[Closed] Bomb Site - How did anyone survive?

The point I'm trying to make here, is no matter what the geographic persuasion, put one human being 'in control' of all the others and introduce group violence or social 'protection' and horrendous atrocity's always result and of course ar fully justified by the victors.

Make no mistake however, Hitler at the height of his power was lauded by virtually every single (none jewish)German, all the time they were 'winning' even today there are still those who think he was right but was undermined by elements in the Wehrmacht.

We hold Churchill up as a hero, the saviour of the free world, which he was by our perspective, but he was no saint and at the end of the day it was the blood, guts and toil on behalf of the ordinary Brits that did it. The Alan Turins, the Barnes Wallis's, the R.J.Mitchells who were the real relatively unsung heroes, not to mention the tens of thousands of airmen, naval forces and troops on the ground who suffered at the hands of those leaders.

Which does beg the question why do we allow ourselves to be governed?

As you rightly point out, it's still going on today in the Middle East and Afghanistan, so why do we put up with it?

Make no mistake however, Hitler at the height of his power was lauded by virtually every single (none jewish)German, all the time they were 'winning' even today there are still those who think he was right but was undermined by elements in the Wehrmacht.

Errrr no they didn't, a lot did though....especially after France was defeated....which was a great revenge for the German people after the perceived vindictiveness of France after the first world war. There was never an elected majority that mandated what he and the Nazi party did and what they stood for though.

Which does beg the question why do we allow ourselves to be governed?

Because the end point of such total libertarianism is the rule of the mob. Government is meant to not only serve the will of the people but to also temper it and protect the individual.

Errrr no they didn't, a lot did though....especially after France was defeated....which was a great revenge for the German people after the perceived vindictiveness of France after the first world war. There was never an elected majority that mandated what he and the Nazi party did and what they stood for though.

Interesting;and rather at odds with what I teach my Advanced Higher pupils.
Study of the frequent (7 in 5 years)occupations of the Ruhr and Saar suggest it was more than "perceived." France (and Belgium 😯 )treated Germany shamefully, during the great strikes they shot union leaders in the Ruhr and billed Germany for the bullets. Remember France had one plan after the war, and that was keeping Germany broken.
On Hitler having a mandate;
The Weimar republic is quite famous for the succession of weak coalition governments that featured the centre (centrium) parties trying to govern,with no majority,relying on various deals.Meanwhile the far right and left had a policy of opposing each other (400 political assassinations in 10 years after the Sparticist uprising) Hitler targeted that centre after the failure of the beer hall pustch.(When he decided to use democratic means to win power) On a ticket of order,work and bread, He won 230 out of 600 odd seats,which is the biggest majority that had been seem in the 15 or so years of the post WW1 democracy. 37.5% of the poll, dropping to 33% when he resigned and forced a re-run. Still the majority,which the centre supported. Hitler had the support of the middle class and increasingly large numbers of the working class who formed huge numbers of the 8.5 million unemployed.

Nazi support Upper Classes; fear of communism/desire to see Germany strong/exploit those below them
Middle Classes; fear of economic boom and bust
Working Class; Work.
It all depends how you define "mandated" really. But the majority of Germans supported Hitler well after the war started.

Anyway; sod London...per head of population bombs dropped? Dangerous business farming.....

http://www.caledonius.co.uk/brechin/Page50.html

France (and Belgium )treated Germany shamefully, during the great strikes they shot union leaders in the Ruhr and billed Germany for the bullets. Remember France had one plan after the war, and that was keeping Germany broken.

Given the way those two countries suffered, an approach to ensure that neither of those countries would be bothered by Germany might have seemed like a good idea. In hindsight, obviously it wasn't a great idea but when you've had 60% of your fighting-age men killed or wounded and a good part of your country destroyed over 4 years, spending time thinking about ramifications may not be high on the list.

