Who won the WWII ( in Europe )?

[R0adki11 3945]

For all those people that lost their lives in the conflict, there are no winner or losers. And as we are now remembering the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings let us not forget the loss of life on both sides.

Edited June 6, 2014 by R0adki11

[ProfTournesol 956]

For all those people that lost their lives in the conflict, there are now winner or losers. And as we are now remembering the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings let us not forget the loss of life on both sides.

Indeed. I'm watching ATM those great ceremonies that help us remembering all those brave people that died for the freedom of my country and of Europe, including those 20 000 civilians killed by airplane bombings or Nazis retaliations : pictures : http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27727856

Edited June 6, 2014 by ProfTournesol

[mistyronin 1181]

For all those people that lost their lives in the conflict, there are no winner or losers. And as we are now remembering the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings let us not forget the loss of life on both sides.

Yup, in fact, always that I visited a WW2 cementery it's just breathtaking to see the ages of those who died. No matter if I've already seen the ones in the Calvados Coast ( both the big american and the "small" german ), or Holland, or Belgium, or Luxemburg, Finland, etc.

It keeps shocking me every time that I visit a new one ( not to talk about the deep sorrow I felt in places like Mauthausen when I visited the gas chambers with the nail scratches still present ).

[vilas 473]

as i said before - majority of nations lost like 1-2% or less , Poland lost 22% of citizens, DDay is ca. 20 000 deaths, Poland had 6.5 milions deaths,

real tragedies MistyRonin you had in my country where every family lost someone and in many cities every house was bombed,

in many countries you see old historical buildings which have 500, 800 years, 1200 years, in my city there was no building left , many art specimens were stolen etc.

my city lost over 100 000 people in 2 months

Edited June 6, 2014 by vilas

[mistyronin 1181]

The great british historian Anthony Beevor, one of the best in the world about WW2, in a interview published today in the Spanish newspaper El País:

Antony Beevor: “No hay una sola batalla decisiva en la Segunda Guerra Mundial†( there is no single decisive battle in the Second World War )

Which he comments later widely:

¿Cambió el Desembarco de Normandía el curso de la guerra o Alemania ya estaba condenada a la derrota?

R. No hay una sola batalla decisiva en la II Guerra Mundial. El punto de inflexión geopolítico se produjo en diciembre de 1941, cuando la Wehrmacht no tomó Moscú y Hitler declaró la guerra a Estados Unidos. A partir de ese momento, era imposible que ganasen las potencias del Eje. Los siguientes siete u ocho meses, sin embargo, fueron desastrosos para los aliados. El punto de inflexión estratégico y psicológico se produjo a finales del otoño de 1942, cuando la Wehrmacht había alcanzado su “punto acumulativo†como consecuencia de combatir a lo largo de un frente demasiado amplio, tanto en el sur de Rusia como en Ãfrica del Norte. A partir de ahí, perdió completamente la iniciativa y los aliados estaban destinados a ganar. Pero el éxito del Día D fue decisivo en otro sentido. Si la invasión llega a fracasar, con los avances soviéticos en el Rin, la historia de la posguerra de Europa podría haber sido muy diferente.

Basically he says that the war's geopolitical inflection point was in December '41 when the Wehrmacht couldn't conquer Moscow and Hitler declared the war to the USA, after this point he says that was impossible that the Axis powers could win. And that the strategic and psychological inflection point happened at the ending of '42's fall when the Wehrmacht reached their maximum "accumulative" moment, both in the Russian huge front and in the North of Africa.

About the Disembark of Normandy he says that was decisive for the postwar Europe, because if not the Soviets would have taken most of it.

as i said before - majority of nations lost like 1-2% or less , Poland lost 22% of citizens, DDay is ca. 20 000 deaths, Poland had 6.5 milions deaths,

real tragedies MistyRonin you had in my country where every family lost someone and in many cities every house was bombed

If you read my "opinion post" in the first page of the thread you will see how I link to that data showing that Poland was the forth country in the world in total dead number with the lost of the 16% of the population ( compared with the 1939 census ). Edited June 6, 2014 by MistyRonin

[ProfTournesol 956]

About Poland, Polish soldiers that died on French beaches during the Dday are celebrated at this very moment.

[vilas 473]

as i read last time some scientific historician stuff - Germans had overwhelming technical advantages, even first guided rockets, if not hits in industry, in 1946 German technic would be hard to defeat , they even had NVG, but due to idiotism of Hitler it was not used, cause Hitler (thanx) blocked introducing NVG :D i read about one night battle when few German tanks had NVG and killed over hundred of Ally vehicles, but it was March 1945 , good that Hitler was so stupid, if they put NVG in service earlier...

btw. why 16% not 22% in your data ?

and why forth ? not second ? MistyRonin

[Pyronick 21]

Only the threat of the possibility that a western front could be opened was enough for the Soviet-Union to win. If the US and UK didn't join the war, Nazi-Germany would have taken Baku, wouldn't have to worry about Italy and wouldn't need to go to Stalingrad or simply make a pincer maneuver. Hell, if they went south instead, to Baku, they might have won the war.

If the US and UK didn't bomb facilities in and/or invade France, the Nazi-Germany weapon industry might have even beaten that of the United States and the Soviet-Union.

There are so many factors, but Nazi-Germany could definately have been the victor. If the US and UK weren't allied with the Soviet-Union, neither would have won the war, it the Allies together that did the job regardless of their politics.

[vilas 473]

ane guerillas, all say about USA, USSR, but seems to forget that in WW2 time (other technical level than today) big role was guerilla, undeground resistance etc.

railway transports blow up in the air, enigma (Polish resistance intel helped Brits) etc.

many many things were done by resistance in Poland, USSR , France (when i say about European WW2 theatre, not Asian theatre)

resistance played big role in WW2 not only regular armies of 2 countries

[mistyronin 1181]

as i read last time some scientific historician stuff - Germans had overwhelming technical advantages, even first guided rockets, if not hits in industry, in 1946 German technic would be hard to defeat , they even had NVG, but due to idiotism of Hitler it was not used, cause Hitler (thanx) blocked introducing NVG :D i read about one night battle when few German tanks had NVG and killed over hundred of Ally vehicles, but it was March 1945 , good that Hitler was so stupid, if they put NVG in service earlier...

All the technological stuff that the nazis had, required a lot of resources that were mainly in the East ( and some in Sweden/Norway ), and in mid-1944 the Soviets already took most of them ( and the baltic sea/air was mainly controlled by the Allies ). That's why already in the last German operations in 1944 they had to abandon a lot of supertanks due to lack of oil.

Besides all that supergenious technology was one of the reasons Germany lose the war, to build a super-tank they used the same materials that would have allowed to have a dozen medium tanks. And most of the supertanks were casualties of the huge amount of oil they used, were slow, and broke more.

Same with superjets, superrockets, etc.

In fact most of the Allied powers used the tactics of the Blitzkrieg that Germans used the beginning of the war ( light and medium tanks, supported by planes and artillery ). Not the crazy technological war doctrine of the end,

That's why a super-technological Germany couldn't won, not even with V1, V2, jets, Panzer VI A and B, MP44 as 'de jure' standard rifle ( that was never de facto standard due to the lack of materials ).

Beside that after the big battles of 1943, Germany had lost most of their good soldiers, that's why they conscripted too young or too old people.

btw. why 16% not 22% in your data ?

and why forth ? not second ? MistyRonin

In the data I linked, the first in total casualties in WW2 is the Soviet Union, then China, then Germany and forth Poland. And the 16% is comparing to the 1939 population.

Edited June 6, 2014 by MistyRonin

[exe_74rus 1]

Germany won the battle for the USSR. But the U.S. won the war. War aim was to establish a new order. U.S. strategic plan managed to snatch victory. Europe and Russia bled themselves, they left nothing to accept the conditions under section world from the United States. Consequences we are seeing now.

EU dutifully executes commands from across the ocean. Russia after the collapse of the USSR, unofficially becoming a U.S. colony, but resists.

World 2 was a war of attrition. The player who could deliver more resrsov. To allies landed in 1944 the USSR won the war of attrition. Behind was Stalingrad and Kursk. In strategic terms, Germany has just nebilo opportunities to take reserves. The final victory was a matter of time. USSR would have won the war without allies.

And even after 1-2 years.

I really like that in the U.S. do not remember history. This is wonderful. Less than in America will know the truth about World War, the better for Russia and the EU. This means we have a real chance to win the next one. The most important thing is not to hurry. We will do everything neatly and smoothly. As in the Crimea.

ps I did not underestimate the contribution the United States and Britain in the 2nd World War. Moreover, I understand why they did so. They had their own interests. But I do not understand why the United States used against the cities of Japan nuclear weapons? From this point, the allies they have not even discussed. Just dropped bombs and everything. Why? Japan was already defeated. And on the islands and on the mainland. A week later, and she would have capitulated. But the indelible stain on the reputation of the United States would not exist.

Edited June 7, 2014 by exe_74rus

[vilas 473]

In the data I linked, the first in total casualties in WW2 is the Soviet Union, then China, then Germany and forth Poland. And the 16% is comparing to the 1939 population.

strange data , or maybe they count only native Poles only on territory occupied by Germans and Polish citizens who lived in territory of Poland before 17-09-39 invasion of USSR but count them as Soviet losses?

cause our date say about 6.5 milions losses, which is 1/5th of pre-39 citizens from territory of pre-39

maybe Soviets counted stats counting those people were Soviet territory citizens in 1945

strage MistyRonin - on English wiki i see Polish losses as 1 milion less - 5.5 milion not 6.5 milion, maybe they don't count losses due to NKVD and do not count minorities which were Polish citizens , cause data i know say about 1 milion more than English wiki (including murdered by Soviets) as totall losses of 1939-1945 on territory which was Poland till 1939 (there was such thing that when Soviets invaded Poland with Hitler, they were taking back Polish ID from people and giving Soviet ID, so my grandmother was told in October 1939 "you are Soviet citizen now" (1 second change of citizenship after 17th of Sept 1939 on 100 000 km2), so maybe loss of her sister is counted as "Soviet loss" not Polish loss for example cause ?

there is 1 milion difference between Polish wiki and English wiki : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofiary_II_wojny_%C5%9Bwiatowej_w_Polsce

in those official cold war stats maybe there were no Siberia losses and NKVD losses, cause Stalin crimes must be added to Hitler crimes, till June 1941 they were allies and war begun in Sept 1939

This means we have a real chance to win the next one. The most important thing is not to hurry. We will do everything neatly and smoothly. As in the Crimea.

oomg we have here imperialistic nationalist

But I do not understand why the United States used against the cities of Japan nuclear weapons?

read about UNIT 571, read about Japan crimes, Japanese were 10 times worse than Hitler, they tortured people for fun, taking by bayonet children from pregnant woman body, they were 10 times worse than Dr. Mengele ever could be

Edited June 7, 2014 by vilas

[mistyronin 1181]

Germany won the battle for the USSR. But the U.S. won the war. War aim was to establish a new order. U.S. strategic plan managed to snatch victory. Europe and Russia bled themselves, they left nothing to accept the conditions under section world from the United States. Consequences we are seeing now.

I agree that the most benefited of that war has been at long time the US. But was mainly because of the crazy communist policies in the Soviet Union. If instead of communism they had been capitalists, the Soviet Union would be today as strong or more than the US. Because Russia itself has already way more resources than the US.

EU dutifully executes commands from across the ocean. Russia after the collapse of the USSR, unofficially becoming a U.S. colony, but resists.

That is just delusional. For instance were the main US allies inside the EU ( France, Germany and UK ) the ones that prevented Obama from an attack in Syria. And a long list of decisions that are agains the US interests.In fact the EU itself was created precisely to be a powerful block to counterbalance the US and the Soviet blocks.

But I do not understand why the United States used against the cities of Japan nuclear weapons? From this point, the allies they have not even discussed.

It has been talked widely that subject in what you call the West. Japan at that moment was practically defeated and lost the war, but they had no much intention to fully surrender and the Allies didn't want a half surrender like Germany after WW1 nor to invade the proper Japan island with the costs it had. So the atomic bombs was a US gov decision to force them to surrender without any conditions and fast.

It was an extreme crazy measure, an indeed war crime, and a genocide ( only the bombs alone caused more casualties than the total both sides of of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq together), but some may say that it was better to kill thousands of innocent Japanese civilians than have thousands of allied soldiers dead. I can understand the measure, but I don't agree.

read about UNIT 571, read about Japan crimes, Japanese were 10 times worse than Hitler, they tortured people for fun, taking by bayonet children from pregnant woman body, they were 10 times worse than Dr. Mengele ever could be

In fact the Nazi system was meant to be efficient and from a inhumane mathematic mind it was. The medical investigations the nazi conducted in jewish pregnant women and testing drugs, nowadays save thousands of lives ( remember it every time you take an aspirin for instance ). Besides that the extermination of the Jewish was done in a immoral efficient way too, not trying to be sadistics.

