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

15 hours ago, SadPanda said:

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.

As pointed out, the Soviets did NOT have the atomic bomb until much later.  Your reasoning has ZERO military or political logic.  As it stood, the US had a huge military advantage over the rest of the world  without the bomb.  The Soviet Union had been economically ruined by the war as had UK, France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan and rest of the world.  US had not.  Unlike with previous wars, the US, Republicans and Democrats, did not drastically reduce the size of US military, but in fact kept it as a large force.  We also continued to spend billions on the military.

You also do not understand anything about Russian history, which is the foundation of Soviet history.  They were scared to death of being invaded, whereas the US had not been invaded since 1812 (but had done a lot of invading).  They wanted buffer states they could control.  Just as US policy before Trump was to have Allies we could influence to help defend us.

15 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.

The Republicans gave us term limits long after FDR was dead.  FDR won four terms because he was successfully combating the Great Depression and World War II.  Trump on the other hand is failing the Pandemic and his false economic revival is crashing because it only benefited the very, very wealthy and corporations. 

14 hours ago, Vautrin said:

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.

Correct.  Most Americans, and Movie Madman especially, fail to understand American history, much less World history.  Without the Soviets, Germany would have conquered Europe and North Africa, if not more.   The US was very, very reluctant to get involved in another European war.  If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, US entry would have been much later and much less if at all.  If Hitler had not attacked Soviet Union, UK would have fallen or just been ignored.

As the experts in White House, US State Dept. and the War and Navy Depts. (precursor to DOD) knew, US likely could not have defeated the Soviet Armies in Eastern Europe.  The American people absolutely would not have supported nor paid for a war to "save" Eastern Europe.  The PEOPLE were tired of the Great Depression and WW II.  

6 hours 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.  

MacArthur was a good tactician, but not so good as a large world strategist.  The Japanese were in talks with US until day before they attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese wouldn't  surrender the homeland without a bloody war for every inch.  They had proven that in their defenses of little islands that were not part of Japan itself.  A concept the Anglo-Saxon peoples don't comprehend.

As for the Commonwealth, they were spent.  Churchill was thrown out of office in 1945.

As for the Soviets, they promised to fight against Japan, but would they really?  How much could they do considering almost all their military might was on the Western Front and they were more concerned with dominating Eastern Europe after Hitler?

Truman did not really want to bomb Japan, but they were not seriously negotiating and everybody knew it.  Also the negotiations would have called for the dissolution of the Japanese government, the monarchy and the military - just as it did for Germany and Italy.  They would not even remotely consider that.

 

6 hours 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.

The second bomb was dropped because the Japanese monarchy, government and military STILL would not consider surrendering.  The war may have been over, but the Japanese were not ready to surrender and not to have their government, monarchy and military abolished.

Harry Truman had been an artillery officer in combat in WW I, so he knew what war does.  When you are fighting a war against a nation of cold blooded bastard, you need to be one as well.  You could ask the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and millions of others how the Japanese treated them.  As for lives, Truman saved millions of American, Commonwealth and Japanese lives.

Yes, the emperor still exists, but is a shell of what it was prior to WW II.

2 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

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.

This statement confuses me.  Who are "they?" The Soviets?   Without the Soviets, the US and Allies would have lost ten times as many soldiers, if the not the war itself.   What would the Republicans have "broadcast?"

No one mentions that Truman was a Democrat who dropped the bomb, because it is totally irrelevant.  A Republican president probably would have dropped it earlier and more of them.  The Republicans were all in favor of dropping the bomb.  After all, a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, became the next president and he assuredly supported dropping the bomb.

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

 

Truman did not really want to bomb Japan, but they were not seriously negotiating and everybody knew it.  Also the negotiations would have called for the dissolution of the Japanese government, the monarchy and the military - just as it did for Germany and Italy.  They would not even remotely consider that.

 

The second bomb was dropped because the Japanese monarchy, government and military STILL would not consider surrendering.  The war may have been over, but the Japanese were not ready to surrender and not to have their government, monarchy and military abolished.

 

Both MacArthur and Truman's remarks on these things are recorded.  I didn't make them up.    They are footnoted in this book that I would recommend as a good read.  

I found the section on the FBI's war on unions to be quite good.

51RYZ+xeN9L._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sukhov said:

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.

I don't believe there was one individual spy who gave the Soviets the "secret" behind the atomic bomb. Rather,

there were a number of spies who helped the Soviets with key information on the atomic bomb, the best

known being John Cairncross, Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass and the Rosenbergs (keep it in the family). There

were others who also gave the Soviets vital information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Stalin can be blamed for holding onto Easten Europe. Russia had been attacked by

Germany in both world wars. After that, what leader wouldn't want a barrier between his own

country and the country that had attacked his country twice in twenty years. That doesn't excuse

what he did after the war was over, but it explains why he did it in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

The Republicans gave us term limits long after FDR was dead.  FDR won four terms because he was successfully combating the Great Depression and World War II.  Trump on the other hand is failing the Pandemic and his false economic revival is crashing because it only benefited the very, very wealthy and corporations. 

 FDR died on April 12th, 1945. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment (term limits) on March 21, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951

So two years after his death it was approved and submitted, which backs up what I posted earlier. He was one of the worst presidents we ever had, and that is why they put in term limits. He gave away half of Europe to the Soviet Union, putting millions of people under poverty and slave labor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

A Republican president probably would have dropped it earlier and more of them. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for proving my point a million times.😀

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I don't think Stalin can be blamed for holding onto Easten Europe. Russia had been attacked by

Germany in both world wars. After that, what leader wouldn't want a barrier between his own

country and the country that had attacked his country twice in twenty years. That doesn't excuse

what he did after the war was over, but it explains why he did it in the first place.

Also....

Russo-Crimean Wars (1571), an Ottoman invasion that penetrated Russia and destroyed Moscow.

Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), Poland gained Severia and Smolensk.

Ingrian War (1610–1617), a Swedish invasion which captured Novgorod and Pskov.

Swedish invasion of Russia (1707), an unsuccessful Swedish invasion.

French invasion of Russia (1812), an unsuccessful invasion by Napoleon's French Empire and its allies.

Why Napoleon's Invasion of Russia Was the Beginning of the End ...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

 FDR died on April 12th, 1945.He was one of the worst presidents we ever had, and that is why they put in term limits. He gave away half of Europe to the Soviet Union, putting millions of people under poverty and slave labor.

 

Of course he was. FDR was only President's during two of America's most tumultuous periods, the Depression and Second World War. Thousands of American military lives were spared when it was the Russians that did the bleeding, rather than Americans, when they fought the Germans in eastern Europe, something at the time for which Americans would have been grateful.

But, as you point out, MM, FDR was one of the worst Presidents because, after all, he was a Democrat.

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

Of course he was. FDR was only President's during two of America's most tumultuous periods, the Depression and Second World War. Thousands of American military lives were spared when it was the Russians that did the bleeding, rather than Americans, when they fought the Germans in eastern Europe, something at the time for which Americans would have been grateful.

But, as you point out, MM, FDR was one of the worst Presidents because, after all, he was a Democrat.

He did imprison the Japanese.

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

He did imprison the Japanese.

And he tried to sit out the war. For him the war was a blessing - America could climb out of the Depression with all the war supplies that were suddenly needed by the nations actually doing the fighting.

Japan dragged America's asp into it, otherwise who knows whether all of Europe would be speaking German today?

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SadPanda said:

And he tried to sit out the war.

Where do you get your information, the same source that told you masks make no difference to covid 19?

Isolationalism was still rampant in America in 1941 and FDR had to find a way to have Americans agree to participate in the war. The Japanese at Pearl Harbour did him a political favour.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

America was pretty divided at the time. Some wanted to remain neutral and others wanted to support the allies. In September 1939, only 16% wanted to fight with the British. Selling weapons to the allied was a way to help them without getting overtly involved. I dislike Roosevelt for some of his policies like the camps but I do not blame him for trying to keep his country out of the war.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TomJH said:

 Harry Truman was just another cold blooded bastard who exercised his power at the cost of thousands of lives.

quote-if-we-see-that-germany-is-winning-

Link to post
Share on other sites

FDR's relations with Russia during WWII had very little to do with the 22nd Amendment.

The GOP had control of both houses of Congress after the 1946 midterms and no doubt wanted

revenge on the Democrats for having a four term run under FDR and Truman and wanted to make

sure it never happened again. Of course they were too shortsighted to see that one day a Republican

president might be able to be elected to a third term. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhov said:

quote-if-we-see-that-germany-is-winning-

It's called "Bait and Bleed" when you have to deal with 2 equally evil regimes.  The strategy both  won't be a greater threat in the future.  

But Truman said that in 1941 just after Germany invaded the Soviet Union BEFORE Pearl Harbor and Germany's later declaration of war on the United States. After that  everything changed.

 

He is honest — but smart as hell’: When Truman met Stalin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07/17/he-is-honest-but-smart-as-hell-when-truman-met-stalin/

 

The US - Soviet Alliance during WWII?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend....ancient proverb.

 

I'm sick of people complaining how things should had been done differently during WWII.  The presidents FDR / Truman had to think about saving AMERICAN LIVES!  Remember Japan and Germany declared WAR on us!  We should feel bad or apologize...HELL NO!

 

Progressives crying over the use of the atomic bomb, what a crock.  Study history and see how BARBARIC the Japanese treated the countries they invaded,  the treatment of POW's, the death marches! :angry:

article-1254168-087D0A34000005DC-142_468

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 9:23 PM, 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.

Just remember, Stalin requested to join the axis powers twice. FDR and Churchill had to pacify him just to keep him on their side. 

It took Pearl Harbor to get the Americans in the war in the first place. What exactly was Truman going to say to get them to fight the soviets ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhov said:

quote-if-we-see-that-germany-is-winning-

When the French Indochina Wars (Vietnam), were starting up, he considered dropping bombs on the Vietnamese to help the French. Such a friendly, down to earth guy 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

FDR's relations with Russia during WWII had very little to do with the 22nd Amendment.

The GOP had control of both houses of Congress after the 1946 midterms and no doubt wanted

revenge on the Democrats for having a four term run under FDR and Truman and wanted to make

sure it never happened again. Of course they were too shortsighted to see that one day a Republican

president might be able to be elected to a third term. 

Hmmm, Republican president (Hoover) during a major crisis (The Great Depression). Does nothing about it. And the Dems get four straight terms.

I wonder if history is repeating itself :lol:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

General MacArthur wanted to nuke just above  and along the border between Korea and China during that war.

 I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.

Douglas-MacArthur.-9959.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheCid said:

 The US was very, very reluctant to get involved in another European war. 

 The American people absolutely would not have supported nor paid for a war to "save" Eastern Europe.  The PEOPLE were tired of the Great Depression and WW II. 

Only in western countries do they even use the terminology WWI and WWII. To many this is just another European Thirty Years War (1914-1945). And there are those who feel if the Americans had not entered in 1916, the powers would have basically worn themselves down to some mutual cease fire. No war debts or any of the post war problems that lead to WWII.

So to join Europe in 1916, then again in 1942, then again after 1945 ?? There would not have been any public support for that. After major wars, often the country goes another direction politically just to get away from war itself.

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

General MacArthur wanted to nuke just above  and along the border between Korea and China during that war.

 I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.

Douglas-MacArthur.-9959.jpg

Oh yeah, Strategic bombing ? Surgical strike ? That looks so good on paper.

Do you know there are "red zones" in France that are still off limits to people from the poison gas of WWI ? Can you imagine the fallout and the aftermath ?

What old Mac didn't understand is if we can bomb them, eventually they can bomb us...

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

 

Progressives crying over the use of the atomic bomb, what a crock.  Study history and see how BARBARIC the Japanese treated the countries they invaded,  the treatment of POW's, the death marches! :angry:

 

The A Bombs were dropped on CIVILIANS, not military targets.  I don't think the criticism of dropping atomic bombs on cities is restricted too progressives.  You are just showing off your ongoing bias as you go through life with blinkers.

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

 FDR died on April 12th, 1945. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment (term limits) on March 21, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951

So two years after his death it was approved and submitted, which backs up what I posted earlier. He was one of the worst presidents we ever had, and that is why they put in term limits. He gave away half of Europe to the Soviet Union, putting millions of people under poverty and slave labor.

 

As I said, the Republicans who controlled Congress wanted term limits, which came to haunt them when Reagan wanted to run for a third term.  Of course, he was probably beginning to show early signs of Alzheimers by that point.  

All of the experts, except the neo-Nazis,  far-right extremists and worst of the GOPers recognize that FDR is one of five best presidents in American history.

FDR had NOTHING to do with what happened in Eastern Europe after WW  II.  Many of the people in the affected countries had been under poverty, slave labor and dictatorships for hundreds of years before Stalin.  There was absolutely nothing FDR or Churchill or DeGaul or anyone else could have done to prevent the Soviet Unions expansion.

I realize you stopped learning world and American history after grammar school.

13 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for proving my point a million times.😀

This makes no sense whatever.  What Point?????????????

11 hours ago, SadPanda said:

And he tried to sit out the war. For him the war was a blessing - America could climb out of the Depression with all the war supplies that were suddenly needed by the nations actually doing the fighting.

 

FDR did not want to sit out the war.  He very much wanted into it because he saw the ultimate dangers of UK losing (and they would have) and potential for Europe, Asia and Africa being dominated by Nazis and Communists (Soviets).  BUT, he knew the American people did not want to go to war in Europe again.   That is why he started lend-lease and trading war materiel for islands in the Caribbean. 

9 hours ago, Vautrin said:

FDR's relations with Russia during WWII had very little to do with the 22nd Amendment.

The GOP had control of both houses of Congress after the 1946 midterms and no doubt wanted

revenge on the Democrats for having a four term run under FDR and Truman and wanted to make

sure it never happened again. Of course they were too shortsighted to see that one day a Republican

president might be able to be elected to a third term. 

Worth repeating.

8 hours ago, hamradio said:

General MacArthur wanted to nuke just above  and along the border between Korea and China during that war.

 I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.

 

As I said, MacArthur was a good tactician, but not a good strategist.  Especially when it came down to global politics.  Bombing China very likely would have gotten the Soviet Union more involved.  China and Soviets were allies at the time and Soviets would have seen nuclear attacks on China as prelude to nuclear attacks on them.

It also would have caused a huge furor in our allies and their civilian populations.  Not to mention the suffering of the Korean and Chinese populations for decades to come.   Not a good move for a "Christian" nation.

His wanting 30 to 50 nuclear bombs showed his basic ignorance of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons.  He also had little understanding of where the radiation could easily spread to South Korea and possibly even Japan.

Actually this shows how weak he was as a tactician even.  He was unable to conceive of how to use the might of the US and the UN forces to defeat the North Koreans and Chinese.

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...