Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The greatest tragedy in this scenario was that there was no way to exploit the American nuclear monopoly, declare institutionalized Marxism (and all ideologically-driven regimes) as foul a threat to human progress as Nazism, and put the Soviet Union out of business 45 years sooner -- at a saving of millions of lives.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-19-2018 at 11:27 PM..
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,171 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19465
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
The OP should probably look up the British role in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden. What's more, the OP should likely learn about the Rape of Nanking.
Hamburg and Dresden were a joint UK/US Operation.
British cities already had seen substantial bombing by the Germans during the Blitz and V-Rocket bombings, and children were evacuated from British Cities early in the war.
It also should be noted that the Soviets caused massive damage to German cities through heavy artillery, although given they had lost 13.5 million civilians and over 8 million military personnel in WW2, it is hardly surprising that they had little sympathy left for Germany and her people.
The strategic air offensive by the United States Army Air Force and Royal Air Force played a significant part in reducing German industry and tying up German air force and air defence resources, with some bombings, such as the bombing of the eastern German city of Dresden, being done to facilitate specific Soviet operational goals. Dresden was also a major communications hub, and an important railway interchange used to take Jews to the Concentration Camps in the East, there is even a plaque at the right entrance of the station whicj commemorates the stations role in the deportation of Jews.
I make no apologies for Dresden, indeed the men who bombed these cities often had a life expectancy of two weeks themselves, and in order to save our own lives we had to end thewar swiftly. Indeed Hitler was still raining V-Rockets down on London and British Cities at the time, and had plans for ever more powerful rockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I'm wondering how the Brits were supposed to have stopped the atomic bombings even if they had been in opposition, which they were not.
Threaten the US with their a-bomb?
Threaten that if the US used the bomb, they would stop allowing the US to finance their war efforts?
Churchill says he will hold his breath until he turns blue?
The British were fairly instrumental in helping the US and the race was on to develop the bomb before the Germans.
Britain helped supply the Norweigian resistance with plans and supplies, and they managed to destroy a lot of Nazi research early in the war when they destroyed the Nazi Heavy Water Facilities in Norway, the film the Heoes of Telemark is based on the succesful operation. British and US Bombing raid and numerous other operations ensured German research was put back many years.
Britain also passed on all it's knowledge, which had been considerable over the years, starting with John Dalton who is considered the father of the atomic theory, whilst Briton James Chadwick discovered the Neutron, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron and Arthur Eddington who researched the concept of nuclear fusion. Whilst at the University of Manchester, New Zealander Ernest Rutherford first split the atom, whilst Hans Geiger was another fellow of the Univesity. Rutherford was a man of such brilliance and repute that Albert Einstein would later call him "a second Newton".
During WW2, the British set up an operation codenamed Tube Alloys, to carry out further research, and scientist from across Europe and the Commonwealth were now helping Britain, however once the US decided it was going to launch a much bigger research project we passed everything on to the US and many British and international scientists went to the US to form what became known as the 'Manhattan Project'.
Britain was just grateful that the allies had developed the atomic bomb before the Nazi's as Hitler would have used atomic weapons on allied cities including those in Britain given the chance.
In terms of Japan and the atmoic bombs, most people in Britain at the time were just pleased WW2 was over, and there was never any attempt to stop the US using these new weapons indeed quite the opposite.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-20-2018 at 06:19 AM..
British cities already had seen substantial bombing by the Germans during the Blitz and V-Rocket bombings, and children were evacuated from British Cities early in the war.
I make no apologies for Dresden, indeed the men who bombed these cities often had a life expectancy of two weeks themselves, and in order to save our own lives we had to end thewar swiftly. Indeed Hitler was still raining V-Rockets down on London and British Cities at the time, and had plans for ever more powerful rockets.
Nor should you. I was merely pointing out that Great Britain had played a part in operations that had resulted in staggering civilian casualties. I failed to point out the British involvement in the atomic bomb program.
I have difficulty taking seriously anyone who singles out Hiroshima and Nagasaki as somehow especially morally wrong. This is particularly true given the atrocities afflicted all over Asia by the Japanese, or especially given the mass casualties already inflicted by fire bombing raids. If you're dead, you're dead, whether by slowly roasting to death in a bomb shelter or instantly evaporating in a nuclear explosion.
During the battle of Manila, Japanese soldiers amused themselves by breaking into a hospital, going to the maternity ward, and dropping newborns out the window so their comrades could try and impale the infants on their upraised bayonets. And the catalog of horrors during the Sack of Nanking is simply beyond belief. Those atrocities took place one bullet and one bayonet thrust at a time and were repeated all over Asia.
Aside from the fact that the Japanese fought to the death, that's why Americans didn't take many prisoners. Because they had seen the sheer, breathtaking brutality of their foes and weren't inclined to be merciful.
If I were a civilian in World War II and had a choice between being occupied by a Japanese infantry division and a Waffen SS Division, I'm would have chosen the latter without hesitation. The Japanese were rapacious, brutal, and inhumane to an extent unknown since the Middle Ages. Small wonder that they don't teach World War II in their schools today.
So when the Pacific War was reaching its conclusion and the Allies had to uproot a murderous regime and culture in Japan, they had no good options. So they chose the one that didn't entail mass casualties among their troops.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 12-20-2018 at 07:35 AM..
During the battle of Manila, Japanese soldiers amused themselves by breaking into a hospital, going to the maternity ward, and dropping newborns out the window so their comrades could try and impale the infants on their upraised bayonets. And the catalog of horrors during the Sack of Nanking is simply beyond belief. Those atrocities took place one bullet and one bayonet thrust at a time and were repeated all over Asia.
Aside from the fact that the Japanese fought to the death, that's why Americans didn't take many prisoners. Because they had seen the sheer, breathtaking brutality of their foes and weren't inclined to be merciful.
If I were a civilian in World War II and had a choice between being occupied by a Japanese infantry division and a Waffen SS Division, I'm would have chosen the latter without hesitation. The Japanese were rapacious, brutal, and inhumane to an extent unknown since the Middle Ages. Small wonder that they don't teach World War II in their schools today.
My daughter related to me that when she took a college history course that covered the atomic bombings, her instructor--a Chinese immigrant--strangely couldn't stop grinning at that part. The students--being properly PC--were aghast.
When I was stationed in the Philippines in the mid 80s, I had a Japanese-American buddy. When we took trips around Luzon, sometimes an older Filipino would corner him with, "Are you Japanese?" He'd say, "No, I'm Chinese. My name is Wong. Tony Wong."
Think about it, if your dad or grand-dad was slated to participate in the planned invasion of Japan. If you are of an intellectual bent, read some accounts of the invasions of Iowa Jima and Okinawa by the US in the Pacific War to understand the mentality of Japanese soldiers during the war. It's a world young people, today, simply cannot imagine and certainly can't infer from the last two generations (Post-World War II) of Japanese.
New poster so I don't know if I am responding to a serious thread or just a joke, as this shows such utter and complete historical lack of knowledge as to be preposterous. I mean, do you even know that Britian was fighting the war with Japan during WW2, do you seriously think they would declare war on it's ally to protect it's enemy? That defies logic. The entire question is so laughable that I don't even know where to start? I thought the US educational system was bad.
solooriginal lesson number one - please don't take your history lessons from social media (quora). Yes this forum is social media as well but I encourage you to pick up a history book or two and you will find the below is supported. US and UK were allies in WW2 fighting the same enemy - Japan (I can't believe I have to start with this). As such, the U.S. consulted and obtained consent with the UK on the dropping of the Atomic Bomb per agreement. British supported it's usage. This is all documented in state communication. In fact Roosevelt discussed the use of atomic bombs with Churchill back in 1944. Thus, one can consider that "the allies" agreed to use an atomic bomb on Japan. US just delivered the package.
Now in terms of British citizen attitude, are you joking? This is Churchill we are talking about, he would have used this weapon on Japan, Germany, probably it's own ally Russia, and maybe Ireland just for laughs. Seriously - the UK, like the US, suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting both Japan and Germany and were war weary. The UK in particular. British and commonwealth troops were still fighting Japanese, British troops were still starving in Japanese POW camps. The English, like all the allies, were OVERJOYED that the war with Japan over and could care less what weapon was used.
As for the historical justification for the atomic bombing of Japan. There are several excellent threads on it here so I encourage you to do a search and do not start another one. The clear consensus is that it was indeed justified.
In terms of Vietnam and Iraq - New flash: UK and/or commonwealth troops faught in both so you have to first discuss that with your own government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
