In another thread, and many before it, there is a debate afoot about the A-bombing. One problem with that debate, IMHO, is that many participants fail to properly put themselves in context. There are a lot of myths out there, like:

- Japan was ready to surrender before the first bomb, and after the first but before the second
- Japan was already indefensible by the time the bomb was dropped
- The Allies could have just blockaded and waited, as though the several hundred million people under occupation and 100,000+ starving Allied POWs/ interned civilians weren't worth hurrying for.

Also, some critics of the A-bomb decision insist it was racist somehow, arguing that the US would never have dropped a bomb on Germany. You also hear a good deal about how the REAL target was the USSR.

Perhaps a better way to consider this issue is to consider it in a similar context that everybody DOES know because most have been taught the facts, unlike the case with Japan:

The bomb was ready for use in August, 1945, two months before the invasion of Japan was scheduled. What if the bomb was ready for action early, say, in January, 1945, shortly before serious penetration of the German border?

- the Holocaust is reaching its peak, although the Allies are just beginning to get an idea of what's up.
- some of the bloodiest battles of the war are yet to be fought (e.g. Berlin)
- bombing is (according to surveys, anyway) already doing heavy damage to Germany.
- the Schwarze Kapelle, or what's left of it, merely wants a return to status quo ante bellum, and is willing to negotiate. Signs are that Himmler and Goering might want to talk, too.

First drop targets, anyone? Second? Or do you just demonstrate with a bomb at Heligoland Bight?

R.III

I think you forgot something.

At that point in the war, the German people were waiting for the Allies to invade and liberate them before the Soviets, so any A-bombing would have made the Germans go straight in to commie hands and history would never be the same.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an option like that in the poll, i.e., a middle option saying " 'the a-bombing of Germany' would have done more harm than good

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I think you forgot something.

At that point in the war, the German people were waiting for the Allies to invade and liberate them before the Soviets, so any A-bombing would have made the Germans go straight in to commie hands and history would never be the same.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an option like that in the poll, i.e., a middle option saying " 'the a-bombing of Germany' would have done more harm than good

The division of post-war occupation zones was established in 1944 at the Yalta conference. If Germany had capitulated as a result of an atomic strike before the invasion Germany itself, it would have worked out pretty much the same. The allied forces would have taken up their occupation zones just like happened after the surrender in reality. No big change.

Remember, Uncle Joe Steel didn't challenge western power in Europe until AFTER the United States demobilized. The Soviet Union had no desire to fight the western allies with their military at full wartime strength. Soviet troops would have taken up their occupation zone without fuss.

Originally posted by Switch625


The division of post-war occupation zones was established in 1944 at the Yalta conference. If Germany had capitulated as a result of an atomic strike before the invasion Germany itself, it would have worked out pretty much the same. The allied forces would have taken up their occupation zones just like happened after the surrender in reality. No big change.

Remember, Uncle Joe Steel didn't challenge western power in Europe until AFTER the United States demobilized. The Soviet Union had no desire to fight the western allies with their military at full wartime strength. Soviet troops would have taken up their occupation zone without fuss.

But with the bombing, Hitler and his cronies could have whipped up severe fanaticism and even made a peace treaty with Stalin, to oppose the "bloodthirsty and savage" Allies:eek: :eek:

I voted no. I am of the opinion that if Russia was left alone to the task, it would have won anyway. D-Day was just the clincher (of course, also a welcome relief for the Sovs).

Therefore, Germany was defeated in the summer of '44. Everything after was just going through the motions. Dropping the bomb was completely unneccessary.

They probably deserved it more than the Japanese though... and I even come from a German family :)

P.S. I like the last option on the poll :lol:

Originally posted by dannyevilcat
Therefore, Germany was defeated in the summer of '44. Everything after was just going through the motions.

I will try and get a more accurate figure in the morning - oh wait, it IS morning - but off the top of my head, the cost of "going through the motions" was something in the region of 3 or 4 million lives.

R.III

No way would I have done it. I just don't like nuclear weapons.

I believe it was easier for the Americans to nuke an Asian nation than a European nation, too. Using the atomic bomb in Europe would probably have damaged relations within the Allied forces. And all those Americans who had German heritage or had lived there before the war, what would they have said about it?

An "evil" empire in the east - which the Americans weren't very familiar with - was an easier target for such a devastating weapon than the "evil" Central European country which had a great culture everyone knew and many were in awe of.

Which brings me to this: We're always shocked when there is a war going on somewhere near us. When it's far away, we hardly notice it if we even know about it... "Those Africans, aren't they all just poor and hungry, I don't care, just let 'em kill each other so they won't come here".

Originally posted by Richard III


I will try and get a more accurate figure in the morning - oh wait, it IS morning - but off the top of my head, the cost of "going through the motions" was something in the region of 3 or 4 million lives.

R.III

Ah, R.III, I never said it wasn't costly. In no way do I intend to trivialize the sacrifices made, but certainly you must admit the end was a forgone conclusion after June 6, 1944.

I suppose one could make the same argument for the pacific theatre, but there are other circumstances regarding the decisions there which we all know so I won't bother repeating.

Yes I would, a military/demonstration target. My target would have been Peenemunde, the military research island off the Baltic Coast, where the V2 was designed, tested and launched. This, I feel, would be much more acceptable politically than a target on the mainland,
Anyway, they started it.

Originally posted by polymath
Anyway, they started it.

But they weren't alone. Soviet Union started it too, they had the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in 1939 in which they agreed to split Europe.

OK, I know the Soviets didn't get to enjoy nice times either, but anyway. They would've destroyed also my home country if they could've done it.

Basher:
Too true - my father was Polish, Poland got it in the neck from Germany AND Russia. Poor Poland!

Actually there was a plan ready to bomb the heart of Germany in January 1945, if the bomb would have been ready by then. :eek:
The target was the city I now live in, Magdeburg. It is clearly documented that they wanted to bomb here in the eastern part, because the splitting of Germany was already decided.
Fortunately the bomb wasn´t ready for use and shortly after this became clear, most German cities were conventionally bombed by allied air fleets. Including my home city, destroying about 90% of it. :mad:

I don´t want to get into the discussion whether anyone deserved being nuked or not.
But everyone has to realize that the history is ALWAYS written by the victors. That´s why the existance of Russian concentration camp, in which more people died than in German ones, are rarely documented in history books. As well as allied atrocities, especially British and American nazistic movements and actions at that time. No side of the war was without guilt. :o

Because most of the posters in this thread are teenagers or twens, who have no connection to the war, except telltales and historic lessons of course, I am urging everyone to get the facts straight and also learn exactly how and what the impact of an atomic bomb is! :rolleyes:

Btw, I do consider this on the edge of being a TROLL post, and as there are many Germans browsing these fora, it could easily fit AoA definition of trolling and offensive posting, leading to closure of a thread.
BUT I would also disagree with a closure, because the discussion is still rather civilized, even if there are several people just posting like it were playing a computer game, e.g. "JUST NUKE ´EM ALL!". :crazyeye:

Ending my post, I want to say that I don´t want to defend any German action during the war. But when discussions like these come up, everyone should think through before posting!
:D

I guess my point is that I did think before posting. Danny evillecat has his view; I respect it; I'm busy trying to get him to change it and doing so requires comparisons.

War, particularly on the scale of WWII, has an evil calculus to it. I have dozens of relatives who were in action in Europe in January '45, and one direct relative in action in the CBI theatre in 'August '45. Their lives were at risk every day that we let Germany pretend it hadn't lost, just as my grandfather would no doubt be dead if he'd crossed the beaches of Singapore with a Sten in his hand as planned before the bombs were dropped.

You're quite right, Lucky: and the fact that I bothered to mention the depleted Schwarze Kapelle should tell you I appreciate this - no doubt, in any atomic attack on a German city, thousands of truly innocent Germans would have been vaporized, crushed or irradiated. There, I said it. I know what that means. Thousands of completely innocent Japanese WERE vaporized, crushed or irradiated.

But I'm just asking that people put that fact in context. Back to Germany. Oddly enough, a relative in a Lancaster was vaporizing innocent Germans already, just as a relative in the RHA was busy vaporizing them with shellfire, only both were doing it with less political effect than an A-bomb could achieve, and at considerably more risk to themselves. Several thousand acres of Berlin had already been wiped out, and a good million or so had been killed or maimed in other cities. But ordinary Germans were still fighting. Why? Because the allies weren't going to negotiate with National Socialism anymore, but the Nazis still had Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, some bits of the Balkans and millions of people on trains and camps to bargain with. We could have negotiated a settlement with Germany if we'd tried, but we didn't for a reason: given the scale of the war and the mental sickness of the ideologies that started it, it was worth doing the ugly thing to finish them off forever.

It's sick. It's crude. But the West didn't make the choice: it was forced upon us. So, if you could choose to end the Holocaust at its peak, liberate several countries without further destruction within them and prevent a battle across Germany, would you for 100,000 or 200,000 casualties? Because we both know an A-bomb in Germany in Jan. 45 would have meant a military coup, and surrender. So, if I say "don't wait, save everyone else at the expense of civilians from the aggressor state," does it really sound so irrational?

The circumstances were not so different in Japan as they were in Germany. At the time, it's precisely because it WASN'T a game that the bomb was dropped on Japan. This isn't "Axis and Allies," where "mopping up" just means you sweep up the board and accept the inevitable. For Truman, why decide to continue the slaughter, all because of an ethical question? Not about how many would die - since more would regardless - but what kind of bomb gets used? Because the choice between the bomb and continued warfare for him was a choice to save the life of a friend's kids. For me, it's my grandfather, and my ex-girlfriend's Chinese parents starving under Japanese rule. For a Dutch Jew, in January 1945, it might be the choice between having a family, or knowing they died in a gas chamber. Multiply those choices by a million or so and you can see why some might rush to say "drop."

If saying so is trolling, well, then history is trolling.

I would nuke the hell of any juicy military target which was not located in a civilian population center. No dropping a nuke on a city even if theorecticaly aimed at an army headquaters (as at Hiroshima).

I said it was on the edge of trolling. It was more a sarcastic remark on the recent developments and discussions here at CFC. :p
And if you really meant this all dead seriously, then why did you put in that last poll option?? :rolleyes:

Concerning the choice, I really believe that NOONE, repeat noone, posting here is able to take in the full scope of consequences such a decision would have. We can speculate about whether or not, and about what could have changed, but presenting the theoretical option to implement ones opinion is beyond anyones imagination. Sure we can say yes or no, but when faced with such a decision (hopefully nobody ever will again) I don´t think that many could bear with it, no matter how they decide. (not even Simon ;))
Therefore forgive my aggressiveness, but because I (if I would have been born) would have to take direct consequences due to such a step, I can just say NO. Never.
:D

Originally posted by Lucky
And if you really meant this all dead seriously, then why did you put in that last poll option?? :rolleyes:

Because I succesfully predicted that someone would be offended by it somehow instead of just arguing it, and managed to sneak in a teeny bit of humor into all of that seriousness as a coping mechanism. ;)

The question is legit in my opinion.

It's rubbish to claim the US only bombed Japan out of some racist motive.

Had Nazi Germany fought to the last man, and showed no inclanation to surrender, the weapons would certainly have been used.

Put yourself in the minds of allied leaders, they didn't (and couldn't) understand the long term results of Radiation (nobody was sure of this in 45), to them, the A-bomb was just a bigger and better bomb, not a hellacious weapon.

In January of 45, millions of men were posed on Germany's broders ready to invade.
Germany didn't have a huge reserve of suicide planes (Japan did, more then 5,000 by some estimates in Kyushu alone), nor had German formations had a problem surrendering if their postion was hopeless (Imperial Japanese forces usually fought to the death), nor had German civillians shown any desire to fight on (Japan's people did, they were still patriotic to the end, believing in their nation and willing to die rather then surrender).

Also, only a river separted the Allied forces in the west from Germany, not an Ocean as in Japan.

If the war against Germany was being lost, or Germany had shown itself to be as fanatical about giving up, it certainly would have been used in Europe, the bomb was designed with Hitler in mind.
It may also be worth noting that the allies had no problem reducing Nurumberg to rubble even though the war was for all intents and purposes over in Europe at the time.

I don't think that it would have been necessary. As Danny stated above, D-Day was a helping hand for the Russkies, not a war ending event.

IMO all D-Day did was save Western Europe from Russian occupation.

Again, the Atom bomb in Germany would have saved lives in Jan '45. But I think that an American president would have been harshly judged by a large amount of the German-American population. The bomb dropping on Japan was NOT racially motivated, but I think a NON-drop on Germans would have been racially motivated.

Not enough was known about the Holocaust to really make it a factor in early '45.

I may edit and post more later, right now the real world is calling me back.:(

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
The bomb dropping on Japan was NOT racially motivated, but I think a NON-drop on Germans would have been racially motivated.


This was a typical problem of lobby - not a problem of race !!!

Regards

I voted "Yes - a demonstration bomb" along Polymath's idea of doing it on an offshore Baltic Island - though I don't think it would have been necessary and I don't think the Americans ever would have. As someone pointed out, German civilian resistance was fairly minimal and not at all comparable to the Japanese in 1945. German military resistance was still stiff but collapsing rapidly, and most Germans just wanted to survive the war and get out of the way of the invading armies - especially the vengeful Soviets.

I also think the fact this was a European country also would have made the Americans hesitate. Not so much out the racism as that the European allies would have been hard-pressed to support such destruction reaped on a fellow European country - even Germany in 1945. Many in Eastern Europe would have been quite happy to see a rain of atomic bombs on Germany in 1945, but Western Europe was still skiddish. The Chinese and Koreans were quite happy to see the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan was too far away for America's European allies to care about until decades later.

I will take issue with Lucky's initial post though. It is true that contingency plans existed for the use of the atomic bomb against Germany and its allies - Budapest was also on the potential target list - but no actual bombs existed for these targets. The atomic bombs used against Japan were created specifically for that purpose, and while the U.S. worked hard to give the impression that it had warehouses full of atomic bombs in reality there was (as I recall) only 1 more left after Nagasaki, and it was Pacific-bound in case the Japanese didn't surrender. No atomic bomb in WW II ever entered the European theater. Also, these plans were drawn up before the true destructive potential of the bombs was understood. As I wrote in the other atomic bomb thread, Truman was in Europe and on his back from there when both bombs were dropped on Japan. When he saw the initial aerial photos of the destruction he immediately took control of the bombs back from the military.

Also, I agree with your point about "the victors writing the history"...to an extent. There is indeed still too much passion among survivors for many subjects to be breached, and those subjects need to be explored. The bombing of Dresden, the Benes Decrees, the Western-sanctioned mass expulsion of Germans from Poland, etc. etc. etc. are all legitimate issues that are too often soft-pedalled in Western histories of the war. However, this is not to lose sight of the fact that Germany's actions and behavior in the war were extraordinary and in many ways unique. While the Soviets and Communist Chinese set up the world's largest concentration camp system and succeeded in murdering far more people than anyone else ever anywhere, Germany was the only country ever to set up a factory system to, using manufacturing methods and technologies, attempt to murder an entire people (succeeding with 5-6 million). The level of German attrocities committed by the SS, the Gestapo and the Wehrmacht, especially in Eastern Europe, is a portrait of an extreme level of violence against civilians not seen in Europe since the Thirty Years War. Germany was not just another combatant who happened to lose the war and get saddled with the blame; the war was a German attempt at continental conquest and showed a level of brutality unprecedented in modern times. This does not excuse Allied attrocities against German civilians but it should be understood that in that war Germany is in a league of its own when it comes to attrocities and cannot be compared to Hungarian, French or Japanese attrocities.

Modern Germany is a beacon of freedom, prosperity, development and knowledge for Eastern Europe, and I am quite happy to report that Germany and Poland have forged a particularly effective partnership in dealing with common interests and issues. However, it will not get you far if you attempt to bring up German grievances against Poles or the West if you attempt to put 1939-1945 Germany on a moral par with the other combatants...

I think AoA makes a whole lot of good points and I agree with all of them. In fact, the Germans were weary of the NAzis, but fought the Communists quite vigorously, while were more ambivalent to the Allies. The Germans had not intention of prolonging the war as is made clear by the accounts of several of the officer corps in their diaries and the German people also wished to end it.

There is a true funny story about the invasion tho'.
As the Tanks of the Allies rolled past the marker at the Franco-German border, the came across a German civilian, a grizzled, old man who looked up at them. The commander of the first tank, threw up his cover and asked the civilian "Which way to Berlin mate?" in English.

The German grinned, touched his whiskers and replied in German, "Berlin, yes,yes, that way":D , pointing to the horizon :D

Wow, great post Vrylakas! :goodjob:

Why Budapest though? It seems that the Russians would have taken offense...

I have read many memoirs of German Officers, who felt that fighting the Russians as hard as they could was the ONLY way to save Germany. They really believed in their hearts that they would get a better shake from the the Allies. One Author expressed relief at the invasion of Normandy, citing the fact that they were going to lose anyway, it might as well save SOME lives and some territory from the Russians.

Originally posted by Richard III
I guess my point is that I did think before posting. Danny evillecat has his view; I respect it; I'm busy trying to get him to change it and doing so requires comparisons.

:lol: It would take a lot to convince me otherwise, but then again, I'm strange that way. I don't particularily agree with dropping the bombs on Japan either, but I won't cry over spilt milk.

Why is there no option for "no, there was no need to drop the bomb". The bomb was dropped on Japan for many reasons, most already said in this thread. The main one was the estimated casualties an D-Day style invasion of the Japanese mainland. There were no similar estimates for the invasion of Germany. So the situations are different and required a different approach.

YES!!!! How many am I allowed to drop?

In such a situation, I would have sanctioned the bombing of military, and command targets. This would include Berlin. Radiation would have been a problem for own troops, but this was not fully known at the time.

"Concerning the choice, I really believe that NOONE, repeat noone, posting here is able to take in the full scope of consequences such a decision would have. We can speculate about whether or not, and about what could have changed, but presenting the theoretical option to implement ones opinion is beyond anyones imagination. Sure we can say yes or no, but when faced with such a decision (hopefully nobody ever will again) I don´t think that many could bear with it, no matter how they decide. (not even Simon ;) )"

Well, unless the ghost of Harry Truman is posting here under a pseudonym, it goes without saying that we probably haven't been in such a situation. But it does go a bit far in assuming that we could not bear such a decision. Some could.

As if the nazis wouldn't have done more than enough harm to Germany themselves.
This country still suffers from it. The drop of an atomic bomb by the Americans or whoever would have made things worse, without any necessity.
I don't run around asking wether Germany should ever have used nuclear weapons on the US, or if an atomic bomb on Stalingrad would have made things easier.
It's a disgusting question.

In such a situation, I would have sanctioned the bombing of military, and command targets. This would include
Berlin. Radiation would have been a problem for own troops, but this was not fully known at the time.

Radiation would have been a problem to the couple of million people who lived there and still do. A further problem would have been the murder of innocent lives (Just tell me, why should the allies condescend themselves to the same level of those they are fighting?), the desctruction of the largest urban center in all of northeastern Germany and the most beautiful city on earth.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Radiation would have been a problem to the couple of million people who lived there and still do.

A further problem would have been the murder of innocent lives

(Just tell me, why should the allies condescend themselves to the same level of those they are fighting?),

the desctruction of the largest urban center in all of northeastern Germany and the most beautiful city on earth.

1.) Yes, that generally is a given when you employ a nuclear device on a population center.
2.) It was a war, and plenty of innocents get killed anyway.
3.) The question asks the reader, in my case me , what decision they would have taken. Why? In order to win, and defeat and kill the enemy.
4.)Utterly irrelevant, particularly the beauty. If it would save the lives of my soldiers, and further the interest of victory, then no problem.

It asked an opinion. I gave it. Get over it.:)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Radiation would have been a problem to the couple of million people who lived there and still do.

A further problem would have been the murder of innocent lives

(Just tell me, why should the allies condescend themselves to the same level of those they are fighting?),

the desctruction of the largest urban center in all of northeastern Germany and the most beautiful city on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with your point entirely here.

But so would MANY Japanese citizens (Insert Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

But it is widely accepted that it was NEEDED in that scenario. The question is whether it was needed here.

I think no one would disagree that if the Germans had the bomb, they would have hit Moscow AND London with it.

1.) Yes, that generally is a given when you employ a nuclear device on a population center.

That is neutral enough to let it stand that way.

2.) It was a war, and plenty of innocents get killed anyway.

A fine argument that doesen't work with me. War is no excuse for any atrocity.

3.) The question asks the reader, in my case me, what decision they would have taken. Why? In order to win, and
defeat and kill the enemy.

Why defeat and kill the enemy if you can defeat and convert the enemy (it has been done)?

4.)Utterly irrelevant, particularly the beauty. If it would save the lives of my soldiers, and further the interest of
victory, then no problem.

Is that the point where soldiers cease to be human beings?

It asked an opinion. I gave it. Get over it. :)

That is no problem to me.

I agree with your point entirely here.

But so would MANY Japanese citizens (Insert Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

My speech.

But it is widely accepted that it was NEEDED in that scenario. The question is whether it was needed here.

To me this an interesting paradox. People kill people, and other people kill these people in order to prevent them from killing people. Yes, this is pacifist.

I think no one would disagree that if the Germans had the bomb, they would have hit Moscow AND London with it.

Only over my dead body I would defend anything, and really anything the nazis did.

"That is neutral enough to let it stand that way. "

I would hardly have described Berlin as neutral at any stage in WW2.

"A fine argument that doesen't work with me. War is no excuse for any atrocity."

A fine argument that doesn't work with me. Sometimes, these things must be done.

"Why defeat and kill the enemy if you can defeat and convert the enemy (it has been done)? "

Fun? Bloodlust? An insatiable desire to punish? Or maybe the fact that ye aren't there to convert the enemy UNTIL THE WAR ITSELF IS WON.

"Is that the point where soldiers cease to be human beings?"

A soldier is there to obey his orders, and not to refuse to bomb a place because it is so pretty.

"Only over my dead body I would defend anything, and really anything the nazis did."

If you want it that way. Fritz! Shoot him. ;) :D I myself have no such compunctions. I disagree with a lot of what the Nazis did, but also agree with many things.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
A fine argument that doesen't work with me. War is no excuse for any atrocity.
Question. IF, by dropping one bomb, you kill 2K people at once, but stop the war, is that better then letting said war drag on another year and claim 10K people due to assorted other reasons? Why is dropping the bomb considered an atrocity?

I never really understood the fascination with the atomic bomb in regards to other weapons. Is it strong? Yes. But so is a FAE. Does it cause further death AFTER said bomb is used? Yes, but so do incendiaries. Did it kill lots of people? Yes, but the incediary raids on Tokyo killed more. It's a weapon, and it kills people, so why is it MORE brutal then any other method that does the same? Why is this particular form of bomb considered worse then any other?

"That is neutral enough to let it stand that way. "

I would hardly have described Berlin as neutral at any stage in WW2.

I was referring to your statement.

"A fine argument that doesen't work with me. War is no excuse for any atrocity."

A fine argument that doesn't work with me. Sometimes, these things must be done.

In a society that claims to develop itself, these things must not be done.

"Why defeat and kill the enemy if you can defeat and convert the enemy (it has been done)? "

Fun? Bloodlust? An insatiable desire to punish? Or maybe the fact that ye aren't there to convert the enemy UNTIL
THE WAR ITSELF IS WON.

And just what is the objective of war then?

"Is that the point where soldiers cease to be human beings?"

A soldier is there to obey his orders, and not to refuse to bomb a place because it is so pretty.

As a free human I am not there to obey my orders.

"Only over my dead body I would defend anything, and really anything the nazis did."

If you want it that way. Fritz! Shoot him. ;) :D I myself have no such compunctions. I disagree with a lot of what
the Nazis did, but also agree with many things.

If that would be the case, I would die with a smile on my lips. The same as if I wrote a book that would be banned; nothing would make me prouder.
I know this is threadjacking, but what exactly are those things the nazis did you agree with (you can tell me in private)?


quote:

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
A fine argument that doesen't work with me. War is no excuse for any atrocity.



Question. IF, by dropping one bomb, you kill 2K people at once, but stop the war, is that better then letting said
war drag on another year and claim 10K people due to assorted other reasons? Why is dropping the bomb
considered an atrocity?

I never really understood the fascination with the atomic bomb in regards to other weapons. Is it strong? Yes. But
so is a FAE. Does it cause further death AFTER said bomb is used? Yes, but so do incendiaries. Did it kill lots of
people? Yes, but the incediary raids on Tokyo killed more. It's a weapon, and it kills people, so why is it MORE brutal
then any other method that does the same? Why is this particular form of bomb considered worse then any other?

I personally have no fascination at all for any kind of weapon. I didn't state the nuclear bomb as a single atrocity. More than that, I would say, war in general, and everything that complies with it (any kinds of weapons, mass destruction, bombings, whatever) should be categorized as an atrocity.

There are a number of points to be made:

Firstly it was not an American atomic bomb; but an Allied atomic bomb. All the top scientists were european exiles; many being Jewish, and most of the uranium ore involved in the Manhattan project came from Australia and Canada (only some American).
The primary US contribution was, not to drop it - anyone could have done that, but in the building and running of the enrichment plants. Of course you do not hear much about the veterans of those as most of those involved died of radiation poisoning.

Secondly although the concept of a critical mass i.e. the theoretical basis of the atomic bomb was documented in German in 1933 (12 years before Hiroshima); most politicians and scientists people regarded it as a fantasy idea. However some Germans thought they could develop a nuclear power plant. When Churchill heard that the Germans were researching the use of uranium and concentrating heavy water; he told Roesevelt
to get going, and Churchill did everything he could to sabotage the German program e.g. by bombing the heavy water (deutrium oxide) plant in Norway and having the resistance movements sabotage things. The atomic bomb was therefore developed in a race with Germany with the view to nuke Germany before Germany nuked Britain (rocket) or US (submarine torpedo)!

Thirdly fortunately for the Allies, Hitler regarded nuclear physics as Jewish physics so he did not support the german program properly and besides that he was too impatient to consider starting long term weapons development in 1940-41.

Fourthly Germany was the original target. However internal
security imposed on the project meant that the scientists were working separately and alone in particular boxes. This delayed the development and it was only when they were allowed to meet and teamwork that they could complete the project.

Fifthly if the bomb had been availiable earlier it would have been used on Germany. The only decision would have been where, not if, as was the case with Japan. I doubt that they would have bombed Hitler himself as allied intelligence had concluded by 1944 that Hitler's refusal to let generals withdraw and manoeuve was a military benefit to the allies and they were afraid that if Hitler was killed Borman, Goebbels, Goering or Himmler might not interfere in military decisions and let the german army fight better.

Sixthly I doubt that a demonstration somewhere harmless would have been of any value in ending the war. The Nazis would have probably disregarded it saying that it was a freak meteorite like the Tunganiska one in Russia. I am not even convinced that destroying a german city would have convinced the fanatic Nazis to give up. The Japanese government was undecided even after two atomic bombs; it was only the intervention of the Emperor (there being no emperor to intervene in Germany) and the decision to let the japanese emperor remain that resulted in the Japanese surrender even then.

Lastly Hitler decided to initiate a war without quarter and horrible crimes such as the Holocaust were committed. In this Hitler was supported by very very nearly all the Germans. (There was very very little opposition from Germans until they realised that they were clearly losing and wanted to quit early and escape punishment. Killing 7 million jews was not a one man and his dog job.) The rest of the world was fully entitled to do whatever it considered necessary to defeat him.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
I personally have no fascination at all for any kind of weapon. I didn't state the nuclear bomb as a single atrocity. More than that, I would say, war in general, and everything that complies with it (any kinds of weapons, mass destruction, bombings, whatever) should be categorized as an atrocity. So, the US should have just turned the other cheek when Japan bombed the heck out of us? When Germany finally invaded Belgium,England and France should of just stepped back and done nothing? Peace is a very nice thing, but sacrificing EVERYTHING for peace just leads to tyranny. War ISNT pleasant, but sometimes violence IS the only way to forstall MORE violence.

And you didnt answer my question. IF by killing 10 thousand people you prevent the killing of 50 thousand people, is it justified?

So, the US should have just turned the other cheek when Japan bombed the heck out of us? When Germany finally
invaded Belgium,England and France should of just stepped back and done nothing? Peace is a very nice thing, but
sacrificing EVERYTHING for peace just leads to tyranny. War ISNT pleasant, but sometimes violence IS the only way
to forstall MORE violence.

Well, of course not. If I was attacked, I'd defend myself too. The true art is to prevent the attack.
But if you are right and peace leads only to tyranny, I'm in the wrong world.

And you didnt answer my question. IF by killing 10 thousand people you prevent the killing of 50 thousand people, is
it justified?

This is a very difficult question, because I can't really tell who actually has the right to sort those people out who are to die.

Lastly Hitler decided to initiate a war without quarter and horrible crimes such as the Holocaust were committed. In
this Hitler was supported by very very nearly all the Germans. (There was very very little opposition from Germans
until they realised that they were clearly losing and wanted to quit early and escape punishment. Killing 7 million
jews was not a one man and his dog job.) The rest of the world was fully entitled to do whatever it considered
necessary to defeat him.

Nobody ever denied this. But is this your justification to kill all those people?

Can I ask something stupid?


If you live in Germany and you are 15 years old, youre grandfathers were nazis?:confused:


If it is retarded,stupid or seen as a troll please delete my thread mister admin.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Well, of course not. If I was attacked, I'd defend myself too. The true art is to prevent the attack.

1. Kublai, yeah, it's a pretty unfair point to make; I don't think it's fair to hold people's ancestry against them, and many Germans were not nazis or even nazi supporters (how many is open to debate, but to assume that a particular person's parents were is definitely unfair)

2. It's not a grotesque question, Stefan, or at least, no more grotesque than the "A-bomb debate" going on a few threads away about Japan. I support the decision to drop in this case because on balance, I WOULD place the lives of the innocents - innocent allied soldiers, innocent families in occupied German states over the lives of civilian nationals of an aggressor state if and only if doing so would bring a swift end to the carnage overall.

While my preference is always to avoid civilian casualties, the scale of the conflict in WWII - in part because of German popular support for it - made it virtually impossible to do so. Hitler didn't go around asking "do you want a total war?" in his speeches as a bluff.

3. In August '45, there is considerable evidence that the atomic bombing saved thousands or even millions of lives in net terms, and freed several states still under Japanese occupation more swiftly than the alternative. The speed made a real difference to the lives of completely innocent people, at the expense of lives of a not so innocent country . I know it's not the best distinction to make, but people made it, and in context, I can see why.

I said I supported that decision on the other thread, and I do, and I say that as someone who once argued the opposite and got convinced otherwise. So, why not compare to Germany? The same "benefits," in theory, would accrue to the world from dropping the bomb in Germany as in Japan. As one historian I'm a fan of has argued, you can't test history unless you really ask the what if questions in the context of the period. So, sorry if you're offended, but I'm learning something from this conversation, so I don't think it's a wasted one.

R.III

I posted a thing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki before, saying that I don't believe that civilians should be targeted for bombings. Such would be the case for Germany, because, how many of those you're bombing actually support Hitler out of pure support, and not fear?

All you have to do is KILL HITLER. After Hitler died, the whole country fell apart. I personally believed that it was morally wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the same results could have been made if military intelligence agents were sent into assassinate Japan's top brass.

A body with no brain won't work.

Originally posted by Richard III


1. Kublai, yeah, it's a pretty unfair point to make; I don't think it's fair to hold people's ancestry against them, and many Germans were not nazis or even nazi supporters (how many is open to debate, but to assume that a particular person's parents were is definitely unfair)



Yeah, I know.It was just a doubt I had.Iam not assuming anything.
It is imposible for me to turn their ancestry against them cuz I am half german and my father and all his relatives speaks German as well as spanish,but... it is really a weird wicked situation.:(

Actually the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1944 caused more deaths than either of the atomic bombs dropped in Japan so it can be compared to a nuclear attack (although maybe not quite as shocking). However it is a known fact that Allied carpet bombing in 1944/45 gave a lot of 'food' to the German propaganda machine. These bombings were of little military value but had the opposite psychological effect than intended. They did however succeed in killings lots of German civilians and foreign prisoners of war who were forced by the Germans to clear the rubble during the raids.

Although it is perfectly conceivable that USA could an A-bomb on Germany, or even Hungary, as somebody pointed out, I think it would be a real crime which would not save any Allied lifes, would damage the Wehrmacht very little but would destroy hundreds of thousands of civilian lifes and radioactively contaminate a quite a large area in the heart of Europe.

Also nuking Germany in Jan 45 would not really change the outcome of the war, because by the end of January, Soviet and Allied troops had already entered Reich proper. The situation here is very different from Japan - in Jan 45 Germany was as good as dead, but Japan in Aug 45 was still war-capable and willing to fight and invasion of it would really cost many Allied casualties. Note - I'm not trying to justify nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki - I still think it was barbaric but in the case with Germany there is even justification.

Originally posted by sgrig
However it is a known fact that Allied carpet bombing in 1944/45 gave a lot of 'food' to the German propaganda machine. These bombings were of little military value but had the opposite psychological effect than intended. They did however succeed in killings lots of German civilians and foreign prisoners of war who were forced by the Germans to clear the rubble during the raids.Here's the thing. Did we know this before hand? After the war, people DID call into question the effectiveness of mass bombing raids, but many people who point to those forget that it was only AFTER the war that the effects could be studied. Before and during the war, the proposed effects of mass bombing was gospel to the big bomber strategists. Hindsite is always 20/20.

Although it is perfectly conceivable that USA could an A-bomb on Germany, or even Hungary, as somebody pointed out, I think it would be a real crime which would not save any Allied lifes, would damage the Wehrmacht very little but would destroy hundreds of thousands of civilian lifes and radioactively contaminate a quite a large area in the heart of Europe. You do know that there are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now, correct? While the fallout did cause additional fatalities, and I'd suspect you'll likely see a higher rate of cancer in the area, the place isnt a blasted dead zone.

Also nuking Germany in Jan 45 would not really change the outcome of the war, because by the end of January, Soviet and Allied troops had already entered Reich proper. The situation here is very different from Japan - in Jan 45 Germany was as good as dead, but Japan in Aug 45 was still war-capable and willing to fight and invasion of it would really cost many Allied casualties. The question isnt whether Germany would have surrended with an A-bomb. The question is, would Germany surrender FASTER then they had? It's all very well and good to say 'Germany was on it's last legs, ready to surrender, out of resources', but did the Allies know this? Again, hindsite is clouding your thinking on this issue.

Originally posted by D.Shaffer
Here's the thing. Did we know this before hand? After the war, people DID call into question the effectiveness of mass bombing raids, but many people who point to those forget that it was only AFTER the war that the effects could be studied. Before and during the war, the proposed effects of mass bombing was gospel to the big bomber strategists. Hindsite is always 20/20.
[b]You do know that there are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now, correct? While the fallout did cause additional fatalities, and I'd suspect you'll likely see a higher rate of cancer in the area, the place isnt a blasted dead zone.
The question isnt whether Germany would have surrended with an A-bomb. The question is, would Germany surrender FASTER then they had? It's all very well and good to say 'Germany was on it's last legs, ready to surrender, out of resources', but did the Allies know this? Again, hindsite is clouding your thinking on this issue.

Again it is also an issue of intelligence. The Allies knew from the resistance they met along the way, that the Wehrmacht was completely defeated and the German public supported them and wanted to get rid of the NAzis as well. Droppin gof the A-Bomb would not have increased popularity ratings:rolleyes:

It would not have been a sweet victory for the Allies if the Germans decided to turn it into street-to-street, building-to-building fighting in every town and village:rolleyes:

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Again it is also an issue of intelligence. The Allies knew from the resistance they met along the way, that the Wehrmacht was completely defeated and the German public supported them and wanted to get rid of the NAzis as well. Droppin gof the A-Bomb would not have increased popularity ratings:rolleyes:

It would not have been a sweet victory for the Allies if the Germans decided to turn it into street-to-street, building-to-building fighting in every town and village:rolleyes:

Precisely. By Jan 45 it became clear to everyone that German resistance is crumbling, especially to the Western Allies after the German Ardennes offensive failed. German resistance was still quite stiff on the Eastern front because the Germans were not expecting to stay alive under Soviet occupation and were dreading Soviet vengeance.

Germany was at that time ready to surrender to the western allies but under certain conditions which the allies did not accept. Dropping a nuclear bomb would turn many Germans against the allies, so indeed it is conceivable that Western Front resistance could have become stronger. The Allies had an excellent intelligence network in Germany, and I suspect they did have some idea of the reaction German people to the bombings.

Another thing of course would be if Russian advance was faster than it was, and the allies could consider dropping a nuclear bomb on a city like Vienna, Prague or Budapest in order to demonstrate their might to the Russians and mess up Russia's occupation zone and halt Russian advance. Well, that's my speculation anyway.

Originally posted by polymath
Yes I would, a military/demonstration target. My target would have been Peenemunde, the military research island off the Baltic Coast, where the V2 was designed, tested and launched. This, I feel, would be much more acceptable politically than a target on the mainland,
Anyway, they started it.

The Americans wouldn't want to wipe out priceless German rocket scientists.

Originally posted by Sobieski


The Americans wouldn't want to wipe out priceless German rocket scientists.

You dug up a two month old thread to give a one line response?

You are correct, of course, that the scientists from Peenemunde were a huge prize. For both the Americans and the Russians. During the invasion of Germany, finding those scientists was a very high priority.

Originally posted by Switch625


You dug up a two month old thread to give a one line response?

You are correct, of course, that the scientists from Peenemunde were a huge prize. For both the Americans and the Russians. During the invasion of Germany, finding those scientists was a very high priority.

Sometimes your words are better heard if they are short. Besides, pretty much everything that could be said had been said.

The use of an A-bomb is never justified, unless retailiating at a military target for a civilian attack.

I wouldn't have bothered with already defeated Germany. I'm with Patton - let's go straight to Moscow in '45! If they had had CNN during WWII, there's no way Stalin's treatment of his own people would have been kept under the carpet so effectively. There would be big-time Western support for an overthrow of his government. It wouldn't be about Communism in this case, just a despicable dictator.