As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As what’s done is done & can’t be undone, it’s best to focus on now & not the past. Most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors to repeat have said that they don’t personally blame President Harry S. Truman for dropping the atom bombs though they usu. will say that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths & injuries. Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they understood that if Japan had the atom bombs they would’ve used them & most of have said that they can’t blame President Harry S. Truman for doing what he believed would end the war as it did. What Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said is that we don’t harbor animosity towards the victims, but that they won’t ask us to apologize. But to repeat, there’s no point in debating what should’ve been done, because we can’t change that. Let’s instead focus on what’s happening now & how to make things better. Any thoughts. :confused:
 
Hi, Funinsnow,

Iran is a potential source of nuclear instability. Let’s say that the US escalates pressure on Iran to show the NRC what it is really doing with their nuclear work - or the US launches a conventional attack on this sovereign country if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz. This would at least eliminate the aspect of nuclear weapons from spreading - which could be considered a worthwhile goal. How is that for an idea? Without a doubt, innocent civilians would be killed. This may take out of the field of debating the past deeds of history and bring us to a current view of what we are looking at now in the world.

God bless
funinsnow said:
As what’s done is done & can’t be undone, it’s best to focus on now & not the past. Most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors to repeat have said that they don’t personally blame President Harry S. Truman for dropping the atom bombs though they usu. will say that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths & injuries. Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they understood that if Japan had the atom bombs they would’ve used them & most of have said that they can’t blame President Harry S. Truman for doing what he believed would end the war as it did. What Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said is that we don’t harbor animosity towards the victims, but that they won’t ask us to apologize. But to repeat, there’s no point in debating what should’ve been done, because we can’t change that. Let’s instead focus on what’s happening now & how to make things better. Any thoughts. :confused:
Click to expand...
 
This is probably not a reply to any of the comments in this Forum but last night on the military channel they had a program about Hiroshima – how interesting!!! Apparently before they made the decision to drop the bomb the USA sent a offer to Japan to surrender and they turned us down – then the President made the decision to drop the bomb. I also seem to remember that the Emperor in Japan had a speech to the Japanese people telling them the country was prepared to surrender but his military wouldn’t let him give the speech.
 
Tom Squaley, thanks for your view. As to Iran, my view is that the U.S. should stay out of the Middle East & we should be neutral. Don’t think Iran is a threat to us & I support nuclear/atomic energy as they reduce greenhouse gases. We must perfect the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. If Iran has the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, then they can do so using Centrifuge & Enriched Uranium. The U.S., India, Israel (rumored), Pakistan, Russia, China, France & the U.K., built their atom bombs before they had nuclear energy. Thorium must be perfected because the waste produced from Thorium is too weak to be used as nuclear weapons components. We must use nuclear, geothermal & hydroelectric dams for energy & reduce our use for natural gas & oil. Iran won’t be able to block Ormuz.

I voted on the Poll. I voted that it’s morally wrong to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki because I believe it’s wrong to deliberately target civilians & have already said that my view is that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths. But there should’ve been a 3d option. It’s morally wrong but President Harry S. Truman’s intention’s good & it got the right results. While dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were morally wrong, it doesn’t make President Harry S. Truman a war criminal. President Harry S. Truman’s a nice man & his intentions were good in that again, he wanted to end the war, save lives & he did get the right results which was end the war. Know that this topic has repeated but most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors would say the same thing-it’s morally wrong to drop the atom bombs on their cities but most also know President Harry S. Truman’s intentions are good & they won’t blame him for doing what he believed would end the war as it did. I think most Catholics would say the same thing, which is why the poll needs a 3d choice with more details.
 
