One thing that has not been brought up this time around concerning the use of gas is the problem of logistics. Germany had a difficult time moving anything in quantity and the problem of moving large amounts of chemical weapons at a time or place they could have been best utilized would have been exceedingly difficult to solve. I would think that only massive amounts would have been cost effective considering the almost certain retaliation, and the use of tactical sized gas attacks would have opened a Pandora's box that they could not have possibly hoped to be able to cope with. Remember that for the majority of the 11 months that the war lasted on the ground in Europe ( and certainly for the 9 months after the breakout) the Germans spent a lot of time reeling like a punch drunk fighter. Trying to keep the logistic trains operating to deliver gas attacks might have looked attractive in a war game but was probably near impossible at the sharp end of the spear.

Flame away!

Coop

Coop--the Achilles heel of all operations---logistics! A show stopper if there was ever one in the employment of chemical weapons.
Good call.
DJ

While not used on the battlefield Germany did in fact use Chemical Weapons! Do the Names Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald ring a bell??
Lets Not Forget what happened
Jeff Larkin

Jeff--there is no forgetting or forgiving that one.
thanks
DJ

Hello to All

I must say what a subject it leaves one wondering. So this is my two cents worth.
History is the study of events of the past. This is one of the most profound events
in known history, never has an event in history effected the present such as this has.
The scholars who studyed this subject did so with a bone to pick,or an agenda.
I think that Truman had his marching orders before the death of FDR.
Many of the the developers of the bomb wrote FDR begging him not to use it.
My thought on this matter is no one can judge history from hind site, the people who did
this were fools, present company excluded. The thought of such a loss of life
on both sides, is why the bomb was used,remember it was was thought that there
would be losses of over one million people. To me the most profound statement
written here was by war machine,Ed I hope I have your name correct. His statement
is one of fact,past along by his mother who was there.


ponysoldier

I have a military emblem made from a part of the first bomb dropped.

Proud to have it.

Glad it could be made.

would like to have another made from Saudi Arabia.

kglack

Why Saudi Arabia?

I too am slighly curious about the Saudi Arabia comment...but more curious about having a piece of the first one...how did you come across something like that? Wouldn't it have all vaporised?

first let me say that the decision to drop the bomb was even with hindsight 100% correct.second my uncle was a p.o.w. on the kwai and told me that any landings by british forces in malaya would result in the prisoners being murdered.so i have no problem with the bomb.

At that time US losses in men and material in the outer islands of Japan were a lot greater than expected. If US invaded mainland Japan it is very possible that Japanese casualties would be far greater than that of Hiroshima nad nagasaki given the fact of their fatalistic mentality. With that countless GI's would also be lost, i belive it was estimated in the tens of thousands. Better to keep the casualties on the enemy's side.

Them or us... tragic but necessary.

Well, this has taken off on a couple of interesting tangents. Here's my two cents worth.

History must be studied from the point of view of the context of the times. This was the largest, most savage war in the history of the world, and Japan was the last country on the Axis side left standing. Of course the use of the atomic bomb was necessary. It was a weapon, and you use all available resources at your disposal to defeat your enemy and end the war. The Pacific Theater was was particularly nasty, and the American forces had never come up against the no surrender policy of the Japanese forces. Witness the mass suicides of civilians at Saipan. Then came the shock of the Kamikazes. The fact is that this would be a war against an entire enemy nation, not just the enemy military. This would not be an invasion to capture territory and defeat an enemy force. This was quite likely become a campaign for the destruction of a people, brought on by the leadership of the Japanese people. The submarine campaign was quite effective in cutting off supplies to Japan, and the B-29 campaign against Japanese cities had gone a long way towards destroying the Japanese war industries, but there remained the military leadership intent on leading the country to a national mass suicide. The shock value of the atomic bombings was what led to the surrender by civilians in the government.

For further reading on the subject, I would suggest "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank. This is a book well worth reading by anyone with an interest in the Pacific war.

Best regards:
Charlie

Charlie--good to have you participating in the Forum. I sent you several suggestions for WW I reading which I hope you find of interest. Welcome once again
DJ

I have been away from this tread for quite a while, so I will again weigh in :-)

As far as the Germans using chemical weapons in combat (as oppossed to the extermination camps), the USA had stated that they would retaliate in kind, if the Germans used poison gas, plus the prevailing winds favored the westrn allies (same situation as in WW1). Why they did not use them in the East, I can't say, but most German soldiers had long ago disposed of their protective masks and use the contained another storage container - perfect for food, being airtight.

