By late 1944 Germany and Japan was militarily defeated. The allies bombed Germany and Japan at will and a sea blockade was crippling the Japanese ability to feed itself let alone continue to make war . . Why then was it necassary to annihilate 3 whole cities full of civilians ? . During three waves of attacks, over 1,300 bombers bombed Dresden .The terror bombing of the non-military cultural center of Dresden killed 135,000 . A totally unnecessary act as the Russian army was only 1 week away from liberating Dresden . Also In August 1945 , 2 atomic bombs flattened 2 cities, again killing 103,000 civilians in these 2 non-military cultural centres s totally unnecessary also as now being revealed by declassified documents Japan was sending out peace feelers that it wanted to surrender WHY ? Simple the object of the allies was to let the Communist government of Russia get a first hand view of western airpower and its destructive capability when they arrived in Dresden , likewise the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to demonstrate to Communist Russia the willingness of America to use this weapon and by using 2 to show that there was more of those from where they came from . In short it was a clear and dire warning to Communist Russia not to interfere with the new post WWII world order being created by America the new leader of the Western Plutocracies .
Dresden , Hiroshima and Ngasaki dire warnings to Soviet Russia
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps you are right to some degree, in that the US wanted to demonstrate its new weapon, but I don't think we really knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender, we were going to invade Japan with troops, but that would cost alot of American lives because the Emperor was telling Japanese civilians to fight to the last man. Too bad the Russians had a spy within the Manhattan Project.
Japan was sending peace feelers through too neutral countries such as the swiss and swedish embassies as well as through the Vatican . To say "I don't think we really knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender" is a stretch after realising all Japanese codes military and diplomatic were broken and read daily .spidergoat said:
Sorry Im new around here .Spyke said:
Japan refused to sign a truce(or treaty or some such shit) depite being badly beaten. They nuked them and then they were still reluctant but had no choice.
I've never heard of peace feelers but I have seen the footage of the 2 japanese guys going onto a boat to sign whatever that thing was and they looked annoyed and I've also seen an interview with one of them and he said that they weren't thinking of surrendering untill after the nukes. He seemed like he let the grudge go pretty easy, he was like chuckling and in good spirits, joking about how angry he was and how the nuke meant they had to surrender. His last act of defiance was signing the thing in japanese writing. He also had a laugh about that for some reason.
I'm simplifying, but if I'm wrong the history channel is wrong, so blame them.
Also, on a side note, liberal-criticism of current events is one thing, but looking back on history to criticise it with your 2004 ideals is just weak.
This goes for all the slavery slammers and ghengis kahn detractors as well. Get over yourselves. Seeing as how you are part of the majority now, chances are you would have been part of the majority back then, in other words owning slaves and cheering for nukes and eating fallen rivals... ok maybe not the last one, but you never know.
It was incredibly friendly and diplomatic for those days to stop nuking. This was probably one of the first times full force wasn't used. The first time one fighting force went easy on the other on behalf of courtesy. Ok not the first time, but one of the rare times historically speaking.
Killing civilians has only recently become the ultimate atrocity.
Traditionally war involved killing civilians, if not during the war after you had won.
A cheer would go up and you'd get down to the less stressful, more laid back and fun business of killing civilians.
Wrong? Thats the way it was, there was no other way to do it, it was unheard of, how is it wrong if there was no such thing as what you call 'right' today?
Was it wrong for cavemen to rape? How could it possibly be unless they could see into the future? There was only right back then. This is the problem with judging history. Ofcourse 1944 doesn't have as many excuses as cave men do, but it does have the excuse that todays crazy leftists didn't exist back then. And thats a fair excuse. If there were no crazy leftists today the war would look very different. Bush would be going medievil on some civilian ass I can tell you right now.
I've never heard of peace feelers but I have seen the footage of the 2 japanese guys going onto a boat to sign whatever that thing was and they looked annoyed and I've also seen an interview with one of them and he said that they weren't thinking of surrendering untill after the nukes. He seemed like he let the grudge go pretty easy, he was like chuckling and in good spirits, joking about how angry he was and how the nuke meant they had to surrender. His last act of defiance was signing the thing in japanese writing. He also had a laugh about that for some reason.
I'm simplifying, but if I'm wrong the history channel is wrong, so blame them.
Also, on a side note, liberal-criticism of current events is one thing, but looking back on history to criticise it with your 2004 ideals is just weak.
This goes for all the slavery slammers and ghengis kahn detractors as well. Get over yourselves. Seeing as how you are part of the majority now, chances are you would have been part of the majority back then, in other words owning slaves and cheering for nukes and eating fallen rivals... ok maybe not the last one, but you never know.
It was incredibly friendly and diplomatic for those days to stop nuking. This was probably one of the first times full force wasn't used. The first time one fighting force went easy on the other on behalf of courtesy. Ok not the first time, but one of the rare times historically speaking.
Killing civilians has only recently become the ultimate atrocity.
Traditionally war involved killing civilians, if not during the war after you had won.
A cheer would go up and you'd get down to the less stressful, more laid back and fun business of killing civilians.
Wrong? Thats the way it was, there was no other way to do it, it was unheard of, how is it wrong if there was no such thing as what you call 'right' today?
Was it wrong for cavemen to rape? How could it possibly be unless they could see into the future? There was only right back then. This is the problem with judging history. Ofcourse 1944 doesn't have as many excuses as cave men do, but it does have the excuse that todays crazy leftists didn't exist back then. And thats a fair excuse. If there were no crazy leftists today the war would look very different. Bush would be going medievil on some civilian ass I can tell you right now.
Thats bullshit people have never changed they have always been greedy as far back as the Roman and greek empires . Nothing changes in this world ,
Only the minority owned slaves the vast majority of us were toilers . When you realise who has been ruling this world you will see that since the invention of money and private property the rulers have always been the plutocratic order .Dr Lou Natic said:
You're right, the vast majority were slaves, a man couldn't just have one slave obviously. I was talking about non-slaves. The vast majority of non-slaves had slaves. Basically anyone that could, did, it was the norm.
Oh and I never said people didn't used to be greedy. I'm saying what is considered wrong now wasn't necessarrily considered wrong in times gone by and if it wasn't considered wrong back then how can you judge them for behaving that way?
In the future visiting message boards might be considered wrong, should you feel guilty for doing it now? Would you like it if some time traveller came back and started yelling in your ear about what a low life piece of scum you are for posting on message boards?
Oh and I never said people didn't used to be greedy. I'm saying what is considered wrong now wasn't necessarrily considered wrong in times gone by and if it wasn't considered wrong back then how can you judge them for behaving that way?
In the future visiting message boards might be considered wrong, should you feel guilty for doing it now? Would you like it if some time traveller came back and started yelling in your ear about what a low life piece of scum you are for posting on message boards?
Sending 'peace feelers' through the Swiss, the Swedes, or the Vatican meant nothing. The Japanese were hoping for a better deal than what the Americans were offering, which was unconditional surrender. The Japanese were at war with the US, not any of the above. That's who they had to discuss surrender with, and the Americans were obviously in no mood to leave the present government in Tokyo intact.
Foley, if the Soviets were so pure and innocent in all this, how come they didn't seem to have much of a problem swooping into Japan in the last couple weeks of the war?
Where did I say the Soviets were "pure and innocent" ? I cannot find neither rhyme nor reason as to why Dresden was bombed likewise the Atomic bombing of Japan ! It was plainly obvious these 2 nations were beaten Japan was sending out peace feelersStarOfEight said:
I cannot find neither rhyme nor reason as to why Dresden was bombed
From what I heard the US bombed Dresden because it was in the East. They knew that Eastern Germany was going to the Soviets, and as a result destroyed it. East Germany as a result had housing shortages way into the 1980's, and lost factories. They didn't want a strong DDR* to actually confront the FRG*.
* Post-War names.
From what I heard the US bombed Dresden because it was in the East. They knew that Eastern Germany was going to the Soviets, and as a result destroyed it. East Germany as a result had housing shortages way into the 1980's, and lost factories. They didn't want a strong DDR* to actually confront the FRG*.
* Post-War names.
Brian Foley said:
"it was a clear and dire warning to Communist Russia not to interfere with the new post WWII world order being created by America the new leader of the Western Plutocracies ."
So the Soviet land grab in Japan wouldn't count as interference in the NWO? And the acquiesence of Britian and the States to the USSR seizing most of Eastern Europe, that's a sign of the inevitably exploitative nature of capitalism, as contrasted with the pure-hearted intentions of kindly Uncle Joe?
Brian Foley said:
The burning of Dresden was a UK affair, so I'll leave that to someone from the UK.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked because Japan hadn't offered to surrender yet.
Brian Foley said:
Nonsense! Hiroshima was a major military center, with tens of thousands of soldiers, and the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.
Nagasaki has large armament factories on its outskirts, including the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works.
Before Japan attacked, Pearl Harbor had been regarded as immune to torpedoes, because its waters were too shallow for existing torpedo technology. Japan had to come up with entirely new torpedo technology just to attack us. The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was the place that invented and built those torpedoes.
Brian Foley said:
Irrelevant. What was required was actual surrender, not some nonsense about wanting to negotiate.
Brian Foley said:
The primary purpose of the bombs was to shock Japan into surrendering.
Brian Foley said:
Not really, but they were going to the Soviets and asking them to mediate negotiations.
Brian Foley said:
It takes more than them wanting to negotiate an end to the war. It takes them actually surrendering.
"Liberating" --- isn't that what you do to towns that WELCOME you??? Paris was liberated. Athens was liberated. Dresden was NOT liberated. Its citizens were not pleased to pass under the control of Russians. Its women were not happy to be raped.Brian Foley said:
The bombing of a line of towns on which the Russians were advancing was requested by the Russians because it is much easier to take a town that has been reduced to disorganisation by bombing. The Allies complied with this Russian request. The records show that Churchill in particular was very strong that they should do so, in the face of some opposition. The selection of Dresden in particular (on the night in question) was determined by meteorological considerations. It was not foreseen that "perfect" conditions for bombing would exist, creating a firestorm.
Dresden was NOT non-military. Those who produce high estimates of the casualties always explain that the town was flooded by refugees. These refugees arrived in Dresden because it's geography makes it a natural centre for transport and communications. (Do I have to explain the military significance?) Its many factories had long since been converted from their historic roles to the production of a wide variety of specialised war materials.
Most of this has been explained to you in previous threads, with references to sources. Is it your memory that is giving you problems?
oralloy said:
That is complete and utter bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
The railway yards were right in the centre of Dresden. Look at the tonnage of high explosives and incendiary bombs. That's like saying "We dropped our A-Bombs on the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the civilians": it's just a bullshit excuse. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were still killed in both cases.
oralloy said:
So it's fine to just kill as many women and children as you want to achieve this? Japan are committing (your words) "atrocities" in China, and yet when the USA kills women and children it's fine?
Last edited:
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
Hardly a bullshit excuse. We did drop the A-bombs on the military target of Hiroshima and the war industries of Nagasaki.
Our bombing of strategic targets in the center of German cities never once caused a firestorm or caused huge numbers of casualties. It takes more than a large tonnage of bombs to achieve that. You also have to intentionally spread that tonnage throughout the entire city instead of trying to concentrate it on a strategic target, and that is something only the UK did in Germany.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
The Magic intercepts of Japans communications at the end of the war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm