NationStates Jolt Archive

Asking opinions

In the many bloodbaths of the last century... does one stand above the others as the single most horrific, brutal, and destructive to those involved? Now it must be a battle, not a massacre, in other words two opposing effective armies engaged..


Personally Verdun, the First Day of the Somme Offensive, or Stalingrad seem to stand apart for me personally.. the Siege of Leningrad also if you include civilian suffering..

Asking opinions

In the many bloodbaths of the last century... does one stand above the others as the single most horrific, brutal, and destructive to those involved? Now it must be a battle, not a massacre, in other words two opposing effective armies engaged..


Personally Verdun, the First Day of the Somme Offensive, or Stalingrad seem to stand apart for me personally.. the Siege of Leningrad also if you include civilian suffering..



Any of those WWI battles....being an infantryman in WWI was guaranteed death.

For America, it would probably be Chosin River. 3/4 of the Marines who went up that river never managed to make it back down.

Overall, it's difficult to pick any single battle, because of the difficulty in defining the term: is Meusse-Argonne a battle, a series of battles, an offensive, or what? If I had to pick, in terms of overall nastiness. . .probably Verdun or the battle of Moscow.

The Second Battle of Kharkov and the Battle of Stalingrad.

For America, it would probably be Chosin River. 3/4 of the Marines who went up that river never managed to make it back down.

Overall, it's difficult to pick any single battle, because of the difficulty in defining the term: is Meusse-Argonne a battle, a series of battles, an offensive, or what? If I had to pick, in terms of overall nastiness. . .probably Verdun or the battle of Moscow.


I would count the Somme as a campaign, individual elements of it would count I suppose. Verdun as a battle, Passchendaele as a battle as well...actually yes the Somme offensive can count as a single battle if you wish, as technically the location changed very little, despite months of combat.

The Second Battle of Kharkov and the Battle of Stalingrad.

IIRC, the Battle of Stalingrad had the greatest number of deaths out of any battle ever fought. But as for highest percentage, I'm not sure.

The Bulge, Verdun, Leningrad, Moscow, Manchuria, anything from WWI or WWII in Europe.

i know its 20th century, but recently I heard in a lecture that the bloodiest battle to ever be fought in history was the Taiping Rebellion in China from 1851-1864.

EDIT: (Extra stuff)

about 20 million people died in hand-to-hand combat!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

Siege of Leningrad IMO

Well?

The 1st battle of the Marne was 4 days and there were about 1/2 a million casualties.

The somme was a million or so casualties in 5 months.

Lemme see, the "re-education" of the Cambodian people by the Khymer Rouge was pretty nasty, and who could forget the Hutu slaughtering all those poor Tutsi in Rwanda? I'd have to say that those were the worst that I could think of, simply because it was an act of genocide and hate instead of a political action.

Info on the Khymer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khymer_Rouge)

Rwandan Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide)

Stalingrad. It took ages and ages, a lot of people died on both sides, in terms of barbarism incidents it is right up there, and it was very cold.
Not nice at all...

Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia, 1993

I know most wouldn't agree with me, I don't even agree with me, but I think this battle should be mentioned.

Most battles in the Pacific during WW2 could be called the most horrific, hell alot of battles from WW2 could be called the most horrific.


"When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?" Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is."

Well?

The 1st battle of the Marne was 4 days and there were about 1/2 a million casualties.

The somme was a million or so casualties in 5 months.

1.3 million I believe. Though Verdunne and Paschendale were no picnics either.

Probably something on the eastern front of WWI was the worst, but I can't say off hand.

Edit: Of course if we are just going for all out "death" attrocities, probably Mao's cultural revolution. Good job there.

There have been a lot, and I mean a lot of good candidate battles here, you people seem to have enough historical view to have some valid opinions.

With that in mind, I'm not going to just find another horrible battle where everyone died fighting and shooting in the dirt and horror of prolonged battle, instead I'll remind you of a different kind of war and fighting.

The Falkland war, where ships on both side were being shot out of the ocean by aircraft dozens of miles away. Of submarines taking out ships at night, of air battles never before seen (fixed wing jet verses Harrier jet)...

As a sailor in that war (either side, Argentina or British), you didn't die under your own control, the horror lasted for weeks, not days and hours, never, never knowing if you'd wake up with a ship ablaze from an exorcet (spelling?) missile or torpedo blast that your ship never even declared battle stations for (of the likes not seen since the German wolfpacks) and you’d go to sleep in your bunk fully aware that you might wake up with your ship tilted to the side and already lost ~ leaving you only hoping that you could exit the ship before it went under, and then, leaving you will little hope, there, swimming with the sharks, and waiting. Not immediately dying, but only after days of floating around, cracked lips and sun-burnt forehead, dying of dehydration in an ocean of water...

