OT: Amelia Earhart?

[Colbert17!]

Explain why we HAD to destroy Dresden.

Everybody in a war thinks they're doing what must be done. Only little children think about war in terms of good guys and bad guys. Of course the Nazis were worse than us, but one must come to terms at the same time with the almost unspeakable savagery we unleashed to stop them.

You're right. The city had no strategic value.
However, we have the luxury of being removed from the situation by time and can look at it through the lens of history. My guess was that the RAF, who did the actual fire bombing, did it out of vengenace.
We just came along later and bombed rubble.

 

[LevaosLectures]

But without them how many millions of Japanese would have died as the result of an invasion? Women were being taught to fight with spears and children were being show how to throw themselves under tanks while wearing explosives. Military estimates would be that U.S. forces would have suffered a million casualties. The War Department ordered the manufacture of 500,000 Purple Hearts in anticipation of the invasion of the Home Islands.

Nobody knows. That alternate history didn't come to pass. The idea that it was a certainty is foolish.

Nevertheless I'm not arguing about the strategic necessity of the bombs. I'm saying it is a horrible thing to obliterate innocent civilians and we should have a little humility about our sense of patriotic righteousness.

 

[Colbert17!]

Nobody knows. That alternate history didn't come to pass. The idea that it was a certainty is foolish.

Nevertheless I'm not arguing about the strategic necessity of the bombs. I'm saying it is a horrible thing to obliterate innocent civilians and we should have a little humility about our sense of patriotic righteousness.

It's a horrible thing to kill innocent civilians in any war.

 

[Colbert17!]

The idea that it was a certainty is foolish.

The estimated numbers on both sides have been pretty well agreed upon historically.

 

[koleszar]

Yes. We vaporized hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Believe me, I'm well aware of the horrors of our conventional bombing which is WHY i specifically mentioned Dresden first.

Nevertheless, do you feel good about using nuclear weapons on civilians? You can justify it, of course, but the fact remains those people were no more deserving of death than you or your family and we massacred them by the tens of thousands in the blink of an eye.

Operation Downfall had two campaigns planned:
Olympic- estimated US deaths 110,000 / casualties 456,000
Coronet- estimated US deaths 267,000/ casualties 1.2 million

I have no problem at all that they killed 105,000 and injured 64,000 with nuclear weapons when you figure in the numbers we would have lost. If we had invaded some 4 to 5 million more Japanese would have been killed. It's pretty easy to sit on your high horse and decry their actions when your not one of those facing death.

 

[koleszar]

Nobody knows. That alternate history didn't come to pass. The idea that it was a certainty is foolish.

Nevertheless I'm not arguing about the strategic necessity of the bombs. I'm saying it is a horrible thing to obliterate innocent civilians and we should have a little humility about our sense of patriotic righteousness.

And your foolish to think these numbers wouldn't have come to fruition. Hell many of the estimates were considered low at the time. The Japanese were fighting to the death all through out the Pacific campaign.

With that knowledge, somehow you think they were just going to let us walk into their home country and not continue to fight to the death to defend it. They didn't even surrender after the 1st bomb annihilated an entire city. We just got lucky that they didn't know we had run out of bombs.

 

[albanyknight]

Art, My momma raised me better than that! (Unless you were kidding on the email.) I thanked you when you first offered to send the book, and again when it arrived a couple weeks later. And about six weeks after that I sent you an email that said I was into the book, and let's talk soon, and if you could send me your address, I'd reciprocate with a book about NZ. You didn't respond to the last email, but you did to the first two.

Skillet - I was kidding. It was an awkward attempt at conspiracy humor although I don't ever remember discussing the book. We should some time. Best AK.

