i believe it was the second ww,

where the uk tried to keep russia supplied through very dangerous waters,the russians gave them medals recently i think or something

we learn't plenty about the eastern front at my school,they do still teach history at school do they?

The REAL question is: Why can you play as Stalin or Mao in Civilization, but not as Hitler on the German side ?
I smell inequity !

I didn't say they wanted to save lives.  I said they saved lives.

You argued that most people agree a blockade would of killed less people... when the truth is the opposite.  Experts in general agree a blockade would of killed WAY more people.

I made no judgements about whether what they did was moral or not.  Though you interpreted it as such, likely because of one simple fact.

You don't want to accept that an immoral action can save lives on both sides.

Either way, your arguements are coming up wholey unresearched.  I'd suggest reading a few books about WW2.

1)  If you actually look up and study the surrender of Japan, you will find that the majority were AGAINST surrender up until the atomic bombs dropping and were completely unwilling to move off that position.  Again Politicians hoping for peace called the annihlation of two of their cities a blessing from heaven!

Why would they do that?  Why would people in the Japanese govenrment themselves be overjoyed about their own cities being destroyed by Nuclear bombs if the warhawk side was ready to give in to peace any day? 

2) AS for "mutations still today"I would suggest reading the actual medical research on the subject

For example

http://www.amazon.com/Effects-Atomic-Radiation-William-Schull/dp/0471125245

In general they didn't show statistically significant genetic damage to children of survivors despite a large sample size.  In otherwords, you'd actually need a MUCH larger sample size of people exposed to know if it actually was effecting the children's genetics.

Which should say something about the prevelnce of such mutations being passed on... to their children, let alone their children's children.

3)  Dieing of Radiaiton sucks, but so does dieing of starvation.  I've never died, let alone twice so I can't say for sure.  However, i'd guess starving to death would be worse.  Both slow painful deaths... though one of them your more likely to be awake for the whole time.

In High School I never learned about a good or bad side in History.
Especially in Cold War.

Maybe because UK destroyed the economy of Latin America on XIX century.
And USA installed dictatorships all over here during Cold War.
And because i've had a lot of teachers that were communist in the past.

Last time I checked England and France haven't invanted Poland and split it beetween themselves and Germany in 1939. Soviet Union did.

To be fair to the UK it was Nevil Chamberlain that really led the charge to make peace with the Nazi's.

Also remember people wanted to do their best to avoid war.

For example, if a small country acts belligerent we can easily step in and stop it.

However, for example if China became belligerent, do you think the world Powers would have an immediate aggressive stance against China?

However, Chamberlain was a fool to trust the Germans.

Thank God for Winston Churchill.

Honestly, the biggest "The atomic bombs didn't save lives" argument.. and really only one... is amusingly is on topic with the thread.

Some historians suggest that what got Japan to surrender was Russia.

They weren't afraid of an American Invasion, and they weren't afraid of losing all their cities to the atomic bombs... (although as stated, some japanese members of the big six disagreed.

What some historians suggest is they were afraid of being invaded by Russia and having to put up with their inhumane genocidal treatment and finally folded because of the Russian invasion of Manchukuo.

This is largely based on the fact that it was revealed that the "Peace overtures" sent through Russia were in fact a calculated ploy by the "Big Six" in an attempt to keep Russia out of Japan long enough to hit the American's hard enough that they would allow a surrender in which japan remained unoccupied by basically using a later soviet invasion and conquering of Japan as a chip in their favor.  (Which again Japanese researchers found japan was MASSIVLY upgrading ther army and had no plan to surrender to the americans up until the bombs dropped.)

Which by the way, Japanese Historians basically found was the preconditions for any Japanese negotiations. The Allies had to agree to basically let Japan off scott free for the whole thing... and that's where negotiations BEGAN.

Either way, it's generally accepted that those two things are what ended the war... with a debate on the importance of either. 

Whether the japanese really didn't care if all of it's cities were destroyed so long as they perserved the empereor.  Or whether the Russian invasion was the straw that finally convinced politicians staggered by the bombs to surrender.

Of course they didnt. because after all England and France gave German lands to Poland in end of WW1.  in 1938 Hitler respectfully asked Poland to give Prussia back and other Western Poland territories in exchange for Money and Millitary equipments?  Poland considered the offer, but England forced Poland to reject the offer.  England wanted Germany to invade Poland so Soviets could come and help Poland and destroy Germany, but Hitler was fully aware of their plans so he allied himself with Soviets then ivnaded Poland.  Before the war England promised Poland that if Hitler invades them England would attack Germany!  but ofcourse they lied.  Because like i said, England thought there was no need to attack Germany because the Soviets would attack and help Poles. 

By German lands... you mean the lands the Germans stole along with the Russians and Austro hungry during the Partition of Poland before World War 1?

This picture is easy to make. i can go and make a similar one.