American and British forces bombarded Dresden in Germany on February 13 1945

[skit_uk]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

^Only Japan would have surrendered anyway. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were experiments, not much more. And it wasn´t the German public who started WWII, it was Hitler. What if muslim terrorists blew up a major London train station and killed hundrets of people? Would your respons then also be "if you don't want the brutal effect of war to be visited upon you then don't start wars". I guess not.

Japan wouldnt have surrended, they were willing to fight to the end and even after the first nuke they didnt surrender. Without the nukes the casualties would have been much higher and included many many American dead. That's Americans who did not start any war and stayed out of it for as long as they could.

Also in Germany, who says that morale wasn't affected by the shock and awe bombing tactics? German morale was not good at all by this point in the war.

The argument that it was near the end of the war can only be made after the war has ended. In warfare you certaintly dont start to go easy on the enemy when you have won the initiative, if anything you push harder than ever to make as certain as possible that you retain the advantage.

Finally, the Germans were developing the nuclear bomb, I'm pretty certain they would have used that against british cities if they had the chance, if not then why develop it. The vengence weapons were also not the germans attempts to tickle us to surrender.

Any attempt by people to label the British as barbaric for the bombing is so hypocritical. If the Nazis had the chance to do the same they wouldnt have hesitated.

The Germans invented modern warfare not the British or Americans, and in the end they reaped the whirlwind.

[Boba Fett22]

Originally Posted by 600West218

But the larger point is if you don't want the brutal effect of war to be visited upon you then don't start wars.

Some Germans went on about the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles but apparently what they had in store for the Allied nations, if they'd won WW1, was worse.

[Boba Fett22]

Originally Posted by skit_uk

Japan wouldnt have surrended, they were willing to fight to the end...

True. Wasn't it part of Japanese culture back then to regard surrendering as being humiliating?

[John Robinson]

Originally Posted by 600West218

World Wars maybe - but there has been no war period except on the periphery of Europe while at the same time there have been many wars all over the world.

I think the Germans got the point of the Allied bombing. And Japan too.

There have been no wars between nations possessing nuclear weapons for obvious reasons. In the European theatre, this would include the UK, France and Russia (USSR).

Non-nuclear European nations would not dare to declare war on any of the above either, hence the 60 years of peace. On the other hand, the war between the former Yugoslavian nations took place because neither side had nuclear weapons and they were therefore more willing to fight.

[WatcherZero]

What do you mean? Soviet and Chinese forces fought the US, UK and France in Korea and Vietnam.
US and USSR fought by proxy in Afghanistan, it was full of CIA agents, US special forces and their arms shipments to tribes.

Yugoslavia was a war of secession between non-state entities, mainly religious and ethnic groups.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by Boba Fett22

True. Wasn't it part of Japanese culture back then to regard surrendering as being humiliating?

not exactly true.

By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; whereas at this time the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[24] Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by the powerful military members of the Japanese government.[25]

ironically the emperor ended up still in power at the end of the war anyway... and lived for decades after on his throne. by june 1945 the emperor himself was in favour of ending the war, the only problem was that the japanese had created such a militarised and fanatical culture their leaders couldn't see how to overcome it and surrender without there being a coup or revolution or whatever. any japanese leader who even suggested surrender in a political meeting faced being murdered by his subordinates, so they actually had to close cabinet meetings to all non cabinet members when discussing peace. the nuclear bombs gave them a perfect "out" in the end, but japan would probably have surrendered without them as it was being so heavily bombed anyway.

great quote by one senior japanese politician

I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances.

[U475 Foxtrot]

The Japanese army lost 54,000 troops in the first 24hrs in Manchuria which included their best division. 700,000 Soviet troops occupied Manchuria, and looted the entire region of valuable materials and industrial equipment.

Soviet troops looted and terrorized the people of Mukden, and were not discouraged by Soviet authorities from "three days of rape and pillage"

It was my understanding that it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria , rather than the atomic bombs, that played the decisive role the Japanese wanting to surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets. A prolongation of final stage of the war would have opened the door to a Soviet occupation of Japan.

[John Robinson]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

What do you mean? Soviet and Chinese forces fought the US, UK and France in Korea and Vietnam.
US and USSR fought by proxy in Afghanistan, it was full of CIA agents, US special forces and their arms shipments to tribes.

Yugoslavia was a war of secession between non-state entities, mainly religious and ethnic groups.

I didn't realise that Soviet or Chinese forces were directly involved in Korea or Vietnam.

Fighting by proxy is not the same as fighting with your own troops, is it?

I still maintain that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. Can you imagine the USSR and the US fighting each other across Europe without things escalating into nuclear war? Prior to the collapse of the USSR, the West was heavily outnumbered by the Soviet forces and eventually would have had to resort to using first theatre nuclear weapons and then, possibly, strategic nuclear weapons to prevent their defeat. It was the possession of these weapons that deterred the USSR from moving into West Germany, or that's how I understood it anyway.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by John Robinson

I didn't realise that Soviet or Chinese forces were directly involved in Korea or Vietnam.

Fighting by proxy is not the same as fighting with your own troops, is it?

In Korea, China used its own soldiers to push the UN forces back from near the Chinese border to the current border between the Koreas.

Also, the UK came under attack from Argentina despite us being a nuclear power.

I think what nuclear weapons have succeeded in doing is prevention of total war being launched against nuclear powers. Every government knows that making total war against a nuclear power will see their own cities nuculerised.

[LondonFox]

"When the British Air Force drops 2000 or 3000 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will drop 150 000, 180 000, 230 000, 300 000, 400 000 kg on a single night. When they declare they will attack our cities in great measure, we will eradicate their cities. The hour will come when one of us will break - and it will not be National Socialist Germany!"

—Adolf Hitler



Boy was he wrong.

[Boba Fett22]

Originally Posted by gothicform

not exactly true.



ironically the emperor ended up still in power at the end of the war anyway... and lived for decades after on his throne. by june 1945 the emperor himself was in favour of ending the war, the only problem was that the japanese had created such a militarised and fanatical culture their leaders couldn't see how to overcome it and surrender without there being a coup or revolution or whatever. any japanese leader who even suggested surrender in a political meeting faced being murdered by his subordinates, so they actually had to close cabinet meetings to all non cabinet members when discussing peace. the nuclear bombs gave them a perfect "out" in the end, but japan would probably have surrendered without them as it was being so heavily bombed anyway.

I see.

Perhaps I made a sweeping statement, I suppose if they all thought surrendering was bad then they would not have done so and they would have all fought to the death.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

Originally Posted by gothicform

... the nuclear bombs gave them a perfect "out" in the end, but japan would probably have surrendered without them as it was being so heavily bombed anyway

With normal bombing would they have surrendered much later?

Don't get me wrong this is just a question, I don't know either way, but I heard without the NB's the Allies would have had no other choice but to invade mainland Japan and WW2 would have gone on until 1948. That because of that the nuclear bombs were morally justified. Do you think that's so?

Having said that, it wasn't a Military expert who said it, it was a right wing American radio host and I'm not sure if he came to the conclusion himself or he asked a Military expert.

[LondonFox]

There is no reason why the Yanks would have ever had to go ahead with a mainland invasion of Japan... that's BS.

[LondonFox]

"The Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941, during the Second World War. The city of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 76 consecutive nights and many towns and cities across the country followed. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, half of them in London."

But, lets forget about that and shed exclusive tears for Dresden.

[Boba Fett22]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

There is no reason why the Yanks would have ever had to go ahead with a mainland invasion of Japan... that's BS.

Perhaps but like I said it was a Right wing USA talk radio host who said it and I'm not sure where he got his information from.

[John Robinson]

Originally Posted by mexico86

Also, the UK came under attack from Argentina despite us being a nuclear power.

You are quite correct. I'm sure they felt 'safe' in doing that on the grounds that we are thousands of miles away, and they imagined that we wouldn't make too much of an effort to defend such a remote group of islands.

They were wrong, of course!

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by John Robinson

I didn't realise that Soviet or Chinese forces were directly involved in Korea or Vietnam.

Yep, simply painted different markings on the planes and put on the different uniforms on the ground.

[SO143]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

"When the British Air Force drops 2000 or 3000 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will drop 150 000, 180 000, 230 000, 300 000, 400 000 kg on a single night. When they declare they will attack our cities in great measure, we will eradicate their cities. The hour will come when one of us will break - and it will not be National Socialist Germany!"

—Adolf Hitler

Epic Fail

[LondonFox]

^ Thank goodness the Brits of that period never gave up eh?! WW2 would have ended very badly for everyone indeed if we had just thrown in the towel.

Of course no one from the continent would ever admit that.

[StiffUpper]

Rather than playing the blame game I would rather focus on the human tragedy and how brilliant reconciliation is.
Instead I'm going to go on the defensive.
Admittedly that takes away objectivity.

With 20\20 hindsight we can probably say that the miliary\industrial\diplomatic\strategic gain was not in proportion to the human suffering and that maybe we should have kept the bombers home that night.

A few points

-Some maintain there was worthwhile targets there, or that there was believed to be.
-This was in the path of the Soviets advance. The German people took hope from a belief that the western\eastern allies would turn on each other. The raid would show the Germans and Soviets who I believe requested the raid?) that the two were acting in concert.

-We now know there was 'only' twelve weeks or so left. It would have been a lot longer but for the incompetence of senior Nazis and the total disregard
the Soviets had for their own soldiers lives. Any amount of casualties as long as they got to Berlin first. Also an enormous amount of people would still
die in those weeks. A bit early to go easy.

I've you've channelled much of your resources into developing this powerful yet blunt instrument in the bomber forces, you wish to use it to hit your dangerous and appalling enemy. If you've spent years
accepting that hiiting civilian areas is a necessary evil you make quick decisions on which targets to hit. The issue of civilian suffering inevitably becomes a minor consideration.

I wish the raid hadn't happened, that the people hadn't suffered what they did, but the Nazis put them in harms way.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

^ Thank goodness the Brits of that period never gave up eh?! WW2 would have ended very badly for everyone indeed if we had just thrown in the towel.

Of course no one from the continent would ever admit that.

If propaganda is to be believed, the Americans did everything, while the Europeans liberated themselves.