-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
To expand a bit on the difference between Sorelians and Jacobins: the Sorelians are the classic syndicalists, according to Kaiserreich canon, they wish to decentralize the government. The fanatical Jacobins are traditional Trotskyists or Leninists. They support world revolution and a government by a 'revolutionary' vanguard. They are also the most nationalist of parties. Nontheless, a coalition of neccesity isn't too unlikely.
To the bomb-debate again. I found it unlikely that a major French city would be nuked exactly for the reason Kyoto was never nuked, many major French cities are treasurethroves of objects and buildings of enormous historical value. Does any American president wan't to go into history as the man who destroyed the Louvre, the Notre Dame or Versailles?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki where chosen because they where medium-sized cities, with at least a semblance of miitary importance (bases/industry). I guess the French equivalents would be cities as Lille, St. Etienne or perhaps even Lyon.
To the bomb-debate again. I found it unlikely that a major French city would be nuked exactly for the reason Kyoto was never nuked, many major French cities are treasurethroves of objects and buildings of enormous historical value. Does any American president wan't to go into history as the man who destroyed the Louvre, the Notre Dame or Versailles?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki where chosen because they where medium-sized cities, with at least a semblance of miitary importance (bases/industry). I guess the French equivalents would be cities as Lille, St. Etienne or perhaps even Lyon.
IIRC over here the common theory taught is that they dropped the Nuke on Hiroshima to study the effects of the bomb on an undestroyed city (given that Tokyo et all were firebombed), to take out one of Japan's major bases, and simply because the demonstration effect was larger than if it were merely turning over the rubble.
And thus a giant of American politics passes into the next world... Truman never seems to catch a break, he's got the bomb to think about again in this timeline! Then again, if the US keeps on succeeding and opening new fronts, then nuclear bombing may not end up being the least abhorrent choice...
@ TC Pilot: Thanks for the info on the late war Japanese, it really is alot more complex than I thought, very interesting though
@ TC Pilot: Thanks for the info on the late war Japanese, it really is alot more complex than I thought, very interesting though
History_Buff: Your professor would appear to be somewhat right. The United States certainly wanted an East Asian ally in the post-war era, but it was always China that they wanted. Japan was, ideally, to be demilitarized and democratized. As it was, U.S. policy makers never really saw much difference between nuking a city and, say, firebombing it out of existence. From a certain perspective, there really isn't one. As it was, there was certainly some anti-Americanism within Japan, but just as many people were sick of the government that had led them straight into an 8-year war with half the world. Truman was also certainly concerned about the Soviet Union. Even before the end of the war, there were serious diplomatic breaches between the two countries, particularly over the issue of Poland and free elections. Indeed, Truman's behavior at Potsdam immediately changed after he learned about the Manhattan Project's success, and he pushed for a much harder line.
Enewald: None, actually. The U.S. had one available and they decided to use that one over the Channel. At the current rate of production (slow, due to technical problems with acquiring U-235 or getting a reactor up and running for plutonium), the next one won't be ready until '46.
FlyingDutchie: Very good to know. Funny enough, I always figured die-hard Syndicalists would want a completely centralized government, since the whole idea is to basically unionize everything. Guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
trekaddict: Both cities were indeed spared any significant bombing mostly for those reasons. They were, tragically enough, spared until the end in order to see just what this bomb was capable of doing.
Andreios II: If you'd like to know more about Japan at the time and Hirohito in particular, I'd highly recommend Herbert Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. It's a biography at its core, and goes into great detail on many of these issues.
Enewald: None, actually. The U.S. had one available and they decided to use that one over the Channel. At the current rate of production (slow, due to technical problems with acquiring U-235 or getting a reactor up and running for plutonium), the next one won't be ready until '46.
FlyingDutchie: Very good to know. Funny enough, I always figured die-hard Syndicalists would want a completely centralized government, since the whole idea is to basically unionize everything. Guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
trekaddict: Both cities were indeed spared any significant bombing mostly for those reasons. They were, tragically enough, spared until the end in order to see just what this bomb was capable of doing.
Andreios II: If you'd like to know more about Japan at the time and Hirohito in particular, I'd highly recommend Herbert Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. It's a biography at its core, and goes into great detail on many of these issues.
My pragmatism says that without these two nukings we (the general public) might never have known how destructive Nukes are.
It's time to see what my favorite President will do.
I don't follow your teacher's logic, with all due respect.
One of the great ironies of WWII.
I don't follow your teacher's logic, with all due respect.
One of the great ironies of WWII.
Last edited:
I wonder if Truman will be substantially different in his handling of the war from Roosevelt. When he first comes into power I imagine he'll be under pressure from certain quarters to use nukes against France but if this war's been less destructive and hate-filled than WW2 then he's probably not going to use it.
Of course this could easily lead to a more cavalier attitude towards nukes in the future, particularly if there's nothing on the scale of the Cold War.
Of course this could easily lead to a more cavalier attitude towards nukes in the future, particularly if there's nothing on the scale of the Cold War.
They were afraid that if they nuked something big and important that they would piss the Japanese off and they might turn to the Russians after the war and become a Russian satellite or ally. So he nuked an unimportant city so as to not royally piss off the Japanese. That was the logic he was using.
Wait, so why were they so willing to really get rid of the Philippines as a colony then, when it was at that time one of the more developed countries in East Asia, not to mention that its central position was a boon as a gateway to China?
Given that the US won't have another atomic bomb until 1946, he will have a year to put off that question.
That is how your teacher interprets history, of course. It's just that your teacher's logic contradicts my teacher's logic.
Last edited:
History_Buff said:
Hrm. Yes, an island of starving people with no industry left might become a satellite of a large nation of starving people with its industrial heartland in ruins. I see where this might be scary.
Besides, at the time, dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't really cause any more animosity with the Japanese people than flattening the rest of the country had. Bombing Kyoto or Tokyo might have been different though, due to their significance.
Either way, unless the Soviets took part in the invasion of Japan (rather unlikely without American naval help), the post-war occupation was destined to be American-run, giving the Americans plenty of time to get the Japanese on their side.
Because the agreed upon date to give the Philippines their independence fell after the war ended. This agreement to give the Filipinos their independence predated the war I am pretty sure. Also, I am pretty sure they were afraid of having Philippine Insurrection part 2 on their hands if they did not give them their independence
Actually, the Soviets were getting ready to invade the northernmost island of Japan. Fortunately, the war ended before the Red Army had the chance to do so. It was probably on Truman's mind to end the war before the Soviets had a foothold.
Yeah, If he could have, Stalin hoped to gain enough Japanese territory to warrant a division of Japan, or at least Tokyo (with a Soviet puppet regime of course).
Although ITTL there's no impending threat to France from a power that rivals the USA, so that factor of pressure is gone...
you seem to be forgetting Russia. They have stayed out of the war and therefore could declare war at anytime. With France having to focus its attention on you at the moment, If Russia declares war, they might do a good deal of damage.
I should know that the time was after the stated date of independence, but why would the Philippine leadership; along with its citizens, agree to independence when the ten-year program to give them self-sufficiency was undone by the ravages of war? Of course, the deadline having passed, there would be an agreement with the Philippine government-in-exile then to do something about this in a somewhat "equitable" manner.
