams at his victim: "You made me do it!"
That hardships and psychological trauma caused to the German people by the post-WWI settlements is well known. But what happened in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s is very hard to comprehend. It is, in many ways, a unique event in human history and should be treated as such. It cannot be explained away by simple reference to post-WWI treaties and it certainly cannot be excused by such.
|
More people were killed in a single firebomb raid on Tokyo than in either atomic bomb explosion. If the A-bombs hadn't been used then there would have been far more of these raids combined with conventional raids and the actual invasion. Using the A-bomb saved many, many lives that would have been lost if the war had been ended by conventional war, which was realistically the only other option. I would say that justifies using the bombs.
|
1.) The incendiary bombings were far worse as the houses, at that time, were made out of wood which burned the families alive.
2.) People, civilians or not, are pawns to a government unless people do something about it. Live and learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
