Most dispicable attacks during WWII?

Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
20
Location
Lafayette, Indiana
Country
llUnited States
I buzzed through these looking for this one; if this is redundant my apologies:
The 1944 Russian halt outside of Warsaw and everything connected with that event.
 

Khill

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
2,118
Reaction score
582
Location
MAINE
Country
llIceland
the activities Unit 731

SS Jean Nicolet

Bangka Island beach massacre

i guess there are too many to list really
 

MAS01

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
430
Location
Joplin, MO
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
What would you say if one of the combatants eradicated a town of civilians, causing between 90,000 and 166,000 deaths?

Rich

I am making the assumption you are speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If so, put yourself in Truman's shoes. You have the choice of of the following:

a) Dropping two atomic bombs, killing between 90,000 and 166,000 civilians, causing the Emperor to intervene and end the war (althougth this was unknown to Truman).
b) Directly invading the Japanese mainland, with 250,000 US fatalities (they produced a half million Purple Hearts for the invasion) and a couple million (?) Japanese fatalities.

Make a decision between (a) and (b) please. No bs about how it bad nuclear war is, etc. Just take a stand and make a decision.

I'm with Truman.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
578
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
I am making the assumption you are speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If so, put yourself in Truman's shoes. You have the choice of of the following:

a) Dropping two atomic bombs, killing between 90,000 and 166,000 civilians, causing the Emperor to intervene and end the war (althougth this was unknown to Truman).
b) Directly invading the Japanese mainland, with 250,000 US fatalities (they produced a half million Purple Hearts for the invasion) and a couple million (?) Japanese fatalities.

Make a decision between (a) and (b) please. No bs about how it bad nuclear war is, etc. Just take a stand and make a decision.

I'm with Truman.
Those weren't the only alternatives.
There were other options:
1) Drop an a-bomb on a non-civilian target
2) Wait a few more weeks between bombings to give the shock time to sink in
3) A blockade of Japan to starve them out (considerably less humane than the a-bombs, imho)
4) Offer Stalin aid in seizing the Kuriles
5) other things I haven't thought of off the top of my head.

That's not to say Truman did the wrong thing; just that the only this or that scenario is weak.
 

freightshaker

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
729
Reaction score
19
Location
Out on the road
Deliberately rocketing and bombing civilians is pretty harsh.
By which side?

I am making the assumption you are speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If so, put yourself in Truman's shoes. You have the choice of of the following:

a) Dropping two atomic bombs, killing between 90,000 and 166,000 civilians, causing the Emperor to intervene and end the war (althougth this was unknown to Truman).
b) Directly invading the Japanese mainland, with 250,000 US fatalities (they produced a half million Purple Hearts for the invasion) and a couple million (?) Japanese fatalities.

Make a decision between (a) and (b) please. No bs about how it bad nuclear war is, etc. Just take a stand and make a decision.

I'm with Truman.
The A-bombs were child's play. The March 45' raids on Tokyo killed more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
 

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
690
Reaction score
149
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
Those weren't the only alternatives.
There were other options:
1) Drop an a-bomb on a non-civilian target
2) Wait a few more weeks between bombings to give the shock time to sink in
3) A blockade of Japan to starve them out (considerably less humane than the a-bombs, imho)
4) Offer Stalin aid in seizing the Kuriles
5) other things I haven't thought of off the top of my head.

That's not to say Truman did the wrong thing; just that the only this or that scenario is weak.
I agree Andy.. but I'm 100% sure I wanted it to end.. my father was in Northern Okinawa training to drive an unarmored bulldozer up a Japanese invasion beach to clear mine fields.:scream:
His men were to start clearing 5 minutes before the first wave of marines landed:umbrella:
 
Last edited:

MAS01

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
430
Location
Joplin, MO
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
Those weren't the only alternatives.
There were other options:
1) Drop an a-bomb on a non-civilian target
2) Wait a few more weeks between bombings to give the shock time to sink in
3) A blockade of Japan to starve them out (considerably less humane than the a-bombs, imho)
4) Offer Stalin aid in seizing the Kuriles
5) other things I haven't thought of off the top of my head.

That's not to say Truman did the wrong thing; just that the only this or that scenario is weak.

