Were The A-Bombs Justified?

[Andsed]

Your right their not good reason they are great reasons. We should not kill innocent German civilians due to what their government did. Germany had surrendered and were no threat to anyone currently so nuking them would achieve nothing but kill innocents for the crimes of their government. Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war. There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.

I'm seeing nothing but benefits here.

Georgie Patton, keep rolling east!

You act like the Soviets would just roll over something the Germans army though as well and look how that went down. Sure the western allies could have won but if they did it would be a costly victory. Also you don´t care that nuking Berlin would kill innocent civilians which is a war crime.

[Swiftyshire]

Why cause they were Germans? You realize this is not fucking star wars right? This is reality and in reality nothing if black and white. Nuking Berlin would achieve nothing but more violence and more suffering all because of what the German government did. The German civilians were for the most part innocent and did not deserve to be nuked.

I agree, German citizens already paid the price immensely after WWII, in a variety of ways.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm seeing nothing but benefits here.

Georgie Patton, keep rolling east!

You act like the Soviets would just roll over something the Germans army though as well and look how that went down. Sure the western allies could have won but if they did it would be a costly victory.

The Wehrmacht didn't have nukes and wasn't supplying the Soviets and didn't have a strategic bomber force like the Allies did.

Ivan would go down easy.

Also you don´t care that nuking Berlin would kill innocent civilians which is a war crime.

Winners cannot commit war crimes.

[Andsed]

Your right their not good reason they are great reasons. We should not kill innocent German civilians due to what their government did. Germany had surrendered and were no threat to anyone currently so nuking them would achieve nothing but kill innocents for the crimes of their government. Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war. There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.

Nah, they're shit reason.The Germans there had enabled and participated in the crimes of their government and Stalin might have been a little pissy with us destroying Berlin before giving it to him but he wouldn't have declared war over that.
Nuking Berlin is actually a great reason to nuke Berlin in and of itself, we really should have done it; it would have spared us a lot of troubles.

And here folks we see a sheep who believes all of the allied propaganda. Fine a war with the soviets may be a stretch but all my other points are valid. First off what the hell were the Germans supposed to do when Hitler started his genocide? When Hitler came into power the Germans were desperate as thanks to the allies and treaty of Versailles along with the Great Depression they were in economical turmoil. And when they realized what Hitler was doing they had already been disarmed and the German military was strong enough that it took the US, France, Soviets, And the British Empire to take it down. Also some Germans did fight back against Hitler:

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005208
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/the-german-resistance-to-hitler-from-protests-to-assassinations
Also no Nuking Berlin would gain us nothing.

[Andsed]

You act like the Soviets would just roll over something the Germans army though as well and look how that went down. Sure the western allies could have won but if they did it would be a costly victory.

The Wehrmacht didn't have nukes and wasn't supplying the Soviets and didn't have a strategic bomber force like the Allies did.

Ivan would go down easy.

Also you don´t care that nuking Berlin would kill innocent civilians which is a war crime.

Winners cannot commit war crimes.

The soviets still had Millions of veteran soldiers willing to fight it would not be a easy victory. Also winner can´t commit war crimes bullshit. The allies while being much better than Germany still did some awful things during the war and nuking Berlin would have been one of them.

[The Two Jerseys]

The Wehrmacht didn't have nukes and wasn't supplying the Soviets and didn't have a strategic bomber force like the Allies did.

Ivan would go down easy.

Winners cannot commit war crimes.

The soviets still had Millions of veteran soldiers willing to fight it would not be a easy victory. Also winner can´t commit war crimes bullshit. The allies while being much better than Germany still did some awful things during the war and nuking Berlin would have been one of them.

You mean the Soviet veterans riding around in Studebaker trucks eating food delivered via Arctic convoys and the Persian Corridor?

[Aellex]

And here folks we see a sheep who believes all of the allied propaganda. Fine a war with the soviets may be a stretch but all my other points are valid. First off what the hell were the Germans supposed to do when Hitler started his genocide? When Hitler came into power the Germans were desperate as thanks to the allies and treaty of Versailles along with the Great Depression they were in economical turmoil. And when they realized what Hitler was doing they had already been disarmed and the German military was strong enough that it took the US, France, Soviets, And the British Empire to take it down. Also some Germans did fight back against Hitler:

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005208
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/the-german-resistance-to-hitler-from-protests-to-assassinations
Also no Nuking Berlin would gain us nothing.

Nah, your other points are just as shit as that one and the fact that you have to whine about people being sheep for calling you out on them is showing quite clearly that not even you believe in the bullshit you spew.
Versailles was tame and the German Revanchism is to be blamed on no-one but the Germans themselves. They knew what was Hitler's program and elected him anyway, everything they got they deserved. Good on the ones that resisted but that does not absolve the German people as a whole.

As for nuking Berlin, it would have gained us a nuked Berlin which is a net benefit in and of itself. It would have also spared us lot of tensions with the soviets as it's the co-occupation of it that first sparked official discord between the Allies and the Russians.

[Pre-invasion Iraq]

Absolutely not. I believe that the USA had no right whatsoever to drop nuclear bombs on a nation which had no nuclear bombs itself. Even then no nation has the right to use this type of bomb unless the other nation has attacked them first.

[Oil exporting People]

Absolutely not. I believe that the USA had no right whatsoever to drop nuclear bombs on a nation which had no nuclear bombs itself. Even then no nation has the right to use this type of bomb unless the other nation has attacked them first.

December 7, 1941 is apparently a day shrouded in mystery.

[Andsed]

And here folks we see a sheep who believes all of the allied propaganda. Fine a war with the soviets may be a stretch but all my other points are valid. First off what the hell were the Germans supposed to do when Hitler started his genocide? When Hitler came into power the Germans were desperate as thanks to the allies and treaty of Versailles along with the Great Depression they were in economical turmoil. And when they realized what Hitler was doing they had already been disarmed and the German military was strong enough that it took the US, France, Soviets, And the British Empire to take it down. Also some Germans did fight back against Hitler:

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005208
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/the-german-resistance-to-hitler-from-protests-to-assassinations
Also no Nuking Berlin would gain us nothing.

Nah, your other points are just as shit as that one and the fact that you have to whine about people being sheep for calling you out on them is showing quite clearly that not even you believe in the bullshit you spew.
Versailles was tame and the German Revanchism is to be blamed on no-one but the Germans themselves. They knew what was Hitler's program and elected him anyway, everything they got they deserved. Good on the ones that resisted but that does not absolve the German people as a whole.

As for nuking Berlin, it would have gained us a nuked Berlin which is a net benefit in and of itself. It would have also spared us lot of tensions with the soviets as it's the co-occupation of it that first sparked official discord between the Allies and the Russians.

No Versailles was not tame that is utter horseshit. First off it forced Germany to assume all of the war guilt even though they did not start the war. They were forced to pay huge amounts of money it really should not have been forced to pay. But then again you could say this is tame in some eyes so lets move on.

Now as for the Germans electing Hitlers well I am not totally familiar with this so here are a few sources to show how Hitler came to power.
https://www.livescience.com/54441-how-hitler-rose-to-power.html
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Hitler/Rise-to-power
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/history/why-did-hitler-come-to-power-in-germany-in-1933.html
Now as you can see the Germans were desperate and Hitler being a good speaking capitalized on this and used it to take power. So yes the Germans did technically elect Hitler but this does not mean they should be killed. Also what does nuking Berlin do? Nothing it does not revive those who died at the hands of the Nazis and the whole joint occupation with the Soviets was not as bad as nuking Berlin would have been. Also just because the Germans elected Hitler does not mean they should die. Two wrongs don´t make a right and nuking Berlin would changing nothing but kill more and more people and if we are supposed to be the supposed ¨good guys¨ we should not go around nuking cites that are no threat.

[Xadufell]

Absolutely not. I believe that the USA had no right whatsoever to drop nuclear bombs on a nation which had no nuclear bombs itself. Even then no nation has the right to use this type of bomb unless the other nation has attacked them first.

