WWII discussion

[USAFChief]

Yeah America has been one of the worst offenders of this for a very long time.

See: dropping the atomic bomb TWICE when it wasn't needed to defeat Japan (Russia was already doing the job and Japan was going to surrender very shortly) instead we dropped the bombs to flex our muscles as "the world power"

See: Vietnam

See: Iraq

That's just all kinds of wrong. Take a look at the cost of securing Okinawa.

 

There's ample reason to believe using the bomb to force Japan's surrender both saved lives and kept the Russians out of mainland Japan. An invasion would have been orders of magnitude worse.

[DaveW]

That's just all kinds of wrong. Take a look at the cost of securing Okinawa.

 

There's ample reason to believe using the bomb to force Japan's surrender both saved lives and kept the Russians out of mainland Japan. An invasion would have been orders of magnitude worse.

Two sides to every story. And plenty of evidence and thinking to support what I stand by.

 

It certainly saved American lives, but how many? Also did we really need to drop a second bomb? Keep in mind the majority of people killed by the bombs were innocent citizens...

 

Of course this also happened under the watch of another failed businessman (Truman), a clueless politician who was basically a puppet for his war hawkish cabinet.

 

History. repeats. Etc etc

[TheLeviathan]

 

Two sides to every story. And plenty of evidence and thinking to support what I stand by.

It certainly saved American lives, but how many? Also did we really need to drop a second bomb? Keep in mind the majority of people killed by the bombs were innocent citizens...

Of course this also happened under the watch of another failed businessman (Truman), a clueless politician who was basically a puppet for his war hawkish cabinet.

History. repeats. Etc etc

 

Many would argue it saved Japanese lives too.  What evidence do you have out of curiosity?  I know it's a sidebar but I love WWII history and the version you're telling is not one I've encountered much of.

[Craig Arko]

 

That's just all kinds of wrong. Take a look at the cost of securing Okinawa.

There's ample reason to believe using the bomb to force Japan's surrender both saved lives and kept the Russians out of mainland Japan. An invasion would have been orders of magnitude worse.

Yeah, it was a near impossible call to make. Probably the best of the bad options available. I'm personally grateful since I likely wouldn't be here if my father had to fly over an invasion of the Japanese islands.

 

Still the pandora's box this opened has hung over the planet ever since. And that may have been inevitable, but again maybe it wasn't. I don't know.

[DaveW]

 

Many would argue it saved Japanese lives too.  What evidence do you have out of curiosity?  I know it's a sidebar but I love WWII history and the version you're telling is not one I've encountered much of.

This is a quick primer: https://www.thenation.com/article/interview-oliver-stone-why-us-was-wrong-drop-two-atomic-bombs-japan/

I'd recommend watching the episode as well (actually the full series is quite good and it's avail on Netflix), now there obviously is a bias, but then again there is a bias in most things.

Yes it may have saved some Japanese but more than the bombs killed/ruined/maimed? I don't think so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's just all kinds of wrong. Take a look at the cost of securing Okinawa.

There's ample reason to believe using the bomb to force Japan's surrender both saved lives and kept the Russians out of mainland Japan. An invasion would have been orders of magnitude worse.

And let's not forget that, in the wake of the eastern European power grab that was taking place, the absolute last thing the Allies wanted was Russia marching across Siberia and grabbing parts of China and Japan.

 

And that was clearly Russia's intent.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, the Japanese were literally starving near the end of the war.

 

Whether that would have influenced their surrender is hard to say, as the Japanese military complex had little regard for their citizens. I recommend the book The Pacific War 1931-1945: A Critical Perspective on Japan's Role in WWII by Saburo Ienaga. It goes into quite a bit of depth how the Japanese had militarized an entire generation from the turn of the 20th century onward and how it made the concept of surrender in traditional conflict a difficult task.

 

The quick version:

 

The Japanese military, for all intents and purposes, consumed all levels of government shortly after the turn of the century leading up to and in the aftermath of the Japan-Russo War. In turn, some time in the 1910s, they actually militarized their school system, teaching a very slanted and imperialistic version of Japan's role in the world. By comparison, the Germans didn't get rolling with that kind of indoctrination until the mid 30s. By 1939, the Japanese had an entire generation of fighting-age men under indoctrination. The Germans had a bunch of kids in silly shorts who saluted a lot.

 

As a result, Japan had already produced an entire generation of kids hell-bent on conquering the world, believing themselves invincible, and not giving a flying **** about the average citizen, as it was everyone's duty to die for the glory of Japan.

 

The book explains a hell of a lot of why WWII happened and why the Japanese were so horrifically brutal to their enemies (even worse than the Germans, as the Japanese literally hated everyone). See The Rape of Nanking.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This is a quick primer: https://www.thenation.com/article/interview-oliver-stone-why-us-was-wrong-drop-two-atomic-bombs-japan/

I'd recommend watching the episode as well (actually the full series is quite good and it's avail on Netflix), now there obviously is a bias, but then again there is a bias in most things.

Yes it may have saved some Japanese but more than the bombs killed/ruined/maimed? I don't think so.

 

Oliver Stone is not a particularly convincing historian.  

 

I don't see much good in us letting the Russians do the dirty work.  If we think that somehow would have led to less deaths I'd seriously question the math on that one.

[DaveW]

Oliver Stone is not a particularly convincing historian.

 

I don't see much good in us letting the Russians do the dirty work. If we think that somehow would have led to less deaths I'd seriously question the math on that one.

We were perfectly content on letting Russia handle all the dirty work (and really about 95%) of the work when it came to the rest of the war.

 

Hmmm

[DaveW]

looking forward to something bad happening this week, so I don't have to re-live the A bomb debate in this thread much longer.....

 

who else is following the altnationalparks?

Did we have this debate before?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Did we have this debate before?

 

for about 70 years now, not on this board.

[nicksaviking]

 

This is a quick primer: https://www.thenation.com/article/interview-oliver-stone-why-us-was-wrong-drop-two-atomic-bombs-japan/

I'd recommend watching the episode as well (actually the full series is quite good and it's avail on Netflix), now there obviously is a bias, but then again there is a bias in most things.

Yes it may have saved some Japanese but more than the bombs killed/ruined/maimed? I don't think so.

 

I think you meant to give us a different link. That one is just an narcissistic lunatic that thinks that the accurate version of history is the one that is the most fun to tell on a big screen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We were perfectly content on letting Russia handle all the dirty work (and really about 95%) of the work when it came to the rest of the war.

Hmmm

 

How'd that turn out?  Especially for the poor saps we turned the Russians loose on?

[Craig Arko]

I think you meant to give us a different link. That one is just an narcissistic lunatic that thinks that the accurate version of history is the one that is the most fun to tell on a big screen.

Try this one.

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x125ml3_the-world-at-war-ep24-the-bomb_shortfilms

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How'd that turn out?  Especially for the poor saps we turned the Russians loose on?

Never mind that people tend to forget we were the only Allied force fighting a two-front war for the second half of WWII.

 

It's not that we wanted to let the Russians take eastern Europe, it's more that we had no choice in the matter. Hell itself couldn't stop Russia from taking revenge on the Germans and we were too tied up in the Pacific to even attempt some kind of eastern push through the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean, the only reasonable eastern routes we had to Germany.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Never mind that people tend to forget we were the only Allied force fighting a two-front war for the second half of WWII.

 

It's not that we wanted to let the Russians take eastern Europe, it's more that we had no choice in the matter. Hell itself couldn't stop Russia from taking revenge on the Germans and we were too tied up in the Pacific to even attempt some kind of eastern push through the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean, the only reasonable eastern routes we had to Germany.

 

Imagine what the world might have been like if Russia had been able to take over Japan and other huge swaths of South East Asia.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Oliver Stone is not a particularly convincing historian.

Yeah, that's putting it lightly. I haven't seen his documentary but when it comes to Imperial Japan, I'll take Ienaga's word for it. He was one of Japan's most famous historians, grew up in Imperial Japan, and was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize late in life.

