Despite what you may have seen or claim, MacArthur NEVER suggested the Japanese were going to surrender. Neither did Eisenhower. If you want to make such claims, you had better support support them with some quotes taken IN CONTEXT.Well, if you can explain to me why I should trust you as an authority on this over Eisenhower and MacArthur, I’ll listen…
No, I wasn’t there. But, I am close to an 86-year-old man who was in CBI theater and later has an extensive background in intelligence. And he has always stressed that the bombing was done for geopolitical, and not military, reasons.Despite what you may have seen or claim, MacArthur NEVER suggested the Japanese were going to surrender. Neither did Eisenhower. If you want to make such claims, you had better support support them with some quotes taken IN CONTEXT.
As fr the attitude of the Japanese people, for that I rely, as I stated earlier in this thread, on my former mother in law. She after was there. You were not.
I wonder if the same would apply to Dresden?No, I wasn’t there. But, I am close to an 86-year-old man who was in CBI theater and later has an extensive background in intelligence. And he has always stressed that the bombing was done for geopolitical, and not military, reasons.
Think about what you are sayingNo, I wasn’t there. But, I am close to an 86-year-old man who was in CBI theater and later has an extensive background in intelligence. And he has always stressed that the bombing was done for geopolitical, and not military, reasons.
Why do you think that radioactive poisoning was worse than burning civilians to deasth by fire bombs? IAC. we developed the atomic bomb in order to have it first. The knowledge was out there and both the Germans and the Russians were working on it. The genie was let out of the bottle as soon and enough resources were available to make the bomb. The Russians got the bomb sooner than they would have because Americans in Los Alamos were feeding them information that speeded up technical development. No, we did not trust the Russians and they did not trust us.Why are you bringing up Russian atrocities? The United States provided a lot of equipment to the Russians under Lend-Lease. Germany and Austria were all divided between the British, French, Americans and Russians before the last bullets were fired. Should Patton have been allowed to start fighting the Russians as he wanted?
But back to my point: America was ready to take over Japan and rewrite their constitution, which they did. The goal was to get there before the Russians did. What I’m saying is that conventional bombing could have had the same effect as the atomic bombs but without the radioactive fallout and the injury and deaths related to that.
Peace,
Ed
I think you are thinking too much. Russia was just as tired of the war as we were. Remember Stalin had killed 50,000,000 of it’s own populace prior to the war and did not have the people to fight a sustained and long war.Why do you think that radioactive poisoning was worse than burning civilians to deasth by fire bombs? IAC. we developed the atomic bomb in order to have it first. The knowledge was out there and both the Germans and the Russians were working on it. The genie was let out of the bottle as soon and enough resources were available to make the bomb. The Russians got the bomb sooner than they would have because Americans in Los Alamos were feeding them information that speeded up technical development. No, we did not trust the Russians and they did not trust us.
I don’t know your sources but mine are consistent with the REAL war and wars that have followed. Once you have been in combat, the reason for being there begins to blur.Dude. I am the nephew of one of those Pacific theater solders and the son of a European theater solder. What you have said is demonstrably false. While some of the people you talked who claimed to be Pacific theater soldiers may have been unpatriotic, disloyal goldbricks, the vast majority of the soldiers remained loyal.
Even if the Japanese were negotiating through backdoor channels, they were also engaged in negotiations with us right up until the attack of Pearl Harbor. So you’ll understand if I find that any Japanese claim around that time to be worthless.I agree with you quite emphatically. From some articles I had come across a while back, I remember reading that the Japanese were actually negotiating surrender with the Allies through a back channel facilitated by the Vatican months before the bombing. The U.S. State Department was said to have known about these negotiations.
“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” --Former President (and former WWII General) Dwight Eisenhower in an interview with ‘Newsweek’ magazine
Also, according to some biographers, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was also to have reported to say that he saw no military justification whatsoever for dropping the bombs and that he was not even consulted about the decision.
And, from what I know about what kind of individual FDR was, I don’t think he would have made the decision to drop the bombs, either. I think we’ve been sold a lie about the bombings being “necessary”.
don’t think it would be accurate to say that the use of atomic weapons is always and everywhere morally repugnant. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet troops had the U.S. military base at Guantanamo targeted with tactical nuclear weapons, which the U.S. did not even realize were there. Would the use of tactical atomic weapons against a military target always be a moral evil? Not only that, there is evidence that Fidel wanted the U.S. to invade so as to force the use of the tactical nukes by the Soviets. Kruschev vetoed that idea.
