I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ******s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.
And then declared war on the U.S., guaranteeing a two front naval war as well as a two-front ground war. Plus, declaring war on the U.S. brought the greatest industrial clout on the planet into the war for the Allies. Even Russia couldn't get going early on without war materiel from the U.S. Trucks, tanks and planes were all brought in from the U.S. to aid the Russian war effort.
In fact Russia was the only WWII participant who really never fought a two-front war.
From what I've read, Dresden was primarily a function of British Air Chief Harris. That man really wanted to make the case that the Air Corps could end the war.
lol people trying to equate today's logic and what we know about nukes with what we thought back then.
truth bomb - id imagine there would be overwhelming support by the US public to consider any alternative other than invading the Japanese mainland. if it meant a quick end to the war then so be it. plus the soviets were already in manchuria and tensions were already high about dividing germany. having to divide both germany and japan would be disastrous diplomacy-wise. i think the US had to flex their muscles and end it quick before russia could make a significant foothold.
and with dresden id imagine the allies would do anything to avoid having a stalingrad-like situation when invading germany. perhaps they were showing off their own airpower to the russians, seeing that dresden is in east germany.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-21-2013 at 11:32 AM.
Wars are nothing but crimes
Back to fried rice...it took not one but two a-bombs and the Soviets invading for the Empire to surrender. That's some crazy Last Samurai
^ when they nuked the Japs they did...it wasn't about going after their military it's sole intent was to inflict damage of their "civilian" non war combatants...Do I think no civilians were killed in PH...of course not like you mention about 70 or so were killed but it's the intent...they attacked a military base they didn't aim to target civilian areas. The US on the other hand set out to attack civilian and not military infrastructure.
How do you attack military infrastructure with an atomic bomb and not kill civilians? It's an island.
You don't that's the whole point numnuts
again what was the US intent..a major part of their intent was to kill women and children there's no way to wiggle around it...it was US Evil at it's finest
Their intent was to end the war. We were losing thousands of men. Revisionist history might allow you to put modern Japan back 70 years, but it was a different world. Were were attacked unprovoked. with the bull, get the horns.You don't that's the whole point numnuts
again what was the US intent..a major part of their intent was to kill women and children there's no way to wiggle around it...it was US Evil at it's finest
If I recall, thousands of Japanese committed suicide when they were told their leader surrendered. Civilians were ready to fight us, because they were told how evil we were, as a propaganda thing. They were afraid we would kill them, so they killed themselves first.
I'm not quoting anything specifically when I say that. Once we had the surrounding islands, it was over. They didn't have anything to hit the B29s at their al ude so casualties on our side were insignificant compared to the insane numbers they were losing. Their imports were cut off and the axis was done for. They were geographically surrounded...
Believe as you wish. My uncle would disagree with you, and be able to back it up. He died a few years ago though.
The point was made, you attack us we will blow your world away.
Sorry to hear that. I'm sure I'd enjoy listening to him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
