Google Adds World War II Images to Google Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.

sicpric

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
50
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]deadlockedworld[/nom]+1 to adding Hiroshima and Nagasaki--- however I have a feeling DOD will NEVER declassify those images.[/citation]

Do a simple google search and you will find what you seek..
 

lashton

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2006
121
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]VooDizzle[/nom]Why would the DOD need to de-classify any image on nagasaki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: [...] ts-p7a.jpg Before the bomb.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: [...] ts-p7b.jpg After the bomb.[/citation]

those images are wrong, you are saying the atmoic bomb irradiated natural kland features, NOT possible powerfull as it was there is NO force that can do that
 

mental issues

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]lashton[/nom]those images are wrong, you are saying the atmoic bomb irradiated natural kland features, NOT possible powerfull as it was there is NO force that can do that[/citation]

Well, you're partially right. Those images are of Hiroshima before and after the bomb, not Nagasaki. But they are most certainly real.
 

city_zen

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
51
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]VooDizzle[/nom]Why would the DOD need to de-classify any image on nagasaki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: [...] ts-p7a.jpg Before the bomb.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: [...] ts-p7b.jpg After the bomb.[/citation]
WOW! I had never seen those pictures. Truly chilling images.

 

kobbra

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2010
17
0
18,560
0
The Tsar Bomba was not an atomic bomb, but a nuclear bomb which are two completely different things, the nuclear bombs being waaaayyy more powerful than any atomic counterpart; the atomic bombs of hiroshima and nagasaki compared to todays nuclear bombs are nothing less than pathetic firecrackers; and in other point of view many historians of today, japanese included, consider, that altough the atomic bombs killed a lot of people, probably and most importantly saved many more people by at least a factor of ten; because you have to consider, that the japanese, were at that time completely fanatical and probably would’ve kept fighting till the bitter end, possibly delaying the end of WWII by several years-not to mention the millions of lives that would’ve been lost in the process; in conclusion what I want to say is that the atomic bombs were an necessary evil, because as I said, the bombs wiped out two cities, instead of the american army wiping out the whole nation of japan

P.S war is FUCKED UP

P.S.S I love Japan
 

cj_online

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2008
258
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]kobbra[/nom]The Tsar Bomba was not an atomic bomb, but a nuclear bomb which are two completely different things, the nuclear bombs being waaaayyy more powerful than any atomic counterpart; the atomic bombs of hiroshima and nagasaki compared to todays nuclear bombs are nothing less than pathetic firecrackers; and in other point of view many historians of today, japanese included, consider, that altough the atomic bombs killed a lot of people, probably and most importantly saved many more people by at least a factor of ten; because you have to consider, that the japanese, were at that time completely fanatical and probably would’ve kept fighting till the bitter end, possibly delaying the end of WWII by several years-not to mention the millions of lives that would’ve been lost in the process; in conclusion what I want to say is that the atomic bombs were an necessary evil, because as I said, the bombs wiped out two cities, instead of the american army wiping out the whole nation of japanP.S war is FUCKED UP P.S.S I love Japan[/citation]


Maybe weaker than today's nuclear bombs.... but not by any means firecrackers.. when compared...

PS: Japan got what it deserved...

However, u're right it was a necessary evil.
 

Kelavarus

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2009
257
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So atomic bombs can't irradiate natural land features?What fucking school did you not go to?All atomic weapons can irradiate anything they explode near, that's why they are made from radioactive materials.If, however, you mean blasted awy or damaged natural features then atomic weapons are pretty good at doing that too, here, have a video of the largest atomic weapon ever detonated by man.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9A [...] re=related[/citation]

That video is kind of stupid. It suggests we won't detonate anything more powerful.

We're human. Of course we will. Hopefully on dead barren planets though.
 

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
275
0
18,940
2
Dresden and The Last Supper were two worst. As for the nukes, it saved millions of lives on both sides. And out of regret we let all the Nazi-esque Jap "doctors" escape from punishment.

Back to article, cool.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
297
0
18,930
0
The Tokyo fire raids actually killed more people than either Atom Bomb. Japan would have been subjected to these constant raids until they surrendered, whether they surrendered or not. It's very easy to conclude the bombs saved lives.

Terror bombing, strangely, was almost entirely ineffective, outside of the atom bombs. It didn't work against England, or Germany, and wasn't convincing the Japanese they should surrender either. It's unclear whether Japan would have surrendered anyway shortly thereafter. They were completely beaten. Some speculate the Soviet Union backstabbing them had as much or more to do with them surrendering. Either way, they were done.

The problem with saying the deserved it is you treat a whole group of people as one. Japan as a country did, of course, since they were horribly cruel, and incredibly stupid and inept. The idiots had no idea how to win the war even when they started it, and their main military leader said he'd have a free rein for six months, but after that, it was going to get bad. They figured the Americans would decide it was just easier to let the Japs keep what they took then kick them out. Again, they knew they couldn't win. They didn't have any plan to. America wasn't going to let them off after Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities their military committed.

But, having said that, so many people that never wanted war were killed with all those raids. They had no idea why they needed to be in China (which is the base cause for the Eastern Conflict), but certainly could not speak out against their autocratic government.

Japan even backstabbed the Germans. During the 1941 invasion of Russia, as the brutal winter set in, the Japanese signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which allowed the latter to transfer massive troops from the far east to launch the infamous counter-offensive of the winter of 1941. Why? Who knows? Germany was their only hope of winning the war, they had no idea how to do it, and were a puny, weak country. So, their leaders were cruel, backstabbing, and incredibly stupid, and got what they deserved. But, the people? Their leadership let them down so badly. It's a pity.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
297
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Not really a pity is it, if we had lost the war we would all be speaking German or Japanese right now, living under the jackboot of the "thousand year reich". I feel sorry for the dead people but it was war and either us or them. Fuck 'em, we won. Roll forward 70 years both losing sides make really good cars.[/citation]

Actually, your remarks are irrelevant, but more to the point, inaccurate. I didn't state we weren't justified, so I'm not sure what your remarks point to. Also, Germany had no interest in war with the United States, and didn't even want to conquer France or Britain. Their interest was in Eastern Europe.

Japan did not wish for war with the United States either, their interest was in China. They attacked the United States because of American sanctions to stop Japanese invasions in China. Japan needed oil, and would have collapsed without it. They had two choices, attack French-Indo China and get it there, or appease the Americans and have them lift sanctions.

So, you're quite wrong. Neither were interested in conquering the United States, and only the United States involving itself in their goals caused the entry of the United States into the conflict. I'm not saying the United States should not have, or should have, just saying why we got into the war.

If you look at it rationally, instead of the ignorant 'we or them' nonsense, you can see it changed essentially nothing. Japan was a weak country and counted for little, and Germany was replaced by an even larger country with an even more evil leader. Replacing Germany with the Soviet Union (with all her Eastern European satellites) and Communist China (after they won the civil war) hardly made the world safer for us. It's not very different from Germany and Japan being dominant. Nuclear bombs (fission and fusion) have made war obsolete except on small scales. The players may have been different, but the plot wouldn't have changed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Historical legal precedent has shown that the aggressor is not allowed to be a victim no matter what the action. Dresden, Hiroshima, and the mass rape of Berlin may not be pretty, but one will never find legal foundation which condemns them.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
297
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]It doesn't matter what the German and Japanese original intentions were, Britain declared on Germany when they invaded Poland and USA jumped in after Pearl Harbour. Once involved in a real fight if Japan and Germany had won then Britain and USA would have become part of the Axis. Original intentions mean nothing, they would have took over if they won, they didn't, we won, now Japan plays baseball. Go figure.[/citation]

That's absolutely not correct. Hitler had no wish to destroy Great Britain, and many believe this caused his hesitation in invading England when he had the best chance. He tried repeatedly to talk the English into peace. Equally, he did not wish for war with the United States, and no interest in continuing it. The United States had involved itself through illegal pro-British actions (going by the laws of neutrals), and Germany actually declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor, seeing advantage to destroying American shipping being sent to Britain.

Germany would have been delighted to have come to peace with Britain, on terms where the British gave up nothing, but Germany were to have a free hand in what they conquered. The British turned this down. The U.S. was only involved because of the British, making them a tertiary player.

Japan had no interest in American soil either, their main goal was the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Axis countries were not directly threatening the United States or the New World in general, although their power, especially German/Prussian with their superb military tradition had to create an issue of unease. But, then again, Communist Russia was not menacing?

The English and American leaders, as much as I admire Churchill, screwed up. They fought a war to prevent European domination by one country, and ended up with it, not to mention that most of Asia became communist. Churchill was much more aware of the post war situation than Roosevelt, but he was the junior partner and his plans to thwart Soviet expansion were generally nixed as militarily inefficient compared to alternatives. Of course, he main motives were political, not militaristic, so this is hardly surprising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Streaming Video & TVs 0
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 4
Adom Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
B Streaming Video & TVs 4
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
N Streaming Video & TVs 2
T Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 13
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 38
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 43
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS