So when we were a part of forming a Jewish state in the Middle East? Is that what you are going for?
-
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 when we were a part of forming a Jewish state in the Middle East? Is that what you are going for?
Eisenhower disagreed.
Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."
Oh....And these other unimportant silly military guys...But ya...Crazy theory.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki under opposition
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[83][84] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey, Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
 Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [75]
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's opinion polls taken just after the war, then in the 90's, then in 2004. It's basically asking which country was most responsible for the defeat of Germany (Allemagne = Germans).
AcademicSaucer
Member
Learn your history, overthrow of the democratically elected government of Syria , country that is a shithole right now in civil war and is controlled by a dictator btw.
To be clear, I absolutely agree. Bataan, the Polish officer murders, and especially the Rape of Nanking (just because Chinese suffering is criminally overlooked during World War II) should get far more attention in a course covering World War II.
I used to think the nuclear bomb was a bit much.. until I read about Operation Ten-Go. Japan sending their flagship yamato on a suicide mission like it was a kamikaze plane. Death before dishonor. Japan would have lost alot more people due to 'honor' if it wasnt for the bombs.
I also think Churchill is probably one of historys greatest monsters starting with that whole artificial famine deal(I think he might be the only person to do this, though I havent checked.) And apparently the middle east borders were largely created by him? we can probably attribute most ongoing conflicts in the middle east to that monster.
Im Canadian. Kinda sickens me that we have so many landmarks with his name on it.
I also think Churchill is probably one of historys greatest monsters starting with that whole artificial famine deal(I think he might be the only person to do this, though I havent checked.) And apparently the middle east borders were largely created by him? we can probably attribute most ongoing conflicts in the middle east to that monster.
Im Canadian. Kinda sickens me that we have so many landmarks with his name on it.
Agree with this. Kinda disgusting how the US government was milking UK instead of helping out, despite a lot of Americans feeling that they should step in already. Also Canadian here.
This reference often misses the post war context in which many of these men found themselves in, particularly military related. At least 2 branches were fighting for their very existence while the Air Force tried to essentially say that Nuking everything would solve all problems.
So basically people who lived through the war stating the first liberators they saw. Russians in the case, and generations after the fact skewing more towards Americans? I am not arguing with the facts, just wondering if I am interpreting correctly.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Whew lad, thems be cans of worms that even I don't have the mental fortitude to go into right now. Churchill definitely did not create an artificial famine however the situation surrounding the Bengal famine in WWII is a hot button historical topic albeit not a widely discussed one outside of certain circles.
Churchill also didn't create the borders of the middle east, certainly not alone, and I would also argue that those borders were by no means the only or even primary drivers of conflict. But I can't cope with a full deep dive onto this topic right now.
Churchill was an asshole and a racist but he's also like a lightning rod for blame even for things where he wasn't responsible.
It's just saying that immediately post war people were much more prone to say the Soviets contributed the most, while later generations believed Americans contributed the most. It's average citizens so it reflects a combination of factors, ranging from lack of proper education to cold war era sentiment lingering to popular depiction in films and TV. Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan are fresh in people's memory in 2004, and as dumb as it sounds for a lot of people pop culture is their primarily historical education. The soviets also massively downplayed the contributions of the west to the point where they basically tried to argue that their help was worthless and Uncle Joe did it all himself.
It is not about me learning my history, your post was so vague that I was curious which event you were describing 4 years after WW2 where the US went wrong. I just wanted to know what historical event you were referencing. We were involved in a ton of stuff 4 years after WW2.
I fail to see how that matters. Post war was a different story. Not only are these men across all branches of the military it is in reference to Japanese surrender and they felt it was imminent. Them fighting amongst themselves post war was concerning new threats, ie Soviets, Cubans, Chinese Vietnamese, different wars different times. They felt against Japan...They werent needed and surrender was coming.
While we can easily say this in retrospect, I think it is important to look back at the time period. Since there was no social media back then among a lot of other things, it would be hard to really know what was going on over there. And yes, I think any human being would have a hard time believing that such an atrocity of that volume was happening without seeing it themselves.
And the contrary argument within his own link. States unconditional surrender and regime change wasn't even the table and any talk of surrendering was carried out by individuals without the ability to actually enact it.
As a German I feel incredibly grateful for the US involvement during and especially after the war. I guess the US contribution post war has been tremendously more meaningful than their war efforts which is not saying the latter haven't been significant or less significant than others.
The Federal Republic surely wouldn't be what it is today without the US.
The Federal Republic surely wouldn't be what it is today without the US.
My guess? The Cold War is probably to blame for the lessening view of the Soviet's dominant role in stopping Hitler. The Americans helped the French resistance liberate Paris and push the Nazis out of France, and as such the French were more likely to view the US in a more positive light compared to Russia once the Cold War began.
And obviously France has become one of the US' biggest allies in that time, combined with the fact that Russia has a James Bond villain for a leader now.
Probably wouldnt care either.. I mean, while the jews were getting round up in germany back in america it still wasnt a federal crime to kill a black man :/
Australian
It was ultimately a very good thing that the US got involved, but the arrogance common to US citizens to do with WW2 is somewhat misplaced. While Americans often view themselves as heroes swooping in to save the rest of the allies, it's worth remembering that the US didn't join the war until after the Pearl Harbour attack (as has been said many times in this thread). Vengeance was the motivating factor, rather than altruism.
As for the Atomic bombs, I have a somewhat conflicted view of their use. While dropping the bombs seemed to have been the best option at the time, there were many other factors in play an many other options to choose. So I'm not totally convinced that they were the best course of action, even though they almost certainly ended the war.
It was ultimately a very good thing that the US got involved, but the arrogance common to US citizens to do with WW2 is somewhat misplaced. While Americans often view themselves as heroes swooping in to save the rest of the allies, it's worth remembering that the US didn't join the war until after the Pearl Harbour attack (as has been said many times in this thread). Vengeance was the motivating factor, rather than altruism.
As for the Atomic bombs, I have a somewhat conflicted view of their use. While dropping the bombs seemed to have been the best option at the time, there were many other factors in play an many other options to choose. So I'm not totally convinced that they were the best course of action, even though they almost certainly ended the war.
WaterAstro
Member
Yeah, there were also stories of how families would throw their babies off the cliff and themselves before surrendering. Japan was literally insane.
The entire war sucks.
The point is the guy he responded to put up casualty numbers and used that as a point of the Soviets "winning WW2".
It makes no sense to use such a number as a benchmark, when the primary reason the Soviets lost so many lives was due to Stalin ordering no retreats and purging his own military ranks, he himself is responsible for millions of Russian lives lost.
What you are suggesting would cost more lives than the atomic bomb, you do realize that right? Not only are you starving them, you are constantly firebombing them.
Being defeated and acknowledging defeat are not equivalent you know. It doesn't matter that they were technically defeated if they will still resist an occupation and governmental change which was necessary.
I think a lot of you who post that the atom bomb being unnecessary have no idea about WW2 history on the pacific. There was no "Japan ready to unconditionally surrender" even to the Soviets and the Soviets did not have the resources to invade mainland Japan to get them to surrender either. Anyone who brings up the Soviets threatening Japan completely shows they don't know anything about it lol.
The only ones who had such resources to even consider it was U.S and Britain. The only other option was a blockade and continued bombing, which would kill more Japanese civilians than the atomic bomb have.
It should be noted that Eisenhower was on the Western front, not the Pacific. I am sure he heard of how the Japanese fight, but hearing and leading an army and seeing it are completely different.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I wouldn't say this point is very important. You could also argue that Poland fought back only because they were attacked and so it was all vengeance and so it's greedy. You can seldom find an altruistic war in history. When countries are defending others it's usually out of geopolitical interest.
More specifically though, America was probably going to be at war with Germany even in the absence of Pearl Harbor. America reintroduced conscription, was rearming, and was fighting an undeclared war on the Kreigsmarine in the Atlantic prior to December 1941. The Americans took over occupation duties in Iceland and Greenland to free up British soldiers for the fighting. They signed the Lend Lease act to help the British and Soviets. Incidents were occurring with American merchants and other civilians being sunk by U-Boats with semi-regularity. All signs point towards American entry in the war, most likely some time in 1942 if things continued along that path. Same Casus Belli as the First World War - "Stop Sinking Our Ships You Assholes".
Hitler technically declared war on America, but he felt safe in doing so because America joining the war was pretty much a formality at that point and he knew that America was not strong enough to invade anytime soon. He figured he had more to gain by hopefully convincing the Japanese to attack the USSR than he had to lose by an earlier entry into the war by the Americans. Considering the Americans don't end up landing on the continent until 1943, at which point his defeat was already assured, that turns out to have been a correct assessment. Problem for Hitler was the Japanese had no interest in fighting the Soviets.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I wonder which countries would aid the US had like Canada and Mexico decided to gangbang it.
Well obviously Japanese lives weren't a concern to the Allied war effort. I'm saying these guys who keep bringing up it saved so many American lives are full of shit. A blockade and bombing campaign would have brought surrender eventually and cost very few American lives. These head of military at the time (not these arm chair warriors 70 years later) also saw it as happening without the bombs, most felt it was very close. Also starving and standard bombing raids (even fire) are survivable..Radiation poisoning is not. Neither is vaporization.
Also the other opposed Generals and Admirals I posted were from the Pacific and theatre was under their direct command (MacArthur, Nimitz, LeMay, Hasley)
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
 Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [75]
Furthermore..Most Japanese outside of those two cities knew very little of the bombings. News probably didn't reach them fully of its power for weeks or months. The Japanese government activity censored the first one and its not like today in the age of 24hr news cycles and live from the scene. They didn't all see the destruction and cower in fear of America's might.
No their Emperor said we now surrender and they have a powerful new bomb. They didn't continue to resist. They took his word for it, most having zero first hand knowledge at all. And if I remember correctly the occupying Americans faced little to no armed resistance. There weren't armed insurgents waiting to fight back. Hidden guerillas like in Iraq. Kamikaze attacks throughout the 50s. The Emperor said we surrender..And they did completly. That's all America needed.
university in australia... taught us to consider the arguments of using it to stop war vs a long ground game in asia
america late but helped secure more definitive win
most of it focuses on pre nazi appeasement hitlers aggressiveness/nazi propoganda, russian winter and i guess weapons development
america late but helped secure more definitive win
most of it focuses on pre nazi appeasement hitlers aggressiveness/nazi propoganda, russian winter and i guess weapons development
SciencePilot
Member
I'm American, but wanted to put in my 2 cents:
I'm just happy the war ended with neither Germany nor the Soviet Union taking over all of Europe. I think a lot of people don't realize how close the world came to both possibilities.
I'm just happy the war ended with neither Germany nor the Soviet Union taking over all of Europe. I think a lot of people don't realize how close the world came to both possibilities.
- Germany swept Western Europe pretty quickly, then started conquering Eastern Europe, though they were stopped when they finally moved on the Soviet Union directly. But if they hadn't been turned around there, all of Europe would have been one Nazi empire.
- At the end of WW2, the Soviet Union had an army bigger than the rest of the world's armies combined. If the United Stated hadn't invented the atomic bomb at the precise moment they did, the Soviet Union would have become the world's sole, unchallenged superpower at the end of WW2. They would have been in a good position to take over the rest of Europe if they wanted -- or at the very least, exert incredible influence over it.
KonradLaw
Member
That's because people like to praise the good guys. Hard to praise russians when they were just as bad as nazis and started the war allied with germany.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Ok so there's a train going down the railroad, and it can't be stopped. It's going down one path, but there is a switch to make it go down the other path. Down one path the train will kill millions of civilians. If you switch the tracks, it will go down the other path that will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.
This is the argument in a nut shell. Without using historical foresight, what would your solution be to the invasion of Japan? Would you invade the whole country, or would you drop the bomb? There's no guarantee the bomb will force a surrender. Keep in mind that at the same time, every day regular bombers raid Japanese cities, and the naval blockade of Japan kills more and more civilians through starvation.
At Yalta Churchill and Roosevelt pushed for a compromise between the Soviet-installed government and the London government in exile. The Soviet compromise was that an "enlarged" government would contain a few members of the London government, while free-and-fair elections would be held within a few months.
Stalin was presumably struggling to suppress laughter during this, but it wasn't immediately obvious on the ground that the elections would end up being a total sham. Stalin appeared at least superficially to be cooperating on many issues.
Even if they did not believe Stalin, it's not clear what they could have done about it. Poland was under direct Soviet control. The Western Allies were only just inside German borders. The Soviets were at Berlin's gates. Short of threatening a war that was about the limit of their negotiating position.
Except their point is the Atomic bomb cost less American AND Japanese lives than all other options for an unconditional surrender which is completely true. U.S would not and should not have accepted any less than unconditional surrenders even if U.S did have to invade to do so, it would have.
Another point in this discussion is this is all hypothetical talk. We have no idea how long Japan would have resisted unconditional surrender and what U.S would of done if it dragged on to long to fully realize how much people would have died fully. However even just a couple more weeks of bombing and blockade would likely have killed significantly more people than both atomic bombs did.
The Japanese people didn't need to see the bombing, only the leaders in charge did, because they would be the ones organizing resistance.
A sue for peace is not the same as an unconditional surrender, I am sure you know this. A sue for peace is literally the losing party saying "Okay, we will talk about surrendering to you, but only if we get to do this and keep this and that". Do you realize how ridiculous that is coming from Imperial Japan?
I don't see your point, they surrendered, if they hadn't there would have definitely been armed resistance until U.S took control of the entire country.
This entire argument is you thinking for yourself that Japan was going to unconditionally surrender before more people died as a result of blockade and bombings even when it is known that there was an attempted coup (to stop a surrender) and the Emperor struggling to get his army leaders to surrender even after both bombs have been dropped.
U.S could invade and annex both countries and still wage war in Afghanistan at the same time lol. The better question is which countries would aide them if such a case happened
" As historian Robert Butow pointed out in 1954, the fate of Japan rested in the hands of only eight men. These were the emperor, his principal advisor Marquis Koichi Kido, and an inner cabinet of the government of Admiral Kantaro Suzuki called the "Big Six": Prime Minister Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister General Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Chief of the Army General Staff General Yoshijiro Umezu, and Chief of the Navy General Staff Admiral Soemu Toyoda.
There is no record whatsoever that any of these eight men proposed a set of terms or circumstances in which Japan would capitulate prior to Hiroshima. More significantly, none of these men even after the war claimed that there was any set of terms of circumstances that would have prompted Japan to surrender prior to Hiroshima. The evidence available shows that in June, a memorandum from Kido to the emperor proposed that the emperor intervene not to surrender, but to initiate mediation by a third party. The mediation would look to settle the war on terms that echoed the Treaty of Versailles: Japan might have to give up its overseas conquests and experience disarmament for a time, but the old order in Japan would remain in charge. Certainly there would be no occupation and no internal reform. - (Frank 2009)"
We all know how well that strategy worked out the first time.
Japan was given its terms for surrender: Unconditionally. They instead continued to Lob Kamikazes at ships and bases hundreds of miles away from Japan while stalling diplomatically and making military plans to bleed out an invasion force as much as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html
Thing is: that is true for the West. Meanwhile elsewhere people endured years of oppression.
Patrick S.
Banned
German here.
My most immediate consequence of WW2 is that even today, it feels weird, and I sometimes feel ashamed, to tell someone I'm German. It may be just me, but while being in Italy, France or Holland, it felt awkward to tell people where I was from. Or on Tenerife, when my Spanish mate once had the great idea of taking me to along to an English Pub to watch an England-Germany soccer match. One guy asked me where I was from, and when I told him, I could clearly see on his face that he had to use some restraint not to start a fight.
Globally, I think a large part of the world did the best it could to make the world a better place after WW2. Some governments sought their own advantage over everyone else, but greed and lust for power and dominance were sadly always humanitiy's greatest flaws.
My most immediate consequence of WW2 is that even today, it feels weird, and I sometimes feel ashamed, to tell someone I'm German. It may be just me, but while being in Italy, France or Holland, it felt awkward to tell people where I was from. Or on Tenerife, when my Spanish mate once had the great idea of taking me to along to an English Pub to watch an England-Germany soccer match. One guy asked me where I was from, and when I told him, I could clearly see on his face that he had to use some restraint not to start a fight.
Globally, I think a large part of the world did the best it could to make the world a better place after WW2. Some governments sought their own advantage over everyone else, but greed and lust for power and dominance were sadly always humanitiy's greatest flaws.
Belgian. Here it is the consensus 'the Americans' won, by which we mean: Americans, Brits and Canadians. History lessons are pretty one sided in that regard, Sovjiet campaign was in my case mostly covered to have a context for Cold War and the two blocks in Europe. A-bomb is the only thing about the pacific campaign I was teached about.
Only later reading changed my view on the war a bit more.
Personally I feel the A-bomb was a war crime, just as the bombing raids on German cities. I am not entirely convinced the war couldn't have been won without the bomb though, but I am not sure. It would definitely have taken longer.
Only later reading changed my view on the war a bit more.
Personally I feel the A-bomb was a war crime, just as the bombing raids on German cities. I am not entirely convinced the war couldn't have been won without the bomb though, but I am not sure. It would definitely have taken longer.
MisterFalcon
Member
After everyone in the Japanese high command who was determined to fight to the death had killed themselves of course the general opinion in Japan after the war on interviews was that they were ready to surrender. But pre-August 1945 no one would look at how Japan was fighting and go 'yeah, these guys are about to give up' as another wave of kamikazes comes at your ships and you still lose dozens of troops daily to clear out the last corners of tiny islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_(1945)
More civilians died in this battle against a hoplelessly surrounded and outnumbered Japanese force then either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But hardly anyone ever mentions them or remembers them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_(1945)
More civilians died in this battle against a hoplelessly surrounded and outnumbered Japanese force then either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But hardly anyone ever mentions them or remembers them.
Sorry but im going to going with the feelings and words of the Generals and Admirals who actually served in the War against the Japanese and believe it was not needed. You know the guy who were actually in charge of the war effort. Nimitz, Eisenhower and MacArthur opposing is a pretty clear message to me. But I suppose you know more about WW2 than them :rolleyes
Maybe Harry Truman's diary?
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).
Truman wanted to test the bombs on a civilian population..Pure and simple. See if it would actually destroy a city as advertised. It's no different than medical or chemical warfare testing of real people in Nazi Germany or Japan in China. They wanted to see what it would do and that's disgusting to me.
Also you're "holdouts" were mainly those who weren't informed the war was over in distant battlefields. I'm talking about the Japanese people in occupied Japan. Pretty sure not one occupying American solider lost their lives. You know.. those that would have slaughtered millions of Americans in this invasion.
(German here) They had a great part in it but they joined combat when it was already decided who wins.
WW2 was decided by 41-42 when the germans couldn't bllitzkrieg russia.
Could it have taken longer without the americans? Probably but the war was decided at that point.
Lend lease is greatly overestimated by americans. Most gear only arrived when the soviets were already on the offensive
WW2 was decided by 41-42 when the germans couldn't bllitzkrieg russia.
Could it have taken longer without the americans? Probably but the war was decided at that point.
Lend lease is greatly overestimated by americans. Most gear only arrived when the soviets were already on the offensive
That's true and especially for eastern europe i don't expect them to be happy with the outcome. From my western european perspective the fact that the russians also won the war doesn't weigh as heavily. Because of course, if you are living under the soviets, the war was disastrous.
But short of the Allies also wiping out the soviets i don't see a posibility where they don't get the short end of the stick and that still would have meant yet another large scale offensive in their territories (though i guess in hindsight that might still have been preferable).
There's also all the postcolonial nonsense that happened. Which is a big part in conflicts we still have today.
I still feel overall, globally seen a war of this scale could have ended with much worse consequence and a period of complete instability all over the world and it didn't.
There is a lot factually wrong in this post.
Don't feel ashamed to be German.
Modern Germany de nazified successfully and you successfully reintegrated into a whole country following the berlin wall falling. You are a widely respected world leader in engineering and car manufacturing aswell as serving as a moderating consultive member in world matters that can lead to armed conflict, encouraging empathy and safe haven to refugees and numerous other achievements.
You guys have a kick ass football development structure with some of the greatest clubs in the world and of course your national team being consistently successful. Also the 51% member owned structure in the bundesliga is genius. Plus you gave us schadenfreude lol
You aren't bound by the sins of nationalist lunatics from the 1940s. Be proud to be German, anybody with a brain knows your country is a vital and productive member of the world community that has addressed is past and actively continues to address it in a dignified manner.
Like what?
The german offensive slowed in winter 41 and the germans weren't able to take moscow. The soviets started a winter offensive in 41 and pushed back the wehrmacht especially in the middle part of the front.
The german offensive practically stood still in early 42 and they were loosing on all fronts by the end of 42. Lend Lease didn't arrive in large enough numbers to help the soviets until late 42/early 43 at wich point the front was already pushed back to ukraine
Patrick S.
Banned
Thank you Acorn
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked