Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Exploitation of Veteran's Day
- This topic has 56 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 30, 2016 at 4:40 pm #45043
Billy_TParticipantWe can add MacArthur to the list of those against the bombing as well.
Opposition to dropping the bomb
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur’s reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: “…the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.”
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
May 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm #45047
nittany ramModeratorInteresting that Macarthur didn’t want to use atomic bombs in Japan, but later lost his job because he wanted to have the authority to use between 30 and 50 atomic bombs during the Korean War.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/NorthKorea-A-Bomb/US-Planned-To-A-Bomb-N-Korea-In-1950-War_02.html
U.S. PLANNED TO A-BOMB N. KOREA IN 1950 WAR – Page 2
Nuclear Weapons And Aircraft Waited For Orders
MacARTHUR NOW CONSIDERS USING THE “BOMB”
With the oncoming defeat a distinct possibility, talk of using the Atomic Bomb was making the rounds. General Hoyt Vandenberg, speaking for the Air Force, suggested they were prepared to use it. MacArthur suggested a plan to use numerous bombs. The U.S. had a stockpile of nearly 300 air-burst bombs. Only President Truman could order them used. MacArthur was insisting he be given the sole right to use 50 bombs as he saw fit. He insisted on bombing the Yalu power plants with multiple strikes by B-29s. Suggestions came from all services and every General offered his own plan. Truman announced the U.S. was considering using the Atomic weapon against North Korea. The situation brought up a question in my mind: Our entire military complex was announcing their plans to drop the bomb, but MacArthur, with the same idea, was criticized for planning the same thing. A state of affairs was rapidly going from bad to disastrous. In the war room Vandenberg dismissed the idea of further reprimands to MacArthur. “What good would it do? He won’t obey the orders”. General Ridgway exploded. “You can relieve any commander who won’t obey orders, can’t you?” Thus the idea of relieving MacArthur was on the table. He again requested that the Pentagon grant him a field commander’s discretion to employ nuclear weapons as necessary. He wanted them stockpiled in Okinawa, which they were finally stored ready for use after MacArthur’s request was denied. His plan was to drop between 30 and 50 atomic bombs-strung across the neck of Manchuria, and spread behind us, from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea- a belt of radioactive cobalt for at least 60 years there would be no invasion of Korea from the North. The Russians, he claimed, would be intimidated by this and do nothing. He continued to strongly seek authority to deploy the bomb.NEVADA TEST SITE, OPERATION PLUMBOB SERIES 57 kt
TRUMAN FIRES INSUBORDINATE MacARTHUR
With all American forces in full retreat, some of the decisions made by MacArthur were accused of accelerating the crisis. American losses, particularly marines, reached the unacceptable range. The U.S. retreat was humiliating. The conversations now turned to total evacuation of our forces. General Ridgway assumed more and more responsibility in decision making. MacArthur rejected any type of negotiated settlement. He had derailed the U.S. initiative which was actually a dare for China to continue the war. He had always wanted a war with China. The Pentagon received his message, which infuriated many high ranking officials.Truman had considered firing MacArthur many times previous to this, but this was the last straw. Actually the order of Dec. 6 which MacArthur had disobeyed was explicit enough to warrant court-martial proceedings. MacArthur’s statements were causing consternation in Washington as was his insulting personal letter to Ridgway. His advice letter to the House of Representatives again infuriated everyone. MacArthur wanted a war with China, and his leadership could no longer be tolerated. A meeting was held with Truman to determine how to get rid of MacArthur. Truman insisted “I’m going to fire the son of a bitch right now”. MacArthur was ordered to turnover his command to Lt. General Ridgway. General Bradley warned Truman that if MacArthur heard about the orders before they reached him officially he might resign with an arrogant flair. Truman exclaimed “The son of a bitch isn’t going to resign on me, I want him fired”. MacArthur’s dismissal was announced on late night radio: ” I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command and have designated Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway as his replacement”.
U.S.THREATENS ATOMIC WARFARE
On Nov. 5 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued orders for the retaliatory atomic bombing of Manchurian military bases, if either their armies crossed into Korea or if PRC or KPA bombers attacked Korea from there. The President ordered the transfer of nine Mark-4 nuclear capsules “to the Air Force’s Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons, and signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets.On Nov. 30, 1950, the USAF Strategic Air Command was ordered to “augment it’s capacities, and this should include atomic capabilities.
President Truman remarked that his government was actively considering using the atomic bomb to end the war in Korea but that only he commanded atomic bomb use.
In 1951 the U.S. escalated closest to atomic warfare in Korea. Because the PRC had deployed new armies to the Korean frontier, pit crews at the Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa, assembled atomic bombs for Korean warfare, lacking only the essential nuclear cores. In Oct. 1951, the U.S. effected Operation Hudson Harbor to establish nuclear weapons capability. USAF B-29 bombers practiced individual bombing runs (using dummy nuclear or conventional bombs) from Okinawa to North Korea, coordinated from Yokota AFB in Japan. Hudson Harbor tested “actual functioning of all activities which would be involved in an atomic strike, including weapons assembly and testing, leading to ground control of bomb aiming”. There were an increasing number of suggestions on precisely how the atomic bombing of N. Korea would be conducted. Robert Oppenheimer, director of “the Manhatten Project”, was designated a consultant in the tactical use of the A-bomb.
With atomic weapons already on Okinawa, the stage was set to proceed with the actual detonation of numerous nuclear bombs. It was suggested that General Curtis LeMay be put in charge of the actual drops. All ranking officials plus The President of the U.S. agreed to the plan. Everything was ready, just waiting for the “word”.
As we all know the “war” ended just about where it started. The stalemate was insulting to the U.S., as we had lost the war. The humiliation went deep, as the tragic loss of 36,913 of our best men will always be difficult to accept.
It is somewhat ironic that after 60 years we are still legally at war. Perhaps we should have proceeded with our plan in the 50s war, as we are again faced with the same problem. The situation now is not the same as 1950. N. Korea is one of the best prepared nation militarily for any kind of confrontation, on land or nuclear. They are equipped with top Russian fighters, and highly accurate surface to air missiles. Thought must be given to the fact that they have several atomic weapons which can be delivered short or long range from mobile launchers. It is not a mistake to predict they will very soon have ICBM which could reach any part of the U.S.
N.KOREA HAS A STOCKPILE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
N. Korea has had for some time a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons. It reportedly acquired the technology necessary to produce large amounts of nerve agents with the means to launch them. N. Korea has expended considerable resources on equipping it’s army with chemical protection equipment. Their capability to launch missiles containing nerve agents is possibly more frightening than the a-bomb. In a relatively few short years they will have the capability to strike the U.S. with not only nerve agents but possibly the neutron bomb. The U.S. has allowed this to happen, and has nobody to blame but itself. We allowed this to happen, and will live to regret it.AMERICAN SOLDIER EXECUTED BY N.KOREANS
This is only one of hundreds of American POWs executed with hands tied behind their back. Now here’s my question. We lost the war and suffered great humiliation which was mostly covered up by the U.S. Was it worth it to lose even this one soldier. He died for nothing in a God forsaken country which meant nothing to us. We served no purpose for being there.
Personal opinion of Wayland Mayo, website historian.
May 30, 2016 at 5:06 pm #45048
bnwBlockedNo Other Choice: Why Truman Dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan
Tom Nichols
August 6, 2015
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-other-choice-why-truman-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-japan-13504Every summer, as the anniversaries of the U.S. nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach, Americans engage in the painful moral exercise of wondering whether President Harry Truman should have ordered the use of nuclear weapons (or as they were called at the time, the “special bombs”) against Japan in August 1945. And every year, as we get farther away in time from those horrible events, we wonder if we were wrong.
In 1945, Americans overwhelmingly supported the use of the bomb; seventy years later, that number is now a bare majority (some polls suggest less), with support for Truman’s decision concentrated among older people.
Truman, for his part, thought he was bringing the war to a swift close. Taken in its time, the decision was the right one. As historian David McCullough has been known to say, “people living ‘back then’ didn’t know they were living ‘back then’,” and to judge the decisions of people in 1945 by the standards of 2015 is not only ahistorical, it is pointless. Truman and his advisers made the only decision they could have made; indeed, considered in the context of World War II, it wasn’t really much of a decision at all.
There are three arguments usually marshalled against the use of the bomb in 1945. First, that to use the bomb only against Japan was racist; second, that it was pointless; and third, that it was done purely for political effect that had more to do with the Soviet Union than with the war in the Pacific. These objections make little sense when weighed against counterfactual thinking about American alternatives.
Was the use of nuclear bombs against Japan actually racism? Would Truman have used the bomb against the Germans? After all, America had a “Germany first” strategy from the very beginning of its involvement in the war, so why drop the bomb on Japan? Was American nuclear devastation reserved only for Asians but not Europeans?
It is difficult to believe that the Allies would have spared the Germans anything after turning the streets of German cities like Dresden to glass under repeated firebombing. The more obvious objection, however, is that the first atomic test took place in July 1945, two months after the Nazi surrender in May. There is some evidence that FDR’s advisers thought about using the bomb against Germany, but by the time Truman took office, it was a moot point: the Nazis were beaten and the invasion of Germany was winding down, not gearing up.
Truman’s detractors, in the absence of any evidence, merely claim that Truman would have done no such thing, especially at a time when so many Americans were of German descent. There is no arguing with this point, as I learned in the mid-1990s. At the time, I was teaching at Dartmouth College, where I had a chance encounter with a well-known historian on the subject. Truman’s papers had been unsealed in those years, and there was no evidence that Japan was singled out for any other reason than it was still fighting. (Indeed, the Americans specifically tried to seek out military targets rather than simply to butcher the Japanese.)
I asked this colleague what he thought of the new evidence. “I don’t care,” he said. For people who hold to the “it was about racism” theory, that’s about as far as you’re going to get.
But what about a stronger objection, that Truman should have realized that Japan was beaten? This is one of those arguments that assumes modern-day omniscience on the part of historical figures. The fact of the matter is that Japan was not preparing to surrender; it was preparing to fight to the death. The invasion of the Japanese home islands was not going to look like the invasion of Germany, where the Nazi armies were crushed between advancing U.S. and British forces on one side and an avalanche of enraged Soviet troops on the other. The Japanese invasion, on the other hand was likely to cost a half-million Allied and Japanese lives— all in what should have been the last months of the war.
Here, I will candidly admit that I am not objective about this question. In 1945, my father finished infantry school in Georgia and was immediately shipped to California to await his orders to carry a rifle during the invasion of Japan. Fortunately, as things turned out, he did nothing more than fight “the Battle of Fort Ord,” as my mother wryly called it. My father, for the remainder of his life, considered nuclear weapons to be an awful and inhumane instrument of war, but he was certain that they saved his own life.
Still, let’s assume, as some historians have done, that Harry Truman was either duped or made an honest mistake, and that the invasion casualty estimates were way off. (One historian has suggested that these estimates were ten times too high.) What should Truman have done? If the figure of 500,000 casualties was wrong, perhaps Truman would have been risking only—only—50,000 lives. But would even one more Allied death have been worth not dropping the bomb, in the minds of the president and his advisors, after six years of the worst fighting in the history of the human race?
Imagine if Truman had decided to hold back. The war ends, with yet more massive bloodshed, probably at some point in 1946. Truman at some point reveals the existence of the bomb, and the president of the United States explains to thousands of grieving parents and wounded veterans that he did not use it because he thought it was too horrible to drop on the enemy, even after a sneak attack, a global war, hundreds of thousands of Americans killed and wounded in two theaters, and years of ghastly firebombing. Seventy years later, we would likely be writing retrospectives on “the impeachment of Harry S. Truman.”
Finally, what about the argument, imbued (wrongly) in several generations of students of international relations, that Truman only dropped the bomb in order to impress the Soviets and establish U.S. dominance in the coming Cold War?
There’s no doubt that the Americans wanted the war over before the Soviets could enter Japan—ironically, something we ourselves had asked them to do when we thought we would have to invade. From the victory at Stalingrad in 1943 onward, U.S. leaders (at least those other than the sickly Roosevelt) realized that Stalin’s Soviet Union was not interested in a peaceful world order policed by the great powers. The Americans were in a hurry to force a Japanese surrender, but they had no way of knowing whether that surrender was imminent. Ward Wilson, for one, claims that the Japanese surrendered not because of the bomb but because of the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, but only the most cold-blooded president would have counted on this and held America’s greatest weapon in reserve.
Again, consider the counterfactual. For years after World War II, the Soviets charged that the nuclear attacks on Japan were a warning to the USSR. Imagine, however, a world in which America held back the bomb, and allowed the Soviets to fight their way through Japan, taking huge casualties along the way. The speeches Stalin and his successors would have given during the Cold War write themselves: “America allowed Soviet soldiers to spill their blood on the beaches of Japan, while Truman and his criminal gang protected the secret of their ultimate weapon. We shall never forget, nor forgive, this squandering of Soviet lives…”
In reality, of course, as soon as the bomb was tested, Truman told Stalin that America had a weapon of great power nearing completion. Stalin, well informed due to his spy networks inside the U.S. nuclear effort, knew exactly what Truman meant, and he told the U.S. president to make good use of this new addition to the Allied arsenal. Both leaders were being cagey, but it was really the only conversation these two men, leading huge armies against the Axis, could have had in 1945 that would have made any sense.
In the 1995 film Crimson Tide, Gene Hackman played a Navy captain whose views are no doubt how critics see American thinking about the decision to use nuclear weapons. “If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan,” he opines while enjoying cigar in the wardroom, “a simple ‘Yes.’ By all means, sir, drop that [expletive]. Twice.”
The actual decision to drop the bomb was not nearly as casual as “a simple yes.” Critics of the decision to use the “special bomb” in 1945 are judging men born in the 19th century by the standards of the 21st. Had Truman and his commanders shrunk from doing everything possible to force the war to its end, the American people would never have forgiven them. This judgment no doubt mattered more to these leaders than the disapproval of academic historians a half century later, and rightly so.
Nuclear arms are hideous, immoral weapons whose existence continues to threaten our civilization. To say, however, that Harry Truman should have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American lives because of what happened in the nuclear arms race decades later is not only ahistorical, it is moral arrogance enabled from the safe distance provided by time and victory.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 30, 2016 at 5:19 pm #45049znModeratorI’ve read a lot of military history about WW 2 including about the japanese surrender.
BNW, I have to say, I didn’t like that article much.
First, I am not against the use of nukes in WW2. I also believe Truman acted out of the desire to bring the war to an end and reduce future casualties (on both sides).
But the reason I don’t like that article is because it’s not a serious discussion of the issues. It’s more of a conservative blogger trying to pick on (very cherry picked) arguments from whatever it is he imagines “the left” is. It’s basically just Rush Limbaugh level superficial and polemical. It’s flag-waving for like minded people…and therefore not very serious.
The REAL history is much more interesting than that.
…
May 30, 2016 at 5:53 pm #45051
wvParticipantI’ve read a lot of military history about WW 2 including about the japanese surrender.
BNW, I have to say, I didn’t like that article much.
First, I am not against the use of nukes in WW2. I also believe Truman acted out of the desire to bring the war to an end and reduce future casualties (on both sides).
But the reason I don’t like that article is because it’s not a serious discussion of the issues. It’s more of a conservative blogger trying to pick on (very cherry picked) arguments…
…
============
Why aren’t you against the use of Atom bombs in WW II ?
w
vMay 30, 2016 at 7:02 pm #45053znModeratorI’ve read a lot of military history about WW 2 including about the japanese surrender.
BNW, I have to say, I didn’t like that article much.
First, I am not against the use of nukes in WW2. I also believe Truman acted out of the desire to bring the war to an end and reduce future casualties (on both sides).
But the reason I don’t like that article is because it’s not a serious discussion of the issues. It’s more of a conservative blogger trying to pick on (very cherry picked) arguments…
…
============
Why aren’t you against the use of Atom bombs in WW II ?
w
vPartly I criticize it…but maybe not for the reasons most do.
I do see the N-bombings as serving a beneficial purpose. Japan actually really was stalling on unconditional surrender. They weren’t willing to disarm, to allow war crimes trials, to allow an occupation, etc. The problem is, Japan at that time was basically ruled by the military police (the infamous Kempeitai). And Japanese war crimes were beyond description (reading about the medical experiments alone would freeze your blood, and that was just part of it). And so on. Part of my response has to do with the fact that, ironically, given that he was in essence an egotistical bastard, MacArthur’s occupation was not only benign it was beneficial. Without the occupation the (for lack of a better term) fascist elements controlling that society would not have been so easily displaced. MacArthur left behind him a modern democracy.