What part is not factual? The Soviets had FKR nuclear cruise missiles deployed on the island as well as Luna rockets. The GITMO naval commander was worried about Soviet FROG missiles and wanted the authority to declare that any movement of the FROG missiles into positions threatening the Naval base would constitute an offensive act unacceptable to the United States. But he and the U.S. were blissfully unaware at the time that FKR cruise missiles were deployed within 15 miles of GITMO.That is just not factual. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had missiles on Cuba and we had photographs of their lauch sites and support facilities. A relative of mine who was in the Army was put on a train on the east coast without being told where he and the rest of the men were going. They ended up in Florida. Only then were they told what was going on. Kennedy made a deal with Khruschev. He would pull our Jupiter missiles out of Turkey.
Fidel was not in charge, Moscow was. It appears those who really wanted war were the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US. Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of Cuba, then the Russians packed up their missiles and left.
Yes, I watched it live at the time. What Kennedy did not know at the time of the speech is that there were already tactical nuclear warheads stored on the island. The intelligence establishment was focused, rightly, on the launchers and preparations for medium range ballistic missiles. Not only that, the intelligence community assumed that any storage facility for nuclear weapons would be highly fenced, guarded, and protected. That was not the case, and so the storage sites were missed.Here is what President Kennedy told us at the time about the situation in Cuba:
youtube.com/watch?v=P7YkJxQT_0Y
Peace,
Ed
Hmm…Think about what you are saying
Does it make sense (geopolitical?) explain that to me how that makes sense. If it was geopolitical Japan would cease to exist but would be another state.
We already had all of Germany to deal with, Italy to deal with, The deaths of our soldiers along with the costs.
I think we were tired of the loss of American life that would have grown by leaps and bounds with Japan’s suicide missions and fighting to the death.
Do not wake the sleeping giant.
Just thought to ponder and that is one may think our fighting in Southwest Asia and Islamic Extremisim could be geopolitical but to allow the attacks we have suffered throughout the past 20 years to include September 11, 2001
Is to understand why we used the bomb. Why the Islamic Jihad is harmful to themselves and the countries harboring and sponsoring today’s acts of terror. (Religious suicide missions) If it gets out of control it can only lead to one outcome.
The United States has it’s breaking point. Again a thousand enemy souls and the countries they are from are not worth one American life in war.
You didn’t see the spy plane photos?Yes, I watched it live at the time. What Kennedy did not know at the time of the speech is that there were already tactical nuclear warheads stored on the island. The intelligence establishment was focused, rightly, on the launchers and preparations for medium range ballistic missiles. Not only that, the intelligence community assumed that any storage facility for nuclear weapons would be highly fenced, guarded, and protected. That was not the case, and so the storage sites were missed.
The Soviet tactical FKR cruise missiles were not mated with their warheads, but the warheads were stored nearby, and in the absence of a U.S. style ‘positive control’ system, Soviet unit commanders had the ability to launch the missiles–though the authority was supposed to come from Moscow.
At the time of the JFK speech, U.S. intelligence had estimated that there were 6,000 Soviet troops in Cuba. In actuality, there were 40,000. (The intelligence work was valid, but neglected to account for the ability to cram an inordinate number of Russian troops uncomfortably onto ships designed for much less.) Had war broken out, there would inevitably been a large number of Russian casualities. In his administration, JFK was one of the few who held out for the more “dove-ish” option of a blockade rather than an air strike. Even Bobby Kennedy initially took a more hawkish view.
True, what you deswcribed here is consistent with patriotism. However, in your previous post, you used the word “mutiny”. That is altogether different. My dad wanted to come home, but not until the job was finished. My father was a volunteer. (Like all real combat vetewrens, he never talked about his combat expierences. I never learned how he earned the two Purple Hearts, the two Bonze Stars and the one Silver Star.) My uncle (my mom’s brother who had, at that time, not met my dad) was drafted and expressed the same opinion as my father.I don’t know your sources but mine are consistent with the REAL war and wars that have followed. Once you have been in combat, the reason for being there begins to blur.
Wanting to end the war and go home is not unpatriotic. Saying, “Hey, why don’t you get all those men who have been guarding the US for an attack on the US homeland that never happened to guard the japs and send us who have been fighting them home!” I don’t think that is unpatriotic. The war is over, right! They did more than most REAL AMERICANS did.
Seems like some details are missing, but I am sure they are rather private.Besides most of them were drafted and not gung ho volunteers. And many were later cheated by “this wonderful country” they defended. My father (who was in France and Germany till after the war) was denied 4-5 years of a stipend to go to school after the war though everyone in his class was in the Army just like him and had received the stipend. The GI Bill remember? That’s thousands of dollars. Thank You America.
I know a man who was in WW2,
I think that sad and shameful practice first started about 2500 BC in Egypt. It has been happening ever since.Korea, and Vietnam and for awhile he was part of the draft board. He was constantly approached by politicians and the wealthy to let their kids slide out of military service. It made him sick!
