Hiroshima Plus Seventy

The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
NO... it said species in regards to the entire human race, you fucking idiot, because we had engineered our own end. And then YOU took that to wrongly mean the Japanese. The Japanese are not a species. He was referencing MANKIND. Originally Posted by WombRaider
no. not at that time. only the US had a bomb, so how would them soviets have annihilated mankind at that moment in history? once again post history moralizing

the soviet union would have gotten an atomic device eventually even without a couple of traitors helping out.

that statement is crap. it theorizes that America would have preemptively nuked the entire planet? MAD didn't exist as a concept or a reality in 1945.

it doesn't matter that it became possible later on. like, 20 years later at the least.
and there is no proof at all that had we not used an atomic bomb that it would have somehow prevented the USSR from developing one. that is the absolute stupidity of modern day moralizers, a complete fiction.
I B Hankering's Avatar
And conveniently, you fixate on the wrong thing. Read the statements of the military men in charge. Read their statements about how the Japanese were finished.

The Japanese aren't a species, you fucking retard.
Originally Posted by WombRaider
You'd be the jackass focusing on the "wrong thing", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Military men weren't in charge, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. General Marshall clearly stated that he deferred to Truman because it wasn't a military decision.

Here's an article IBdipshit and LustyTard will no doubt hate, but spells out why the bombs were really dropped. Suck on that.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...ambitions.html


The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Even McArthur said he saw no military justification for dropping the bomb.
Originally Posted by WombRaider
You're the self-admitted "sucker", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. That same report states that it was the bombs that hastened the end of the war, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Some 300,000 to 350,000 soldiers, men women and children were killed or wounded during the battle for Okinawa, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Similarly, over the course of some sixteen days, approximately 650,000 soldiers, men, women and children were killed or wounded in the capture of Berlin, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

A single such battle with similar resulting casualty figures, like in those two aforementioned battles, in Japan, during Operation Downfall, illustrates the vacuity of your pusillanimous bullshit, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. More men, women and children would have died if the bombs hadn't been used, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and fewer people suffered because the bombs were used when they were used, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

There's absolutely no moral ambiguity in knowing Truman's decision saved more lives -- especially U.S. lives -- than the alternative scenario, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Hence, it is you lib-retards, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, who are the moral cretins for the scenario your pusillanimous-asses champion, because a prolonged war would have doomed millions more to death, injuries and additional suffering, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Choosing the bomb was the moral high road, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
We've had this argument before.

Yeah, it saved American lives. No question.

It probably even saved more Japanese lives (we'll never know).

However, one golden rule that has withstood the test of time is that civilians are never directly targeted for a military attack. Not lest from the champion of human rights as we "strive" to be.

And not even considering the fact that it was a terrible terrible outlet to use; the effects of that bomb can still be felt today.

Dying soldiers is the cost of war. We knew that when we signed up. If we are going to act as world police we better be prepared to pay the cost for it.

If we were the ones who had executed pearl harbor it would have been considered the most brilliant military offensive since the Trojan horse.

All it boils down to is this: Do you value the concept of America more than you value the reality of it?
If so, then dropping the bomb was definitely the wrong thing to do. Originally Posted by shanm

so what's your over/under here stupid? how many less lives do you figure? how many more?

any lives, allied or axis saved, is a good thing yes?

if you say no, then you are a barbaric murderer for allowing MORE suffering rather than less. did you not just post it "probably" saved lives? why is than not a good thing, even in the scope of war?

All it boils down to is this: Do you value the concept of America more than you value the reality of it?
. Originally Posted by shanm
"concept of America" & "reality of it?"... That is pure commie propaganda...




The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
You'd be the jackass focusing on the "wrong thing", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Military men weren't in charge, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. General Marshall clearly stated that he deferred to Truman because it wasn't a military decision.

