Search results

"To save millions of lives, supposedly, we're going to destroy multiple cities filled with millions of people who will be killed in atomic fire." This makes exactly zero sense from any sort of ethical perspective. Because the Germans are oppressing millions of Slavs and Jews, we're going to...

Except for the fact there is no documented planning of such, not one iota, but reams of data that suggest the war-time focus was always on using it against Japan. Hell, the focus wasn't even on atomic bombs at all in the U.S. until 1941, as the main focus was actually on submarine propulsion...

Making peace in 1944 is a mistake but starting a nuclear Third World War isn't? Destroying countless cities and killing tens of millions is somehow better? Likewise, there is absolutely no appetite in the United States for such a war: Most likely end result is none of the above, with a three...

I'm not sure what you're referring to so I can't comment on that, but it's worth noting a firestorm strategy was attempted IOTL and it failed because it's actually extremely hard to cause firestorms. Dresden, besides the horror of it as a war crime obviously, is remembered because of how unique...

According to those involved in the Manhattan Project, attacking Germany was never given any consideration beyond the theoretical level and was explicitly rejected for numerous reasons. REPORTER: General Groves, could we go back for a minute. You mentioned in your book [Now it Can Be Told] that...

All American planning envisioned the collapse of the USSR or its removal from the war (a separate peace, regardless of the exact terms of such) would necessitate cutting a deal with Germany. As goes the United States, so goes the rest of the Western Allies. Worried about the voters? 40% of...