I think I'll have to search the web a little to answer your questions. Give me a couple of days.

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.

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?

Roosevelt ordered the creation of the bombs: to use them and against Germany.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

I think Erich is correct.

This is just going round in circles and has become rather pointless.

On a final note I think the analysis of not using the Atomic Bomb is flawed. Any judgement on the outcome of not using the A-Bombs is not based on fact, but personally percieved counter-factual history. We have no way of accurately gauging the outcome of an invasion. There are however a number of obvious factors.

An invasion WOULD have killed more people than the a-bombs. Even taking into account post bombing radiation victims. A blockade would have caused starvation and famine in Japan and killed large numbers especially children, the weak and elderly. It would also have possibly allowed the USSR to extend its sphere of influence in the Far East.

For a more indepth and academic analysis of not using the A-Bomb I would suggest Richard B. Frank's 'No Bomb - No End; The Operation Olympic Disaster'.

Before Staffenburg leaps to Mahross' defence I suppose I should point out that Mahross is a close friend of mine and a former student of mine. I am not disparaging his work but feel he would aggree with the difficulties posed in attempting an analitcal appraisal using counter-factual history. In regards to Franks analyasis I would advise a close inspection of his points raised with regards to annual rice production, casualties under Soviet occupation, estimated casualties (both military and civilian) in the event of an invasion, the effects of the collapse of the water transportation system among his very well thought out essay. I didnt notice this work under Mahross' sources and I would advise that he takes a close look at Frank's work. The casualties from not using the A-Bomb would have likely numbered in the millions.

So Staffenburg, you would rather see millions die than the use of two bombs, that while dreadful in effect, ended a war and saved large numbers from death. Im sorry but your view does not stand up to close examination. The alternative to the A-Bomb was far, far worse.

Mahross,

If you want a copy of Frank's work let me know if you aint already got it... I suspect you have as you are usually very through. I would suggest utilising it further if you aint already submitted the essay.

RED

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Stauffenburg - I must re-iterate RB comments while interestng counter-factuals are an interesting historical sideshow yet they have little academic value in reference to the actual events. Yes there were alternatives but none more viable than the bomb. The bomb existed therefore, it was the best choice at the time, whatever the reason it was used. I have studied the decision in depth and that is my informed opinion. Truman made the right decision despite whatever the reason were. He did save innumerable lives in his choice.

RB - No i haven't read it. Would be interested.

[ 18. February 2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Mahross ]

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

Mahross,

My MSN messenger is playing up, just tried to get you but it buggered up!

I will email you the book that its in or try MSNing me. If u cant get the book I can Pcopy the esssay and post it 2 u.

RED

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

RED - Ta mate. Definetly interested.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

To be honest, I'm getting tiered always defending and pointing out my view.

But a last time I give a short comment in this thread:

Concerning the A-bomb, IMO a demonstration on an uninhabited pacific island and threatening with the bomb could have led to a capitulation as well.

But as it's all only speculation, everyone should decide for himself what the best solution for defeating Japan could be.

Ah and please not "Staffenburg" but "Stauffenberg"

< a demonstration on an uninhabited island> Thats a good one. And from where are the Jap 'officials' to watch this event? Do we give them eye protection,too? Did we not give them time to surrender before the second bomb was dropped?

__________________

A warning was given before and after each bomb was dropped…

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Bit like Hitlers warning for the V1 and V2...

So the US go pick up some Jap officials, pop them down to an island and say... "watch this"...

Not really practical...

I was wondering how long it would be before you said its Stauffenburg... not Staffenburg... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sorry Staffenburg, me and my warped sense of humour...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

And again you say "Staffenburg" [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

Sorry... couldnt resist one last Staffenburg.

From now on it will be Stauffenburg!

I promise!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I hope not TheRatBaron

I had a brother 19, K.I.A.German 88s zeroed in on his location. Here is somthing to smile about
Kellogs All Bran Cereal

Kellogg’s All-Bran and WW2
I have a friend who was WW2 tail gunner in a B-24 in England. He had a hearty breakfast of Kellogg's All-Bran before a mission over Germany. On the mission the All-Bran started to work. He was not going to fill his pants so he left his tailgunner position and went to the bomb bay doors and relieved himself. When they got back to their base he really got chewed out by the pilot. All I can think about is the German soldier looking up and plop! he gets it right in the face and said American secret weapon but it stinks.


No More Milk
This same friend, B-24 tail gunner ,returning from a mission and flying low. He was told to shoot up all hay stacks because German’s hide there tanks under them. He comes up-on a hay stack so he starts shooting at it and just as he started shooting, a cow comes walking around the corner of the hay stack. Bang, bang no more milk, no more cow.


knew this B-17 Pilot, pre war vintage, at Clark Field. Old Bernard Tapps was his name.

One day I asked him a stright forward question, that I have often wondered about.

The Night before the crew is in the club jucing up. Well next day when you are flying, and guts rumble, and you have a choice, is it a wet or dry fart. If wet, are you going to shit your pants or try and hold it until you get back.

Old Bernie says, hell that was no problem, open bomb bay doors drop your drawers and shit your guts out. What about paper,, old Bernie says when you spray like that no need for it. But the Ground crew, bomb loaders are not to happy with shit spray on aft bulkhead. I laughed so hard I cried.

I miss the Old Guy, he was such a character. The Nose Art on his B-17 was Tapps for the Japs. A Old Cleveland, Ohio Lad.

Art a long ago air man

As has been said, counterfactual history is VERY difficult to work with. Consider the impact a tiny change could have, a sort of butterfly effect scenario, I just don't think we can predict events with any accuracy.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Can you prove it?</font>[/quote]As promised:

On October 21st 1942 Luftwaffe units performed the deportation of 1.000 Jews to Belzec and shot some 400 to 500 more at the little Polish town of Szczebrezeszyn.

On August 6th - 8th 1944 Jews from Kaiserwald concentration camp in Latvia, were transferred by sea to Stutthof camp, in Poland. Many thousands more (many of whom died in the trip) would follow from Narva, Revel and Klooga latter that month. It is not hard to tell that the Kriegsmarine beared the responsibility of the transport, and the deaths…

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Fried, Kriegsmarine or Handelsmarine ? there is a difference. there were many merchant ships not really under the authority of the German Kriegsmarine control that were used for miscellaneous transport duties, many not suited or having the time to take away needed warships, materials and men.

One of the cases of course is the cruise liners aka red cross transport ships sunk in the Baltic in 1945. W. Gustloff, Goya, Steuben, Cap Arcona, etc.......sad

I've just came back from Dresden & have been reading frederick taylor book Dresden
When you find out that Dresden was a main rail link to the east & western fronts & that by bombing it would help stop the troops movements & that it had a big Armenment industry
I think it was Justified
When you read how badly they treated the jews & how many prisoners were killed in the prison then you see it in a different light

Ps i've not read thought this thread yet

If that is the case were the Allied planners thinking saving Allied troops lives? And if no bombing what were the operational ground plans for the area?


From my point of view it's easy to slam it in the cold light of day but what was done was done and for better or worst it's now part of our history.

Another way to look at it is, what would you have done if your were Harris? As none of us were there, there can be only one answer, no idea.

Dresden was a terrible act so late in the war, I think of it as delivering Hitler a message. You have lost the war you have the power to stop it. As we all know Hitler would not surrender and when the Russians were hour or so away from his Bunker Hitler blew his brains out.

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

also the BC had a week long triud on the eastern side of the Reich at night, all forms of jamming, mossie intruders were active and BC was very effective at times during this stint to keep the LW nf's at bay, Dresden was part of this action, what has happened has happened and there is no turning around. Sources stating for the Allies that Dresden was a huge industry/electronic hub at this late stage of the war were incorrect but even with the tech sources of the time the Allies could not always be on top of every movement the Reich was committed too. Due to the obvious presence of Soviet encursion the German war industry was moved westward in pieces before the fateful bombings by both BC and the US 8th AF

Im glad to see this thread still survives because.......when I originally posted this I had just been fresh in watching I think a 2 hour Doc on the history channel which was hosted by a guy with the name of: Arthur? Kent.

Anyway, this documentary made it known (or tried to make it seem) like that there were little or no Flak units defending the City having been shipped to the Eastern Front or elsewhere - whereever they were needed.

Anyway, THC made it seem as if there were zero German units in or around the City for it's defense. Also, they were practically demonizing the Allies for doing what had to be done. Now, I then did not and still do not, like the fact that the raids were timed just so, so that after one raid, the emergency personnel, Civilians etc, would be out in full force and be cought in the second air raid. This IMO, was nothing but a pure act of murder - as they say-a murder raid.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.