WWII bombings

alaskagirl

does anyone have any information on the WWII German bombings in belfast?

Typedef

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/blitz/part2/p2_p3.html

alaskagirl

Thank you!:)

nosmo

i think I'll keep this post running by asking:

Am I the only one who thinks that the Allies deserve plenty of shame re: their bombing campaign?
(IE: Fire bombing of Dresden, nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Anyone?

imp

I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both terrible and unnecessary. They could have just threatened them first, or at most blew up a nuke off the coast (which I'd still have a problem with but less) to show them they meant business.

}:>

Crash

They are sure the second bomb was just as a way of letting the russians know they had the power to do it again

Elvish

My opinion is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were needed. The Allies did not realise what a major impact they would have on future politics. The bombings showed the horror of nuclear weapons to everyone, so afterwards nobody wanted to use them. If the bombings did not go ahead it would be most likely that the cuban missile crisis would have sparked a full scale thermonuclear war between russia and america. This might sound cold-hearted but, which would you prefer: Moscow, New York, Washington, Smolensk, Kiev and other major cities completely wiped from the surface of the earth or Nagasaki and Hiroshima majorly damaged? I rest my case.

-Rob

seamus

I would agree with Elvish's points, but at the time, were the nukings necessary? No. As was said, the power of the weapons could have easily been demonstrated otherwise. But they are a very important part of our history. The world would be a wildly different place had they not taken place. They are our only two examples of the impact of nuclear weapons on real cities, and as such have acted as a model for consideration by all governments who have had nukes at the ready. If they hadn't been demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they would have been elsewhere, by somebody and may have had a much worse impact than it did. So from our perspective, it was needed, but at the time it was completely uncalled for.

imp

Well the Americans already new the horrific destructive power of the weapons when they tested them in the Nevada desert. I think that nuclear weapons are needed, they are a good deterrant, but at the same time does amearica need so god damn many of them?? I think the last count I heard was that they had something like 9,800. Why the hell would they need that many?? That's enough to destroy the world many times over!!

}:>

alaskagirl

erggg. no comment on this . i just have always hated the hiroshima/nagasaki discussion because in 5th grade (what is that for you guys? i dont know. i was 11) my class debated it and i got put on the pro-bombing side and we lost. i don think that any of us wanted to be on the pro- team. we were only considering if it was "nice" or not. well obviously to a 5th grader it wasnt going to look nice. death and all that. urg, scarring.

Asuka

iMP - They did threaten them first.

Apart from that, Im not sure the entire world would listen to the Americans going 'Well, we've got this really leet weapon, and we will crush you completely if you go against us, but only we have seen its effects...'

I think if the use of nuclear weapons was at some stage inevitable, im glad it was done earlier in the development as opposed to later...

As for the motives of the Americans, i think it was a happy mixture of them all. Truman and Atlee made the decision at the Potsdam meeting without consulting Stalin. Truman was a known anti-communist and was already set on at the very least a cold war... in 1942 he told the US Congress 'When the Germans are winning, we will help the Russians... but when the Russians are winning, we will help the Germans.' So there was defnitely a warning motive. However, there was also another two motives, in my opinion anyway.
1) The one stated - that a land invasion would involve many MANY casulaties.
2) It was already agreed that Russia would enter the war against Japan two months after VE Day. Time was drawing close, and the Americans didnt want them to join in any more - the Russians had already set up extensive spheres of influence in Eastern Europe, and they didnt want the same thing to happen in Asia.

A

Christine

Hiroshima was needed. Nagasaki was not. The first bomb crippled the Japanese, who were probably about to surrender. The Americans were too trigger-happy.

smiles

Originally posted by Christine
The Americans were too trigger-happy.

"La Guerre comme la guerre" (or "War is war" since I probably got that french bit wrong)

In my opinion every war ends up getting over the top and essencially wrong. There is no winners. (except in peoples minds).

<< Fio >>

Crash

Originally posted by Christine
Hiroshima was needed. Nagasaki was not. The first bomb crippled the Japanese, who were probably about to surrender. The Americans were too trigger-happy.

Nagasaki wasnt really for the Japanese though. it was intended as a detterent for the Russians.

And while we're quoting little bits of war wisdom:

dulce et decorum est : "It is brave and honourable to die for ones country" i think

= probably the biggest load of bull**** ever

D-Generate

That's why if you took the time to read the poem Ducle et Decorum est by Wilfred Owen (I think) you would see that he keeps talking about the death in war and about how wrong the words Dulce et Decorum est are.

Crash

I have taken the time to read it.
Very powerful poem

sisob

i would have prefered that the americans bomb new york to show off their fecking stupid bombs.

they could have blown up an island or somthing - really - 2 massive cities - it will never be right

lordsippa

ok... this may be a bit too cynical for you all but:

war is stupid. very very stupid. and anyone and everyone who fights in one deserves whatever the hell they get. and even the civillians are stupid. if you are in a war torn country then a). tsk for letting it get like that; and b). get out.

i'll defend my points to the end, no matter who has had whoever killed in a war. any soldiers deserve their fate and many civilians are just idiots.

Asuka

war is stupid. very very stupid. and anyone and everyone who fights in one deserves whatever the hell they get. and even the civillians are stupid. if you are in a war torn country then a). tsk for letting it get like that; and b). get out.

I wouldnt complain about that being too cynical, but it does sound a bit stupid. It also sounds idealistic and unrealistic. I dont think I even need to explain why.

War is necessary. It aint pretty, but its part of what people are. If you take away someones will to compete, youre taking away human nature. If you take away someones will to take competition to a higher level, youre taking away human nature. If you take away someones life, then youre taking away their humanity.

In a lot of ways, i consider that taking away their life is easier and better for them.

But its too late to get into a big philosophical argument. Ill only say that i dont believe in a world without conflict, a 'purely peaceful' world. Thats not my idea of Utopia, thats my idea of boredom or hell. Thats not to say that im one of these people who thinks that war is beautiful either. War is human nature and ultimately, it doesnt matter what we think because it NEVER going to end.

Ill leave you to consider this quote:

If you should seek peace, prepare for war

Crash

Originally posted by lordsippa
ok... this may be a bit too cynical for you all but:

war is stupid. very very stupid. and anyone and everyone who fights in one deserves whatever the hell they get. and even the civillians are stupid. if you are in a war torn country then a). tsk for letting it get like that; and b). get out.

i'll defend my points to the end, no matter who has had whoever killed in a war. any soldiers deserve their fate and many civilians are just idiots.

Point B: a number of countries, especially dictatorships, close borders, making it impossible to get out.

Point A: see point B re: Dictatorship

Christine

Dulce et Decorum Est = great poem.

This is definitely in 'is there such a thing as a just war?' territory. It depends which side you are on. The Japanese probably didn't enjoy having the s***te bombed out of them, but the Merkins still put forward that they're right.
War is bad. But it happens. No amount of holding hands and singing will stop it, unfortunately.
So come and live in my country, which I will shortly secede from the Republic of Ireland, where it will all be lovely.

Xtine

Elvish

Here's an interesting quote from one Jeannette Rankin

"You can no more win a war than you can win an Earthquake"

I don't agree fully with that quote so here's one I agree with more

"We improve ourselves by victories over ourself. There must be contests, and you must win."

Edward Gibbon

Elvish

heres another quote i just thought of, this ones from the American Presidents Mammy:

"War is not nice."

Says it all doesn't it?

P.S. This wasn't meant to be a joke

Christine

Yeah, war is icky. What can you do, though? Killing enormous numbers of innocent people in horrific ways still ranks as the world's number-one problem solver. Says it all.

Xtine

lordsippa

Here's one of my favourite quotes on war:

"The fastest way to end a war is to lose it."

Whoever said it (i can't remember off hand) really knew what he was talking about. Who cares who's name is on a map, all that matters is the individuals...

I'll stop before i get too philosophical.

Elvish

Not to sound too aggressive but I think that:

Who cares who's name is on a map?

is a load of total bo**ox! Look at the North! Being firmly Nationalist I think that my children should see Ireland where its says Northern Ireland, I hope I do not see the day when it says England or Great Britain where Ireland should rightfully be. Have a bit of Patriotism lad!

-Rob

Christine

Have you ever seen one of those maps of Northern Ireland where they leave out the Republic altogether and just have the six counties floating around rather aimlessly in the sea? They're funny.

Xtine

lordsippa

Originally posted by Elvish
Have a bit of Patriotism lad!

1). I want to see a unified Ireland too but when push comes to shove I don't really care about anything other than me because, frankly, everyone else deserves to die slow and painful deaths.

2). About the comment I've quoted above: DIE AND ROT IN HELL.

<i am not in a good mood and i don't need idiots waffling on with the same bs that has seen an ongoing conflict unresolved to help it>

sisob

Originally posted by Elvish
Have a bit of Patriotism lad!

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH

do you know how many people patriotism and national pride have killed. If everyone in the north woke up tomorrow with no idea which side they were on the problem would be over - well at least they would kill and destroy randomly.

Crash

Patriotism leads to bigotry leads to hatred leads to division due to religion leads to more bull**** like that, so i am quite happy to tell patriotism to go **** itself up its own ass with a tree.

However, the reason that the north was kept to England was due to a number of reasons, not just due to the English. Rob, ever heard of the boundary commission, which was not purely english and was originally intending to keep the border where it was but was disbanded after a leaked report.

/me continues studying history notes

smiles

Patriotism is an excuse.

It's all an excuse to fight and kill and hate.

I dislike it.

<< Fio >>