You're the self-admitted "sucker", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. That same report states that it was the bombs that hastened the end of the war, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Some 300,000 to 350,000 soldiers, men women and children were killed or wounded during the battle for Okinawa, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Similarly, over the course of some sixteen days, approximately 650,000 soldiers, men, women and children were killed or wounded in the capture of Berlin, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

A single such battle with similar resulting casualty figures, like in those two aforementioned battles, in Japan, during Operation Downfall, illustrates the vacuity of your pusillanimous bullshit, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. More men, women and children would have died if the bombs hadn't been used, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and fewer people suffered because the bombs were used when they were used, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

There's absolutely no moral ambiguity in knowing Truman's decision saved more lives -- especially U.S. lives -- than the alternative scenario; hence, it is you lib-retards who are the moral cretins because a prolonged war would have doomed millions more to death, injuries and additional suffering, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Choosing the bomb was the moral high road, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

excellent post IB. i'll go you one better. if you accept 250,00 killed due to the use of the atomic bombs .. where would that rank in the most deaths caused by a single battle in WWII?

the answer? barely in the top ten.
so in the scope of the entire war, it WAS NOT the great death that these moralizing humanists want you to believe.


the list.

10 Bloodiest Battles of World War II

December 1, 2011 By Will

(Image Source)
From 1939 to 1945, the largest conflict the world has ever known raged on relentlessly. Beginning in Europe, before taking in Asia, Africa, America and the Pacific, World War Two saw over 60 million deaths and countless lives blighted. Bloodshed had never been seen on such a scale before. Even World War I — whose fatalities numbered 35 million — did not witness the same level of sheer destruction, meted out on all sides, throughout the early 1940s. What follows are the bloodiest battles of World War Two — a startling reminder, if one were needed, that war can indeed be hell.
10. Battle of Monte Cassino, 17 January–18 May 1944: 185,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Waged between the Allies and the joint German and Italian troops in the early part of 1944, the Battle of Monte Cassino was one of the hardest fought battles of the Second World War. The main objective for the Allied forces fighting their way up from Southern Italy was to break through the Germans’ Gustav Line — a series of military fortifications running across Italy — and gain control of Rome. Named after the 1,400-year-old monastery of Monte Cassino that stood at the center of the German defensive line (and which was controversially destroyed by American bombers during the battle), the fighting was made up of four smaller battles that took place in January, February, March and May, respectively. The eventual capture of Rome came at a high price, with at least 125,000 casualties on all sides — and as many as 185,000 by some estimates.
9. Battle of the Bulge, 16 December 1944–25 January 1945: 186,369 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of the Bulge — so-called by the British because of the “bulge” in the map where the German forces broke the Allied line — was the last major German offensive on the Western Front of World War II. Also known as the Ardennes Offensive — named after the densely forested area of Belgium, France and Luxembourg — the aim of the operation was to split the Allied troops in two, capture Antwerp in the process, then destroy the remaining Allied forces. Fortunately for the Allies, the battle did not go to plan for the Germans. Despite catching an overconfident and unsuspecting Allied force unawares, superior numbers, timely reinforcements and improving weather conditions (which allowed the Allied air forces to take to the skies) sealed the Germans’ fate. With around 840,000 men committed, it was the largest battle the American Army fought in World War II, as well as among the bloodiest.
8. Battle of Kursk, 5 July–23 August 1943: 257,125–388,000 casualties


(Image Source)
A decisive victory for the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the Battle of Kursk saw the largest series of armored tank clashes of the entire war and the costliest single day of aerial conflict in history. Having been warned months in advance of the Germans’ intention to eliminate the Kursk “bulge” — created in the aftermath of their devastating defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad — the Red Army was well prepared to take on the Nazis. Through a vast and brilliantly constructed network of minefields, anti-tank guns and defenses 155 miles deep, the Soviets wore down their attackers and then launched counter strikes, hemming the Germans back across a broad front. According to the Soviets, the Germans alone lost 500,000 men — killed, wounded or captured — though other estimates are more conservative. The Soviets went on to liberate most of Ukraine in what was to be a major turning point in the war.
7. Second Battle of Kharkov, 12 May–28 May 1942: 300,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Kharkov was a strategically important city in the Ukraine that had seen fierce fighting in the autumn of 1941, when the Germans captured it. The following year the Red Army launched a major offensive to retake the prized city. Unfortunately for the Red Army, the Germans were still very much active in the area and were able to call upon forces to launch a strong defense and counter-offensive. The Germans encircled the three Soviet armies and effectively destroyed them. In a devastatingly effective operation, the Germans wiped out nearly 280,000 Russian men and 650 tanks. A disaster for the Soviets, the Second Battle of Kharkov pressed home the importance of staying on the defensive to the Red Army and inflated the Germans’ confidence — which many saw as playing a part in their downfall on the Eastern Front.
6. Battle of Luzon, 9 January–15 August 1945: 332,330–345,330 casualties


(Image Source)
Luzon, the largest island in the Philippines, was seen as being of great strategic importance to the United States. Despite General MacArthur’s belief in value of the island, American troops would have to wait until 1945 to launch an attack on Luzon, which was taken by the Japanese in 1942. When the Americans did make it back to Luzon, the fighting — complicated by the Japanese use of the famous kamikaze pilots — was frenzied and fierce, with incredibly high numbers of casualties, particularly for the Japanese. By the 11th of February American troops had captured Manila; however Japanese resistance — from scattered forces making sorties from the mountainous areas of the island — continued for some considerable time afterwards.
5. Battle of France, 10 May–25 June 1940: 469,000 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of France marked the end of the so-called Phoney War — that strange, uncertain period of the Second World War which saw neither side commit to serious military action — and witnessed the German forces invade France and the Low Countries. Despite similar numbers in their respective forces, the Germans managed to overcome the French, bolstered by the British Expeditionary Force and Belgian and Dutch divisions. This was mainly due to superior German training and communication, and the Allies’ wrongly held belief that the Maginot Line — the heavily fortified French border with Germany — would firstly hold; and secondly, that the Germans would concentrate their efforts on it. In the event, the Germans attacked through Belgium and Holland, thereby rendering the line an expensive mistake. The Germans devastated the inexperienced French (and other Allied) troops and took the entire country soon after.
4. Battle of Narva, 2 February–10 August 1944: 550,000 casualties


(Image Source)
The strategically important Estonian county of Narva Isthmus saw ferocious fighting between the German army — bolstered by Estonian conscripts desperate to resist Soviet re-occupation — and Stalin’s Red Army. Both sides were desperate to hold the valuable territory. Separated by historians into two distinct phases (the Battle for Narva Bridgehead and the Battle of Tannenberg Line), the fighting was amongst the most intense seen in the entire war. In the end, after months of terrible combat that left tens of thousands dead — particularly on the side of the Soviets, who suffered at the hands of German counterattacks — Hitler evacuated all troops from Estonia. The country was then largely free until the Soviets reoccupied it shortly after the war ended.
3. Battle of Moscow, 2 October 1941–7 January 1942: 1,000,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Soviet Russia’s successful defense of their capital against the German forces who sought to capture it in 1941 was a major turning point in the war. Hitler believed that if he could capture Moscow, the spirit of the Red Army war machine would be crushed and they would be at the Germans’ mercy. However, due to a combination of fierce and strategically well-executed Russian resistance (bolstered by reinforcements from the east) and a terrible winter with temperatures down to minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit (–30°C) and colder, the Germans were destined not to take Moscow. Losses were massive on both sides. The Soviets suffered at least 650,000 casualties (perhaps many more) while in just twenty days of fighting the Germans are believed to have lost around 155,000 men — a mark of the devastation they suffered here.
2. Battle of Berlin, 16 April–2 May 1945: 1,298,745 casualties


(Image Source)
The last major offensive of the war in Europe, the Battle of Berlin saw the fall of the German Army, the suicide of Hitler and the beginning of the end of the Second World War. The inexorable push of the Soviet army westwards saw them advance as much as 25 miles a day before stopping just 35 miles east of the German capital. The Red Army then proceeded to attack the city from the east and south, while a third group devastated German defenses from the north. The relentless Soviet army marched ever onwards, causing widespread panic in the already depleted German defenses (bolstered by inexperienced Hitler youth members) and, following fierce and bloody fighting, took the Reichstag on the 30th of April 1945, more or less signaling the conclusion of the war.
1. Battle of Stalingrad, 23 August 1942–2 February 1943: 1,250,000–1,798,619 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of Stalingrad, which saw Hitler’s major push for dominance on the Eastern Front, was marked by terrible losses on both sides. The Russians alone had over a million men wounded or killed. Barring their inability to conquer Moscow in the previous year, the war had generally been progressing well for the Germans up until this point, with valuable successes in North Africa and Europe. However, previously unseen brutality and crippling losses devastated the German offensive and severely dented their confidence. Once their Romanian and Italian allies had been eliminated, the Germans found themselves surrounded in Stalingrad, vulnerable and starving in the rubble to which the Luftwaffe had reduced the city. Some would argue that the Germans never fully recovered from this most destructive of battles — one of the bloodiest of all time.





So.... it WAS NOT THE GREAT SLAUGHTER of humanity these post-modern moralizing historians want us to believe it is?
We produced war materials in public plants. So what? And don't act like you give a shit about the Chinese or Filipino population, you disingenuous turd. You say that apologists always think they have it right. What do you think your side thinks? The same thing. The problem is you have no ability to even entertain the thought that the possibility exists you could be the slightest bit wrong. Originally Posted by WombRaider
Screw you cum guzzler. I lived in the P.I. For some years and KNOW their culture. And not from reading about it on the friggen Internet or by checking out Wikipedia, like you, ya lying, swishy walking liberal, wanna-be history revisionist ! And you STILL don't get that another poster was ranting like you, ya lying cum guzzling wanna-be history revisionist, about how the two cities that had the bombs dropped on them weren't "important" militarily. BULLSHIT on that. Nagasaki had a large naval base located in the city and Hiroshima had a large Japanese Army base located in it. The manufacturing was done at PRIVATE houses, ya dumb shit ! NOT at "public" plants. The Japanese had to try to maintain producing of critical materials, bullets, bandages, etc. by EVERY means possible as our war got closer to the home islands and the combination of B-29 raids on their manufacturing plants along with OUR submarines putting over 50% of the total tonnage sunk of their naval and merchant fleet on the bottom of the Pacific . I don't have to entertain the thought that I might be wrong, ya cum guzzling, gloryholing, lying liberal, wanna-be history revisionist, because TIME and the TRUE HISTORY are there for EVERONE with more than two brain cells to see. So that leaves YOU out cum guzzler ! Stick to working the 'holes woomby. This "history revision" thing just isn't your forte. It's TOOOOO easy to hand you your ass, like MANY people have done to your weak shit posts in this (and other) threads. but this one especially. Why don't you try spewing some of your "historical musings" on the revolution En Mejico ? Or did tu abulea tell you to never speak of how your maricon familia RAN away from " la revolution ! " ? Puto !
  • shanm
  • 08-10-2015, 11:10 PM
so what's your over/under here stupid? how many less lives do you figure? how many more?

any lives, allied or axis saved, is a good thing yes?

if you say no, then you are a barbaric murderer for allowing MORE suffering rather than less. did you not just post it "probably" saved lives? why is than not a good thing, even in the scope of war? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Because war.is.terrible. If the ultimate goal of war was to save lives we wouldn't have them in the first place, you nut-guzzling moron.

No, the goal of war is for one set of ideals to prevail over the other.

What we were fighting for, especially in the scope of a world war, was good vs evil.
We might have lost less people due to the bomb, but we lost a lot more in the un-quantifiable.
It's something that narrow minded numbskulls like you would never understand.

What makes this country great?

Is it the fact that we stand for ourselves?

Or is it that we stand on the side of what is morally and ethically defined as "good"?

If your answer is the first one, then there really is not much of a difference between us and terrorist groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
i didn't say that you fucktard. the article YOU POSTED DID. don't you even read what you post??

from the article YOU POSTED IDIOT.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

Now tell me that's my opinion dickhead.

The Japanese were finished. but who did they sue for peace to? anyone NOT named America. if they had been serious, they WOULD HAVE CONTACTED the USA directly. they didn't. the Soviets? the Swiss? please.

You do know that we nearly had to threaten the Soviets to invade Japan yes? we had wanted them to do so for months but they would not? know why? they were too preoccupied with their brutal revenge on Germany.

it was never a purely military decision and the idiot historians who say otherwise don't get it. do they write that had we let the Soviets continue their invasion they would have occupied all of China and Japan and like Europe never given it back?

and do these historian pansies write about the inhumanity of allowing millions of Japanese to STARVE TO DEATH? please!!! talk about barbarian!!

