G
GKC
Guest
I have not seen it. But now that you posted the link, I realize I’ve seen bits of it, on TV. I would like it.
GKC
- Status
GKC
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s interesting and disappointing, to see those who disagree labeled as “haters.” There are certain bits of history that do not pass the test of accuracy once sufficiently studied, but God knows I don’t hate Truman or anyone else that was connected. As best as I can tell, this bombing was done to get “dropped under combat conditions” data.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It’s a common term. How about “dislikers?” LOL
N
Newbie2
Guest
I didn’t take the time to read all the responses, so forgive me if I’m repeating the ideas of others.
OK, so now the Russians and the United States are at war against Japan. How does it follow that in invasion would not have been necessary to defeat the Japanese? Are you saying that we could have conventional-bombed them into surrender, or that the Russians would have helped bomb them into surrender or that the Russians would have invaded instead of the US or that the Russians would have been co-invaders?
Please explain the logic of how you get from Russians entering the war to an invasion not being necessary, because you lost me at that step.
Secondly, please explain why it makes a bit of difference. It happened. It’s history.
In the big picture, perhaps using those two pea-shooter bombs (compared to what we have today), in demonstrating the madness-level of destruction, may have prevented their development and use around the globe from that day until the present time…perhaps saving many more lives than we would ever expect.
E
edwest2
Guest
This thread is evidence that it still matters. The moment the guns fell silent in the European Theater, the Russians were our new enemy. They could not be allowed to take Japan. A conventional bombing over many months would have had the same result as the atomic bombings. But that is ignored for some reason. The US could not wait that long because the Russians could take Japan and leave us nothing.
When the Americans landed, they wrote a new constitution for the Japanese. Japan became a staging area for reconnaissance against the Soviets.
God bless,
Ed
When the Americans landed, they wrote a new constitution for the Japanese. Japan became a staging area for reconnaissance against the Soviets.
God bless,
Ed
N
Newbie2
Guest
OK, thanks for the explanation.
Could you clarify what you mean by “the same result”? Surrender or the same number of lives lost?
G
GKC
Guest
Many more lives lost. Roughly 100,000 per month, in the entire Pacific theater. The best figures can be found in Gruhl’s IMPERIAL JAPAN’S WORLD WAR TWO, though it’s not well written, IMO.
Note: I’m not Ed.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I’ve studied it, sufficiently. You are incorrect. Grossly incorrect.
I’ll put up a list of, say, 10-12 recommended books on the subject. You do the same.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Um, excuse me. Why is the question of which method would have resulted in more casualties being spoken of as morally decisive? Are we consequentialists now? John Paul II condemned consequentialism in Veritatis Splendor.
G
GKC
Guest
I am, yes. And I don’t discuss the position of the RCC on the bombing; that is not my area of interest. I discuss what happened. Certainly, there are other folk who deal in the Church’s position on the morality. And have been, every time I’ve seen the subject come up. But I’m doing something else.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I’m sorry. I was tired. This subject tends to do that to me. Many more lives lost, under any scenario other than using the bombs and ending the war in 5 days. This includes lives saved in Japan, young, old, military, civilian, as well as in the Pacific theater in general, including the captive people still under Japanese control, the POWS slated for execution when an invasion started, as well as American troops actually involved in such an invasion. Any scenario that only involves continued conventional bombing, of the remaining population centers, and of the transportation system and the mining and attacks on transport in the Inland Sea likewise would have resulted in increased deaths. The bombs were the quickest method of ending the deaths, by ending the war, with the least number of deaths resulting.
GKC
T
thegreypiper
Guest
Originally Posted by cthulhubryan
What is interesting is that whether or not you agree with dropping atomic (not nuclear) weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the biggest villain in WWII air wars was Great Britain. They even knighted Arthur ‘butcher’ Harris for what he did in his raids. He killed more children in Hamburg than total people killed at Hiroshima.
What is interesting is that whether or not you agree with dropping atomic (not nuclear) weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the biggest villain in WWII air wars was Great Britain. They even knighted Arthur ‘butcher’ Harris for what he did in his raids. He killed more children in Hamburg than total people killed at Hiroshima.
I think he’s using the figures they supply over at Stormfront.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Ok. This is a top 10. And for a bonus, I’ll add two of the most prominent on the opposing side (more or less).
Richard Frank/DOWNFALL. Best single book on understanding what went on. Essential.
Robert James Maddox/WEAPONS FOR VICTORY: THE HIROSHIMA DECISION. One of the primary anti-revisionist scholars
Robert James Maddox (ed.) HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY: THE MYTHS OF REVISIONISM. A collection of anti-revisionist scholars take on the myths.
Robert Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT. An excellent, crisply written treatment of eight questions often seen in discussions like this, by a scholar who really doesn’t like nuclear weapons, generally.
Robert P. Newman/ENOLA GAY AND THE COURT OF HISTORY. Newman does it again.
Barrett Tillman/WHIRLWIND: THE AIR WAR AGAINST JAPAN 1942-1945. A good account of the overall air war by a good scholar of the Pacific theater.
Thomas Allen & Norman Polmar/CODENAME DOWNFALL. Not as detailed as Frank, but good.
The Pacific War Research Society/JAPAN"S LONGEST DAY. Japanese scholars’ account of the last 24 hours before the Emperor’s surrender broadcast. A good insight into the minds of the ruling military clique.
D.M Giangreco/HELL TO PAY:OPERATION DOWNFALL AND THE INVASION OF JAPAN, 1945-1947. Good analysis of the Japanese and American preparations for the invasions and how they might have played out over two years, by a primary anti-revisionist historian.
George Feifer/TENNOZAN:THE BATTLE OF OKINAWA AND THE ATOMIC BOMB. A massive, gut-wrenching account of the battle for Okinawa, first of the Home Islands invaded, and what it directly foretold, on a small scale, of what a full scale invasion would be. The very name of the book, referring to a decisive battle, is related to what the Japanese planned against DOWNFALL, and illustrated, in miniature, on Okinawa. A hard book to read.
Bonus: two bad/not so good books.
Gar Alperovitz/THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB. The doyen of current revisionist writers. Bad stuff doesn’t get any better.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa/RACING THE ENEMY. A fair, middle of the road assessment by a guy I tend to think of as the Anglican/via media of the group. Manages to stay friends with Frank and Alperovitz.
Go for it.
GKC
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Who or what is Stormfront?
I used figures from Inferno: The Devastation of Hamburg by Keith Lowe.
However, I got mixed up and used the totals of Butcher Harris’ kills instead of the Hamburg totals. Harris killed over 600,000 civilians and 80,000 children with his practice of terror bombing civilians. He ‘only’ killed about 50,000 innocents at Hamburg.
I’m not saying that we were any better, just that Britain should never have knighted the monster.
- Status