WWII discussion thread

[DeletedUser]

Please I have posted proof that anyone with common sense or at most a small high school psychology class would come out saying he was gunna screw his allies. All your saying is "not uhh" over and over. Try naming one thing he did for the allies where he was not saving his own @$$

Like I have said his actions leading up to the end of the war, and his action prior to the wars start indicate that he is not someone you can trust. He was blatantly opportunistic, and megalomania-cal.

also what I have posted about the war is true, look it up on a map

He attacked the Japanese in Manchuria just before we nuked them into surrender. That one could be argued both ways. Then again, rarely do you find a country doing anything "out of the goodness of their hearts." Name something that Americans did that didn't have our best interest in the war?

As for the choice of the nuke targets, again, they were chosen for their strategic, military value, not because they were population centers. In case you didn't realize, but most of the time you have an area of heavy industy it is near... somewhere with the population to support and facilitate that industrial complex. So, yeah, there were people around because industry needs people to function, and people like to live relatively close to where they work.

Had we dropped it off the coast, as you suggested, I don't think it would have had the same effect. It defintiley wouldn't have crippled their military industry which was a main objective of the war.


As for your evidence, I have not seen any, really. You confuse your opinion with actual facts.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

I still think dropping the atomic bombs was a bad idea on the behalf of the Americans :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

Thats ok, proto. I don't think it was a bad idea. :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Why? The conflict would have been resolved bloodlessly through starvation because of the blockade that was imposed,why drop a bomb that would cause genetic anomalies when not only those responsible would suffer but their children's children still do. Unless the bombs were dropped purely for training purposes and to see the effects they would have on human population or possibly to prove that America has every other country by the balls, technology wise, I still see it as a waste of human life.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why? The conflict would have been resolved bloodlessly through starvation because of the blockade that was imposed,why drop a bomb that would cause genetic anomalies when not only those responsible would suffer but their children's children still do. Unless the bombs were dropped purely for training purposes and to see the effects they would have on human population or possibly to prove that America has every other country by the balls, technology wise, I still see it as a waste of human life.

You would want us to try and starve a surrender out of a people who, when faced with no other option but surrender on the island of Saipan, choose to hurl themselves to their deaths off the face of a cliff? Come now, a blockade, if it had worked, would have extended the war for at least a year if not more.

An invasion was the only other realistic alternative to dropping the nukes and it would have resulted in far more casualties to the Jpanese, let alone the countless casulties that would have been suffered by the Allies.

We may have known that radiation was bad, but we didn't know the long term effects of it like we do now. In a war in which collateral damage cost the lives of anywhere between 35 to 50 million people, the long term effects of the nukes is just another cause on that great list.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Mm I was under the impression that the blockade would have broken Japan in a few months time, maybe a couple more months but doubt it would be as long as a year. Yes the actual invasion would have cost alot more men to both sides, I think the estimate for American casualties were near to a million should the invasion had occured. But it is highly possible that those responsible for dropping the bomb were aware of its impact it would have on genetic structure of future generations yet they continued with the plan just to see the effect it would have on the population of humans, it was more of a guinea pig project.

 

[DeletedUser]

Mm I was under the impression that the blockade would have broken Japan in a few months time, maybe a couple more months but doubt it would be as long as a year. Yes the actual invasion would have cost alot more men to both sides, I think the estimate for American casualties were near to a million should the invasion had occured. But it is highly possible that those responsible for dropping the bomb were aware of its impact it would have on genetic structure of future generations yet they continued with the plan just to see the effect it would have on the population of humans, it was more of a guinea pig project.

Persoanlly, I don't think a blockade would ever have broken the Japanese. Weakened them, yes. Made an invasion easier, probably. But not broken them. The nukes were the best way to end the war quickly, decisively, and with no American casualties, which you have to admit, would have been a very appealing prospect of that option.

As for the knowledge of the genetic effects, I highly doubt it. Wasn't enough time to figure out what effects radiation had on human genetics.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

So you think that Americans had done something without realizing it's potential consequences? Wouldn't be the first time

 

[DeletedUser]

So you think that Americans had done something without realizing it's potential consequences? Wouldn't be the first time

Nor will it be the last. :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok, I have studied psychology and one of the aspect of my work is profiling people. Stalin was a psycho to start with and it wasn't a secret, and anyone with a psychology background especially a general who's biggest asset is to get into his opponents head. There were a couple of our general who seen it coming, though none were as loud about it as patton. How would you explain them knowing but Eisenhower not knowing?

I've submitted a list of Stalins actions before the war, and during the war, up to the end of the war. Thats what Eisenhower had to work with, and he should have seen it coming.


Also check the events happening before the bombs, the Emperor of Japan was trying to get on the radio so that he could tell his people to surrender the war against the military's wish's. Granted the military was trying to prevent him, but the message record was being passed threw channels to get on there radio so that it could be broadcast.

Japan also imported lots of it's good for war, almost all of them. You wouldn't need to "Starve" them in, you could merely starve there military supplies. There people were already starving, I remember my grandma telling me stories about soldier coming and taking there rice. They would follow the trucks and pick up what they dropped and cook it with weeds and soy sauce. The country was already on it's last leg, the nukes really weren't necessary.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok, I have studied psychology and one of the aspect of my work is profiling people. Stalin was a psycho to start with and it wasn't a secret, and anyone with a psychology background especially a general who's biggest asset is to get into his opponents head. There were a couple of our general who seen it coming, though none were as loud about it as patton. How would you explain them knowing but Eisenhower not knowing?

So, did Eisenhower have a background in psychology?

As for the other generals, ever heard of a thing called a difference of opinion? :icon_rolleyes:

I've submitted a list of Stalins actions before the war, and during the war, up to the end of the war. Thats what Eisenhower had to work with, and he should have seen it coming.

Again, you draw your own conclusions as to what those actions mean. Therfore it is your opinion that Stalin was crazy, not fact. If you have the background you say you do I am suprised that you can't seem to differentiate between fact and opinion. It is one of the first things you learn in college, since it is the basis of all collegiate writing you will do for your studies. You use facts to support your opinion, but your opinion is still just an opinion.

Also check the events happening before the bombs, the Emperor of Japan was trying to get on the radio so that he could tell his people to surrender the war against the military's wish's. Granted the military was trying to prevent him, but the message record was being passed threw channels to get on there radio so that it could be broadcast.

Again, you are using hindsight to judge peoples action, not judging the descisions based on the facts they knew at the time.

Japan also imported lots of it's good for war, almost all of them. You wouldn't need to "Starve" them in, you could merely starve there military supplies. There people were already starving, I remember my grandma telling me stories about soldier coming and taking there rice. They would follow the trucks and pick up what they dropped and cook it with weeds and soy sauce. The country was already on it's last leg, the nukes really weren't necessary.

Of course they imported a lot of resources, that was one of the main reasons for their imperial ambitions in the first place, to secure an adequate base of natural resources. That still doesn't change the fact that they have a cultural history of honorable traditions, one of which would be suicide over surrender. I doubt, as a people, they would have surrendered easily to a blockade no matter how bad the situation was. If they would, then the Japanese on Saipan would have surrendered instead of commiting suicide, and countless Japanese soldiers on nameless islands wouldn't have fought till their dying breath, knowing even as they did there was no hope for victory, only death or surrender.

Come on Mr. Psychologist. I thought you were the one intuned to examinig the thought processes of people?

 

[DeletedUser]

The Japanese have been known to never surrender the whole way back to samurai days. All samurais carried a dagger with them as well as their sword. If at any point, they became unable to fight back or were about to be captured, the samurai would draw his dagger, stab himself in the stomach, and cut in a zig zagging motion. They killed themselves so that the enemy didn't have the chance to kill them first. In their eyes, they died with honor.

As for the whole bomb thing, Japan needed to be stopped. They had been doing human testing on many different things which are quit graphic. You both seem to know much more about the war than i do from all parties that were involved so i expect at least one of you knows what i'm talking about. For those of you that don't and are interested read up on Unit 731.

There were other units but that will give you the gist.

 

[DeletedUser]

Psychological profiling is a logical and accurate science, and there is no "hindsight" in what I posted. All of it is available information we had prior to ending ww2 and sending our troops home.

here one more time for ya

- The Great Famine in Ukraine (1932/33)
- The Katyn massacre (1940)
- The SS-KGB partnership [in the late 1930s the KGB was called NKVD]
- Soviet mass deportations

They helped deport and kill jews, they slaughter Ukraine's both via execution or forced advance on the battle field.

He even said. and I quoted -

A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron.
Joseph Stalin

Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.
Joseph Stalin

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
Joseph Stalin

Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.
Joseph Stalin

Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.
Joseph Stalin

History shows that there are no invincible armies.
Joseph Stalin

I trust no one, not even myself.
Joseph Stalin

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Joseph Stalin

If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a "peace conference," you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes.
Joseph Stalin

If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
Joseph Stalin

In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.
Joseph Stalin

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin

One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.~ to Churchill, 1945.
Joseph Stalin

Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party.
Joseph Stalin

The only real power comes out of a long rifle.
Joseph Stalin

The Pope? How many divisions has he got?
Joseph Stalin

The writer is the engineer of the human soul.
Joseph Stalin

When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
Joseph Stalin


I'm willing to bet at least 1/4th of these quotes where before 1945. So ya, there is more then enough evidence about it.


And yes, every general knows basic psychology, it is a job requirement. Same goes with a good historical knowledge. Also generals have staff members that some also have those backgrounds. I think your assuming he is stupider then he was or that he was understaffed.



I yield to the fact that the west likely didn't know about the emperor and the message he was trying to get out.

However I contest that Bushido doesn't allow a military to surrender. It has been done several times during there feudal era, usually the leaders commit suicide because success is there mission. Bushido dictates that one should not surrender in combat where your objective requires you to kill another being without accomplishing your objective. Bushido is highly intertwined with Shinto-Buddhism which preaches high value to life. It goes along the lines that should you be willing to take life to accomplish your goals you should put you life on the line as well, much like betting if anything. The shame comes from failing to see there goals threw while taking the stance on the issue they do. However it is there value of life that allows them to carry threw with it, and when you think about it, it makes sense. The defeat thing is a common misconception of the culture.

Most of the issues involving Japanese citizens killing themselves is because japan had lots of spies in America and they used our concentration camps and propaganda. Being slaves to people they considered barbarian was something they feared more then death since there religion holds nothing against suicide, and believes in reincarnation. Above all don't make the mistake of thinking there above human, they all wanted to live as much as the rest of us. It's there value of life, quality of life, and the propaganda that pushed most of there citizens to suicide. As for the soldiers ordered to fight, they died well, they did there job to the end.

ps - I'm not a pscychologist, I am a tactical analyst in the US navy. That's about all I can say since I have posted insults of our policies on a couple occasions on this forum. I strive to become a general someday in the army or for the marines, however I still have a long way to go. So maybe you know how intimately I understand the requirements of the post. There is no way the ALLIED commander is less qualified then me in anyway minus I have no political agenda.

btw you russian buddy? you seem to be taking this personally so much so you ignored all the other facts I posted about his actions, which tends to be a sign of mixed anger or confusion. If you are just remember in 1922 Lenin tried to have Stalin kicked out of his position because even he seen this coming. I am not a fan of communism even though on paper it is the best damn system I have ever seen, but humans screw it up every time. Lenin kept it pure, had he been alive and in Stalin's place, I would make peace with him.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, I am just as American as you are. :icon_wink:

I don't comment too much about Stalin because, for one, I don't like the guy at all, and for another, I learned the hard way to be certain of my facts with him because things often attributed to him are not necessarily so. I don't know enough about the man to argue, really, one way or the other, but I do know this, I spot at least one of your quotes that is wrongly attributed to him. The one about the one life lost is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. If you want a debate about Stalin, you need to talk to this guy, valeofruin. You can argue your amature pyshcosis diagnosis with him.

My point is this, you are using hindsight to help your arguments. You are saying that the information was common knowledge, yet you have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. Remeber, the Russians, and by extensions the Soviets, have always been a rather closed nation in which information was not easily transferred within the country, let alone to outsiders.

Also, a lot of the quotes show a man that is devoted to his cause, not being crazy. Nothing was really overtly threatening. It was only after the war when a standoff ensued and communism became the Red Devil of the 50's and 60's.

Also, whole sale slaughter was something that a lot of people did back then. It wasn't out of the norm. Sure, WWII sort of ended that, but until that point the nations of the world didn't pry into precieved intewrnal affairs, really. Don't forget that we were heavi.ly Isolationist at that point, and likely would have ignored any news of the atrocities as being something that didn't concern us. Why do you think it took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to draw us officially into the war?


Now, on to the Japanese. You contend that they wouldn't accept defeat, yet you clearly admit that, because of their propaganda, the Japanese citizenry believed that they were better of to kill themselves than to surrender to us. Therefore, you prove my point for me, while trying to contradict it at the same time. If they were willing to throw themselves to their deaths on Saipan, what makes you think that surredner would have been any easier for the Japanese on their own Home Islands?

 

[DeletedUser]

If genocide was so common why was the world disgusted at hitler's actions? Only reason why the higher ups didn't release the infomation on Stalin to our general public is because we wanted to continue using them for the war. Simple fact is he did things, and said things that our ALLIED commander knew about, whether or not he released information to the general public is inconsequential to this argument. A man dedicated to his cause is easy to see, a man that is dedicated to a cause that will directly inhibit us is even easier to see. Everything about his actions, tactics, political maneuvers we knew about. Remeber we had lots of sources in the Ukrains, and a fair amount of there generals were happy to pass us info since THEY knew they would be tossed under the rug after the war was over. So the USSR isn't half as closed as they said it was, we even had copies of Stalin's "death list" from a Ukraine general that wanted to warn us.

All your doing is trying to turn my words against me without getting any of the facts, even ignoring some of the major character facts I have posted that we had on Stalin prior to ww2 ending. I have listed enough material even if only 1/8th of it is what we knew about for any general to see them as a threat. Also remember a fair amount of our generals seen it coming as well, however politicians wanted to keep the USSR as an ally against the odds of it happening because of how many natural resources they have that we could have traded for. Eisenhower as the allied commander had access to all the information from the Ukraine generals, news of the mass exicutions, news on there tactics they used in combat, news on how they treated there pow's, and above all the genocide they were committing. Only time things like that in this world go unpunished is when you have more to gain by being friendly then you have by stopping it. America dropped it's isolationism during WW2, after that point we were large in world politics and stayed involved so that argument makes no sense at all. Even prior to the USA getting "officially involved" in ww2, we were already fighting the Germans at sea, claiming it was just to protect shipping. However had it been just to protect shipping we would have had a fire when fired upon policy, but we had a fire on sight policy. We had pilots going to the British, merchant marines going to fight for the British. To say we weren't at war prior to our declaration is just silly and something most of America never learned for several years after the war.

Not all the citizens committed suicide after losing Saipan, just enough for our news to make a big deal about it. Propaganda did cause them to make the choice, however propaganda is easier to counter then most people think it is. There were plenty of surrendered citizens, and even soldiers, just on average the Japanese soldiers fought to the death. There citizens tended to flee, or surrender after the propaganda was dismissed with the truth. Saipan only had the casualties it did because it was one of the first fully Japanese controlled and inhabited area's we defeated. At that point they only knew what they were told, after that point we gained a lot more pow's and citizens surrendering because we treated them nicer then there military did. This I know from second hand accounts because my grandmother was a child in ww2 and her brother was an officer in the military. They both cursed the higher ups for starving them nearly to death, however her older brother was bound by honor to fight for the emperor who was thought to be the master mind behind it. So orders were orders to him, but the citizens for the most part would have given up near the end of the war.

Wars are always won in the will, and no one is not subject to losing hope and not changing there opinion, thus effecting moral and the overall out come of the battle.

read the art of war or the 5 rings. The art of war is required in the military classes for most jobs involving intelligence or tactical analysis, personally I just like the 5 rings because it is very much based on mindset more then anything else.

 

[DeletedUser]

How does the fact that we were isolationist until after WWII not make sense to the fact that we ignored what the USSR did before and during WWII? :icon_rolleyes:

As for the rest of it, we have hit the great revolving door of you repeating yourself. So, we have obviously concluded the rest of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Our government was not isolationist even before the war, just most of the people. After pearl harbor we got involved in war and never stopped. That's aside from the point though.

I have listed plenty of information any general or someone with common sense would know the Stalin couldn't be trusted. Especially Eisenhower, however all you do is say hindsight, and your wrong.

you want to prove me wrong, list why we wouldn't have know since I have listed plenty of evidence and sources of information telling us why we should have acted.

 

[DeletedUser]

Our government was not isolationist even before the war, just most of the people. After pearl harbor we got involved in war and never stopped. That's aside from the point though.

Yes, Franklin was not an Isolationist. But our country was. We the people are our country. Therefore, even if our governemnt tried to not be Isolationist, they couldn't force anybody else not to be. See how that works?

I have listed plenty of information any general or someone with common sense would know the Stalin couldn't be trusted. Especially Eisenhower, however all you do is say hindsight, and your wrong.

You have posted historical accounts of events. Nothing in them suggests whether they were known to Eisenhower or not. You assume they were and are making your arguments based on that assumption as well as hindsight, since you already know the end to the descisions made.

you want to prove me wrong, list why we wouldn't have know since I have listed plenty of evidence and sources of information telling us why we should have acted.

I really don't care enough to prove you wrong. I'm not inclined to research the topic enough to do that. You, however, seem inclined to prove yourself right, and in my opinion, you haven't done that simply because you are using hindsight to judge actions, and you are assuming that Eisenhower had knowledge without proving he did or did not. You are making generalizations. You say, "I have listed plenty of information any general or someone with common sense would know the Stalin couldn't be trusted." Yet, we aren't concerned about people with common sense, or just any general, now are we? No. We're concerned about whether or not Eisenhower knew the information. Now, if you want to dig up some things that prove Eisenhower was aware of all these bad things, thats your perogative. If you do, then I might actually agree with you. Till then, I will consider you to just be making assumptions. :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Still saying the same crap

Eisenhower knew everything the Ukraine Generals were telling us, and I have listed plenty of other information the he knew from our leaders meetings.

And ya we were at war long before we declared it, so much for isolationism.

lable dates or something, because just him having the Ukraine generals as an information source is more then enough for him to gather information and what was going to happen. They told him about the Genocides, and even gave him stalin's death lists.

Serious, post something else.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still saying the same crap

Didn't I already say that this had become a circular argument, and therefore pointless? How many times are you going repeat yourself and tell me to post something new? :icon_rolleyes:

I told you. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong because I don't care. In my opinion, you have not proven yourself to be right, though. You have just made assumption after assumption.

And now you are going to post again and say you have proven evrything and that I need to post something new. You see how this cycle is going to go?

So, either post more proof to convince me, or don't post anymore, because you haven't convinced me of anything.