Second paragraph they give a quick blurb

... All this talk about Japan ...

Anyways, I see people going for the Americans and people going for the Russians, but I haven't seen anybody going for the Brits. Even when they lacked the industrial potence of the U.S. or the manpower of the Russians, in my own personal opinion, the defeat of the U.K would've simply meant the end of the WWII.

(But they're still *crazy brits*)

Fun fact of the day: Chile did participate on WWII. We declared war on Japan. We managed to imprison a few dozens of japanese residents in the country before realizing, a couple of days later, that Japan had surrendered. So there you have it, Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb, they just freaked out when they knew that we were after them. :P

By the way, anybody here got any info on Latin American countries' stances during the war? The only things I know so far, was that Chile was neutral but slightly pro-Allies, Argentina was neutral too but they were somewhat pro-Axis (Given the fact that Argentina is one of the Latin countries with the largest amount of Jews.)
Also, Brazil rooted for the Allies and even sent a contigent to the Western front. However, I'm drawing a blank besides that.

At 2/27/05 07:02 PM, awkward_silence wrote: As for the conditions of the surrender they are on the website
The sole condition sought by the Japanese government had been that the Emperor should retain his throne.

Read into this statement more... It implies that the Emperor would still have power and Japan would still be sovereign. America occupied Japan for close to 10 years after the unconditionl surrender. Without unconditional surrender America had no was of being able to make sure they kept Japan from going right back to fascism, or even worse at the time, to communism.

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.

Yes the Soviets didn't declare until it was almost over, but it was agreed that the Soviets were gonig to aid in the invasion of Japan. So the Americans refused any sort of conditional surrender to keep any sort of possibility arounf the that soviets could fight the Japanese. If the Americans accepted the surrender, who's to say the Soviets would as well. And frankly, the bloodlust of the nation at war would not allow for it to accept anything les than unconditional surrender, it would have been political suicide.

At 2/28/05 01:14 AM, Jimsween wrote: Na, we still had Portugal.

Poor portuguese, nobody gives a damn about'em anymore :'( I M TEH SAD!!11

Also, Brazil rooted for the Allies and even sent a contigent to the Western front. However, I'm drawing a blank besides that.

Which is ironic because afterwards they gave sanctuary to NAZI war criminals.

Yup. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay... Probably it's because there were a lot of rather radical government changes in Latin America, by that time. But it's more likely that it just happened because they were two-sided pricks.
(Mengele spent his last days in Brazil, right?)

At 2/27/05 05:11 PM, ctrlkey wrote: The war was not only fought by the U.S. so plz stop making it seem like that.

You really dun get the point.

At 2/27/05 05:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

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.

That makes sense.

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.

It's good that they did that. cuz in the Iraqi war they ruined alot of acient buildings from the Babyloon empire. =(

At 2/28/05 12:01 AM, Empanado wrote: ... All this talk about Japan ...

Anyways, I see people going for the Americans and people going for the Russians, but I haven't seen anybody going for the Brits. Even when they lacked the industrial potence of the U.S. or the manpower of the Russians, in my own personal opinion, the defeat of the U.K would've simply meant the end of the WWII.

No ofcourse it wouldn't, but if UK would have lost against Hitler, it would have been much more easy for him though UK controlled alot air and helped a fair bit in Africa.
They did also sink alot of German ships (70% if my mind don't let me down). I think Sovjet would have played an even greater part of the war if UK were out. But U.S.A. is still an impressive nation of man power and military power, so I am very unsure about how it would have been with Sovjet and U.S.A. after the war...

At 2/28/05 12:01 AM, Empanado wrote: Fun fact of the day: Chile did participate on WWII. We declared war on Japan. We managed to imprison a few dozens of japanese residents in the country before realizing, a couple of days later, that Japan had surrendered. So there you have it, Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb, they just freaked out when they knew that we were after them. :P

Japan did not have the ability to been a part (And ofcourse not the ONLY part) of a war. They knew that they was never going to win. More or less, it was impossible. And when Hitler started to lose and Sovjet turned side they had no chance. They had too many against them.

At 2/28/05 01:48 PM, Andersson wrote:

They knew that they was never going to win. More or less, it was impossible. And when Hitler started to lose and Sovjet turned side they had no chance. They had too many against them.

It was possible for them as long they could use Hitler and Sovjet as a "decoy". As long the war was going on in Europe and so on, they wouldn't meet the entire strenght of the allies. But then they did.

At 2/27/05 02:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: Also, I think people overplay the Atomic bomb. Bombings raids on big cities all killed tens of thosuands, the bombing raid on Berlin killed like 60k, Dresden 30k, Britian 60k.

Thousands of bombers in many waves with many losses= a lot killed

2 bombers with no losses= a lot killed

Pretty big difference. And not overplayed at all. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have even a 10 plane atomic raid? Pretty goddamn devestating.

At 2/27/05 02:26 PM, awkward_silence wrote: Intersting point I would like to bring up. Japan tried to surrender twice before the bombing of Hiroshima.

Big deal. Himmler tried to surrendur for Germany. With conditions. So I ask you, under what conditions did they want to surrendur and under whos authority were they surrenduring?
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."

Yes there was, we wanted to save 500,000 to 1 million American lives. And more Japanese were spared probably through the unconditional surrendur that happened because of this than the 100+ thousand death toll.

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

The Phillippenes? Huh? Why not hit them? And I dont think they yet cracked the Japanese naval code up to this point so I am still unsure of the "quality" of the intelligence. If you could show me the intelligence that was so good that proves your point I would love it. However, I do acknowledge that they should have been more ready. But you have to remember that things seemed to be cooling down between Japan and the US then.

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.

God dammit you retard. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN AND THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY. JESUS. DO you not realize this thread was started out almost totally about JAPAN? There was the Pacific theatre and the Atlantic. The RUSSIAN ARMY won the war in Europe but the RUSSIAN army did jack shit in the Pacific except sack an Japanese Army in Manchucko or some shit like that at the end of the war that mattered very little. AMERICA won the war in the Pacific almost by themselves. Dumb fuck, the war was not only going on in Europe. And America could have won idependently of the Soviets, just as the Soviets probably could have won independently of America (not sure because they signed a non agression pact with Japan and if Japan invaded them, who knows what the hell would have happened? Zhukov, Russias best Marshal would have been in the East tied up with many of Russias best divisions. And they had almost no Navy to speak of. So who knows.)

At 2/28/05 05:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Do you not realize this thread was started out almost totally about JAPAN?

That was just because the Swedish guy went all OMG TEH JAPAN!!!!1111!!!111!

...Um, no offense.

Oh, but come on. The Pacific front is like, the Ringo Starr of WWII. Underrated, and nobody cares. It's like... the Canadians.

At 2/28/05 06:48 PM, Empanado wrote: That was just because the Swedish guy went all OMG TEH JAPAN!!!!1111!!!111!

...Um, no offense.

I dont care. The topic was about how America performed in the Pacific and not how America won the war in Europe. That ctrlkey dumbass twisted it into what he wanted to read into it and that pissed me off. He made this into how America won the war single handedly thread and that is not what it was.

Oh, but come on. The Pacific front is like, the Ringo Starr of WWII. Underrated, and nobody cares. It's like... the Canadians.

Tell that to the Indians, the Chinese, Australians, Phillipinos, New Zealanders, California, Hawaii, British Empire and every other place threatened by the Japanese. And, like I pointed out, if the Japanese attacked the Russians with thee Germany, things in the war could have been VERY different.

At 2/28/05 06:57 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Tell that to the Indians, the Chinese, Australians, Phillipinos, New Zealanders, California, Hawaii, British Empire and every other place threatened by the Japanese. And, like I pointed out, if the Japanese attacked the Russians with thee Germany, things in the war could have been VERY different.

