Atomic August.

[Lord Tammerlain]

WWII was started by WW1

Western centric viewpoint

Japan was already attacking and invading countries before Germany invaded Poland

 

[Luce]

We will always have this stain on our country.

It sounds like you were rooting for Tojo.

 

[Luce]

No, I was referring to using atomic weapons.

It was that kind of war.

 

[iguanaman]

……the Russians were absolutely attacked in World War One. What are you talking about?

Only after they joined the war to defend their interests in Serbia. Russia was not part of the initial conflict and their territory was not threatened. I believe they hoped to gain territory because that is what Russia always wants.

 

[Tigerace117]

Only after they joined the war to defend their interests in Serbia. Russia was not part of the initial conflict and their territory was not threatened. I believe they hoped to gain territory because that is what Russia always wants.

The initial conflict was Austria-Hungary issuing demands to Serbia they knew couldn’t be accepted in the first place.

 

[The Brad Dad]

It sounds like you were rooting for Tojo.

It sounds like as uneducated as you come across on most topics, this one is especially a void for you if this is your opening salvo.

 

[Questerr]

Is that what the thread is about? Who started WW2? Are you sure you've read the posts and understand what we're talking about? I don't think so. Wanna try again?

Do you think the atomic bombings killed 80 million people?

 

[Questerr]

No, I was referring to using atomic weapons.

What should we have done instead?

Continued firebombing and a blockade? Invasion?

Allowed Japan to surrender using the conditions they were demanding at the time?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Are you German?

 

[iguanaman]

The initial conflict was Austria-Hungary issuing demands to Serbia they knew couldn’t be accepted in the first place.

And Russia jumped in in the hope of gaining more territory and lost 10 million men. It's a pattern with Russia. Victory at any cost.

 

[Tigerace117]

And Russia jumped in in the hope of gaining more territory and lost 10 million men. It's a pattern with Russia. Victory at any cost.

…..you mean like literally every nation involved?

In case you hadn’t noticed no country got through World War One without a significant death toll.

 

[iguanaman]

…..you mean like literally every nation involved?

In case you hadn’t noticed no country got through World War One without a significant death toll.

Besides losing the most men of any country in WWI their Govt. was also overthrown. Again it is a pattern.

 

[Tigerace117]

Besides losing the most men of any country in WWI their Govt. was also overthrown. Again it is a pattern.

Russia took between roughly 1.7 to 2.7 million KIA. That is not significantly higher than France’s roughly 1.3 million KIA, much less Germany’s 2 million KIA.

Including WIA and POWs to try and make the death toll sound higher is rather telling.

 

[iguanaman]

Russia took between roughly 1.7 to 2.7 million KIA. That is not significantly higher than France’s roughly 1.3 million KIA, much less Germany’s 2 million KIA.

Including WIA and POWs to try and make the death toll sound higher is rather telling.

During World War I, Russia suffered between 1.7 and 2.25 million military deaths according to Wikipedia. In addition, Russia had a significant number of wounded soldiers, estimated to be between 4 and 5 million. The total number of Russian military personnel killed, wounded, or missing was estimated to be between 6.0 and 9.0 million according to Wikipedia.

 

[Tigerace117]

During World War I, Russia suffered between 1.7 and 2.25 million military deaths according to Wikipedia. In addition, Russia had a significant number of wounded soldiers, estimated to be between 4 and 5 million. The total number of Russian military personnel killed, wounded, or missing was estimated to be between 6.0 and 9.0 million according to Wikipedia.

Yes, including wounded soldiers to try and make Russia’s KIA total look larger is very telling

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, including wounded soldiers to try and make Russia’s KIA total look larger is very telling

They still had the civil war dead ahead of them....

With about 5.5 million out of 16 million soldiers killed and wounded, the Russian Empire appears to have suffered less than France and Germany. But that does not take into account some other facts: 500,000 soldiers missing, 3 million prisoners of war, 1.1 million disabled, 6 million refugees and tens of thousands of civilian victims. The uncertain nature of these calculations, the delayed national mourning and private mourning hampered by distance and false news made these losses unbearable for the population. Finally, the civil war which followed the Great War made the demographic toll and political significance of these losses far heavier.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war-losses-russian-empire/

 

[Tigerace117]

They still had the civil war dead ahead of them....

With about 5.5 million out of 16 million soldiers killed and wounded, the Russian Empire appears to have suffered less than France and Germany. But that does not take into account some other facts: 500,000 soldiers missing, 3 million prisoners of war, 1.1 million disabled, 6 million refugees and tens of thousands of civilian victims. The uncertain nature of these calculations, the delayed national mourning and private mourning hampered by distance and false news made these losses unbearable for the population. Finally, the civil war which followed the Great War made the demographic toll and political significance of these losses far heavier.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war-losses-russian-empire/

Considering the Russian Civil War was one of the largest conflicts of the period, with fighting from the Baltic to the Pacific, that’s not saying anything.

 

[RF667799]

Russia took between roughly 1.7 to 2.7 million KIA. That is not significantly higher than France’s roughly 1.3 million KIA, much less Germany’s 2 million KIA.

Including WIA and POWs to try and make the death toll sound higher is rather telling.

23% to 123% higher is not significantly so? Pretty wide range in your "roughly" too.

 

[Tigerace117]

23% to 123% higher is not significantly so? Pretty wide range in your "roughly" too.

Nope, no matter how inconvenient you find that reality.

That’s because nobody has concrete details on the precise number of casualties, hence the range listed.

 

[RF667799]

Nope, no matter how inconvenient you find that reality.

That’s because nobody has concrete details on the precise number of casualties, hence the range listed.

Let's suppose you had a job, and we're informed you were getting a raise next week of between 23% to 123%.

Most people would that's pretty significant at both ends of the range.

 

[Tigerace117]

Let's suppose you had a job, and we're informed you were getting a raise next week of between 23% to 123%.

Most people would that's pretty significant at both ends of the range.

Except for the inconvenient fact that given the millions of deaths that occurred in World War One, one nation losing a few hundred thousand more KIA than enough is not any sort of significant difference.

Do you think the French really saw themselves as better off because the Germans lost somewhat more KIA than they did? Because they really, really didn’t.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Are you German?

Or Italian. Or Japanese.

A lot of people tend to forget that the war actually started with Italy trying to expand their empire in 1935. Then Japan doing the same thing in 1937. It was only when Germany finally jumped in to do the same thing in 1939 that the world finally recognized it was another "World War".

The war did not actually "start" with Germany pushing across their borders into Poland in 1939, it had actually already been occurring for years. With other nations involved including the US, UK, USSR, and others.

 

[Oozlefinch]

More like the Treaty of Versailles, but yes, I agree.

Well, not really.

It always puzzles me why so many concentrate only on Germany, and ignore the other two nations that were involved in the war.

Japan in WWI was actually a member of the Allied Powers. That is why they took the former German possessions in the Pacific at the end of the war.

And even though Italy was part of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, it decided to remain out of the war. Only much later joining, but on the side of the Allied Powers against the Triple Alliance.

The Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with WWII, other than at the absolute basic level taught in grade schools.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Now you put the Imperial Japanese leadership in charge of the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis and they would most probably have launched missiles as a way to save face/respond to what they would have considered an insult. Mutually Assured Destruction be damned.

Even more so when one takes into consideration what the nation was like during the early Showa era.

In the early Showa era, Shinto was still the official state religion. Where the Emperor was not only the leader of the nation, he was the leader of the religion and a god, descended from gods.

And it is also a nation and culture that not only does not have a prohibition on suicide, it actually embraced it.

If for some reason WWII ended with one of the proposed armistices that Japan was proposing, that is very much the outcome that would have happened. Because Japan never intended to surrender, their intent was to arrange an armistice. In essence a status quo ante bellum, where each side would return to their positions before the war began. But with the deck still stacked in their favor. All Japanese territory lost be returned, all Allied territory lost be demilitarized but for Japanese forces to maintain neutrality.

And Japan was not all that far behind the US in atomic research. They had some of the top nuclear physicists in the world, and had started their own atomic weapon program in early 1941. And it was in active development by 1942. And by 1943 they knew what was needed and had the full concept of a working bomb. However, their main problem was that they had problems in extracting U-235. By the time the US had used three bombs in August 1945, they had only extracted half as much U-235 as they would have needed for a single bomb.

So in projecting forward an accepted armistice, eventually that would have come to pass. And they would have been used, to one degree or another. But much more likely in the early 1950s, not a decade or more later as unlike the Soviets Japan never had the capability to threaten the mainland US. But I could see limited atomic wars among islands and naval groups in the Western Pacific if such a thing came to pass.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Are you from Germany or Japan? They started WWII and we ended it. Many believe the A-bombs saved millions of lives in Japan.

Atomic Salvation: How the A-Bomb Saved the Lives of 32 Million People​

My "go-to" when this come up is the Shockley Report.

What a lot of people do not realize is that for all the casualty estimates in the US War Department before battles in WWII, they were wrong.

And to clarify, they were actually correct, in Europe and Africa. When estimating casualty figures on both sides in battles involving the US and European nations. And short of a major upset, the end battle casualties were not all that far off of what was expected going into the battle.

However, they were worth absolute dog crap when trying to estimate casualties when fighting against Japan. Now almost two years before WWII was recognized, there was the Rape of Nanking. With the deaths of over 200,000 Chinese military and civilians. Often slaughtered by the rampaging Japanese forces after the city had been surrendered. And I always scratch my head as the War Department knew of this, but continued to base casualty estimates as if they were just another "European Nation".

Now the first major land battle should have shown how wrong they were, at Tarawa. Japan had about 2,600 military there, and 2,200 civilian laborers. The US invaded with 35,000 forces. Now estimates before the battle anticipated around 3,000 Japanese casualties, and 1,000 US Casualties after a one week battle.

Well, the reality was quite different. The battle was only three days. not a week. The US suffered over 4,000 casualties. And the Japanese forces (both military and civilian) were almost completely obliterated. Only 17 soldiers captured, and only 129 civilian laborers were alive at the end of the battle. In fact, one of the things first seen in that battle was that it was almost impossible to capture Japanese soldiers. Even when badly wounded, they would still try to fight on, with holdout weapons and even grenades in order to take an enemy with them in death.

And by 1945, this was driven home by Dr. William Shockley. All of the estimates by the Army and Navy were giving estimates of Allied casualties in the 200-300,000 range for Operation Downfall. Then Dr. Shockley created his own, using only casualty reports from the battles the US had fought against Japanese forces. Including Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa. And his report sent shockwaves through the Pentagon.

US casualties would be an estimated 5-10 million. With 1-3 million of those being deaths. And for the Japanese, as high as 20 million. That would have been 1/4 of their population.

And those were "best case" estimates, worst case could indeed be half or more of the civilian population. Because when discussing Japan, one must never forget the number of suicides that would have resulted.

And it also must be remembered, this would not have been a one-sided battle. The Japanese were already training and arming the population for the defense of their homes. And during one of the final meetings prior to the surrender, the main leaders of the nation (Togo, Onishi, Umezu and Toyoda) thought that if they could sacrifice 20 million Japanese lives in concentrated attacks, they could beat back the Allies and foil their invasion. And it has to be remembered, those numbers are from the Japanese. That is over double the number of all Japanese Army soldiers who were spread throughout the entire region at the time. In other words, 3/4 of those fighting and dying would have been civilians.