509th Bob
Posts: 40
Joined: 12/1/2004
Status: offline
|
An interesting series of thread issues here.
Let's see, the Nazis did not use chemical weapons ("nerve gas," etc.) because they feared that U.S./U.K. developments were as advanced as their own (not true), and would be used against Nazi forces. The historical evidence (including the U.S. decision not to gas the hell out of Iwo Jima) is that everybody feared everybody else's theorized chemical warfare ability. Who was actually on top? Germany, followed by Japan. The Allies came in distance thirds and fourths in terms of actual abilities. Of course, nuclear weapons would have later put "paid" to any Nazi effort on this track.
The U.S. Manhattan Project (Atom Bomb) was DESIGNED for us against the Nazis (true). The Nazis surrendered before we (the U.S.) could use it on them! This is fairly well established (even on the History Channel!). As to the assertion we only built two, this assertion lies entirely upon non-historical premises. We built two because that was all the time that there was. The first ("Little Boy," a U-238 bomb) was a crude barrel-type fission weapon. This was a PROVEN and known technology, although it produced limited nuclear yields (as was known at the time). The U.S. could have easily mass-produced these weapons (and such weapons are what the U.S. Government fears today for the same reasons). The Plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (by the largely forgotten B-29 named "Bock's Car") was a PU-239 weapon using implosive-sphere technology to obtain a larger nuclear yield. Would we have delayed the nuclear elimination of Nazi Germany to use only PU-239 weapons? The world will never know, and the Brandenburg Gate still stands in the heart of Berlin because they never were faced with learning that lesson. (P.S., I'm glad I got to see Berlin when it was still "walled.")
The Japanese failed to create a "strategic bomber force." True. Their pre-war estimates were that the U.S. would rather surrender than fight. The rest of the Allies would be forced into surrender. The Yamamoto quote about running amok for 6 months to a year is a reflection of that viewpoint. Of course, the IJN training was derived from and based upon a Royal Navy-origin viewpoint that emphasized comprehending the difference between short-term and long-term war objectives. Thus, Yamamoto was smart enough to understand that there would be short-term gains that would be off-set by later industrial odds that Japan could not even begin to think it could match, lest master. Hence, his un-verbalized (but understood-within-the-context-of-Japanese-
cultural-speaking) message that Japan could not win a protracted war. The IJA, on the other hand, was modeled after the Prussian Army military doctrine that conquest was the end of all matters. This was Hitler's viewpoint, and greatest failure. Thus, the IJA was based upon the now-disproven Nazi/facist model that overwhelming force won under all circumstances. Plus, the IJA, not the IJN, controlled the Japanese war government. As "Ace Ventura" was wont to say, "Can you say LOSER?"
By the end of the war, the IJN had plans to destroy the Panama Canal locks, and it might have delayed the invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall - encompassing Operations Olympic and Coronet - see my previous posts where I erroneously identified Shikoku as Olympic's goal instead of Kyushu - views about eradication (i.e., genocide) of Japanese population still valid). Since now-published reports indicate that the U.S. government would have used chemical warfare agents to kill Japanese defenders, and the post-war experiments of the U.S. Government showed it's willingness to expose U.S. soldiers to radiation hazards caused by near-bursts of nuclear weapons, I have no doubts whatsoever that the U.S. would have willingly (and deservedly-so) nuked Japan into oblivion (not a statement in hyperbole, but instead in practical effect) in order to reduce U.S. casualties. Remember, World War II was fought decades before political correctness made it unfashionable to kill one's enemies.
And for the whiners who want to drivel on about starving Japan through naval/submarine blockades, read the history about Curtis LeMay, who altered U.S. bombing tactics from high-altitude precision bombings (such as it was at the time) to low/medium-level incendiary strikes. We were killing civilians in wholesale lots, and we had NO problems about doing so. There is NOTHING in the historical record that indicates that the U.S. would have stopped this practice if Japan had not surrendered when it did. The Japanese are just damned lucky we DIDN'T decide to kill them all, and didn't decide to make them confront their sins (like we did with the Nazis/Germans).
I would not have treated the Japanese so kindly as Maccy-boy.
Rant over (actually, Rant Out).
_____________________________
"Casualties many. Percentage of dead not known. Combat efficiency - we are winning."
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943
|
Printable Version
Once Again The History Channel - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread