This is the thread there we discuss World War II and the strategies, weapons, politic and the leaders.

We share our knowledge and thoughts about the second world war, but also about what happend before, after and so on.

So if you love history as me, start posting! =D

USA dropped the first atomic bomb to reduce the loss of american soldiers. And they dropped papers there everyday, one week from the drop, to the drop, there it stood on several languages that they were going to drop the atomic bomb there. They used Hiroshima as a statement, why Japan should surrender. Many japanese survived thanks to USA anyway. USA dropped flyers for a week before they dropped the bomb saying that they would drop an none-tested heavy air-to-ground bomb there, and that the people who lived there should move out from there (They did the same thing before they bombed Nagasaki). So it's not only USA's fault, even if some people think so. But I can be wrong, maybe USA got wrong. But the truth is that the inventors of the atomic bomb was not from USA. They were from German and so on. If Japan would be a good place to live, German scientist would have moved over to Japan, and Japan would have been the one, with the first atomic bomb. It's the same problem as today, the middle east got their massdestruction weapons because after the Sovjet union broke apart, russian scientists couldn't get a job there they got payed. But people with a lot of oil money could pay their living with fat checks and so they moved to the middle east and build atomic bombs for them.

But remember that Japan was the first to attack in Peark Harbor. But the ironic about that attack is, that the air-to-sea missiles were way better then people thought, and if USA met Japan on the sea, the loss for America would been much bigger.

The Royal Navy met Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack. The Japans had the same type of airplanes and carrier, and the britains ships were a much better type than the one USA got. The ships Great Britain got was much more effective against airplanes but they lost all their brand new ships.

If USA would have met these Japanese airplanes and carriers with their much older ships, they would loss many more ships, than they did in Pearl Harbor during the attack.
Even if USA's ships wasn't ready for battle, they acctually only lost
one ship. In a combat on the ocean, they would have fought to the last man. And the last men would been japanese.

you place a huge big star on for the U.S.A. I see your probably American and in the American textbooks history is altered.

The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army. HItler was divided on two fronts and the soviets outnumbered them greatly. they destroyed the germans, raped their women and took back everything that was theirs. If it wasn't for the Soviets, the Allies might not of been victorious in WWII.

Oh, and the U.S.A. only entered the war when they got attacked at pearl harbour. If they never got attacked they probably would of just sat there and wat ched as hundreds of thousands of men died. oh, and all americans are like" WE SAVED U GUYS" ......that is not true at all. I won't even go into it but even if the U.S. never came in the war, we would of still been victorious.

to that i say, gg nub.

Go research crap more, plz. Save alot of time and humiliation.

History lovers, ah theres nothing like "wasen't it cool how people died in the past?" to show how superficial we really are.

I dont think its cool how people died in the past. however, you HAVE to remember shit like that, eventually, WWII will be forgotten because generation of generation didn't bother learning the sacrifices that were made and the fear that caused them. People like that SICKEN me!

At 2/27/05 01:16 PM, ctrlkey wrote: The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army. HItler was divided on two fronts and the soviets outnumbered them greatly. they destroyed the germans, raped their women and took back everything that was theirs. If it wasn't for the Soviets, the Allies might not of been victorious in WWII.

Even if that were true, guess what would have happened if the Americans weren't there? The soviets would have kept on going after the captured Berlin to retake the rest of Europe. Then there would be a soviet presence in most of Europe.

Which wouldn't be good.

At 2/27/05 01:31 PM, ctrlkey wrote: I dont think its cool how people died in the past. however, you HAVE to remember shit like that, eventually, WWII will be forgotten because generation of generation didn't bother learning the sacrifices that were made and the fear that caused them. People like that SICKEN me!

I'm all for learning from the past I'm just saying don't put it on the same level as your body count on call of duty.

At 2/27/05 01:16 PM, ctrlkey wrote: stuff.

I am not from U.S.A. (Check my profile) and do not favorise any countries though I base my opinion on objective facts.

I don't think the allies would done that great if America wouldn't be there. But, I either think they would have won without Sovjet. But Sovjet ain't a big saviour as you discribe it. They would as U.S.A. never had joined the war if they never been attacked. One of the reasons to why U.S.A. didn't join in the beginning was fear. They had just gone through the depression and they also had some political issues back home (The one about equal rights for all people whether they are colored or not).

I know that U.S.A. ain't any saints. The mayority of the american people did not want to join the war even if Germans sank their ships. The reason to why they joined where that they had lended money to France and UK, and if they would have lost, there would been no way for them to get their money back. Even after all this, the american mayority didn't want to join when they did.

Sovjet had a pact with German which ain't doing them to saints. It was about Europe. Sovjet and German would not attack eachother as long they only counquered countries on "their" part of Europe. Yes, that's right. "Their" part. They got a pact which divided Europe into two parts and as long they didn't attack eachother, they would not go into their business and they would be acceppted to do whatever they wanted with the captured country (Including the citizens).

When German lost in Europe there were nothing that would stop Sovjet from taking over the other part of Europe if U.S.A. wouldn't been there. And I am not sure if I rather would like living as a jew in Nazi-German or as an political prisoner or as a mine worker in nothern Siberia.

Hitler would more easily had won in Europe if he continued the war on one front, against UK, than if he did as he now did, and had fronts as an circle around him.

And I don't think you would say to me that I should research more about WWII though I spend more hours studing about the World Wars than on internet.

At 2/27/05 12:57 PM, Andersson wrote: USA dropped the first atomic bomb to reduce the loss of american soldiers. And they dropped papers there everyday, one week from the drop, to the drop, there it stood on several languages that they were going to drop the atomic bomb there. They used Hiroshima as a statement, why Japan should surrender.

Intersting point I would like to bring up. Japan tried to surrender twice before the bombing of Hiroshima. Once on February 14 of that year, the other in July. There was no intent on saving lives, Truman had a new toy and he wanted to play. After the bombings he was reported as saying "This is the greatest thing ever."

But the truth is that the inventors of the atomic bomb was not from USA. They were from German and so on. If Japan would be a good place to live, German scientist would have moved over to Japan, and Japan would have been the one, with the first atomic bomb.

That would never have happened. Many of the key scientists who had a hand in the building of the Atomic bomb were Jewish and or political refugees. If they had fled to Japan, they would have been returned or detained. Japan took a stance against runaways from German controled areas.

But remember that Japan was the first to attack in Peark Harbor. But the ironic about that attack is, that the air-to-sea missiles were way better then people thought, and if USA met Japan on the sea, the loss for America would been much bigger.

You know what would have also helped reduce American casualties? Putting the base on Alert, or leaving some of the better equiped ships in the harbor. The american government had recieved many blatant warnings about pearl Harbor. They were told to lay off the embargoes or be punished. They had quality intellegence that Japan was planing an Attack (Hawaii being the only place they could hit) and that the attack would fall around the 7th day of December

At 2/27/05 02:22 PM, Andersson wrote:

:One of the reasons to why U.S.A. didn't join in the beginning was fear. They had just gone through the depression and they also had some political issues back home (The one about equal rights for all people whether they are colored or not).

EVERYBODY, went through a depression and political issues before the war. Almost ever major nation went through the same difficulties. So, that right there is a load of bs.

At 2/27/05 02:26 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 2/27/05 12:57 PM, Andersson wrote: But the truth is that the inventors of the atomic bomb was not from USA. They were from German and so on. If Japan would be a good place to live, German scientist would have moved over to Japan, and Japan would have been the one, with the first atomic bomb.

Many of the key scientists who had a hand in the building of the Atomic bomb were Jewish and or political refugees. If they had fled to Japan, they would have been returned or detained. Japan took a stance against runaways from German controled areas.

But of fear. Japan could as U.S.A. fought German, instead of beeing allied to them.