In actuality, Japan had plans for Russia drawn up in 1936ish. If it weren't for the surprise (well, it wasn't really surprising, but they weren't expecting it at that time) skirmishes south of the great wall, Japan probably would have launched an invasion of Russia before their invasion of North China (no, that does not include Manchuria.)

At 2/28/05 05:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Thousands of bombers in many waves with many losses= a lot killed

2 bombers with no losses= a lot killed

Pretty big difference. And not overplayed at all. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have even a 10 plane atomic raid? Pretty goddamn devestating.

It has been estimated that 3 times as many (to use conservative numbers) died in the fire bombings of Tokyo than in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined...

And don't froget the Grandslam, a 12,000 pound bomb dropped several times onto German soil.

God dammit you retard. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN AND THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY. JESUS. DO you not realize this thread was started out almost totally about JAPAN? There was the Pacific theatre and the Atlantic. The RUSSIAN ARMY won the war in Europe but the RUSSIAN army did jack shit in the Pacific except sack an Japanese Army in Manchucko or some shit like that at the end of the war that mattered very little. AMERICA won the war in the Pacific almost by themselves. Dumb fuck, the war was not only going on in Europe. And America could have won idependently of the Soviets, just as the Soviets probably could have won independently of America (not sure because they signed a non agression pact with Japan and if Japan invaded them, who knows what the hell would have happened? Zhukov, Russias best Marshal would have been in the East tied up with many of Russias best divisions. And they had almost no Navy to speak of. So who knows.)

There are two problems with this paragraph.
1 - 'Twere it not for Fat Man and Little Boy, the Russians would have played an enormous role in the Pacific Theater. They would have aided in the invasion of Japan. I believe they were going to spring an invasion from Sakhalin Is. to Hokkaido, and then to Honshu.

2 - The British played a very important role in Asia. They kept Japan from rolling into South ans South East Asia unnopposed, they stalled them in SE Asia and completely stopped Japan's advances into South Asia. they kept that army from also being able to turn back to China or against the US advance.

What do you guys and girls feel was the best weapon used in the war through any period?

I would put my money on the M1 Garand as the best semiauto
The Thompson as the best submachine gun
and the Early types of the AK47 as my assault eifle

Hey do you guys know that australia made some kickass weaponry during that time.
They made a good version of the Howitzer and a type of 5 man team gatling. I think it is pretty amazing.

I will raise a question bound to bring controversy. Do you think in your own opinion that the Japanese would have surrenderred eventually if we didnt drop a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, SgtKrammer wrote: Do you think in your own opinion that the Japanese would have surrenderred eventually if we didnt drop a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If the planned invasion of Japan was successful, then sure. The A-bombs were just an alternative that the Americans saw which would mean a lot less loss of life on both sides to reach the same goal. So they took it.

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, SgtKrammer wrote: What do you guys and girls feel was the best weapon used in the war through any period?

I didn't know that people thought that weapons from World War II that killed millions of people were cool.

And my thoughts on why the United States dropped the A-bomb on Japan are not only the fact that it saved American/Japanese lives, but it also prevented Soviet expansion into a defeated Japan (as with China).

At 2/28/05 09:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It has been estimated that 3 times as many (to use conservative numbers) died in the fire bombings of Tokyo than in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined...

Yup.

And don't froget the Grandslam, a 12,000 pound bomb dropped several times onto German soil.

I dont think it was for much more than propaganda. I mean, great, one bomb can level a couple of blocks. So can a lot of bombs. But I bet it was scary as hell.

1 - 'Twere it not for Fat Man and Little Boy, the Russians would have played an enormous role in the Pacific Theater. They would have aided in the invasion of Japan. I believe they were going to spring an invasion from Sakhalin Is. to Hokkaido, and then to Honshu.

But there was Fat Man and Little Boy and the Russians basically played no role in the war in the Pacific. Russia proved its indecisiveness at sea in the Battle of Tsushima and since that time Stalin managed to kill most of his good leaders. And, like I said, the Russians served little to no role in the Pacific.

2 - The British played a very important role in Asia. They kept Japan from rolling into South ans South East Asia unnopposed, they stalled them in SE Asia and completely stopped Japan's advances into South Asia. they kept that army from also being able to turn back to China or against the US advance.

The British did a good job at trying to fight the Japanese, but if they were alone, they would have probably been swamped. They were demolished at Burma and most of their fleets destroyed because they sent little more than battleships and crusiers to fight in a carrier war. However, later in the war they did do a damn good job of taking back Burma and India and such. But alone, I dont think they would have succeded like I think the Russians or the USA could have. And of the 2, I think the USA had the best chance for Germanys and Japans destruction because of their relative isolation and stronger industry.

At 2/27/05 02:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: Also, I think people overplay the Atomic bomb. Bombings raids on big cities all killed tens of thosuands, the bombing raid on Berlin killed like 60k, Dresden 30k, Britian 60k. I believe a bombing raid on Nagasaki would have been more effective than an atomic bomb. It was completely a show of force, a show of force that worked.

Take one atomic bomb over an evacuated Hiroshima and say 120k. Is that effective?

At 2/28/05 05:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: God dammit you retard. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN AND THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY. JESUS. DO you not realize this thread was started out almost totally about JAPAN? There was the Pacific theatre and the Atlantic.

As the thread starter I would like to get the spot lights on the war in Europe where it all started and then come to Japan tehre it all ended. Ofcourse it's ok to post about what war epoc you would like to especially if you just found out some great information but it would be good to have the thread in the order the war started and so on (Even though I am aware of that I strated it all about the Hiroshima bombing).

I am also aware of that WW2 did not start untill Pearl Harbor was attacked for America, but in Europe and the bigger part of the world, it began alot earlier. And people from America seems alot more intrested to talk about the war against Japan. That's alright with me. But respect that the most intresting for people is what is lying closest to them geographicly. And that the opinion people have often are dominated by that the country they live in had right and so on. People from U.S.A. should be aware of that Stalin killed more people than Hitler and that the history books in U.S.A. don't show that side. But 55% of the Russian people still thinks Stalin did great when he industrilized Sovjet, even though he did build up Sovjet on the shoulders of slaved people. The opinion is yours, and so are the posts.

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, SgtKrammer wrote: Do you think in your own opinion that the Japanese would have surrenderred eventually if we didnt drop a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yup, they had no chance. Well actually, the war in Europe was like over and it were load of soldiers which could have continued in Japan and so on if they really would have been needed (My opinion till someone says I'm wrong). =P

At 3/1/05 10:16 PM, Jimsween wrote: And I didn't say it wasn't effective, however, I still believe a bombing raid, instead of an atomic bomb, over Nagasaki would have been more effective.

How? It takes more resources, takes many possible casualties, and is not nearly as scary as ONE bomb would be. I mean, where the hell would you hide if something like that hit you? There would be little to no warning cause, hell, its one plane. Most thought it was a recon plane. Just the psychological impact on the populace was more than enough to exceed the worth of a bombing raid.

At 3/1/05 10:37 PM, Jimsween wrote: Nagasaki has rough hilly terrian, the effects of an atomic bomb would be watered down because of it.

Good point. I never thought of terrain. But still, I think the point of the bomb was to scare the shit out of the populace and knock out the docks or whatever Nagasaki had that the military was aiming for. Killing people I think was an extension of scaring the shit out of the people, not the main purpose in itself.

At 3/1/05 10:37 PM, Jimsween wrote: Nagasaki has rough hilly terrian, the effects of an atomic bomb would be watered down because of it.

Many individual bombs work better.

Maybe as far as effectiveness goes. But the Americans weren't aiming for effectiveness. They wanted to get the Japanese to surrender. Many individual bombs were used during the war constantly. The a-bomb was revolutionary technology. Plus, it obviously scared the Japanese shitless.

It was the obvious choice for what they wanted to accomplish.

At 3/1/05 10:37 PM, Jimsween wrote: Nagasaki has rough hilly terrian, the effects of an atomic bomb would be watered down because of it.

Many individual bombs work better.

The point of the Atomic bombs was NOT to kill as many people as they could.

It was the biggest bluff in modern warfare history, and let's say japan took the inside straight. The US had two opportuinities with their a-bombs (all 2 of them,) they could either demostrate them and hope they work, or they could field test them and if they didn't work the world would be none-the-wiser. So they dropped them on two cities, and with luck on their side, they both worked. Japan thought we had an entire arsenal of these, of which I'm sure the US trumped up, that could be used on Japan repeatedly. The Japanese seeing how much destruction could come with no way (to survive their own bomb, the planes flew higher than anti-air could reach) to stop it and how much could could in so little time ith so little effort. Seeing their entire existence flash before their eyes, they surrndered readily, not know that there was no more a-bomb left in America.

At 3/2/05 05:03 PM, Jimsween wrote: Again, as you would see if you looked up at my original post, I acknowledged that the Atomic bomb was meant to be a show of force. I simply said you would kill more with a bombing raid.

No worries, I wasn't meaning to contradict you, just to clear information about a topic that seemed fuzzy. No offense intended.

All allied nations helped out in the war big or small. some major contributions. Americans and British in North Africa without Monty n Patton, Rommel would have gained control of the suez canal giving the germans badly needed oil. In italy everyone screwed up except the Italians who hung mussolini and surrendered. Russia Helped out by making it a two front war and the fact that Stalin didn't mind using his men as cannon fodder wasting german munitions oil and men.The British created Radar helping fight in the air and this led to Sonar which majorly killed Hitler's U-boat "Wolf Packs". The british also had the first victory, The battle of Britain where they may have gotten there asses kicked but The nazi's gave up. D-day had major contributions from Canada, US, and Britain but it was the Americans who did the breakout. With Pattons 3rd army.Then at the battle of the bulge American lines never broke and The 101st Airborne division majorly crippled the nazis when it held Bastogne a railroad junction which cut the germans supply lines. Altogether you cannot look at this war and say 1 nation did more than any other between The three major allied countries, Britain, USSR, USA.

At 3/17/05 11:14 PM, obie1kenobie wrote: The British created Radar helping fight in the air and this led to Sonar which majorly killed Hitler's U-boat "Wolf Packs".

Yeah I love their radar system "FoF" which they use still today ("FoF" stands for "Friend or Foe").
It's a system which they build into each airplane and then the radar sensor if the other plane got it or not. It sends back a signal telling it's a friend.

But the jets today also got a system which shows where you're able to fly or not. You got a screen and you can see red lines which indecates fields on the radar map. If you fly inside one of these feels, your in the fire rate of an enemy.

I'm sorry, you CAN'T say that any one nation did more than any other?? If Russia had been taken by Hitler, the other Allied nations would not have been a serious threat to him. Even if Britain was never invaded, the Atlantic Wall would have been the only weak point for Germany. All of Hitler's best troops would have been there, the fortifications would have been completed, and most of German air power would have been concentrated over it. Good luck doing D-Day landings and holding a beachhead with those defenses set against you.

Not only that, Germany incoporated the tanks of the nations it defeated into its own tank forces. This was so for the Czechs, who provided two tank designs that were instrumental in France, and French tanks were also used by the Germans after the fall of France. Had Russia surrendered, the Germans would have been using the T-34, with its advanced sloping armor and wide tracks. Even if the war in Russia had ended in 1941 or 1942, and the Tiger and Panther were not invented, the German tank forces would have been more than sufficient to protect continental Europe. The oil of the Caucusus would have been sufficient to fuel these forces and the vast population in Russia could have been partially deported to Germany Proper to build weapons in record numbers.

