How do people seriously think that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified, and that a mainland invasion or letting the Japanese starve to death was a better way of ending the war?
because there are documents showing that Japan was ready to surrender 2 months before the bombs were dropped, with the sole condition that the emperor and the royal family be left unharmed and be allowed to retain their royal status. America wouldn't accept these terms and wanted total, unconditional surrender. Dropped the bombs. Then whaddya know, they granted Japan's sole condition re: the imperial family.
America dropped the bombs as a show of force, not as a necessity.
>>768429
While I agree with your stance, your information is incorrect. Japan wasn't ready to surrender, and although the notion was discussed it wouldn't have happened if not for the atomic bombs or strong pressure from its allies. (Why the fuck do you think it didn't immediately capitulate after Hiroshima).
>>768406
How the fuck is dropping atomic bombs, which influences areas for generations afterwards, ever permissible.
>>768457
Talk shit, get hit.
People forget that Japan wanted to keep Korea and Manchuria in case of a conditional surrender.
>>768429
>Then whaddya know, they granted Japan's sole condition re: the imperial family.
They didn't grant any conditions. The surrender was total and unconditional. Whatever happened afterwards was completely up to the Allies' discretion, and was not the result of a bargain.
>>768457
>which influences areas for generations afterward
Yeah, like, all of Hiroshima is a nuclear wasteland, right?
>>768406
The Blame America First crowd aren't interested in rational thought.
>>768488
>Whatever happened afterwards was completely up to the Allies' discretion, and was not the result of a bargain.
That's the point. The Allies were perfectly willing to grant the condition that Japan wanted to surrender. They didn't, because they wanted to use the bombs.
>>768543
No, Allies were willing to let Japan keep the Emperor. They were not willing, however, to let that be a condition of the surrender. The process mattered there more than the practical results. It was important to let nations know that you couldn't start a war and expect a face-saving peace.
>>768406
It doesn't even really matter because nobody here is capable of discussing this topic rationally. Anyone that doesn't want to post sources might as well not even bother.
>>768546
Important enough to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations..?
>muh Japanese would fight to the last man because of their samurai nature orientalism narrative
This has never happened in history. The Germans were probably more culturally psychotic and they gave up soon enough. So long as the U.S. promised to leave the Islands alone ethnically and culturally (which was totally aligned with U.S. interests) there was never gong to be a long war on the main island.
Hell I bet if time wasn't of the essence because of growing competition with the USSR America could have just sieged the entire country with a naval blockade and just waited them out. The entire country was on the brink of mass starvation by the end of the war.
Japan was gonna surrender when soviets declared anyways. that said, the fire bombings was much more horrific than the atom bombs. The atom bombs was just for show and to send a message to the rest of the world.
>>768500
I could've known some faggot would've misinterpreted that bit. Let me formulate it differently, "which negatively influenced both the the directly affected generation of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and generations afterwards". Happy now faggot? Or are you gonna upload a picture of a smiling Hiroshima citizen now.
>>768706
Oh so you are not making a robust, empirical claim but some wishy-washy touchy feely psychological claim that can't ever be substantiated? I guess if you prefer to be full of shit than outright wrong, good for you.
>>768600
The events after World War 2 point to yes. Japan needed a total defeat to get its head out of the clouds and focus on the homefront rather than imperial expansion.
America didn't know how much of a role the emperor played in the war. They spent some time trying to figure out if the emperor was a proponent of the war or if he was just being pushed around by the military command. There was no way to know this before Japan unconditionally surrendered so they couldn't risk leaving a warmonger as the leader of Japan.
>>768723
Oh sorry man, I guess you never heard about science and the fact that it's proven there were significantly more birth defects and cases of leukemia and other forms of cancer after those bombs were dropped. Do I have to explain "significantly" to you?
>>768778
>, I guess you never heard about science and the fact that it's proven there were significantly more birth defects and cases of leukemia and other forms of cancer after those bombs were dropped
I don't know what kind of 'science' you are talking about but there is no evidence of any increase of birth defects or any significant increase in leukemia.
>Do I have to explain "significantly" to you?
