The Worst day in Human History.

[Wright]

Actually, always think twice before attacking a bigger enemy who has more firepower. That is the lesson that we should derive from this.

Japan was actually the weakest of the main players in ww2 - their industrial output was dwarfed.
Germany launching bold attacks made more sense than Japan.

Some estimates I came across:


Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), "warmaking potential" for 1937:

US - 41.7%
Germany - 14.4%
USSR - 14.0%
UK - 10.2%
France - 4.2%
Japan - 3.5%
Italy - 2.5%


Steel production thousands of metric tons, 1937-38:

USA – 51,400
Germany – 23,300
USSR – 17,800
UK – 13,200
France – 7,901
Japan – 5,630
Italy – 2,323

Sources: USA, Germany, USSR and UK, USSBS, Report on the German War Economy, appendix on steel data, page 246. France, NBER: Macrohistory, production of commodities, Japan and Italy, the Economics of WW2.


Raymond Goldsmith, The Power of Victory (1946), munitions production in 1944, in 1944 dollars:

US - 42 billion dollars
Germany - 17 billion dollars
USSR - 16 billion dollars
UK - 11 billion dollars
Japan - 6 billion dollars
Canada - 1.5 billion dollars


Bairoch, International Industrialization levels, (1982), "total industrial potential":

*Western Europe - 37.3%
US - 31.4%
Germany - 12.7%
UK - 10.7%
USSR - 9.0%
Japan - 5.2%
France - 4.4%
Italy - 2.8%

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Japan was actually the weakest of the main players in ww2 - their industrial output was dwarfed.

..............

Which is exactly why poking a giant in the eye by attacking Pearl Harbor was not a good idea. That is my point.

 

[T-123456]

If these bombs were not used but instead a conventional war would have been fought,there would be ten times more dead people.
The US troops would have to land in Japan,the Japanese would have fought to the last man/woman.
But this was not the main reason,the allied forces didnt want Russians to land in Japan so the only way to prevent the Russians landing in Japan was the nuclear bomb.
The war ended before the Russians were ready to land in Japan.

 

[Wright]

Which is exactly why poking a giant in the eye by attacking Pearl Harbor was not a good idea. That is my point.

Agree - play with fire, be prepared to get burnt.

 

[ssethii]

Which is exactly why poking a giant in the eye by attacking Pearl Harbor was not a good idea. That is my point.

on a lighter note:
ya we already know that's your point.

 

[888jamie888]

1st, lets get a few historical facts into perspective:

Japan was in the process of capitulating. The US gov.t wanted to use the nukes as a show of force to intimidate Stalin, and NOT to save American or Japanese lives.

As if Americans were saving civilian lives when they were terror bombing Japanese civilian populated cities. Terror bombing of population centers, the brainchild of your very own "Bomber" Harris.

Also, do tell me, was the Bengal Famine which resulted in the deaths of 4 million indians also a necessary evil???

Although Japan had shown great interest in surrendering there were still many generals etc who would not surrender.
The fact that many people committed suicide at the end of the war shows how determined some of them were to carry on fighting.
No they weren't saving lives in the terror bombings. They were trying to pound them into submission, a side effect of course is that the war would end hence saving lives.
In a way the dropping of an atom bomb was inevitable, I am glad that it took place when only the US had nukes, as no one was around to fire back and start a nuclear war.
Cant say I know enough about the Bengal famine to talk about it.

Not sure us mere mortals can make judgements about Japan choosing when they could surrender, seeing as though they were the aggressors.

 

[Desert Fox]

Although Japan had shown great interest in surrendering there were still many generals etc who would not surrender.
The fact that many people committed suicide at the end of the war shows how determined some of them were to carry on fighting.
No they weren't saving lives in the terror bombings. They were trying to pound them into submission, a side effect of course is that the war would end hence saving lives.
In a way the dropping of an atom bomb was inevitable, I am glad that it took place when only the US had nukes, as no one was around to fire back and start a nuclear war.
Cant say I know enough about the Bengal famine to talk about it.

Not sure us mere mortals can make judgements about Japan choosing when they could surrender, seeing as though they were the aggressors.

Japan was contemplating on surrendering. The anti war cabinet was gaining more influence on the Emperor. The generals could only keep Japan in the war for so much longer. Japans every means of striking back were neutralized through constant allied aerial bombardment.

It absolutely made no sense to drop two nukes on two civilian populated centers.

The allies just wanted to put up a show of force to intimidate the Soviets who were not content with the results of the war, particularly in Europe since Hitler stalled their plans of a Communist dominated Europe.

Why no comment on the Bengal famine? 4 million innocent indians starved to death due to british policy, responsible for whom was Churchill.

 

[Solomon2]

If these bombs were not used but instead a conventional war would have been fought,there would be ten times more dead people.
The US troops would have to land in Japan,the Japanese would have fought to the last man/woman.

Yes. Based on the tenacious struggles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa Japanese casualties alone would have easily topped one million, much of these self-inflicted: during the Okinawa battle Japanese troops would watch their commanders commit hara-kiri with their swords, then blow themselves up with grenades.

The title of the thread is a misnomer. The two atomic bombings combined were not as destructive in terms of human life as the firebombing of Tokyo several months earlier. Japan did not surrender then. So human casualties alone were not what caused Japan to surrender: the shock of the atomic bomb was, along with the sweetener from the Americans that the Emperor himself would not be touched.

Thus Japan's government and surviving economy remained intact until America restructured both during the Occupation. Japan is the living breathing example of mostly-liberal democracy successfully imposed through external conquest rather than internal political development.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Yes. Based on the tenacious struggles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa Japanese casualties alone would have easily topped one million, much of these self-inflicted: during the Okinawa battle Japanese troops would watch their commanders commit hara-kiri with their swords, then blow themselves up with grenades.

The title of the thread is a misnomer. The two atomic bombings combined were not as destructive in terms of human life as the firebombing of Tokyo several months earlier. Japan did not surrender then. So human casualties alone were not what caused Japan to surrender: the shock of the atomic bomb was, along with the sweetener from the Americans that the Emperor himself would not be touched.

Thus Japan's government and surviving economy remained intact until America restructured both during the Occupation. Japan is the living breathing example of mostly-liberal democracy successfully imposed through external conquest rather than internal political development.

The firebombing of Dresden was first.

 

[dexter]

Hundreds of schoolgirls being killed every day by drones? Please post a source for that claim or withdraw it.

Bro dont you read newspapers or watch TV ??
70% CASUALITIES in drone strikes are of civilians

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Bro dont you read newspapers or watch TV ??
70% CASUALITIES in drone strikes are of civilians

Where are the "hundreds of schoolgirls killed DAILY"? Or what you said is only "Josh-e-Khitabat"?

 

[888jamie888]

Japan was contemplating on surrendering. The anti war cabinet was gaining more influence on the Emperor. The generals could only keep Japan in the war for so much longer. Japans every means of striking back were neutralized through constant allied aerial bombardment.

It absolutely made no sense to drop two nukes on two civilian populated centers.

The allies just wanted to put up a show of force to intimidate the Soviets who were not content with the results of the war, particularly in Europe since Hitler stalled their plans of a Communist dominated Europe.

Why no comment on the Bengal famine? 4 million innocent indians starved to death due to british policy, responsible for whom was Churchill.

Don't get me wrong I agree with lots of what you are saying, stalin was a big factor.
Because I don't really know enough about the Bengal famine to make judgements about it..

 

[hunter_hunted]

 

[dexter]

Where are the "hundreds of schoolgirls killed DAILY"? Or what you said is only "Josh-e-Khitabat"?

Oh bhai forgive me my mistake !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cat12345]

Nuking places isn't the worst day in Human history. I believe the worst day in human history is when an old man predicts the world ending. LOL and it didn't end.