View Full Version : If the Omaha Beach push had failed.....
….could D-Day have still been successful? Like if Omaha Beach would have had to be evacuated?
Strategically it was kind of in the center of the invasion beaches, and was the most touch-and-go, by-the-hair-on-your-ass objective. The most costly also. But all the other beachheads were successful with less problems. Could D-Day have survived without success at Omaha?
If only Omaha had failed the overall assault would probably have still succeeded. If 2 beaches had failed then I think it would have been a disaster.
Germany was already on the cusp of collapse so who knows.
Sure it could have, but would have taken longer. Remember you have Utah Beach, Point Du Hoc and the British beaches of Gold, Juno, etc. I was talking with my 96 year old father in law today and he was a Buck Sergeant with the 2nd battalion, 16th Infantry Regt. Ist Infantry Division, stationed in Dorchester, England for training before the invasion. He was in the 2nd wave at Easy Red, Omaha Beach. He was carrying a radio telephone and a Thompson machine gun. They were offloaded into the landing craft at 2:30am and sailed in circles until their time to storm the beach. He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC.
They found the 1st Wave all bunched up, not making any progress. As he got behind a tank obstacle, his radio telephone on his back was hit by German fire and destroyed. He dumped it and made his way across the open sand to more cover and grabbed one section of a Bangalore Torpedo and went with another infantryman up to a heavily barbed wire section by one of the lanes inland. He helped assemble the Bangalore Torpedo, slid it under the wire and was shot twice in the left leg as he tried to move away from the impending explosion. He dragged himself back and laid for hours until he got medical treatment. He was sent back across the channel later that same day and spent two weeks in an English hospital before checking himself out, and finding the next transport across the channel to join his unit. He fought across France, Belgium, Germany and into Czechoslovakia before returning home in December 1945.
From 1946-1949 he went to college, did ROTC, and went back into the Army as a 2LT in 1950. Really tough gentleman, however when the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, he didn't want to see it nor re-live it all. He has never gone back to Normandy.
HardToHandle
06-07-19, 00:14
The Commonwealth landings were successful further east. Abandoning the single beach wouldn’t have immediately doomed the landings. As the narrow Omaha landing was flanked by Utah and the British beaches. Moreover, the worsening weather in the days following might have made a second Dieppe evacuation difficult at best.
Omaha was important to overcoming resistance, but most important was the planned use for the Mulberries prefab port sections. In the end, the Omaha Beach Mulberry only operated for a short time before being disabled by bad weather. It still was a major logistical hub and the main fuel delivery point.
titsonritz
06-07-19, 00:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWzwoczr5GE
Sure it could have, but would have taken longer. Remember you have Utah Beach, Point Du Hoc and the British beaches of Gold, Juno, etc. I was talking with my 96 year old father in law today and he was a Buck Sergeant with the 2nd battalion, 16th Infantry Regt. Ist Infantry Division, stationed in Dorchester, England for training before the invasion. He was in the 2nd wave at Easy Red, Omaha Beach. He was carrying a radio telephone and a Thompson machine gun. They were offloaded into the landing craft at 2:30am and sailed in circles until their time to storm the beach. He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC.
They found the 1st Wave all bunched up, not making any progress. As he got behind a tank obstacle, his radio telephone on his back was hit by German fire and destroyed. He dumped it and made his way across the open sand to more cover and grabbed one section of a Bangalore Torpedo and went with another infantryman up to a heavily barbed wire section by one of the lanes inland. He helped assemble the Bangalore Torpedo, slid it under the wire and was shot twice in the left leg as he tried to move away from the impending explosion. He dragged himself back and laid for hours until he got medical treatment. He was sent back across the channel later that same day and spent two weeks in an English hospital before checking himself out, and finding the next transport across the channel to join his unit. He fought across France, Belgium, Germany and into Czechoslovakia before returning home in December 1945.
From 1946-1949 he went to college, did ROTC, and went back into the Army as a 2LT in 1950. Really tough gentleman, however when the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, he didn't want to see it nor re-live it all. He has never gone back to Normandy.
Tell him men like him are the reason why I and many of the men I served with joined. We could only have hoped to fill a fraction of their boots.
Even if we never successfully opened up a western front, eventually Berlin was going to get nuked.
We designed the bomb for Germany, not Japan.
V2 rockets, Me262s, Stg45 rifles and all the other tech advances of the Germans would ultimately have been meaningless because eventually Berlin was going to get nuked. The only other thing that "may" have changed is the Russian's might have blitzed all the way to the Atlantic wall if we failed to establish a foothold.
And come the end of the war, they may or may not have retreated to previously agreed areas of occupation. Probably under threat of "the bomb" but the cold war would have arrived a lot sooner.
Tell him men like him are the reason why I and many of the men I served with joined. We could only have hoped to fill a fraction of their boots.
That is an understatement. Kudos to his FIL and all his buddies.
dwhitehorne
06-07-19, 05:16
Sure it could have, but would have taken longer. Remember you have Utah Beach, Point Du Hoc and the British beaches of Gold, Juno, etc. I was talking with my 96 year old father in law today and he was a Buck Sergeant with the 2nd battalion, 16th Infantry Regt. Ist Infantry Division, stationed in Dorchester, England for training before the invasion. He was in the 2nd wave at Easy Red, Omaha Beach. He was carrying a radio telephone and a Thompson machine gun. They were offloaded into the landing craft at 2:30am and sailed in circles until their time to storm the beach. He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC.
They found the 1st Wave all bunched up, not making any progress. As he got behind a tank obstacle, his radio telephone on his back was hit by German fire and destroyed. He dumped it and made his way across the open sand to more cover and grabbed one section of a Bangalore Torpedo and went with another infantryman up to a heavily barbed wire section by one of the lanes inland. He helped assemble the Bangalore Torpedo, slid it under the wire and was shot twice in the left leg as he tried to move away from the impending explosion. He dragged himself back and laid for hours until he got medical treatment. He was sent back across the channel later that same day and spent two weeks in an English hospital before checking himself out, and finding the next transport across the channel to join his unit. He fought across France, Belgium, Germany and into Czechoslovakia before returning home in December 1945.
From 1946-1949 he went to college, did ROTC, and went back into the Army as a 2LT in 1950. Really tough gentleman, however when the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, he didn't want to see it nor re-live it all. He has never gone back to Normandy.
I can't even image what these men went thought. This statement is as genuine as it gets: He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC. clearly from someone who has been there and done that. David
Grand58742
06-07-19, 07:26
Didn't want to start a new thread, but this is awesome.
https://time.com/5601223/d-day-veteran-97-parachutes-normandy/
For the second time in his life, Tom Rice, a 97-year-old from San Diego, has parachuted into Normandy. Wednesday’s feat, however, was a lot more joyous than his first jump three-quarters of a century earlier.
Rice’s leap was part of the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the allied invasion of the French region of Normandy that began on June 6, 1944, and marked a turning point in World War II. Among the commemorative events was a parachute jump, which included Rice and about 200 other parachutists.
“It went perfect, perfect jump,” he said, according to the Associated Press.
Rice jumped in tandem from a C-47 transporter Wednesday and landed in the same area as his first jump — outside the Normandy town of Carentan, the site of a key WWII battle.
The_War_Wagon
06-07-19, 08:41
Not to derail the thread, but here's another thought. What if they HAD gone in at Calais, under Patton's plan - WITH Patton commanding - against all those Panzers? Could they still have succeeded?
Not to derail the thread, but here's another thought. What if they HAD gone in at Calais, under Patton's plan - WITH Patton commanding - against all those Panzers? Could they still have succeeded?
Probably, just because we have more of more. But a lot more would be lost.
Interesting that this just popped up,,,,,,,http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2019/06/germanys-lost-wwii-uranium-and-how.html?m=1
It is a glimpse of how close the Germans were to an Atomic Bomb !!!
BoringGuy45
06-07-19, 12:09
Sure it could have, but would have taken longer. Remember you have Utah Beach, Point Du Hoc and the British beaches of Gold, Juno, etc. I was talking with my 96 year old father in law today and he was a Buck Sergeant with the 2nd battalion, 16th Infantry Regt. Ist Infantry Division, stationed in Dorchester, England for training before the invasion. He was in the 2nd wave at Easy Red, Omaha Beach. He was carrying a radio telephone and a Thompson machine gun. They were offloaded into the landing craft at 2:30am and sailed in circles until their time to storm the beach. He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC.
They found the 1st Wave all bunched up, not making any progress. As he got behind a tank obstacle, his radio telephone on his back was hit by German fire and destroyed. He dumped it and made his way across the open sand to more cover and grabbed one section of a Bangalore Torpedo and went with another infantryman up to a heavily barbed wire section by one of the lanes inland. He helped assemble the Bangalore Torpedo, slid it under the wire and was shot twice in the left leg as he tried to move away from the impending explosion. He dragged himself back and laid for hours until he got medical treatment. He was sent back across the channel later that same day and spent two weeks in an English hospital before checking himself out, and finding the next transport across the channel to join his unit. He fought across France, Belgium, Germany and into Czechoslovakia before returning home in December 1945.
From 1946-1949 he went to college, did ROTC, and went back into the Army as a 2LT in 1950. Really tough gentleman, however when the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, he didn't want to see it nor re-live it all. He has never gone back to Normandy.
Your grandfather will forever be a greater man that I am.
If D Day had failed, the world would be a dark and horrible place.
Europe wouldn't be full of Arabs and Somalis.
Trannies wouldn't be in our schools and libraries "reading" to our kids.
Homos wouldn't be parading in the streets and sodomizing each other and recruiting more gays by sexually abusing adolescents and kids.
A real nightmare scenario!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXUQJMaSOzE
BoringGuy45
06-07-19, 17:12
If D Day had failed, the world would be a dark and horrible place.
Europe wouldn't be full of Arabs and Somalis.
Trannies wouldn't be in our schools and libraries "reading" to our kids.
Homos wouldn't be parading in the streets and sodomizing each other and recruiting more gays by sexually abusing adolescents and kids.
A real nightmare scenario!!!
I hope you're being facetious.
SeriousStudent
06-07-19, 17:44
Benito, you grow wearisome.
Politics notwithstanding....America has never had a problem sending its children to die for other people.
We would have kept tossing bodies and tossing bodies until we won.
Then, as usual, sent more people to rebuild.
We have urban blight at home we do nothing about.
I'm not a bleeding heart and I'm not a hawk....and while it makes for good TV to see a boogie woogie boy from Company B run up and punch a Nazi or a Viet Cong or Haji....
He was still someone's child that family wont get back for someone elses victory. I feel like sometimes....sometimes....America is the world's Foreign Legion.
Nobody cares.
Didn't want to start a new thread, but this is awesome.
https://time.com/5601223/d-day-veteran-97-parachutes-normandy/
I saw that video on Facebook. Ninety-freaking-seven years old! That man will pass someday with a smile on his face. Can you imagine living to 97, in his shape no less which is a gift in and of itself, but to actually do what you did when you were 20? Minus the MG tracers and flak popping all over the place of course! Something tells me that old man thought of things he hadn't in a l-o-n-g time. Probably also found out that his adrenal glands still work just fine! ;)
Politics notwithstanding....America has never had a problem sending its children to die for other people.
We would have kept tossing bodies and tossing bodies until we won.
Then, as usual, sent more people to rebuild.
We have urban blight at home we do nothing about.
I'm not a bleeding heart and I'm not a hawk....and while it makes for good TV to see a boogie woogie boy from Company B run up and punch a Nazi or a Viet Cong or Haji....
He was still someone's child that family wont get back for someone elses victory. I feel like sometimes....sometimes....America is the world's Foreign Legion.
Nobody cares.
You must certainly be aware that there are times we actually DO need to break things and kill people, right? Like legit? WWII is one of those times. Afghanistan after 9-11 (not necessarily continuing for 18 years later) had to be done.
I know you're throwing this out there, but as a cop no less you surely know that there are times you need to do what you might instinctively avoid. Like "Hell, I really don't want to do this but someone needs an ass-whooping".
Politics notwithstanding....America has never had a problem sending its children to die for other people.
We would have kept tossing bodies and tossing bodies until we won.
Then, as usual, sent more people to rebuild.
We have urban blight at home we do nothing about.
I'm not a bleeding heart and I'm not a hawk....and while it makes for good TV to see a boogie woogie boy from Company B run up and punch a Nazi or a Viet Cong or Haji....
He was still someone's child that family wont get back for someone elses victory. I feel like sometimes....sometimes....America is the world's Foreign Legion.
Nobody cares.
The world is a complicated place. It would be great if we could just stay home and not have to deal with people who would exterminate our society just because of our successes and standard of living. We could live in a world like one big Mother Goose Story, with happy endings for everyone. I would prefer a world like that.
Unfortunately, its survival of the fittest, the biggest and the baddest. That involves power projection and the use of lethal force on their turf so we don't have to face it here. This sort of activity has not been a perfect way of doing things, and I've seen it first hand in some of these dung heap nations. Trial and error, people live, people die. You can argue the Vietnam War until your voice gives out - the same with Nicaragua, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia.............. I don't have all the answers and I can see faults in all of it. But in the big bad world we operate in, being proactive in killing your enemies over there, is better than facing them here. If my Country ever called me up for duty again, I'd go in a heartbeat.
I have also wondered how much the miracle on Omaha was aided by Navy destroyers which came in just close enough to the beach to not run aground to "snipe" at German positions up on the cliff with 5" guns.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2004/june/gallant-destroyers-d-day
From another article: "The second landing wave came in and likewise found itself in a meat grinder. The result was sickening. Around 9 am Captain Outerbridge felt he could stand no more. He wasn’t going to let his ship be an impotent spectator of the terrible drama that was being played out before his eyes. Without orders, Outerbridge headed closer ashore until the O’Brien was only 500 yards from the bloodstained beaches.
The skipper ordered a hard right until O’Brien paralleled the shoreline and its deadly cliffs. All 5-inch/38-caliber batteries commenced firing at the German pillboxes and machine-gun nests that were perched high above the beaches. After the first salvo, the ship received radio calls from Army units that were huddled at the bottom of the cliffs, unable to advance but unwilling to retreat.
Outerbridge asked if anyone had been hit by the ship’s salvo. No, came the reply—but please raise your fire, because we are here just below! O’Brien continued down the coast about a mile or so until reaching Pointe du Hoc. At one point, observers from the destroyer spotted German soldiers fleeing from the cliffs to a lone building just to the rear. It was quickly demolished—the soldiers still inside—by O’Brien’s well-aimed 5-inch shells."
The world is a complicated place. It would be great if we could just stay home and not have to deal with people who would exterminate our society just because of our successes and standard of living. We could live in a world like one big Mother Goose Story, with happy endings for everyone. I would prefer a world like that.
Unfortunately, its survival of the fittest, the biggest and the baddest. That involves power projection and the use of lethal force on their turf so we don't have to face it here. This sort of activity has not been a perfect way of doing things, and I've seen it first hand in some of these dung heap nations. Trial and error, people live, people die. You can argue the Vietnam War until your voice gives out - the same with Nicaragua, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia.............. I don't have all the answers and I can see faults in all of it. But in the big bad world we operate in, being proactive in killing your enemies over there, is better than facing them here. If my Country ever called me up for duty again, I'd go in a heartbeat.
:thank_you2: Well put!
I'm not saying NOT to put folks on their ass; I'm just saying it gets frustrating at times.
But more to the point, a D Day defeat would not have defined the war for us like it did for Germany. We just would have kept at it. As was stated, by '44 Germany was dying.
Yeah they had all kinds of cool toys but were just spread out too thin and running out of friends fast.
Plus we just would have A-bombed them.
I remember once reading this autobiography of this German spy who was in the US by like 1944. German born and taught to speak good English; him and an Army Air Force defector went to NYC to try to get intel on power plants or some such.
He said that once he got to NYC proper; it didn't even seem like there was a war going on whereas in Germany it was this big deal.
It was titled Agent 18 or something. But it wasn't our war to win; it was Germany and Japan's to lose.
The world is a complicated place. It would be great if we could just stay home and not have to deal with people who would exterminate our society just because of our successes and standard of living. We could live in a world like one big Mother Goose Story, with happy endings for everyone. I would prefer a world like that.
Unfortunately, its survival of the fittest, the biggest and the baddest. That involves power projection and the use of lethal force on their turf so we don't have to face it here. This sort of activity has not been a perfect way of doing things, and I've seen it first hand in some of these dung heap nations. Trial and error, people live, people die. You can argue the Vietnam War until your voice gives out - the same with Nicaragua, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia.............. I don't have all the answers and I can see faults in all of it. But in the big bad world we operate in, being proactive in killing your enemies over there, is better than facing them here. If my Country ever called me up for duty again, I'd go in a heartbeat.
There is nothing here I disagree with and without sounding cliche, admire your commitment and duty.
When you put it that way, I can see it.
Still....bitching about it a little never hurt as long as you get the job done.
There is nothing here I disagree with and without sounding cliche, admire your commitment and duty.
When you put it that way, I can see it.
Still....bitching about it a little never hurt as long as you get the job done.
Your point of view wasn't wrong, I just gave some insight in how I look at things. Endless involvement in overseas actions are a drain on America's finest and our national treasure. I was low person on the Totem Pole for a lot of these adventures so I didn't have a say in anything. I did the job and that's it. After Gothic Serpent, I had a real nasty taste in my mouth and I couldn't understand why we were doing things on the cheap when we should have gone in balls to the wall with everything we had available, then gotten out. Although I am not a real fan of Colin Powell's politics, I liked his "doctrine" of using overwhelming force in foreign operations.
Politically, I am an old fashioned Conservative, with a few Libertarian leanings - Not a RINO and a believer in going into every possible foreign intervention. For the most part now days, I just want the government out of my life and let me maintain a reasonable, rational and responsible existence. I do just fine without them. The only ties I maintain are reunions with my Army buddies from my aviation days, and I give presentations to college ROTC units, about various operations during my career. This is all volunteer.
Didn't want to start a new thread, but this is awesome.
https://time.com/5601223/d-day-veteran-97-parachutes-normandy/
That is pretty awesome.
Interesting that this just popped up,,,,,,,http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2019/06/germanys-lost-wwii-uranium-and-how.html?m=1
It is a glimpse of how close the Germans were to an Atomic Bomb !!!
I'd have to look it up, but I think they lacked a suitable source for heavy water.
I have also wondered how much the miracle on Omaha was aided by Navy destroyers which came in just close enough to the beach to not run aground to "snipe" at German positions up on the cliff with 5" guns.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2004/june/gallant-destroyers-d-day
From another article: "The second landing wave came in and likewise found itself in a meat grinder. The result was sickening. Around 9 am Captain Outerbridge felt he could stand no more. He wasn’t going to let his ship be an impotent spectator of the terrible drama that was being played out before his eyes. Without orders, Outerbridge headed closer ashore until the O’Brien was only 500 yards from the bloodstained beaches.
The skipper ordered a hard right until O’Brien paralleled the shoreline and its deadly cliffs. All 5-inch/38-caliber batteries commenced firing at the German pillboxes and machine-gun nests that were perched high above the beaches. After the first salvo, the ship received radio calls from Army units that were huddled at the bottom of the cliffs, unable to advance but unwilling to retreat.
Outerbridge asked if anyone had been hit by the ship’s salvo. No, came the reply—but please raise your fire, because we are here just below! O’Brien continued down the coast about a mile or so until reaching Pointe du Hoc. At one point, observers from the destroyer spotted German soldiers fleeing from the cliffs to a lone building just to the rear. It was quickly demolished—the soldiers still inside—by O’Brien’s well-aimed 5-inch shells."
Every little bit helped. Lots of people went above and beyond that day. Lots of people improvised solutions that were never part of the plan. And probably more than a few people lost their lives in great feats of heroism that greatly contributed to our success and nobody even saw it happen.
June 6 is probably one of those rare days where everyone gave a lot.
MountainRaven
06-07-19, 22:23
Plus we just would have A-bombed them.
It just occurred to me.
In 1940, the US began developing a bomber with a 3000 mile flight range.
In 1941, the US took up "defending" Iceland's neutrality.
In 1942, the US began developing the atomic bomb.
In 1943, the US began adopting that 3000 mile bomber to carry an atomic bomb.
The first target intended for the atomic bomb was Berlin.
The distance - by air - from Reykjavik to Berlin - is just under 1500 miles.
So even if Germany somehow managed to successfully defend against the invasion of Normandy all the way to Belfast, the US would have still been able to vaporize Berlin just over a year later with a bomber virtually immune to even the most powerful ground-based defense and able to fly at altitudes where few Axis aircraft could intercept them.
It just occurred to me.
In 1940, the US began developing a bomber with a 3000 mile flight range.
In 1941, the US took up "defending" Iceland's neutrality.
In 1942, the US began developing the atomic bomb.
In 1943, the US began adopting that 3000 mile bomber to carry an atomic bomb.
The first target intended for the atomic bomb was Berlin.
The distance - by air - from Reykjavik to Berlin - is just under 1500 miles.
So even if Germany somehow managed to successfully defend against the invasion of Normandy all the way to Belfast, the US would have still been able to vaporize Berlin just over a year later with a bomber virtually immune to even the most powerful ground-based defense and able to fly at altitudes where few Axis aircraft could intercept them.
Which bomber was that? B-29?
MountainRaven
06-07-19, 23:06
Which bomber was that? B-29?
Yup.
Admittedly, Fw-190s and Bf-109s did not have the same flight ceiling limitations as most Japanese fighters did.
It just occurred to me.
In 1940, the US began developing a bomber with a 3000 mile flight range.
In 1941, the US took up "defending" Iceland's neutrality.
In 1942, the US began developing the atomic bomb.
In 1943, the US began adopting that 3000 mile bomber to carry an atomic bomb.
The first target intended for the atomic bomb was Berlin.
The distance - by air - from Reykjavik to Berlin - is just under 1500 miles.
So even if Germany somehow managed to successfully defend against the invasion of Normandy all the way to Belfast, the US would have still been able to vaporize Berlin just over a year later with a bomber virtually immune to even the most powerful ground-based defense and able to fly at altitudes where few Axis aircraft could intercept them.
Yeah, they really did get lucky despite the vicious soviet invasion and partitioning. Not to suggest they US / allied invasion from the west wasn't also hard on them but honestly it was the best deal on the table and the preferred enemy to surrender to. Also given the level of atrocity the Germans engaged in, things like The Marshall Plan were incredibly benevolent.
The_War_Wagon
06-07-19, 23:26
GREAT show on HBO (check for times - released this week for the 75th Anniversary of D-Day) these days called, "The Cold Blue (https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-cold-blue)." About the 8th Army Air Force and their work in Europe, it combines William Wyler's original footage, and commentary from living veterans today. GREAT stuff.
Diamondback
06-07-19, 23:30
Interesting further trivial note, the B-29 was initiated by Boeing as a private project without a specific DOD requirement--much like the B-17 was designed way ahead of its time because those same engineers knew the converted airliner Douglas was planning (B-18 Bolo and B-23 Dragon were both basically weaponized models of the DST/DC-2/DC-3 family) wouldn't have the range or payload required for what was coming.
sundance435
06-10-19, 09:46
Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure the planners reasonably expected that at least one of the beach landings would fail, which is why they had 4 total. In fact, there was some surprise that our guys had as much success as they did at Omaha, which says something about their resolve. There were also definitely some cracks in the Atlantic Wall in various sectors that we were able to exploit that greatly helped with overall success.
As for invading Calais, that's an interesting "what if?" question. While casualties would have been much greater, who knows, the war may have been shortened by a few months. The German units at Calais were eventually the ones the Allies had to face in the hedgerows, anyway. A lot of combat to secure a deep-water port would've been unnecessary, too. Realistically, Normandy was about as big of a gamble as anyone was willing to take. Calais would've required at least twice the men and resources.
I know it's generally accepted that the bomb was meant for Germany, but I don't think it's clear cut that we would've used it there first. Let's be honest, the American public would've been much more disinclined to using the bomb on Europe than on Japan. Say the Bulge didn't happen and Germany was able to hold the Allies with those units until August, '45. Roosevelt may well have used the bomb on Germany, but he would've been dead by then. Would Truman have?
MountainRaven
06-10-19, 13:01
Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure the planners reasonably expected that at least one of the beach landings would fail, which is why they had 4 total. In fact, there was some surprise that our guys had as much success as they did at Omaha, which says something about their resolve. There were also definitely some cracks in the Atlantic Wall in various sectors that we were able to exploit that greatly helped with overall success.
As for invading Calais, that's an interesting "what if?" question. While casualties would have been much greater, who knows, the war may have been shortened by a few months. The German units at Calais were eventually the ones the Allies had to face in the hedgerows, anyway. A lot of combat to secure a deep-water port would've been unnecessary, too. Realistically, Normandy was about as big of a gamble as anyone was willing to take. Calais would've required at least twice the men and resources.
I know it's generally accepted that the bomb was meant for Germany, but I don't think it's clear cut that we would've used it there first. Let's be honest, the American public would've been much more disinclined to using the bomb on Europe than on Japan. Say the Bulge didn't happen and Germany was able to hold the Allies with those units until August, '45. Roosevelt may well have used the bomb on Germany, but he would've been dead by then. Would Truman have?
First, there were five landings: Utah & Omaha (US), Sword & Gold (UK), and Juno (Canada). The number and location of the landings was more likely predicated on where beaches appropriate for landing were located and how wide (and therefore how many men could be put ashore as rapidly as possible) those beaches were. If the allies could land sufficient troops at any one beach, the other four landings could have floundered or failed.
Second, the Battle of the Bulge almost certainly made the war longer, not shorter.
Third, the American public gave zero shits what happened to the civilian population of Germany in 1945: The British and Americans had been bombing German cities since 1941 - including firebombing - and Germany was still slinging the odd buzzbomb or ballistic missile at London; the American public neither knew nor cared what sort of suffering the German public was going through. And the American public didn't care at all about German civilians until about mid-way through the Berlin Airlift in 1947.
sundance435
06-10-19, 15:02
First, there were five landings: Utah & Omaha (US), Sword & Gold (UK), and Juno (Canada). The number and location of the landings was more likely predicated on where beaches appropriate for landing were located and how wide (and therefore how many men could be put ashore as rapidly as possible) those beaches were. If the allies could land sufficient troops at any one beach, the other four landings could have floundered or failed.
Second, the Battle of the Bulge almost certainly made the war longer, not shorter.
Third, the American public gave zero shits what happened to the civilian population of Germany in 1945: The British and Americans had been bombing German cities since 1941 - including firebombing - and Germany was still slinging the odd buzzbomb or ballistic missile at London; the American public neither knew nor cared what sort of suffering the German public was going through. And the American public didn't care at all about German civilians until about mid-way through the Berlin Airlift in 1947.
What's your reasoning for the Bulge extending the war? I can't imagine how squandering some of the most elite units left in the Wehrmacht prolonged the war. Also, look to the Dresden bombing for proof that the public was not sold at all on that level of destruction, let alone an atomic bomb over Europe.
MountainRaven
06-10-19, 15:32
What's your reasoning for the Bulge extending the war? I can't imagine how squandering some of the most elite units left in the Wehrmacht prolonged the war. Also, look to the Dresden bombing for proof that the public was not sold at all on that level of destruction, let alone an atomic bomb over Europe.
Nobody cared about Dresden then and nobody cares about Dresden now, except for people who are all, "Boohoo, muh poor Nazis." "Holocaust? But muh Dresdens!"
The Bulge extended the war because the Germans went on the offensive at a time and place that the allies did not suspect or expect. The allies had run out to the end of their logistical tail once more. The weather gave the Germans cover from allied aircraft. The attack sent the allies reeling. Had the Germans simply dug in, they would have been obliterated by allied bombing and artillery at a time and place that suited the allies, not the Germans. You don't win wars or battles by letting the enemy pick when and where the engagement will occur. Especially not when you're the German army. Had the Germans sent the armies ear-marked for the Bulge back to the East, they would have maybe been a bit of a speedbump to the Red Army.
By the time of the Battle of the Bulge, Germany had one ally left in Europe: Hungary. And they were in the midst of being swallowed up by the Soviet Union. Romania, Italy, and Finland had all changed sides. The only thing not fighting the Bulge might have accomplished for the Germans would be having French, British, American, Polish, &c. troops that much closer to Berlin by the time the Soviets sacked it.
HardToHandle
06-10-19, 17:37
This is a good discussion!
1) Hungary had tried to quit the Axis, but the Nazis Otto Skorzeny had taken the government hostage and turned Budapest into a speed bump for the Soviets.
2) The war in the west could have been over in late 1944 if not for the logistics limitations on the Anglo-American forces, primarily fuel. Sundance nailed the sheer importance of the deep water port and the relative wisdom of the Germans to concentrate their forces in the big ports. Some of the bypassed ports weren’t captured by VE Day.
3) The Battle of the Bulge absolutely prolonged the war.... However, I have serious doubts the Germans in the Bulge did more damage than Montgomery’s repeated strategic disasters - the slow Normandy breakout, the assinine Market Garden attack to secure the Rhine crossing and then the unpardonable failure to secure the Scheldt Estuary (which likely would have allowed Bradley to capture Berlin).
4) I believe nuking Germany was less certain than Japan. The Nazis were hated, but the Japanese were the reason the US went to war. Much like Sherman’s March to the Sea being rough, there was no fury like the western Union soldiers when they got to Columbia SC (the first state to secede). Nuking Cousin Fritz and Aunt Helge’s hometown was a different thing than some unknown Shinto shrine in faraway Japan. If you look at the nuclear targeting contributions from Sec of State Henry Stimson, a pre-war Japanese expert, versus the early criteria of no cultural targets in Germany, there is a very strong racial animus against the Japanese. However, the point there were few good targets left in Germany by late 1944. The Mighty Eighth had decimated nearly every worthwhile target.
There are estimates that a ground campaign to subdue the Japanese mainland would have nearly doubled the U.S. casualties up to that point in the entire war in both theaters combined. That was (rightfully) unacceptable. To have an A-bomb and not use it at that point would have been insane as well as reckless. Whether the U.S. originally planned on it being for Germany and whether we had an "unfair" view of the worth of Japanese life, it is irrelevant. The Germans would (and did) surrender, albeit it at high cost to the Allies doing it. The Japanese were fanatical.
Sure it could have, but would have taken longer. Remember you have Utah Beach, Point Du Hoc and the British beaches of Gold, Juno, etc. I was talking with my 96 year old father in law today and he was a Buck Sergeant with the 2nd battalion, 16th Infantry Regt. Ist Infantry Division, stationed in Dorchester, England for training before the invasion. He was in the 2nd wave at Easy Red, Omaha Beach. He was carrying a radio telephone and a Thompson machine gun. They were offloaded into the landing craft at 2:30am and sailed in circles until their time to storm the beach. He said they were all so seasick, they didn't care if they lived or died - they wanted off the LC.
They found the 1st Wave all bunched up, not making any progress. As he got behind a tank obstacle, his radio telephone on his back was hit by German fire and destroyed. He dumped it and made his way across the open sand to more cover and grabbed one section of a Bangalore Torpedo and went with another infantryman up to a heavily barbed wire section by one of the lanes inland. He helped assemble the Bangalore Torpedo, slid it under the wire and was shot twice in the left leg as he tried to move away from the impending explosion. He dragged himself back and laid for hours until he got medical treatment. He was sent back across the channel later that same day and spent two weeks in an English hospital before checking himself out, and finding the next transport across the channel to join his unit. He fought across France, Belgium, Germany and into Czechoslovakia before returning home in December 1945.
From 1946-1949 he went to college, did ROTC, and went back into the Army as a 2LT in 1950. Really tough gentleman, however when the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, he didn't want to see it nor re-live it all. He has never gone back to Normandy.
God Bless that man. Im touched by his story. Thanks for sharing.
PB
I'm not saying NOT to put folks on their ass; I'm just saying it gets frustrating at times.
But more to the point, a D Day defeat would not have defined the war for us like it did for Germany. We just would have kept at it. As was stated, by '44 Germany was dying.
Yeah they had all kinds of cool toys but were just spread out too thin and running out of friends fast.
Plus we just would have A-bombed them.
I remember once reading this autobiography of this German spy who was in the US by like 1944. German born and taught to speak good English; him and an Army Air Force defector went to NYC to try to get intel on power plants or some such.
He said that once he got to NYC proper; it didn't even seem like there was a war going on whereas in Germany it was this big deal.
It was titled Agent 18 or something. But it wasn't our war to win; it was Germany and Japan's to lose.
Thats a luxury we enjoy. Our boys standing on a wall that soooo many don't appreciate (Dems come to mind). I didn't serve and I regret it. Your battle is better served in a different thread, IMHO. I understand your frustration, but WWII is not the place. Again IMHO.
Respectively
PB
sundance435
06-11-19, 14:05
Nobody cared about Dresden then and nobody cares about Dresden now, except for people who are all, "Boohoo, muh poor Nazis." "Holocaust? But muh Dresdens!"
The Bulge extended the war because the Germans went on the offensive at a time and place that the allies did not suspect or expect. The allies had run out to the end of their logistical tail once more. The weather gave the Germans cover from allied aircraft. The attack sent the allies reeling. Had the Germans simply dug in, they would have been obliterated by allied bombing and artillery at a time and place that suited the allies, not the Germans. You don't win wars or battles by letting the enemy pick when and where the engagement will occur. Especially not when you're the German army. Had the Germans sent the armies ear-marked for the Bulge back to the East, they would have maybe been a bit of a speedbump to the Red Army.
By the time of the Battle of the Bulge, Germany had one ally left in Europe: Hungary. And they were in the midst of being swallowed up by the Soviet Union. Romania, Italy, and Finland had all changed sides. The only thing not fighting the Bulge might have accomplished for the Germans would be having French, British, American, Polish, &c. troops that much closer to Berlin by the time the Soviets sacked it.
Okay, I'll grant you that the Bulge likely did prolong the war, considering units on the move were better for making war than targets. I would argue though that the Bulge alone was not the sole reason - without the failure at Falaise (Bulge maybe not even possible) and Market Garden (decimation of some of the best light infantry and increased resistance in Holland), the Bulge would not have had nearly as pronounced an effect, being little more than a speed bump.
This is a good discussion!
2) The war in the west could have been over in late 1944 if not for the logistics limitations on the Anglo-American forces, primarily fuel. Sundance nailed the sheer importance of the deep water port and the relative wisdom of the Germans to concentrate their forces in the big ports. Some of the bypassed ports weren’t captured by VE Day.
3) The Battle of the Bulge absolutely prolonged the war.... However, I have serious doubts the Germans in the Bulge did more damage than Montgomery’s repeated strategic disasters - the slow Normandy breakout, the assinine Market Garden attack to secure the Rhine crossing and then the unpardonable failure to secure the Scheldt Estuary (which likely would have allowed Bradley to capture Berlin).
4) I believe nuking Germany was less certain than Japan. The Nazis were hated, but the Japanese were the reason the US went to war. Much like Sherman’s March to the Sea being rough, there was no fury like the western Union soldiers when they got to Columbia SC (the first state to secede). Nuking Cousin Fritz and Aunt Helge’s hometown was a different thing than some unknown Shinto shrine in faraway Japan. If you look at the nuclear targeting contributions from Sec of State Henry Stimson, a pre-war Japanese expert, versus the early criteria of no cultural targets in Germany, there is a very strong racial animus against the Japanese. However, the point there were few good targets left in Germany by late 1944. The Mighty Eighth had decimated nearly every worthwhile target.
2) Yes, logistics were the single biggest problem until deep-water ports were secured in NE France, Belgium, and Holland. If they had secured one earlier, there's a whole cascade of what-ifs. The Bulge was nearly a disaster because of the distance of our forces from a deep-water port and the failure of Market Garden to enable securing a closer one.
3) Not only did Market Garden fail to secure the Rhine crossings, but it forestalled an invasion of Holland, which could've sped up the end of the European war because of 2).
4) You said it with more depth than I did, but that's my point about nuking Germany being far from certain. Roosevelt's priority was always Europe and he may not have had qualms about nuking a country that had familial ties to 15-20% of America, but he was dead by the time it was ready. It's hard to imagine Ike and Truman being so willing. Call it whatever you want, but the American public cared not at all for what happened to Japanese people (probably a combination of factors), but many did care about German civilians. The country was pretty evenly split about going to war with Germany, maybe even a slight advantage for neutrality in Europe, up through December 10th, until Hitler made the decision for us on December 11th. Roosevelt wasn't even certain he'd have the votes to do it after Dec. 7th, until Hitler declared war first. Many in the German OKW were not happy with the Tripartite Pact and then were dumbfounded by Hitler's declaration of war, since it wasn't required.
….could D-Day have still been successful? Like if Omaha Beach would have had to be evacuated?
Strategically it was kind of in the center of the invasion beaches, and was the most touch-and-go, by-the-hair-on-your-ass objective. The most costly also. But all the other beachheads were successful with less problems. Could D-Day have survived without success at Omaha?
RE, regarding that success, what I posted on my FB page June 6th:
"June 6, 1944, more than 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline, to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which, 'we will accept nothing less than full victory.'" Over 10,000 men were lost in a single day. Let that sink in. I don't think so many people owe so much to so few (to paraphrase Churchill's speech about the RAF) as they do to a little known unit of the Naval Combat Demolition Units (NCDU's), who under direct enemy fire, cleared channels on the beaches so the troops could land. They were truly the first in well before any troops landed. They had a horrendous casualty rate and over 50% of the unit killed or injured, but they never gave up... Had those few men not succeeded, the landing would have been a disaster and quite possibly failed. The NCDU's did not swim as the later UDT ("Frogman" the precursor to SEALs) did in the South Pacific, they walked up to the German obstacles on the beaches, attached explosives in key locations they'd trained for on the beaches of Florida, and blew them up. Some times they were forced to do so with American soldiers so frozen with fear, they would not let go of the obstacles...
There were many incredible stories from that day. Learn some of them so that you may truly appreciate what an incredible event it was, the sacrifices made, and the beginning of the end for German occupation of France and the Nazi's.
What are your favorite stories of D Day? Another is Pointe du Hoc mission via the Rangers, which I cover in my Vacation Gone South series part IV BTW."
The Commonwealth landings were successful further east. Abandoning the single beach wouldn’t have immediately doomed the landings. As the narrow Omaha landing was flanked by Utah and the British beaches. Moreover, the worsening weather in the days following might have made a second Dieppe evacuation difficult at best.
Omaha was important to overcoming resistance, but most important was the planned use for the Mulberries prefab port sections. In the end, the Omaha Beach Mulberry only operated for a short time before being disabled by bad weather. It still was a major logistical hub and the main fuel delivery point.
I wonder what the sign would have been to pull back from that beach and re route to other beaches? I'm sure they had contingencies. I figured once the troops from the other beaches had gotten off the beach, the plan would be to send some % of those troops Omaha and come up the German's a$$ from the sides and rear.
I have also wondered how much the miracle on Omaha was aided by Navy destroyers which came in just close enough to the beach to not run aground to "snipe" at German positions up on the cliff with 5" guns.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2004/june/gallant-destroyers-d-day
From another article: "The second landing wave came in and likewise found itself in a meat grinder. The result was sickening. Around 9 am Captain Outerbridge felt he could stand no more. He wasn’t going to let his ship be an impotent spectator of the terrible drama that was being played out before his eyes. Without orders, Outerbridge headed closer ashore until the O’Brien was only 500 yards from the bloodstained beaches.
The skipper ordered a hard right until O’Brien paralleled the shoreline and its deadly cliffs. All 5-inch/38-caliber batteries commenced firing at the German pillboxes and machine-gun nests that were perched high above the beaches. After the first salvo, the ship received radio calls from Army units that were huddled at the bottom of the cliffs, unable to advance but unwilling to retreat.
Outerbridge asked if anyone had been hit by the ship’s salvo. No, came the reply—but please raise your fire, because we are here just below! O’Brien continued down the coast about a mile or so until reaching Pointe du Hoc. At one point, observers from the destroyer spotted German soldiers fleeing from the cliffs to a lone building just to the rear. It was quickly demolished—the soldiers still inside—by O’Brien’s well-aimed 5-inch shells."
That story, the efforts of the NCDU's and the Rangers at Pointe du Hoc never fail to empress on me the absolute resolution to succeed that day under any circumstances under any sacrifices.
There are estimates that a ground campaign to subdue the Japanese mainland would have nearly doubled the U.S. casualties up to that point in the entire war in both theaters combined. That was (rightfully) unacceptable. To have an A-bomb and not use it at that point would have been insane as well as reckless. Whether the U.S. originally planned on it being for Germany and whether we had an "unfair" view of the worth of Japanese life, it is irrelevant. The Germans would (and did) surrender, albeit it at high cost to the Allies doing it. The Japanese were fanatical.
They were worse than the German's and didn't pay the same price the German's did in terms of those responsible for it being held accountable. Maybe the German's more methodical in their horrible chit (discounting Unit 731 of course...) they did, but not sure on the overall death count if places like China and such are included. Finally, the German's more or less fessed up to their crimes and know about in their culture and such, the Japanese teach a completely revisionist history to their people, depicting them as the victims in WWII, F the Japanese.
As a former grunt (got lucky, didn't get sent to combat during my years in the Army), I can picture the scene on Omaha. Ungodly, unrelenting fire raining down from MG-34/42's on the high ground. Your unfortunate ass was on a wide and open beach. A pittance of a seawall (basically where the ocean's tide had worn it down, so a "ledge" at best) and a few German-placed obstacles were the only thing you could seek cover from the murderous fire coming from well-emplaced MG and mortar/artillery positions. Here and there, a couple at a time, many unsuccessful and costing their lives, guys spurted forward. The old Infantry phrase "Follow me!" comes to mind. Most of it however, was a matter of survival plain and simple. To remain on that killing ground wasn't an option. The only chance to live was to move forward and GTFO of there.
There were many cumulative acts of courage and tenacity that finally secured Omaha Beach. I don't think you could point to any one specific act that turned the tide. It truly was a "by the hair on your ass" scenario.
For an interesting read pick up " Tarawa: The Story of a Battle" by Robert Sherrod, who landed in the 2nd wave at Tarawa. I have a copy in an original PocketBook, which were pocket sized novels sent to servicemen overseas. It really gives insight on the incredible courage it takes to press the attack under murderous fire on an amphibious landing.
There are estimates that a ground campaign to subdue the Japanese mainland would have nearly doubled the U.S. casualties up to that point in the entire war in both theaters combined. That was (rightfully) unacceptable. To have an A-bomb and not use it at that point would have been insane as well as reckless. Whether the U.S. originally planned on it being for Germany and whether we had an "unfair" view of the worth of Japanese life, it is irrelevant. The Germans would (and did) surrender, albeit it at high cost to the Allies doing it. The Japanese were fanatical.
Not many people know this but we expected so many casualties related to a mainland invasion of Japan all the Purple Heart decorations produced in 1945 were not issued until the first Persian Gulf War.
MountainRaven
06-12-19, 00:25
Not many people know this but we expected so many casualties related to a mainland invasion of Japan all the Purple Heart decorations produced in 1945 were not issued until the first Persian Gulf War.
Actually, we're still using them.
Link (https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/todays-purple-hearts-were-first-made-for-the-invasion-of-japan).
They've just been updated as needed and mixed in with new stock since Vietnam.
Actually, we're still using them.
Link (https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/todays-purple-hearts-were-first-made-for-the-invasion-of-japan).
They've just been updated as needed and mixed in with new stock since Vietnam.
Wow, I thought that by the Iraq war we finally handed them all out.
sundance435
06-12-19, 08:03
Actually, we're still using them.
Link (https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/todays-purple-hearts-were-first-made-for-the-invasion-of-japan).
They've just been updated as needed and mixed in with new stock since Vietnam.
Wow, that's crazy. I had never heard that. I see the "1 million casualties" number pretty often, but the military's own estimate was anywhere from 250,000 up. Still, I don't fault Truman at all for dropping the bomb. Any more U.S. deaths at that point would have been too many.
Wow, that's crazy. I had never heard that. I see the "1 million casualties" number pretty often, but the military's own estimate was anywhere from 250,000 up. Still, I don't fault Truman at all for dropping the bomb. Any more U.S. deaths at that point would have been too many.
Honestly, Truman saved millions of Japanese lives as well. If we did a mainland invasion, nearly the entire population was willing to meet Marines with bamboo spears if necessary and we are talking men, women and children. The bombs and our willingness to use them also prevented a Soviet invasion in northern Japan that would have happened the moment we invaded the south and at best this would have resulted in a partitioned Japan with a communist north and a southern republic.
The Russians were pretty eager to payback Japan for the Russo-Japanese war and would have loved to have grabbed some Hokkaido real estate.
Honestly, Truman saved millions of Japanese lives as well. If we did a mainland invasion, nearly the entire population was willing to meet Marines with bamboo spears if necessary and we are talking men, women and children. The bombs and our willingness to use them also prevented a Soviet invasion in northern Japan that would have happened the moment we invaded the south and at best this would have resulted in a partitioned Japan with a communist north and a southern republic.
The Russians were pretty eager to payback Japan for the Russo-Japanese war and would have loved to have grabbed some Hokkaido real estate.
I believe it was Admiral Halsey that said [paraphrasing] "If we have to invade Japan it will be a language spoken only in Hell".
I believe it was Admiral Halsey that said [paraphrasing] "If we have to invade Japan it will be a language spoken only in Hell".
Said when Admirals and Generals were expected to be fighting men and not PC politicians. Can you imagine an admiral saying that today?
Said when Admirals and Generals were expected to be fighting men and not PC politicians. Can you imagine an admiral saying that today?
We also used to have a "War Department" and not a "Department of Defense."
Diamondback
06-12-19, 23:24
I believe it was Admiral Halsey that said [paraphrasing] "If we have to invade Japan it will be a language spoken only in Hell".
I believe his exact quote was, "By the time we're through, the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell." Sorry, WWII History major/aspiring professor... I live for this shit. :)
sundance435
06-13-19, 11:55
We also used to have a "War Department" and not a "Department of Defense."
Most PC name change in U.S. history. Bring back the "War" Department.
I believe it was Admiral Halsey that said [paraphrasing] "If we have to invade Japan it will be a language spoken only in Hell".
Speaking of Japan, some claim it was not the nukes that ended it, but the commies declaring war on them that did it. A combo of both possibly, but had the Japanese wanted to sit there and get nuked into oblivion, I'm sure we could have and would have delivered that too until they either surrendered, or their was no one left to surrender:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/hiroshima-bombing-did-not-lead-japanese-surrender-anniversary/6672616
and
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/
I believe it was Admiral Halsey that said [paraphrasing] "If we have to invade Japan it will be a language spoken only in Hell".
Speaking of Japan, some claim it was not the nukes that ended it, but the commies declaring war on them that did it. A combo of both possibly, but had the Japanese wanted to sit there and get nuked into oblivion, I'm sure we could have and would have delivered that too until they either surrendered, or their was no one left to surrender:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/hiroshima-bombing-did-not-lead-japanese-surrender-anniversary/6672616
and
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/
Diamondback
06-13-19, 14:08
Let's assume for a minute that Stalin reconsiders earlier and goes for "Second Russo-Japanese War." Best case outcome, we get another Korean Split; worst case, another Vietnam that starts split until the Commies wear us down to the point that we stop fighting them.
Besides, both bombs had valid military targets as Ground Zero: the Southern Military District HQ, epicenter of resistance planning for the coming invasion, was so close to GZ in Hiroshima as to suggest it was the intended target. It, and all its plans and planners and high command, were taken out in the blast. Nagasaki, ground zero was the factory complex that built the torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor. It sucked as an option, but it was probably the "Least Worst" of a long list of bad options.
I believe his exact quote was, "By the time we're through, the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell." Sorry, WWII History major/aspiring professor... I live for this shit. :)
Hey, I was pretty damn close and did say "[paraphrasing]". ;)
I did that without Googling either!
Speaking of Japan, some claim it was not the nukes that ended it, but the commies declaring war on them that did it. A combo of both possibly, but had the Japanese wanted to sit there and get nuked into oblivion, I'm sure we could have and would have delivered that too until they either surrendered, or their was no one left to surrender:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/hiroshima-bombing-did-not-lead-japanese-surrender-anniversary/6672616
and
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/
And I think we would have done just that: nuked them over and over. Oh well.
I think too much has been given to the Soviet declaration of war on Japan. So what? The Japanese didn't want to get one nuke after another, at least the politically sober/non-fanatical ones in the government. Sure, the Russkie declaration and thought of losing Hokaido sucked, but I firmly believe The Bomb is what convinced them it was over. They also were wise enough to surrender to that very power they had initiated conflict with, been nuked by, but yet were benevolent enough to make the Japanese not choose what a Red Army occupation would lead to.
I feel at times that the world has polluted our nation with its dumbest, laziest, and most worthless parasites to weaken us from within because if we really wanted to do so; we could have very easily made the world whole and pure in our own image without compromise nor compassion but we didn’t do that because we were too nice.
We were too nice
We were too nice
We were too nice
We were too nice
Diamondback
06-13-19, 18:57
Hey, I was pretty damn close and did say "[paraphrasing]". ;)
I did that without Googling either!
True, amigo... just that the paraphrase seemed more passive than the active intent I recalled the quote as having. :)
MountainRaven
06-13-19, 22:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2NZVQzfAbo
I seem to recall that plans for OP: Olympic included using chemical weapons on the beaches and the "tactical" use of nuclear weapons during the beach assaults themselves.
Speaking of Japan, some claim it was not the nukes that ended it, but the commies declaring war on them that did it. A combo of both possibly, but had the Japanese wanted to sit there and get nuked into oblivion, I'm sure we could have and would have delivered that too until they either surrendered, or their was no one left to surrender
U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
A week after Nagasaki, Tokyo had still not surrendered. A third weapon was already on its way and a dozen were to follow.
LONDON — American military archives reveal that if the Japanese had not surrendered on August 15, 1945, they would have been hit by a third and potentially more powerful atomic bomb just a few days later and then, eventually, an additional barrage of up to 12 further nuclear attacks.
Documents highlighted during commemorations to mark the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9, which forced the end of World War II, show the determination of the United States to make Japan surrender unconditionally.
In the spring of 1945, the U.S. Army set up a special target committee to debate key Japanese cities to attack as officials believed their regime had already made it perfectly clear they were not willing to surrender at any price.
Confidential reports added that “even after two atom bombs, they preferred to fight on till they are all dead. Death or glory.”
It was a belief shared by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who attended talks with Allied leaders Harry S. Truman, the new American president, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin at Potsdam in July 1945, where he gave consent to using atomic weapons following the successful “Trinity” test.
“There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table,” Truman later admitted in his memoirs. “Never did I hear the slightest suggestion that we do otherwise.”
There was no reference though to the number of bombs under consideration, although Churchill casually initialed a minute telling U.K. officials to go along with what the Americans decided.
Presidential scientific adviser James B. Conant reported: “A number of military experts tended to see the bomb as nothing more than just a bigger bang, and it seems Churchill and Stalin were similarly ignorant.”
Target committee members believed an atom bomb could destroy the infrastructure of Japan without the need for an invasion, so the cities of Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, Niigata, and even Tokyo were identified as potential areas for destruction.
The main criteria included cities not previously bombed by conventional means so that experts could fully assess the effects of a nuclear strike.
Although Tokyo still remained a possibility, it had already suffered extensive damage from a firebombing campaign that incinerated 16 square miles and as many as 100,000 people. In addition, officials believed Emporer Hirohito might still be needed to help negotiate any surrender.
Targets in the south were given priority to boost possible invasion plans but the ancient city of Kyoto was withdrawn because the U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, who had honeymooned there, said it was an important cultural center and “must not be bombed.”
Kyoto had been favored for the very first attack but the committee opted to blitz Hiroshima, which was an important army depot and embarkation port within an urban environment.
In August 6, a B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped an estimated 12 kilotons of TNT in a uranium bomb termed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima.
Just three days another B-29, Bockscar, took off for Kokura carrying a second and more deadly plutonium bomb called “Fat Man,” estimated to be between as powerful as 20 kilotons of TNT. It seems inclement weather forced the aircrew to abandon their original plans to attack Kokura and go to Nagasaki instead. Weather was so bad there that the crew had even considered violating their orders to drop the bomb via radar before finding a small gap in the clouds to deliver their deadly cargo. Archivists now suggest the attack on Nagasaki was a shock to Truman, as Kokura was meant to be the primary target, with Nagasaki a secondary option.
Both attacks combined killed more than 200,000.
Archival records show a third bomb was under assembly at Tinian in the Mariana Islands where the Enola Gay and Bockscar had flown from, with the main plutonium core about to be shipped from the U.S.
Although some aircrew saw “Tokyo Joe” chalked on the bomb’s casing, it was said to be destined for Kokura, the original target for the second bomb, and named “Fat Boy.”
A transcript of a top-level call between two military experts on August 13 reveals details of this “third shot.” It also confirmed that a vast production line of about 12 other atomic bombs was being readied for additional continuous strikes against other key targets.
It was agreed this next bomb would be available to be dropped on August 19, with a schedule of further bombs available throughout September and October.
One U.S. general explained: “If we had another one ready, today would be a good day to drop it. We don’t, but anyhow within the next ten days, the Japanese will make up their minds.”
On August 15, however, just as the plutonium was about to be sent to Tinian, news of the Japanese surrender came through and its loading was stopped.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-planned-to-drop-12-atomic-bombs-on-japan
Interesting - I did not know we had that many ready.
HardToHandle
06-14-19, 00:54
The biggest challenge in the Japanese surrender was getting the collapsing government together. The pre-war Japan was a cluster, with the civil government under frequent assaults of the militants. The Prime Minister was murdered in a 1932 coup attempt and other coups were tried throughout the 1930s.
The crazies stayed around even after Tojo resigned and were greatly feared. Even the Emperor had real issues finding anyone to communicate a surrender and the people so tasked expected to be attacked by their own countrymen. Japan made Nazi Germany look like a sane place - Admiral Yamamoto had to hide out at sea to avoid being murdered prior to Pearl Harbor.
The expected Russian advance into Manchukuo/Manchuria was the worst fear of the Militarists. Much of the cause of the 1941 war against the US was rooted in the Chinese expansionism. The pending loss of 15 years of wasted China warfare and the occupation of Korea was heaped on top of an attack on the northern islands.
Whether the US could have reached X-number has some conjecture. The various production lines were working by 1945 but still much was to be refined. The story of the jackassery of the Demon Core shows that experimentation was still the order of the day [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core”]. Certainly the intent was to bomb until all the targets and opposition were eliminated.
sundance435
06-14-19, 09:13
U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
[B]Interesting - I did not know we had that many ready.
That is interesting. I always thought we shot our wad with the 2 and that the next ones were a ways off.
That is interesting. I always thought we shot our wad with the 2 and that the next ones were a ways off.This has always been my understanding as well, that we had enough material ready for 3 bombs including the trinity test device. I dont recall how far off other bombs would have been.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
Speaking of Japan, some claim it was not the nukes that ended it, but the commies declaring war on them that did it. A combo of both possibly, but had the Japanese wanted to sit there and get nuked into oblivion, I'm sure we could have and would have delivered that too until they either surrendered, or their was no one left to surrender:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/hiroshima-bombing-did-not-lead-japanese-surrender-anniversary/6672616
and
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/
Regardless of why they actually decided to surrender, Hirohito used the atomic bombs as an excuse for ending the war and a way to save face. Also, he got to remain as a figurehead after the war. See his speach to the Japanese people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/the-emperors-speech-67-years-ago-hirohito-transformed-japan-forever/261166/
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/hirohito-1
This has always been my understanding as well, that we had enough material ready for 3 bombs including the trinity test device. I dont recall how far off other bombs would have been.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
Some have said dropping the atomic bombs as well as the fire bombing of Dresden was the start of the ocld war as much as the end of WWII, sending a message to the Soviets as to our capabilities.
Some have said dropping the atomic bombs as well as the fire bombing of Dresden was the start of the ocld war as much as the end of WWII, sending a message to the Soviets as to our capabilities.
Sure, there may have been some sublime assertions being made, but make no mistake about the main reasons: Dresden was firebombed for REVENGE (don't blame them, but let's not sugarcoat it), and The Bomb was dropped to prevent another half-million American casualties.
Yes. A friend was sent to the Pacific right as the war ended. He would have probably died in an invasion of Japan. Instead he was part of the occupation force. He said the Japs were so re leaved that we didnt treat them they way they had treated everyone they had occupied that he had a good time.
About Dresden, I imagine the Brits were still a little pissed about the bombing of London.
Sure, there may have been some sublime assertions being made, but make no mistake about the main reasons: Dresden was firebombed for REVENGE (don't blame them, but let's not sugarcoat it), and The Bomb was dropped to prevent another half-million American casualties.
Absolutely. If we thought Iwo Jima and Okinawa were bad, we hadn't seen anything yet. Japan was prepared to recall nearly every soldier from Manchuria, China and all other occupations to join with every citizen of Japan in a sacrificial defense of Japan and the Emperor. The realization that we might simply atom bomb and fire bomb them into oblivion without a glorious sacrificial battle is the only thing that brought them to terms, that and the fact that our "unconditional surrender" actually afforded them more than a few considerations such as the pretense that the Emperor was not involved and had no knowledge of any war crimes.
As for Dresden, yeah not a military target and killing women and children who had no ability to change nazi ideology even if they wanted to is pretty horrible, but war is pretty horrible and it was horrible for women and children in Poland when Germany and Russia decided to rape them mercilessly from both sides, so they earned their Dresden and Hamburg as much as Japan earned their Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Probably the worst war crime of WWII is that Stalin was never charged or made to accept responsibility for his early actions when he was allied with Hitler.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.