Er Nasa actually they gave you the 69 moon landing and intercontinental ballistic weaponry.

You’re probably right, I was referring to Operation Paperclip (which my bad, was originally under the OSS (the same body Allen Dulles was working for, before later becoming CIA director) but since:

Throughout its operations to 1990, Operation Paperclip imported 1,600 men, as part of the intellectual reparations owed to the United States and the UK, some $10 billion in patents and industrial processes.

It’s fair to assume CIA involvement

Might be more ironic if his ancestors had been Nazis.

True. 🙂

Might be more ironic if his ancestors had been Nazis.

Though I imagine that as a Jew that’s unlikely.

jivehoneyjive – Member
Er Nasa actually they gave you the 69 moon landing and intercontinental ballistic weaponry.
You’re probably right, I was referring to Operation Paperclip (which my bad, was originally under the OSS (the same body Allen Dulles was working for, before later becoming CIA director) but since:

Throughout its operations to 1990, Operation Paperclip imported 1,600 men, as part of the intellectual reparations owed to the United States and the UK, some $10 billion in patents and industrial processes.
It’s fair to assume CIA involvement

That’s all correct and it didn’t stop there, a lot of UK scientists including my uncle ‘Thommy’ who was an atomic research scientist baled to join the fifties ‘brain drain’ to a better life in the states, many joining relatives who’d married GI’s my entire family on my mother side is still out there.

As to the CIA, having lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and at the time not realising what a big Military Operation the bay of pigs incident actually was until I visited the revolutionary museum in Havanah some years ago, they (the CIA) have a lot of wicked things to answer for from that period, not least I’m convinced they acted under LBJ’s direction to rid the world of the Kennedys, but we’ll probably never know that for sure.

Can’t find anywhere to replay this morning’s interview. Is it the same as this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21440139 … Victor Gregg? A very honest and articulate account.

EDIT: according to Twitter trends it appears it is http://trendinghashtag.com/victor-gregg/

gobuchul – Member
More nonsense from JHJ!
Is there any subject you don’t have a conspiracy theory on?
What about the 650b situation?

Indeed, did you know HItler’s bike was 650B?

Indeed, did you know HItler’s bike was 650B?

Don’t know about the wheel size, but I bet it was Whyte.

Didn’t he win that race sponsored by Araya?

In responce to some comments above Europeans and in particular Jews where well aware of the existence and what was happening in the concentration camps long before the end of the war. Not all the camps where as harsh as Auschwitz and over the course of the war there were many escapees from other camps who relayed what was happening. The Allies knew and there has been criticism of them for not intervening by bombing the railway network which the Germans where using to deport people to the camps.

What happened in Dresden was a precursor for the atom bombs dropped on Japan. It was well understood that the Japanese would fight extra-ordinarily hard to defend their homeland and the A-bombs almost certainly saved many 100,000’s of American lives. In war as a commander that is your over-riding concern.

It also appears the Vatican were well aware of concentration camps, yet did nothing

The fact that they actively helped many Nazis to escape after the war adds to concerns

I, for one, am glad there were people around prepared to make decisions they deemed necessary to save as many lives as possible whilst ousting the Nazis. And even more grateful there were many more prepared to accept and action the decisions. If you look around, you’ll see that they succeeded in their primary aims.
The fact that there are people today able to freely discuss and vilify some of those actions speaks eloquently of their success.
Some things in hindsight could have been done better or not at all but most of us could say that about our own lives.

@Jamba- The atomic bombs are also complicated, since they possibly saved Japanese lives too- drawing out the war and continued conventional bombing would have had a terrible price. But they certainly didn’t save 100000 american lives! Japan was already on the ropes and peace talks were already ongoing.

The US Secretary of Defence of the time says he considered himself a war criminal…

continued conventional bombing would have had a terrible price.

The firestorm raids on Japan killed more than the Atomic bombs.

The most single destructive raid was on Tokyo.

As George MDF said though(having been out there at the time)

Some years ago I heard a man denounce the nuclear bombing of Japan as an obscenity; it was monstrous, barbarous, and no civilised people could even have contemplated it; we should all be thoroughly ashamed of it.
I couldn’t argue with him, or deny the obscenity, monstrosity, and barbarism. I could only ask him questions, such as:
“Where were you when the war ended:”
“In Glasglow.”
“Will you answer a hypothetical question: if it were possible would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?”
He wriggled a good deal, said it wasn’t relevant, or logical, or whatever, but in the end, to do him justice, he admitted that he wouldn’t.
So I asked him: “By what right, then, do you say that Allied lives should have been sacrificed to save the victims of Hiroshima? Because what you’re’ saying is that, while you’re not willing to give your life, Allied soldiers would have given theirs. Mine for one, possibly.”

Or as he said in ‘quartered safe out here’

‘[It] is now widely held (or at least it has been widely stated) that the dropping of atomic bombs was unnecessary because the Japanese were ready to give in . I shall say only that I wish those that hold that view had been present to explain the position to the little bastard who came howling out of the thicket near the Sittang, full of spite and fury, in that first week of August. He was half-starved and near naked, and his only weapon was a bamboo stake, but he was in no mood to surrender’.

Yup, exactly Gobochul. Though… TBH there’s a strong case to say that wasn’t needed either- but an extended blockade could have also had a high death toll.

And then you get into the real unknowns… America demonstrated capability and willingness to use nuclear weapons on civilians, that cast a very long shadow. What would the post-war era have looked like without that? You can only guess.

George MDF

Top bloke. Great memoir as well.

The South Bank Show they did on him was brilliant.

He open declaration of his hatred for the Japanese and how he couldn’t forgive tells a lot of his experiences.

ninfan – Member
….So I asked him: “By what right, then, do you say that Allied lives should have been sacrificed to save the victims of Hiroshima? Because what you’re’ saying is that, while you’re not willing to give your life, Allied soldiers would have given theirs. Mine for one, possibly.”

I think we should decry the barbarity of Dresden and Hiroshima, but bear this above in mind. My father and his brothers were lucky enough to survive WW2, but if it had dragged on, especially in Japan, there’s a good chance we would have lost one or more of them.

I’m afraid I have to take the pragmatic attitude sooner them than us.

Ben, Churchill didn’t advocate exterminating the Jews, The Nazis did. Your logic is badly flawed.

Edit: it might have been a good idea to refresh the page before replying. 😳

America demonstrated capability and willingness to use nuclear weapons on civilians

Totally agree Northwind.

There was a will to test, prove and demonstrate the new weapon.

It was also demonstrated the extreme power and possibly prevented a nuclear war as all the players truely understood the power of these weapons.

Somewhat on topic but a little more recent, I watched the Weight of Chains last night about the wars in Yugoslavia, we were supposed to be the good guys, but were far from it, its 2 hours long but well worth it and you may leave a little disillusioned with western governments.

Summary, instigate financial crisis in country, citizens from different regions blame each other and tensions rise, force regions to separate if they want aid, provide them with weapons, privatize their previous public companies taking all the money out of the country, rinse and repeat, several times over. Interesting thoughts about the EU at the end too.

It was well understood that the Japanese would fight extra-ordinarily hard to defend their homeland and the A-bombs almost certainly saved many 100,000’s of American lives. In war as a commander that is your over-riding concern.

The idea the the atomic bombs ended the war is a recurring theme.

Its not really backed up by anything though.

Japan’s large cities were already devastated by conventional incendiary bombs 68 cities had been badly devastated, which is why the bombs were being dropped on the relatively small cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Japanese surrendered because Russia declared war on and they new the ball was burst.

Japan had been preparing for a US led invasion for some time, they still had over a million men dug in and prepared to fight. The Japanese had predicted (correctly it would have turned out) that the US would invade Kyushu and Honshu from the south and east so had most of their troops concentrated there.

Japan’s leadership was desperate to avoid unconditional surrender, they weren’t crazy they new the game was up, but they hoped they could drag some concessions out of the allies such as not having to give up all their captured territory, avoid war crime trials and shelter the Emperor (who many Japanese believed was a God). They assumed the US wouldn’t have the stomach for a full on invasion and might negotiate.

Russia was neutral in the Pacific War up to this point, Japan may even have hoped to use the Russians to help negotiate a more favourable surrender with the Americans.

Russia entering the Pacific War changed all that. Suddenly their well dug in troops were facing the wrong way, Russia was ready to attack Hokkaido from the north having routed the remains of their forces in Manchuria. The game was up.

So what do you think made the Japanese surrender 2 more cities being devastated or the prospect of imminent invasion by a couple of million Russians?

So what do you think made the Japanese surrender 2 more cities being devastated or the prospect of imminent invasion by a couple of million Russians?

And it is arguable, given that the US undoubtedly knew that Japan was on the brink of surrender for the reasons you give, that the bombs were dropped as a useful demonstration of power towards Moscow as well, rather than purely as a means to conclude the war.

So what do you think made the Japanese surrender 2 more cities being devastated or the prospect of imminent invasion by a couple of million Russians?

Personally I think it was the atomic bombs and the death and destruction they caused.

Where from and how exactly would the Russians have launched an invasion of Japan. IMO the Russians where more focused on Eastern Europe

imminent invasion by a couple of million Russians?

Sorry but while an interesting and well put argument completely flawed.

You are aware that Japan is an island?

You do realise how difficult it was for the Americans to fight from island to island, with specialist amphibious forces and equipment?

The USSR had none of this and was simply not capable of successfully invading Japan at that time.

If you want an idea of what happens when you attempt amphibious operations with inadequate equipment and training, google “Gallipoli”.

I think you are all missing the point arguing about who is worse. This man saw first hand the absolute horror of war, and understands it isn’t about righteousness, patriotism and glory. It is about pain, suffering and needless death. There is no right or wrong, it is all wrong.

Ah but that conflicts with the official line, that suggests we are the proud saviours of the free world…

How are you going to justify arms sales with a mindset that promotes peace, frees up loads of money from military spending and saves the planet?

What MSP said seems to be the view of everyone who’s experinced the pointy end of war.

martinhutch – Member

So what do you think made the Japanese surrender 2 more cities being devastated or the prospect of imminent invasion by a couple of million Russians?

Neither… The air campaign and sea blockade made surrender inevitable in a pretty short timescale, no invasion was ever going to be required- and the allies knew that, the only question was how the war ended. Essentially it became about surrender terms and timing.

But that’s not a small thing and drawing out the end wouldn’t have been more merciful than dropping the first bomb.

Well the Russians had managed to take Sakhalin Island with the help of an amphibious landing. Sure they definitely weren’t as practiced in the art of amphibious warfare as the Americans but with most of the Japanese troops facing the other way they could have probably managed it.

Certainly Russia entering the war from a former neutral position made Japan continuing the war utterly untenable. With American preparing to invade and Russia overrunning them in Manchuria and Sakhalin Island the game was up.

If you already have most of you large cities lying in ruins then why do two smaller ones matter. The destruction wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no more dramatic than the dozens of firebomb attacks they had already suffered.

You still have a million men dug in the beaches of Kyushu and Honshu ready to die for the Emperor.

The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t change the strategic situation for Japan, Russia entering the war did.

I’m certain Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the possible threat of that happening to every city in Japan concentrated their minds when it came to considering surrender.

The Germans didn’t surrender at the obvious time and it’s unlikely the Japanese would have either.

Nope, wilburt, possibly some of those, but not all.

Some history – Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, all have something in common.

But I think the following may be relevant. In 1945 was there concern within the Western Allies that the Russians might continue heading West seeking to take over Europe. I’ve seen hints of this, I believe it’s been buried. Once the Russian Army, from troops to generals, had seen the state of Dresden and Berlin and understood the air power they showed, they may have re-thought. For they had no comparable strategic air force of their own, and may have been unable to counter Western ground attack aircraft.

So, as the death and destruction in Normandy led to an advance through France with less suffering elsewhere, so maybe the sacrifice of Dresden stopped far worse happening through the rest of Europe.

I don’t know, and I fear we will never know.