I shouldn't even have to mention how Russia blunted the German Army beyond repair, and that British and American forces never fought the Germans at their full strength. Even British and American bombing campaigns would have been much more difficult. If Russia surrendered tho the Germans, Germany would have been rendered virtually invulnerable.

At 3/23/05 06:27 PM, Jerconjake wrote: All of Hitler's best troops would have been there, the fortifications would have been completed, and most of German air power would have been concentrated over it. Good luck doing D-Day landings and holding a beachhead with those defenses set against you.

We ain't saying that they did win just because someone did more than someone else.
What we were telling a guy named "CtrlKey" was that Sovjet didn't do most of the part, and that the other allied troops could have done it without Sovjet at the end.

The fortificationbs would posiibly not been completed though Hitler didn't like the fighters, only the bombers. He did only build bombers so he lost air dominance because of that.

The Royal Air Force did take out the V2 industry which Albert Speer did move underground after they realised the need of protection though they couldn't avoid air attacks in any other way (Because of the loss of fighters).

On December 22, 1942, General Dornberger along with the Minister Albert Speer, were summoned to attend an important meeting at the Ministry of War in Berlin. Hitler gave them a directive to build a hardened "blockhaus" in northern France where V2 rockets could attack England. There would be several V2 projects in northern France, along with the V1 and V3 projects that were also underway. The preparation for the V2 launching bunkers began in late 1942. In the month of December and January, officers, engineers and scientists from Oberstleutnant Thom & Peenmünde scoured the countryside of northern France searching for appropriate sites.

Throughout 1943-44 work commenced on these mammoth projects. Using 40,000 forced laborers, the Germans began their program of secret-weapons sites in northern France. Six-thousand of these laborers were brought to the Pas-de-Calais area, near Eperlecques, to begin the excavation of the giant Watten "blockhaus". The Watten construction was eventually bombed to the point that another location was found near St. Omer in a large quarry at Wizernes. This site too would come under heavy Allied bombing (Bombings done by the Royal Air Force).

Those "blockhauses" had a roof made of 5 meters concrete. Although, it couldn't stop the "Tallboy".

"Tallboy" was designed by Barnes Wallis in 1944. "Tallboy" and those with the GBU-28 war head had a weight of 5,443 kg (12,000 Ibs) and had a penetration deep of 6 meters and tehy were the true blockbuster bomb. They had to be dropped from a minimum of 8,000 feet and could only be carried by Lancaster Bombers with modified bomb bay doors. They had a super sleek shape and angled fins which produced a rapid spin, reducing drag and improving accuracy. It was this spin-stabilized design which gave the bomb enough deep penetrative power to break through reinforced concrete 16 feet thick before exploding.

Tallboy was 21' long, with an overall diameter of 3'8" inches, while the bomb body itself was 10'4" long and 3'2" in diameter. It contained 2,358 kg (5,200 lbs) of Torpex D1 explosive which, when dropped from 20,000 feet, made an 80 feet deep crater, 100 feet across. The shockwaves it generated gave it its nick-name of the "earthquake bomb", as a direct hit was not necessary.

"Tallboy" were very succesful at attacks on V1 Flying Bomb launch sites, U-boat pens, tunnels and other high-priority targets. In particular, it was used in the sinking of Germany's giant batttleship, Tirpitz, on 12th November 1944. In all, 854 Tallboys were dropped during WWII.

Barnes Wallis did also make the ten tonne heavy bomb "Grand Slam" in 1944. But I won't bring that bomb up though it weren't used against the V2 rocket launch sites.

You may understand what might have happened, if the Royal Air Force had not undertaken this challenge of crushing Hitler's V2 and V1 bunkers in France.