Did Truman make the right decision?
08-07-2005, 08:38 AM
#11
Registered User
Keep in mind that in the last couple of islands the US took in the Pacific, something like 20 Japanese were killed or committed suicide for every American who died. Estimates of American casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland varied from 250,000 to 1,000,000. You do the math.
The Japanese were arming schoolchildren with spears. Truman's decision kept my father's generation from having to shoot schoolgirls with spears.
Perhaps someone direct the question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to survivors of the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, etc. and see what they have to say.
The Japanese were arming schoolchildren with spears. Truman's decision kept my father's generation from having to shoot schoolgirls with spears.
Perhaps someone direct the question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to survivors of the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, etc. and see what they have to say.
08-07-2005, 09:01 AM
#12
Registered User
After posting my comments last night, I turned on the tube and there was a program on Hiroshima and the end of the war. I didn't watch very much of it (too sleepy) but they made the point that before Hiroshima, the Japanese had asked Stalin for help in getting themselves out of the war. They were willing to surrender, but wanted to keep their Emporer in place, while the US wanted the surrender unconditional. Stalin was asked to slow down the negotiations!
The program pointed out that it was the secretary of state (sorry, can't remember his name) that was the hawk in the capital that had Truman's ear, not MacArthur.
I was left (maybe incorrectly) with the feeling that the war could have ended without the bomb being used, but it would have been a negotiated peace instead of unconditional, AND the US wanted the Russians to see we had the bomb and would use it.
The program pointed out that it was the secretary of state (sorry, can't remember his name) that was the hawk in the capital that had Truman's ear, not MacArthur.
I was left (maybe incorrectly) with the feeling that the war could have ended without the bomb being used, but it would have been a negotiated peace instead of unconditional, AND the US wanted the Russians to see we had the bomb and would use it.
08-07-2005, 09:23 AM
#13
Registered User
While horrible I'm sure it saved the lives of several of my relatives that were in the Pacific theater and probably a lot of Japanese lives as well. We fire bombed German and Japanese cities before the nukes and I am sure we would have continued the devastation of Japanese cities had we not wiped out just two. We had a lot of chemical weapons prepared and ready to drop according to my father who was working in he chem war labs. While he didn't condone the use of them luckily for my family he had two years of college when he was 18 and got put in that program unlike the rest of his training class who became Navy medics and died on the beaches June of '44.
One of my uncles flew bombadier missions over Europe for 2 years (way more missions then he needed to get out) and couldn't take the strain on his conscience from fire bombing the cities. He suffered for years with the guilt and finally he was fished out of the East river in the '50s. I have all of his records including his purple hearts, flying cross with clusters, mission records and VA records. According to the VA records he was tortured by the innocent lives he took during the bombing runs in the latter part of the war when they were hitting the cities and not just military/industrial targets.
War is a horrible but some times necessary thing and in wars good men sometimes have to make decisions that affect innocent lives. I think, with what little knowledge I have, he made the right decision.
One of my uncles flew bombadier missions over Europe for 2 years (way more missions then he needed to get out) and couldn't take the strain on his conscience from fire bombing the cities. He suffered for years with the guilt and finally he was fished out of the East river in the '50s. I have all of his records including his purple hearts, flying cross with clusters, mission records and VA records. According to the VA records he was tortured by the innocent lives he took during the bombing runs in the latter part of the war when they were hitting the cities and not just military/industrial targets.
War is a horrible but some times necessary thing and in wars good men sometimes have to make decisions that affect innocent lives. I think, with what little knowledge I have, he made the right decision.
08-07-2005, 05:41 PM
#14
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 7 2005, 08:36 AM
Why not? I think that statement illustrates how you've stereotyped those of us who have a liberal point of view and how badly you misunderstand our opposition to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.
We are not against justice among nations, we are no less patriotic, and no less willing to support our military than you are, we just don't want to be involved in senseless wars fought for all of the wrong reasons, and we don't think that the answer comes, in most cases, from the barrel of a gun. At least not in our recent conflicts. We are not willing to accept the need for military intervention simply because our president drapes himself in the flag and insists that its what we have to do.
World War II was and will always be a completely different situation and set of circumstances than anything that followed and especially our military expedition into Iraq.
That is part of the reason why the question of Truman's decision to use the Atomic bomb continues to be so interesting.
We are not against justice among nations, we are no less patriotic, and no less willing to support our military than you are, we just don't want to be involved in senseless wars fought for all of the wrong reasons, and we don't think that the answer comes, in most cases, from the barrel of a gun. At least not in our recent conflicts. We are not willing to accept the need for military intervention simply because our president drapes himself in the flag and insists that its what we have to do.
World War II was and will always be a completely different situation and set of circumstances than anything that followed and especially our military expedition into Iraq.
That is part of the reason why the question of Truman's decision to use the Atomic bomb continues to be so interesting.
As to not be taken out of context, I have quoted his entire statement.
As I was also opposed to the war in Viet Nam that I was drafted to help fight. I will discount that conflict as mis-guided. In my opinion with three down on one to go, my only hope is that when Mr. Kissinger joins, Nixon, MacNamara and Westmoreland that they all enjoy there time in HELL. I will not expound on my thoughts about here, because it is a bit off topic. I just will state that when ever the "Leadership" of any country is willing to let war fighters die to make a political point or win an election: IT IS WRONG!
With that stated, I will respond to the gentleman in New Jersey's comment.
I am confused by your statement that WWII was and always will be "a completely different situation and set of circumstances than anything that followed and especially our military expedition into Iraq." ???
I agree that what makes it different from WWII is we did not wait for Saddam Hussein to kill six million (if there are that many) Kurds. Like Hitler killed six million Jews. Should we have waited until the numbers grew larger? The fact that he ONLY killed thousands, not hundreds of thousands makes this different? When a dictator like Saddam Hussien or a leader like Hitler kills ethnic groups should we do nothing?
I know: That raises the question why the United Nations or Coalition Forces did not respond to genocide in Rwanda. But that is outside of the scope of this particular discussion. That is a whole different discussion. I just thought that I would head it off at the pass (so to speak).
08-07-2005, 06:00 PM
#15
Thread Starter
At least you called me a gentleman. That's a start.
Matt, we didn't go into Iraq because Saddam killed thousands of Kurds. First we went there looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, when none were found we went there to fight terrorism, when that didn't sell we went there to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, eventually we got around to being there to topple Saddam Hussein, and so on and so on. (My order may be wrong, but you get my point.) The reasons we got involved in this quagmire are as unclear as our strategy, our accomplishments, our purpose or how we intend to end the involvment.
That is much different than our reasons for participation in World War II. As nasty as Saddam Hussein was, I don't think there is any comparison to Adolph Hitler. Nor do I think Iraq under his rule, as horrible a place as it was, came close to Germany under Nazi rule or Imperial Japan.
I think it is a great mistake to make such comparisons. And I think to suggest that we went into Iraq for the same reasons that we entered World War II is just plain wrong.
Matt, we didn't go into Iraq because Saddam killed thousands of Kurds. First we went there looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, when none were found we went there to fight terrorism, when that didn't sell we went there to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, eventually we got around to being there to topple Saddam Hussein, and so on and so on. (My order may be wrong, but you get my point.) The reasons we got involved in this quagmire are as unclear as our strategy, our accomplishments, our purpose or how we intend to end the involvment.
That is much different than our reasons for participation in World War II. As nasty as Saddam Hussein was, I don't think there is any comparison to Adolph Hitler. Nor do I think Iraq under his rule, as horrible a place as it was, came close to Germany under Nazi rule or Imperial Japan.
I think it is a great mistake to make such comparisons. And I think to suggest that we went into Iraq for the same reasons that we entered World War II is just plain wrong.
08-08-2005, 04:25 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People forget that sometimes we enter into war to STOP killings!
At the time the Bomb was dropped on Japan, thousands of people in occupied countries and in prisoner camps were dying of starvation, disease, torture, etc.
At the time the Bomb was dropped on Japan, thousands of people in occupied countries and in prisoner camps were dying of starvation, disease, torture, etc.
08-08-2005, 04:27 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jax Florida
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course Truman did the right thing. Would 70,000 more dead, bullet by bullet during an invasion of Japan made it any more acceptable? We go through this every year at this time. The U.S. gets beat up for using the bomb. More crying about the inhumanity of it all. I see little crying for the tens of THOUSANDS reportedly slaughtered by the Japanese in China and other parts of Asia. They brought the war on with their conquest of Asian. And we finished it.
08-08-2005, 05:35 AM
#18
Tommy, I think you're right. I seem to recall some argument that the US forced Japan into war because of oil embargos, but they were in cahoots with Hitler, so I put little weight into that.
U.S. bashing notwithstanding, I really think the interesting point about the bomb is that it made it impossible for superpowers to wage conventional war. Troops on the ground became immediately irrelevant. The fact that someone (the U.S.) actually used the bomb I would claim to be inevitable. A weapon has to be used before it can be feared.
I know this sounds a little sick, but we should actually be grateful that a primitive bomb like Little Boy (and Fat Man) got used back in the 40s. Imagine what would've happened to the world if Japan had capitulated and then the Soviets and NATO had gone to war in the '50s, '60s or '70s... No one would've believed in mutually-assured-destruction, and I'm afraid that would've been inevitable.
That should put a chill down your spine.
U.S. bashing notwithstanding, I really think the interesting point about the bomb is that it made it impossible for superpowers to wage conventional war. Troops on the ground became immediately irrelevant. The fact that someone (the U.S.) actually used the bomb I would claim to be inevitable. A weapon has to be used before it can be feared.
I know this sounds a little sick, but we should actually be grateful that a primitive bomb like Little Boy (and Fat Man) got used back in the 40s. Imagine what would've happened to the world if Japan had capitulated and then the Soviets and NATO had gone to war in the '50s, '60s or '70s... No one would've believed in mutually-assured-destruction, and I'm afraid that would've been inevitable.
That should put a chill down your spine.
08-08-2005, 08:49 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jax Florida
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chazmo,Aug 8 2005, 05:35 AM
Tommy, I think you're right. I seem to recall some argument that the US forced Japan into war because of oil embargos, but they were in cahoots with Hitler, so I put little weight into that.
U.S. bashing notwithstanding, I really think the interesting point about the bomb is that it made it impossible for superpowers to wage conventional war. Troops on the ground became immediately irrelevant. The fact that someone (the U.S.) actually used the bomb I would claim to be inevitable. A weapon has to be used before it can be feared.
I know this sounds a little sick, but we should actually be grateful that a primitive bomb like Little Boy (and Fat Man) got used back in the 40s. Imagine what would've happened to the world if Japan had capitulated and then the Soviets and NATO had gone to war in the '50s, '60s or '70s... No one would've believed in mutually-assured-destruction, and I'm afraid that would've been inevitable.
That should put a chill down your spine.
U.S. bashing notwithstanding, I really think the interesting point about the bomb is that it made it impossible for superpowers to wage conventional war. Troops on the ground became immediately irrelevant. The fact that someone (the U.S.) actually used the bomb I would claim to be inevitable. A weapon has to be used before it can be feared.
I know this sounds a little sick, but we should actually be grateful that a primitive bomb like Little Boy (and Fat Man) got used back in the 40s. Imagine what would've happened to the world if Japan had capitulated and then the Soviets and NATO had gone to war in the '50s, '60s or '70s... No one would've believed in mutually-assured-destruction, and I'm afraid that would've been inevitable.
That should put a chill down your spine.
08-08-2005, 11:55 AM
#20
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfield County
Posts: 2,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredible!
Whether being exploded under the ocean, suspended by a balloon, shot from a cannon or even detonated in space, nuclear bombs are capable of devastating destruction. These award-winning and critically acclaimed productions by Peter Kuran, one of the premier documentary and special effects filmmakers of our time, will forever affect your views of Cold War-era nuclear bomb testing. Rare, newly declassified films discovered in top-secret government archives and spectacular never-before-seen test footage create a stunning picture of decades of covert nuclear testing. Narration by William Shatner, a powerful original score from the Moscow Symphony Orchestra and Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound raise your viewing experience to a new level. Each of these award-winning programs features interactive full motion menus, biographies of the filmmakers, unique photo slide shows, separate original scores, and a whole lot more!
Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie chronicles the top secret, strange and visually compelling history of the design, production and testing of atomic and hydrogen bombs by the United States. The quality of the images is remarkable and required the development of a new film restoration system to preserve these haunting images for generations to come.
At the height of tension during the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted nuclear bomb testing in the upper atmosphere and near-space region of Earth. Nukes In Space: The Rainbow Bombs reveals the unbelievable story of more than 20 high-altitude thermonuclear bomb tests, and the ugly aftermath of the radiation belts they left behind.
Atomic Journeys: Welcome to Ground Zero brings you to former testing sites from Alaska to Mississippi, including the Nevada Test Site, "the most bombed place on earth," where more than 900 bombs were detonated. You'll also take an atomic tour of test sites used by France, England, and the Soviet Union.
Copyright 2000 Visual Concept Entertainment
Whether being exploded under the ocean, suspended by a balloon, shot from a cannon or even detonated in space, nuclear bombs are capable of devastating destruction. These award-winning and critically acclaimed productions by Peter Kuran, one of the premier documentary and special effects filmmakers of our time, will forever affect your views of Cold War-era nuclear bomb testing. Rare, newly declassified films discovered in top-secret government archives and spectacular never-before-seen test footage create a stunning picture of decades of covert nuclear testing. Narration by William Shatner, a powerful original score from the Moscow Symphony Orchestra and Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound raise your viewing experience to a new level. Each of these award-winning programs features interactive full motion menus, biographies of the filmmakers, unique photo slide shows, separate original scores, and a whole lot more!
Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie chronicles the top secret, strange and visually compelling history of the design, production and testing of atomic and hydrogen bombs by the United States. The quality of the images is remarkable and required the development of a new film restoration system to preserve these haunting images for generations to come.
At the height of tension during the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted nuclear bomb testing in the upper atmosphere and near-space region of Earth. Nukes In Space: The Rainbow Bombs reveals the unbelievable story of more than 20 high-altitude thermonuclear bomb tests, and the ugly aftermath of the radiation belts they left behind.
Atomic Journeys: Welcome to Ground Zero brings you to former testing sites from Alaska to Mississippi, including the Nevada Test Site, "the most bombed place on earth," where more than 900 bombs were detonated. You'll also take an atomic tour of test sites used by France, England, and the Soviet Union.
Copyright 2000 Visual Concept Entertainment