By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - World War 2:Who was the right one?

 

Who was right in the long term?

Soviet Union 31 15.98%
 
Nazi Germany 53 27.32%
 
USA\UK 110 56.70%
 
Total:194

I guess that Canada won the war.

You learn something new every day.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

Around the Network

well the issue about Japan is there was signs it would surrender however the military had an iron grip on the country.

Its only after the atomic bombs did the Emperor finally realize the war was incredibly pointless.

I agree dropping them on Civilians areas was a huge crime, but I would wonder what the casualties would have been for an invasion of Japan.



snakenobi said:
Marks said:

 

And yeah I know many civilians died in the bombing runs in Germany and Japan by the allies, but they were a necessary evil. I even stand by America's decision to use the atomic bombs.The Japanese didn't know the meaning of the word surrender back then, they were honorable people that would die fighting rather than surrender...drastic measures, i.e. the atomic bomb, were necessary to end the war. Who knows how much longer it would have gone on for, and how many allied lives would have been lost if they didn't.

so u are worried about allied lives but not axis or other lives?

that sick

And as for the bombings in Germany I'm pretty sure the targets were factories/industrial areas...the target wasn't civilians. Civilian casualties were just collateral damage. 

still its a crime

u can't give such a bad excuse and get away

that way,germany and japan and countless other countries throughout history will give an excuse that they were oppressed and so they revolted,a rhetoric example

I'm not saying USA and UK were perfect, but they did what was necessary to win a war.

so it was about 'winning'?

and that they are right when they provoked the war in the first place?

Killing 6 million Jews and 5 million or so non-Jews in the holocaust had nothing to do with the war, where as the Atomic Bombs (which unfortunately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians) was to force Japan to surrender. 

funny how you use 'unfortunatley' to tone down one of the biggest crimes of all time



So it's obvious you are against the atomic bombs. So what you you have done of you were Truman? You can either use this cool new weapon that will force Japan to surrender a week after its use...or you can keep sendin scores of American soldiers in to die or be captured on remote Japanese islands. Japanese soliders don't surrender! They keep fighting to the death because to them its honourable to die in war and dishonorable to be captured. If we hadn't used the atomic bombs the war could have continued for months longer. 

Yeah I agree its not fair to kill civilians....but if I have to choose between Allied soldiers dying or Axis civilians dying I'll choose Axis civilians every time. Its just the cost of war so you're gonna have to deal with it. 

Plus I should throw in that what Japan did in China, plus Japan's treatment of POWs was worse than anything the allies did. Allied POW camps were a vacation compared to Japanese ones. 



I think people forget the immense Civilian casualties the Japanese would have experienced with a full Invasion plus millions of Casualties by soldiers as well.

They would have MUCH greater then the deaths from the atomic bombs and plus entire regions would have been destroyed.

Likely we would have seen fighting on the scale and destruction as on the Eastern Front.

 

 

Frankly the battle of Oakinawa was terribile and that would have occured all across Japan.



Phobos said:
dr3b said:

One a side note the sanctions and terms imposed on Germany after WWI were a large factor in the rise of Nazi Germany during the 20's and 30's.

Its not just a side note - its one very, very important fact to understand many german actions after 1923.

But this fact - the illegal naval blockade AFTER the ending of WWI - is very often (nearly alway, nothing about it in german schoolbooks) brushed under the carpet - becaus the winner writs the history and is allowed to say, whats important and whars not so important.


I'm unaware of this naval blockade after WW1, can you please link me a source on it please?

The answer to this question though, is the same as so many morale choices, there is no true right or wrong, merely different shades of grey 



Around the Network

@TeddostheFireKing

On the quick I've found this text in english:

"When did the First World War end? Yes, that is a "catch-question." Virtually everybody will reply "November 1918;" but, in so doing, they will be wrong. That was the date on which hostilities on land ceased. On sea, however, although there was no more combat, the Allied (chiefly English) blockade of foodstuffs and other materials continued until July 11 1919, eight months after the Armistice was signed at Compiègne."

 

full text and source:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/2/Hall231-236.html


Without this naval blockade, the new German Republic never had singed the dictation of Versailles -  euphemistically called "treaty" of Versailles.

Allies dictated Germany to singe or the naval blockade will remain. Because 100 000s of germans and austrians died of hunger AFTER nov 1918, they had to singe, if they dont want to loose more lifes.



 

 

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value..."

 

Alan Greenspan, 1967

Marks said:
snakenobi said:
Marks said:

 

And yeah I know many civilians died in the bombing runs in Germany and Japan by the allies, but they were a necessary evil. I even stand by America's decision to use the atomic bombs.The Japanese didn't know the meaning of the word surrender back then, they were honorable people that would die fighting rather than surrender...drastic measures, i.e. the atomic bomb, were necessary to end the war. Who knows how much longer it would have gone on for, and how many allied lives would have been lost if they didn't.

so u are worried about allied lives but not axis or other lives?

that sick

And as for the bombings in Germany I'm pretty sure the targets were factories/industrial areas...the target wasn't civilians. Civilian casualties were just collateral damage. 

still its a crime

u can't give such a bad excuse and get away

that way,germany and japan and countless other countries throughout history will give an excuse that they were oppressed and so they revolted,a rhetoric example

I'm not saying USA and UK were perfect, but they did what was necessary to win a war.

so it was about 'winning'?

and that they are right when they provoked the war in the first place?

