I recently read a book about Truman’s first four months in office (The Accidental President) that strongly implies that the atomic bomb would not be used in Europe, due to the geographic proximity of the Allied countries and an “understanding” that a weapon of such devastation should be reserved for the “racially inferior” Japanese. Of course, the later “mass devastation” claim suffers from the multiple fire-storm bombings of several German cities by allied air powers.
Yeah, there is a lot of revisionist thinking like that. But in fact, there is little doubt that had it been needed, an atomic bomb would have been used on Germany. And according to some of those revisionists, the use of the bombs was only to awe the Russians, so using it somewhere where the Russians could see the effects would have been the ticket. Of course, as was done in Japan, they would have had to use a city not yet seriously bombed to demonstrate the effects. Rearranging rubble wouldn’t be good enough.
The March, 1945 fire storm bombings in Japan killed more people than either of the atomic bombs did.
Also, Brian, waiting much longer was not an option. Stalin was not happy with the Western allies’ progress. Soviet blood was being lost wholesale. There was a real concern he might do a separate deal with the Nazis. The invasion of France was supposed to be coordinated with a major Soviet assault in the east. The allies had already had to postpone the invasion from May because of weather.
Kalkkuna almost 6 years ago
ALL history has those ‘silent evidence’ parts. Only the survivors write the story of what happened.
gigagrouch almost 6 years ago
panel 2…
(no maple-leaf flag in 1944)
Masterskrain Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I shudder to think of what might have happened if the current occupant had been in office in 1944…
Fido (aka Felix Rex) Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I recently read a book about Truman’s first four months in office (The Accidental President) that strongly implies that the atomic bomb would not be used in Europe, due to the geographic proximity of the Allied countries and an “understanding” that a weapon of such devastation should be reserved for the “racially inferior” Japanese. Of course, the later “mass devastation” claim suffers from the multiple fire-storm bombings of several German cities by allied air powers.
Gary Williams Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I am sure that they would have dropped the bomb on Berlin the instant it was available.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Yeah, there is a lot of revisionist thinking like that. But in fact, there is little doubt that had it been needed, an atomic bomb would have been used on Germany. And according to some of those revisionists, the use of the bombs was only to awe the Russians, so using it somewhere where the Russians could see the effects would have been the ticket. Of course, as was done in Japan, they would have had to use a city not yet seriously bombed to demonstrate the effects. Rearranging rubble wouldn’t be good enough.
The March, 1945 fire storm bombings in Japan killed more people than either of the atomic bombs did.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Also, Brian, waiting much longer was not an option. Stalin was not happy with the Western allies’ progress. Soviet blood was being lost wholesale. There was a real concern he might do a separate deal with the Nazis. The invasion of France was supposed to be coordinated with a major Soviet assault in the east. The allies had already had to postpone the invasion from May because of weather.
Smitty almost 6 years ago
Truman sure does love his nukes! He’s always hugging them.
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Thanks for the reminder, Brian.
No mention of D-Day in my local newspaper. Don’t know about TV.
Pearl Harbor less and less — Aug 6 and 9, barely a mention, if that.
toahero almost 6 years ago
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Joe1962 Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Our greatest generation!