What if Germany, Italy, and Japan had won WWII?

[NeppiTK]

The Marshall Plan did more for your country than you will ever realize. 
SM

Uuhm,.. you can´t really know what i am going to realize .. and i you can´t really know that either, but in german school the "Marshall Plan" is more important than the war itself... they take about the same time to talk about germany from ´33 to ´45 than they take to talk about the Marshall Plan! plus that what the russian did in their part of germany.. and when you say germany doesn´t paid any reparation your sure can just mean WEST-Germany (you would still be worng, but ok.) ... ´cause the other part of germany didn´t get something like the Marshall Plan right away... first russia took anything they could get AND let the GDR pay reparations...(for both parts of germany) !

And want about the billions "we" paid out for the slaveworkers of the nazi regime?! You can´t really call that reparation can you ?

And before somebody doubts my motivation... I think it was about time those people got whats theirs! And (again all odds) I think its fair and ok to pay the money even to the grandchildren...!

[Bob B.]

Look Bob, question may imply the motivation of the guy who askes,.. but it does not implicate or indecate the real motives...so asking a question doesn´t make me a hypocrite, just cause you don´t like it!

All I said was that Nations have a right to defend themselves.  Maybe it's a language thing, but to me your posts sounded like you were trying to imply that I must believe the Holocaust was justified, that is, you were putting words in my mouth.  Perhaps that wasn't your intent, if I misinterpreted, I apologize.

For the record, the Holocaust was certainly not justified.  It was murder.

[NeppiTK]

Look Bob, question may imply the motivation of the guy who askes,.. but it does not implicate or indecate the real motives...so asking a question doesn´t make me a hypocrite, just cause you don´t like it!

All I said was that Nations have a right to defend themselves.  Maybe it's a language thing, but to me your posts sounded like you were trying to imply that I must believe the Holocaust was justified, that is, you were putting words in my mouth.  Perhaps that wasn't your intent, if I misinterpreted, I apologize.

For the record, the Holocaust was certainly not justified.  It was murder.

And i apologize if it sounded that way to you... it wasn´t my intent to do! sometime i can get a little petty. Maybe it is a language thing,... but thats how thin the line is!

[LunarOrbit]

NeppiTK,

Bob B. is a moderator here so if he points out that something is off topic he's only doing his job. In the future I recommend that you don't question a moderator when they tell you not to do something. Provoking a moderator is not a good idea... but I'm beginning to believe that has been your goal lately.

Civilian deaths are an unfortunate side effect of war that cannot be prevented entirely. Japan could have avoided the problem by not provoking the war in the first place.

[NeppiTK]

Dear LunarOrbit,

it might not be the best to give u my $0.02 about it, cause you might think i´m gonna question you or trying to provokate again...
We started a difficult discussion here, and i was not the only one who was "off topic". Still in the case i was, i stopped immediatly and didn´t kept pushing (and i wasn´t questioning his work...i just took "the right" to not answer a question ´cause it was off topic - so i kind of accepted the rules and followed trough).

For all its worth, i would have written the same things if none of you would´ve been a moderator, so its not about provoking a moderator ...

Obviously i do have another opinion on things, than you guys. I thought something like that would be ok around here... And i am the first to admit that i can get a little rightious (know it all) sometime,... but i think i´m not the only one around here! I think in our countries with freedom of speech as one of the (most important) axiome it should be possible to have a discussion like that without be chastized for your opinion.

And i was educated in a way that doesn´t allow me to justify the death of one innocent,.. so how can i justify the death of houndreds of thousands?

In conclusion: In some cases you can justify that, i can´t!

That´s all there was...

[Bob B.]

We started a difficult discussion here, and i was not the only one who was "off topic".

If you are referring to the question about the Bejing Olympics, then you were right not to answer it in this thread.  Had I seen the question earlier, I would have warned about going off topic.  As for a general discussion about the legalities of war, I don’t have a problem with it in this thread as long as it relates to WWII.  However I don’t like slipping into long drawn-out discussions that have little to do with the original thread topic.

Still in the case i was, i stopped immediatly and didn´t kept pushing

And I appreciated that you didn’t keep pushing.

(and i wasn´t questioning his work...i just took "the right" to not answer a question ´cause it was off topic - so i kind of accepted the rules and followed trough).

My refusal to answer your question really was because I don’t like threads drifting off topic; it is a pet peeve of mine.  I wasn’t trying to evade a difficult question.

sure sure,.. you would answer this honestly if i start another threat in "facts & FICTION"..?

If you do, I will try to give my honest opinion.  However, that doesn’t mean I’ll engage in a long discussion about it.  I generally don’t like discussing current controversial topics.

For all its worth, i would have written the same things if none of you would´ve been a moderator, so its not about provoking a moderator ...

I have very rarely exercised moderator powers, in fact, I seldom even think of myself as a moderator.  The only time I felt provoked was when I thought you were trying to twist my words into saying I believe the murder of the Jews was justifiable, however it now seems that was just a misunderstanding.

Obviously i do have another opinion on things, than you guys. I thought something like that would be ok around here...

It is OK.  Nobody around here wants us all to be like-minded clones.

And i am the first to admit that i can get a little rightious (know it all) sometime,... but i think i´m not the only one around here!

I think we can all get a little self-righteous at times.

I think in our countries with freedom of speech as one of the (most important) axiome it should be possible to have a discussion like that without be chastized for your opinion.

It wasn’t my intent to chastise you for your opinion; I was just trying to explain my opinion.  I agree the dropping of the atomic bombs was a controversial decision.  I happen to believe there was justification for it, though I understand the counterargument as well.  I think the big difference between us is that you seem to see it as a clear-cut black & white issue; I see it as a gray issue with valid arguments on both sides.

And i was educated in a way that doesn´t allow me to justify the death of one innocent,.. so how can i justify the death of houndreds of thousands?

We can continue this discussion later if you’d like, but right now I have to get back to work.

[DonPMitchell]

1. It is simplistic to say that Japan was trying to surrender.  Folks have explained the situation in more detail here and you are ignoring them.

2. It is also simplistic to suggest that Hiroshima was a non-military target.  There were bases and strategic industry there, and it also was one of the few cities without "human shields" of allied POW camps.

I think you are getting a little taste here of the extreme anti-Americanism in Germany.  There is a watch-dog site devoted to this issue, with articles like this: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/germanys_larges.html  Also this analysis of Anti-Americanism and its relationship to anti-Semitism in modern Europe: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-16.htm

[NeppiTK]

I think you are getting a little taste here of the extreme anti-Americanism in Germany.

You think i am extreme anti-american... wow, you should listen to the immigrants they live here.. there you can find real anti-americanism...

BUT before i say anymore,.. thats totally off topic... i will read the articles and i m pretty sure i´d like to give a comment to that,...

[NeppiTK]

1. It is simplistic to say that Japan was trying to surrender.  Folks have explained the situation in more detail here and you are ignoring them.

do you think i didn´t know all that,...? you can even read that stuff at wikipedia

2. It is also simplistic to suggest that Hiroshima was a non-military target.  There were bases and strategic industry there, and it also was one of the few cities without "human shields" of allied POW camps.

I didnt say that there were no military targets! but sure as hell the bomb wouldn´t have been dropped if only one of the own guys could have been killed...

[NeppiTK]

First of all I'd like to thank you Bob for getting back to me in that way! Let's see about some quotes...

It wasn't my intent to chastise you for your opinion; I was just trying to explain my opinion.

Your absolutely right ,and i asked for it!

And i was educated in a way that doesn´t allow me to justify the death of one innocent,.. so how can i justify the death of houndreds of thousands?

We can continue this discussion later if you’d like, but right now I have to get back to work.[/quote]
I´d like to,.. yea

I agree the dropping of the atomic bombs was a controversial decision.  I happen to believe there was justification for it, though I understand the counterargument as well.  I think the big difference between us is that you seem to see it as a clear-cut black & white issue; I see it as a gray issue with valid arguments on both sides.

right again! For me the question if somebody should live or die is always to be answered with putting life first! And i  understand most of the reasons for doing things like dropping the bomb, i´m still human. And especially in a historical context and with the distance to the events we can look at them from more points of view then the acting people. And thats all what this is about. I like to believe that history can tell us many lessons so some mistakes haven´t to be done over and over again! So especially with weapons of mass destruction or the killing of so many people... Question is: Where do you put the line? How many killed innocent people are justified to end a war like WWII? (in question of the a-bomb you said war already WAS decided..so WHY drop it?!) how many are justifyable? 100.000? a million? 10 Million? houndreds of millions? Where can you put the line?

look. I´m not anti-american just because i criticise some decisions of former or acting governments of the USA. In  case another country would have dropped the bomb in a situation like that i would argue the same way. And back to the main thread "What if germany had won the war" They would have killed even more innocent people and would have justified it! Cause the winner writes history... We probably wouldn´t even know how many really have died. We don´t really know that in case of WWII! people always say it where 6 million jews... but thats just the average number (its counted between 5.3 and 7.2 Million). And the other victims in that system (without the war) are counted about the SAME number!! so it where about 12 Million people Hitlers killer murdered in his system of camps and executions. And there are people who can justify that (fot themself),.. but since i can´t justify one my question is how many is "ok"?

for you i looked at wiki to get the same def as you could be looking at, and for me it stays murder,.. also i understand you could call it justified homicide... but for me it was "intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and wanton."
Ok it happened during war... so lets take a look at "Laws of war" (and these are rules from before WWII)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war)

# Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction

Destructing a whole city and contaminating the whole area around is i think "unnecessary destruction"

# Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible

in case of the A-bomb you could say it was already over...

# People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

You can never tell me, that all of the victims of the bombs were contributing!

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
* Facilitating the restoration of peace.

is think the effects of radiation over much longer than the war lasted is "unnecessary suffering" and it was a clear act against human rights.

Attacks against civilians are "crimes against humanity" or in some cases "genozide". the A-bombs were mass murder and If somebody decides to justify the a-bombs with "they were all japanese" then it WAS genozide!

Article 22 of the Hague IV ("Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907") states that "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited"

And sorry for quoting wiki angain but(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime): Ambiguidy ...
"Some examples (of war crimes /added by Neppi) include the Allies' destruction of civilian Axis targets during World War I and World War II (the firebombing of the German city of Dresden is one such example), the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II; the use of Agent Orange against civilian targets in the Vietnam war; the mass killing of Biharies by Kader Siddique and Mukti Bahini[4] before or after victory of Bangladesh Liberation War in Bangladesh between 1971 and 1972; and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999."

So at least the "international community" agrees it was a war crime... And since most of you can justify this war crime, i was wondering how far you would go...

[LunarOrbit]

And sorry for quoting wiki angain but(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime): Ambiguidy ...
"Some examples (of war crimes /added by Neppi) include the Allies' destruction of civilian Axis targets during World War I and World War II (the firebombing of the German city of Dresden is one such example), the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II; the use of Agent Orange against civilian targets in the Vietnam war; the mass killing of Biharies by Kader Siddique and Mukti Bahini[4] before or after victory of Bangladesh Liberation War in Bangladesh between 1971 and 1972; and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999."

So at least the "international community" agrees it was a war crime... And since most of you can justify this war crime, i was wondering how far you would go...

Man! You accuse me of twisting your words, and yet here you are totally taking a paragraph from Wikipedia out of context! It never said those incidents are examples of war crimes, in fact it clearly says they are controversial events that have not been declared war crimes. You omitted some very important text and gave the paragraph a totally different meaning by adding your own words. Here is the entire paragraph:

Because the definition of a state of "war" may be debated, the term "war crime" itself has seen different usage under different systems of international and military law. It has some degree of application outside of what some may consider to be a state of "war," but in areas where conflicts persist enough to constitute social instability. The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners ("Victor's justice"), as certain controversies have not been ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the Allies' destruction of civilian Axis targets during World War I and World War II (the firebombing of the German city of Dresden is one such example), the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II; the use of Agent Orange against civilian targets in the Vietnam war; the mass killing of Biharies by Kader Siddique and Mukti Bahini[4] before or after victory of Bangladesh Liberation War in Bangladesh between 1971 and 1972; and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.

You changed the meaning of the paragraph from "here are some examples of controversial events that some people believe were war crimes" into "here are some examples of war crimes". Do you see the difference?

