That We Should Have Dropped the Nukes

[Malchik]

If you read my post you will observe that I requested BOTH sides of the debate to stick to the facts. I am not sure how this can be seen as supporting anyone.

 

But please don't make surmises on the basis of the Bush catch phrase 'if you're not with us, you must be against us'. No debate or discussion of any kind is possible in those circumstances.

[FritzDerochebrune]

I'm able to make a fast reply, but I don't have much time. It's possible this will be my only reply for a long time, same reason as first.

 

1 Thanks to Kawirider, for the link to wikipedia!

 

2 The amount of casualties has been used as main argument, but we musn't forget that even today children are born blind, without arms or legs, etc because of the nukes. Are they responsible for the things Japan did in WW2? Can they be seen as soldiers who would die for their emperor? That's your counterargument, Karasuman.

 

3 I agree on the part that both Axis and Allies commited war crimes. The only difference is that the Allies can say it was for the sake of winning the war. An example took place on the 20th february 1944, when a ferry in Norway was blown up with some Norwegians on board. This was because the Allies thought Germany could use the heavy water, also on that ferry, to make a nuke. Later examination made clear germany could never have made a nuke, for two simple reasons:

 

A) Germany's high command thought a nuke would be a weapon to be used in a long war. Since Germany relied on the Blitzkrieg, they didn't need such a weapon. They cancelled the order in 1941-1942.

 

B) Even if the Germans did have a 'Secret Vergeltungs Nuke Program", the design of the german nuke had mistakes in it. It would need 1000 kg of uranium to actually make have the same effect as the US ones.

 

The heavy water was to be used in an expirimental nuclear powergenerator.

 

4 For those who still think bombers didn't bomb german cities, or only did it to 'safe the crew', here's some facts: A) 60% of Berlin was equalized by bombingraids. B) The entire city of Dresden was bombed to the ground. This is a story wich I still hear a lot these days, because my grandpa was in a workcamp in Dresden when it was bombed.

 

5 Actually, the UK could stand up agains Germany even if the US didn't enter the war. True, it would be mostly by the supplies bought in the US, but if you look a bit closer at the 'Battle for Britain' and the years after that, you can see Britain had a secure position after 1941. And that only because of the German high-command itself!

 

Actually, even before WW2 started a small fact changed the course of the war. Germany had an entirely new airforce, but it was concentrated to much on the Blitzkrieg. They didn't have heavy bombers, wich where needed to make a succes of the Battle for Brittain. So the Luftwaffe had to use medium bombers like the Heinkel He 111, wich where usefull in the blitzkrieg, but not for far bombing-runs. During the Battle for Brittain, German bombers had to concentrate on London, while they should have been used to bomb military targets. That is why Germany never won that battle, and operation sealion was cancelled.

 

In addition to that Operation Barbarossa drained Germany of its resources. A lot of fighteraces where shot down by the seemingly endless waves of new russian 'recruits'. The Eastren front also drained much resources that could be used in the African Campaign. By 1942, Rommel was out of supplies, so he had to stop near El Allamein. With the position secured, the British forces could counterattack with troops from the former East-African battlefield, where they won the battle from the Itallian troops, and new weapons bought from the US. After that they chased Rommel through North Africa, and even without operation Torch, they could have driven the Axis out of Africa.

 

Cya

 

Fritz

 

P.S. I noticed a post saying I hate all Americans was removed. There may be people thinking this, but I don't hate all Americans. True, I find the ways how the American Governement acts not as it should be, but I don't hate someone because he's an American.

[Karasuman]

"The amount of casualties has been used as main argument, but we musn't forget that even today children are born blind, without arms or legs, etc because of the nukes. Are they responsible for the things Japan did in WW2?"

 

And what of the millions upon millions of orphans that were created throughout Asia due to Japanese "foreign policy"? If we're talking about children, I can guarantee you unequivocally that many, many more of them starved and were used as (and killed by) slave labor than those that are born without arms and legs in Japan. There are still to this day just as many (way more actually) people in Asia missing relatives and friends as a direct result of Japanese brutality, so I'm sorry, but I can't buy your counter-argument.

 

 

"But please don't make surmises on the basis of the Bush catch phrase 'if you're not with us, you must be against us."

 

That's not what I meant by my statement and I think you know that. I was making a direct reference to the fact I had 2 posts removed, neither of which were anywhere in the same league of hateful as the one by Heretic which is still sitting there. It was an appeal to fairness. And you do realize I can formulate my own opinion without Bush's input, right? My feelings about the subject would be same if Bullwinkle were president, so quit with the Bush thing already.

[Malchik]

I did not remove your posts and have no idea what they said.

 

And my reference to Bush is to quote one of his famous sayings. It has nothing to do with whether you support him, or listen to him or not.

 

For your information I have a couple of facts -

 

If Hitler had succeeded in taking the UK following the Battle of Britain in 1941 then it might have fallen. However he was advised that the conquering of the UK could wait. It was an island that would be 'starved' into submission in due course. Hitler turned his attention to Russia, an error (on his part) that had been made by Napoleon in the previous century.

 

By this time the German army was getting too thinly stretched. Areas nominally under German control were not properly consolidated, guerilla activity was increasing, and there was mounting discontent at home. It is true that even in these circumstances a full attack on the UK was possible but with defenders from Australia, NZ, Canada and India among others it was unlikely to succeed in the short term.

 

An attempted small scale invasion of the UK that took place in Norfolk was repelled (and hushed up).

 

What is more probable is that the UK might have signed a treaty with Germany allowing them to keep their gains in Europe in exchange for peace. However that is speculation not fact.

 

You make an implication in the post I originally replied to (since edited out) that the UK shouldn't dislike the US now because without the US help in WW2, they would have been conquered. That is not the case. But even had it been true I am not sure I see the relevance to today. It is a fact that without US intervention the war would probably have gone on a lot longer. This was recognised at the time and has been since. During the war and for many years afterwards the US was welcomed in the UK and Europe. There was also the Marshall Plan to do with the restructuring of battered economies for which Germany in particular, but much of Europe, had cause to thank the US. But that was 60 years ago. The people who remember the war years are now all retired. Many still do have a soft spot for the Americans but they are no longer the 'voice' of the UK. The 'hate' (which is too strong a word IMO) you refer to has been caused by recent events. You cannot suggest that because of acts of friendship or kindness in the past the recipient of the act has to excuse ANY kind of behaviour years later.

[Heretic666]

OMG!!! :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: wtf r u lot thinking!!! im not just quoting the horrific atrocities they commited in the second world war but in conflicts from the big one all the way up 2 iraq today... in-fact they should issue official apologies to the japanese, german, vietnamese and now the iraqis for sticking there stupid f***ing faces in other peoples buisness, however im not saying all americans are like your steriotypical yankee, I know plenty of americans and they arent facist dogs, btw, i dont give a damn about the "facts" as numbers are meaningless when you look closely at the brutal, savage way the american "liberators" treated civilians in all wars then you can make up the "facts" for yourself... >:( >:( >:(

 

Also I would much prefer to speak german than american slang, thank u very much

 

Its better to have a thousand fair deaths than to have one backstabbed death, ie using the nuke

 

and btw im not on the america hate train, im just pissed about what they done and are doing

[ninja_lord666]

That's all fine and good (not really), but you're getting off topic. This thread is clearly about "That We Should Have Dropped the Nukes" not about 'war crimes' of America up until the present.

 

And, no. No one is on your racist side except other racists. You're bad mouthing America just because you don't like us.

 

What is 'fair', exactly. The dictionary describes 'fair' as:

>legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

What are the 'rules' of war? Everyone is supposed to be given the chance to fight with a weapon in their hand? Wars have never been like that ever. Why start now? Even back when weapons were sticks and rocks people didn't have 'fair' fights. It's human nature to survive, and one can survive easier when one's opponent is disarmed than armed.

 

Also, you don't seem to know what backstabbing is. Here is the dictionary definition:

>To attack (someone) unfairly, especially in an underhand, deceitful manner.

We didn't backstab the Japanese; we gave full warning of the nuke. It's not our fault they chose to ignore it. Sure some might not consider it 'fair' that we dropped the nuke, but we did warn them. There's nothing else we could have done.

 

 

Oh, and btw, your argument isn't very persuasive when almost the entire thing is one, huge run-on sentence; it tends to cause people to question your intelligence.

[Peregrine]

im not just quoting the horrific atrocities they commited in the second world war but in conflicts from the big one all the way up 2 iraq today...

 

Please, lets see some proof of this. Provide your proof that the US has had a higher rate of war crimes than the other nations involved. While there have been incidents, there have been far more (especially in WWII) by the other side.

 

Mentioning Iraq is just silly. How can you honestly compare the rare incidents (for which the guilty are punished) to an enemy that deliberately targets civilians as a standard tactic?

 

in-fact they should issue official apologies to the japanese, german, vietnamese and now the iraqis for sticking there stupid f***ing faces in other peoples buisness,

 

Sorry Germany, we apologize for getting in the way of your genocide and conquest. It was wrong of us to stop you from exterminating the jews and all those other undesireables. We apologize for failing to recognize your fundamental right to murder, it won't happen again.

 

Sorry Japan, we are very sorry for fighting back once you attacked us. We should have immediately surrendered and let you massacre all the civilians you wanted. Since we are evil Americans, we deserved Pearl Harbor, it was wrong of us to even think of building a navy in the first place. We should have thanked you for killing our soldiers and trying to end our imperialist ambitions.

 

Sorry Vietnam, we apologize for trying to save you from an ideology that has killed people by the millions and wrecked every country that has ever tried it.

 

I will, however, give a sincere apology for Iraq. The entire Middle East is a barbaric third-world hell that we have no business getting involved in. We should simply have taken the oil fields, built a wall, and left the rest of the fanatics to kill each other in peace.

 

btw, i dont give a damn about the "facts" as numbers are meaningless when you look closely at the brutal, savage way the american "liberators" treated civilians in all wars then you can make up the "facts" for yourself... >:( >:( >:(

 

I believe this says it all. Why bother with facts when you can just spam your anti-American ranting? I have to give you credit... you may be utterly delusional and completely lacking in moral judgement, but at least you admit you're ignoring the truth.

Also I would much prefer to speak german than american slang, thank u very much

 

Do you really fail to understand the massive evil the nazis were guilty of? You wouldn't be speaking German, you'd be dead.

 

Its better to have a thousand fair deaths than to have one backstabbed death, ie using the nuke

 

How the hell were the nuclear attacks "backstabbing"? Were you asleep in history class or something? Get a damn history book and read about the state of open war that had existed between the US and Japan for years before those attacks.

 

If you're looking for "backstabbing", go read the chapter on a little battle called "Pearl Harbor".

[Malchik]

im not saying all americans are like your steriotypical yankee, I know plenty of americans and they arent facist dogs

 

Interesting that you consider the US fascist, when the archetypal fascist states were Germany and Italy in WW2 which, by implication, you support. I presume you really mean that the US are Nationalist.

 

We are all to a greater or lesser degree Nationalist but the word covers a multitude of meanings. I gather that you are from the UK. This is a pity as I do not believe your views are representative of the educated and knowledgeable in this country.

 

In so far as I enjoy living in London I must perforce be 'nationalist' in a mild sense but the nation I recognise is not limited by gender, belief or colour as some 'Nationalists' define their crede.

 

Of course the BNP (British Nationalist Party to the uninitiated) is fascist and there are such organisations in the US too and other parts of Europe. At present, and hopefully for a long time to come, these organisations have small numbers of supporters. (Smaller than the noise they make, for sure.) The US may be more xenophobic but such a phobia is not really extended to disliking foreigners abroad. And none of this has anything to do with the behviour of their armies on active service in any case.

 

I also find it impossible to believe you can point to the US as being perpetrators of atrocities while conveniently forgetting that we British committed our fair share. You can't imagine we obtained and held an empire by being nice!

 

Of course most rational Europeans are against many aspects of the current US foreign policy. So are most rational Americans who are fully informed of it. But the reason has nothing to do with levels of atrocities. These are infinitesimal compared with those perpetrated by many other nations - Germany, Japan, Serbia, Rwanda, Sudan etc. etc to name but a few. This argument has no basis in reality and it does you no credit to repeat it.

 

I would however take issue with Peregrine's statement that the oil in Iraq belongs to the US. I hope it is tongue in cheek because it is precisely the kind of comment that alienates the rest of the world from the US. It's often followed up by 'we in the US don't care what the rest of the world thinks'. And this neatly answers the question Karasuman originally raised (but later edited out and which promped my first reply) as to why, on the whole, the rest of the world don't like US foreign policy.

[Karasuman]

"btw, i dont give a damn about the "facts" as numbers are meaningless when you look closely at the brutal, savage way the american "liberators" treated civilians in all wars"

 

lol Oh god.... Are you really this blind and stupid? Seriously? Are you? If we're dragging "all wars" into this, Malchik brings up a point which I was actually going to make mention of in my last post, though I had already strayed enough from the topic. I'm glad he brought it up though. How we "treat civilians in all wars" eh? You live in the most historically imperialistic nation on the face of the planet (save maybe for Rome). In fact, if memory serves me, the very nation you're sitting here ranting on about was pretty heavily oppressed by yours for years before gaining independence. Let's leave other wars out of this. Your statements about the US in "all wars" are made in complete hypocritical ignorance of the evils your own country has committed in its much longer history of wars.

 

Second, numbers are meaningless? What the hell are you talking about? So, those mass numbers of people murdered by Germany and Japan are just fine by you huh? I guess those are merely petty details as long as you get the opportunity to vilify the US a little, right? I imagine it takes one gigantic-ass rug to sweep 20 million dead civilians under it while making your brain-dead arguments.

 

What else, what else...Oh!

 

"Its better to have a thousand "fair" deaths than to have one backstabbed death, ie using the nuke"

 

i.e. gas chamber

 

i.e. ovens

 

i.e. firing squad

 

i.e. burying alive

 

i.e. starving

 

You forgot those. Spare everyone the lesson about fair deaths in WW2.

[Switch]

Must I forever be babysitting these threads? Heretic, please take your trolling/flamey extreme opinions elsewhere. I removed your latest post. And guys, just because someone's behaving kind of foolishly, doesn't mean you get to shoot them down in a bombardment of trolling/flaming. Please don't do that.

 

Let's get this back on-topic shall we? ;)