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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“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!"

Yes, they wanted the Soviets to mediate a peace that would allow for the maintenance of the Emperor. I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide some evidence that they were lying. Perhaps some communications captured by the U.S. at the time detailing their plan to deceive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

"Despite the source documents detailing your point, and the word of the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, you're all liars."

 

[williepete]

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.

Thank you. While buying into the revisionist racism narrative, you still landed feat first on the bedrock of history and the pragmatism of the time.

This discussion is based on fantasy. You could just as well debate the best way to manage a unicorn ranch. There was never a plan placed on the table to nuke the Germans because the bomb wasn't ready until long after Germany was defeated and occupied.

If you want to debate a more realistic fantasy scenario which places the commanders and politicians in the position of using a nuke against a city, you'd need to pick a more realistic time frame. The revisionists pick the end of the war when Germany was already knocked out for a reason. And young impressionable minds fall for it.

Roll it back a few years in your fantasy world. It's June 1941. Britain is isolated and alone. The Soviets are reeling back in defeat.

If Britain had two little firecracker nukes like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, they would have had a viable target set to analyze. Of the many options, they could have chosen Berlin to decapitate NAZI leadership and the Ruhr Valley to cripple the NAZI industrial base. It may not have stopped the war but it would have had a major impact.

There would be no modern day revisionist malarkey about the British being racist or not. But that doesn't fit the modern day academic revisionist history pushed to color America as the perennial bad guy in history.

By 1945, there was no target set in Germany where a small nuke would be appropriate. But it doesn't matter. The bomb wasn't ready until August 1945. The NAZIs were kaput by April 1945.

Hey! But maybe we should have nuked a country we and our allies occupied three months after the war ended just to prove to history we weren't racist.

Look for that to be the next course in freshman history at your local college. Or the next USMB fantasy OP: Should we have nuked ourselves to prove we weren't racist? What say you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

And yet, they did.

 

[there4eyeM]

Good to learn that America's motivations were so pure and that there was absolutely no racial prejudice on its part against the Japanese.

What is the definition of 'revisionism'?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Hitler would have nuked his enemies in a heartbeat if he had the A-bomb first. So yes, we would probably have retaliated in that eventuality.

As far as going first and A-bombing Germany is concerned, I don't think so because by the time the Allies had the A-bomb Germany was no longer a threat to the region. It was a a spent force and many of the Nazi leaders were trying to broker a peace deal.

 

[there4eyeM]

Here you can find some interesting quotations and reflections about the use of the bomb.
Hiroshima Quotes

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fun discussion. Germany had been defeated for two months before the test bomb was exploded. I have no doubt that if the Allies were still stuck on the German border, FDR and his advisers would have considered seriously its use over Germany.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fun discussion. Germany had been defeated for two months before the test bomb was exploded. I have no doubt that if the Allies were still stuck on the German border, FDR and his advisers would have considered seriously its use over Germany.

If Germany had developed the A-bomb and nuked London or Moscow in 43 or 44 then I have no doubt whatsoever that FDR would have nuked Berlin.

The world would be a far different place today if that had happened IMO.

 

[there4eyeM]

Such 'weapons' require big targets. What was there to bomb in Germany? No large army formations, little really essential, centralized production. Only taking out the leaders would have made it 'worthwhile'. Knowing when and where that might be would present problems.
Of course, this talk of Germany is so highly hypothetical that we might as well be discussing the North having the bomb before Appomattox.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

Not even a discussion.
No we wouldn't.
The reasons we bombed Japan are complteley different than the European theater.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not the discussion, iamwhatiseem: we are not comparing Japan and Germany as the OP. We are discussing if we would have nuked Germany if the situation and the opportunity intersected. If Germany was still holding the Allies on its borders, if as Te pointed the Germans had nuked London and Moscow, then, undoubtedly, yes, the Allies would have nuked Germany.

 

[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?

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.

Racism doesn't have to be negative. You just assume that because of race we would randomly nuke a country.

Also I think sympathizing with Japan is ******* stupid. They attacked us first so we beat their ass. We also helped rebuild them.

 

[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.

Racism doesn't have to be negative. You just assume that because of race we would randomly nuke a country.

Also I think sympathizing with Japan is ******* stupid. They attacked us first so we beat their ass. We also helped rebuild them.

It's more likely that you just reflexively throw out the term racist against people you disagree with, especially since I never said that Japan was randomly nuked or that it had anything to do with race.

I don't sympathize with the Japanese government of WWII, I sympathize with the innocent civilians who had nothing to do with attacking the United States but were vaporized regardless. Nor is it so simple as to say that Japan attacked "us" first. The U.S. government purposefully provoked Japan, and the Axis in general, so that they would attack and change public opinion so that FDR could enter the war as he fully intended to do.

 

[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?

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.

Racism doesn't have to be negative. You just assume that because of race we would randomly nuke a country.

Also I think sympathizing with Japan is ******* stupid. They attacked us first so we beat their ass. We also helped rebuild them.

It's more likely that you just reflexively throw out the term racist against people you disagree with, especially since I never said that Japan was randomly nuked or that it had anything to do with race.

I don't sympathize with the Japanese government of WWII, I sympathize with the innocent civilians who had nothing to do with attacking the United States but were vaporized regardless. Nor is it so simple as to say that Japan attacked "us" first. The U.S. government purposefully provoked Japan, and the Axis in general, so that they would attack and change public opinion so that FDR could enter the war as he fully intended to do.

So you wouldn't have supported our entry into WWII?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Racism doesn't have to be negative. You just assume that because of race we would randomly nuke a country.

Also I think sympathizing with Japan is ******* stupid. They attacked us first so we beat their ass. We also helped rebuild them.

It's more likely that you just reflexively throw out the term racist against people you disagree with, especially since I never said that Japan was randomly nuked or that it had anything to do with race.

I don't sympathize with the Japanese government of WWII, I sympathize with the innocent civilians who had nothing to do with attacking the United States but were vaporized regardless. Nor is it so simple as to say that Japan attacked "us" first. The U.S. government purposefully provoked Japan, and the Axis in general, so that they would attack and change public opinion so that FDR could enter the war as he fully intended to do.

So you wouldn't have supported our entry into WWII?

Not quite that simple. Japan did attack Pearl Harbor after all. I certainly would have opposed the policies that caused Japan to want to attack Pearl Harbor, but it's not like they had to attack Pearl Harbor. So once they did I'm not sure you can not get involved. I certainly oppose nuking them once they're already beaten and trying to surrender, however. And oppose nuking civilians period.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

According to the various docudramas and documentaries there was discussion of doing so, and in fact the whole atom bomb project was intended for use against Germany. But Germany lost before the a-bombs were ready leaving Japan.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes.....we firebombed whole cities and that killed many more people than the bombs did....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Racism doesn't have to be negative. You just assume that because of race we would randomly nuke a country.

Also I think sympathizing with Japan is ******* stupid. They attacked us first so we beat their ass. We also helped rebuild them.

It's more likely that you just reflexively throw out the term racist against people you disagree with, especially since I never said that Japan was randomly nuked or that it had anything to do with race.

I don't sympathize with the Japanese government of WWII, I sympathize with the innocent civilians who had nothing to do with attacking the United States but were vaporized regardless. Nor is it so simple as to say that Japan attacked "us" first. The U.S. government purposefully provoked Japan, and the Axis in general, so that they would attack and change public opinion so that FDR could enter the war as he fully intended to do.

So you wouldn't have supported our entry into WWII?

Not quite that simple. Japan did attack Pearl Harbor after all. I certainly would have opposed the policies that caused Japan to want to attack Pearl Harbor, but it's not like they had to attack Pearl Harbor. So once they did I'm not sure you can not get involved. I certainly oppose nuking them once they're already beaten and trying to surrender, however. And oppose nuking civilians period.

That whole trying to surrender is a leftist myth......

 

[2aguy]

Never

We looked at the Japs as savages, We still identified with Germany

The Japaneses soldiers during the war were savages...they tortured, raped and murdered as policy....look at the rape of Nanking, and the murder of civilians and soldiers...they were savages during the war.....