NationStates Jolt Archive

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*

Uh, dude it’s a game depicting one group of soldiers in World War II. You can’t expect every game to be all-inclusive.

Besides, the Russian campaign was nothing compared to the Point du Hoc segment.;)

Red Orchestra is far better. German versus Soviet in Stalingrad. Limited selection of weapons that are realitically crappy and hard to use effectively. No floating stats above the heads of PCs to tell you who's friend or foe. Anyone trying to play like it was a Spielburg movie gets chewed to pieces.

Well that's because the US was really the only winner. Russia did okay I guess, but everyone else lost.

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*

Its a game not a history book. If it were a history book youd know the exact date and time each tank died. Youd play it like a movie and not a game. Write a game where the French win if you dont like it.

Here's a thought.... don't buy it.

Well that's because the US was really the only winner. Russia did okay I guess, but everyone else lost.
Russia did ok?
How on earth you got that assumption?

Russia did ok?
How on earth you got that assumption?
Ya, didn't Russia have the highest casualties?

Russia did ok?
How on earth you got that assumption?

They dominated half of Europe for 40+ years after WWII.

Well that's because the US was really the only winner. Russia did okay I guess, but everyone else lost.

*mourns the fall of Britain*

no....wait.

Russia did ok?
How on earth you got that assumption?

So two finns are out hunting in the woods when they come across a company of soviet troops.

"Fuck", says Frans, "There's at least a hundred russians out there."

"So what", says Ismo, "we'll just kill them."

"I know", says Frans, "I just can't be fucked to hide the bodies".

'k. In terms of how much global reach and shit works, the US was the only real winner of WWII. Everyone else ended up pretty much poorer. The USSR got to control a bunch of eastern european satraps, but the relative increase in power is small compared to the US.

If it is different please correct me.

*mourns the fall of Britain*

no....wait.

Britian did lose its empire.

Britian did lose its empire.

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.

The british empire fell apart right after WWII.

Ya, didn't Russia have the highest casualties?

Russia took the Doritos approach to infantry warfare. "Crunch all you want, we'll make more."

'k. In terms of how much global reach and shit works, the US was the only real winner of WWII. Everyone else ended up pretty much poorer. The USSR got to control a bunch of eastern european satraps, but the relative increase in power is small compared to the US.

If it is different please correct me.

You're defining "winning" in very narrow terms. Often war is not about increasing global power, but either achieving a specific objective, or for survival. Britain, France, and the USSR all won in that they survived to see their objective, a defeated Germany.

You only "win" by increasing global power if your goal is to increase global power. Britain and France didn't fight the war for power, they did it for survival. They survived, germany didn't, they won.

So, generally, did the USSR, until they turned from survival to expansion, and they got that too.

The british empire fell apart right after WWII.

Yet to blame that ON WWII, or more specifically, to equate that with a "loss" of the war, is rather denial of history.

So two finns are out hunting in the woods when they come across a company of soviet troops.

"Fuck", says Frans, "There's at least a hundred russians out there."

"So what", says Ismo, "we'll just kill them."

"I know", says Frans, "I just can't be fucked to hide the bodies".

'k. In terms of how much global reach and shit works, the US was the only real winner of WWII. Everyone else ended up pretty much poorer. The USSR got to control a bunch of eastern european satraps, but the relative increase in power is small compared to the US.

If it is different please correct me.

America didn't lose as much money because they only joined the war towards the end.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.

Teh Irish sovereign zones for teh navy,

I am teh winnar.

So two finns are out hunting in the woods..

Heh, well I didn't mean that.
Russia gained alot but also suffered more than any other country. That's what I meant.

Teh Irish sovereign zones for teh navy,

I am teh winnar.

OK I will technically concede that one, although I was looking less for an example of "a bit of water rights" and more for something a tad more substantial, like..."India".

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.
The Second World War was one of the primary causal factors in the dissolution of the British Empire.

America didn't lose as much money because they only joined the war towards the end.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.

The dollar replaced the stirling as the international reserve currency. And in a far more restrictive sense.

Don't get me wrong, the brits were magnificent. They just didn't win the war.

The Second World War was one of the primary causal factors in the dissolution of the British Empire.

a causal factor yes, however the war ended and the empire was more or less where it was. It can be argued that it wasn't specifically world war II, but rather evolving natures of warfare and the risks associated that started making those colonies a lot more trouble then they were worth.

And I think the biggest modern hit to the British empire, the loss of india, had VERY little to do with WWII.

Teh Irish sovereign zones for teh navy,
And thank teh Lork for that.

They just didn't win the war.

Really? I was in London a few years ago...they weren't speaking german.

I think that supports the whole "they won" argument.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.
How did Soviet Union incerase it's power?

Heh, well I didn't mean that.
Russia gained alot but also suffered more than any other country. That's what I meant.

It did. And I don't deny that. But it ended up after the war with the comecon system. A whole bunch of satraps that basically owed it imperial tribute.

So in that sense, it did okay,

Really? I was in London a few years ago...they weren't speaking german.

I think that supports the whole "they won" argument.

Losing a war doesn't mean occupation, or even being conquered.

Why did britain enter the war? Did they acheive their aims?

No.

There should be a Finnish WWII game.

MISSION ONE: Take out an entire Soviet Division using sniper rifle.

Why did britain enter the war?

Because Germany was bombing the hell out of them, and they wanted Germany to stop bombing the hell out of them.


Did they acheive their aims?

Considering Germany stopped bombing them...yes.

Really? I was in London a few years ago...they weren't speaking german.

I think that supports the whole "they won" argument.
Won? Really?
I live in Finland...I can't speak Russian. We don't say we "won" Soviet Union.

Because Germany was bombing the hell out of them, and they wanted Germany to stop bombing the hell out of them.

No. The UK declared war on Germany. Not vice versa.

Considering Germany stopped bombing them...yes.

No bombs dropped until about a year after the UK declared war on Germany.

Won? Really?
I live in Finland...I can't speak Russian. We don't say we "won" Soviet Union.

That's because you couldn't be fucked to bury the bodies. ;)

No. The UK declared war on Germany. Not vice versa.



No bombs dropped until about a year after the UK declared war on Germany.
The UK wanted to stop Germany from taking over the world, or at the very least stop them taking over the UK. Germany did not do either of these things.

The UK wanted to stop Germany from taking over the world, or at the very least stop them taking over the UK. Germany did not do either of these things.

Actually, something about Poland's sovereignty. That worked out well. Obviously worth losing an empire over because in 1946, poland was a free and democratic state.

Actually, something about Poland's sovereignty. That worked out well. Obviously worth losing an empire over because in 1946, poland was a free and democratic state.
Well the point is they achieved their objectives, i.e. they won.

Well the point is they achieved their objectives, i.e. they won.

Clearly not. I was being sarcastic. None of Britains 'pre-war' objectives were acheived. And it ended up a bankrupt and broken state.

Indeed, owing to the myth of the 'special relationship' it became a de facto satrap for the united states from time to time.

America didn't lose as much money because they only joined the war towards the end.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.

Well we may not have increased our physical size, but we did increase in other factors. For one we had the most kickass military in the history of the world, another is that our economy basically went into overdrive and made us the economic hegemon we are today. Furthermore we had the nukes which also made us a dominant power. Would you like me to continue?

America didn't lose as much money because they only joined the war towards the end.

Towards the end? When did the Pacific War start? Towards the end my butt. Let us look at this logicly. If the US stayed out of the war permanently, The Brits would not have been able to really invade France and the USSR would still have overran Berlin all by themselves. Instead of a divided Germany, it would have been a united Germany under full Soviet Control. Did not lose that much money? We had very little money to spend when Pearl Harbor was attacked. We went into massive debt to pay for the war to supply the Brits, Chinese, and the Russians with materials all the way back to 1939. Entering the war nears the end my foot.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.

At the end of World War II, the USSR and USA were the two lone superpowers at the top. As to nuclear bombs, we did not have another one for months after the last one used on Nagasaki.

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*
It only follows one American group, so why should it include others? It's not Call of Duty, not even the same genre, why should it emulate it? It follows one group of American soldiers: did the British serve in the US Army?

Tiger tanks will be like bosses in the game (according to the PCG review) so how could Sherman tanks absorb ten hits from a boss unit? The game is primarily infantry, so tanks will be major occurances.

Although, on the game's site, it calls the sides Allies and Axis. Considering there are no British/French/Russians in the Allies and there are no Italians/Japanese on the Axis. That's bullshit. I hope the in-game calls it right: one US Army unit and the Germans.

Here's a thought.... don't buy it.

Bastard! Stop reading my mind!

America didn't lose as much money because they only joined the war towards the end.

And how did America increase it's power because of the war? Their country stayed the same size, apart from a few Pacific islands(maybe) and everyone knew they had nukes.

December 7, 1941?

I didn't think you guys used new math over there?

Power doesn't exactly equate to holding land mass.

They should do a game based on the chindits where you get on certian levels have to fight while suffering form Malaria and dysentry

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.

Malaysia.

Malaysia.

Actually..that is incorrect

Malaysia.

Not quite. Japan occupied the area of malaysia from 42 to 45, however withdrew. The area was technically still british (but occupied) during that time. The Federation of Malaysia was formed in 48 which gave power back to regional government but still kept them as British protectorate areas. Independance wasn't truly granted in the area until 1957.

Britain lost control of the area for 3 years, but gained it back at the end of the war, began to withdraw a bit in 48, and gave independance in 57, however the statement is still true, Britain had Malaysia at the beginning of the war, and they had it at the end (they just lost it in the middle for a while).

Not quite. Japan occupied the area of malaysia from 42 to 45, however withdrew. The area was technically still british (but occupied) during that time. The Federation of Malaysia was formed in 48 which gave power back to regional government but still kept them as British protectorate areas. Independance wasn't truly granted in the area until 1957.

Britain lost control of the area for 3 years, but gained it back at the end of the war, began to withdraw a bit in 48, and gave independance in 57, however the statement is still true, Britain had Malaysia at the beginning of the war, and they had it at the end (they just lost it in the middle for a while).

Just like they lost Singapore during the war as well.

I for one think Tuvulu came out on top.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tv.html

I for one think Tuvulu came out on top.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tv.html

Can't forget about Aruba.

If the American Army went up against the German Army in 1939, the Americans would've been crushed just as bad as anyone else. America had a very poor army and they had years to prepare before they enterd the conflict and when they did they generally had control of the air which gave them a huge advantage. Plus we never had to fight on our own soil and drive the Enemy back in their homeland. Everyone else had to take the punnishment from Germany, then fend them off, and then re assert their power to fight them. And the Russian front story of the war regardless of anything is the greatest story of a turn-around in the history of mankind.

There are about 56 billion WWII games comming out in the next 3 minutes. Who cares about one? Waht about Call of Duty? And if it's an American game why can't we say we won the war on our own? It's not like anyone believes it... (here I go again putting far too much faith in Humanity..)

There are about 56 billion WWII games comming out in the next 3 minutes. Who cares about one? Waht about Call of Duty? And if it's an American game why can't we say we won the war on our own? It's not like anyone believes it... (here I go again putting far too much faith in Humanity..)

ZOMG! How could u say that!? lawlz!!!!111 we all have 2 like make a real big deal about this cuz itz like soooooo important! lawl!!!1111one.

Oh, it's only 54 billion, get your facts strait next time. Geeshe.

Plus we never had to fight on our own soil and drive the Enemy back in their homeland.

Actually, that is not 100% true. American soil was invaded by Japan and we had to retake those islands and we did and drove Japan back to their homeland.

Don't forget about Australia. In two senses. We came out better than we went in. Also, we are another one of the examples of the erosion of the British empir post WWII. I mean we weren't part of it prior to the war, but most Australians considered themselves british at that point in time. That is seriously the only reason we went, loyalty to the empire (Just like the first episode). Then Churchill fucked us over with the Japan thing (His proposed solution was for Australia to send all of it's remaining soldiers to the western front, and let the Japanese conquer Australia, then after we win in Europe, we could conquer it back. Thanks Winston, we'll think on that plan :rolleyes: ), so we gave LBJ a call and it turned out that he was looking for a developed westernised bitch-nation in the Asia region. It has been cookies and milk between US and Australia since. WWIIshattered the concept of Australians as quasi-british colonials.

Actually, that is not 100% true. American soil was invaded by Japan and we had to retake those islands and we did and drove Japan back to their homeland.
Also, there was a struggle over PNG, which I believe was a protectorate of Australia at the time.

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*

actually the french did little more than geurilla attacks on the germans, so they werent exactly a power in driving the nazi's out of power. It was the Americans British and Canadians that got it all started and the Soviets that Kept the nazi's busy

...not during WWII. Name one piece of property Britain had at the beginning of WWII that they didn't have at the end of it.

The Channel Islands were not held during the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_islands

There should be a Finnish WWII game.

MISSION ONE: Take out an entire Soviet Division using sniper rifle.


MISSION TWO: Take out the entire Soviet Airforce using Brewster Buffalos!

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*

I know what you mean! I hate the fact that Doctor Who never travelled the US and didn't do something about Viet Nam or the American Space Program... never mind helping the Russian Space Program.

And DAMN that Horatio Hornblower! NOT ONCE do they mention all the impressed Americans that the British had on their ships!

Sharpe's Rifles... why isn't there any mention of the Canadian campaign or the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? BEN FRANKLIN ISN'T EVEN IN IT!!


...dude. Get over it. Not everything is proposed to be a (macro) history book!

If the American Army went up against the German Army in 1939, the Americans would've been crushed just as bad as anyone else. America had a very poor army and they had years to prepare before they enterd the conflict and when they did they generally had control of the air which gave them a huge advantage. Plus we never had to fight on our own soil and drive the Enemy back in their homeland. Everyone else had to take the punnishment from Germany, then fend them off, and then re assert their power to fight them. And the Russian front story of the war regardless of anything is the greatest story of a turn-around in the history of mankind.

In 1939 if the US army went against a huge mob of sex crazed rednecks in albania they would have lost..their hardly was an army.

Now the marines..thats another story . ;)

Teh Irish sovereign zones for teh navy,

I am teh winnar.

They were returned to Ireland in '38.

So they weren't lost during the war.

The Channel Islands were not held during the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_islands

But they got them back after the war.

The question isn't what territory was held during the war, it's what territory did the UK control onn 2nd September 1939 that it didn't on 8th May 1945?

They were returned to Ireland in '38.

So they weren't lost during the war.
Churchill still considered invading during the Emergency (;))... that makes me a little bitter...

Churchill still considered invading during the Emergency (;))... that makes me a little bitter...

Only if Germany invaded Ireland...he saw Ireland as vulnerable, and (I think) planned to immediately invade from the north if Germany invaded in the south of Ireland.

Only if Germany invaded Ireland...he saw Ireland as vulnerable, and (I think) planned to immediately invade from the north if Germany invaded in the south of Ireland.
I'll concede, somewhat... Although, it's unlikely that Germany would have invaded. Ireland isn't really a high priority target, and the two weren't enemies... And, Churchill also wanted to invade for the southern ports and airfields in Ireland, to guard against U-Boats and German aircraft...

Only if Germany invaded Ireland...he saw Ireland as vulnerable, and (I think) planned to immediately invade from the north if Germany invaded in the south of Ireland.
A friend of mine who was a boy during WWII in Ireland says there was a lot of pro-nazi sentiment in Ireland during the war (Not on the racial thing, but based on the idea "The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The germans would have done well indeed to invade Ireland. They would most probably have been heralded all of the way to Belfast.

In 1939 if the US army went against a huge mob of sex crazed rednecks in albania they would have lost..their hardly was an army.

Now the marines..thats another story . ;)

Though I'm in the US army I do totally agree with that.

A friend of mine who was a boy during WWII in Ireland says there was a lot of pro-nazi sentiment in Ireland during the war (Not on the racial thing, but based on the idea "The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The germans would have done well indeed to invade Ireland. They would most probably have been heralded all of the way to Belfast.

The IRA made contact with the Germans and tried to pursuade them into helping attack the Brits in NI, but the Germans laughed at them because the IRA leader was a drunk (apparently), the IRA was incredibely badly organised etc...

As for helping the Germans....Ireland supported the Brits, unnofficially allowing them to use Irish airspace, returning downed British pilots across the border while imprisoning German ones etc...after all, when Belfast was bombed very heavily the Irish government sent their fire services north to help, protested to the German embassy, and said "In the past, and probably in the present, too, a number of them did not see eye to eye with us politically, but they are our people – we are one and the same people – and their sorrows in the present instance are also our sorrows; and I want to say to them that any help we can give to them in the present time we will give to them whole-heartedly, believing that were the circumstances reversed they would also give us their help whole-heartedly"

And, of course, Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe...

But they got them back after the war.

The question isn't what territory was held during the war, it's what territory did the UK control onn 2nd September 1939 that it didn't on 8th May 1945?

That's a loaded question, really. First, you're going with VE day, not VJ day. That aside, of COURSE any territory taken by the beligerants would have been returned after their surrender!

However, it is a piece of the UK that was not held, indeed not defended. Was the Empire lost in WW2? No. But that little piece of it WAS, and the stage was set for the loss of India and most of the rest of the empire just after the war.

NB: The Channel Islands were actually liberated on 9 May 1945 when the HMS Bulldog arrived in St Peter Port, Guernsey and the German forces surrendered unconditionally aboard it at dawn. The HMS Beagle, which had set out at the same time from Plymouth performed a similar role in liberating Jersey.
Liberation Day is still a holiday on the Channel Islands, and is celebrated on 9 May.

Losing a war doesn't mean occupation, or even being conquered.

Why did britain enter the war? Did they acheive their aims?

No.

To defeat Germany...

They didn't achieve that?

That's a loaded question, really. First, you're going with VE day, not VJ day. That aside, of COURSE any territory taken by the beligerants would have been returned after their surrender!

However, it is a piece of the UK that was not held, indeed not defended. Was the Empire lost in WW2? No. But that little piece of it WAS, and the stage was set for the loss of India and most of the rest of the empire just after the war.

OK, take VJ day and do the 16th August 1945, if that''s what you want.

What territory did the UK hold on 2nd Sept. 1939 that it didn't hold on 16th Aug. 1945? That's the question Arthais101 asked.

It doesn't matter that the Channel Islands weren't held during throughout the war, the situation at the end of the war is what matters...


NB: The Channel Islands were actually liberated on 9 May 1945 when the HMS Bulldog arrived in St Peter Port, Guernsey and the German forces surrendered unconditionally aboard it at dawn. The HMS Beagle, which had set out at the same time from Plymouth performed a similar role in liberating Jersey.

Liberation Day is still a holiday on the Channel Islands, and is celebrated on 9 May.
OK, so I was one day out :rolleyes:

To defeat Germany...

They didn't achieve that?
No, the Soviets did that.

*snip*

And, of course, Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe...
Another one of germany's big mistakes. They so could have won that war (minus the a-bomb thing, but who are we kidding, USA wouldn't have tested it on a white population, that would have been barbaric).

Another one of germany's big mistakes. They so could have won that war (minus the a-bomb thing, but who are we kidding, USA wouldn't have tested it on a white population, that would have been barbaric).

Actually, Germany was the original target for the Atomic Bomb but Germany capitulated before it was completed.

Another one of germany's big mistakes. They so could have won that war (minus the a-bomb thing, but who are we kidding, USA wouldn't have tested it on a white population, that would have been barbaric).
What does that have to do with the post you quoted?

No, the Soviets did that.

Fine. To see Germany defeated. Better?

What does that have to do with the post you quoted?

Some people believe that the bombing (most likely accidentally) of Dublin, and the Irish government's reaction to the bombing of Belfast, was important to moving the USA towards the war.

I can't see how it would be of much importance outside of a few dedicated 'Irish' Americans.

Actually, Germany was the original target for the Atomic Bomb but Germany capitulated before it was completed.
Oh, ok. So it was "Shit the Nazis are gone...who are we gonna test this baby on now, we haven't used it on a live population yet. Besides, we need to put the wind up those Russians arses, let 'em know what we can do." "Well there still is japan, but they're collapsing as we speak." "So hurry! Drop before they capitulate! This one too!"

As you can see I have a problem with the a-bomb thing.

Oh, ok. So it was "Shit the Nazis are gone...who are we gonna test this baby on now, we haven't used it on a live population yet. Besides, we need to put the wind up those Russians arses, let 'em know what we can do." "Well there still is japan, but they're collapsing as we speak." "So hurry! Drop before they capitulate! This one too!"

As you can see I have a problem with the a-bomb thing.

Would you have had a problem if millions more died in a chemical weapon attack?

Fine. To see Germany defeated. Better?
Vaguely.

I can't see how it would be of much importance outside of a few dedicated 'Irish' Americans.
What's with the quotes around 'Irish'?

Wait ... isn't WWII where the Americans and the French fought 3 cheeseburgers and a small dog only to end up surrendering when the cheeseburgers had too many pickles?

Maybe that was a dream ...

As you can see I have a problem with the a-bomb thing.
More people would probably have died if it weren't for the A-bomb.

What does that have to do with the post you quoted?
Uh, nothing. I moved onto the post you quoted (Seeing as that one came after my one, I presumed it was the next logical step in the discussion). Did I miss something?

Would you have had a problem if millions more died in a chemical weapon attack?
How long is the half-life of the chemical weapons? Less than several hundred million years? Do they leave genetic defects and presdispostions to cancer amongst unborn children who have nothing to do with the war at hand?

Do they leave genetic defects and presdispostions to cancer amongst unborn children who have nothing to do with the war at hand?
Agent Orange, anyone?

What's with the quotes around 'Irish'?

'Irish' Americans are about as Irish as the French.

More people would probably have died if it weren't for the A-bomb.
It's really not about the people who died. More people died in the conventional bombing of tokyo. It's more about the collective punishment upon generations of japanese who really didn't ask for cancer. I am not even bitching about vapourising a city, civilians and all (Though USA would surely have been done for war crimes had they lost the war). It really is the stupid longevity of the punishment they inflicted seemingly for the reason to test the a-bomb out on a live population, and to make Russia crap it's pants.

'Irish' Americans are about as Irish as the French.
Hey, fuck you, too.

Hey, fuck you, too.
....? :confused:

Agent Orange, anyone?
Firstly, agent orange didn't exist in WWII. Secondly, how can birth defects in the children of those exposed to agent orange even remotely compare to hundreds of millions of years worth of cancer, (the most vile disease to hit mankind that I know)?

How long is the half-life of the chemical weapons? Less than several hundred million years? Do they leave genetic defects and presdispostions to cancer amongst unborn children who have nothing to do with the war at hand?

So you would have no problem if chemical weapons were used on Japan as a prelude to invading it?

I am going to ask you this question and I do want you to answer it. If you lived back then and had a son who was fighting in the Pacific and died during the invasion of Japan and you found out we had a bomb that would have ended the war and spared the life of your son, would you be angry that they did not use it?

....? :confused:
Gee, guess who's Irish American.

It's not my fault my ancestors came to America, so don't fucking hold it against me.

'Irish' Americans are about as Irish as the French.
Well they both have celtic origins...

Gee, guess who's Irish American.

It's not my fault my ancestors came to America, so don't fucking hold it against me.

Er...I think you've got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

Firstly, agent orange didn't exist in WWII. Secondly, how can birth defects in the children of those exposed to agent orange even remotely compare to hundreds of millions of years worth of cancer, (the most vile disease to hit mankind that I know)?

Your argument would hold more weight if you actually had facts to back up what you are saying.

Er...I think you've got entirely the wrong end of the stick.
:confused:
The hell does that mean?

Well they both have celtic origins...

A 1000bhp Bugatti Veyron has the same origins as a 9bhp Citroen 2CV.

Doesn't make them the same, or even similar.

:confused:
The hell does that mean?

I wasn't attacking 'Irish' Americans because their ancestors emigrated to Ireland, I was simply pointing out that 'Irish' Americans aren't Irish at all; the vast, vast majority weren't born in Ireland, didn't grow up in Ireland, and have no connection with this island. They are Americans. Not Irish in any way other than the fact that some of their ancestors were from here.

So you would have no problem if chemical weapons were used on Japan as a prelude to invading it?

I am going to ask you this question and I do want you to answer it. If you lived back then and had a son who was fighting in the Pacific and died during the invasion of Japan and you found out we had a bomb that would have ended the war and spared the life of your son, would you be angry that they did not use it?
Don't even try to hit me with this sentimental shit. I'm the biggest arsehole I know. My son? Yeah, real tear-jerker. Fuck the life of 'my son' over that of an entire city full of civilians who didn't put their hand up to die like my idiot son, then a subsequent spate of cancer for the children of those cities for the next few hundred million years. How many lab-rat-japs is an american boy's life worth? Think about how much it would suck to be born with the most insidious piece of shit disease known to human kind. Wouldn't you be pissed watching your 3 year old daughter vomit her way to her grave for the sake of a few dickhead american soldiers lives in some forgotten war 600 years ago?

If you didn't notice I am of the firm belief that anybody who goes to war deserves to die. Not in the vindictive sense, in the realistic sense. If you put your hand up, prepare to die. If you don't You are getting a whole lot less than you were asking for. So in response to your question, 'my son' was already dead as far as I was concerned. Not until the war is over and the numbskull is home would I celebrate his ressurection.

Goes to show that you are indeed someone who does not care about human life even if it is your own son.

Now why don't you answer my question and leave the cussing and the ranting out of it.

Don't even try to hit me with this sentimental shit. I'm the biggest arsehole I know. My son? Yeah, real tear-jerker. Fuck the life of 'my son' over that of an entire city full of civilians who didn't put their hand up to die like my idiot son, then a subsequent spate of cancer for the children of those cities for the next few hundred million years. How many lab-rat-japs is an american boy's life worth? Think about how much it would suck to be born with the most insidious piece of shit disease known to human kind. Wouldn't you be pissed watching your 3 year old daughter vomit her way to her grave for the sake of a few dickhead american soldiers lives in some forgotten war 600 years ago?

If you didn't notice I am of the firm belief that anybody who goes to war deserves to die. Not in the vindictive sense, in the realistic sense. If you put your hand up, prepare to die. If you don't You are getting a whole lot less than you were asking for. So in response to your question, 'my son' was already dead as far as I was concerned. Not until the war is over and the numbskull is home would I celebrate his ressurection.

Very well put I think.

Goes to show that you are indeed someone who does not care about human life even if it is your own son.

So...valuing the lives of millions over the lives of one = not caring about human life?


:confused:

So...valuing the lives of millions over the lives of one = not caring about human life?


:confused:

He stated himself that he did not care if his son lived or died in an invasion of Japan. He also did not care if chemical weapons were used in said invasion of japan.

Your argument would hold more weight if you actually had facts to back up what you are saying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html
There. Hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with plutonium 239, which doesn't have the few hundred million years of half-life that most kinds of uranium (What we use today, the one I mistakenly cited) have, but in fact *only* 24 000 years.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html
There. Hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with plutonium 239, which doesn't have the few hundred million years of half-life that most kinds of uranium (What we use today, the one I mistakenly cited) have, but in fact *only* 24 000 years.

Now explain to me how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving cities!

He stated himself that he did not care if his son lived or died in an invasion of Japan. He also did not care if chemical weapons were used in said invasion of japan.

Selective reading, I see. What he said is that he would rather his son died in an invasion of Japan, or that chemical weapons were used to kill the people there and leave no effects, than millions of Japanese die over hundreds of years as a result of the nukes used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Selective reading, I see. What he said is that he would rather his son died in an invasion of Japan, or that chemical weapons were used to kill the people there and leave no effects, than millions of Japanese die over hundreds of years as a result of the nukes used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Frankly, I would take the a-bomb as it saved more lives than it took. Not to mention it shortened the war. Millions of lives on all sides were saved by the bomb. What do you think the Japanese Army in China would have done had they had to come back to mainland Japan? What about those in Korea?

Abstractly, it would have been a massacre with several hundred thousand American Deaths and many more wounded. Again, it goes to show he does not care about deaths at all.

Another one of germany's big mistakes. They so could have won that war (minus the a-bomb thing, but who are we kidding, USA wouldn't have tested it on a white population, that would have been barbaric).

I've got to agree with AC on that one... consider Dresden. :eek:

Don't even try to hit me with this sentimental shit. I'm the biggest arsehole I know. My son? Yeah, real tear-jerker. Fuck the life of 'my son' over that of an entire city full of civilians who didn't put their hand up to die like my idiot son, then a subsequent spate of cancer for the children of those cities for the next few hundred million years. How many lab-rat-japs is an american boy's life worth? Think about how much it would suck to be born with the most insidious piece of shit disease known to human kind. Wouldn't you be pissed watching your 3 year old daughter vomit her way to her grave for the sake of a few dickhead american soldiers lives in some forgotten war 600 years ago?

If you didn't notice I am of the firm belief that anybody who goes to war deserves to die. Not in the vindictive sense, in the realistic sense. If you put your hand up, prepare to die. If you don't You are getting a whole lot less than you were asking for. So in response to your question, 'my son' was already dead as far as I was concerned. Not until the war is over and the numbskull is home would I celebrate his ressurection.
War is not just, thus a justice argument regarding the nuclear strikes against the Japanese is invalidated. In war, the national interest takes primacy. The national interest, in this case, was to minimize the number of casualties the United States would suffer.
The typical rules of war, regarding the protection of civilians, were invalidated first by the Japanese, by their actions against civilians of other nations, espescially the American allies, the Chinese.

Frankly, I would take the a-bomb as it saved more lives than it took. Not to mention it shortened the war. Millions of lives on all sides were saved by the bomb. What do you think the Japanese Army in China would have done had they had to come back to mainland Japan? What about those in Korea?

Abstractly, it would have been a massacre with several hundred thousand American Deaths and many more wounded. Again, it goes to show he does not care about deaths at all.

As he has already stated, he's not overly concerned about the use of a weapon that brought about end of the war. His concern is the choice of a weapon that infects the area for thousands of years and causes untold problems for succeeding generations who have nothing to do with the war, and shouldn't have to suffer from the effects of a bomb attack potentially hundreds of years before they were born.

And you know fine well that's what he's saying.

The French? What did the French do?

As he has already stated, he's not overly concerned about the use of a weapon that brought about end of the war. His concern is the choice of a weapon that infects the area for thousands of years and causes untold problems for succeeding generations who have nothing to do with the war, and shouldn't have to suffer from the effects of a bomb attack potentially hundreds of years before they were born.

And you know fine well that's what he's saying.
No one knew the effects of an atomic weapon back then.

His concern is the choice of a weapon that infects the area for thousands of years

And yet, both cities are thriving metropolises today and have been for decades.

I've got to agree with AC on that one... consider Dresden. :eek:
And the fact that the first nuclear blast occured at Trinity Point on July 16 1945, about a month after the surrender of Germany.

The French? What did the French do?

Supplied intelligence to the Allied forces on German troop movements.

No one knew the effects of an atomic weapon back then.

I don't think he claimed that they did.

And yet, both cities are thriving metropolises today and have been for decades.

And the Japanese don't have enough living space to be picky (I believe that only 10% of Japan's landmass is suitable for modern habitation).

Supplied intelligence to the Allied forces on German troop movements.

Also fought against the Allies (for many and varied reasons admittedly).

I don't think he claimed that they did.

No one anticipated radiation sickness. No one. That is where he is going with it. No one knew about the side effects of using an atomic weapon.

Also fought against the allies.

In North Africa yea. And when you consider what the British did to their forces in North Africa, it is little wonder that they would fight against the British and their ally US when we invaded North Africa in 1942.

I don't think he claimed that they did.
Right, so your argument that Truman was immoral because he chose to drop a bomb that would infect an area for thousands of years doesn't make sense, because Truman didn't know this would happen.

Firstly, agent orange didn't exist in WWII. Secondly, how can birth defects in the children of those exposed to agent orange even remotely compare to hundreds of millions of years worth of cancer, (the most vile disease to hit mankind that I know)?
Cancer isn't a disease, it's an uncontrolled multiplying of cells.

And the Japanese don't have enough living space to be picky (I believe that only 10% of Japan's landmass is suitable for modern habitation).

The thing is, if it was so devestated for thousands of years, nothing would be able to live there. The fact that both cities are thriving decades after the bomb, shows that it did not have a lasting impact on the area. The side effects on humans is another story. Those side effects were not anticipated at all.

Cancer isn't a disease, it's an uncontrolled multiplying of cells.

Actually, cancer is a disease. You are right in what you say but it is still a disease. I should know. My mother is a cancer survivor.

Gee, guess who's Irish American.

It's not my fault my ancestors came to America, so don't fucking hold it against me.
So why don't you move back to your beloved Europe?

Your argument would hold more weight if you actually had facts to back up what you are saying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html
There. Hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with plutonium 239, which doesn't have the few hundred million years of half-life that most kinds of uranium (What we use today, the one I mistakenly cited) have, but in fact *only* 24 000 years.

Right, so your argument that Truman was immoral because he chose to drop a bomb that would infect an area for thousands of years doesn't make sense, because Truman didn't know this would happen.

I wasn't aware this was my argument.

Perhaps you should reread my posts; they've all made perfectly clear that it is "his [GreaterPacificNations] argument".

And I don't think that GreaterPacificNations was saying that Truman was immoral, he was just saying that it would perhaps have been better if they had used a different method.

Actually, cancer is a disease. You are right in what you say but it is still a disease. I should know. My mother is a cancer survivor.
Actually, you're right, it is a disease (I checked on wikipedia, and if wikipedia says it's a disease then it's a fucking disease).

Congrats to your mother.

I wasn't attacking 'Irish' Americans because their ancestors emigrated to Ireland, I was simply pointing out that 'Irish' Americans aren't Irish at all; the vast, vast majority weren't born in Ireland, didn't grow up in Ireland, and have no connection with this island. They are Americans. Not Irish in any way other than the fact that some of their ancestors were from here.
Not really sure what to say... Oookay, now that I've read over this post, it's long, sappy, and somewhat irrelevant to the current conversation, but WTF.

Whether or not what you said is an attack depends entirely on your point of view. I guess you wouldn't consider it an insult, but for me, and any 'Irish' American I know would have the same kneejerk reaction: "Hey, fuck you".

You have to consider the lack of pride in many American youths today (Well, many Americans in general... but not DesignatedMarksman or RocktheCasbah...). We live in a nation that has perpetrated the most successful genocide ever, is very imperialist, is considered evil by the majority of people in the world, and has a very strong culture of anti-intelligence about it. I've forgotten to mention a lot, but those are some of the worst things the US has done that I can think of right now...

So, we have to look into our ancestry to find something to be proud of. I'm a bit of a mongrel: I'm half Irish, 7/16ths German, and 1/16th Cherokee. A lot of us are like that. Now, I can't really be proud of my German half, for many reasons (one of the strongest is that anyone identifying themselves to be of German heritage will immediately be called a Nazi), and I would like to be proud of my Cherokee ancestry, but I can't because it basically means that one of my ancestors was a rapist. So, I have my Irish heritage, which I can be proud of. That's the part of me that I can accept, and it's the only part of my ancestry that others will accept as well.

So, saying that I'm American and not Irish is not only rejecting what I consider myself to be (or, realistically, what I would like to be), it is also, from my point of view, stating that I'm just another accepting member of the modern-day Evil Empire.

So why don't you move back to your beloved Europe?
Believe me, I would if I could, but I have a definite lack of money.

That and the fact that I'd be a pariah in Ireland...

In North Africa yea.
And in the Middle East.
And in the south of France.
And when you consider what the British did to their forces in North Africa, it is little wonder that they would fight against the British and their ally US when we invaded North Africa in 1942.
And what was that, pray tell?
The sinking of the French fleet?

I wasn't aware this was my argument.

Perhaps you should reread my posts; they've all made perfectly clear that it is "his [GreaterPacificNations] argument".

And I don't think that GreaterPacificNations was saying that Truman was immoral, he was just saying that it would perhaps have been better if they had used a different method.
At the time, the only "alternative method" was to launch a full-scale invasion, which would have killed more people, Japanese and American by the time it was over.

Or keep bombing the hell out of Japan using conventional bombs, which would have killed more Japanese by the end.

And in the Middle East.

The US was not in the Middle East pass Tunisia.

And in the south of France.

Vichy France the German Puppet nation?

And what was that, pray tell?
The sinking of the French fleet?

By the Brits no less.

Now explain to me how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving cities!
They are thriving cities, thanks to the billions of dollars USA poured into Japan to rebuild it post WWII. Also, they have by far the highest rate of cancer in all of the otherwise near cancer-free nation of Japan.

They are thriving cities, thanks to the billions of dollars USA poured into Japan to rebuild it post WWII. Also, they have by far the highest rate of cancer in all of the otherwise near cancer-free nation of Japan.

And yet city life is thriving. If it had the half life of what you were saying, nothing would be growing there or be able to live there.

At the time, the only "alternative method" was to launch a full-scale invasion, which would have killed more people, Japanese and American by the time it was over.

Or keep bombing the hell out of Japan using conventional bombs, which would have killed more Japanese by the end.

Economic blockade would have screwed them in a couple of months.

Of course, there were still the forces on the mainland to consider but Russia was about to/in the midst of launching operations through Manchuria and the Japanese army would have been in no state to resist.
Unfortunately that would have allowed Russia to establish a generous West Pacifc foothold before the end of the war would prevent their exapansion.

The US was not in the Middle East pass Tunisia.
No. But the UK & Commonwealth were and the Middle East was one of the most important theatres of the war.

Vichy France the German Puppet nation?
Yes. And? Given the choice between shooting at people trying to liberate me or joining them, I suspect I would choose the latter.

By the Brits no less.
Yes. I assume this was the Casus Belli you were referring to?

And yet city life is thriving. If it had the half life of what you were saying, nothing would be growing there or be able to live there.
I'm not sure that you fully grasp how radioactive materials react in a large scale environment over a a period of several decades.

Economic blockade would have screwed them in a couple of months.

And over a period of a several months, it would probably have killed over one million people.

Economic blockade would have screwed them in a couple of months.

It may but the Japanese would not surrender even if we blockaded them and we have been blockading them for quite sometime.

I'm not sure that you fully grasp how radioactive materials react in a large scale environment over a a period of several decades.

Oh I do. I also know that 214,000 people died in the bomb and its related after affects. It is also noted that between 1950 and 1990 hundreds died of bomb related diseases.

War is not just, thus a justice argument regarding the nuclear strikes against the Japanese is invalidated. In war, the national interest takes primacy. The national interest, in this case, was to minimize the number of casualties the United States would suffer.
The typical rules of war, regarding the protection of civilians, were invalidated first by the Japanese, by their actions against civilians of other nations, espescially the American allies, the Chinese.
I'm not talking about justice. I wouldn't have an issue if the a-bomb simply vapourised Hiroshima and nagasaki and that was it. My Issue is with the use of a weapon which taints an area with cancer-causing radio-activity with a half-life ranging from the tens of thousands(then) to the hundreds of millions (now) of years. It's just stupid. The only place my 'justice' argument extends is beyond war. I agree, war is in it's nature unjust. As such, any one in a uniform should expect an agonising death and be grateful for anything less. Even the civilians of cities will die in war, because war is not fair. I don't like it, but it's war. However, my issue is with the children born with cancer 11438 years from now because some dickhead pushed the red shiny button. Nobody can plan that far ahead.

So yes, within the constraints of war, war is unjust. But if the collateral damage of a war will continue on for tens of thousands, or even millions of years, maybe we should find a better weapon.

And over a period of a several months, it would probably have killed over one million people.
Depends which aspects of the economy you were blockading.
Also, Rice production was not significantly hit by bombing campaigns nor would inshore fishing or a number of other (far more minor) food industries.

With a cessation of military action and a reliance on blockades (mostly concentrating around military necessities such as copper, zinc, oil, steel, rubber, etc) the battered remains of the Japanese warmachine would crumble to nothing and the resulting socio-political whiplash would see the government settling for a peace settlement before winter '45.

Japan's military economy was screwed and there were significant social and political movements against the military who had made no secret of the fact that they were unlikely to win any war lasting longer then 30 months.

Oh I do. I also know that 214,000 people died in the bomb and its related after affects. It is also noted that between 1950 and 1990 hundreds died of bomb related diseases.
So, pretty devastating then?

As he has already stated, he's not overly concerned about the use of a weapon that brought about end of the war. His concern is the choice of a weapon that infects the area for thousands of years and causes untold problems for succeeding generations who have nothing to do with the war, and shouldn't have to suffer from the effects of a bomb attack potentially hundreds of years before they were born.

And you know fine well that's what he's saying.
It's ok man, I've gone down this road with them before (Not them specifically, but...y'know, americans). I'm pretty sure they get fed this crap at school or something, because they always pipe up with the same lines. You won't believe how many times I've heard that 'if your son' bullshit. Anyway, this is the nature of things, history is written by the victors, as we can see.

So, pretty devastating then?

Actually, it was not all that devestating in the grand scheme of things. Tokyo was more devestating than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That also does not include the bombings of Yokohama, Osaka, and other Japanese cities that were hit by the US.

Depends which aspects of the economy you were blockading.
Also, Rice production was not significantly hit by bombing campaigns nor would inshore fishing or a number of other (far more minor) food industries.

With a cessation of military action and a reliance on blockades (mostly concentrating around military necessities such as copper, zinc, oil, steel, rubber, etc) the battered remains of the Japanese warmachine would crumble to nothing and the resulting social whiplash would see the government settling for a peace settlement before winter '45.
With the destruction of Japanese oil supplies, the ability to get food products to the highly urbanized areas of Japan would be fundamentally compromised. The railroads, which could have operated with their steam driven locomotives in the event of an oil shortage, were absolutely destroyed. Starvation would have been highly prevalent in urban areas.

Not really sure what to say... Oookay, now that I've read over this post, it's long, sappy, and somewhat irrelevant to the current conversation, but WTF.

Whether or not what you said is an attack depends entirely on your point of view. I guess you wouldn't consider it an insult, but for me, and any 'Irish' American I know would have the same kneejerk reaction: "Hey, fuck you".

Why? The simple fact is that you aren't Irish by any stretch of the imagination.

You have to consider the lack of pride in many American youths today (Well, many Americans in general... but not DesignatedMarksman or RocktheCasbah...). We live in a nation that has perpetrated the most successful genocide ever, is very imperialist, is considered evil by the majority of people in the world, and has a very strong culture of anti-intelligence about it. I've forgotten to mention a lot, but those are some of the worst things the US has done that I can think of right now...

And some Irish people think its perfectly fine to force innocent people to drive bombs to places and to detonate them while the person is still in the car. A sort of...involuntary suicide bomb. They would kidnap the person's family and force them to drive the bomb to a target, where it would be detonated remotely with the person still there.

Nice, eh?

So, we have to look into our ancestry to find something to be proud of. I'm a bit of a mongrel: I'm half Irish, 7/16ths German, and 1/16th Cherokee. A lot of us are like that. Now, I can't really be proud of my German half, for many reasons (one of the strongest is that anyone identifying themselves to be of German heritage will immediately be called a Nazi), and I would like to be proud of my Cherokee ancestry, but I can't because it basically means that one of my ancestors was a rapist. So, I have my Irish heritage, which I can be proud of. That's the part of me that I can accept, and it's the only part of my ancestry that others will accept as well.

What's there to be proud of in something that you had no hand in? What is there to be proud of in being Irish? The fact that abortion is illegal throughout the entire island? How can you be proud of the actions of your ancestors, there's nothing you had to do with it.

So, saying that I'm American and not Irish is not only rejecting what I consider myself to be (or, realistically, what I would like to be), it is also, from my point of view, stating that I'm just another accepting member of the modern-day Evil Empire.

You may consider yourself to be Irish, but the fact that you're a foreigner (urgh, I hate that word) who (I'm guessing) has never been to Ireland disqualifies you.

It's ok man, I've gone down this road with them before (Not them specifically, but...y'know, americans). I'm pretty sure they get fed this crap at school or something, because they always pipe up with the same lines. You won't believe how many times I've heard that 'if your son' bullshit. Anyway, this is the nature of things, history is written by the victors, as we can see.

Actually, it is called research. I have researched this topic numerous times because World War II: Pacific Theater fascinates me and makes an interesting case study for fighting wars in the pacific.

Cancer isn't a disease, it's an uncontrolled multiplying of cells. I use the word disease in the descriptive sense, not the medical one. :rolleyes: Like when Agent smith calls humanity a 'virus' in 'the Matrix'. Perhaps I should have said 'plague' or something...

So yes, within the constraints of war, war is unjust. But if the collateral damage of a war will continue on for tens of thousands, or even millions of years, maybe we should find a better weapon.
Given the effects of war, and the fact that their effects can be felt for far longer than just the immediate time frame...well, to focus solely on one residual aspect seems to be a flawed philosophy.

Furthermore, as Patton said, it's not the soldiers job to die for his country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his. If that action means that whole generations of individuals are never born, then so be it.

Actually, cancer is a disease. You are right in what you say but it is still a disease. I should know. My mother is a cancer survivor.
Ok, let me get this straight. Your mother is a cancer survivor, and you would wish cancer upon countless generations of unborn Japanese children over the lives of a few million people, (mostly soldiers*)???

*Those asking for death

Right, so your argument that Truman was immoral because he chose to drop a bomb that would infect an area for thousands of years doesn't make sense, because Truman didn't know this would happen.
I never mentioned truman. I said that the decision to drop nukes on Hiroshima was a shockingly bad one. It's called retrospect. My arguement is targeted at asshats like AC who like to pretend it was the best decision.

And yet city life is thriving. If it had the half life of what you were saying, nothing would be growing there or be able to live there. When did I say that? I said that the people there would suffer a high rate of cancer incidence thanks to the radiation from little boy and fat man. And they do.

Ok, let me get this straight. Your mother is a cancer survivor, and you would wish cancer upon countless generations of unborn Japanese children over the lives of a few million people, (mostly soldiers*)???

*Those asking for death

I do not want cancer on anyone. However, the bomb was the quickest way to end the war with a low casualty count on both sides. To borrow a quote from Marcus on Bablyon 5 in discussing why they were defending Coriana 6 witha population of 6 billion over Centuri Prime with a population of 3 Billion, its numbers.

The President had to decide if he wanted millions of people dead or less than a million dead in regards to invasion or use of the bomb. Numbers numbers. The best choice is the one that limits casualties on both sides of the conflict. In this case, it was the bomb and not an invasion of Japan that won out because of its low casualty number.

And over a period of a several months, it would probably have killed over one million people. So what? What is the half-life of an economic blockade? How many hundreds of Japanese generations will be given cancer by that?

Actually, it was not all that devestating in the grand scheme of things. Tokyo was more devestating than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That also does not include the bombings of Yokohama, Osaka, and other Japanese cities that were hit by the US.
Exactly, come on! This is what I'm saying, it's not about the people who died. It's about the carcinogenic radioactivity. I want you to think how long 1 year is. Now think how long 10 years is. Can you remember 10 years ago? A fare while back, eh? Now imagine that multiplie by 10. Thats 100 years, you'll be lucky to live that long. An entire lifetime. Now imagine 240 consecutive lifetimes. 24000 years. By then, the radiation will have half-decayed. Thats how long the Japanese (Or whoever lives in Japan) will be dealing with the worst half of radiation induced cancer.

Exactly, come on! This is what I'm saying, it's not about the people who died.

Actually, it is about the number of people who died. 214,000 when all was said and done.

Given the effects of war, and the fact that their effects can be felt for far longer than just the immediate time frame...well, to focus solely on one residual aspect seems to be a flawed philosophy. Far longer like 24 000 years of cancer?

Furthermore, as Patton said, it's not the soldiers job to die for his country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his. If that action means that whole generations of individuals are never born, then so be it.
Do you guys have like an irrelevant quote generator online somewhere? I'm seriously having dejavu...

Actually, it was not all that devestating in the grand scheme of things. Tokyo was more devestating than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That also does not include the bombings of Yokohama, Osaka, and other Japanese cities that were hit by the US.
And yet the A-bombings caused the end of the War. If they were 'not all that devastating' and if Japan was so far from collapse that a blockade would have achieved nothing, why did the surrender follow on so closely from the dropping of the second bomb?

