Nuklear bomb

[AndyJWest]

Back to Japan and Nukes, can you imagine the carnage that would of been been inflicted on the Japanese nation and the Allied soldiers if an invasion of Japan was the only option...

Fair enough, Tree, but the point is there were already other alternatives, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the Japanese would have surrendered fairly soon, even without an invasion, and without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Prior to the Soviet war declaration, the Japanese were trying to negotiate peace via them, on substantially the same terms that the Allies ultimately accepted (an 'unconditional' surrender, except that the Emperor would remain in position). With the Soviet entry into the war, an already dire situation was about to get much worse, as they were well aware. They were rapidly losing the logistical ability to fight anyway, largely as a result of the US submarine blockade. Given the willingness of most of the population to accept the surrender (half-baked military coup attempts notwithstanding), there seems little to suggest there was much will remaining to continue the fight.

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

the point is there were already other alternatives, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the Japanese would have surrendered fairly soon, even without an invasion, and without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by katdogfizzow

Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again.

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

The Allies suffered about 50K casualties on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers 100K. Civilians 100K.

Now extrapolate that to an invasion of the mainland.

Japan didn't have the means to fight on Okinawa either, but they did, sometimes with sticks. Of course, in that number of civilian casualties is the large number of suicides.

The last A-bomb fell on the 9th, they surrendered on the 15th....but they were ready to surrender . The only thing that saved them was an Emperor who finally made a decision despite a cabinet that was still split after the second bomb.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

The Allies suffered about 50K casualties on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers 100K. Civilians 100K.

Now extrapolate that to an invasion of the mainland.

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

Incidentally, a significant proportion of the civilian 'suicides' on Okinawa were actually murders, carried out on military orders by the Japanese forces, on a population they considered 'inferior', and possibly untrustworthy. This would have been unlikely to occur on the mainland, even if they had been in a position to continue fighting. Not that they were...

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

[...]

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

[...]

This pretty much sums up everything that happened in this thread very well. It's always surprising to see people state questionable things as if they were facts. Like that guy a few posts above that seemingly knows perfectly what Hitler was or wanted. This is ridiculous because it's history and much of it is clouded, misty and no one really knows everything. On top of that history was twisted and tweaked on many occasions.
There have been war crimes on any side and even before 2nd World War ethnical cleansing was common. Especially the USA is a good example for that when it comes to literally eradicating native life completely.

But the point really is that no one really knows what would have happend if the bombs didn't fall. Not to mention that no one knows what would've happened if Hitler actually used them. Same for the V1 or the jet engine fighters etc. - so much technological advance came through the war, even blood infusions and stuff like rubber! We can only accept these little "facts" we know of. The second world war shouldn't be turned into fantasy.




So I really, strongly, wonder if these bombs could even bring anything of value to the game.
They are far to powerful and are actually rendering the game itself useless. Air combat isn't about mass destruction of civillian life, heck, no game should be about it. That is like making a game about rape of women - it's a crime and shouldn't be the selling point of any game out there.

To me, air combat always was the cleanest side of the war. But the very same thing Hitler was despised for, taking innocent lives over his cause, happened in these days of the first RAF bombing runs or the two atomic bombs etc.
If the bombs really do get added people will mod them. You can imagine the scenarios people will come up with for such a weapon, can't you? I'm unsure if the game should allow such mass destruction. There was and is absolutely NO reasonable target for the use of such bombs. And remembering 9/11 makes clear that it doesn't even take an atomic bomb to turn a whole country into hell - I don't think these weapons do belong into the realm of modern developed society as they are a weapon of inferiority and cruelty and not a weapon of reason and logic.

[Dozer_EAF19]

Originally Posted by Madfish

To me, air combat always was the cleanest side of the war. But the very same thing Hitler was despised for, taking innocent lives over his cause, happened in these days of the first RAF bombing runs or the two atomic bombs etc.
If the bombs really do get added people will mod them. You can imagine the scenarios people will come up with for such a weapon, can't you? I'm unsure if the game should allow such mass destruction. There was and is absolutely NO reasonable target for the use of such bombs. And remembering 9/11 makes clear that it doesn't even take an atomic bomb to turn a whole country into hell - I don't think these weapons do belong into the realm of modern developed society as they are a weapon of inferiority and cruelty and not a weapon of reason and logic.

There is no comparison between the bombing of cities, and Hitler's genocide.

"The defeats of 1944 had cost the Germans 1.8 million men killed. In the first five months of 1945, whilst Speer was encouraging his Fuehrer to one last show of resistance, 1.4 million German soldiers met their deaths, 450,000 in January alone. Nor does this include the tens of thousands of civilians who fell victim to Allied bombing. To describe the destruction of Germany in 1945 in the language of the Holocaust is both obscene and inaccurate. This was a war, not a massacre of the innocents. It may have felt like a slaughter to those on the receiving end, but this was an effect of the means used, not the ends intended. The Western Allies broke no law of war that had not been breached by the Wehrmacht a hundred times over. The Red Army behaved barbarically in the territories it occupied, but the Soviets did not perpetrate a genocide. Nazi Germany had challenged three of the greatest industrial powers on earth. It had taken them five long years to bring their industrial might fully to bear. But now their war machines were fully assembled and in the first five months of 1945 they cut their way into the territory of Germany with truly horrendous effects. The Allies waged war with a volume of firepower unlike that ever used in any previous conflict. The results were nightmarish and would have been even worse but for the fact that the policy of 'Germany first' meant that the Nazi regime was destroyed before the atomic bomb was ready for use."

That is an extract from "The Wages of Destruction - the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze, who's an economic history lecturer at Cambridge (, England). The comments I made in my last post, about Hitler's motives, are also based on this book.

The late-war destruction of their cities came because the German government wouldn't surrender when it was hopeless, preferring to keep fighting almost to the last man, putting as high a human cost on the nations they'd attacked as possible in the hope of getting a better position at the negotiating table. The Allies needed to get Germany to surrender as soon as possible, because every day of war had a huge cost in Allied lives, and bombing the cities was a legitimate if tragic way to try to force a surrender. (This is true of Germany; I don't know about Japan, or their negotiations with the USSR.) There is no comparison with the German policy of enslaving the populations of the territories they conquered and then working and starving them to death or gassing them in concentration camps.

[Splitter]

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

But I guess we are not giving enough. We are still evil and tantamount to Nazis in the eyes of many in the world. I mean, Bono says we're not giving enough so it must be true.

Let me also ask;
Do you think Iran is seeking nuclear power simply to supply their own energy needs?
Do you think Iran will use their nuclear capability to develop weapons?
Once they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they will use them to threaten their neighbors or the world's oil supply?
Do you think they would make good on their threats to bomb Tel-Aviv?
Does it appear sanction are working?

Or is Iran just misunderstood? Is their leadership just striving for world peace?

Iran is now a nuclear power. The short estimate is that it would take about three months to develop weapons. It is highly likely that Israel will "de-nuke" Iran some time before the end of this year.

The US will not back Israel, our present leader is no friend of Israel (that should make some of you rejoice). Russia and China will seek to condemn Israel, but the US will still block any serious repercussions with it's veto power in the Security Council.

Or does Israel need to wait to be bombed and retaliate? Maybe they should just wait until it is confirmed that Iran has nuclear weapons?

Maybe Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want....do you think that would solve the problem?

I wonder if the Israelis realize that they have been abandoned.....again. So much for "never again" lol.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

I wonder if the Israelis realize that they have been abandoned.....again. So much for "never again" lol.

Splitter, that is a truly repulsive analogy. If you can't distinguish between the Holocaust and opposition to Israeli belligerence, I pity you...

[Friendly_flyer]

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Splitter

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.