NationStates Jolt Archive

I started this thread because it is my favourite topic and the thing above all that interests me most. Post here anything you know, find out or would like to know about things leading up to, during and immediately after World War Two. Then anyone who wants to can discuss what anyone has written.

As a general question about your poll. What do you mean by "Who should have won..." do you mean which side we prefered? Or do you about some seriously dirty tricks?

The war should have never happened. The allies should have squashed Germany in 38 when they had the chance.

Suppose I should get things started here. Such a huge length of time with so many details that it is hard to find somewhere to start so i'm going to start near the beginning. It is my personal opinion that the Nazis would never have come to power and thus World War Two never happening, had the victors of World War One not inflicted such a harsh peace treaty on Germany. Also had the depression not occured, the German people would have been better off and not sided with the Nazis. Appeasement also allowed Germany to grow stronger and the rest of Europe grow weaker. Czechoslovakia would have been able to hold Germany off for quite a while but it was sacrificed for peace. Polands armed forces was a joke on the whole but dont get me wrong, I know that in several cases Germany was outfought. In the end the German armed forces were victorious because of their superior leadership, strength, equipment and overall, were just much better than the Poles. Don't say the Germans outnumbered the Poles because their numbers were very similar and if anything the Poles had more men. A source I found put the number of Germans at 1.5 million and the Poles at 1.8 million. Some may argue that the Soviets invasion on the 27th of September may have played a part but personally I think it was already over by then.

As a general question about your poll. What do you mean by "Who should have won..." do you mean which side we prefered? Or do you about some seriously dirty tricks?

It's sort of up to you what to make of it. You could take it as if you think the world should have been better off had ... won the war or if looking at military power etc who you think should have won had military mistakes not been made (invasion of Soviet Union without taking care of Britain first) etc.

Looking at WWII from an Axis/Allies perspective seems to be missing the point somewhat to me: instead view it as a totalitarian/anti-totalitarian power struggle and we can see that its roots lie clearly in the SCW and it is yet too early to declare a victor.

The war should have never happened. The allies should have squashed Germany in 38 when they had the chance.

I guess by this you mean Czechoslovakia. Yes it would have been interesting had Czechoslovakia invade Germany or Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Depending on how the first week went, I would say that possibly Poland, France and maybe Britain would have joined in too. Most likely on the side of Czechoslovakia. Had this happened then I agree that Germany would have been defeated in 1938, if not very early 1939.

You seem to be laying all the blame at the victors feet. However when you compare Versailles to Brest-Litovsk[?] it is doubtful that Germany who have been any more compasionate then the Allies. Also it was the German 'old boys club' (President Hindenburg[?], von Papen et al) that made Hitler Chancellor in the first place. It was their opinion that Hitler could get rid of the KPD in particular and the left in general, and after he could easily be shunted out as easily as he had been moved in. Not saying that the allies weren't culpable for the rise of Hitler, but it is not only them.

It was also possible that a united left could have successfully beaten the Nazis, but it was Soviet policy that no Communist [by which I mean Soviet style Communist] parties should help other left wing parties, which left the left seriously fragmented and unable to front a proper resistence.





NB: It has been a while since I have studied this so some names might be wrong.

I wonder how so many people could possibly, in their right minds, say war should have never broken out. Remember that if it weren't for that war, Hitler and his pals would have stayed in power and killed off even more people than they did. I like the way history turned out though, with the allies winning and all. I also seem to be the first one to vote allies. Who voted axis?

I agree that my poll question is poorly written but can we just ignore the fact and write about why I started this thread, World War Two.

I wonder how so many people could possibly, in their right minds, say war should have never broken out. Remember that if it weren't for that war, Hitler and his pals would have stayed in power and killed off even more people than they did. I like the way history turned out though, with the allies winning and all. I also seem to be the first one to vote allies. Who voted axis?
Surely for the sake of consistency some one against WWII would also be against WWI which laid most of the groudwork for the rise of the Nazis?

I wonder how so many people could possibly, in their right minds, say war should have never broken out. Remember that if it weren't for that war, Hitler and his pals would have stayed in power and killed off even more people than they did. I like the way history turned out though, with the allies winning and all. I also seem to be the first one to vote allies. Who voted axis?

Had war never broken out, not even close to that many people would have died. A huge percentage of the Jew, disabled people, Gypsies, Communists and politicians etc who were murdered by the Nazis were from Eastern Europe, in particular Poland. Yes the jews in Germany would have been killed but it is a very small number compared to the millions during the war.
I voted for Axis but in no way do I support the brutal murder of innocent civilians. I voted for the fact of military power and early successes by the Axis. If mistakes made in the middle of the war had not happened than an Axis victory may not have been far from happening.

You seem to be laying all the blame at the victors feet. However when you compare Versailles to Brest-Litovsk[?] it is doubtful that Germany who have been any more compasionate then the Allies. Also it was the German 'old boys club' (President Hindenburg[?], von Papen et al) that made Hitler Chancellor in the first place. It was their opinion that Hitler could get rid of the KPD in particular and the left in general, and after he could easily be shunted out as easily as he had been moved in. Not saying that the allies weren't culpable for the rise of Hitler, but it is not only them.

It was also possible that a united left could have successfully beaten the Nazis, but it was Soviet policy that no Communist [by which I mean Soviet style Communist] parties should help other left wing parties, which left the left seriously fragmented and unable to front a proper resistence.





NB: It has been a while since I have studied this so some names might be wrong.

The whole versailles caused WWII theory is not that attractive in my view. MOst of the onerous provisions - those relating to repararations - had been repudiated before hitler rose to power or the collapse of the Weimar.

Of course these days it is fashionable to claim that the "dismemberment" of germany was the root cause, but this is a crock, becuase with the exception of the danzig corridor, Germany (which was less than 100 years old at the time of Versailles) wasn't really dismembered at all. In fact the Austro-Hungarian Empire fared far worse (as did the Ottomans), but you don't see the same kind of rise in militarism in either of those countries. Indeed Turkey was a friendly neutral to the allies.

I believe that a victory for the Axis would have been more than easy to achieve had they no attacked Russia. Russia was in the war for the same reason as the other Axis members, to expand their country and influence. If Hitler would have offered Russia a place in the Axis instead of attacking them the Axis would have won WWII.

Looking at WWII from an Axis/Allies perspective seems to be missing the point somewhat to me: instead view it as a totalitarian/anti-totalitarian power struggle and we can see that its roots lie clearly in the SCW and it is yet too early to declare a victor.


Well except two of the Big five were, in fact, totalitarian states themselves. WWII can only be sensibly viewed as an Allied/Axis struggle. Any anti-totalitarian theme is purely a hangover from propaganda of the time.

In fact, but for diplomatic bungling over Abysinia, there could very well have been a Fascist nation on the Allied team.

The war should have never happened. The allies should have squashed Germany in 38 when they had the chance.

Yep they should've but then the League of Nations, most notably Britain and France, went with appeasement and we've all seen how that turned out.

As for who should've won, the allies would've won even if it was just the Soviet Union. If it was just the Soviet Union fighting, then Western Europe would be very different. Germany had no chance of winning.

Now we move to the pacific! Japan should've defeated us there but they made one serious mistake, well two. The first was underestimating our resolve in fighting. The second one was not bombing the oil fields there as well as invading Hawaii. They should've done this and it is my opinion that Japan probably would've won the war.

The whole versailles caused WWII theory is not that attractive in my view. MOst of the onerous provisions - those relating to repararations - had been repudiated before hitler rose to power or the collapse of the Weimar.

Of course these days it is fashionable to claim that the "dismemberment" of germany was the root cause, but this is a crock, becuase with the exception of the danzig corridor, Germany (which was less than 100 years old at the time of Versailles) wasn't really dismembered at all. In fact the Austro-Hungarian Empire fared far worse (as did the Ottomans), but you don't see the same kind of rise in militarism in either of those countries. Indeed Turkey was a friendly neutral to the allies.

I think one of the major parts of the Treaty Of Versailles was the part which gave the blame of World War One to Germany. Yes Germany was a major part in prolonging the war and bringing Britain, France, Belgium and others into the war but war had already broken out before Germany joined.

Of course these days it is fashionable to claim that the "dismemberment" of germany was the root cause, but this is a crock, becuase with the exception of the danzig corridor, Germany (which was less than 100 years old at the time of Versailles) wasn't really dismembered at all. In fact the Austro-Hungarian Empire fared far worse (as did the Ottomans), but you don't see the same kind of rise in militarism in either of those countries. Indeed Turkey was a friendly neutral to the allies.
I understand what you say about reparations (I know about that and agree with you). The 'dismemberment' point you bring is interesting, I have never thought of it like that (but agree with on that too).

However in the early days of Nazism the British or French could have easily crushed Hitler while we was still in the process of invading smaller nations thus ending Nazism before it could get a good foothold.

Yep they should've but then the League of Nations, most notably Britain and France, went with appeasement and we've all seen how that turned out.

The League of Nations was a lame duck by then (always had been, but it had become fairly apparent by that point). Considering that it had been undermined by events that it acted far to slowly for (most notably Abbysinia)

I believe that a victory for the Axis would have been more than easy to achieve had they no attacked Russia. Russia was in the war for the same reason as the other Axis members, to expand their country and influence. If Hitler would have offered Russia a place in the Axis instead of attacking them the Axis would have won WWII.

That's a tough one. It's true that if the Nazi's had been able to move the entire wieght of effort they spent on Barbarossa to N. Africa and the Balkans/Greece/Middle east, they may well have been able to take egypt, cut suez and sieze Middle Eastern Oil.

Of course this assumes they could scare up the Naval capacity and man-lift to do so from thin air.

Also, by 41 the threat of invasion had passed for the UK, assuming that the US still enters, and given the state of Nazi progress on the A-Bomb, I rather imagine that WWII would have ended in some form of nuclear holocaust in Germany.

Don't forget though that the USSR is not the innocent party that everyone portrays it to be. Hitler was forced to move upon them because of disputes over Romanian territory (although he had probably always inteded to anyway). Nevertheless the great bear did provole the germans.

The League of Nations was a lame duck by then (always had been, but it had become fairly apparent by that point). Considering that it had been undermined by events that it acted far to slowly for (most notably Abbysinia)

Yea and they also failed to enforce resolutions that they passed and that they had to teeth to enforce too.

Yep they should've but then the League of Nations, most notably Britain and France, went with appeasement and we've all seen how that turned out.

As for who should've won, the allies would've won even if it was just the Soviet Union. If it was just the Soviet Union fighting, then Western Europe would be very different. Germany had no chance of winning.

Now we move to the pacific! Japan should've defeated us there but they made one serious mistake, well two. The first was underestimating our resolve in fighting. The second one was not bombing the oil fields there as well as invading Hawaii. They should've done this and it is my opinion that Japan probably would've won the war.

Japan did not have the ability to do either of those things. The amazing speed in which the captured the pacific islands bellonging to the Americans and British was a feat that stunned the world. They also underestimated our economy which was jumpstarted by the war.

I believe that a victory for the Axis would have been more than easy to achieve had they no attacked Russia. Russia was in the war for the same reason as the other Axis members, to expand their country and influence. If Hitler would have offered Russia a place in the Axis instead of attacking them the Axis would have won WWII.

True about being much easier to win had they not attacked Russia. As it happened Hitler was a complete moron when it came to war and the military and no matter how much his generals tole him it was imposible, his fellow Nazi fools told him propoganda and said it was possible. They too had no idea what war was really like. By other axis members you make it sound as Russia was in the Axis. Hitler never would have offered them a place in the Axis and Russia never would have accepted.

Well except two of the Big five were, in fact, totalitarian states themselves. WWII can only be sensibly viewed as an Allied/Axis struggle. Any anti-totalitarian theme is purely a hangover from propaganda of the time.

I'm not denying this, but I'm also not just limiting the view to the period between 1939 and 1945. The point is that axis/allies holds little relevance to the world of today compared to totalitarian/anti-totalitarian.

However in the early days of Nazism the British or French could have easily crushed Hitler while we was still in the process of invading smaller nations thus ending Nazism before it could get a good foothold.
However there was the problem that Germany had not yet resigned from the LoN (were they put on the Security Council? I forget), or the fact that the Nazis were the largest democratically elected party in the Reichstag.

The political and diplomatic Fallout would have been, interesting to say the least

I think one of the major parts of the Treaty Of Versailles was the part which gave the blame of World War One to Germany. Yes Germany was a major part in prolonging the war and bringing Britain, France, Belgium and others into the war but war had already broken out before Germany joined.

Yeah, but Hitler never really ran on the "blame" for world war II. To the Nazi's the shame of versailles was not that they "caused" WWI, but rather the armistice itself.

The Nazi's held to the myth that Germany was never really defeated in WWI, which it was, but rather it was betrayed by the politicians.

Japan did not have the ability to do either of those things. The amazing speed in which the captured the pacific islands bellonging to the Americans and British was a feat that stunned the world. They also underestimated our economy which was jumpstarted by the war.

Actually, they could've done it if the wanted too. They had the capacity to do so and I believe that they would've done so if it was offered. There is a very good book about this called The Day of Infamy by Harry Turtledove. It shows how they could've done it. I just love Alternate history.

Yeah, but Hitler never really ran on the "blame" for world war II. To the Nazi's the shame of versailles was not that they "caused" WWI, but rather the armistice itself.

The Nazi's held to the myth that Germany was never really defeated in WWI, which it was, but rather it was betrayed by the politicians.

I was refering to the German people who were angry over the "blame". You are right about the other stuff though.

I'm not denying this, but I'm also not just limiting the view to the period between 1939 and 1945. The point is that axis/allies holds little relevance to the world of today compared to totalitarian/anti-totalitarian.

That's true.

Almost everyone was more totalitarian after WWII. And has become increasingly so.

Do you realize before WWII, the US did not even have a branch of government involved in code-breaking, or electronic surveillance.

The CIA is really just the bastard child of the OSS. (Also the FBI saw a large increase in its "responsibilities" during this period.")

Likewise, after the war, the Atlee government apparently must have thought that some of the things Hitler did were cool, because they sure copied a lot of his policies.

Actually, they could've done it if the wanted too. They had the capacity to do so and I believe that they would've done so if it was offered. There is a very good book about this called The Day of Infamy by Harry Turtledove. It shows how they could've done it. I just love Alternate history.

Yeah isn't it great. I also believe that if a few things had gone the Japanese way then we would be speaking Japanese here in New Zealand rather than English.

One thing I do like are the cartoons during this period.

David Low On Appeasment (8th July, 1936) (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JlowSp.jpg)

There is also a really good one from Punch, but I cannot seem to find it.

Actually, they could've done it if the wanted too. They had the capacity to do so and I believe that they would've done so if it was offered. There is a very good book about this called The Day of Infamy by Harry Turtledove. It shows how they could've done it. I just love Alternate history.


Just remember though that Turtledove is a Byzantine historian. from what I understand his actual knowledge of a lot of the details of WWII can be sketchy.

There is no way that the japanese could ever have been sucessful in the Pacific. They had a lot of early sucess because they faced second line troops, who were basically place holders (There being other concerns in Europe at the time).

They ended up taking far more than they could hold, and the whole thing fell rather quickly at the end. As they discovered, the trouble with a see empire is the enemy can strike anywhere at any time. So to defend it you need an absouletly mammoth fleet. The US was crippling there shipping with subs (nice peice of hypocracy there eh?) and also was capable of outporducing Japanese naval construction at about a 10:1 ratio.

There is no way that the japanese could ever have been sucessful in the Pacific. They had a lot of early sucess because they faced second line troops, who were basically place holders (There being other concerns in Europe at the time).

They ended up taking far more than they could hold, and the whole thing fell rather quickly at the end. As they discovered, the trouble with a see empire is the enemy can strike anywhere at any time. So to defend it you need an absouletly mammoth fleet. The US was crippling there shipping with subs (nice peice of hypocracy there eh?) and also was capable of outporducing Japanese naval construction at about a 10:1 ratio.

Yeah but when they surrendered they still had most of the mainland territory they had captured. The coast of China, huge portions of Siam and Malaysia and Singapore. (Correct me if i'm wrong, the Pacific war is not my string point) The war would have gone on much longer (although Japan was completely screwed) because of "honour" and all that which the Japanese needed so badly, if the Americans hadn't nuked them. They only got so close to Japan because they used their "island hopping" tactic rather than recapturing the mainland.

I wonder if WW2 wouldn't have broken out, there would have bee a similar scenario with the USSR (think about Command & Conquer Red Alert)... I really could imagine that, and I wonder if the Allies would have been able to fight them back. The US became a military superpower during and after WW2, so the Sovjets would have had a fair chance to realize Hitler's "Blitzkrieg" by just overrunning the enemy...

Enough with the fantasy. I personally think if ANY European polititian at that time would have made the effort to read "Mein Kampf", which he had published before getting to power, they wouldn't have left him in office, either by political pressure or by an assassin.

Yeah isn't it great. I also believe that if a few things had gone the Japanese way then we would be speaking Japanese here in New Zealand rather than English.

Likewise here in the USA

Just remember though that Turtledove is a Byzantine historian. from what I understand his actual knowledge of a lot of the details of WWII can be sketchy.

There is no way that the japanese could ever have been sucessful in the Pacific. They had a lot of early sucess because they faced second line troops, who were basically place holders (There being other concerns in Europe at the time).

They ended up taking far more than they could hold, and the whole thing fell rather quickly at the end. As they discovered, the trouble with a see empire is the enemy can strike anywhere at any time. So to defend it you need an absouletly mammoth fleet. The US was crippling there shipping with subs (nice peice of hypocracy there eh?) and also was capable of outporducing Japanese naval construction at about a 10:1 ratio.

Also remember that they were at war with Britain and Australia and New Zealand as well as China and France of all nations before they were at war with the United States. Imagine if they never invaded China then attacked the US. They would've been able to do far more damage. Also, what if they didn't push South but concentrated solely on America? Do you still think that Japan would've lost the war? There are so many variables into winning and losing WWII that this could go on forever.

Yeah but when they surrendered they still had most of the mainland territory they had captured. The coast of China, huge portions of Siam and Malaysia and Singapore. (Correct me if i'm wrong, the Pacific war is not my string point) The war would have gone on much longer (although Japan was completely screwed) because of "honour" and all that which the Japanese needed so badly, if the Americans hadn't nuked them. They only got so close to Japan because they used their "island hopping" tactic rather than recapturing the mainland.


Yeah, that's pretty much about it. Britain got Burma back (actually the biggest land battle the Japanese ever fought was there in 44 and they got there clocks cleaned by Empire troops, who by that time were anything but second rank units.)

New Guniea was also retaken eraly on by the Aussies under MacArthur, (again the Japanese did not do so well against first line divisions that had been recalled from/delayed in shipping to Europe).

But at the end of the day, it was their lack of capability in defending key islands that left the seaward flank of the homw Islands vunerable to invasion/strategic bombing, and which was always going to cost them the war. Even if the US had never developed the bomb.

Tellingly however, outside of naval commitment on the US part, (and by August 1944, almost no naval power was needed in the European theater outside of convoy escort), the Pacific theater only recieved a fraction of the war effort that the European one did. Despite Japan being a neutral to the USSR until *I think* August 9 1945, when Stalin declared war.

Basically, the image of Japan as a great power comes from its rapid unopposed expansion. It's millitary organization was actually rather poor, and it's industrial capacity far behind the other major players. (Even italy).

They were dead brave though, apart from the prison guards.

Yeah but when they surrendered they still had most of the mainland territory they had captured. The coast of China, huge portions of Siam and Malaysia and Singapore. (Correct me if i'm wrong, the Pacific war is not my string point) The war would have gone on much longer (although Japan was completely screwed) because of "honour" and all that which the Japanese needed so badly, if the Americans hadn't nuked them. They only got so close to Japan because they used their "island hopping" tactic rather than recapturing the mainland.

This is actually accurate. The war was basically over in late 1944 to early 1945 but Japan refused to surrender because they would've lost face. I shudder everytime I think of invading Japan because it would've made Vietnam look like a walk over.

Likewise here in the USA
Nah, I think that's a too far catch. They didn't have the strength to invade the mainland. Maybe Hawaii but not the West Coast. Just try to build tanks on an island and ship them to the mainland: if the transporters don't get crushed, then they will get a big wellcome-present at the beach. They would have needed something like the D-Day offensive, with likewise more casualties.

Also remember that they were at war with Britain and Australia and New Zealand as well as China and France of all nations before they were at war with the United States. Imagine if they never invaded China then attacked the US. They would've been able to do far more damage. Also, what if they didn't push South but concentrated solely on America? Do you still think that Japan would've lost the war? There are so many variables into winning and losing WWII that this could go on forever.

