 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:10 PM Poor ignorant Martin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: kendall Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:11 PM Then, there are those who hate America, who are jealous of America simply because we have done some bad deeds in the past just like every other country. It only proves the old saying; "The smallest dog can piss on the biggest building." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Once Famous Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:27 PM Jack, I am far from poor and have really been around the block as far as formal education and street smarts. What's your excuse? Just have a boner for most of what goes on in America, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:29 PM The concensus on this thread, SRS? Jeeze, what the hell does that mean? That is one of the most laughable posts I've ever seen on the Mudcat. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:30 AM Bert, I am going to nitpick here... :-) You said, "If the war hadn't been fought then we would be speaking German or Japanese right now." No way, man! Are the Japanese speaking English now? Are the Germans speaking English and Russian now? (as their first language, I mean...) Nope! We would most definitely NOT be speaking German now if the Germans had won, we would still be speaking English just like we were before. You entirely overestimate the ability of a victor to totally alter the cultural fabric and tradition of a foreign society that he has scored a temporary victory over in a war. The Chinese are still speaking Chinese now too, despite having been occupied by several foreign powers for an extended period in history, and the Indians are still speaking Hindi. All victories, my friend, are temporary...believe me. People who win a war sometimes lose the peace that follows it! And that is my nitpicking statement on your last post. I am sick of people saying "we would all be speaking German now if Hitler had won". It's a cliche, and it is a foolish one in the extreme. I understand your feelings on the matter perfectly, however. My father was in England during the Blitz, and he went ashore at Normandy and fought the Germans till VE-Day. Oh...jeez...gotta nitpick again. "How do you ATTEMPT to surrender?" You attempt to end a losing war by suggesting to the other side that you would be willing to discuss terms if they would be willing to. The Japanese were making such suggestions through Russia by early 1945. While that does not necessarily equal total "surrender" it does indicate a willingness to seek a mutually agreed upon end to hostilities...an armistace. And that is how most wars in history have been ended, by mutual discussion and an armistace. That is the sensible way to end a war. "The Japanese were still shooting at us" Well, yeah! We were still shooting at them. And our level of shooting power exceeded theirs at the time by a huge measure. Why would they not shoot at fleets of bombers over their cities? I certainly would have if I was them. Raedwulf - You are absolutely right about the Treaty of Versailles. It was the French who vigorously sought punitive reparations against Germany after WW I, not the French AND the British, as I had suggested. I typed in haste there and I was in error. It was Clemenceau who insisted on his pound of flesh where Germany was concerned. The French were bitter over the Franco-Prussian War and over the damage which had been done on French soil. This is understandable. Nevertheless, their attempt to permanently punish and cripple Germany after WW I was ill-advised. They suffered the consequences in 1940. Nerd - I agree that the Germans and Japanese were responsible for starting the war(s) that are collectively known as WWII. I agree absolutely. I do not agree, however, that an invasion of mainland Japan OR the use of atomic bombs in 1945 was necessary to end it. It would have ended sometime in late 1945 regardless. The Russian attacks on the Chinese mainland after 8th August '45 would have been plenty enough to persuade the Japanese to quit. The Allied invasion of Japan was scheduled for the spring of 1946, but the war would have already have ended before that invasion ever needed to take place. Factions were growing ever stronger in Japan around the Emperor arguing for a necessity to end the conflict, and the Russian attack would have been quite sufficient to put those factions in control, despite certain fanatics in the Army who wanted to die fighting. That's just my opinion, based on what I've read about it. Like other people, I trust my own opinion (naturally). And I just love discussing history. That's why I keep coming back here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:46 AM Doug, you must be hanging out on the wrong threads. There is much funnier stuff than that being posted here and there. Here's a challenge: Avoid all political threads for the next 30 days, and see what occurs in your life. Then PM me and let me know how it went. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:48 AM I see DougR is still around and kicking. Consensus does not mean "total agreement." It means a larger group than any other group that happens to be out there. A plurality exists as far as the types of opinions, but a larger number seems to give Truman the benefit of the doubt than the preferences of the various others of us who have other opinions. What's so hard to figure about that?
