this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
204 points (95.9% liked)

History Memes

617 readers
1132 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@piefed.social
204
Another can of sunshine for the German gentleman, please! (media.piefed.social)
submitted 15 hours ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/historymemes@piefed.social
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 63 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Man, we utterly flattened Germany with a sustained campaign of strategic bombing, and seriously considered ethnically cleansing a good portion of the country after the war. If it seemed like Nazi Germany was going to hold out for another million Allied casualties, you bet your ass they would've had a can of sunshine opened on them.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah the only question is which German cities would've been nuked, not if

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Which German cities were left to be nuked, even. Many were smoldering rubble by the end of the war.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Honestly, it probably would've been used on troop concentrations rather than a city. The reason cities were chosen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were because, absent an active invasion, there were no heavy troop concentrations of the sort that would have emerged as a front developed in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago

Was there even close to enough precision to try to bomb Obersalzberg as a statement? Nuclear or no, it was not a huge target and I know it had anti aircraft defenses

[–] NewDark@lemmings.world 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." -Admiral William D. Leahy, 1950

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into war.... The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. - Chester W. Nimitz, 6 October 1945 Commander-in-chief of the US pacific fleet in WWII

First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon - Dwight D Eisenhower 1963

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - US Government Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'

Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'

The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.

Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part.[74]

Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions. That they would have conceded defeat months earlier, before such calamities struck, is far-fetched to say the least.

The Strategic Bombing Survey outright ignored material that didn't fit their conclusion on the Pacific War, and I am aware of no serious trend in modern historical academia that regards the atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion and the impending American invasion to be immaterial in Japan's surrender.

[–] NewDark@lemmings.world -2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

First, I trust the numerous first hand accounts of actual leaders of the time over this one historian acting like their memories aren't great fifty years after the fact.

Second, the imminent Soviet invasion absolutely was a material factor. One of the reasons why the nukes were used were to end the war before the Soviets could invade so they couldn't dictate any terms of surrender.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

First, I trust the numerous first hand accounts of actual leaders of the time over this one historian acting like their memories aren’t great fifty years after the fact.

This may be shocking, but leaders often lie. Only Eisenhower's memory was impugned in that statement. Sorry that contemporary accounts don't back up their later politiking.

Second, the imminent Soviet invasion absolutely was a material factor.

Then why the fuck did you quote

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - US Government Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946

Ah. I checked your comment history. A campist bootlicker. I think we're done here.

[–] NewDark@lemmings.world -2 points 6 hours ago

A material factor in the decision for the bombs to be dropped, not in the necessity for Japan to surrender. Those are two different things.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

That historian is actually citing Japanese sources, which is more accurate than what the US leaders may have thought to be the case.

Hirohito actually used both the bombs as well as the Soviet invasion as justification to surrender. The civilian population was told it was due to the destructive power of the atomic bomb, the military were told they could not hold out against the Soviets.

It's not unlikely that not dropping the bombs would have led to a Japanese surrender, but it would likely have delayed it by some time. The bombs contributed greatly to the emergency meetings of the Japanese war cabinet in which ultimately the emperor decided to surrender. But it was a multitude of factors; the emperor was for example also unconvinced that the defense of southern Japan would be ready in time for the invasion, as earlier timelines hadn't been met. But he also said he did not want Japan and its innocent civilians destroyed due to further atomic bombs.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I would assume that the whole continent going red in response would have not been out of the question if that happened however.

I mean, nuking an European city would have been the ultimate permanent propaganda tool for the USSR why we need to band together against such barbarism.

[–] petrescatraian@libranet.de 7 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Even if in that city it was literally Hitler?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 5 points 12 hours ago

And millions of German workers, with friends and family all over the continent.

It would have went beyond ideology, and it would have dwarfed the Holocaust in being the defining evil of the war as remembered by Europeans.

[–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Just a bit of personal 2 cents on that one:

I would not exist if Berlin was nuked in 1945. My grandmother was in Berlin as a refugee of war at the time. She was 4 years old. She would have died for the crime of ...being in the same city as Hitler. Millions more would have died and even more would have never been born.