Would we, if we could, have nuked Germany in WWII

[Syriusly]

A story could be written about the US having the bomb in early '4' and dropping it on Moscow. Japan and Germany would surely have surrendered at that example, and the obvious future enemy would have been 'neutralized'. America would have been standing astride the world it the biggest army, the biggest air force, the biggest navy and the 'baddest' weapon.

Well a couple issues I have with that is- why would the United States have dropped an atomic bomb on its most powerful ally in 1944? The U.S. had spent the better part of 3 years telling the American public that the brave Russians were our allies- and then we dropped the most powerful weapon we had on Moscow?

And secondly- why do you think that the Soviets would have surrendered if we dropped an atomic bomb on Moscow? The bulk of their military forces were in Western Europe then, and the bulk of their industrial might was east of the Urals by then.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

I've often wondered about this. At first, I thought that, no, dropping it on Japan was a bit racist (at least) and they wouldn't have done it to a European population. But, after reflecting about Dresden and other examples, I believe if they'd had it in, say, July 1944, especially if they were sure Hitler was there, they'd have done it to Berlin.
On the other hand, I think, if that had been the situation, the allies would have tried to contact the Wehrmacht High Command and told them what would happen if they did not surrender. Our perception of the Japanese was that they would never, ever surrender, whereas I'm sure we knew that, Hitler suddenly disappearing, the Germans would have accepted.

Well the U.S. knew Japan was trying to surrender and it didn't stop them, so I'm not sure that's a convincing argument. My gut says they wouldn't have nuked Germany, but I can't come up with a logical basis for that feeling.

It's your racism against Asians that is telling you that. Nothing else. Have you ever studied history and how hard the Japanese resisted when we were closing in?

 

[there4eyeM]

A story could be written about the US having the bomb in early '4' and dropping it on Moscow. Japan and Germany would surely have surrendered at that example, and the obvious future enemy would have been 'neutralized'. America would have been standing astride the world it the biggest army, the biggest air force, the biggest navy and the 'baddest' weapon.

Well a couple issues I have with that is- why would the United States have dropped an atomic bomb on its most powerful ally in 1944? The U.S. had spent the better part of 3 years telling the American public that the brave Russians were our allies- and then we dropped the most powerful weapon we had on Moscow?

And secondly- why do you think that the Soviets would have surrendered if we dropped an atomic bomb on Moscow? The bulk of their military forces were in Western Europe then, and the bulk of their industrial might was east of the Urals by then.

The post said a story could be written; just to say a hypothetical solution to knocking out Japan and Germany by using the bomb might not mean using it on them.
Proper presentation of the Russian's real actions could have changed opinion. Revealing the Stalin purges and starvations, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the invasion of Poland and starting WWII; it would just have meant changing the propaganda a bit. Anyway, it would be a fait accompli long before the public could wonder why.
As for the Russians surrendering, it was a totally top-down regime. Decapitation was a viable strategy for defeating the Soviets. They would have been completely without guidance or co-ordination. Very similar to the situation in Germany, arguably more so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A story could be written about the US having the bomb in early '4' and dropping it on Moscow. Japan and Germany would surely have surrendered at that example, and the obvious future enemy would have been 'neutralized'. America would have been standing astride the world it the biggest army, the biggest air force, the biggest navy and the 'baddest' weapon.

Well a couple issues I have with that is- why would the United States have dropped an atomic bomb on its most powerful ally in 1944? The U.S. had spent the better part of 3 years telling the American public that the brave Russians were our allies- and then we dropped the most powerful weapon we had on Moscow?

And secondly- why do you think that the Soviets would have surrendered if we dropped an atomic bomb on Moscow? The bulk of their military forces were in Western Europe then, and the bulk of their industrial might was east of the Urals by then.

The post said a story could be written; just to say a hypothetical solution to knocking out Japan and Germany by using the bomb might not mean using it on them.
Proper presentation of the Russian's real actions could have changed opinion. Revealing the Stalin purges and starvations, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the invasion of Poland and starting WWII; it would just have meant changing the propaganda a bit. Anyway, it would be a fait accompli long before the public could wonder why.
As for the Russians surrendering, it was a totally top-down regime. Decapitation was a viable strategy for defeating the Soviets. They would have been completely without guidance or co-ordination. Very similar to the situation in Germany, arguably more so.

You really have no idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've often wondered about this. At first, I thought that, no, dropping it on Japan was a bit racist (at least) and they wouldn't have done it to a European population. But, after reflecting about Dresden and other examples, I believe if they'd had it in, say, July 1944, especially if they were sure Hitler was there, they'd have done it to Berlin.
On the other hand, I think, if that had been the situation, the allies would have tried to contact the Wehrmacht High Command and told them what would happen if they did not surrender. Our perception of the Japanese was that they would never, ever surrender, whereas I'm sure we knew that, Hitler suddenly disappearing, the Germans would have accepted.

Well the U.S. knew Japan was trying to surrender and it didn't stop them, so I'm not sure that's a convincing argument. My gut says they wouldn't have nuked Germany, but I can't come up with a logical basis for that feeling.

Nope, 'Japan' was not trying to surrender, and you know it.

There was factionalism between and with civilians and military personnel on whether to surrender or not. After the second bomb, the military staged a coup, went after, and failed to retrieve the Emperor's recording of surrender.

You need to be factual, Kevin; your comment above is not factual, and that is unlike you.

“We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, Shigenori Togo to Ambassador the U.S.S.R. Naotake Sato

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Source document showing that the U.S. had intercepted communications from Japanese officials proving that they intended to surrender. Furthermore, prominent people came right out and said that they knew Japan was trying to surrender. Eisenhower, for example, said, "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, you know better. The military had no intention of surrendering. Are you denying that a power struggle power ensued once the Emperor finally made up his mind AFTER the second bomb dropped?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've often wondered about this. At first, I thought that, no, dropping it on Japan was a bit racist (at least) and they wouldn't have done it to a European population. But, after reflecting about Dresden and other examples, I believe if they'd had it in, say, July 1944, especially if they were sure Hitler was there, they'd have done it to Berlin.
On the other hand, I think, if that had been the situation, the allies would have tried to contact the Wehrmacht High Command and told them what would happen if they did not surrender. Our perception of the Japanese was that they would never, ever surrender, whereas I'm sure we knew that, Hitler suddenly disappearing, the Germans would have accepted.

Well the U.S. knew Japan was trying to surrender and it didn't stop them, so I'm not sure that's a convincing argument. My gut says they wouldn't have nuked Germany, but I can't come up with a logical basis for that feeling.

It's your racism against Asians that is telling you that. Nothing else. Have you ever studied history and how hard the Japanese resisted when we were closing in?

Yes, I hate Asians so much that I think vaporizing all those innocent Japanese people was horrendous and that any talk of it being necessary to end the war is a lie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, you know better. The military had no intention of surrendering. Are you denying that a power struggle power ensued once the Emperor finally made up his mind AFTER the second bomb dropped?

Are you denying the existence of the source document I just provided with direct quotes from Japanese officials stating their intention to surrender, and the word of the Supreme Allied Commander? No, I don't deny that a power struggle between the military and government took place, but it's irrelevant. The government was ready to surrender before the bombs, and the U.S. knew it, and they were obviously willing after. The only difference is that before the bombs they insisted on maintaining the Emperor, whereas afterwards they had no conditions but were permitted to keep the Emperor anyways.

 

[Correll]

FDR would have nuked Germany without a doubt. It would have saved all those lives lost on D-Day.

The bombing of Dresden is all you need to know to discern that. FDR had no inhibitions about bombing Aryans back to the Stone Age.

Agreed.

We were hitting Germany with everything we could.

THe idea that we would hesitate is hindsight, with the modern taboo against nuclear weapons being applied to people in the past.

 

[dilloduck]

Roosevelt would have had to ask Stalin for permission.

 

[g5000]

“We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.”

That is a line of bullshit Japan was going to feed the Soviets. They were desperate to avoid being forced into an unconditional surrender by the US and Britain and were trying to enlist the USSR to help them.

It was as truthful as Hitler saying, "I'm just going to annex the Sudentenland and then I'm done! Honest!"

 

[there4eyeM]

I certainly had never heard of such information. Surrender was logical, but logic would have prevented them from attacking the US in the first place.

In any case, the bomb was not necessary. Invasion was not necessary. Japan had no choice but surrender, though until that happened, probably more Japanese civilians would have died of starvation than died in the bombing. That would have been someone else's choice. America has to live with having been the first nation to use atomic weapons, and that on defenseless civilians in non-militarily important areas.

 

[Staidhup]

I my opinion if we had the capability it would and should have been used. To go a step further the USSR would have had second thoughts as it regarded their post war expansionist policies in the name of protective measures designed against an aggressor that didn't exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany Restricted Data

A very interesting discussion. I think we would have tried if Germany was still in the running for developing an A bomb contemporaneously or before us.

No. We would not have nuked Germany. Too many Americans and allied prisoners would have been killed.

 

[Staidhup]

In response to the naive self righteous revisionists there was no other option, Japan had no intention of surrendering, and would fight to the very end at a cost in human life well beyond the alternative.

 

[williepete]

Surrender was logical, but logic would have prevented them from attacking the US in the first place.

In any case, the bomb was not necessary. Invasion was not necessary. Japan had no choice but surrender, though until that happened, probably more Japanese civilians would have died of starvation than died in the bombing. That would have been someone else's choice. America has to live with having been the first nation to use atomic weapons, and that on defenseless civilians in non-militarily important areas.

You might find respected historian John Toland's book "The Rising Sun" interesting if you haven't already. Japan did have an alternate choice than surrender and many in the leadership were pushing for it. To today's modern Western eyes, the other choice did not seem logical. To many, death was more honorable than the shame of surrender. Looking at Japan's culture at the time through modern Western eyes may not be the best way to interpret the events of 1945. Great book. It is one of the very few Western books where the historian used so many post war interviews with Japanese generals and politicians.

From Amazon:

"This Pulitzer Prize-winning history of World War II chronicles the dramatic rise and fall of the Japanese empire, from the invasion of Manchuria and China to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Told from the Japanese perspective, The Rising Sun is, in the author's words, "a factual saga of people caught up in the flood of the most overwhelming war of mankind, told as it happened-muddled, ennobling, disgraceful, frustrating, full of paradox." In weaving together the historical facts and human drama leading up to and culminating in the war in the Pacific, Toland crafts a riveting and unbiased narrative history. In his Foreword, Toland says that if we are to draw any conclusion from The Rising Sun, it is "that there are no simple lessons in history, that it is human nature that repeats itself, not history."

 

[williepete]

Bushido. The Way of the Warrior. You can't apply modern Western logic to an ancient cultural norm just as you can't project modern Western norms on the pre-WW2 Japanese Empire in order to promote revisionist history to fit a leftist narrative.

Unless you are a 21st century college professor with an agenda.


Japan: No Surrender in World War Two
--By the end of World War Two, Japan had endured 14 years of war, and lay in ruins - with over three million dead. Why did the war in Japan cost so much, and what led so many to fight on after the end of the hostilities?

More:
BBC - History - World Wars Japan No Surrender in World War Two

 

[JakeStarkey]

The revisionist credo is from the far right.

In fact, the Japanese had acted honorably towards prisoners in WWI, but the rise of the warrior samurai class once again led to a dark, cruel interpretation that resulted in horrifying war crimes in WWII.

The military had no intention of surrendering.

 

[williepete]

The revisionist credo is from the far right.

I've agreed with all of your posts on this thread but this statement has me confused.

Is the revisionist history that we only nuked Japan and not the Germans because we are racists a far right credo? I'd be interested in what books, classes or links influenced you to form this opinion.

The college professors I met in college and the one's I've talked to about this since who push this revisionist agenda have all been faculty lounge Marxist types with no experience in the real world. When I first heard this agenda being pushed as an undergrad in the 80's, I remember the blank look on the professor's face when I pointed out the bomb wasn't ready in time to use against the Germans. Pointing out that fact debunks this nonsense every time.

Now that we've totally hijacked this thread that is.

 

[Syriusly]

The revisionist credo is from the far right.

I've agreed with all of your posts on this thread but this statement has me confused.

Is the revisionist history that we only nuked Japan and not the Germans because we are racists a far right credo? I'd be interested in what books, classes or links influenced you to form this opinion.

The college professors I met in college and the one's I've talked to about this since who push this revisionist agenda have all been faculty lounge Marxist types with no experience in the real world. When I first heard this agenda being pushed as an undergrad in the 80's, I remember the blank look on the professor's face when I pointed out the bomb wasn't ready in time to use against the Germans. Pointing out that fact debunks this nonsense every time.

Now that we've totally hijacked this thread that is.

I think that given the rather common racism of the 1940's(and by that I mean most Americans were racists by todays standards to anyone who was not white) that it would have been an easier decision for Roosevelt or Truman to drop the bomb on Japan than Germany- but they would probably have done whatever was necessary to end the European war sooner.