That about sums it up for this discussion also. Though there are many views, it seems always to boil down to just a couple. So recognizing a plurality is necessary to understand my use of concensus. To quote from another site (NIH), a consensus statement provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge of the conference topic. At this point in time, in this group, this is what appears to be the case. Got it? It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Or anything, really. As several have said, that war is over. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Bert Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:35 AM Yup Little Hawk, I love discussing history as well. And you're right that we wouldn't all 'really' be speaking German. It is also fun to study the affect that the Norman conquest had on the English language, but that should be another thread. I still don't think that you can attempt to surrender. Either you Cry Uncle or you try some other way to wriggle out of the situation without surrendering. Whilst it is possible to understand WHY the Japanese didn't surrender, it is almost certain that if they had said "WE SURRENDER - WHAT ARE YOUR TERMS?" then the bomb would not have been dropped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Nerd Date: 10 Aug 04 - 02:49 AM LH--I just don't think Truman could have or should have waited for a Russian attack on manchuria that may or may not have materialized, nor am I as convinced as you that the Japanese would then have surrendered, nor am I convinced that Truman could have known whether they would or wouldn't--so I don't think anyone's proved anything. By the way, the Irish are speaking English, many Kazhaks are speaking Russian, and many Mongolians are speaking Chinese. What "we" would be speaking is not so easy to tell. (I'm American, and I can't imagine the US getting defeated and invaded in the 1940s, so by "we" I mean the European allies...) It's not a question of overestimating the ABILITY of a victor, so much as the WILL and the POLITICAL EFFECTIVENESS. We didn't WANT to force Japan and Germany to speak English, nor is our political system well-adapted to doing so, so of course they aren't. Hitler and Hirohito may have wanted it, and their political systems were much better adapted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Aug 04 - 05:08 AM All victories, my friend, are temporary...believe me. (LH) I picture the Turc speaking invadors leaving little Asia, the Angles and Saxons leaving England, the white man leaving Canada, the Germanic tribes going back from Germany to their Baltic and Northern origins, the Romanic speaking invaders leaving the Iberian peninsula to the Basque speaking aborigines and smile: It's Little Hawk using words in a nonconventional sense. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Aug 04 - 05:39 AM Jack the Sailor, Thank you for the clarification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: kendall Date: 10 Aug 04 - 09:21 AM The Rissians already had the Kurile islands, and I'm sure Truman didn't want them in Tokyo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Les from Hull Date: 10 Aug 04 - 10:11 AM Wolfgang - I think you are mixing up invasion with emigration. When an invasion is accompanied by emigration, there are changes in languages and culture. So if the invading Saxons and Angles hadn't brought their wives and kids over, we'd still have a Celtic language in England (except it wouldn't be called England, of course). Sometimes language and culture change because they are replaced by something better (or trendier!), and sometimes it becomes advantageous to suck up to the ruling class. Historians these days don't believe in a group of invaders killing most of the inhabitants and forcing their language and culture on the survivors. But you are right about invasions not being temporary. We still can't get rid of those bloody Normans! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Peace Date: 10 Aug 04 - 11:08 AM England takes its name from the Angles--Angle Land. Wolfgang: You mentioned Basque aborigines in the Iberian Peninsula. I was under the impression the no cognates are found anywhere for words from the language spoken by the Basque people. What is your source for that? (I don't doubt you; however, it's news to me and I'd like to read up on it.) Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: CarolC Date: 10 Aug 04 - 11:24 AM If the English hadn't invaded New Amsterdam, New Yorkers would still be speaking Dutch. ;-) Personally, I don't see why it really matters, except when invaders try to obliterate the ancient languages of indigenous people. I'm definitely against that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:32 PM Well, let me put it another way...any victor, no matter how powerful and dominant he is, eventually passes away and is replaced by something else. It's just a matter of time. I knew you'd catch me on that one, Wolfgang. :-) One can quote various examples where a defeated side simply died out, like the Beothuk Indians in Newfoundland. There are none left now at all. Hitler had a great deal of respect for England and the English culture in a general sense, and he viewed them as his natural allies, so I doubt that the Germans would even have had any intention of sweeping away the English culture (had they won). Their intention would have been more like: now that we got rid of that scoundrel, Churchill, and are allies like we always should have been, let's go and destroy the Communists together. Happy days are here again! (And a lot of English people would have been happy to do just that...anti-communism was very strong in the West.) Given the fact that Stalin was probably just as destructive a leader as Hitler, it would not have been hard to unite western Europe into an anti-communist crusade in the 40's. Hitler stumbled into war with England and France in 1939. He was not looking for a war with them. He expected them to stand aside when he invaded Poland. His next plan after Poland was to attack Russia, NOT attack in the West, but Britain and France declared war over Poland. Hitler did not expect that, and it derailed his entire plan of action and drew him into conflicts in western Europe that he did not anticipate until they erupted. He scored a very quick victory over France, against all expectations. France was considered the strongest land army in western Europe in 1939-40. He then was confronted with an insoluble war with England, the one country he LEAST wanted to be at war with in all of Europe. He then was drawn into conflicts in the Balkans, mostly through the very stupid actions of Mussolini (who decided to attack Greece)...and due to an anti-fascist coup in Yugoslavia, which had been friendly to Germany prior to that coup. He then was drawn into ever-expanding conflicts in North Africa, again through the stupid actions of Mussolini. And so it went... A long tale of misadventure and miscalculation. Am I making excuses for Hitler? No. I am saying that he was on a planned path of aggression, but he seriously miscalculated. He did not think the British and French would fight on behalf of Poland. He thought they would just grumble and complain, then accept it as an accomplished fact, then later help him destroy communist Russia. He was looking for a great war in the East, but got one in the West instead. He committed the final folly by launching his great war in the East ANYWAY, in the spring of '41 when he attacked Russia. And that decision lost him everything in the end...but it took several years of hard fighting to decide it. The attack on Russia has to stand as one of the most stubborn and ill-advised decisions ever made by a wartime leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Nerd Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:43 PM Actually, Les, most indications are that emigration of Angles and Saxons to Britain was relatively small in comparison to the total population; in other words, the majority of people in Britain are still Celtic by heritage, descended from Celtic speakers. (The few DNA studies that have been done on bog bodies and the like support this.) So while you're right that the British situation was not one of political domination from a far-off land, it WAS one of political domination from a small minority population resulting in wholesale adoption of the dominant language throughout most of Britain (remembering that Scots is also derived from Anglo-Saxon). It is not hard to imagine a small minority population of Germans settling in England and enforcing German-only education. This is what the English did in Ireland, and it worked pretty well. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is entirely possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:53 PM I'll agree with that, Nerd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Les from Hull Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:04 PM That's the way that I see it, Nerd. Not so many Normans arrived with Bill the Conker Root, but they brought a whole lot of language and culture with them. It didn't take a whole lot of Romans to turn us from Celtic to Romano-British either. LH - Hitler's long-term plan was war with Britain in 1948. He needed that amount of time to build sufficient warships. This was the Z-Plan, agreed by Hitler in March 1939. He wasn't intending to engage the Royal Navy in fleet action, so much as to have the right vessels to wage an efficient commerce war. He didn't expect Britain to support the Poles when he invaded (not that we did, we just dropped leaflets on them while the Poles fought both the Germans and the Soviets). Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union, although they invaded Poland at the same time as Germany. Mind you, I wonder about Hitler's declaration of war on the United States. Would Roosevelt have been easily able to declare war on Japan's European allies or would there still have been a feeling in the US that they should only fight Japan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:14 PM I think it would have been rather difficult for Roosevelt to declare war on the Germans. They were not active allies of Japan in the full sense of what that means. For instance, the Japanese were not helping the Germans fight Russia, nor were the Germans helping the Japanese fight in China or anything like that. They had a friendly association, not a binding military alliance. I suspect it would have taken Roosevelt several months at least to persuade Congress to declare war on Germany, had not Hitler solved the problem for him by immediately declaring war on the USA. Why Hitler did that is inexplicable, except that he acted out of sheer passion, devoid of any rational thought on the matter whatsoever. It was the dumbest thing he could have done under those circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Les from Hull Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:40 PM Thanks LH, that's what I'd have said but it would have been pure opinion on my part, as I've only read stuff that was slightly related to the subject. It's a good thread this, especially since the 'opinion-only' people seem to have lost interest and left it to us history nuts. I'll try and turn up the details of the story I alluded to earlier, about the Japanese sending Uranium to Germany by submarine, only for it to be diverted to the USA upon the defeat of Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:00 PM I can't say anything about the Americans or British speaking German, had Hitler won the war. However one thing I can say as a certainty is that there would be nobody speaking Hebrew or Yiddish had Hitler won. He would have killed all Jews everywhere. I think everyone would agree that he was the most evil person ever to walk the face of this earth in the history of mankind. SOL ZELLER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Peace Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:09 PM I'm with you on that, Sol. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Les from Hull Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:13 PM Well it appears I was wrong - I should have checked the details rather than posting from my increasingly inaccurate memory. Germany was (perhaps) sending uranium or uranium oxide to Japan, although I'm not sure that there was any chance of Japan being able to use it in a nuclear device. Details here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Nerd Date: 11 Aug 04 - 01:24 AM Amen, Rabbi Sol! (Some of us might have gone underground as "crypto-Jews," as had happened during the inquisition. It would have been more difficult, though, since the inquisition allowed you to live a normal life if you converted, whereas with Hitler you'd have to disguise the fact that you had ever been Jewish. Still, no Hebrew or Yiddish for sure!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:58 AM They were butterfingers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Aug 04 - 05:04 AM Brucie, I'm away from my books, so you'll have to wait for a response for another two weeks, but I won't forget it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 04 - 08:24 AM Les - There was no chance of Japan getting anywhere with an atomic project in the war years. They hadn't even begun such a project by 1945, and it took a massive effort at that time and several years to complete such a project. Only the USA and Germany really had the potential to do it, as far as I can see. In the case of Germany, Hitler wasn't interested in the concept for some reason, so it got little encouragement from the top. In addition to that it appears that some of the key German nuclear scientists may have quietly and deliberately steered the project off in unproductive directions, due to their desire to avoid producing an atomic bomb. Many of the Allied scientists were also morally opposed to using the Bomb, and argued stronly for not doing so. Edward Teller was a notable exception to that attitude, and he went on to champion the much more terrible H-bomb in the 1950's. I get the impression that if Teller could have come up with a bomb capable of instantly destroying half the World he would have been delighted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: HuwG Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:51 AM Just a few thoughts, possibly non-sequiturs, but I'll post them anyway. Firstly: I think that all informed Japanese (though there would have been few of these) must have known that Japan was indeed militarily impotent in mid-1945. Their navy, and air forces, had been almost completely destroyed, along with the bulk of their merchant shipping. The home islands were almost entirely cut off from the sources of raw materials elsewhere in Asia. Even if they could build more aircraft, they were almost out of fuel, and before long they would be unable to mount even kamikaze attacks. In this respect, the situation was not at all like that of Britain in 1940. Britain could rely on large reserves of manpower and industry in the Dominions, had undisputed naval superiority over Germany, had measures in hand to expand the Air Force to equal and overwhelm the Luftwaffe, and could also rely on support from the USA under Roosevelt. Churchill needed only to overcome the immediate crisis, and could then be certain that Germany had no way of directly defeating Britain. (The U-boat was essentially a one-dimensional threat. Once the technical and numerical odds in the Battle of the Atlantic favoured the Allies, the U-boat's defeat was inevitable.) Secondly: the casualties inflicted by the atomic weapons were only part of the civilian casualties caused by Allied bombing of Japan. For example, on the night of March 10/11th, Superfortresses dropped 2000 tons of incendiaries on Tokyo. In an area consisting mainly of buildings shoddily constructed from softwood, the resulting firestorm was more destructive even than that which engulfed Hamburg and Dresden. There were estimated to be from 80,000 to 200,000 dead, and anything up to 1.8 million injured (mainly suffering severe burns) and homeless. Superfortresses were eventually making similar raids every other day. They are believed to have inflicted a total of half a million deaths, and made 13 million homeless. The Japanese could do nothing to prevent such attacks. However, other than dislocating civilians and destroying some factories caught in the general conflagration, these attacks did not directly affect Japan's capacity to continue the war. (It should be remembered that these raids were only just beginning after Churchill and others had begun having second thoughts about the morality and effectiveness about the Dresden raid.) I believe that, with or without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would have been forced to come to terms before the end of 1945. The slaughter of civilians must eventually have swayed the Emperor, the Russian declaration of war with their occupation of Manchuria and the destruction of the Japanese Kwantung Army would have convinced all but the most deluded military leaders that resistance was at an end. (Had the war continued, the second half of 1945 would have seen a British / Indian invasion of Malaya, and perhaps the recapture of Singapore, the surrender of starving units of the Japanese South China Army, and the invasion, in November, of Kyushu and perhaps Hokkaido. Sooner or later, this succession of blows must surely have driven the Japanese to surrender. Furthermore, while Japanese history, or at least the folklore which accompanied the warrior code, emphasises that death is preferable to disgrace, it was noted during the last stages of the fighting on Okinawa (June, 1945) and Manchuria, Japanese soldiers and civilians were starting to surrender rather than fight to the end. To be fair, these were people numbed by months of privation and ceaseless fighting, but I think it possible that this tendency might have been even more marked had the war continued to the end of the year. Evidence of this failure of will might also have contributed to a decision to surrender.) I don't think it can be disputed that the atomic bombs did indeed hasten the Japanese surrender. They did so at cost of terrible casualties. However, I think that had they not been used, the Japanese civilian casualties would have been as numerous and tragic, had the Allies (particularly the US) continued to use the same strategy and methods as they were doing. One cannot imagine commanders such as Curtis LeMay or Admiral Halsey deciding to let up attacking Japanese targets for a few months while the Japanese supreme command mulled things over, and the Army slowly gathered itself for an invasion. So, while the use of atomic weapons was cruel, it cannot by itself be called wanton cruelty, not in the context of the time and situation. As a footnote, I note that the Japanese have not been entirely forgiven for their own cruelties, in China at any rate. As someone posted somewhere, the "Rape of Nanking" and other atrocities are still remembered. The Chinese evidently feel that, although Japanese civilians also suffered during the war, the criminals who authorised, condoned and perpetrated that and similar crimes did not themselves suffer as a result, and Japan still owes some atonement for those crimes. So far as I am aware, such an attitude is not so marked in other countries the Japanese attacked or occupied. In some cases (e.g. Indonesia), the Japanese inflicted no worse atrocities than the previous colonial power. In others, such as Burma, the nation's own subsequent internal turmoil has involved similar or worse acts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 04 - 11:16 AM Thank you, Wolfgang. I would appreciate that. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 04 - 01:54 PM Excellent post, HuwG. The Americans were fully capable of incinerating Japanese cities without using atomic bombs, as you point out, and were already doing so with very little difficulty. Atomic bombs were in fact not required at all in order to bomb the Japanese into submission...but there is a peculiar psychological aspect to dropping just one bomb from one airplane and instantly destroying the greater part of a city. I think the Americans just couldn't resist using a new weapon...and seeing how well it would work. In a similar sense they could not have resisted the temptation to invade Japan as soon as logistically possible, rather than simply blockading them into submission, which was entirely feasible. These things tend to carry forward on their own momentum once a war is under way. People find the use of maximum force rather intoxicating once they get accustomed to it. Try telling an air marshall NOT to use his bombers when he still has the chance to! Try telling a general NOT to use his armies. That is pretty well the same as telling him: "We don't really need you anymore." People don't like not being needed anymore. It's a threat to their basic sense of identity. And politicians would usually rather slaughter another few hundred thousand foreigners than be seen as "weak". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:12 PM true enough, Little Hawk, but in every case it is a choice, and in the case of the A-bomb, Truman could have chosen to say no. the air marshalls are never in control, it is the politicians who make the call, and the public who should keep them honest and demand answers. unfortunately propoganda does work. many people really believe there were NO other options, not just that the momentum of war, the fog of war, precluded them. As you recognize, there certainly were other options, like blockade, etc. We, our government acting for us, decided not to use them but to drop the bomb, twice. shame on Truman and the rest. completely tarnishes any 'glory' this country may have had, (had none really, when you take into account the Indian wars, etc.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:50 PM Agreed, Bill. But I'm not surprised they used it. Not at all. It was typical. Nuremberg only focused on the Axis war crimes, but there were war crimes committed by the Allies as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: freightdawg Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:34 PM Now that the rocks have stopped flying us little fellers can stick their heads back out.... LH, I think I may have an idea as to why Hitler declared on the U.S. The only way he could defeat Britain was to blockade it - starve it of precious war materials. As long as the US was technically a neutral it could sail needed supplies to the island. By declaring war Hitler allowed his U-Boats full range over the Atlantic. I think, and this is pure conjecture, that it was his belief that Doenitz could sink more American supply ships, and more importantly, more escort vessels, faster than they could be replaced. However, the longer he waited he knew that the US would be ramping up its ship building capacity to fight the war in the Pacific. It was a matter of timing. He felt like he had to engage the US in a two ocean war when it barely had a one ocean fleet. It almost worked. The defeat of the U-Boats was never a forgone conclusion, and in Churchill's own words they were the threat that concerned him the most. The only problem was that Hitler had not given Doenitz the number of U-Boats that he wanted or needed. Therefore, Doenitz was stretched too thin to effectively shut the Atlantic coastline down. Two developments then overcame the U-Boat menace - the incredible might of the American shipbuilding capacity and the technological refinement of the ASDIC anti-submarine device and maybe more important, Radar. Granted, this was a move of pure hubris by Hitler, but I am somewhat of a U-Boat history buff and I think Doenitz could have won the war for Hitler had he been given the number of U-Boats that he wanted. One only has to review the tonnage that the wolfpacks sank in 1941, 1942 and the first six months of 1943 to realize just how close Doenitz came. Thankfully for the US and Britain, Hitler was more interested in flashy big battleships (the Bismarck and the Tirpitz) By the time Doenitz got through to Hitler the Allies had turned the tide against him and his boats were the hunted instead of the hunters. Rabbi Sol, I do appreciate your posts. You have been one voice of reason in this thread. However, a question. Would you rate Hitler's pogrom of greater violence than, say, Antiochus Epiphanes? I am not Jewish, so please I mean no animosity. I just see Hitler as another in a long disgusting line of animals who have tried to eliminate the people of your faith. Your collective will to survive and overcome is of great value to me. Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:48 PM Interesting point, freightdawg. You may be right about that. The U-boats could have won the war for Hitler in 1942, I think, if he had the foresight to put sufficient resources at Doenitz' disposal. Another key point was Hitler's continual favoring of bombers over fighters through most of the war. This nonsense lost him the Battle of Britain. It is fighters that must establish air superiority, and enough Bf 109's set free to do just that in 1940 could have broken the Royal Air Force, but they were tied down defending the vulnerable bombers. Once you have eliminated an enemy fighter force, then your bombers can really do the job...wherever they want to. It's fighters that win a war in the air. Another bad decision: not replacing the Bf 109 with the Fw 190, and phasing out the 109's after 1941. Messerschmitt had too much influence, so that was not going to happen. Another bad decision: delaying the development of the Me 262 fighter jets, and then converting them to bombers! Sheer lunacy. And the worst decision of all: attacking Russia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 11 Aug 04 - 11:54 PM Freightdawg: To answer your question; Hitler was the much more evil threat than Antiochus. Antiochus' campaign against the Jews was more of a spiritual than a physical one. His aim was to have the Jews accept the Greek gods and worship and forget their own faith. Had the Jews agreed to his terms, he would not have threatened to kill them. Hitler, on the other hand, was obsessed with the complete physical genocidal annihilation of all Jews, regardless of whether they kept to their faith or not. He would trace your lineage back for 4 generations. Even if you were a practicing Christian, if your great grandparent from either side of your family was Jewish, you were marked for extermination. The barbaric cruelty and sheer enormity of Hitler's final solution was unmatched in the history of mankind. There were approximately 15 million Jews in existence before the Holocaust. Hitler killed 6 million of our people which is almost 40%. SOL ZELLER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: freightdawg Date: 12 Aug 04 - 03:10 PM Rabbi, So true and I should have thought of that myself. Thanks for the explanation. I certainly agree that Hitler's "final solution" was unbearably cruel. What makes me so sad is that in Europe as well as in America there is a growing anti-Semitic trend that no one seems to be willing to expose and deal with. Did we learn nothing?? Thank you, Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 12 Aug 04 - 05:20 PM Freightdawg: We do not have to look all over Europe and America to find this growing anti-semitic trend. We see it right here on Mudcat which is a microcosm of the greater world we live in. But at least here, on this forum, both sides can talk to each other without fear of physical violence, and perhaps the voice of reason will prevail. SOL ZELLER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 13 Aug 04 - 12:52 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Raedwulf Date: 13 Aug 04 - 05:26 PM Sorry for taking so long to reply! Those of you wishing to believe that the Japanese might have surrendered in any other circumstances than post-The Bomb(s) are living in cloud cuckoo land. Prime Minister Suzuki stated that, without the atomic bombs, Japan would not have surrendered (& he ought to know). Russian invasion made no bloody difference. The Japanese didn't know what had happened in Manchuria for several days, & didn't care anyway. They'd already stripped all the first class units out of those armies for home defence. As to the suggestion that Russian intervention was a complete & unpleasant surprise... The Japs made a remarkably good job of fortifying Maritime Province (Far East - Vladivostock way) in anticipation of such an event. Such that the projected 9th August invasion of Hokkaido would have been at least a fortnight behind schedule, due to the tenacious resistance of Japanese forces, especially on Sakhalin (an important staging post for the Soviets). Economic collapse meant nothing, & blockade would not have affected the "Big Six" that ruled Japan. Millions would have died from starvation in Japan (including all Allied POW's & internees), which would not have affected Japanese determination in the least. They were dying for their God. The entire Japanese strategy was to win the "decisive battle". Not "decisive" in any military sense, but to make the cost of any Allied victory so high as to make negotation (acceptance of Japanese terms, in other words) preferable. This had been High Command strategy for many months. The advent of nuclear war, as Suzuki admitted, made an invasion of Japan redundant. At that point, given that they didn't (& couldn't possibly) know that there were only two bombs, the only strategy remaining was national suicide. Even then, it took unprecedented intervention from the Emperor to initiate surrender. God knows what would have happened if Japan had bluffed for a week or two. The longer it went without the USA obliging with a third bomb... Fact: there is no pre-Hiroshima document from Japan that suggests that any terms that Japan might have considered were at all acceptable to the Allies. Fact: no Japanese government had surrendered in over 2,000 years. Fact: no Japanese unit surrendered before 15/8/45. Even after that date, many units refused to believe in the Emperor's surrender, & many (particularly officers) committed suicide rather than shame themselves. Fact: the first time the Japanese government seriously discussed surrender is the day Fatman fell (I do not know whether this discussion took place before, after, or with knowledge of, the Nagasaki bomb). Even then, the Big Six were split 50-50 as to surrender terms. History Lesson: The Political Reality of Japan Japan was ruled by an Imperial Council, colloquially known as the Big Six. In the twenty-odd years preceding 1945 there are no less than 64 assorted purges, including 2 prime ministerial assassinations. No-one is going to say "Boo" to the Big Six in 1945, gentlemen. Not no way, not no how. The only attempt at a coup in war years is post-surrender & an attempt to continue the war!!! As, I think, Hawk has already pointed out. For the 'Six' to function, they must be unanimous (it is, if you will, a variation on the Shogun governments that plagued a slightly earlier Japan). Of the 6 members, only one (the Foreign Minister) is a civilian. Of the remaining 5, one is a retired Admiral (I think this is Suzuki, the PM, retired 1937), the rest are serving Flag Officers. Japan is firmly in the hand of militarists. Even on the day of Fatman, the discussion is split equally between two camps. Both are conditional surrenders. Condition one (common to both) is that the Imperial system must continue. Conditions two through four are: Repatriation of all Japanese combatants; all "so-called war crimes trials" Japanese wording! to be conducted under Japanese supervision; no Allied occupation of Japan. Because of the split, the official position will be that of the "all four conditions" party. Hirohito made an unprecedented intervention at this point. The surrender was offered with only condition one as a rider. The US Sec. of State responded swiftly - only unconditional surrender was acceptable & the Emperor was to be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. More heated discussion ensued in the Japanese cabinet, but on 14/8/45 the Emperor made a unilateral decision. Radio messages were sent to all Japanese armies, & at noon 15/8/45 many Japanese heard the voice of their god for the very first time as he declared the surrneder... Now don't drop The Bomb... The Imperial High Command are already seriously considering declaring martial law. Invasion by any of the Allies will certainly trigger this. At this point, Hirohito no longer has an mechanism by which he can intervene. His power is entirely based on the willingness of the government & military to obey him. Take away the Big Six, & there is zero chance that any such opportunity will occur. Moreover, the infrastructure to communicate a surrender would have disintegrated before Hirohito had a chance to announce it. Fact: Before Fat Boy, the US General in charge of bombing operations over Japan had already decided to change focus. In light of the German/European experience, he had given orders to target communications & infrastructure, instead of cities. Japanese infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Keeping the rail network cut in just half-a-dozen or so places (given that their maritime transport network is, in the current circumstances, at a complete standstill) will result in the the civilian (not military - betcha they'll get fed?) starvation of the south. Fact: In post-war Japan, even with the nuclear-induced victory of the Allies, the ration was cut as low as 1,040 calories/day. Imagine what Japan would have been in the wake of a protacted conventional campaign... Congratulations to the morally upright amongst you who would not have dropped The Bomb. Conservative estimates suggest you will kill around 5 million Japanese through military intervention & starvation, & 5-10 million others before the war ends. The war will last another 2-5 years. Japan (without substantial economic help) will remain an agricutural backwater. Of course, the Marshall Plan for Western Europe probably won't happen because resources will be lacking, & so on & so forth... You've just made the world a better place, haven't you... (I'm glad you think Truman was a cold-hearted, gullible, evil, whatever-adjective-you-like bastard - Me? I prefer to think of him as a pragmatist. He didn't choose a good choice, cos there weren't any. He chose the best one he could find, & I reckon history won't judge him too badly whatever the nay-sayers may claim) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Aug 04 - 05:39 PM Raedwulf: Thank you for the excellent analysis. It is too bad that it ( and reality) conflicts with the world-view of some of the posters here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Aug 04 - 06:00 PM Well, you obviously feel strongly about it, Raedwulf. Fine with me. We will evidently never agree on the matter, and it has happened already, so we must live with it. As I've said before, we should probably all thank the Japanese for being the chosen "guinea pigs" for atomic fire, because if it hadn't been done there, it would have been done somewhere else soon enough. I think these arguments are always fueled by a basic emotional decision that the person has made...for or against a proposition. Once the emotional position is established, the mind is not about to change, and it will seek out whatever facts and opinions it can find which back up its predisposition. That's human nature. Some people instinctively feel that the USA is the World's number 1 "good guy" and you will generally find them on one side of a political argument, while people who instinctively feel that the USA is an exploiter and an aggressor will line up on the other side of the argument. That's what we really end up fighting about all the time. We just camouflage it somehow. This squabble about whether it was right or not to drop the Bomb on Japan is just more of the same old traditional divide on whether or not the USA is the saviour of humanity and the guardian of freedom in the World. It's a matter of faith. Strong faith can always come up with good arguments. (And NO, I am not saying that the USA was in any way unjustified in fighting Japan in the 40's...or that Japan was not itself a ruthless aggressor that deserved to meet defeat...so don't bother saying that I am. Remember, someone can be on the opposite side of an argument from you, and STILL not be crazy or evil or totally wrong about everything. They just have a different emotional position on something than you, that's all. You see it all the time with Democrats and Republicans. They are infuriated by seeing their own weaknesses and failings reflected so clearly in the actions of the other.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Raedwulf Date: 13 Aug 04 - 06:52 PM Hawk - Actually, I don't 'believe' that strongly. I have no problem remembering you have a different p-o-v. OTOH, I have never based my facts on my beliefs, as some might say you imply. It happens to be a lucky coincidence that this particular argument coincided with me reading up in the same area. Not because I was interested, not because I had an axe to grind, just because that was what was in front of me at the time. I'm pretty omnivorous, & have a mind (some would insist 'face') like an elephant. *g* I've always tried to base my opinions on the available facts. Generally, I have a low opinion of American honesty, because history doesn't tend to prove otherwise. In truth? I'm too well read in history to accept *any* governmental line. They all lie equally to us. We're all one nationality (or another), the politicians who rule us are something different. You know exactly what I mean! *g* But! In your arguments on this matter, I will follow the facts. There is nothing to suggest that anything other than the atomic bomb persuaded Japan to surrender. Your alternatives are not substantiated by any historical example or precedent whatsover. "What if" history is always contentious. It must be, & that (let's face it! :) ) is half the fun. But "What if" history must be based on verifiable historical precedent, not fantasy. If it is not, it is merely speculation & fiction. I am sorry, but your speculation has no verifiable precedence. You can wish that the bomb was never dropped (I'll join you!), but it was. None of the alternatives that you claimed were viable ever really were. Without the bomb, Japan would not have surrendered. You cannot change that statement, however much you wish. Incontrovertibly, millions would have died were it not for the bomb. This is not emotion. I do not support the bomb because I like it. Just like Truman (because I don't believe the conspiracy theorists that say he was dumb enough to be duped), I would rather it had not been dropped, but it was the least worst choice of a number of unpleasant choices. What else must I say to convince you? I am rational, not emotional. All the gods forbid that such should be the choice again, but the bomb, in that place & at that time... I cannot see another decision that would have spared more lives. And, as Truman did not, I, along with you, have the benefit of hindsight!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Aug 04 - 11:14 PM Fair enough. I've read a ton of material on it too, being a bit of a nut on the War in the Pacific, and I think the Japanese would have surrended regardless. And when they did, a lot of fanatical army officers would have killed themselves (which many did) or tried to stage a revolt (which also happened). Still, I think that a blockade, coupled with the Russian attacks in Manchuria would have brought a Japanese surrender in 1945...and I do not agree with the concept of demanding unconditional surrender of an opponent. Conditional surrender is always possible, and leaves the door open for some negotiations, which is wise. I really don't think we are ever going to agree on this. :-) But you're right that it's an interesting subject, that's for sure. The thing about the Japanese...they follow orders and sublimate their identity to the group more than westerners. This made them very unwilling to surrender, as long as they were ordered to fight and die if necessary. On the other hand, as soon as they were instructed not to fight, the public in general were extremely cooperative with occupying Allied forces. They were following orders and doing their duty, as usual. It must rank as one of the most peaceful and successful postwar occupations of all time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: DougR Date: 13 Aug 04 - 11:52 PM Wow, SRS, thank you! I had NO idea what consesus meant. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 04 - 12:07 AM "Consesus" means sexual congress between 15 or more penguins, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Aug 04 - 01:30 AM Two cows were talking in the field. One cow says, "Have you heard about the Mad Cow disease that's going around?" The other cow answers, "Yeah, makes you glad you're a penguin, doesn't it?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Bert Date: 14 Aug 04 - 02:27 AM How old are you LH? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: Amergin Date: 14 Aug 04 - 04:12 PM Yawn....debating soemthing that happened 60 years ago...before many of us were even born. It appears to me that many people in this thread are typing to see their own words in print....the virtual equivalent of talking to hear your own voice....Why we're at it...why don't we debate the Revolutionary War? Or the American Civil War...or better yet why don't we debate why Urgh hit Ugh over the head with a rock and killed him? You can't change the bombs being dropped...or why...you can only see that it doesn't happen again....that is if you're not sitting here debating why something happened before you were even born. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB? From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Aug 04 - 04:19 PM Amerigin: "Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it." An understanding of WHY things have been done in the past can lead to a better understanding of the present. |