 

[MYHATINTHERING]

Operation Downfall had two campaigns planned:
Olympic- estimated US deaths 110,000 / casualties 456,000
Coronet- estimated US deaths 267,000/ casualties 1.2 million

I have no problem at all that they killed 105,000 and injured 64,000 with nuclear weapons when you figure in the numbers we would have lost. If we had invaded some 4 to 5 million more Japanese would have been killed. It's pretty easy to sit on your high horse and decry their actions when your not one of those facing death.

forget it, you can't argue with emotional idealists

that said, when Dresden occurred we still hadn't invaded Germany as that was 6 weeks away (operation Varsity). It's easy to look back from the safety of our shores and decades later but at the time, it was total war

and if we're picking Churchill quotes to support an argument that supports bombing Dresden was wrong, I can point to 30:1 where he said bomb the fkers to death/submission and the like

 

[LevaosLectures]

you are confusing different issues here in the context of a post view of world war

1. First of all, WE DID NOT vaporize hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Less and 100k died in both blasts. Those citizens were far from innocent as they worked in factories that supported the war effort, made clothes, food, etc etc that contributed to a war effort designed to defeat America. There was true evil in Japan and the entire culture needed a reset.

2. I feel GREAT about using Atomic weapons (not nuclear so please research the difference) as it saved both Japanese and AMERICAN lives the latter of which I really only care about. Of course you don't see or understand this because you only see 60k or so killed quickly vs the long protracted horrors of continued bombing, starvation, and war

people like you actually sicken me because you want to 'feel' your way around the history. We didn't massacre anyone, we destroyed the war making infrastructure that would have been used to prolong mass suffering and American casualties and ended the war far faster and more humane than what occurred in Germany

Also did you really just imply they were not nuclear weapons? I missed that gem the first time. Wtf are you taking about?

 

[LevaosLectures]

And your foolish to think these numbers wouldn't have come to fruition. Hell many of the estimates were considered low at the time. The Japanese were fighting to the death all through out the Pacific campaign.

With that knowledge, somehow you think they were just going to let us walk into their home country and not continue to fight to the death to defend it. They didn't even surrender after the 1st bomb annihilated an entire city. We just got lucky that they didn't know we had run out of bombs.

They might have surrendered when the Russians entered the war.

 

[CERU00]

They might have surrendered when the Russians entered the war.

Yeah...no.

 

[WhiteBus]

Conspiracy theorist = nut job.

JFK assination, President Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor, 9-11 towers falling, Elvis is alive, Lock Ness monster, Rosewell....

They are all scams to sell books, movies or tourism. If you believe any them I have a bridge in Brooklyn Ill sell you. Cheap!

 

[cicero grimes]

The impediment to peace in the summer of 45 was the call for unconditional surrender by the allied powers. Japan wanted the emperor to stay on. They would have fought on despite the use of the atom bombs if the emperor was to be forced out or tried as a war criminal. When we gave them to tacit assurance through back channels that he could stay was the condition that finally broke the deadlock in the Imperial Government. The Russian invasion of Manchuria and the Atom bombs both contributed to their decision but the concession on the emperor was the key.

 

[RU Cheese]

Nevertheless I'm not arguing about the strategic necessity of the bombs. I'm saying it is a horrible thing to obliterate innocent civilians and we should have a little humility about our sense of patriotic righteousness.

levaos, I think this is a fair statement and one most here would agree with. but your other posts about invasion casualty estimates and Russia joining resulting in a JP surrender strongly come across as if you think the bombs were a mistake / the U.S. was some horrible aggressor. that's different than what I quoted you as saying above

 

[RU_DIO]

The Japanese tried to surrender to the Russians to end the war. The US said nah, we want to test out these weapons and show the world the power we have.

 

[cicero grimes]

The Japanese tried to surrender to the Russians to end the war. The US said nah, we want to test out these weapons and show the world the power we have.

Respectfully, I disagree. The Japanese government wanted the Soviet Union to help them negotiate and broker a peace deal with the Allies. The Russians never engaged them because they had territorial designs on Imperial territory. Further, the allies were never going to negotiate a peace deal. They had insisted on unconditional surrender for Germany and Japan.

 

[LevaosLectures]

Yeah...no.

Ok. What is the basis for your certainty? There are many many scholars who believe Soviet entrance into the pacific war might have led to Japanese surrender without any nuclear strikes. I'm not claiming it would have happened only that there's no certainty when it comes to alternate histories.

 

[LevaosLectures]

levaos, I think this is a fair statement and one most here would agree with. but your other posts about invasion casualty estimates and Russia joining resulting in a JP surrender strongly come across as if you think the bombs were a mistake / the U.S. was some horrible aggressor. that's different than what I quoted you as saying above

My point is that the bombs were horrible. You can think they were justified while also thinkng they were horrible. There's nothing to feel rah rah good about. And, yes, there is no consensus about their necessity. There is scholarly debate to this day.

 

[RU_DIO]

Respectfully, I disagree. The Japanese government wanted the Soviet Union to help them negotiate and broker a peace deal with the Allies. The Russians never engaged them because they had territorial designs on Imperial territory. Further, the allies were never going to negotiate a peace deal. They had insisted on unconditional surrender for Germany and Japan.

You're probably right. I've seen many theories on what the US wanted to do and why the Japanese didn't surrender earlier. As some have said, the firebombing of Dresden and I believe Tokyo killed more than the atom bombs.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Skillet - I was kidding. It was an awkward attempt at conspiracy humor although I don't ever remember discussing the book. We should some time. Best AK.

I've been grading papers. Hence, all efforts at subtlety and elegant writing are lost on me for the time being!

 

[Jtung230]

What was the topic of this thread?

 

[WhiteBus]

What was the topic of this thread?

Emelia Earhart has Rutgers in her top 8.

 

[Jtung230]

Emelia Earhart has Rutgers in her top 8.

What position does he play, how many stars, and what are his other offers? If he doesn't pick RU does that mean it was not a commitable offer?

 

[CERU00]

Ok. What is the basis for your certainty? There are many many scholars who believe Soviet entrance into the pacific war might have led to Japanese surrender without any nuclear strikes. I'm not claiming it would have happened only that there's no certainty when it comes to alternate histories.

Yes, of course there was a chance the Japanese might have eventually surrendered. Either way a lot more people would killed before that happened. What we know is that Japanese were willing to sacrifice themselves to slow us down and they were certainly prepared for an invasion. Every act of the Japanese heirarchy communicated absolute sacrifice for the state.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Explain why we HAD to destroy Dresden.

Dresden, in particular, is a challenge to justify. Although, the "we" really isn't US, but the British (who themselves had, of course, previously been subjected to the senseless bombing of civilians by the Germans). In the end, an eye for an eye will leave each combatant blind.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Kurt Vonnegut survived the fire bombing of Dresden, where he was held prisoner, and wrote about it in Slaughterhouse Five.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Nobody knows. That alternate history didn't come to pass. The idea that it was a certainty is foolish.

Nevertheless I'm not arguing about the strategic necessity of the bombs. I'm saying it is a horrible thing to obliterate innocent civilians and we should have a little humility about our sense of patriotic righteousness.

the very mindset of terrorism, is to hold the citizenry responsible for the acts of their government.

"innocence" can be tough to determine, and comes in shades of gray from pure white to pitch black.

if a govt comes along and destroys your family and life, would you consider the citizens of said govt as innocents, or enablers, or co-conspirators, as many will fall into each category.

to what extent were the citizens of Nazi Germany responsible for the actions of it's leaders?

again, that probably ranges from total innocents, to enablers, to co-conspirators.

that said, war is hell, and the German citizenry had their own leaders to blame for putting them in the cross hairs, with the level of tragedy or karma probably somewhat governed by which category, innocents, enablers, co-conspirators, they fell into.

 

[RU4Real]

Dresden, in particular, is a challenge to justify. Although, the "we" really isn't US, but the British (who themselves had, of course, previously been subjected to the senseless bombing of civilians by the Germans). In the end, an eye for an eye will leave each combatant blind.

There's more to it than that.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, England had serious challenges in facing down its own internal fascist movement. After Italy and Spain both succumbed to fascism - and the French were basically split, politically - the British government desperately feared that their way of doing things was in serious jeopardy.

After enduring years of war and, as mentioned, direct attacks by the Germans on British civilian populations there was a desire to not only put Adolph Hitler out of business, not only "punish" Germany for its transgressions, but also to demonstrate to the British people what happens to fascism in the wild.

 

[Wolv RU]

Dresden, in particular, is a challenge to justify. Although, the "we" really isn't US, but the British (who themselves had, of course, previously been subjected to the senseless bombing of civilians by the Germans). In the end, an eye for an eye will leave each combatant blind.

Some things to consider are the rockets that Germany was firing at Britain at that time.

Also, in the larger context, one could easily make the argument that the home front destruction is what made for such a lasting peace with both Japan and Germany. Perhaps one major problem that led to World War 2 in the first place was that the story in Germany was that they had not really been defeated at the end of the previous war. That not only made unconditional surrender a necessity in World War 2, but also complete defeat to ensure that such a narrative could not be created again that could cost tens of millions of lives.

 

[Metropolitans3]

Why did you exclude the N word or the S word. Might as well go all the way at this point.

He had me until "Chink."

 

[WhiteBus]

So seeing by the interest in this thread of WWII (with some serious lack of the times and the complete lack of facts) the movie Dunkirk is going to be a big hit with this crowd.

 

[RUonBrain]

He had me until "Chink."

Hey, I just threw that one in there. I know it is not a word that anyone can really use today.

My point with that example is I guess the word Chink is derived from the word China, just as Jap is short for Japan.
That's all.

And no, I don't condone the use of either word in public discourse today.

 

[RU4Real]

So seeing by the interest in this thread of WWII (with some serious lack of the times and the complete lack of facts) the movie Dunkirk is going to be a big hit with this crowd.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[Colbert17!]

The Japanese tried to surrender to the Russians to end the war. The US said nah, we want to test out these weapons and show the world the power we have.

Source? Or are you joking?

 

[Colbert17!]

Yes, of course there was a chance the Japanese might have eventually surrendered. Either way a lot more people would killed before that happened. What we know is that Japanese were willing to sacrifice themselves to slow us down and they were certainly prepared for an invasion. Every act of the Japanese heirarchy communicated absolute sacrifice for the state.

Japan had 700,000 well entrenched troops in Manchuria. They were ready to fight.
The simple fact is the atomic bombs ended the war which saved millions of lives.

 

[WhiteBus]

Ironic post is ironic.

Ha. Ive seen more stupid stuff about the Soviet Union on this thread than current info from we get from Trump and from Russia current day. People getting their info from Wikipedia. More proof that conspiracy theorist are nuts!

 

[RU4Real]

Ha. Ive seen more stupid stuff about the Soviet Union on this thread than current info from we get from Trump and from Russia current day. People getting their info from Wikipedia. More proof that conspiracy theorist are nuts!

Which has nothing to do with Dunkirk.

And Dunkirk, from the U.S. perspective, has nothing to do with "WWII", since it happened a year and a half before Pearl Harbor and six months before the Lend Lease Act was even proposed.

Hence the irony. On which you have just doubled down.

 

[WhiteBus]

Which has nothing to do with Dunkirk.

And Dunkirk, from the U.S. perspective, has nothing to do with "WWII", since it happened a year and a half before Pearl Harbor and six months before the Lend Lease Act was even proposed.

Hence the irony. On which you have just doubled down.

What??? Dunkirk wasn't a about U.S. operation but it was WWII. What history book are you reading? Go back and read my post. Im talking about people's interest in WWII. WWII didn't start on 12/7/41

 

[RU4Real]

What??? Dunkirk wasn't a about U.S. operation but it was WWII. What history book are you reading? Go back and read my post. Im talking about people's interest in WWII. WWII didn't start on 12/7/41

I said "from the U.S. perspective". You want to talk about reading comprehension some more?

 

[RU_DIO]

Source? Or are you joking?

Not joking. Read it on a couple of sites but who knows. I think they were saying the US wanted to show the world the might of the atom bomb. The Japanese were ready to surrender but the US demanded unconditional surrender.