The A-Bomb the determining factor?

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe there was one bomb in final assembly. After that it was 6 to 8 weeks for another (not 100% about the time)

 

[rank amateur]

It was pretty organized when they tried to kill him with a bomb. A number of people were in on the plot. If the top commanders left at the end had decided Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not for them they could have stopped the war. /QUOTE]


After the SS was done with anyone remotely responsible for the attack of the 20th july '44, there wasn't much left to revolt

 

[TheMustangRider]

One of the reason that the Japanese high command prompted to capitulate after the Nagasaki A-bomb was, as far as I'm concerned, the lack of intelligence information that the US did not have a reserve of several bombs to continue hammering Japan in a short-term period, and thus concluded that final surrender was more advantageous than being at the receiving end of nuclear blasts on a weekly basis until they realized their cause was a lost one.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Some interesting discussion here...

http://airminded.org/2009/08/19/the-third-atomic-bomb-tokyo-19-august-1945/

"Ok, going back and looking at Robert S. Norris's Bio of Groves, Racing for the Bomb, Norris quotes a letter from Groves to Marshall dated August 10:

The next bomb of the implosion type had been scheduld to be rady for delivery on the target on the first good weather after 24 August 1945. We have gained 4 days in manufacture and expect to ship from New Mexico on 12 or 13 August the final components. Providing there are no unforseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre, the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.Apparently Marshall sent the memo back with the handwritten directive: 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'

Groves sent a memo to Hap Arnold on the 10th suggesting that Tokyo might be added to the target list.

On the morning of the 11th Groves spoke to Marshall and 'it was decided that no further shipments of material should be made to the Theater until the question of the Japanese surrender was decided' (Groves letter to Thomas F Farrell.)"

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/31.pdf#zoom=100

 

[tyrodtom]

It was pretty organized when they tried to kill him with a bomb. A number of people were in on the plot. If the top commanders left at the end had decided Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not for them they could have stopped the war. /QUOTE]


After the SS was done with anyone remotely responsible for the attack of the 20th july '44, there wasn't much left to revolt

A lot had happened between July 44 and early 45. In April 45 even Himmler was trying to start peace negotiations with the western allies.

 

[triggercreep]

I agree with Njaco here. I don't think the public would've been to keen on A-bombing any European country. The public was heavily racist towards the Japanese and therefore didn't care that we A-bombed them. Samne rules wouldn't apply to any European nation.

 

[TheMustangRider]

I agree with Njaco here. I don't think the public would've been to keen on A-bombing any European country. The public was heavily racist towards the Japanese and therefore didn't care that we A-bombed them. Samne rules wouldn't apply to any European nation.

I don't know triggercreep. It might be just my personal perception but in my opinion if the public would have had a true grasp of the atrocities being committed in Europe by the Nazi regime which did come to their true dimension until much later, I would not doubt that more than handful of individuals would have been eager to see Germany also a victim of nuclear warfare.

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

Sorry guys, you are thinking like modern people. In WWII, almost nobody knew what a Atomic Bomb was or how much damage it would do.

So you really think Harry Trumman would have hesitated to drop an A-bomb on Germany if he had it sooner?

They knew so little about it at time that they were fliming a movie downwind from the first A-bomb blast in New Mexico at the Trinity site. Most of the people in that movie, including John Wayne, eventually died of cancer later, probably due to radiation fallout from the blast. I'm pretty sure Harry Trumman didn't realize the long-term effects of an A-bomb in 1945. He would have used it if he thought it would shorten the war.

The movie that has always been mentioned in regards to his cancer was "The Conqueror" and it wasn't filmed until 1954.
John Wayne - The Conqueror | The Conqueror (1956) - IMDb


Wheels

 

[bobbysocks]

i believe they would have used the bomb on whom they considered the more formidable enemy ...and in my mind that was germany. first off there was a lot of speculation and fear over german miracle weapons. we saw the rockets and the jets....things we only saw in sci-fi movies they had....what else do they have ready to unveil?? that great unknown....that they could pull something out of their hat and change direction of the war may have had an impact on the decision. also, the germans are a more pragmatic people than the japanese. with the exception of the hard core nazis, the german populous...and i include those in the armed forces, may have rebelled had we dropped the bomb on them and threatened a large scale ( even though we may not have had it ) nuclear bombing campaign. they saw the 1000 bomber raids and had an idea of allied industrial might. so they would have had no reason to doubt it could happen. i read an article that after the war hard core nazis ran guerrilla ops and acts of sabotage. this went on for a couple years...the occupation wasnt a peaceful thing. finally the german people themselves said enough is enough and began ratting out the underground bands. the war was over and they wanted to get on with life.
as far as the american public....i dont think they would have had a problem with it being deployed in europe if it meant bringing their husbands, sons and daughters home alive quickly. << that is the yes, hitler could have used gas....but there are defenses for that. there is nothing you could do to defend a nuclear strike except shoot down the airplane.
i also believe that using it in europe may have kept the soviets in check and sent them a message as well. the us and uk may have had a different frame of mind when it came to bargaining with uncle joe...and not been so accommodating. eastern europe may have looked way different than they way we knew it.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I agree with Njaco here. I don't think the public would've been to keen on A-bombing any European country. The public was heavily racist towards the Japanese and therefore didn't care that we A-bombed them. Samne rules wouldn't apply to any European nation.

As so often, I suspect that, by "the public," you mean the American public, entirely forgetting the European public, who'd had just about enough of the Nazis trying to lord it over them, and were desperate to see the back of them, by any means possible. Fall-out would have been, probably, the only hold-back, since contaminating bordering counties (and the Russian armies - remember that the prevailing winds in Europe are Westerlies) would not have been a good idea.
Americans were not "racist" (what a revolting modern word that's become) towards the Japanese; they simply loathed the nation, as a whole, for the perceived "stab in the back" of Pearl Harbour. Here, that loathing turned into downright hatred, once British POWs started to arrive home.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

the germans are a more pragmatic people than the japanese. with the exception of the hard core nazis, the german populous...and i include those in the armed forces, may have rebelled had we dropped the bomb on them and threatened a large scale ( even though we may not have had it ) nuclear bombing campaign. they saw the 1000 bomber raids and had an idea of allied industrial might. so they would have had no reason to doubt it could happen. .

Sorry, that's woolly-minded nonsense; the German people hated us as much as we hated them, which is why Allied aircrew were frequently murdered by civilians, and needed the protection of armed military types. And what do you think the Gestapo and SS would have done, if they'd got the faintest hint of rebellious thinking? Check on what they did to von Stauffenberg, and the other bomb plotters.

i read an article that after the war hard core nazis ran guerrilla ops and acts of sabotage. this went on for a couple years...the occupation wasnt a peaceful thing.

Hardly the behaviour of people tired of war.

 

[trigger creep]

As so often, I suspect that, by "the public," you mean the American public, entirely forgetting the European public, who'd had just about enough of the Nazis trying to lord it over them, and were desperate to see the back of them, by any means possible. Fall-out would have been, probably, the only hold-back, since contaminating bordering counties (and the Russian armies - remember that the prevailing winds in Europe are Westerlies) would not have been a good idea.
Americans were not "racist" (what a revolting modern word that's become) towards the Japanese; they simply loathed the nation, as a whole, for the perceived "stab in the back" of Pearl Harbour. Here, that loathing turned into downright hatred, once British POWs started to arrive home.

We put the Japanese in camps that were not airtight and we provided them with little or no wood to keep themselves warm. We treated them unfairly, all in the name of protecting the country. Whatever happened to not throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Let's say they were heavily jaded towards the Japanese if racist is an innapropriate term.

EDIT: America was the first country to have the bomb, so what we thought would've been most important. As you pointed out, fallout would've been a deterrent.

 

[trigger creep]

I don't know triggercreep. It might be just my personal perception but in my opinion if the public would have had a true grasp of the atrocities being committed in Europe by the Nazi regime which did come to their true dimension until much later, I would not doubt that more than handful of individuals would have been eager to see Germany also a victim of nuclear warfare.

It would've been interesting to see. However, history is history and we will never know what public opinion would've been in that case.

 

[riacrato]

You cannot generalize over a 80+ million population. There's people who hated the (Western) Allies and there's people who didn't. Murder of bomber air crew is not exactly a good indication for anything: Those bombers were just on their way to bomb a city? Or on the way back even? In the eyes of the inhabitants of a town or city they just 'murdered' a few dozen of their friends and relatives, what do you think the populace will do with them. Similar things happened on all sides.

From talking to my grandparents and their relatives and friends: They didn't have a strong sentiment towards the USA either way. To them the US was tales of cowboys and Indians and Mickey Mouse, they didn't have a political opinion about the still rather young country. But they certainly didn't hate America or Americans.

The British or English were not liked much because many had relatives who fought them in the first World War, who may even have been on the receiving end of a gas attack. They were clearly identified as a rival or enemy, but not to the extent of hate. At least not with the people I spoke to.

The French were the Erbfeind, hereditary enemies. I guess that speaks for itself.

Those are my observations, I don't claim this to be the sole truth.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen, let's not make this thread political.

 

[renrich]

To begin with the UK was scraping the bottom of the barrel in 1944-45 as far as manpower was concerned, not to mention money. Even the US was having some difficulty with manpower. The death camps were being discovered and the news was trickling back to civilians. In the beginning, I do think there was more hatred, especially in the US toward Japan early in the war but by 1945 that emotion was almost as great for the Nazis. If need be, I believe that the Allies would have all agreed, with the possible exception of Stalin that using the Bomb was necessary.

 

[gjs238]

Some of the strategic bombing theads here mentioned bombers dropping their loads WAY off course.
Would be too bad if the US tried to A-bomb Berlin and ended up hitting Liechtenstein.

 

[tyrodtom]

The crews that dropped the A-bombs on Japan were not your average bomber crew, and they trained for months for those specific missions.
I'm sure they would use the same approach if they decided to drop it on Germany.

 

[mhuxt]

Germany and her allies will capitulate if they are offered something better then national destruction followed by Soviet occupation. Otherwise they will fight as long as they have weapons and ammunition. Atomic bombs don't change that equation.

Bear in mind the Japanese authorities had the threat of Soviet Occupation / splitting up of Japan well in the fore of their minds when they surrendered. The Russkies had already occupied some small Japanese islands near Hokkaido about which the Japanese continue to carp.

Not a generally well-received view in this part of the world, but one worth considering.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hardly the behaviour of people tired of war.

And that group of people waging gorilla war, was a very small minority as well. The majority were just glad to have an end to the war, as any population that was bombed back into the stone age would.