Dropping the bomb, was in my opinion, perfectly legit. After lessons learned at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikazes, suicide boats, and the threat of the huge Japanese population willing to fight to the last - made the bomb the only real choice if we were going to get an unconditional surrender!

P.S. I have read and/or saw on TV that Hitler, a victim of chemical warfare in WW1 was personnally appalled concerning the use of chemicals in warfare (he obviously did not have the same concerns for using chemicals to murder those he didn't like)!!!!

Jeff-- true Hitler was temporarily blinded by chemical weapons in WW I. Stated afterwards that he vowed to "save" Germany if he recovered...(use and abuse of god). If that influenced his sense of humanity it was well hidden behind his psychologically impaired mental state. He was probably a victim of self impose amphedomine (spelling?) toxicity administered by his "doctor." I also believe anyone who questions the use of a nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II needs to read the wealth of periodic and current literature on the subject. It was the only concievable approach to ending the conflict. I know we have often discussed the dubious value of chemical weapons for other than psychological reasons and I would re visit the subject by saying their tactical-strategic utility is limited to terror weapons. In that role they are devastating especially when unleashed upon an unsuspecting civilian population...in case of attack, people doubt their government, become racist overnight and take out their frustrations on other innocent people hoping to even the score. Terrible. But, if bin Laden and crew tried it here, the reaction would be almost beyond imagination.
Your thoughts, Sir?
DJ

This is one hot debate. But to put in my 2 cents, it was necessary. Forgive me if it sounds rather cruel, consider the psychological effect it had on the Japanese leadership. After seeing the extent of destruction, that prompted Emperor Hirohito to make that famous radio announcement nationwide for the cessation of hostilities.

Those regular bombing raids did little to change their minds, but this changed it all. The war would have probably dragged on a little longer...perhaps the Russians would have also gotten a foothold in Japan as well. Or perhaps, the Japanese would have done a "scorched earth policy" once the first allied soldier sets foot in the Japanese home islands.

We can sit here till the cows come home debating this subject. Imagine how Japan fought and defended the Islands it invaded, to the last man. And how do you think they would have defended their native soil? There is no doubt in my mind that the US did the right thing in dropping the A Bomb. Even after, 2 bombs, they hesitated for a few days wether to surrender.

Amen, Brother

whats done is done, what ever happens, happens...thats the way i see it, dont think we (us people, not the U.S.) really had a say in it back then, "its all politics"

People who think it was "wrong" should think about what might have happened if the world never saw what horror an atomic weapon could deliver. Imagine a cold war without that knowledge? This is why reverse-engineering history doesn't work. War by its very nature is atrocious. It breeds atrocity. And from atrocity we can only hope that some good will evolve.




Jim

It's nice to look back 50+ years and second guess. The revisionist historians have been rewriting history some some time now rather than telling the tale of what happened.

Based on the best intomation available at that time, the projected losses set forth by MacArthur's planners and the possibility of dragging this war into '46 and beyond Truman's decision was the correct decision.

Now we have some wringing their hands and denouncing America for dropping the A-Bombs. Well all I have to say its done, its history and get off it.

Unfortuantely, the revisionists are rewriting history as soon as it happens, see what some are saying about Ronald Reagan.

The BOMB was necessary. It ENDED the war and saved countless American lives.

it sure did, imagine if we invaded japan

Tom-- thanks for re surfacing this question. I must remember to use "winner's guilt" in the future. I refer to questions of this type as "self-flagellation" drills.
DJ

It helped us win the War because they were proud honorable people.

If we didn't it would have lasted till the last person could still fight.It would have cost us another gerneration of young men that could have helped are country.

Did anyone ever think of what any of those young boys would have grown up to do or be.


Happy Modeling

Tom-- I do not believe any contributor to the topic feels that there was a viable alternative to dropping the bomb. If you look at any V-J Day photo of Americans in Times Square, you can see that our parents and grand parents certainly do not look like people with gloom and doom on their face. They seem very pleased that a war they did not start had ended. To those that began this great conflict, I would only quote a phrase from Clausewitz "make sure you know where the last step will fall before you take the first step." Wise words unheeded by the Germans and Japanese at the time.
DJ