Congratulations, you played yourself.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

It had, indeed.
We should have nuked it and abandoned the rubbles to the Soviets.

Your not serious right? Ok first off Germany had surrendered there was no reason to nuke them. Second nuking Berlin would have killed thousands of innocent civilians who did nothing wrong. And third it would have probably make the soviets angry something neither the western allies or the soviets wanted.

Lastly, if the goal was to kill soviets... why not just nuke Moscow in that case and jump-start WW3?

Berlin, as intended by the Soviets as a buffer-state, would inevitably get caught in the middle.

[Thermodolia]

The atomic bombs were justified just as firebombing was. If you want a single unjust act look at what China did. Millions of innocent Chinese civilians murdered by the Chinese government with no particular strategic gains. Naturally when you read about Chinese casualties this atrocity is pinned on Japan.

If you’re talking about the 1938 Yellow River flood then yes you’d be right. However that flood only killed about a million

[Aellex]

No Versailles was not tame that is utter horseshit. First off it forced Germany to assume all of the war guilt even though they did not start the war. They were forced to pay huge amounts of money it really should not have been forced to pay. But then again you could say this is tame in some eyes so lets move on.

Germany most certainly caused the war itself by giving a blank-check to Austria-Hungary despite knowing that Russia couldn't back down if they did that, and that's not even going on their responsabilities in causing the situation where a world war was unavoidable in the first place.
As for Versaille, it was indeed very tame by all metrics possible, there is no denying of it. Germany had to pay less money than the damage they had caused in the Western Front alone, give up the core land of other countries they occupied and see its army limited in size; that's literally all. If you want an harsh treaty, look at Trianon or Sèvres.

Now as for the Germans electing Hitlers well I am not totally familiar with this so here are a few sources to show how Hitler came to power.
https://www.livescience.com/54441-how-hitler-rose-to-power.html
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Hitler/Rise-to-power
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/history/why-did-hitler-come-to-power-in-germany-in-1933.html
Now as you can see the Germans were desperate and Hitler being a good speaking capitalized on this and used it to take power. So yes the Germans did technically elect Hitler but this does not mean they should be killed.

They elected the Nazis so they have to suffer the consequences of what their elected government did. Such is only Justice.

Also what does nuking Berlin do? Nothing it does not revive those who died at the hands of the Nazis and the whole joint occupation with the Soviets was not as bad as nuking Berlin would have been. Also just because the Germans elected Hitler does not mean they should die. Two wrongs don´t make a right and nuking Berlin would changing nothing but kill more and more people and if we are supposed to be the supposed ¨good guys¨ we should not go around nuking cites that are no threat.

It gets Berlin nuked. That's a lot of good already.
And the joint of occupation was objectively worse for the world as it escalated allied-soviets tensions; had Berlin been nuked and thus utterly neutered before being left into Soviets hand, we would have neutralised any benefits the Russians would have gotten from the cities while at the same time keeping the situation cool.
That would have been the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

[The Two Jerseys]

Your not serious right? Ok first off Germany had surrendered there was no reason to nuke them. Second nuking Berlin would have killed thousands of innocent civilians who did nothing wrong. And third it would have probably make the soviets angry something neither the western allies or the soviets wanted.

Lastly, if the goal was to kill soviets... why not just nuke Moscow in that case and jump-start WW3?

Berlin, as intended by the Soviets as a buffer-state, would inevitably get caught in the middle.

Why not both?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

The atomic bombs were justified just as firebombing was. If you want a single unjust act look at what China did. Millions of innocent Chinese civilians murdered by the Chinese government with no particular strategic gains. Naturally when you read about Chinese casualties this atrocity is pinned on Japan.

If you’re talking about the 1938 Yellow River flood then yes you’d be right. However that flood only killed about a million

And both A-bombs combined killed less than a quarter of that figure, and ended the war for less money than it took to develop the Norden Bombsight.

That's like winning the war on Terror for the cost of an ACOG. The entire war.

[Crockerland]

Why wouldn't I be serious? Sure Germany had surrendered. And? Sure it would have killed german civilians. And? Sure it may have made the Soviets angry. And?
None of that is a good enough reason not to have nuked it.

Your right their not good reason they are great reasons. We should not kill innocent German civilians due to what their government did. Germany had surrendered and were no threat to anyone currently so nuking them would achieve nothing but kill innocents for the crimes of their government. Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war. There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.

>Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war.
>There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.
Contradictory. We should have bombarded the USSR with as many atom bombs as we could produce until they got their genocidal claws off of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland & stopped committing ethnic cleansing, war rape, and mass murder.

[The Two Jerseys]

Your right their not good reason they are great reasons. We should not kill innocent German civilians due to what their government did. Germany had surrendered and were no threat to anyone currently so nuking them would achieve nothing but kill innocents for the crimes of their government. Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war. There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.

>Pissing of the Soviets could have led to the cold war being a hot war.
>There was no good reason to nuke Berlin.
Contradictory. We should have bombarded the USSR with as many atom bombs as we could produce until they got their genocidal claws off of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland & stopped committing ethnic cleansing, war rape, and mass murder.

Mmm...Patton, MacArthur, LeMay, and Harris tag-teaming the dirty Commies...

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, yes, we should've.

Why cause they were Germans?

No, because they were Nazis.

You realize this is not fucking star wars right? This is reality and in reality nothing if black and white.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. *finger guns*

[Marcianus]

Yes. Is there even an argument?

[Saiwania]

Versailles was tame and the German Revanchism is to be blamed on no-one but the Germans themselves. They knew what was Hitler's program and elected him anyway, everything they got they deserved. Good on the ones that resisted but that does not absolve the German people as a whole.

Adolf Hitler technically speaking, never won an election. His NSDAP and like-minded anti-democratic parties merely became the largest plurality in the Reichstag. He was appointed Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg and with the Wiemar constitution full of flaws, Hitler once in power- was able to maneuver to make his regime and hold on power permanent.

Versailles was quite unreasonable in some respects. The US congress never ratified it, so American legislators must've recognized it as bad. But from the standpoint of France, it was reasonable because the majority of World War I was fought on French soil and hence they got the most damage from the war and wanted reparations. In any case, I recognize the Occupation of the Ruhr as quite an overreaction. It served to inflame the far right of German politics more than was necessary.

[New Fulova]

The A-Bombs sucked. It was awful and terrible and hopefully will never happen again. That being said, I think that it was a necessary evil. But it is not something that America should be proud of, we shouldn't think of it as a victory, it was just doing what was necessary to end the bloodshed. It caused bloodshed as well, but...
IDK I think it can't be justified because we will never know whether it paid off or not.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No, they weren't justified, but I understand the logistics behind the bombing. Both sides wanted the war to end, and a show of force was necessary to get the terms of peace that the US wanted. I just don't think the a-bombs were necessary. We didn't understand the full consequences, long term, of using such weapons.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

No, they weren't justified, but I understand the logistics behind the bombing. Both sides wanted the war to end, and a show of force was necessary to get the terms of peace that the US wanted. I just don't think the a-bombs were necessary. We didn't understand the full consequences, long term, of using such weapons.

Well, we thought we did.

Up until the mid-1950s, it was widely believed that anyone who would suffer from radiation poisoning from an airburst would've either been roasted to a crisp or flattened in the blast.

Which is actually pretty much correct.

Problem is the fireball kinda touched Earth's surface, and thus we had a dash of fallout. The explosion also wasn't entirely "perfect" so some bits of irradiated bomb-fragments were scattered as primary fallout as well.

It was after later groundburst tests to look at enhancing the A-bomb's means of flipping tanks over that it was discovered that fallout was maybe a big deal.

[Sovaal]

No, they weren't justified, but I understand the logistics behind the bombing. Both sides wanted the war to end, and a show of force was necessary to get the terms of peace that the US wanted. I just don't think the a-bombs were necessary. We didn't understand the full consequences, long term, of using such weapons.

I mean I doubt any other realistic option on the table would have been any less destructive really.