Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda

[Dr_Strangelove]

has i said...and later some of your people wander why half the world hates you, and the other half didnt like your country.

781991[/snapback]

At the time we were essentially defeating two states guilty of genocide on scales never seen before. The Japanese were working on and preparing to use their own weapons of mass destruction.

We did the right thing. Like I said, I'd nuke em again if it was my choice...

[Xyfer]

Thanks for the link Charon.. some very disturbing images. After reading all the discussion I'm at a point where I can't decide which way to go.. I think some things of the past just shouldn't be brought up for so many years. Some things are better off ignored. What happened happened and thats that.. you learn to move on

[isis-999]

I hate what happen to Japan, but i noticed there was no pic's of our pow's and what they went thru, At the hands of the japanese

[Erikl]

In the long run the nuking of Japan, how ever traumatic, only helped the Japanese people to put things into perspective, and from war-seeking, radiciously honour-first society, it changed into a peace-seeking, rational country.

[Mr Slayer]

Disregarding if it's the "I'd nuke'em again"- or "poor Japanese"- mentality in one's heart, it's more to this matter than the official "...to end the WWIII..." explanation.

Stay open-minded.

[Dan'O]

I find it funny when people say that large, important decisions are made because of a one or two reasons.

"Oh it was done because of this...or...that..."

Dropping atom munitions or virtually any other important decision is made through careful analysis of many factors. Declaring that it was done because of one or two specific reasons is ignorant and shows a lack of common sense.

I would hate to see what would have happened if the Japanese or the Nazis developed atomic weapons first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_atomic_bomb_project

[Celumnaz]

I find it funny when people say that large, important decisions are made because of a one or two reasons.

"Oh it was done because of this...or...that..."

Dropping atom munitions or virtually any other important decision is made through careful analysis of many factors. Declaring that it was done because of one or two specific reasons is ignorant and shows a lack of common sense.

Oh I soo very much agree!!!!

It's all about oil!

[Dr_Strangelove]

I find it funny when people say that large, important decisions are made because of a one or two reasons.

"Oh it was done because of this...or...that..."

Dropping atom munitions or virtually any other important decision is made through careful analysis of many factors. Declaring that it was done because of one or two specific reasons is ignorant and shows a lack of common sense.

I would hate to see what would have happened if the Japanese or the Nazis developed atomic weapons first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_atomic_bomb_project

786955[/snapback]

The Japanese also had a substantial biological warfare program and by the end of the war they were considering using it. Just look up 'Unit 731' for more information. One plan called for one of their I-400 Class submarines, the submarine aircraft carrier, to carry some of the toxin bombs to the west coast of the United States and then drop them from one of the submarine's aircraft.

[Elysiumfire]

Truman's decision to drop the two atomic bombs will resonante throughout history, it was an act that will "...echo throughout eternity..." to quote a fictitious Roman general.

Scientists were busy looking at the potential of nuclear power since Einstien put forward his 'E=mc sq' formulae, so even without the two world wars, nuclear power would have been deliberately put to use for both peaceful and military purposes. What the wars did, particularly the 2nd world war, was to add a sense of urgency to the be the first nation to develop it. German scientists as well as many others around the world knew the potential of how atomic power could be harnessed and used for militaristic purposes, so during WW2 it became an over-estimated race to be the first to develop it, and that once it had been developed, there really was no question that it would've been used against a nation and its people.

While German scientists - under Hitler's Nazi rule - sought to manufacture 'heavy water' in order to use it for the generation of an atomic chain reaction, scientists in America (of all nationalities) used uranium 238 as their fissionable material. To allow Hitler to gain an atomic bomb first would have been wholly unthinkable, and it was this 'fear' that provided the impetus in America to be the first to develop the world's first atomic bomb. This they did, but by this time the war with Germany was over, and therefore the eyes and might of the allies turned towards the war in the Pacific and towards Japan.

Like Germany, Japan had been increasing its armed forces over many years, even before the start of WW2, Japan had already invaded China, a conflict that had culminated in the appalling and horrific massacre at Nanking. Even so, at the time of the development of the atomic nomb, Japan was already losing the war in the pacific, but was determined to fight on to the last man, woman and child. This was more so on the japanese mainland, as they were determined to repulse an invasion, and inflict as many deaths and casualties as possible upon the Americans and it allies.

The world was war-weary, nations had been devastated, cities destroyed, and over 50 million people killed world-wide. Japan was the only nation providing the energy to maintain the longevity of the war. There is no doubt, however, that it was seeking an acceptable end to the conflict, many of its politicians against the wishes of its military leaders were advocating a surrender in order to assuage the Americans and its allies from invading, but the terms could not be agreed. America was seeking unconditional surrender, but this was wholly unacceptable to Japans military leaders whom were abiding by the ancient Bushido code, and would rather fight on regardless of whom or how many were killed.

I do not accept that Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was a demonstration of power for the Russians to take note of, that was purely incidental. He was focussed upon ending the war, and did not want more American and allied lives to be wasted needlessly fighting a belligerent foe that cared not whether it was killed. Therefore, in these circumstance, in the prevailing situation at that time, he gave the 'go-ahead' to use the world's first nuclear bomb. The rest as they say, is history.

It is easy for historians and commentators of today to look back at events and say that things were done for such and such a purpose (in years to come, how will historians view the Bush years?), simply by picking out threads of resonance that allude to their line of thinking as being a perceptive look at hidden events and agendas. However, the dropping of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not hearald the start of the 'Cold War', it would be other events that would kick-start this during the late forties and early fifties, but what the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did do was to deny the use of nuclear weaponry to be used in the same terms as conventional weaponry. Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without the world witnessing the awful destructive force of atomic power, it is highly probable that they would have been used at some later date, probably between America and Russia during the Cuban missile crisis, with even greater consequences for the world.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki stripped away our ignorance on the effects and use of atomic bombs. It wasn't just a show of power to the Russians, it was a show of power to the whole world, and to future generations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be a legacy bequeathed in ignorance to the human race, a legacy and a warning to find a way to live with one another in peace. Until nations stop seeking to impose there will, militarily, economically and politically upon other nations, peace will never be forthcoming.The shadows of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be etched upon our consciousness, for if we allow our leaders carte blanche executive power without either question or resistance, then the world will eventually and inevitably share the fate of those two cities. Only time will tell.....

Regards

Elysiumfire

[ROGER]

Well said Elysiumfire.

[Vallheru]

"He was focussed upon ending the war, and did not want more American and allied lives to be wasted needlessly fighting a belligerent foe that cared not whether it was killed. Therefore, in these circumstance, in the prevailing situation at that time, he gave the 'go-ahead' to use the world's first nuclear bomb. The rest as they say, is history."

This is really really naive. The Japanese had already started the negotiations for a honourable retreat from the war and the carpet bombings had already destroyed Japan's infrastructure. Japan had no airforce, no navy and of course no oil or ammunition to continue the war. Additionally, all military factories had already been destroyed.

The war was ended and the us government knew it. But Stalin needed a lesson. And Hiroshima was the example. All the rest are fairytales.

[Elysiumfire]

"He was focussed upon ending the war, and did not want more American and allied lives to be wasted needlessly fighting a belligerent foe that cared not whether it was killed. Therefore, in these circumstance, in the prevailing situation at that time, he gave the 'go-ahead' to use the world's first nuclear bomb. The rest as they say, is history."

This is really really naive. The Japanese had already started the negotiations for a honourable retreat from the war and the carpet bombings had already destroyed Japan's infrastructure. Japan had no airforce, no navy and of course no oil or ammunition to continue the war. Additionally, all military factories had already been destroyed. 

The war was ended and the us government knew it. But Stalin needed a lesson. And Hiroshima was the example. All the rest are fairytales.

819083[/snapback]

It is not my intention to get into a slanging match over this issue, but to call me naive simply because you refuse to look at and accept 'all' the historical facts as related by the historians and the documentarians, is itself naive. To also put forward the point that your perception of history is the only 'true' perception of it is as equal in its presumption as its naivete.

I had mentioned in my post that Japanese politicians were already seeking a peaceful and 'amicable' surrender (but on their terms, not the victor's), but Japan's military leaders wanted to fight to the death. That is a fact, whether you accept it or not! However, this was not the central point of my post.

The question posed by the first poster was that behind the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was perhaps 'hidden' agendas'? I do not accept this, and sought to refute it by stating that the parallel political and militarily effects that issued forth from the use of the atomic bombs was purely incidental; and in any case, the show of nuclear power did not dissuade the Soviets (nor other countries) from acquiring nuclear weaponry a few years later, and it was morally essential that they did so, because America's power and might needed to be checked, or met on equal terms.

To think that if America had become the sole owner of atomic weapons is a horrific thought, especially with the present incumbent in the White House. If this had been the case, the world would have witnessed the use of atomic bombs on a number of occasions. The acquisition of nuclear power by other countries stalemated the might of America in nuclear terms through 'mutually-assured-destruction'. By the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world gained the knowledge about the awful effects of nuclear power, and learned that if countries were to use them against each other, it would be the beginning of the end of mankind. Without that knowledge garnered from the atomic bombings of the two Japanese cities, the world today might be a different and more sorrowful place, perhaps even...dead.

Today, nuclear technology has advanced to the point where a nuclear device can be carried in a suitcase, and it is this that is the terrorist's ultimate dream acquisition, it would be their ultimate statement. The moral arguments regarding the use of nuclear weapons carries no voice to the terrorist, it argues no plea with them. Blinded by their hate and fuelled by the energy of their 'cause', the terrorist would use it, without hesitation. I accept that one day terrorists will acquire a device, because it has never been a question of 'if', but of 'when' and 'where'.

Bush, however, is the worst politician to address this issue, he neither understands nor cares for the reasons why terrorists are created. If anything, he has extended their breeding ground, and reasons for their being, he has validated their cause. So, if you want to look for and at 'hidden agendas' look no further than the most inept politician whose finger is on the button.

Regards

Elysiumfire

[Vallheru]

"He was focussed upon ending the war, and did not want more American and allied lives to be wasted needlessly fighting a belligerent foe that cared not whether it was killed. Therefore, in these circumstance, in the prevailing situation at that time, he gave the 'go-ahead' to use the world's first nuclear bomb. The rest as they say, is history."

This is really really naive. The Japanese had already started the negotiations for a honourable retreat from the war and the carpet bombings had already destroyed Japan's infrastructure. Japan had no airforce, no navy and of course no oil or ammunition to continue the war. Additionally, all military factories had already been destroyed. 

The war was ended and the us government knew it. But Stalin needed a lesson. And Hiroshima was the example. All the rest are fairytales.

819083[/snapback]

It is not my intention to get into a slanging match over this issue, but to call me naive simply because you refuse to look at and accept 'all' the historical facts as related by the historians and the documentarians, is itself naive. To also put forward the point that your perception of history is the only 'true' perception of it is as equal in its presumption as its naivete.

I had mentioned in my post that Japanese politicians were already seeking a peaceful and 'amicable' surrender (but on their terms, not the victor's), but Japan's military leaders wanted to fight to the death. That is a fact, whether you accept it or not! However, this was not the central point of my post.

The question posed by the first poster was that behind the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was perhaps 'hidden' agendas'? I do not accept this, and sought to refute it by stating that the parallel political and militarily effects that issued forth from the use of the atomic bombs was purely incidental; and in any case, the show of nuclear power did not dissuade the Soviets (nor other countries) from acquiring nuclear weaponry a few years later, and it was morally essential that they did so, because America's power and might needed to be checked, or met on equal terms.

To think that if America had become the sole owner of atomic weapons is a horrific thought, especially with the present incumbent in the White House. If this had been the case, the world would have witnessed the use of atomic bombs on a number of occasions. The acquisition of nuclear power by other countries stalemated the might of America in nuclear terms through 'mutually-assured-destruction'. By the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world gained the knowledge about the awful effects of nuclear power, and learned that if countries were to use them against each other, it would be the beginning of the end of mankind. Without that knowledge garnered from the atomic bombings of the two Japanese cities, the world today might be a different and more sorrowful place, perhaps even...dead.

Today, nuclear technology has advanced to the point where a nuclear device can be carried in a suitcase, and it is this that is the terrorist's ultimate dream acquisition, it would be their ultimate statement. The moral arguments regarding the use of nuclear weapons carries no voice to the terrorist, it argues no plea with them. Blinded by their hate and fuelled by the energy of their 'cause', the terrorist would use it, without hesitation. I accept that one day terrorists will acquire a device, because it has never been a question of 'if', but of 'when' and 'where'.

Bush, however, is the worst politician to address this issue, he neither understands nor cares for the reasons why terrorists are created. If anything, he has extended their breeding ground, and reasons for their being, he has validated their cause. So, if you want to look for and at 'hidden agendas' look no further than the most inept politician whose finger is on the button.

Regards

Elysiumfire

819273[/snapback]

I am certain your opinion on the subject is not "naive"-I was strictly reffering to the part that I chose to comment on. This part is not your discovery-it ia one of the widely known ideas on the subject, if I am not mistaken. There is no case of an "insulting match" in any case, I am just oposed to that kind of theory (that the us presidents always think of innocent's lives first blah blah) that is a product of years and years of propaganda, which has shown considerable results over the years.

To answer your comment on the japanese politicians, you probably know very well that in Japan, at the time, the word of the emperor was like law. And the Emperor desperately wanted peace, even if it meant surrendering without losing face personally. The military had of course power, but no much to the Emperor's power.

The Us always had good military intelligence-it would be impossible they didnt know they were fighting an already dead opponent. So, why the use of the A-bomb? To show the bombs might? A simple demonstration on a deserted island would do (as the scientist's team had proposed to Stimson already). To destroy a city? Hiroshima was more or less the only un-harmed city in Japan-all the rest been completely anihilated by Lemay's fortresses, military or civillian. To force them to surrender? Already answered. So, why? The only plausible explanation is the warning to Stallin.

As to your last comment on bush, personally I consider him a criminal, to be prosecuted alongside milosevic, saddam, the chinish f...er, the north korean f..er and the whole company. I'd put blair with them, but I think he's just to dumb to bother with.....

Rgds

Vallheru

[Elysiumfire]

My dear Vallheru:

We are actually in agreement. I, too, know that a demonstration of the atomic bomb's capability was advocated by a group of the scientists whom helped to build it. A letter of petition had been sent to Truman pleading for such a thing headed by no less than Einstien himself, but if I remember rightly, Truman did not see the letter, or he did not do so until after the bombings. It may have been deliberately stalled by (shall we say) less than moral minds, but whatever the case, no demonstration was given and the bombings occurred.

Letters of 'warning' were sent to the Japanese that stated that America now possessed a weapon of unusual power and destruction, but the Japanese interpretated this letter as a sign of both propaganda and weakness, and thus did not send a reply. Equally, at the same time of the letter's transmission to the Japanese, Truman mentioned in 'passing' to Stalin at a meeting in Europe (Potsdam) of the terrible power of a new weapon in America's arsenal. Stalin showed no indicated response, he either did not fully grasp the issue or was not concerned at all. My own guess is that he already knew, as did Churchill (British scientists and explosives experts had helped in the science and the detonation mechanism).

However, these facts do not take anything away from my main point, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki although designed to pummel the Japanese into surrender and thus, to save lives in the process, the use of them probably saved future generation from a nuclear death. If after Hiroshima the Japanese had sent communications to the Americans, Nagasaki would not have been bombed, that no communication was received, may have been due to communications from Hiroshima being destroyed, and thus the Japanese government did not learn of Hiroshima until it was too late.

I do not accept that a demonstration of the bomb, would have ever cowed the Soviets in the way that the original poster speculates, but would it have had the required effect upon the Japanese to surrender? I myself can only speculate that it would have done so. What I take issue with is that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not designed to 'kick start' the 'Cold War'. I accept that the cold war was inevitable, even if nuclear weaponry had not been made. The cold war was not about armanents, but about mindsets and prejudice.

There is no doubt that it was the Americans whom kick started the cold war, it was as fearful of being attacked then as it is today, but we have to be careful on how we draw our speculative parallels. The American people are not an 'evil' race, but they have allowed themselves to be nurtured over the decades on the priciple that 'might is right', but of course it isn't. Bush is no JFK, nor is he as intelligent as Nixon. He does not understand the complexities of modern political life, and I would speculate that he is nothing more than a 'puppet' of his advisors, people whom have less than the vested interests of the American people at heart, and more an interest of self-gratification and self-aggrandizement.

Through the current American administration, the arms race (conventional) has never had a better ally. The current American administration has has sought to extend the American psychosis of fear around the world, it has sought to subdue the peoples of other countries into compliance and acceptance of its psychosis: fortunately, most do not accept the criminal charade. If the conscious awareness of the people of the world were to awaken from its lethargy and apathy, it would see that the word 'Globalisation' really means 'Americanisation'. Not the Americanisation that is enshrined in the principles of the 'constitution', but the Americanisation of business and profit.

Only the American people can lead the world out of the mess created by their government, and only by returning to the principles of the original constitution of their country can they do so: anything less is Bush-speak and manipulation, but I fear it will get worse before it gets better. Bush is a capitalist farmer seeking to sow seeds of business and profit, but in doing so, all he reaps (and in relation the rest of the world) is terrorism. Sometime in the future the world will reap a terrorist's nuclear detonation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when' and 'where', and like the Japanese government prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have all been warned.

Regards

Elysiumfire

[Vallheru]

My dear Vallheru:

We are actually in agreement. I, too, know that a demonstration of the atomic bomb's capability was advocated by a group of the scientists whom helped to build it. A letter of petition had been sent to Truman pleading for such a thing headed by no less than Einstien himself, but if I remember rightly, Truman did not see the letter, or he did not do so until after the bombings. It may have been deliberately stalled by (shall we say) less than moral minds, but whatever the case, no demonstration was given and the bombings occurred.

Letters of 'warning' were sent to the Japanese that stated that America now possessed a weapon of unusual power and destruction, but the Japanese interpretated this letter as a sign of both propaganda and weakness, and thus did not send a reply.  Equally, at the same time of the letter's transmission to the Japanese, Truman mentioned in 'passing' to Stalin at a meeting in Europe (Potsdam) of the terrible power of a new weapon in America's arsenal. Stalin showed no indicated response, he either did not fully grasp the issue or was not concerned at all. My own guess is that he already knew, as did Churchill (British scientists and explosives experts had helped in the science and the detonation mechanism).

However, these facts do not take anything away from my main point, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki although designed to pummel the Japanese into surrender and thus, to save lives in the process, the use of them probably saved future generation from a nuclear death. If after Hiroshima the Japanese had sent communications to the Americans, Nagasaki would not have been bombed, that no communication was received, may have been due to communications from Hiroshima being destroyed, and thus the Japanese government did not learn of Hiroshima until it was too late.

I do not accept that a demonstration of the bomb, would have ever cowed the Soviets in the way that the original poster speculates, but would it have had the required effect upon the Japanese to surrender? I myself can only speculate that it would have done so. What I take issue with is that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not designed to 'kick start' the 'Cold War'. I accept that the cold war was inevitable, even if nuclear weaponry had not been made. The cold war was not about armanents, but about mindsets and prejudice.

There is no doubt that it was the Americans whom kick started the cold war, it was as fearful of being attacked then as it is today, but we have to be careful on how we draw our speculative parallels. The American people are not an 'evil' race, but they have allowed themselves to be nurtured over the decades on the priciple that 'might is right', but of course it isn't. Bush is no JFK, nor is he as intelligent as Nixon. He does not understand the complexities of modern political life, and I would speculate that he is nothing more than a 'puppet' of his advisors, people whom have less than the vested interests of the American people at heart, and more an interest of self-gratification and self-aggrandizement.

Through the current American administration, the arms race (conventional) has never had a better ally. The current American administration has has sought to extend the American psychosis of fear around the world, it has sought to subdue the peoples of other countries into compliance and acceptance of its psychosis: fortunately, most do not accept the criminal charade. If the conscious awareness of the people of the world were to awaken from its lethargy and apathy, it would see that the word 'Globalisation' really means 'Americanisation'. Not the Americanisation that is enshrined in the principles of the 'constitution', but the Americanisation of business and profit.

Only the American people can lead the world out of the mess created by their government, and only by returning to the principles of the original constitution of their country can they do so: anything less is Bush-speak and manipulation, but I fear it will get worse before it gets better. Bush is a capitalist farmer seeking to sow seeds of business and profit, but in doing so, all he reaps (and in relation the rest of the world) is terrorism. Sometime in the future the world will reap a terrorist's nuclear detonation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when' and 'where', and like the Japanese government prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have all been warned.

Regards

Elysiumfire

821017[/snapback]

Well, I can see now that we have managed to complicate the matter, which is perfectly acceptable of course, as I find that this is the true nature of these forums.

To discuss about current policies-and especially the us agenda since wwII- would obviously make the discussion stray from the original topic, so I will try create an argument within the loose borders of it.

It is apparent that the nuclear strikes in Japan, were part of a general plan of the US to solidify their position as the new global boss. Keep in mind that at the time, th us were a significant power but still the focus was on the european powers; England (the fading empire), france (the industrial power) and Germany (the explosive european giant). But, due to the war actually taking place in Europe, those were economically (if not physically) decimated, for one or the other reason. So, the focus of "the show of power" was turned to the European Colossus, the Soviet union. Also keep in mind that it was the Russians that turned the fate of the war in europe and made a huge impression world-wide with their "return from the dead" in Stalingrad and their following gallop straight to Berlin. Additionally, the USSR was in the unique position to be the only country to have borders in both war theaters: the europea and the pacific. The need for the americans to turn the public eye towards them was immense.

The strikes in Japan were not of course the cause of the cold war. The cold war was the normal development of 2 different styles of life, coming from different directions and, eventually, colliding. What was the tragedy, apart from the horrific deaths of thousands, was the introduction to the war of the "21st century", as was very well put from a b-29 crewman. It gave the whole world, enemies and allies alike, the proof that creation of total anihilation weapons was not only possible but could also be permitted against pitiful excuses like those truman offered. Again, as you have already mentioned, it also magnificently and spectacularly illustrated the futility of such weapons and the easy and complete way in which those can (and will???) end humanity. The big loss of humanity, in this case, was not so much the death of thousands, as it was the ethic acceptance to use such weapons.

As was later proved, those weapons concentrate such "power of fear" as well as actual power, that became un-controllable and eventually available to wrong hands. Apart from that, the use of them on civiliants initiated a terrifying new technique of "excused" terrorist acts on big numbers of innocent people. The results are very well known (N.Y., Madrid and of course London).

As a very old saying says, violent brings violence. And, the account is wide open.

Best regards

Vallheru.

[Elysiumfire]

Dear Vallheru,

I see now the thread of thought which we both share, differently coloured, but weaved upon the same tapestry. The stumbling block which denys me full equivocal agreement with you lies in the word 'intention', which signifies the 'prior' reason or excuse for an act, in this case, an act by the US. The reason for the stumbling block in my mind is due to not having or seen enough 'information' or documentary evidence to persuade me on the veracity of my suspicions.

As I see it, there were 3 events that caused a 'turning' in the tide of war in Europe. The first was the 'Battle of Britain', the aeronautical firefights over the southern skies of England. This was not as large or as 'bloody' a battle as those on the eastern-front, but it was the first real failure for Nazi Germany. It was this failure to decimate the RAF both on the ground and in the air that put a block upon Hitler's expansion plans in the West. He had to subdue Britain to safeguard his western-front, his forces failed, and it was Britain whom was the first country to take the war to the heart of Germany by bombing Berlin. Germany had conquered Europe meeting limited resistance on its way, Britain, alone and isolated, stood its ground and punched back, and started to re-group.

Hitler then made his first big error, he turned his attention towards the East and to Moscow, opening up a 2nd battle front of immense importance. German forces plowed their way into Russia almost reaching Moscow, but the steadfast resilience of the soviet people, the dwindling German supply chains, and the Russian winter, conspired to belittle the fortitude and effctiveness of the German forces. Bogged down, cold and hungry, the morale of the German troops was at an all time low. It wasn't much better for the Soviets, many were dying in the streets from hunger, cold and disease. The eastern-front became centered upon Stalingrad, and it was the awful battle for this city that finally broke the resolve of the German forces, and eventually, the Soviets began to push the Germans back, pursuing them eventually all the way to Berlin.

Meanwhile, the war in Europe had been waging for 3 years, America had chosen to 'sit this one out', although Roosevelt had secretly been sending supplies to Britain, it was about to enter the war in a most shocking, but not un-anticipated way. It was December, 1941, and a Japanese naval fleet was steaming a course for Hawaii, and by the end of December 7th, America was fully in the war, fighting in two theatres, Europe and the Pacific.

If Britain had fallen to German forces, America would not have had a staging post close enough to Europe from which to launch effective attacks upon Germany. Hitler would have been able to consolidate his forces with an immense moral victory, and his eastern battle-front would have received a lot more consideration, supplies, men, ammunition, air-power, much more would have been sent to ensure victory in Russia. If German forces had succeeded there, too, history would tell a different story, and our lives in Europe would have a different complexion. It may not be too far-fetched to think that German and Japanese forces would have eventually attacked the US mainland on separate fronts. Of course, this is only speculation.

Nowhere at this time can I see an 'intention' from the US to become the 'global boss', as you put it, during the 2nd world war, nor do I accept it as an intention when it acquired the atomic bomb, although I will speculate that it may have crossed a number of high-ranking military minds. Europe was decimated, Japan defeated, so if America wanted to be the boss, by intention, and not by default, it would have secured Soviet territory, it would not have allowed, nor agreed to the spoils that the Soviets gained.

The 'cold war' grew out of and emanated from events that 'coloured' and prejudiced minds; Pearl Harbour shook America to its core; a distrust and dislike of Stalin and Soviet-style communism, and a pervasive expectation that both America and Russia would oneday meet as opposing forces on a battlefield someday. Both countries consolidated their efforts to strengthen their borders. So, while Europe, decimated but at peace, began to lick its wounds and re-build, America and Russia became insular to one another, each distrusting the other, but the cold-war did not 'kick in' until the Soviets exploded their own nuclear device: the arms race had begun. It was not until many years later, after the fall of communism and the Belin Wall, that America for the second time, found itself to be the only 'superpower' by default.

I will not deny that there has always been a number of minds in America that had always wanted America to be in the position it is in today, but it is not until recently that such minds found themselves holding the reins of power. It is obvious that they mean to do good by their position, and that they will not give up that power by legal process. This, however, is a speculation that carries a more darker tone, and needs to be discussed elsewhere.

My regards to you.

Elysiumfire

[hojo33]

I just spoke with my priest, and he said that the bomb was the best thing to happen. He was in the war at age 16 because he slipped his way through the draft which was 18 years old. He said that if the bomb did not happen, it would have been a slaughter house, and the American Army would have suffered greatly.

It is also a good thing that every foreign war has been fought on the foreign country's land, otherwise we would be talking about thousands of American civilians dead.

[OvercastComfort]

I see resposes saying what would have happened to our military had we not nuked them. Well, that's a consequence of being in the military;being put in danger. That's what's so bad about 911. Not the attack, but the fact that it was on civilians. It was murder of civilians. If anyone joins the military, they know the risks, but to murder hundreds of thousands is a crime against humanity. Nuke the government buildings and facilities, not houses. And before you mention it, I know there was a draft. I don't regret using the bomb, but thought it would be better used on military targets. Then again, I don't know everything, and openly conclude my possible flaws in military tactics.

Edited October 28, 2006 by OvercastComfort

[girty1600]

The ****** A-Bomb...the greatest contribution that the USA made to the world.

for every vengefull USA citizens that talks about bombing some place in the way of making a revenge: look at the picture above.

Yeah, that's right. The US and all its current citizens should be held accountable for "little boy" and "fat man".

I guess the rest of the world will have to hold you personally responsible for hiding and protecting Nazi criminals in Argentina after the war.

Edit; Wow. I read this whole tread not realizing how old it was...

Edited October 29, 2006 by girty1600

[Mike8272]

Pretty old topic but i think i'll reply.

The US nuked Japan now i feel it was rash and over the top as all they wanted was to end the war quick there was always better ways to end the war than drop a nuke on them if they so wanted why not drop bombs on military bases? tactical strikes not mass murder.

TThey used Japan as a test for there bomb to see what it could do to human life and guess what if given the chance again they'd do it because at the end of the day how could Japan fight off the USA, not having a go here or saying that US are war mongers but they dropped a nuke on a small island they always had to surrender as how can they protect there land against the US with nukes and would of dropped more till they did?

It was a hidden agenda alright because you want to end a war quick you just don't send off a nuke, firstly it kills countless millions of people, not only that but affects them to this day.

As i said orignally tactical strikes eg take out military bases for example is a better solution.

---

And ^ didn't America take in german scientists after the war?

But some Nazi's did escape but they could of gone anywere the Argies aren't really to blame they went there but i do admit they got a NAzi party.

[conspiracysrus]

In the long run the nuking of Japan, how ever traumatic, only helped the Japanese people to put things into perspective, and from war-seeking

tell me do you know of any other nation that may benefit from a thermo nuclear detonation?

if truman didnt have the cold war in mind for the future then why the odessa organisation and operation paper clip?

why the need for all those german rocket scientist ?

probably its true that the Japanese woulndnt have given in as easily as some like to think, but the bombs were a double edged sword,

in other words they were 2 good reasons for dropping em.

and im sick of people trashing america, they are a bit big headed at times but who hasnt been in the past ?

remember englands glory days?

its just a shame that the u.s is now under the control of certain verminous creatures that make every body look at them in an unhealthy light.

be glad though that america is there or we could all be speaking something other then english.

Edited October 30, 2006 by conspiracysrus

[straight talker]

I am not talking like how Germany did with the Hitler Youth, I am talking like little kids, under ten, being forced to fight American soldiers.

War crimes and crimes against humanity my ass...

Im guessing from your post that you are an american? You are not doing your country any favours with such barely informed, brainwashed twaddle. Please look into the ages of soldiers the Nazis sent against Russia, before you embaress yourself again.

[straight talker]

I think we did the Japanese a favor by dropping the bombs.

Here is a challenge. Sincerely. Go to Japan, visit nagasaki, visit Hiroshima, talk to people. Open your eyes to the "Favour" that was done them, visit the museums.

Then come back and re-read your post. I think you may share my opinion of your attitude then. It is not a very nice one.

Also, please ask your government where exactly all the nazi scientists and many lead Nazi's actually found exile and employment.

I think your many share my opinion of your countries administration then.

Acts of genocide and cruelty to civilian populace is a war crime. The american government should have been tried for arguably the most vicious war crime in history.

[Hyperborianlama]

In the long run the nuking of Japan, how ever traumatic, only helped the Japanese people to put things into perspective, and from war-seeking, radiciously honour-first society, it changed into a peace-seeking, rational country.

YOU MEAN UNLIKE ISRAEL IN LEBANON AND WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING TO THE PALESTINIANS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES? MAYBE IF SOMEONE NUKED ISRAEL IT WOULD BECOME A RATIONAL PEACE LOVING SOCIETY TOO?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Hyperborianlama

[Hyperborianlama]

I think we did the Japanese a favor by dropping the bombs.

Here is a challenge. Sincerely. Go to Japan, visit nagasaki, visit Hiroshima, talk to people. Open your eyes to the "Favour" that was done them, visit the museums.

Then come back and re-read your post. I think you may share my opinion of your attitude then. It is not a very nice one.

Also, please ask your government where exactly all the nazi scientists and many lead Nazi's actually found exile and employment.

I think your many share my opinion of your countries administration then.

Acts of genocide and cruelty to civilian populace is a war crime. The american government should have been tried for arguably the most vicious war crime in history.

UNLIKE THE GLORIOUS Japanese empire that provoked the war with Pearl Habor and the way the Chinese people were treated like animals by the perfect little innocent Japanese empire?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Hyperborianlama