Killing 6 million Jews and 5 million or so non-Jews in the holocaust had nothing to do with the war, where as the Atomic Bombs (which unfortunately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians) was to force Japan to surrender. 

funny how you use 'unfortunatley' to tone down one of the biggest crimes of all time



So it's obvious you are against the atomic bombs. So what you you have done of you were Truman? You can either use this cool new weapon that will force Japan to surrender a week after its use...or you can keep sendin scores of American soldiers in to die or be captured on remote Japanese islands. Japanese soliders don't surrender! They keep fighting to the death because to them its honourable to die in war and dishonorable to be captured. If we hadn't used the atomic bombs the war could have continued for months longer. 

Yeah I agree its not fair to kill civilians....but if I have to choose between Allied soldiers dying or Axis civilians dying I'll choose Axis civilians every time. Its just the cost of war so you're gonna have to deal with it. 

Plus I should throw in that what Japan did in China, plus Japan's treatment of POWs was worse than anything the allies did. Allied POW camps were a vacation compared to Japanese ones. 


You forgot the third option... which was the one they were leaning towards.  

Full naval blockaid of japan and the bombing of all their railroad infrastructure.

Truth is, the allied bombings actually ended up SAVING japanese civilian lives.

At that point in time millions of japanese civilians were on the brink of starvation and were only saved by the US's fast reaction to prevent the situation from happening.

A blockade would of caused way more deaths via starving then the bombing ever would.

So would of the invasion which would of took a LOT of time, since the Japanese were planning for the invasion, and that's not counting the poorly armed civilian miltia's the japanese were planning to use to fight in guerilla warfare....

Guerilla's who mostly didn't even have modern weapons and were reduced to things like bamboo spears.

That the Japanese were going to surrender was a complete myth.  After the nuclear bombing, two japaneses officials  called the nuclear bombings of their own people a "Gift from heaven"

Think about that... Japanese political officals said that about the worst bomb ever being dropped on a japanese city and wiping out his own people and civilians.

This is a pretty decent read about it....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/

It often feels like there is a higher percentage of American's outraged by the atomic bombings then there are japanese!



lordmandeep said:

I think people forget the immense Civilian casualties the Japanese would have experienced with a full Invasion plus millions of Casualties by soldiers as well.

that is a sad excuse for us's actions


japanese were ready to defend their land

this excuse of dropping atomic bomb and then giving this sad excuse  that 'oh we are actualyl the good guys that we sropped an atomic bomb instead of invading you is pathethic

its like you kill a man to save 5 other men,you have no right


They would have MUCH greater then the deaths from the atomic bombs and plus entire regions would have been destroyed.

Likely we would have seen fighting on the scale and destruction as on the Eastern Front.

Frankly the battle of Oakinawa was terribile and that would have occured all across Japan.

no they couldn't as US had to travel to get to japan,they would have gone down.japanese were very strong and honourably courageous back then

 





Marks said:

So it's obvious you are against the atomic bombs

i shouldn't be?

So what you you have done of you were Truman? You can either use this cool new weapon that will force Japan to surrender a week after its use...or you can keep sendin scores of American soldiers in to die or be captured on remote Japanese islands.

really,what if russia and other countries today use the same 'COOL' weapon that they have in excessive,russia has the most nukes close to couble of USA and take out USA and western countries war crimes in the middle east?

would that be right?

i will tell you what i would do,i wouldn't have stopped trade to japan so the conflict wouldn't have started in the first place.If america never applied their empirical regulatory authority,it wouldn't have happened.

and then you give an excuse of 'oh they saved american lives but fucked japanese lives'

Japanese soliders don't surrender! They keep fighting to the death because to them its honourable to die in war and dishonorable to be captured. If we hadn't used the atomic bombs the war could have continued for months longer. 

so you're saying america decides when to end war and when to force other to stop isn't it?

all your comments are in support of empire regulation which the anglo-american empire did that time and is still doing today

Yeah I agree its not fair to kill civilians....but if I have to choose between Allied soldiers dying or Axis civilians dying I'll choose Axis civilians every time. Its just the cost of war so you're gonna have to deal with it. 

what can i say to such a cold blooded man?

Plus I should throw in that what Japan did in China, plus Japan's treatment of POWs was worse than anything the allies did. Allied POW camps were a vacation compared to Japanese ones. 

japan did to china?

why do you forgot what British and america have done to the world?

they slaved the entire freakin world in old time slavery and now economic slavery when they themselves don't work but just play around with money on wall street and sit on debt

 

japan crimes are nothing compared to that

 

the way you debate is you diretly just look at WW2 cromes but the real fact is that WW2 happened because of old crimes of the FRANCE,BRITISH,AMERICA



Kasz216 said:

 

That the Japanese were going to surrender was a complete myth.  After the nuclear bombing, two japaneses officials  called the nuclear bombings of their own people a "Gift from heaven"

Think about that... Japanese political officals said that about the worst bomb ever being dropped on a japanese city and wiping out his own people and civilians.

stop giving such a pathetic example

that way people suffering today because of financial crisis who don't know history and economics would say socialism is a gift from IMF,WORLD BANK,WORLD GOVERNMENT.

It often feels like there is a higher percentage of American's outraged by the atomic bombings then there are japanese!

It often feels like there is a higher percentage of smart and intelligent American's and other people across the world outraged by the socialistic nature of today's world then there are foolish idiots who don't understand what socialism and authoritarian world is in the long term!