Bombing of Dresden--and for what?

Interesting. Who discovered them under what circumstances? And what happened with them?

I heard of some regions in the world where the people still think Hitler is the chancellor of Germany (e.g. in Sri Lanka).

A sea-blockade and waiting until the lack of resources forces Japan to capitulate. Bombing all airfields and industrial facilities. Sending in special forces -paratroops- (Japanese US soldiers) for an assassination of the Tenno...

Or whatever, but no A-Bomb please. Because they don't only kill one but at least two generations (mutations, cancer).
I think Roosevelt wouldn't have ordered to use A-bombs. IMO Truman's main intention was to show Stalin his power.

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.

For sure, but it's sapper I referred to. I don't remember that the german people wanted the total war. Don't forget the nazis manipulated the own folk by telling them lies (e.g. concerning the attack on poland).

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.

 

Is there ANY weapon that is blunter than blockades and embargoes of this sort? Witness the embargo of Iraq, where thousands of infants perished due to lack of medical supplies.

As far as I know Japan was very much dependant on overseas resources in 1945. It is hard to imagine the suffering a nation-wide embargo would have resulted in, combined with heavy bombing.

Well, it certainly changes. It is a matter of fact that morals are affected by the times one live in. Today we have a very strict sense about inflicting direct violence on others. In 1945 that was not quite as acute following four years of continous, relentless, merciless agression, invasion, bombing, rape, and genocide by Germany and Japan, most notably against helpless targets unable to defend themselves.

Similarly, the Byzantines considered it quite alright to blind almost every living captive to prevent them from causing trouble again. They probably considered themselves quite moral when the let every hundreth man keep one eye, in order to guide the remaining home. Another instance where morals have changed, as they indeed do over time and on the circumstances.

Conditional surrender in WWI was one of the main reasons Hitler used to propagate the illusion that "Germany was never beaten", it was "betrayed by Jews and Bolsheviks" and whatnot, used as a reason for above mentioned agression, genocide and general mayhem inflicted on others. Frankly the decision to push for an unconditional surrender was a huge service to post-war Europe, even if it sadly sacrificed lives in the process...

 

@ Mahross

Very convincing what you write (not ironic)!

@Heartland

The suffering wouldn't be as much as after the A-bombing, because the blockade wouldn't last for years, but for only some months.

Of course morals change, but in a longer period of time. Fundamental values, such as respect to human life, don't change in 60 years.

This led to a permanent alert-situation in the divided Germany. I think Europe's development to a European Union would have been faster, if a conditional surrender was accepted (condition No1: successful putsch before the capitulation).
Maybe Mahross can give us a detailed analysis to this WhatIf?

 

The suffering wouldn't be as much as after the A-bombing, because the blockade wouldn't last for years, but for only some months.</font>[/QUOTE]I would tend to disagree, the Japanese people would have held out as long as they could, they would have taken huge casualties particularly amongst women and children as resources were diverted to the army. The repercussions would be felt for years to come.

Of course morals change, but in a longer period of time. Fundamental values, such as respect to human life, don't change in 60 years.</font>[/QUOTE]I would disagree, 60 years ago anti-semitism was not only acceptable but to be encouraged. 60 years ago most of the west saw Black people and Asians as sub-humans (to say nothing of views in Germany reguarding the Slavs and Jews). I think you will find that our morality has changed significantly in 60 years. I think you will also find that most people at the time reguarded the bombing of German cities as moral and just.

This led to a permanent alert-situation in the divided Germany. I think Europe's development to a European Union would have been faster, if a conditional surrender was accepted (condition No1: successful putsch before the capitulation).
Maybe Mahross can give us a detailed analysis to this WhatIf? </font>[/QUOTE]You know why an unconditional surrender was demanded? Because the USSR would not accept a conditional surrender. What conditions could Germany impose? Free government? Sure, by whom? By the people who carried out the Putch? Yeah, that seems fair, by a group of people who supported Hitler as long as he was winning but as soon as he started to loose turned against him. A group of people who actively supported, signed orders allowing and generally participated in the holocaust and the war in the east?

No, sorry, there was no alternative. Germany could have surrendered earlier, could have allowed its troops to surrender, be taken captive and looked after whilst allowing the allies to occupy their cities. Germany didn't. The so called resistance were clearly not capable of launching a putch, they failed. Conditional surrender was not possible.

Interesting, flawed though. In an age where we have smart bombs have you not noticed the outrage when civilians are killed accidentally? 60 years ago accurate bombing was hitting something within 5 miles of the factory you are targetting, now we can put a smart bomb through the factory window. Is it any surprise that during WW2 there was no outrage when a town was flattened to harm industry yet now, as we have much greater capacity for accuracy, there is outrage if a civilian who happened to be standing too close to the building gets a scratch. Peoples morals have changed.

The German people were lied to, no denying that, but they believed the lies and acted on them. If a man is told that you killed his family and attacks you, intent on taking his life and you have no chance of persuading him he was wrong you have no choice but to retaliate. That is what happened during the war, the German people were lied to and so they went to war intent on victory, there was no way to tell them they were wrong, simply achieve victory by any means necessary.

 

Pardon the editing

 

Hate? What hate? I am, if nothing else, a realist. I lived through those days, I recall the ghastly things that were done by the murderous Nazi troops, I heard about my mates being murdered after being taken prisoner.

I do not hate. so much as loath everything the Nazi's stood for. Now some may say they were Nazi's Come off it, they were German, and anything was permissable when they were winning.

It is only when they started losing, that they started squealing, they never squealed when they were off killing right left and centre!

As I said I am a realist. The crowning insult is that the German troops had the legend on the uniform belts "Got mit uns" "God with us" That, in my humble opinion, rather reduces their chances of going to heaven, if there is such a place?
Sapper

 

They who fought against you were not all Nazis as one could think reading your post.

[ 18. February 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Stauffenberg ]

 

@Stefan

I would advise you to read Mahross' analysis.

As the same and worse was felt after the A-bombing. The innocent post-war-generation around Hiroshia, Nagasaki suffered too.

Only because of the hate. People who hate forget their values and lose the moral. In those times many people were affected by the war. They hated the Germans and forgot about moral. People who were not directly affected by the war, e.g. some international journalists, protested against the bombings they were not blinded by hate.

Today is the same: If today Israel bombs some buildings of the palestinians then people in the US or Europe protest against it. But the Israeli may hate the Palestinians, because they lost a family member by a palestinian attack, and thus have nothing against the bombing.

Maybe this is a topic for a philosopher.

 

maybe it is time for the dead dog to lie-down for the last time......this has gone about as far as it can go

 

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.

 

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

 

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 ]

 

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

 

RED - Ta mate. Definetly interested.

 

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…

 

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...

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