They were at war with China from '31 though (on again off again). They had also just recently fought the USSR. If anything, it was Japan's mainland expansion that caused the embargo and threatened blockade that led to pearl harbor.

Britian, I believe declared war (as did Ausralia, Canada, NZ,) right after the US.

Nah, I think that's a too far catch. They didn't have the strength to invade the mainland. Maybe Hawaii but not the West Coast. Just try to build tanks on an island and ship them to the mainland: if the transporters don't get crushed, then they will get a big wellcome-present at the beach. They would have needed something like the D-Day offensive, with likewise more casualties.

Again, you also have the problem that they were at war with China, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. What if they didn't have a war with all of these nations. As for our tanks, the Germans showed how weak they were during Operation Torch and the drive across Morocco to meet up with General Monty of the British!

They were at war with China from '31 though (on again off again). They had also just recently fought the USSR. If anything, it was Japan's mainland expansion that caused the embargo and threatened blockade that led to pearl harbor.

Britian, I believe declared war (as did Ausralia, Canada, NZ,) right after the US.

Actually, once they joined the Axis powers, they were legally at war with whomever Germany was at war with except for the USSR because of a Non-Agression pact signed with them.

As for China, Manchuria fell first then they decided to take on China. Now if they didn't do that then they would've had more troops to toss against us. The casualties would've been worse AND they would've been able to defend what they took. China was Japan's downfall as was attacking the USA.

Again, you also have the problem that they were at war with China, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. What if they didn't have a war with all of these nations. As for our tanks, the Germans showed how weak they were during Operation Torch and the drive across Morocco to meet up with General Monty of the British!

I wonder if the Japanese ones were so much better. I mean, they didn't have much use for them in defence (except maybe the occupied territories in eastern Asia). Also, attacking the US would have triggered the Allies to declare war against them, maybe leaving their eastern border relatively unprotected against Russian/English invasion.

Considering I'm from an Axis state, I voted Axis.

Really, what I can't understand is that why Americans allied with bloodthirsty Communists instead of bloodthirsty capitalists, when there was a choice... Nazism was screwed, but it would've been a lesser evil compared to Communism. Germany doesn't exactly have virtually unlimited natural resources. Russia has. And of those two, only the Soviets were against the American or Western European political system. Alliance with the Soviets is like the more recent alliances with Saddam Hussein and Taliban plus Osama bin Laden.

Everyone's been forgetting that Hitler wanted to ally with the western nations in a fight against communism. Had they allied, communism would've been crushed before it got dangerous. Instead, the Cold War and Communist dictatorship over the Eastern Bloc followed. When USA did have a nuke, why didn't they nuke the Atomgrads? Why did they allow a nuclear threat to be built?

Hitler was nearly assassinated, because his fellow Nazis knew he was insane. Had they succeeded, the alternative history would've been a more moderate German leader, Western nations allying with him, and a fight against Communism.

Actually, once they joined the Axis powers, they were legally at war with whomever Germany was at war with except for the USSR because of a Non-Agression pact signed with them.

As for China, Manchuria fell first then they decided to take on China. Now if they didn't do that then they would've had more troops to toss against us. The casualties would've been worse AND they would've been able to defend what they took. China was Japan's downfall as was attacking the USA.

I'll have to check, but I am fairly sure that no state of war existed between the commonwealth and Japan before pearl harbor. Even though japan joined the axiz in mid to late 40, there were no hostilities in the pacific, and the japanese still had diplomatic relations with the UK etc.

I believe december 8, 1941 was when the commonwealth declared war upon the empire of japan.

In any event, it would have been unavoidable. After the attack on the US territory, the commonwealth was bound to declare in order to get US support in europe.

Japan never really had the naval power to threaten the US mainland.

I wonder if the Japanese ones were so much better. I mean, they didn't have much use for them in defence (except maybe the occupied territories in eastern Asia). Also, attacking the US would have triggered the Allies to declare war against them, maybe leaving their eastern border relatively unprotected against Russian/English invasion.

Not necessarily accurate. Remember that the US never really was part of the Alliance until Germany and Italy declared war on the US. Then we joined the Allied cause and that was with Britain and the USSR. What if the Germans and the Italians didn't declare war on us. Do you think they would've came in on our side?

Considering I'm from an Axis state, I voted Axis.

Germany, Italy, or Japan?

Really, what I can't understand is that why Americans allied with bloodthirsty Communists instead of bloodthirsty capitalists, when there was a choice... Nazism was screwed, but it would've been a lesser evil compared to Communism. Germany doesn't exactly have virtually unlimited natural resources. Russia has. And of those two, only the Soviets were against the American or Western European political system. Alliance with the Soviets is like the more recent alliances with Saddam Hussein and Taliban plus Osama bin Laden.

Welcome to Foriegn Relations where politics make strange bedfellows.

Everyone's been forgetting that Hitler wanted to ally with the western nations in a fight against communism. Had they allied, communism would've been crushed before it got dangerous. Instead, the Cold War and Communist dictatorship over the Eastern Bloc followed. When USA did have a nuke, why didn't they nuke the Atomgrads? Why did they allow a nuclear threat to be built?

Make a good point.

Hitler was nearly assassinated, because his fellow Nazis knew he was insane. Had they succeeded, the alternative history would've been a more moderate German leader, Western nations allying with him, and a fight against Communism.

Yep, and if that bomb was a tad closer to him, he would've died. If he did, WWII would've ended much sooner than it did.

I don't know if you ever thought about it, but there are many links between Napoleon and Hitler.
They both came from poor families.
They both were first democratically elected, then they threw over the system and declared themselves king/Führer.
They both took most of Middle Europe with relative ease.
They both fell because they took on Britain and Russia.
Russians both times effectively used the "scorched earth" tactic: withdraw without resistance, but leaving no supplies for the attackers to collect.
Both russian wins are highly owed to the long and cold winters.
For Nostradamus, they were the first two Antichrists.

I'll have to check, but I am fairly sure that no state of war existed between the commonwealth and Japan before pearl harbor. Even though japan joined the axiz in mid to late 40, there were no hostilities in the pacific, and the japanese still had diplomatic relations with the UK etc.

I believe december 8, 1941 was when the commonwealth declared war upon the empire of japan.

In any event, it would have been unavoidable. After the attack on the US territory, the commonwealth was bound to declare in order to get US support in europe.

Japan never really had the naval power to threaten the US mainland.

Actually check your naval facts. Japan had one of the world's best navy's. They actually had better planes, better carriers, better battleships and cruisers and destroyers than the US did at the start of the war so yea they did have the naval power to threaten the US Mainland. The reason why they didn't was because they failed at Hawaii.

Actually check your naval facts. Japan had one of the world's best navy's. They actually had better planes, better carriers, better battleships and cruisers and destroyers than the US did at the start of the war so yea they did have the naval power to threaten the US Mainland. The reason why they didn't was because they failed at Hawaii.

the IJN, ship for ship, was the best navy in the world in 1941 and 1942.... however, they didn't have sufficient merchant shipping or tankers to seriouslyt consider operations against the US West Coast, or the amphibious shipping needed (and the spare divisions) to take Oahu (which was defended by nearly 60,000 US combat troops including coast artillery, infantry and marines) and climate made operations against Alaska impossible at the time.

But the US Navy improved more rapidly and surpassed the Japanese by 1944 ship for ship plus was huge in comparision by that date.

Actually check your naval facts. Japan had one of the world's best navy's. They actually had better planes, better carriers, better battleships and cruisers and destroyers than the US did at the start of the war so yea they did have the naval power to threaten the US Mainland. The reason why they didn't was because they failed at Hawaii.

It's a difference in dates though.

By 45, the US shipbuilding program and Naval expansion had given the US the power to launch a cross pacific assualt. And the US pacific fleet by 45 was unlike anything the world had ever seen. It totally dominated everything.

In 41-42 the height of japan's naval power, Japan just did not have a comparable force. To launch an assualt of the US mainland would have been an unmitigated disaster. There is no way they could ever have mustered the air-superiorty in face on land based aircraft to have been sucessful. Also Japan lacked LSTs and the type of anphibious craft needed to actually make a sucessful assualt on the mainland proper. Though they probably could have opened a vunerable pocket in alaska. (Which would have been quickly starved).

They simply lacked the manlift, and the support shipping needed for that type of operation.

Also, I think midway shows, that despite having superior aircraft at that point, Japanese doctorine and damage control systems makes the issue as to whether or not their carrier force was actually superior, somewhat moot.

Actually check your naval facts. Japan had one of the world's best navy's. They actually had better planes, better carriers, better battleships and cruisers and destroyers than the US did at the start of the war so yea they did have the naval power to threaten the US Mainland. The reason why they didn't was because they failed at Hawaii.
You're forgetting an important issue: you can't throw over a country like the US with just a naval fleet. they could have bombed some big cities like LA or San Francisco, but that would have led to the withdrawal of american troops from Europe, directly dispatching them to japanese ground (maybe the occupied mainland); and than, they would have really su**ed. Especially because then the bomb wouldn't have targeted a relatively unimportant city like Hiroshima, but maybe even the capitol,Tokyo... Think the rest.

the IJN, ship for ship, was the best navy in the world in 1941 and 1942.... however, they didn't have sufficient merchant shipping or tankers to seriouslyt consider operations against the US West Coast, or the amphibious shipping needed (and the spare divisions) to take Oahu (which was defended by nearly 60,000 US combat troops including coast artillery, infantry and marines) and climate made operations against Alaska impossible at the time.

But the US Navy improved more rapidly and surpassed the Japanese by 1944 ship for ship plus was huge in comparision by that date.

Your right but they did have shipping capacity but the problem was, it was vulnerable to submarine warfare because the Japanese did not believe in the Convoy system that was adopted by the allies.

Now for the Japanese Navy, yes it was the best in the world. However, they never learned from mistakes. They didn't rescue their pilots whereas we did rescue ours so our pilots lived longer than theres. They lost alot of veterans during the air war in the Pacific because of this whereas our pilots were able to learn from their mistakes and became better.

You're forgetting an important issue: you can't throw over a country like the US with just a naval fleet. they could have bombed some big cities like LA or San Francisco, but that would have led to the withdrawal of american troops from Europe, directly dispatching them to japanese ground (maybe the occupied mainland); and than, they would have really su**ed. Especially because then the bomb wouldn't have targeted a relatively unimportant city like Hiroshima, but maybe even the capitol,Tokyo... Think the rest.

They would've had the ground forces if they didn't invade China. Gotta think in terms of ground and air forces. They could've done what they should've done if it wasn't for China.

Now as for nuking Tokyo, why would we nuke a city that was already worked over by incendiaries?

Your right but they did have shipping capacity but the problem was, it was vulnerable to submarine warfare because the Japanese did not believe in the Convoy system that was adopted by the allies.

Now for the Japanese Navy, yes it was the best in the world. However, they never learned from mistakes. They didn't rescue their pilots whereas we did rescue ours so our pilots lived longer than theres. They lost alot of veterans during the air war in the Pacific because of this whereas our pilots were able to learn from their mistakes and became better.

Also it took years to train a japanese naval pilot, unlike the US where it took months.

Which is why they sucked so much ass after a few battles. (See we could afford to loose 5-1 at the begining).

The japanese never understood damage control either.

They also had two carriers with Islands on the port side. I mean really now, what were they thinking?

Also it took years to train a japanese naval pilot, unlike the US where it took months.

Which is why they sucked so much ass after a few battles. (See we could afford to loose 5-1 at the begining).

The japanese never understood damage control either.

They also had two carriers with Islands on the port side. I mean really now, what were they thinking?

But yet they were superior carrier pilots. They had more of them than we did and for our carriers, we had to learn carrier tactics really fast. They didn't! Also, at Midway, we got lucky when we caught them with their pants down with fuel laden planes and bombs on the flight deck. What if that didn't happen, how would the battle have turned out?

Also remember that they were at war with Britain and Australia and New Zealand as well as China and France of all nations before they were at war with the United States. Imagine if they never invaded China then attacked the US. They would've been able to do far more damage. Also, what if they didn't push South but concentrated solely on America? Do you still think that Japan would've lost the war? There are so many variables into winning and losing WWII that this could go on forever.
You have to remember that the US supplied almost all of Japans oil before the war started. The Japanese needed to push south to capture some oil fields. Otherwise I do not believe they would have been able to make it past hawaii. If the US can always pull something off it is mass production. The Japanese would have needed an amazing number of troops, ships and planes to pull off a successful invasion of the US. The Bombing of the harbor was only good to stall the US, while they captured all the resources they needed.

If these three things never happend Nazi Germany would rule alot of the world today. 1: The Japanese attacking Pearl Harber and being allied with Germany. 2: Invaiding the Soviet Union. If the the Soviet Union were still apart of the axis they would have had a advantage and the Axis Powers would have had a death grip on the allies. 3: Invaiding Africa, Germany spread too many of their men and vital resources.

But yet they were superior carrier pilots. They had more of them than we did and for our carriers, we had to learn carrier tactics really fast. They didn't! Also, at Midway, we got lucky when we caught them with their pants down with fuel laden planes and bombs on the flight deck. What if that didn't happen, how would the battle have turned out?


Oh no doubt that catching them at that moment was fortuitious. But that was my point about damage control and poor doctorine. The US navy didn't let planes sit on decks in that condition, they would form up the wave in the air. (Which reduced striking range, but was worth it in terms of safety).

Frankly, if that hadn't happened, midway would have ended like coral sea. A strategic draw, and tatical victory for the japanese. It probably shortened the war by a year, as after that it put japan back on the defensive.

But japan just did not have the ship building program to compete. The USN would have still been cleaning clock by late 44.

(Probably if midway had been worse, we would have just ignored dugout doug and bypassed the philappenes too).

And I agree that the IJN pilots were much better at the outset of the war. Arguably they were the best pilots in the world. Unfortunately, world war II was more about quantity than quality. Which is why 56,000 shitty shermans drove back axis armor.

Oh no doubt that catching them at that moment was fortuitious. But that was my point about damage control and poor doctorine. The US navy didn't let planes sit on decks in that condition, they would form up the wave in the air. (Which reduced striking range, but was worth it in terms of safety).

Frankly, if that hadn't happened, midway would have ended like coral sea. A strategic draw, and tatical victory for the japanese. It probably shortened the war by a year, as after that it put japan back on the defensive.

But japan just did not have the ship building program to compete. The USN would have still been cleaning clock by late 44.

(Probably if midway had been worse, we would have just ignored dugout doug and bypassed the philappenes too).

And I agree that the IJN pilots were much better at the outset of the war. Arguably they were the best pilots in the world. Unfortunately, world war II was more about quantity than quality. Which is why 56,000 shitty shermans drove back axis armor.
Remember that US entrance in the war the nazis were running low on fuel. Soviets had lots and lots of oil fields, mainland europe has jack and thats all the nazis conquered, well parts of africa but only the desert there.

Oh no doubt that catching them at that moment was fortuitious. But that was my point about damage control and poor doctorine. The US navy didn't let planes sit on decks in that condition, they would form up the wave in the air. (Which reduced striking range, but was worth it in terms of safety).


Yes, but it must be remembered that the Japanese aircraft were only on deck because they were preparing to take-off, thats why a few of their aircraft were able to make it airbourne before all were destroyed. There were just to few though to make any real difference to the US numbers that were eventually called into the area.

Oh no doubt that catching them at that moment was fortuitious. But that was my point about damage control and poor doctorine. The US navy didn't let planes sit on decks in that condition, they would form up the wave in the air. (Which reduced striking range, but was worth it in terms of safety).

They also didn't spot those planes that bombed them until it was to late. They thought the raid that brought the fighter cover down was the last of it. That raid that struck the Akagi, Kaga, and Soryo were planes that got lost and at the last second before turning back, found the carriers and bombed them. It really wasn't so much damage control that killed the carrier but the damage inflicted on the ships.

Frankly, if that hadn't happened, midway would have ended like coral sea. A strategic draw, and tatical victory for the japanese. It probably shortened the war by a year, as after that it put japan back on the defensive.

I don't think it would've. In reality, they lost very few fighter planes and carrier bombers. They lost those on the Carrier decks. When they found the Enterprise, it was after they lost the three carriers mentioned above. If they had all 4 carriers, I think they would've taken Midway. Also, don't forget that if it wasn't for our Pacific Intel Commander who devised the messege that confirmed Midway, we would've fallen for the trap instead of laying a trap. Then how would the battle have turned out?

But japan just did not have the ship building program to compete. The USN would have still been cleaning clock by late 44.

Your right they didn't because they didn't quickly end the war. They didn't knock the US Pacific Fleet totally out of the water at Pearl Harbor. They didn't bomb the oil fields at Pearl Harbor and if they did that, they would've been able to do far more than they did prior to Coral Sea and Midway.

(Probably if midway had been worse, we would have just ignored dugout doug and bypassed the philappenes too).

I'll take your word for it because I have no idea in this case.

And I agree that the IJN pilots were much better at the outset of the war. Arguably they were the best pilots in the world. Unfortunately, world war II was more about quantity than quality. Which is why 56,000 shitty shermans drove back axis armor.

Our tanks got better and Patton had something to do with the Axis tank defeat. Patton and Rommel were arguably the best tank commanders of WWII!

I'm going to say something that hopefully won't be taken as insulting in any way, shape, or form.

We should have dropped the bomb on Moscow. Had we done this, with old Uncle Joe in the house of course, we could have stopped the majority of the Cold War from happeneing. And with most of the Soviet leadership dead or dying, I'm quite certain nothing nasty liek the iron curtain would ever have happened.

So, again, with no offense meant, would it have been good for us to do this? Bad? Note, of course, that this is before the USSR got the plans from us and built their own nukes.

Japan did have an extremely powerful Navy, but it was greatly crippled at the Battle of Midway, and not having the production ability the United States had this relatively early battle really did help shape the outcome of the Pacific Theater. And i do believe that Japan was starting to accept defeat before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one of the reasons for the great controversy of the bombings.

As for the European theater, France was the dominant Country at the time, they had a bigger Army then Germany and could have easily destroyed it if they actually invaded Germany as opposed to submitting themselves to the "Phony War." And I personally like to add no singular Western European nation or the U.S really did not do much militarily to win the war on this front. Conversely the Russians, despite their somewhat lacking military ability did feel the brunt of German forces on their own (60-70%). And I do hate to say it but Stalin does deserve some credit for this. Granted he was nearly capitulated and did some stupid things, Great Purge , but he finally got his head out of his butt (getting able generals from jail from Great Purge) and let his able Generals do what they had to do. But enough can't be said about the Allies, especially the U.S. providing Russia with the materials they needed to sustain was with Germany.

But when talking of WWII I do not like talking about what may have happened purely since their were so many factors which could have completely altered the War. Hitler demanding bombs be dropped on London as opposed to airfields, the lack of a long range bomber in the Luftwaffe, an invasion of Hawaii as opposed to a mere bombing, etc. There is just too much to think about, and I'm personally happy with the eventual outcome.

And if any of these facts are misconstrued I am writing from what I remember from the books which I have read. So if I remember a fact wrong please correct me but in a benevolent way, I'm fragile.

Your right but they did have shipping capacity but the problem was, it was vulnerable to submarine warfare because the Japanese did not believe in the Convoy system that was adopted by the allies.

Now for the Japanese Navy, yes it was the best in the world. However, they never learned from mistakes. They didn't rescue their pilots whereas we did rescue ours so our pilots lived longer than theres. They lost alot of veterans during the air war in the Pacific because of this whereas our pilots were able to learn from their mistakes and became better.

they also failed to train nearly enough pilots either... James Dunnigan's book on the War in the Pacific is an excellent look at the overall picture (and is easy to read) and Samuel Elliot Morrison is the best history of the US Navy to read

Patton was rather overrated in my opinion...

Don't have enough time to read through all posts, so sorry if already mentioned.


Allies should have won (as they did) BUT eastern european countries had to suffer more than they should have. They had to pay a lot of compensations to Soviet Union eventhough they weren't fighting against them. Also Baltic countries should have remained independent. There were no reason why Soviet Union were allowed to occupy those nations. (They were on German's side, but still).

Finland paid compensations too, but atleast we were at war against Soviet Union.

Don't have enough time to read through all posts, so sorry if already mentioned.


Allies should have won (as they did) BUT eastern european countries had to suffer more than they should have. They had to pay a lot of compensations to Soviet Union eventhough they weren't fighting against them. Also Baltic countries should have remained independent. There were no reason why Soviet Union were allowed to occupy those nations. (They were on German's side, but still).

