Ya it would have been so much nicer if mainland japan was invaded and even more of the Japs would have been killed in the process . It would have been even nicer if before admitting defeat they would have committed mass suicide , then super cool countries like China , USSR & N Korea would have had more space to troll and history would have recorded the US for extermination one of the world top cultures .
lol its all bbqed any how I never felt Gandhi was a strong political leader. He was a good freedom fighter no doubt but not a politician. Our politics have been handicapped from the Nehru regime, if Sardar Vallabhai Patel was the PM, India would be a totally different nation rite now. Nehru was too soft and showed lenience in many issues where as Patel was a strong man. Nehru screwed up India's foreign policies which the latter leaders failed to re-construct and to do the repair work after 50 yrs is never gonna be easy with the kind of history embedded in heads. Europe wasn't controlled on a whole but parts of it were done, just look at India itself, French ruled Pondicherry, Portuguese ruled Goa, British ruled major portion of India and few colonial rules were already around. After British withdrew from India, Portuguese were adamant on not to live Indian land, as if its their own territory. A strong action from Indian govt. only had made Portuguese quit else wat not.. Goa is the state which got independence at very late age. I have to admit though French were really good compared to others, they never terrorized or brought some up dumb laws r imposed daily restrictions. Still, there were on other's land. Hiroshama isn't completely cured, may be u missed the BBC report around 3 months back about how people still suffer with strange diseases and ailments, it may have turned into a major industrial center but the prob still exists just like Bhopal. don't worry India will not become China, we might break at the worst but not a communal rule for sure
There could have been many other ways, extermination of their aircraft carriers alone would have sufficed considering the distance between the two countries, or large scale assassinations of top military leaders and politicians, bombing of the imperial palace among other things. Allies could have even set up a naval blockade of the tiny country and forced them to surrender. But they didn't do it because they wanted to "show strength".
H - We dont sacrifice lives on our side to save lives on the other. Not the way it works. You show a poor grasp of the history involved and of warfare in general. Not that your opinion matters, we dont outsource strategic decisions to India.
Talk about poor grasp. I don't even expect you to save lives, but asking not to intentionally end lives of those who done nothing to you is asking too much? Your mentality of warfare in general is similar to that of criminally insane.
You really should read up on history before posting such nonsense. Even after the two nuclear bombings, high ranking members of the Japanese military attempted a coup d'état to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. Those were not men to be broken with a blockade. And, of course, the reason we didn't bomb the imperial palace was that -- short of killing the emperor it would have had no effect -- and if we managed to kill the emperor there would have been no one who could issue an order to surrender that the majority of Japanese would follow. We would have then been faced with fighting a Japan which was not capable of surrendering -- a much bloodier proposition. What we earned from our remarkable strategy was a quick end to the war, which resulted in far fewer casualties on both sides.
I have a very strong objection to this. If reading history could teach things, you would not write this.
This is one contentious issue which never ceases. Nevertheless, like in all war attributes, you always have two sides to the story and yours is still the third angle. Has anyone bothered to collect what the Japanese are saying today?
As Will correctly points out, the tactic did probably save more lives on both sides than any alternative, and in case you havent studied the topic (as indicated by the kneejerk "USA is evil" horsehockey)... both targets were of military consequence. The other side started the fight, we ended it. Here's how it works... "If ya dont wanna see the genie, don't rub the fuckin' lamp". As for my alleged "poor grasp"... -1- I was raised by WW2 vets (my father served in the Pacific and would have been involved in the invasion had we gone that route), -2- I have studied the history of that conflict for longer than you've been alive, including college classes and independant reading, and -3- I received officers training at the Marine Corps Development and Educational Command, USMC, Quantico VA, including military history. I know more on the subject of US military history than some kid in India that formed his opinion by reading crap posted on the web over half a century after the fact by similarly clueless twits who freely criticize without the faintest grasp of what they're talking about. Granted, you *think* you already know everything, but that's an illusion shared by most youths. Don't worry, maybe you'll grow out of it.
What's wrong with you to have believed a liar? Pervaiz Musharaf is a big liar who ditched Pakistan after looting it first as a military dictator.
Just because you don't like him, you can't reduce him to a mere Gandhi. He is Gandhiji for all of us. This partition business is and was a desirable evil which you may come to understand when you are consumed by the descendants of those who created Pak out of India. That apart, how do you claim that Netaji wouldn't have allowed it? Mixing up things such as, for example, the freedom fight, Congress, partition and the ignominious anti-Sikh riots, does no good to you like it does to that man from across the border - Asif1. Do you think other parties are any better today?
Thank you. But I must tell, this was utter nonsense on your part to get enraged for catching your fault.
miscsoft When you say I am not to teach you and save it for my child all for asking you to not reduce the father of the nation to a mere Gandhi, what else can I say? Yes, sure. And as long as you keep taking things in personal perspective, things keep amusing you by default.