While as you said in Japan they used thousand of civilian war prisoners as sex slaves ( when in the Third Reich even raping was considered an awful crime and prosecuted ), torturing people, etc.

Edited June 7, 2014 by MistyRonin

[exe_74rus 1]

oomg we have here imperialistic nationalist

read about UNIT 571, read about Japan crimes, Japanese were 10 times worse than Hitler, they tortured people for fun, taking by bayonet children from pregnant woman body, they were 10 times worse than Dr. Mengele ever could be

What I'm an Imperial? All this nonsense. Understand simple thing suschestvoanie goal - Ekpansiya. Everything else does not matter. All engaged in this. But not all have the courage to admit it. Now in the western world and the interests of national corporate replaced. That it has changed at all? It's nothing. Everyone wants to develop. We are building a large corporation Russia. You many small.

What's the difference, what were bloodthirsty Japanese punishers? Bombs dropped on civilians. If schitatet that all Japanese monsters, why not kill them all, leaving survivors on reservations as Indians.

Otherwise it turns out that the U.S. bombed Japan, to intimidate the Soviet Union and Europe. Since the military value of these bombings had not.

About "bad" communists. While Stalin was alive, the country has been confidently moving forward. In the USSR earlier than in Europe canceled cards for food.

But authorities have led the recent Ukrainian Khrushchev. And state capitalism, ceased to build. The country started doing unnecessary things in the first place, we agreed to sell products to foreign markets taking Accept U.S. Federal Reserve. Domestically too stupid enough.

The Chinese look at our mistakes his "maidan" rolled tanks and build state capitalism. Yes they are hard. But they did not take into debt. China has no debt. What do you think, how much time they will sell their goods for dollars? What happens when they refuse?

[Tonci87 163]

You have a twisted view on the world and history...

[mistyronin 1181]

Now in the western world and the interests of national corporate replaced. That it has changed at all? It's nothing. Everyone wants to develop. We are building a large corporation Russia. You many small.

No country in Europe has showed his interest in expand their borders. In fact it's just the opposite, little nations want to have their own country ( Catalonia, Euskadi, Flandes, Scotland, etc. ) to rule themselves better and preserve their cultures. And whenever they need to be "strong" they form a united front like in EU or NATO, or other organizations.

None wants to be like an imperialistic expansionist country like Russia, not in the EU, not in the USA, I don't know any case in South America nor in almost nowhere in Asia. Well maybe North Korea and somehow China and a few megalomaniac crazy authoritarian countries in Africa...

If only the supertiny France alone is more powerful economically than the supermegabigger Russia...

About "bad" communists. While Stalin was alive, the country has been confidently moving forward. In the USSR earlier than in Europe canceled cards for food.

If by confidently moving forward you mean millions of people dying of starvation due to the bad plans of their own government. Using thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder in WW2.

Stalin was together with Mao, one of the worst leaders of the last centuries in the world. You should check the Soviet Archives of WW2 to know more about him.

But authorities have led the recent Ukrainian Khrushchev. And state capitalism, ceased to build. The country started doing unnecessary things in the first place, we agreed to sell products to foreign markets taking Accept U.S. Federal Reserve. Domestically too stupid enough.

Nor Russia nor Ukraine have ever had a capitalist economy, nor anything similar. They have been, specially Russia, autocracies.

The Chinese look at our mistakes his "maidan" rolled tanks and build state capitalism. Yes they are hard. But they did not take into debt. China has no debt. What do you think, how much time they will sell their goods for dollars? What happens when they refuse?

China nowadays has a early capitalist economy in an authoritarian state. They indeed transitioned better than Russia were the communist leaders became oligarchs. But we will see until when their population will keep with the dictatorship, and when they will fight for freedom ( we have already seen different fights in different regions this last years ).

You seem to have a weird obsession about the USA, when they are just another country in the world with their good points and bad ones, they have a really strong economy but they don't rule the world, they couldn't even manage two have two small wars; they are forced to pact with the EU, Middle East, etc.

[call_911 10]

The allies won. End of.

Could'nt agree more.

[battleship 11]

Germany won the battle for the USSR. But the U.S. won the war. War aim was to establish a new order. U.S. strategic plan managed to snatch victory. Europe and Russia bled themselves, they left nothing to accept the conditions under section world from the United States. Consequences we are seeing now.

EU dutifully executes commands from across the ocean. Russia after the collapse of the USSR, unofficially becoming a U.S. colony, but resists.