Not quite sure what you are referring to here. Islamic terrorists? Legal immigrants? Illegal immigrants? Drug trafficers? Californians?And what was accomplished through all their suffering if you let a real enemy walk right across your border and take everything your relatives fought so hard for? Where’s all that loyalty. Where’s all that patriotism?
This was rampant in Rome during its decline.I think that sad and shameful practice first started about 2500 BC in Egypt. It has been happening ever since.
Yes, the spy plane photos were quite useful. But they concentrated mostly on suspected MRBM sites. At one point a Navy Crusader jet spy plane flew directly over Che Guevara’s secret hideout, making him think that the installation had been discovered. But the cameras had already been turned off and the plane was headed back to Florida. JFK at one point accused Andrei Gromyko of lying about the missile buildup. But Gromyko wasn’t lying. He didn’t know. His government only told him what it wanted him to know.You didn’t see the spy plane photos?
fas.org/irp/imint/cuba.htm
That’s why my in-law, who was in the Army at the time, was taken by train to Florida. When he got there, they were all told what to expect.
Peace,
Ed
I mean this respectfully but I take it you were never in a combat situation nor ever in the military let alone the US Military. War should be avoided but when not possible it is my prayers that the enemy surrender or die quickly and all Americans come home safely if it means long distance warfare so be it.Hmm…
It seems to me that this is a subject that people tend to get highly emotional about. And that’s understandable, considering that we’re talking about whether or not our nation’s government was justified in using nuclear weapons on a civilian target–the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used in warfare.
Now, from my initial impulses, it seems paradoxical to me that a nation that historically represents some of the loftiest ideals about mankind (perhaps not always in practice, however) could justify using such awful weapons against a civilian target. (Yes, I know we had fire-bombed Dresden and other places. But I think that the destructive force of nuclear weapons makes the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unique from past acts of warfare where massive amounts of civilians had been killed.)
Maybe I misunderstand the concept of a ‘just war’, but as things are, I would find such an action to be defined as among the most unjust of warfare methods.
Now, again, this is just my initial suspicion–without being backed up by doing my homework on the matter. But, when it comes time for that, we have to question how authoritative the sources of information we are looking at really are.
I doubt that any among us here have done any sort of really rigorous, extensive historical investigation into this matter–so we are forced to trust these various sources.
So, the paradoxes for me come about, when I read about how Eisenhower; MacAruthur; or Roosevelt’s VP from 1941-45, Henry Wallace, are all to have said that the bombing was unnecessary and atrocious. (I can pull up sources on these individuals upon request.)
Then there is an old man that I know personally. He served as a sergeant who served in China-Burma-India theater in WWII, and later went on to found a private intelligence firm, and he has said he knew quite a few former officials from the Office of Strategic Services. He has said repeatedly the reasons the bombs were dropped was because the intention was for “shock-and-awe”–not just to intimidate Japan, but to intimidate the entire world (including the Soviets, of course) with the most unthinkable of destructive weapons. He often talks of the major foreign and military policy shift that occurred after Roosevelt had died, and Truman was inaugurated. This included what he explains as the Truman Administration policies of “recolonizing” former European-controlled territories (such as French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, etc.), whereas the Roosevelt Administration had promised to use its clout to have these nations granted their independence at the end of the war. That is what I meant by “geopolitical”.
Now, again, I myself have not done any extensive digging on this subject. But, as things stand, I don’t think my opinions are wrong at all on this matter. I don’t think it’s that unwarranted, nor unreasonable for us to question whether or not we have been lied to about the real reasons the bombs were dropped.
PS. CSmith, when you said “a thousand enemy souls and the countries they are from are not worth one American life in war”–is this your own opinion, or where you trying to say this is an example of what others say…?
Wanting to end the war and go home is not unpatriotic. Saying, “Hey, why don’t you get all those men who have been guarding the US for an attack on the US homeland that never happened to guard the japs and send us who have been fighting them home!” I don’t think that is unpatriotic. The war is over, right! They did more than most REAL AMERICANS did.*I don’t know your sources but mine are consistent with the REAL war and wars that have followed. Once you have been in combat, the reason for being there begins to blur. *
Besides most of them were drafted and not gung ho volunteers. And many were later cheated by “this wonderful country” they defended. My father (who was in France and Germany till after the war) was denied 4-5 years of a stipend to go to school after the war though everyone in his class was in the Army just like him and had received the stipend. The GI Bill remember? That’s thousands of dollars. Thank You America.Quote:
I know a man who was in WW2,Korea, and Vietnam and for awhile he was part of the draft board. He was constantly approached by politicians and the wealthy to let their kids slide out of military service. It made him sick!Quote:
And what was accomplished through all their suffering if you let a real enemy walk right across your border and take everything your relatives fought so hard for? Where’s all that loyalty. Where’s all that patriotism?Quote: