Fallout: The Reality

[Cistern Logic]

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the bombs dropped on the Empire of Japan in her cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. This article is short and sweet and a great read, chronicling the experience of some ground zero survivors: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-bombing-of-hiroshima/ar-BBlpDXY?ocid=U220DHP
These are the first and (hopefully) only times nuclear arms were used by humans on other humans. The surreal horror described by the eyewitnesses is disturbing. The destructive power of even these smallest devices (Little Boy = 15Kt; Fat Man = 21Kt) is astonishing. Roleplaying settings aside, let us hope we never feel compelled to use such a devastating force against our fellow man again. R.I.P. to the dead; prayers to the living...

 

[Moosick]

The shadows on walls still terrify me to this day. I hope nothing like that will happen, but certain leaders in the world I think are more than a little aggressive.

 

[Cistern Logic]

The shadows on walls still terrify me to this day.

Yes, very disturbing. The article focuses on zero hour and the initial hours after the blast. Many horrors came to pass later. People trapped in the rubble were dying of thirst. The heat from the blast created storm clouds which dropped rain - black rain. It seemed to those trapped and parched to be natures' gift, and they licked it off their faces and caught the raindrops on their tongues. Most that drank the rain later died of radiation sickness.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The shadows on walls still terrify me to this day. I hope nothing like that will happen, but certain leaders in the world I think are more than a little aggressive.

Very well spoken. Let us not forget that, no matter how much we hate the other side, they are still humans. WW2 aside, we particulary those of us that have grown up with the western capitalistic system are very quick in our judgement. But the reality is that we had warmongers on both sides of the cold war which had no problem with pushing everyone closer to a nuclear war. Who knows how history would have turned out if it wasn't for Kennedy and Chruschtschow making the right decisions in those few days. Altough, I agree a lot with what Mc Namara said about the end, it was simply luck.

 

[SnapSlav]

That's no better than speculating what would've happened had FDR not died before the end of the war and had Truman never taken over and began his warmongering policies. Or had FDR not caved to political pressure and picked Truman instead of keeping Henry Wallace, and had Wallace taken over when FDR died. Wallace, an outspoken opponent to all of the posturing and arms building going on between the major world powers would've doubtless moved U.S. policy in the COMPLETELY opposite direction of Truman, the originator of the Cold War. Still nothing more than speculation, because as nice as things COULD'VE been, they're just not what happened. We're stuck with the history that actually was. Learn from what happened, aim for what could be out in the future. Don't linger on the past that never was.

 

[Moosick]

I just thought of the most inappropriate, insensitive joke I've ever conceived and now I hate myself.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And you should, rightfully so because you havn't shared it with the rest of us!

 

[SnapSlav]

Something tells me it had to do with the word "lame".

 

[Moosick]

Well, those shadows are basically the ultimate photograms. im an awful person

 

[Cistern Logic]

im an awful person

Naw. It's just plain old human psychology, mate. People almost always try to make light of that which most terrifies them. It's a defense mechanism.

In honor of the occasion, I streamed what I believe is the best documentary on the subject from my Netflix account. BBC's Hiroshima. It's terrifying to watch, but you get both sides of the story. Many Japanese are still resentful that such a terrible weapon was used on them by the US. I think we found their eagerness to commit suicide so freely just as horrifying. Ask any living WWII vet who'd witnessed a Kamikaze.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It is silly to justify the nuclear bombing.

But with saying that it is also silly to resent it.

How does that work one might ask? Well, because we are talking about a historical event here and most of us are missing the context about it. It is a bit like comparing Russian and German crimes of WW2, as that is also somewhat senseless, it's relativism.

Of course the nuclear bombing was a tragedy. But so was any other event of WW2. Including the Firebombing which killed much more people.

 

[Cistern Logic]

German crimes of WW2.

I'm guessing at least from previous comments that I've read from you that you are a German national.

I wonder if you or anyone else here has seen a movie called "Starship Troopers" or read the book it was based on? The film starts in Buenos Aires, Argentina which I gathered from the setting was either the capital or at least a premier cultural center of the world. Democracy was tossed out as an ineffective form of government. What form of government was decided to be the most effective and at the time dominates the world? They are Nazis!

