Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
Germany had surrendered but Japan was still arguing over 'unconditional' wording?
Were Japan considering surrender at that point? They were given an ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences a few weeks before (once the US knew their bombs worked) but never responded did they?SpeckledJim said:
fizz47 said:
How do people in the adult film industry / websites make any money and afford to pay their 'stars' etc.
Surely with so many free sites available at a touch of a button who would actually purchase anything? How are these websites making any money?
Its not like people will go out and buy a dvd or anything anymore....
Lots of porn stars are now also prostitutes. Think of the free stuff as an advert for the 'personal services' available if you hire them in person. There's also the subscription-based 'additional material' behind paywalls that the real fans might think worth stumping-up for...Surely with so many free sites available at a touch of a button who would actually purchase anything? How are these websites making any money?
Its not like people will go out and buy a dvd or anything anymore....
The advent of free internet porn has killed lots of the traditional income streams.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 24th April 11:58
an example being a girl who frequented PH in the distant past who made a decent sideline selling her used kecks by mail order. A few racy clips of her getting up to antics would presumably be a good marketing aid to knicker-sniffer-sales. Same principle is widely used I think. Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
I always thought that it was the US experience in the South Pacific where the Japanese fought fanatically and to the death. The concept of a seaborne landing on the Japanese homelands raised the issue of huge casualties - at a point when the assumption was that the war was won. The Japanese knew that the US were reluctant to take the loses that an invasion of Japanese soil would entail and so were being intransigent. The atomic bombs were the (brutal) solution. Effectively giving an ultimatum "surrender now or we can kill you all before we invade"
grumbledoak said:
Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
Germany had surrendered but Japan was still arguing over 'unconditional' wording?RizzoTheRat said:
Were Japan considering surrender at that point? They were given an ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences a few weeks before (once the US knew their bombs worked) but never responded did they?
I believe they were negotiating in private, but would not accept 'unconditional' terms. I think they feared terms on the emperor personally. US was not in negotiating mood.AstonZagato said:
Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
I always thought that it was the US experience in the South Pacific where the Japanese fought fanatically and to the death. The concept of a seaborne landing on the Japanese homelands raised the issue of huge casualties - at a point when the assumption was that the war was won. The Japanese knew that the US were reluctant to take the loses that an invasion of Japanese soil would entail and so were being intransigent. The atomic bombs were the (brutal) solution. Effectively giving an ultimatum "surrender now or we can kill you all before we invade"
There was also an element of wanting to know what effects the weapons would have on a fully functioning city.
I suspect they were also used to try and intimidate the Russians, not knowing that the Russians had gained vast amounts of information on the bombs via espionage.
RizzoTheRat said:
Were Japan considering surrender at that point? They were given an ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences a few weeks before (once the US knew their bombs worked) but never responded did they?
The Japanese were seeking terms of surrender as early as 1944. They sent an envoy to the Allies to discuss peace but they made the mistake of sending their envoy via the Soviet Union. Despite his protestations about a second front and reluctance to joint the Pacific theatre, Stalin really didn't want peace between the Americans and Japan, so word of the envoy never reached the allied governments.Unlike Hitler, the Japanese leadership had no illusions about how the war was going... but few options.
I think the question is, would the Americans have been willing to accept a conditional surrender?
Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
The simple answer is that they didn't have them and didn't have to use them. By the start of 1945, the Germans were spent and exhausted. All that was left was to carve up post war Europe which was done at Yalta. This is why they simply let Stalin take Berlin, it was already decided who got what and the Americans thought, better the Russians than us. Also by this time the allied didn't have a working atomic bomb that could have been dropped from an aircraft. In fact when they went after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they only had two prototype bombs .
In mid 1945 Truman was faced with a choice. Invade the Japanese home islands which would cost millions of lives, use the atomic bombs with warnings or use the atomic bomb without warning. He chose the last option. So high was the estimate of casualties for the invasion of the Japanese home islands that the number of Purple Hearts minted in preparation still haven't been used.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 24th April 16:59
captain_cynic said:
In mid 1945 Truman was faced with a choice. Invade the Japanese home islands which would cost millions of lives, use the atomic bombs with warnings or use the atomic bomb without warning.
Chestrockwell said:
Thanks for the interesting points.
I wonder if Japans & Germany’s massive losses in the war has any correlation with them being the best at making/manufacturing things, perhaps their brightest put their attention towards cars, tv’s and air conditioning instead of weapons
After the war they had to re-equip their factories after the RAF and USAF had flattened them, and got the latest equipment, whereas UK factories for instance struggled on with clapped out old equipment and no money to invest in new plant.I wonder if Japans & Germany’s massive losses in the war has any correlation with them being the best at making/manufacturing things, perhaps their brightest put their attention towards cars, tv’s and air conditioning instead of weapons
MartG said:
After the war they had to re-equip their factories after the RAF and USAF had flattened them, and got the latest equipment, whereas UK factories for instance struggled on with clapped out old equipment and no money to invest in new plant.
We also struggled on with clueless management and militant donkey-jacketed halfwits. Neither of which seem to have afflicted Japan or Germany.AstonZagato said:
Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
I always thought that it was the US experience in the South Pacific where the Japanese fought fanatically and to the death. The concept of a seaborne landing on the Japanese homelands raised the issue of huge casualties - at a point when the assumption was that the war was won. The Japanese knew that the US were reluctant to take the loses that an invasion of Japanese soil would entail and so were being intransigent. The atomic bombs were the (brutal) solution. Effectively giving an ultimatum "surrender now or we can kill you all before we invade"
MartG said:
After the war they had to re-equip their factories after the RAF and USAF had flattened them, and got the latest equipment, whereas UK factories for instance struggled on with clapped out old equipment and no money to invest in new plant.
Although that's largely down to our own government, who recieved more Marshall aid than the Germans, but pissed it up the wall trying to maintain superpower status.glazbagun said:
AstonZagato said:
Chestrockwell said:
Why didn’t the US use atomic bombs in Germany in the war? What was different about Japan?
I always thought that it was the US experience in the South Pacific where the Japanese fought fanatically and to the death. The concept of a seaborne landing on the Japanese homelands raised the issue of huge casualties - at a point when the assumption was that the war was won. The Japanese knew that the US were reluctant to take the loses that an invasion of Japanese soil would entail and so were being intransigent. The atomic bombs were the (brutal) solution. Effectively giving an ultimatum "surrender now or we can kill you all before we invade"
The Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6th and Russia declared war on the Japanese on August 8th, the Nagasaki bomb was dropped the following day on August 9th.
Russia was obliged to declare war on Japan within 2-3 months of the end of the war in Europe, August 9th at the very latest, Stalin had agreed this with Churchill and Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference of February 1945.
The Russian declaration was little more than an opportunistic land grab by Stalin.
glazbagun said:
Although that's largely down to our own government, who recieved more Marshall aid than the Germans, but pissed it up the wall trying to maintain superpower status.
This I believe. Germany and Japan had huge restrictions on how big their militaries could be after the war, so could spend the money elsewhere. Hence they have high speed trains and huge motor industries and we just struggled along.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff