Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: storch on November 02, 2007, 07:13:59 AM
-
shamrock posted a
to the 140,000 who died in the bombing of hiroshima in the Gen Paul Tibbets obituary thread. his post struck me as silly and out of place in that thread. it also created other questions which are what I'm posing in this thread.
what was so inherently evil about dropping an atomic bomb to end a bloody and needlessly continuing war against japan?
were the deaths of 350,000 german civilians during the RAF firebombing raid on dresden on 13 feb 1945 any less tragic?
what about the estimated 1,000,000 other japanese casualties from the USAAF firebombings in all of japan prior to the atomic bombings?
what about the 30,000,000 people josef stalin managed to make disappear?
what about the 10,000,000 victims of the nazi regime?
I say it was a good move dropping those weapons. I think we should have done that at least twice more in the immediate aftermath of the war against japan sadly we didn't have the weapons.
-
Originally posted by storch
shamrock posted a to the 140,000 who died in the bombing of hiroshima in the Gen Paul Tibbets obituary thread. his post struck me as silly and out of place in that thread. it also created other questions which are what I'm posing in this thread.
what was so inherently evil about dropping an atomic bomb to end a bloody and needlessly continuing war against japan?
were the deaths of 350,000 german civilians during the RAF firebombing raid on dresden on 13 feb 1945 any less tragic?
what about the estimated 1,000,000 other japanese casualties from the USAAF firebombings in all of japan prior to the atomic bombings?
what about the 30,000,000 people josef stalin managed to make disappear?
what about the 10,000,000 victims of the nazi regime?
I say it was a good move dropping those weapons. I think we should have done that at least twice more in the immediate aftermath of the war against japan sadly we didn't have the weapons.
Twice more!!!!!!! On who, what and why, the war was over?
-
I think your numbers are a bit out of proportion.
In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months.
In Dresden Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead".
If you ever get a chance to read Saburo Sakais book, Samauri. He explains that the Japanese would never give up, they would sacrifice themselves however possible to keep the US off the mainland. The only logical course of action we had for ending the war, with a minimum of casualty's, was bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There emperor was directly responsible above all else, and should be held as the major cause for loss of life for both Japanese and Allied forces.
-
The bomb could have been demonstrated first, but I understand why it was not. All in all we have to say that America and the allies were both merciful and kind by allowing the Japanese and German peoples to continue to exist.
-
The problem is with General Tibbets. He ended a bloody war that we didn't start. He saved the lives of countless American marines (have you seen the death toll estimates for an invasion of Japan!!).
The problem is that many today (mostly the product of our liberal schools), believe two things: America is a big bad evil country, war must be avoided at all cost.
What did the great Gen. Tibbets do? He defended America (the dropping of the bomb immediately made America a superpower) and waged war. Thus General Tibbets is an object of the hatred of many of my peers.
I know several people who have been required to write reports for school (exam grade reports!!) on why it was wrong of us to drop the bomb (not why did we do it, why it was wrong of us to do it!).
I find it interesting that these people are so hung up about saving the lives of 100,000 Japanses (the nation that started the war), but would have not problem seeing a MILLION American service men (plus countless Japanese for that matter) die in an invasion of Japan.
General Tibbets did the right thing, despite what many today would say. I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but modern liberalism has made us weak. If we were in a war with Japan today, I don't know if we would have the stomach to stick it out. I think we would capitulate before the battle of Midway.
Thank God, our fathers and grandfathers stuck with it!
God bless America, God Bless General Tibbets.
-
mt
-
We didn't want to invade Japan because of the death toll it would inflict. That's why we told Gen. Tibbets to end the war at all costs, which he did.
-
Originally posted by Mojava
mt
Yes?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yes?
You da ho? I da ho? :D
-
Good post Ongurth.
-
Tibbets was the pilot, Truman ordered the bombing.
-
This topic is covered very well in the book "Flyboys". The Japanese were relentless in their devotion to their emperor, who was merely a puppet to the Generals who had bastardized the Bushido Code and twisted it to fit their needs. There are a number of Japanese who say that the firebombings did more to end the war then the atomic bombs did.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Tibbets was the pilot, Truman ordered the bombing.
what he said...
-
Heres another take.
Hitler manages to produce a Nuclear bomb before the allies.
Now what would he do with it? and would he have had any reservations for the people of New York? London?
My guess is that he would have used it. Total war is to the last man, woman or child.
General Tibbets did his job.
Bruv
~S~
-
In my opinion, Paul Tibbets was a good man, a Hero. He himself does not seek glory for that day over Hiroshima.
What I find disgusting in this whole situation is the critic's of dropping the bomb twice. How terrible the U.S. was in doing so, how this country is still groveling over it and apologizing to the world for it.
I have yet to see the Japanese Government apologize for the atrocities they committed against Allied POW's. The atrocities committed against civilian populations during their march across the Pacific.
Ask a survivor of the Bataan Death March how he feels.
-
WE have the luxury 60 years later to look back and critique ALL the decisions that were made throughout the conflict.
To blame the pilot for dropping a bomb that he was ordered to drop and likely the crew had no idea what they were carrying is a waste of time. Had the bomb not been dropped the firebombing would have lasted longer and killed just as many people. The end result would have been the same, thousands killed.
I agree with the opinion that we are becoming so weak that those who died for our freedom would be ashamed.
-
Originally posted by 68Boomer
I have yet to see the Japanese Government apologize for the atrocities they committed against Allied POW's. The atrocities committed against civilian populations during their march across the Pacific.
Ask a survivor of the Bataan Death March how he feels.
You've yet to see it because you haven't bothered to look for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
-
My father was an Airline Pilot fo ra major carrier. His flights at times flew within miles of White Sands. His announcements of the site and its historic events have made many applaud and many scold. His accounts of several Japanese travelers demanding reparations from the airline landed him in hot water. He never appologized and said that he would not until Japan apologized for the brutality upon the civilians and military in the war. I do not believe the Japanese people felt the same as the Emperor. War is hell and Truman and the administration felt that this would save many allied lives. That was the immediate concern. Truman made the most awful decision a man could make. It ended a war and started another (cold war). The nuke is a strategic and political weapon that has consequences to this day. All must think about this.
HUMBLE JUGMAN
-
What I find disgusting in this whole situation is the critic's of dropping the bomb twice. How terrible the U.S. was in doing so, how this country is still groveling over it and apologizing to the world for it.
====
Historically Truman himself was so repulsed by the deaths of so many women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that he ordered no more atomic weapons were to be used against Japan. Oppenheimer also felt that after Hiroshima, no futher bombardment was necessary and that the Japanese should have been allowed more time to understand the depth of the destruction at Hiroshima. Nagasaki was truly not necessary.
However, my own opinion is that the Japanese were so ruthless in their treatment of millions of civilians and hundreds of thousands of POWs that the atomic bombings were justifed as a punitive mesasure and not just as a means to bring a sense of immediate urgency to the Japanese government.
Every single hour of continued conflict brought more american deaths and by that time Japan was clearly finished, they just would not capitulate.
Even without the need to invade, the bombings ended the conflict hours, days and perhaps even weeks sooner, thereby saving hundreds if not thousands of american lives. That reality alone justifies the atomic bombings, in my opinion.
No apologies necessary, Regret? absolutely. War by its very nature is deeply regrettable.
-
"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it."
Robert E Lee.
-
i just get irritated when people claim "the war was already over when we n00ked them!!!"
neg.
-
Originally posted by 68Boomer
In my opinion, Paul Tibbets was a good man, a Hero. He himself does not seek glory for that day over Hiroshima.
What I find disgusting in this whole situation is the critic's of dropping the bomb twice. How terrible the U.S. was in doing so, how this country is still groveling over it and apologizing to the world for it.
I have yet to see the Japanese Government apologize for the atrocities they committed against Allied POW's. The atrocities committed against civilian populations during their march across the Pacific.
Ask a survivor of the Bataan Death March how he feels.
I've had the privilege of doing just that. Back in '81-'83 I attended a home bible study in Indiana hosted by a survivor of the Bataan death march. His name was Jesse Miller. I aked him if he harbored resentment or hatred for the Japanese for the march. He told me that the prison camp in Japan was worse than the death march. He said he had tried to forgive the Japanese for their cruelty but didn't know if he was completely successful.
-
Reading discussions in Russian forums. Some people say that Navy almost openly opposed using A-bombs, Admirals thought that sieged Japan had to surrender by the next Winter, and there was no need for invasion at all. Unfortunately, they don't give any references :(
It seems to me that bombings had one main goal: to scare Soviet leadership.
-
Originally posted by clerick
This topic is covered very well in the book "Flyboys". The Japanese were relentless in their devotion to their emperor, who was merely a puppet to the Generals who had bastardized the Bushido Code and twisted it to fit their needs. There are a number of Japanese who say that the firebombings did more to end the war then the atomic bombs did.
Flyboys is an excellent book. Disturbing at times but well worth the read.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It seems to me that bombings had one main goal: to scare Soviet leadership.
I think there is some truth to this. A message was certainly being sent to Stalin. OTOH my Father-in-law was in training for the invasion of Japan in the summer of 1945. The planned invasion was considered a real possibility at the time. He feels lucky it never took place.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It seems to me that bombings had one main goal: to scare Soviet leadership.
Perhaps a very, very small consideration. This claim is mostly revisionist history from what I have found though. The Cold War was by now means inevitable in 1945. Plenty of things happened in the next two years that brought it on. At the time of the bomb being dropped the USSR might have been a worry, but nowhere near what we were obviously having to deal with Japan, and the decision was caluculated as such.
-
My take on this is the bombings saved more lives than they cost.
...both in terms of Japanese lives, and certianly American lives, had the US been forced to invade Japan.
I feel bad for the lives lost... and the suffering.
The Japanese were the aggressors and started the war.
What they did at Pearl Harbor earned them serious payback as well.
They got what they deserved and they know it.
Had they had the bomb don't doubt for a second that they would have used it.
We were simply ahead of the curve on nuclear technology.
After the first bomb was dropped, Japan refused to surrender even under threat of the second bomb.
The second bomb was delivered... then the Japanese surrendered.
It could have stopped with the first one.
War is over.
They respected the fact that we beat them... soundly.
I love the Japanese. The Japanese love Americans.
Where is my sushi? yummm!
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Stang
The Cold War was by now means inevitable in 1945.
that depends... "The Cold War" as we know it might have been avoidable, but there were tensions and hostility between the US and Russia going back to well before WW2 even started. In hindsight a conflict of some sort between democracy and communism was unavoidable, judging by the distrust our leaders showed for the USSR they knew it as well.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think there is some truth to this. A message was certainly being sent to Stalin. OTOH my Father-in-law was in training for the invasion of Japan in the summer of 1945. The planned invasion was considered a real possibility at the time. He feels lucky it never took place.
Training/preparation is different from true intentions.
OTOH at least half of the job in case of invasion had to be done by Soviet Army.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
that depends... "The Cold War" as we know it might have been avoidable, but there were tensions and hostility between the US and Russia going back to well before WW2 even started. In hindsight a conflict of some sort between democracy and communism was unavoidable, judging by the distrust our leaders showed for the USSR they knew it as well.
USSR didn't do anything towards Cold War, the Blue side is totally responsible for it. Red side only reacted to hostile actions.
Fact is that Truman told Stalin about Atomic Bomb in Potsdam, and it really scared him, resulted in immediate attention to Soviet nuclear program.
Probably the fear of Red Army going all the way to the West throwing "allies" into the Atlantic was too strong, so Truman had to bluff.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Probably the fear of Red Army going all the way to the West throwing "allies" into the Atlantic was too strong, so Truman had to bluff.
the red army would have never gotten out of germany.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Training/preparation is different from true intentions.
OTOH at least half of the job in case of invasion had to be done by Soviet Army.
LMAO when was the Soviets gonna do their half Boroda?
August 5: Atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
August 8: Russia declares war on Japan.
August 9: Atomic bomb is dropped on Nagasaki.
August 14: Japan accepts Allied terms.
August 15: V-J Day. ...
In the Winter of 1945?
:huh
Mac
-
Originally posted by Boroda
USSR didn't do anything towards Cold War, the Blue side is totally responsible for it. Red side only reacted to hostile actions.
Fact is that Truman told Stalin about Atomic Bomb in Potsdam, and it really scared him, resulted in immediate attention to Soviet nuclear program.
Probably the fear of Red Army going all the way to the West throwing "allies" into the Atlantic was too strong, so Truman had to bluff.
Yep US and Britian was gonna feed the people of Berlin but, well, the Soviets decided to fence half of Berlin in to feed them... wait they forgot the food.
Immediate attention to Soviet nuclear what? a program LMAO...
Truman bluffed? LMAO... dammm good bluff. I wonder where the third Nuke would have landed Boroda?
Mac
*Livin in fear of the Red Army*
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AWMac
LMAO when was the Soviets gonna do their half Boroda?
August 5: Atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
August 8: Russia declares war on Japan.
August 9: Atomic bomb is dropped on Nagasaki.
August 14: Japan accepts Allied terms.
August 15: V-J Day. ...
In the Winter of 1945?
:huh
Mac
It was agreed in Yalta that USSR attacks Japan no later then 3 month after Victory over Germany. It was Aug 9th, Red Army attacked on Aug 8th.
About 10,000km to regroup forces from Europe to Far East - can't be done immediately.
We defeated the main Japanese Army forces at the continent, and we had to participate in an invasion.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yep US and Britian was gonna feed the people of Berlin but, well, the Soviets decided to fence half of Berlin in to feed them... wait they forgot the food.
The reasons for the "Blockade of Berlin" are quite obvious and they are 100% Western fault. I am sick of repeating what really happened again and again.
-
Probably the fear of Red Army going all the way to the West throwing "allies" into the Atlantic was too strong, so Truman had to bluff.
====
After the surrender of May 8, 1945 extinguished the common threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. He was concerned that some 25,000 American POWs had been liberated from POW camps by the Soviets, but were never returned to the US. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God’s sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people, the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson — who would become Secretary of War a few months later — what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."
========
Once can only guess what the result would have been had Pattons advice been followed.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The reasons for the "Blockade of Berlin" are quite obvious and they are 100% Western fault. I am sick of repeating what really happened again and again.
yes, everyone knows the berlin wall was to keep out american spies that were going to steal the secrets of the USSR.
like the russian B29 bomber, ah er i mean the TU4.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Fact is that Truman told Stalin about Atomic Bomb in Potsdam, and it really scared him, resulted in immediate attention to Soviet nuclear program.
No he didn't, but I'm sure that's what your former Soviet over-lords told you during your weekly Youn Pioneer meetings.
I do have to give credit to the Soviets, they did do the spying game better than we did, having some high placed moles within the Manhatten Project. This is where Stalin received his information about the atom bomb and not from Truman.
ESPIONAGE AND THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
(http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm)
ack-ack
-
It is a fact that at Potsdam Truman told Stalin that he (truman) had a brand new weapon, a super bomb. Where Borada was wrong is that Stalin already knew about it.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Reading discussions in Russian forums. Some people say that Navy almost openly opposed using A-bombs, Admirals thought that sieged Japan had to surrender by the next Winter, and there was no need for invasion at all. Unfortunately, they don't give any references :(
It seems to me that bombings had one main goal: to scare Soviet leadership.
Oh get over yourself and your screwed up mess of a country. Nobody cares.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
that depends... "The Cold War" as we know it might have been avoidable, but there were tensions and hostility between the US and Russia going back to well before WW2 even started. In hindsight a conflict of some sort between democracy and communism was unavoidable, judging by the distrust our leaders showed for the USSR they knew it as well.
Democracy Vs Communism wasn't the source of the conflict. In the end it came down to the mindsets and actions of the men who controlled the situation.
If it wasn't for the intense paranoia of Stalin, and his subsequent actions, post war Europe would have been a very different place.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Reading discussions in Russian forums. Some people say that Navy almost openly opposed using A-bombs, Admirals thought that sieged Japan had to surrender by the next Winter, and there was no need for invasion at all. Unfortunately, they don't give any references :(
It seems to me that bombings had one main goal: to scare Soviet leadership.
Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan was scheduled to begin on November 1, 1945
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone.
Admiral Leahy was (I think) in the Navy. Here was an admiral who was planning for invasion, not seige.
As for The cold war being blamed entirely on the USA (or atleast anti-Soviet countries) the USA and its allies had a nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1949. The reason the Soviets built the bomb is because they feared us having it, but the USA could have used nuclear blackmail or nuclear war against the soviets during that period without fear of nuclear counterattack if that were our intent.
Instead we went from a navy of 105 carriers to 6 aircraft carriers and resulted in a wholesale resignation of many Navy leaders in 1949 in protest to the Navy downsizing.
In 1946 we went from 557 billion in military spending to 52.4 billion in 1947.
I can see how Uncle Joe could have been concerned with the USA cutting military spending by 90%.
When in 1946 the USA, Canada and the UK issued a joint declaration asking for int'l controls and cooperation regarding nuclear weapons and technology I can see how that was threatening to Joe.
-
Originally posted by SD67
Democracy Vs Communism wasn't the source of the conflict. In the end it came down to the mindsets and actions of the men who controlled the situation.
If it wasn't for the intense paranoia of Stalin, and his subsequent actions, post war Europe would have been a very different place.
Yeah, the soviets would have taken all of europe.
It was right to be paranoid of them. Millions upon millions died directly in their hands post ww2.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It was right to be paranoid of them. Millions upon millions died directly in their hands post ww2.
and pre-...
-
He was a soldier, no different than any other whom carried out their duty during a war. Just because he piloted the plane that dropped the bomb, doesn't make him better or worse than all the other solders that fought in ww2. Regardless of what side they were on, they all fought for what they believed in and for their countries.
Remember the winners always write the history books.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You've yet to see it because you haven't bothered to look for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
First...thank you for taking the time to put up the link.
However....it is not my place to go searching for it. I have never seen, and I watch news and history programs religiously, a Japanese Official openly apologize in public to the people that the atrocities were committed against.
And there are two other reasons, personal reasons for the 'Not Bothering'.
One should not have to seek an apology, an apology that is given after being sought is worthless in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Once can only guess what the result would have been had Pattons advice been followed.
After reading Omar Bradley's "Soldier's Diary" (issued here in Russian in 1957) I came to a conclusion that Patton was a loonie. It's funny that the same book was used to make a Patton movie...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
It is a fact that at Potsdam Truman told Stalin that he (truman) had a brand new weapon, a super bomb. Where Borada was wrong is that Stalin already knew about it.
American A-Bomb project wasn't taken seriously until Truman boasted Trinity in Potsdam. Otherwise we could probably have a Bomb a year or two earlier.
USSR started to invest in nuclear program only in 1945. A Bomb have cost us probably as much as a War, but, fortunately, we got it in time.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
American A-Bomb project wasn't taken seriously until Truman boasted Trinity in Potsdam. Otherwise we could probably have a Bomb a year or two earlier.
USSR started to invest in nuclear program only in 1945. A Bomb have cost us probably as much as a War, but, fortunately, we got it in time.
In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?
Boroda lives in a Prada created fantasy world where he actually believes the truckloads of bullcrap they piled on the citizens.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan was scheduled to begin on November 1, 1945
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone.
Admiral Leahy was (I think) in the Navy. Here was an admiral who was planning for invasion, not seige.
As for The cold war being blamed entirely on the USA (or atleast anti-Soviet countries) the USA and its allies had a nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1949. The reason the Soviets built the bomb is because they feared us having it, but the USA could have used nuclear blackmail or nuclear war against the soviets during that period without fear of nuclear counterattack if that were our intent.
Instead we went from a navy of 105 carriers to 6 aircraft carriers and resulted in a wholesale resignation of many Navy leaders in 1949 in protest to the Navy downsizing.
In 1946 we went from 557 billion in military spending to 52.4 billion in 1947.
I can see how Uncle Joe could have been concerned with the USA cutting military spending by 90%.
When in 1946 the USA, Canada and the UK issued a joint declaration asking for int'l controls and cooperation regarding nuclear weapons and technology I can see how that was threatening to Joe.
Thank You, it's very interesting, I didn't know about mil budget cuts. I appreciate any information that adds to the complete picture.
USSR didn;t have any intentions of starting a war on the "allies". Before maybe 1950 it was impossible, after 1945 USSR also cut down it's military several times, and the country was literally in ruins, we have reached 1940 level only in 1947, and then came the last starvation, bad harvest 1947.
Joint declaration for international control - nice, I didn't know it too. In 1947 Molotov said to Western scientists who visited USSR that there is no such thing as a "secret of an atomic bomb". Another interesting fact is that USSR didn't boast the Bomb, American RB-29s discovered increase in radiation when flying spy missions over Kamchatka several weeks ago. Doesn't it show that Soviet side was quite self-confident?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Thank You, it's very interesting, I didn't know about mil budget cuts. I appreciate any information that adds to the complete picture.
USSR didn;t have any intentions of starting a war on the "allies". Before maybe 1950 it was impossible, after 1945 USSR also cut down it's military several times, and the country was literally in ruins, we have reached 1940 level only in 1947, and then came the last starvation, bad harvest 1947.
Joint declaration for international control - nice, I didn't know it too. In 1947 Molotov said to Western scientists who visited USSR that there is no such thing as a "secret of an atomic bomb". Another interesting fact is that USSR didn't boast the Bomb, American RB-29s discovered increase in radiation when flying spy missions over Kamchatka several weeks ago. Doesn't it show that Soviet side was quite self-confident?
I have little doubt that Russia will/is rise/rising again. As a sovereign state uninterested in imposing communism on the rest of the world I welcome her. Otherwise, not so much.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?
Look at Charioter and Fleetwood plans.
Also look at the A-bomb stock the US had. That's why I said Truman bluffed.
A-bombs were only terror-weapons. they couldn't stop Soviet Army from cleaning the Western Europe in a couple of weeks. Our bomb arrived just in time, when Americans have built a stock enough to start massive terror-bombings of Soviet cities.
Check Drop-Shot plan, the one that was delayed after Soviet nuclear test.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have little doubt that Russia will/is rise/rising again. As a sovereign state uninterested in imposing communism on the rest of the world I welcome her. Otherwise, not so much.
Communism was just a slogan. I see it as an official religion, nothing more.
The problem is that the West isn't interested in independent powerful Russia with it's own foreign policy :( It doesn't have anything to do with communism.
-
Just a side-note to stay on topic:
I agree with people who say that Tibbets was just a warrior following orders, without even understanding what they are dropping on Hiroshima. He just had the best B-29 crew in the Pacific.
I understand his decision to hide his grave so no "pacifist" idiots will have an opportunity...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
A-bombs were only terror-weapons. they couldn't stop Soviet Army from cleaning the Western Europe in a couple of weeks. Our bomb arrived just in time, when Americans have built a stock enough to start massive terror-bombings of Soviet cities.
Holy bull****:huh
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Communism was just a slogan. I see it as an official religion, nothing more.
The problem is that the West isn't interested in independent powerful Russia with it's own foreign policy :( It doesn't have anything to do with communism.
It worked well when so many had nothing. When a nation becomes more prosperous and the people feel they aren't being properly rewarded for their labors the glow dims.
-
The U.S. planned to have 7 tactical A-bombs to use in the invasion of Japan. These would have been dropped on Japanese troop concentrations.
And while it is true that every Japanese was supposed to be ready to fight, it would have been a one sided slaughter. The Japanese never developed an effective anti-tank gun, and the majority of soldiers to be faced by the U.S. were old men and young boys. You can be assured that they would be nowhere near as well armed or well trained as the the home defense guard that Germany put up in its last days.
The only trick Japan had up its sleeve were the 5000 aircraft relegated to Kamikaze duty that were hidden in caves and forests.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Holy bull****:huh
:D
Another "everyone knows".
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The U.S. planned to have 7 tactical A-bombs to use in the invasion of Japan. These would have been dropped on Japanese troop concentrations.
US didn't have 7 A-bombs until late-1946. Truman bluffed.
-
They were never produced, but that is the amount of plutonium and uranium they had available.
-
It is certainly fun getting history from the other side of the coin. Boroda may be wrong in many respects, but it is still enjoyable to hear.