Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    Sir, with all due respect, I want to be a millionaire, but... I'm not. I want to be the Red Sox starting firstbaseman on opening day, but... I'm not... just because someone WANTS to do something... and DOESN'T then it didn't happen.... PM Suzuki responded to Potsdam with silence for 11 days... Hiroshima was bombed... still nothing from the Japanese government... 3 days later (2 full damn weeks after Potsdam) the next nuke was used. even THEN.. there was no surrender... it took Hirohito himself to order the damn surrender and it wasn't done until 15 August... NINE days after the first nuke... I'm sorry that the timeline itself is a problem for you... but THOSE ARE THE FACTS... not hypotheticals... FACTS.

    You on the other hand are grasping at anecdotal information and completely ignoring FACT. You are entitled to your OPINION... you are NOT entitled to claim your opinions are FACT.
    Ahh so the victor that wrote the history has never had itself a history of lying to its people in order to promote an agenda? I am just questioning the military leaders decision to bomb when they already KNEW they wanted to surrender. I question everything because history is typically 1 sided. Nothing in that book of facts tell's their story from their perspective. Nothing in that book would ever make us look bad because that isn't how history works. I also never presented my opinion as fact, that was all you. I am only questioning history because it should be so that we are not doomed to repeat it.

  2. #202
    Herald of the Titans inboundpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Close to San Fransisco, CA
    Posts
    2,763
    Justifiable, we still give out purple hearts made for the invasion of Japan, over 60 years later.
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodias View Post
    Sadly, with those actors... the "XXX Adaptation" should really be called 50 shades of watch a different porno.
    Beggars
    Destiny

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomial17 View Post
    Really though, without the United States, most of Europe would be living in Germany's future.
    I'd actually have prefered that. I'm 100% that had Germany won the war, they would write history and they would be seen the good side protecting us all from evil. The only reason the US appear the good guys is that they won, and history is written by the victors. It's that simple really.

    There isn't one true evil and one true good. Both are morally grey and both would appear the good guys after victory. I would've prefered a German victory because I just think they're more organized and have more common sense than the US. Also, I despise the 'culture' spread by the US. Yes, spread your decadence all over the world! Let us all suffer like you suffer.

  4. #204
    The Lightbringer Seranthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In your dome.
    Posts
    3,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkstarG View Post
    Ahh so the victor that wrote the history has never had itself a history of lying to its people in order to promote an agenda? I am just questioning the military leaders decision to bomb when they already KNEW they wanted to surrender. I question everything because history is typically 1 sided. Nothing in that book of facts tell's their story from their perspective. Nothing in that book would ever make us look bad because that isn't how history works. I also never presented my opinion as fact, that was all you. I am only questioning history because it should be so that we are not doomed to repeat it.
    History might be written by the victors, however, some facts are incontrovertable regardless who the hell wrote history. What part of the facts have I presented are disputeable? Seriously...

    lets handle it step by step...

    1. Potsdam Declaration (not a book), (easily findable on the internet) demanded the Japanese surrender... What day was it issued?
    2. When was Hiroshima bombed? (easily findable on the internet, and I'm certain that the date cant be altered by who wrote history)
    3. Did Japan surrender between the dates of event 1 and event 2? No they didn't, as if they had, event 2 wouldn't have happened.
    4. When did Nagasaki get bombed? (also easily locatable on the internet, also a date that cant be altered by who wrote history).
    5. Did Japan surrender between the dates of 2 and 4? No they didn't, as if they had, event 4 wouldn't have happened.

    I'm not looking at 'perspective'... I'm not going by 'wanted' to... I"m going by hard facts that aren't alterable by who is writing the history...

    You want to avoid repeating history? then stop denying the facts of the events in favor of your 'perspective'.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal.

  5. #205
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,215
    What do I think of the atomic bombings? I think they aren't even comparable to the (probably necessary) atrocities that are the strategic casual bombings of Japan and Germany.

  6. #206
    Scarab Lord ringpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler Log View Post
    Didn't they invite the Japanese ambassador to one of the tests earlier in the year?
    Nope. They only did one test and it was kept as secret as you can keep a nuclear test. The idea of demonstrating the bomb to the Japanese was tossed around, but eventually abandoned because 1) there were only 2 ready-to-drop bombs at the time, with just a handful more in the pipeline and 2) no one was confident it would actually convince them to surrender.

