[AntisthenesDogger]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You were basing your judgement on the fact that it didn't even get Germany to surrender. That's my point. At the time they thought it would.

Yes, yes and once again, that's the premise of this thread. To discuss and base judgment of the Allied bombing with the benefit of hindsight.

[the bear]

If we hadn't crushed the Nazi monster you would now be posting in

DasStudentenZimmer

and the moderators would be waiting to remove your fingernails

[Norton1]

(Original post by the bear)
If we hadn't crushed the Nazi monster you would now be posting in

DasStudentenZimmer

and the moderators would be waiting to remove your fingernails

And we would have exactly the same number of anti-jewish threads. But more pumpernickel. So much pumpernickel.

[Octohedral]

(Original post by cl_steele)
aye whilst it was undoubedly horrific i agree with you that it was the lesser of two evils and in the long run almost certainly saved more lives than it cost ... the ends did justify the means in this case.

I think it possibly saved lives in an unexpected way as well - we've seen the horror of an atomic bomb now, and when that atomic bomb was relatively small. If someone decided to detonate today's nuclear warheads they could probably annihilate a country. Hiroshima, in a weird way, acts as a deterrent.

I don't in any way condone it though - I'm still in two minds. What always horrifies me is the attitude of the pilot to his 'patriotic duty'. His response was rationalised, but how you can kill thousands of people without involuntarily feeling something is beyond me.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Octohedral)
I think it possibly saved lives in an unexpected way as well - we've seen the horror of an atomic bomb now, and when that atomic bomb was relatively small. If someone decided to detonate today's nuclear warheads they could probably annihilate a country. Hiroshima, in a weird way, acts as a deterrent.

I don't in any way condone it though - I'm still in two minds. What always horrifies me is the attitude of the pilot to his 'patriotic duty'. His response was rationalised, but how you can kill thousands of people without involuntarily feeling something is beyond me.

exactly i mean the thing they dropped on hiroshima and Nagasaki was what a few Kt? the russians a few years ago detonated a 50Mt bomb and that was scaled down from the design of 100Mt ... that is one ****ing big bomb, as you said the presence of such devices does serve as a deterrant, no one wants on those landing in their back yard do they ? :L

but i second your second point, on the one hand he did save thousands of american lives but on the other im not quite sure how youd live with yourself after doing that? like when the americans ran simulations to see if their troops when commanded would launch their missiles from the silos a significant proportion of them refused to do it as they didnt want that kind of blood on their hands.

[Cheese_Monster]

A 'Just war' is a myth. It was Machiavellian in approach, we can all quarrel about what should have been done with hindsight, but in reality, it helped to win the war.

[TheHistoryStudent]

If I'm honest I think it would be beneficial to seperate the bombing of German cities with conventional bombs, and the Atomic bombing of Japanese cities, because I feel that one was the use of a conventional weapon, and in all likelyhood probably would have done little to shorten the war, whilst the other was something new in world history, and probably did shorten the war because it demonstrated that the Americans had the potential to simply destroy japan without ever actually putting troops on it.

On the side of the German bombing, I'd say that I dont think it would have shortened the war at all, but that I could understand desire for revenge on the part of the British who undertook the bombing, due to the German Blitz, in which let's not forget, many civilian targets were hit, and in the case of Coventry, partially destroyed. I think the effect it actually had was simply the same effect in Britain, namely despite the carnage and destruction, a sense of national unity in the face of enemy aggression, and the greater desire to win. I think also (someone may have to correct me here) that isn't it true that the Germans actually increased industrial output despite the bombing? So really if it's true the bombing would have had no real effect of shortening the war in my opinion.

In the Pacifc theatre, as I mentioned above, I think the use of the A-Bomb did shorten the war, and in fact ended it, because it demonstrated to the Japanese that unlike in the earlier conflicts of the war, where both sides had suffered large numbers of deaths, the Americans would not now have to invade the island of Japan, and could simply wipe them out without actually having to use troops, all that would be required would be to A bomb Japan untill it decided it had had enough, at which point, if they kept on going, Japan might have just been a smoking radioactive wreck anyway.

[green.tea]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
If I'm honest I think it would be beneficial to seperate the bombing of German cities with conventional bombs, and the Atomic bombing of Japanese cities, because I feel that one was the use of a conventional weapon, and in all likelyhood probably would have done little to shorten the war, whilst the other was something new in world history, and probably did shorten the war because it demonstrated that the Americans had the potential to simply destroy japan without ever actually putting troops on it.

On the side of the German bombing, I'd say that I dont think it would have shortened the war at all, but that I could understand desire for revenge on the part of the British who undertook the bombing, due to the German Blitz, in which let's not forget, many civilian targets were hit, and in the case of Coventry, partially destroyed. I think the effect it actually had was simply the same effect in Britain, namely despite the carnage and destruction, a sense of national unity in the face of enemy aggression, and the greater desire to win. I think also (someone may have to correct me here) that isn't it true that the Germans actually increased industrial output despite the bombing? So really if it's true the bombing would have had no real effect of shortening the war in my opinion.

In the Pacifc theatre, as I mentioned above, I think the use of the A-Bomb did shorten the war, and in fact ended it, because it demonstrated to the Japanese that unlike in the earlier conflicts of the war, where both sides had suffered large numbers of deaths, the Americans would not now have to invade the island of Japan, and could simply wipe them out without actually having to use troops, all that would be required would be to A bomb Japan untill it decided it had had enough, at which point, if they kept on going, Japan might have just been a smoking radioactive wreck anyway.

Actually the soviet attack was probably more of a factor. I think japan surrendered at that point because they doubted theyd get the assurances they got from the americans from the soviets. So why drop the bombs? Why not wait to see if japan still fights on when the soviets attack too?

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by green.tea)
Actually the soviet attack was probably more of a factor. I think japan surrendered at that point because they doubted theyd get the assurances they got from the americans from the soviets. So why drop the bombs? Why not wait to see if japan still fights on when the soviets attack too?

Hmm, that is a fair point actually...

Since I'm going off the top of my head (you'll have to forgive my ignorace) what assurances are we talking about? I knew that when Germany was defeated America and Russia made an alliance against Japan but past that all I knew was that America dropped the A-Bombs and then the war was over haha (it's beena while since I've learnt about WW2 history...).

On a wider political level I think that the US in using the A-Bombs (because by that time Truman was in charge yes? Who was rabidly anti-Communist?) was demonstrating it's military might to an emerging Soviet super-power to try and ensure that while futue relations would be chilly (due to polar opposite political systems) both sides would realise that to attack one-another would not be a good idea purely for the nuclear reason.

[PinkyPurply]

Looking back it's easy to convict the bombings as merciless but you have to consider how viciously raw the emotions would have been at the time.

It can never be forgiven, and like many I view them as war crimes but it's important to view them in context and essentially as retaliation to similar attacks on them. At the time they were probably seen as an ambiguous way to stop the greater evil of the Nazi threat.

I think it was my grandfather that compared it to being in a fight. If somebody came up to you out of the blue and hit you, you're going to hit him back a damn sight harder!

[Bubbles*de*Milo]

(Original post by cl_steele)
aye whilst it was undoubedly horrific i agree with you that it was the lesser of two evils and in the long run almost certainly saved more lives than it cost ... the ends did justify the means in this case.

(Original post by concubine)


What I do find odd is that all of the people that are totally against the use of atomic weapons in WW2 can't seem to grasp is that the alternative was basically going to be a continuation of this.

I'm a firm believer that the atomic bombs saved lives.

Ah, the post-war myth that the atomic bomb saved more lives than it killed.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Ah, the post-war myth that the atomic bomb saved more lives than it killed.

and youd know better would you?

[Bubbles*de*Milo]

(Original post by cl_steele)
and youd know better would you?

Well, I think my view can be substantiated more than yours, yes.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
Hmm, that is a fair point actually...

Since I'm going off the top of my head (you'll have to forgive my ignorace) what assurances are we talking about? I knew that when Germany was defeated America and Russia made an alliance against Japan but past that all I knew was that America dropped the A-Bombs and then the war was over haha (it's beena while since I've learnt about WW2 history...).

On a wider political level I think that the US in using the A-Bombs (because by that time Truman was in charge yes? Who was rabidly anti-Communist?) was demonstrating it's military might to an emerging Soviet super-power to try and ensure that while futue relations would be chilly (due to polar opposite political systems) both sides would realise that to attack one-another would not be a good idea purely for the nuclear reason.

I'd figure the bomb was designed as a test, to see what damage it would do in the event of an upcoming war with the soviets, insisting they join the war THEN dropping the bomb supports your thought.

[That Bearded Man]

My response to the question is that winning was vital, thus would support whichever option at the time increased our chance of winning with as few casualties as possible.

This is hard to support, but since the bombing of coventry it would seem like something I would have agreed with at the time.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

The situation warranted the response it got.

That is all there is to it.

For the Liberals:

Think of it as a cheap regeneration project.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well, I think my view can be substantiated more than yours, yes.

He didn't ask whose view could gain the most support, did he?

You're both speculating and that's all there is to it.

By the way, your 'view' = regurgitating what you once saw/read/heard from someone/somewhere else.

[Bubbles*de*Milo]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
He didn't ask whose view could gain the most support, did he?

Oh? Have you misunderstood the word 'substantiated'? I said it can be 'more substantiated', which in plain English means I think there's much more evidence to support it. So it's not a case of me 'knowing better', but me having more evidence (in my opinion). I don't know where you're going with which 'view could gain the most support', as though I was referring to which would be more popular/agreed with.

You're both speculating and that's all there is to it.

Are we? We both have a fairly wide amount of knowledge on the subject, we've both come to differing opinions. How is that speculative? We're not hypothesising on something we know nothing about, we're using previous historiography to form an opinion. We're doing what every other historian does.. using facts and deriving an answer. We may not know every fact, date or detail, but I don't think it's fair to call us speculative. Unless you think all historiography is 'speculative', this point is null. Again, are you sure you're using the word correctly?

By the way, your 'view' = regurgitating what you once saw/read/heard from someone/somewhere else.

Why parenthesis around 'view'? Is it not really my view? Is it not a view? What is it then?
Anyway I (again) don't really follow this point. Yeah, you're right.. it's not an original view. I obviously wasn't the first person to state that the atomic bombs were not dropped because they would save more lives than lost.. so? I didn't just read an article once and decide my opinion, but thanks for the assumption.

A while ago I was very interested in the subject, did a lot of background reading - I read President Truman's memoirs and diary excerpts (available online), Admiral Leahy's memoirs, read the terms of the Potsdam declaration, as well as reading a few historian's books on the subject - some who would be inclined to agree with me, some who would think I was a raving idiot. If anything, your last statement was 'speculative' - you have no idea how I came to the opinion I do, you're using incomplete evidence to reach that statement. What, do you need to do a PhD in a subject to have an opinion on something that you concluded yourself?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well, I think my view can be substantiated more than yours, yes.

humour me

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Oh? Have you misunderstood the word 'substantiated'? I said it can be 'more substantiated', which in plain English means I think there's much more evidence to support it. So it's not a case of me 'knowing better', but me having more evidence (in my opinion). I don't know where you're going with which 'view could gain the most support', as though I was referring to which would be more popular/agreed with.


Are we?

I'm quite confused as to why you have attributed a comment to me and, then, used that comment to try and insult my intelligence. I didn't mention the words 'knowing better' anywhere in my response, so how have you got that?

"I said it can be 'more substantiated', which in plain English means I think there's much more evidence to support it"

You ask whether I have 'misunderstood' a word but then describe it in exactly the same way that I was using it. Therefore, I believe it's clear that I haven't 'misunderstood' the word 'substantiated'. In fact, if anything, you've managed to misread my response twice.

I would thank you to read more carefully in the future, for I actually wrote:

'He didn't ask whose view could gain the most support, did he?'

You think that there is 'much more evidence to support it'. Hence, boasting the very thing I said was irrelevant.

In answer to '[a]re we?'

Yes, you are. You're using information from the current state of affairs (as in, how the war actually transpired) and pretending that they're static. Who is to say that something wouldn't have changed if the bombs hadn't been dropped?

Discussing any permutations that didn't actually occur is the very definition of speculation.

The rest?

Got bored, went home. Unlike some, I don't see the benefit of writing an essays worth of nonsense onto a forum. Maybe I'm a maverick, who knows?