Zad wrote:
unknownkadath666 wrote:
Not just dresden but every major german city got fire bombed, which is just as bad initialy as the Abombs were. (not counting countless others who died from radiation disease). The cities were sweeped by fire , killign way more innocent than the battle of britain ever did. But you hear about the terrible night raids on London that started some fires. And the terrible V weapons that killed up to a thousand people.
The number of civilians that died from allied assaults is incredible by comparison. Not to mention they left the country shattered too the stone age, and then gave half of it to Stalin to further torment.
All of the leaders durring WW2 deserved death. Because, for the first time in history, it meant more to destroy a countries very fabric and incinerate the population. The holocaust, shoudkl just be the name of that war because several million jews may have died ( i don't know the number) But at the very least double that number of civilians died through bombing and starvation.
I view the pacific theater to be a totaly different war in this case though. Since we were the only nation in both theaters. i amnot knowledgable enoguh to really address it.
The USA dropped the nukes on Japan when it knew that it was considering surrender. Other bombings you mentioned were during war, and whilst I'm not saying that bombing is ok, nuking civilians is cold blood is worse.
And surely the USA wasn't the only one fighting in both east and west? England, Australia, Canada...?
idk, i thought australia only fought in the pacific, england after the prolonged conlfict with germany , i don't see how they could have fought in the pacific campaign. I have no idea whether or not canada was in the pacific.
Idk, i never really got why it was all called ww2, other than it was happening simultaneuosly. I know japan had a loose wierd alliance of sorts with Germany, but niether helped eachother, or really played a role i the others affairs. I just stands as two disticntly different conflicts to me
The weapons that are used don't really matter to me. Its the amount of destruction, Whether its a thousand conventional weaons or two atomic. I would say that civilians are equally cold bloodedly murdered, no matter what the government is considering, when you unleashe mass destruction on the population.