  7. #207
    Mechagnome Monoxyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by manipulation View Post
    USA is the only superpower in history that's ever had to try to avoid being offensive while going to war. Makes it hard to like everyone else. You are allowed to cry foul because the USA allows it. People forget that. What would the world be like if NK was 41% of the earth's military instead of the USA? We'd all be hungrier than hell and rodman and the little dictator would be hanging out 24/7.

    USA did what it needed to do. Hindsight is always 20/20. Nuclear warfare is pure hell and someone was gonna drop one until we all had something in history to look back on. It's bad, I hope it never happens again but like with everything else, USA has to do all the dirty work so you guys can line up to complain about how mean we are.

    Carry on.

    this guy really nailed it. sucks that it happened. however, i have no doubt that it would have still happened at some point.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Åmbulance View Post
    To be honest, i think the US is tired of caring what the world thinks, Just reading MMO forums, its pretty much been beaten to death that everyone hates us. I personally have done nothing to anyone. But i'm hated, and stopped giving two fucks about it, and stopped trying to defend myself and country to idiots.
    True that. Id be okay with making a sticky dedicated to nation bashing. Clearly the europeens cant complain about us enough in the Gun thread, so make another one so maybe less of the "I hate USA bandwagon" crap pops up in any topic about countries.

    On topic, I approve of the bombings. It ended the war with the least amount of casualties as possible, and a world run by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or North Korea wouldnt be very fun.

  9. #209
    Brewmaster stabetha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    middle of the desert U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    I'd actually have prefered that. I'm 100% that had Germany won the war, they would write history and they would be seen the good side protecting us all from evil. The only reason the US appear the good guys is that they won, and history is written by the victors. It's that simple really.

    There isn't one true evil and one true good. Both are morally grey and both would appear the good guys after victory. I would've prefered a German victory because I just think they're more organized and have more common sense than the US. Also, I despise the 'culture' spread by the US. Yes, spread your decadence all over the world! Let us all suffer like you suffer.
    so your OK with the destruction of an entire race of people as long as they're not spreading decadence while doing it?when it comes to Hitler there is no grey area he was evil.
    “If you are taught bitterness and anger, then you will believe you are a victim. You will feel aggrieved and the twin brother of aggrievment is entitlement. So now you think you are owed something and you don’t have to work for it and now you’re on a really bad road to nowhere because there are people who will play to that sense of victimhood, aggrievement and entitlement, and you still won’t have a job.” - Condoleezza Rice

  10. #210
    That topic again...

    In my opinion, it wasn't OK. It is possible that an invasion would have led to more deaths overall, but not in the civilian population, unless the US soldiers would have killed civilians on purpose.
    And everyone thinking that it's just a bomb and when it exploded it's all over, and therefore it was so good: Go read some books about statistics and nuclear physics, please.

    But, what happened, happened. All we can do is learn from past mistakes. And when dropping nukes is seen by so many not as a mistake... sad.

  11. #211
    Legendary! draykorinee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ciderland, arrgh.
    Posts
    6,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Forsta View Post
    That topic again...

    In my opinion, it wasn't OK. It is possible that an invasion would have led to more deaths overall, but not in the civilian population, unless the US soldiers would have killed civilians on purpose.
    And everyone thinking that it's just a bomb and when it exploded it's all over, and therefore it was so good: Go read some books about statistics and nuclear physics, please.

    But, what happened, happened. All we can do is learn from past mistakes. And when dropping nukes is seen by so many not as a mistake... sad.
    the us took Okinawa (tiny island with tiny population) at the cost of 60000 native Okinawan lives, the toll for civilian casualties if the allies tried to take Japan would be so so much higher. Regardless of whether the us chose to attack civilians (prior examples of civilian massacres and future ones in Vietnam attest to what the 'good guys' are capable of) there would have been far more civilian deaths than these 2 bombs. Factor in the eventually destruction of the civilian infrastructure and very likely famine the notion that an invasion of Japan would lead to less civilian deaths is embarrassingly Nieve and mind boggling... sad

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by draykorinee View Post
    the us took Okinawa (tiny island with tiny population) at the cost of 60000 native Okinawan lives, the toll for civilian casualties if the allies tried to take Japan would be so so much higher. Regardless of whether the us chose to attack civilians (prior examples of civilian massacres and future ones in Vietnam attest to what the 'good guys' are capable of) there would have been far more civilian deaths than these 2 bombs. Factor in the eventually destruction of the civilian infrastructure and very likely famine the notion that an invasion of Japan would lead to less civilian deaths is embarrassingly Nieve and mind boggling... sad
    Well, the question underlying this is: Would they have surrendered or not at the start of an invasion of the mainland? I agree that an invasion of the WHOLE country would have lead to more casualties. But I think Japan would have surrendered at a stage where an invasion wouldn't have caused as much civilian casualties as dropping the bomb(s) - direct and indirect. In this light, I still think dropping the bomb was unnecessary.
    Sadly, it's impossible to answer this question nowadays. There are sources that tell one side, and some that tell the other, many of them already linked in this thread.

  13. #213
    Legendary! draykorinee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ciderland, arrgh.
    Posts
    6,539
    I think with 250000 deaths from pre nuclear bombing alone attests to the number of deaths would be seen factor in the accidental artillery and sea bombardments as well as the frequent mishap Japanese and America soldiers I don't see how anyone can come the conclusion you just did. Even if civilian casualties are less the combined Japanese and allied forces deaths coupled with civilians would vastly outweigh the nuclear bombs. So in this light the nuclear bombs clearly outweigh a land invasion in regards to loss of life regardless of how much of Japan allies need to capture before surrender
    Personally the only discussion should be whether Japan would surrender without nuclear bombs not how many people would die because only a fool would think a land invasion would result in less overall deaths.

  14. #214
    Scarab Lord ringpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by manipulation View Post
    USA is the only superpower in history that's ever had to try to avoid being offensive while going to war. Makes it hard to like everyone else. You are allowed to cry foul because the USA allows it. People forget that. What would the world be like if NK was 41% of the earth's military instead of the USA? We'd all be hungrier than hell and rodman and the little dictator would be hanging out 24/7.

    USA did what it needed to do. Hindsight is always 20/20. Nuclear warfare is pure hell and someone was gonna drop one until we all had something in history to look back on. It's bad, I hope it never happens again but like with everything else, USA has to do all the dirty work so you guys can line up to complain about how mean we are.

    Carry on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    I'd actually have prefered that. I'm 100% that had Germany won the war, they would write history and they would be seen the good side protecting us all from evil. The only reason the US appear the good guys is that they won, and history is written by the victors. It's that simple really.

    There isn't one true evil and one true good. Both are morally grey and both would appear the good guys after victory. I would've prefered a German victory because I just think they're more organized and have more common sense than the US. Also, I despise the 'culture' spread by the US. Yes, spread your decadence all over the world! Let us all suffer like you suffer.

    You're both being very one-sided, and Hardstyler is adding the Middle-Ground fallacy to that as well. I think the Allied victory was certainly far better than the alternative, but those, like manipulation, who portray the outcome of America's intervention as wonderful for everyone, ought toconsider that a good part of the reason WWII started in the first place was the invasion and occupation of Poland... which ended the war occupied, and spent over a generation under the Soviet thumb afterward, along with many other Eastern European countries. Heck, Finland was an Axis power, and all they were fighting for was to hold on to their national independence. (Something at which they basically succeeded, by the skin of their teeth, but no thanks to the United States.)

    America's actions during and after WWII were far from perfect, but they were also far better than those of the Nazi regime were or would have been. If you want an example, compare the Holocaust to Japanese Internment. Was Japanese Internment a good thing? Hell no. But wasn't even close to the Nazi's genocide campaign, either. Did the Allies conduct one-sided war crimes trials after the war? Yep. That's part of the reason why some Allied officers chose to testify on behalf of some of the accused Axis officers. But the Americans and British on the whole treated their POWs pretty well, unlike the frequent Japanese Imperial Army mix of murdering them and working them to death. (Yeah, I left out the Russians for a reason. They were so bad in their 'treatment' of POWs - frequently just shooting them - that after the war other Allied soldiers were known to help their prisoners escape rather than turn them over to the Russians.)

    The world, and history, aren't black and white, nor is it all the same shade of gray. We can admit that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a awful, terrible thing without condemning those who made the decision, or seeing tham as anything other than fallible human beings.

  15. #215
    The Lightbringer Simulacrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Forsta View Post
    Well, the question underlying this is: Would they have surrendered or not at the start of an invasion of the mainland? I agree that an invasion of the WHOLE country would have lead to more casualties. But I think Japan would have surrendered at a stage where an invasion wouldn't have caused as much civilian casualties as dropping the bomb(s) - direct and indirect. In this light, I still think dropping the bomb was unnecessary.
    Sadly, it's impossible to answer this question nowadays. There are sources that tell one side, and some that tell the other, many of them already linked in this thread.
    An invasion of Japan would make D-day look like a joke. That's just a short ride across a tiny stretch of sea, straight across from Britain. Japan is divided from the US by the pacific ocean, and they wouldn't have been committing all of their good troops to fighting another enemy several theatres away. You would have more military casualties alone, from the landing alone, than the two bombs put together.

    It would be an operation of equal or greater scope than operation barbarossa, which resulted in some 5 million casualties. A few hundred thousand people killed by the bombs is nothing compared to the levels at which people were dying during WW2 - not even to the levels at which they were dying from just conventional bombing runs - and is certainly beyond any reasonable dubt by far the preferable alternative to a manned invasion.
    Dr Johnson, they said: “we are delighted to find that you’ve not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary.”
    “Ladies, said dr Johnson, “I can congratulate you on being able to look them up.”

  16. #216
    Scarab Lord ringpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Exp View Post
    Back on topic of the thread, North Korea doesn't stand a chance in all out war with South Korea, and I seriously doubt it will come to that simply because even Kim Jung Un knows that he doesn't stand a chance. South Korea has the 8th best military in the world (http://www.globalfirepower.com), miles above North Korea. They have nukes, patriot missiles, and a very advanced navy and air force. North Korea can't even launch a rocket that can make it to Hawaii. Much less defend against rockets/icbm. For this reason, I doubt he will make that kind of move. Also, the U.S. Pacific fleet works very closely with the South Koreans. Any aggression would be met with swift opposition from both sides, and even China (NK's biggest ally) has said they do not agree with aggression from the North Koreans.
    You're wrong on couple technical (but important!) points.

    South Korea does not have nuclear weapons. They're a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have been since 1975. And while they've done some very small-scale work since then, the closest South Korea comes to being nuclear-armed is occasionally raising the possibility of leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty if the North Korean government continues their nuclear threats. The United States used to keep nuclear weapons in South Korea, but they were withdrawn back in 1991, under the first President Bush.

    North Korea has had a great many failures with their rocket program. (Which, in turn, is widely seen as a not-so-covert ICBM program. In practice, the difference between the two is pretty much limited to whether there's a satellite or a warhead as payload.) But in December of 2012 they finally put a satellite in orbit successfully. At that point they can probably hit anywhere on Earth, certainly anywhere in the United States, with an ICBM. Their accuracy is probably terrible and reliability is likely worse, along with questions of whether North Korea can make a working nuke small enough to fit on a missile, but technically it's well within their capabilities to launch a nuke at Hawai'i. (That's leaving aside the question of how successful the U.S. military's somewhat iffy anti-missile systems would be against a North Korean ICBM.)

  17. #217
    The attack on pearl harbor has been shown consistently to be a precursor to the United States entering the war, that the United states was aware of and allowed to happen. After World War 1 the United States became internally focused and the population had lost belief in the war efforts due to the amount of causalities sustained. You have to remember that at the time of World War 1 there was many people who still had lived, been born or in some way were affected by the United States Civil War. The Civil War was grueling and was a massacre for both sides. World War 1 was again a massive loss of life that caused the country to become apathetic to the war effort in Europe. The politicians knew of the attack ahead of time and allowed it to happen the way it did to garner public support for the war. There was several damning things that happened during the attack, an unscheduled fleet preparedness test of the most advanced warships in our fleet days before the attack taking them northeast of the attack and out of harms way... the forced shore leave of several on duty contingents the day before... the decoded radio transcripts found decades later (claimed to have never been seen). They knew and used the Japanese pride to get the public support needed for war. America then used the Japanese as a test site for our nuclear weapons. We then turned Japan, Taiwan and South Korea into our sphere of influence.

    Here is where the anti American people will go for my throat. Any other country would have done the same exact thing. The only psychological reason why any grouping of people exists is to provide increased power to the member of that group. Herds exist to make the prey animal stronger versus the predator and provide increased security. Countries exist to make their population stronger and provide security for their interests. Remove the sugar coating from your eyes and realize that every country is a selfish greedy group of people whose only interest is their own security and well being.

    America has undoubtedly done some bad things in it's quest for power. As has every single nation on this planet. It's just fresh in your mind right now.

    Not saying you shouldn't have a problem with it, but you should also realize your asking for the impossible. You want humans to give up their own self centered views and focus on providing support and security for other people before themselves with no illusions of self reciprocation. That's bullshit. Apply it on just a 1 to 1 scale and see how far you get, walk outside right now and give up everything you own to those around you. Watch as some give back and some don't. Watch as the scales tip farther and farther away until you end up with nothing.

    The world isn't completely horrible, little by little, generation by generation we get better and better at using non-lethal ways to get our points across. Yet keep in mind there will always be a winner and a loser. Human race and all.

  18. #218
    Scarab Lord ringpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    The attack on pearl harbor has been shown consistently to be a precursor to the United States entering the war, that the United states was aware of and allowed to happen.
    That's a pretty big claim. Do you know of any actual evidence? There's definitely a case to be made that an attack was expected, and that Roosevelt wanted the US to join the war, and that the U.S. forces were unprepared for Pearl Harbor, but calling it a deliberate conspiracy isn't really supported by what is known.

    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    The politicians knew of the attack ahead of time and allowed it to happen the way it did to garner public support for the war.
    Historical testimony disagrees. Roosevelt was expecting some sort of attack, yes. A majority of Americans expected an attack. War warnings were sent out in November 1941. But, "allowed it to happen the way it did"? Not very likely. Speaking purely rationally, if the government knew about Pearl Harbor, wouldn't they have evacuated more than a few scouting elements (which is how carriers were considered at the time)? It's just as good an excuse for war if the Japanese only sink a few cruisers and destroyers, instead of having a shot at smashing the whole fleet, isn't it?

    And to get into more detail,
    Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox visited Franklin D. Roosevelt in the afternoon of Dec. 7, just after the president had learned about our devastating losses at Pearl Harbor. Knox later told his naval aide,"FDR was as white as a sheet. He expected to get hit but not hurt."
    And as for public support... FDR wanted to fight Germany, supporting Britain and the USSR. Why stage or provoke an attack from Japan? If Hitler hadn't been foolish enough to declare war on the United States, Pearl Harbor could have hurt FDR's intentions to join the war in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    There was several damning things that happened during the attack, an unscheduled fleet preparedness test of the most advanced warships in our fleet days before the attack taking them northeast of the attack and out of harms way...
    Do you mean the fourteen year-old USS Lexington (originally laid-down as a battlecruiser during WWI)? Or the equally old USS Saratoga, which was a week away in San Diego at the time? Or are you talking about the much newer (commissioned only 3 years earlier) USS Enterprise, operating under orders that would have put her in Pearl Harbor if the weather hadn't turned. Because obviously, having your "most advanced warships" operating solo in waters you "knew" the Kido Butai was going to be hitting was some sort of "brilliant" plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    the forced shore leave of several on duty contingents the day before...
    Can you give a source for this, please? I can't find any mention of it online, at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    the decoded radio transcripts found decades later (claimed to have never been seen).
    Would those would be the transmissions from the Japanese Strike Force that were supposedly picked up by civilian ships and others? The Strike Force that was under strict radio silence orders? Or are you talking about the overworked cryptographers and translators, memorably depicted in The Codebreakers by David Kahn? Or, from the same book, are you talking about the Japanese Embassy decrypts that indicated imminent war (but not where)?


    Quote Originally Posted by chaotus View Post
    They knew and used the Japanese pride to get the public support needed for war. America then used the Japanese as a test site for our nuclear weapons. We then turned Japan, Taiwan and South Korea into our sphere of influence.
    Those would be the nuclear weapons that were known to maybe be theoretically possible in 1941? Where the committee responsible for developing them didn't even meet until after Pearl Harbor?

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyxxi View Post
    At some point had the US not dropped them, someone else would have. They were unnecessary to end the war, but in hindsight they were necessary to show the world the moral limits of human destructive capabilities.
    "In hindsight, the holocaust allowed for massive scientific progress." This argument is absolute bs because losing your humanity to do everyone else the service of remembering theirs is a terrible downward spiral.

    Godwin's Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfang
    "I am he who watches they. I am the fist of retribution. That which does quell the recalcitrant. Dare you defy the Warchief? Dare you face my merciless judgement?"
    i7-860 @2.8GHz | Radeon HD 7770 | 8GB DDR3-1333MHz | Corsair CX 430W |

  20. #220
    you really need to stop thinking in a good guys/bad guys manner,it's childish to say the least

    i bet if Hitler did it you'd all be screaming for the monstrosity of this genocidal lunatic,yet now that your country did it it's justified...

    really?

    and yes they'd be scared shitless of a bomb in the middle of nowhere,aren't you afraid of someone who shoots in the air for warning? or are you laughing at him and challenge him to shoot you in the face? or maybe the japanese are not normal people and they cannot be intimidated or reasoned with? or something in your opinion is wrong,what is more likely?
    Last edited by vassilisz; 2013-04-23 at 09:10 PM.
    The constructive troll!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •