Upload
Login or register

ninjabadger

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/27/2012
Last Login:7/27/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#606
Highest Content Rank:#1128
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 7761 total,  8967 ,  1206
Comment Thumbs: 70855 total,  74221 ,  3366
Content Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 170 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 171 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 80.6% (806/1000)
Level 359 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 360 Comments: FJ Noble
Subscribers:2
Content Views:457279
Times Content Favorited:609 times
Total Comments Made:12712
FJ Points:66789
Favorite Tags: lol (9) | ac (7) | Talon (3) | AC3 (2) | assassins (2) | blind (2) | cliffs (2) | connor (2) | Ezio (2) | Katarina (2) | lee (2) | rakaflaka (2) | shen (2)
Hey there, how's it going? Feel free to leave me a message down below, I enjoy conversing. If not, have a terrific day'

latest user's comments

#20 - Reparations were taken care of post war. I suppose t…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +1
#21 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Who started the war indeed. Before the war Germany tried to negotiate for the return of the Danzig corridor. This land had been traditional a German land, and the population was made up of Germans who had lived there for hundreds of years. France, and Great Britain repeatedly denied the return of this section of German land, and in 1939 when the Government of Poland began to ethnically cleanse the region, and when those actions became violent the German government stormed across the border, only to find the results of an event dubbed as the "Danzig Massacre" thousands of ethnic Germans had been murdered by Poles in the days before the war had begun.

Meanwhile at the same time on the eastern side of Poland the Russians stormed across the Polish border in pursuit of territory. Instead of a declaration of war on both the Soviet Union, and Germany the French, and British declared war on Germany alone. This shows the true intention of the western allies at the beginning of the war. Only to destroy Germany. If their intention was to keep the peace in Europe certainly they would have declared war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939. This was was forced upon Germany, and was instigated by the allies.
User avatar
#31 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A small piece of the puzzle, and not nearly as important as some of the other factors.

Predominantly it was ambition and desire for power, a revitalization of Germany's greatness, lost to the first Great War. A novel idea, if not for the blind nationalist fanaticism we know to be the Nazi party. The benefits to the nation under rule were actually pretty damn good, the ethnic cleansing notwithstanding. Problem was that was a big part of their plan, and thus they had no good reason for what they did.

If the cause was as noble as you claim it to be, which it's not... it could have easily been negotiated and backed up with the massacre alone. A small parchment of land and revenge would fit well. But no... let's Blitz the rest of Europe and try to dominate it. All the while secretly moving towards a great ethnic cleansing, and an establishment of the Aryan race as the superior race.

Hitler could have done a lot differently, and he could've actually made Germany a lot better. Hell even with war, without certain policies they may have stood a better chance. But now they'll forever be known as the go to evil regime, the nazis.
User avatar
#29 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Ok you are obviously a bait acct, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are with one thing in that comment, Russia was allied with Germany in WWII, the only reason the soviets even joined the allies was when hitter was all "Two fronts looks awesome, now how about I punch that big fucking bear in the face" and blitzkrieged his troops into Russia all Napoleon style. Hitler would have had the world through pure military strength and the tactical prowess of his generals had he only waited to solidify his hold over Europe (only after smashing the UK of course) and then moved toward the bear. But this is just another lesson about mankind, patience is not one of our strong suits.
#33 - sixmillionjuice (07/04/2016) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you understand that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 that they obliterated all Soviet Forces in the west. The only reason they reached Moscow was because Japan did not attack in the east, and reinforcements could be diverted to the west, because there was not a large enough army to sweep west left on the eastern front after Barbarossa. Hitler did what he did to protect Europe from communism, and his reward was a stab in the back from the west who then held the world over a pit of nuclear fire for fifty years after the war.
User avatar
#34 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
I actually thought you were serious when I read your first line, by the time I got to the end of it though I saw what you were doing. Good bait, almost fell for it.
User avatar
#30 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Well I shoudnt really say allied, but Stalin had a deal with Hitler to allow him free reign without interruption if he allowed the Russians a bit of land along the U.S.S.R. border, not that that deal wouldn't have ended in war anyway, but if Hitler wouldn't have stabbed the bear in the gut he would have won the war.
#18 - The UK alone lost around 67,000 lives in civilian casualties a…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +4
#19 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
So in two raids the British, and Americans inflicted more civilian casualties on Germany than was inflicted on Britain during the war? You're not making the western allies look any more heroic. You're making them look like what they really are. The Bad Guys.

You're acting like this magical 10 million Soviets number is accurate. Subtract partisans, and political commissars, and then realize that these numbers are probably fabricated out of thin air like most official statements of any communist nation, and you have accurate numbers. Furthermore you should look at the conduct of the Soviet soldiers in conquered territory. Rape, murder, and pillage all sponsored by the Soviet State, because high ranking members like Ilya Ehrenburg gave the go ahead. Out of all of the allies the actions of the Soviets are the most deplorable. However how can the western allies be any better? Having their way with starving mothers for chocolate bars, and dropping incendiaries on civilians.
User avatar
#20 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
Reparations were taken care of post war.

I suppose the easiest argument to make here then to prove my point is by posing a very simple question.

Who started the war? Who propagated the war, attacked neutral nations and countries, and killed based on xenophobic principles?

All those lives lost rest on the shoulders of those who started it all. For all sides.

The biggest war crime of all is starting a war for nothing more than selfish gain. And that's exactly what WWII was.

And you're right, the actions of the Soviets were incredibly deplorable. Same goes for the Nazis and the Japanese empire. They weren't isolated events, nor was it only a few missions. Time and time again these 3 nations committed face to face war crimes on innocents for differing reasons. Of course the rest of the allies (and axis) have cases where soldiers don't act appropriately. War breeds that. You realize at least that some of these were taken care of by military court? The US and UK at least had that. You don't hear that from the Japs, Nazis, or Russians concerning their war crimes during the war.
#21 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Who started the war indeed. Before the war Germany tried to negotiate for the return of the Danzig corridor. This land had been traditional a German land, and the population was made up of Germans who had lived there for hundreds of years. France, and Great Britain repeatedly denied the return of this section of German land, and in 1939 when the Government of Poland began to ethnically cleanse the region, and when those actions became violent the German government stormed across the border, only to find the results of an event dubbed as the "Danzig Massacre" thousands of ethnic Germans had been murdered by Poles in the days before the war had begun.

Meanwhile at the same time on the eastern side of Poland the Russians stormed across the Polish border in pursuit of territory. Instead of a declaration of war on both the Soviet Union, and Germany the French, and British declared war on Germany alone. This shows the true intention of the western allies at the beginning of the war. Only to destroy Germany. If their intention was to keep the peace in Europe certainly they would have declared war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939. This was was forced upon Germany, and was instigated by the allies.
User avatar
#31 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A small piece of the puzzle, and not nearly as important as some of the other factors.

Predominantly it was ambition and desire for power, a revitalization of Germany's greatness, lost to the first Great War. A novel idea, if not for the blind nationalist fanaticism we know to be the Nazi party. The benefits to the nation under rule were actually pretty damn good, the ethnic cleansing notwithstanding. Problem was that was a big part of their plan, and thus they had no good reason for what they did.

If the cause was as noble as you claim it to be, which it's not... it could have easily been negotiated and backed up with the massacre alone. A small parchment of land and revenge would fit well. But no... let's Blitz the rest of Europe and try to dominate it. All the while secretly moving towards a great ethnic cleansing, and an establishment of the Aryan race as the superior race.

