Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on March 05, 2007, 05:03:56 AM
-
cgi recreation of atom bomb over hiroshima. (http://www.dailybeat.net/media/633/Hiroshima-Atomic-Bomb-Re-Enactment.html)
commentary: well done. horrifying to consider.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well done. horrifying to consider.
indeed
-
Recreate this:
Japanese War Crimes of WWII (http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/9597/wc.html)
-
duck and cover...
Originally posted by Xargos
Recreate this:
Japanese War Crimes of WWII (http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/9597/wc.html)
Unit 731 and Unit 100-conducted gruesome experiments on prisoners near the Chinese city of Harbin.
Estimated 200,000 Chinese tortured to death between 1946-1948.
46-48?
and that list seems a tad short...
Tronsky
-
Yea, I was wondering about those dates myself.
That was just a quick Google search to make a point.
-
Interesting and scary to watch at the same time :(
-
Ahh, I love the smell of fission in the morning! :)
-
Paybacks a ***** aint it
shows what can happen when pissant countries attack terrible sleeeping giants
-
Cmon 88,
you know better than to post that here. All that is going to do is spawn yet another stupid debate were two or three people argue against everyone else how killing 30-40,000 poeple to save a million and end a war was unnecessary.
-
um.
which debate in here isn't repetitive or stupid again?
:confused:
-
p.s. - i just think that it's a beautiful bit of cgi. i can't help it if the tards get a hold of it. i am not one to discriminate.
:cool:
-
LOL
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Recreate this:
Japanese War Crimes of WWII (http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/9597/wc.html)
So quick to defend ... must be the guilt. :huh
-
guilt of what?
-
Perhaps Xargos can answer that. He's the one that seems to be defending something before anyone actually attacked.
-
And to think that bomb is nothing compared to what is available today. Its like volcanos on demand.
-
I didn't feel guilt when I unloaded my 12 gauge into someone trying to break into my home and I sure as hell don't feel guilt about making people glow who attacked my country.
-
Originally posted by JB88
cgi recreation of atom bomb over hiroshima. (http://www.dailybeat.net/media/633/Hiroshima-Atomic-Bomb-Re-Enactment.html)
commentary: well done. horrifying to consider.
Horrifying? No. Beautiful.
It's beautiful to see how extreme violence and total destruction can break a culture and that culture's back bone.
-
The Japanese culture was not broken, only their aggression. Believe it or not I have a lot of respect for the Japanese people, then and now.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
The Japanese culture was not broken, only their aggression. Believe it or not I have a lot of respect for the Japanese people, then and now.
And this ladies and gentlemen, shows that those who do not study history, are doomed to repeat it.
Before the atomic bomb was dropped, the emperor was a god. If he told you to do something, you do it lest risk dishonoring your family.
When the bombs were dropped, the emperor had to come onto public radio (unheard of at the time), claim that he wasn't a god (even more rediculous), and that it wasn't worth the lives of any more japanese to keep fighting. The last part drove a splinter so deep through the japanese, that some people continued to fight for years after.
Two bombs flipped an entire culture on it's head. Two bombs broke the japanese spirit and culture.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I didn't feel guilt when I unloaded my 12 gauge into someone trying to break into my home and I sure as hell don't feel guilt about making people glow who attacked my country.
Iceman?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I didn't feel guilt when I unloaded my 12 gauge into someone trying to break into my home and I sure as hell don't feel guilt about making people glow who attacked my country.
Did you get a Kill or Assist?
-
:rofl
that's wrong on sooooo many levels.
wroooooooong.
-
If the Japanese culture was so broken why are they dominating our economy now? They are still as proud as they were 60 years ago. And they still have not apologized for what they did to our GI's, as far as I know .
The only thing I found the next day was some blood in the woods, never found a body and the cops never came to my door. I had chased him to the edge of the woods the night before but was unwilling to enter because I was blinded by the flash and deafened by the sound of the 12 gauge. I never saw him roaming around my sheds or house again at 3 in the morning.:D
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I didn't feel guilt when I unloaded my 12 gauge into someone trying to break into my home and I sure as hell don't feel guilt about making people glow who attacked my country.
Ok, but then why did you feel you had to defend the Hiroshima bombing by posting a link to atrocities done by the Japanese? (As if two wrongs make a right.)
-
So there were most likely no reporters asking stupid questions and pesky press coverage of the incident either.
-
You "unloaded" your shotgun...
Originally posted by Xargos
The only thing I found the next day was some blood in the woods, never found a body and the cops never came to my door. I had chased him to the edge of the woods the night before but was unwilling to enter because I was blinded by the flash and deafened by the sound of the 12 gauge. I never saw him roaming around my sheds or house again at 3 in the morning.:D
So ... are you a lousy shot?
-
In my opinion, the use of atomics against the empire of Japan was justified.
The neat thing is, at least in this case, history supports my opinion :aok
-
I know that Hiroshima was devastating.. i know that it was unique in the fact that an atomic weapon was used and it was a single bomb which did so much damage.
But the firebombing campaign by the B-29's did much more destruction in single raids. The raid on Tokyo killed over 70,000 people.
I don't know why the focus is always on the Hiroshima bomb whereas the firebombing campaign quite often goes unmentioned.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In my opinion, the use of atomics against the empire of Japan was justified.
The neat thing is, at least in this case, history supports my opinion :aok
I am not disagreeing with you.
But there is also the argument that the Japanese surrender was in a bigger part down to the Soviet Union joining the war in the Pacific and the Japanese getting annihilated in the Manchuria campaign.
-
That and 4 years of war and suffering prior.
-
I keep bird shot in my 12 gauge for home protection so the pellets won't go threw the walls and hit my family, bird shot will cut a man in half at close range. It was winter time and the perp had on a M-65 field coat and he was maybe 8 yards away when I made my first shot, He started running when he heard my 12 gauge cycle threw the door before I opened it. I know he was hit a few times because I could see him being blown forward onto the ground when the pellets hit.
P.S. I knew someone had been poking around for about a month because I had raked around the windows at night and was finding footprints there in the morning.
-
I think ultimately, any nation...including my own, must draw on the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lesson being that once you engage in total war, there can be no guarantee as to its conclusion.
Better not to make war, but once it is entered into, wage war with complete certainty. Destroy those that you war against as completely as humanly possible while maintaining your own ability to exist.
To the Japanese civilians that died as a result of the atomic bombings I feel compelled to pity them and greive for them, but war is what it is. Death and destruction.
Better not to make war than to do so. Avoid if at all possible.
-
someone should send that link to the idiot who is currently president of Iran.
-
There should be no war except for total war. Otherwise there is no need to fight.
-
Originally posted by Ball
someone should send that link to the idiot who is currently president of Iran
so he shoots his pants till he dies.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
It was winter time and the perp had on a M-65 field coat and he was maybe 8 yards away when I made my first shot, He started running when he heard my 12 gauge cycle threw the door before I opened it. I know he was hit a few times because I could see him being blown forward onto the ground when the pellets hit.
So you shot a fleeing man in the back?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Ok, but then why did you feel you had to defend the Hiroshima bombing by posting a link to atrocities done by the Japanese? (As if two wrongs make a right.)
I was just stating the fact that we were at war and we needed to end it as fast a possible so less of our people would die. Fighting with kit gloves on is pointless. Some people act as if we were bombing saints are something and I knew the bleeding hearts would be posting soon after me.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So you shot a fleeing man in the back?
Damn straight!
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I was just stating the fact that we were at war and we needed to end it as fast a possible so less of our people would die. Fighting with kit gloves on is pointless. Some people act as if we were bombing saints are something and I knew the bleeding hearts would be posting soon after me.
And why did you feel the need to state this fact in a thread about a CGI recreation?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Damn straight!
How brave of you. Wasn't shooting someone in the back a hangable offence back in the old days? Think so.
Edit: A California narcotics agent faced up to 11 years in prison for a similar offence…
-
The decision to drop the bomb or whether is saved lives or not can be conveyed by one thing in particular, which struck me when I was in Iraq and one of the kids in my platoon got his purple heart in 2004.
He complained who it looked kinda "cheap" compared to other medals he's seen. We then explained to the trooper that that medal in his hands was minted in 1944 or 1945 in preparation of the invasion of Japan. That we were still issuing them 60 years later from the stocks they had available.
Military finally put in an order for about 9,000 Purple Hearts to be minted in 2000 since "stocks" were "getting low" in some areas, but there was an estimated 120,000 Purple Hearts from WWII were still in various supplies to be issued out. My guess is there are still mis-placed stocks yet to be found of Purple Hearts out there. Been others found before, and thousands of others have degraded to the point they would not issue them.
WWII minted Purple Hearts continue to be awarded today.
-
Stealing in the olden days was a hangable offense. And why should I give him a chance to gain cover so he could shoot back at me?
Kalifornia is a commie state and we do things the right way down here in the Deep South.
-
A couple of New Orleans cops are facing a grand jury for shooting a running man in the back after Kartina. Surely New Orleans isn’t in a “commie state”. Shooting a man in the back and then bragging about it on the intardnet … I simply can’t respect such a man. Sorry.
-
Our laws are much different here in S.C. I have every right to defend my property. I know of several cases in Charleston over the past 10 years of people shooting fleeing robbers in the back and no charges being filed. There is nothing wrong in killing a thief and I don't care if your a bleeding heart just don't think you can come out of my house alive if you've come to rob it.
P.S. New Orleans is run by Dems, honest people have no rights there.
P.P.S. Street cops are held under stricter rules then the rest of us when it comes to shootings. I on the other hand was a C/O and we were trained to kill anything that got through the plane of the first fence or kill any inmate trying to run from us. I could be sued or put in jail for letting an inmate get away.
-
Originally posted by Viking
A couple of New Orleans cops are facing a grand jury for shooting a running man in the back after Kartina. Surely New Orleans isn’t in a “commie state”. Shooting a man in the back and then bragging about it on the intardnet … I simply can’t respect such a man. Sorry.
First off, it's Louisiana. That's the state that New Orleans is in.
BUT IT DEFINITELY IS A COMMIE STATE. Especially with the pinkos in NO office, and state office.
-
Communist states of America?
-
Laser, I find it scary how you and I disagree so much on some things and totally agree on others. :rofl
-
its "Kid Gloves" not "Kit Gloves"....using kid gloves means your not really throwing a punch but more of a tap, not meant to hurt.
just an educational moment for all interested parties.
Press On
-
yep.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
its "Kid Gloves" not "Kit Gloves"....using kid gloves means your not really throwing a punch but more of a tap, not meant to hurt.
just an educational moment for all interested parties.
Press On
Oops, sorry. :D
-
i dont like the clip, not a real good CGI (imho).
...and strange, even in this new clip i cant see any millitary objects around,
you know missing tanks, ships, airfields, soldier camps and so on.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i dont like the clip, not a real good CGI (imho).
...and strange, even in this new clip i cant see any millitary objects around,
you know missing tanks, ships, airfields, soldier camps and so on.
But America only dropped the A-Bomb to kill women and children, why would they show tanks, ships, airfields, soldier camps and so on?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i dont like the clip, not a real good CGI (imho).
...and strange, even in this new clip i cant see any millitary objects around,
you know missing tanks, ships, airfields, soldier camps and so on.
got any good ones to share?
:confused:
would love to see more.
-
Xargos is obviously a Euro playing at being a stereotype of a redneck-moron American.
-
I like BIG BOOM lol. poor japs
-
Originally posted by JB88
yep.
see what you started?
I hope you're PROUD of yourself ;)
-
Well, I liked the clip and was impressed by the CGI. I'm not touching politics from 2 or 3 generations ago.
Thanks, 88!
-
Actually that insect / parasite video on the right of that page was FAR more interesting, gives me the chills. Gotta get an extra can of raid now.
-
well....its like a long time Japanese American friend of mine opined after seeing the CG clip. He said: "people will argue about this forever, until something worse happens".
And it will.
The Japanese should have surrendered "BEFORE" the atomic attacks. Could have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives, during the attacks and for all the years after of radiation sickness but anyway, its not like the Japanese started the war or had any role in its destructiveness.....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Xargos is obviously a Euro playing at being a stereotype of a redneck-moron American.
Bleeding hearts like you is the reason America has such a high crime rate. Why do people like you give so many rights to the criminal but none to the victims? Is it your goal to make people completely depended on the government for everything? Do I have your permission to go use the restroom now?
And I have never tried to hide my identity like some people in here.
P.S. I suppose you would have welcomed a crack-head into your house at 3 in the morning and stood by and watched as he raped your wife. It's funny how some people have all these rules for other people but when it comes to them those rules do not apply.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The Japanese should have surrendered "BEFORE" the atomic attacks. Could have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives, during the attacks and for all the years after of radiation sickness but anyway, its not like the Japanese started the war or had any role in its destructiveness.....:rolleyes:
Somehow I have a hard time imagining that America would have surrendered without at least an invasion of the US mainland. I don’t see why the Japanese should have acted differently. By your logic the US should have surrendered in 1941; would have saved a lot of lives.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
its "Kid Gloves" not "Kit Gloves"....using kid gloves means your not really throwing a punch but more of a tap, not meant to hurt.
just an educational moment for all interested parties.
