# Yet Another WWII Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 10, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959 "2010-05-10T20:21:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/41 "2010-05-12T19:25:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The V2’s might not have been effective but they were being used against Britain - so the British would have seen stopping them as a legitimate goal. It would have made as much military sense as blowing up some Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe base anyway. > > There would have been other considerations too. The Ruhr valley was in western Germany, which meant its factories were going to be controlled by the western allies after the war. Peenemunde was in Prussia and was going to be occupied by the Soviets. I can see Washington and London thinking it would be preferable for Stalin to take possession of a radioactive ruin rather than a functional missile development base. Assuming the bomb was ready in late '44 there would have been little point in using it on Peenemunde- Peenemunde was an R&D site and by this time its work was over, the V2 were being produced in an underground factory in Austria and launched from Belgium. Also Peenemunde was already a ruin having been hit by RAF and 8th Air Force raids from 1943 onwards. When the Russians arrived in May 1945 there was very little left for them to grab. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/42 "2010-05-12T19:26:21Z")
> [@](#): > > IIRC the Japanese did surrender in China, in large numbers. Against the W Allies OTH they were often not given that option, at one time Marines had to be offered a pint of ice cream for not killing Japanese. That’s extremely one-sided. It was far more common for Japanese soldiers to refuse to offer to surrender than it was for American soldiers to refuse to accept the offer. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/43 "2010-05-12T19:42:46Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The simplest answer to **Wakinyan** ’s question is twofold: > > 1. The Germans had a tradition of surrendering when any hope of victory was lost; the Japanese did not. An invasion of _Fastung Europa_ and of Germany, while expensive in military terms, would inevitably lead to a surrender at an ‘affordable’ cost in lives and materiel. (Pardon the apparent callousness; I’m trying to phrase the answer in military strategic thought, not ethical terms.) Not so with Japan – even if it were down to 13-year-old boys, grandmothers, and invalids wielding bamboo spears, they were committed to fight on rather than surrender. > > 2. Unlike the situation the year before with Germany, we had a viable alternative. We could, if needed, bomb Japan into submission – or at least military irrelevance. (We could also blockade it, a viable threat against an island nation dependent on imports for its war economy.) We still planned an invasion – but the threats of starving them out or destroying them from the air were believable. Not sure \*\*Wakinyan \*\*asked a question, seemed to be an asertion that there was no possibility of the A Bomb being used on Germany. Also, not sure what you are arguing - is it at \*\*Wakinyan \*\*is correct and there was no thought of using the bomb in Europe? If so, I think you need to address some of the points raised by me (and others). ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/44 "2010-05-12T21:30:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, in those days it was just one more weapon. Why _not_ use it? If you can firebomb a city with 1000 bombers and 20000 bombs, killing 100,000 people- why not with _one_ bomb? > > We only consider it’s unthinkable after 60 years of MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction, where any use of a nuke IS unthinkable, as it means the end of life as we know it. Back then, it just made more dead enemies. > > Now, yes, even Hitler had some weapons- nerve gas- he wouldn’t use. But they were against the Geneva Conventions\*. A atomic bomb wasn’t, of course. > > - and he knew we could strike back with more of the same, of course. I remember reading\* that the Western Allies were just waiting with baited breath for the Germans to use chemical warfare so they could unleash a vast stockpile on the Germans. The Germans knew this so they didn’t use it. \*I think it was “Day of Battle” by Rick Atkinson. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/45 "2010-05-12T22:43:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I remember reading\* that the Western Allies were just waiting with baited breath for the Germans to use chemical warfare so they could unleash a vast stockpile on the Germans. The Germans knew this so they didn’t use it. > > \*I think it was “Day of Battle” by Rick Atkinson. I’ve read Atkinson’s books and I don’t remember this. And it seems unlikely. Why would the Americans and the British want to use chemical weapons? They were ready to if they had to, but I can’t see any reason why they would be hoping for the opportunity. I swear it’s like some people just can’t accept the idea that the United States was ever on the right side of anything. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/46 "2010-05-12T23:12:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > My guess would have been, had there been any target, Dresden. For much the same reasons as it was picked to be firebombed. One significant consensus in the recent historical literature in English on Dresden, both pro and anti the attack, is that the city was not “picked” to be firebombed. The RAF had been dropping incendaries on most of their raids for years in the hope that they could ignite a firestorm akin to what they’d achieved in Hamburg. That was intended as the ideal outcome of most raids. There had been nothing special about the Dresden mission in advance. It happened to be the next target on the list and it happened to be the raid where everything went “right” and they got a repeat of Hamburg. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/47 "2010-05-13T14:46:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve read Atkinson’s books and I don’t remember this. And it seems unlikely. Why would the Americans and the British want to use chemical weapons? They were ready to if they had to, but I can’t see any reason why they would be hoping for the opportunity. > > I swear it’s like some people just can’t accept the idea that the United States was ever on the right side of anything. I could very well be wrong about the book…but I still think it might have been his book. He had a section in there where he talked about how some chemical agents had gotten loose in Italy, I think in a German air-raid and it was from a stockpile that was stocked up in the hopes they could use it if the Germans did first And why wouldn’t this be ‘in the right’? The United States didn’t use them…but if the Germans used them first then the gloves were off. This is hardly ‘evil’ IMO. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/48 "2010-05-13T14:55:30Z")
Portraying the US and GB as just sitting around hoping the Germans would use some chemical weapons so they could soak their cities in them makes them sound somewhat evil. They had large stockpiles and the capabilities to deliver them, but mostly for MAD purposes - I don’t think anyone really wanted to use them. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/49 "2010-05-13T15:57:33Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > I guess the Hiroshima bomb was the only weapon never tested before being used in combat. It _was_ tested, at Trinity. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/50 "2010-05-13T16:00:09Z")
> [@davekhps](#): > > It _was_ tested, at Trinity. No, the Nagasaki bomb was tested at Trinity. Fat Man and Little Boy were not identical devices. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/51 "2010-05-13T16:00:32Z")
No, the implosion bomb was tested at Trinity and the second implosion bomb was used at Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb was a simpler gun type which they decided didn’t need testing. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/52 "2010-05-13T16:42:20Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > One significant consensus in the recent historical literature in English on Dresden, both pro and anti the attack, is that the city was not “picked” to be firebombed. The RAF had been dropping incendaries on most of their raids for years in the hope that they could ignite a firestorm akin to what they’d achieved in Hamburg. That was intended as the ideal outcome of most raids. There had been nothing special about the Dresden mission in advance. It happened to be the next target on the list and it happened to be the raid where everything went “right” and they got a repeat of Hamburg. That’s a little bit of an unfair representation of what I said. Dresden was “picked” to the extent it was the next target in line for the treatment. I’m not suggesting there was anything particularly special about it. It was relatively unscathed (certainly compared to Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin etc) and would have made a good target for the big one. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/53 "2010-05-13T17:25:19Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > IIRC the Japanese did surrender in China, in large numbers. Against the W Allies OTH they were often not given that option, at one time Marines had to be offered a pint of ice cream for not killing Japanese. Hey now! This is not entirely fair. The Japanese treated prisoners of war so poorly in the beginning of the war that it is reasonable to assume surrender was not an option. While it is probably in poor taste to say this…the Japanese had Karma bite them in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/54 "2010-05-13T17:29:11Z")
Yeah, part of the aversion of surrender to the japanese was cultural, but part was propoganda. Basically: “You know all that horrible sick shit we do to prisoners? They’ll do that to you!” makes death seem preferable. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/55 "2010-05-13T19:04:50Z")
For what it’s worth, I’ve read a lot of Richard Feynman’s memoirs of his time at Los Alamos, and he distinctly regrets not re-evaluating the moral stance of his work after Germany surrendered. Apparently, for him at least, the reason he was helping to build the bomb was to stop the Nazis. So at least one person considered nuking Germany during WW2. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/56 "2010-05-13T19:33:24Z")
> [@villa](#): > > That’s a little bit of an unfair representation of what I said. Dresden was “picked” to the extent it was the next target in line for the treatment. I’m not suggesting there was anything particularly special about it. It was relatively unscathed (certainly compared to Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin etc) and would have made a good target for the big one. Fair enough. Though you could just as plausibly have suggested the likes of Halle or Chemnitz as Dresden. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/57 "2010-05-13T19:39:42Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > I could very well be wrong about the book…but I still think it might have been his book. He had a section in there where he talked about how some chemical agents had gotten loose in Italy, I think in a German air-raid and it was from a stockpile that was stocked up in the hopes they could use it if the Germans did first No doubt a reference to [Bari in December 1943](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari#John_Harvey). Though there is a distinct difference between taking the precaution of moving some of your mustard gas stockpile to Europe to have handy if the Germans escalate and _hoping_ that they will. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/58 "2010-05-13T20:20:13Z")
> [@](#): > > And why wouldn’t this be ‘in the right’? The United States didn’t use them…but if the Germans used them first then the gloves were off. This is hardly ‘evil’ IMO. Pretty much what several of us have said. The United States wasn’t evil because it was prepared for the possibility of having to use chemical weapons. But you posted that they “were just waiting with baited breath for the Germans to use chemical warfare so they could unleash a vast stockpile on the Germans”. I’ve never heard any evidence that the allies wanted an excuse to use chemical weapons. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/59 "2010-05-13T21:11:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Pretty much what several of us have said. The United States wasn’t evil because it was prepared for the possibility of having to use chemical weapons. But you posted that they “were just waiting with baited breath for the Germans to use chemical warfare so they could unleash a vast stockpile on the Germans”. I’ve never heard any evidence that the allies wanted an excuse to use chemical weapons. Oh c’mon…you know there had to be a sizeable number of peeps that were! 😃 Anyway, I was remembering the book and that was the gist I got from it…that many really did want the Germans to use it as it would have been useful in places like Italy. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959/60 "2010-05-13T21:13:31Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > No, the Nagasaki bomb was tested at Trinity. Fat Man and Little Boy were not identical devices. Duh. I knew that. What an embarrassing brain fart. (backs sheepishly out of the room…) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-wwii-question/538959.md?page=2)