Finland paid compensations too, but atleast we were at war against Soviet Union.

Probably because the "victors" were too tired from war and too weak to bother to stop the Soviet Union. Actually they were not on Germanys side. Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria sort of were but didn't really do a lot. They turned on Germany as the Soviets approached though.

Don't have enough time to read through all posts, so sorry if already mentioned.


Allies should have won (as they did) BUT eastern european countries had to suffer more than they should have. They had to pay a lot of compensations to Soviet Union eventhough they weren't fighting against them. Also Baltic countries should have remained independent. There were no reason why Soviet Union were allowed to occupy those nations. (They were on German's side, but still).

Finland paid compensations too, but atleast we were at war against Soviet Union.

The Finns weren't actually very useful to the German war effort, since they refused to advance beyond the territories the Soviets seized in the Winter War.

The Finns weren't actually very useful to the German war effort, since they refused to advance beyond the territories the Soviets seized in the Winter War.

Well they successfully bogged the Soviets down and drew men from the border with Germany which possibly made the original German advances easier.

The Finns weren't actually very useful to the German war effort, since they refused to advance beyond the territories the Soviets seized in the Winter War.
Ehhh....
Finns did advance quite far from their borders. All the way to Lake Odega
(you can check it from a map, e.g. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War)
But we weren't really useful to germans. That's true. We never even wanted to be. But we had to choose our side and the options weren't really good.

You know that in the end of the war Finland was fighting against Germans in Lappland.

We should have dropped the bomb on Moscow. Had we done this, with old Uncle Joe in the house of course, we could have stopped the majority of the Cold War from happeneing. And with most of the Soviet leadership dead or dying, I'm quite certain nothing nasty liek the iron curtain would ever have happened.


Just curious...You know allied forces desperately needed all the help from Soviet Union to win the war? On what bases you would have nuked Moscow?

I'm new and just stating what I think befor I get into the debate.

either side had the means and the will. just like in life, what really counted was who you knew. The British knew Canada who manufactured a vast amount of aircraft. The french knew the Maquis, heck that was there way of saying that the people will never give in. Germany almost went in alone in my oppinion. There allies could have only helped for so long before running out of steam. In my opinion the Americans saved europe the trouble of finishing the Axis off. I concede that without america it would have lasted much longer though.

Remember Production is key to war. Germany had very little left in the end. as for america ever being taken over. it's a big place and big ,means hard to defend. a lot of troops and tanks would be needed, but the cities would be difficult to defend.

I also agree that the small powers that were involved did more then they are given credit for.

And yes why nuke moscow? they had to get rid of a threat remember.

[QUOTE=Samtonia]We should have dropped the bomb on Moscow. Had we done this, with old Uncle Joe in the house of course, we could have stopped the majority of the Cold War from happeneing. And with most of the Soviet leadership dead or dying, I'm quite certain nothing nasty liek the iron curtain would ever have happened.QUOTE]

Could have said the same thing on Washington to avoid the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to save thousands of lives but please dont follow up on this. Lets keep this thread World War Two related.

thats a good point New Maastricht.

Who would you nuke first, the threat or the dosile lamb? i belive this example proves my point.

thats a good point New Maastricht.

Who would you nuke first, the threat or the dosile lamb? i belive this example proves my point.

In an attempt to bring this back to World War Two, I will attempt to start off from nowhere yet again. In early 1945 when everyone knew Germany was all but defeated, many high ranked Germans attempted to make peace with the US, Britain and France. The deal they offered was that if peace was made between them, Germany was allowed to keep some gains (not sure but I think the low counties and parts of Poland and Austria etc) and in return Germany would allow Allied bases in Germany for a war against the Soviet Union to defeat communism before it could become too poweful. They offerered Germany would continue to fight too. Of course Hitler refused this and while he was still alive it was not possible but i'm interested in knowing why the Allies declined the offer anyway. I understand that they wanted the remove Hitler from power and free the nations Germany had invaded but Germany was at that time very weak. I would have thought that the Soviet Union was much more of a threat and the Allies would have been thinking while they still had some power left and the chance of a somewhat powerful nation bordering the Soviet Union, that would have been a priority.

As a general question about your poll. What do you mean by "Who should have won..." do you mean which side we prefered? Or do you about some seriously dirty tricks?
yeah dead on the button
Id say Axis because Italy had a gripe about not getting enough after WWI
Germany because they got shafted by Versailles even though they didnt lose.

In any case New Zealand won World War Two
We proped the Brits up :p

In an attempt to bring this back to World War Two, I will attempt to start off from nowhere yet again. In early 1945 when everyone knew Germany was all but defeated, many high ranked Germans attempted to make peace with the US, Britain and France. The deal they offered was that if peace was made between them, Germany was allowed to keep some gains (not sure but I think the low counties and parts of Poland and Austria etc) and in return Germany would allow Allied bases in Germany for a war against the Soviet Union to defeat communism before it could become too poweful. They offerered Germany would continue to fight too. Of course Hitler refused this and while he was still alive it was not possible but i'm interested in knowing why the Allies declined the offer anyway. I understand that they wanted the remove Hitler from power and free the nations Germany had invaded but Germany was at that time very weak. I would have thought that the Soviet Union was much more of a threat and the Allies would have been thinking while they still had some power left and the chance of a somewhat powerful nation bordering the Soviet Union, that would have been a priority.
Yeah but by that stage Rumania had flipped sides and still the Russians held Prisoners for 6+ years and germans for longer

I was more referring to japan. They dropped the bomb on them for a reason, not that is was very nice of them to do so.

We all know, no matter what happens there are always more russians.

Patton was rather overrated in my opinion...

How was he over rated? Did you know that he disengaged from one major battle and fought a second one within 24-48 hours with no hot food AND no sleep? His army was also the unit that gained more ground than any other unit in the history of WWII!!

So how was he over rated?

Patton was rather overrated in my opinion...


Just listening to my Grandfather speak, he was one of "Darby's Rangers" fought for the Big Red One from Kasserine pass through The Bulge and almost shipped to Pacific. He won 2 Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, and 3-4 Purple Hearts as a Combat Medic. He personally LOVED Patton mainly for his leadership and his policy of "Always move forward; Never Dig In." As a medic he saw first hand how many lives this saved as opposed to the tactics of Bradley, whom he despised. Plus whether or not You think he was over rated or not he did one thing no other Western power did, struck fear into the heart of the German High command. And if we listened to Patton we would have taken on Russia before they were a big threat. If you think he is overrated you must admit he had big nads and got more from his troops then most generals.

Just listening to my Grandfather speak, he was one of "Darby's Rangers" fought for the Big Red One from Kasserine pass through The Bulge and almost shipped to Pacific. He won 2 Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, and 3-4 Purple Hearts as a Combat Medic. He personally LOVED Patton mainly for his leadership and his policy of "Always move forward; Never Dig In." As a medic he saw first hand how many lives this saved as opposed to the tactics of Bradley, whom he despised. Plus whether or not You think he was over rated or not he did one thing no other Western power did, struck fear into the heart of the German High command. And if we listened to Patton we would have taken on Russia before they were a big threat. If you think he is overrated you must admit he had big nads and got more from his troops then most generals.

Here here Renholders! To bad we didn't take them on as Patton said we should! We could have and we would've won, that is if we rearmed the Germans and had them along side us! :)

To bad we didn't take them on as Patton said we should! We could have and we would've won, that is if we rearmed the Germans and had them along side us! :)

Thats what i'm saying. To me it would have made a lot more sense to ally with the Germans in early 1945 and declare war on the Soviet Union. The experienced German troops who were completely outnumbered by the US, British and Soviet troops as well as useless German troops would have been much more of use fighting with other experienced troops. The Allies could have used German territory to invade which would have made it much easier and still would have had fresh troops left over as they had not yet driven into Germany itself. You all know how easily the Germans crushed the Soviets early on but in the end the winter and overwhelming number of Soviet troops, (and several other major reasons *coughHitlerwasamilitaryretardcough*) the Soviets drove them back. The US and British forces could easier have propped up the Germans retreating from the east while they got in reinforcements and i'm sure that Eastern European countries as well as Austria and Italy etc would have put troops forward to help. They could have made a deal too so that Hitlers power was limited or even make to certain "arrangements" to have Hitler "removed from power". Almost the whole of Germany was against Hitler at this time and i'm sure even the Gestapo and SS would have been willing to sacrifice Hitler to safe themselves.
Would have been an interesting fight though thats for sure.

Thats what i'm saying. To me it would have made a lot more sense to ally with the Germans in early 1945 and declare war on the Soviet Union. The experienced German troops who were completely outnumbered by the US, British and Soviet troops as well as useless German troops would have been much more of use fighting with other experienced troops. The Allies could have used German territory to invade which would have made it much easier and still would have had fresh troops left over as they had not yet driven into Germany itself. You all know how easily the Germans crushed the Soviets early on but in the end the winter and overwhelming number of Soviet troops, (and several other major reasons *coughHitlerwasamilitaryretardcough*) the Soviets drove them back. The US and British forces could easier have propped up the Germans retreating from the east while they got in reinforcements and i'm sure that Eastern European countries as well as Austria and Italy etc would have put troops forward to help. They could have made a deal too so that Hitlers power was limited or even make to certain "arrangements" to have Hitler "removed from power". Almost the whole of Germany was against Hitler at this time and i'm sure even the Gestapo and SS would have been willing to sacrifice Hitler to safe themselves.
Would have been an interesting fight though thats for sure.

So very true but in the end, the Pottsdam Conference required Unconditional Surrender. That prevented the allies from accepting that truce. It also killed the Japanese chances at surrender too because they wanted conditions.

Wasn't germany or enemy and russian our friend? Russian troops were the first to set foot in berlin. i think nuking russian is a bad idea. as for avoiding the cold war, i Say "no harm done."

Besides nothing like a little arms race to speed technoligy along.

Wasn't germany or enemy and russian our friend? Russian troops were the first to set foot in berlin. i think nuking russian is a bad idea. as for avoiding the cold war, i Say "no harm done."

Besides nothing like a little arms race to speed technoligy along.

Well Russia and the rest of the Allies were not exactly friends. They just had a common enemy. Although some believe that the enemy of an enemy is a friend, I dont think this was the case.

Well Russia and the rest of the Allies were not exactly friends. They just had a common enemy. Although some believe that the enemy of an enemy is a friend, I dont think this was the case.

"The enemy of an enemy is my friend" is complete crap. A more fitting saying would be "If the enemy of my enemy is still alive I need more guns". If your enemies enemy has lasted this long chances are they are at least somewhat powerful. Because of this you should take them out. In the case of russia no one knew what the hell they were going to do, they were crazy. You can never be too careful with a nation of that power.

"The enemy of an enemy is my friend" is complete crap. A more fitting saying would be "If the enemy of my enemy is still alive I need more guns". If your enemies enemy has lasted this long chances are they are at least somewhat powerful. Because of this you should take them out. In the case of russia no one knew what the hell they were going to do, they were crazy. You can never be too careful with a nation of that power.

Yeah good point. The Soviet Union changed in several years from being happily at peace (apart from in Finland), to completely dominating all of Eastern Europe. Although this can be easier explained by the 4 or so years they fought the Germans in which millions of Soviets were killed so its understandable how they got so aggresive.

In any case the war turned out the way it did. at least in the cold war no one got nuked, of course there is the environmental effects of nuclear testing..... :eek: i say all's well that ends well.

PS: We all know New Zealand could rock all the other countries! jk

Yeah good point. The Soviet Union changed in several years from being happily at peace (apart from in Finland), to completely dominating all of Eastern Europe. Although this can be easier explained by the 4 or so years they fought the Germans in which millions of Soviets were killed so its understandable how they got so aggresive.

Actually, the enemy of my enemy is my friend has been used throughout history. As for the USSR, I don't think I would actually call them a peace loving people. As for getting aggressive, remember that they were attacked unprovokely by the Germans and chased them through Eastern Europe back into Germany. BTW, if the allied forces wanted to take Berlin, we could've done so but politics let the USSR take Berlin.

In any case the war turned out the way it did. at least in the cold war no one got nuked, of course there is the environmental effects of nuclear testing..... :eek: i say all's well that ends well.

PS: We all know New Zealand could rock all the other countries! jk

And the only reason why we didn't have nuclear war was because both sides knew the other could wipe them out! Mutually Assurd Destruction!

Actually, the enemy of my enemy is my friend has been used throughout history. As for the USSR, I don't think I would actually call them a peace loving people. As for getting aggressive, remember that they were attacked unprovokely by the Germans and chased them through Eastern Europe back into Germany. BTW, if the allied forces wanted to take Berlin, we could've done so but politics let the USSR take Berlin.

I still think its a stupid saying.

I still think its a stupid saying.

It maybe stupid however, its a true saying!

It maybe stupid however, its a true saying!

It really depends on the circumstances. Sometimes yes but it is far from universal.

Ok so both sides had enough nukes to blow away most of the world.........all of it. but if you seen the political messages they sent to each other, they translated out to; "bring it on!"
Any way isn't this about who should have one wold war 2?

Just think !EARTH! and mars together. quote form mars attacks

Ok so both sides had enough nukes to blow away most of the world.........all of it. but if you seen the political messages they sent to each other, they translated out to; "bring it on!"
Any way isn't this about who should have one wold war 2?

Just think !EARTH! and mars together. quote form mars attacks

Yeah, lets all talk about World War Two now ok!!!

Anyhow.... Hitler did not have the means to continue after he took on britan. if he had put his resourses more into taking over the sourrounding little nations and holding them, he may have made germany bigger without burning his economy.

Germany, Italy, or Japan?

Yep, and if that bomb was a tad closer to him, he would've died. If he did, WWII would've ended much sooner than it did.

Actually, the "politically correct" (phear my punnery) term is "co-belligerent", not "Axis".

But you should read KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky's book about KGB. It's spine-chilling. Stalinist Soviet Union was a well-oiled genocide machine, even worse than Hitler's regime. In the Soviet terror state, no one was safe. No one. Stalin ordered a certain percent of the population to be "traitors", and the Communists executed them. Ideally, WW2 should've ended to the complete destruction of the Soviet government. Communism directly resulted in the deaths of millions of people and elimination of entire peoples. See the Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire: http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/foreword.shtml

On the other hand, an interesting case was that Stalin ordered all competent Finnish communists to be shot, leaving the incompetent yes-men unharmed. Stalin's purging might've been a blessing in disguise.

Actually, the "politically correct" (phear my punnery) term is "co-belligerent", not "Axis".

Screw Political Correctness!

But you should read KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky's book about KGB. It's spine-chilling. Stalinist Soviet Union was a well-oiled genocide machine, even worse than Hitler's regime. In the Soviet terror state, no one was safe. No one. Stalin ordered a certain percent of the population to be "traitors", and the Communists executed them. Ideally, WW2 should've ended to the complete destruction of the Soviet government. Communism directly resulted in the deaths of millions of people and elimination of entire peoples. See the Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire: http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/foreword.shtml

I can believe it!

On the other hand, an interesting case was that Stalin ordered all competent Finnish communists to be shot, leaving the incompetent yes-men unharmed. Stalin's purging might've been a blessing in disguise.

true

Anyhow.... Hitler did not have the means to continue after he took on britan. if he had put his resourses more into taking over the sourrounding little nations and holding them, he may have made germany bigger without burning his economy.

He somewhat did until he decided to invade Russia and that killed his chances of invading Britain

....Never mind who should have won WW2. I bet you didn't know that the US government helped plan the Pearl Harbour attacks! Why? So that they can change public opinion in favour of going into war! How? After Germany and Japan made an alliance, it was the perfect opportunity for USA to intervene in the war and gain from all the profits from winning a war (dont believe some bulls**t that war means losing out, coz truth is u can actually make mega bucks if u win). So what? Am I saying USA destroyed their own ships in Pearl Harbour? Well, they removed all their best ships and super important aircraft carriers before the attacks and left their useless WW1 ships behind.

"Ahhh yeah right" I hear u cry. Well if u looked at the facts there could be nothing more obvious! US government knew about the plans for a Pearl Harbour attack, just like BUSH knew and wanted WTC attacks to happen!

....Never mind who should have won WW2. I bet you didn't know that the US government helped plan the Pearl Harbour attacks! Why? So that they can change public opinion in favour of going into war! How? After Germany and Japan made an alliance, it was the perfect opportunity for USA to intervene in the war and gain from all the profits from winning a war (dont believe some bulls**t that war means losing out, coz truth is u can actually make mega bucks if u win). So what? Am I saying USA destroyed their own ships in Pearl Harbour? Well, they removed all their best ships and super important aircraft carriers before the attacks and left their useless WW1 ships behind.

"Ahhh yeah right" I hear u cry. Well if u looked at the facts there could be nothing more obvious! US government knew about the plans for a Pearl Harbour attack, just like BUSH knew and wanted WTC attacks to happen!

And you sir, are a conspiracy theorist. There is absolutely no evidence of what you state! So I'm going to call BS!

The Soviets should have captured a lot more territory than they did.

You want evidence? You saying that I haven't used evidence? I laugh at this arguemnt against the harsh reality. I have already provided evidence and yet there is SO MUCH MORE evidence I could provide u with. But why don't u look at this

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm

...and now how about YOU provide THE EVIDENCE to show that I am wrong.

You want evidence? You saying that I haven't used evidence? I laugh at this arguemnt against the harsh reality. I have already provided evidence and yet there is SO MUCH MORE evidence I could provide u with. But why don't u look at this

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm

...and now how about YOU provide THE EVIDENCE to show that I am wrong.

Watch Tora Tora Tora! The President clearly didn't want to get involved militarily but we were supporting britain but we didn't want to get involved. I suggest you study up on WWII than heading off to conspiracy theorist land.

Watch Tora Tora Tora! The President clearly didn't want to get involved militarily but we were supporting britain but we didn't want to get involved. I suggest you study up on WWII than heading off to conspiracy theorist land.


What the hell? That makes no sense! I suggest u study a bit more English before u go heading off to smart-ass land

What the hell? That makes no sense! I suggest u study a bit more English before u go heading off to smart-ass land

Well you do know how to comprehend what someone is saying.

My english was fine. Tora tora tora was the Japanese codeword meaning that surprise was achieved. LOL!!

As for your evidence, I took alook at that website. All I can say is, Conspiracy land. There is no evidence whatsoever of the President planning what your accusing him of planning when it came to Pearl Harbor.

Well you do know how to comprehend what someone is saying.

My english was fine. Tora tora tora was the Japanese codeword meaning that surprise was achieved. LOL!!

As for your evidence, I took alook at that website. All I can say is, Conspiracy land. There is no evidence whatsoever of the President planning what your accusing him of planning when it came to Pearl Harbor.

I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. Thats ridiculous. Since when does the US president need public support to do anything? When does he need support from anyone?
Didn't you guys (americans) know the Japanese were going to attack but thought it was somewhere else?

I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. Thats ridiculous. Since when does the US president need public support to do anything? When does he need support from anyone?
Didn't you guys (americans) know the Japanese were going to attack but thought it was somewhere else?

American intelligence doesnt know half of what it thinks it does.

qout New Maastricht
"I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. "

Don't be so sure.....many nations have done it in the past why not the US?
nero
hitler
porbably USSR
I think after somthing like that the population would want to fight back. it's the perfect excuse concidering the US could reasily replace there losses.

I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. Thats ridiculous. Since when does the US president need public support to do anything? When does he need support from anyone?
Didn't you guys (americans) know the Japanese were going to attack but thought it was somewhere else?

Yep! They thought that the Japanese would start their war against the US in the Far East!

[qoute=New Maastricht]
"I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. "

Don't be so sure.....many nations have done it in the past why not the US?
nero
hitler
porbably USSR
I think after somthing like that the population would want to fight back. it's the perfect excuse concidering the US could reasily replace there losses.[/QUOTE]

Nero was the Roman Emperor!

Hitler you can make a case for but he wanted world domination, the US does not!

USSR more than likely

Not as fast as you think we can!

qout New Maastricht
"I completely agree. There is no way that the US president would sacrifice a few thousand lives so the public opinion would be more favoured to war. "

Don't be so sure.....many nations have done it in the past why not the US?
nero
hitler
porbably USSR
I think after somthing like that the population would want to fight back. it's the perfect excuse concidering the US could reasily replace there losses.

Correct about USSR... for example, the Mainila shots. Soviets bombarded a village on their side, shooting the shells over Finnish territory to simulate "Finnish aggression". On other fronts, though, they were directly attacked.

Sorry about the nero thing, i meant rome. remember nero set fire to rome and blamed it on the christians just so he could be rid of them.
Hitler firebomed his parlament building and passed the buck.

just think about that, it really isn't that uncommon for a nation to hurt itself to better itself later.
weather or not the US seeks world dmination or not is besides the point, they could have fought for glory.....or other reasons that i can't imagine. I'm not sayin that the US is bad i'm just saying that it's a good possiblity, after all everyone else does it.

and to counter U-boats the US was able to build 10 cargo ships a day, rather then fight them they sent more. not that they didn't fight them the US had some awsoome sub hunting corvets.

TO bad the US couldn't easily replace their losses after Pearl Harbor. It took them years before they could rebuild their Pacific fleet in order to take on the Japanese. And that was with the whole country mobilized. The Axis could've won if they'd studied their history a little better. Hitler had a peace treaty with Russia and blew it off. He should've known he couldn't win a war with two fronts...

Sorry about the nero thing, i meant rome. remember nero set fire to rome and blamed it on the christians just so he could be rid of them.
Hitler firebomed his parlament building and passed the buck.

Won't argue this because it is accurate

just think about that, it really isn't that uncommon for a nation to hurt itself to better itself later.
weather or not the US seeks world dmination or not is besides the point, they could have fought for glory.....or other reasons that i can't imagine. I'm not sayin that the US is bad i'm just saying that it's a good possiblity, after all everyone else does it.

And likewise people do drugs or drink alcohal but I know I don't do neither! Just because someone else does it doesn't mean everyone does it!

and to counter U-boats the US was able to build 10 cargo ships a day, rather then fight them they sent more. not that they didn't fight them the US had some awsoome sub hunting corvets.

The good ole fashion liberty ships.

TO bad the US couldn't easily replace their losses after Pearl Harbor. It took them years before they could rebuild their Pacific fleet in order to take on the Japanese. And that was with the whole country mobilized. The Axis could've won if they'd studied their history a little better. Hitler had a peace treaty with Russia and blew it off. He should've known he couldn't win a war with two fronts...

2 years actually but it was really shorter than that if you look at the overall scope of things.

i'm just saying that the US is no better or no worse then any other super power.
also i'm just saying that it's a possibility.

i'm just saying that the US is no better or no worse then any other super power.
also i'm just saying that it's a possibility.

Possibility maybe, reality? nope!! For one thing, in this day in age, its really hard to keep a secret! Its possible but very unlikely. As for Pearl Harbor, most of the documents have been declassified and so far, no one is buying that FDR knew that Pearl was going to be attacked.

I respect your oppinion and i don't see it that way.
History has an odd tendancy of repeting itself. i'm not going to further argue the topic, because it is a matter of oppinion and i respect all opinionated dialoug.

alot of cover ups happen, it's possible that the truth is tainted. even more powerful nations do it, just as the little ones do....

like new zealand tee hee hee. jk

Hey Guys,
Just saw this on the history channel. Japan had 9 carriers at the time of Pearl harbor. Three reasons that Japan lost the sea battle. 1-Did not get American Carriers at Pearl,2-Where no able to replace there carrier loses fast enought. 3-American Industry by wars end had 111 carriers. A lot of them where short carriers. They cut the top of a lot of ships and converted them into mini carriers. Carried about half the planes as a normal carrier.

Actually, once they joined the Axis powers, they were legally at war with whomever Germany was at war with except for the USSR because of a Non-Agression pact signed with them.

As for China, Manchuria fell first then they decided to take on China. Now if they didn't do that then they would've had more troops to toss against us. The casualties would've been worse AND they would've been able to defend what they took. China was Japan's downfall as was attacking the USA.

But today you must say, that the US provoked the attack on Peael Harbor. Because they looked for a way, to enter the war, to save (in Asia) Their investments. Isn't it odd, that at this morning only a few old Dreadnought-Cruisers were in the Harbor and that a Fleet of more than 30! Battleships can cross the whole Pacific, passing some US-Bases and are not being noticed?

Hey Guys,
Just saw this on the history channel. Japan had 9 carriers at the time of Pearl harbor. Three reasons that Japan lost the sea battle. 1-Did not get American Carriers at Pearl,2-Where no able to replace there carrier loses fast enought. 3-American Industry by wars end had 111 carriers. A lot of them where short carriers. They cut the top of a lot of ships and converted them into mini carriers. Carried about half the planes as a normal carrier.

You sure it was such a large number as 111? I counted 60 something once..but yea..the US had nearly as many Corvette type(6-7 planes at most) Carriers in the Atlantic(including the Fleet Carrier Ranger) as they did in the Pacific.

The Japanese couldnt replace their losses fast enough because they didnt have the materials. Zeros were horribly armored planes even if nimble, Japanese carrier decks were wooden(a mistake the US had at first as well but had the resources to correct). Frankly the Japanese didnt have a policy of defeating the US, they just wanted to inflict enough losses to force a settlement(Sorta like what they did in the Russo-Japanese war). But once Germany and Italy declared war on the US there was no way that was going to happen.

As for the bomb dropping on Japan, even after both bombs dropped there was still a large radical minority in the Japanese military which wished to keep fighting to the last man. They even attempted a coup the night before Hirohitio was going to announce a surrender. This is after both bombs dropping..can you imagine if they had managed such an attempt?Luckly Hirohitio had recorded his surrender, and had planned to play the recording over the radio..the main problem the military had was finding the location of the tapes.

As for the Pacific being a minor front in WWII, thats not giving the due where it should be..frankly the US not the British had the capacity for doing what it did. The US kept the Japanese from taking New Guinea and possibly launching an assault on Australia and New Zealand. (Dont believe me? Coral Sea turned back Jap forces which were going to hit Port Morsby from the sea. Strategic draw, tactical victory for the Japanese since we lost the Lexington). The US also had the ability to take on the Japanese on their own territory. The RN was kinda scared of the IJN after losing the Repulse and Prince of Wales to Carrier planes on December 8th,41. Then you've got Iwo Jima, where more blood was spilled for such a small area than anywhere else in WWII.

Not to mention while the Germans did have a suicide pilot squadron...they werent nearly as bad as the hundreds we had to deal with. Okinawa was more or less a forshadowing of events which would have occured should Operation Olympic had taken place.

But today you must say, that the US provoked the attack on Peael Harbor. Because they looked for a way, to enter the war, to save (in Asia) Their investments. Isn't it odd, that at this morning only a few old Dreadnought-Cruisers were in the Harbor and that a Fleet of more than 30! Battleships can cross the whole Pacific, passing some US-Bases and are not being noticed?

Umm the US policy in Asia since Roosevelt(Teddy) had been that no power was to achieve an overwhelming advantage in Asia. Open Door Policy. We didnt provoke a war, we were enforcing a foreign policy at the time that the Japanese didnt like. As for old Dreadnought type Battleships, look at US naval construction after WWI, those 8 Battleships comprised the heavy hitting firepower of the USN at the time in the Pacific. All the other BBs anchored in the Atlantic or at San Fran in mothballs or not completed.

And the Japanese went extreme north of US Bases, we expected an attack on the Phillippines, we didnt expect a deep attack on Hawaii.

But today you must say, that the US provoked the attack on Peael Harbor. Because they looked for a way, to enter the war, to save (in Asia) Their investments. Isn't it odd, that at this morning only a few old Dreadnought-Cruisers were in the Harbor and that a Fleet of more than 30! Battleships can cross the whole Pacific, passing some US-Bases and are not being noticed?

No! If anyone wanted to set up Pearl Harbor, it would've ben Winston Churchill. We may have been supporting Britain and FDR may have wanted to join in the war, but it would take one person telling the wrong person and the whole shahbang would've been uncovered. Now as for what your claiming as old-dreadnaughts, they were basically our entire battleship fleet. Some of them our most powerful at the time. We had cruisers there too yea and they got smacked as did destroyers that were in port.

The carriers weren't there because they were ferrying planes to Wake and to Midway and on top of that, USS Enterprise got very lucky. They were a day late in arriving at Pearl Harbor due to bad weather.

You sure it was such a large number as 111? I counted 60 something once..but yea..the US had nearly as many Corvette type(6-7 planes at most) Carriers in the Atlantic(including the Fleet Carrier Ranger) as they did in the Pacific.

Correct. Don't forget the escort or jeep carriers either.

The Japanese couldnt replace their losses fast enough because they didnt have the materials. Zeros were horribly armored planes even if nimble, Japanese carrier decks were wooden(a mistake the US had at first as well but had the resources to correct). Frankly the Japanese didnt have a policy of defeating the US, they just wanted to inflict enough losses to force a settlement(Sorta like what they did in the Russo-Japanese war). But once Germany and Italy declared war on the US there was no way that was going to happen.

you are correct in your assessment. Also they couldn't inflict enough casualties on us to force a settlement because of what they did at Pearl Harbor. I do have to give them kudos for that. It was a great plan. But don't forget, Admiral Yamamoto knew that they couldn't do that. He knew that in order to win they had to dictate terms in the white house.

As for the bomb dropping on Japan, even after both bombs dropped there was still a large radical minority in the Japanese military which wished to keep fighting to the last man. They even attempted a coup the night before Hirohitio was going to announce a surrender. This is after both bombs dropping..can you imagine if they had managed such an attempt?Luckly Hirohitio had recorded his surrender, and had planned to play the recording over the radio..the main problem the military had was finding the location of the tapes.

Very few people know this piece of history. Well done my friend.

As for the Pacific being a minor front in WWII, thats not giving the due where it should be..frankly the US not the British had the capacity for doing what it did. The US kept the Japanese from taking New Guinea and possibly launching an assault on Australia and New Zealand. (Dont believe me? Coral Sea turned back Jap forces which were going to hit Port Morsby from the sea. Strategic draw, tactical victory for the Japanese since we lost the Lexington). The US also had the ability to take on the Japanese on their own territory. The RN was kinda scared of the IJN after losing the Repulse and Prince of Wales to Carrier planes on December 8th,41. Then you've got Iwo Jima, where more blood was spilled for such a small area than anywhere else in WWII.

I thought the Aussies and New Zealand did a good job assisting us in defeating the Japs. Yea they were fighting along side us under General MacArthur. LOL!!

Not to mention while the Germans did have a suicide pilot squadron...they werent nearly as bad as the hundreds we had to deal with. Okinawa was more or less a forshadowing of events which would have occured should Operation Olympic had taken place.

Unfortunately true! Thank God we didn't have to face that.

Umm the US policy in Asia since Roosevelt(Teddy) had been that no power was to achieve an overwhelming advantage in Asia. Open Door Policy. We didnt provoke a war, we were enforcing a foreign policy at the time that the Japanese didnt like. As for old Dreadnought type Battleships, look at US naval construction after WWI, those 8 Battleships comprised the heavy hitting firepower of the USN at the time in the Pacific. All the other BBs anchored in the Atlantic or at San Fran in mothballs or not completed.

Here here! You sure do know your WWII History my friend. I take off my hat to you.

And the Japanese went extreme north of US Bases, we expected an attack on the Phillippines, we didnt expect a deep attack on Hawaii.

Yep Yep. 100% correct.

Well..I'll post now..better late than never,

THe Allied Powers should have won earlier had Britain and Russia applied ebnough pressure from both sides early on. They should have hit early and hard. There is no reason tha the Axis should have even been given any right to do what they did..no matter how harsh the previous treaty was. They brought it upon themselves and no one else.

Well..I'll post now..better late than never,

THe Allied Powers should have won earlier had Britain and Russia applied ebnough pressure from both sides early on. They should have hit early and hard. There is no reason tha the Axis should have even been given any right to do what they did..no matter how harsh the previous treaty was. They brought it upon themselves and no one else.

Boy, your on top of it. They should've but remember, the Soviets were really not part of Versailles. Why? Because they left WWI in 1917. Britain and France could've knocked Germany flat when the war started in 1939 but France didn't order the Maginot line to fire its guns even though, they could've reached right into Germany. Also, Don't forget that Prime Minister Chamberline declared Peace in our Time. That killed him politically when Germany went on their rampage. The Soviet Union had a non-agression treaty with Germany until the Germans invaded the USSR in Operation Barbarossa. That brought the USSR into the war on the side of the Allies.

Umm the US policy in Asia since Roosevelt(Teddy) had been that no power was to achieve an overwhelming advantage in Asia. Open Door Policy. We didnt provoke a war, we were enforcing a foreign policy at the time that the Japanese didnt like. As for old Dreadnought type Battleships, look at US naval construction after WWI, those 8 Battleships comprised the heavy hitting firepower of the USN at the time in the Pacific. All the other BBs anchored in the Atlantic or at San Fran in mothballs or not completed.

And the Japanese went extreme north of US Bases, we expected an attack on the Phillippines, we didnt expect a deep attack on Hawaii.
And what is with the Enterprise and The Saratoga, which were "oh luck" at that time in Midway(Enterprise) and the westcoast for "maintance"(Saratoga). At that time,these two were the most modern ships in the USN. Another case: One day before the Attack, a Patrolboat hit the Tower of a Sub with unknown construction (to the US) in a zone in which all US Sub hab to surface. The USN had nothing to lose, but a few old ships

And what is with the Enterprise and The Saratoga, which were "oh luck" at that time in Midway(Enterprise) and the westcoast for "maintance"(Saratoga). At that time,these two were the most modern ships in the USN. Another case: One day before the Attack, a Patrolboat hit the Tower of a Sub with unknown construction (to the US) in a zone in which all US Sub hab to surface. The USN had nothing to lose, but a few old ships

They weren't old ships at the time dude. I suggest you read the specs of those battleships compared to those of the Japanese and later US Battleships. You have no clue as to what you were saying. They ferried those planes to Midway and Wake (Enterprise and Yorktown Respectively) because both islands needed them. The Enterprise was ONE DAY LATE due to bad weather. Don't believe? Its a known historical fact!

They weren't old ships at the time dude. I suggest you read the specs of those battleships compared to those of the Japanese and later US Battleships. You have no clue as to what you were saying. They ferried those planes to Midway and Wake (Enterprise and Yorktown Respectively) because both islands needed them. The Enterprise was ONE DAY LATE due to bad weather. Don't believe? Its a known historical fact!
The ships which were in Pearl harbor at that time were build in the Time before and during WWI(Arizona 1916), so i wouldn't call them modern(Not even at that time) Beside at that time the Battleships which a had the greatest velocity and Firepower in the Pacific were ships that belonged to the Japanese Mikawa-class.
I was only saying, that there wer too much coincidences for my taste. Sure, you Americans like the myth of the "day of deceit". And why used they a commercial connection to inform Pearl Harbor and not the Faster military line (Sorry, but i don't know the exact name for it)

They weren't old ships at the time dude. I suggest you read the specs of those battleships compared to those of the Japanese and later US Battleships. You have no clue as to what you were saying. They ferried those planes to Midway and Wake (Enterprise and Yorktown Respectively) because both islands needed them. The Enterprise was ONE DAY LATE due to bad weather. Don't believe? Its a known historical fact!
That with the Weather is also known to me, but Pearl Harbor was, together with Wake, Midway, the Phillipines and Guam on a list with extreme threatened Bases. As a military commander i wouldn't draw urgend needet planes form one Threatened place to another. Thats my opinion

The ships which were in Pearl harbor at that time were build in the Time before and during WWI(Arizona 1916), so i wouldn't call them modern(Not even at that time) Beside at that time the Battleships which a had the greatest velocity and Firepower in the Pacific were ships that belonged to the Japanese Mikawa-class.
I was only saying, that there wer too much coincidences for my taste. Sure, you Americans like the myth of the "day of deceit". And why used they a commercial connection to inform Pearl Harbor and not the Faster military line (Sorry, but i don't know the exact name for it)

Here's a tip, Did you know that the planes were spotted on radar? No? Well guess what? They were. Like to know what they did? Called from a gas station to report it? Like to know what the response was from info? They thought they were our bombers comming in from Hawaii but alas, they were Japanese planes coming to bomb the crap out of Pearl Harbor. As for the Japanes ships, they were the most powerful yea, but our battleships of the time where the best ships in America's navy! They were not obsolete.

As for the telegram, here's a tip! It was a Sunday. Hardly anyone works on a Sunday. They couldn't reach anyone through normal channels thus they did the next best thing.

That with the Weather is also known to me, but Pearl Harbor was, together with Wake, Midway, the Phillipines and Guam on a list with extreme threatened Bases. As a military commander i wouldn't draw urgend needet planes form one Threatened place to another. Thats my opinion

Threatened yea however no one thought that the war would start at Pearl Harbor. Not even Intelligence. Everyone thought that the war would start with the Philippines.

Here's a tip, Did you know that the planes were spotted on radar? No? Well guess what? They were. Like to know what they did? Called from a gas station to report it? Like to know what the response was from info? They thought they were our bombers comming in from Hawaii but alas, they were Japanese planes coming to bomb the crap out of Pearl Harbor. As for the Japanes ships, they were the most powerful yea, but our battleships of the time where the best ships in America's navy! They were not obsolete.

As for the telegram, here's a tip! It was a Sunday. Hardly anyone works on a Sunday. They couldn't reach anyone through normal channels thus they did the next best thing.
I've heard of this. The officer in charge said" It's o.k. That should be our B-17." I know. I've read several Essays and saw several films about this Theme.(Not the Jerry Bruckheimer- crap). And you say AMERICA's Navy. Thats the point. If The Japanese had as much ships as the Americans, then the war would have endet the other way. (You can imagine, i'm neither American nor British.Guess, from which country i am.A Tip: We're not in iraq)

Threatened yea however no one thought that the war would start at Pearl Harbor. Not even Intelligence. Everyone thought that the war would start with the Philippines.
I Think Intelligence knew, whar was going on and so the military: They cracked The japanese "Purple code" a Year before Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese hadn't noticed it. The US listened to all the Japanese military communication for at least a Year.And thats a fact too

Here's a tip, Did you know that the planes were spotted on radar? No? Well guess what? They were. Like to know what they did? Called from a gas station to report it? Like to know what the response was from info? They thought they were our bombers comming in from Hawaii but alas, they were Japanese planes coming to bomb the crap out of Pearl Harbor. As for the Japanes ships, they were the most powerful yea, but our battleships of the time where the best ships in America's navy! They were not obsolete.

As for the telegram, here's a tip! It was a Sunday. Hardly anyone works on a Sunday. They couldn't reach anyone through normal channels thus they did the next best thing.
In a political/military crisis, the communication posts should be manned 24-7.We did so, when i was at the brass

In a political/military crisis, the communication posts should be manned 24-7.We did so, when i was at the brass

I'm going to address several points..

The Arizona, underwent heavy modernization during the 30s since we couldnt build battleships. All the battleships in Pearl Harbor had underwent renovations. Infact the entire US navy was being given an overhaul in the early 40s because we expected they would eventually be put to use.

On Sundays in the US folks tend to take it easy and relax. The Japanese caught everyone with their pants down during a naval review. RADAR in the US was also still a very new technology, the radar operators couldnt tell the difference between bombers or fighters. Also just because the US broke Japanese encryption doesnt mean we knew what was going on. The plan to attack Pearl Harbor was very secretive. The fleet which carried it out maintained strict radiosilence throughout the durration of the trip. And before the attack on Pearl, messages flooded the airwaves signalling the beginning of hostilities elsewhere.

Also as for the US destroyer ramming a sub, you got proof of that? Thats a fact I hadnt heard before.

Also Admiral Kimmel, the CINCPAC during Pearl was an avid Battleshiper. If anything he'd have sent out his BBs and left the Carriers to be hit(at that time the USN still felt that Carriers served a supporting role to the BB, further disproving your claims we knew it was coming.) However to seal it all off, from the Navy Historical Center:


The Pearl Harbor Attack, 7 December 1941: Where were the Carriers, 7 December 1941?
On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3).

Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

Saratoga: Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.

Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.

To Corneliu:
Thanks! I try.

best and most thorough history of Pearl Harbor is a book called "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordan Prange

essentially, you are both right...however

Two privates spotted the Japanese on radar, called the control center (where everyone except one extremely inexperienced junior officer was at breakfast) and were brushed off because of the assumption that the planes were the B17s coming in from California

Plus, the USS Ward shot a Japanese mini sub just at dawn with its main gun, dropped depth charges and confirmed the destruction of that sub (oil slick from)... it took hours for the word to reach Cincpac, and by that time, minutes were ticking down to the first air attack.

Basically, a series of minor errors, peacetime thinking patterns, complancy, and some bad luck and excellent Japanese Planning led to the greatest American naval disaster in its history...

The Japanese had 10 carriers vs 8 US at the time of Pearl Harbor (2 Lexington class, 3 Enterprise class, the Ranger, the Wasp and the Long Island (first US escort carrier).

US had more battleships total, but both Japan and the US had 10 in the Pacific (9 US at Pearl Harbor plus 1 at Puget Sound)

the reason the US military operates on a 24/7 basis is BECAUSE of Pearl Harbor (plus the Korean War was a nasty surprise too)

the Arizona was the victim of an amazingly well aimed bomb that hit her in magazine were some powder bags had been left in a vulnerable position in spite of regulations (more peacetime complancy).... no battleship would have survived that explosion in any case, and US battleships had superior deck armor to every other battleship except for the German Bismark class and Yamato class (and later US classes)

As a general rule, US battleships survived more damage than any other ship of their size during the war (remember the Yamato class was roughly triple their size and went down from nearly 30 bomb and torpedo hits)... the Arizona took the bomb in the magazine, plus two others plus a torpedo hit...

the Nevada (slightly newer ship) took nearly a dozen bombs and two torpedos, and was rebuilt and back in time for the DDay landings at Normandy while the West Virginia took 3 torpedo hits, a couple of bombs and was present to blast Japanese battleships to bits at Leyte Gulf in 1944.

those are just some examples...

The ships which were in Pearl harbor at that time were build in the Time before and during WWI(Arizona 1916), so i wouldn't call them modern(Not even at that time) Beside at that time the Battleships which a had the greatest velocity and Firepower in the Pacific were ships that belonged to the Japanese Mikawa-class.
I was only saying, that there wer too much coincidences for my taste. Sure, you Americans like the myth of the "day of deceit". And why used they a commercial connection to inform Pearl Harbor and not the Faster military line (Sorry, but i don't know the exact name for it)

the reason that most battleships (all but 3 British, 2 American, 4 Italian and 1 German battleship) were over 20 years old is because of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 which placed a freeze on ALL battleship construction (with 2 British exceptions) until 1935. The Japanese decided to start building then, as did the British and Italians, and the Americans and Germans started after that.

the 9 battleships at Pearl Harbor represented 9 of 16 US battleships. 6 were in the Atlantic (3 obsolete ones, 3 of the same type as at Pearl Harbor) plus 2 more battleships that weren't ready for service yet (just out of the builders yard). In one blow, the US was reduced to exactly 1 battleship in the Pacific, plus 3 with some damage and 2 were destroyed, 3 others sunk but raised and rebuilt and 1 other with serious damage.

But the US had 3 of its carriers in the Atlantic because the US was more worried about Hitler than the Japanese (2 brand new ones, 1 obsolescent one plus two more fitting out) and the Saratoga was just out of the refit yard when Pearl Harbor occured, and the other two carriers (Lexington and Enterprise) were delivering planes to important bases....the Enterprise escaped destruction by the grace of god... she was supposed to enter port on Saturday night but bad weather delayed her because her destroyers had to wait for the weather to ease in order to refuel.

lucky for everyone, the ships were less important that Pearl Harbor the base was... but it did knock the US out of things for a vital 4 months while the Japanese swept through East Asia.

by the way, the US built a total of 165 carriers in World War II..including 20 fleet (Essex class) carriers (90 planes each), 9 light carriers (35 planes each) and the rest Escort carriers (anywhere from 9 - 25 planes each depending on the class and when built)... some of these (nearly 40) went to the British, Canadians, Free French, and even the Dutch.

The Japanese built exactly 20 during the war (of which 5 were fleet type, rest light or escort type) and generally all Japanese carriers and British built carriers carried roughly 2/3rds the air group of a US carrier

although most of the British carriers had armored flight decks which helped a lot against Kamikaze attacks in the late war (at the cost of airgroup size though)

i have two things to say about this: america could have been invaded from mexico by both nazi germany and japan, if each country had not been involved in thier battles with the ussr and china. that being said japan could have easily invaded from alaska while germany invaded from mexico, niether border at the time was defended very well so the outcome of ww2 might have taken a different outlook as well.
Secondly if hitler would have turned his attention soley on the brits after poland well what can i say it would have been a slaughterhouse and france still would have fell. oh yeah and if patton would have entered berlin first i do believe that america would have been at war with the ussr, remember it was patton who said that we should drive to moscow......

I'm going to address several points..

The Arizona, underwent heavy modernization during the 30s since we couldnt build battleships. All the battleships in Pearl Harbor had underwent renovations. Infact the entire US navy was being given an overhaul in the early 40s because we expected they would eventually be put to use.

On Sundays in the US folks tend to take it easy and relax. The Japanese caught everyone with their pants down during a naval review. RADAR in the US was also still a very new technology, the radar operators couldnt tell the difference between bombers or fighters. Also just because the US broke Japanese encryption doesnt mean we knew what was going on. The plan to attack Pearl Harbor was very secretive. The fleet which carried it out maintained strict radiosilence throughout the durration of the trip. And before the attack on Pearl, messages flooded the airwaves signalling the beginning of hostilities elsewhere.

Also as for the US destroyer ramming a sub, you got proof of that? Thats a fact I hadnt heard before.

Also Admiral Kimmel, the CINCPAC during Pearl was an avid Battleshiper. If anything he'd have sent out his BBs and left the Carriers to be hit(at that time the USN still felt that Carriers served a supporting role to the BB, further disproving your claims we knew it was coming.) However to seal it all off, from the Navy Historical Center:


The Pearl Harbor Attack, 7 December 1941: Where were the Carriers, 7 December 1941?
On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3).

Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

Saratoga: Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.

Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.

To Corneliu:
Thanks! I try.

It wasn't a destoyer, that rammed the sub, it was a patrol boat. After that incident the skipper called his base and informed them about the sub. The protocols should be in the naval archieve in Washington D.C.

Plus the Engines of nearly all battleships were off, so it would have took six hours to start them again. Only the Arizona was prepared: Her Engines were on a low level, so she could start after 3 hours. It's prooved by veterans, who survived pearl harbor and said that in the investigations in 1948

I was only saying, that in pearl harbor there was not a single Battleship, that was build after the end of the Washington Treaty

wow forums get turned into heated arguments quilkly, i'm refurring to earlier posts.
While true that that a vast number of the US ships in per harbor were outdated, it is also true that they had been refitted to keep up with performance standerds.
Pearl was one of the largest Naval massicers in history, but it served as america's reason to enter the war. why not leave it at that.
i would also like to know if the Iowa was there or not. it's a good ship, to bad it's a training vessal now.

WE DESTROY ONE HARBOR AND YOU COME AND NUKE OUR CITIES!

It wasn't a destoyer, that rammed the sub, it was a patrol boat. After that incident the skipper called his base and informed them about the sub. The protocols should be in the naval archieve in Washington D.C.

Plus the Engines of nearly all battleships were off, so it would have took six hours to start them again. Only the Arizona was prepared: Her Engines were on a low level, so she could start after 3 hours. It's prooved by veterans, who survived pearl harbor and said that in the investigations in 1948

I was only saying, that in pearl harbor there was not a single Battleship, that was build after the end of the Washington Treaty

the USS Ward was a four stacker destroyer .. not a patrol boat... the Nevada had its boilers lit, not the Arizona, and that was why the Nevada was able to get under way (although it was forced to beach a little bit later because of accumulated damage to avoid blocking the channel)

as far as the Iowa is concerned, she was commissioned in early 1944 and was still in the middle stages of construction at the time of Pearl Harbor.


and Mdn, the only way the Nazis and Japanese could have invaded Mexico would have been to destroy both the Royal and US Navies, build their own navy large enough to carry a large number of divisions, and then invade... it took the USA two years to build a navy big enough to invade France, and there was no possibility of the Axis doing that in World War II short of at least five years of time and massive Allied disasters far beyond the scale of the early Allied defeats.

It wasn't a destoyer, that rammed the sub, it was a patrol boat. After that incident the skipper called his base and informed them about the sub. The protocols should be in the naval archieve in Washington D.C.

Plus the Engines of nearly all battleships were off, so it would have took six hours to start them again. Only the Arizona was prepared: Her Engines were on a low level, so she could start after 3 hours. It's prooved by veterans, who survived pearl harbor and said that in the investigations in 1948

I was only saying, that in pearl harbor there was not a single Battleship, that was build after the end of the Washington Treaty

It was an early Sunday morning..where were the Battleships going to go? They didnt keep the engines going because they didnt think they'd be going anywhere.

WE DESTROY ONE HARBOR AND YOU COME AND NUKE OUR CITIES!

One harbor, two battleships,5-6 carriers, numerous cruisers and destroyers, tanks, hundreds of thousands of lives...I hope you were being sarcastic.

i have two things to say about this: america could have been invaded from mexico by both nazi germany and japan, if each country had not been involved in thier battles with the ussr and china. that being said japan could have easily invaded from alaska while germany invaded from mexico, niether border at the time was defended very well so the outcome of ww2 might have taken a different outlook as well.
Secondly if hitler would have turned his attention soley on the brits after poland well what can i say it would have been a slaughterhouse and france still would have fell. oh yeah and if patton would have entered berlin first i do believe that america would have been at war with the ussr, remember it was patton who said that we should drive to moscow......

Umm..that would have required sea lift capabilities. The US had Carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Granted it would have been a nasty naval batlte in the Pacific again, but in the East the German Surface fleet couldnt compare to the USN. Heck the German surface fleet would have also had to go by the Royal Navy.

Also your lack of understanding WWII history is incredible..Hitler DID solely focus on France and the British after Poland. The attack on Russia didnt occur until much much later on.

The Japanese also did attack through Alaska, it was called the Aleuitian Islands campaign(occured around the same time of Midway) And they were repulsed.

One harbor, two battleships,5-6 carriers, numerous cruisers and destroyers, tanks, hundreds of thousands of lives...I hope you were being sarcastic.

I hope you don't think there is ANY good reason for using a nuclear bomb. It can be argued that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender, but nukes have massive consequences for generations. Why should he be sarcastic, you were at WAR with the Japanese (or close enough), did you not expect to get casualties? Or are you just sulky because the Japanese managed to kick your ass at Pearl Harbor.

I hope you don't think there is ANY good reason for using a nuclear bomb. It can be argued that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender, but nukes have massive consequences for generations. Why should he be sarcastic, you were at WAR with the Japanese (or close enough), did you not expect to get casualties? Or are you just sulky because the Japanese managed to kick your ass at Pearl Harbor.

Most historians believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese Army to face the fact that there was no hope of defeating the US and getting any kind of negotiated peace. It also forced Hirohito to act and made it clear that Japan was going to be destroyed if it continued to fight.

The alternatives were either invasion (and early stages were underway), continued blockade and continued conventional bombing (that had already killed a million Japanese).

Possible death toll (likely but hard to say as it didn't happen) was that a combination invasion and blockade would have killed millions, probably tens of millions of Japanese and tens of thousands of Americans and other Allies.

that is the justification.

In a war that saw the Axis routinely murder hundreds of thousands a people routinely by slavery and deliberate starvation (death toll in China is around 30 million, similar death toll for Soviet Union and only about a third of those were killed in battle), millions by deliberate murder (death camps ring a bell?), and other atrocities

while the Allies bombed cities and killed hundreds of thousands in Japan and a similar number in Germany

and the Russians killed an unknown (but possibly as many as a million) when they conquered East Prussia and Eastern Germany

In that war, using an Atomic weapon was simply a continuation of the slaughter and the ultimate logic of Total War.

Which is probably why there hasn't been another war like it since

nothing during the Cold War or since has seen the complete mobilization of every means of killing your enemies and placing massive armies and fleets into battle.

For which we should all be greatful.

I hope you don't think there is ANY good reason for using a nuclear bomb. It can be argued that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender, but nukes have massive consequences for generations. Why should he be sarcastic, you were at WAR with the Japanese (or close enough), did you not expect to get casualties? Or are you just sulky because the Japanese managed to kick your ass at Pearl Harbor.

Why would I be sulky about that? Who won in the end again?

There was plenty of reason of GOOD reasons to use the atomic bomb. Saving millions of lives being one of them. I'm sorry a handful of generations have to deal with slightly higher cancer rates but that beats not having those generations in the first place..or do you think the Japanese would have tossed down their weapons and surrender enmasse? Keep in mind no where in the Pacific did the Japanese surrender beyond a handful of troops, generally choosing to fight to the death or commit suicide.

Th estimated death toll for allied forces was expected to be anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 with an addtional 250,000 to 500,000 being wounded. Thats 1 million causalties. They expected the war to extend into possibly early 1947. Can you imagine a North and South Japan? Because with the Soviets coming from the north that is exactly what would have happened.

Most historians believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese Army to face the fact that there was no hope of defeating the US and getting any kind of negotiated peace. It also forced Hirohito to act and made it clear that Japan was going to be destroyed if it continued to fight.

The alternatives were either invasion (and early stages were underway), continued blockade and continued conventional bombing (that had already killed a million Japanese).

Possible death toll (likely but hard to say as it didn't happen) was that a combination invasion and blockade would have killed millions, probably tens of millions of Japanese and tens of thousands of Americans and other Allies.

that is the justification.

In a war that saw the Axis routinely murder hundreds of thousands a people routinely by slavery and deliberate starvation (death toll in China is around 30 million, similar death toll for Soviet Union and only about a third of those were killed in battle), millions by deliberate murder (death camps ring a bell?), and other atrocities

while the Allies bombed cities and killed hundreds of thousands in Japan and a similar number in Germany

and the Russians killed an unknown (but possibly as many as a million) when they conquered East Prussia and Eastern Germany

In that war, using an Atomic weapon was simply a continuation of the slaughter and the ultimate logic of Total War.

Which is probably why there hasn't been another war like it since

nothing during the Cold War or since has seen the complete mobilization of every means of killing your enemies and placing massive armies and fleets into battle.

For which we should all be greatful.

But it's not just the people that the nukes incinerate. People not close enough to be incinerated feel their skin burning, they then jump in nearby water, they lose their skin as a result and die in one of the most gresome ways I believe posible. The radiation released effects the land for generations causing imense greif.

Why would I be sulky about that? Who won in the end again?

There was plenty of reason of GOOD reasons to use the atomic bomb. Saving millions of lives being one of them. I'm sorry a handful of generations have to deal with slightly higher cancer rates but that beats not having those generations in the first place..or do you think the Japanese would have tossed down their weapons and surrender enmasse? Keep in mind no where in the Pacific did the Japanese surrender beyond a handful of troops, generally choosing to fight to the death or commit suicide.

Th estimated death toll for allied forces was expected to be anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 with an addtional 250,000 to 500,000 being wounded. Thats 1 million causalties. They expected the war to extend into possibly early 1947. Can you imagine a North and South Japan? Because with the Soviets coming from the north that is exactly what would have happened.

The Japanese had an interesting honor system. It was better for them to die in battle then to surrender. After the nukes were droped the Japanese commanders agreed to continue to fight, it was only because of the Emperor that Japan surrendered, now thats what I call guts. Also using the nukes killed civilians en masse, isn't this the greatest war crime in Americas big book of sins? Isn't that what makes terrorists so bad?

But it's not just the people that the nukes incinerate. People not close enough to be incinerated feel their skin burning, they then jump in nearby water, they lose their skin as a result and die in one of the most gresome ways I believe posible. The radiation released effects the land for generations causing imense greif.

Cry me a river, the Rape of Nanking and Manila, the treatment of POWs, the experimentations on Chinese civilians of germ warfare, the use of bio/chem warfare..nope..I'm not shedding a single tear.

Cry me a river, the Rape of Nanking and Manila, the treatment of POWs, the experimentations on Chinese civilians of germ warfare, the use of bio/chem warfare..nope..I'm not shedding a single tear.

Two wrongs making a right?

The Japanese had an interesting honor system. It was better for them to die in battle then to surrender. After the nukes were droped the Japanese commanders agreed to continue to fight, it was only because of the Emperor that Japan surrendered, now thats what I call guts. Also using the nukes killed civilians en masse, isn't this the greatest war crime in Americas big book of sins? Isn't that what makes terrorists so bad?

Not all commanders agreed to fight. The military officers which attempted to get a coup underway could not get the Commander of the Imperial Guard, or the Commander of the Tokyo Plains who as an influential general. Support for surrender was mixed at best, and again as for killing civilians enmasse, give me a break. WWII was mostly that. So you cant call the US a war criminal unless you plan on going the whole length of combat participants.

Two wrongs making a right?

What would you have liked to happened? The invasion of Japan? That was expected to make Normandy look like a picnic on the beach.

But it's not just the people that the nukes incinerate. People not close enough to be incinerated feel their skin burning, they then jump in nearby water, they lose their skin as a result and die in one of the most gresome ways I believe posible. The radiation released effects the land for generations causing imense greif.

yep, all true... bad thing about war... its horrible

or as an American General (Sherman) put it... War is all Hell

however... in this case, it brought the war to an end.

Its hard to feel too sorry for the Japanese.. if you are Australian or British look at the Bridge of the River Kwai and the Burma Railroad and how the Japanese treated POWS from those nations in that project

if your American or Filipino look at the Bataan Death March or the Hell ships

if you are Chinese or Korean, look at the countless millions the Japanese killed
if you are Indonesian, or Indochinese, or Thai, look at the countless hundreds of thousands the Japanese killed

Its hard to feel too sorry for Japan

The Japanese had an interesting honor system. It was better for them to die in battle then to surrender. After the nukes were droped the Japanese commanders agreed to continue to fight, it was only because of the Emperor that Japan surrendered, now thats what I call guts. Also using the nukes killed civilians en masse, isn't this the greatest war crime in Americas big book of sins? Isn't that what makes terrorists so bad?

Many more civilians would have died if the war continued.

The Russians invaded Afghanistan and America gave money and weapons to people like Osama bin Laden, when the Afghanistanis won, the Americans stopped giving them weapons and money. This made the Rebels very mad, this was when Osama turned.

Two wrongs making a right?

Unfortunately thats the way it is.

The Japanese had an interesting honor system. It was better for them to die in battle then to surrender. After the nukes were droped the Japanese commanders agreed to continue to fight, it was only because of the Emperor that Japan surrendered, now thats what I call guts. Also using the nukes killed civilians en masse, isn't this the greatest war crime in Americas big book of sins? Isn't that what makes terrorists so bad?

after Hiroshima the Japanese Army wanted to continue fighting.. the next day the Soviets invaded Manchuria and began destroying a 900,000 man Japanese Army with relative ease.. two days later the Americans dropped a nuclear weapon on Nagasaki

Then and only then, with substantial Imperial pressure, did the Army (most of the General Staff but not all) decided to quit. Not because of the millions of Japanese civilian casualties to date, or the millions of military deaths, but because it was clear that fighting a last decisive battle wasnt an option when the Americans could destroy cities (and by inference) armies at will with one bomb.

Even then some of the real fanatics attempted a coup and were prevented by the Imperial Guard from reaching the recording Hirohito made to announce defeat.

The double shock of Soviet intervention and nuclear warfare made surrender the only remaining option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, saving millions at the cost of hundreds of thousands.

Tragic, but true.

Therefore, not a warcrime.

Dachua, Aushwitz (and possibly Dresden) were war crimes. My Lai was a war crime. Hiroshima was not a war crime.

Just war.

after Hiroshima the Japanese Army wanted to continue fighting.. the next day the Soviets invaded Manchuria and began destroying a 900,000 man Japanese Army with relative ease.. two days later the Americans dropped a nuclear weapon on Nagasaki

Then and only then, with substantial Imperial pressure, did the Army (most of the General Staff but not all) decided to quit. Not because of the millions of Japanese civilian casualties to date, or the millions of military deaths, but because it was clear that fighting a last decisive battle wasnt an option when the Americans could destroy cities (and by inference) armies at will with one bomb.

Even then some of the real fanatics attempted a coup and were prevented by the Imperial Guard from reaching the recording Hirohito made to announce defeat.

The double shock of Soviet intervention and nuclear warfare made surrender the only remaining option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, saving millions at the cost of hundreds of thousands.

Tragic, but true.

Therefore, not a warcrime.

Dachua, Aushwitz (and possibly Dresden) were war crimes. My Lai was a war crime. Hiroshima was not a war crime.

Just war.


Just because it saved more lives then it lost doesnt make it any less of a war crime. War crimes are not about the result but the means. The problem with all arguments for the use of nukes is that they are hypothetical, this many people could have been lost invading Japan ect ect. The most irritating thing is America thinking it has the right to the moral high ground in matters of other peoples armaments. Why does America have the right to hold WMDs and other countries dont. If you look at past records America is the only people to have actualy used nukes. So why do they think they are the only ones responsible enough to have them?

Umm..that would have required sea lift capabilities. The US had Carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Granted it would have been a nasty naval batlte in the Pacific again, but in the East the German Surface fleet couldnt compare to the USN. Heck the German surface fleet would have also had to go by the Royal Navy.

