• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Stalin-led massacre of Holodomor

Vixen said:
You need to work on logic. Q: What is more criminal: taking a gun and shooting dead 20 people, knowing you are going to kill them, or, sneezing on public transport resulting in spreading your germs that eventually kills several hundred? It is only hypothetical that Stalin caused the Holodomor with the intention of committing genocide. If it was a result of poor collective planning that is not the same as wiping out 300,000 people in one fell swoop by dropping a couple of atom bombs on them, knowing they will be obliterated pronto, off the face of the earth.
Click to expand...
Or, carry on with the conventional raids destroying cities just as effectively.
Then having to do a ground invasion against a fanatical population where even the children have been armed, those that haven't starved to death of course. Royal Navy battleships were already close in shore and bombarding targets ready for the planned landings.
Based on the casualty rate involved with taking Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the first of the Japanese 'home' islands, the nuclear bombs saved millions of lives.
You do know the Japanese high command weren't going to surrender after the first bomb, and even after the second some wanted to keep fighting?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Or, carry on with the conventional raids destroying cities just as effectively.
Then having to do a ground invasion against a fanatical population where even the children have been armed, those that haven't starved to death of course. Royal Navy battleships were already close in shore and bombarding targets ready for the planned landings.
Based on the casualty rate involved with taking Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the first of the Japanese 'home' islands, the nuclear bombs saved millions of lives.
You do know the Japanese high command weren't going to surrender after the first bomb, and even after the second some wanted to keep fighting?
Click to expand...
"One hundred million will die for emperor and nation".
 
Norman Alexander said:
Sadly, the state of weaponry at the end of WW2 would have seen them mowed down by the thousands without even getting near the enemy. This was all propaganda.
Click to expand...
It would still have happened.
'Banzai' charges in to machine guns and refusing to surrender was already a thing.

On Iwo Jima, just a small island, of the 22,000 Japanese defenders only 216 were taken prisoner. America had 7,000 killed, with over 19,000 wounded.

On Okinawa 110,000 Japanese soldiers were killed with only 10,000, mostly wounded taken prisoner. There were up to 150,000 Okinawan civilian deaths, many from suicide after the surrender, half of the island's civilian population.

There were 50,000 US casualties, with over 12,000 killed.

Now scale that up to the Japanese main islands.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
It would still have happened.
'Banzai' charges in to machine guns and refusing to surrender was already a thing.

On Iwo Jima, just a small island, of the 22,000 Japanese defenders only 216 were taken prisoner. America had 7,000 killed, with over 19,000 wounded.

On Okinawa 110,000 Japanese soldiers were killed with only 10,000, mostly wounded taken prisoner. There were up to 150,000 Okinawan civilian deaths, many from suicide after the surrender, half of the island's civilian population.

There were 50,000 US casualties, with over 12,000 killed.

Now scale that up to the Japanese main islands.
Click to expand...
The plan for the landing and invasion did take that into account, having been ramped up with each objective taken in the Pacific towards the Japanese homeland. Even allowing for hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties (more in some estimates), the expected death toll for Japanese civilians was calculated in the millions.

This was one of the justifications for the atom bombs - to alleviate such appalling casualty figures on both sides. Better a hundred thousand enemy dead and an end to the war, than the frightening consequences, and costs, of Operation Downfall.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Or, carry on with the conventional raids destroying cities just as effectively.
Then having to do a ground invasion against a fanatical population where even the children have been armed, those that haven't starved to death of course. Royal Navy battleships were already close in shore and bombarding targets ready for the planned landings.
Based on the casualty rate involved with taking Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the first of the Japanese 'home' islands, the nuclear bombs saved millions of lives.
You do know the Japanese high command weren't going to surrender after the first bomb, and even after the second some wanted to keep fighting?
Click to expand...
I certainly wasn't making a case as to who had the high moral ground (and remember, we were allies of 'the monster' Stalin and let him carve up half of Europe post-war) I was conscious of the need for a balanced view. Bearing in mind intentionally killing civilians in the process of war is or isn't necessarily what happened in the Holodomor, tragic and horrific though it was.
 
catsmate said:
"One hundred million will die for emperor and nation".
Click to expand...
Well, when people sign up to the British Armed Forces, they swear an allegiance to - not the country - but the King. You are fighting for the Mountbatten-Windsors and their sprogs (who are thoroughly German except for the odd spouse).

So AndyRoss jeering about the Japanese faithful to the Emperor and their country (?) is kinda hmmmm.
 
And here I am thinking I said an oath to Quern and Country.

My oath said nothing about fighting to the death or committing suicide.
and I wasn't expected to.

What oath to fight to the death or commit suicide have the civilian population of the UK sworn?

How is the King German?
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Abd here I am thinking I said an oath to Quern and Country.

My oath said nothing about fighting to the death or committing suicide.
and I wasn't expected to.

What oath to fight to the death or commit suicide have the civilian population of the UK sworn?

How is the King German?
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that?

"I swear by Almighty God [or: do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the [admirals/generals/air officers] and officers set over me.[43][44]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_...#:~:text=I swear by Almighty God [or,[43][44]
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well, when people sign up to the British Armed Forces, they swear an allegiance to - not the country - but the King. You are fighting for the Mountbatten-Windsors and their sprogs (who are thoroughly German except for the odd spouse).

So AndyRoss jeering about the Japanese faithful to the Emperor and their country (?) is kinda hmmmm.
Click to expand...
Sigh. The dead were mainly going to be civilians, many of them children.
 
Andy_Ross said:
And here I am thinking I said an oath to Quern and Country.

My oath said nothing about fighting to the death or committing suicide.
and I wasn't expected to.

What oath to fight to the death or commit suicide have the civilian population of the UK sworn?

How is the King German?
Click to expand...
The last German born monarch was one of the early Georges. all the recent ones are English born and (mainly) educated.

The 'the queen/king is German' is just a lazy idea for second rate stand-up and other comedians to make second rate jokes.

People like Stephen Fry go for the 'ah, but they are CULTURALLY German' line.
 
SteveAitch said:
The last German born monarch was one of the early Georges. all the recent ones are English born and (mainly) educated.

The 'the queen/king is German' is just a lazy idea for second rate stand-up and other comedians to make second rate jokes.

People like Stephen Fry go for the 'ah, but they are CULTURALLY German' line.
Click to expand...
They are factually German.

1774972976021.png


Prince Philip was a descendant of Danish kings (Germanic). His only English ancestry is by way of a daughter of Queen Victoria and a Battenburg princeling. The daughter's dad was Prince Albert, German. George III, House of Hanover (German) was the first to even speak English as a mother tongue. That's the protestant lot. Then look at the Catholic Hapsburgs. So not 'culturally German' or a stand-up comedy trope.
 
The King isn't German.

If you want to play the idiot game of ancestors it shows you know you are etong and are deliberately trying to pass us a lie for some bizarre reason unconnected with the OP of the thread.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The King isn't German.

If you want to play the idiot game of ancestors it shows you know you are etong and are deliberately trying to pass us a lie for some bizarre reason unconnected with the OP of the thread.
Click to expand...
You were the one who claimed the Japanese were somehow egregious in fighting for 'Emperor and Country'. I provided the necessary balance that western armed forces are not superior in this. I note you haven't acknowledged I am correct re the British Armed Forces oath of allegiance to a king who is barely even British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom