Syria (merged)

[bluemanc]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

ALLIED lives,lets get that crystal clear.
Under certain circumstances i can do globalist BUT not on this,just for 1 second imagine the carnage if a ground assault had happened.
Japan had 1,000's of students to call on for suicide (NOT Science students though)strikes,its an horrific thought.
<a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kilroywashere.org%2F006-Pages%2FInvasion.html&ei=uSYnUvreF-eq7QbFxoDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNEVZnueJXAJRy0YDFNuEOCDApnd1g&bvm=bv.51495398,d.ZGU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5398,d.ZGU</a>
Was it worth the risk?methinks not.

 

[inchy14]

There was a thread on here last year, in which somebody posted an article that was all about the west wanting war which started with the Syrian conflict and involved the Russians, Chinese and Iranians supporting Syria whle the west supported an attack.

It was claimed that somebody was witness to a meeting and overheard this great plan that would cost millions of lives and make trillions of $'s for certain companys.

Does anybody still have a link to this article? Would love to read it again.

 

[pominoz]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued. There was every reason to think that the Japanese would defend their homeland with even greater fanaticism than when they fought to the death on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless. No, there was every reason to expect a terrible struggle long after the point at which some people can now look back and say, "Japan was already beaten."
A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation.
That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. We recall the long period of nearly three weeks between the Japanese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2. This was needed in order to arrange details: of the surrender and occupation and to permit the Japanese government to prepare its people to accept the capitulation. It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender.
The bulk of the Japanese people did not consider themselves beaten; in fact they believed they were winning in spite of the terrible punishment they had taken. They watched the paper balloons take off and float eastward in the wind, confident that these were carrying a terrible retribution to the United States in revenge for our air raids.

An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

Tragic as it was, it was necessary and justified.
Also it was not just the yanks getting a battering (even if it was, it was still justified), Aussie's, Kiwi's, Brits and all the other allied forces.
The Japs did not give a fuck about civilians they fought against, look at the "Rape of Nanking".

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.


An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

ALLIED lives,lets get that crystal clear.
Under certain circumstances i can do globalist BUT not on this,just for 1 second imagine the carnage if a ground assault had happened.
Japan had 1,000's of students to call on for suicide (NOT Science students though)strikes,its an horrific thought.

Inept feudalism the world over . Does not make anything right . Our leaders didn`t do anything on the reports from Polish people that started that war ,they did dick about the reports coming out of Syria years ago ,not a thing has changed, sadly .

 

[2sheikhs]

Do you believe the atomic bomb was used purely to end the war with Japan?

No.

Do you believe what Arthur Harris did helped bring the war to an end quicker? i.e. the fact that it demonstrated that we were quite prepared to stoop to their level and target civilians.

 

[Skashion]

Tragic as it was, it was necessary and justified.

Or, as in the opinions of Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral Leahy, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, who were privy to the intelligence intercepts and assessments made of Japanese intent and strength, they could have accepted a Japanese surrender which involved keeping their emperor - you know, the emperor who remained after the war anyway. Or they could have waited for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria to win the unconditional surrender which wasn't even necessary. Plenty of other options to be had apart from firebombing the Japanese to smithereens, nuking them, or invading the home islands.

-- Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:05 pm --

Do you believe what Arthur Harris did helped bring the war to an end quicker? i.e. the fact that it demonstrated that we were quite prepared to stoop to their level and target civilians.

I don't believe it helped save any lives, no. By the way, the bombing of civilians needn't have happened. The Germans bombed civilian areas in London by mistake, we therefore bombed Berlin in a retaliatory strike, they then returned it with interest. If there had been clear communication, a back channel, between the sides, tens of thousands of British and hundreds of thousands of German lives could have been saved.

 

[CTID1988]

Tragic as it was, it was necessary and justified.

Or, as in the opinions of Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral Leahy, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, who were privy to the intelligence intercepts and assessments made of Japanese intent and strength, they could have accepted a Japanese surrender which involved keeping their emperor - you know, the emperor who remained after the war anyway. Or they could have waited for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria to win the unconditional surrender which wasn't even necessary. Plenty of other options to be had apart from firebombing the Japanese to smithereens, nuking them, or invading the home islands.

-- Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:05 pm --

Do you believe what Arthur Harris did helped bring the war to an end quicker? i.e. the fact that it demonstrated that we were quite prepared to stoop to their level and target civilians.

I don't believe it helped save any lives, no. By the way, the bombing of civilians needn't have happened. The Germans bombed civilian areas in London by mistake, we therefore bombed Berlin in a retaliatory strike, they then returned it with interest. If there had been clear communication, a back channel, between the sides, tens of thousands of British and hundreds of thousands of German lives could have been saved.

I have always read that bombing civillians was use as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. Ive never heard it was a mistake?

 

[Skashion]

I have always read that bombing civillians was use as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. Ive never heard it was a mistake?

Hitler never wanted civilian targets in Britain bombed. They were bombed by accident on the 24th of August 1940, Churchill orders retaliation against Berlin on the 25th. That's how the whole mess started.

 

[CTID1988]

I have always read that bombing civillians was use as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. Ive never heard it was a mistake?

Hitler never wanted civilian targets in Britain bombed. They were bombed by accident on the 24th of August 1940, Churchill orders retaliation against Berlin on the 25th. That's how the whole mess started.

Yeah, just had a google and you're right. You learn something new every day!

Hitler explicitly prohibited attacks on London and against civilians.[91] Any airmen who, deliberately or unintentionally, violated this order were punished.[91] Hitler's No. 17 Directive, issued 1 August 1940, established the conduct of war against Britain and specifically forbade the Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids.
On 24 August, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London

 

[2sheikhs]

I have always read that bombing civillians was use as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. Ive never heard it was a mistake?

Hitler never wanted civilian targets in Britain bombed. They were bombed by accident on the 24th of August 1940, Churchill orders retaliation against Berlin on the 25th. That's how the whole mess started.

I know for a fact that he didn't want Blackpool bombing.

 

[stonerblue]

I have always read that bombing civillians was use as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. Ive never heard it was a mistake?

Hitler never wanted civilian targets in Britain bombed. They were bombed by accident on the 24th of August 1940, Churchill orders retaliation against Berlin on the 25th. That's how the whole mess started.

wasn't it a stray bomb that fell close to London?

 

[pominoz]

Tragic as it was, it was necessary and justified.

Or, as in the opinions of Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral Leahy, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, who were privy to the intelligence intercepts and assessments made of Japanese intent and strength, they could have accepted a Japanese surrender which involved keeping their emperor - you know, the emperor who remained after the war anyway. Or they could have waited for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria to win the unconditional surrender which wasn't even necessary. Plenty of other options to be had apart from firebombing the Japanese to smithereens, nuking them, or invading the home islands.

-

What a load of bollocks!
Is there no way you could ever agree that the "West" is right in any of it's conflicts?
You sometimes appear like that fat ginger Muslim in London, who is so eager to be one of the boys it is comical.

 

[Skashion]

You sometimes appear like that fat ginger Muslim in London, who is so eager to be one of the boys it is comical.

The Japanese are fat ginger Muslims now? I am very amused.

 

[stonerblue]

Tragic as it was, it was necessary and justified.

Or, as in the opinions of Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral Leahy, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, who were privy to the intelligence intercepts and assessments made of Japanese intent and strength, they could have accepted a Japanese surrender which involved keeping their emperor - you know, the emperor who remained after the war anyway. Or they could have waited for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria to win the unconditional surrender which wasn't even necessary. Plenty of other options to be had apart from firebombing the Japanese to smithereens, nuking them, or invading the home islands.

-

What a load of bollocks!
Is there no way you could ever agree that the "West" is right in any of it's conflicts?
You sometimes appear like that fat ginger Muslim in London, who is so eager to be one of the boys it is comical.

I thought Boris was strawberry blonde..

 

[metalblue]

Me neither, and we are in good company. So my next, predictable question, is do you think having the bomb has helped maintain peace especially between Russia and the US? Much harder to answer I appreciate but you get where I am going with this.

Yes and no.

Do you think that the demonstration of the atomic weapon destructive power has been a significant factor in it not being used since?

 

[pominoz]

You sometimes appear like that fat ginger Muslim in London, who is so eager to be one of the boys it is comical.

The Japanese are fat ginger Muslims now? I am very amused.

I was posting about you, as you well know.
You love defending anyone that "we" have ever fought or are now fighting, if you hate all that "we" stand for, why not fuck off to somewhere that shares your anti-Western views.
I agree with many of your posts, but this "Brits, Yanks and Jews are cunts" is getting boring.
Peace and love ;)

 

[scotty123]

Well that caused a fuss.
Some people trying to change History,using the Bomb on Japan DID save lives & in no way were they ready to surrender.
Saying they were ready to surrender is a huge difference from Unconditional Surrender.
Two B-29 incendiary raids over Tokyo. One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000, how many would have died to achieve full air supremacy.


An horrific way to end a War it really was,but as i said the bottom line is it saved 100's of 1,000's of Allied soldiers lives.

so because the US was taking a battering on the battlefield, dropping bombs on civilian women and children (please not 'civilian' is the operative word here) killing hundreds of thousands was legitimate was it?

ALLIED lives,lets get that crystal clear.
Under certain circumstances i can do globalist BUT not on this,just for 1 second imagine the carnage if a ground assault had happened.
Japan had 1,000's of students to call on for suicide (NOT Science students though)strikes,its an horrific thought.
<a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kilroywashere.org%2F006-Pages%2FInvasion.html&ei=uSYnUvreF-eq7QbFxoDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNEVZnueJXAJRy0YDFNuEOCDApnd1g&bvm=bv.51495398,d.ZGU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5398,d.ZGU</a>
Was it worth the risk?methinks not.

If we had not dropped the bomb and gone ahead with the invasion of the Japanese mainland i would most probably not have been here today
Dad was Royal Navy right through the war and after victory in Europe the RN was put on full alert for the war against Japan, most of the navy would be used to back the Yanks in the invasion and it would have been horrific, he told me its the one thing he really dreaded in the whole war and did not expect to survive if it went ahead

 

[Skashion]

Do you think that the demonstration of the atomic weapon destructive power has been a significant factor in it not being used since?

Thought this was where this was going. No, absolutely not. The Soviets knew its power. It didn't need demonstrating. Its power was easy to ascertain from mere theory. That is why the Manhatten project had so much money and brainpower behind it. The Soviets already knew of the American atomic bomb attempt years in advance. They also had spies in the Manhattan Project and so would have had first-hand testimony as soon as the Americans tested successfully. The Soviets started their own atomic bomb project by the time it was detonated. They might even have had the blueprints to the American bomb by then. I know they got them in 1945.

 

[BlueHammer85]

You sometimes appear like that fat ginger Muslim in London, who is so eager to be one of the boys it is comical.

The Japanese are fat ginger Muslims now? I am very amused.

I was posting about you, as you well know.
You love defending anyone that "we" have ever fought or are now fighting, if you hate all that "we" stand for, why not fuck off to somewhere that shares your anti-Western views.
I agree with many of your posts, but this "Brits, Yanks and Jews are *****" is getting boring.
Peace and love ;)

Your getting confused with Josh.

Skashion arguments are valid and pretty good. In fact .. I have a soft spot for him

 

[Skashion]

I was posting about you, as you well know.
You love defending anyone that "we" have ever fought or are now fighting, if you hate all that "we" stand for, why not fuck off to somewhere that shares your anti-Western views.
I agree with many of your posts, but this "Brits, Yanks and Jews are *****" is getting boring.
Peace and love ;)

I've already said on this thread the Second World War was Britain's finest hour. I also suspect I know a hell of lot more about it than you do. Have you been to MOSI so you can appreciate the advances made in computing by the British during the Second World War? Been to the Science Museum in London to see the Alan Turing exhibition have you? I was there two weeks ago. Started a thread about a British warbird in the past two months have you: <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=287785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=5&t=287785</a> Just because I don't agree that civilians need to be brutally murdered needlessly, with no tangible gains, you come out with this shit.

I am reporting your post though. I'm not going to tolerate accusations of anti-Semitism.