Which was the better option in ww2.

Vote

Living while having any type of cancer and anomalys is worse than dying.Also anomalys lasted 50 years.

Nuke Japan to kill 750000

750k?

The best option in this world is not existing as human race...

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 23.08.2018 at 15:59

750k?

my bad couldnt figure it out on top of my head

An invasion of Japan wouldn't be as bloody as people want to believe, the Emperor and government of Japan at the time weren't stupid, they knew they could no longer win the war and just wanted to get a victory or two so that they have more of a hand in negotiations, it wouldn't have been a fight to the end like in Germany. It would still have caused more deaths than the nuclear bombings though.

I would have preferred nuking China and the Soviet Union along with Japan, personally.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 23.08.2018 at 16:23

An invasion of Japan wouldn't be as bloody as people want to believe, the Emperor and government of Japan at the time weren't stupid, they knew they could no longer win the war and just wanted to get a victory or two so that they have more of a hand in negotiations, it wouldn't have been a fight to the end like in Germany. It would still have caused more deaths than the nuclear bombings though.

The bombs were launched cuz the predicted casualties were of 1m+

Kirjoittanut Al Fappino, 23.08.2018 at 17:34

The bombs were launched cuz the predicted casualties were of 1m+

The US believed the Japanese were planning on fighting to the death, which was a false assumption, as Hirohito was not delusional like Hitler and was. They also weren't accounting for the fact that the Soviets would also be invading,

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 23.08.2018 at 18:13

Kirjoittanut Al Fappino, 23.08.2018 at 17:34

The bombs were launched cuz the predicted casualties were of 1m+

The US believed the Japanese were planning on fighting to the death, which was a false assumption, as Hirohito was not delusional like Hitler and was. They also weren't accounting for the fact that the Soviets would also be invading,

True true. Why are u so knowledgeable, you're an adorable cutiepiee, ladies hit him up

You formulated the question wrong. You instanly give us the perception 'few millions will die', when thats not the case as we dont know.

But we can guess: comparing other invasions to that of Japan: How many civilians died during invason of France, or Germany, or Yugoslavia? Then ask yourself what was the goal of American invasion: genocide percieved lower race, colonize, or end the world war?

If we already answer on these questions, and add the state of Japan in that time (low on ammo, infrastructure crumbling, people tired of war), then we can assume that not many would die. And no threat of radiation in decades to come.

Just by asking this question is already pretty disturbing. Trying to justify Weapons of Mass Destruction. Especially in American case where they were literally unharmed by the war, pondering wether to drop an atom bomb on a losing nation.

Obvious answer is obvious

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 23.08.2018 at 18:39

You formulated the question wrong. You instanly give us the perception 'few millions will die', when thats not the case as we dont know.

But we can guess: comparing other invasions to that of Japan: How many civilians died during invason of France, or Germany, or Yugoslavia? Then ask yourself what was the goal of American invasion: genocide percieved lower race, colonize, or end the world war?

If we already answer on these questions, and add the state of Japan in that time (low on ammo, infrastructure crumbling, people tired of war), then we can assume that not many would die. And no threat of radiation in decades to come.

Just by asking this question is already pretty disturbing. Trying to justify Weapons of Mass Destruction. Especially in American case where they were literally unharmed by the war, pondering wether to drop an atom bomb on a losing nation.

1. They didn't care about materials, they were kamikazing their own damn planes.
2. Too bad the radiaton only lasted a few weeks.
3. This is retarded, you literally told me USA should've invaded Japan because USSR lost so many men and USA should too. Also alot of people who were in it survived and lived healthy lives. One guy survived both atomic blasts and survived till 2010 at the age of 93 in very good health. USA had to think of its men before the Japanese, and if the USSR had to make this choice, they'd most likely pick the same option. Please stop finding everything against the USA you possibly can, and I'll do the same with Russia.
4. Finally I don't support nuclear bombings, but this was a special circumstance, we didn't want to risk the lives of a million of US troops to take a island where the main ideology is fight to the death.
5. Let's just end this discussion, I made this because I was curious how the others felt.
6. No need for reply, I really don't want this to turn into a flame war/argument.

Should of dropped a few more bombs in china, to eradicate communism.

Drop some in japanese farmlands and if they dont surrender within like 1 month drop some in the outskirts of tokyo

Why can't i do both?

Kirjoittanut Cheerfultitanic, 23.08.2018 at 20:48

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 23.08.2018 at 18:39

You formulated the question wrong. You instanly give us the perception 'few millions will die', when thats not the case as we dont know.

But we can guess: comparing other invasions to that of Japan: How many civilians died during invason of France, or Germany, or Yugoslavia? Then ask yourself what was the goal of American invasion: genocide percieved lower race, colonize, or end the world war?

If we already answer on these questions, and add the state of Japan in that time (low on ammo, infrastructure crumbling, people tired of war), then we can assume that not many would die. And no threat of radiation in decades to come.

Just by asking this question is already pretty disturbing. Trying to justify Weapons of Mass Destruction. Especially in American case where they were literally unharmed by the war, pondering wether to drop an atom bomb on a losing nation.

1. They didn't care about materials, they were kamikazing their own damn planes.
2. Too bad the radiaton only lasted a few weeks.
3. This is retarded, you literally told me USA should've invaded Japan because USSR lost so many men and USA should too. Also alot of people who were in it survived and lived healthy lives. One guy survived both atomic blasts and survived till 2010 at the age of 93 in very good health. USA had to think of its men before the Japanese, and if the USSR had to make this choice, they'd most likely pick the same option. Please stop finding everything against the USA you possibly can, and I'll do the same with Russia.
4. Finally I don't support nuclear bombings, but this was a special circumstance, we didn't want to risk the lives of a million of US troops to take a island where the main ideology is fight to the death.
5. Let's just end this discussion, I made this because I was curious how the others felt.
6. No need for reply, I really don't want this to turn into a flame war/argument.

1. You can't reply and then say dont reply back when you started the topic with sensitive issue - on the internet.

2. Yes USSR lost 27 million lives in WW2, USA lost 300,000 while having 16 million troops, this is simple calculation that USA could fight more and not radiate civilians.

3. Some lived health lives in Nagasaki, others suffered from mutation (no not video games mutation), caused by radiation (cancer, tumor, fetus disfiguration). So using example of 1 guy who lived 93 to justify 200,00 deaths is clearly propaganda.

4. No it was NOT special circumstance, that is just modern age excuse for almost EVERYTHING: war, genocide, sexuality, politics, school grades, you name it - people exploited it. Atom bomb is atom bomb, death is death and there is no special circumstances.

5. You made a poll on the internet, what kind of answers you expected?

6. No, USSR would not drop a weapon of mass destruction on a losing nation, maybe in 1941 when Germany was INVADING AND STRONGER, but not when it was mortally wounded:

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 24.08.2018 at 11:38

Kirjoittanut Cheerfultitanic, 23.08.2018 at 20:48

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 23.08.2018 at 18:39

You formulated the question wrong. You instanly give us the perception 'few millions will die', when thats not the case as we dont know.

But we can guess: comparing other invasions to that of Japan: How many civilians died during invason of France, or Germany, or Yugoslavia? Then ask yourself what was the goal of American invasion: genocide percieved lower race, colonize, or end the world war?

If we already answer on these questions, and add the state of Japan in that time (low on ammo, infrastructure crumbling, people tired of war), then we can assume that not many would die. And no threat of radiation in decades to come.

Just by asking this question is already pretty disturbing. Trying to justify Weapons of Mass Destruction. Especially in American case where they were literally unharmed by the war, pondering wether to drop an atom bomb on a losing nation.

1. They didn't care about materials, they were kamikazing their own damn planes.
2. Too bad the radiaton only lasted a few weeks.
3. This is retarded, you literally told me USA should've invaded Japan because USSR lost so many men and USA should too. Also alot of people who were in it survived and lived healthy lives. One guy survived both atomic blasts and survived till 2010 at the age of 93 in very good health. USA had to think of its men before the Japanese, and if the USSR had to make this choice, they'd most likely pick the same option. Please stop finding everything against the USA you possibly can, and I'll do the same with Russia.
4. Finally I don't support nuclear bombings, but this was a special circumstance, we didn't want to risk the lives of a million of US troops to take a island where the main ideology is fight to the death.
5. Let's just end this discussion, I made this because I was curious how the others felt.
6. No need for reply, I really don't want this to turn into a flame war/argument.

2. Yes USSR lost 27 million lives in WW2, USA lost 300,000 while having 16 million troops, this is simple calculation that USA could fight more and not radiate civilians.

3. Some lived health lives in Nagasaki, others suffered from mutation (no not video games mutation), caused by radiation (cancer, tumor, fetus disfiguration). So using example of 1 guy who lived 93 to justify 200,00 deaths is clearly propaganda.

4. No it was NOT special circumstance, that is just modern age excuse for almost EVERYTHING: war, genocide, sexuality, politics, school grades, you name it - people exploited it. Atom bomb is atom bomb, death is death and there is no special circumstances.

6. No, USSR would not drop a weapon of mass destruction on a losing nation, maybe in 1941 when Germany was INVADING AND STRONGER, but not when it was mortally wounded:

Ok im gonna be tough now.
1. Why should we care for Japanese civilians when the Soviets didn't care for German, Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Romanian, Yugoslavian, Finnish, and Bulgarian civilians when they plowed through Eastern Europe. Both sides commited war crimes US troops took Japanese skulls, while Japanese troops cut Americans in half.

2. Out of the 650000 people who survived the blast 165000 live today, if they have cancer, they're dealing with it pretty well. One common misconception is that children born to the victims share the same symptoms, which is mostly false. We also warned them numerous times, and since they wouldn't surrender, you can easily assume they were ready to fight, If we invaded, tons of more civilians would've died, think of the street battles, it'd be as bad as Germany. We used the atom bomb for the greater good so we wouldnt have to deal with more civilian deaths.

3. I definitely think we were under a special circumstance, we knew their ideology, and we didn't want the disease known as Communism entering Japan, so in the end like i said, we did it for the greater good.

4. How the fuck would Putin know what Stalin was thinking. That right there is Propaganda. How would you know the USSR wouldn't do the same, ffs they created the Tsar Bomba, the most devastating nuclear weapon in history.

Kirjoittanut Cheerfultitanic, 24.08.2018 at 12:13

Ok im gonna be tough now.
1. Why should we care for Japanese civilians when the Soviets didn't care for German, Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Romanian, Yugoslavian, Finnish, and Bulgarian civilians when they plowed through Eastern Europe. Both sides commited war crimes US troops took Japanese skulls, while Japanese troops cut Americans in half.

2. Out of the 650000 people who survived the blast 165000 live today, if they have cancer, they're dealing with it pretty well. One common misconception is that children born to the victims share the same symptoms, which is mostly false. We also warned them numerous times, and since they wouldn't surrender, you can easily assume they were ready to fight, If we invaded, tons of more civilians would've died, think of the street battles, it'd be as bad as Germany. We used the atom bomb for the greater good so we wouldnt have to deal with more civilian deaths.

3. I definitely think we were under a special circumstance, we knew their ideology, and we didn't want the disease known as Communism entering Japan, so in the end like i said, we did it for the greater good.

4. How the fuck would Putin know what Stalin was thinking. That right there is Propaganda. How would you know the USSR wouldn't do the same, ffs they created the Tsar Bomba, the most devastating nuclear weapon in history.

1. You should care because Allies were Good team, Axis were Evil, thats why. If one side made attrocities, it doesnt give you the right to use WMD.

2. Warning is just an excuse, it was world war, total war. not many civilians would die (unless you bomb them), definitelly less than it dies due to nuclear attack. Go watch Battle of Berlin where Soviets and Poles attacked Germany, civilians were standing aside watching the battle while Red Army passes them by and chase soldiers. Same would happen in Japan. Way less civilians would die in soldier-to-soldier combat.

3. You again give yourself the right to separate good from bad, right from wrong. 'Disease known as communism', what if Japan wanted communism? Who are you to deny them the right to self-determination and sovereignity?

4. Putin explained perfectly that you dont bomb civilians in a losing nation, but in a strong nation that just started the war. If thats propaganda and cant understand the meaning of it, then you're hopeless in terms of judgement.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 24.08.2018 at 12:45

Kirjoittanut Cheerfultitanic, 24.08.2018 at 12:13

Ok im gonna be tough now.
1. Why should we care for Japanese civilians when the Soviets didn't care for German, Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Romanian, Yugoslavian, Finnish, and Bulgarian civilians when they plowed through Eastern Europe. Both sides commited war crimes US troops took Japanese skulls, while Japanese troops cut Americans in half.