In reply to the two previous posts: Yes it is true that the US made a demand to Japan to surrender prior to initiating nuclear warfare. But this was a selfserving demand. The Truman adminstration was fully aware that the Japanese would not accept the demand for unconditional surrender. Japan’s anticipated rejection gave Truman his desired justification for depoying the A-bomb. After the two nuclear attacks, the US changed “unconditional surrender” to “unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces” with the provision that the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Allied governor of Japan. That’s a big difference, and it gave the Japanese leaders the necessary provisions to make a surrender possible.
Point two: Mr Truman was not such a “nice guy.” As he himself stated, his primary reason for using nuclear weapons on Japan was to exact revenge for the Pearl Harbor raid of 1941. The other reason was to intimidate the Soviets and limit their war gains in the Far East as Truman’s Secretary of State Byrnes admitted in a 1961 Newsweek interview. Posters talk about “revisionist” history. Well, the very first revisionst history was written in 1947 by Secretary of War Stanton where, in response to extensive public criticism about the nuclear attacks, he claimed that those attacks were made solely to prevent the massive US casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it is instructive to remember that the US invasion was not scheduled until November of 1945, almost three months after the bombings. Considering the rapid advancement of the Soviet armies on Japanese territories, most historians believe that Japan would have surrendered prior to November of 1945.
See Prof. Hasegawa: “Racing the Enemy; Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan.” 2005
 
A related question. Nagasaki was a city with a large proportion of Christians. Would anyone here say it was fair to drop the bomb on a Christian city?

Do note that I consider the value of a human being and his religion irrelevant. But human being for human being, and tactics for tactics, would a different city not have been more desirable, especially in the context of the religious nature of this question.
 
Hi, Funinsnow,

OK, we stay out of the middle east, let the fighting factions of Islam continue to murder one another after they ‘push Israel into the sea’ and we watch from the sidelines. I can understand that - sort of an ‘Island USA’ principal like we had prior to WWI with not getting directly involved… or like right before WWII with not getting directly involved. Hmmmm the track record isn’t too good on that - but - probably because we really were involved in some underhanded manner, right? So, this time - just set up a phone booth where the US Embassy in those countries used to be - if anyone wants to say something, they can just call! :rolleyes:

I really was following you here … and, then you go and get all ‘mushy’ on me. So who is to say Truman had ‘good intentions’? Based on what you said, Pol Pot of Cambodia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot ) could have also had ‘good intentions’. You were clear: Truman’s actions were morally wrong - he is also guilty of killing thousands of innocent civilians - su rely, this would qualify for a ‘crime against humanity’ if not outright genocide. But, you are going to let him go… because of his intentions. N-a-a-a-a-w-w-w-w - you really have to be consistent.

But, I really do not agree with your approach for the reasons previously given.

God bless President Truman
funinsnow said:
Tom Squaley, thanks for your view. As to Iran, my view is that the U.S. should stay out of the Middle East & we should be neutral. Don’t think Iran is a threat to us & I support nuclear/atomic energy as they reduce greenhouse gases. We must perfect the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. If Iran has the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, then they can do so using Centrifuge & Enriched Uranium. The U.S., India, Israel (rumored), Pakistan, Russia, China, France & the U.K., built their atom bombs before they had nuclear energy. Thorium must be perfected because the waste produced from Thorium is too weak to be used as nuclear weapons components. We must use nuclear, geothermal & hydroelectric dams for energy & reduce our use for natural gas & oil. Iran won’t be able to block Ormuz.

I voted on the Poll. I voted that it’s morally wrong to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki because I believe it’s wrong to deliberately target civilians & have already said that my view is that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths. But there should’ve been a 3d option. It’s morally wrong but President Harry S. Truman’s intention’s good & it got the right results. While dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were morally wrong, it doesn’t make President Harry S. Truman a war criminal. President Harry S. Truman’s a nice man & his intentions were good in that again, he wanted to end the war, save lives & he did get the right results which was end the war. Know that this topic has repeated but most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors would say the same thing-it’s morally wrong to drop the atom bombs on their cities but most also know President Harry S. Truman’s intentions are good & they won’t blame him for doing what he believed would end the war as it did. I think most Catholics would say the same thing, which is why the poll needs a 3d choice with more details.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Jeffrey,

Good point. I wonder what would have happened if Japan had made a similar offer to the US to leave Pear Harbor … but, if they had, 70 years later some one may have said they did so with a ‘self-serving’ motive! R-i-i-i-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-h-t-t-t-t-t. Since no warning from Japan to the US was given … I wonder what that makes them?! 😉

The real issue is that Japan knew it was losing and was not going to go quietly - just like it instructed its soldiers who were losing the various islands not to surrender - they were not going to surrender the homeland without more death - and civilians was basically all they had left. Yet - when the offer to surrender was made, they refused = and you attribute it to the fact that they did not like the terms. Amazing.