Press On
I was under the impression that the "kid" in "kid gloves" referred to gloves made from the skin of young goats.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Xargos is obviously a Euro playing at being a stereotype of a redneck-moron American.
Made me laugh Thrawn.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Yeager
well....its like a long time Japanese American friend of mine opined after seeing the CG clip. He said: "people will argue about this forever, until something worse happens".
And it will.
The Japanese should have surrendered "BEFORE" the atomic attacks. Could have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives, during the attacks and for all the years after of radiation sickness but anyway, its not like the Japanese started the war or had any role in its destructiveness.....:rolleyes:
Ding, ding, ding. Give the man a cookie.
Japanese had what, a 10 month raw material resource window?
Germany by late Fall of '40 had buggered themselves.
The Fog of War and the wickedness of man.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Germany by late Fall of '40 had buggered themselves.
In what way?
-
Originally posted by Viking
In what way?
They were all gay.
-
Viking,
Battle of Britain. German airforce lost. RAF won.
The giant German "oops" after Poland and France.
Gross misjudgment of British inentions and resolve to war and not sue for peace or let the status quo of low countries, Poland, and France remain in German hands.
Not all together different from Japan. Misjudging, misguided, bolluxed billigerents.
THEN the whole thing takes what, another 4 years or so to wind down.
Fog of War. Wickedness of Man.
It all Stinks,
hap
p.s. See, to all the Mid-East war mongers out there. Even in an all out conflict where they wore uniforms and to a much greater degree you could ID the bad guys as opposed to "insurgents," the stinking thing takes 20 million+ and 4 years to end. What's 20 million in today's #'s as a portion of world population given increased population. I've no idea. The # would be even more appalling.
There's no end to the rabble rousing rancor and conflict over there. I'd like to know what was going on before WW1 over there. I'm too lazy to search it out. I guess they where hacking with swords each other and biting the heads of lambs and camels or someting.
Now there is no "best course of action." Only varying degrees of lousy choices exist for the Western nations especially America.
There's the "kill 'em all -- nuke all of them" crowd in here. Only a handful say it, but you can read 25 posts and hear it even when the words aren't there.
I never though isolationism would look good. If we could turn on a dime, which we can't, and get our manufacturing back, which we can't, we'd be in a much better position.
The American stock market wouldn't be above 10,000 and a regular Joe Shmuck with a honest heart and strong back could make a decent living, own a home, car, send kid to college.
We've traded an ideal Post WW2 state: we made what we consumed and employed Americans to make it -- for an undisguised greed. The last gasp of the patrimony of the greatest generation squandered by the '50's - 60's generation. The old ducks were right back when I was 10. We did run it into the ground.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
They were all gay.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b354/kittykat9412/invisible1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
I simply can’t respect such a man. Sorry.
I'm sure not having your respect keeps him awake most nights.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Somehow I have a hard time imagining that America would have surrendered without at least an invasion of the US mainland. I don’t see why the Japanese should have acted differently. By your logic the US should have surrendered in 1941; would have saved a lot of lives.
You're being silly.
Actually the situation was such that Yamamoto knew it.
Although Pearl Harbour was basically a success, it wasn't. The fuel was intact (command failiure) and the carriers were away.
After Leyte Gulf or at least Okinawa, or Tokyo being firebombed (more casualties than even Hiroshima?), the Japs should have gone to the table. They didn't. Not even after Hiroshima, and only through the emperor interveining after Nagasaki.
So...you have lots of dead for nothing, - there was for a long time no way Japan could win.
Same goes to Germany. When the enemy has the potential of razing all cities to the ground, be it day or night, it's over. Germany should have stepped down and bowed in 1943/44, - that way they might have cut a deal, and that is what many of their fines commanders realized, - thus trying to eliminate Hitler (Rommel, Stauffenberg etc).
But Germany's fanatic leaders blabbered about the final victory untill the army could take a bus between the fronts.
The biggest Darwin award therefor goes to the Nazis and the Japs.
And Hap, - Germany had not lost after the BoB, - they just played their cards wrong. Basically they had "won", and then they stepped into a deep poddle by underestimating the British, declaring war on USA, and jumping at the USSR (which was probably an unevitable conflict anyway).
IMHO, had Germany ripped the deal withJapan in1941, Made a deal with the Brits (might have worked with giving back France for instance), the USSR would not have made it. So close was it....anyway, I'll plonk that one into another thread.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You're being silly.
Nope. You’re being silly if you think the Americans would have surrendered to the Japanese without an invasion of the US mainland. Even then I can see plenty of Americans offering armed resistance no matter what Washington decides. The Russians had also all but lost in 1941-42 with the Germans shelling Moscow, but they didn’t give up. They fought and won … it cost them 20 million lives, but they won.
Giving up is not in the Japanese and American national character. (Or Russian or German for that matter).
-
i have no empathy for either the japanese or the german civillian deaths.
the allies had every right to fire bomb germany to dust, and the americans had every right to drop the atomic bomb on japan.
had family die over the skies of britian and the wife had relatives in the camps in germany.
they got what they deserved, if a society is deluded to the point it thinks it has the right to dominate the world, it deserves a hard slap of rational.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I simply can’t respect such a man. Sorry.
Don't worry, I know I have HIS respect.
-
Viking: the silly logic:
"Somehow I have a hard time imagining that America would have surrendered without at least an invasion of the US mainland. I don’t see why the Japanese should have acted differently. By your logic the US should have surrendered in 1941; would have saved a lot of lives."
Of course the USA were nowhere near to surrender, while Japan, later in the war, should have stepped down for their own good. Well before any mainland invasion.
Same goes to Germany.
Clear enough?
-
"Should have" by Icelandic logic yes, not by Japanese logic ... or American or Russian or pretty much any other nation that has seen war the last 1000 years. You don't surrender just because it will save lives, or even if there is no chance of victory. You surrender when the enemy proves he has the will to follow through and pay the price in lives to conquer you. Until that time there is always the possibility of a bargained peace. The Germans had little choice in fighting to the last man; they made that very clear when they conducted a war of extermination against the Russians. A no quarters asked or given war that would only end in the total destruction of one side. In many ways the Americans and British saved Germany and the German people from the (just) revenge of the Russians.
Should the British have surrendered in 1940 before the BoB when nobody seriously believed Britain could survive with her armies defeated in France? Should the Russians have surrendered when the Germans were attacking Moscow and even Stalin had lost all hope?
By Icelandic logic, yes. However I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Giving up is not in the Japanese and American national character. (Or Russian or German for that matter).
That character seems to be reserved for the French....
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Don't worry, I know I have HIS respect.
Yep, he "respects" himself a lot. Almost every day he "respects" the heck outta himself.
-
I love to hear the revisionist whine. It makes me laugh.
Truman was 100% correct when he dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In doing so, he saved many thousands of American lives. Personally I do not give one rats iota of the cost the war cost Japan. They were cruel to the point of being inhuman during the war in the Pacific. Their choice was to wage a war against the US. That choice got them just what they deserved. Someone else said earlier that the majority of nations do not surrender until the proof of brutal domination is shown them. That is 100% correct. Japan would not have surrendered at all without this show of brutal force. As it was, the Japanese would have resisted a land invasion and lost millions to combat and suicide. Truman and the generals were smarter than that. Why risk Americans when instead you can devestate their country from the air. Plus, one more little nifty bonus comes out of it. The rest of the world will get to see the end price of a war against America.
-
The atomic bomb discussion is a moot point in my opinion. Whether the U.S. used atomic bombs or incendiary bombs is just a technicality. The decision to bomb cities had been made in 1943, and was continuing at the time of the Hiroshima bombing. Japanese cities were especially vulnerable to fire bombings due to the wooden/bamboo construction of houses and buildings.
So debating whether the atomic bomb should have been dropped is really a debate on whether cities should have been bombed. The USAF decided in 1943 that they should. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that more people would have died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if normal nighttime B-29 raids with incendiary bombs were carried out.
-
nice to see shrimp "going out on a limb" and using basic logic. I agree.
The thing about atomics that seperates them from Incindiary or General Purpose munitions is the lifelong battle against radiation poisoning that so many japanese had to endure AFTER japan surrendered. I believe Japanese today still suffer from the effects of radiation. The Japanese would have done well to surrender at Midway. Could have avoided all sorts of suffering for everyone.
-
Does anyone remember whenthe nut bags threw chicken blood on the Enola Gay fuselage after it was unveiled in that horrid revisionist setting at the Smithsonian?
It would be nice to have a time machine to take these "revisionists" back to WW2 and drop them on a japanese held island so they could enjoy the novelties of being a prisoner of those cretins. Even better, let them sit in on meetings between the japanese and the US Secretary of State while the japs were speaking all about peace and instead preparing to back stab us.
-
GShulz, I mean Viking. Why are you so filled with hate, and full of chit? It got you PNG'd before.
I have NO PITY for Japan. They STARTED IT, the Allies FINISHED IT.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
GShulz, I mean Viking. Why are you so filled with hate, and full of chit? It got you PNG'd before.
I have NO PITY for Japan. They STARTED IT, the Allies FINISHED IT.
What are you on about now? I haven't said nuking Japan was wrong. Why are you so full of [insert colorful language]?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
There should be no war except for total war. Otherwise there is no need to fight.
Total war now is much more frightening. With very little effort, millions of innocent people can be indiscriminately exterminated. Luckily the lessons of WWII have made the consequences of total war clear. Rational countries have decided that total war is no longer an option. Hiroshima, as gruesome as it was, had to happen, otherwise it might have played out on another battlefield by the USA or some other power on likely a much larger scale. My fear is that less morally responsible countries might not have learned the lessons of the past.
-
Originally posted by Viking
"Should have" by Icelandic logic yes, not by Japanese logic ... or American or Russian or pretty much any other nation that has seen war the last 1000 years. You don't surrender just because it will save lives, or even if there is no chance of victory. You surrender when the enemy proves he has the will to follow through and pay the price in lives to conquer you. Until that time there is always the possibility of a bargained peace. The Germans had little choice in fighting to the last man; they made that very clear when they conducted a war of extermination against the Russians. A no quarters asked or given war that would only end in the total destruction of one side. In many ways the Americans and British saved Germany and the German people from the (just) revenge of the Russians.
Should the British have surrendered in 1940 before the BoB when nobody seriously believed Britain could survive with her armies defeated in France? Should the Russians have surrendered when the Germans were attacking Moscow and even Stalin had lost all hope?
By Icelandic logic, yes. However I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then.
If you call my logic Icelandic, I am proud to follow it up, and you are full of some funny crap my friend. I am not going to call your logic Norse.
Now....to your speculations.
Here:
"You surrender when the enemy proves he has the will to follow through and pay the price in lives to conquer you"
If Hiroshima is not enough, how stupid are you?
(Japanese decided to fight on after Hiroshima)
Should the Germans have surrendered when the Western Allies had gathered foothold on the continent of Europe?
Yes, absolutely, the game was very obviously over, and typical for Germany, her finest commanders realized, while the ******s in command remained in enough power to keep the nonsense going.
As you say this which....:
" Until that time there is always the possibility of a bargained peace. The Germans had little choice in fighting to the last man; they made that very clear when they conducted a war of extermination against the Russians"
Is nothing but Hitler's side. Again, Some of Hitler's finest commanders realized that while there were fronts and armies, and expensive battles to be fought, there was still something possible for the bargain. But Hitler's crew, to the dismay of mankind, managed to rule. So, Germany had both the choice and the gritty end to face.
Then on to this one:
"Should the British have surrendered in 1940 before the BoB when nobody seriously believed Britain could survive with her armies defeated in France?"
Well, you know the famous "Some neck, - some chicken". SOMEBODY, markedly Britain, belived they could survive. Hitler declared that the war was won, yet he could not pass the high seas to pick up goods, say from America. (Business was open until 1941).
And onwards:
"In many ways the Americans and British saved Germany and the German people from the (just) revenge of the Russians."
Yes they did....sort of. Here you quickly enter the enjoyable world of what-if's. For instance, had the British decided to step down and yet holding their head (apeal to reason deal) in 1940, the Russians would have been (IMHO) on the receiving end of pax germanica. Anyway, the western allies did what they did, and the iron curtain fell where it fell. It might have been at the Atlantic, or none at all....all what-if's.
As for the USSR buckling from Hitler, - well, they had a lot of ground. With Moscow fallen, I guess they'd have buckled, and Hitler was only some miles short. All in the what-if park.
Then to this one:
"I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then."
Firstly, this is a troll. And secondly, a malicious and stupid one. This is an attack through nationality. Well, suits your style
.. Anyway, for your info, Icelanders actually fired live ammo (19th century 50 mm cannon) at and into British ship-sides in 1976, in a fight about FISH.
And thank god, Icelanders did indeed scratch some LW and Wehrmacht persons in WW2 without invitation to the game. So, returning your words, maybe you should have Icelanders look after your airport ?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Plus, one more little nifty bonus comes out of it. The rest of the world will get to see the end price of a war against America.
bonus? you sure? why not bomb iraq, afghanistan and even maybe north korea then ? today terrorists will understand it and leave of course.
what you dont understand is, this kind of bombs allways hit
innocent people, and i mean ALOT people, no matter what kind of war.
And you and some others here sounds very proud of it.
Dont be surprised to see future attacks where only what counts is
as much as possible civillians terminated...
-
Originally posted by Angus
If Hiroshima is not enough, how stupid are you?
(Japanese decided to fight on after Hiroshima)
How little you know. It takes time for a nation to decide on such grave matters as surrender. On August 9, 1945 three days after, and as a direct result of, the bombing of Hiroshima the Japanese leadership gathered in Tokyo to re-discuss the American peace proposal known as the Potsdam Declaration. During the meeting news came that the Americans has also destroyed Nagasaki. That same evening the Japanese decided to accept the American terms of surrender.
As I have tried (in vain) to explain to you in excruciatingly simple terms this was the Japanese goal prior to the atomic bombings:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
- War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters
Even if you no longer can win the war defeat is not inevitable. The atomic bombs changed that for the Japanese.
As for your “stupid” remark, it is just one more example of your lack of civility.
Originally posted by Angus
Should the Germans have surrendered when the Western Allies had gathered foothold on the continent of Europe?
Yes, absolutely, the game was very obviously over, and typical for Germany, her finest commanders realized, while the ******s in command remained in enough power to keep the nonsense going.
No the ”game” was not over. Germany should have made the Allies pay dearly for every meter gained in France, showing the Allies how costly the invasion of Germany would be. Then when the Allies approached Germany they should have sued the Western Allies for peace in hope of them offering protection from the Russians. We all know Hitler didn’t do this.
Originally posted by Angus
" Until that time there is always the possibility of a bargained peace. The Germans had little choice in fighting to the last man; they made that very clear when they conducted a war of extermination against the Russians"
Is nothing but Hitler's side. Again, Some of Hitler's finest commanders realized that while there were fronts and armies, and expensive battles to be fought, there was still something possible for the bargain. But Hitler's crew, to the dismay of mankind, managed to rule. So, Germany had both the choice and the gritty end to face.
You’re proving my point. How kind of you.
Originally posted by Angus
"Should the British have surrendered in 1940 before the BoB when nobody seriously believed Britain could survive with her armies defeated in France?"
Well, you know the famous "Some neck, - some chicken". SOMEBODY, markedly Britain, belived they could survive. Hitler declared that the war was won, yet he could not pass the high seas to pick up goods, say from America. (Business was open until 1941).
Again you prove my point. Britain’s defeat to Germany was only averted by the British will to fight, and the German unwillingness to suffer the losses necessary to win.
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Originally posted by Angus
"In many ways the Americans and British saved Germany and the German people from the (just) revenge of the Russians."
Yes they did....sort of. Here you quickly enter the enjoyable world of what-if's. For instance, had the British decided to step down and yet holding their head (apeal to reason deal) in 1940, the Russians would have been (IMHO) on the receiving end of pax germanica. Anyway, the western allies did what they did, and the iron curtain fell where it fell. It might have been at the Atlantic, or none at all....all what-if's.
As for the USSR buckling from Hitler, - well, they had a lot of ground. With Moscow fallen, I guess they'd have buckled, and Hitler was only some miles short. All in the what-if park.
Then to this one:
"I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then."
Firstly, this is a troll. And secondly, a malicious and stupid one. This is an attack through nationality. Well, suits your style
.. Anyway, for your info, Icelanders actually fired live ammo (19th century 50 mm cannon) at and into British ship-sides in 1976, in a fight about FISH.
And thank god, Icelanders did indeed scratch some LW and Wehrmacht persons in WW2 without invitation to the game. So, returning your words, maybe you should have Icelanders look after your airport ?
I was talking historical fact. You seem more interested in theoretical nonsense. Suits your style.
-
allright..
how about everybody call it a draw?
-
Originally posted by TracerX
Total war now is much more frightening. With very little effort, millions of innocent people can be indiscriminately exterminated. Luckily the lessons of WWII have made the consequences of total war clear. Rational countries have decided that total war is no longer an option. Hiroshima, as gruesome as it was, had to happen, otherwise it might have played out on another battlefield by the USA or some other power on likely a much larger scale. My fear is that less morally responsible countries might not have learned the lessons of the past.
Bull****. Every single war since ww2 has been won with total war as well.
-
Originally posted by TracerX
Total war now is much more frightening. With very little effort, millions of innocent people can be indiscriminately exterminated. Luckily the lessons of WWII have made the consequences of total war clear. Rational countries have decided that total war is no longer an option. Hiroshima, as gruesome as it was, had to happen, otherwise it might have played out on another battlefield by the USA or some other power on likely a much larger scale. My fear is that less morally responsible countries might not have learned the lessons of the past.
I think you missed my point. When you go around fighting these "little wars" you look like nothing more then a bully. If another country knows you'll pull out your big stick in any fight they will be much less likely to tempt you in the first place and will be willing to sit down and REALLY talk. It's like telling your kids to stop doing something but you never put your foot down, all you have done is make the child worse.
-
Originally posted by Viking
What are you on about now? I haven't said nuking Japan was wrong. Why are you so full of [insert colorful language]?
You've been PNG'd. I'm not the one full of chit. My God, yer the one hiding behind a shades account GShulz. You think yer cagey because yer playing devil's advocate, like you did before you were PNG'd. Buy a new act.
-
You shouldn't drink and post Masherbrum. You're attacking me for no reason.
-
I read somewhere the heat from the blast bubbled quartz in granite
-
Reminds me of a quote:
Mayor of Hiroshima: "What the Hell was THAT!?? :O
-
The human race needs to spend more energy on trying to find more homes outside of this planet, because as long as we keep breading at the rate we are there will be no cure for our overpopulation except for a major nuclear war. Fresh water will be worth it's weight in gold in the not so distance future and people will fight and die for it.
The only responsibility we have as humans is to make sure our children are smarter and stronger then we are, this includes them not being sheep like some people wish.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You shouldn't drink and post Masherbrum. You're attacking me for no reason.
"No Reason". You're now back pedaling because your game is up. You've been insulting Angus this whole thread, and now you "decide to have some feelings"? Grow up.
-
An unwarranted accusation on your part. If I've been insulting someone you wouldn't have any trouble quoting me. But since you don't I’ll stick with my previous statement that you’re full of [insert colorful language].
-
gshlotz/vikingboy.... You are wrong. The japs and germans were an evil empire with their governments on a suicide binge.
This was a pivotal point in world history... it was totalitarianism against democracy. Never was the U.S. or britan in a position where the PEOPLE would think it prudent to surrender. Not even close. Other euro countries did get to that point and guess what? they surrendered... The countries controlled by their totalitarian governments did not.. they didn't care... in fact they welcomed the total destruction of their peoples...
