JordanN
Banned
So why did Hitler fail to conquer Britain? Or why did he lose badly in Africa?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
As a non-American: How do you view the outcome of WW2?
- Thread starter TheFuzz
- Start date
- Status
So why did Hitler fail to conquer Britain? Or why did he lose badly in Africa?
Naw. The Soviets won the pivotal Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk before the Allies landed in Sicily. You could make the argument that the Allied invasion of Sicily won the Soviets the Battle of Kursk by having Hitler prevent Manstein from continuing his offensive, but most scholars agree that Manstein vastly underestimated the Soviet reserves (which were in reserve for a later counteroffensive) and would have lost the war of attrition had he continued.
Would the Soviets have been able to make it to Berlin? I think so, but it's debatable. But after that point it was pretty clear that the Germans were fighting to survive, not conquer.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Thats an FPS game about a war that isn't that well known, of course they would try appealing to the biggest common market.
He abandoned landing plans after the battle of Britain when the RAF asserted Air Superiority, we weren't an offensive force but defensive from the West. Africa would be best answered by someone else not really my strength tbh.
US propaganda as the "one hero" is certainly wrong, but its a bit more complex than "USSR did most of the heavy lifting."
Just look at Poland for example. 80% of it's Jewish population was exterminated and 17% of it's population in general was killed. The Russians drug a huge portion of their officer corps out in the woods and shot them. That's a tremendous burden for one country.
The Chinese Nationalists kept the Japanese distracted for a good portion of World War 2, as the Japanese slaughtered and sexually enslaved the civilian population.
A lot of people groups did a great deal of heavy lifting in World War II.
I am eternally grateful to the United States, and particularly her president at the time, for being in no small part responsible for the liberty and prosperity we enjoy today here in the Netherlands. The same goes for Canada and Britain, as well as the more minor allied nations. I recognise that the USSR is the main reason for Nazi Germany losing at all, but it's harder to experience the same gratitude considering that it too was an insane dictatorship ran by a complete paranoiac, and that for much of Europe it meant the exchange of one type of horrid dictatorship for a marginally less horrid one for decades to come.
As far as nuclear weapons go, America using them against Japan was absolutely the right call. The loss of human life from an invasion of the home islands would have been extreme on both sides. It's hard to be 'happy' about using such weapons, but when considering the alternatives, I believe it to be the correct choice.
As far as my own country in the war goes, we were naive and recognised the threat of German aggression far too late. After the invasion, we also were entirely too eager to cooperate in the persecution of our Jewish countrymen and volunteer rates for the Waffen SS were worryingly high. I think we have yet to fully accept our WW2 history. Then again, the same goes for our colonial history, so no real surprise there.
In fairness, Hitler only lost completely in Africa when the US had joined. Britain was on its own beating the shit out of Mussolini's Italy though, but that's not exactly surprising. As far as failing to conquer Britain, Germany had nothing like the naval capacity required for an invasion of the British isles. Any plans to conquer it were completely unrealistic from the start.
As far as nuclear weapons go, America using them against Japan was absolutely the right call. The loss of human life from an invasion of the home islands would have been extreme on both sides. It's hard to be 'happy' about using such weapons, but when considering the alternatives, I believe it to be the correct choice.
As far as my own country in the war goes, we were naive and recognised the threat of German aggression far too late. After the invasion, we also were entirely too eager to cooperate in the persecution of our Jewish countrymen and volunteer rates for the Waffen SS were worryingly high. I think we have yet to fully accept our WW2 history. Then again, the same goes for our colonial history, so no real surprise there.
In fairness, Hitler only lost completely in Africa when the US had joined. Britain was on its own beating the shit out of Mussolini's Italy though, but that's not exactly surprising. As far as failing to conquer Britain, Germany had nothing like the naval capacity required for an invasion of the British isles. Any plans to conquer it were completely unrealistic from the start.
We have no idea. I personally think it could have, but the aftermath would have not looked pretty.
Imagine the Soviets conquering all of Germany, and getting all their scientists, and you can also imagine them invading Japan as well.
If America hadn't been in the war, the Allies could have won, but the world would be a lot different today.
And not for the better, unless you're a fan of communism.
I used to think this was true. America actually pretty much did win WWII. The Soviet Union's contribution was useful, but America cutting off Germany's oil supply and the successful daylight bombing raids was the key to their defeat and collapse. The Pacific theatre was predominantly a naval thing, and almost entirely US-led.
The lend-lease program was a major factor in the Soviet Union's ability to survive the German onslaught.
The Soviet contribution to WWII is a heck of a lot less than people state, despite the massive loss of life that occurred on both sides in that arena. Germany lost because they lost the infrastructure, and that was heavily thanks to US Bombing. Without the US, the tide doesn't turn. Without the Soviet union, WWII just takes a couple years longer.
"The Soviets did the most in WWII" is one of those statements that you get from people who are just starting to learn about a topic and think they know everything.
One Eyed Willy
Member
American
War sucks, world war sucks. We stayed mostly out of it, besides supplies etc.. but then the Japanese sucker punched us and forced our hand. They thought less of us since we were a young country, but rich in resources and eager to fight men they overlooked. In Europe we helped to turn the tide, but winning that war front was 100% an allied mission. The Soviets did more on the east honestly and pushed into Berlin before the west got there. They sacrificed more, but ultimately their sacrifice was a distraction and Hitler was stupid to go to war on 2 fronts, so it was a losing decision for him.
The pacific was a costly war for America. Massive chunks of our naval fleet were obliterated, but we leaned on carriers to win the islands back and we picked up steam after Midway. However, Okinawa was a complete and utter fucking nightmare for our Marines. We had tens of thousands of casualties fighting a dug in and passionate Japanese. Once we took it, it was very widely known that we would only meet an even heavier resistance if we landed on mainland Japan. The Japanese knew it, we knew it.. most everyone knew it. Mainland invasion would have been hundreds of thousands of casualties, including US Marines.
We even we so far as to actually tell Japan we are going to bomb them twice, but they failed to comply before Truman made his decision. The war was ended.
War sucks, world war sucks. We stayed mostly out of it, besides supplies etc.. but then the Japanese sucker punched us and forced our hand. They thought less of us since we were a young country, but rich in resources and eager to fight men they overlooked. In Europe we helped to turn the tide, but winning that war front was 100% an allied mission. The Soviets did more on the east honestly and pushed into Berlin before the west got there. They sacrificed more, but ultimately their sacrifice was a distraction and Hitler was stupid to go to war on 2 fronts, so it was a losing decision for him.
The pacific was a costly war for America. Massive chunks of our naval fleet were obliterated, but we leaned on carriers to win the islands back and we picked up steam after Midway. However, Okinawa was a complete and utter fucking nightmare for our Marines. We had tens of thousands of casualties fighting a dug in and passionate Japanese. Once we took it, it was very widely known that we would only meet an even heavier resistance if we landed on mainland Japan. The Japanese knew it, we knew it.. most everyone knew it. Mainland invasion would have been hundreds of thousands of casualties, including US Marines.
We even we so far as to actually tell Japan we are going to bomb them twice, but they failed to comply before Truman made his decision. The war was ended.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
British. The US didn't stop us from speaking German. The US did get us out of stalemate in the middle of France though. The US would have been fighting an expensive and dangerous campaign but for the Eastern front and most likely would not have won Europe had it not been for Russia.
The A-Bombs I'm mixed about. A display of force was needed to stop the ridiculous cult of personality starving out the civilian population to extinction. For the Americans, an unseen bomb helped repel Soviet advance in the North of Japan. Hiroshima was...barely appropriate for a target, Nagasaki wasn't necessary at all.
Japan got off exceptionally easy, and the Chinese got screwed over by a nominal ally. I'd be pissed too if I was Chinese and those behind my Holocaust were spared the rope. The Japanese government has little right to play the victim and certainly shouldn't feel offended by South Korean comfort women statues; you paying them a few yen doesn't qualify their enslavement. Survivors of the a-bomb and those that were affected should be allowed to seek reparations.
The A-Bombs I'm mixed about. A display of force was needed to stop the ridiculous cult of personality starving out the civilian population to extinction. For the Americans, an unseen bomb helped repel Soviet advance in the North of Japan. Hiroshima was...barely appropriate for a target, Nagasaki wasn't necessary at all.
Japan got off exceptionally easy, and the Chinese got screwed over by a nominal ally. I'd be pissed too if I was Chinese and those behind my Holocaust were spared the rope. The Japanese government has little right to play the victim and certainly shouldn't feel offended by South Korean comfort women statues; you paying them a few yen doesn't qualify their enslavement. Survivors of the a-bomb and those that were affected should be allowed to seek reparations.
The RN and the RAF. Sealion was a meme, nothing more. Never had any realistic chance of succeeding.
Because Rommel was an overrated commander on anything other than a tactical level and like the rest of the Nazi Military refused to acknowledge that their logistics and supply lines sucked by continuously outrunning and or cannibalizing them and then proceeding to blame the Italians(Who ironically had a much better and more stable supply line.).
GreenMonkey
Member
Yeah.
I'm not a WW2 geek (my favorite classes in my history degree were civil rights / Black history and cold-war related). But the Japanese willingness for peace wasn't much of a sure thing at all. Sure some people were for it, but higher leadership was not on board yet.
Funny thing is I'm reading a book on the battle for Stalingrad right now. (Battle where the Soviets stopped the Germans).
I'm not that well educated on the dropping of the first bomb, but from what I have absorbed, the first bomb was probably needed. Honesty the repeated firebombing of multiple Japanese cities was already going on. (Anyone watch The Fog of War documentary? They cover how much of many large cities we'd already burned mostly to the ground).
That said, it doesn't sound like the military briefed the President on the target very honestly from the episode of Radiolab I just listened to on it. It didn't sound like he really knew how many civilian casualties were going to go with the military ones.
Bomb 2 is where the real debate is, much more than bomb 1.
The Allies won the war, anyone who says a specific nation won seemingly has an agenda.
Russian Armies would have starved if not for the U.S. , Germany might never have needed to unconditionally surrender if not for the U.S.S.R. Europe would have been dominated by Germany if not for the British.
Russian Armies would have starved if not for the U.S. , Germany might never have needed to unconditionally surrender if not for the U.S.S.R. Europe would have been dominated by Germany if not for the British.
Ya...But that discounts the people. They by all reports were tired of war. But the American military was protraying them as mindless savages willing to die man woman and child. I firmly believe that wasn't true. I also believe the Hawks were in the minority and didn't include the emperor. America wanted to test it's shiny new weapon..Both types, and wanted the world to know about it. Japan was largely raised to the ground at that point. Its navy decimated. A navy blockade was all that was needed. Truman wanted to wave his new bomb around.
Britain was an interesting case. Hitler actually believed that after the fall of France, Britain would join with Germany in fighting the Russians. This is mind-boggling, but Hitler was convinced of it.
Hitler was unable to build a traditional Navy during his militarization, so a traditional amphibious strike was unavailable. This meant the blitzkrieg, the bread and butter of German WW2 military victories, was unavailable. American money and supplies poured into Britain during the Battle of Britain, and the British made several key advances in air technology (radar among others) that prevented the Germans from achieving air superiority.
The African campaign was a bumbling mess for the Americans at first. They were badly disorganized, and not ready for a war at all, let alone a war in a desert. Eventually, through a combination of the right generals, a redistribution of troops and supplies to the Russian front, and Enigma intercepts, the Allies were able to succeed in Africa.
WaterAstro
Member
I would say no one won. Soviets lost so much even if they took a lot of land.
Americans benefited the most from the war since they kicked themselves into gear, shifted populations to major cities to start the war machine, and simply reshaped their country into a superpower.
Uruguayan.
At least you guys brought a little bit of excitement over here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate
At least you guys brought a little bit of excitement over here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate
America didn't want it. They ran the numbers. Invading Japan for Operation Downfall was conservatively estimated to kill around a million US Troops alone. Even more Japanese soldiers and civilians.
For comparison, 407,000 US Soldiers died in WWII.
Killing 225,000 people in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings was vastly more humane.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Nagasaki was not the primary target of the 2nd bomb, it was a major screw up. "The story of ww2" does a great job telling its story and how royalty messed up that 2nd bombing mission was. The whole crew should have been court marshaled for not following orders and breaking several major rules set for before the flight (like no radar bombing)
Napalm_Frank
Member
As a finn it's kinda fucked up but US joining relatively late was a good thing. In fact despite us losing the war the outcome couldn't have been much better. Some other Soviet neighbours weren't so lucky.
Battle of Okinawa
Of the 117,000 Japanese troops defending Okinawa, 94 percent died.
U.S. Army records from the planning phase of the operation make the assumption that Okinawa was home to about 300,000 civilians. According to various estimates, between one tenth and one third of them died during the battle
The emperor had to break the tie to surrender...
Edit: And then had to survive a coup attempt
WaterAstro
Member
The Japanese killed themselves more than getting killed really... when they were taking the pacific islands.
So yeah, the nukes were needed because the Japanese were near fanatical and would kill themselves and their children before surrendering. American needed to literally demoralize them so that they don't even think about "honor".
MadJackChurchill
Banned
I believe my town was the primary target, but they altered course due to cloudy weather
Hitler was a weird Anglophile supposedly, don't know how much the media here overstates that though.
Brazilian here. I find the use of the nuclear bombs in WW2 a necessary evil. If they didn't use them, the amount of life lost from both sides would be enormous.
And about the war itself, USSR and the US have equal parts in the defeat of the nazi regime. I don't think USSR would have success in the East without the US/Britain effort in the West.
Like many here I wished that US enter in the war earlier but as some people pointed, US didn't want to get involved with the war.
And about the war itself, USSR and the US have equal parts in the defeat of the nazi regime. I don't think USSR would have success in the East without the US/Britain effort in the West.
Like many here I wished that US enter in the war earlier but as some people pointed, US didn't want to get involved with the war.
Fair summary I think.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Australian.
Outcome in Europe:
The USSR more or less gained control of the whole area where their armies ended in WWII. Despite promising free elections in Poland, no such thing took place, and they even executed a coup to take control of Czechoslovakia. Their satellite states in Europe operated semi-autonomously, but when the Soviets thought that they deviated too far from their accepted norms, they fabricated civil unrest and then marched in troops to "restore order" by force. This was obviously not a good outcome, however Soviet control of Eastern Europe was a fact on the ground. There was no way to truly oppose it without simply going to war to drive the Red Army out. Roosevelt and (reluctantly) Churchill agreed that attempting to maintain the wartime alliance between the USSR, UK and USA was more important than trying to strictly stick to their principles and fight for "a square deal for Poland" or kick the Soviets out of Eastern Europe.
Straight after WWII we saw the Greek Civil War, then not long after that the Berlin Airlift and the Soviet atomic bomb. The Peace was definitely messy. Although initially reluctant to poke and provoke the Western Allies, after they had drastically reduced their force commitment to Europe and the war came to an end, it became increasingly tempting for Stalin to see what he could get. The Soviets for their part knew they had the strongest hand in Europe and were not afraid to show it to push for more and more.
The Marshall Plan was one ray of sunshine to come out of the fuckery. The American commitment to rebuild Europe was absolutely needed, and helped to rebuild the slowly recovering states of Europe. It was not singularly responsible for recoveries, but was greatly appreciated. Countries in the Soviet Sphere were offered help, but there was never much of a serious belief that they would take it. Yugoslavia, breaking relations with Moscow, did go along with it however.
Overall, the outcome with a net positive (i.e. Soviet domination and Cold War tensions were preferable to Fascist occupation of the whole contienent), but still highly flawed. I do not believe a significantly better outcome was possible under the circumstances.
Outcome in East / South / South East Asia:
The end of WWII signaled the final days of colonialism in Asia. French Indochina would soon revolt, the Dutch Colonies would seek independence, India was in the process of getting independence and the Malayan emergency would not be far behind. The Korean split would go on to cause the Korean War after the Soviets and Chinese agreed to support the invasion of South Korea, a conflict which is still causing us problems today.
Outcome in the Middle East:
World War II also signaled the final days of direct rule over the Middle East for European powers. The creation of the state of Israel alongside the independence of the Arab states was a recipe for disaster - we saw a war almost immediately in this region and once again, instability persists to this day. While sympathizing with the desire for a homeland, Israel being created as a Jewish state carved out from Palestine (as opposed to Palestine being a Jewish-Arab state) was a large mistake in my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the world was a very interesting place immediately after the end of the war. It's a good thing that the Germans and Japanese were defeated decisively, however the new world was by no means a perfect one, or even a good one. From an allied perspective, Stalin having control over so much of the world outside of the USSR's borders was an inevitable fact on the ground. I certainly do not believe they should have fought a World War straight away in an attempt to right that wrong.
OP also asks about the atomic bombs, which I feel is quite a different question to asking how I feel about the post-war world in general.
In my opinion, the atomic bombings were an extension of strategic bombing in general. I do not consider them morally separate from the mass air raids that were commonplace in the final years of the war. If you have already decided that it's ok to level a city with a fleet of conventional bombers, then surely it must also be ok to level a city with a single bomb. I consider all strategic bombing, conventional or not, to have been a tragedy.
The separate question of "was the bombing justified" is more challenging to answer. I do not believe there is any compelling evidence (and yes, I've looked) for the thesis that the Americans knowingly used the bombs for nefarious secondary purposes while knowing that the Japanese would surrender as soon as the Soviets attacked.
Outcome in Europe:
- Destruction of the Fascist states of Europe.
- France, BeNeLux, Denmark, Norway liberated.
- New governments established in Italy and Greece, the latter going on to fight a civil war between Communist and government forces immediately after WWII.
- Soviet Annexation of Polish and German territory acknowledged by UK, USA.
- German Territory west of Poland's pre-war borders granted to Poland.
- Ethnic Germans expelled from territories annexed by USSR and Poland.
- Soviet Union establishing puppet communist governments in Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia.
- Occupation of Germany by UK, France, USA, USSR, eventually consolidated into Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).
- Berlin divided between occupying powers.
- Yugoslavia ruled by local communists, independently of Moscow
- Independence granted to Austria and Austrian neutrality respected by all parties.
- Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe put into effect.
- Beginnings of the Cold War.
The USSR more or less gained control of the whole area where their armies ended in WWII. Despite promising free elections in Poland, no such thing took place, and they even executed a coup to take control of Czechoslovakia. Their satellite states in Europe operated semi-autonomously, but when the Soviets thought that they deviated too far from their accepted norms, they fabricated civil unrest and then marched in troops to "restore order" by force. This was obviously not a good outcome, however Soviet control of Eastern Europe was a fact on the ground. There was no way to truly oppose it without simply going to war to drive the Red Army out. Roosevelt and (reluctantly) Churchill agreed that attempting to maintain the wartime alliance between the USSR, UK and USA was more important than trying to strictly stick to their principles and fight for "a square deal for Poland" or kick the Soviets out of Eastern Europe.
Straight after WWII we saw the Greek Civil War, then not long after that the Berlin Airlift and the Soviet atomic bomb. The Peace was definitely messy. Although initially reluctant to poke and provoke the Western Allies, after they had drastically reduced their force commitment to Europe and the war came to an end, it became increasingly tempting for Stalin to see what he could get. The Soviets for their part knew they had the strongest hand in Europe and were not afraid to show it to push for more and more.
The Marshall Plan was one ray of sunshine to come out of the fuckery. The American commitment to rebuild Europe was absolutely needed, and helped to rebuild the slowly recovering states of Europe. It was not singularly responsible for recoveries, but was greatly appreciated. Countries in the Soviet Sphere were offered help, but there was never much of a serious belief that they would take it. Yugoslavia, breaking relations with Moscow, did go along with it however.
Overall, the outcome with a net positive (i.e. Soviet domination and Cold War tensions were preferable to Fascist occupation of the whole contienent), but still highly flawed. I do not believe a significantly better outcome was possible under the circumstances.
Outcome in East / South / South East Asia:
- Occupation of Japan and reorganization of Japanese Government
- Soviet occupation of Manchuria; territory later turned over along with captured munitions to Chinese Communist party.
- Stage set for resumption of Chinese Civil War.
- Korea jointly occupied by Soviets (North) and Americans (South).
- Dutch East Indies returned to Netherlands officially; Indonesia declares independence.
- French Colonial territory returned to France; wars of independence would soon begin.
- Indian independence begins to be worked out, hesitantly.
- Thailand experiences internal power struggles but avoids occupation or notable reparations.
The end of WWII signaled the final days of colonialism in Asia. French Indochina would soon revolt, the Dutch Colonies would seek independence, India was in the process of getting independence and the Malayan emergency would not be far behind. The Korean split would go on to cause the Korean War after the Soviets and Chinese agreed to support the invasion of South Korea, a conflict which is still causing us problems today.
Outcome in the Middle East:
- Creation of Israel
- Lebanese Independence
- Syrian Independence
- Independence of Jordan
- Egyptian Independence
- Independence of Iraq
World War II also signaled the final days of direct rule over the Middle East for European powers. The creation of the state of Israel alongside the independence of the Arab states was a recipe for disaster - we saw a war almost immediately in this region and once again, instability persists to this day. While sympathizing with the desire for a homeland, Israel being created as a Jewish state carved out from Palestine (as opposed to Palestine being a Jewish-Arab state) was a large mistake in my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the world was a very interesting place immediately after the end of the war. It's a good thing that the Germans and Japanese were defeated decisively, however the new world was by no means a perfect one, or even a good one. From an allied perspective, Stalin having control over so much of the world outside of the USSR's borders was an inevitable fact on the ground. I certainly do not believe they should have fought a World War straight away in an attempt to right that wrong.
OP also asks about the atomic bombs, which I feel is quite a different question to asking how I feel about the post-war world in general.
In my opinion, the atomic bombings were an extension of strategic bombing in general. I do not consider them morally separate from the mass air raids that were commonplace in the final years of the war. If you have already decided that it's ok to level a city with a fleet of conventional bombers, then surely it must also be ok to level a city with a single bomb. I consider all strategic bombing, conventional or not, to have been a tragedy.
The separate question of "was the bombing justified" is more challenging to answer. I do not believe there is any compelling evidence (and yes, I've looked) for the thesis that the Americans knowingly used the bombs for nefarious secondary purposes while knowing that the Japanese would surrender as soon as the Soviets attacked.
Having read a bunch of histories of the American bombings of Japan in WWII, it is my belief that American firebombing was vastly more horrifying than nuclear weapons. Japanese buildings were largely made out of wood, and the heat generated during these bombings was so intense that people and buildings were swept up into the air. I remember reading a story of one woman who survived only because she stayed underwater. When she emerged, she found ash corpses of people all around.
Napalm is so much worse than a nuke.
They wanted to hit Kokura, but then a fuel pump broke, Big Stink had screwed up royally, the mission commander/weapons officer insisted they wait for Big Stink, the Yawata Steel Works burned tar + previous day's bombing meant that they couldn't see Kokura. Lots of other stuff went wrong.
Here's somethin I found with a quick google search:
Russia would not have been able to endure without US support.
Napalm is so much worse than a nuke.
They wanted to hit Kokura, but then a fuel pump broke, Big Stink had screwed up royally, the mission commander/weapons officer insisted they wait for Big Stink, the Yawata Steel Works burned tar + previous day's bombing meant that they couldn't see Kokura. Lots of other stuff went wrong.
Here's somethin I found with a quick google search:
Russia would not have been able to endure without US support.
tearsintherain
Member
One thing to keep in mind about the nukes is that the world in 1943 really had no way to really conceptualize atomic weapons. Nowadays everyone knows from movies and TV that nukes are really, really, really bad but in the 1940s bombs meant waves and waves of regular ordnance, very destructive yes but you are talking maybe a few hundred or thousand people dying over an entire day of bombing. The idea of killing 100,000 people in a few seconds would just be completely inconceivable.
So yeah, it was probably very much a "capability" demonstration, not just to Japan but to the rest of the world the destructive power of this new weapon.
The scary thing is the next big tech advance in weapons is probably going to require a similar demonstration to show the world what the next big power is capable of. Can you really conceptualize a bioweapon that would only kill males between the ages of 12-40 or sterilizes all the females in an area? Or a micro singularity weapon that completely annihilates every living thing in a 1000 kilometer radius? I wonder how scary the future is gonna be sometimes.
So yeah, it was probably very much a "capability" demonstration, not just to Japan but to the rest of the world the destructive power of this new weapon.
The scary thing is the next big tech advance in weapons is probably going to require a similar demonstration to show the world what the next big power is capable of. Can you really conceptualize a bioweapon that would only kill males between the ages of 12-40 or sterilizes all the females in an area? Or a micro singularity weapon that completely annihilates every living thing in a 1000 kilometer radius? I wonder how scary the future is gonna be sometimes.
You're talking about the man who is the living embodiment of god on earth. Japanese society especially at that time was based around him. The Hawks wouldnt have gotten far with a coup. The reason the didn't want to surrender was so the emperor wouldnt lose face, but you're saying they would have deposed him?? Unlikely and the citizenry wouldn't have stood for it.
A naval blockade was all that was needed.. but the Americans needed to show the Soviets their new weapon.
Well put.
That's not true in the slightest...
Operation MeetingHouse AKA tokyo firebombing 1 night
There was still a tie in deciding to surrender after both atomic bombings AND the Soviet Invasion. You're really underestimating the hawks.
Unless something is significantly altered I see MAD reigning. Even if you go use some still to be imagine bio weapon that can inflict army aged deathblow you still gotta deal with a dead man's switch of nukes to your major cities.
Edit - essentially when you have the nukes we do now that can wipe out multiple entire metropolitan areas and the resulting crippling of a nation it would still give those with stronger​ weapons pause.
Canadian..
Soviet Union - Responsible for defeating the Wehrmacht and turning the tide of the war on the Eastern Front.
Great Britain - Remained on the defensive in the Mediterranean Theater and the British Isle. Launched sabotage/infiltration campaigns well into D-Day.
USA - Supported the Allies with Lend-Lease. Responsible for defeating the Japanese in the Pacific and spear-headed the Allied offensive on the Western Front (Italy and Normandy).
China - Got knocked around by Imperial Japan and Communists until the US showed up.
Soviet Union - Responsible for defeating the Wehrmacht and turning the tide of the war on the Eastern Front.
Great Britain - Remained on the defensive in the Mediterranean Theater and the British Isle. Launched sabotage/infiltration campaigns well into D-Day.
USA - Supported the Allies with Lend-Lease. Responsible for defeating the Japanese in the Pacific and spear-headed the Allied offensive on the Western Front (Italy and Normandy).
China - Got knocked around by Imperial Japan and Communists until the US showed up.
JordanN
Banned
For the soldiers and civilians who weren't aware of the Manhattan project, I would agree. But the scientists who clearly tested the first bomb before Little Boy and Fat Man were aware. They even knew about the radiation as well because they wore special shoes to not attract fallout.
While the bombs were necessary, they were still more evil than the regular bombing. Survivors and their children were doomed to living with radiation illnesses and deformities. That's just not possible with conventional bombs.
The Hawks actually did attempt a coup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
Thank God it didn't succeed.
Seductivpancakes
Member
Why should we have been there day one?
TheSchwab_7
Member
USA here. I recently watched a Hiroshima documentary that suggested the atomic bomb was being built to be used on Germany, but was instead used as a show of force against the Japanese. They argue that the whole millions of lives saved was an excuse to drop it.
The USSR doesn't get enough credit for their role in WW2. They made it a hell of a lot easier for the allies in the Eastern front.
At least Germany recognizes their history while we got states still wishing they were in the Confederacy.
The USSR doesn't get enough credit for their role in WW2. They made it a hell of a lot easier for the allies in the Eastern front.
At least Germany recognizes their history while we got states still wishing they were in the Confederacy.
Poland was never part of the Soviet Union.
Painting Soviet losses during World War II as the result of a "mad man" appraisal of that country's leader is extremely superficial, and acknowledging you're making a bad point immediately afterward doesn't change that you're making a bad point.
2blackcats
Member
This is very true.
JordanN
Banned
Fun fact: Before the U.S and UK launched their invasion into Europe, there was another raid lead by Canada 2 years earlier (albeit it ended in failure).
Hadn't heard of that but it's seems it was a small faction of the military and war ministry with little support outside that, including the military leadership, the government or the Emperor. But yes this was after the bombs as well. But I think a naval blockade cutting them off completely and continued bombing would have accomplished this by the end of 1945, maybe 1946. Their country was decimated with no way to strike back at off shore targets.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Even if the US was there ''day 1'' (whatever that even means, invasion of Poland?) it would present the problem of Soviets being much better geared toward their own invasion deeper into europe since Barbarossa wouldn't have happened. It could have resulted in even bigger disaster of communist rule in europe or anglosphere going to war with the Soviets.
Documentaries are very rarely good history. They usually have a clear agenda they are trying to sell to a certain audience. The bomb was not ready in time for Germany, the Trinity test occurred in the summer of 1945 after Germany's surrender.
A civil war is very different from a war between countries. A civil war is usually going to have supporters on both sides, even after the war. Also there are still neo Nazis in Germany.
matt360
Member
I am American, but I have been living in Hiroshima for the past 11 years. I see the Atomic Bomb Dome daily and I still can't say whether or not I think it was the right decision. I do think people saying the Japanese were ready to throw in the towel are wrong. Any country willing to use kamikaze techniques would surely end up fighting to the last man, and anyone who knows anything about Japan can understand why the Japanese would not give up. So in that sense I absolutely believe that the a-bombs ended up saving lives in the end. Also, as terrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, I would rather have been a part of that than been present during the Tokyo firebombings and similar such raids. I fail to see how those are any more humane, yet nobody has a problem with those. Nagasaki was most certainly overkill.
Finally, I find the Japanese attitude and mindset regarding their involvement in the war to be very disturbing. Nobody here feels like Japan did anything wrong. They are perpetually the victim. For as much whining as China and Korea do about stuff that happened in the past, I do feel that if I were Chinese or Korean, I'd probably hate Japan too.
Finally, I find the Japanese attitude and mindset regarding their involvement in the war to be very disturbing. Nobody here feels like Japan did anything wrong. They are perpetually the victim. For as much whining as China and Korea do about stuff that happened in the past, I do feel that if I were Chinese or Korean, I'd probably hate Japan too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked