What is your opinion about Brits?

Remove all ads!

The Atom bomb was needed to stop the war but really i think there were two things that the Americans fucked up:
1) why did they have to bomb two cities. surely the devestating effect of the Hiroshima bomb should have made them realise that they really did not stand a chance.
was this just them wanting to test the two different types of bomb in a very sick way. to be honest i would not put it past the US government!
2)Why could they not have just dropped them in the sea very near to japan. At the very least drop it on a harbor that has a military base. As far as i could see it the japs were losing and would have realised it if they had just dropped the bomb within veiwing range.

ps) jesus sir how old are you?

 

I don't think you brits are poshk, I just think you are a noisy bunch who thinks a little too high of them selves..

 

Everyone like to talk about the A-bomb as if it where the ultimate destruction of civilians. Read up on what bomber harris did to germany. More people died in dresden than at hiroshima or nagasaki. (ok, yeah, the long term radiation deaths probably killed more in the long run)
But the difference is that the soviet union was 3 days from taking dresden. It probably didn't shorten the war by a single day, but Using the A-bomb did save millions of lives.

Secondly, as to why we didn't help any sooner in WII, in 1939 we had the 17th largest military in the world. only 100,000 men total and we were threatened in the pacific. Not much we could have done if we had wanted too.

tens of thousands of americans did die before our entry into the war tho. They where merchants marines.

As far as world war one, not a single battle was fought on german soil. The french troops had revolted once already and their commanders where scared to try to push them into any large offensives. Even though we only lost a little under 50,000 men compared to the horrible loses suffered by european nations, the hundreds of thousands of fresh american troops ready to fight proved to the Kaiser that the war was un-winable. neither one of these wars was won by any one nation, but maybe the fact that we were the nail in the coffin is why we take credit for that one.

Sure, germany was on the ropes. But how many british/comonwealth troops would have died if you had tried to push too berlin in those days?

 

Hello! Exactly how did the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "save millins of lives"? Please talk me through that one!

VE day was 4 months earlier, Africa effectively 2 years. The Japs were pinned back on their own shores.

I know pride and honour, however misplaced, make it hard for Japan to accept defeat, but I really would like to see how the dropping of the A-bombs actually saved a single life in WWII. Perhaps a few American lives admittedly, but 150,000 or so dead minimum toll, was perhaps a bit more than required to make the Emperor see sense?

I would second that a suitable demonstration would probably have had the same effect without the death toll. I would unreservedly dipute your assertion that the bombing saved millions.

 

It ended the war faster than conventional means...The estimated casualities from an assault of Japan's home island's and its' occupation was nearly 4 million (for both sides), and would have taken 2 to 3 years.

So, in a warped, twisted kind of way...The A-Bomb probably saved live in the long run. The only time in history that will probably ever be said.

 

the minimum estimated casualties for an invasion of japan where 150,000 thousand americans. that says nothing of the number of japanese that would have died. overall we'd been killing them at a three to one ratio.

The dropping of the bomb WAS about alot more than ending the war quickly. It was also a calculated move to scare the soviets. To show the world we had it and weren't afraid to use it. That is in no way a justification, it's just the truth.

We could have just dumped a couple hundred million into arms for the chinese, given them all of our troop transports, and let them take revenge for the japanese atrocities(sp) in china. Would that have been more humane?

 

What is humane? Hmm. First of all, all things concidered, I don't want to condem the use of the a-bomb. Japan still had more than two million men under arms.

Now, what I want to condem is the citybusting, which took place in Germany. (It also happend in Japan, but I don't know so much about that theatre.) With the bombing of Hamburg, Berlin and some other cities, the allies attacked some targets with no military value. This has noting to do with conventional warfare, and the bombing never did have any effect on the fighting will of the germans.

 

The A-bomb v Invasion of Japan is a slightly irrelevant argument unless it is perceived that invasion would be the only way to end the war. Clearly it wasn't. The point was really that there would have been less harrowing ways to demonstrate "the power behind the button" so to speak, eg flattening one of their smaller islands rather than a couple of cities. It may or may not have worked I'd agree, but might have been appropriate to give it a go. However, I will of course accept it was war, and as such, some forms of civilised behaviour do seem to go out of the window. I also believe the actual scale of devestation caught everyone by a certain amount of surprise.

I think the flattening of German cities towards the end of WWII had more to with a) ensuring the advantage was pressed home, and b) revenge to a certain degree, than true military goals.

Having rabitted on here I suppose we should all stop to take the time to appreciate the sacrifices made and losses suffered by our grandparents and great grandparents generation in WWII, and although some of the things that happened towards the end of the war on the allied side may by today's standards in more peaceful times (at least for most of us), seem barbaric, over the top etc. I for one still appreciate what they did, and the result even at a certain cost at the end of the day. In the same boat, I'm pretty sure we would all have been prepared to do whatever it might have taken.

The world may not be perfect or even remotely so, but it's a hell of a lot better than it would have been had the allied forces not prevailed against the axis.

 

Citybusting by the allies? Kind of like the rocket attacks and bombings of London during the Blitz...Again, I think that was retribution for the same terror tactics the Nazi's used to try and break the Brits.

Not our finest hour...But how does that saying go? "All's fair in love and war?"

Let's just hope none of us has to go through a war of that magnitude ever again.

 

It's a little more like a line from a gangster movie. "He pulls a knife, we pull a gun, he sends one of ours to the hospital, we send of his to the morgue"
Please don't misunderstand. Only two americans have every died from enemy arial bombing in the continental US, maybe it's something I don't understand correctly.
But the blitz PALES in comparision to the number of german civilians killed in WWII.
no reason to look for justification for the evil our nations commit in times of war. Just learn from it and try to make things different in the future.

 

Here's a funny one. Both sides during the world war was producing secret weapons. The allies had the nuclear bomb, while the germans had the V2 rocket.

Now, guess what the japanese invented. A hot air baloon, which where to be send over allied cities, so it could start fires. There were reports of small forest fires in southern california.

 

Actually eastern oregeon. In fact, the only two people killed in the continental US by enemy bombing, where killed about 2 years after the war when they where picnicing and one of those balloon delivered incindiary bombs went off.

The japanese had also used biological weapons. In china, they fed children choclates covered in anthrax. They also had plague bombs made out of clay, filled with infected fleas.

The alternate american plan, before the A-bomb was finished, was to gas all major japanese cities using their use of Biological warfare as an excuse to use chemical warfare.