Stalin, hitler tojo... they all wanted the total destruction of their people... if they were to lose.. then by gawd.. everyone was gonna die... they didn't have any intention of being on trial for their crimes against humanity.
and.. you won't like the answer viking boy but german aircraft design killed her... right from the start... from the BOB to the end... their short range defense only fighters were their curse.. when the japs and Americans could run 1500 miles in a fighter and the Americans could go that distance and still drop 2,000 or more lbs of bombs.. the germans were pretty much stuck a few miles from a friendly airbase watching 4 engine bombers go by.
no carriers or carrier planes to make up the difference... nothing... rockets and jets.. that was it. and then.. they couldn't take off and land or get worked on without being bombed or strafed.
So far as being useful in fighting a world war... german fighters were trash.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gshlotz/vikingboy.... You are wrong. The japs and germans were an evil empire with their governments on a suicide binge.
I would say the Japanese and German culture glorified death to the point that most of their population welcomed a chance to die for their country. A whole population doesn’t ‘commit suicide’ just because their leaders say so.
Originally posted by lazs2
This was a pivotal point in world history... it was totalitarianism against democracy. Never was the U.S. or britan in a position where the PEOPLE would think it prudent to surrender. Not even close.
Thank you for also proving my point. The British will to fight never yielded, and had Hitler invaded I would expect the British to have fought in the streets of London.
Let me ask you this Lazs: Do you think America would have surrendered to an enemy in any war without at least an invasion of mainland USA? Would America have surrendered to the Japanese if the war had gone that badly? Would you have surrendered to the Soviets during the Cold War to prevent the nuclear annihilation of your country?
I don’t think so.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Other euro countries did get to that point and guess what? they surrendered
Not one European country surrendered to the Germans without being invaded. Even France didn’t surrender until they had lost their capitol to the advancing Germans.
So why people think it would be acceptable for Japan to surrender before an invasion of their mainland is beyond me.
Again you prove my point.
-
What a highly enlightening thread, and for once I find myself in Lazs's park, and smiling (not agreeing on the fighter quote though).
Scholzie, we have been debating about the point when it's time to step down, - surrender. While the words have been getting big, we still don't disagree that much. And yet we do. Ok, on to the job. This one:
"How little you know. It takes time for a nation to decide on such grave matters as surrender. On August 9, 1945 three days after, and as a direct result of, the bombing of Hiroshima the Japanese leadership gathered in Tokyo to re-discuss the American peace proposal known as the Potsdam Declaration. During the meeting news came that the Americans has also destroyed Nagasaki. That same evening the Japanese decided to accept the American terms of surrender."
As little as I know, and out of memory, The Japanese military council met after Hiroshima and decided to carry on, after Nagasaki (well, this happened within days) it was a council draw whether to carry on or not, the emperor stepping in and taking the desicion, - for his people.
The military command was being...stupid...because the war was absolutely lost for the Japanese. They might have had some chance of a deal (which BTW was nowhere in the charts) before IWO and Okinawa. Iwo was Japanes soil, and so was Okinawa. After almost 4 years of war, would you think the Americans would leave the Japanese business unfinished? Well, if you would, excuse me for shouting the word "idiot".
But, well past any hope of victory, while NOT working on negotiations, the Japs fought on with the terms you beautyfully quoted:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight"
Now ponder on that for a second. The ONLY COURSE?!?!?!?!?!?! What frigging idiots. The dungpoddle that both Japan and Germany stepped in was exactly this, - to keep on making people sacrifice their lives just in case the enemy might break on the last mile. Very likely, yes? Well, the Japs tried hard, on Iwo, then on Okinawa, and to their surprize, the USA kept their guts and carried on trucking. Once Okinawa was seized, it was definately over for the Japs, and hard lessons like all those air raids should have sounded clear enough. (Tokyo, - more dead than at Nagasaki)
So, I proudly use the word "Stupid" for the Japanese in charge.
And they had months for deciding, - it didn't even have to be a nuke! A grave matter of surrendering vs stepping down before being subdued!
Same goes to Germany. From Hitler's point as well as his close circle, there was always the "endsieg". But his finest commanders were above that, basically they knew that the odds were against them, and once the allies had gained foothold in France, it was just a question of time and fronts. Rommel for instance, realized. If the Western Allies would not be driven to the sea from their invasion, all would be lost. He realized, he saw it happening, he was involved in a plot against Hitler, and ended up eating some healthy cyanide.
So, dead Rommel was still right. Germany was doomed, and lost the war completely. Like the Japanese (and since Germany fell before, there was an example for the Japs to look at, - the Allies do indeed finish their jobs), the Germans fought for a lost cause. Once there was a point of pivot, all fighting of attrition was completely a waste.
Hehe, this one:
"Not one European country surrendered to the Germans without being invaded. Even France didn’t surrender until they had lost their capitol to the advancing Germans.
So why people think it would be acceptable for Japan to surrender before an invasion of their mainland is beyond me."
Beyond you? Well, Japan was already partially conquered (Iwo, then Okinawa), there was no airforce or Navy to speak of, ther was no ally any more, and the enemy could go around and bomb absolutely everything at will. All esources outside Japan were blocked as well.
No doubt you would have been well in the park with the Japanese military council...
Then the final line of genious I stumbled on:
"I would say the Japanese and German culture glorified death to the point that most of their population welcomed a chance to die for their country. A whole population doesn’t ‘commit suicide’ just because their leaders say so.
"
Now here I wholeheartedly disagree. Both nations were pushed on by a very powerful control. The Japs were a bit on their own I guess, with their warrior code in the pocket. But the Germans had a tough Nazi choice, fight and you may live, back off and you will be killed. Did the wardead Germans glorify the thought of dying? You claim that most of the population welcomed the chance of dying for their country. MOST!. Absolute rubbish.
On the contrary, it were the leaders, for they held the wand in their hands.
If you then lookl at the British, there was not just the will to fight, but also some potential. Not beaten on by the boss.
(Warning, we probably agree that the German population was quite happy about the business in the summer of 1940)
And the finite. Civil. The word "Civil" Okay, here's your "civil" stab:
"Should the British have surrendered in 1940 before the BoB when nobody seriously believed Britain could survive with her armies defeated in France? Should the Russians have surrendered when the Germans were attacking Moscow and even Stalin had lost all hope?
By Icelandic logic, yes. However I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then."
My whole logic was to tell what I have been supporting, - both Germany and Japan fought well over an obvious point of having lost. Great commanders like Rommel saw that, I take his point. Call it Icelandic, but I rather think that Rommel was right (which he proved to be), and then you can side with Hitler's opinion with a broad smile.
But anyway, this one, is the one Lazs was probably referring to:
" I'm rather thankful that the Icelanders were not defending Britain or Moscow back then."
And I have to say...clumsy and trollish insult. Much worse than calling Hitler and Tojo a pair of imbeciles.....
-
Angus, put some spaces in your wall of text. I'm not going to hurt my eyes reading that.
-
Maybe the text will hurt your head rather than the eyes.
Anyway, any cod left around Norway ??
(:D)
-
gshlotzvikingboy... Of course you are wrong... most of the euro countries hitler invaded folded like a cheap card table under a fat lady.. they gave up when their armies were defeated which, coincidentaly.. happened to be on their own soil... no mass of citizens fighting..
the french did have an active underground tho but... they surrendered long before every major city was reduced to ruble like the suicide kings... the totalitarian governments of germany and japan.
As for the US... moot question.. it could not have happened... we would have no more been invaded no matter what happened than were the brits. The germans would have to have first taken mexico or canada in order for their worthless air force and puny navy to have any chance of invasion.
Before they even started.. the germans and japs were doomed to failure... how soon or long it took depended on the fog of war and how lucky they were or unlucky we were but... it was inevitable.. the japs built decent equipment for long range and tactics but none of it was survivable.. no one that had experiance ever survived long enough to pass it on... the germans built complex and expensive equipment that had no range and the average german couldn't even work much less repair. They had no long range anything and no carriers.
They were still using a frigging million horses at the end... they had almost 500 types of vehicles all different and only one in 100 german soldiers had ever even owned a car before the war.
lazs
-
Lazs, would America have surrendered? It's not a difficult question, and from you recluctance to answer it I conclude that you agree with me. America would never surrender to any enemy without at least an invasion of the US mainland.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Maybe the text will hurt your head rather than the eyes.
Anyway, any cod left around Norway ??
(:D)
So I take it you're not going to reformat your post?
-
No.
You can cut and paste it into Word though, maybe then you can read it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gshlotzvikingboy... Of course you are wrong... most of the euro countries hitler invaded folded like a cheap card table under a fat lady.. they gave up when their armies were defeated which, coincidentaly.. happened to be on their own soil... no mass of citizens fighting..
Should Poland have surrendered before Warsaw was reduced to rubble? Should the Dutch have surrendered when the Germans approached their borders?
Britain’s armies were defeated in France and abandoned all their equipment at Dunkirk. London and many other cities burning under the Blitz. Should they have surrendered? Of course not.
-
Originally posted by Angus
No.
You can cut and paste it into Word though, maybe then you can read it?
Not worth the effort. Sorry.
-
Go read Flyboys.
An atomic bomb drop killed less than a firebombing mission and the samurai sword killed more in WWII than any other weapon.
Besides Pearl Harbor, I think the US High Command knew the Japs were eating captured Americans. Thus the Bomb.
I also knew an old Marine from an assault division (5th) and after he saw Okinowa, he believed the Bomb saved his life along with many other Marines.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Should Poland have surrendered before Warsaw was reduced to rubble? Should the Dutch have surrendered when the Germans approached their borders?
Britain’s armies were defeated in France and abandoned all their equipment at Dunkirk. London and many other cities burning under the Blitz. Should they have surrendered? Of course not.
FYI, Warshaw was reduced to rubble years after Poland surrendered.
(I know you are referring to the firebombing of Warshaw, but anyway :D)
And the Dutch affair took very little time.
As for the British, unlike Holland or Poland, they had both their Navy and the RAF, and a natural Barrier. While the Germans could indeed bomb London (at night) for 58 consecutive days, they could not expose their ships on the high seas. The British had more than just the will to fight, - they also had the potential. So, surrender was further away by logic. But they did get a better offer (Hitler's appeal to reason) than surrender. Luckily they didn't take that bait....
-
Originally posted by Viking
Lazs, would America have surrendered? It's not a difficult question, and from you recluctance to answer it I conclude that you agree with me. America would never surrender to any enemy without at least an invasion of the US mainland.
No, they wouldn't have. A war with america, especially on american soil would be difficult to fight, much less to win. Unless my geography lessons are off, Russia would be nothing like fighting america.
Russia had most of their major cities in the west, well within reach of german power. It was only germany's stupidity that led to their loss at stalingrad.
Anyway, Poland will always have a special place in my heart for their bravery (and their holding out longer then france).
-
" It was only germany's stupidity that led to their loss at stalingrad."
Not really. Many factors, including multiple fronts and lack of supplies (related)
IMHO, had the British not kept on fighting, the Germans would have bent the USSR.
-
gshlotzvikingboy... your question is silly.. we would not have surrendered if the japs or germans made some pitiful little attacks on coastal cities.. they could not have invaded.. the whole german airforce couldn't fly a few miles across some water and have enough fuel or good enough planes to defeat the air force of a tiny little island.
How would they get here? It is not a serious question.. Plus....you can't have it both ways. euro countries surrendered before they were reduced to rubble...
The suicide king countries run by the military... japan and germany and, to a lesser extent, russia.. all were perfectly willing to have every single one of their citizens die.
We would never have been in a position to surrender but... if there would have been a circumstance where we were overwhelmed... We would surrender before our cities were as leveled as those of japan and germany...
Americans did surrender in some circumstances in the war. There were American POW's.
I just don't see your point... japan was on a suicide trip.. as was germany... the end was clear to everyone long before the last major city was incinerated.. any country not insane would have surrendered.. especially when they were only surrendering to a democratic foe.
lazs
-
WTF is a "Race: Pure Blood American" ?
-
Lazs2:
The word "suicide king" is exactly the core of what I typed for Scholzie. It was a wall of text, but you beat methere with a nice short definition of the politics of late war Japan and Germany.
So, a thumb up for that one bro :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gshlotzvikingboy... your question is silly.. we would not have surrendered if the japs or germans made some pitiful little attacks on coastal cities.. they could not have invaded.. the whole german airforce couldn't fly a few miles across some water and have enough fuel or good enough planes to defeat the air force of a tiny little island.
Lassie, I wasn’t talking about Japan or Germany specifically. I was talking about ANY enemy, theoretical or otherwise. Lasersailor gets it, but you’re just being deliberately obtuse. If the Soviets destroyed two US cities during the cold war and threatened to destroy the entire US would you have surrendered? No. The democratically elected American leadership, safe in their nuclear command bunkers, would have sacrificed the entire civilian population in an all out nuclear exchange with the Soviets. Or do you perhaps think America would have surrendered?
Originally posted by lazs2
Plus....you can't have it both ways. euro countries surrendered before they were reduced to rubble...
The suicide king countries run by the military... japan and germany and, to a lesser extent, russia.. all were perfectly willing to have every single one of their citizens die.
And here your argument falls on its own unfairness. Japan DID surrender before being reduced to rubble (more than most European countries anyway). Japan DID surrender before sacrificing its population. You seem to hold Japan to a different standard than other countries.
-
What are you talking about? we were having trouble finding cities to firebomb in japan... they were all rubble. we were flying unescorted B29's and dropping tons of bombs on them and they could do nothing more than shake sticks at us.
The atom bomb simply showed them that things were gonna get even worse.
But.. what was left to bomb? country homes?
The soviets do not exist anymore. The scenario you give is again.... silly. Why would we surrender and to who? if we were devestated by nuclear attack it seems certain that the old soviet union would be in as bad or worse shape. They wouldn't even be able to get here to accept our surrender.
If we were devestated and the enemy had the capability to continue to bomb us unappossed.... I can not but think our government would surrender. I can think of no situation that would bring about this event tho.
Such thoughts are not something we think about... unlike you, we realize that it is simply too impossible.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lazs2:
The word "suicide king" is exactly the core of what I typed for Scholzie. It was a wall of text, but you beat methere with a nice short definition of the politics of late war Japan and Germany.
So, a thumb up for that one bro :aok
Something I brought up on page two:
Originally posted by Viking
I would say the Japanese and German culture glorified death to the point that most of their population welcomed a chance to die for their country. A whole population doesn’t ‘commit suicide’ just because their leaders say so.
"Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."
Or as Erich Topp called it: “Die fantischen Bereitwilligkeit zu sterben”. The fanatical will to die.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What are you talking about? we were having trouble finding cities to firebomb in japan... they were all rubble. we were flying unescorted B29's and dropping tons of bombs on them and they could do nothing more than shake sticks at us.
A pretty exaggeration Lassie, but an exaggeration none the less. Japan’s urban areas suffered approximately 30% damage from the American bombing raids according to USAAF reports. Compared to Germany’s 80% close to 90% in some areas Japan got off easy. Japan’s destruction was more on the scale of that suffered by Britain. London suffered 35% damage. Coventry suffered 75% damage in 10 hours of continual air bombardment (30,000 incendiary bombs were dropped and 500 tons of conventional bombs), Birmingham 30-50% depending on source, Liverpool 30%. Many other British cities suffered heavy damage as well.
-
Originally posted by Viking
A pretty exaggeration Lassie, but an exaggeration none the less. Japan’s urban areas suffered approximately 30% damage from the American bombing raids according to USAAF reports. Compared to Germany’s 80% close to 90% in some areas Japan got off easy. Japan’s destruction was more on the scale of that suffered by Britain. London suffered 35% damage. Coventry suffered 75% damage in 10 hours of continual air bombardment (30,000 incendiary bombs were dropped and 500 tons of conventional bombs), Birmingham 30-50% depending on source, Liverpool 30%. Many other British cities suffered heavy damage as well.
Correct , but England was being continually resupplied.
While Japan's war materials were all but exhausted.
What situation would you rather be in for a prolonged fight?
Bronk
-
Scholzie, get real. Here are some items for you.
1. Japan's Urban areas were only bombed for a few months in WW2. It was just starting.
2. The English avenged all their bombed civilians before 1943. Actually, they almost returned the numbers from the London blitz in a single raid on Hamburg in 1943.
3. The LW could not bomb Britain in 1941 in daylight, while the Allies gradually gained enough power to reduce German cities into rubble, be it day or night.
4. While Britain had their darkest days between the fall of France and the conclusion of the BoB, it is not compareable to the German situation in 1944, - Germany was defitately screwed beyond any doubt from the summer of 1944. (Navy? LW? Resources? Enemies?)
So, in Lazs's words, the Gerries and the Japs were really clear suicide kings.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Fresh water will be worth it's weight in gold in the not so distance future and people will fight and die for it.
For Chrissakes! Drop the bowl and stop watching "Ice Pirates." If weed doesn't rot your brain that film surely will.
-
"Ice Pirate"?
Sounds like home :D
-
What the hell is "Ice Pirates"?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
What the hell is "Ice Pirates"?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0087451/
ZOMG TeH space herpes .
:lol
Bronk
-
funny movie, almost as good as "time bandits"
-
time bandits!
top ten. definitely one of the classics.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Correct , but England was being continually resupplied.
While Japan's war materials were all but exhausted.
What situation would you rather be in for a prolonged fight?
Neither. ;)
Originally posted by Angus
Scholzie, get real.
I assure you I am quite real.
Originally posted by Angus
1. Japan's Urban areas were only bombed for a few months in WW2. It was just starting.
I was comparing the damage sustained by Japan when they surrendered with the damage sustained by the British when they didn’t surrender. Stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest.
Originally posted by Angus
2. The English avenged all their bombed civilians before 1943. Actually, they almost returned the numbers from the London blitz in a single raid on Hamburg in 1943.
What has this got to do with anything? Stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest.
Originally posted by Angus
3. The LW could not bomb Britain in 1941 in daylight, while the Allies gradually gained enough power to reduce German cities into rubble, be it day or night.
What has this got to do with anything? Stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest.
Originally posted by Angus
4. While Britain had their darkest days between the fall of France and the conclusion of the BoB, it is not compareable to the German situation in 1944, - Germany was defitately screwed beyond any doubt from the summer of 1944. (Navy? LW? Resources? Enemies?)
Who is comparing Britain with Germany? I certainly wasn’t. And WHY are you comparing Britain to Germany in a thread about Hiroshima and the Japanese surrender? Stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest.
You always do this in every discussion.
-
I used to be able to piss over 9 feet distance and achieve maximum stream altitude of just over 6 feet. All with just a slight tail wind.
Top that one.
-
I'm sure Angus can. He's Da Pissmeister! (But I think he cheats)
-
angus.. you agree with everything I have ever said... you just don't like the way I say it.
You all should read the book "why the allies won" by Richard Overy
It explains why german and jap equipment and people were not ready for a world war and how they refused to adapt. They cared little or nothing for not only their people but for anyone else. It made them blind as to how to fight a war on this scale.
Another good book is "the American way of war" a little dry but informative and one of those books that seem so obvious.
lazs
-
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
-
Lol, Lazs, in this thread I mostly agree with you, so don't mix it with a global warming thread, hehe.
And Sholzie, it's a good feeling to see you reply to my logiscs with repetition of the word "piss". Seems that you have skidded off the road of discussion, civil discussion.
Anyway, the contest is about when to surrender or not. All my Nitrogen affected points were to support the sense of realism, i.e. the situation of England in 1940 vs the situation of Germany in 1944, etc. Sorry that you missed that.
-
I'll just leave this here in case somebody needs it later
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/PURSEWOUNDSBOOK.jpg)
;)
-
lol Dichotomy :D