lowzeewee Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 Which German cities would have been decimated with them and I wonder how history would have changed. Any ideas and thoughts on this?
GhostHunter Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 Berlin, would of killed Hitler, would of ended the war with just one bomb, not much to say past that. History wouldn't really have changed much, if we saw the success we'd un-doubtfully use it without reluctance on Japan, and thus bringing the war to a quicker end. However, it might of ended up scaring Russia a little more...
Caid Ivik Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 English and Russians have no bombs in development and american project was pointed only against Japan. However, if we don't count radiation after Hiroshima cataclysm, conventional bomber raids were far more lethal.
lowzeewee Posted May 11, 2004 Author Posted May 11, 2004 Yeah but the bombs were built to be used against Hitler...but he and his Nazis were defeated earlier than the bomb was completed.
ordos45 Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 Berlin definitely. If that wasn't enough to end it, probably Munich, Cologne, and Dresden for their size...despite already being levelled by Allied Bombing.
Dunenewt Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 The British and the American Projects were the same. Germany also had a couple of atomic devices.
Dante Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 And when the cities were raised the atomic pollution would cover most of Europe (having no seas or moutain ranges to get in the way of most of it, and plenty of helping winds), allowing cancer rates to soar etc etc etc... The fallout would be around to this day if such bombs were dropped in such numbers on such a comparitively small location.
TMA_1 Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 hmm, you talking about during the second world war.first of all, we would never have bombed them. There are many reasons why. One is that the culture of germany was western, and because of that they would have given up much more readily than the japanese. Also the japanese feared for their survival because they honestly didnt expect us to be as nice as we were to them in the post war era. Also the culture of the japanese is much more focused on saving face, so they would have a much tougher time giving up than western nations that dont focus as much on the same ideals. And a much more sinister reason, which might piss people off but its just plain true. Germans are white.lol You may think that is horrible, but I can almost guarintee that it would be a major factor involved. It is sick, but frankly the leaders of the war would have much less of a problem in explaining a million white deaths than a million asian deaths. A lot of people dont realize how big a part bigotry has to play in modern war. It is one of the most evil parts in my opinion.
shygirl4 Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 It is sick, but frankly the leaders of the war would have much less of a problem in explaining a million white deaths than a million asian deaths.Your totaly wrong here TMA-1 colour didnt have any affect on the war , didnt india fight with the allies and they are asian, also england , usa, germany, italy and the rest of europe are white but this didnt stop millions of them dieing at the hands of the germans, arent russians also white ?, if it ment the presevation of England and the rest of europe, germany would have been nuked,white or not, even when the cold war was on, it is well know that if war broke out between russia and usa , germany would have been nuked first. this is not so elequently put, TMA-1 but i think I get the message accross.Shy
TMA_1 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 the soldiers from northern india were famous fighters, but remember they faught largely with the british, not the americans, and frankly I was pointing to america here. Not only that, but there is a difference between hiring a few locals, and nuking millions. There was much racism in WW2, sorry to burst your bubble.lol
exatreide Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Rosevelt said this.Europe first, Japan second. We would have nuked Berlin with out hesitation, We would have nuked them to nothingness, Becouse we knew it would have worked they would have surenderd. Thats why we used on Japan the cities we nuked in japan really wernt that importent military wise, we wanted them to surender. We would have nuked Berlin and they would have surenderd. They just surenderd before we nuked em ;)
Caid Ivik Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Don't forget that Americans considered Tokyo and Kyoto as targets of N-attacks, but chosen less historically rich cities, also with large ports and other military important facilities. Tough old Tokyo was already burned down... Same we could expect more a nuclear attack on Kiel, Dortmund or another such center.
ordos45 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Nagasaki wasn't even the original second target if I remember right. Bad weather or clouds I think, obscured the original second target.
Dante Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 I think you're right there. And there were definately plans to nuke Germany, thankfully never carried out (duh
shygirl4 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 the soldiers from northern india were famous fighters, but remember they faught largely with the british, not the americans,actually TMA-1 they faught for the allies (America england and the rest)..We where all on the same side ;) but there is a difference between hiring a few localsYour talking nonsense again TMA-1 the allies didnt hire a few locals, many thousands died fighting for the alliesIt is sick, but frankly the leaders of the war would have much less of a problem in explaining a million white deaths than a million asian deaths.Ill say it again TMA-1 indians are asian.sorry to burst your bubble.lolbursting bubbles is that the best you can do TMA-1 wow you really are stupid.Shy ::)
Dante Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Calling people stupid is not constructive debating Shygirl.
Anathema Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Racial considerations didn't stop the allies from carpet bombing Dresden and other cities, resulting in thousends of deaths.I don't think that Americans did or do consider white lives more valuable then Asian lives, but I think TMA does have a point. Europe is culturally closer to the US then Japan. I was being taught about how Germany invaded Europe and killed so many jews in grade school, but at that age I had no idea yet of the millions that died at Japanese hands in sick medical experiments and concentration camps. It's not because it's less sick in our eyes, but because it's much further away from home.
shygirl4 Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Calling people stupid is not constructive debating Shygirl. Read my original post , and then try to make a constructive comment.Shy ::)
Wolf Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 I think that was a constructive comment, Shygirl. I believe his intent was to formalize the debate.
Sardauker-Kirov Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 If Berlin was nuked in WW2 then the future Germany would have many problems with rebuilding the city.Nukes should only be used if the enemies are winning completely and when there's no other choice to be made.And face it, the Axis and Allies were both cruel towards eachother.Also, India isn't pure Asian. The country is a mix between cultures.And every religion is welcome there.
Cyborg Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 Also, India isn't pure Asian. The country is a mix between cultures.And every religion is welcome there.Correct. India is famous for its ties(related to colonies) to England.
Dante Posted May 13, 2004 Posted May 13, 2004 Read my original post , and then try to make a constructive comment.Shy
shygirl4 Posted May 14, 2004 Posted May 14, 2004 Dumb Scout you need to get a life and try and be a little more constructive in your answers and not just plain stupid, this post is NOT about grammer you fool, its about a serious topic, about nuclear bombs,and the possable destruction of germany in ww2, also these boards are not formal boards where everyone has to check there spelling, (idiot)they are INFORMAL, do you understand that word ? or are you gona go look it up in a dictionary and then run your answer through microsoft words spell check, Try and stick to the topic Dumb Scout, and not picking fault with other people.Shy :)
lowzeewee Posted May 14, 2004 Author Posted May 14, 2004 Stop this flaming, stupid boy and girl. :D The Northern Indian soldiers, the Gurkhas, had fought FOR the Allies, actually to be more precise, the British, their colonial masters.They were sent to various parts of the world where Britain was fighting and they just join in and fight to the death. They are still around today and if you feel the urge to eat wild boar, you can just find a Gurkha in Nepal, give him 1 US dollar, he goes into the jungle and he will come out holding one he just killed in his hand.
TMA_1 Posted May 14, 2004 Posted May 14, 2004 lol thanks dust :)they were originall apart of the british colonies as dust scout mentioned, and in fact many became british subjects after the war. They were affiliated with the british crown, duh.lol
Recommended Posts