Truman's decision was NEVER an easy one to make, yet the moralizing of these idiots makes it seem so. IT WAS NOT. Truman had to live with that decision the rest of his life and i'm sure it was not easy for him. but it was NEVER strictly a Military decision. do these Harvard types write about that? NO. they sit back and take the so-called "moral high road" as if "they" in their superior intellect and humanity would have been wiser? would they? or is it just easier to say so now? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
woomby the cum guzzler probably thinks we should be all running to the mosques to show ISIS that we OK with their "peace loving religion" and that we have no "ill will" towards them for beheading anyone. I hope he's the first one they have exercise his glory hole training on for a battalion of their head cutters, one after another !! And I hope he's wearing his rainbow colored thong and his rainbow-colored feather boa when they catch up to him. The friggen lying liberal SOB !! They'll see to it that he "give's good head" !! Or he'll lose his miserable head !
lustylad's Avatar
That's a goddamn lie, you insufferable cunt. And what was the Atlantic article citing, you fucking retard? I know it was the goddamn atlantic, I was referencing what they cited. Who can't figure shit out now, you shitass fucktard. Originally Posted by WombRaider

....cunt....retard....shitass. ...fucktard....am I pushing the right buttons, sewer rat? You're frothing at the mouth again.... try to spit the words out before you melt down like the wicked witch of the Ozarks....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ8WrKnLUs
.
You never answered my question; has the US ever acted in a way that made you ashamed? Originally Posted by WombRaider
1. The fact that our Founders did not abolish the institution of Slavery when they ratified the Constitution.
2.Our total decimation, (and more), of the Native Americans in the name of Manefest Destiny.
3.FDR's herding American Citizens of Japanese Heretidge into "camps" during WW-2.
4.Our getting into an un winnable conflict in Vietnam and refusing to believe that we had no business being there.
5. That we, by law, are willing to accept the fact that 98 percent of all Abortions are performed for "convenience".
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
....cunt....retard....shitass. ...fucktard....am I pushing the right buttons, sewer rat? You're frothing at the mouth again.... try to spit the words out before you melt down like the wicked witch of the Ozarks....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ8WrKnLUs
. Originally Posted by lustylad
ahahahahahahhahaha, ROTFL. oh .. the humanity
lustylad's Avatar
you just kicked yourself in the nuts wombface... who is this dicknose asshole Peter Kuznick? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Good question, kid.... haven't we heard of that dicknose asshole somewhere before?

Hmmmm.... I swear it feels like deja vu....

Well I'll be a witch's tit, look at this - undercunt is busted again!


Here's Truman AND Eisenhower both quoted as saying we didn't need to drop them because Japan was already going to surrender. As well as the Joint Chief and McArthur. But I guess those guys really didn't know anything compared to you shitsippers who've got it all figured out. Read it and weep, sucker.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...ambitions.html Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Here's an article IBdipshit and LustyTard will no doubt hate, but spells out why the bombs were really dropped. Suck on that.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...ambitions.html Originally Posted by WombRaider
.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
Good question, kid.... haven't we heard of that dicknose asshole somewhere before?

Hmmmm....


. Originally Posted by lustylad
because he lives in the bowls of the libtard dungeon known as academia
and let's keep his ass there!

and i'm still waiting for Womby to tell me who the real architect of the Cold War was.

naughty list ...

IB .. you are disqualified! because you already know! no fair dude. let womby try to figger it out on his/her own
no. not at that time. only the US had a bomb, so how would them soviets have annihilated mankind at that moment in history? once again post history moralizing

the soviet union would have gotten an atomic device eventually even without a couple of traitors helping out.

that statement is crap. it theorizes that America would have preemptively nuked the entire planet? MAD didn't exist as a concept or a reality in 1945.

it doesn't matter that it became possible later on. like, 20 years later at the least.
and there is no proof at all that had we not used an atomic bomb that it would have somehow prevented the USSR from developing one. that is the absolute stupidity of modern day moralizers, a complete fiction. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
You are beyond stupid. We, mankind, the species, had engineered a way to destroy ourselves. It doesn't matter who had the bomb, you dumbass. He's speaking in a larger sense. How do you not get that? Are you that goddamn dumb?
excellent post IB. i'll go you one better. if you accept 250,00 killed due to the use of the atomic bombs .. where would that rank in the most deaths caused by a single battle in WWII?

the answer? barely in the top ten.
so in the scope of the entire war, it WAS NOT the great death that these moralizing humanists want you to believe.


the list.

10 Bloodiest Battles of World War II

December 1, 2011 By Will

(Image Source)
From 1939 to 1945, the largest conflict the world has ever known raged on relentlessly. Beginning in Europe, before taking in Asia, Africa, America and the Pacific, World War Two saw over 60 million deaths and countless lives blighted. Bloodshed had never been seen on such a scale before. Even World War I — whose fatalities numbered 35 million — did not witness the same level of sheer destruction, meted out on all sides, throughout the early 1940s. What follows are the bloodiest battles of World War Two — a startling reminder, if one were needed, that war can indeed be hell.
10. Battle of Monte Cassino, 17 January–18 May 1944: 185,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Waged between the Allies and the joint German and Italian troops in the early part of 1944, the Battle of Monte Cassino was one of the hardest fought battles of the Second World War. The main objective for the Allied forces fighting their way up from Southern Italy was to break through the Germans’ Gustav Line — a series of military fortifications running across Italy — and gain control of Rome. Named after the 1,400-year-old monastery of Monte Cassino that stood at the center of the German defensive line (and which was controversially destroyed by American bombers during the battle), the fighting was made up of four smaller battles that took place in January, February, March and May, respectively. The eventual capture of Rome came at a high price, with at least 125,000 casualties on all sides — and as many as 185,000 by some estimates.
9. Battle of the Bulge, 16 December 1944–25 January 1945: 186,369 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of the Bulge — so-called by the British because of the “bulge” in the map where the German forces broke the Allied line — was the last major German offensive on the Western Front of World War II. Also known as the Ardennes Offensive — named after the densely forested area of Belgium, France and Luxembourg — the aim of the operation was to split the Allied troops in two, capture Antwerp in the process, then destroy the remaining Allied forces. Fortunately for the Allies, the battle did not go to plan for the Germans. Despite catching an overconfident and unsuspecting Allied force unawares, superior numbers, timely reinforcements and improving weather conditions (which allowed the Allied air forces to take to the skies) sealed the Germans’ fate. With around 840,000 men committed, it was the largest battle the American Army fought in World War II, as well as among the bloodiest.
8. Battle of Kursk, 5 July–23 August 1943: 257,125–388,000 casualties


(Image Source)
A decisive victory for the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the Battle of Kursk saw the largest series of armored tank clashes of the entire war and the costliest single day of aerial conflict in history. Having been warned months in advance of the Germans’ intention to eliminate the Kursk “bulge” — created in the aftermath of their devastating defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad — the Red Army was well prepared to take on the Nazis. Through a vast and brilliantly constructed network of minefields, anti-tank guns and defenses 155 miles deep, the Soviets wore down their attackers and then launched counter strikes, hemming the Germans back across a broad front. According to the Soviets, the Germans alone lost 500,000 men — killed, wounded or captured — though other estimates are more conservative. The Soviets went on to liberate most of Ukraine in what was to be a major turning point in the war.
7. Second Battle of Kharkov, 12 May–28 May 1942: 300,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Kharkov was a strategically important city in the Ukraine that had seen fierce fighting in the autumn of 1941, when the Germans captured it. The following year the Red Army launched a major offensive to retake the prized city. Unfortunately for the Red Army, the Germans were still very much active in the area and were able to call upon forces to launch a strong defense and counter-offensive. The Germans encircled the three Soviet armies and effectively destroyed them. In a devastatingly effective operation, the Germans wiped out nearly 280,000 Russian men and 650 tanks. A disaster for the Soviets, the Second Battle of Kharkov pressed home the importance of staying on the defensive to the Red Army and inflated the Germans’ confidence — which many saw as playing a part in their downfall on the Eastern Front.
6. Battle of Luzon, 9 January–15 August 1945: 332,330–345,330 casualties