In terms of the atomic bombs themselves, they were merely the more dramatic form of what the USA and Britain had already been doing for years—mass bombing against civilian targets. Dresden, Berlin…and read up on the fire bombing of Tokyo some time. They deliberate dropped thousands of incendiary bombs on a city that was mostly made of wood. More than 15 square miles of the city was destroyed and 100,000 or more people (mostly civilians) were killed.
In most respects the difference between Dresden and Tokyo on one hand and Hiroshima on the other hand is that the latter was just one bomb. But its psychological force was such that it ended the war…Dresden and Tokyo didn’t end the war.
So I find myself critical of the mass bombing of civilian targets in general and that policy actually was central to the allied effort in WW 2. The only distinction I make is that N-bombing could and did force surrender while the years worth of mass civilian bomb that came before that–and which was in every other respect no different—could not end the war.
May 30, 2016 at 7:25 pm #45054Billy_TParticipantZN,
But the point of recent historical research is that it (dropping the bombs) didn’t bring an end to war. I listed all kinds of key military personnel who said, at the time, and later, that it was totally unnecessary and had little to do with Japan’s surrender. There is debate about what those other causes were, but it’s pretty much agreed upon by recent historians that it wasn’t the bomb that did it . . . . and, that Japan was ripe for full surrender months before it. If only we had been willing to grant one condition that we later granted anyway.
Zinn, Chomsky, Gar Alperovitz, among others (including Einstein and most atomic scientists), all say this. And Chomsky adds the horrific note that Nagasaki wasn’t even the end of our bombing. We continued after that world-historical war crime to kill more Japanese civilians.
Personally, I can’t begin to wrap my mind around the idea that it was at all necessary to kill 300,000 unarmed and totally defenseless civilians, especially in order to “save lives.” As Zinn points out, we would be horrified at the suggestion that we should drop a bomb on our own children, which would kill 100,000 of them, for the purpose of shortening the war. But it’s okay to do so on Japanese children?
It didn’t save any lives. It slaughtered 300,000, in the most horrific way imaginable. We had no need to continue on with the invasion (prior to the bomb), as several generals noted at the time. Japan was on the brink of national death. Russia was about to end its neutrality with Japan. It was over. We could have surrounded the islands, blockaded them, worked toward a surrender, and Japan would have taken it. They only had one condition, going back months: let the emperor remain the symbol of the nation. That’s it.
IMO, it was an unforgivable act. Unconscionable and indefensible.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
May 30, 2016 at 7:37 pm #45056wvParticipantJapan at that time was basically ruled by the military police (the infamous Kempeitai). And Japanese war crimes were beyond description (reading about the medical experiments alone would freeze your blood, and that was just part of it). And so on.
———————-
Unit 731
May 30, 2016 at 7:37 pm #45057znModeratorZN,
But the point of recent historical research is that it (dropping the bombs) didn’t bring an end to war.
I did not read that as recent historical research supplanting other positions. I read it as one possible interpretation among others, and not, to me, a complete or completely historically grounded one. I actually don’t buy the argument.
This issue is an old discussion and has swirled in many directions at once over the years.
May 30, 2016 at 7:58 pm #45058bnwBlockedI’ve read a lot of military history about WW 2 including about the japanese surrender.
BNW, I have to say, I didn’t like that article much.
First, I am not against the use of nukes in WW2. I also believe Truman acted out of the desire to bring the war to an end and reduce future casualties (on both sides).
But the reason I don’t like that article is because it’s not a serious discussion of the issues. It’s more of a conservative blogger trying to pick on (very cherry picked) arguments from whatever it is he imagines “the left” is. It’s basically just Rush Limbaugh level superficial and polemical. It’s flag-waving for like minded people…and therefore not very serious.
The REAL history is much more interesting than that.
…
Thats fine that you didn’t like it. That is your prerogative. Most people don’t want to read lengthy so called scholarly works that mire the mind usually in mole hill minutia that the author is trying to make into a mountain. My training is in science and engineering and neither respects long winded dissertation and I found this article to be in that vein. The article made the main points and is historically accurate while addressing modern arguments against the dropping of the atomic bombs. It is how the vast majority of people would be receptive to not only reading it but comprehending it. After all the ultimate goal of the author is to convey information to the reader. The article in my opinion does that well. I think you’re more irked with his last paragraph. I liked the last paragraph the best since it calls out those second guessing the decision with great comfort and historical distance.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 30, 2016 at 8:18 pm #45060Billy_TParticipantZN,
But the point of recent historical research is that it (dropping the bombs) didn’t bring an end to war.
I did not read that as recent historical research supplanting other positions. I read it as one possible interpretation among others, and not, to me, a complete or completely historically grounded one. I actually don’t buy the argument.
This issue is an old discussion and has swirled in many directions at once over the years.
That’s fine. We disagree on this one. But doesn’t it at least give you pause that so many generals (and admirals) said it wasn’t necessary at all, including Ike and Nimitz? I listed some of their quotes. They said it wasn’t needed to end the war. That Japan would have surrendered months earlier if we hadn’t been so adamant about “unconditional” surrender. And their only “condition” was to keep their emperor as figure-head. An extremely small price to pay to really, truly “save countless lives.”
Dropping the bombs obviously didn’t save any. It cost at least 300,000 civilian deaths that first year. Who knows how many have died since that first year, due to radiation, etc.?
Anyway, I’m more than convinced by the arguments from others I presented (going back to the start of the thread), and do see them “well-ground” historically. I also see them as brave. Very brave. It’s all but “sacred ground” to argue against WWII policies and our sense of the “greatest generation.” I’ve seen this among conservatives and right-libertarians, especially. The same folks who believe in all kinds of “false flag” ops and basically consider our government evil, simply will not accept that dropping the bomb was wrong — strategically or morally. They draw the line there. Obama is supposedly purposely trying to destroy America, but no way could Truman have gone in a different direction.
Oh, well. I just want peace. Won’t live to see it. But I want it for the youth of the world, at least.
May 30, 2016 at 8:38 pm #45061znModeratorZN,
But the point of recent historical research is that it (dropping the bombs) didn’t bring an end to war.
I did not read that as recent historical research supplanting other positions. I read it as one possible interpretation among others, and not, to me, a complete or completely historically grounded one. I actually don’t buy the argument.
This issue is an old discussion and has swirled in many directions at once over the years.
That’s fine. We disagree on this one. But doesn’t it at least give you pause that so many generals (and admirals) said it wasn’t necessary at all, including Ike and Nimitz? I listed some of their quotes. They said it wasn’t needed to end the war. That Japan would have surrendered months earlier if we hadn’t been so adamant about “unconditional” surrender. And their only “condition” was to keep their emperor as figure-head. An extremely small price to pay to really, truly “save countless lives.”
Dropping the bombs obviously didn’t save any. It cost at least 300,000 civilian deaths that first year. Who knows how many have died since that first year, due to radiation, etc.?
Anyway, I’m more than convinced by the arguments from others I presented (going back to the start of the thread), and do see them “well-ground” historically. I also see them as brave. Very brave. It’s all but “sacred ground” to argue against WWII policies and our sense of the “greatest generation.” I’ve seen this among conservatives and right-libertarians, especially. The same folks who believe in all kinds of “false flag” ops and basically consider our government evil, simply will not accept that dropping the bomb was wrong — strategically or morally. They draw the line there. Obama is supposedly purposely trying to destroy America, but no way could Truman have gone in a different direction.
Oh, well. I just want peace. Won’t live to see it. But I want it for the youth of the world, at least.
No, I have to say that gives me no pause at all. None of this is new. You can pull up articles on this issue going back to the 80s and sometimes even the 40s (archive material) and the internal american debate is not new.
Plus I have read countless nuanced, fact-rich debates asking whether or not the Potsdam declarations even threatened the emperor. Plus in the wake of the surrender the emperor did renounce his divinity, which is one reason most non-japanese could even name the present japanese emperor (Akihito) let alone tell you if they had one.
One key for me is that Hirohito himself stated in his speech advocating surrender that with the bomb japan faced extinction as a people. It allowed him to make the most face-saving move possible. Meanwhile one argument for Hirohito advocating surrender is that giving in because of the bomb saved him from having to give in due to internal popular rebellion against the war. (That was a real consideration.) Meanwhile strong military factions within the country were so resistant to surrender that close allies of Hirohito’s had to hide the recording of his surrender speech before it was broadcast to keep it out of the hands of diehards who wanted to destroy it. (In fact there was a coup and the leaders of the coup did search for the recording in order to destroy it.)
So I have seen sentiment go back and forth on this over the years, but as of right now, this is my position. I don’t see the “new” arguments as new, I just see them as a trend. There is a swing in sentiment. I also don’t buy them. In fact if anything they tend to shift the ground away from Japan toward internal american debate. There is a ton of nuance, contradiction, and detail on the japanese side of it. In face the governing japanese Council that debated the surrender had to meet with only the key members present because they knew they had to discuss at least the possibility of surrender and they also knew whoever advocated it faced the possibility of assassination by diehards (in the night of the coup I just mentioned, there were in fact attempted assassinations.)
So, duh, none of this is simple.
I don’t see those arguments as brave, either. Nor as the opposite of brave. I just see them as more people doing now what people have always done before over this—wrestle with it. It was the same when I was 17.
May 31, 2016 at 8:24 am #45070wvParticipantSo, duh, none of this is simple.
I don’t see those arguments as brave, either. Nor as the opposite of brave. I just see them as more people doing now what people have always done before over this—wrestle with it. It was the same when I was 17.
=====================
Well, i think it was wrong and unnecessary to drop the bombs.
So that’s that poster-man.
I’ve settled it.
w
vMay 31, 2016 at 8:43 am #45072bnwBlockedZN,
But the point of recent historical research is that it (dropping the bombs) didn’t bring an end to war.
And Chomsky adds the horrific note that Nagasaki wasn’t even the end of our bombing. We continued after that world-historical war crime to kill more Japanese civilians.
The atomic bombs most certainly did bring a quicker end to the war. The atom bomb had a dual purpose of destructive force and that of a weapon of terror. Time had to p[ass for the japanese government and the citizenry as a whole to learn of the utter devastation wrought by a single bomb delivered by a single plane. At that time the US Army Air Corps owned the japanese sky and any one of those planes could have the atom bomb. The effect upon japanese morale had to be devastating. The japanese didn’t know that the third atomic bomb wouldn’t be ready to drop until Aug 19th. They didn’t know how many atomic bombs the US had and their fear that Tokyo would be the third atomic bombing forced their surrender. The US continued to bomb selected targets after Nagasaki to keep up the pressure on the government and to further degrade Japan’s military capability in case an invasion of Japan was necessary.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 31, 2016 at 11:12 am #45081Billy_TParticipantbnw,
We’ll never agree on this one. I think the evidence shows that it was absolutely unnecessary from a military point of view, that we had dozens of alternatives that would have brought about the end of war and truly saved lives. Those 300,000 Japanese dead on those two islands count too. No lives were saved by the bombs. Huge numbers of defenseless humans were slaughtered, needlessly, instead.
To me, the decision to drop the bombs was despicable, contemptible, unconscionable, and I doubt FDR would have made the same choice. I know Henry Wallace wouldn’t have.
I’ve never accepted the old chestnut of “all is fair in love and war.” I think what we do in war says profound things about our character, our principles, our worldview. When America dropped the bombs, it told the world that so much of our rhetoric was hollow.
May 31, 2016 at 11:16 am #45082bnwBlockedbnw,
We’ll never agree on this one. I think the evidence shows that it was absolutely unnecessary from a military point of view, that we had dozens of alternatives that would have brought about the end of war and truly saved lives. Those 300,000 Japanese dead on those two islands count too. No lives were saved by the bombs. Huge numbers of defenseless humans were slaughtered, needlessly, instead.
To me, the decision to drop the bombs was despicable, contemptible, unconscionable, and I doubt FDR would have made the same choice. I know Henry Wallace wouldn’t have.
I’ve never accepted the old chestnut of “all is fair in love and war.” I think what we do in war says profound things about our character, our principles, our worldview. When America dropped the bombs, it told the world that so much of our rhetoric was hollow.
FDR would have dropped the bombs too. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 31, 2016 at 11:40 am #45083znModeratorbnw,
We’ll never agree on this one. I think the evidence shows that it was absolutely unnecessary
Some evidence viewed a certain way can lead to that interpretation
I have never shared that interpretation myself, for a lot reasons.
Either way that’s all it is. An interpretation. An argument. I find that people who tend to advocate the “not militarily necessary” interpretation are strongly pre-disposed to that interpretation to begin with. (It works the same for other interpretations too.) But if you survey the vast field of research on this, and I mean all of it from every angle, it never appears that simple.
This is a debate that can never be “won.” People just have to make an honest effort to be informed, and then out of the myriad of slippery factors, make a choice that suits them and that they can stand behind.
