Would we have dropped the A - Bomb on...

[DARISC]

Reflecting on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I wonder, had the enemy been on the European continent rather than on islands in the Orient, all other factors being equal, do you believe we'd have dropped the bombs on westerners?

The Japanese people's stature, appearance and culture was very foreign to us at the time (and to many, still is); given Pearl Harbor, many no doubt considered them "subhuman" to have committed such a horrific and cowardly act (what was the number of civilians killed?).

I suspect the answer is that we would not have. It seems that there would likely have been an unspoken, quite likely even unrealized, racial consideration that would have entered into the decision.

So, we nuked a lot of Japanese. Would we, could we, have nuked a lot of Europeans? It seems many posting on these political threads are proponents of nukeing a lot of Middle Easterners.

Thoughts?

[Rick Lee]

I kinda wonder if my aunt would be uncle if she had balls? But like your question, it really doesn't matter.

[Mule]

Let me guess, this is a set up, to point out that he dropped the bomb 'cause we were racist?

So this should be a poll.
America dropped the bomb on Japan because they were
A. Murderers
B. Racist murderers

[Jim727]

The very question presupposes that it was about race, and I think that should be reconsidered.

At any rate, the answer is: it depends. One of the primary differences between the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific is that in Germany there was a recognition of the fact that Germany was going to be defeated and that continuing would be bad for the people. Even much of the officer corps were opposed to continuing the war and some (ref: von Stauffenberg, etc.) took radical steps to end it.

In Japan, however, the closer the war came to the Japanese mainland the more ferocious the defense became. Read up on Saipan and Okinawa. The propaganda employed by the Japanese leadership to scare the population was rather extreme. It was quite clear that measures even beyond those being employed would be necessary to get the Japanese military to capitulate. Absent that, an invasion of the home islands would be necessary at a huge cost in casualties. For those in denial that think those casualty estimates were exaggerated, it's worth noting that we are still issuing Purple Hearts that were minted during WWII in anticipation of that invasion.

One additional fact that had to enter into the decision was that the Japanese military had begun systematically murdering POWs rather than allowing them to be repatriated. Read up on the Japanese activities in the Philippines - pretty gruesome stuff.

Had the Germans behaved in the same manner as the Japanese, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to use the Bomb to end the war in Europe; had the Japanese behaved in a manner that made its use unnecessary I doubt it would have been employed.

Tonight I'm having dinner with a gentleman who was fighting in the jungles of New Guinea during WWII. His views on racism in the Pacific are quite the reverse of what you suggested.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

If we'd had the bomb prior to Normandy, I think we probably would have.

[Mule]

Yeah. we'd have been nuking all of Europe.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Jim727

The very question presupposes that it was about race, and I think that should be reconsidered.

No, I never said it was "about race" (it surely wasn't).

At any rate, the answer is: it depends. One of the primary differences between the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific.......

I postulated similar conditions - in all respects - for the sake of discussion; they surely were not similar.

Had the Germans behaved in the same manner as the Japanese, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to use the Bomb to end the war in Europe; had the Japanese behaved in a manner that made its use unnecessary I doubt it would have been employed.

Tonight I'm having dinner with a gentleman who was fighting in the jungles of New Guinea during WWII. His views on racism in the Pacific are quite the reverse of what you suggested.

I really didn't intend to, nor do I think that I did, present a view on racism. I asked a question wherein racism may or may not have been a factor, purely for the sake of discussion. I didn't voice an opinion as to whether or not we should have dropped the bombs. I'm asking if the Japanese were not Japanese, but rather Westerners, do you think we'd have dropped the bombs? You said that you believe we would have, which answers my question.

I think it's an interesting question, not meant to provoke anything but thought and discussion.

..

[ckissick]

Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Dresden; they look pretty much the same. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were simply more efficient, but also much more ominous. I think if we were still facing a defiant Nazi regime and German populace, we would have leveled, say, Berlin.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by DARISC

No, I never said it was "about race" (it surely wasn't).

You clearly avoided mentioning race.

I postulated similar conditions - in all respects - for the sake of discussion; they surely were not similar.

You little clever postulator! You did avoid any insinuation that they even might be similar.


I really didn't intend to, nor do I think that I did, present a view on racism. I asked a question wherein racism may or may not have been a factor, purely for the sake of discussion. I didn't voice an opinion as to whether or not we should have dropped the bombs. I'm asking if the Japanese were not Japanese, but rather Westerners, do you think we'd have dropped the bombs? You said that you believe we would have, which answers my question.

You may think that your designed slant on the topic was invisible. Not so much, hence my suggestion for the poll.

I think it's an interesting question, not meant to provoke anything but thought and discussion.

Or maybe A chance to give the USA a shot in the seeds? Naahh, nobody noticed.

[Tishabet]

Originally Posted by ckissick

Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Dresden; they look pretty much the same. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were simply more efficient, but also much more ominous. I think if we were still facing a defiant Nazi regime and German populace, we would have leveled, say, Berlin.

+1, exactly the point I was planning to make.

Dead is dead, destruction is destruction... I doubt the mechanism mattered one way or the other to the people on the ground.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by ckissick

Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Dresden; they look pretty much the same. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were simply more efficient, but also much more ominous. I think if we were still facing a defiant Nazi regime and German populace, we would have leveled, say, Berlin.

Look up Dresden. More dead than Hiroshima.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by ckissick

Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Dresden; they look pretty much the same. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were simply more efficient, but also much more ominous. I think if we were still facing a defiant Nazi regime and German populace, we would have leveled, say, Berlin.

True. All three bombings remain controversial to this day. Collateral damage, the number of civilian deaths, is the prime issue.

I question whether Churchill would have ordered the bombing of Dresden had he known that almost all of the damage would be to the German citizens, not military targets. Regarding Dresden, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 is an interesting read; he was a POW there during the attack.

[red-beard]

Yes. Actually, the whole point of building the bomb was to counter Germany building the bomb. We had every intention of using it.

[Mule]

But you don't deny it happened do you? Is that racist? Checkmate.

[Rick Lee]

I went to the Nat. Atomic Museum in Albuquerque a few years ago. They had an interesting exhibit on alternatives to dropping the bomb on Japan. One theory was to do a demo detonation in the Pacific with a few of Japan's high-ranking generals to show them what we had in store for them. But the idea was dismissed because we were unsure if the bomb would even detonate. And had it failed then, there would have been no deterrent effect at all except by later detonating one over a city.

I went to Dresden for the first time in 1989 just before the Wall came down. At that time, a lot of the inner city was still fenced off and unrebuilt. The devastation was amazing even 44 yrs. later. I was last there about four years ago and the Frauenkirche was just about done being rebuilt. It truly was the best preserved baroque city in Europe before Feb. 1945. Still, destroying Dresden had little military value. It was full of refugees from the eastern territories at the time we and the Brits bombed it. It was a revenge kinda thing.

[Super_Dave_D]

Originally Posted by Mule

Look up Dresden. More dead than Hiroshima.

And Nagasaki combined!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Yes. Actually, the whole point of building the bomb was to counter Germany building the bomb. We had every intention of using it.

+1

Additionally, the primary reason cited for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings was to avoid horrific Allied casualties invading the Japanese mainland because of heavily entrenched enemy positions and a fanatically loyal civilian populace that was likely to fight alongside the troops if invaded. Germany was every bit as rabidly loyal to the Nazi party as the Japanese were to their Emperor in the early 1940s to late in the ground war (some even to the bitter end and afterwards!)

The Allied casualties as a result of the Normandy invasion and subsequent march across Europe/ground war were every bit as bad as the casualties of a Japanese mainland invasion would have been and I think the commanders knew what they were in for planning Normandy. As such, I think the same logic ("save Allied forces' lives") would have unquestionably applied.

I do wonder if we'd gotten the bomb in, say, 1943 which city/cities/targets would have been chosen in Europe. The map would look a LOT different today I think though. . .

[dtw]

Extreme offensive tactics require extreme retaliation. Keep in mind, these were foes that were willing to fly planes into...

...nevermind. Waste of time.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If we'd had the bomb prior to Normandy, I think we probably would have.

at the very least considered it, hand, our thread originator seems to imply it would never happen

Mr 727 sums it up nicely

D, you should perhaps reread your second paragraph of this thread.

[dtw]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I went to Dresden for the first time in 1989 just before the Wall came down. At that time, a lot of the inner city was still fenced off and unrebuilt. The devastation was amazing even 44 yrs. later. I was last there about four years ago and the Frauenkirche was just about done being rebuilt. It truly was the best preserved baroque city in Europe before Feb. 1945. Still, destroying Dresden had little military value. It was full of refugees from the eastern territories at the time we and the Brits bombed it. It was a revenge kinda thing.

Dresden is proof that war is as much about psychological victory as physical devastation. I've never been there but I've read just about everything Kurt Vonnegut Jr. ever wrote. He was haunted by the bombing his entire adult life (he was in a bunker under Dresden at the time of the bombing - he was an Allied POW). Just reading his accounts of it used to turn my stomach and make me break out in a cold sweat.