Just food for thought for a different type of battle :)

remember kids the question was most horrific so id look at how the guys died.
Geramny tried to bleed Franc White at Verdun-They didnt really care about winning per say but wanted to kill as many as possible.

Paschendale Men getting stuck in mud and wire and being sitting ducks for machine guns.

I wont say Gallipolli for most Horrific but that wouldnt have been much fun and Monte Cassino i wont say that either.

-snip-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
Verdun was a fair bit bigger than the Marne, and I think it was bigger than the Somme as well.

I doubt there was much on the Eastern Front of WWI. The best I can think of now is Tannenberg and the lakes and Przemyl.

From casuality count, it would have to be Verdun or Stalingrad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
Verdun was a fair bit bigger than the Marne, and I think it was bigger than the Somme as well.

I doubt there was much on the Eastern Front of WWI. The best I can think of now is Tannenberg and the lakes and Przemyl.

Oh, the 1.3 million I was referencing was in respect of the Somme, not the Marne. Probably should have made that clearer.

Verdun broke the french army, I don't know the actual figures, but I am sure it there. Paschendale I picked because of the conditions. Like I said, I am not really au courrant with the figures for the eastern front, nevertheless I beleive that the Russians lost more men than any other beligerent.

Edit: Casualty tables here link (http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html)

As I look Germany leads in total deaths, but they were fighting on two fronts.

Put my vote in for Stalingrad.

I'm tempted to say Stalingrad, but I think that the siege of Leningrad was more horrific, at least for the Soviet side. Millions were starving in that city.

Country Total Mobilized Forces Killed Wounded Prisoners and Missing Total Casualties Casualties as % of Forces
ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS

British Empire
8,904,467 908,371 2,090,212 191,652 3,190,235 35.8
America World War I
4,743,826 53,513 63,195 204,002 320,710*
Eh dosent really work but America are so slack.

Hiroshima, if that counts as a battle.

...Verdun broke the french army, I don't know the actual figures, but I am sure it there.
Like I said, I am not really au courrant with the figures for the eastern front, nevertheless I beleive that the Russians lost more men than any other beligerent...
Meh, some French would probably disagree with you...there were plenty more reasons than Verdun. The German offensive there actually served to rally the French in the area. But who cares in the end?

On the Eastern Front, there were the early battles in Eastern Prussia (there were a lot of Prisoners made there, but not so much dead) and Galicia (is that what it's called in English? In German it's Galizien...) with Przemyl pretty much at its' center. But there it wasn't actually high casualties either.

If you want mud, check the first offensive of the Austrians against Serbia.

Other favourites include the Isonzo battles in the mountains.

A list of some WWI battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_World_War_I

But nonetheless, I reckon Stalingrad was worse. It was -50°C sometimes, it went for months, both sides hated each others guts more than anyone else ever did, there was no food on either side and they had up to 1.5 million casualties, plus probably 150,000 dead civilians who were trapped.
It really doesn't get much worse than that.

The battle of Kursk (in the spring offensive following the victory at Stalingrad) was the largest battle of any war EVER fought to this day:

It involved the greatest number of tanks (over 20,000 combined)
Had the largest tank engagement (2,000+ tanks in combat)
The largest number of aircraft deployed (10,000+)
The largest dogfight in recorded history
The most infantry deployed (nearly 3 million combined)
And the most devastating consecutive artillery barrage (by Zhukhov)

And of course, had the greatest number of casualties of any single battle. All in the span of a few days.

It is considered by most objective historians as the single most decisive battle of World War II. Hitler's warmachine in Russia was crushed for good, and the Soviet onslaught would steadily push to Berlin. Did I mention all of this took place a year before the so called D-Day?

It wins, no competition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
Verdun was a fair bit bigger than the Marne, and I think it was bigger than the Somme as well.

I doubt there was much on the Eastern Front of WWI. The best I can think of now is Tannenberg and the lakes and Przemyl.

Verdun was a larger scale and longer. What was it Feb to December? 700000 casualties.

Marne was 4 days with 500000 casualties.

The topic is about the most HORRIFIC battle ever, not necessarily the battle with the most casualties. If that was what we were discussing, there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, as it wouldn't be an opinion.

The topic is about the most HORRIFIC battle ever, not necessarily the battle with the most casualties. If that was what we were discussing, there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, as it wouldn't be an opinion.

Ok. 125000 men a day are killed, wounded and or captured. That isn't horrific?

I think you'll find that I did not say that anywhere in my post. Nor was it specifically directed at you.

Ok. 125000 men a day are killed, wounded and or captured. That isn't horrific?
It is, but maybe not as horrific as sitting in a trench and having mines explode underneath you or sitting in a destroyed building with your arm frozen solid.
The Marne was a more or less open field battle, so conditions may not have been as bad.

I think you'll find that I did not say that anywhere in my post. Nor was it specifically directed at you.

Just wanted more of a clarification.

No worries. ;)

Meh, some French would probably disagree with you...there were plenty more reasons than Verdun. The German offensive there actually served to rally the French in the area. But who cares in the end?

On the Eastern Front, there were the early battles in Eastern Prussia (there were a lot of Prisoners made there, but not so much dead) and Galicia (is that what it's called in English? In German it's Galizien...) with Przemyl pretty much at its' center. But there it wasn't actually high casualties either.

If you want mud, check the first offensive of the Austrians against Serbia.

Other favourites include the Isonzo battles in the mountains.

A list of some WWI battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_World_War_I

But nonetheless, I reckon Stalingrad was worse. It was -50°C sometimes, it went for months, both sides hated each others guts more than anyone else ever did, there was no food on either side and they had up to 1.5 million casualties, plus probably 150,000 dead civilians who were trapped.
It really doesn't get much worse than that.

Like I said, I am not really up on the eastern front, but I figured the Russians must have lost 12,000,000 casualties somewhere.

My ex's grandfather fought at Stalingrad. He didn't get back to Germany until the fifties. (Then, by all accounts he was really screwed up).

Like I said, I am not really up on the eastern front, but I figured the Russians must have lost 12,000,000 casualties somewhere.

My ex's grandfather fought at Stalingrad. He didn't get back to Germany until the fifties. (Then, by all accounts he was really screwed up).
I have a grandfather who was there. He got his leg blown to bits and was lucky enough to be flown out. But he never talks about it to anyone.

I figure there probably weren't large scale battles on the Eastern Front in WWI, more of a steady attrition kind of thing...

EDIT: From Wikipedia
"The Russian casualties in the First World War are difficult to estimate, due to poor quality of available statistics. Some official Russian sources list 775,400 battlefield fatalities. More recent Russian estimates give 900,000 battlefield deaths and 400,000 dead from combat wounds, for a total of 1.3 million dead. This is about equal to casualties suffered by France and Austria-Hungary and about one-third less than those suffered by Germany. When Russia withdrew from the war, 3.9 million Russian POWs were in German and Austrian hands. This by far exceeded the total number of prisoners of war (1.3 million) lost by the armies of Britain, France and Germany combined. Only the Austro-Hungarian army, with 2.2 million POWs, came close."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWI%29

Like I said, I am not really up on the eastern front, but I figured the Russians must have lost 12,000,000 casualties somewhere.

My ex's grandfather fought at Stalingrad. He didn't get back to Germany until the fifties. (Then, by all accounts he was really screwed up).

Man he went through hell. What was that 60000 went into the camps and 3 thousand came out.

An old girlfriends grandfather was lucky enough to get wounded as the army went in. He said all his friends were killed.....

Man he went through hell. What was that 60000 went into the camps and 3 thousand came out.

An old girlfriends grandfather was lucky enough to get wounded as the army went in. He said all his friends were killed.....

My ex never met him, and nor did I. He died in the seventies. I talked to her father about it a few times and, apparently, everyone thought he was dead after 1944: There was no message from the red-cross or any other organization that suggested otherwise. Nor did the German government ever inform them of his status. I suppose they just didn't know.

In any event, he literally just showed up in Germany in the early fifties after having been interred in the eastern block since his capture. Naturally he had been in various prison camps, but, according to my ex's father he would never talk about it. Saying that, he was apparently really screwed up.

Shortly after his return my ex's father emigrated to the states because he couldn't live around his father. I actually understand why, because my ex's father is a confirmed pacifist having lived through the war as a child, and his father couldn't shake what the war had done to him. It's really a very sad story that has no happy end: Even when his father died, my ex's father couldn't face going back to germany for his funeral, or face what had happened between them. (In fact he has never been able to face going back to his home as far as I know).

Both of them never reconciled with each other, because neither could understand what the war had done to either one of them. It's a really sad thing. And to this day, my ex's father, who I still go fishing with feels wretched about it. It's sad.

I would say Verdun. The German battle plan was simply to bleed the French white.

i know its 20th century, but recently I heard in a lecture that the bloodiest battle to ever be fought in history was the Taiping Rebellion in China from 1851-1864.

EDIT: (Extra stuff)

about 20 million people died in hand-to-hand combat!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

That was a series of battles not just one. Still one hell of a bloody time though.

I am not that knowledgeable on WWI, however, in WWII, I would think Stalingrad (E. Euro front), the Bulge (W. Euro Front), and maybe Okinawa for the Pacific.

:eek: :mp5:

Since some have verged a little off topic in terms of defining strictly the most horrific battle, I will a little.

Most horrific war-related incident: The rape of Nan-King, without question. The Japanese would bury people up to their necks and set dogs loose on them. They also forced fathers to rape daughters, and sons/mothers. The Japanese did some unspeakable things throughout the Sino-Japanese War and WWII, but this was the worst.

Most amusing incident: The Nazi-assisted hangglider escape of Mussolino from an Italian prison :P. The Italian "invasion" of Greece was pretty funny, too. Everything the Italian army did in WWII was pretty hilarious, actually.

Hardest fought defense: The French defense of Paris in '40. Redefining the word "stalwart".

Most heroic defenses: The 82nd holding out in Bastogne during the Bulge, the Marines caught on Guadalcanal for months, perhaps greatest of all the Russian 50th Army in the Tula and then Kashira positions outside Moscow. The 2nd Panzer Army had just encircled and destroyed three Soviet armies around Bryansk from October 3-7, then the 3rd and 4th Panzer Armies trapped six Soviet armies west of Vyazma, and took (by their estimate) 675,000 prisoners. The Soviet forces in front of Moscow were temporarily reduced to 90,000, yet they held out and ground Operation Teifun to a halt. Damned impressive. The Germans had taken Krasnaya Polyana and pushed into Khimki, 15 miles from the Kremlin. I still have no idea how the Russians held.

Best offensive/counteroffensive: The Germans certainly had their share, but the Bagration offensive is still the most impressive to me. Patton had some nice ones, too, considering all the restraints placed on him.

Topic question (most brutal in 20th century): Hard to say, in a way all combat is equally brutal, but I'd probably have to agree with the majority and say either Verdun, Stalingrad, or Kursk. Kharkhov was no picnic, either. I'd have to imagine the Battle of Berlin was an ugly scene, considering how sad you kind of feel for the German people at that point, what with the kids and old men. There were actually a damn lot of casualties in Berlin, too.

The Somme

The Italian "invasion" of Greece was pretty funny, too. Everything the Italian army did in WWII was pretty hilarious, actually.


Wasn;t it 12 British hurracanes against saveral throusand Italients at one point-and the british where winning until the germans got involved.

You shouldn't dwell on your mistakes Bough, you should learn from them. That wasn't a quote from a Nationstates player, by the way. I just bent the quoting rules a bit using my genius brain to change the program to quote something else.
Anyway, like Jonnie said, we shouldn't be discussing what is the single worst man-made catastrophe in our history. This thread should be: What is the Least Horrific Battle of the 20th Century?

I am not that knowledgeable on WWI, however, in WWII, I would think Stalingrad (E. Euro front), the Bulge (W. Euro Front), and maybe Okinawa for the Pacific.

:eek: :mp5:

Yeah, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were terrible. More Marines were lost on Iwo Jima than in all previous island-hopping battles combined, and the same holds true for Okinawa, excepting Iwo Jima. If we had been forced to actually invade Honshu, it probably would have rivaled or surpassed the Eastern Front in brutality. I'm talking Marines having to mow down rock-throwing children and women with .50 cals. That bushido, "death before dishonor" Japanese/samurai mentality was some serious shit. The emphasis placed on value of life as compared with honor was the complete opposite of Western society's. I think people who criticize dropping Little Boy and Fat Man are generally completely ignorant of the fact that they saved several million lives. I don't doubt the seriousness of the statement that if we had bombed the Emperor's palace in Kyoto, they would have literally fought down to the last man, woman, and child.

By the way, I'd rank Market Garden as being worse for allied troops, at least, than the Bulge. I'd rather be stuck in Bastogne and saved by the 3rd Army, as opposed to being stuck in Arnhem, Ooosterbeek, Shijndel, Eindhoven, Son, Nimejen, or wherever, and waiting for XXX Corps which never arrived.
Way to go, Monty.

Wasn;t it 12 British hurracanes against saveral throusand Italients at one point-and the british where winning until the germans got involved.

The Brits certainly helped, but it was actually mostly the Greeks themselves who beat down the Italians. Mussolini greatly underestimated the Greek resolve and fighting ability, and he ended up embarassing the hell out of himself for that error (not the first or last time, for sure). It's hard to pinpoint the reason for the atrocious performance of the Italian army in WWII. An incompetent officer corps, increasingly low morale (as the Italian people began to realize more and more what "Il Duce" had gotten them into), outdated equipment, the list goes on and on. To tell the truth, the Italians had the best equipped and modern army in 1935 after a massive arms buildup, but the equipment had become largely obsolete and a waste of resources when war actually broke out in '39-40.

I always thought it seemed like some kind of national Kharma going against Italy since the 3rd century crisis. The Italian Wars were only a small example of how Italy had become the China of Europe (a once great power in disunion and subjected to divying up by foreign conquerors) since the fall of Rome (which was a long process, forget Odoacer deposing Romulus Augustulus in 476, the true fall of Rome was a slow process that took centuries, if not millennia, if one is to count the Byzantines). That being said, Italy actually did field a few rather fine divisions in North Africa in WWII, and various city-states like Venice, Milan, Rome/Romagna under Rodrigo/Cesare Borgia and Julius, have been respectable powers. Ok, enough totally off-topic babbling, I like hearing myself type too much :P.

On the Russian front in World War Two, soldiers on both sides resulted to cannibalism and the mutilation of corpses to survive. For the US, Vietnam had a lot of horrifying casualty rates, but what made it so horrible was the psychological warfare engaged in by the Vietcong and the cold-blooded way in which the Pentagon and the politicians ran the war; however, there is no definitive Vietnam battle.

On the Russian front in World War Two, soldiers on both sides resulted to cannibalism and the mutilation of corpses to survive. For the US, Vietnam had a lot of horrifying casualty rates, but what made it so horrible was the psychological warfare engaged in by the Vietcong and the cold-blooded way in which the Pentagon and the politicians ran the war; however, there is no definitive Vietnam battle.

I don't know about Vietnam casualty rates being all that high, especially when considered relatively. People don't realize that we won every single major engagement in that war. In terms of kill ratios, we dominated the NVA and VC, even considering all their booby trap, guerrilla, home turf bs.

I would go so far as to say La Drang, Khe Sanh, and even the series of battles on Tet were all definitive battles, though of course the real battle was fought at home, as well as by and among politicians, and that's the only one that mattered in the end. It's strange, the images of VC nearly storming the US consulate and "overrunning" cities during Tet seriously shook civilian confidence in the war, yet the offensive itself ended a harsh failure for the VC, though perhaps it was meant for its imagery and for PR reasons rather than strategic, operational, or even tactical victory all along. The VC were basically destroyed outright during Tet, leaving mostly NVA forces, who of course fought more conventionally, which was just the type of war we were/are better at. With Cambodia/Ho Chi Minh trail finally put into play, we were far more effective, yet at this critical juncture, the mindset at home drastically changed, and thus the process of "Vietnamization" began. Such a shame, 58,000 lives taken in vain. If you're going to get wet, might as well jump in with both feet, or don't bother.

Stalingrad, if defender, Galipoli, if attacker.
Always depends on which side you are.
WW I western front is a pretty good bet for the worst, because it didn't really matter, which side you were.
Anyway, a battle with only one killed is terrible if I am the one. As lucky as I usually am, I'd certainly be. :(

Stalingrad, if defender, Galipoli, if attacker.
Always depends on which side you are.
WW I western front is a pretty good bet for the worst, because it didn't really matter, which side you were.
Anyway, a battle with only one killed is terrible if I am the one. As lucky as I usually am, I'd certainly be. :(


As I understand it, at Gallipoli the British and ANZAC forces actually inflicted heavier losses on the Turks than they themselves received...however it was one of those battles in which if the breakthrough is not made almost at once, the enemy can merely concentrate forces in a series of lines and stall the offensive until hell freezes over... For an attacker an arguement can be made for Stalingrad, but I personally believe going over the top at the Somme in the first day would be the worst, or perhaps the French in the Nievelle Offensive. That offensive in early 1917 was such a debacle that after a few days many French divisions simply refused to get out of their trenches to attack any longer...for morale to actually break down to such a point that veteran attacking units will refuse orders indicates those previous few days must have been appaulling. For one on defense, Stalingrad following the Soviet encirclement of the 6th Army, when the Germans became the besieged probably would be among the worst, even after the final surrender the Soviets rushed from prisoner to prisoner to locate any members of the SS, who were then thrown against a wall and shot... I believe maybe 25,000 men made it out of the "Kessel" by air evacuation, and another 6,000 out of the 91,000 Germans who surrendered survived to return home. Of course, for the Soviets at the battle's most desperate phase the life expectency for a Russian private ferried into Stalingrad was 24 hours I believe, so it could well be as bad.


Verdun though, I must say for those involved also can be argued to be the worst, they call it France's National Battle, its sole purpose being to kill as many French soldiers as possible is chilling, ironic of course as German losses were roughly equal to the French.

Ah Italy 9 Million Bayonets yet only 3 million troops.
Good Ol' il Duce!

Italy did have some fine Divisions in Africa
Pistiola was not one of them mind you that got mostly Garrison duty spending its time with Airlifted Whores and it had the largest transport force of all Italian Divisons while the guys at the front had sweet bugger all.
Italian Divisions had incompetent leaders but Rommel thought the Soldiers were fine and was happy to give them Medals.

Tel El Alamien (I and II)
deserve a mention
I Battle continuation of the Retreat busted up the German Panzer fomations
II Slogging match that cracked open the Axis lines.

Only the flies and 11 days of fighting with very little sleep would qualifiy it for Most Horrific oh plus ceaseless Artillary Barages.

Yeah, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were terrible. More Marines were lost on Iwo Jima than in all previous island-hopping battles combined, and the same holds true for Okinawa, excepting Iwo Jima. If we had been forced to actually invade Honshu, it probably would have rivaled or surpassed the Eastern Front in brutality. I'm talking Marines having to mow down rock-throwing children and women with .50 cals. That bushido, "death before dishonor" Japanese/samurai mentality was some serious shit. The emphasis placed on value of life as compared with honor was the complete opposite of Western society's. I think people who criticize dropping Little Boy and Fat Man are generally completely ignorant of the fact that they saved several million lives. I don't doubt the seriousness of the statement that if we had bombed the Emperor's palace in Kyoto, they would have literally fought down to the last man, woman, and child.

You act as if we would have had to invade, if we had not nuked them. This is completely false. The Japanese war machine was obliterated, they could barely make infantry weapons. We could have simply blockaded them, starved them out until they surrendured. It would have been the emporer's fault for every death in that case, not ours.

Anyways, I will say three:Kursk, The early eastern front in ww2(Watching soviet equipment get blown away like that must have been brutal), and the early chinese intervention in korea. For US forces to watch 250,000 chinese flood over the yalu, and start attacking, that had to be truly horrific.

The Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. I believe that there were almost two million dead.

The sinking of the USS Indianapolis was pretty bad, and the Japanese conquest of the Bataan Peninsula in the Phillipines.

That wasn't a quote from a Nationstates player, by the way. I just bent the quoting rules a bit using my genius brain to change the program to quote something else.

No offense, but do you really think you're the first person to ever think of that?

Kursk and Stalingrad.

Massive casualties. T -34's ramming Tigers to destroy them. Snow. Street-combat.

Russians are insane.

You act as if we would have had to invade, if we had not nuked them. This is completely false. The Japanese war machine was obliterated, they could barely make infantry weapons. We could have simply blockaded them, starved them out until they surrendured. It would have been the emporer's fault for every death in that case, not ours. A Japanese lady who was in my Modern History unit once told us the story of her mother during the war. The Japanese couldn't concieve of their Emperor being wrong. In the last weeks of the war, soldiers came around to scavange metals from the houses of civilians in a desperate attempt to maintain some level of production.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

You act as if we would have had to invade, if we had not nuked them. This is completely false. The Japanese war machine was obliterated, they could barely make infantry weapons. We could have simply blockaded them, starved them out until they surrendured. It would have been the emporer's fault for every death in that case, not ours.

Anyways, I will say three:Kursk, The early eastern front in ww2(Watching soviet equipment get blown away like that must have been brutal), and the early chinese intervention in korea. For US forces to watch 250,000 chinese flood over the yalu, and start attacking, that had to be truly horrific.

Notice how I said "*IF* we would have been forced to invade Honshu"? Does that sound like I was making it out to be the only option?

If you know anything about the Japanese mentality, you know that far, FAR more people would have died from starvation than died from the bombs before giving up. The word "surrender" just did not exist in the Japan of old. Japanese pilots always carried swords in their planes, a symbol of their believing themselves modern samurai. The code of Bushido, which had elements which always carried beyond merely the samurai class, demanded the committment of seppuki before dishonor. Do you think a country which had people who thought themselves part of a "Divine Wind" (which harkens back to the monsoon which helped push back the Mongols in the 14th century) and volunteered in droves to kill themselves to take out a few Americans are suddenly going to say, "Oh no, they took my Cheetohs, I give up!"? It is true, Japan could not sustain itself agriculturally, but our control over the Sea of Japan was not at the point where they could not have brought food from Manchuria and other holdings. They are an imaginative people, they most certainly would have found a way to survive, even if it meant having enough people die off that the land/population ratio would met a level where self-sustenance became possible. We were rightly unwilling to engage in a war of provisional attrition which may or may not have worked, to have the war continue for years, to in all probability have our options eventually exhausted and be forced to invade an island which women, children, and the elderly were already being prepared to defend to the last in 1945, and would have been all the more fortified at that point. Contrary to widespread opinion, we did warn them of our intentions, and we did give enough time after Hiroshima for them to send a response. Their oil reserves were low, their navy destroyed, but don't think for a second that they had no possibility of resuming offensive warfare from that point on. When you have something which can end the war quickly, you use it, particularly when, in light of Japanese atrocities (for which their high ranking officers were all but completely resolved of accountability for), in light of THEIR choice to start not only war against us, but the Sino-Japanese war, Indochina, India, Singapore, etc., you have no great reason NOT to use it. Wars of attrition are inevitably far more costly than decisive blows. It is easy to fall into the "plane crash" syndrome, whereby the witnessing of many dying at once has more of a visually psychological effect than the knowledge of far more individual deaths on a widespread, long term basis. People begin to think flying is more dangerous because of the visual shock of a plane crash (nuke), when it is in reality, statistically, far more dangerous to drive (starve/invade). Such was the case here.

A large portion of the General Staff still wanted to continue, even many who realized that we certainly had enough refined U-235 and U-238 to build more than 2 bombs, and fast. The fault which you attribute to us rather than the Emperor is ridiculous. The Emperor had about as much control over Japanese policy as Kaiser Wilhelm did over Germany's. The various cabinets and increasingly nationalistic, despotic rule during the 1920's and 30's is what led to Japan's attempt to economically dominate the Pacific. We stood in their way, we blockaded them for invading China, they knew we would not let them arbitrarily install regimes like Manchuotiko across the Pacific region. Knowing that, most also realized that they could not possibly compete with the US in a protracted war where the full industrialized potential of each country was utilized. Therefore, they decided on something of a naval blitzkrieg campaign in order to force an early peace, and attacked. Every SINGLE event from there on out is on them. We could have wiped out every living person on Honshu and it would STILL be their fault. If I go and rape a man's wife, I don't blame him for burning my house down with me in it and say he went too far when my intention was to continue raping his wife. If you are so intent on blaming a single entity, blame Tojo Hideki. If you are so intent on blaming countries for targeting civilians, begin with the countries who initiated the practice. If you are so intent on blaming America in particular for this practice, blame it for the Tokyo firebombings. More people were killed in one night than either Fat Man or Little Boy killed, yet nobody ever comments on this or Dresden because they don't even know about them, only surface details known to the most casual of observers who like to make commentaries with .001% of the information. I appreciate your viewpoint, atomic warfare is a horrific and despicable thing, but without providing a better solution with realistic consequences, it is naive to criticize. I stand by my statement: millions of lives were saved.

I don't know about Vietnam casualty rates being all that high, especially when considered relatively. People don't realize that we won every single major engagement in that war. In terms of kill ratios, we dominated the NVA and VC, even considering all their booby trap, guerrilla, home turf bs. -snip-
Darn straight we were whipping them good!


*unless History books only talk of victory maybe Morale was a big deal.

Notice how I said "*IF* we would have been forced to invade Honshu"? Does that sound like I was making it out to be the only option?

If you know anything about the Japanese mentality, you know that far, FAR more people would have died from starvation than died from the bombs before giving up. The word "surrender" just did not exist in the Japan of old. Japanese pilots always carried swords in their planes, a symbol of their believing themselves modern samurai. The code of Bushido, which had elements which always carried beyond merely the samurai class, demanded the committment of seppuki before dishonor. Do you think a country which had people who thought themselves part of a "Divine Wind" (which harkens back to the monsoon which helped push back the Mongols in the 14th century) and volunteered in droves to kill themselves to take out a few Americans are suddenly going to say, "Oh no, they took my Cheetohs, I give up!"? It is true, Japan could not sustain itself agriculturally, but our control over the Sea of Japan was not at the point where they could not have brought food from Manchuria and other holdings. They are an imaginative people, they most certainly would have found a way to survive, even if it meant having enough people die off that the land/population ratio would met a level where self-sustenance became possible. We were rightly unwilling to engage in a war of provisional attrition which may or may not have worked, to have the war continue for years, to in all probability have our options eventually exhausted and be forced to invade an island which women, children, and the elderly were already being prepared to defend to the last in 1945, and would have been all the more fortified at that point. Contrary to widespread opinion, we did warn them of our intentions, and we did give enough time after Hiroshima for them to send a response. Their oil reserves were low, their navy destroyed, but don't think for a second that they had no possibility of resuming offensive warfare from that point on. When you have something which can end the war quickly, you use it, particularly when, in light of Japanese atrocities (for which their high ranking officers were all but completely resolved of accountability for), in light of THEIR choice to start not only war against us, but the Sino-Japanese war, Indochina, India, Singapore, etc., you have no great reason NOT to use it. Wars of attrition are inevitably far more costly than decisive blows. It is easy to fall into the "plane crash" syndrome, whereby the witnessing of many dying at once has more of a visually psychological effect than the knowledge of far more individual deaths on a widespread, long term basis. People begin to think flying is more dangerous because of the visual shock of a plane crash (nuke), when it is in reality, statistically, far more dangerous to drive (starve/invade). Such was the case here.

A large portion of the General Staff still wanted to continue, even many who realized that we certainly had enough refined U-235 and U-238 to build more than 2 bombs, and fast. The fault which you attribute to us rather than the Emperor is ridiculous. The Emperor had about as much control over Japanese policy as Kaiser Wilhelm did over Germany's. The various cabinets and increasingly nationalistic, despotic rule during the 1920's and 30's is what led to Japan's attempt to economically dominate the Pacific. We stood in their way, we blockaded them for invading China, they knew we would not let them arbitrarily install regimes like Manchuotiko across the Pacific region. Knowing that, most also realized that they could not possibly compete with the US in a protracted war where the full industrialized potential of each country was utilized. Therefore, they decided on something of a naval blitzkrieg campaign in order to force an early peace, and attacked. Every SINGLE event from there on out is on them. We could have wiped out every living person on Honshu and it would STILL be their fault. If I go and rape a man's wife, I don't blame him for burning my house down with me in it and say he went too far when my intention was to continue raping his wife. If you are so intent on blaming a single entity, blame Tojo Hideki. If you are so intent on blaming countries for targeting civilians, begin with the countries who initiated the practice. If you are so intent on blaming America in particular for this practice, blame it for the Tokyo firebombings. More people were killed in one night than either Fat Man or Little Boy killed, yet nobody ever comments on this or Dresden because they don't even know about them, only surface details known to the most casual of observers who like to make commentaries with .001% of the information. I appreciate your viewpoint, atomic warfare is a horrific and despicable thing, but without providing a better solution with realistic consequences, it is naive to criticize. I stand by my statement: millions of lives were saved.


Two main points: One, we did have total control over the seas. By 1945, our ships had free reign around japan. The russians could have easily "helped" the chinese take back manchuria, the russians obliterating the japanese where they fought them.

Two, maybe more lives would have been lost. But they would not be able to be blamed on the US, as the emporer at any moment could have stopped the mounting casualties. With the bombs, it went from 0 to 100,000, then 200,000.

Two main points: One, we did have total control over the seas. By 1945, our ships had free reign around japan. The russians could have easily "helped" the chinese take back manchuria, the russians obliterating the japanese where they fought them.

Two, maybe more lives would have been lost. But they would not be able to be blamed on the US, as the emporer at any moment could have stopped the mounting casualties. With the bombs, it went from 0 to 100,000, then 200,000.

You are incorrect, we did not have total control over the Sea of Japan at the time. The extensive underwater mine fields among other factors allowed the Japanese certainly at least a route to transfer troops, logistics, and provisions between the two countries for quite some time, if by way of submarines if nothing else. Again, your point about the direction of blame is asinine. Blame expanionist military autocracies for the suffering they cause, both on others and, in the end, on themselves, not the victims of their attacks. Again, the "emporer" (which is spelled emperor) was respected as a divine entity, but did not in the end make the ultimate decisions regarding the war or its conclusion. Despite the declaration, it is far from assured that Russia would have attacked the Japanese in Manchuria. With your estimate of "two, maybe more" lives being lost before the Japanese surrendered due to an enforced starvation, it makes me wonder why I even waste my time responding. I'm sure you believe fully in this "Blame America for Hiroshima" theory you heard from someone else, because it conveniently fits a USA bashing mindset, but it holds no water. Wars are won with tough decisions, not hopes and dreams, banking on possibilities. Millions of lives were saved; let it rest.

For the most horrific overall battle, I'd have to say Iwo Jima. Overall because of the deaths between both sides--- how many Japanese surrendered again?

However, Stalingrad comes up VERY closely as a runnerup, as does pretty much any WWI battle.

The Massacre of Nanking was the worst battle in WWII. Over 300,000 civilians were butchered and slaughtered and 80,000 women and children were raped by the invading Japanese army in just a month or two. The Japanese STILL deny it ever happened.

The most intense battle was probably Stalingrad. (I heard of one tower took the Nazis over 2 weeks to capture. It was defended by only 6 Russian soldiers.) It was fiercely defended by the Soviets and just may have been one of the pivotal turning points of the whole European Theatre of WWII

Well?

The 1st battle of the Marne was 4 days and there were about 1/2 a million casualties.

I'm not sure I'd count that though because the First Battle of the Marne was actually a series of battles stretching across the Western front near Paris. No one of these engagements was particularly bloody (or at least not as compared to many other battles mentioned here), it was only when Allied propagandists rolled them all into one and slapped the label of The Battle of the Marne on the package that it took on such horrific quality.

For the most horrific overall battle, I'd have to say Iwo Jima. Overall because of the deaths between both sides--- how many Japanese surrendered again?
But the Americans had plenty of supplies, enough food, clothing and ammunition, the weather was more or less pleasant (compared to Stalingrad certainly), and the scale was absolutely dwarved by what was happening in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima