I got to thinking last night that it seems most of the world hates the U.S. right now. Seems we are butting out nose into a lot of places where we don’t belong (Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect), and the rest of the world doesn’t like it.
So I’m wondering, what was the world’s opinion of the U.S. after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? Were people pretty much okay with that? Were we thought to be monsters? Were most countries somewhere in between?
I would imagine that China, Korea and all of Southeast Asia were thrilled about the A-bomb at the time. It put an end, once and for all, to the occupation.
Haj
World opinion was mixed. Even in the U.S., the opinion was mixed. Most people were glad that the war was coming to an end. But many were horrified at the development of such a destructive weapon.
The uneasiness between the Soviet Union and the US had already started before August 6, 1945.
As for the rest of the world, it depended upon whom you feared more: the US or the USSR.
Yes the world was aghast and horrified at our wanton killing of German and Japanese civilians. The mass destruciton of German and Japanese cities left the rest of the world wondering how a civliized society like us could stoop so low.
Sarcasm - thank you very much.
What about the firebombing of Dresden? Not to stick up for Hitler, but Dresden had no industrial/military strategic value that was vital to Germany’s war effort. It was mainly valuable for art and culture. I can definitely support the destruction of Germany’s ability to fight the war by hitting strategic targets. But for what strategic purpose did the civilians of Dresden have to pay with their lives? What strategic purpose was served by the loss of culture?
In Civilization III, if you use nukes at all, your reputation with all the other civs is mud for the remainder of the game.
Jomo Mojo: “Let them hate, as long as they fear.” - Possibly the stupidest thing Machiavelli ever said. The only thing it has to recommend it is that it actually works. Other than that, it is best forgotten.
In any case, the citizens of Dresden paid with their lives because they were civilians. The US needed to prove to Germany and the German civilians that it would do anything within its power to end the war, and that it would behoove the average Fritz Deutschlander to work as hard as possible to oust the Nazis. Because, you see, it’s much worse to die in a firestorm than in a death camp. Much worse.
In any case, Dresden and Tokyo were setpieces and examples, pour encourager les autres. Only, they didn’t really work. They only time that line of thinking worked was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those examples completely ended the whole notion. War is Hell, but with plutonium it’s also Armageddon.
Which brings me right back to Machiavelli.
The U.S. came out of WW2 with a stronger economy, its infrastructure undamaged, few… I think 6 civillian deaths, and fewer military casualties than most of the nations involved.
I would guess the feeling was a mixture of envy and appreciation.
If you read a little of the history of WWII, you will find out just how fucking awful the Nazis, the Japanese and the Soviets were in their prosecution of war. Next to them, we were fucking saints. Sure, we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but do read a little about the activities of the Japanese prior to and during WWII, and read about Europe under the Nazis, and if you can really feel bad about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki after that, I will nominate YOU for sainthood.
Why didn’t the US nuke Tokyo? Or were they eventually going to do so?
From my memory of the A-Bomb Museum exhibit’s in Hiroshima, Tokyo was never considered much as a target. The U.S. had already bombed it extensively. The U.S. wanted to use the A-Bomb on a city that was both an industrial center and relatively unscathed by earlier bombing. That way it would have more effect both from a military and a psychological standpoint.
Can you recommend me a book or two that I should read about this?
I’ve read Antony Beevor’s “Stalingrad” and “The Fall of Berlin.” Both are well documented (they have a bibliography if you want to read source material, etc.) and are a decent read.
There was a recent thread around here about the rape of nanking.
The British RAF took a more active role than the USAF in the unfortunate firebombing of Dresden though, so it seems a little unfair of people to solely blame the US for that. Blame the Allies, sure.
For the main part, I suspect people’s opinions on the US after WWII rather depended on what side your country was on, and whether you had other things to worry about like certain areas in the Middle East. On another computer earlier I found a couple of witness accounts from the time. I can’t seem to find them now from here, but one German eyewitness account wasn’t fond of any of the Allied countries, whereas a Frenchman was praising the US forces.
Here’s a good one on the Nazi terror in Germany, highlighting the actions of ordinary citizens in it (i.e., it wasn’t just the leaders and their soldiers):
NAZI TERROR:
The Gestapo, Jews and Ordinary Germans
By Eric A. Johnson
Here’s a good one about the horrors on the Soviet front:
“War Without Garlands” by Robert Kershaw
and here’s a good one on the Japanese bad boys who made their country so eminently nukable:
This one for starters:
The Rape of Nanking : The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II
by Iris Chang
And then you can look up stuff about the Korean comfort women, the Burma railroad, the Bataan death march and tons of other fun stuff that’ll make you think a little differently about Japan in those days.
Disclaimer: I really like modern Japan and think it’s a pretty damn cool culture. Things do change.
My favorite writer on WWII is Alan Moorehead, an Aussie who writes mostly about his experiences in North Africa in WWII. His books are extremely readable.
All the books listed here should be obtainable if you have access to a good library system, as they are both current and popular.
There was a special on the history channel awhile back that. Tokyo was the next target but Japan surrendered just in time to save it.
That was Caligula.
By contrast, 70,000 died in Nagasaki.
A book I read about the target selection stated that Tokyo was not targeted due to the fact that it was already extensively damaged and that it was the home of the emperor. If the American’s had killed him, it is debatable what the outcome would have been. Would the Japanese have surrendered right away or would they have refused to surrender wanting to kill as many Americans as possible in order to get revenge? I wish I could remember the title of the book because it had some interesting speculation.
I just finished reading A War to be Won which describes the chaos left after the war. During the immediate post war years, I would expect that ethical discussions were skipped while people tried to find ways to keep from starving.