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
NKAJ on 12 November 2011
snakenobi said:
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

 



I don't get your view on this. So you seem to think that whatever the U.S did it would be considered murderous.  Are you arguing that the U.S would have actually been defeated by the Japanese, had they invaded? You do realise the Japanese were suffering worse casualites than the U.S for some time and by that point in the war, it would have been almost impossible for the Japanese to defeat the U.S. Plus if the U.S waited longer the Russians had already agreed to invade ...



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
NKAJ on 12 November 2011
snakenobi said:
Marks said:

Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, France, China, Yugoslavia, other allies. Fought the evil axis countries.

These countries i agree with you

Switzerland and Sweden

good they resisted

nothing comes good of war

retaliation is same as starting a war or get into the war in the name of stopping evil

Not evil at all - USA, UK, Sure they may have been in it for themselves but at least we were stopping evil in the process. 

how the hell can say that UK and USA weren't evil?They killed innocent people in Japan,they stopped trade to japan aka economic warfare,they looted Axis nations

violence in the name of stopping evil is still a crime,a big one

that way we can also say Britain and USA were evil as they used economic warfare during the years leading upto WW2 and that nazi's and japan revolted,just a rhetoric example

Look up:

1)Japan trade halt by USA years before WW2,Japan used to get its resoruces from Japan as Japan doesn't have many resrources in its small land country

2)Transfer agreement 1933 ,USA and britain financial controllers threatened Hitler if he didn't work according to them,they would stop resource to Nazi Germany.It is one of the reasons hitler invaded poland and went on war with USSR as they had resources that could help Nazi germany get independent of USAUK control.Hitler was actually finding land for an independent jewish state in 1933.

3)And don't forget they put so much debt on germany's head after WW1

 

both sides were to blame,not equally but to say that USA and UK were not evil atall is wrong




I'm really curious, what do you think the allied countires should have done when Hitler invaded Poland?  



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

snakenobi on 12 November 2011

NKAJ said:

I don't get your view on this. So you seem to think that whatever the U.S did it would be considered murderous.  

in WW2,no

but their actions before WW2 caused it so yeah they were murderous,yes


Are you arguing that the U.S would have actually been defeated by the Japanese, had they invaded?

japan is a very small place,so no

but USA-UK's victory and strategy is dipped in pre-war crimes(transfer agreement 1933,balfour declaration,empire authoritarian regulations,etc).Most of these things were unknown and still today are not known by general public because of propaganda

if USUK would have played  straight with both sides germany and japan without all those things,then yeah they would have been defeated of USA wouldn't have entered the war in the first place as their people wanted

You do realise the Japanese were suffering worse casualites than the U.S for some time and by that point in the war, it would have been almost impossible for the Japanese to defeat the U.S. Plus if the U.S waited longer the Russians had already agreed to invade ...

my reply to lordmandeep's was that

cause he kept on talking about japanese crimes but just ignoring about ALLIED crimes in pre-war

he has again and again brought up japanese crime without talking anything about USUK crimes





snakenobi on 12 November 2011
NKAJ said:
snakenobi said:
Marks said:

Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, France, China, Yugoslavia, other allies. Fought the evil axis countries.

These countries i agree with you

Switzerland and Sweden

good they resisted

nothing comes good of war

retaliation is same as starting a war or get into the war in the name of stopping evil

Not evil at all - USA, UK, Sure they may have been in it for themselves but at least we were stopping evil in the process. 

how the hell can say that UK and USA weren't evil?They killed innocent people in Japan,they stopped trade to japan aka economic warfare,they looted Axis nations

violence in the name of stopping evil is still a crime,a big one

that way we can also say Britain and USA were evil as they used economic warfare during the years leading upto WW2 and that nazi's and japan revolted,just a rhetoric example

Look up:

1)Japan trade halt by USA years before WW2,Japan used to get its resoruces from Japan as Japan doesn't have many resrources in its small land country

2)Transfer agreement 1933 ,USA and britain financial controllers threatened Hitler if he didn't work according to them,they would stop resource to Nazi Germany.It is one of the reasons hitler invaded poland and went on war with USSR as they had resources that could help Nazi germany get independent of USAUK control.Hitler was actually finding land for an independent jewish state in 1933.

3)And don't forget they put so much debt on germany's head after WW1

 

both sides were to blame,not equally but to say that USA and UK were not evil atall is wrong




I'm really curious, what do you think the allied countires should have done when Hitler invaded Poland?  


before that i am really curious to know if the actions taken by allied pre-WW2 were correct?

this has been the ignoorant topic of this thread,put all the blame on japan(not that they were any good either) and just forget about UKUSA pre-ww2 crimes?

 

adn then you ask a question straight about WW2 but never ask a question about pre-war actions as that would prove USA and UK commit serious crimes



Kasz216 on 12 November 2011
snakenobi said:
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!


I don't quite understanad your arguement here.

It's a patehtic arguement, that japanese government officials actually saw the atomic bombings as a gif from heaven because it allowed peace to happen and ended with the least amount of Japanese civilian casualties?

I don't quite get how that's a patehtic arguement.

Espiecally when you consider the "Japanese Miracle" which started via US investment and in general what Japan has become.


The allies did do some horrible shit, like the firebombing of Dresden which servered no actual purpose... but the atomic bombings weren't evil. 

They were literally the best option on the table... to the point where nobody can even come up with a decent argument for how things could of ended better for the Japanese. 

Even Japanese fiction on the matter seems to suggest that if nukes weren't dropped things would be worse.  Alternate WW2 history often seems to fixate on the creation of a Communist "North Japan" and Democratic "South Japan" much like vietnam and Korea.



Around the Network
snakenobi on 12 November 2011
Kasz216 said:


I don't quite understanad your arguement here.

It's a patehtic arguement, that japanese government officials actually saw the atomic bombings as a gif from heaven because it allowed peace to happen and ended with the least amount of Japanese civilian casualties?

their concern for their is right

but this opinion came out of  coercion where usa pre-war crimes were forgotten

that way today the world could gang up on USAEU and tell them to stop invading other countries faor shit reason.Russia has many weapons it can blow the hell out of EU and USA but that would be wrong.

I don't quite get how that's a patehtic arguement.

Espiecally when you consider the "Japanese Miracle" which started via US investment and in general what Japan has become.

thats what is wrong about it that you give greed of money as an excuse to their right to decide on their own what they want to do with their people


The allies did do some horrible shit, like the firebombing of Dresden which servered no actual purpose... but the atomic bombings weren't evil. 

yeah then 911 bombings,nazi germany,japan and other terrorist attack  are not evil as they were cause by oppression

They were literally the best option on the table... to the point where nobody can even come up with a decent argument for how things could of ended better for the Japanese. 

best option for what to get japan to do what usa wants?

its not about how things could have ended but how things could have started with the japanese

 

japan was wrong in invading china and shit but aliies have done nothing else,how the hell did they get their empire and regulation of world running?

Even Japanese fiction on the matter seems to suggest that if nukes weren't dropped things would be worse.  Alternate WW2 history often seems to fixate on the creation of a Communist "North Japan" and Democratic "South Japan" much like vietnam and Korea.

fiction,really?

yeah i would love to read some fiction how russia nukes its 20-30k missles in allied nations and the world would have some peace


Marks on 12 November 2011
Kasz216 said:
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!

I never heard about the blockade idea (the part I bolded there), that's really interesting. I'll have to read up on that. By the sounds of it that most certainly would have caused way more death than the atomic bombs. 



Marks on 12 November 2011
snakenobi said:
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


So basically you would have kept sending oil, food, supplies to Japan knowing full well they are using those items to invade islands all over the south pacific, plus China, Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, etc.), Philippines, and anywhere else they possibly could? In all honesty I bet more people in all those countries would have died under Japanese control  than died when Japan got nuked. In case you didn't know Japan basically saw every race besides their own as sub-human, they killed mercilessly and without remorse. Yeah the USA was motivated by the need to stop Japan from taking over American territory in the South-Pacific...but guess what by doing so they stopped the Japanese invasion of many innocent countries that couldn't defend themselves. If the US had kept sending oil to Japan that would be the same as sending ammunition to a terrorist who is going to go shoot up a school, it had to be stopped.

I think your obvious Anti-Americanism is clouding your view on this issue. How can you possibly say what Japan was doing wasn't wrong and didn't need to be stopped? 

And yeah dude I know Britain has done bad things in India, North America and elsewhere in their empire. One of my classes in university this year is on the British empire. We've gone over such things as the famine Britain caused in the 1870's and all that good stuff. And yeah slavery was bad too, but when you're done finding bad things write about Britain maybe you could get a second to find out Britain was also the first country in the world to abolish slavery, and after that they pressured other nations to follow suit. Plus most of Britain's territorial gains was done peacefully and through treaties. Annexing a country via war was always the last option. 



Jexy on 12 November 2011
kennyrester said:

No, no, sick of this. I had a whole long post nearly typed out but I'm not going to get sucked in any further.
You're just being silly now, arguing semantics. The word anti-semitism is widely in use and has a specific meaning. So does the term holocaust denial. You might as well argue blue means red or that WW2 never happened at all.

And I'm not American, not sure what gave you that impression

He's clearly an anti-semite, who has bought into some jewish-hating conspiracy theories.  We know the number was around 6 million Jews, plus many others, being gypsies, christains, etc etc... totalling a few million more.  Dude is nuts, and clearly is either mentally unstable or is just brainwashed. 



BOOM!  FACE KICK!

snakenobi on 12 November 2011
Marks said:

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.

the latter was good intention but USA played a couble sided game where you first get into a war and then help and give it as an excuse

noble people like to die free than we provided food and then be slaved

thats whats wrong

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

the blockade shouldn't have happened in the first place before war