A different take on WW2

[I-am-a-panda]

As Russia at war with the japanese, i switched to despotism and launched my nuke at Kyoto. Such a tragedy that history could have re-written itself, as nagasaki
was about 4 tiles away!

 

[soprismb]

I don't see why Nagasaki was a tragedy--or Hiroshima for that matter. In fact, of all the civs in the history of the world, no single group has managed to avoid culpability for its actions than the Japanese of War 2. They killed 300,000 Chinese in three weeks. Raped Nanking, murdered 3 million people and somehow the US always ends up feeling guilty! Why? Because Japan believes it was treated unfairly. You don't like the outcome? Don't start wars! They where worse than the Nazis in terms of how they treated POWs...They've managed to convince the world that we (USA) was just as brutal as they were. They don't even teach that in history books. They refuse to acknowledge their role in War 2, opting to rationalize it by saying, "Let this site (Hiroshima) serve as a reminder of man's inhumanity to man", when it should read, "This is where the 2nd most brutal regime in human history surrendered to the British and American allies who wanted nothing but democracy and freedom"

Second, it saved probably 10 million lives...a million Americans and a good portion of Japan that was hellbent on fighting to the death.

And finally, graph all war deaths and you'll see that it increased geographically or exponentially until Aug, 1945 when it immediately went from 15 million a year (1944) to about 1,000 a year. It taught us that WE HAVE to appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

But that's neither here nor there--I'm like you, I'm always looking at funny things like that in Civ Rev. "Wonder how that battle would look in real life?"

 

[Antilogic]

Second, it saved probably 10 million lives...a million Americans and a good portion of Japan that was hellbent on fighting to the death.

I agree with just about your entire post except for this line. The Japanese kamikaze program resulted in the horrible exchange of over 4,000 pilots for a measly 15 ships (at least, that's what I remember the Dogfights episode said on the HC). Their mostly coal-powered merchant marine was obliterated by US submarines and air strikes. They couldn't import more supplies, and had insufficient oil in the Japanese homeland to mount a significant air or armored defense. There was a growing voice amongst their military to surrender, although it was not formally acknowledged.

I believe it is a mistake to state, with complete certainty, that millions more would have died had the nukes not been dropped. It is only conjecture.

 

[soprismb]

Japanese home guard was something entirely different--it would have been Vietnam but on a VERY large scale. They were issuing rifles to every civilian in preparing for the invasion...they were teaching woman how to lace strictnine in rice for soldiers--they were brutal bastards. The entire plan centered around making the US pay for every inch of ground gained. Remember, the last two invasions, Iwo Jima and then Okinawa were far and away the bloodiest of the war and Okinawa was on Japanese soil.

Richard Roads lists American casualties minimum of 250,000 while Japanese civilians would have been several million (again, MINIMUM). I'd take his opinion, his book was listed as one of the 50 greatest non-fictions of the century.

Almost every military commander suggested a US number of around 500,000 to 1 million. And given that at that time we were inflicting 10/1 casualties, well, that's about 10 mil in Japanese guerilla dead. Operation Olympic/Coronet would have made D-Day look Arbor Day.

But that's cool that you got that on your game!

 

[Antilogic]

I realize we are turning a CivRev thread into something more appropriate for the history forums, but the point I was trying to make was that even without the nukes, an invasion of the Japanese homeland was not a foregone conclusion. It was in planning, yes, and the Japanese were preparing to fight to the death.

However, the military staff was contemplating surrender, and if they had their way, Japan would be out of the war without an invasion.

 

[soprismb]

Agreed. But still, I don't think it's right to ever pass judgement with 70 years of hindsight as some people do (not you at all--scholars, etc...) I wouldn't want to be Truman--here i'm losing tens of thousands of kids and I'm looking at millions more and I've got a weapon that can end it...what am I gonna tell people at my impeachment hearing when they find out I could have ended the war 3 years ago?

So anyway, check some of my posts and answer the questions--I'm always interested in players opinions

 

[Spartan117]

Agreed. But still, I don't think it's right to ever pass judgement with 70 years of hindsight as some people do (not you at all--scholars, etc...) I wouldn't want to be Truman--here i'm losing tens of thousands of kids and I'm looking at millions more and I've got a weapon that can end it...what am I gonna tell people at my impeachment hearing when they find out I could have ended the war 3 years ago?

So anyway, check some of my posts and answer the questions--I'm always interested in players opinions

You dont seem to know/understand the reason the nuclear weapon was used and all the factors that went into consideration.

This is simply a popular incorrect myth.

"here i'm losing tens of thousands of kids and I'm looking at millions more and I've got a weapon that can end it...what am I gonna tell people at my impeachment hearing when they find out I could have ended the war 3 years ago?"

As I recall there is thread in the history forum discussing this very thing.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: I'm closing this thread, because the current discussion belongs in the World History forum, and it has already been discussed to death there.

Also, please don't bump an old thread without something useful on-topic to add.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889