2. Out of the 650000 people who survived the blast 165000 live today, if they have cancer, they're dealing with it pretty well. One common misconception is that children born to the victims share the same symptoms, which is mostly false. We also warned them numerous times, and since they wouldn't surrender, you can easily assume they were ready to fight, If we invaded, tons of more civilians would've died, think of the street battles, it'd be as bad as Germany. We used the atom bomb for the greater good so we wouldnt have to deal with more civilian deaths.

3. I definitely think we were under a special circumstance, we knew their ideology, and we didn't want the disease known as Communism entering Japan, so in the end like i said, we did it for the greater good.

4. How the fuck would Putin know what Stalin was thinking. That right there is Propaganda. How would you know the USSR wouldn't do the same, ffs they created the Tsar Bomba, the most devastating nuclear weapon in history.

1. You should care because Allies were Good team, Axis were Evil, thats why. If one side made attrocities, it doesnt give you the right to use WMD.

2. Warning is just an excuse, it was world war, total war. not many civilians would die (unless you bomb them), definitelly less than it dies due to nuclear attack. Go watch Battle of Berlin where Soviets and Poles attacked Germany, civilians were standing aside watching the battle while Red Army passes them by and chase soldiers. Same would happen in Japan. Way less civilians would die in soldier-to-soldier combat.

3. You again give yourself the right to separate good from bad, right from wrong. 'Disease known as communism', what if Japan wanted communism? Who are you to deny them the right to self-determination and sovereignity?

4. Putin explained perfectly that you dont bomb civilians in a losing nation, but in a strong nation that just started the war. If thats propaganda and cant understand the meaning of it, then you're hopeless in terms of judgement.

1. There is no good or bad side in war. USSR was just as bad as Germany.
2. nah not a excuse, plz provide evidence, btw civilians were massacred all over eastern Germany so you have no right to say that.
3. Japan didn't want Communism, neither did Eastern Europe. Prime examples Hungary and Czechoslovakia. You once said USSR made a mistake there but you never give the USA a chance when you attack it.
4. Putins a complete retard since I guarantee the USSR bombed cities too, while the USSR was winning.
If USSR could interfere in Czechoslovakia and Hungary USA has as much right to interfere in Japan and Korea. This is undeniable. Ofc you're gonna find some way to beautify the USSR in this as a hero, when Stalin DEFENDED the raping of women in Yugoslavia.
5. The USSR wanted to destroy capitalism, so If Japan became Communist and Korea and Europe, theyd go after us and we didn't want it. However they wouldn't care. Lenin even said how'd they do it. I guess the USA is guilty too. The USSR was just as bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing about the bombings too.

Kirjoittanut Cheerfultitanic, 24.08.2018 at 13:16

1. There is no good or bad side in war. USSR was just as bad as Germany.
2. nah not a excuse, plz provide evidence, btw civilians were massacred all over eastern Germany so you have no right to say that.
3. Japan didn't want Communism, neither did Eastern Europe. Prime examples Hungary and Czechoslovakia. You once said USSR made a mistake there but you never give the USA a chance when you attack it.
4. Putins a complete retard since I guarantee the USSR bombed cities too, while the USSR was winning.
If USSR could interfere in Czechoslovakia and Hungary USA has as much right to interfere in Japan and Korea. This is undeniable. Ofc you're gonna find some way to beautify the USSR in this as a hero, when Stalin DEFENDED the raping of women in Yugoslavia.
5. The USSR wanted to destroy capitalism, so If Japan became Communist and Korea and Europe, theyd go after us and we didn't want it. However they wouldn't care. Lenin even said how'd they do it. I guess the USA is guilty too. The USSR was just as bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing about the bombings too.

1. There is always good and evil. Dont fall for modern propaganda where people mix everything; sexuality with race, religion with language, nationality and ethnicity. There are clear distinction between things.

2. USSR was definitely not bad as Germany. USSR never boasted about master race, never openly promoted genocide and killing of unwanted, didnt start 2 world wars and try to conquer the world.

3. I dont know how Eastern Europe ends up with Japan but ok, though you still dont have right to choose ideologies for nations, when you are not part of them.

4. Hard to take you seriously when you talk like that 'complete retard' for example, when that guy restored the biggest nation on earth. Also you insulted whole nation yesterday with childish words, thats hardly a valid argument in debate.

5. Soviet bombing was for troop morale purposes, and not even made any damage because ussr HAD NO BOMBERS, it used fighters for missions which most ended up bombing Ploiesti in Romania (oil field) to stop fuel production for Germany tanks, which again proves my argument that USSR fought troops and not civilians like USA in Japan.

6. Anyway, i dont know how communism and USSR ended up in nuclear debate, so i wont reply to that topic anymore, stick to atom bombing of civilians in next post.

Tbh every country/person is a human rights activist in 2018 i don't understand why is this world like this!

Kirjoittanut SyrianDevil, 25.08.2018 at 07:01

Tbh every country/person is a human rights activist in 2018 i don't understand why is this world like this!

Because this world is filled with spoiled little brats who think they know everything and are better than anyone else.

Does anyone know when the next world war is going to be??

As i understand fact was Japan was aware it had failed as a military force & was sueing for peace when 1st bomb dropped,
nationally the war was over Before 2nd bomb left u.s.
wanted to confirm potential both times regardless of actual military status of japan(already beaten,any talk of invasion force lives saved impurely conjectural)
as with pearl Harbour u.s. government/military particularly hawkish & delayed responses.
1st to japans declaration of war,
2nd to japans sueing for peace.
u.s. people may have been conflicted but G/M wanted in.
japan also wished to maintain historical legacy of not having foriegn troops successfully invade any part of japans mainland islands.

Putin may appear to be a retard but kgb never were retards.
us obsession with putin just plays into his hands as a "russian bear of a patriot".
protecting "mother" russia.
gets him much kudos & support in russia,
enables free "reign" when dealing with the world within & without russias borders.
most european/world heads of state are to busy trying to maintain the status quo.
D.T. 2nd/3rd biggest individual force in this world = impotant septegenarian narcissist.
China owns to a considerable degree the u.s. national debt ipso facto it effectively own the u.s.

Kirjoittanut Ruseuser, 02.09.2018 at 09:59

Putin may appear to be a retard but kgb never were retards.
us obsession with putin just plays into his hands as a "russian bear of a patriot".
protecting "mother" russia.
gets him much kudos & support in russia,
enables free "reign" when dealing with the world within & without russias borders.
most european/world heads of state are to busy trying to maintain the status quo.
D.T. 2nd/3rd biggest individual force in this world = impotant septegenarian narcissist.
China owns to a considerable degree the u.s. national debt ipso facto it effectively own the u.s.

The PRC owns nothing of the United States as long as the PRC's only national asset(s) are slave-driven sweatshops and Nike shoe mills manned by suicidal bugpeople willing to throw themselves off of buildings before contributing to the state, hence the plethora of nets Chinese firms employ to retain their working capital.

There shouldbve been a 3rd nuke...

G. you are very wrong about who has interest in u.s. national debt.
granted u.s still has massive reserves of valuable minerals etc but bugger all oil to speak of.
350+ million population = very healthy credit rating.
multi trillion debt at last check greatest single national debt on planet,
currant war torn countries do not have anywhere near same natural/human resorces as u.s.
also why do you believe china was given "favoured nation" status,
when most of the world powers were trying to get China to cease it p*sspoor human rights failings?
u.s. is not the only nation that kowtows behind the obvious scenes.
the infomation is available(Not Wikipedia)need to dig deep & get beyond the obfuscation of officialdom.


i reiterate the only reason the 1st nuke was used was as practicle test = just how much damage would it do.
2nd time was retribution.
3rd would have been pointless,militarily & politically(stalinism was by then very much on the do we/don't we go to war.
fact general macarthur was sacked asap due to his insistance russians should be nuked(next phase of WWII)

No offence Andartes read a lot more about soviet/stalinist history.
intellectuals/ethnic minorties/jews(Pograms=forced removal/incarceration/execution-applies to all in this list)/cossacks/political adversaries(Lenin)/russians(white-red-neutral-others)military-did more than just decimate officer class within soviet forces.
as already stated germany & russia were allies before the "Phoney"then actual WWII began.
read more diversly & if you know anyone who was involved,civilian/refugee/military talk to them.
i've been fortunate to come into contact with many diverse survivors From merchant seamen who experienced the murmansk run to former east europeans who did whatever they could to ensure they survived brutal times(at the hands of both axis & communist troops).
free army Soldiers who lost limbs at monte casino,a former werhmacht general & more.
None of whom bragged about their experiences, some actually said very little,none wished a repeat performance would engulf the world ever again.