I did not know anything about that Japan tryed to surrender before they dropped the Atomic bomb. In that case, and if the statement is true, I've learned something today! =)

I am not making my posts to bring out my opinions. Just to share knowledge and thoughts, though I see that the only right opinion is facts. And if you tells the truth and it's facts. It's my opinion.

At 2/27/05 02:32 PM, ctrlkey wrote: EVERYBODY, went through a depression and political issues before the war. Almost ever major nation went through the same difficulties.

But if France or UK or any other country would have the oportunity to not join a war so soon afterwards the depression, they would have take it. In the end, they are all thinking on theirself. If there is nothing they can gain, they don't bother it.

At 2/27/05 02:26 PM, awkward_silence wrote: You know what would have also helped reduce American casualties? Putting the base on Alert, or leaving some of the better equiped ships in the harbor. The american government had recieved many blatant warnings about pearl Harbor. They were told to lay off the embargoes or be punished. They had quality intellegence that Japan was planing an Attack (Hawaii being the only place they could hit) and that the attack would fall around the 7th day of December.

I know that U.S.A. was aware of the attack, why they didn't put the base on alert is a big mystery for me.

At 2/27/05 02:33 PM, Andersson wrote: I am not making my posts to bring out my opinions. Just to share knowledge and thoughts, though I see that the only right opinion is facts. And if you tells the truth and it's facts. It's my opinion.

That's cool, that's why we're here. It always love to learn myself. So lets keep the process going.

But of fear. Japan could as U.S.A. fought German, instead of beeing allied to them.

The chance that Japan would have allied with the US was slim to nill. During the Meiji period (1865-1912ish) of Japanese history, japan abandoned its ancient fuedal system and started looking to western cultures in an attempt to modernize. They took specific aspects from various counrie. They borrowed the french educational system. The transportation system. Most importantly they modeled their political and system and philosophy after Germany. This close bond to the german government is one of the biggest reasons that Japan sided with Germany during this conflict.

I did not know anything about that Japan tryed to surrender before they dropped the Atomic bomb. In that case, and if the statement is true, I've learned something today! =)

I have to admit, despite the anti-communist propaganda, that Russians PWN. Hell, a Russian music video is PWNing the Portal even as we speak.

At 2/27/05 02:26 PM, awkward_silence wrote: You know what would have also helped reduce American casualties?

The reason to why I wrote about the Pearl Harbor attack was not mainly to say what would been best to do, but what acctually happend. I know that Japan had to make that attack so they could get their oil and that even if U.S.A. thought they were neutral, they acctually engaged, or did not engagde, which gives them an politic they drew and which gain someone. And if their politic gain someone, somebody can get really pissed of, and you're not neutral anymore. =(

It is the same thing with Sweden now. We are neutral, but we have forces which goes to different countries and tries to maintain peace. But when we are trying to maintain peace, we acctually support one side. Cuz somebody may not like what we're doing.
It would be impossible to be neutral without be in favour of someone.
Like UK could hate U.S.A. as long they didn't want to join the war and help them. Cuz if they ain't helping, they ain't neutral or whatever. Cuz you can't just live your own life and let everyone around you die. Those who died would call you a covard and hate you cuz you didn't help.

TO EVERYONE that says they are not sure about the soviets helping us win:
_______

REAL historians agree on the fact that victory would not of been possible if it wasn't for the Soviet Army. That is general accepted knowledge, NOt my opinion.

At 2/27/05 02:56 PM, Jimsween wrote: It was not an unconditional surrender.

This is true, their one condition was to protect the emperor. This was in a period of time when the government was pushing a new type of Shinto that was even more heavily based upon the emperor. Shinto (which even in its original form) supported that the emperer was a decendent from the devine, praised spirit worship above all. The new version ,daishinto(i believe) praised emperor worship above all else. This was the reason that they wanted to protect their emporer.
I don't whole heartedly accept this as a reason though allowing the war to go on, and to use nuclear weapons because (a) They were looking to end it and (b) We let them keep the emperor. The Japanese emperor has been nothing but a figurehead for well over 1000 years. All the power had been in the hands of first, buddhist priests, second Shoguns and lastly Zaibatsu (and of course a prime minister after ww2). The emporer hasn't been in control for a very long time.

At 2/27/05 02:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: And we had achieved Air dominance, which can't really be atributed to the Soviets at all.

That is true. Hitler was moody and wanted a word in everything. He loved the bombers and did never put any effort in fighters, so he realized to late that he would lose the air dominance though the allied forces produced way more fighters than they did. Hitler's idea was to only use the airplanes for bombing, but he would have had alot more fighters to protect the bombers. But he didn't build those fighters, and the air dominance were lost.

At 2/27/05 03:02 PM, ctrlkey wrote: REAL historians agree on the fact that victory would not of been possible if it wasn't for the Soviet Army.

They have said alot about that. Both speaking for you, and against you. But the truth is that most of these historians were thought in 1945ish, and U.S.A. did still see Sovjet as an allied, but deep down they knew what kind of politic they had, and that they were as bad as the Nazis.

And the fact that Sovjet would have carried on with a war against the rest of Europe have also been said by real historians. This still shows who Sovjet was... Saved from the Nazis, to get prisoned by the saviours.

At 2/27/05 03:12 PM, awkward_silence wrote: Stuff.

But what the allies wanted was an complete surrender by the japanese. Yup, the japanese saw their emperor as a god to defend in any conditions. And against this affectionation, they thought there were only one way out. And through dropping the atomic bomb, they could also see if they got a good weapon.They acctually didn't know if anything would happend at all.

in the midle east, officially we were eurapean ally, but the people supported germany, because they hated the eurapean occupiers

At 2/27/05 03:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: I contend, that if we had not invaded on D-day, Germany would have taken over Russia.

It was very close that they never invaded on D-day. They had one date but it was bad wheater, so they got a new date. If it would have been bad wheater again, there would never been a D-day.

And that Canada sucks.

LoL! =P

At 2/27/05 03:23 PM, Jimsween wrote:
So they did a historian poll, and it was all the historians of time.

At 1945, the US army reached 12 million. We had atomic bombs, Air superiority over Germany, Naval superiority over Germany, and two fronts open up towards Germany. Normandy and Italy. All of which was accomplished without the help of Russia. We would have won, just would have been more costly.

I contend, that if we had not invaded on D-day, Germany would have taken over Russia.

And that Canada sucks.

.....you cannot say Canada sucks in World War II because it was not its own nation, it was still part of the British Commonwealth. So, with that, Canada was under Britain in WWII, the same goes for Australia and Canada, Australia and Britain GREATLY contributed to the war effort. The war was not only fought by the U.S. so plz stop making it seem like that.

At 2/27/05 03:20 PM, Jimsween wrote:

We left the emperor in power, that doesn't make any sense.

It's true. Son of Emperor Taisho, was reigned during the Showa period (1928-1989).

The as Hirohito was rfevered as a God, hence the Japanese used his protection as their sole condition for surrender.
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_hirohito.html
Even after the unconditional surrender made by Hirohito after the second bombing. MacArthur spent 7 years inreforming the Japanese government, though through this the Emperor retained his thrown (even though it hasn't had power for more than a millium.

His visit with Richard Nixon in 1971 in Anchorage marked the first time that a reigning Emperor traveled Abroad (during the reign, many travel during their Youth)

At 2/27/05 03:12 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 2/27/05 02:56 PM, Jimsween wrote: It was not an unconditional surrender.

I don't whole heartedly accept this as a reason though allowing the war to go on, and to use nuclear weapons because (a) They were looking to end it and (b) We let them keep the emperor.

This wasn't about letting them keep their emperor. The U.S. wasn't just wanting to fulfil their pact with the Limeys, they were also in heavy competition with the USSR. If japan was to have had a conditional surrender and kept if only one thing, their sovreignty, the Soviets would have invaded and claimed Japan for themselves, and the U.S. couldn't have that. So the U.S. only accepted unconditional surrender where they could have total control over the country in order to block soviet influence. In the soviets lies another reason the bombs were dropped in the first place. An invasion would have resulted in the Russians, who were set to invade from the north and the U.S. from the south and east, keeping part of Japan. The bomb allowed the U.S. to keep the Soviets from getting this opportunity.

The Japanese emperor has been nothing but a figurehead for well over 1000 years. All the power had been in the hands of first, buddhist priests, second Shoguns and lastly Zaibatsu (and of course a prime minister after ww2). The emporer hasn't been in control for a very long time.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Edo, 1868:
The Tokugawa Bakufu is finailly stripped of it's last power as a new emperor (Meiji) is placed on the throne, not just in a nominal sense, but in total control. The Shogun was gone and the Daimyo were beign eliminated. The Emperor had total control from this time until he was pushed aside by the fascists who commanded the country during WWII (this happened in the late 20's). And to say the Zaibatsu ruled japan is to say that Bill Gates is higher than the President of the United States.

But if the US just let the country go back to the way it was before WWII (which started in 1931 for Japan) with the Emperor in control, the mass socialist movements resulting from extremely poor labor conditions would have allowed the Russians, again, to gain influence and control over the country.

At 2/27/05 05:31 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 2/27/05 03:20 PM, Jimsween wrote:

We left the emperor in power, that doesn't make any sense.

The as Hirohito was rfevered as a God, hence the Japanese used his protection as their sole condition for surrender.
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_hirohito.html

Your source doesn't prove that there were any attempts to surrender, and doesn't provide any conditions for these attempts.

And to answer Jimsween's comment, the reason the Emperor was left was because the U.S. wanted friendly relations with the country after the war was over. They let the Japanese keep their traditions, in the Emperor, and reformed the government to fit the U.S.'s view of what Japan could, and should, become. The U.S. also refused to bomb Kyoto during the war as a way to keep the tradition, in the form of acient buildings and sacred shrines, intact.

At 2/27/05 05:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Your source doesn't prove that there were any attempts to surrender, and doesn't provide any conditions for these attempts.

My source for the multiple surrender attempts is The book "The Unseen Hand" by A. Ralph Epperson

As for the conditions of the surrender they are on the website
"The initial step had been taken by the Emperor himself in his dramatic radio broadcast announcing the surrender of Japan. The sole condition sought by the Japanese government had been that the Emperor should retain his throne"

Edo, 1868:
The Tokugawa Bakufu is finailly stripped of it's last power as a new emperor (Meiji) is placed on the throne, not just in a nominal sense, but in total control. The Shogun was gone and the Daimyo were beign eliminated.

This is true. I am well aware of the dawn of the Meiji period. However at this was the start of their industrialization, and by 1905 the Zaibatsu had already claimed their foothold, I chose to leave this 40 year period of waining power out for simplicity. I hope you can forgive me, and may god have mercy on my soul.

When Japan first tried a surrender on Feb 14, again in July. The soviets didn't declare war on Japan until August 8th. A day before the Nagasaki bombings. Six days before Truman announced their surrender. I'm not sure how refussing their surrender in February to keep the soviets out. I'm not aware of what pact you are talking about, but if its the UN charter that wasn't signed until June.

In my last post I qouted the link at the top of the page "the sole condition...."

At 2/27/05 01:16 PM, ctrlkey wrote:

The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army. HItler was divided on two fronts and the soviets outnumbered them greatly. they destroyed the germans, raped their women and took back everything that was theirs. If it wasn't for the Soviets, the Allies might not of been victorious in WWII

Ctrlkey, are you russian? History is altered in every nations textbook to benefit that nation. Did anybody hear about Latvia(german Ally in WWII) . In their newest textbook they label one of their death camps as nothing more than a labor camp for unruly persons. They are having annual parades honoring WWII Nazi veterans. There is zero tolerance for anybody who says otherwise. the latvian president is defending herself in spite of evdince. This is the biggest insult to real WWII vetrans who died in the war and to Death camp victims. they died for freedom and justice.