|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 21, 2023 14:56:32 GMT
Another hot potato is that Dresden was not a legitimate military target. i think UK based attacks on western europe need to be measured for their ferocity against hiroshima and nagasaki Had grandad and his team been working on the sort of stuff oppenheimer and co had been, i think the dambusters would be remembered for a very different reason indeed. I wonder whether we would have done to the grrmans what the us did to the japanese Maggie was quite ready to turn chunks of germany into radioactive slag if Erik honiker had chosen to invade west germany. All these facts need be borne in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 21, 2023 15:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 15:09:24 GMT
We were ahead of the USA in nuke research. It made sense to hand our findings over to them as they had the resources and vast tracks of land for nuke testing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 15:09:32 GMT
We were indeed ahead of them in the scientific research. But they had far greater economic resources than us which is why they took over the development. We could have done it ourselves but it would have taken longer. The Germans are actually lucky that Hitler was such a rubbish military commander. Had he actually been the military genius he claimed to be, Germany would never have gone down to defeat so soon. This is fortunate for them because nuclear bombs were originally being created with the defeat of Germany in mind. I have little doubt that had Germany still been a strongly resisting force in August 1945, German cities would have been the first targets. Names like Dusseldorf and Hamburg could have become as synonymous with nuclear destruction as Hiroshima and Nagasaki came to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 15:11:29 GMT
We were ahead of the USA in nuke research. It made sense to hand our findings over to them as they had the resources and vast tracks of land for nuke testing. I was typing much the same thing even as you posted this. You are right of course. A rare moment of agreement between us, perhaps because we are discussing history rather than politics. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 15:17:53 GMT
We were indeed ahead of them in the scientific research. But they had far greater economic resources than us which is why they took over the development. We could have done it ourselves but it would have taken longer. The Germans are actually lucky that Hitler was such a rubbish military commander. Had he actually been the military genius he claimed to be, Germany would never have gone down to defeat so soon. This is fortunate for them because nuclear bombs were originally being created with the defeat of Germany in mind. I have little doubt that had Germany still been a strongly resisting force in August 1945, German cities would have been the first targets. Names like Dusseldorf and Hamburg could have become as synonymous with nuclear destruction as Hiroshima and Nagasaki came to be. The problem was if we had of carried on with Nuke development where would we have been able to test it in a secretive way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 15:20:30 GMT
Another hot potato is that Dresden was not a legitimate military target. i think UK based attacks on western europe need to be measured for their ferocity against hiroshima and nagasaki Had grandad and his team been working on the sort of stuff oppenheimer and co had been, i think the dambusters would be remembered for a very different reason indeed. I wonder whether we would have done to the grrmans what the us did to the japanese Maggie was quite ready to turn chunks of germany into radioactive slag if Erik honiker had chosen to invade west germany. All these facts need be borne in mind. The Germans were indeed the intended targets for nuclear attack. The fact that they were defeated before the bombs were ready is what saved them from such a fate. I dont think either ourselves or the USA were have hesitated to nuke Germany in 1945. We have to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. It was not yet a world of mutually assured destruction. We as yet had no concept of the end of civilisation as we knew it. And we would have been at the end of a long and murderous war in the course of which we had become used to suffering and inflicting mass death and destruction. In 1945 nukes were still seen as just a bigger and more effective bang and a way to bring the war to a speedier end. We had also become numbed to the horror of mass civilian death. Six years of war had normalised that for many. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 15:22:30 GMT
We were indeed ahead of them in the scientific research. But they had far greater economic resources than us which is why they took over the development. We could have done it ourselves but it would have taken longer. The Germans are actually lucky that Hitler was such a rubbish military commander. Had he actually been the military genius he claimed to be, Germany would never have gone down to defeat so soon. This is fortunate for them because nuclear bombs were originally being created with the defeat of Germany in mind. I have little doubt that had Germany still been a strongly resisting force in August 1945, German cities would have been the first targets. Names like Dusseldorf and Hamburg could have become as synonymous with nuclear destruction as Hiroshima and Nagasaki came to be. The problem was if we had of carried on with Nuke development where would we have been able to test it in a secretive way? We can only speculate but probably we would have tested it somewhere like the wastes of central Australia. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 15:24:59 GMT
i think UK based attacks on western europe need to be measured for their ferocity against hiroshima and nagasaki Had grandad and his team been working on the sort of stuff oppenheimer and co had been, i think the dambusters would be remembered for a very different reason indeed. I wonder whether we would have done to the grrmans what the us did to the japanese Maggie was quite ready to turn chunks of germany into radioactive slag if Erik honiker had chosen to invade west germany. All these facts need be borne in mind. The Germans were indeed the intended targets for nuclear attack. The fact that they were defeated before the bombs were ready is what saved them from such a fate. I dont think either ourselves or the USA were have hesitated to nuke Germany in 1945. We have to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. It was not yet a world of mutually assured destruction. We as yet had no concept of the end of civilisation as we knew it. And we would have been at the end of a long and murderous war in the course of which we had become used to suffering and inflicting mass death and destruction. In 1945 nukes were still seen as just a bigger and more effective bang and a way to bring the war to a speedier end. We had also become numbed to the horror of mass civilian death. Six years of war had normalised that for many. The nuke bombing of Japan saved more lives than it took in those 2 horrendous events. Not a good thing to say and tastes like vinegar in the mouth but true all the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 15:37:06 GMT
The Germans were indeed the intended targets for nuclear attack. The fact that they were defeated before the bombs were ready is what saved them from such a fate. I dont think either ourselves or the USA were have hesitated to nuke Germany in 1945. We have to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. It was not yet a world of mutually assured destruction. We as yet had no concept of the end of civilisation as we knew it. And we would have been at the end of a long and murderous war in the course of which we had become used to suffering and inflicting mass death and destruction. In 1945 nukes were still seen as just a bigger and more effective bang and a way to bring the war to a speedier end. We had also become numbed to the horror of mass civilian death. Six years of war had normalised that for many. The nuke bombing of Japan saved more lives than it took in those 2 horrendous events. Not a good thing to say and tastes like vinegar in the mouth but true all the same. Probably true. Had the Japanese not surrendered and had we had to invade the casualties on both sides would have been appalling. It is worth bearing in mind though that the Japanese records show that they found the rapid Soviet conquest of Japanese held Manchuria to be just as profoundly shocking to them as the nuclear attacks. The combination of both is what tipped the scales. Without the rapid Soviet defeat of the Kwantung Army, Japan might not have surrendered so quickly and further atomic attacks might have been necessary. Problem is no more bombs were immediately available and it would have taken at least a month to construct another one, the main delay being the need to create enough fissile material. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 16:23:59 GMT
The nuke bombing of Japan saved more lives than it took in those 2 horrendous events. Not a good thing to say and tastes like vinegar in the mouth but true all the same. Probably true. Had the Japanese not surrendered and had we had to invade the casualties on both sides would have been appalling. It is worth bearing in mind though that the Japanese records show that they found the rapid Soviet conquest of Japanese held Manchuria to be just as profoundly shocking to them as the nuclear attacks. The combination of both is what tipped the scales. Without the rapid Soviet defeat of the Kwantung Army, Japan might not have surrendered so quickly and further atomic attacks might have been necessary. Problem is no more bombs were immediately available and it would have taken at least a month to construct another one, the main delay being the need to create enough fissile material. That is oh so true. And also the Russians stating they would have joined the allies in the Pacific was a huge factor also. At that time Russia had the inclination and resources to take them on on both fronts. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 19:59:05 GMT
To broaden the threads horizon does anyone want to comment on the allied bombing of Monte Cassino? Personally I think the bombing was justified but had the negative effect of providing more cover for axis forces. Like the detruction of Satlingrad by the Nazis it was a Russian snipers paradise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 21, 2023 21:26:41 GMT
To broaden the threads horizon does anyone want to comment on the allied bombing of Monte Cassino? Personally I think the bombing was justified but had the negative effect of providing more cover for axis forces. Like the detruction of Satlingrad by the Nazis it was a Russian snipers paradise. I cant see what alternative there was. We tried (and failed) to take the place without damaging it, so the alternatives were to flatten the place or stop the advance in Italy. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 21, 2023 21:37:06 GMT
To broaden the threads horizon does anyone want to comment on the allied bombing of Monte Cassino? Personally I think the bombing was justified but had the negative effect of providing more cover for axis forces. Like the detruction of Satlingrad by the Nazis it was a Russian snipers paradise. I cant see what alternative there was. We tried (and failed) to take the place without damaging it, so the alternatives were to flatten the place or stop the advance in Italy. Anzio was the alternative. Landings which were meant to outflank the Winter line. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 21, 2023 21:48:21 GMT
I cant see what alternative there was. We tried (and failed) to take the place without damaging it, so the alternatives were to flatten the place or stop the advance in Italy. Anzio was the alternative. Landings which were meant to outflank the Winter line. But that didnt work - Cassino still had to be taken as the entire Army were sat on that road trying to get through. |
|