To bring it back to the OP, my grandfather was on AA guns in Liverpool and other key targets at the start of the war (before finishing the war as in the military police) and never really got over seeing the destruction of cities he felt he was trying to protect. He had 8 brothers who fought in the war (5 on the front line or behind enemy lines for the entire time) and all came back. Three never spoke a word about their experiences. Only one brother speaks about fighting with any fondness but he's also a man who has come to terms with the fact he killed other men. My grandfather cried on the rare occasions he talked about the man (well, 16 year old boy) he killed.

Japanese citizens still die every year as a result of the bombing, many/most/all innocent. How can you condone that?

It stopped them in their tracks and forced them to consider surrender. Job done.

It's easy to be all 'western' about WW2, but do some research into the Chinese losses at the hands of the Japanese. Mind blowing numbers of non-combatants killed face to face, not by dropping ordnance. Maybe 20,000,000 total casualties.

If there ever could be a justification for an A-bomb; that would appear to be it.

Got to agree to a certain extent. You can't judge the morality of the action by the action itself. Given the events in the Pacific theatre and specifically invasions of the Pacific islands, Okinawa etc, it was likely that the loss of life on the allied side would be immense and that the Japanese would hardly spare their civilians either.

Should anyone push a button and kill hundreds of thousands in one fell swoop against someone no threat to themselves? No. However, if you have the ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of your own citizen-soldiers by doing so against an aggressor that had already proved to be brutal and inhuman, should you? I'd argue yes.

It wasn't a war like we've had in recent years, it was a war to roll back aggressors who invaded, subjugated and murdered across Asia and Europe. It's harsh but it's difficult to know what the alternative is

Yep, the Japanese went on a murder [democide] spree from 1937, not sure it was 20m but it was massive and certainly in the millions.

If there ever could be a justification for an A-bomb; that would appear to be it.

Don't ever let any revisionistic liberal bullshit play that 'both side were as bad as each other' card, it really wasn't like that at all, they were evil butchers, convinced of their own racial superiority slaughtering untermenscheng sub humans.

it's all a matter of perspective.

Kit - Member
Having recently visited Hiroshima, and met a hibakusha (A-bomb survivor), I cannot agree with you. Her story was harrowing, as were the artifacts of the children caught in the blast. 3,000 Japanese citizens still die every year as a result of the bombing, many/most/all innocent. How can you condone that?

I've done the same.

I'm profoundly ambivalent, and with good reason. My old man was on his way to the Far East, having survived the war in Europe, to take part in the airborne invasion of the Japanese home islands, when the bombs were dropped. The casualty predictions for Operation Downfall we set at 35% on the basis that "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population".

Without the atomic bombs he might have made his last combat drop into Japan. Would I be here today?

re. the atomic bombs in Japan, estimates put the number dead at the time from direct effects of both bombs combined to be 150,000 - 250,000....mostly civilians.

Now read about the Rape of Nanking....so called because of the charming way the Japanese soldiers conducted themselves in China....estimates there are for 250,000 - 300,000 civilians killed by the Japanese.....and this was in 1937 before the war really kicked off.

Both the German leaders and the Japanese leaders saw themselves as a superior race to those they were fighting....how do you reason with that?....the Atomic bomb did a job and did it effectively.

Both sides commit atrocities during war, it brings out the worst in people....talking to an old boy in the back of my ambulance a few years ago about his experience of the war.....asked him what it was like, he said it was hideous....said they were in France and starving, they came across some civilians who had food but wouldnt share it, would sell it and were hostile towards him and his colleagues....i asked what they did, his reply was blunt and unexpected....they shot the civilians and took the food they needed.

War is a fact of life, as long as there are people there will be wars.

230 out of 600 odd seats,which is the biggest majority that had been seem in the 15 or so years of the post WW1 democracy.

So some 65 percent of Germans never voted for Hitler, they totally got what they deserved obviously. *sarcasm off* This was my main point. Didn't the NSDAP also get a lot of those votes with lots of intimidation of the electorate by the SA?

So where are the opinion polls then? Please point me to them - I know there were some done by the Gestapo but I'd consider thesee hardly reliable - from what I had gathered judging opinion within Germany during the second world war is almost impossible due to the Nazi parties tight grip on almost every facet of life.

Ian Kershaw stated in one of his books that 35 percent of Germans claimed never to have supported Hitler whilst 16 percent supported him up until the war broke out. So there's half the population against him already.

Both the German leaders and the Japanese leaders saw themselves as a superior race to those they were fighting....how do you reason with that?....the Atomic bomb did a job and did it effectively.

There is however a little bit of a problem with your theory, it has been argued that Japan had already decided to surrender before the bomb was dropped and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply displays of force to the Soviets.

It wasn't a war like we've had in recent years, it was a war to roll back aggressors who invaded, subjugated and murdered across Asia and Europe. It's harsh but it's difficult to know what the alternative is

So, what we did in India then.

Do you feel the same way about the idea of India nuking us in the 1800's if they somehow got the bomb?

Without the atomic bombs he might have made his last combat drop into Japan. Would I be here today?

Yes because they had already decided to surrender due to the previous B-29 bombing campaigns and were in the process of trying to get as favorable terms as they could. If the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender and left the Japanese emperor alone, then peace could have been brokered without the bomb.

Good old American war crimes hey?

Straight from the horses mouth -

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Enjoying my history troll today

Since the thread has moved away from raids in London;

So some 65 percent of Germans never voted for Hitler, they totally got what they deserved obviously.

Under a system of PR, yes actually, they did.You can't deny that he was elected by the simple method of getting more votes than any other party.And by your definition of Government above he had the mandate to rule.Hitler was also not the first person to use article 48 "The smoking gun." Indeed,it was increasingly the only way to actually govern in Germany by the 1930's (used iirc at least 20 times in 1931)
I don't know what you mean by opinion polls, I don't really trust any stats gathered in Germany post Reichstag fire... But I will say that the suggestion that only 16% of Germans supported Hitler until the war broke out would suprise me in the same way that "nobody" knew about the camps,despite the Jews being a source of jokes about cheap soap/lack of coal.

Most Germans I know admit their parents or grandparents were supporters "generally" of the Nazi party. Specific things they say they didn't approve of but it's interesting to me that they do seem to have a wide base of support (insomuch as it's not a mass poll).

So, what we did in India then.

Do you feel the same way about the idea of India nuking us in the 1800's if they somehow got the bomb?

Well ignoring the fact that we'd have had PLENTY of notice had they been a historically equivalent military power to the USA in the 40s, you'd have to say it'd be fair game. Nice try though.

Yes because they had already decided to surrender due to the previous B-29 bombing campaigns and were in the process of trying to get as favorable terms as they could.

Other than the Eisenhower quote and some other similar quotes (i.e. opinion not actual proof), do you know of any documentary evidence to support this? It's one of the big sticking points and as much as I can't find docs to disprove it (how do you prove the absence of something anyway?) but I can't find any contemporary documents supporting it. [i]Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism by Maddox [/i]supposedly debunks a lot of this but without buying it, who knows and secondly once you get into the morass of revisionism and counter-revisionism you end up going a bit kaesae.

My Paternal Grandfather was a POW of the Japanese. He was bitter. Really, really.

My Granddad was held as a POW in the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War ]Korean War[/url] (also known as the "Forgotten War"). From what I've heard he managed to escape though. After much family persuasion he actually wrote an un-published book about his time in the war, but doesn't want it published. I really should try and get hold of a copy at some point.

His logic behind signing up was simple for him; he left school just before the start of the war as was given a choice, go down the mines or join the forces. He decided to sign up as he figured that soon enough everyone from the mines would be forced to anyway, and if he join voluntarily before the war actually kicked off he would at least be able to have some choice in where he ended up in the forces.

My aunt's ex was a PoW in the Korean war too. REALLY messed him up and his stories of that and the war in general were definitely not of the heroic Saturday matinee type. Quite horrific to be honest.