by stillajwexelder 131 Replies latest members politics
As I was thinking about this thread today, a couple of thoughts came to mind:
"All is fair in love and war."
"There's never been a weapon invented that wasn't used."
Trite (and sordid) as those expressions may seem, they pretty much sum up human history.
The "right" or the "wrong" of it are, in the historical perspective, irrelevant.
"There's never been a weapon invented that wasn't used."
Yes, Germany had invented quite a few weapons that never saw action. They were invented towards the end of the war. In other words, the US and its allies would have had to fight against a more technologically advanced Germany/Axis powers had the war not ended then.
Who remembers Operation Paperclip? These were the same scientists that were working on the Nazi's secret weapons.
Just a couple more comments on the humanitarian use of the A-bomb on Japan:
Hiroshima was only the 2nd - ever - detonation of an a-bomb. Nagasaki was the 3rd. No one fully understood the short- mid- and long-term consequences of such a weapon i.e. flash burns, radiation poisoning, cancers, deformed births, and so on.
Once these short- and mid- term horrors were realized, the powers that were decided that it was too ghastly to use again. And the bomb has yet to be used since (except for testing, and that is now banned world-wide). A very humanitarian outcome.
What if it was never used on Japan and the war ended. German was not far behind the US in the a-bomb development. Russia gained access to it. What if Russia, or Germany decided to attack the US with the bomb without complete understanding of the consequences? Then the US would attack the attacker .... ad nauseum. That alternate possiblity exists without the use of the bomb in Japan. Where is the humanity in that?
Now, on the firebombing: When Tokyo was firebombed, people escaped to the river to flee the fire, only to be boiled to death! True story. In Dresden, two people were trying to escape down a street, holding hands, when one simply dissappeard - melted alive - because they were too close to the infurno. True story (from the BBC's World At War). In these firebombings the people who died did not blessedly do so from smoke inhalation, they burned alive.
War is not humane. Period.
Excellent point Brenda,
Today we give special significance to the use of Nuclear weapons largely because of what we now know. To allege that the it's use in the mid 40's was more "Barbaric" than other forms of weaponry is, in my opinion, ignorant of this fact. Back then it was simply viewed (and for the most part behaved) as a large conventional weapon. Invasion scenarios using atomic weapons bear this out. Soldiers were placed only according to a safe blast radius, giving no regard to fallout.
Additionally, These 3 A-bombs were low yield fission bombs measuring only about 10 kilotons. Today we use two stage fission/fusion bombs in the Mega-ton range with overpressure (blast) radii measuring tens of miles from ground zero. Their destructive capabilities (and corresponding fallout) hardly compare.
As you pointed out, the fire bombing campaigns conducted by all sides (upon civilians) was much more destructive. It seems silly to make a distinction between which tactic is more humane.
However, if so desired, someone could use the legitimate fear and outrage of use of today?s Nuclear weapons, and associate that with it's use back in the 1940's to put a good anti-America spin on the rhetoric. Although this tactic might have limited use as propaganda, many would see right through it.
No, they were not.
The two major turning points being the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, and Midway Island in the Pacific.
I have to strongly disagree
Battle of the Atlantic -U Boats
Battle of Britain
Siege of Stalingrad
El Alamein were all much more significant turning points -especially Stalingrad
Stalingrad was a turning point for Soviet morale and a major blow to Germany losing an entire army. The Germans still had a chance though. After Kursk there was no chance. Just a fighting retreat to Berlin.
The two major turning points being the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, and Midway Island in the Pacific
Yeah, my spousal unit pointed out the error of my ways in regards to Europe..... (I hang my head in shame)
However, most historians will agree with Midway Island. In naval history, it is a battle that is right up there with the Battle of Trafalgar and other brilliantly fought naval battles. So much of Japans naval fleet was destroyed in so short a time.
WHY!!! didn't they just blow the top off mt Fuji first or something?
Here is a 1945 petition by 69 scientists against the use of the atomic bomb: http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html. It says, "The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender." Here is a 1960 interview given by Leo Szilard, one of the scientists who signed the petition: http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html. In it he says, "Today I would put the whole emphasis on the mistake of insisting on unconditional surrender. Today I would say that the confusion arose from considering the fake alternatives of either having to invade Japan or of having to use the bomb against her cities."