With the destruction of Japanese oil supplies, the ability to get food products to the highly urbanized areas of Japan would be fundamentally compromised. The railroads, which could have operated with their steam driven locomotives in the event of an oil shortage, were absolutely destroyed. Starvation would have been highly prevalent in urban areas.
The mobilisation of the nation to support the distribution of food and vital supplies would have addressed many of these issues. It wasn’t so long before since Japan had been a broadly agrarian, pre-industrial nation.
Japan’s population was around 70 million at the time which was not a great increase over its 19th Century total. Although it is true that there would have been privation, significantly around the population hubs, it is unlikely that the death toll would have been significant compared to that inflicted by the military actions of the US.
Obviously, the key factor would have been the time period. I imagine that we each envisage a substantially differing date of surrender. I would suggest that we agree to differ?

On a side note, it is clear that blockade was not the best course from a US perspective and would never have been attempted.

Actually, it is about the number of people who died. 214,000 when all was said and done.
The point is that all is not said and done, and won’t be for another 20,000 years.

I do not want cancer on anyone. However, the bomb was the quickest way to end the war with a low casualty count on both sides. To borrow a quote from Marcus on Bablyon 5 in discussing why they were defending Coriana 6 witha population of 6 billion over Centuri Prime with a population of 3 Billion, its numbers.

The President had to decide if he wanted millions of people dead or less than a million dead in regards to invasion or use of the bomb. Numbers numbers. The best choice is the one that limits casualties on both sides of the conflict. In this case, it was the bomb and not an invasion of Japan that won out because of its low casualty number.
Well we don't know if he picked the lesser option, I guess in 50000-100000 years (By which stage the radioactivity should have largely decayed) we'll see how many a-bomb related deaths there were. Even if it wasn't as much, why should people hundreds and thousands of years for now have to pay for US military expediency? Today in Japan there are children dying from the horrible process that is chemotherapy, who don't even know anything about the war. And you think it was a good decision. It's not like it's just death either, it cancer. Cancer, you know, the chemo, the sickness, the gradual wasting. It's a real prick of an affliction. And it's there for at least the next 24 000 years.24 000. Think about that.

Actually, it is about the number of people who died. 214,000 when all was said and done.
You just can't get past this. Fuck the people. Think about the thousands upon thousands of years of radiation amd cancer. Imagine if I told you you had cancer because some dude 800 years ago preferred you to die than a thousand more of his soldiers in a war.

Little facts about both bombs for everyone's information

Fat Man (Plutonium) had a yield of 21 kilotons

Little Boy (Uranium) had a yield of 15 kilotons

You just can't get past this. Fuck the people. Think about the thousands upon thousands of years of radiation amd cancer. Imagine if I told you you had cancer because some dude 800 years ago preferred you to die than a thousand more of his soldiers in a war.

Do your numbers actually reflect the yield of said nuclear detonation?

errr


I just noticed this thread now. Let me give my slight vision on how WWII was won.


Yes, i noticed a lot of "The US Won the war by itself" games, but my personal oppinion is that maybe the US tipped the scales of the war in the favor of the allies. But it was the JOINT power of the Allies that won the war. I am sure that if the United States didn't join the war, the allies would have won the war, it might have just taken a little longer (maybe a few months or so).

Far longer like 24 000 years of cancer?
Actually, the increased cancer rates, espescially when a country makes use of modern clean-up techniques the time period is shortened, and the effects are easily minimized. To the point that the effects would be felt for a far shorter time than the effects of massive resettlement of individuals would be (which is what would have been required of Japan, had a naval blockade been the only option used by the US military. That cancer is a particularly visible effect of warfare is just chance. If starvation prevails, we never see the children who are not born because their parents starved to death.

Do you guys have like an irrelevant quote generator online somewhere? I'm seriously having dejavu...
My point is the job of the soldier to kill the enemy, not to die. That he might die is a risk of warfare, not an expectation. In fact, knowing the number of Americans who were under arms during the Second World War, and the number of American casualties, it would seem more likely that an American soldier would make it through the war unscathed.

And yet the A-bombings caused the end of the War. If they were 'not all that devastating' and if Japan was so far from collapse that a blockade would have achieved nothing, why did the surrender follow on so closely from the dropping of the second bomb?


The mobilisation of the nation to support the distribution of food and vital supplies would have addressed many of these issues. It wasn’t so long before since Japan had been a broadly agrarian, pre-industrial nation.
Japan’s population was around 70 million at the time which was not a great increase over its 19th Century total. Although it is true that there would have been privation, significantly around the population hubs, it is unlikely that the death toll would have been significant compared to that inflicted by the military actions of the US.
Obviously, the key factor would have been the time period. I imagine that we each envisage a substantially differing date of surrender. I would suggest that we agree to differ?


Even with mass resettlement, the resources that would be required to carry out such an action would not have been available. To move millions of people from centralized, urban environments, to decentralized, rural environments, and provide them with the ability to cover their basic needs during this complex transition would require a tremendous amount of fuel and energy resources. Beyond that, the basic skills of farming were not stressed in an urbanized Japanese culture at the time, and retraining would also take at least the remainder of the year.

On a side note, it is clear that blockade was not the best course from a US perspective and would never have been attempted.
Most certainly.

Furthermore, the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki utilized air bursts, and were detonated at several hundred meters above the ground.

Given the amount of cleanup that has since taken place, it would be clear that the remaining fallout would not be the primary cause of any sort of cancer, although it might still be able to serve as an exacerbating factor in cancers that begin with other causes.

OMG ppl please open your eyes. You say the US "ULTIMATELY" wont he war. I am from Canada. They did as much as everyone else did sometimes even more. We entered the war 10 days after it started. When did America enter? O YES 1941! Canada advanced the farthest inland on D-day while the Americans did so-so at Utah and almost screwed over the Operation at Omaha. They only managed to advance the length of a football field. 30,000 of our men took the vital city of Cean along with 5,000 Brits. We also liberated the Netherlands which u guys failed to do (operation market garden.)America enters ww1 and ww2 late and then they expect to be called the best. You say brits did nothing. Ever here of the battle of britain. Although the russkies lsot the most men did they not manage to fight of the BEST army in the world at the time (Germany). The only reason why Hitler lost was because he was to preoccupied with killing the jews (the holocaust nvr happened) and taking over Russia. So before u start Rambling ur mouth about America being the best read ur History. The only thing I give them credit for is defeating Japan. they also killed incocent civilians at the bombing of Dresden (300,000+ died) and the A-Bombs.

OMG ppl please open your eyes. You say the US "ULTIMATELY" wont he war. I am from Canada. They did as much as everyone else did sometimes even more. We entered the war 10 days after it started. When did America enter? O YES 1941! Canada advanced the farthest inland on D-day while the Americans did so-so at Utah and almost screwed over the Operation at Omaha. They only managed to advance the length of a football field. 30,000 of our men took the vital city of Cean along with 5,000 Brits. We also liberated the Netherlands which u guys failed to do (operation market garden.)America enters ww1 and ww2 late and then they expect to be called the best. You say brits did nothing. Ever here of the battle of britain. Although the russkies lsot the most men did they not manage to fight of the BEST army in the world at the time (Germany). The only reason why Hitler lost was because he was to preoccupied with killing the jews (the holocaust nvr happened) and taking over Russia. So before u start Rambling ur mouth about America being the best read ur History. The only thing I give them credit for is defeating Japan. they also killed incocent civilians at the bombing of Dresden (300,000+ died) and the A-Bombs.

Illegible and inaccurate to the point of pain.

For the love of all that is good and decent, cut it with the crap LEETspeak, please.

For historical purposes, here's the info on the Battle of Caen circa 1944 from wikipedia.

During the Battle of Normandy in World War II, Caen saw intense and bitter combat between Allied and Axis forces. After the British I Corps landing at Sword Beach on June 6, 1944, progress stalled oustide Caen. British and Canadian troops finally broke through on July 9, after dropping thousands of bombs in Operation Charnwood. Bombers destroyed much of the city, but allowed the Allies to seize the western end of Caen, a month after Montgomery's original plan. In the battle, many of the town's inhabitants had sought refuge in the Abbaye aux Hommes, built on the orders of William the Conqueror some 800 years before. Post-WWII rebuilding took 14 years (1948-1962) and led to the current urbanization of Caen.

And heck. I'll throw in the wikipedia article entitled Battle for Caen while I am at it.

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

*snip*
I don't think anyone here has actually supported the position that the US won WWII on its own, nor that the US were the primary factor behind victory the in European theatres.

It is, however, undeniable that the US were the primary force behind beating Japan.

Wonderful. Defeat an enemy, and 60 years later argue over who won.

Wonderful. Defeat an enemy, and 60 years later argue over who won.
Exactly.
This thread has gone on far too long. Almost wish there was a rule against stupid, sometimes.

I should also note that Cherbourg was already liberated by the American military before Caen was liberated by the British/Canadian force. Cherbourg fell on June 26. Caen did not fall until July 21st. Carentan fell to the 101st Airborn on June 12th incase anyone was wondering.

So do we really have to engage in who accomplished what first debate?

I should also note that Cherbourg was already liberated by the American military before Caen was liberated by the British/Canadian force. Cherbourg fell on June 26. Caen did not fall until July 21st. Carentan fell to the 101st Airborn on June 12th incase anyone was wondering.

So do we really have to engage in who accomplished what first debate?
Ah, the irony :D

No doubt many of you have heard of Company of Hero's, its got its own ad on Jolt now.

Anyway, after playing the beta demo and doing some reading, it appears that the only playable side in the game will be the US.
Yup, no British, Russians, French, or anything else. Just you and your craptastic Sherman tanks that can take ten direct hits from a Tiger before exploding. You can only play as the Germans in multiplayer mode, it seems.

I really hate this sort of thing. Why couldnt they be more like Call of Duty with its awsome Russian campaign.

Dont mistake me though, historical stupidity aside, the game is quite entertaining, provided you think of it as an alternate version of history where the US and Germany where the only people to fight in WWII, because the Russians were too drunk and the British were too absorbed in their tea.

I bet they'll release an addition at some point which adds the amazing retextured Russians in their T-34's that behave exactly like the Tigers and Shermans of the other sides.
*grr*
lol, tru dat
Need more games where New Zealand kicks but like the truth was.

I don't think anyone here has actually supported the position that the US won WWII on its own, nor that the US were the primary factor behind victory the in European theatres.

It is, however, undeniable that the US were the primary force behind beating Japan.

I read somewhere that Macarthur would order the battlehardened Australians in when many of the green american troops had messed up and then claimed it as an american victory I dont deny that Pacific Theatre but the SW Asia Threatre belong mostly to British and Imperial forces

I read somewhere that Macarthur would order the battlehardened Australians in when many of the green american troops had messed up and then claimed it as an american victory I dont deny that Pacific Theatre but the SW Asia Threatre belong mostly to British and Imperial forces
Don't you know it. It wasn't even an issue of experience as much as it was training. To this day Australian troops are still trained better than the American ones. Sometimes they send us their best and we train them for them. Especially since, as conventional warfare goes, the Australian Army is the lord of Jungle combat. It's what we do. In vietnam, whilst the Yanks were dropping acid and ordering napalm strikes on vacant hillsides, the Australians were carefully sweeping the jungle in a grid pattern, and experiencing a lot more success at it too. The PTI's in the Australian Army speculate that Australian General infantry is slightly better trained than the US Rangers. There is an Army joke which follows from this with, "Further, the US GI's are slightly better trained than Australian Highschool cadets". Seriously though, it is my opinion that the reason the US military has such ongoing problems with friendly fire and death in training is a mixture of this low level of training with the worlds most advanced, and lethal, technology. An absolute recipe for disaster.

GreaterPacificNations, thank you for mentioning that other nations were involved in Vietnam and not just the United States. It is very refreshing.

Don't you know it. It wasn't even an issue of experience as much as it was training. To this day Australian troops are still trained better than the American ones. Sometimes they send us their best and we train them for them. Especially since, as conventional warfare goes, the Australian Army is the lord of Jungle combat. It's what we do. In vietnam, whilst the Yanks were dropping acid and ordering napalm strikes on vacant hillsides, the Australians were carefully sweeping the jungle in a grid pattern, and experiencing a lot more success at it too. The PTI's in the Australian Army speculate that Australian General infantry is slightly better trained than the US Rangers. There is an Army joke which follows from this with, "Further, the US GI's are slightly better trained than Australian Highschool cadets". Seriously though, it is my opinion that the reason the US military has such ongoing problems with friendly fire and death in training is a mixture of this low level of training with the worlds most advanced, and lethal, technology. An absolute recipe for disaster.
Aussie infantry are superb, espescially when dealing with more unconventional types of warfare. The types of conflicts that Australia has had to prepare for are by far much more infantry-focused conflicts, and unconventional warfare. This is where the primary difference between the US and Australian Militaries comes into play. They're built around totally different paradigms. For the past half century, the US has been preparing for a classical General War, against a Great Power, or another Superpower. As such, heavy armor, large navies centered around heavy capital ships, mechanized infantry, mobile artillery, fighter/interceptor and strategic bomber aircraft and logistics have received the primary focus. The result being the only branch that has received primary focus on classical infantry and urban warfare training has been the Marines. And they've received their urban warfare training in a classical fashion as well, more as heavy assault infantry, for moving against a classical army that's become entrenched in an urban environment, rather than random insurgents.

Different paradigms for training, different strengths for the militaries. If a war with China comes, the US Military would be in excellent position for dealing with that threat.

Seriously though, it is my opinion that the reason the US military has such ongoing problems with friendly fire and death in training is a mixture of this low level of training with the worlds most advanced, and lethal, technology. An absolute recipe for disaster.
It's not just the lower quality of training (which, honestly, I wasn't really aware of 'til now...), American soldiers tend to be the rejects of civilian life: People who couldn't make it into college or get a decent job.

Do your numbers actually reflect the yield of said nuclear detonation?

I did some quick research on this after remembering hearing that Nagasaki radiation was near or at normal background counts. I found this chart here: FAQ (http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm)

Question 2. How many cancer deaths have occurred among atomic-bomb survivors and how many of these can be attributed to radiation?

Analyses of deaths due to cancer among the Life Span Study cohort of atomic-bomb survivors from 1950 through 1990, published in Radiation Research (146:1-27, 1996), are summarized in Table 2. These results are for survivors who were exposed to significant radiation doses (See Question 11).

Table 2. Summary of cancer deaths in the Life Span Study cohort of
atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990
___________________________________________________________________________

Estimated number Percentage of deaths
Cause of Total number of deaths due attributable
death of deaths to radiation to radiation
___________________________________________________________________________

Leukemia 176 89 51%

Other types
of cancer* 4,687 339 7%

Total 4,863 428 9%

___________________________________________________________________________

*Solid cancers, such as stomach, lung, breast, colorectal and liver cancers

The number of cancer deaths among the 36,500 Life Span Study survivors who were exposed beyond 2.5 km is 3,177, including 73 leukemia deaths and 3,104 deaths from cancers other than leukemia.

The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to radiation exposure is higher among those who were exposed closer to the hypocenter, as in the case of deaths due to injuries from the blast, heat, or radiation. Table 3 presents data on the size of the studied population and the number of cancer deaths in relation to distance from the hypocenter for the approximately 50,000 survivors with significant exposures (See Question 10).

Table 3. Cancer deaths among atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990,
by distance from hypocenter
____________________________________________________________________________

Leukemia Other cancers*
_______________________ ________________________
Distance
from Percent Percent
hypocenter No. of No. of attributable No. of attributable
(km) persons deaths to radiation deaths to radiation
_____________________________________________________________________________

<1 810 22 100% 128 42%

1.0-1.5 10,590 79 64% 1156 18%

1.5-2.0 17,370 36 29% 1622 4%

2.0-2.5 21,343 39 4% 1781 0.5%
_____________________________________________________________________________


Because the Life Span Study cohort does not include all survivors (see Question 8), the number of cancer deaths that may be attributed to radiation among all survivors would be larger than the 428 shown in Table 2.



Crap, anyone know how to get the table to read properly here? Anyways, the link is easier to read. While at the bottom of the part I quoted it says the final numbers would be higher because they didn't have information on all survivors, the numbers are still much lower than some of the posters have been claiming. Especially when you look at the percentages.

I did some quick research on this after remembering hearing that Nagasaki radiation was near or at normal background counts. I found this chart here: FAQ (http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm)

I thank you for posting the link for it provided an answer to what I have been talking about.

Question 12: Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
The practical answer is, "No."

I thank you for posting the link for it provided an answer to what I have been talking about.

Question 12: Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
The practical answer is, "No."

A pleasure AC.