never forget WW2
Discussion
wildcat45 said:
I remember my late Dad - 1927 born to technically did national service during the last week of WWII had a varying attitude towards this.
We had a VW for a time in the 1970s - a car certainly built by people who served in WWII. As an evacuee his ship was attacked and sunk by a U boat. He despised a lot for German culture from the time, Nazis killing millions etc - but not German people or their cars.
He blamed the Germans for letting Hitler. get to power, but there was no hatred there.
He would not buy a Japanese car and was intolerant of things Japanese.
My grandfather always hated the Italians for switching sides far more than he hated the Germans who spent the war shooting at him as he was dropping bombs on them.We had a VW for a time in the 1970s - a car certainly built by people who served in WWII. As an evacuee his ship was attacked and sunk by a U boat. He despised a lot for German culture from the time, Nazis killing millions etc - but not German people or their cars.
He blamed the Germans for letting Hitler. get to power, but there was no hatred there.
He would not buy a Japanese car and was intolerant of things Japanese.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Thursday 17th April 18:13
wildcat45 said:
Not having a go at you, but could you put forward a way to conclude WWII without dropping nuclear bombs and killing loads of people?
If the Americans hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd probably still be fighting our way thru mainland Japan, street by street, today. Given the fight they put up on a handful of insignificant islands in the months before August 45.wildcat45 said:
Not having a go at you, but could you put forward a way to conclude WWII without dropping nuclear bombs and killing loads of people?
I think by September 1939 any chance of talking it through to sort things out was exhausted
Rock Paper Scissors?I think by September 1939 any chance of talking it through to sort things out was exhausted
Yeah I know......the bombs were dropped on Japan but you get my point?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 17th April 17:31
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
I've read quite a few books written by the losers too - and they are often even more interesting.
Ok, let me be more specific.Victors write the history books which are used in schools as anything else would be (mistakenly) seen as approving of the Nazis/Japs.
Anyway, sins of our fathers and all that. I can't dislike or act against someone who wasn't personally involved, unless of course they are a modern day equivalent or supporter of the wrongdoer.
I find all this historical stuff a bit depressing. When are the Irish going to let go of the potato famine, the blacks forgive our (early) role in slavery and muslims draw a line under the crusades?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There's a synagogue quite near me and the side streets on a Saturday are chocca with Volvos (popular with Jews who want a quality car but prefer to avoid German).
The synagogue car park is of course empty because you're not allowed to drive on the Sabbath.
Hypocrisy and Religion, who'd have thought it The synagogue car park is of course empty because you're not allowed to drive on the Sabbath.
wildcat45 said:
How long would the war in the East have continued without the use of nuclear weapons? How many more allied troops would have died? How many more Japanese civvies would have been killed in say 5 more years of air raids etc?
Agree with most of what you wrote, but have to ask - why does everyone always point to this question of "how many more allied lives would have been lost?" and the notion of fighting on mainland Japan as being a necessity? Japan's war was doomed well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Japan surrounded, raw material and fuel supply cut off, invasion was not really necessary. Containment would have sufficed. Japan just would not have been able to carry on. Why did the military and politicians say otherwise?
Of course, I think we know the answer.
9mm said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
I've read quite a few books written by the losers too - and they are often even more interesting.
Ok, let me be more specific.Victors write the history books which are used in schools as anything else would be (mistakenly) seen as approving of the Nazis/Japs.
The fact is that there are even University courses on the wider subject of 'war crimes' and related topics. The academic world in Japan is not controlled by some dark unseen hand, and fierce debate has been raging for many years. You'll probably never get to hear much about it because it's in Japanese...
PZR said:
Agree with most of what you wrote, but have to ask - why does everyone always point to this question of "how many more allied lives would have been lost?" and the notion of fighting on mainland Japan as being a necessity?
Japan's war was doomed well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Japan surrounded, raw material and fuel supply cut off, invasion was not really necessary. Containment would have sufficed. Japan just would not have been able to carry on. Why did the military and politicians say otherwise?
Of course, I think we know the answer.
I'm sure the decision to drop the bombs was not taken lightly. Perhaps if the decision was yours to make in 1945 you would have made the same choice.Japan's war was doomed well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Japan surrounded, raw material and fuel supply cut off, invasion was not really necessary. Containment would have sufficed. Japan just would not have been able to carry on. Why did the military and politicians say otherwise?
Of course, I think we know the answer.
AlexC1981 said:
PZR said:
Agree with most of what you wrote, but have to ask - why does everyone always point to this question of "how many more allied lives would have been lost?" and the notion of fighting on mainland Japan as being a necessity?
Japan's war was doomed well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Japan surrounded, raw material and fuel supply cut off, invasion was not really necessary. Containment would have sufficed. Japan just would not have been able to carry on. Why did the military and politicians say otherwise?
Of course, I think we know the answer.
I'm sure the decision to drop the bombs was not taken lightly. Perhaps if the decision was yours to make in 1945 you would have made the same choice.Japan's war was doomed well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Japan surrounded, raw material and fuel supply cut off, invasion was not really necessary. Containment would have sufficed. Japan just would not have been able to carry on. Why did the military and politicians say otherwise?
Of course, I think we know the answer.
What's clear - given the great luxury of hindsight - is that the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about a lot more than forcing Imperial Japan into unconditional surrender.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff