Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

A-bomb ended World War II, but set stage for the Cold War


Recommended Posts

A-bomb ended World War II, but set stage for the Cold War

 The release of two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945 helped end World War II but ushered in the Cold War, a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union that dragged on nearly half a century.

In the United States, the use of the bombs was widely praised by a public tired of war and high casualties. America heaved a huge sigh of relief that the blasts ended the need to shift hundreds of thousands of troops who had survived Europe to fight yet another bloody war on Japanese soil.

In the decades that followed, however, as the passions of that era have cooled, historians have taken another, dispassionate look at the events of 1945. A number have concluded that while the bomb may have helped end the war quickly, it fueled the U.S.-Soviet Cold War confrontation whose effects still bedevil us today.

After the surrender of Germany and Japan, the two world powers maneuvered for decades to increase their spheres of influence around the globe, spurred on by competing ambitions and ideologies of capitalism and communism. Cold War calculations led to a divided Germany and U.S. involvement in wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Some form of Cold War would have commenced whether or not the U.S. had dropped atomic bombs on Japan, said Arnold A. Offner, Cornelia F. Hugel professor of history emeritus at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., and author of several books on the Cold War. “It might not have been as intense, but you would have had a kind of political-economic Cold War standoff regardless of the bomb,” he said. “It would be a long way to détente.”

But some historians cite the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago as among the key events that metastasized the ideological rift between the two powers into a full-blown Cold War dominated by nuclear brinkmanship.

“Hiroshima changed international relations, probably permanently,” said Martin J. Sherwin, author of “A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and Its Legacies” and history professor at George Mason University near Washington. “It sent a message to the world that the most admired and most powerful nation, the USA, believed that nuclear weapons were legitimate instruments of war and could be used again.”

Although the Cold War ended in 1991 with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, its legacy lives on — from the rocky relationship between Russia and the West to America’s thorny dealings over nuclear weapons programs in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

****************************************************

Only a liberal mind could think up such nonsense as this. Roosevelt was the weak leader that allowed the Soviet Union to expand its influence like it did, and the Soviet Union would have used atomic bombs in a heartbeat to win WW2. It's possible that nuclear weapons actually prevented WW3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It set the stage for the Cold War because both the West and the Soviet Bloc possessed the atomic bomb from the same moment in time. If only one of them had had the bomb, a Cold War would not have been possible because one side would have had a huge military advantage over the other.

Simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MovieMadness said:

Roosevelt was the real president who engaged in Russian collusion, he gave away half of Europe. He is why we have term limits now.

Term limits are a mistake. It means we only get President Trump for another 4 1/2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of armed conflict, there was nothing FDR or the U.S. could do about the Russian's conquest of

Eastern Europe. That was the price to be paid for having the Ruskies take on the majority of the

Wehrmacht. The Russians didn't have the A-bomb until four years after the U.S. Try to keep up.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SadPanda said:

Term limits are a mistake. It means we only get President Trump for another 4 1/2 years.

Well that what the Republicans thought during the FDR administration so they created it.  Regreted that when Reagan came along. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the A bomb was deadly, it was a necessary evil to bring a quick end to WWII and save more lives in the long run. The often quoted Oppenheimer quote supports this - "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." In the Bhagavad Gita, the quote is used right before a major battle. A necessary battle but still a horror all the same. If it had been left to land invasion then many more people would have died. The Cold war between the two sides would have happened either way anyways with a major disproportion of power in the now ruined Europe and Asia following the war. Neither side was going to bring their troops out of the occupied countries and tensions were bound to occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The Russians didn't have the A-bomb until four years after the U.S. Try to keep up.

They learned how through a spy in the US bomb field. I don't think it has even been deciphered yet who that mole was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sukhov said:

While the A bomb was deadly, it was a necessary evil to bring a quick end to WWII and save more lives in the long run. The often quoted Oppenheimer quote supports this - "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." In the Bhagavad Gita, the quote is used right before a major battle. A necessary battle but still a horror all the same. If it had been left to land invasion then many more people would have died. The Cold war between the two sides would have happened either way anyways with a major disproportion of power in the now ruined Europe and Asia following the war. Neither side was going to bring their troops out of the occupied countries and tensions were bound to occur.

The island hopping campaign and Okinawa were only a taste of what's to come if we invaded the Japanese mainland.  American casualties alone were expect to be a million plus.

 

Ironically I'm watching on the History channel "Hiroshima 75 Years Later"

Hiroshima75BB.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Roosevelt was the real president who engaged in Russian collusion, he gave away half of Europe. He is why we have term limits now.

It saved the lives of American soldiers and other Allies to have the Russians invade eastern Europe during the war. After all that blood they shed do you blame the Russians (always concerned about their borders) for not wanting to get out after the war was over?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hamradio said:

Well that what the Republicans thought during the FDR administration so they created it.  Regreted that when Reagan came along. 

 

Yeah, we could have had Reagan with a drool cup for another four years.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hamradio said:

The island hopping campaign and Okinawa were only a taste of what's to come if we invaded the Japanese mainland.  American casualties alone were expect to be a million plus.

 

Ironically I'm watching on the History channel "Hiroshima 75 Years Later"

 

 

This is a myth propagated by the Americans.  MacArthur said the bombs were unnecessary as they were already in talks with Japan for their surrender.

Germany was done.  Japan was facing the U.S., the Commonwealth and now the Russians all on their own.

Truman wanted to see how the new toys worked.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

This is a myth propagated by the Americans.  MacArthur said the bombs were unnecessary as they were already in talks with Japan for their surrender.

Germany was done.  Japan was facing the U.S., the Commonwealth and now the Russians all on their own.

Truman wanted to see how the new toys worked.  

Even if someone buys that the first A bomb was necessary to save American lives (a debatable statement), how do they explain the second one dropped on Nagasaki just THREE (!!!!) days later, as the reports were still coming out about the devastation in Hiroshima? The war was over, if not officially, with the first bomb. Dropping that second one was one of the great moral crimes of history. Harry Truman was just another cold blooded bastard who exercised his power at the cost of thousands of lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TomJH said:

Even if someone buys that the first A bomb was necessary to save American lives (a debatable statement), how do they explain the second one dropped on Nagasaki just THREE (!!!!) days later, as the reports were still coming out about the devastation in Hiroshima? The war was over, if not officially, with the first bomb. Dropping that second one was one of the great moral crimes of history. Harry Truman was just another cold blooded bastard who exercised his power at the cost of thousands of lives.

They dropped the second bomb purely to see what the different effect would be on a civilian population.  Remember that they were two different types of A-bombs.  Fat Man and Little Boy.

It was an experiment.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

A-bomb ended World War II, but set stage for the Cold War

 The release of two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945 helped end World War II but ushered in the Cold War, a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union that dragged on nearly half a century.

In the United States, the use of the bombs was widely praised by a public tired of war and high casualties. America heaved a huge sigh of relief that the blasts ended the need to shift hundreds of thousands of troops who had survived Europe to fight yet another bloody war on Japanese soil.

In the decades that followed, however, as the passions of that era have cooled, historians have taken another, dispassionate look at the events of 1945. A number have concluded that while the bomb may have helped end the war quickly, it fueled the U.S.-Soviet Cold War confrontation whose effects still bedevil us today.

After the surrender of Germany and Japan, the two world powers maneuvered for decades to increase their spheres of influence around the globe, spurred on by competing ambitions and ideologies of capitalism and communism. Cold War calculations led to a divided Germany and U.S. involvement in wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Some form of Cold War would have commenced whether or not the U.S. had dropped atomic bombs on Japan, said Arnold A. Offner, Cornelia F. Hugel professor of history emeritus at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., and author of several books on the Cold War. “It might not have been as intense, but you would have had a kind of political-economic Cold War standoff regardless of the bomb,” he said. “It would be a long way to détente.”

But some historians cite the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago as among the key events that metastasized the ideological rift between the two powers into a full-blown Cold War dominated by nuclear brinkmanship.

“Hiroshima changed international relations, probably permanently,” said Martin J. Sherwin, author of “A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and Its Legacies” and history professor at George Mason University near Washington. “It sent a message to the world that the most admired and most powerful nation, the USA, believed that nuclear weapons were legitimate instruments of war and could be used again.”

Although the Cold War ended in 1991 with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, its legacy lives on — from the rocky relationship between Russia and the West to America’s thorny dealings over nuclear weapons programs in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

****************************************************

Only a liberal mind could think up such nonsense as this. Roosevelt was the weak leader that allowed the Soviet Union to expand its influence like it did, and the Soviet Union would have used atomic bombs in a heartbeat to win WW2. It's possible that nuclear weapons actually prevented WW3.

Another undocumented, unattributed post from MovieMadman.  WHO SAID WHAT YOU POSTED?

As for your note at the bottom, wrong again.  Roosevelt was dead and buried by the time Germany surrendered.  While he did permit Stalin certain concessions at the Yalta Conference, this was necessary to keep the Soviet Union in the war and particularly to get Stalin's aid in fighting Japan.  Remember, this was before anyone knew how effective the A bomb really would be in getting Japan to surrender.  The expectation was that 300,000 and 800,00 US troops would die in a war to invade and conquer Japan.

Also, FDR knew he could not keep Stalin from doing what he was going to do.  AND WE needed Stalin more than he needed us at this point.  He could have stopped his troops where they were in Eastern Europe and allowed Hitler to strengthen the Western Front and many more US soldiers would have died.

I will agree with you that the A bomb did not set the stage for the Cold War - that war was coming whether we wanted it or not.  Stalin and the Soviet Union were bound and determined to expand both the geography and the influence of the Soviet Union and their version of Communism.  Don't forget, since the 1920's a major goal of the US and British governments was the elimination of Communism from the world.  The US even "invaded" Russia after WW I in an attempt to stop Communism.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/yalta-conference

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/#:~:text=Admiral Leahy estimated that the,to 10 million Japanese casualties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They needed us more than we needed them. And Truman was a Democrat that dropped the atomic bombs, that is never mentioned these days. Had it been a Republican they would broadcast it from the highest mountains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hamradio said:

Leftist here still mourns the fall of the Soviet Union.

gettyimages-1154984200.jpg

That's just making up stuff isn't it?

Reminds me of singing " When You Wish Upon a Star " when I was 3 years old and I wanted a pony in the backyard.

Then I grew up and became five years old, went to kindergarten--

And I realized that making up stuff and actually saying it out loud was something called lying.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hamradio said:

Well that what the Republicans thought during the FDR administration so they created it.  Regreted that when Reagan came along. 

 

They regretted it much much much sooner-- the regret came with Ike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

That's just making up stuff isn't it?

Reminds me of singing " When You Wish Upon a Star " when I was 3 years old and I wanted a pony in the backyard.

Then I grew up and became five years old, went to kindergarten--

And I realized that making up stuff and actually saying it out loud was something called lying.

Give me a BREAK, she wants that socialist crap in this country! :angry:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Give me a BREAK, she wants that socialist crap in this country! :angry:

Democratic Socialism is not what the Soviet Union had. I worked in a country that had democratic socialism and it was wonderful. It's called France.

Democratic socialism is all over Europe. And people have wonderful lives over there.

I don't feel like defining all of these issues for you.

But you should know by now that Democratic socialism has been in the United Kingdom since the end of World War II.

It's also a lovely place, you should go and visit there sometime too.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Give me a BREAK, she wants that socialist crap in this country! :angry:

As Princess points out 'that socialist crap' is NOT what the former Soviet Union was practicing.    Instead look more to the EU and the economies of Denmark,  Spain, Sweden, France and Italy,  and to a lessor extent Germany.

AND even if A.O.C. was for Soviet Union type economic practices (again,  she and her group is NOT) that doesn't mean she "mourns the fall of the Soviet Union".

So again,  you're being an over-the-top,   coward ,  living in fear.    Grow a spine.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Give me a BREAK, she wants that socialist crap in this country! :angry:

Try not to become angry, hamradio.

Counting today, only 93 more till the Democrats are sent to bed without any supper.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Give me a BREAK, she wants that socialist crap in this country! :angry:

Arch conservative Winston Churchill was a grand supporter of the National Health system in Britain.

The problem with SOME Americans is that they believe the BS fear propaganda that they have been spoon fed all their lives by the ultra rich who want to keep them dumb and poor.

As conservative writer David Frum pointed out, America's health care system is government controlled as well.  The difference is that the American government allows the drug and insurance companies to pillage its citizens.  The politicians get kick backs for allowing this.

But you go on believing EVERYTHING that people like AOC are saying is wicked socialism.  She sides with Winston Churchill on that issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...