Hitler could have done a lot differently, and he could've actually made Germany a lot better. Hell even with war, without certain policies they may have stood a better chance. But now they'll forever be known as the go to evil regime, the nazis.
User avatar
#29 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Ok you are obviously a bait acct, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are with one thing in that comment, Russia was allied with Germany in WWII, the only reason the soviets even joined the allies was when hitter was all "Two fronts looks awesome, now how about I punch that big fucking bear in the face" and blitzkrieged his troops into Russia all Napoleon style. Hitler would have had the world through pure military strength and the tactical prowess of his generals had he only waited to solidify his hold over Europe (only after smashing the UK of course) and then moved toward the bear. But this is just another lesson about mankind, patience is not one of our strong suits.
#33 - sixmillionjuice (07/04/2016) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you understand that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 that they obliterated all Soviet Forces in the west. The only reason they reached Moscow was because Japan did not attack in the east, and reinforcements could be diverted to the west, because there was not a large enough army to sweep west left on the eastern front after Barbarossa. Hitler did what he did to protect Europe from communism, and his reward was a stab in the back from the west who then held the world over a pit of nuclear fire for fifty years after the war.
User avatar
#34 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
I actually thought you were serious when I read your first line, by the time I got to the end of it though I saw what you were doing. Good bait, almost fell for it.
User avatar
#30 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Well I shoudnt really say allied, but Stalin had a deal with Hitler to allow him free reign without interruption if he allowed the Russians a bit of land along the U.S.S.R. border, not that that deal wouldn't have ended in war anyway, but if Hitler wouldn't have stabbed the bear in the gut he would have won the war.
#15 - War is always two wrongs fighting to decide who's right. …  [+] (1 new reply) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +1
User avatar
#16 - distortedflare (07/03/2016) [-]
True.
#13 - You realize the Germans had many more bombing runs on Britain …  [+] (10 new replies) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +2
#17 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Casualties of the Blitz in its entirety, 40,000. Casualties during the bombing of hamburg, 42,600, casualties during the bombing of Dresden 22,700. During two raids the allies inflicted more casualties on civilians than during the entirety of the Blitz.
User avatar
#18 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
The UK alone lost around 67,000 lives in civilian casualties alone. That's over the entirety of the war.

The USSR lost around 10 million from Military actions against civilians.... 10 million. That's not including those who died from famine or poverty inflicted by the war (another figure in the millions).
#19 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
So in two raids the British, and Americans inflicted more civilian casualties on Germany than was inflicted on Britain during the war? You're not making the western allies look any more heroic. You're making them look like what they really are. The Bad Guys.

You're acting like this magical 10 million Soviets number is accurate. Subtract partisans, and political commissars, and then realize that these numbers are probably fabricated out of thin air like most official statements of any communist nation, and you have accurate numbers. Furthermore you should look at the conduct of the Soviet soldiers in conquered territory. Rape, murder, and pillage all sponsored by the Soviet State, because high ranking members like Ilya Ehrenburg gave the go ahead. Out of all of the allies the actions of the Soviets are the most deplorable. However how can the western allies be any better? Having their way with starving mothers for chocolate bars, and dropping incendiaries on civilians.
User avatar
#20 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
Reparations were taken care of post war.

I suppose the easiest argument to make here then to prove my point is by posing a very simple question.

Who started the war? Who propagated the war, attacked neutral nations and countries, and killed based on xenophobic principles?

All those lives lost rest on the shoulders of those who started it all. For all sides.

The biggest war crime of all is starting a war for nothing more than selfish gain. And that's exactly what WWII was.

And you're right, the actions of the Soviets were incredibly deplorable. Same goes for the Nazis and the Japanese empire. They weren't isolated events, nor was it only a few missions. Time and time again these 3 nations committed face to face war crimes on innocents for differing reasons. Of course the rest of the allies (and axis) have cases where soldiers don't act appropriately. War breeds that. You realize at least that some of these were taken care of by military court? The US and UK at least had that. You don't hear that from the Japs, Nazis, or Russians concerning their war crimes during the war.
#21 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Who started the war indeed. Before the war Germany tried to negotiate for the return of the Danzig corridor. This land had been traditional a German land, and the population was made up of Germans who had lived there for hundreds of years. France, and Great Britain repeatedly denied the return of this section of German land, and in 1939 when the Government of Poland began to ethnically cleanse the region, and when those actions became violent the German government stormed across the border, only to find the results of an event dubbed as the "Danzig Massacre" thousands of ethnic Germans had been murdered by Poles in the days before the war had begun.

Meanwhile at the same time on the eastern side of Poland the Russians stormed across the Polish border in pursuit of territory. Instead of a declaration of war on both the Soviet Union, and Germany the French, and British declared war on Germany alone. This shows the true intention of the western allies at the beginning of the war. Only to destroy Germany. If their intention was to keep the peace in Europe certainly they would have declared war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939. This was was forced upon Germany, and was instigated by the allies.
User avatar
#31 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A small piece of the puzzle, and not nearly as important as some of the other factors.

Predominantly it was ambition and desire for power, a revitalization of Germany's greatness, lost to the first Great War. A novel idea, if not for the blind nationalist fanaticism we know to be the Nazi party. The benefits to the nation under rule were actually pretty damn good, the ethnic cleansing notwithstanding. Problem was that was a big part of their plan, and thus they had no good reason for what they did.

If the cause was as noble as you claim it to be, which it's not... it could have easily been negotiated and backed up with the massacre alone. A small parchment of land and revenge would fit well. But no... let's Blitz the rest of Europe and try to dominate it. All the while secretly moving towards a great ethnic cleansing, and an establishment of the Aryan race as the superior race.

Hitler could have done a lot differently, and he could've actually made Germany a lot better. Hell even with war, without certain policies they may have stood a better chance. But now they'll forever be known as the go to evil regime, the nazis.
User avatar
#29 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Ok you are obviously a bait acct, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are with one thing in that comment, Russia was allied with Germany in WWII, the only reason the soviets even joined the allies was when hitter was all "Two fronts looks awesome, now how about I punch that big fucking bear in the face" and blitzkrieged his troops into Russia all Napoleon style. Hitler would have had the world through pure military strength and the tactical prowess of his generals had he only waited to solidify his hold over Europe (only after smashing the UK of course) and then moved toward the bear. But this is just another lesson about mankind, patience is not one of our strong suits.
#33 - sixmillionjuice (07/04/2016) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you understand that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 that they obliterated all Soviet Forces in the west. The only reason they reached Moscow was because Japan did not attack in the east, and reinforcements could be diverted to the west, because there was not a large enough army to sweep west left on the eastern front after Barbarossa. Hitler did what he did to protect Europe from communism, and his reward was a stab in the back from the west who then held the world over a pit of nuclear fire for fifty years after the war.
User avatar
#34 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
I actually thought you were serious when I read your first line, by the time I got to the end of it though I saw what you were doing. Good bait, almost fell for it.
User avatar
#30 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Well I shoudnt really say allied, but Stalin had a deal with Hitler to allow him free reign without interruption if he allowed the Russians a bit of land along the U.S.S.R. border, not that that deal wouldn't have ended in war anyway, but if Hitler wouldn't have stabbed the bear in the gut he would have won the war.
#11 - You don't think the opposing side didn't do the same? …  [+] (15 new replies) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +2
User avatar
#14 - distortedflare (07/03/2016) [-]
The dude has a point two wrong do not make a right. But by the same token how many lives were saved. The millions of young boys and men as well as innocent who would have died as the japan goverment forced them to fight american and British soldiers.
User avatar
#15 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
War is always two wrongs fighting to decide who's right.

I won't defend acts from either side. I'm simply pointing out the nature of war. That one side cannot be blamed more than another, when they both do the same thing. War is hell for everyone, even the innocent.

It's probably easier to find blame in those that start wars than those that fight in retaliation to them. Because logically speaking, no one would have died in a war that never happened.
User avatar
#16 - distortedflare (07/03/2016) [-]
True.
#12 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
I'm talking about the firebombings in Germany. The Germans accidentally bombed a British city one time, and killed 200 civilians. The Americans, and British responded by bombing Hamburg, and then while people were trying to escape, and put out the fire returning and bombing rescue workers. The bombing of Hamburg was the first time the allies intentionally targeted civilians, and was well before any bombings of this type in the Pacific. The bombings of Hamburg, and Dresden inflicted thousands more casualties than Coventry, and the barbarity of the act should have all of those involved regarded as war criminals.
User avatar
#13 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
You realize the Germans had many more bombing runs on Britain than the one you cited right? And let's just forget all mainland attacks and casualties in the Blitzs and related conflicts.

A lot of the commanders on both sides never explicitly targeted civilians but rather areas in which civilians were likely to suffer heavy causalities as a means to demoralize the enemy. In essence killing civilians, or rather destroying domiciles and centers of civilian life, was an incredibly efficient tactic for demoralizing the citizenry (but could conversely spur on incredible nationalism and revenge mentalities). It all added up to going towards making the war easier for whichever side utilized the tactic. It was also hard to explicitly attack military installations and factories when they began trying to camouflage them. You are also aware factories and industrial centers were almost always surrounded by cities right? Casualties were not avoidable, hell the people who worked in those factories would be considered civilians. They thwarted the guilt by stating the intent was not to target civilians explicitly (however both sides attacked civilian centers). However it was considered doctrine that the loss of civilian life was permissible in the act of war (this was stated in documents concerning the German War stratum, they explicitly state the causalities were acceptable).

As such the common, fighting fire with fire tactic was used. It's war. No side was more honorable than the next.

#17 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Casualties of the Blitz in its entirety, 40,000. Casualties during the bombing of hamburg, 42,600, casualties during the bombing of Dresden 22,700. During two raids the allies inflicted more casualties on civilians than during the entirety of the Blitz.
User avatar
#18 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
The UK alone lost around 67,000 lives in civilian casualties alone. That's over the entirety of the war.

The USSR lost around 10 million from Military actions against civilians.... 10 million. That's not including those who died from famine or poverty inflicted by the war (another figure in the millions).
#19 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
So in two raids the British, and Americans inflicted more civilian casualties on Germany than was inflicted on Britain during the war? You're not making the western allies look any more heroic. You're making them look like what they really are. The Bad Guys.

You're acting like this magical 10 million Soviets number is accurate. Subtract partisans, and political commissars, and then realize that these numbers are probably fabricated out of thin air like most official statements of any communist nation, and you have accurate numbers. Furthermore you should look at the conduct of the Soviet soldiers in conquered territory. Rape, murder, and pillage all sponsored by the Soviet State, because high ranking members like Ilya Ehrenburg gave the go ahead. Out of all of the allies the actions of the Soviets are the most deplorable. However how can the western allies be any better? Having their way with starving mothers for chocolate bars, and dropping incendiaries on civilians.
User avatar
#20 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
Reparations were taken care of post war.

I suppose the easiest argument to make here then to prove my point is by posing a very simple question.

Who started the war? Who propagated the war, attacked neutral nations and countries, and killed based on xenophobic principles?

All those lives lost rest on the shoulders of those who started it all. For all sides.

The biggest war crime of all is starting a war for nothing more than selfish gain. And that's exactly what WWII was.

And you're right, the actions of the Soviets were incredibly deplorable. Same goes for the Nazis and the Japanese empire. They weren't isolated events, nor was it only a few missions. Time and time again these 3 nations committed face to face war crimes on innocents for differing reasons. Of course the rest of the allies (and axis) have cases where soldiers don't act appropriately. War breeds that. You realize at least that some of these were taken care of by military court? The US and UK at least had that. You don't hear that from the Japs, Nazis, or Russians concerning their war crimes during the war.
#21 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Who started the war indeed. Before the war Germany tried to negotiate for the return of the Danzig corridor. This land had been traditional a German land, and the population was made up of Germans who had lived there for hundreds of years. France, and Great Britain repeatedly denied the return of this section of German land, and in 1939 when the Government of Poland began to ethnically cleanse the region, and when those actions became violent the German government stormed across the border, only to find the results of an event dubbed as the "Danzig Massacre" thousands of ethnic Germans had been murdered by Poles in the days before the war had begun.

Meanwhile at the same time on the eastern side of Poland the Russians stormed across the Polish border in pursuit of territory. Instead of a declaration of war on both the Soviet Union, and Germany the French, and British declared war on Germany alone. This shows the true intention of the western allies at the beginning of the war. Only to destroy Germany. If their intention was to keep the peace in Europe certainly they would have declared war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939. This was was forced upon Germany, and was instigated by the allies.
User avatar
#31 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A small piece of the puzzle, and not nearly as important as some of the other factors.

Predominantly it was ambition and desire for power, a revitalization of Germany's greatness, lost to the first Great War. A novel idea, if not for the blind nationalist fanaticism we know to be the Nazi party. The benefits to the nation under rule were actually pretty damn good, the ethnic cleansing notwithstanding. Problem was that was a big part of their plan, and thus they had no good reason for what they did.

If the cause was as noble as you claim it to be, which it's not... it could have easily been negotiated and backed up with the massacre alone. A small parchment of land and revenge would fit well. But no... let's Blitz the rest of Europe and try to dominate it. All the while secretly moving towards a great ethnic cleansing, and an establishment of the Aryan race as the superior race.

Hitler could have done a lot differently, and he could've actually made Germany a lot better. Hell even with war, without certain policies they may have stood a better chance. But now they'll forever be known as the go to evil regime, the nazis.
User avatar
#29 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Ok you are obviously a bait acct, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are with one thing in that comment, Russia was allied with Germany in WWII, the only reason the soviets even joined the allies was when hitter was all "Two fronts looks awesome, now how about I punch that big fucking bear in the face" and blitzkrieged his troops into Russia all Napoleon style. Hitler would have had the world through pure military strength and the tactical prowess of his generals had he only waited to solidify his hold over Europe (only after smashing the UK of course) and then moved toward the bear. But this is just another lesson about mankind, patience is not one of our strong suits.
#33 - sixmillionjuice (07/04/2016) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you understand that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 that they obliterated all Soviet Forces in the west. The only reason they reached Moscow was because Japan did not attack in the east, and reinforcements could be diverted to the west, because there was not a large enough army to sweep west left on the eastern front after Barbarossa. Hitler did what he did to protect Europe from communism, and his reward was a stab in the back from the west who then held the world over a pit of nuclear fire for fifty years after the war.
User avatar
#34 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
I actually thought you were serious when I read your first line, by the time I got to the end of it though I saw what you were doing. Good bait, almost fell for it.
User avatar
#30 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Well I shoudnt really say allied, but Stalin had a deal with Hitler to allow him free reign without interruption if he allowed the Russians a bit of land along the U.S.S.R. border, not that that deal wouldn't have ended in war anyway, but if Hitler wouldn't have stabbed the bear in the gut he would have won the war.
#9 - Most countries don't unless they are cornered and have to (for…  [+] (19 new replies) 07/03/2016 on Aburgus Epto Seltelapof +5
User avatar
#22 - thesecretbear (07/04/2016) [-]
I don't support the act of dropping the bombs, but many more lives could have been lost without it. Especially if Russia went through with their plans to invade.
User avatar
#32 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A lot of people forget that Russia would have also gotten involved... as if they hadn't lost enough lives and caused enough grief in the war.

A lot more was avoided besides huge losses from the US and Japanese. Might've had some nasty after effects politically, and with the cold war and all... well all I can say was I'm glad that was not the case.

Glad to see some people are aware of that front, as it was relatively minor in the whole scheme of the Pacific Theatre.

I agree on the bombs though. It's shitty, but it was effective and relatively new in terms of war technology at the time. At least in the way they could pull it off over long distances and with larger loads. Mass damage with rather small investment in terms of danger. Plus it's a fire and forget kind of deal. Nukes were the pinnacle of that form of warfare... and it taught humans a valuable lesson that would shake the foundations of our societies forevermore.

We can play the part of God with the flip of a switch, and it's a terrible power to have. An even worse one to witness.
#10 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
You act like we bombed industrial targets. These were civilians. There wasn't a factory or military instillation for miles. Men, women, and children subject to hundred mile per hour winds, molten asphalt, and boiling rivers. People cooked alive in bomb shelters, and pregnant women who exploded from the heat. This is clearly and without a shadow of a doubt murder, and every man who had a hand in it should be taken out of his VA bed, or nursing home and hung for war crimes like we do to every person who even tangentially had a hand in operating Auchwitz.
User avatar
#11 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
You don't think the opposing side didn't do the same?

Also what exactly are you referring to? The Nuclear bomb droppings, or the fire bombings?

The whole point of all that was to get the Japanese to surrender. The war was not going to go in their favor, especially not at the point any bombing started in Japan. Continuation of the war would've cost far more lives on both sides than the bombings did. It was a terrible sacrifice to have to make.

The real cause of all those lives lost was the arrogance of the leaders who kept them in that war... and wanted to expand an empire across the Pacific.
User avatar
#14 - distortedflare (07/03/2016) [-]
The dude has a point two wrong do not make a right. But by the same token how many lives were saved. The millions of young boys and men as well as innocent who would have died as the japan goverment forced them to fight american and British soldiers.
User avatar
#15 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
War is always two wrongs fighting to decide who's right.

I won't defend acts from either side. I'm simply pointing out the nature of war. That one side cannot be blamed more than another, when they both do the same thing. War is hell for everyone, even the innocent.

It's probably easier to find blame in those that start wars than those that fight in retaliation to them. Because logically speaking, no one would have died in a war that never happened.
User avatar
#16 - distortedflare (07/03/2016) [-]
True.
#12 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
I'm talking about the firebombings in Germany. The Germans accidentally bombed a British city one time, and killed 200 civilians. The Americans, and British responded by bombing Hamburg, and then while people were trying to escape, and put out the fire returning and bombing rescue workers. The bombing of Hamburg was the first time the allies intentionally targeted civilians, and was well before any bombings of this type in the Pacific. The bombings of Hamburg, and Dresden inflicted thousands more casualties than Coventry, and the barbarity of the act should have all of those involved regarded as war criminals.
User avatar
#13 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
You realize the Germans had many more bombing runs on Britain than the one you cited right? And let's just forget all mainland attacks and casualties in the Blitzs and related conflicts.

A lot of the commanders on both sides never explicitly targeted civilians but rather areas in which civilians were likely to suffer heavy causalities as a means to demoralize the enemy. In essence killing civilians, or rather destroying domiciles and centers of civilian life, was an incredibly efficient tactic for demoralizing the citizenry (but could conversely spur on incredible nationalism and revenge mentalities). It all added up to going towards making the war easier for whichever side utilized the tactic. It was also hard to explicitly attack military installations and factories when they began trying to camouflage them. You are also aware factories and industrial centers were almost always surrounded by cities right? Casualties were not avoidable, hell the people who worked in those factories would be considered civilians. They thwarted the guilt by stating the intent was not to target civilians explicitly (however both sides attacked civilian centers). However it was considered doctrine that the loss of civilian life was permissible in the act of war (this was stated in documents concerning the German War stratum, they explicitly state the causalities were acceptable).

As such the common, fighting fire with fire tactic was used. It's war. No side was more honorable than the next.

#17 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Casualties of the Blitz in its entirety, 40,000. Casualties during the bombing of hamburg, 42,600, casualties during the bombing of Dresden 22,700. During two raids the allies inflicted more casualties on civilians than during the entirety of the Blitz.
User avatar
#18 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
The UK alone lost around 67,000 lives in civilian casualties alone. That's over the entirety of the war.

The USSR lost around 10 million from Military actions against civilians.... 10 million. That's not including those who died from famine or poverty inflicted by the war (another figure in the millions).
#19 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
So in two raids the British, and Americans inflicted more civilian casualties on Germany than was inflicted on Britain during the war? You're not making the western allies look any more heroic. You're making them look like what they really are. The Bad Guys.

You're acting like this magical 10 million Soviets number is accurate. Subtract partisans, and political commissars, and then realize that these numbers are probably fabricated out of thin air like most official statements of any communist nation, and you have accurate numbers. Furthermore you should look at the conduct of the Soviet soldiers in conquered territory. Rape, murder, and pillage all sponsored by the Soviet State, because high ranking members like Ilya Ehrenburg gave the go ahead. Out of all of the allies the actions of the Soviets are the most deplorable. However how can the western allies be any better? Having their way with starving mothers for chocolate bars, and dropping incendiaries on civilians.
User avatar
#20 - ninjabadger (07/03/2016) [-]
Reparations were taken care of post war.

I suppose the easiest argument to make here then to prove my point is by posing a very simple question.

Who started the war? Who propagated the war, attacked neutral nations and countries, and killed based on xenophobic principles?

All those lives lost rest on the shoulders of those who started it all. For all sides.

The biggest war crime of all is starting a war for nothing more than selfish gain. And that's exactly what WWII was.

And you're right, the actions of the Soviets were incredibly deplorable. Same goes for the Nazis and the Japanese empire. They weren't isolated events, nor was it only a few missions. Time and time again these 3 nations committed face to face war crimes on innocents for differing reasons. Of course the rest of the allies (and axis) have cases where soldiers don't act appropriately. War breeds that. You realize at least that some of these were taken care of by military court? The US and UK at least had that. You don't hear that from the Japs, Nazis, or Russians concerning their war crimes during the war.
#21 - sixmillionjuice (07/03/2016) [-]
Who started the war indeed. Before the war Germany tried to negotiate for the return of the Danzig corridor. This land had been traditional a German land, and the population was made up of Germans who had lived there for hundreds of years. France, and Great Britain repeatedly denied the return of this section of German land, and in 1939 when the Government of Poland began to ethnically cleanse the region, and when those actions became violent the German government stormed across the border, only to find the results of an event dubbed as the "Danzig Massacre" thousands of ethnic Germans had been murdered by Poles in the days before the war had begun.

