The Russians WERE part of the allies. I realise this doesn't mean things would have stayed that way, especially for Europeans, but they had a huge hand in keeping the Germans at bay. It all would've been over before you guys could finally get off your butts and join us were it not for the Russians.
As American would say, 'just say thanks.'
As American would say, 'just say thanks.'
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the rooskies would not have had a shot if it wasn't for US and allied intervention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Patriot this may be true...congrats
would the Americans have had a chance without the 'rooskies'?
You are so egocentric it is unbeleivable... Can you not just admit it was an allied victory with many countries playing an important role?
Patriot this may be true...congrats
would the Americans have had a chance without the 'rooskies'?
You are so egocentric it is unbeleivable... Can you not just admit it was an allied victory with many countries playing an important role?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But that would be like admitting that multilateralism works <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it does work...when in hell is the rest of world going to do the right thing and back their own 17 UN resolutions??
When they get through woth their own brand of fleecing??
Its funny Jordan an arab country seems to think it works.
France and Germany is by far not the rest of the world they really bring little to the table.
Yes it does work...when in hell is the rest of world going to do the right thing and back their own 17 UN resolutions??
When they get through woth their own brand of fleecing??
Its funny Jordan an arab country seems to think it works.
France and Germany is by far not the rest of the world they really bring little to the table.
so u r telling me with 100% certainty that Russia had no nukes at the time?
perhaps you are right... I do not know the answer to that myself...
still... If I was an American not something I would brag about... dropping a nuke on civilians
... not acceptable under any circumstances... Are the lives of the women & children killed in Japan any less important than those killed in 911? was it the fault of the 2 year olds killed while taking a bath that their government was at war?
perhaps you are right... I do not know the answer to that myself...
still... If I was an American not something I would brag about... dropping a nuke on civilians
Patriot,
If those nukes were such a success why were they not used recently in IRAQ? why waste American lives...
The answer is Obvious... Both Liberals & Conservatives do Agree that nuclear weapons are barbaric & should not be used under any circumstances...
again... this is something if I was American that I would be ashamed of... certainly not brag about.
If those nukes were such a success why were they not used recently in IRAQ? why waste American lives...
The answer is Obvious... Both Liberals & Conservatives do Agree that nuclear weapons are barbaric & should not be used under any circumstances...
again... this is something if I was American that I would be ashamed of... certainly not brag about.
Are you out of your mind if Russia had them at the time they would of used them in a heartbeat.
Nukes used in ww2 was a nessacary evil....you know try to remember who the aggressor was in this will ya..by the way how does Japan stand now on the world stage?..How about germany? How about East germany...oops there know such thing anymore is there?How'd that come about?
Nukes used in ww2 was a nessacary evil....you know try to remember who the aggressor was in this will ya..by the way how does Japan stand now on the world stage?..How about germany? How about East germany...oops there know such thing anymore is there?How'd that come about?
I disagree xpanda.
You may be right about how many Japanese lives could have been saved. There is no doubt that an invasion of Japan would have been devastating to Americans and Japanese. You are mistaken about millions of lives NOT being saved due to us dropping nukes (Patriot, you forgot about fat man). Dropping those bombs is still saving lives today. Deterence is an under-valued concept. People now know what can really happen if you get too big for your britches and want to take over the world. I take this as fact b/c another one has never been dropped since.Until then I think "little boy" and "fat man " speak for themselves
vol
You may be right about how many Japanese lives could have been saved. There is no doubt that an invasion of Japan would have been devastating to Americans and Japanese. You are mistaken about millions of lives NOT being saved due to us dropping nukes (Patriot, you forgot about fat man). Dropping those bombs is still saving lives today. Deterence is an under-valued concept. People now know what can really happen if you get too big for your britches and want to take over the world. I take this as fact b/c another one has never been dropped since.Until then I think "little boy" and "fat man " speak for themselves
vol
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> you guys a lot longer to enter the war and were therefore in much better shape than any of the remaining Allies. Had you joined us all from the get-go, you probably wouldn't look like the saviours that history has made you out to be. Further, if it weren't for the rest of the Allies, you guys may well have had to defend yourselves against Nazism right on your own doorstep, rather than halfway around the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
xpanda,
You sound a lot like a poster named Grant. He would b!tch and moan about the U.S. and their foreign policy at every turn. Another thing he mentioned frequently was that Canada joined the war against Hitler before the U.S. and how the ball was dropped on that one. Did I miss something? The U.S. wasn't attacked until late '41. Everyone should be happy that there was no American troop involvement up to that time as they weren't attacked.
Hitler screwed up going all out against the Soviets when he did, otherwise it could have been a lot worse for Stalin. The Luftwaffe had better aircraft, training and #'s but the timing wasn't right for a full scale invasion. Climate played more of a role in the stall of German forces than Soviet tactical superiority.
The Japanese were willing to fight until the last man, house to house, city to city. A lot of those people would have made the casualty list had the U.S., Soviet Union, U.K. and others decided to go conventional. Let's not forget that the Japanese were every bit as ruthless as the Nazis, if not more so. In Japan, you have a deep-rooted ethic toward respect and honor. That includes men, women and children. Talk to any person from Japan and you will surely notice it. I don't know about the younger generation but I bet that someone 30+ would fit this description. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you understand it. Back on topic, I believe that atomic weapons are only for special cases and should not be used for every little conflict, although I posted here that they should have used them in Iraq. I'm too lazy to look for it but I'm pretty sure I posted it here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> so u r telling me with 100% certainty that Russia had no nukes at the time? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am certain as well. It was well after the war when Soviet spies stole the necessary information to catapult them to nuclear status.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bragging about that level of destruction is truly twisted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On August 6, 1945, having learned that Hiroshima was destroyed by the bomb, Truman declared to the people around him that it was the `greatest achievement of organized science in history'.
In his official declaration, the same day, Truman said:
`If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.'
xpanda,
You sound a lot like a poster named Grant. He would b!tch and moan about the U.S. and their foreign policy at every turn. Another thing he mentioned frequently was that Canada joined the war against Hitler before the U.S. and how the ball was dropped on that one. Did I miss something? The U.S. wasn't attacked until late '41. Everyone should be happy that there was no American troop involvement up to that time as they weren't attacked.
Hitler screwed up going all out against the Soviets when he did, otherwise it could have been a lot worse for Stalin. The Luftwaffe had better aircraft, training and #'s but the timing wasn't right for a full scale invasion. Climate played more of a role in the stall of German forces than Soviet tactical superiority.
The Japanese were willing to fight until the last man, house to house, city to city. A lot of those people would have made the casualty list had the U.S., Soviet Union, U.K. and others decided to go conventional. Let's not forget that the Japanese were every bit as ruthless as the Nazis, if not more so. In Japan, you have a deep-rooted ethic toward respect and honor. That includes men, women and children. Talk to any person from Japan and you will surely notice it. I don't know about the younger generation but I bet that someone 30+ would fit this description. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you understand it. Back on topic, I believe that atomic weapons are only for special cases and should not be used for every little conflict, although I posted here that they should have used them in Iraq. I'm too lazy to look for it but I'm pretty sure I posted it here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> so u r telling me with 100% certainty that Russia had no nukes at the time? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am certain as well. It was well after the war when Soviet spies stole the necessary information to catapult them to nuclear status.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bragging about that level of destruction is truly twisted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On August 6, 1945, having learned that Hiroshima was destroyed by the bomb, Truman declared to the people around him that it was the `greatest achievement of organized science in history'.
In his official declaration, the same day, Truman said:
`If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.'
UM: I don't know who Grant is, so I can't comment. At any rate, it doesn't bother me that the US didn't enter the war at the same time as everyone else. It bothers me to hear Americans, and this board has proven no exception, telling us we'd be speaking German if not for them. It's childish, arrogant and does not take into consideration all of the facts in the equation. It is true that had the US joined earlier that it may not have been able to wage the kind of impact that it did.
I understand your frustration. However, I'm sure that some intend their remarks as more of a structured opinion on the most logical outcome of the Allies (without America) vs. Axis conflict. You could say that had the U.S. began operations before the Japanese crippled their Pacific fleet then a Japanese defeat might have come into fruition sooner or not. The same can be said of Europe.
PS I erred earlier by posting Grant when, in fact, it's Grantt. I apologize for the confusion.
PS I erred earlier by posting Grant when, in fact, it's Grantt. I apologize for the confusion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Dropping those nukes did not save 'millions.' That is an exaggeration. It saved probably tens of thousands of American lives, but I doubt an argument could be made that it saved any Japanese lives. Bragging about that level of destruction is truly twisted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When they dropped the bombs, the U.S. was preparing for a full scale land invasion on Japan's mainland for which they had estimated 500,000 casualties on the Allied side alone. Japaneze casualties easily could have reached 1 million. They shouldn't have attacked the U.S. in the first place, and then they had more than enough opportunity to surrender after defeat became tactically unavoidable towards the end of 1944. God damn THEM for pushing us into making a decision like that.
BTW Xpanda, I've never failed to acknowledge your beloved Canada's role in WWII and the sacrifices it's brave men made.
Uncle moneybags....You alluded that the Japanese were more brutal than the Nazis. Here's a stat for you from "Flags of Our Fathers". 1% of Allied prisoners of war died during captivity. 37% of Allied POWs perished during Japanese captivity. The Japanese also liked to go for the medics with the red crosses on their helmuts during combat, something even the Nazis didn't do.
Dropping those nukes did not save 'millions.' That is an exaggeration. It saved probably tens of thousands of American lives, but I doubt an argument could be made that it saved any Japanese lives. Bragging about that level of destruction is truly twisted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When they dropped the bombs, the U.S. was preparing for a full scale land invasion on Japan's mainland for which they had estimated 500,000 casualties on the Allied side alone. Japaneze casualties easily could have reached 1 million. They shouldn't have attacked the U.S. in the first place, and then they had more than enough opportunity to surrender after defeat became tactically unavoidable towards the end of 1944. God damn THEM for pushing us into making a decision like that.
BTW Xpanda, I've never failed to acknowledge your beloved Canada's role in WWII and the sacrifices it's brave men made.
Uncle moneybags....You alluded that the Japanese were more brutal than the Nazis. Here's a stat for you from "Flags of Our Fathers". 1% of Allied prisoners of war died during captivity. 37% of Allied POWs perished during Japanese captivity. The Japanese also liked to go for the medics with the red crosses on their helmuts during combat, something even the Nazis didn't do.
