Today...

[Aero]

Jack the Ripper is one of the most notorious serial killers in history. his origins? England. That is all.

[Kirano]

But then you have, Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis Toole who killed like 200 people.

[Krillin]

And then you've got George Bush, who's killed thousands.

Wakka wakka wakka!

[Kirano]

And then you've got George Bush, who's killed thousands.

Wakka wakka wakka!

[Saz]

America is gay...

[Kirano]

It's game over Sazuaa.

[Aero]

And then you've got George Bush, who's killed thousands.

Wakka wakka wakka!

I don't think political figures count as serial killers. Sorry.

[Saz]

It's game over Sazuaa.

We're English, it's never over, we shall NEVER surrender!!!! Et cetera...

[Zangya]

Oh, look, I see the sun setting on the British empire. That's new. I haven't seen that happen much. In fact, I think the first time I saw it was 231 years ago today.

[Amadeus]

*goes wide eyed* I'm hoping this is a joke. Enjoy that invasion of Japan that would have happened without Fat Man and Little Boy.

Putting the fact that the Manhattan project was a joint operation between the US and the UK aside, the nuclear bombs had a lot lesser effect then mainstream history would make you belive. From the perspective of direct effect, firebombings were more devastating. As for indirect effects, the Japanese were already prepared to surrender by that point in the war but they wanted to preserve the Emperor`s honour through a negotiated peace. The thing which finally convinced them to accept an unconditional surrender were not the atom bombs, but the quick destruction of the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

That said, the contribution the US made during World War II was preety substantial. Despite the large contribution of the dominions, especially Canada, to the war effort, the British were preety reliant on the US economy for the production of war goods. Plus, the US was waging war against Japan almost entirely alone.

As for the War of 1812. That war is not exactly a great source for American pride. The US tried to conquer Canada while the British were greatly involved in the war against Napoleon, but were beaten back and even had their capital burned. Although the Americans did later manage to beat the British back, that hardly mattered since the British wanted a status quo peace in the first place due to the Napoleonic wars.

Long history lecture aside, I congratulate all American members of Chubbs on their national holiday. I hope you have a lot of fun.

[Aero]

Sure it's a source of American pride. That's when the star spangled banner was made. =D

[Minoshia]

In America, we have dentists and thus most of us have good teeth. I believe that is our biggest accomplishment over the Englisn.

[Zangya]

Dentists are evil. They steal women from nerdy plant shop workers.

/littleshopofhorrors

[Saz]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. All this fighting is pointless, America and England are both awesome. We should forget this arguement and focus on the real enemy here. Canadia. What with their, maple syrup, and moose's, and egg shaped heads, beady eyes, and bottom jaws completely disconnected to the rest of the head.

Canada sucks.

[Zangya]

Does anyone else associate colors with countries? For example, when I think of USA I think of red, Britain is like, blue or something, and Canada, amazingly, is periwinkle.

[Yamu]

Putting the fact that the Manhattan project was a joint operation between the US and the UK aside, the nuclear bombs had a lot lesser effect then mainstream history would make you belive. From the perspective of direct effect, firebombings were more devastating. As for indirect effects, the Japanese were already prepared to surrender by that point in the war but they wanted to preserve the Emperor`s honour through a negotiated peace. The thing which finally convinced them to accept an unconditional surrender were not the atom bombs, but the quick destruction of the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

I'm not arguing, I'm just REALLY excited because I never get to have historical discussions with people!

It is true that firebombing was more devastating, it is why we didn't drop a nuke on Tokyo: because we had already burnt 90% of it to the ground. I argue that the A-bombs had a DEFINITE effect on the Japanese leadership. No one had seen a weapon of that scope and magnitude, that ONE-mother-fucking-BOMB could erase an entire city made them piss their pants. They had become used to our firebombs and had gone underground or had spread assets out to prevent the fires from spreading, that didn't help protect from the power of the Atom. And if Mancuria was their reasoning why were the civilian training camps meant to train every Japanese man, woman, and child to fight the American invaders they knew were coming closed almost on the hour that Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki?

[Violet]

I didn't get wasted ;.; I worked. Without time and a half.

[Minoshia]

Explain to me how Canada is the real enemy? I have much more of a problem with England than i do with Canada. I don't have a problem with people who live in England, actually, it's just a problem with the state - and it's history.

[Amadeus]

It is true that firebombing was more devastating, it is why we didn't drop a nuke on Tokyo: because we had already burnt 90% of it to the ground. I argue that the A-bombs had a DEFINITE effect on the Japanese leadership. No one had seen a weapon of that scope and magnitude, that ONE-mother-fucking-BOMB could erase an entire city made them piss their pants.

First you agree that the firebombings were more devastating and then you state the A-bombs had an effect beacuse of their scope and magnitude? In scope and magnitude, the firebombings were much greater.

Plus, the "charm" of the "one bomb" thing kind of fades when one takes into account that that single bomb costed a lot more then the incendiary bombs used for firebombing and was still not as effective.

They had become used to our firebombs and had gone underground or had spread assets out to prevent the fires from spreading, that didn't help protect from the power of the Atom.

Actually, the spreading of assets would have helped somewhat since the atom bomb had a certain area of effect. Plus, the leadership were able to move outside the cities which were targets of atom bombing.

And if Mancuria was their reasoning why were the civilian training camps meant to train every Japanese man, woman, and child to fight the American invaders they knew were coming closed almost on the hour that Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki?

Honestly, I do not know since that is the first time I heard something like that. That said, it was likely not beacuse of the Japanese decision to surrender since that decision was not reached on the 9th.

Let us face the facts. The Japanese goverment did not care about its own citizents since, by their own views, it was the duty of every man, woman and child to fight and die for the Emperor and the Empire. Since they did not surrender after six months of intense firebombing of most cities in Japan, it is unlikely their stance would be moved by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What convinced them more into unconditional surrender was the Soviet declaration of war and the following operations in Manchuria. The loss of their last hope for a negotiated peace (the Japanese attempted several times to reach a negotiated peace through the Soviets), combined with the quick destruction of the Kwangtung Army, made them realise that they could not get a negotiated peace and that further resistance was futile.

[Yamu]

My remark on the firebombings was that they were highly effective, but the psychological impact of the A-bombs were far greater. One bomb did in a second what it took weeks of napalm to do.

I agree that the Red Army turning on Japan influenced the decision to surrender. They were already on the defensive since Midway and now had another whole force coming at them from the other side. BUT you can't say that fire bombs were more effective when the Japanese withstood them for months and then surrendered within the same week of the drop of the A-bombs.