Quake3World

War is war..

r3t wrote: but did you ever read about the dresden fire bombings?

yes i have,
and...
have you ever read about the London blitz, the Coventry blitz, the Birmingham blitz ??
quid pro quo?

I think we've made it clear that both sides commited atrocities. But it's rather pointless discussing about that, as the fact still stands that one atrocity doesn't warrant a "counter atrocity".

Eraser wrote:I think we've made it clear that both sides commited atrocities. But it's rather pointless discussing about that, as the fact still stands that one atrocity doesn't warrant a "counter atrocity".

Is that what this was about? I thought it was the US was dropping bombs on japan because it was the 'white man's bomb' and wanted to get rid of all of the asians.


Although it is a little known fact but the US also had detention camps and sent alot of asians to them during the war..

Dek wrote:

Eraser wrote:I think we've made it clear that both sides commited atrocities. But it's rather pointless discussing about that, as the fact still stands that one atrocity doesn't warrant a "counter atrocity".

Is that what this was about? I thought it was the US was dropping bombs on japan because it was the 'white man's bomb' and wanted to get rid of all of the asians.


Although it is a little known fact but the US also had detention camps and sent alot of asians to them during the war..

laff.. post war actions blow that theory away. If there were racist attitudes, they transformed into Chinese communism vs. American democracy.

busetibi wrote:well ive never heard of any allied troops gassing german civilians or allied troops chopping off heads with swords

:icon27:

you're right, the allies killed civilians with atomic weapons, not gas.

Instead of swords, allies executed troops by hanging them, or shooting them.

the method of killing your enemy matters so much, and is a major factor on whether you are seen as a world-saving hero, or a murdering bastard.

because if you are going to kill someone, the actual method really matters so much

:icon27:

Dek wrote:If you are so blind you can't see the slant in that article you are more of a ignorant person then I ever thought of you.

please don't tell me you saw the words 'living marxism' and based your conclusion on that, because i'll laugh. you still haven't said why it's slanted. in fact, given that all the evidence for the racial attitudes of the protagonists comes straight from their own mouths, it's hard to see how you can really reject most of what the article is saying

busetibi wrote:well ive never heard of any allied troops gassing german civilians or allied troops chopping off heads with swords

no, i've never heard of those things either. but i have heard of them firebombing cities, an atrocity rather more serious than chopping off some heads. the only reason the a-bomb wasn't dropped on tokyo was because it had already been reduced to smouldering matchwood by conventional bombardment. how many US cities were firebombed (or anything-bombed) by the japanese?

Dek wrote:War is hell.. seriously.. it's not a bunch of teddy bears and candy canes.

well said sgt rock

It's stupid to think that it was simply a race war due to the fact that japenese is not a race, just as chinese and german isn't a race.

lol, is this your argument - a linguistic quibble? the japanese were non-white. whether or not they constitute a separate race is completely irrelevant. as the article points out, at no point was an a-bomb on a german city even contemplated (in spite of the fact it was well-known that the nazis were working on their own bomb). the reason it was never contemplated is that the nazis were white people, while the japanese were just seen as gooks, expendable in the service of a show of nuclear might

Japan hit us, we hit them back a few years later in repayment.

Japan now leads the US in almost every way technology because of the time and money the 'US' put back into the Japan economy to rebuild it over the last 40 years.

The US used the bomb to show that if/when attacked that the US would not be afraid to use any means necessary to repay our attackers. Japan was the enemy in WW2, not just the military all of Japan was our enemy.

ffs, like i said already: nuking two cities isn't remotely commensurate with an attack on a naval base. furthermore, since the japanese had already been trying to surrender BEFORE hiroshima & nagasaki, it was totally unnecessary from a military standpoint. it happened so as to provide a showpiece of US power to the world

Dave wrote:All that does matter is the U S of A saved you Euros from Ze Germans.

that was mostly the soviets actually. US troops made up only about half of the normandy landing forces, though obviously hollywood has done a fantastic job convincing people otherwise

seremtan wrote:

Dave wrote:All that does matter is the U S of A saved you Euros from Ze Germans.

that was mostly the soviets actually. US troops made up only about half of the normandy landing forces, though obviously hollywood has done a fantastic job convincing people otherwise

I know it's hard to accept. You people will never believe the fact that the US and Russians both saved your ass (and Hitler's plan to fight in the Russian winter).

Only about half eh? Isn't that still a large portion? If it was 51% US, and 49% soviet wouldn't that still be the majority US?

If you drop a bomb on a german city, it will adversely affect the allies countries seeing how they are so close. While as japan is an island and the cone and spread of radioactivity is widely dispersed, if it would of happened in germany other countries would have had collateral issues.

Dek wrote:Only about half eh? Isn't that still a large portion? If it was 51% US, and 49% soviet wouldn't that still be the majority US?

If you drop a bomb on a german city, it will adversely affect the allies countries seeing how they are so close. While as japan is an island and the cone and spread of radioactivity is widely dispersed, if it would of happened in germany other countries would have had collateral issues.

Actually, he's just taking about the Normandy slaughter.. There weren't even any Soviets there. Just "51%" American (or whatever the actual half percentage is)

seremtan wrote:http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACD0.htm

a pretty <b>ignornant and woefully incorrect</b> summary of the racial attitudes which led to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but not to A-bombs in Nazi Germany

OK. i read the article and lets see... its argument based on the "Strategic bombing survey" says that the USA thought that Japan was just about to surrender.

Oh hey, I looked up the originals of the "Strategic bombing survey" and it actually says

(1) The Japanese knew they were losing and some of the younger commanders were trying to convince the Cabinet of it.

However, they also concluded

(2) that the the Japanese Cabinet was not going to surrender due to the well known "fight-to-the-end" policy. Indeed that the only way to force surrender in conventional terms would be a long and bloody infantry-style war on Japan.

In short, it seems that the writer of the essay, Mark Hume, didn't even bother reading the original "Strategic bombing survey" report not to mention that Seremtan and Horton prolly didn't bother either and are supporting a moron's opinion.

DOH!

hax103 (was hack103)

hax103 wrote: not to mention that Seremtan and Horton prolly didn't bother either and are supporting a moron's opinion.

DOH!

hax103 (was hack103)

I wasnt aware that I was giving support to anyone, or basing any comments on the shit linked to.

I gave my opinions in response to posts in Q3W, nothing more, nothing less.

Im more than aware that any report like that is about as one-sided as some of the comments made here.

Dave wrote:

Dek wrote:Only about half eh? Isn't that still a large portion? If it was 51% US, and 49% soviet wouldn't that still be the majority US?

If you drop a bomb on a german city, it will adversely affect the allies countries seeing how they are so close. While as japan is an island and the cone and spread of radioactivity is widely dispersed, if it would of happened in germany other countries would have had collateral issues.

Actually, he's just taking about the Normandy slaughter.. There weren't even any Soviets there. Just "51%" American (or whatever the actual half percentage is)

where did this 51% figure come from? i just said about half, based on the fact that there were 5 beachheads on D-Day, two american, two british, one canadian. working on the reasonable assumption that the US forces at Utah and Omaha would be larger than any of those on Gold, Juno or Sword (due to the greater population of the US) i plucked 'about half' out the air (or out of my arse if you prefer). we can say 2/5ths instead of 1/2 if you like

hax103 wrote:

seremtan wrote:http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACD0.htm

a pretty <b>ignornant and woefully incorrect</b> summary of the racial attitudes which led to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but not to A-bombs in Nazi Germany

OK. i read the article and lets see... its argument based on the "Strategic bombing survey" says that the USA thought that Japan was just about to surrender.

Oh hey, I looked up the originals of the "Strategic bombing survey" and it actually says

(1) The Japanese knew they were losing and some of the younger commanders were trying to convince the Cabinet of it.

However, they also concluded

(2) that the the Japanese Cabinet was not going to surrender due to the well known "fight-to-the-end" policy. Indeed that the only way to force surrender in conventional terms would be a long and bloody infantry-style war on Japan.

In short, it seems that the writer of the essay, Mark Hume, didn't even bother reading the original "Strategic bombing survey" report not to mention that Seremtan and Horton prolly didn't bother either and are supporting a moron's opinion.

DOH!

hax103 (was hack103)

while you were poring over this strategic bombing survey you probably overlooked this, which was quoted IN THE LINKED ARTICLE (note that the second para - the quote - is actually in quote marks, which you must have overlooked):

The argument that the Bomb significantly shortened the Pacific conflict and made a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland unnecessary was first rubbished almost immediately after the war, when the American government's own Strategic Bombing Survey reported that Japan had been on the point of surrender anyway:

'Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.'

so are you saying the survey says what you're saying in one place, and then something totally different and contradictory in another place? and are you saying this without a single quote to back it up?

Unfortunately, the quote regarding "based on detailed investigation" is all opinion and not fact since they had already dropped the bombs and they would still be reeling and wanting to retaliate against the US for the bombing.. Oh yes, we wanted to surrender.. oh yes.. but they still bombed us..

The fact is they hadn't surrended.

i hope someone drops a bomb on you

while the u.s. has always been backwards in issues of race, I don't really see how it played into the bombing of Japan. First off, even if we wanted to bomb Hitler, there is no way we could have done it alone. A b-29 would have had to take off from somewhere in Europe and it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to talk another country into signing up for such a thing. Not because they were white folk, but because it would have been just as unnecessary in Germany as it was in Japan at that point in the war.

True, there are many quotes and actions by the U.S. and other world leaders that show the racism towards Japan and Asian people in general, but at the same time the Empire did nothing to help squash these feelings. Even if you add the 20 million or so Russians to the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazi crew, they still look like schoolgirls compared to what the army of Japan did in the 30s and 40s. Cute little cookie selling schoolgirls.
Fuck Pearl Harbor
30,000,000 in China
9,000,000 in Korea
4,000,000 in Indonesia
2,000,000 in Vietnam
1,000,000 in Philippines
250,000 sex slaves from the above nations
I'm not saying that this justifies dropping the bomb on them, but these guys were as bad as it gets and like they say, karma is a bitch.

if you want to be a whiney cunt about nuking japan, i would have liked to see you go rush into tokyo to finish out the war
also it must have racist considering instead of just bailing out and leaving them as a stoneage village, we rebuild them (and germany) as a top 3 nation economically

The question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was necessary or justified was given a new set of legs owing to the recent release of heretofore classified Japanese documents. If I have some time, I'll try to summarize and source it for y'all.

Dek wrote:Unfortunately, the quote regarding "based on detailed investigation" is all opinion and not fact since they had already dropped the bombs and they would still be reeling and wanting to retaliate against the US for the bombing.. Oh yes, we wanted to surrender.. oh yes.. but they still bombed us..

The fact is they hadn't surrended.

so in other words the 'opinion' of the people who were actually there, an opinion based on facts and testimony, isn't worth spit compared to the 'opinion' of someone on a messageboard 60 years later who disagrees. right.

all the facts point to the same conclusion: that the a-bomb was unnecessary for the surrender of japan, and that it was used to provide a show of force to teach slitty-eyes a lesson about the consequences of raising his fist at the white man

and as i said earlier - since the pre-emption argument used by the japanese as an excuse to attack pearl harbor is the same argument used by bush to attack iraq, the iraqi resistance must therefore be justified in nuking a couple of major US cities - at least according to the twisted logic of some of the posters in this thread anyway

stocktroll wrote:if you want to be a whiney cunt about nuking japan, i would have liked to see you go rush into tokyo to finish out the war
also it must have racist considering instead of just bailing out and leaving them as a stoneage village, we rebuild them (and germany) as a top 3 nation economically

i'm interested. can you fill me in on the details of america's rebuilding of japan?

stocktroll wrote:if you want to be a whiney cunt about nuking japan, i would have liked to see you go rush into tokyo to finish out the war
also it must have racist considering instead of just bailing out and leaving them as a stoneage village, we rebuild them (and germany) as a top 3 nation economically

Rush into tokyo and finish the war or simply negotiate the surrender that the japanese are looking for.

And you were very kind to rebuild them, whilst stealing okinawa as your base to watch N.Korea/China from (and making them pay for the priviledge)

seremtan wrote:

stocktroll wrote:if you want to be a whiney cunt about nuking japan, i would have liked to see you go rush into tokyo to finish out the war
also it must have racist considering instead of just bailing out and leaving them as a stoneage village, we rebuild them (and germany) as a top 3 nation economically

i'm interested. can you fill me in on the details of america's rebuilding of japan?

I think the rebuilding involved stationing lots of US troops in Japan, charging Japan for the priviledge of being occupied by the US and opening a few McDonalds.

horton wrote:

stocktroll wrote:if you want to be a whiney cunt about nuking japan, i would have liked to see you go rush into tokyo to finish out the war
also it must have racist considering instead of just bailing out and leaving them as a stoneage village, we rebuild them (and germany) as a top 3 nation economically

Rush into tokyo and finish the war or simply negotiate the surrender that the japanese are looking for.

And you were very kind to rebuild them, whilst stealing okinawa as your base to watch N.Korea/China from (and making them pay for the priviledge)

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ ... h_503.html

Anyhow..

The US helped to rebuild Japan after World War II, although for mostly geopolitical reasons..

Secondly, Japan is economically dependent on the US. Japanese economy is export-oriented and the US is among its biggest export destination countries.

Many Americans believe that Japan owes the US a favor, although it is quite apparent that most Japanese would disagree. Most Americans know that the US spent considerable resources, often at the detriment to its own economy, to help Japan rebuild after WWII. Furthermore, the US allowed the Japanese access to its vast market to export and gain valuable dollars--again to the hindrance of domestic producers. Since many Americans lost jobs to Japanese industries that America helped rebuild, such as steel, some would argue that Japan owes the US, at the very least, access to its markets in return.

Q: Franklin Roosevelt had committed the U.S. to unconditional surrender as a goal early on, hadn't he?

A: At the conference in Casablanca in 1943, Roosevelt and Churchill discussed the idea of unconditional surrender for Germany, because Germany had brought about a second world war. It was not thought of in terms of Japan. Then they decided not to use the term "unconditional surrender." After the conference, Roosevelt was engaged in a press conference, and reporters were asking questions and so forth. Roosevelt liked to be spontaneous in press conferences; that was his style. He said, "Well, the thing about this war is that we're going to make it an unconditional surrender. Like Ulysses S. Grant - unconditional surrender." The reporters picked this up and unconditional surrender became the slogan. When Roosevelt died and Truman inherited that office by accident, he thought, Oh, this is what we're fighting for, unconditional surrender. At that time, the American people themselves were not insisting on unconditional surrender. LIFE magazine was saying the war was over, let Japan surrender. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff said to let Japan surrender.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, Fortune magazine did a survey: only 54 percent of the American people supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. This was before John Hershey's book Hiroshima had been published. Today's newspaper carries an article about Californians, and they were surveyed about whether or not the U.S. should apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima. One-third of the people in California said yes. It was that insistence on unconditional surrender that ultimately led to the bombing of Hiroshima.