Which I think everyone in this thread has done.
May 31, 2016 at 11:49 am #45084Billy_TParticipantZN,
But that’s all it is. An interpretation. An argument. I find that people who tend to advocate the “not militarily necessary” interpretation are strongly pre-disposed to that interpretation to begin with. If you survey the vast field of research on this, and I mean all of it from every angle, it never appears that simple.
That works both ways. I find that people who think it was necessary are strongly pre-disposed to viewing it that way from the getgo, and are not willing to look at the issue from all angles.
I have. You say you have. We’re at an impasse, etc. etc.
It’s not really a helpful way of debating when you say the other guy isn’t looking at all the evidence, or from all the angles, or is being too simplistic. We’re both guilty of this. Perhaps most people are. But it’s not helpful.
You are correct that it’s a matter of interpretation. Problems can arise, however, when it becomes a matter of “Well, my interpretation isn’t simplistic like yours.” Or, “My interpretation takes into account all the angles, unlike yours.”
Again, I’m guilty of the above, too. And with that, I bow out of this discussion for good.
May 31, 2016 at 11:58 am #45085znModerator(It works the same for other interpretations too.)
That works both ways.
Yeah I know…and I said as much.
That’s one reason why I said it is a debate that cannot be won.
Another reason is that there is a vast amount to consider in even discussing it.
I didn’t say anything btw about anyone being simplisitc, in case that was aimed at me. I tried to stress that:
People just have to make an honest effort to be informed, and then out of the myriad of slippery factors, make a choice that suits them and that they can stand behind.
Which I think everyone in this thread has done.
May 31, 2016 at 4:30 pm #45101wvParticipant< … interpretation… argument… vast field of research… debate that can never be “won.” People just have to make an honest effort to be informed, and then out of the myriad of slippery factors, make a choice that suits them and that they can stand behind…
—————
I completely agree with that. Which is one reason among others,
why i dont try to ‘debate’ it or try to ‘persuade’ on this topic.I just flat-out announce the one-holy-truth,
on the topic and I expect everyone to fall in line.Btw, Gandhi agrees with me on this. He says screw the vast
field of research, bombing civilians is always wrong.w
vMay 31, 2016 at 4:43 pm #45103znModeratorHe says screw the vast
field of research, bombing civilians is always wrong.Yeah well Gandhi is free to say that because of all the brave american men and women who bombed Tokyo for a living during the war.
If not for that he would be living under some kind of foreign imperial system without national independence.
In other words he would actually have to fight for his freedom himself, as opposed to blithely criticizing those who did it for him.
.
May 31, 2016 at 7:34 pm #45132bnwBlockedHe says screw the vast
field of research, bombing civilians is always wrong.Yeah well Gandhi is free to say that because of all the brave american men and women who bombed Tokyo for a living during the war.
If not for that he would be living under some kind of foreign imperial system without national independence.
In other words he would actually have to fight for his freedom himself, as opposed to blithely criticizing those who did it for him.
.
Well said.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 31, 2016 at 7:40 pm #45134znModeratorWell said.
Except it was all ironic! Gandhi DID fight for freedom and independence from a foreign imperial system.
May 31, 2016 at 7:55 pm #45136bnwBlockedWell said.
Except it was all ironic! Gandhi DID fight for freedom and independence from a foreign imperial system.
BS. Japan freed India from British rule by degrading their military and holdings in Asia. Ghandi sat around and got lucky he wasn’t in a french colony.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
May 31, 2016 at 8:16 pm #45138znModeratorBS. Japan freed India from British rule by degrading their military and holdings in Asia. Ghandi sat around and got lucky he wasn’t in a french colony.
Well…we will just have to disagree on that one.
…
May 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm #45147wvParticipantHe says screw the vast
field of research, bombing civilians is always wrong.Yeah well Gandhi is free to say that because of all the brave american men and women who bombed Tokyo for a living during the war.
If not for that he would be living under some kind of foreign imperial system without national independence.
In other words he would actually have to fight for his freedom himself, as opposed to blithely criticizing those who did it for him.
.
================
If you hate Gandhi so much, maybe you should
just stop eating Indian food.w
v
May 31, 2016 at 9:42 pm #45151znModeratorIf you hate Gandhi so much, maybe you should
just stop eating Indian food.I eat Indian food to spite him.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