Andy:

I appreciate the points, but I'm not really sure that it wasn't simply an "a" or "b" scenario to Truman. Sure, there were the post-war problems with the Soviets to consider, but by that time, most things I have read always made mention that the American people were wanting the conflict to be over with as quickly as possible. If we had waited weeks between the bombings, would the Japanese have thought we didn't have many bombs? Blockade could have taken months, if not longer. As for inviting Stalin in, how well did that work in post-war Germany? I think that the two bombs in three days shocked the Emperor into action. Most Japanese had never even heard his voice when he made the surrender announcement. If we had invaded, how long would the guerrilla war had gone on (three soldiers held out until the early 1970s)

This is the problem with trying to look at history through today's eyes. How can we, more than 60 years later, even think to know what Truman truely thought?

Good arguements in any case. Makes you think.
 

Kevin Kenneally

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
17,835
Reaction score
649
Location
Central Texas USA.
Country
llUnited States
Andy:

I appreciate the points, but I'm not really sure that it wasn't simply an "a" or "b" scenario to Truman. Sure, there were the post-war problems with the Soviets to consider, but by that time, most things I have read always made mention that the American people were wanting the conflict to be over with as quickly as possible. If we had waited weeks between the bombings, would the Japanese have thought we didn't have many bombs? Blockade could have taken months, if not longer. As for inviting Stalin in, how well did that work in post-war Germany? I think that the two bombs in three days shocked the Emperor into action. Most Japanese had never even heard his voice when he made the surrender announcement. If we had invaded, how long would the guerrilla war had gone on (three soldiers held out until the early 1970s)

This is the problem with trying to look at history through today's eyes. How can we, more than 60 years later, even think to know what Truman truely thought?

Good arguements in any case. Makes you think.
Truman truly hated the military.

Now as for his goals,

1. End the war at the cheapest cost.

2. Downsize the Military machine he despised.

3. Make sure Missouri got plenty of money from the US Government.
 

MAS01

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
430
Location
Joplin, MO
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
Truman truly hated the military.

Now as for his goals,

1. End the war at the cheapest cost.

2. Downsize the Military machine he despised.

3. Make sure Missouri got plenty of money from the US Government.


Hell, the state already had its own battleship!
 

Kevin Kenneally

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
17,835
Reaction score
649
Location
Central Texas USA.
Country
llUnited States
Hell, the state already had its own battleship!
Why do you think the Peace Treaty was signed on that ship?

Also, the State of Tennessee refused to allow the Mississippi River to be deepened to allow the Battleship to be anchored at St. Louis....

Iowa could care less about the "Ole Rosebud"....
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
549
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
I am making the assumption you are speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If so, put yourself in Truman's shoes. You have the choice of of the following:

a) Dropping two atomic bombs, killing between 90,000 and 166,000 civilians, causing the Emperor to intervene and end the war (althougth this was unknown to Truman).
b) Directly invading the Japanese mainland, with 250,000 US fatalities (they produced a half million Purple Hearts for the invasion) and a couple million (?) Japanese fatalities.

Make a decision between (a) and (b) please. No bs about how it bad nuclear war is, etc. Just take a stand and make a decision.

I'm with Truman.
All I am saying is:

A. Partisans from a town ambush, kill, capture and torture survivors from a couple of squads. The offended company retaliates and ravage/kill the town to stop said activity from happening again.

B. Enemy suicides an invasion force at every opportunity, the offended leadership decides to kill 90,00 - 160,000 civilians to convince enemy to stop said activity from happening again.

I just don't see how A. is a war crime, punishable by death and B. is a smart decision; unless you factor in who won and who lost the war.

Rich
 

trevpr1

ASL Player
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
5,651
Reaction score
729
Location
Preston
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Truman truly hated the military.

Now as for his goals,

1. End the war at the cheapest cost.

2. Downsize the Military machine he despised.

3. Make sure Missouri got plenty of money from the US Government.
And he had Patton and Glenn Miller "taken care of," so they wouldn't make up the '48 dream ticket!
 

The Cisco Kid

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
176
Reaction score
16
Location
Over the Rainbow
First name
Paul
Country
llUnited States
I am making the assumption you are speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If so, put yourself in Truman's shoes. You have the choice of of the following:

a) Dropping two atomic bombs, killing between 90,000 and 166,000 civilians, causing the Emperor to intervene and end the war (althougth this was unknown to Truman).
b) Directly invading the Japanese mainland, with 250,000 US fatalities (they produced a half million Purple Hearts for the invasion) and a couple million (?) Japanese fatalities.

Make a decision between (a) and (b) please. No bs about how it bad nuclear war is, etc. Just take a stand and make a decision.

I'm with Truman.
Truman was deceived, that's why he made the decision he did.....
 
Top