Also your lack of understanding WWII history is incredible..Hitler DID solely focus on France and the British after Poland. The attack on Russia didnt occur until much much later on.

The Japanese also did attack through Alaska, it was called the Aleuitian Islands campaign(occured around the same time of Midway) And they were repulsed.

you guys kill me first you say that japan had the best navy at the time, then you reverse your thinking saying that they could'nt do it, wtf?

japan did indeed attack the aluetian islands but with a limited force and it wasn't even considered that important enough to rate two or three paragraphs in history. if hitler would have bypassed france and went striaght from britian well like i said it would have been a slaughterhouse......
think about it this way if japan would have bypassed pearl harbour and went striaght for la, sf and the entire west coast the shock value alone would have given them time to muster, the us wasn't even conducting ops in the pacific most of the fleet was out to sea for fear of bad weather, by the time the usn would have reacted it would have been too little and too late, enough said on that point and i'm not going to argue the point about my knolwedge of ww2 with you this was and as far as i know an alternate history thread.

Just because it saved more lives then it lost doesnt make it any less of a war crime. War crimes are not about the result but the means. The problem with all arguments for the use of nukes is that they are hypothetical, this many people could have been lost invading Japan ect ect. The most irritating thing is America thinking it has the right to the moral high ground in matters of other peoples armaments. Why does America have the right to hold WMDs and other countries dont. If you look at past records America is the only people to have actualy used nukes. So why do they think they are the only ones responsible enough to have them?

We may have been the only ones to use nukes, but we never used mustard gas. Or chlorine. Nor have we used any biological weapons.

And we are the only ones responsible enough to have 'em. We only use them for really freakin' good reasons. We had to nuke the Japs because if we didn't, they would have done the same to us. And, as I stated previously, we never gassed a minority (Iraqis). We have never gassed civilians (Japs). We are the only ones responsible enough.

Just because it saved more lives then it lost doesnt make it any less of a war crime. War crimes are not about the result but the means. The problem with all arguments for the use of nukes is that they are hypothetical, this many people could have been lost invading Japan ect ect. The most irritating thing is America thinking it has the right to the moral high ground in matters of other peoples armaments. Why does America have the right to hold WMDs and other countries dont. If you look at past records America is the only people to have actualy used nukes. So why do they think they are the only ones responsible enough to have them?

Hypothetical?

There was nothing Hypothetical about Operation Olympic. It was planned and in the process of the gathering stages(Divisions from Europe were being redeployed to the Pacific). Heck the invasion of Okinawa was a prelude to Olympic. As was Iwo Jima. Nothing hypothetical about those two battles and the terrible losses of life which occured from both.

Also your definition of a war crime seems to be off..what makes a war crime? That gets determined by the victor. Also your views on geo-political opinion have no real merit in a WWII discussion. So who the US thinks should and shouldnt have nukes is moot in the this board. Although its nice to attach a meaningless statement to an arguement to get an emotional response..

Again though I'm forced to ask you the question..if dropping the atomic bomb was so bad..what would you have rather had happen? Or are you afraid to answer that question because there is no good alternative..and a costly invasion would make your OMG US WAR CRIMES! bit a moot point...

you guys kill me first you say that japan had the best navy at the time, then you reverse your thinking saying that they could'nt do it, wtf?

japan did indeed attack the aluetian islands but with a limited force and it wasn't even considered that important enough to rate two or three paragraphs in history. if hitler would have bypassed france and went striaght from britian well like i said it would have been a slaughterhouse......
think about it this way if japan would have bypassed pearl harbour and went striaght for la, sf and the entire west coast the shock value alone would have given them time to muster, the us wasn't even conducting ops in the pacific most of the fleet was out to sea for fear of bad weather, by the time the usn would have reacted it would have been too little and too late, enough said on that point and i'm not going to argue the point about my knolwedge of ww2 with you this was and as far as i know an alternate history thread.

Umm having a good navy doesnt automatically give you a good sealift capacity. Also, the Japanese fleet had to deal with range constraints. There was no way they could have sortied from the home islands, gone all the way to the west coast, bombed it, and hoped to make it back. Their ships were notorious fuel guzzeling beasts. Hence why their first objective was to take the oil fields in the South Pacific. They couldnt waste the fuel. So while its an interesting hypothetical, its very unlikely to have happened.

Also hitting cities on the west coast while it would have been a nice shock thing, the US would have literally gone for blood..it would have probably driven the US harder than anything else. Although I have to doubt the effectiveness of such a plan..hitting the west coast..the Japanese dont know about airbases on the west coast. Or really AA strength..they wouldnt have risked that at all.

As for the Germans bypassing France..how do you expect them to do that? They share the same border..the Germans would have to sortie their navy past either the French or Royal Fleet. Again..nice little hypothetical but the likely hood of it is zero..the Germans had problems in Russia..how many problems do you think the Germans would have had supplying troops across an entire ocean?

Hypothetical?

There was nothing Hypothetical about Operation Olympic. It was planned and in the process of the gathering stages(Divisions from Europe were being redeployed to the Pacific). Heck the invasion of Okinawa was a prelude to Olympic. As was Iwo Jima. Nothing hypothetical about those two battles and the terrible losses of life which occured from both.


Anything relating to what *would* have hapened if the US hadn't nuked Japan is hypothetical. There is no way to know what would have happened.


Also your definition of a war crime seems to be off..what makes a war crime? That gets determined by the victor.

Wrong. "A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." - Wikipedia. While the nukes wern't technicaly a war crime because they were droped before important international laws were implemented it still means America cant take the moral high ground.

Also your views on geo-political opinion have no real merit in a WWII discussion. So who the US thinks should and shouldnt have nukes is moot in the this board. Although its nice to attach a meaningless statement to an arguement to get an emotional response..

How is it meaningless, I talked about a related topic to find peoples views on it.


Again though I'm forced to ask you the question..if dropping the atomic bomb was so bad..what would you have rather had happen? Or are you afraid to answer that question because there is no good alternative..and a costly invasion would make your OMG US WAR CRIMES! bit a moot point...

There was no good alternative, it's war there never is. I would've prefered if there wasn't a war but it was inevitable. I wasn't there, I cannot say what other options should've been taken but I stand by the fact that mass killing a populace with a weapon that has lasting effects on the land was not the right choice.

We may have been the only ones to use nukes, but we never used mustard gas. Or chlorine. Nor have we used any biological weapons.

And we are the only ones responsible enough to have 'em. We only use them for really freakin' good reasons. We had to nuke the Japs because if we didn't, they would have done the same to us. And, as I stated previously, we never gassed a minority (Iraqis). We have never gassed civilians (Japs). We are the only ones responsible enough.

Ahh but they didn't. All the other countries have had the self restraint to not use their nukes. The US government is very warlike, its invaded two countries in the last few years, If the US was losing a war do you really think it wouldn't nuke the crap out of everyone?

Just because it saved more lives then it lost doesnt make it any less of a war crime. War crimes are not about the result but the means. The problem with all arguments for the use of nukes is that they are hypothetical, this many people could have been lost invading Japan ect ect. The most irritating thing is America thinking it has the right to the moral high ground in matters of other peoples armaments. Why does America have the right to hold WMDs and other countries dont. If you look at past records America is the only people to have actualy used nukes. So why do they think they are the only ones responsible enough to have them?

probably because we have been responsible enough not to use them since that time. Two significat incidents occured during the Cold War when the US could have easily used nuclear weapons. In 1954, the French, losing in Indochina, asked the US to use nuclear weapons to save them from defeat. Eisenhower said no.

In 1970, the Soviet Union approached the US about launching a (both of the US and USSR) massive nuclear strike against China. The US said no once again.

Plus, the Korean War and Berlin Blockade both were situations when nuclear weapons could very well have ended the war (or ensured the Soviet Union backed off) but once again, they were not used. The US has never used them since, and at one point, had nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons ranging from landmines to massive city destroying weapons.

The concern is that some countries, with strong idealogical believes, no checks on their senior political leaders, and the desperatation to consider it (and the lack of touch with reality to realize the consequences) will use them.

Thats why even the Russians and French and British, plus US, don't want a lot of nations to have them.

[QUOTE=Its too far away]Anything relating to what *would* have hapened if the US hadn't nuked Japan is hypothetical. There is no way to know what would have happened.[QUOTE]

the complete US operations plan and the staff views of the likely consequences (those making the plan at the time) are available in several books that can be found at the bigger book store chains. It wasn't hypothetical, it was planned and in the early stages of starting when the war ended. There are many ways of determining if a hypothetical is a likelihood or fantasy. Plenty of historical background shows the likely results of conventional fighting in southern Japan in 1945, including likely casualties on both sides. It isn't a hypothetical to state for example that if you shoot someone in front of an armed police officer that you will probably also be shot or at least arrested. Its a highly probably outcome.

Just a simple analogy
[QUOTE=Its too far away]Wrong. "A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." - Wikipedia. While the nukes wern't technicaly a war crime because they were droped before important international laws were implemented it still means America cant take the moral high ground. [QUOTE]


In World War II, the only weapons that were not used against the Allies first were chemical and nuclear weapons. The Japanese attempted biological warfare strikes against the Chinese (didn't work, but it was tried), and the Germans were told point blank by the Western Allies that using chemical weapons against the Russians would bring US and British retaliation.

Bombing of civilians in order to force a surrender was started by the Japanese in 1937 against the Chinese (killing hundreds of thousands). The Germans were next in Spain and Poland and the Netherlands. The British and Americans didn't get started until 1940 (after France fell in the British case) and 1943 (as the Americans lacked the ability to do it before then).

When one nation throws the rules of war out the window there is no reason to assume that everyone else will not do the same; and when all of the nations involved are fighting for survival, the definition of war crime needs more than a casual early 21st century viewpoint of smug moral superiority.

wow forums get turned into heated arguments quilkly, i'm refurring to earlier posts.
While true that that a vast number of the US ships in per harbor were outdated, it is also true that they had been refitted to keep up with performance standerds.
Pearl was one of the largest Naval massicers in history, but it served as america's reason to enter the war. why not leave it at that.
i would also like to know if the Iowa was there or not. it's a good ship, to bad it's a training vessal now.

WE DESTROY ONE HARBOR AND YOU COME AND NUKE OUR CITIES!

The USS Iowa was an Iowa class battleship! It wasn't built till late in the war!

YOU STARTED IT! WE FINISHED IT!

probably because we have been responsible enough not to use them since that time. Two significat incidents occured during the Cold War when the US could have easily used nuclear weapons. In 1954, the French, losing in Indochina, asked the US to use nuclear weapons to save them from defeat. Eisenhower said no.

In 1970, the Soviet Union approached the US about launching a (both of the US and USSR) massive nuclear strike against China. The US said no once again.

Plus, the Korean War and Berlin Blockade both were situations when nuclear weapons could very well have ended the war (or ensured the Soviet Union backed off) but once again, they were not used. The US has never used them since, and at one point, had nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons ranging from landmines to massive city destroying weapons.

The concern is that some countries, with strong idealogical believes, no checks on their senior political leaders, and the desperatation to consider it (and the lack of touch with reality to realize the consequences) will use them.

Thats why even the Russians and French and British, plus US, don't want a lot of nations to have them.

Nuking the russians would have been a bad idea, I don't think they would've just sat down and been a good little boy if you had. There are some people who it would be simply catastrophic if they had nukes, but since they are supporting global disarmament of nukes isn't it a little hypocritical of the US to have enough to destroy the world a few times. Also you could say that all the other nations have been resposible enough not to use them since that time as well.

Yes it is likely that Japan would have to be invaded and that the casualties would be huge, all im saying is that nothing is certain about what would have happened.

War is a terrible thing. Yes the Japanese used some disgraceful tactics (too bad they lost their code of honor a bit) but since America and the Allies show themselves as the "good" guys and expecialy with how evil they are saying anyone who kills civilians in a war is shouldn't they try to keep to avoid innocent deaths?

What would you have liked to happened? The invasion of Japan? That was expected to make Normandy look like a picnic on the beach.

No pun intended! LOL! Your right though! I shudder at the thought of invasion! Thank God it didn't come to that!

Many more civilians would have died if the war continued.

Correct!

The Russians invaded Afghanistan and America gave money and weapons to people like Osama bin Laden, when the Afghanistanis won, the Americans stopped giving them weapons and money. This made the Rebels very mad, this was when Osama turned.

Wrong! We never gave money to Osama Bin Laden! He was mad because the Saudis came to us to defend Saudi Arabia and to drive Hussein out of Kuwait. That was why Osama was mad at us.

Unfortunately thats the way it is.

yea

Just because it saved more lives then it lost doesnt make it any less of a war crime. War crimes are not about the result but the means. The problem with all arguments for the use of nukes is that they are hypothetical, this many people could have been lost invading Japan ect ect. The most irritating thing is America thinking it has the right to the moral high ground in matters of other peoples armaments. Why does America have the right to hold WMDs and other countries dont. If you look at past records America is the only people to have actualy used nukes. So why do they think they are the only ones responsible enough to have them?

It wasn't a war crime! We gave fair warning of what was to come if the Japanese didn't surrender. They didn't so we followed through on what we promised. Samething for Nagasaki! Therefor, it wasn't a war crime. It was a relunctant decision by President Truman. It ended the war quickly! If we invaded, it wouldn't have ended so quickly. Also, there was nothing in the Geneva Conventions regarding Nuclear Weapons because no one had them until we tested it and then used it. Therefor, under international law at the time, it was actually legal to use.

We may have been the only ones to use nukes, but we never used mustard gas. Or chlorine. Nor have we used any biological weapons.

As much as I hate to say this, Agent Orange come to mind?

And we are the only ones responsible enough to have 'em. We only use them for really freakin' good reasons. We had to nuke the Japs because if we didn't, they would have done the same to us. And, as I stated previously, we never gassed a minority (Iraqis). We have never gassed civilians (Japs). We are the only ones responsible enough.

I can buy this arguement though I think I can trust the Brits too but not the French. LOL

Anything relating to what *would* have hapened if the US hadn't nuked Japan is hypothetical. There is no way to know what would have happened.

Your right! There is no way we can know. However, we do know what would've happened if we did Invade Japan! It would've been a blood bath. Japanese citizens would've been killed because they would've tried to slit our throats. We would have no choice but to shoot those that had a weapon against us. More bombs would've fallen on the cities killing even more. I don't even want to imagine what the death toll would've been from such an invasion but the number of estimated casualties for the USA was to much hence the bomb.


Wrong. "A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." - Wikipedia. While the nukes wern't technicaly a war crime because they were droped before important international laws were implemented it still means America cant take the moral high ground.

You just invalidated your line with the part I just bolded. It wasn't a war crime then so you can't tell us it was a war crime. Therefor no war crimes where commited with the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And if we follow your logic, then neither can Germany, Russia, Britain, France, Italy, China, Vietnam, etc etc etc.

How is it meaningless, I talked about a related topic to find peoples views on it.

Not touching this! LOL

There was no good alternative, it's war there never is. I would've prefered if there wasn't a war but it was inevitable. I wasn't there, I cannot say what other options should've been taken but I stand by the fact that mass killing a populace with a weapon that has lasting effects on the land was not the right choice.

I know what options should've been used! If you study history enough, you can see what options were on the table and what options should've been used compared to those that were used.

Ahh but they didn't. All the other countries have had the self restraint to not use their nukes. The US government is very warlike, its invaded two countries in the last few years, If the US was losing a war do you really think it wouldn't nuke the crap out of everyone?

We wouldn't use them first unless our enemies used them. As for our "warlike" attitude, losing 3000 civilians in a terror attack would've made any nation due what we've been doing. All I can say is, ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME!!!

Yes it is likely that Japan would have to be invaded and that the casualties would be huge, all im saying is that nothing is certain about what would have happened.


Nothing can be certain? Do you honestly think the Japanese would have surrendered in massive numbers? Your own words come back to haunt you now. That "unique" honor system would have meant death before surrender. Again the deaths of several hundred thousand lives is a lot better than the deaths of several million and the extension of the war for another two years.Get off your so called moral high ground and look at the clear facts for a moment.

There were Japanese soldiers who well after WWII continued fighting until the 60s and 70s not believing the Empire would surrender...ANY way of resolving the war quickly would be been far more preferable than the blood bath which could have happened. But hey..Okinawa gets ignored..even though it was the first invasion of Japanese soil in how long?

Okinawa=Olympic on a smaller scale.

probably because we have been responsible enough not to use them since that time. Two significat incidents occured during the Cold War when the US could have easily used nuclear weapons. In 1954, the French, losing in Indochina, asked the US to use nuclear weapons to save them from defeat. Eisenhower said no.

Right on! Screw the French! To bad we had to bail them out of there.

In 1970, the Soviet Union approached the US about launching a (both of the US and USSR) massive nuclear strike against China. The US said no once again.

Didn't know this! Interesting. I'm going to have to research this! Thanks Nixon.

Plus, the Korean War and Berlin Blockade both were situations when nuclear weapons could very well have ended the war (or ensured the Soviet Union backed off) but once again, they were not used. The US has never used them since, and at one point, had nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons ranging from landmines to massive city destroying weapons.

Don't forget 1962 and the 13 days in October which is called the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was ready to launch and dared the Soviet Premier to force him too and the Soviets backed down.

The concern is that some countries, with strong idealogical believes, no checks on their senior political leaders, and the desperatation to consider it (and the lack of touch with reality to realize the consequences) will use them.

Correct. I fear that day.

Thats why even the Russians and French and British, plus US, don't want a lot of nations to have them.

And who can blame them?

Nothing can be certain? Do you honestly think the Japanese would have surrendered in massive numbers? Your own words come back to haunt you now. That "unique" honor system would have meant death before surrender. Again the deaths of several hundred thousand lives is a lot better than the deaths of several million and the extension of the war for another two years.Get off your so called moral high ground and look at the clear facts for a moment.

He doesn't understand NY&J! He's gotta be young and doesn't understand politics to the degree that he thinks he does. Japan's honor system prevented them from surrendering but they did. However, little tid bit! In his speech to the people, NOT ONCE did Emperor Hirohito utter the word surrender. Honor prevented him from doing so to the public.

There were Japanese soldiers who well after WWII continued fighting until the 60s and 70s not believing the Empire would surrender...ANY way of resolving the war quickly would be been far more preferable than the blood bath which could have happened. But hey..Okinawa gets ignored..even though it was the first invasion of Japanese soil in how long?

Actually, that would've been Iwo Jima but your point is valid. Very very valid. It took them along time to give up, those that didn't surrender that is.

Okinawa=Olympic on a smaller scale.

*Shutters*

There was no good alternative, it's war there never is. I would've prefered if there wasn't a war but it was inevitable. I wasn't there, I cannot say what other options should've been taken but I stand by the fact that mass killing a populace with a weapon that has lasting effects on the land was not the right choice.

The only other options were continual blockade(which was proving ineffective).
Continual bombing(the Japanese were moving their equipment underground for protection from bombing)
Invasion(Operation Coronet, and Operation Olympic)
And finally the drop of the A-bombs...

Go ahead and pick..of course you picked the simple way out by saying "Oh no..war should have never happened.." blah blah blah..meanwhile your tip toeing around to keep you on the moral high ground only makes you a hypocrite..you can spout Olympic was hypothetical call you want but it was would have happened in November of 1945..which was only 3 months away from August....troops were already building up in Okinawa..in Europe the 101st, and the 3rd Armored were training for combat operations in the Pacific..etc..etc..etc..hypothetical to you..very real to them.

Ahh but they didn't. All the other countries have had the self restraint to not use their nukes. The US government is very warlike, its invaded two countries in the last few years, If the US was losing a war do you really think it wouldn't nuke the crap out of everyone?

Right..because before 2001 we were on a bloody rampage of invasions..yup you missed our secret invasion before September 11th of Canada..yup it was done so fast you missed it! Before 2001 the only times we went into a conflict in the ten years before that was Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and the Gulf War..3 out 4 were humanitarian deals..and the last one..no country wanted Saddam to control Kuwait. But hey...we're very warlike according to whatever propoganda you listen to.. :rolleyes:

Nuking the russians would have been a bad idea, I don't think they would've just sat down and been a good little boy if you had. There are some people who it would be simply catastrophic if they had nukes, but since they are supporting global disarmament of nukes isn't it a little hypocritical of the US to have enough to destroy the world a few times. Also you could say that all the other nations have been resposible enough not to use them since that time as well.

The 1947 Warplan in case of war between the West and the Soviet Union called for the use of 120 atomic weapons against Soviet cities, production centers and major ground combat forces.

The Soviets were fully aware of this, which is why there was a Berlin Blockade, not a Soviet assault on Western occupation zones in 1947.

By the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets were still well aware that a nuclear attack on NATO would mean the destruction of the Soviet Union as a civilized nation and perhaps as a bioligical entity. By the 1970s both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery systems so that war between them would mean a mutual suicide pact that would take most of the Northern Hemisphere with them.

So the war never happened.

The only comparable situation now (of two very hostile nations with nuclear weapons) is India and Pakistan.... which since Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons a few years back has been much more dangerous. For one thing, they don't have a hotline between them like the US and Soviet Union did.

The US isn't proposing global nuclear disarmament (I don't see the British, French, Chinese or Russians pushing for it either). What the US wants is for fewer nations to obtain nuclear weapons. Particularly nations with a proven history of aggression against their neighbors (North Korea) or very strong idealogy (Iran) that makes the use of nuclear weapons politically acceptable by that nations leaders.


War is a terrible thing. Yes the Japanese used some disgraceful tactics (too bad they lost their code of honor a bit) but since America and the Allies show themselves as the "good" guys and expecialy with how evil they are saying anyone who kills civilians in a war is shouldn't they try to keep to avoid innocent deaths?

yes, the Japanese Army strayed so far from its code of honor that in 1937, when they conquered Nanking China, the members of that Army raped nearly 100,000 women, and killed over 100,000 men and boys.

With bayonets, swords, and gunshots.

A Nazi (not just German, but a member of the Nazi party) who was the German Ambassador to China, was so appalled that he literally opened the gates of the German Embassy to whatever women could get inside.

so yes, I would say the Japanese "lost their code of honor a bit."

The Rape of Nanking was not an isolated incident, and Japanese atrocities continued until literally the surrender in 1945 in every nation and island they occupied.

Actually, that would've been Iwo Jima but your point is valid. Very very valid. It took them along time to give up, those that didn't surrender that is.


Its a true story, there were handfuls of Japanese across the pacific who kept fighting well after WWII, I think they were mostly centered on the Phillippines though.

That Germany and Japan did as well as they did was more a condemnation of Allied leadership than an applauding of Axis leadership. Germany and Japan had absolutely no right to do as well as they did, lacking the industrial base, population, and initial armaments of the Allies.

Japan’s greatest ally in their fight was definitely Macarthur, who was so incompetent that they made him the Governor of Japan after the war (it’s good have a lot of Republican Senator friends when you’re a bad General). The Admiral who blocked any moves to redesign his faulty system (made by himself) in the torpedoes all but kept the US submarines from offering more than a token effort early on. Only when the Nimitz and company finally got down to the business of atoll hopping (something that dumbass Macarthur not only didn’t think of but voted against) that Japan’s war was over. Breaking all the Japanese codes before the war even started didn’t do the Japanese a lot of favours in their war. Japan had no business doing as well as they did in WWII, which is why only about 10% of the US war effort was aimed at them. Still the psychotic damage caused by kamikaze’s came an inch from breaking the will of the US at Okinawa.

Germany’s invasion of Poland was done with light tanks driven right from the factory to the front. The Polish intelligence reports suggested that their tanks were made of cardboard (having spotted them doing maneuvers in cardboard covered cars), so they countered with cavalry and it didn’t go too well for them. The Germans were not prepared for war at all, so the phony part of the early war gave them the chance to build their armaments up. Lacking a Navy or even a large enough Uboat fleet to hem in England, Hitler used the same doomed landlocked blockade policy that failed Napoleon.

Churchill and Hitler continually interfered with the decisions of their military and micromanaged them whenever possible, while the French stuck with a policy of just not seeming to care at all about what was going on. The Germans used a variant of the same old Schliefen (sp) Plan from WWI so you’d think that the Brits and French might have been able to block it. The French leadership refused to have phones in their HQ and just hoped for the best. The Brits weren’t much better with the traitor Prince Edward actually giving Rommel the intell he needed to sneak through the Arden (for his punishment the not so loyal Eddy was sent to Govern in the Caribbean, where he continued to send intell to the Axis about when ships left his ports: what a guy). Hitler interfered with his Generals until the very end of the war, making their jobs almost impossible. Churchill’s biggest strategic blunder of course being that whole “soft underbelly of Europe” fiasco into Italy. Germany should have been doomed to another defeat in WWII from the outset. The fact that it took as long as it did speaks of gross incompetence in the Allied leadership. It was only the fact that Roosevelt was practically incapacitated during the war that kept him from interfering in the military the way the other nations felt it was the duty for the top politician to do.

-Koffee

The only other options were continual blockade(which was proving ineffective).
Continual bombing(the Japanese were moving their equipment underground for protection from bombing)
Invasion(Operation Coronet, and Operation Olympic)
And finally the drop of the A-bombs...

I take the A-bombs and I'm not kidding when I say that. All other options would've killed more people than BOTH BOMBS combined.

Go ahead and pick..of course you picked the simple way out by saying "Oh no..war should have never happened.." blah blah blah..meanwhile your tip toeing around to keep you on the moral high ground only makes you a hypocrite..you can spout Olympic was hypothetical call you want but it was would have happened in November of 1945..which was only 3 months away from August....troops were already building up in Okinawa..in Europe the 101st, and the 3rd Armored were training for combat operations in the Pacific..etc..etc..etc..hypothetical to you..very real to them.

What do you expect from a peacenik?



Right..because before 2001 we were on a bloody rampage of invasions..yup you missed our secret invasion before September 11th of Canada..yup it was done so fast you missed it! Before 2001 the only times we went into a conflict in the ten years before that was Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and the Gulf War..3 out 4 were humanitarian deals..and the last one..no country wanted Saddam to control Kuwait. But hey...we're very warlike according to whatever propoganda you listen to.. :rolleyes:

We invaded Canada? Cool, were is our Oil then? Can't we demand it since they belong to us? :-p As for the other battles you mentioned, my dad was part of 3 of those 4 that you mentioned, 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Its a true story, there were handfuls of Japanese across the pacific who kept fighting well after WWII, I think they were mostly centered on the Phillippines though.

Belive me, I know it is true.

That Germany and Japan did as well as they did was more a condemnation of Allied leadership than an applauding of Axis leadership. Germany and Japan had absolutely no right to do as well as they did, lacking the industrial base, population, and initial armaments of the Allies.

Japan’s greatest ally in their fight was definitely Macarthur, who was so incompetent that they made him the Governor of Japan after the war (it’s good have a lot of Republican Senator friends when you’re a bad General). The Admiral who blocked any moves to redesign his faulty system (made by himself) in the torpedoes all but kept the US submarines from offering more than a token effort early on. Only when the Nimitz and company finally got down to the business of atoll hopping (something that dumbass Macarthur not only didn’t think of but voted against) that Japan’s war was over. Breaking all the Japanese codes before the war even started didn’t do the Japanese a lot of favours in their war. Japan had no business doing as well as they did in WWII, which is why only about 10% of the US war effort was aimed at them. Still the psychotic damage caused by kamikaze’s came an inch from breaking the will of the US at Okinawa.

Well..seeing as how the Japanese and the Germans built up before the allies, and were using newer equipment when compared to the French, Brits, and other allies, seeing as how if you consider the building of hundreds of naval aircraft, and aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers as only 10%(when with all the weapons built thats still a large number)...seeing as how MacArthur on the Phillippines was in command of a second rate Phillippino army, an under staffed US Garrison force with no heavy armor, and numerous other factors..well yea..your just being alittle too harsh on the allies. Granted some things were done wrong..but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Well..seeing as how the Japanese and the Germans built up before the allies, and were using newer equipment when compared to the French, Brits, and other allies, seeing as how if you consider the building of hundreds of naval aircraft, and aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers as only 10%(when with all the weapons built thats still a large number)...seeing as how MacArthur on the Phillippines was in command of a second rate Phillippino army, an under staffed US Garrison force with no heavy armor, and numerous other factors..well yea..your just being alittle too harsh on the allies. Granted some things were done wrong..but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

Amazing how people forget how the Axis did steamroll over the allies and why they could do what they did do. Where was the League of Nations during the illegal buildup of the German Military? Where was the LoN when Japan pulled out of said organization! What did the LoN due when Germany followed suit? Nothing.

He doesn't understand NY&J! He's gotta be young and doesn't understand politics to the degree that he thinks he does.

Hey now keep to debating the topic, dont start going after the posters.

Japan's honor system prevented them from surrendering but they did. However, little tid bit! In his speech to the people, NOT ONCE did Emperor Hirohito utter the word surrender. Honor prevented him from doing so to the public.

He didn't have to say it. It is because of him that Japan surrendered, without him there would never have been enough support for Japan to surrender.

Its a true story, there were handfuls of Japanese across the pacific who kept fighting well after WWII, I think they were mostly centered on the Phillippines though.

Yeah Japanese dont like to say die. Their old system of honor was great, it is unfortunate that they didn't keep it :mad: .

The Rape of Nanking was not an isolated incident, and Japanese atrocities continued until literally the surrender in 1945 in every nation and island they occupied.

Yep.

Go ahead and pick..of course you picked the simple way out by saying "Oh no..war should have never happened.." blah blah blah..meanwhile your tip toeing around to keep you on the moral high ground only makes you a hypocrite

Given those options I would've chosen to keep trying with the blockade. Of course im not a military commander.

What do you expect from a peacenik?

Yay name calling. So you like going to war?

Given those options I would've chosen to keep trying with the blockade. Of course im not a military commander.

No your not..thank god..under Blockade the Japanese had developed and begun to construct a jet powered suicide plane known as the Ohka..now they had already tried it once but the aircraft they had to ferry the Ohkas to the target were insufficant, so they changed to a different longer range heavy bomber they planed for saving for suicide runs.

While the blockades went on the Soviets would have invaded from the North(they already had) and would have encountered their own Coronet, and Olympic scope in the attack. This would have forced the US to invade anyway because we didnt want Stalin taking everything..extermination of the Japanese people enough so to overshaow the Holocaust in terms of civilian deaths..

Hey now keep to debating the topic, dont start going after the posters.

Apologies but I don't think your understanding what NY&J was saying.

He didn't have to say it. It is because of him that Japan surrendered, without him there would never have been enough support for Japan to surrender.

Your right, he didn't have to say it. But, even if he could, honor would've prevented him from saying it since it goes against the Japanese Culture. That was why he never said it during his speech.

Yeah Japanese dont like to say die. Their old system of honor was great, it is unfortunate that they didn't keep it :mad:

Who says they haven't kept it?

Yep.

Glad you recognize that!

Given those options I would've chosen to keep trying with the blockade. Of course im not a military commander.

Thank god for that! :-p A blockade wasn't going to solve it. The A-bomb would've saved more lives on both sides hence why Truman decided to use it

Yay name calling. So you like going to war?

No, but I do know that war is the only option and once in war, I support it regardless.

Your right, he didn't have to say it. But, even if he could, honor would've prevented him from saying it since it goes against the Japanese Culture. That was why he never said it during his speech.

The Japanese are proud. I like their culture.

Who says they haven't kept it?

Well they lost it for a while anyway. They did some horible things in world war.

Glad you recognize that!

I recognise a lot of things. I just really hate nukes.

Thank god for that! :-p A blockade wasn't going to solve it. The A-bomb would've saved more lives on both sides hence why Truman decided to use it

Thats it. Because of you two I am now going to put all my efforts towards becomming a commander, muhahahahahahahahha. Being caught on the edge of a nuke is just shockingly horible, I pity those that wern't vaporised.

No, but I do know that war is the only option and once in war, I support it regardless.

War can be necessary. However I will not support it regardless, there are some weapons that I think just shouldn't be used (chemical above all others, with nukes up there).

Well Russia and the rest of the Allies were not exactly friends. They just had a common enemy. Although some believe that the enemy of an enemy is a friend, I dont think this was the case.
Just jumping back in time here
Churchill liked Stalin-Stalin thought Churchill was a fool
Here here Renholders! To bad we didn't take them on as Patton said we should! We could have and we would've won, that is if we rearmed the Germans and had them along side us!
Russia were already a big threat big threat.


Patton was equal to Monty IMO both egotistacial malogomaniacs only looking for their own glory but they both knew how to win a war.

And just so all you didnt know New Zealand was involved in all but 3 days of WWII equal to Australia and Britain and only surpassed by Japan if you include their Chinese war.
Highest percentage of the Population fought in war too for Allied Forces barr Russia.
Rommel regarded the 2nd NZ as an Elite.
Rommel said if i had the NZ Division i could have taken over the World!
SO :p
Oh yeah HMNZSAchillies smacked the Graff Spee up to

<We invaded Canada? Cool, were is our Oil then? Can't we demand it since they belong to us? :-p As for the other battles you mentioned, my dad was part of 3 of those 4 that you mentioned, 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo.>

You talk all about War, but was one of you, not one of your friends or familiy, in war?
I was so you can't imagine, what there is going on. Thanks to your "Embedded Journalists" you see only 10% of what is going on down there.

But back to the theme of the topic: I say, none of the parties in the war behaved as they should in the war: Who had put Japanese citizens of the US in camps, even if these people were born in America. And there is a photo of an Japanese soldier, who executes a shot-down australian pilot.
What i want to say, is, that no other nation has the right to judge about the history of a nation ( In fact, the Americans didn't treat the Afro-American People better than cattle)

<We invaded Canada? Cool, were is our Oil then? Can't we demand it since they belong to us? :-p As for the other battles you mentioned, my dad was part of 3 of those 4 that you mentioned, 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo.>

You talk all about War, but was one of you, not one of your friends or familiy, in war?
I was so you can't imagine, what there is going on. Thanks to your "Embedded Journalists" you see only 10% of what is going on down there.

But back to the theme of the topic: I say, none of the parties in the war behaved as they should in the war: Who had put Japanese citizens of the US in camps, even if these people were born in America. And there is a photo of an Japanese soldier, who executes a shot-down australian pilot.
What i want to say, is, that no other nation has the right to judge about the history of a nation ( In fact, the Americans didn't treat the Afro-American People better than cattle)

Umm..the point of this was? Not one of this was a logic arguement but emotional dribble and red herring filled..

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
I had a look at this thread and thought yeah its good until it said Austria was invaded by Germany last time i checked that did not happen they unified.
There were spelling mistakes can it be credable?
America's involvment was inevitable as they were suppling Britain with goods from year dot.

Umm..the point of this was? Not one of this was a logic arguement but emotional dribble and red herring filled..
The point is, that in a war, the first thing that is lost, is the honor. Even in a country in which the honor is very important. I wrote it not very clearly, but thats what i meant. the first thing i wrote mentioned, what people drives to such extreme measures.I will not say, that this behavior is right, but it makes understandable, why these people acted as they did

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
I had a look at this thread and thought yeah its good until it said Austria was invaded by Germany last time i checked that did not happen they unified.
There were spelling mistakes can it be credable?
America's involvment was inevitable as they were suppling Britain with goods from year dot.
I think the line between an invasion and unification are very fine. To unify a nation you don't normally have to march thousands of troops and tanks into the country. You only have to do this where you intend to force the issue if it is not accepted.
Boy turns up on your door step selling cookies, he asks if you want to buy some, you notice he has a .38 in his hand with the hammer back. You buy some. were you forced to or did you want to?

liberals always complain about the a-bomb and how it proves we're aggressive idiots who kill people for our own sinister agenda's or something...

How many of our generation have a father/grandfather who was a soldier in WWII?

At least 50-60% of those people wouldn't be here, because their heir woudln't have gotten off japan alive.

Consider that


And be more informed when talking about the a-bomb. The firebombing(s) of Dresden killed much more than those who died @ Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I think the line between an invasion and unification are very fine. To unify a nation you don't normally have to march thousands of troops and tanks into the country. You only have to do this where you intend to force the issue if it is not accepted.
Boy turns up on your door step selling cookies, he asks if you want to buy some, you notice he has a .38 in his hand with the hammer back. You buy some. were you forced to or did you want to?


now if the kid was trying to sell me I-pods, i'd rather be shot. Even if he had the 44 magnum(dirty hairy custom).
I'd rather be shot even if he was giving them away, i hate i-pods

<We invaded Canada? Cool, were is our Oil then? Can't we demand it since they belong to us? :-p As for the other battles you mentioned, my dad was part of 3 of those 4 that you mentioned, 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo.>

You talk all about War, but was one of you, not one of your friends or familiy, in war?

there is only one of me! As for war, there are non-shooting wars and personal wars so yes, I have been to war. Not a military engagement but something just as deadly called life. Life is a war no matter how you look at it.

I was so you can't imagine, what there is going on. Thanks to your "Embedded Journalists" you see only 10% of what is going on down there.

Thanks to the embedded Journalists, we saw alot more than we did in the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, AND Somalia combined. We got a better understanding of what was going on and if you know the right places to look.... I remember a story done by an embedded jounalist where the mayor of a town that was liberated by American soldiers, wanted to sacrifice a goat and through a party for the AMERICAN TROOPS!! We had to decline it because of our mission but the Mayor understood.

But back to the theme of the topic: I say, none of the parties in the war behaved as they should in the war: Who had put Japanese citizens of the US in camps, even if these people were born in America. And there is a photo of an Japanese soldier, who executes a shot-down australian pilot.
What i want to say, is, that no other nation has the right to judge about the history of a nation ( In fact, the Americans didn't treat the Afro-American People better than cattle)

We treated our POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention! Germany tried to with British and American troops but did not with the Soviets. Both the USSR and Japan did not follow the rules on POWs. As for the Japanese Citizens, we fessed up to it and said it was a mistake to do what we did. So we admitted it was wrong. For the Aussie pilot, read opening statement of this paragraph.

The Japanese are proud. I like their culture.

So do I!

Well they lost it for a while anyway. They did some horible things in world war.

Welcome to war!

I recognise a lot of things. I just really hate nukes.

I do too but if I had the choice of millions dead in an invasion or hundreds of thousands dead in on bomb, what would be the most expediate method of ending the war? After looking back, WWII became one of numbers and Truman wanted to end the war with as few casualties since it was obvious that the allies would win. He dropped the bomb because it would've saved lives on both sides.

Thats it. Because of you two I am now going to put all my efforts towards becomming a commander, muhahahahahahahahha. Being caught on the edge of a nuke is just shockingly horible, I pity those that wern't vaporised.

I do too but then, if its to save lives....

War can be necessary. However I will not support it regardless, there are some weapons that I think just shouldn't be used (chemical above all others, with nukes up there).

Your right, WMD shouldn't be used at all. Remember that NO ONE knew what this bomb was going to do. No one. It wasn't even part of the Geneva Convention. It only became apart of it when the US dropped its only 2! The only 2 to be used in warfare.

Just jumping back in time here
Churchill liked Stalin-Stalin thought Churchill was a fool

Yep

Russia were already a big threat big threat.

Yep

Patton was equal to Monty IMO both egotistacial malogomaniacs only looking for their own glory but they both knew how to win a war.

Both knew how, Patton executed it better!

And just so all you didnt know New Zealand was involved in all but 3 days of WWII equal to Australia and Britain and only surpassed by Japan if you include their Chinese war.

I knew this!

Highest percentage of the Population fought in war too for Allied Forces barr Russia.

Well duh! Its a small nation! LOL

Rommel regarded the 2nd NZ as an Elite.

Not trying to start an arguement but proof please?

Rommel said if i had the NZ Division i could have taken over the World!
SO :p

Again proof of the quote?

Oh yeah HMNZSAchillies smacked the Graff Spee up to

I don't believe that! The Graff Spee was Scuttled in Montevideo after she pulled in there after her fight with 3 BRITISH CRUISERS!!!

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm
I had a look at this thread and thought yeah its good until it said Austria was invaded by Germany last time i checked that did not happen they unified.
There were spelling mistakes can it be credable?
America's involvment was inevitable as they were suppling Britain with goods from year dot.

what an amazingly slanted and revisionist view of the history of the 20th Century....

and conspirancy theorist garbage .... oversimplification of facts, deliberate slanting of facts and some deliberate falsehoods (or sheer ignorance, either way, not good)

I voted for Axis, then again, i'm japanese, so i'm 100% bias. Though Hitler is one of history's biggest jackasses.

I believe that there should have been some form of peace between the axis and allies and that the axis powers should not have been stripped and humiliated in front of the world. Russia got too much land out of that deal and the German people suffered too much because of one bad mistake, the holocaust.

I believe that there should have been some form of peace between the axis and allies and that the axis powers should not have been stripped and humiliated in front of the world. Russia got too much land out of that deal and the German people suffered too much because of one bad mistake, the holocaust.

Yea sure, one bad mistake and the second world war in less than 25 years..no, both countries got justly what they deserved.

At the end of the day the outcome of war isn't important, the human cost is always greater than that of the pride of any nation. True, the NSDAP needed to be stopped, but that could have been done many number of times, 1919, 1930, 1938.

I have recently read a few war memoirs/stories all based on experience and its clear that the great victory over nazism/fascism was not as important to these men as we make out in our movies, the things that mattered to them was that they lost friends, and could never live the same as before they had fought.

My great grandfather fought in WWI, won medals too. I never knew him but the only thing I know for sure is that whenever my Grandad asked him what he did in the war his only reply would ever be,
"I've seen things no man should ever see and I don't wish to recall them now"

And cheeto eaters was right about dresden, it was one of the most horrific acts of the war carried out by the allies.

At the end of the day the outcome of war isn't important, the human cost is always greater than that of the pride of any nation. True, the NSDAP needed to be stopped, but that could have been done many number of times, 1919, 1930, 1938.

I have recently read a few war memoirs/stories all based on experience and its clear that the great victory over nazism/fascism was not as important to these men as we make out in our movies, the things that mattered to them was that they lost friends, and could never live the same as before they had fought.

My great grandfather fought in WWI, won medals too. I never knew him but the only thing I know for sure is that whenever my Grandad asked him what he did in the war his only reply would ever be,
"I've seen things no man should ever see and I don't wish to recall them now"

And cheeto eaters was right about dresden, it was one of the most horrific acts of the war carried out by the allies.
I must say, what your Great grandfather said is absolutely right: I was in Afghanistan and saw things, you didn't see in the News. So was my Grandfather: As a young man he was in Russia and when he was asked later about that time, he only said, that he won't talk about it.
A War changes the People

I hate to jump back to a theme, but i found an article about pearl harbor:
<His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor.>
Another Article:
<The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor....">
The Ambassador Joseph C. Grew was besides very well affiliated with the Japanese Imperial Familiy, because his wife was a schoolmate of the mother of emperor Hirohito

A War changes the People Indeed it does. I know many veterans who don't want to talk about their war(s).

-40C, snow everywhere, enemy that is much stronger than you. Homes that had to be burned. Friends, brothers, sons and fathers that would not return from the front.

30 November 1939 - 13 March 1940

www.winterwar.com

there is only one of me! As for war, there are non-shooting wars and personal wars so yes, I have been to war. Not a military engagement but something just as deadly called life. Life is a war no matter how you look at it.



Thanks to the embedded Journalists, we saw alot more than we did in the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, AND Somalia combined. We got a better understanding of what was going on and if you know the right places to look.... I remember a story done by an embedded jounalist where the mayor of a town that was liberated by American soldiers, wanted to sacrifice a goat and through a party for the AMERICAN TROOPS!! We had to decline it because of our mission but the Mayor understood.



We treated our POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention! Germany tried to with British and American troops but did not with the Soviets. Both the USSR and Japan did not follow the rules on POWs. As for the Japanese Citizens, we fessed up to it and said it was a mistake to do what we did. So we admitted it was wrong. For the Aussie pilot, read opening statement of this paragraph.
Say, do you really believe, what you write? There is a really good book, called "The battle of lies". The main topic in the book is about Embedded journalism. Do you know, why these embedded journalists exist?
To the war: I meant military wars, where you see people dying like flies. You wouldn't talk so, if you had been in war once

Indeed it does. I know many veterans who don't want to talk about their war(s).

-40C, snow everywhere, enemy that is much stronger than you. Homes that had to be burned. Friends, brothers, sons and fathers that would not return from the front.

30 November 1939 - 13 March 1940

www.winterwar.com
I know about the finno-russian winterwar and i know, that the russians had very much trouble with the "Mannerheim-line"

I know about the finno-russian winterwar and i know, that the russians had very much trouble with the "Mannerheim-line"
I am amazed. There is a foreigner who knows about our war! *bow* The russians had very much trouble indeed. There is no more horrifying enemy than a country that fights for its freedom.

I am amazed. There is a foreigner who knows about our war! *bow* The russians had very much trouble indeed. There is no more horrifying enemy than a country that fights for its freedom.
I'm interested in military history.The Winterwar is mentioned in a book about the german Mountain divisions between 1935 and 1945, because later the 4th and 5th mountain division operated in this area

Indeed. It's fairly little known though, that Finland were also at war with Britain at the same time as you were at war with the USSR. The only difference is, we declared war, then didn't attack you.

are we (the UK) still at war with Finland ???

I must take action against my finish housemate

are we (the UK) still at war with Finland ???

I must take action against my finish housemate
No, besides 1944 Finland declared war to Germany after the soviets prepared themselves to invade again

I must say, what your Great grandfather said is absolutely right: I was in Afghanistan and saw things, you didn't see in the News. So was my Grandfather: As a young man he was in Russia and when he was asked later about that time, he only said, that he won't talk about it.
A War changes the People

My dad was in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the 1st Gulf War, and is in this one too. Your right, he has seen things that you don't see in the Press. Alot of good has been accomplished over there that you do not see and he has been telling me all of this. Your right in that war changes people.

Say, do you really believe, what you write? There is a really good book, called "The battle of lies". The main topic in the book is about Embedded journalism. Do you know, why these embedded journalists exist?
To the war: I meant military wars, where you see people dying like flies. You wouldn't talk so, if you had been in war once

You see people dying like flies too in the inner city. People get murdered everyday. Life is just as dangerous as a war zone. Ever see traffic in downtown? That is a warzone to be sure.

As for embedded journalism, how is a lie when they are broadcasting LIVE ON TV as a battle is going on and they are trying to make sure they do not get themselves killed?

I am amazed. There is a foreigner who knows about our war! *bow* The russians had very much trouble indeed. There is no more horrifying enemy than a country that fights for its freedom.

I know of this war too. I also know that the russians didn't send their best after you. And correct me if I"m wrong but didn't finland lose that war?

I'm interested in military history.The Winterwar is mentioned in a book about the german Mountain divisions between 1935 and 1945, because later the 4th and 5th mountain division operated in this area

Military Historian here too Buttenhausen! Love studying all of the wars that America has fought in!

You see people dying like flies too in the inner city. People get murdered everyday. Life is just as dangerous as a war zone. Ever see traffic in downtown? That is a warzone to be sure.

As for embedded journalism, how is a lie when they are broadcasting LIVE ON TV as a battle is going on and they are trying to make sure they do not get themselves killed?
I just say,read the book "the Battle of lies", then lets talk again about this theme. And about the warzone: You didn'T really get the point i'm meaning didn'T you?

I know of this war too. I also know that the russians didn't send their best after you. And correct me if I"m wrong but didn't finland lose that war?
They lost, that's correct, but the russians won only, because of their amount and under very great losses (They lost more than the finnish)

Military Historian here too Buttenhausen! Love studying all of the wars that America has fought in!
But you are only studying the official reading, didn't you? A real Historian should sometimes work critical with the material he has (Although it is considered sometimes as "unpatriotic")

I just say,read the book "the Battle of lies", then lets talk again about this theme. And about the warzone: You didn'T really get the point i'm meaning didn'T you?

Dude, I don't trust the media 100% but when journalists are on TV UNDER FIRE... its hard to lie about that hence why I didn't watch CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, or NBC!

They lost, that's correct, but the russians won only, because of their amount and under very great losses (They lost more than the finnish)

True only because the people leading the russian forces where very stupid people otherwise, it might've turned out differently.

But you are only studying the official reading, didn't you? A real Historian should sometimes work critical with the material he has (Although it is considered sometimes as "unpatriotic")

I read books, check the history websites, and watch documentaries. A true historian does research into his work and trust me, any info that comes into my hand on a war that we've fought in, I track it down to see if its accurate hence why I stated that our government knowing about Pearl is False.

I think the line between an invasion and unification are very fine. To unify a nation you don't normally have to march thousands of troops and tanks into the country. You only have to do this where you intend to force the issue if it is not accepted.
Boy turns up on your door step selling cookies, he asks if you want to buy some, you notice he has a .38 in his hand with the hammer back. You buy some. were you forced to or did you want to?
No-No Sunshine they had Anschuls Austria voted and 98%? said go Unification.Germans under Guderian went in with Flowers on their tanks man no Hostilities there.And contrary to Churchill the TAnks didnt breakdown!

I hate to jump back to a theme, but i found an article about pearl harbor:
<His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor.>
Another Article:
<The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor....">
The Ambassador Joseph C. Grew was besides very well affiliated with the Japanese Imperial Familiy, because his wife was a schoolmate of the mother of emperor Hirohito


I'm surprised no one tackled this this..

1)Yes the purple code was broken, but again the fleet which left for Pearl Harbor was ordered to maintain strict radio silence. There was no way to tell where the Carriers were, only that they were being deployed. The US military thought they were going to the Phillippines and not all the way to Hawaii.

2)The Ambassador said that on January 27th 1941, throughout that entire year US and Japanese tensions were running incredibly high yet negotiations continued. Negotiations with Japan continued all the way up till that very Friday even though the Japanese knew back in the very last days of November that further negotiations werent going to solve anything.

Also the military didnt trust the state department very much. The very same state department lead the budget cuts in the US military after WWI and they were feeling just a tad bit resentful. Again we come back to the Phillippines, military planners figured it would be the main target of any offensive. Not Hawaii. And not on a Sunday. Thats what the Ambassador left out a date and a time.

I'm surprised no one tackled this this..

1)Yes the purple code was broken, but again the fleet which left for Pearl Harbor was ordered to maintain strict radio silence. There was no way to tell where the Carriers were, only that they were being deployed. The US military thought they were going to the Phillippines and not all the way to Hawaii.

2)The Ambassador said that on January 27th 1941, throughout that entire year US and Japanese tensions were running incredibly high yet negotiations continued. Negotiations with Japan continued all the way up till that very Friday even though the Japanese knew back in the very last days of November that further negotiations werent going to solve anything.

Also the military didnt trust the state department very much. The very same state department lead the budget cuts in the US military after WWI and they were feeling just a tad bit resentful. Again we come back to the Phillippines, military planners figured it would be the main target of any offensive. Not Hawaii. And not on a Sunday. Thats what the Ambassador left out a date and a time.

O.K lets beside about the target. I was only saying, that the americans knew, that the Japanese will attack and calculated with a great loss of lives. Did you know, that the americans had set an embargo against Japan? First on scrap metal, then two months before the Attack oil-drilling Equipment and only Two weeks before the attack the oil itself. Correct me if i'm wrong, but on a ressource-depent country like Japan, the first ressource i would set under an Embargo would be the Oil.(That's beside the reason, why Japan invaded Indonesia)

O.K lets beside about the target. I was only saying, that the americans knew, that the Japanese will attack and calculated with a great loss of lives. Did you know, that the americans had set an embargo against Japan? First on scrap metal, then two months before the Attack oil-drilling Equipment and only Two weeks before the attack the oil itself. Correct me if i'm wrong, but on a ressource-depent country like Japan, the first ressource i would set under an Embargo would be the Oil.(That's beside the reason, why Japan invaded Indonesia)

It was because of their war in china Buttenhausen. We placed the Embargo when they didn't pull out of their war with china. Did you know that?

[QUOTE=Corneliu]Well duh! Its a small nation! LOL
Yeah but Percentage you understand that dont you percentage it dosent matter how big the country is but NZ managed to support more than anyone else Say America with its 300mill back then(OR WHATEVER)with a massive Industry churning out 5000 Planes etc a year New Zealand 1.6 million sustained more percentage wise PERCENTAGE!!!!!

Not trying to start an arguement but proof please?
Jez its somewhere out their in the World i aint making it up here's a nice one from Major David Parry on asked if the Germans would enter Alexandria after seeing the New Zealand Division move up.
[Rommel]"Was not entering the city today and would never enter it."
Sorry ill find it one day in one of my books :p but if you ever came across Alamein by John Latimer you understand.not from Rommel but from the book.
"Rommel came to regard the Kiwis as the elite of Eighth Army."
Please believe me :(
One key thing i didnt say.(After the War as Rommel had that unfortunate incident).

I don't believe that! The Graff Spee was Scuttled in Montevideo after she pulled in there after her fight with 3 BRITISH CRUISERS!!!
Yeah i never said only but She did.Achilles was largely manned by New Zealander's in the Division of The Royal Navy named the New Zealand Division.
Ajax,Achilles,Exeter and Cumberland were engaged against The Graff Spee they did not sink her but they forced her into Monte Video Diplomacy sunk her :( But yeah i tried to sneak that one in.LOL Technicality :D

It was because of their war in china Buttenhausen. We placed the Embargo when they didn't pull out of their war with china. Did you know that?
I knew, that it was because the invasion in China. Whgy do you ask?. I was speaking about the time and the goods , that was the Embargo about. Don' you find it odd, that they Embargoed the most important induszrial ressource at last?

what an amazingly slanted and revisionist view of the history of the 20th Century....

and conspirancy theorist garbage .... oversimplification of facts, deliberate slanting of facts and some deliberate falsehoods (or sheer ignorance, either way, not good)
I agree i only read the first Paragraph and went BS.

The Allies would have eventually won, simply based on industrial capacity. The war could have been stooped by a smaller war earlier, or dragged out by smarter decisions by Hitler, but American industrial power would have prevailed eventually.

I knew, that it was because the invasion in China. Whgy do you ask?. I was speaking about the time and the goods , that was the Embargo about. Don' you find it odd, that they Embargoed the most important induszrial ressource at last?

since the oil embargo almost immediately set the Japanese in motion to attack I don't find it odd at all. Roosevelt was trying to put off fighting the Japanese (or not fight them at all), he was more concerned about the Nazis... which is why the US maintained the Germany First strategy all through the war in spite of Pearl Harbor

[QUOTE]
Yeah but Percentage you understand that dont you percentage it dosent matter how big the country is but NZ managed to support more than anyone else Say America with its 300mill back then(OR WHATEVER)with a massive Industry churning out 5000 Planes etc a year New Zealand 1.6 million sustained more percentage wise PERCENTAGE!!!!!

The US produced nearly 50,000 aircraft a year by 1943, mobilized nearly 12 million men (and a large number of women) out of a population of approx 140 million... pretty respectable. But New Zealand mobilized the highest percentage in the war, with Australia in second place.

Jez its somewhere out their in the World i aint making it up here's a nice one from Major David Parry on asked if the Germans would enter Alexandria after seeing the New Zealand Division move up.
[Rommel]"Was not entering the city today and would never enter it."
Sorry ill find it one day in one of my books :p but if you ever came across Alamein by John Latimer you understand.not from Rommel but from the book.
"Rommel came to regard the Kiwis as the elite of Eighth Army."
Please believe me :(
One key thing i didnt say.(After the War as Rommel had that unfortunate incident).

The New Zealand division was viewed as one of the elite divisions of the British Imperial Forces throughout the war by everybody, as were the Australians and Canadians. No arguement there..... By the way, Rommel was ordered to commit suicide by Hitler after the bomb plot in July 1944 in order to save the Nazis embarrassment of having to kill him.

Yeah i never said only but She did.Achilles was largely manned by New Zealander's in the Division of The Royal Navy named the New Zealand Division.
Ajax,Achilles,Exeter and Cumberland were engaged against The Graff Spee they did not sink her but they forced her into Monte Video Diplomacy sunk her :( But yeah i tried to sneak that one in.LOL Technicality :D

The Achilles, along with the Leander and several destroyers and a number smaller warships were manned entirely the the RNZN.... a creditable performance.... the RNZAF also manned nearly 28 squadrons during the war, plus had crews throughout the RAF and RAAF.

Said in a earlier reply, World war II probably would have never existed if the USA, UK, and France gave such harsh penalties on Germany. In reality, the Allies didn't really win World War I, a peace treaty was signed. Progress was starting to favour the Allies, but not by much. It was the Allies fault as much as the Nazi's fault for WWII.

There is NO CREDITABLE EVIDENCE at all that Roosevelt deliberately let the Japanese sink or knock out of action our entire battle fleet at Pearl Harbor. No evidence proving this has ever been brought forward.

Because there isn't any. The US government couldn't even keep nuclear secrets out of the hands of the Soviets during the Cold War or more recently out of Chinese hands. The Presidents can't even hide the fact they are screwing around with interns in their office or funneling illegal money to slush funds (Nixon).

The US government can't even hide the fact that it is roughing up (in some cases torturing) prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq (not argueing merits on that one, thats for another thread)

So what makes anybody think it could hide anything having to do with the worst military disaster in US history?

Said in a earlier reply, World war II probably would have never existed if the USA, UK, and France gave such harsh penalties on Germany. In reality, the Allies didn't really win World War I, a peace treaty was signed. Progress was starting to favour the Allies, but not by much. It was the Allies fault as much as the Nazi's fault for WWII.

don't blame the USA for the Treaty of Versailles.... the US Senate never approved it or the treaty to create the League of Nations.

France and UK are responsible for that one, and France has the most blame there. They are the ones who failed to act when the Nazis remiliterized the Rhineland, and the British and French handed the Czechs over to the Nazis in 1938.

The US can be blamed for turning its back on the problems of Europe though.

Yeah but Percentage you understand that dont you percentage it dosent matter how big the country is but NZ managed to support more than anyone else Say America with its 300mill back then(OR WHATEVER)with a massive Industry churning out 5000 Planes etc a year New Zealand 1.6 million sustained more percentage wise PERCENTAGE!!!!!


The US population was 100 million give or take 10 mil, and out of that 100 million we managed to put out 12-15 million uniformed personnel at the height of the war..thats MORE people than what New Zealand had all together..you can use percentages all you want to make you feel better but frankly when those percentages translate into real numbers your still behind the US.

I knew, that it was because the invasion in China. Whgy do you ask?. I was speaking about the time and the goods , that was the Embargo about. Don' you find it odd, that they Embargoed the most important induszrial ressource at last?

Its called diplomacy. You hold back on pissing off the otherside in hopes it doesnt reach that point. Not to mention when it comes to trade both sides benefit. Stopping that trade can hurt both sides. Also in diplomatic terms its known as escalation and card playing..if the other side doesnt do what you want, you escalate matters by playing the arms embargo card..if that doesnt work then it becomes steel..and then finally the trumph card,oil.

The US population was 100 million give or take 10 mil, and out of that 100 million we managed to put out 12-15 million uniformed personnel at the height of the war..thats MORE people than what New Zealand had all together..you can use percentages all you want to make you feel better but frankly when those percentages translate into real numbers your still behind the US.

NZ kicked ass in the war. Percentages shows a countries commitment to the war cause.

don't blame the USA for the Treaty of Versailles.... the US Senate never approved it or the treaty to create the League of Nations.

France and UK are responsible for that one, and France has the most blame there. They are the ones who failed to act when the Nazis remiliterized the Rhineland, and the British and French handed the Czechs over to the Nazis in 1938.

The US can be blamed for turning its back on the problems of Europe though.
But the US suggested the League of nations (or mere Pres. Wilson)

of course it did......

and money grows on trees in my back yard, bananas talk to me and arnie is a sensitive, tree hugging, liberal man

NZ kicked ass in the war. Percentages shows a countries commitment to the war cause.


Umm..not really. Percentages can be incredibly misleading. The raw numbers themselves show a commitment to the war cause. Some nations can do much more than others, yet smaller countries will point to percentages and say "Look we're more comitted than you are!" Its the reason why I laugh when I hear the US commits only a fraction of its GDP as opposed to other nations in terms of humanitarian aid..when converted into numbers that amount is more than I believe the next three countries combined.

NZ kicked ass in the war. Percentages shows a countries commitment to the war cause.

And yet the US did alot in WWII! Basically liberated the entire pacific ALONE! Guadalcanal and a few other places did NZ and Aussie forces assist us but it was mostly US Troops and sailors and airmen that ruled the skies, the land, and sea. Our industrial capacity saw to that and if it wasn't for our aid, britain would've crumbled and that was before we entered WWII. Don't forget Lend-Lease.

But the US suggested the League of nations (or mere Pres. Wilson)

Suggested is one thing, approving it is another. US was not part of the LoN ever. Therefor, we can't be blamed for its faults.

Umm..not really. Percentages can be incredibly misleading. The raw numbers themselves show a commitment to the war cause. Some nations can do much more than others, yet smaller countries will point to percentages and say "Look we're more comitted than you are!" Its the reason why I laugh when I hear the US commits only a fraction of its GDP as opposed to other nations in terms of humanitarian aid..when converted into numbers that amount is more than I believe the next three countries combined.

Right on NY&J. People never seem to get this.