Quote:
|
Interesting. Who discovered them under what circumstances? And what happened with them?
|
I think I'll have to search the web a little to answer your questions. Give me a couple of days.
Quote:
|
A sea-blockade and waiting until the lack of resources forces Japan to capitulate.
|
Again, Japan was indeed sea-blockaded. The US submarine fleet (in fact, all American aero-naval forces) had achieved what the German miserably failed at with Great Britain: the economic isolation of the Japanese Isles. Japan was pretty much on its own by mid-1945, but they kept fighting and they certainly would have kept on fighting. Do you know that a militia of teenage girls was created to face the American invasion? These girls had been trained on martial arts and on the use of bows and bamboo spears, since there were not enough fire arms, and they were perfectly willing to die trying to kill the invaders. Even a 90-year-old Japanese woman would have died attacking with pins an American G. I. who entered her flat.
Those were the morals of the Japanese people in 1945. They certainly have changed much since.
Quote:
|
Bombing all airfields and industrial facilities.
|
This was done and achieved. But how, in your moral visions, do you intend to achieve this without killing thousands of civilians who worked in these factories or lived around them?
Quote:
|
I think Roosevelt wouldn't have ordered to use A-bombs. IMO Truman's main intention was to show Stalin his power.
|
Roosevelt ordered the creation of the bombs: to
use them and against Germany.
Quote:
|
I don't think that moral depends on technological progress. Today we have even more devastating weapons, but this doesn't affect the people's moral.
|
Many things have affected the drastic changes of the world's morals over the last 60 years… the Cold War, Vietnam, The Beatles, James Dean, Elvis, feminism, the pill, the sexual liberation, the collapse of communism, Internet, an awful actor and a right-wing lady being the leaders of the free world in the 80s, cell phones… the list goes on…
But military technology does affect the morals of war and what is valid in them or not.
Back in the Seven Years War, the contendent armies formed in front of each other and their respective commanding officers met before the battle and said something like this: 'Dear sir, please do the honours and may it be your brave Army the one to fire in the first place.' 'No, sir', responded the other. 'It should be your excelence's troops who honour us by firing first'… bla, bla, bla. This became impossible once bolt-action rifles and machine appeared.
Even in 20 years, between both World Wars, morals had changed. The vision of using poison gas and other chemical weapons changed much between both wars.
Quote:
|
I don't remember that the german people wanted the total war.
|
No, they didn't receive the war news well, but they said 'OK', let's do it. And they supported the man completely responsible for the war, as long as the victories were cheap and quick.
Quote:
|
They are to blame regarding to not having supported the german resistance (high ranked officers trying to putsch and to get into contact with the allies). So many lives could have been saved. The "unconditional surrender" policy made this impossible.
|
No. Hitler was not going to negotiate. Germany was going to win or perish.
And, of course, Stalin was not going to negotiate, he was not going to have the slightiest mercy with the fascist invader, who, in turn, wouldn't have had the slightiest pity had they won.
And how could the Western Allies negotiate with the government that started the Holocaust? The same government they had negotiated the Munich agreement, the Polish-German and Soviet-German non-agression pacts, the Franco-German Armistice?
Supporting the resistance? The resistance made out of officers who had fought for Hitler for 5 years and supported him in his victories? These men wanted to prevent the destruction of Germany, yes (but again, the people would be given the impression that the Führer had been betrayed and that the German armies had not been defeated in the field, exactly as in WWI), they wanted to prevent German cities from being bombed and more armies being destroyed in the east, but were they willing to give up Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, Silesia, Galitzia or Danzig? They certainly were not the genocidal maniacs Hitler and his thugs were, but they were the same usual anti-democratic militarist German megalomanics.
Quote:
|
They who fighted against you were not all Nazis as one could think reading your post.
|
They were citizens and soldiers of NAZI Germany, defending not Germany, but Nazi Germany and all it stood for, for good and for bad.
It was a totalitarian State. And in such States there's no line between government, ideology and people.