World 2 was a war of attrition. The player who could deliver more resrsov. To allies landed in 1944 the USSR won the war of attrition. Behind was Stalingrad and Kursk. In strategic terms, Germany has just nebilo opportunities to take reserves. The final victory was a matter of time. USSR would have won the war without allies.

And even after 1-2 years.

I really like that in the U.S. do not remember history. This is wonderful. Less than in America will know the truth about World War, the better for Russia and the EU. This means we have a real chance to win the next one. The most important thing is not to hurry. We will do everything neatly and smoothly. As in the Crimea.

ps I did not underestimate the contribution the United States and Britain in the 2nd World War. Moreover, I understand why they did so. They had their own interests. But I do not understand why the United States used against the cities of Japan nuclear weapons? From this point, the allies they have not even discussed. Just dropped bombs and everything. Why? Japan was already defeated. And on the islands and on the mainland. A week later, and she would have capitulated. But the indelible stain on the reputation of the United States would not exist.

Japan was prepared for an allied invasion in 1945 even though they had lost all the territories they had captured in asia.Soviet union had also planned to invade japan.To counter this threat of invasion after japan had lost its naval superiority in the pacific,they still had thousands of planes and millions of infantry reserves ready to defend themselves from the naval invasion.If such an sea invasion would have taken place ,WW2 might have extended till 1946 with more civilian and military casualties.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Battleship

[maturin 12]

Why? Japan was already defeated. And on the islands and on the mainland. A week later, and she would have capitulated.

On the even of the atomic attacks, Japan was 100 times more powerful militarily and economically than Germany. So why did the USSR reduce Berlin to rubble and wage such a horrific battle to walk right up to the Reichstag? Why didn't they just wait for the defense to collapse from lack of supplies and then negotiate a surrender?

[exe_74rus 1]

You are disingenuous. Europeans no longer perceive their state as something separate and organization were gathered, you include new countries in their alliance. The fact that it does not shoot, do not change the facts. You expand. Look at the map, you grow.

A gendarme of the world, with more credit than the military budget of the EU and Russia combined, comes and says who and where misbehaves. You can say something against it? It's nothing. you help the U.S. carry "democracy."

You came to Iraq and killed Hussein, you have brought peace to this land?

You have come to Libya and Gaddafi killed, it became easier to live there?

Egypt, Syria, Ukraine.

Drug trafficking from Afghanistan has grown 40 times, when there came the United States.

Everywhere came to "democracy" in the last twenty years, there is a decline in living standards, life expectancy, and production.

30 years of the "bloody" Stalin, Russia's population has grown by 60 million people. Under Stalin, the Russian Federation began with the plow, won the second world war, has been a nuclear power and went into space. With us, then considered the world.

During the reign of the "fuzzy" Democrats, the population of Russia decreased by 10 million. We lost these people are waging war without building anything, achieving nothing.

While the power in the country picked up people from the KGB, we were dying. When trends 90s, RF had to collapse in 2005, 2007.

Now in 2014. We have not collapsed the world are considered. We have a good sozniki bad that it is not the EU. But China and the rest of the world, now important for us. A year later, the two calculations we abandon each other through the dollar Fed. In 5-6 years we will trade with the EU and the United States only in rubles.

Two years later we abandon valyunyh reserves in the form of deposits in euros and dollars the Fed.

The world is living its last days in the previous form. Europe and the U.S. gotovtes, Cyprus will soon script you already have. There was also a democratic government, but when it was bad, private treasures were cruelly robbed.

Edited June 7, 2014 by exe_74rus

[mistyronin 1181]

You are disingenuous. Europeans no longer perceive their state as something separate and organization were gathered, you include new countries in their alliance. The fact that it does not shoot, do not change the facts. You expand. Look at the map, you grow.

A gendarme of the world, with more credit than the military budget of the EU and Russia combined, comes and says who and where misbehaves. You can say something against it? It's nothing. you help the U.S. carry "democracy."

You are a bit confused ( besides that this is starting to be Offtopic ).

The EU right now is just a "club" / group of separate countries that agreed to have a common trading representation to the exterior and to share some values and policies ( mainly related to improve the human rights and the European culture ).

All Europe countries can ask to join it, if they think that benefits them ( as long as they meet certain requirements and everyone else agree ), and can also quit if they want, like for example U.K. is planning.

I would like more integration in certain aspects, and some other europeans prefer more power for the countries.

But precisely in the interventions you mention, you can see how different the EU is. In Iraq for instance only certain countries participated in the coalition, Sweden for example didn't ( in fact it opposed to the war ).

Same happened in Libya... here you can check both list of countries from respective coalitions.

You said that "Everywhere came to "democracy" in the last twenty years, there is a decline in living standards, life expectancy, and production."... that's not true you can check yourself the UN statistics of the index of development ( which controls the values you said ), click in the map to see specific EU countries, specially the former soviet ones.

BTW in Russia as I told you there has not been not Democracy not even a proper capitalist economy, ergo what are you talking?

Russia obviously improved due to the change from the medieval Czar regime to the Communist, but would have improved way more in Democracy and Capitalism ( you can compare all the countries that embraced the Communist economy in the past and how are they now ). It was not that Stalin made it improve, but that he was there while the changes happened, although "thanks" to him that changes were slowed down, lot of people died due to his bad economic politics and repression.

You seem to believe all RT propaganda editorials...

Edited June 7, 2014 by MistyRonin
orthography

[Tonci87 163]

OMG you really do have a twisted view of he world...

You say that Russias population has grown by 60 million during Stalins rule? Do you know where that number comes from? Is it exagerated? I think that under Stalins rule someone actually counted all the people for the first time, everything before that were estimates.

In 5-6 years we will trade with the EU and the United States only in rubles.

Well you see that is not how global economy works.....

Nobody will use the rubel if he can use the $ or the €. Why? Because both are more stable and internationaly accepted.

[lesscubes 1]

ps I did not underestimate the contribution the United States and Britain in the 2nd World War. Moreover, I understand why they did so. They had their own interests. But I do not understand why the United States used against the cities of Japan nuclear weapons? From this point, the allies they have not even discussed. Just dropped bombs and everything. Why? Japan was already defeated. And on the islands and on the mainland. A week later, and she would have capitulated. But the indelible stain on the reputation of the United States would not exist.

On the bomb-

Look at the casualty expectations for Operations Olympic and Coronet

And what actually happened at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. And of course Suicide and Banzai Cliffs on Saipan. And the Philippines campaign, as well.

On those Casualty reports, look at the Japanese side. Near 100% casualty rates. Almost no prisoners. HUGE Civilian casualties, not only due to heavy, often indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombing, but to mass suicides.

The greatest horror the United States ever unleashed on the world, the lowest moment, prevented an even greater holocaust. There might not BE a Japan today if the decision to invade had to be made. The idea that the Japanese would just roll over for the allies if we had to invade is preposterous. The vicious fighting of the pacific campaign is well documented, how would Kyushu or Honsho be ANY different? Keep in mind, that after the second bomb broke Hirohito's will, IJA officers attempted a coup against their Emperor, in hopes of blocking the surrender.

[exe_74rus 1]

Well you see that is not how global economy works.....

Nobody will use the rubel if he can use the $ or the €. Why? Because both are more stable and internationaly accepted.

What is a piece of paper that you call the U.S. dollar? Since 1914, this debt, the private Federal Reserve Bank, whose owners do not know this. On your money it is written, it was not my idea.

Since 1975, these securities are not backed by anything, gold or other assets, except for the military - the U.S. Navy. And public debt in an unreal amount.

We will provide the ruble gold. We will export only in rubles. And we see the country will sell for rubles, or not. China is already doing this, as well as Kazakhstan and Belarus.

[jakerod 254]

On the bomb-

Look at the casualty expectations for Operations Olympic and Coronet

And what actually happened at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. And of course Suicide and Banzai Cliffs on Saipan. And the Philippines campaign, as well.

On those Casualty reports, look at the Japanese side. Near 100% casualty rates. Almost no prisoners. HUGE Civilian casualties, not only due to heavy, often indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombing, but to mass suicides.

The greatest horror the United States ever unleashed on the world, the lowest moment, prevented an even greater holocaust. There might not BE a Japan today if the decision to invade had to be made. The idea that the Japanese would just roll over for the allies if we had to invade is preposterous. The vicious fighting of the pacific campaign is well documented, how would Kyushu or Honsho be ANY different? Keep in mind, that after the second bomb broke Hirohito's will, IJA officers attempted a coup against their Emperor, in hopes of blocking the surrender.

I always found this interesting:

During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. To the present date, total combined American military casualties of the sixty-five years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there remained 120,000 Purple Heart medals in stock. The existing surplus allowed combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field.

Purple Heart (Wikipedia)