Meanwhile at the same time on the eastern side of Poland the Russians stormed across the Polish border in pursuit of territory. Instead of a declaration of war on both the Soviet Union, and Germany the French, and British declared war on Germany alone. This shows the true intention of the western allies at the beginning of the war. Only to destroy Germany. If their intention was to keep the peace in Europe certainly they would have declared war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939. This was was forced upon Germany, and was instigated by the allies.
User avatar
#31 - ninjabadger (07/04/2016) [-]
A small piece of the puzzle, and not nearly as important as some of the other factors.

Predominantly it was ambition and desire for power, a revitalization of Germany's greatness, lost to the first Great War. A novel idea, if not for the blind nationalist fanaticism we know to be the Nazi party. The benefits to the nation under rule were actually pretty damn good, the ethnic cleansing notwithstanding. Problem was that was a big part of their plan, and thus they had no good reason for what they did.

If the cause was as noble as you claim it to be, which it's not... it could have easily been negotiated and backed up with the massacre alone. A small parchment of land and revenge would fit well. But no... let's Blitz the rest of Europe and try to dominate it. All the while secretly moving towards a great ethnic cleansing, and an establishment of the Aryan race as the superior race.

Hitler could have done a lot differently, and he could've actually made Germany a lot better. Hell even with war, without certain policies they may have stood a better chance. But now they'll forever be known as the go to evil regime, the nazis.
User avatar
#29 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Ok you are obviously a bait acct, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are with one thing in that comment, Russia was allied with Germany in WWII, the only reason the soviets even joined the allies was when hitter was all "Two fronts looks awesome, now how about I punch that big fucking bear in the face" and blitzkrieged his troops into Russia all Napoleon style. Hitler would have had the world through pure military strength and the tactical prowess of his generals had he only waited to solidify his hold over Europe (only after smashing the UK of course) and then moved toward the bear. But this is just another lesson about mankind, patience is not one of our strong suits.
#33 - sixmillionjuice (07/04/2016) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you understand that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 that they obliterated all Soviet Forces in the west. The only reason they reached Moscow was because Japan did not attack in the east, and reinforcements could be diverted to the west, because there was not a large enough army to sweep west left on the eastern front after Barbarossa. Hitler did what he did to protect Europe from communism, and his reward was a stab in the back from the west who then held the world over a pit of nuclear fire for fifty years after the war.
User avatar
#34 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
I actually thought you were serious when I read your first line, by the time I got to the end of it though I saw what you were doing. Good bait, almost fell for it.
User avatar
#30 - canadianEH (07/04/2016) [-]
Well I shoudnt really say allied, but Stalin had a deal with Hitler to allow him free reign without interruption if he allowed the Russians a bit of land along the U.S.S.R. border, not that that deal wouldn't have ended in war anyway, but if Hitler wouldn't have stabbed the bear in the gut he would have won the war.
#6 - I love looking at bugfixes for my games because most of them I… 07/03/2016 on Fixed? +3
#11 - We got a lot of "monks" at our campus (the first one…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/03/2016 on Anon tells the story of his... +6
#18 - anon (07/03/2016) [-]
You are talking about the Hare Krishnas. They were at my school as well. One guy talked about his vow of poverty and how the organization changed his life by getting him off drugs. He then tried to sell us copies of the bhagavata gita, their "Holy Book". I say so in quotes only because every different translation of their book says they are the true translation and all others are false( depending on the holy person that translated it). Anyway we told the guy that we had no cash, because we were poor college students. He then pulls out his latest IPhone with a Card reader. After seeing that I talked him into giving me a free copy, promising to read it cover to cover. I still have the book,. but fuck the hare krishnas.

When I was in D.C, my friend and I were going to one of the museums and was bombarded by a buddhist monk. He too tried to shove a bracelet on my wrist and asked me to wish for world peace. So in his little book he also shoved in my face I wrote a fake name, 1600 Pennsylvania ave, and that I wanted a Girlfriend as my wish. He then said for the wish to come true I had to donate $50. He then saw my wish and said that I had to wish for World Peace. I then managed to talk my way out, sans braclet.
#20 - Who would've thought that giving them less stress in terms of … 07/03/2016 on Finland +1
#2 - Uhh... I'm scared 07/03/2016 on Low Budget Cosplay +2