That's absurd, right?! Not so fast! Humans in this futuristic setting are currently in a bloody war to the death with another species in the galaxy, a species of arthropods (bugs). In a situation of US or THEM, I can think of no form of government that would foment the kind of hatred and will to eradicate another species better! Therefore what I got out of it was at least a minor 'moral of the story' if there is one - THERE IS NO FAILED FORM OF GOVERNMENT. It's all relative to what best fits the situation and ensures the survival of our species as a whole.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, the US and Britain are a form of democracy and they won against the Germans and Japanese Empire. So I would not be so quick with throwing out democracries as far as wars goes.

 

[Cistern Logic]

Well, the US and Britain are a form of democracy and they won against the Germans and Japanese Empire.

I attribute that to military blunders by the Axis powers, not the form of government. How much would have transpired differently if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans had stayed out of the conflict for a longer time. How about Hitler's reneging on the Non- Aggression pact and stoking the fury of the 'Bear' prematurely? Those decisions irrevocably changed the war, and likely the outcome. What if the Nazis had a few more years to develop the 'A' Bomb without America's Manhattan project having even been started yet?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Shoulda Coulda Woulda. That's a lot of ifs. Important is only that it happend. And that the US payed a very high toll in WW2, particularly in the Pacific. And that it is remarkable for a democracy to go trough it with such effort. You have to look just at a few individual battles, like Iwojima as one of the most famous. And the Japanese Moral didn't really show any huge signs of breakdown even at Okinawa when it was obvious who would win. While the government definitely tried to show their army and military in the best light the population still knew about those incredible loses in American lifes, and yet the spirit of the population was relatively high trough the whole war.

But it doesnt matter anyway, because it is very likely that one way or another the US and Germany/Japan would have faced a war. And I think the population would have accepted that even if the US started it. Simply because of the reality of that time. People understood very well what kind of System Japan and Germany had.

I am usually very quick when it comes to critize the US and even in WW2 there has been a ton of questionale shit - I am looking at you, American industry!. But I also give credit where credit is due. And both the US and Soviets accomplished unbelievable things in WW2. Particularly the Soviets and their achievements in their military and industry alike during WW2 are sadly very often forgotten. It's all about politics I guess. And when it comes to fighting the Germans there is a tendency among WW2 enthusiasts to glorify the Germans and their military and belittle the actions of the allied forces.

 

[zegh8578]

I attribute that to military blunders by the Axis powers, not the form of government. How much would have transpired differently if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans had stayed out of the conflict for a longer time. How about Hitler's reneging on the Non- Aggression pact and stoking the fury of the 'Bear' prematurely? Those decisions irrevocably changed the war, and likely the outcome. What if the Nazis had a few more years to develop the 'A' Bomb without America's Manhattan project having even been started yet?

One can use the same absolutism to confirm current reality though - the nazis were too aggro, so they failed to realize their blunders, prefering to attack first and think later. Ergo - relying on a nazi-esque government to fight for example space-bugs would not necesarily play out so well, because similar short-sighted blunders would be done.

If we are to go by the best example in the world, we must assume that the world-president of a global nazi type government would end up shooting himself and his wife, before being set on fire

 

[Cistern Logic]

Ergo - relying on a nazi-esque government to fight for example space-bugs would not necesarily play out so well, because similar short-sighted blunders would be done.

Actually that happened in the movie (kinda). The first assault on the planet was ill conceived and poorly planned and resulted in a crushing defeat for the humans.

 

[SnapSlav]

How much would have transpired differently if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans had stayed out of the conflict for a longer time. How about Hitler's reneging on the Non- Aggression pact and stoking the fury of the 'Bear' prematurely? Those decisions irrevocably changed the war, and likely the outcome.

If the question of "what would've been different" was specifically directed at the results of the war, then with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY we can say that the latter question matters MUCH more than the former. The Soviets won WWII, period. American involvement certainly moved along the momentum to its closure more quickly, but it was not the key to the swing of the war. The break of the non-aggression pact- specifically the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad, and the subsequent Soviet "Motherland" campaign -is what got the ball rolling toward the Axis powers losing the war. The States were already involved in the war, but just like in WWI, their efforts were behind the scenes; deliberately obfuscated from public knowledge so American citizens could feel satisfied that they were NOT involved in foreign conflicts, yet definitively participatory in impact to such an extent that nations recognized that the Americans were not-so-surreptitiously helping out one of the sides. Pearl Harbor was simply an excuse to make involvement official. But for all the horror stories of their experiences in the war, American soldiers had no purpose being there because they really accomplished nothing. The Axis powers were being overwhelmed by the Soviets, and the Japanese were preparing negotiations for surrender to the Soviets when Truman's babies were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Long story short, had Pearl Harbor not happened, the oil embargo would still have been in effect, the Japanese fleets would've still be starved, but more importantly the Japanese would have still surrendered to the Soviets, and the Nazis would've still been crushed by the Soviets. History in the LONG RUN would've been very, very different, naturally. But the war ending with the same parties losing would've remained unchanged.

 

[zegh8578]

Ergo - relying on a nazi-esque government to fight for example space-bugs would not necesarily play out so well, because similar short-sighted blunders would be done.

Actually that happened in the movie (kinda). The first assault on the planet was ill conceived and poorly planned and resulted in a crushing defeat for the humans.

I actually like that movie quite a bit, but I haven't seen it in a long while.

 

[Stone Cold Robert House]

If the question of "what would've been different" was specifically directed at the results of the war, then with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY we can say that the latter question matters MUCH more than the former. The Soviets won WWII, period. American involvement certainly moved along the momentum to its closure more quickly, but it was not the key to the swing of the war. The break of the non-aggression pact- specifically the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad, and the subsequent Soviet "Motherland" campaign -is what got the ball rolling toward the Axis powers losing the war. The States were already involved in the war, but just like in WWI, their efforts were behind the scenes; deliberately obfuscated from public knowledge so American citizens could feel satisfied that they were NOT involved in foreign conflicts, yet definitively participatory in impact to such an extent that nations recognized that the Americans were not-so-surreptitiously helping out one of the sides. Pearl Harbor was simply an excuse to make involvement official. But for all the horror stories of their experiences in the war, American soldiers had no purpose being there because they really accomplished nothing. The Axis powers were being overwhelmed by the Soviets, and the Japanese were preparing negotiations for surrender to the Soviets when Truman's babies were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Long story short, had Pearl Harbor not happened, the oil embargo would still have been in effect, the Japanese fleets would've still be starved, but more importantly the Japanese would have still surrendered to the Soviets, and the Nazis would've still been crushed by the Soviets. History in the LONG RUN would've been very, very different, naturally. But the war ending with the same parties losing would've remained unchanged.

The USA would have had "official" involvement in the war with or without Pearl Harbor, though. US-Japan relations were so frosty at that point it's hard to believe that anything but a shooting war could have resolved it. Japan had to strike out for a new source of oil soon for their China war. So if, say, they bypassed the Philippines and strike for British holdings and the Dutch East Indies, FDR still has a solid reason to push for war. Same situation if it was some random U-Boat attack on an American vessel or something else. The only difference was that, without Pearl Harbor, the American government would possibly have to draft people or use some other motivator - instead of people just making lines to volunteer like after the attack. Either way, there was no way America would have been as minimally involved as they were in WW1. They would be present in an active, more involved capacity no matter what.

You're right on both points, though. The Soviet Union was still the most important player, and the war would have ended more or less the same in any circunstance barring major context changes. Now if America somehow didn't enter the war, there is another thing that wasn't considered, though: North Africa. Britain would be at a major disadvantage in North Africa and possibly face defeat without the influx of new American tanks to replace their Cruiser and Crusader tanks that were becoming inadequete against the ever improving Panzer III and IV. Even Italian tanks would still be useful without the fear of grappling with a Grant or Sherman. The loss of Tobruk left Churchill with a pretty bad confidence and if Rommel made it to the Suez canal, he Churchill could easily find himself out of a job and a new, war weary government in his place and looking to end the conflict. Germany still wouldn't be able to invade them but the terms after the war would definitely change for the UK. I also don't believe the Soviets could have surrendered Japan on their own... the German campaign left them pretty drained, and even with Stalin's great strategies they would have a really hard time holding Japan back on their own. Because, you know, they were receiving massive shipments of raw materials and Studebaker trucks from the USA, without that they would be forced to divert tank production or face having very little in the way of motorised logistics and transport. They would still take Berlin, but would lose a LOT more people with less tanks and less supplies. So they'd need help from the British military or possibly one of the smaller militaries like Brazil if they wanted a decisive victory over Japan. But of course, all of that is very far from our reality since, like I said, the USA was going in either way.

Any situation leads to an Axis loss, the only thing that varies is how crushing that defeat is.