By the way, there are few things in life that have one and only one purpose. There are probably a half dozen reasons why I am writing this post - with only one of them being to show that I disagree with your position on this issue. You probably had a half dozen of your own when you wrote your post. But, imagine, you criticize US leaders deciding about the use of the A-Bomb on Japan because they had other reasons. Pay back for Pearl Harbor may sound childish - but, it something to consider. Maybe there are times when noble and humanitarian are not issues when winning a war is the main focus.

Truman did not need any type of moral ‘fig leaf’ in the surrender terms he offered or in the decision to drop the bomb. What would your argument have been had Truman not offered the surrender terms he did - or, even the terms he later offered (and they still refused)?

Truly, in my opinion, President Truman did the best job and many people survived the war because of what he did.

God bless President Truman.
jeffrey_erwin said:
In reply to the two previous posts: Yes it is true that the US made a demand to Japan to surrender prior to initiating nuclear warfare. But this was a selfserving demand. The Truman adminstration was fully aware that the Japanese would not accept the demand for unconditional surrender. Japan’s anticipated rejection gave Truman his desired justification for depoying the A-bomb. After the two nuclear attacks, the US changed “unconditional surrender” to “unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces” with the provision that the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Allied governor of Japan. That’s a big difference, and it gave the Japanese leaders the necessary provisions to make a surrender possible.
Point two: Mr Truman was not such a “nice guy.” As he himself stated, his primary reason for using nuclear weapons on Japan was to exact revenge for the Pearl Harbor raid of 1941. The other reason was to intimidate the Soviets and limit their war gains in the Far East as Truman’s Secretary of State Byrnes admitted in a 1961 Newsweek interview. Posters talk about “revisionist” history. Well, the very first revisionst history was written in 1947 by Secretary of War Stanton where, in response to extensive public criticism about the nuclear attacks, he claimed that those attacks were made solely to prevent the massive US casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it is instructive to remember that the US invasion was not scheduled until November of 1945, almost three months after the bombings. Considering the rapid advancement of the Soviet armies on Japanese territories, most historians believe that Japan would have surrendered prior to November of 1945.
See Prof. Hasegawa: “Racing the Enemy; Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan.” 2005
Click to expand...
 
Tom Qualey, Pol Pot killed 1.5 million innocents in the Khmer Rouge for his own power, so his intentions were bad. President Harry S. Truman had good intentions because he wanted to end a war though it cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Sorry to repeat but yes, I’d rather that President Harry S. Truman had dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths so as to end the war because I like to see wars ended with as few innocents killed as possible. But I understand why President Harry S. Truman did it & so do Catholics (again I’m not Catholic). The Catholic Church would agree that President Harry S. Trumans intent & the results of ending the war are good, but they would differ with him in taking civilian lives. As to Israel-they have a powerful military & they don’t need our help. There are so many bad things which have happened such as in Africa-Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, Congo, Angloa’s diamond war, etc. but the U.S. hasn’t sent military to end the conflict. Saddam Hussein killed so many for years, but we didn’t use military action to end him for good until 2003 after so many were killed when we had the power to end him years earlier, long before the 1991 Gulf War. We also didn’t help in ending Qadafi until 2011, when it was known for years he was killing to stay in power & we had the power to end him.
 
Hi, Funinsnow,

Please, let’s not quibble over numbers. Yes, 1.5 million innocent is larger then unknown thousands of innocents - but, they were all innocent and someone years later is measuring intent and Truman is still a mass murderer but you think he had good intentions contrasted with your view that Pol Pot’s interventionism were ‘not good’. How do you screen for bias here?

So, innocents killed by Truman would be less offensive if they were killed in a more … h-m-m-m-m-m… ‘guilty city’ rather than innocents killed in other areas of the country?

It is getting harder and harder … but, you are creating an impossible standard… first you object to the way the US ended the Pacific Theater operations of WWII - but only because you think innocent cities were targeted rather than innocent civilians. You think Pol Pot was a worse mass murder because of the number he killed (what if Truman had more than just two bombs?) and his intentions were ‘bad’ contrasted with Truman who had ‘good intentions’. This is a rather soft criteria, in my judgment - and could honestly change at the drop of a pin - or bomb!

Now you criticize the US for NOT being the wold’s policeman - look at all the other mass murderers running around killing their own citizens. Or, invading other countries and committing genocide. Where is the US? I guess, according to your calculus, we can not pick the fights we go into - just jump into them all that involve mass murder?

What I am really trying to say is I think it is a cheap shot to criticize President Truman for making the decision to drop the bomb. Especially cheap when done from the comfort of a country still not at war in Japan or German. What about the conventional bombings of Dresden and Hamburg ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II ) where hundreds of thousands of civilians died?

Honest, I really do not have an answer. We elect these guys (Obama has the access codes to launch) with the understanding that they will protect us or failing that will fight to keep us from being conquered or held hostage. I guess once you are conquered it is a whole other ball game. There is much sadness and many heartbreaks when wars break out. Based on what I have read so far, I really do not know what possible lessons that Presidents that have followed or will follow Truman can learn from this experience. That to me is a major problem.

God bless
funinsnow said:
Tom Qualey, Pol Pot killed 1.5 million innocents in the Khmer Rouge for his own power, so his intentions were bad. President Harry S. Truman had good intentions because he wanted to end a war though it cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Sorry to repeat but yes, I’d rather that President Harry S. Truman had dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths so as to end the war because I like to see wars ended with as few innocents killed as possible. But I understand why President Harry S. Truman did it & so do Catholics (again I’m not Catholic). The Catholic Church would agree that President Harry S. Trumans intent & the results of ending the war are good, but they would differ with him in taking civilian lives. As to Israel-they have a powerful military & they don’t need our help. There are so many bad things which have happened such as in Africa-Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, Congo, Angloa’s diamond war, etc. but the U.S. hasn’t sent military to end the conflict. Saddam Hussein killed so many for years, but we didn’t use military action to end him for good until 2003 after so many were killed when we had the power to end him years earlier, long before the 1991 Gulf War. We also didn’t help in ending Qadafi until 2011, when it was known for years he was killing to stay in power & we had the power to end him.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone that believes we should have dropped the bomb elsewhere considered that it was not the destructive power alone that made the Japanese surrender?

A huge explosion elsewhere is not going to have the impact of a city suddenly disappearing.
 
Thanks Tom Qualey for your thoughts. As to Dresden, Hamburg, etc., I’m against the idea of bombing raids where the intent is to kill civilians but I understand why it happened. Both the Allies & Axis did this during the war whether it’s London, Coventry, Warsaw, Belgrade, Shanghai, Nanking, Tokyo, Kobe, etc. Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened to be the deadliest but they continued the policy both sides had of believing that by bombing cities the other side would surrender. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were of military importance but were attacked as both cities had been untouched by the war. Wars always have involved doing things which aren’t understandable such as killing civilians. We’ve repeated, but again, the Catholic Church does say that President Harry S. Truman’s intent’s good which was to end the war & bring peace, but they’re against killing civilians to accomplish this & if the war can be ended with fewer civilian deaths, then that’s what should be done. It doesn’t matter anymore because we can’t change what happened. Finally, do you think we should be involved in the Middle East or any other nation disputes :confused: Patrick J. Buchanan is against U.S. involvement in most wars & I share Mr. Buchanan’s view.
 
Hi, Funinsnow,

This has been a question (involvement in the affairs of other countries) that has bedeviled this country from the very beginning. Let’s be clear - if it had not been for the aid we received from France in our fight to be independent of Great Britain we would probably be looking to Buckingham Palace rather than the White House for our leader…😃 This apprehension of entangling foreign alliances can be traced back officially to Washington’s farewell address in 1796 100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html but actually has roots that go back much farther into our history. Things have not gotten much clearer since then.
funinsnow said:
Finally, do you think we should be involved in the Middle East or any other nation disputes :confused: Patrick J. Buchanan is against U.S. involvement in most wars & I share Mr. Buchanan’s view.
Click to expand...
While involvement in the wars of others is something that many people question (like Mr. Buchanan) - others are of the other opinion … I seem to recall you being critical of the US not involving itself in trying to stop the genocidal practices of some countries. And, we would have to use more than harsh language to get the attention of these murdering forces.

Isolationists have their own view and it is quite varied - except for the part about not getting involved in wars. Here is an interesting link: u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html But, ultimately, ‘…no man is an island…’ and that applies here as well to poetic readings. If we are going to be involved in the world state such as with commerce, education, science and the like - then conflicts will arise. How we solve them has yet to be determined as a matter of formula, because each case truly is different.

Historically, isolationists saw that involvement in the world would cause conflicts - in no small measure because the US has its own and very unique world view. No one wanted to get into a war with Spain … but, then a US battleship was blown up in Havana Harbor. No one wanted to get involved in a land war in south-east Asia and advisors were sent in to help the country from falling into the hands of the Communists and every effort seem to fail from keeping the Communists on their side of the line in N. Vietnam. No one wanted to go to Afghanistan to get Ben Laden - but after 9.11-01 and the refusal of the Taliban to surrender him involvement became a national focus.

‘Should Iran have nuclear weapons?’ is really a question that goes to the core of our being. Of all the countries with such weapons, the US is the only one to have used them in war - so, who are we to talk? US arrogance is legendary - but, before we dismiss it as some sort of irrationality - the world has basically been a safer place for most people with US taking an interest in what is going on. WWI & WWII would have been quite different if the US had never been involved… and the world would be a very different place.

And, now finally to your question - 😃 - Yes, the US should be involved in the Middle East. The threat to our national interest - primarily in oil, but not limited to this - is nothing to be dismissed. This is especially true since we are so incredibly unwilling to develop our own petroleum reserves to keep our country pristine, allowing others to run the risk of despoiling theirs. Current Presidential decisions of stopping virtually all oil production in the Gulf of Mexico (since the BP disaster) and Obama’s choice not to allow a Canadian pipeline to be built are clear indications that dependence on foreign oil is a conscious US choice. Since the country has not turned to the mass production of bicycles - well - here we are.

God bless
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
In reply to the two previous posts: Yes it is true that the US made a demand to Japan to surrender prior to initiating nuclear warfare. But this was a selfserving demand. The Truman adminstration was fully aware that the Japanese would not accept the demand for unconditional surrender. Japan’s anticipated rejection gave Truman his desired justification for depoying the A-bomb. After the two nuclear attacks, the US changed “unconditional surrender” to “unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces” with the provision that the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Allied governor of Japan. That’s a big difference, and it gave the Japanese leaders the necessary provisions to make a surrender possible.
Point two: Mr Truman was not such a “nice guy.” As he himself stated, his primary reason for using nuclear weapons on Japan was to exact revenge for the Pearl Harbor raid of 1941. The other reason was to intimidate the Soviets and limit their war gains in the Far East as Truman’s Secretary of State Byrnes admitted in a 1961 Newsweek interview. Posters talk about “revisionist” history. Well, the very first revisionst history was written in 1947 by Secretary of War Stanton where, in response to extensive public criticism about the nuclear attacks, he claimed that those attacks were made solely to prevent the massive US casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it is instructive to remember that the US invasion was not scheduled until November of 1945, almost three months after the bombings. Considering the rapid advancement of the Soviet armies on Japanese territories, most historians believe that Japan would have surrendered prior to November of 1945.
See Prof. Hasegawa: “Racing the Enemy; Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan.” 2005
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder why I took up this burden. It’s like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

The terms "
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
In reply to the two previous posts: Yes it is true that the US made a demand to Japan to surrender prior to initiating nuclear warfare. But this was a selfserving demand. The Truman adminstration was fully aware that the Japanese would not accept the demand for unconditional surrender. Japan’s anticipated rejection gave Truman his desired justification for depoying the A-bomb. After the two nuclear attacks, the US changed “unconditional surrender” to “unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces” with the provision that the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Allied governor of Japan. That’s a big difference, and it gave the Japanese leaders the necessary provisions to make a surrender possible.
Point two: Mr Truman was not such a “nice guy.” As he himself stated, his primary reason for using nuclear weapons on Japan was to exact revenge for the Pearl Harbor raid of 1941. The other reason was to intimidate the Soviets and limit their war gains in the Far East as Truman’s Secretary of State Byrnes admitted in a 1961 Newsweek interview. Posters talk about “revisionist” history. Well, the very first revisionst history was written in 1947 by Secretary of War Stanton where, in response to extensive public criticism about the nuclear attacks, he claimed that those attacks were made solely to prevent the massive US casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it is instructive to remember that the US invasion was not scheduled until November of 1945, almost three months after the bombings. Considering the rapid advancement of the Soviet armies on Japanese territories, most historians believe that Japan would have surrendered prior to November of 1945.
See Prof. Hasegawa: “Racing the Enemy; Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan.” 2005
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder why I took up this burden. It’s like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. Or going on CARM to explain that no, RCs don’t worship Mary. Useless.

The mention of unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was in the Potsdam Declaration, from the first (26 July 1945). and is the only use of the term in the surrender demands prior to the use of the bombs. No change. Truman’s primary reason for the use of the bombs was an attempt to ensure the fastest end to the war, with the minimum casualties. Which was the result.

I am not acquainted with a Secretary of War Stanton, during WWII. As you are possibly unacquainted with Roosevelt and Truman’s Secretary of War Henry Stimson. You got the wrong war there.

The point about the casualties which any given scenario for ending the war might cost I have discussed to the point of satiety. It’s a Sisyphean task, and I weary of it. But I will say again, any other possible ending of the war, given the total ongoing casualties in the PTO, would have exceeded the deaths from the two bombs. I’ve posted many references: here’s 2 more - Giangreco’s HELL TO PAY and Gruhl’s IMPERIAL JAPAN’S WORLD WAR II:1931-1945.If you want to consider anything relative to the possible result of a Soviet land invasion of the Home Islands, consider that the cost of the roughly 10-12 days of fighting (which extended past the Japanese surrender, brought about by the bombs primarily) after the Soviets invaded Manchuria, and swept up portions thereof, China and southern Sakhalin, was over 90,000 deaths. That is, in roughly 2 weeks, the Soviets and Japanese lost more than the cost of the Hiroshima bomb. Which I’ve posted before.

I’ve suggested an extensive reading list on the subject, and expounded on the facts, replying to endless bits of revisionism and otherwise just plain bad history over the (literally) years I’ve been posting on this, based on the 10+ years I’ve been actively studying the subject. I don’t know why I bother. As to seeing Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s book, that’s easy for me to do. I own two copies. Among the roughly 100 books and papers I own on the end game in the PTO in WWII.

Last word: Richard Frank/DOWNFALL:THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE.

GKC
 
JimG said:
Threads on this topic just keep recurring. For those interested in reviewing all the arguments, there were pretty much all set out in this thread inspired by an article in This Rock magazine:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=585517

(That thread is now closed, but it still makes interesting reading.)
Click to expand...
True. And I was there, as Edwin Layton said in his book on Pearl Harbor…

If there is a substantial point, revisionist history, bad history, whatever, that has not been addressed in threads like these, I’d be amazed.

And the beat goes on.

GKC
 
JimG said:
Threads on this topic just keep recurring. For those interested in reviewing all the arguments, there were pretty much all set out in this thread inspired by an article in This Rock magazine:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=585517

(That thread is now closed, but it still makes interesting reading.)
Click to expand...
I love it.
From here onward I am going to simply post a link there on each of the anniversary threads that start.
😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top