PDA

View Full Version : The Atomic bomb post-WW2



MEGILE
06-18-2007, 04:07 AM
I have seen a few times references to the idea that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, served a dual purpose, as to warn the soviets against any invasion of Western Europe.

Anyone know what the Soviet's reaction to the bomb was? I would have expected this type of thing to further galvanize the will of the Soviet Russia to attack the democratic western states.

Or were they truly weary of an atomic retaliation by the US, in the event of an invasion, soon after the end of WW2?

joeap
06-18-2007, 05:28 AM
IBTL.

IBTPB.

(Perma-ban) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kidding...about the second one.

Too bad I think it is an interesting subject. I read a book by 2 Russian historians named Zubok and Pleshkanov (sp?) about Stalin's role in the oringin's of the Cold War. Thesy metioned his conception of a balance between the USA (and UK) both mainly maritime powers and the USSR a continental power for the postwar was thrown into a loop by the a-bombs and that hardened his attitude towards a settlement in Europe. I think anyway the Soviets were well informed and working on a bomb of their own, and once they got one were mostly cautious yet more confident.

An exception would be the Korean War which was approved by Stalin after a lot of pressure from Kim Il-Sung as shown be recntly declassified documents from the archives:

General Link (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=The%20Korean%20War)

CWIHP Working Paper #8: " Soviet Aims in Korea and the Origins of the Korean War, 1945-50: New Evidence From the Russian Archives" by Kathryn Weathersby (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/kwwp8.pdf)

I've read some of the former stuff and the latter article very interesting.

neural_dream
06-18-2007, 06:24 AM
IBTL-4 (I predict 4 more posts ... or pages :P )

Megile, you are too young or a troll. In this case I pick the first. Prepare for a barrage of signature replies. You'll immediately tell the nationality of the responders that will follow.

tigertalon
06-18-2007, 07:01 AM
Well, it's not that hard to see... On the Yalta conference (from February 4, 1945 to February 11, 1945) Stalin promised he would enter the war in 90 days after german surrender, and he kept his promise. But the situation till that point went very bad for Japan and now US (logically) didn't want to share it with soviets, like they did with germany (which was chopped into multipl occupation zones). When Stalin attacked Kurile islands and was pushing towards Hokaido (the northern of japan mainland islands), US generals knew he'd overhelm japan, with his ruthless attitude towards losses, which he didn't care about, but US did. So, US had to force japan to surrender before soviet foot stepped on the mainland, so the US would be the sole occupator. They used atomic bomb for that.

I see bombing of Dresden much more as a warning to Stalin not to invade western Europe.

These two bombings were more an act of cold war than WW2.

MEGILE
06-18-2007, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
So, US had to force japan to surrender before soviet foot stepped on the mainland, so the US would be the sole occupator. They used atomic bomb for that.


Interesting... I hadn't considered the race for control of Japan.
I presume Stalin realised this was one of the US intentions surrounding the bomb?

leitmotiv
06-18-2007, 07:08 AM
Thanks to the numerous spies the Soviets had in the U.S. and the U.K., they were well aware of the progress of the nuclear bomb program, and were being fed technical information on how to build their own. Stalin was not shocked by Hiroshima, as Truman hoped.

Indeed, the West wanted to force Japan to surrender before Stalin had a lodgement in Hokkaido.

MEGILE
06-18-2007, 07:16 AM
How soon was it after Hiroshima, that the Soviets got their hands on a working bomb?

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I have seen a few times references to the idea that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, served a dual purpose, as to warn the soviets against any invasion of Western Europe.

Anyone know what the Soviet's reaction to the bomb was? I would have expected this type of thing to further galvanize the will of the Soviet Russia to attack the democratic western states.

Or were they truly weary of an atomic retaliation by the US, in the event of an invasion, soon after the end of WW2?

Stalins initial reaction was that there were insufficient Atomic bombs to threaten the USSR and that their slow production would mean that in any war immediately after the fall of Germany Russia would have enough time to win it conventionally in Europe before the bomb became a factor.

This explains his belligerent stance after WW2 and it scared the cr1p out of his advisors.

tigertalon
06-18-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
How soon was it after Hiroshima, that the Soviets got their hands on a working bomb?

Soviets detonated their first bomb (*ДС-1 or RDS-1, Joe-1 by USA) on August 29, 1949. It was a 22kT implosion type device, similar to US Fat Man (or Gadget, the first US nuclear device).

tigertalon
06-18-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I have seen a few times references to the idea that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, served a dual purpose, as to warn the soviets against any invasion of Western Europe.

Anyone know what the Soviet's reaction to the bomb was? I would have expected this type of thing to further galvanize the will of the Soviet Russia to attack the democratic western states.

Or were they truly weary of an atomic retaliation by the US, in the event of an invasion, soon after the end of WW2?

Stalins initial reaction was that there were insufficient Atomic bombs to threaten the USSR and that their slow production would mean that in any war immediately after the fall of Germany Russia would have enough time to win it conventionally in Europe before the bomb became a factor.

This explains his belligerent stance after WW2 and it scared the cr1p out of his advisors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. He was, however, affraid of US and especially British strategic bombing force which he had no counterweapon at that time (most soviet fighters were humiliatingly outclassed at high altitudes by western fighters) and (I believe) kept him from invading western Europe.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:32 AM
Wouldnt it also be fair to say that the A bombs effects on a stone/concrete built city would be significantly less? The radiation aspects aside the early A bombs were not yet destructive enough to be the harbringers of the end of civilisation. It took the later and more powerful Hydrogen bombs to do that.

If a war did start between Russia and the West in 1945 I think its tactical fighters would have had a hard time of it too. British and American fighters were good at high and low altitudes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
06-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Those interested in this subject and the lead up to it may well be interested in this:

Gar Alperowitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Knopf, 1995), ISBN 067976285X.

It's not the easiest read, because it's an academic study. However, that means that it's referenced to the hilt.

The most striking thing about it is the way Brynes appears to have been far more influential than many supposed.

cheers,
Ratsack

tigertalon
06-18-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wouldnt it also be fair to say that the A bombs effects on a stone/concrete built city would be significantly less? The radiation aspects aside the early A bombs were not yet destructive enough to be the harbringers of the end of civilisation. It took the later and more powerful Hydrogen bombs to do that.

Certainly! One has to consider that japanese cities of 1945 were built mostly of impregnated paper (!!!) and wood, and were simply blown away by the blast of the nuclear bomb. Modern, steel reinforced buildings would resist much much harder, and it would take (God forbid it ever happens) a thermonuclear device to do the same kind of damage as was done in 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, fission type nukes are used for tactical military purposes only, it's strategic thermonuclear weapons that are aimed at populated areas as a weapon of denial.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If a war did start between Russia and the West in 1945 I think its tactical fighters would have had a hard time of it too. British and American fighters were good at high and low altitudes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That's a very interesting topic for a debate. I don't think soviet fighters would have such hard time facing western ones down low. IMO, soviets had the best tactical army support aviation in 1945. Combination of La/Yak and IL2s proved to be an excellent "way maker" for the army. One also has to consider the cost: I don't care if I loose 5 La7s for every single tempest I shot down as long I can build 10 Lavochkins for every tempest...

On the other side, British/US would be throwing everything they could to bomb soviet hinterland, supply lines, railyards, and to bomb strategic targets far behind soviet back and soviets wouldn't be able to do much to stop them. It would be a race whether soviets would push the frontline into the Atlantic before US/GB ruined their war effort with strategic bombing.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:52 AM
The VVS tactical fighters wouldnt be used to facing an enemy which was numerically on par with them imo. Tempests (V + II) would be far away from being the most numerous fighters but workhorses like the P51 D and Spit IX were still capable fighters in their own right at low altitudes while having the option of carrying out ground attack missions in their own right.

Perhaps the best use of the RAF's and USAAF's strategic bomber forces would be to concentrate soley on their logistic network which would be a massive target. The main production centres would be so far away that bombing them would mean very long flights and very light bomb loads not to mention navigational problems.

joeap
06-18-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Well, it's not that hard to see... On the Yalta conference (from February 4, 1945 to February 11, 1945) Stalin promised he would enter the war in 90 days after german surrender, and he kept his promise. But the situation till that point went very bad for Japan and now US (logically) didn't want to share it with soviets, like they did with germany (which was chopped into multipl occupation zones). When Stalin attacked Kurile islands and was pushing towards Hokaido (the northern of japan mainland islands), US generals knew he'd overhelm japan, with his ruthless attitude towards losses, which he didn't care about, but US did. So, US had to force japan to surrender before soviet foot stepped on the mainland, so the US would be the sole occupator. They used atomic bomb for that.

I see bombing of Dresden much more as a warning to Stalin not to invade western Europe.

These two bombings were more an act of cold war than WW2.

How was the Red Army supposed to get to Japan then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif They had enough ships to take the Kuriles but you're not going to tell me they had enough to transport their huge army from mainland Asia to Japan?? Especially in the face of US seapower?

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Well, it's not that hard to see... On the Yalta conference (from February 4, 1945 to February 11, 1945) Stalin promised he would enter the war in 90 days after german surrender, and he kept his promise. But the situation till that point went very bad for Japan and now US (logically) didn't want to share it with soviets, like they did with germany (which was chopped into multipl occupation zones). When Stalin attacked Kurile islands and was pushing towards Hokaido (the northern of japan mainland islands), US generals knew he'd overhelm japan, with his ruthless attitude towards losses, which he didn't care about, but US did. So, US had to force japan to surrender before soviet foot stepped on the mainland, so the US would be the sole occupator. They used atomic bomb for that.

I see bombing of Dresden much more as a warning to Stalin not to invade western Europe.

These two bombings were more an act of cold war than WW2.

How was the Red Army supposed to get to Japan then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif They had enough ships to take the Kuriles but you're not going to tell me they had enough to transport their huge army from mainland Asia to Japan?? Especially in the face of US seapower? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I don't think that the Soviets were at all organized or equipped to make a major landing on the Japanese home islands, which would have been a gargantuan operation. Consider the fact that the US committed more forces to the landing on Okinawa than they did for Normandy.

thefruitbat
06-18-2007, 11:23 AM
Interesting stuff, i'd never thought about the race for japan before.

Going back to europe, does anyone know the number of troops(cold war sides), facing each other at VE day? Would stalin have been able to take western europe? I'm guessing that at least he thought he couldn't, otherwise he would of probally tried.

cheers fruitbat

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I see bombing of Dresden much more as a warning to Stalin not to invade western Europe.


..... I'm not altogether sure about that.

According to Taylor's book, Dresden was one of the requested bombing targets on the Soviet list which was presented at Yalta. Dresden had apparently already been selected by the British a week or so earlier, but the Soviets had it on their punch-list as well.

x6BL_Brando
06-18-2007, 12:14 PM
Going back to europe, does anyone know the number of troops(cold war sides), facing each other at VE day? Would stalin have been able to take western europe? I'm guessing that at least he thought he couldn't, otherwise he would of probally tried.

I think Stalin would have required a huge excuse for attacking the Western forces at this time - after all, the two armies (as in West and East) had been Allies since just after the commencement of Barbarossa, fighting for the common cause of removing a Fascist dictatorship from Europe. I can't imagine anything short of the West dropping a nuke on Moscow would have brought any of the Allies into a continuation of the bloody conflict that had endured for six years already. Or vice versa, of course - Russian nuke on London or whatever - I'm not choosing sides.

B

LStarosta
06-18-2007, 12:44 PM
It is interesting to note that the USSR would have effectively been surrounded from the west and the east, as well as the north and southwest, and that a significant portion of the USA(A)F would have been available to launch strikes against Russian production centers from behind with impunity should the USSR have adopted an all-or-nothing stance against the West. Significant resources would have to have been pooled to protect the Russian strategic rear flank. On top of this, the Soviets could have said good bye to all western lend-lease aid, not only in the form of aircraft, tanks, vehicles, munitions, but most importantly, in strategic resources which were a major factor in their eastern victory against Germany. You could have also said good-bye to the gift from Rolls-Royce in the form of an operational jet engine. Strategically, the USSR would not last very long with Britain and the USA bombarding it from western, Pacific, Middle-Eastern, and from across the Arctic circle. I predict that the USSR would have suffered the same difficulties as Germany, being a primarily tactical armed forces with very little strategic capability.

I really fail to see how the USSR could have retaliated strategically in any way, or how they could effectively protect their own industries and resources from strategic bombardment. Their only hope was to tactically overwhelm the west with sheer numbers before the west could react speedily enough to put a dent in the Russian warfighting industry.

Anyway, I will be back with a definite answer once I run this scenario in Rise of Nations a couple of times and see what I come up with.

DKoor
06-18-2007, 12:48 PM
It's been a while since we had a decent Adam thread.

KrasniyYastreb
06-18-2007, 01:21 PM
http://www.usmlm.org/home/russians/elbe.jpg