You might have to, since you are using it in a very esoteric, idiosyncratic fashion evidently.
>>768778
>In 1985, Johns Hopkins University human geneticist James F. Crow examined Neel's research and confirmed that the number of birth defects was not significantly higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[244] Many members of the ABCC and its successor Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) were still looking for possible birth defects or other causes among the survivors decades later, but found no evidence that they were common among the survivors.[245][246] Despite the insignificance of birth defects found in Neel's study, historian Ronald E. Powaski wrote that Hiroshima experienced "an increase in stillbirths, birth defects, and infant mortality" following the atomic bomb.[247] Neel also studied the longevity of the children who survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting that between 90 and 95 percent were still living 50 years later.[245]
Around 1,900 cancer deaths can be attributed to the after-effects of the bombs. An epidemiology study by the RERF states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among the bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated at 200 leukemia and 1,700 solid cancers.[248]
>>768406
Yeah, well, technically the war was over, with the imperial army devastated without resources, also taking into account these factors Japan had already offered peace to which USA refused, only for drop the bombs and start their experiment
>>768970
>also taking into account these factors Japan had already offered peace to which USA refused
This is /his/tory, not /lit/.
Because they believe Japan was ready to surrender without a land invasion. It's not complicated.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
>>768429
interesting thing about the Emperor was that MacArthur had to intercede to keep Hirohito on the throne, because he was facing serious pressure from inside the Imperial Household to abdicate in favour of his son, with one of his younger brother's serving as regent until Akihito came of age.
>>768406
People are just uninformed, nothing more. They think that the war wasn't that bad, that the worst thing the Japanese people did was Pearl Harbour.
I'm sure that if you just educated people they would change their minds. I know I did. Before I started casually study history, I was the kind of person that would argue that nuclear weapons never are justified. I was also the kind of person that thought the Nazi people were very organized to be able to kill so many people until I read up on the Red Khmers. People learn more shit all the time.
>>768463
This desu.
>>768770
/thread
>>768500
More like destroyed most of Japanese Christianity.
>>769117
oh no how will they ever recover from that
>>768543
Look up conditional.
because they dropped it after japan was defeated and it was a message to russia. read a book.
>>769135
This, the conditions the Japanese came with was utter bullshit. If I recall correctly, it included allowing Japan to have their overseas empires and not pressing charges of any warcrimes in an international court.
>>769117
>Not knowing that MacArthur tried to exorcise Shinto with Freemasonry and Protestantism after the war
japan were being cunts so they got tapped. but it wasnt enough. scorched earth from the cong' to xian.
>>768648
>The Germans were probably more culturally psychotic and they gave up soon enough
>Germans literally held out until their capital city was conquered rather than surrender
>gave up soon enough
>>768770
However, couldn't it be argued that intentionally targeting civilian populations makes the US no better than the powers it was fighting?
the atom bomb was the ultimate show of force and a message to the Soviet Union.
At the moment, people were starting to view communism as a legitimate force to support after the Soviets crushed the Wehrmacht and took Berlin, and the US did fear that Communism would gain popularity in nations like France and Italy.
the US needed to show that they were stronger than the red army, and that an alliance with the US would be a compelling choice, and having the atom bomb on your side makes the argument rather compelling.
the US planned on toting their nukes as a global trump card against the soviets for decades and keep them in check, but this backfired with the Soviets developing their own nukes in just 4 years.
You could say the atom bomb emboldened the Soviets to make their own rather than cower in fear of the US' show of force.
While the bomb brought a much swifter end to a war that would've dragged on in the case of home island invasion, it failed to deter the Soviets in the cold war, and instead started the arms race.
>>769921
Victory was impossible without such strategies. Dresden was a war crime, but the firebombing of Japan was the only way to significantly harm Japan's ability to make war.
Honestly, I think the best way to avoid all the carnage necessitated by WW2 would have been the British maintaining their alliance with Japan following WW1. Britain helped Japan modernize but turned against Japan's interests in favor of improving relations with America, most notably by shooting down anti-race law legislation in the League of Nations. Japan was tired of Japanese being treated like a second class people but America was entrenched in segregation laws. Britain sided with American interests over Japans and further convinced Japan that the only people in the world that were willing to protect Japanese interests were the Japanese people and that imperial expansion modeled after European nations was the best course of action.