(Image Source)
Luzon, the largest island in the Philippines, was seen as being of great strategic importance to the United States. Despite General MacArthur’s belief in value of the island, American troops would have to wait until 1945 to launch an attack on Luzon, which was taken by the Japanese in 1942. When the Americans did make it back to Luzon, the fighting — complicated by the Japanese use of the famous kamikaze pilots — was frenzied and fierce, with incredibly high numbers of casualties, particularly for the Japanese. By the 11th of February American troops had captured Manila; however Japanese resistance — from scattered forces making sorties from the mountainous areas of the island — continued for some considerable time afterwards.
5. Battle of France, 10 May–25 June 1940: 469,000 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of France marked the end of the so-called Phoney War — that strange, uncertain period of the Second World War which saw neither side commit to serious military action — and witnessed the German forces invade France and the Low Countries. Despite similar numbers in their respective forces, the Germans managed to overcome the French, bolstered by the British Expeditionary Force and Belgian and Dutch divisions. This was mainly due to superior German training and communication, and the Allies’ wrongly held belief that the Maginot Line — the heavily fortified French border with Germany — would firstly hold; and secondly, that the Germans would concentrate their efforts on it. In the event, the Germans attacked through Belgium and Holland, thereby rendering the line an expensive mistake. The Germans devastated the inexperienced French (and other Allied) troops and took the entire country soon after.
4. Battle of Narva, 2 February–10 August 1944: 550,000 casualties


(Image Source)
The strategically important Estonian county of Narva Isthmus saw ferocious fighting between the German army — bolstered by Estonian conscripts desperate to resist Soviet re-occupation — and Stalin’s Red Army. Both sides were desperate to hold the valuable territory. Separated by historians into two distinct phases (the Battle for Narva Bridgehead and the Battle of Tannenberg Line), the fighting was amongst the most intense seen in the entire war. In the end, after months of terrible combat that left tens of thousands dead — particularly on the side of the Soviets, who suffered at the hands of German counterattacks — Hitler evacuated all troops from Estonia. The country was then largely free until the Soviets reoccupied it shortly after the war ended.
3. Battle of Moscow, 2 October 1941–7 January 1942: 1,000,000 casualties


(Image Source)
Soviet Russia’s successful defense of their capital against the German forces who sought to capture it in 1941 was a major turning point in the war. Hitler believed that if he could capture Moscow, the spirit of the Red Army war machine would be crushed and they would be at the Germans’ mercy. However, due to a combination of fierce and strategically well-executed Russian resistance (bolstered by reinforcements from the east) and a terrible winter with temperatures down to minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit (–30°C) and colder, the Germans were destined not to take Moscow. Losses were massive on both sides. The Soviets suffered at least 650,000 casualties (perhaps many more) while in just twenty days of fighting the Germans are believed to have lost around 155,000 men — a mark of the devastation they suffered here.
2. Battle of Berlin, 16 April–2 May 1945: 1,298,745 casualties


(Image Source)
The last major offensive of the war in Europe, the Battle of Berlin saw the fall of the German Army, the suicide of Hitler and the beginning of the end of the Second World War. The inexorable push of the Soviet army westwards saw them advance as much as 25 miles a day before stopping just 35 miles east of the German capital. The Red Army then proceeded to attack the city from the east and south, while a third group devastated German defenses from the north. The relentless Soviet army marched ever onwards, causing widespread panic in the already depleted German defenses (bolstered by inexperienced Hitler youth members) and, following fierce and bloody fighting, took the Reichstag on the 30th of April 1945, more or less signaling the conclusion of the war.
1. Battle of Stalingrad, 23 August 1942–2 February 1943: 1,250,000–1,798,619 casualties


(Image Source)
The Battle of Stalingrad, which saw Hitler’s major push for dominance on the Eastern Front, was marked by terrible losses on both sides. The Russians alone had over a million men wounded or killed. Barring their inability to conquer Moscow in the previous year, the war had generally been progressing well for the Germans up until this point, with valuable successes in North Africa and Europe. However, previously unseen brutality and crippling losses devastated the German offensive and severely dented their confidence. Once their Romanian and Italian allies had been eliminated, the Germans found themselves surrounded in Stalingrad, vulnerable and starving in the rubble to which the Luftwaffe had reduced the city. Some would argue that the Germans never fully recovered from this most destructive of battles — one of the bloodiest of all time.





So.... it WAS NOT THE GREAT SLAUGHTER of humanity these post-modern moralizing historians want us to believe it is? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Jesus Christ, moralizing historians? YOU'RE the one trying to make the argument that 250K deaths isn't that much. Are you fucking nuts? Don't you see the corner you've backed yourself into that you have to make and defend such an ignorant argument?