Some people feel the law shows favoritism towards the victor, but regardless of what people feel, the bombs dropped on Japan were never declared war crimes and therefore it is wrong to claim they were. For example, I may believe in my heart that OJ Simpson is a murderer, but according to the law he is not because he was acquitted. I cannot rightfully call him a murderer, nor can you call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes.

[NeppiTK]

sorry guys,... this is even more embarrassing for me when i tell you that i read the article three times to not quote any **** and still my mind blended this sentence right out every single time... no excuse for that.. (and i don´t say that because i got "caught",.. but because i am totally embarrassed right now...)

but its still its a pity that probably now no one will take the rest of the post serious enough. ´cause all of that stands and it were international rules at that time,...

and as you can rightfully say "in my opinion he IS a murderer!" so i can say "In my opinion those ARE war crimes" and with the qoute to the "laws of war" I at least made clear how it is connected to (international) rules and definitions.

and article 23 of Hague VI forbids the use of poisonous substances... could you be also "poisoned" by radiation ?!

and sorry,... in germany it counts as a war crime... even legaly i can say that. BUT as far as international law is required: since the "International Criminal Court" came into being in 2002 the willingly killing of civilians is a "crime against humanity" and done in war times can be judged as war crime. so at least international its a crime and now, can be judged there (if it was committed on Juuly 1, 2002 or later)... although the USA refuses the court to have jurisdicion over their citizens... I never wondered why...

[Bob B.]

There is no denying the dropping of the atomic bombs were horrific, however your statement that the war was essentially over at the time of the bombings is simply not true.  The Japanese were still resisting fiercely and they rejected the Allied terms for surrender.  Although some overtures were made for a negotiated peace, many Japanese leaders were strongly opposed to surrender.  In fact, even after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was an uprising within the Japanese military to try to stop the broadcast of Emperor Hirohito’s surrender message.  Furthermore, many historians argue the atomic bombs alone weren’t even enough to force the Japanese surrender; claiming it was the bombings coupled with the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan that was the ultimate difference maker.

The Allied leaders believed that to force Japan to capitulate an invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary.  Invasion plans scheduled the start of the operation for October of 1945 (just two months after the atomic bombings).  Casualty estimates varied, but it was expected casualties on each side would be in the millions, perhaps tens of millions on the Japanese side.  It is also true that Japanese civilians were being trained to resist an Allied invasion, with pitch forks if necessary.  Had an invasion occurred, virtually ever Japanese citizen would have been an enemy combatant and a legitimate target.

The atomic bomb offered an alternative to an all out invasion.  It was reasoned that 200,000 deaths, although horrific, was better than the likely deaths of millions.  The Allied leaders, in good conscience, could not ask their own people to die in large numbers when they had the means available to possibly end the war quickly and avoid the slaughter of a mainland invasion.  It was a hard decision and a controversial decision, but one that can be argued as justified given the alternative.

It is easy today to second guess the decision, but I doubt many of the soldiers training to storm the beaches of Kyushu are among them.  We don’t know what would have happened had the atomic bombs not been used, but if we hadn’t you might be arguing today “why didn’t the Allies use the atomic bomb when they had the chance to end the war with only a few hundred thousand deaths.”

[Simkid]

Not really sure I want to wade into this now, but I'm just going to chime in with my take on the atomic bombings.  In short, it's a moot point, there is no conceivable way that they would not have happened in the context of six years of strategic bombing.  Realistically the weapons were seen at the time as just a more effective way to continue the sort of bombing that was occuring nightly, and there's just no way I can imagine anyone being convinced in August 1945 that there was anything fundementally different, let alone worse, about using the atomic weapons.

[ijuin]

I lived in Japan for my undergraduate college studies, and I can say that the Japanese teach their children that Japan would have not surrendered so quickly if the USA had not shown the willingness to use nuclear weapons. Japan was fully prepared to go down fighting off a full invasion, and the government had the citizens believing that America wanted nothing less than total genocide of the Japanese. The reason that the surrender waited until the second bomb was dropped is that the Japanese military leaders assumed that the USA was only going to drop the one of them, and then wet their pants when they realized that the USA was willing to keep doing it.