 

While it's been quite some time since I read the book, I recall Ienaga had some pretty mixed feelings about whether Japan could surrender even if its citizens wanted to surrender. They had that little influence in the country at that point.

[DaveW]

But none of that addresses the need for a the second bomb. Which I still think was more about the US flexing its muscles to Russia (and helped lead us to the Cold War eventually)

[nicksaviking]

 

I recall Ienaga had some pretty mixed feelings about whether Japan could surrender even if its citizens wanted to surrender. They had that little influence in the country at that point.

 

Boy, I'd hate to have that feeling, glad I'm living in the 21st century of the good old US of A!

[TheLeviathan]

 

But none of that addresses the need for a the second bomb. Which I still think was more about the US flexing its muscles to Russia (and helped lead us to the Cold War eventually)

 

Because they didn't surrender Dave!  The military was basically a religion in the country with complete indifference to the lives of anyone and completely committed to some bat-s*@^ crazy ideas.

 

We dropped on A-bomb and they basically did this:

 

 

It was drop another and prove we weren't messing around or send in the Russians or our own troops.  And kill countless more people on both sides along the way.  It was a crappy decision, but the Japanese military was looney tunes.

 

 

[USAFChief]

Never mind that people tend to forget we were the only Allied force fighting a two-front war for the second half of WWII.

 

It's not that we wanted to let the Russians take eastern Europe, it's more that we had no choice in the matter. Hell itself couldn't stop Russia from taking revenge on the Germans and we were too tied up in the Pacific to even attempt some kind of eastern push through the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean, the only reasonable eastern routes we had to Germany.

Thank you. What in the actual **** was the US supposed to do about Russia? While simultaneously fighting the nazis and Japan?

[drjim]

 

Thank you. What in the actual **** was the US supposed to do about Russia? While simultaneously fighting the nazis and Japan?

 

I think it was a strategic decision by the US and UK to let Russia take the brunt of the casualties in the West. 90% of Germans who died were killed fighting the Soviets. Not saying it was the wrong decision, but the tradeoff of the delay was saving American and British blood but condemning Eastern Europe to a generation under the Soviet thumb.

 

Of course, the Germans could have killed Hitler and staged a coup, surrendered to the West and flip sides to the West and hold a hard line against the oncoming Soviet horde. In hindsight that would have been the only possible better outcome. As it was, the A-bombs probably was the best of many non-ideal options.

[Bark's Lounge]

So much bad stuff happened during WWII. From the view point of people now, who live in the Allied world, I hope they understand why events happened. We cannot take back time. Necessary evils did occur because of the unknown and desperation.

 

Ante Pavelić was a Nazi backed, Roman Catholic Extremist, who executed non Catholic Christians, Gypsies, and people of other faiths or beliefs in the former Yugoslavia. He was a monster. The Vatican protected him for a time.

 

Josip Broz (Tito) lead a military rebellion against him, and won, and seized power at the conclusion of WWII.

 

I remember my 6th grade history teacher telling us students how Yugoslavia was a communist waste. He misinformed us kids and led us astray.

 

Tito is pretty much the definition of a benevolent dictator, he certainly did some bad things, but what leader has not. He kept that country together with his secularism and steady hand for 35 years. Not an easy task. The people were allowed to travel abroad. There were no walls. Josip Broz built no walls.

 

After his death, it took a decade and few years for the system to fall, because the people started to relate themselves with religion and ethnicity. That's a shame and an end game.

 

Tito is my hero from WWII, It's a damn tragedy he did not have a successor in place to continue that way of thought.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think it was a strategic decision by the US and UK to let Russia take the brunt of the casualties in the West. 90% of Germans who died were killed fighting the Soviets.

It wasn't strategic, it was timing.

 

Hitler declared war on the USSR six months before Pearl Harbor. By the time the US was actually mobilizing troops, the Germans were in the USSR and storming toward Moscow.

 

The Battle of Stalingrad, the most brutal conflict of the entire war, ended in 1943, before the US and Brits even won the war for Northern Africa.

 

After which, the US had to then get a toehold in Italy via Sicily and then fight their way up Italy. The Soviets and Germans were still scrapping this entire time, except now the Soviets were winning. And we hadn't even defeated Italy yet.

 

It's still 1943 at this point.

 

By the time we landed in Normandy in June of '44, the Soviets were routing the Germans and pushing toward eastern Europe. At that point, it became a footrace to Berlin. The European war was over 8-ish months later.

 

It shouldn't be surprising so many Germans were killed by the Soviets. The Soviets and Germans were the only two forces that had non-stop, bloody ground conflict against one another for four years running. And the Soviets were absolutely brutal to the Germans. No prisoners, death marches, the whole nine yards. We returned loads of POWs to Germany after their surrender. Russia, not so much.

 

And that's not even counting how so many Germans "died at the hands of Russians" due to Hitler's ineptitude and pushing so far beyond his supply chain and offering no option for support or retreat as his troops slowly starved in a wasteland.

[TheLeviathan]

As much as the Russians hated the Germans, I can't even imagine how the tactics of the Japanese would have infuriated them.  They might have annihilated that whole populace if we had let them do the fighting.  

[drjim]

 

It wasn't strategic, it was timing.

Hitler declared war on the USSR six months before Pearl Harbor. By the time the US was actually mobilizing troops, the Germans were in the USSR and storming toward Moscow.

The Battle of Stalingrad, the most brutal conflict of the entire war, ended in 1943, before the US and Brits even won the war for Northern Africa.

After which, the US had to then get a toehold in Italy via Sicily and then fight their way up Italy. The Soviets and Germans were still scrapping this entire time, except now the Soviets were winning. And we hadn't even defeated Italy yet.

It's still 1943 at this point.

By the time we landed in Normandy in June of '44, the Soviets were routing the Germans and pushing toward eastern Europe. At that point, it became a footrace to Berlin. The European war was over 8-ish months later.

It shouldn't be surprising so many Germans were killed by the Soviets. The Soviets and Germans were the only two forces that had non-stop, bloody ground conflict against one another for four years running. And the Soviets were absolutely brutal to the Germans. No prisoners, death marches, the whole nine yards. We returned loads of POWs to Germany after their surrender. Russia, not so much.

And that's not even counting how so many Germans "died at the hands of Russians" due to Hitler's ineptitude and pushing so far beyond his supply chain and offering no option for support or retreat as his troops slowly starved in a wasteland.

 

The implied assumption is that this is as fast as the US could have moved. I'm suggesting it isn't, and that it was a strategic decision to move slower and let the Russians take the vast majority of the casualties while the US could fully mobilize.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong, but the tradeoff was Eastern Europe.

[Bark's Lounge]

Churchill and Stalin divided up Europe in a fancy meeting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The implied assumption is that this is as fast as the US could have moved. I'm suggesting it isn't, and that it was a strategic decision to move slower and let the Russians take the vast majority of the casualties while the US could fully mobilize.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong, but the tradeoff was Eastern Europe.

That's fair. The Allies dragged their feet before staging the Normandy invasion... But we're talking a few months, which didn't drastically change casualties in the grand scheme of things.

 

And we still may have won the race to Berlin if not for Montgomery and the botched Market Garden assault.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As much as the Russians hated the Germans, I can't even imagine how the tactics of the Japanese would have infuriated them.  They might have annihilated that whole populace if we had let them do the fighting.  

Yeah, Americans tend to forget that in 1904 and 1905, the Japanese and Russians fought a war that rather humiliated the Russians (and also spurred along many of the the later problems in Japanese society that caused WWII).

 

The Russians would have loved to take another swing at Japan.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah, Americans tend to forget that in 1904 and 1905, the Japanese and Russians fought a war that rather humiliated the Russians (and also spurred along many of the the later problems in Japanese society that caused WWII).

 

The Russians would have loved to take another swing at Japan.

 

I had forgotten that as well.

 

But we're down this road because of Oliver Stone who has a long history of being a complete ass-hat about mixing politics and history to the detriment of his understanding of history.