• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

AAequal
Banned
(03-04-2012, 07:40 PM)
AAequal's Avatar

Originally Posted by DonasaurusRex

how many people died at the invasion of okinawa alone? Not that i buy we had to use a bomb, i think we could've waited japan out. Perhaps the russians declaring war on japan had something to do with that.

And in the end waiting it out would have led mass starvations and mounted to more casulties.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
(03-04-2012, 07:42 PM)
PantherLotus's Avatar
If you want to really understand WWII, you need to understand WWI. And to help you understand WWI, I invite you to Kansas City's WWI Memorial, the only national monument to WWI. It's amazing and wonderful, and sobering. You can clearly see the seeds of WWII planted at its resolution.

DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
(03-04-2012, 07:52 PM)
DonasaurusRex's Avatar

Originally Posted by AAequal

And in the end waiting it out would have led mass starvations and mounted to more casulties.

yeah but 2 of their cities wouldn't have been radiation bombed , its still war, wouldn't have been the only country that went hungry during WWII. I just think there were other options besides the nuke, obviously they all suck in some way or another.
Bowdz
Member
(03-04-2012, 07:53 PM)
Bowdz's Avatar
Does anyone know any good recommendations for documentaries and books about WW1? I feel like my understanding of the conflict as a whole is severely lacking. I honestly had no idea of the scope of some battles (like Somme and The Hundred Days offensive) until a few months ago and couldn't believe some of the details.
Meadows
Member
(03-04-2012, 07:56 PM)
Meadows's Avatar
man, that looks a lot like a penis

Speaking of WWII:

British WWII graves have been desicrated by an armed gang in Libya (apparently in reprisal for the USA koran thing in Afghanistan)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17244211

Disgusting.
Pezking
Member
(03-04-2012, 07:58 PM)
Pezking's Avatar

Originally Posted by dschalter

disagree, versailles wasn't harsh enough.

don't even mean that jokingly, it wasn't that bad at all, germany just couldn't get over the fact that it had lost.

No.

The main problem with Versailles was that Germany was forced to accept the responsibility for causing the war. That seemed like a great injustice to germans, and rightfully so.

A french general said directly after the treaty was signed that this isn't a peace treaty but rather a 20 year long cease fire. Unfortunately, he was right.

To fully understand how the first World War started and how it affected the occurence of World War II, I strongly recommend the viewing of this awesome documentary:



It's the perfect lead-in to "The World at War".
AAequal
Banned
(03-04-2012, 07:58 PM)
AAequal's Avatar

Originally Posted by DonasaurusRex

yeah but 2 of their cities wouldn't have been radiation bombed , its still war, wouldn't have been the only country that went hungry during WWII. I just think there were other options besides the nuke, obviously they all suck in some way or another.

I agree, it's one helluva topic. Waiting it out might have been the best option in a sense but the Soviet threat was real, I doubt anyone would have wanted to Stalin take over part of Japan. I think the only real options were land invasion, a-bomb, waiting it out (mass starvations&possible soviet invasion) or more firebombings. Non of them seam appealing, I'm glad I wasn't making decisions those days.
Pezking
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:06 PM)
Pezking's Avatar
If you want to read a first hand account of someone who spent 1939 to 1945 as a political prisoner in Buchenwald, I strongly recommend this book:

Alpha-Bromega
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:06 PM)
Alpha-Bromega's Avatar

View Post
disagree, versailles wasn't harsh enough.

don't even mean that jokingly, it wasn't that bad at all, germany just couldn't get over the fact that it had lost.

absolute nonsense. There wasn't one single antagonist of the war, but the ones who eventually won got to portray the germans as such. The conditions of Versailles would make any country turn fascist, it was basically putting a red nose on the entire populace and then putting their collective face into a pile of French shit while mocking their mother. Versailles was an absolute joke of a treaty and is basically put into history as an absolute NO GO when dealing with nations post war.


Notice the respective handlings of Germany turning her into a fascist state, the other into an economic powerhouse with an honest and humble population.
Salvadora
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:21 PM)
Salvadora's Avatar
Without Versailles Hitler would never have rose to power.
dschalter
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:48 PM)
dschalter's Avatar

Originally Posted by Pezking

No.

The main problem with Versailles was that Germany was forced to accept the responsibility for causing the war. That seemed like a great injustice to germans, and rightfully so.

A french general said directly after the treaty was signed that this isn't a peace treaty but rather a 20 year long cease fire. Unfortunately, he was right.

To fully understand how the first World War started and how it affected the occurence of World War II, I strongly recommend the viewing of this awesome documentary:



It's the perfect lead-in to "The World at War".

ah, the myth of collective guilt. germany certainly wasn't responsible for everything, but it was the single country that was most responsible for the outbreak of war. fritz fischer rather explained things in "Germany's War Aims in the First World War," one of the best pieces of historical writing you'll find on any topic. furthermore, the "war guilt" clause was meant in more of a legalistic sense than anything else, though i do i agree it was rather unwise. it's also worth noting that foch said that it was "armistice for 20 years" because the terms were too generous, not because they were too harsh.



absolute nonsense. There wasn't one single antagonist of the war, but the ones who eventually won got to portray the germans as such. The conditions of Versailles would make any country turn fascist, it was basically putting a red nose on the entire populace and then putting their collective face into a pile of French shit while mocking their mother. Versailles was an absolute joke of a treaty and is basically put into history as an absolute NO GO when dealing with nations post war.


Notice the respective handlings of Germany turning her into a fascist state, the other into an economic powerhouse with an honest and humble population.

This is ludicrous overstatement. The terms were harsh, but given that Germany lost a war that a) it was most responsible for starting the war and b) had been far bigger and bloodier than any individual war prior to it in human history, they were hardly outlandish. The German government effectively wriggled out of paying the reparations anyway (unlike the French after the Franco-Prussian war). As I said above, the war guilt clause was foolish, but it was really only meant to offer a legal basis for reparations.

Also, while the treaty certainly played a role in the Nazis coming to rule Germany (ironically, the first fascist state was one of the winning powers) the Great Depression was far more important. Prior to its outbreak the Nazis were trivial and the DNVP were not particularly strong either. As for World War II, I already mentioned the differences and of course it's also worth noting that Germany already was an economic powerhouse and that much of the change in attitude came from the totality of the defeat and the sheer indefensibility of the German position in World War II rather than anything related to the peace.
Last edited by dschalter; 03-04-2012 at 08:51 PM.
Desmond
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:48 PM)
Desmond's Avatar
I always wonder why Germany had to accept full responsibility for WW1, when the Black Hand gang started it.
MrPing1000
Member
(03-04-2012, 08:58 PM)
MrPing1000's Avatar
I've recently been thinking about the luck factor of a lot of peoples existence. You seem to hear so many stories in war documentaries about near misses and brushes with death.

My Grandfather was in the British Expeditionary Forces, and was nearly killed twice. First time he was on an airstrip beside a deep valley. German planes coming, everyone takes cover, the planes go into the valley to attempt a stealthier approach. So my Grandfather is behind a wooden shed. He think to himself this is a stupid place to be, dives into a nearby ditch. Plane comes over strafes the shed, cuts it to bits.

Second time they were getting mortared on route to Dunkirk. He goes to get into a foxhole, but it's full. Has to hide in a ditch instead. Foxhole takes a direct hit, kills the 3 men in it.

Shit like that messes with your mind.

I'd love to know more about what he did, but he died when I was very young and he didn't tell my Father an awful lot about what he did in France. (After Dunkirk he spent the rest of the war manning AA searchlights near Dover)
dschalter
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:02 PM)
dschalter's Avatar

Originally Posted by Desmond

I always wonder why Germany had to accept full responsibility for WW1, when the Black Hand gang started it.

they did not start world war i. the war was started by the austrians who attacked serbia after serbia refused to accept a ridiculous ultimatum given to them by the austrians (well, they accepted almost all of it, but that wasn't enough). this was done in large part because austria was urged on by germany, with much of the leadership of germany hoping for a general european war. germany and austria are the most to blame by far, with russia also slightly to blame for not doing enough to defuse the situation.

I've recently been thinking about the luck factor of a lot of peoples existence. You seem to hear so many stories in war documentaries about near misses and brushes with death.

this gets even weirder when you think about how you could have billions of completely different people alive today if just a few historical events hadn't gone as they did in 'reality'.
Bo
shoot bullets from her arse
(03-04-2012, 09:09 PM)
Bo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Salvadora

Without Versailles Hitler would never have rose to power.

The potential checks against Hitler were so numerous that one can really lay blame in the corner of all involved parties (the electorate, the politicians, the Allies, etc).
KillerMan91
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:25 PM)
KillerMan91's Avatar

Originally Posted by dschalter

they did not start world war i. the war was started by the austrians who attacked serbia after serbia refused to accept a ridiculous ultimatum given to them by the austrians (well, they accepted almost all of it, but that wasn't enough). this was done in large part because austria was urged on by germany, with much of the leadership of germany hoping for a general european war. germany and austria are the most to blame by far, with russia also slightly to blame for not doing enough to defuse the situation.

It's still ridiculous to treat Germany as only responsible for the whole war. Pretty much every European nation had made alliances and had their army armed to the teeth as they were waiting for reason to start a war. Yes Germans maybe started it but to hold them as sole reason for the whole war was wrong and that triggered the cycle of hatred in Germany that led to rise of Nazis. With more reasonable peace terms we could have avoided the rise of nazi regime.
Last edited by KillerMan91; 03-04-2012 at 09:30 PM.
TestMonkey
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:26 PM)
TestMonkey's Avatar
Any discussion about the Japanese-American experience during WWII? Aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Classification as enemy aliens. Internment in every state except Hawaii. The 442nd, the most decorated unit in the history of the American military. There are a lot of interesting topics if anyone is interested.
dschalter
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:34 PM)
dschalter's Avatar

Originally Posted by KillerMan91

It's still ridiculous to treat Germany as only responsible for the whole war. Pretty much every European nation had made alliances and had their army armed to the teeth as they were waiting for reason to start a war. Yes Germans maybe started it but to hold them as sole reason for the whole war was wrong and that triggered the cycle of hatred in Germany that led to rise of Nazis. With more reasonable peace terms we could have avoided the rise of nazi regime.

there were many things in germany that led to the rise of the nazis; the most important by far was the great depression. as the for the "everyone had alliances" argument, sure, but those countries didn't actually start it. it was germany and austria that plunged the world into war, a war that they wanted badly and their opponents were much less excited about.
Kabouter
When I was your age we didn't have fire
(03-04-2012, 09:40 PM)
Kabouter's Avatar

Originally Posted by TestMonkey

Any discussion about the Japanese-American experience during WWII? Aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Classification as enemy aliens. Internment in every state except Hawaii. The 442nd, the most decorated unit in the history of the American military. There are a lot of interesting topics if anyone is interested.


What about discussing treason? That might be interesting.
Bregor
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:43 PM)
Bregor's Avatar
German complaints about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are pretty disingenuous. If you look at the terms the Germans intended to impose on France if they had won, you see that Germany got off easy. Just look at the terms that the Germans did impose on Russia in 1918 in the treaty of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk:

In all, the treaty took away territory that included a quarter of the Russian Empire's population, a quarter of its industry and nine-tenths of its coal mines.

The reason that the German public perceived the treaty as being unfair is

1. The high moral position taken by President Woodrow Wilson led many Germans to believe that his positions would the basis for a peace treaty. The French never intended to be so generous however.

2. The belief that they were never truly defeated (the 'stab in the back' theory) led to a great feeling of injustice among the general public at the outcome of a war they believed they were winning.
Javaman
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:45 PM)
Javaman's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cozzy

Vs estimated 250,000 - 1,000 000 casualties from an invasion of the home islands? Plus immediate execution of all approx 100,000 POWs currently in Japanese captivity? You'd have to be a right prick to accept losses like that with a conventional invasion if you had another option.

Several of the older japanese engineers at work that I've talked to said that while horrible, they were glad that it was done instead of a landing. It minimized casualties and forced them to surrender to us instead of splitting the country up with the U.S.S.R. like with Berlin.
dschalter
Member
(03-04-2012, 09:53 PM)
dschalter's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bregor

German complaints about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are pretty disingenuous. If you look at the terms the Germans intended to impose on France if they had won, you see that Germany got off easy. Just look at the terms that the Germans did impose on Russia in 1918 in the treaty of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk:



The reason that the German public perceived the treaty as being unfair is

1. The high moral position taken by President Woodrow Wilson led many Germans to believe that his positions would the basis for a peace treaty. The French never intended to be so generous however.

2. The belief that they were never truly defeated (the 'stab in the back' theory) led to a great feeling of injustice among the general public at the outcome of a war they believed they were winning.

and the terms that germany intended to impose on france and belgium, the latter of which had done nothing against germany other than to defend itself after a flagrant violation of neutrality, were of similar harshness to those that france wanted to impose on germany (and of course if Germany had won there would be no country in the 'USA role' moderating the demands the way there was with France). the only thing i would say about brest-litovsk is it involved, to a large extent, giving independence to peoples who were delighted to no longer be under the russian yoke and thus the comparison to versailles isn't entirely fair.
KillerMan91
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:03 PM)
KillerMan91's Avatar

Originally Posted by dschalter

there were many things in germany that led to the rise of the nazis; the most important by far was the great depression. as the for the "everyone had alliances" argument, sure, but those countries didn't actually start it. it was germany and austria that plunged the world into war, a war that they wanted badly and their opponents were much less excited about.

That was worsened in Germany because Germans had to pay those ridiculous war reparations from WWI(in todays cash 442 billion dollars).
Salvadora
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:08 PM)
Salvadora's Avatar
Friends Grandad flew in the luftwaffe, He was shot down over NI and was sent to a POW camp. Met Hitler as well, Still got the Medals in his room beside his bed!
dschalter
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:08 PM)
dschalter's Avatar

Originally Posted by KillerMan91

That was worsened in Germany because Germans had to pay those ridiculous war reparations from WWI(in todays cash 442 billion dollars).

nope, germany was able to simply not pay the vast majority of reparations and the allies didn't have the will to fight a sustained struggle over collecting them. the german economy did fine in the period when the most reparations were collected.
Napalm_Frank
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:12 PM)
Napalm_Frank's Avatar
As a finn this is one of my favourite WW2 stories. Hitler makes a surprise birthday visit to Mannerheim, Commander-in-Chief of Finland's Defence Forces (the idea of having Hitler make a surprise visit to your birthday is pretty hilarious :/ ).



On June 4, 1942, Hitler made a surprise visit to Finland in honour of Mannerheim's 75th birthday. It was less pleasing to Mannerheim and caused some embarrassment. Mannerheim did not want to meet him in his HQ in Mikkeli or in Helsinki, as it would have seemed like an official state visit. The meeting took place near Imatra, in south-eastern Finland, and was arranged in secrecy.

During the visit, an engineer of the Finnish broadcasting company YLE,succeeded in recording secretly the first 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's conversation in the train wagon, before being interrupted by SS bodyguards. It's the only known recording of Hitler speaking in unofficially.

Before the meeting Mannerheim was told straight and quite rudely by Hitler's adjutant, that he must not smoke while the Führer is around (for Hitler's aversion to smoking was well known).
Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would demand Finland for more active actions against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. And during the conversation in the train wagon when Hitler brought up the situation of Finland, Mannerheim lit a cigar and intentionally blowed the smoke towards Hitler, to see his reaction. Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness.
He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.

I also hear that both Hitlers and Mannerheims bodyguards were scared shitless at that point.


Originally Posted by EatChildren

Jack Churchill

That guy is both friggin insane and awesome :D.
fizzelopeguss
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:12 PM)
fizzelopeguss's Avatar
Royal Naval losses.

5 Capital ships.

10(!) Carriers.

34 Cruisers.

153 destroyers.

76 subs.
IceCold
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:17 PM)
IceCold's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nevasleep

Why did Spain and Portugal stay neutral?

You can read about Portugal's situation here:

For the duration of World War II, Portugal was under the control of the dictator António de Oliveira Salazar, who led a similar government to the Francisco Franco regime in neighbouring Spain. Early in September 1939, Portugal proclaimed its neutrality to avoid a military operation in Portuguese territory by the Axis or Allies. This action was welcomed by Great Britain and reaffirmed historic Anglo-Portuguese treaties with England dating from 1373 (Anglo-Portuguese Alliance) and 1386 (Treaty of Windsor). Germany's invasion of France brought the Nazis to the Pyrenees, which allowed Hitler to bring unanticipated pressures on Portugal and Spain.[citation needed]

Following the Nazi invasion of Russia, which cut off their supply of tungsten metal from Asia, Germany initiated tactics to extract tungsten from Portugal. Initially, Germany artificially ran up prices in an attempt to get the people to bypass the Portuguese government and sell directly to German agents. Salazar attempted to limit this, and in October 1941, Germany sank a Portuguese merchant ship, the first neutral ship to be sunk in World War II. A German U-boat torpedoed a second Portuguese ship in December.[citation needed]

Despite efforts to resist, and because of the German threat to Portuguese merchant trade, in January 1942 Salazar signed an agreement to sell tungsten to Germany. In June 1943, Britain invoked the long-standing Anglo-Portuguese Alliance requesting the use of the Azores, to establish an air force and naval air base. Salazar complied at once. The Allies then promised all possible aid in the event of a German attack against Portugal. Additionally, the United States and Great Britain guaranteed the integrity of Portugal's territorial possessions. In 1944, Portugal declared a total embargo of tungsten shipments to Germany. Although the German Ambassador in Lisbon protested the Azores agreement, Germany never retaliated against Portugal.[citation needed]

Even while under intense German pressure, and with the presence of Nazi spies in Portugal, Lisbon became a safe-haven to a scattering of Jews from all over Europe. At the outbreak of World War II, Jewish refugees from Central Europe were granted resident status. After the German invasion of France, Portugal adopted a liberal visa policy, which allowed thousands of Jewish refugees to enter the country. As the war progressed, Portugal gave entry visas to people coming via rescue operations, on the condition that Portugal would only be used as a transit point. Portugal also joined other "neutral" countries in the efforts made to save Hungarian Jews. More than 100,000 Jews and other refugees were able to flee Nazi Germany into freedom via Lisbon. By the early 1940s, there were thousands of Jews arriving in Lisbon and leaving weeks later to other countries, such as in South America and Africa. Only a small minority stayed in Portugal

An interesting thing about Portugal's "Neutrality" is that a lot of spies and royal families from different countries were in Portugal during WWII. Casino Royale was inspired by this since a lot of spies were in the Estoril Casino.
Coppertracks
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:41 PM)
Coppertracks's Avatar

Originally Posted by Pezking

If you want to read a first hand account of someone who spent 1939 to 1945 as a political prisoner in Buchenwald, I strongly recommend this book:

Bought.
someday
Member
(03-04-2012, 10:46 PM)
someday's Avatar
Fascinating topic! I was a history major at UW and have taken almost every class offered there on WW2. I also over the years have read almost anything I could get my hands on about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. One of the classes that I took was about the history of the atomic bomb. The book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" is a must read for anyone really interested in a complete history of the bombs, the people involved politically and scientifically, and the the usage of said bombs on Japan and later.

A couple of interesting things about the bombings in Japan (from the book):

1. As early as 1943, those highest in the US had planned on dropping the bombs on Japan. Before they were developed, and as the war still raged on in Europe, the plan was to drop the bombs on Japan only. The book doesn't necessarily explain why, which is one reason why I like it, but it makes you wonder why it was ok to experiment on the Japanese but not the Nazis...

2. After the bombs were developed, there was a lot of discussion on how to utilize them to end the war in Japan. Along with the plan of dropping the bombs onto a populated city, there was some discussion about making a highly visible showing of the power of the nuclear weapon over some unpopulated island so that the Japanese (and presumably the Russians), could see what we were capable of without killing anyone. The idea was that if the Japanese leaders saw what we could do to them that they would surrender with no lives lost. This ended up not happening for probably several reasons, but one of them was the concern that something would go wrong and the bomb would fail leaving the US looking stupid. Also, since so much money had been spent in the US developing these weapons, many in power felt that the American public and politicians out of the loop would feel that money had been wasted unless it was used directly in the war against the enemy.

3. As far as Germany and how close or not close they were to developing a nuke, there was a lot of unknowns about the truth there. I don't remember his name, but the man in charge of the German nuclear program during the war made a point to rehabilitate himself to a postwar world by saying that he had purposefully steered his lab in the wrong direction so that Germany would not have nukes. He got some flak for that but it's hard to say if they didn't figure it out because they were just wrong, or if it was on purpose.

Of course, I read this book over 10 years ago so maybe more information is available to challenge the info from the book.
Last edited by someday; 03-04-2012 at 10:52 PM. Reason: clarification x2
antonz
Member
(03-04-2012, 11:20 PM)
antonz's Avatar
USS Enterprise (CV-6) had a fascinating lifespan during WWII. At one point it was the only US Carrier in the Pacific Theater. Recieved the British Admiralty Pennant from the Rpyal Navy and took part in every single major battle in the first year of World War II for the US
Lkr
Member
(03-04-2012, 11:28 PM)
Are there any good documentaries on netflix instant stream in regards to WW2?
godelsmetric
sputum-flecked apoplexy
(03-04-2012, 11:35 PM)
godelsmetric's Avatar
my grandfather served aboard the boat that took churchill on official missions across the atlantic

he took photos and it's like, 'iceberg iceberg iceberg seagull iceberg iceberg churchill iceberg iceberg'
yacobod
Banned
(03-04-2012, 11:39 PM)
yacobod's Avatar
my grandmother's parents were killed by the Nazi's in Poland. Several other family relations survived the war in Nazi Labor Camps abroad.
Lax Mike
Junior Member
(03-04-2012, 11:45 PM)
Lax Mike's Avatar

Originally Posted by someday

The book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" is a must read for anyone really interested in a complete history of the bombs, the people involved politically and scientifically, and the the usage of said bombs on Japan and later.

A couple of interesting things about the bombings in Japan (from the book):

1. As early as 1943, those highest in the US had planned on dropping the bombs on Japan. Before they were developed, and as the war still raged on in Europe, the plan was to drop the bombs on Japan only. The book doesn't necessarily explain why, which is one reason why I like it, but it makes you wonder why it was ok to experiment on the Japanese but not the Nazis...

Although there was definitely racist sentiment towards the Japanese during the war, I don't think it played a huge part in this particular decision. If anything, I would suppose that the main reasoning for not using it on Germany would be due to the assumption that Germany would surrender without needing to resort to the bomb. In fact, I would say that they were terrified that using the bomb would provoke Hitler to take even more drastic measures (Resorting to Chemical Warfare, speeding up his genocide) in the face of total annihilation.

It may have also had to do with Soviet success up to that point, since it can be assumed that by this time, many were aware that an Allied-Soviet victory was inevitable in Europe. The Atomic Bomb was the US's "Ace in the hole", and wouldn't want to reveal it until it was absolutely necessary. They wouldn't want to use their secret weapon in a situation where the Soviets were going to win anyway. And even if they did use it, they would have gained nothing in the long-term, aside from gaining the hatred of the entire surviving German population. If anything, it would have allowed for an even greater Soviet influence in Europe following the war, as the German Army would have shown fiercer resistance against the Americans in the west, slowing their advance, as they were no longer the kind alternative to whom they had no objection to surrendering to, to the menacing Soviets, but rather a genocidal force that destroyed entire cities at will.


2. After the bombs were developed, there was a lot of discussion on how to utilize them to end the war in Japan. Along with the plan of dropping the bombs onto a populated city, there was some discussion about making a highly visible showing of the power of the nuclear weapon over some unpopulated island so that the Japanese (and presumably the Russians), could see what we were capable of without killing anyone. The idea was that if the Japanese leaders saw what we could do to them that they would surrender with no lives lost. This ended up not happening for probably several reasons, but one of them was the concern that something would go wrong and the bomb would fail leaving the US looking stupid. Also, since so much money had been spent in the US developing these weapons, many in power felt that the American public and politicians out of the loop would feel that money had been wasted unless it was used directly in the war against the enemy.

I feel like the Soviets had a huge impact on this decision as well. Similar to Europe, by 1943, it was pretty clear that the Allies would win against Japan, it just a matter of how and when.
For most of the war, the Navy and proponents of Air power claimed that the war could be won by systematically wearing down Japan through a substantial bombing campaign and submarine blockade. While the bombing campaign failed in that it did not break the government's will to fight, forcing them to surrender, the Navy's submarine campaign was extremely successful, albeit doing so without much recognition. Unlike the German U-Boats, they were able to successfully cut off an island nation from its overseas resources, effectively starving it. However, in the end, US leaders recognized this approach would be less than satisfactory for two reasons:

1) There was no guarantee the Japanese leadership would surrender, even as millions of their people starved, and their factories ground to a halt without necessary materials, meaning the war would be dragged on needlessly, and possibly leading to an even greater loss of life for the Japanese.

2) The entrance of the Soviet Union into the war meant that the US no longer had the luxury of time, as with the fall of Hitler, it was clear that Stalin was the greatest threat to people across the globe, and that they could not afford to let him expand his influence further in Asia, specifically in Japan (No one wanted to see Japan divided into zones of occupation like Germany).

Detonating a bomb as nothing more than a display would also have been an extremely risky maneuver, even if it were to work, since there was no guarantee that it would force a surrender, and it wasn't as if the US had plenty of Atomic weapons laying around at that point.

In the end, I feel like it came down to looking forward to the Cold War that figured into the decision to use the bomb more than anything else.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-05-2012, 12:05 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by MutFox

Supposedly (Was just checking online) but for the 2nd bombing,
they dropped leaflets warning about the Nagasaki bomb the day after...

Also, Nagasaki wasn't the intended 2nd Target,
they just chose it due to cloud coverage on the other city.

Nagasaki was not the primary target, but it certainly was on the list of targets. They didn't just fly until they came across a city that looked good for bombing.

Originally Posted by DonasaurusRex

yeah but 2 of their cities wouldn't have been radiation bombed , its still war, wouldn't have been the only country that went hungry during WWII. I just think there were other options besides the nuke, obviously they all suck in some way or another.

This wasn't a question of some people going hungry. The population was eating pine cones and dirt given to them by the government. More civilians would have perished from starvation alone, never mind the cost of whatever other option you imagine there was to end the war.

Japan explicitly communicated their strategy at the end of the war using encoded communications between officials in the government. They wanted to drag the war out as long as possible because they felt the American public could be manipulated this way into pressuring their government and the allies into proposing surrender terms more acceptable to the Japanese. They knew civilians would starve by the hundreds of thousands and they did not care. They did not want to end the war, even after Nagasaki. You realize the Emperor was nearly assassinated when he forced the heads of government to end the conflict?

Also it's important to note that the Allies knew the Japanese were defending their homeland in such a way that it made any land invasion costly enough to be completely out of the question. It really wasn't an option and likely wouldn't have happened even if the bombs were never developed. The only real alternative was allowing the Soviets to invade from Manchuria, slaughtering as they went, and waiting while hundreds of thousands of civilians starved to death.
Pezking
Member
(03-05-2012, 12:37 AM)
Pezking's Avatar

Originally Posted by dschalter

germany certainly wasn't responsible for everything, but it was the single country that was most responsible for the outbreak of war.

Nope. If (!) any country was most responsible, it was Austria-Hungary.

Originally Posted by dschalter

it's also worth noting that foch said that it was "armistice for 20 years" because the terms were too generous, not because they were too harsh.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
Clear
This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
(03-05-2012, 12:41 AM)
Clear's Avatar
Well, having just watched the entirety of The World At War on DVD... the overall impact is in a word... numbing. The scale and enormity of the horror is beyond comprehension.

EVERYONE SHOULD BE MADE TO WATCH THIS SERIES AT AN EARLY AGE.

The important thing is that it shows even in the aftermath of a war that can reasonably be considered "just", there is no triumph in victory. Merely relief that the sacrificial knives have been sheathed once more.

Remember. And pray to your God devoutly that it never happens again.
zugzug
Member
(03-05-2012, 12:47 AM)
zugzug's Avatar

Originally Posted by dschalter

the italian attempt to invade southern france after the germans had won a decisive victory in the real battle was hilarious.

also, whenever someone says "if the nazis/hitler had done X they could have won" is being sort of silly; germany was thoroughly doomed once america entered the war.

It is rather hilarious to read youpeople with American comments talk like this.
kharma45
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:09 AM)
kharma45's Avatar

Originally Posted by Clear

Well, having just watched the entirety of The World At War on DVD... the overall impact is in a word... numbing. The scale and enormity of the horror is beyond comprehension.

EVERYONE SHOULD BE MADE TO WATCH THIS SERIES AT AN EARLY AGE.

The important thing is that it shows even in the aftermath of a war that can reasonably be considered "just", there is no triumph in victory. Merely relief that the sacrificial knives have been sheathed once more.

Remember. And pray to your God devoutly that it never happens again.

I really need to watch it start to finish some time, I've just picked out the episodes from it that were of most interest to me.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(03-05-2012, 01:14 AM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar
How realistic would it be for Hitler to win the war?
Insane Metal
Dispensed Internet Salt
(03-05-2012, 01:18 AM)
Insane Metal's Avatar
For anyone interested in the subject, I'd highly recommend "Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution" from BBC. It is incredibly well done, accurate in every single detail. It's not only about the concentration camp, it also focuses on specific topics of war. One of the best documentaries I've ever watched.
Proelite
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:19 AM)
Proelite's Avatar


King Tiger tank.

Heaviest tank to ever see combat in human history.

The tank destroyer variant is the largest combat vehicle to see action in human history.

Proelite
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:21 AM)
Proelite's Avatar
T-34 85,

The tank that won the war in the Eastern Front. Over 80,000 T-34s were built in WWII, compared to the 8,000 Panther V it is comparable against.

Ultratech
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:32 AM)
Ultratech's Avatar
I always found it interesting the stuff that the Nazi's were coming up with to fight the Allies.

I remember one in particular being a massive sound-based weapon that would flat out kill anyone within a certain range and cause deafness beyond that.
http://wweapons.blogspot.com/2011/02...nd-cannon.html


Of course, it wasn't just the Germans coming up with unique weapons:
http://www.unfinishedman.com/strange...-world-war-ii/

Weird Weapons of WWII
Napalm_Frank
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:39 AM)
Napalm_Frank's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ultratech

I always found it interesting the stuff that the Nazi's were coming up with to fight the Allies.

I remember one in particular being a massive sound-based weapon that would flat out kill anyone within a certain range and cause deafness beyond that.
http://wweapons.blogspot.com/2011/02...nd-cannon.html


Of course, it wasn't just the Germans coming up with unique weapons:
http://www.unfinishedman.com/strange...-world-war-ii/

Weird Weapons of WWII


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkr...._1500_Monster


Now those would have been pretty rad tanks :D.
antonz
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:44 AM)
antonz's Avatar
Maus Heavy Tank and E-100 were crazy designs that were close to seeing the battlefield if the war had gone on longer.


Maus Compared to the T-34 Russian Tank

Maus was about a 200 Ton tank with 128mm Gun whose secondary armament was a 75mm gun mounted alongside the 128mm


E-100 Was a 140+ Ton Tank with a 150-175mm Gun.

Then of course Hitler dreamed big with the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

P.1000 would have mounted a dual 11" battleship gun


Scale of P.1000 to Maus and Tiger
Razgriz-Specter
Member
(03-05-2012, 01:55 AM)
Razgriz-Specter's Avatar

Originally Posted by MutFox

I love how Americans justify the Atomic Bombs...
The justification in 1, maybe... Both?
The 2nd didn't need to be dropped, they just did it for the sake of doing it.
Lives mean nothing to some people.

Just glad my Grandfather survived the Nagasaki bomb, being 1.4KM away.
(I wouldn't have been born if he didn't survive.)

Japan still wouldn't surrender after the first one.

Other than that
I think General Patton was the best commander of the war. his death was a shame.
Last edited by Razgriz-Specter; 03-05-2012 at 02:05 AM.
yacobod
Banned
(03-05-2012, 02:11 AM)
yacobod's Avatar

Originally Posted by Razgriz-Specter

Japan still wouldn't surrender after the first one.

Other than that
I think General Patton was the best commander of the war. his death was a shame.

the best armies of world war 2 were germany and the soviet union. patton wouldn't even be in the top 5.

Thread Tools