>>770010
I think it was stated earlier, but a naval blockade would have been extremely effective. The Japanese were too stripped for resources to fight much longer anyway. I know it is a purely idealistic belief on my part, but if a nation is claiming to be fighting ruthless regimes that target civilians, they shouldn't be acting in a similar manner.
What I want to know is why people think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely civilian centers and were utterly devoid of military targets of strategic value?
>>770023
War is expensive and America was only capable of sustaining the war effort for so many years before the American people demanded peace. If that happened before Japan surrendered then the whole thing could have started up again in a few years.
I don't mind idealism. Maybe such a plan could have worked. Maybe a few people with good hearts and charismatic tongues could have ended the war with less bloodshed and helped prevent future wars from developing from the ashes of the old war. But just be sure to recognize the logic of what actually happen. Bombing Japanese cities made sense even to a very moral people.
>>770004
it also didn't help that the manhattan project was riddled with communist spies.
>>770010
>Dresden was a war crime, but the firebombing of Japan was the only way to significantly harm Japan's ability to make war.
Dresden was a major rail hub and contained many war materials factories.
>>770830
Dresden served no grander military goals. In fact that is why German civilians flocked there. It didn't make sense to bomb it. The presence of German civilians was the only reason it was bombed. An Englishman wanted blood after the The Blitz, and he got it.
>>770847
>Dresden served no grander military goals
Oh I didn't realize that as long as you are not serving "grander military goals" you are a civilian, not a combatant.
>>770847
Indeed that AA guns factory was just there to make guns that kill enemy aircraft. It's not like it had a grander military goal.
>>768406
Because there are other ways of ending wars than unconditional surrender
>>770847
>Britian and then later also Americans keep a more or less non stop sustained bombing campaign of Germany, at times inflicting more casualties than the Dresden bombings.
>But NO, DRESDEN was SPECIFICALLY because they WANTED BLOOOODDDDD FOR THE BLOOD GOD CHURCHILL AFTER THE BLITZ
>>770872
The industrial suburbs weren't targeted. The civilian refugees in the city's center were targeted.
>>770902
>lol, people die in war so literally EVERYTHING is fair game
Lay off the edge. Targets had strategic importance throughout the war. The bombing of Dresden did not serve a significant purpose.
We should have dropped the first on Iwo Jima or some shit, that would have got the message across just as well. But no lets bomb the valley of wind and spread that shit everywhere poisoning(testing) innocent civilians.
If they didnt surrender after Iwo Jima, Tokyo would be next in my book./.
>>770913
There was industry within the city and in the outskirts. They did not target the outskirts because most of the industry was inside the city together with the transit hubs. Honestly if you weren't arguing straight from imagination you wouldn't be so adamant about your position.
>>770925
A transit hub full of... that's right, refugees fleeing cities with actually significant military targets at their heart. They bombed Dresden simply because it was one of the last major German cities that was not bombed, which isn't significant enough justification for bombing, especially given the fact that Dresden had been a refuge for German civilians fearful of Allied strategic bombing.
You sound just as adamant as me so I don't know what you are on about.
>>770923
Little was known about the radiological effects after the bomb detonation.
>>770949
>A transit hub full of...
Soldiers being sent east to fight the advancing Red Army.
anyone know the name of that documentary about the japan bombing (not only the nuclear bombs but all that came before, they basically set on fire more than half of the main cities) which is basically a big interview with the ex-director of the CIA or something?
i heard it mentioned long ago and i never managed to watch it
>>768406
The first bomb was somewhat justified but the second was simply a demonstration to the Russians of American power. Whilst Hiroshima was necessary to be the final persuading jab at the Japanese government for an unconditional surrender before a potential land invasion. The second was dropped amidst talks for such a surrender following the Russian invasion. The Japanese where ready to face total surrender to the allies before the Russians grabbed too much land. Relations had already soured at this point anyway between Russia and the rest of the allied powers.
>>770953
As I said, the primary reason Dresden was targeted was simply because it was the last major German city not targeted. Even if it wasn't full of refugees the fact that the city merely had a railway station wouldn't have been considered significant justification for targeting an area full of civilians.
It was a wayning in Allied moral judgement. They stopped thinking about balancing civilian casualties with the actual impact the bombings would have on the war effort. You would be right if they targeted the sparsely populated industrial suburbs, but they didn't. They targeted the heart of the city because for this one moment they didn't give a damn about civilian casualties and for this one moment thought their primary goal was to destroy Germany in the most general sense. They saw an untouched German city and they thought it was their job to destroy it simply because it was German.
>>770966
The Nagasaki bombing was on August 6th. The Kyūjō incident occurred on the night of August 14th-15th. There was still significant pressure within the Japanese military command to keep the war going even after the bombing of Hiroshima.
>>770968
Dresden did not simply have a railway station, anon. It was, and still is, a major transit center linking Germany to the East. In 1945 it was an area full of soldiers, and of factories and munitions depots. Dresden moreover was defended by AAA and fighters. It fit literally every conceivable criteria of a combatant city.
Arthur Harris put it best:
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Start shit, get shit.
>>770979
>>770968
>>770953
>>770949
>>770925
>>770979
German logistics would have been more harmed by targeting the actual industry of the city instead of the city's civilian populated center. You are correct in that a transit hub full of soldiers and ammo is a nice target, but not nice enough to justify the killing of that many civilians. Strategic bombing must be weighed against possible civilian casualties.
For Dresden the Allies stopped thinking about avoiding civilian casualties and stopped thinking about the best logistical targets and focused primarily on just blowing the shit out of Germany.
>>770990
REMOVE SAURKRAUT
>>770920
The bombing of Dresden served a strategic purpose, since it was a transport hub and, if memory serves, housed a armament factory. That is significance enough.
>>768600
Japan thought dropping bombs on civilian populations was fine, so who gives a fuck?
>>771013
>significant enough
Not relative to the rest of the war. Dresden was a low point of the Allies justifying civilian deaths. Such low points should be shunned in hopes of it not providing precedent for similarly grim rationalizations in future wars.
>>771035
Humans. Humans give a fuck.
hiroshima was a huge military base... why destroy the infrastructure when your about to take over?
>>768406
ITT: People who should've watched Fat Man and Little Boy.
>>770920
>The bombing of Dresden did not serve a significant purpose.
Murdering civilians on masse has a very significant purpose in war, considering the fact that civilians are usually the ones who make military weapons and ammunition.
Please do not forget the fact that Nazi-Germany are the ones who actively wanted so-called "total war" and wanted the divide between civilian and military to be removed, and they proved that by bombing several cities in England for the specific purpose of killing civilians, such as Portsmouth.
>>771055
So the Japanese aren't humans? Nice to know...
>>771075
but that's different anon, german civilians are special
>>771075
>Please do not forget the fact that Nazi-Germany are the ones who actively wanted so-called "total war" and wanted the divide between civilian and military to be removed
Why is that even relevant? Are you going to justify death camps next with "but the Nazis did it first"?
>>771087
>Civilians were never targets in WW2, numbnuts
Bullshit. Strategic bombing of civilians was, and has always been a tactic.
>>771060
Don't care for CP
>>771089
>justify
Who is talking about justification? The point is that if your enemy is doing something that is de facto illegal in a war scenario, but will hurt your war effort to a degree that will potentially make you lose the war, it means you need to do a show of force that will make them stop.
>>771091
Civilians died, but they weren't the targets. That's something you just made up after seeing pictures of bombed out cities in your high school history textbook.
>>771097
>Civilians died, but they weren't the targets.
Right. I bet the U.S firebombed Tokyo and destroyed 250000 buildings and by that killed between 70-200k civilians because the target was really 2 or 3 military buildings.
Suuuuuuure.
>>771096
Actions should be justified. You are saying targeting civilians was justifiable because the Nazis did it.
The Allies didn't think it was justified and you are being retarded by defending Allies with such a shit argument. The Allies generally kept a much higher moral standard than killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians so you trying to defend the Allies targeting civilians is like you trying to defend Glenn Beck for raping and killing a girl in 1990.
>>771102
target of u.s.a. was showing to all countries of the Earth who is boss now.
>>771102
Nice nonargument there, bro. Show me a SINGLE line of text of Allied strategists explicitly stating a SINGLE bombing run was for the expressed purpose of killing enemy civilians and I will apologize and be on my way. Else you are a tremendous faggot.
Civilians were not ever targets of the Allies. They were collateral damage.
>>771103
>You are saying targeting civilians was justifiable because the Nazis did it.
No, i'm not. I'm saying when your enemy is deranged to the point of madness, you have no choice but to exceed his own cruelty in order to show him you are not weak, in an effort to break his morale.
>>771108
>There HAS to be a direct order to murder civilians for it to de facto be what you are doing.
Nope.
>>771115
The faggotry mounts.
>>771112
>I'm saying when your enemy is deranged to the point of madness, you have no choice but to exceed his own cruelty in order to show him you are not weak
That is the single most retarded thing I have read all day. Granted it is the morning, but I'd be surprised if anything tops that.
You sound like an edgelord.
>>771138
Why exactly is it retarded?
The firebombing of Tokyo is literally the most destructive air-raid in the history of war, and why would America do such a thing if it wasn't to break a country's morale specifically by targeting civilians?
You can try to evade the fact that civilian murder was the goal by pointing at there being no explicit order for such a thing, but I don't care. It's pretty obvious that that was the whole point of the bombing.
>>771145
The idea that you have to out evil your enemy is retarded and it makes you sound like a misanthrope who doesn't value human lives.
>>771148
Maybe I worded myself badly, but if you do not think the Allies committed any violations of international law, or laws of war during WW2 in order to win, you are delusional.
>>768806
Significant = P>0.05%
Yeah, shit was pretty significant. Definitely a huge increase in lots of bad shit caused from the bomb man.
Can't statistically deny that.
>>771159
It really had little to do with wording. I'm reading you loud and clear and the idea is retarded. You should discard that historical lens right now.
>>771087
>Civilians were never targets in WW2
according to... ?
>>771171
>You should
No. I'm fine. But I'm guessing you think you're some kind of authority on history, and are feeling asspained right about now.
>>771180
According to your complete lack of sources and the fact that Allied strategists only initially tried avoiding civilians deaths and only saw civilian deaths as collateral damage throughout the war as they increased the scope of their bombing campaign. Civilians were never an expressed target and it's up to you to show me a single line of text from the Allies stating that the intent of any strategic bombing run was for killing civilians.
>>771194
>from the Allies
nice moving of the goalposts
>>771191
Dude, I'm telling you for your benefit. You sound like an edgelord and the idea that one has out evil their opponent is balls to the wall retarded.
>>771199
Did you just jump into this conversation with no context or are you the anon I've been posting with this entire time and are just stupid? We have been talking about the Allies' strategic bombing campaign.
>>771201
Yup, confirmed asspain.
>>771194
>In February 1942, the British Bomber Command gained approval from Churchill to target Germany's industrial cities and their civilian populations.
-an excerpt from the strategic bombing overview in "Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality, and the Atomic Bomb"
>and their civilian populations.
>>771225
>[German] refugees were considered legitimate targets
- "The Strategic Air War against Germany" by Sebastian Cox
You could still have found a way to negotiate a peace treaty without harming any innocents. The bombs were sadistic and cruel, I can't believe they were so nonchalant about bombing thousands upon thousands of innocents.
>>771220
>this damage control for inconsequential shit that anon shouldn't even be taking personally
Have a cup of coffee.
>>771247
He's obviously retardedly asspained, because he took my choice of words more personally than the actual subject at hand.
>>771225
Did you look that up just now from a hard copy? Else give me a link. I want to read it myself to see if the author is quoting or using his own words. That's an important distinction.
>>771252
But your statement WAS stupid and edgy. Simply pointing that out does not imply taking anything personally.
>>768406
We know now that the US had intercepted negotiations between Japan and the USSR. They were very close to survival and would've accepted a truce.
I know that the Japanese were bitterly holding on to their islands, but the argument that they would have fought to the end like the Nazis in Berlin doesn't count.
There were these incidents where the gouvernement sunk decommissioned ships with nukes and let sailors scrub other ships nearby in order to observe the consequences of radiation. They probably knew that there was something going on, but wanted to try it out.
>>771262
Yes it does, because the subject isn't my fucking choice of words, but making the subject my choice of words proves to me that you're a fucking asspained dickhead.
>>771269
>And here I thought WW2 was the one war with good guys and bad guys.
It clearly was, regardless of the tactics used.
>>771273
It wasn't about your choice of words. The core concept is edgy. You said you have to outdo the bad things the enemy is doing by doing worse things.
>>771290
It clearly wasn't. England and France started the war in Europe by declaring war on Germany (and not the USSR which also invaded Poland). They didn't want Germany becoming another major competitor on the international scene. The Allies underestimated Germany and then proceeded to commit the same attacks on civilians that the Germans were doing.
>>771292
I said you have to "exceed his own cruelty".
Which is what the Allies did. If you don't think firebombing Dresden, Tokyo and dropping nukes is exceeding cruelty, I don't know what it is you're drinking.
>>771304
Do you know why they declared war on Germany? Because they said they would defend Poland, if Germany invaded it. You won't believe what happened next!
>>771304
They guaranteed the Polish defense. This is not starting a war.
The English and the French had been appeasing Hitler for 4 years already before the war broke out, by letting him annex Austria and invading Czechoslovakia.
So no, you're entirely incorrect. Nazi-Germany started the war.
>>771304
>The Jewish controlled England and France started the war in Europe by declaring war on Germany (and not the USSR which also invaded Poland).
Fixed that for you. It should make sense to you now.
>>771312
"Exceed his own cruelty" is pretty clear unless you were defining "cruelty" as the ability to make war. In which case you were just being dumb and TRYING to turn something that wasn't edgy into something that sounded edgy.
>>771304
as I hear, Poland was part of Russian Empire, before USSR and foreign bolshevik leaders of a revolution.
>>771318
>>771319
That would be a good counter argument if not for the fact that they let the USSR get off scot free.
Russia was already a power, Germany was a potential power. It had nothing to do with morality or international law. It was just an attempt to remove an international player from the game before they could get a foothold abroad. Germany had the potential of becoming the world's foremost imperial power.
>>771318
And do you know why Germany invaded Poland? Maybe because the Treaty of Versaille and the creation of the League of Nations was designed to punish Germany for allegedly starting the First World War, which isn't true. The Treaty of Versailles stripped German land, formed Czechoslovakia and Poland. the ethnic Germans who were living in the newly formed Polish land were being persecuted by locals.
>>771328
>is pretty clear unless you were defining "cruelty" as the ability to make war.
I clearly meant it in a way that is reducible to the strategic targeting of civilians in war in an effort to make your enemy capitulate.
The fact that you are trying so hard to make this in to a bigger deal semantically than it is, makes me think you're an autist.
>>771320
Keeping Germany down was clearly aligned with Anglo interests.
>>771339
Autism has nothing to do with it, for once. This is me trying to correct your apparent misanthropy. War is not about being more cruel than the other guy.
>>771336
>let the USSR off scot free
>what is the next 70 years of Cold War that almost turned into nuclear war several times after Nazi-Germany was defeated
Stop being a retarded idiot.
>>771340
You might want to research the top officials of British and France at the time and learn about their origins.
>>771269
>he believed his youthful indoctrination
can't blame you for your ignorance
we all have to learn sometime
>>771348
Yes, you are an autist. Because I'm not going to repeat myself another time.
>>771349
We are talking about WW2, you dumbass. You might as well imply that recent sanctions against Russia were due to their invasion of Poland.
>>771340
>Anglo interests
whisky and tits
>>771337
I realize it is pointless "arguing" with you but I'm bored so I'll say a few things anyway.
>for allegedly starting the First World War, which isn't true
Are you denying the blank cheque, the ultimatums to Russia and France, the invasion of Belgium and the belligerent policies of Germany that helped spark WW1?
>The Treaty of Versailles stripped German land, formed Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The ToV did not "form Czechoslovakia". Speaking of Czechoslovakia, why did the dindu nuffin Germany at first claim parts of it and then the rest?
>the ethnic Germans who were living in the newly formed Polish land were being persecuted by locals
Now I see my very first sentence was prophetic!
>>771356
Yes, but you are implying that there is some specific underlying reason that Nazi-Germany was the target and not the USSR, which is clearly because without them, the Allies probably knew they wouldn't be able to win the war against Nazi-Germany.
You obviously don't understand the concept of opportunism.
>>771354
You never corrected yourself in the first place. You just stated you worded your statement poorly and left it at that. You tell me right now what general statement about war you were trying to say if you think you were being misinterpreted.
>>771367
Nope. I'm done being baited by Autismus Maximus.
>>771365
>opppurtunism
So you agree with me and are just being a faggot. The Allies could have just as easily sided with Nazi Germany against the USSR, but they didn't. The reason why is clear. The USSR was already a power and Germany was largely merely a potential power. If left alone Germany would have eventually taken a larger and larger slice of the imperial pie abroad at the expense of Anglo interests. THAT'S why France and Britain started the war in Europe. It's also why they set themselves up for WW1 as well. Germany has long had the potential to surpass Britain so Britain has made it their goal to sabotage German interests at every turn.
>>771372
I agree with you. There was certainly some element of what you say.
But I'm glad Nazi-Germany was destroyed, and I'm glad the USSR no longer exists.
>>771390
I don't know, living in a global communist utopia exploring the stars doesn't sound half bad.
I hate America.
>>771372
>It's also why they set themselves up for WW1 as well.
>France and Britain set themselves for war... >by doing things like voting in a pacifist, antiwar government, severely limiting the military, trying to stay out of the july crisis, withdrawing troops from the border with germany, telling russia not to do anything stupid, calling for international congress meetings when guns were blazing in the balkans etc.
oh those dastartldy warmongers!
genius
never change /his/
>>768706
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just as typical of Japanese cities now as they were before the war. Aside from the Peace Museums, I doubt that most people living in the two cities think about it very much.
>>771410
>thinking Anglos gave a damn about "what is right" instead of merely caring about their geopolitical interests
>>771420
Everyone cares about their geopolitical interests you mong.
>>771372
>The reason why is clear. The USSR was already a power and Germany was largely merely a potential power. If left alone Germany would have eventually taken a larger and larger slice of the imperial pie abroad at the expense of Anglo interests. THAT'S why France and Britain started the war in Europe.
Yeah no. If Germany hadn't gobbled up land left and right the Allies would have been fine leaving their government alone. As it was they probably wanted to use Germany as a buffer against the "Red Menace" up to the invasion of Poland. Germany's "potential" wasn't the threat that led the British and French to war it was their actions.
>>771092
OH! HOW CLEVER!
AND JUST SAYIN TO MYSELF /HIS/ IS THE BRAINIAC BOARD!
>>771422
Hence why I'm saying Anglos aren't the good guys, despite attempts to paint them as such.
>>771427
>implying the USSR wasn't gobbling up land
Case and point.
>>771441
They are clearly the good guys, because the world would not be as comfy right now if the NatSocs had won.
>>771443
The USSR is irrelevant to my point and yes they were gobbling up land (though not as much as Germany and more only after Germany had revealed itself as a large threat notice). You are asserting an incorrect reason for why Britain and France went to war with Germany.
Also I see your overall argument is that the Allies weren't the good guys. You are correct in that.
>>771444
Same plantation, different slave owner.
But yes, the Nazis winning would have been bad. I think the world would have been a better place if Germany had won in WW1 rather than WW2. The defeat of the Nazis finally got us past our social darwanism phase.
That said though, I don't think the Nazis would have gone to such immoral extremes had Britain and France not declared war on them. They originally wanted to deport Jews and other undesirables instead of kill them, even forming a Zionist state. They just wanted the Jews gone. Maybe they would have tried invading Russia though and depopulating the Ukraine. That would have been really bad.
>>770963
anybody?
