Ever wondered what would happen if a nuke hit your city? Wonder no more!

[Oregoropa]

This has nothing to do with you or Bob.

I was trying to understand the context. It was an odd transition.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

OK. All forgiven.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Nuclear bombs hit my country twice already so yeah, wut up, people?

not sure i would have agreed with dropping them. sorry for the harrowing experience your country underwent.

We in NYC in the early 70's were one of the first American cities
to view a traveling exhibit on the artifacts and film about Hiroshima
& Nagasaki.

The very ionic "stopped watch", some melted something, a piece of wall with
a shadow burned into it from the light of the bomb and what or whom? ever had been casting it.

And i became part of the anti-nuclear weapons (and later energy)
activists. Did meet Japanese A-Bomb Survivors - The Hibakushas, who were in nyc during the Sept? opening of The UN.

 

[nbelcik]

My great grandfather was at Leyte Gulf on an aircraft carrier that was hit by a kamikaze. I finally got him to talk about it when I was a kid because I was very interested in WWII history. We also talked a bit about the bomb a couple years ago because I was doing a school project on it and he said that for his whole life he supported dropping the bomb until he saw a documentary that showed the suffering of the civilians. Ever since then, he's been of the opinion that there were more options than the bomb or invasion and we should have looked into those options.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

My great grandfather was at Leyte Gulf on an aircraft carrier that was hit by a kamikaze.

That must have been a crazy story. Leyte Gulf was the beginning of the Kamikaze attacks. Biggest naval battle in history.

 

[bono_212]

Yeah, it's amazing how many people in the West believe false narratives about the war. Like most people believe that it was the UK and U.S. invading France that led to the end of Nazi Germany, when by that point the war was already won. Once the Nazis were turned back in the Eastern Front and began to retreat, the war was over for them. It's amazing the absolute scale of the Eastern Front and how much bigger it was than the Western Front. I'll find a link to a very good video about WWII casualties and post it.

And not to mention the fact that there's people out there that deny the Holocaust occurred, even though the Holocaust is one of the most thoroughly documented atrocities of history. It's amazing what cognitive dissonance can do to people.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Why do people also insist on belittling and ignoring the good done by the US / UK /Allies in the war as well, though? Don't pretend like the war wouldn't have continued on longer and meanwhile the atrocities of the Holocaust would have continued. I'm not sure why there's such a stronger desire by modern society to try and turn everything done by the United States into a negative.

But that's the Western front. As for Japan, I don't like the dropping of the bomb, and it's not an excuse but there's no denying that the Japanese committed their own atrocities. I wish the bombs hadn't been dropped and I hope they will forever be the reminder, the barrier to anyone ever doing it again. I pray that positive can at least be taken from the events in Japan.

 

[nbelcik]

Why do people also insist on belittling and ignoring the good done by the US / UK /Allies in the war as well, though? Don't pretend like the war wouldn't have continued on longer and meanwhile the atrocities of the Holocaust would have continued. I'm not sure why there's such a stronger desire by modern society to try and turn everything done by the United States into a negative.

No one's denying that we did a lot of good things during the war and were the good side in the conflict. The U.S. and UK liberated Western Europe and helped defeat the most evil regime the world has ever seen. But it's important to have an accurate view of history and to realize that even countries that are fighting for a good cause can do bad things. In war, atrocities are committed by both sides and the other side being incredibly worse doesn't excuse actions such as the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Countries are made up of people and people have flaws.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

That must have been a crazy story. Leyte Gulf was the beginning of the Kamikaze attacks. Biggest naval battle in history.

Yeah, he said it was the scariest thing he's ever experienced. I can't even imagine going through what he went through at the age I'm at, I believe he was in his in his early 20s and I'm 20 right now. Hard to believe many of the people fighting were my age and under.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_212]

No one's denying that we did a lot of good things during the war and were the good side in the conflict. The U.S. and UK liberated Western Europe and helped defeat the most evil regime the world has ever seen. But it's important to have an accurate view of history and to realize that even countries that are fighting for a good cause can do bad things. In war, atrocities are committed by both sides and the other side being incredibly worse doesn't excuse actions such as the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Countries are made up of people and people have flaws.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

My point is that there's a danger in only pushing the bad part. Your post seemed to suggest that the Allied actions on the Western front were meaningless beyond Russia.

 

[Oregoropa]

Hitler made such bad decisions such as invading the ussr because he was injected with a cocktail of drugs by his doctor including Crystal meth daily.

Watched a show on history channel that a synthetic version of meth in tablet form was given to German soldiers allowing them to fight for days on end without empathy. That's one of the reason blitzkrieg was so effective in the first 2 years of the war. But the tweaker soldiers became hopelessly addicted by 1942 and crashed hard when the supply lines were stretched in the east. They wrote letters home begging family and friends to send prevatin (the name for the meth). Was a fascinating show.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

My point is that there's a danger in only pushing the bad part. Your post seemed to suggest that the Allied actions on the Western front were meaningless beyond Russia.

I said the war was pretty much won by the time the UK and US invaded. And I do think that the Western conventional wisdom about the war deemphasizes the Eastern Front. The Nazis lost 500,000 troops total in the Western Front. But in the East, at the Battle of Stalingrad, they lost 500,000 troops and had 100,000 troops taken prisoner and that's just one battle. The scale of the Eastern Front was so much larger than the Western Front. And once Germany began to be pushed back in the Eastern Front it was only a matter of time before they lost. What we did was simply speed up the time before the Nazis were defeated.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

Hitler made such bad decisions such as invading the ussr because he was injected with a cocktail of drugs by his doctor including Crystal meth daily.

Watched a show on history channel that a synthetic version of meth in tablet form was given to German soldiers allowing them to fight for days on end without empathy. That's one of the reason blitzkrieg was so effective in the first 2 years of the war. But the tweaker soldiers became hopelessly addicted by 1942 and crashed hard when the supply lines were stretched in the east. They wrote letters home begging family and friends to send prevatin (the name for the meth). Was a fascinating show.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

The Allies opened the second front mainly to prevent the Soviets from rolling across Germany and into Western Europe, as the USSR would have installed communist puppet governments in the Low Countries and France. It really wasn't primarily about winning the war (although that was part of it), it was mainly to prevent all of Europe from becoming a Soviet puppet. The war was definitely over after Stalingrad and Kursk.

 

[BVS]

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Actually there's a lot of documentation that methamphetamines and other forms of were highly used by both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

Actually there's a lot of documentation that methamphetamines and other forms of were highly used by both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Really? I've studied WWII a lot in school and I've never heard anything like that. Sounds like I'll have to do some research.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[U2DMfan]

I said the war was pretty much won by the time the UK and US invaded. And I do think that the Western conventional wisdom about the war deemphasizes the Eastern Front. The Nazis lost 500,000 troops total in the Western Front. But in the East, at the Battle of Stalingrad, they lost 500,000 troops and had 100,000 troops taken prisoner and that's just one battle. The scale of the Eastern Front was so much larger than the Western Front. And once Germany began to be pushed back in the Eastern Front it was only a matter of time before they lost. What we did was simply speed up the time before the Nazis were defeated.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

That's an oversimplification. There's no question that folks in the West have been given a very Western-centric view of WW2, much of which almost totally ignores how the Russians beat down the Nazis. But saying the Western-centric view of the war is not the total picture is not an excuse to turn around offer the Eastern-centric view of the war.

History (written objectively) tells us that wars in general, but especially THAT war, are extremely complicated. As was the decision to drop the bombs in '45. People can have varying POVs on all these matters, but the only people that are wrong are being absolute about much any of it. For starters, that a Western front was even a possibility (against a very formidable foe) diluted Germany's ability to win in the East before the US/UK invaded. Allocation of resources is an undeniable factor in who wins and loses.

Also, casualty numbers are not always indicative of...(for lack of a better way to phrase it) who won the war more than someone else. It can simply be indicative of the tougher fight. The Germans were the better warriors than the Russians, and that is pretty much universally accepted amongst military 'experts' but let's suggest they were at least equals. Just imagine they had more equal numbers. And that goes for the Western front as well. Had the Allies faced the full power of the Nazis, it would have been...let's say a hell of a lot tougher to liberate France - alone.

It could also be said those casualties numbers are as imbalanced as they are because Germany was INVADING their foe in the East. You know...their backyard. While they were defending - while occupying in the West. Had they decided to invade the UK...do those casualties drastically go up? Of course they do. It might have been part of the reason they didn't do it - hence, a mark in the column of the Allies.

You can make these arguments say whatever you want to say, in terms of citing troop allotments and regiments, etc. Or...as you did...if you're going to use something like casualties to suit your purpose, why wouldn't someone just point out in reply - that the Allies went through the Germans on the Western front like a hot knife through butter? Didn't even take a year. And yet the Russians were bogged down for years...but then you'd have to take into the invasion/occupation dynamics. And then - you must admit that the casualties would necessarily be imbalanced. Thus, if you're being intellectually honest, it's not much evidence for what you're trying to pass off.

The bottom line is the logistics of what the Nazis could NOT do - greatly helped them to lose the war. That has to be part of this discussion. Part of that is not being able to rest easy when they knew the Allies were coming. The threat of the Allies actually kept the Russians in the fight. Truth.

We all won the war, and it doesn't really matter who won it more than the other. Let the Brits claim it. Let the Russians claim it. Let the Americans claim it. And let the Westerners claiming the Russians did it feel self-satisfied that they are somehow enlightened...as if they just watched a bunch of propaganda from "truth-tellers" like Oliver Stone.

 

[Irvine511]

That's an oversimplification. There's no question that folks in the West have been given a very Western-centric view of WW2, much of which almost totally ignores how the Russians beat down the Nazis. But saying the Western-centric view of the war is not the total picture is not an excuse to turn around offer the Eastern-centric view of the war.



History (written objectively) tells us that wars in general, but especially THAT war, are extremely complicated. As was the decision to drop the bombs in '45. People can have varying POVs on all these matters, but the only people that are wrong are being absolute about much any of it.

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

 

[bono_212]

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

Seconded.

 

[Kieran McConville]

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yeah, I can usually only fight without empathy for six or seven hours on meth.

 

[Oregoropa]

Here is a what if scenario?

Hitler does not invade the Soviet Union in June 41'. Instead accelerates his rocketry and jet research. The me-262 goes into action sooner in greater numbers. The allies didn't get their strategic bombing going until late 42. This would be totally ineffective against the jet fighters. The Germans would have complete air superiority. There is then a small window where they could take Britain before the U.S. Masters its naval supply convoy strategy. Then they could further their ballistic missile technology beyond the V-2. I could see a Cold War breaking out between the U.S. And Germany. Then Germany could choose whether or not to invade the ussr.

On a side note Amazon streaming adapted Philip k dicks "the man in the high castle" which imagines the nazis and Japanese winning and splitting the country in half. Honestly the booked sucked. But the series is set in that universe and the pilot was very cool.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

Here is a what if scenario?

Hitler does not invade the Soviet Union in June 41'. Instead accelerates his rocketry and jet research. The me-262 goes into action sooner in greater numbers. The allies didn't get their strategic bombing going until late 42. This would be totally ineffective against the jet fighters. The Germans would have complete air superiority. There is then a small window where they could take Britain before the U.S. Masters its naval supply convoy strategy. Then they could further their ballistic missile technology beyond the V-2. I could see a Cold War breaking out between the U.S. And Germany. Then Germany could choose whether or not to invade the ussr.

On a side note Amazon streaming adapted Philip k dicks "the man in the high castle" which imagines the nazis and Japanese winning and splitting the country in half. Honestly the booked sucked. But the series is set in that universe and the pilot was very cool.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Have you ever heard of Harry Turtledove? He did an interesting alt-history series where aliens attacked the Earth during WWII. He also did one where the South won the Civil War and the Union and the South coexist as rivals. The timeline eventually ends with the Union defeating the South in WWII.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

Yeah. I have heard of it. A whole timeline that starts with intelligence message not being intercepted. I'll have to check it out


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference