Would the United Stated have used the bomb on white, West-European Germans?

[Alexander's Horse]

I think there was a revenge element - one thing that always bothers me is why did they bomb cities? Why not do a demonstration blast say on the slopes of Mount Fujii in sight of Tokyo and then issue an ultimatum? I think revenge probably swung it towards a city. The other factor was they only had 2 bombs and were not sure either would work like the test.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Grrr
The people in Japan suffered a LOT less than those of the German cities.

No, not really. A million Japanese civilians starved to death immediately after the war due to the damage done to their transportation systems during the last year of the war. Though the bombing of Japan did not go on for as long, the methods and tonnage per raid was significantly more devestating / higher respectively.

Had the war gone on for another year until the invasion was well underway the numbers of civilian dead from starvation alone would have been truly staggering. I am convinced that the atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than they cost, to say nothing of the hundred thousand plus allied deaths which were avoided.

[Dinner]

Hmm, the topic is a good question but I believe yes they would have if the bomb would have been ready before the Germans surrendered. After all they were willing to use mass arial bombardment to produce fire storms which wiped whole cities off the map so why wouldn't they have used a more efficient means to the same end if it was availible?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
there's also the matter that the Japanese attacked us first at Pearl Harbour... we just went to war with Germany because they were the enemy of our allies and the ally of our enemy... we wanted revenge for pearl harbour...

Yes,... but no... but yes.

If you look at the chronological events, you (US) did not even declare war to Germany: it was Germany who declared war to you 6 days (dec,13 IIRC) after Pearl Harbour.
So strictly spoken, you did not "went to war with Germany because they were the enemy of our allies...". I even doubt, you were officially allied with anyone.
But yes, you were already supplying UK and Russia with material before you were officially at war (since op. Barbarossa IIRC) .

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why are some of you people so much more accepting of America's use of firebombing then the use of the Atomic bomb. Did the people of Japan suffer so much more then the people of Dresdan and Hamburg?

Sprayber, you´re not a stupid guy. You know that radiation lingers, right? You can still see the effects of radiation poisoning in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today some 50+ years after the atrocity was comitted. (Not that firebombing Tokyo is anything to be proud of either, but that´s not the point.)

And to answer the question asked by Monkspider: No I don´t think they would´ve nuked Berlin. Firstly europeans are too similar too americans for it to be really palatable, secondly the other allied countries would´ve protested furiously.

(slightly off-topic) I belive that US dropped the bomb for two reasons:

1) They wanted to test the bomb 'for real' so to speak, the japs were just expendable guinea pigs.

2) The US wanted to show USSR who called the shots in the new world order, ie send a message that said "don´t **** with us or we´ll nuke Moscow, we CAN do it!"

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

Sprayber, you´re not a stupid guy. You know that radiation lingers, right? You can still see the effects of radiation poisoning in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today some 50+ years after the atrocity was comitted. (Not that firebombing Tokyo is anything to be proud of either, but that´s not the point.)

The radiation is minimal, which is why both cities have been continuously occupied since WWII. It is the radioactive isotopes used in nuclear power that last effectively forever, the ones used in bombs don't last as long and are dispersed by the explosion.

Originally posted by Kamrat X


And to answer the question asked by Monkspider: No I don´t think they would´ve nuked Berlin. Firstly europeans are too similar too americans for it to be really palatable, secondly the other allied countries would´ve protested furiously.

Go to this link for an interview with General Tibbets, who organized the aircrews and mission planning for the nuclear bombs, and who piloted the mission on Hiroshima. He says that his mission originally was to prepare one bomb for each theatre to be delivered simultaneously. This pretty much makes the point moot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769634,00.html

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

And to answer the question asked by Monkspider: No I don´t think they would´ve nuked Berlin. Firstly europeans are too similar too americans for it to be really palatable, secondly the other allied countries would´ve protested furiously.

(slightly off-topic) I belive that US dropped the bomb for two reasons:

1) They wanted to test the bomb 'for real' so to speak, the japs were just expendable guinea pigs.

Bingo Comrade X,

I personally believe that even though by all accounts the U.S. Govt said they were gonna drop it on Nazi Germany, they wouldn't have. Kamrat X points out an all too clear juxtaposition about Japanese-Americans and German-Americans.

All one has to do is read "Farewell to Manzanar". Were German-American's interned in "relocation camps"? Answer: NO. Were Japanese-Americans forced to abandon their (often) thriving businesses to relocate? Answer: YES. Were there any "relocation camps built for German Americans? Answer: NO.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the firebombing of Dresden was horrific but so is the firebombing of Tokyo and not one, but TWO atomic bomb blasts in Japanese cities.

Maybe I'm being too subjective because of my family's ties to the atomic bombs but I believe Kamrat X is correct. The U.S. wouldn't have dropped the A-Bomb on Germany.


As for the remarks about the radiation being "minimal", perhaps one would know about the theory of 'compound accumulation"? Say, a guppy swallows a minimal amt of lead. This 1 inch fish is then eaten by a salmon, which is then eaten by a rabbit, then is eaten by a hunter who kills the rabbit. Accumulation means that the small amt initially consumed by that guppy eventually becomes a lethal dose to the predator on the highest ladder on the food chain.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by frankychan
I personally believe that even though by all accounts the U.S. Govt said they were gonna drop it on Nazi Germany, they wouldn't have.

*Points to Dresden again*

[Dinner]

The internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 while German-American weren't is a little more complicated then just ethnicity. The Germans represented a much larger percentage of the population, had been in the US for much longer, and thus had intermarried and assumed politically powerful positions. In both WW1 & WW2 the government looked into interning Germans but the plans were abandoned as being impossible to do especially since several German-American congressmen would have had to have voted for their own imprisionment.

The Japanese were a much smaller group and thus from logistical stand point it was feasable to intern them. There is an additional complexication namely that the majority of Japanese interned were not US citizens. Early 20th century laws virtually prohibited Japanese persons from becoming citizens. This was done for racist reasons but the net effect was that only the second generation were US nationals while almost to the last first generation Japanese in the US were still citizens of Japan. True many of them had been living in the US for 40 or even 50 years but as a matter of legal standing they were technically enemy nationals at the time hostilities erupted.

It doesn't make it right but setting the events of the early 1940's into their historical context does help us get a fuller picture of what happened.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
But the fact how much Americans of German descent were actually in the army. Somthing like 15% of those drafted in the pool were germans. So it was too difficult.

Considering 20% of all Americans claim German decent, that's not terribly impressive.

[chequita guevara]

I have no doubt whatsoever that had the situation in Europe in August 1945 been similar to the previous year, i.e., had the Germans still been a viable fighting force, they would have nuked Germany.

However, the nuking of Japan, may not have been necessary. There was a faction of the Japanese government that was sending out feelers to the West via the USSR about the possibility of the West accepting a Japanese surrender that didn't remove the Emperor from power. It's very likely that had both sides agreed to this, the Japanese government would have been overthrown by the die-hards. Considering we left the Emperor alone after the war anyways (inspite of the fact that he should have been hanged), we should have explored that avenue, rather than blowing up two whole cities.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think the leftists minus che (why is it that only leftists are always so synnical?) doubt the anti-Nazism of America at the time. Germany had ravanged France, England, etc. Frankly, if we had the same racism that yall claim, we wouldnt have given half a rats ass about the Japs slaughtering Chinese or Filipinos or whatever else. We did feel a kinship with the French and English however and would most def have used atomic bombs on the Germans because of this.


thanks

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
there's also the matter that the Japanese attacked us first at Pearl Harbour... we just went to war with Germany because they were the enemy of our allies and the ally of our enemy... we wanted revenge for pearl harbour...

Actually, Germany declared war on the US. I suppose they wanted to start the war before we could prepare.

Hitler was a masochist.

[Al B. Sure!]

Severn:

Actually I think that might be one of those confusing declaration of wars. For example, according to Microsoft Bookshelf, there's a quote Stalin said declaring war on germany a month before Barbarrosa... nations made statements of war footing that werent actual war.


thanks

[Arrian]

Yeah, we would have nuked them if they were still putting up a fight.

The comments about the distainful view of the Japanese as a race vis-a-vis American attitudes toward the Germans are largely true (the internment camps are a good illustrations), but we were in "win at all costs" mode. If D-Day had failed, we would have vaporized a German city or two. Oh bet on it.

-Arrian