 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
They'd already firebombed Tokyo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Hiroshima also was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Well, I still say because they were the biggest targets which conventional bombing hadn't affected.
The fact that there were large numbers of civilians there just made them all the more tempting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The invasion were supposed to have come from the south. So they wanted to see the effect on American soldier when they had to march through the radioactive areas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Wow....many hypotheses. Which is true? |
Tripledoc's isn't.
Ned, Boris, and myself have hit most of the issues:
-Major military HQ
-Remaining undamaged cities
-Industry
Of course, Nagasaki was only bombed because the primary target, Kokura, was obscured by cloud cover.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
If a demonstration was the primary goal, that could have easily been done on an island. You invite the Japanese to come watch it blow up an island, or you simply detonate the bomb in an uninhabited area of Japan, but still close enough to be seen by millions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
True, and it's too bad that Stalin reneged on all of his promises at Yalta.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Considering the firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians outright than the two atomic bombings (if you don't include those who died later because of radiation poisoning), I have to disagree with you. WWII was a total war, which meant civilians were military targets, as they worked in the factories producing the weapons being used to shoot at you. |
It least nominally, when destruction of residential areas was considered a valuable side effect of attacks on industrial areas it was called "dehousing" IE the gain was not that the civilian workers were killed, but that lacking housing they could no longer work at the existing factories - a distinction without a difference perhaps, but as a wise man once said, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. In any case this was mainly an issue for Brit bombers over Germany, who flew at night and lacked the accuracy to hit industrial targets. US bombers flew by day, and used more accurate bomb sights, and tended to be better at hitting factories - however given the urban patterns of German and Japanese cities (in which factory workers generally lived within walking distance of their jobs) and the inaccuracy of even American bombing, heavy civilian casualties were inevitable. I think it would be better to describe the allied bombing campaigns as ones that targeted industrial targets, but in which no one gave a damn about collateral damage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Seeing as how "Central Europe" was why Britain went to war in the first place, Britain certainly DID give a **** about Central Europe and the Balkans (the Brits consistently pushed for invasions of the Balkans). Churchill certainly didn't want to see the Russians move in.
Now, FDR, on the other hand, certainly didn't give a ****, and neither did Truman. Or if they did, neither was willing to do anything about it. And the US was the senior partner, so what the US said pretty much went.
Oh, and re: the nuclear shotgun - are you saying you have a problem with the US forcing the Soviets to end their occupation of Persia?
What we should have done, after it became clear that Stalin would not live up to his agreements, is immediately cut off all Lend Lease aid, and reneged on OUR agreement for unconditional surrender. We should have allowed German forces to individually negotiate surrenders on the Western Front, and have accepted surrenders of soldiers fleeing the Soviets - that is, we should have allowed the Germans to throw everything at the Soviets, to hold them back, while the US and British occupied all of Germany.
Hitler, of course, wouldn't have allowed this, but I'm willing to bet a lot of individual German generals would have ignored him. That'd be the ultimate **** YOU to the Soviet Union - after 4 years of war, and tens of millions dead, they're stuck on their original borders, with nothing to show for the war  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Don't forget North Korea.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2003 22:18
Like the Allies ever really gave a **** about Central Europe and the Balkans. They were happy for the USSR to take them over, because it meant (and turned out to be the case) that they would be a drain on the USSR's economy. If they really ever cared about Yalta, they could have pointed the nuclear shotgun at them as they did when they forced the USSR to end it's occupation of northern Persia.
|