The Decission to use the Atomic Bomb...

......And Skåne is still wonderful.....
whatever bad people think against that/this wonderful
county in the South of Sweden. Together with Småland
and Blekinge and Öland. The whole of it, is Great,
wonderfully Great. I'm talking about love, common
sense is just for people of little, very little
entity.

Lycka till och....ha det så jättebra.

[England987]

Originally posted by meredith

i am against the decisions to drop atomic bombs on japan and firebomb dresden. i am a pacifist.

Well it's lucky that we did do tat, otherwise you could be speaking German now.

[England987]

Originally posted by nonchalant
from what i've heard the decision to use the atomic bomb was done out of a sense of urgency to focus our full attention on the protection on great britain as we (the us) were the only legitimate threat to the german empire and there was no sense in trying to invade an island country like japan after our navy capabilities were diminished. the use of the a-bomb was devastating, but our leaders did make a statement to our opponents that war has one objective-to be victorious-maybe if we didn't oust japan quickly germany would have successfully gained control of england, and probably made the task of securing europe much harder. many countries did not fight germany because they did not want their capitals destroyed, i don't blame them, paris is a wondrous place. in the case of ww2 there were really no other options-hitler was very close to the abomb anyway-we had to!!

You weren't the only threat. Don't forget, the US wasn't the only superpower during World War II. Britain was also a superpower. We had the world's largest navy. For every destroyer that the Germans had, the British had 100. Our navy was even larger than America's.

[England987]

Originally posted by ninswe104
Revenge is always bad...

If we didn't get revenge, then how could we have won the war?

You live in the past, that's your problem.

If only nowadays your country tries to
oppose to the USA.....Bye bye UK !!!!

In that case you'll be more than happy
to say that the Romans didn't do anything
in your country, of course.

[England987]

What do you mean "Bye bye, UK" if we oppose the US? Americans cannot make up their minds- if we are against them (like the French and Germans), we get called the "Axis of Weasels." (Americans are very xenophobic). If we are with them, we get called "America's poodle." Is there somewhere in the middle that we can position ourselves?!

I also seem to remember that Italy also supported the US in Iraq and also sent some troops there.

[England987]

Britain- population 60 million
Italy- population 57 million


Britain- economy 4th largest in the world
Italy- economy 6th largest in the world


Britain- GDP per capita $260,000
Italy- GDP per capita $210,000



I think we would be able to survive better without the US than Italy could.

[Marmaduke]

Hey England...ever heard of Trident ? Now tell me...who gets to call the shots over its use given that we need US sanction to ever fire it ?

Also, it is obvious you know nothing about our army otherwise you would not make such spurious claims about our 'superiority'. We undoubtedly have one of the best trained armies in the world- and one of the worst equiped. The SA80 jams, boot leak and give foot rot in wet conditions and our radio communications systems (ground based) are 10 years out-of-date. Where soldiers are left to buy most of their own equipment as that supplied by the MOD is so sub-standard and this is a definition of 'superiority' ?

[lolly]

England987 wrote:You weren't the only threat. Don't forget, the US wasn't the only superpower during World War II. Britain was also a superpower. We had the world's largest navy. For every destroyer that the Germans had, the British had 100. Our navy was even larger than America's.

You're incorrect at that point. An Anglo-German Naval agreement, permitted Germany to build a navy which was not to exceed more than 30% of the size of the British Navy. They also permitted Germany to build a U-boat fleet not to exceed more than 60% the size of the British U-boat fleet, however there was a provision to permit the german's to build up to the same numbers (100%) which was used.

There were no design limitations for this new agreement, unlike the Treaty of Versaille, so whilst the British had their largest vessels at 35,000 tonnes, the Germans built 2 vessels, Bismark and Tirpitz which had a displacement of 45,000 tonnes.

Furthermore:
In 1934, some elements of the British goverment were warning parliament members that Germany had reached 60% air parity with Britain but these warnings were ignored. 2 years later, in 1936, 3 years before the start of the war, German had achieved Air Parity, and Great Britain was caught sleeping and took its time to recognise the real danger of war that it was in.

Whilst my parents are British, and I am from Australia, I am all for saying how wonderful Britain did with fighting the Germans during the Blitz, or any of the successive air battles raging across the continent, Britain was caught with it's pant's down and head in the sand and poor leadership resulted in misery for countless millions.

To the couple of Americans implying that America saved the world, you didn't - other allied countries across the planet played vital roles, and this needs to be recognised aswell.

The use of Nuclear weapons against Japan, were used to bring to a close Japan's agressive actions. There is no doubt whatsoever, that most Japanese Generals indeed wanted to fight until the bitter end - and even AFTER the first bomb was dropped, The Emperor could not dissuade them from their agressive plans. The second bomb did achieve what it was supposed to, the cessation of hostilities from the Japanese. Had they not, the casualties the Allies would have experienced whilst taking the war right up into Japan would have been horrendous.

I personally don't see how they valued military lives above civilians, but that was their thinking at the time.

[ninecats]

Listen England 987, I don't wish to argue with you.
Also because, if your figures are correct, Britain
is the fourth largest economy and Italy is the sixth
one. Britain's better but Italy's rank is still quite
good. Six out of... How many, England 987 ? Put down
the figure, please. If you think of the many dismissive
words against my country, honestly I take your sixth
rank for Italy wonderfully. And please according to
your figures, can you mention the countries who have
better ranks than Italy ? And any of the ones which
are worse ? It could be very interesting to know.
The best could be 1. USA. 2. Canada. 3. Japan
4. Britain, as you hold. 5. Germany or France.
6. Italy. Only to know we are better than Germany
France or Japan is really wonderful. To say nothing
of the others from the seventh rank downwards. Is
Italy so bad ? According to your figures, I tend to
say : ' No way ! '. Though our Prime Minister is
trying his worst to make our economy plummet and
have what we call recession. Slump, do you say ?
As for the war in Iraqi, I utterly disagree with
sending Italian troops. There should be only UN
troops as representatives of all nations. Just my
opinion.

All the best for England and the whole of Britain.

[nonchalant]

is there another country that could have subdued the invasion of great britain? germany had been bombing england for at least year before we entered this conflict, quite frankly, we were lucky to have resecured france the way we did. german and austrian pilots were as a whole more skilled than any other nation. It was somewhat due to miscalculation by german intelligence what part of france we would invade, they kind of spread themselves to thin at vunerable areas, britain would have been lost shortly after the french-without the united states.

[lolly]

Originally posted by nonchalant
i stand corrected after germany surrendered the bombs were used, but our forces-ground troops were still needed (to clean up the mess), just like in iraq. we had to ensure the safety of our allies and disarmorment of germany. also many of the high ranking officials had fled the country and our intelligence operations could not just pack up and leave. you are right about the timeline-thanks!

The motivation was not to help EU clean up the mess left behind by Hitler, but to cut down on US and Japanese casualties because if the US took the war to the Japanese in Japan, it would have cost the US far more lives fighting there than they lost in EU.

As an Australian, I can't tell you how irritating it is to see Americans constantly state that the US saved the world in WW2.

[DruidSmith]

Americans generally don't hold the belief they alone saved the world, they say the ALLIES saved the world.

It does however remain a general perception that without the US joining the fray, the European and Pacific campaigns would likely have turned out very differently. The US contribution in these campaigns definitely was a very significant one, and the US certainly contributed toward the swift rebuilding and restabilization of Germany and Japan.

Sorry you feel so slighted, Lolly, but over here we DO in fact hear about the valiant Aussies in North Africa and Pacific campaigns. The Aussies were certainly key in keeping the Afrika Korps in check. But likewise I hope you don't RESENT the US efforts for example in the battle of Coral Sea during the Japanese New Guinea campaign.

Too bad we seem to have lost this sense of coalition and those skills in stabilization and rebuilding since.

[Edited by DruidSmith on 20th May 2004 at 12:21]

Originally posted by DruidSmith
Americans generally don't hold the belief they alone saved the world, they say the ALLIES saved the world.

Actually that's probably what's so irritating to alot of Europeans. Perhaps people are better educated in the part of the u.s. you live in so you have a different perspective of what amis generally think. But here in the south the vast majority of people do believe that the u.s. alone was responsible for 'saving the world,' and they don't hesitate to express that belief very vocally as a reason that Europeans should follow the u.s. govts. lead. I just recently was disgusted to meet a young ami male that decided he didn't like Europeans after he went abroad, behaved like an 'ugly american', and wondered why the Europeans didn't want to be his instant friend. After all he argued, the u.s. saved the world from the Nazis so they owe us... I tried to explain that we had lots of help but it was pointless. People down here are raised on a heavy dose of govt. propaganda, religious conservatism, and the belief that the u.s. is number one at everything and can do no wrong.
That attitude that so many amis have and don't hesitate to express is what's so irritating to people abroad and to some at home that have a clearer picture. At least most Germans feel embarrassed for the bad their country did in the past while most Amis don't feel shame for the bad our country has done because they've been taught to believe that we've never done wrong so what's to feel bad about? Given such extreme views of people down here I don't blame anyone for getting irritated with us. But that's just my viewpoint from down here in the blackhole we like to call the biblebelt.

[DruidSmith]

That's what happens anywhere in the world when you get a bunch of selfrighteous people all together nodding at each other about how right they are and how wrong the rest of the world is... Oddly the same thing the Christian Right accuses the Middle East of...