N
neophyte
Guest
That claim has already been soundly rebutted by GKMotley. You should take his advice and study the evidence more closely.
- Status
F
FiveLinden
Guest
From the point of view of Catholic teaching on the end never justifying the means it doesn’t matter if Japan was ready to surrender or indeed had a massive force of bombers ready to attack the US. It is not permissible to do evil even if good results. That’s why Catholics oppose abortion and euthanasia in all cases. I don’t understand why so many people in this thread who appear to be Catholics don’t seem to get this.
G
GKMotley
Guest
And note my comment, above. Kort (COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB,pp. 82-92), and Miscamble (THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, pp.115-116) provide additional pertinent reading, in addition to the others already cited.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender.
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t find his rebuttal very convincing. I find that Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific to be more credible than anonymous neophyte bloggers.
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. Exactly right.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Same readings recommended, Ed. You are a slow learner.
And it’s not a reductionist situation. The ending of the war did not merely act to impress the Soviets. It stopped their ability to attempt to put a far eastern side to the iron curtain they were erecting in Europe. No way to invade the Home Islands, no part for the Soviets in the rebuilding of Japan. Good for everybody.
And it’s not a reductionist situation. The ending of the war did not merely act to impress the Soviets. It stopped their ability to attempt to put a far eastern side to the iron curtain they were erecting in Europe. No way to invade the Home Islands, no part for the Soviets in the rebuilding of Japan. Good for everybody.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I always tell them they should. So, beats me.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Try the books suggested. Couldn’t hurt.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
What would you do?
J
JimG
Guest
Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble C.S.C. Is a Catholic priest and a historian at Notre Dame University. He presents his analysis of the situation in his book, “The Most Controversial Decision.”
The title of the book, however, is somewhat misleading. Truman’s decision has become controversial now, but at the time he made it, was not very controversial at all. I suspect that if a public opinion poll had been done at the time, the decision would have been supported by a large majority.
The title of the book, however, is somewhat misleading. Truman’s decision has become controversial now, but at the time he made it, was not very controversial at all. I suspect that if a public opinion poll had been done at the time, the decision would have been supported by a large majority.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Around 85%, in the figures I’ve seen.
E
edwest211
Guest
I doubt that. The public didn’t know what an A-Bomb was until it was dropped. The after-effects, including survivors who suffered radiation burns and later, cancer, were not known at the time.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, nobody knew much about the effects of atomic weapons at the time, including those who designed them, made them, and dropped them. That’s why controversy didn’t arise until much later.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Were certainly not well known. Oppenheimer opined that a few days would suffice for the bombed areas to be safe for American occupation. Which influenced Marshall’s decision to reserve the A bomb production through Oct 45 for use tactically on Kyushu. Caused by the build up on the island as revealed in the last few days of July and first of Aug. See Drea’s MACARTHUR’S ULTRA.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
A STRATEGIC BLUNDER OF EMMENSE MAGNITUDE
If we accept the premise that the two A-bomb attacks on Japan brought the Pacific war to an end, then we could say that the USA forestalled Soviet advances in the Far East, and thereby scored a tactical victory over the Soviets.
The problem here is that Truman and his advisors failed to realize that the advent of nuclear bombs changed everything. The USA’s possession of the Bomb meant that the USA had nothing really to fear from the USSR as long as it maintained sole possession of that weapon. Hindsight, of course, is a wonderful thing. Using it we can now see that it would have been better not to demonstate to the USSR the USA’s development of the A-bomb, an event which goaded them to redouble their own nuclear efforts. The invasion of Japan could have been turned over to the Russians who would have been only too happy to take on that role. The USA’s five year lead in nuclear weapon development should have been used to prevent the USSR from developing its own A-bomb. That was the over-riding danger, and not the USSR’s advances in the Far East.
Yes, the USA scored a tactical victory over the USSR in the Pacific theater. But there is room in this world for only one nuclear armed power. Anthing else leads to the disaster of global nuclear war. The USA had its chance to become the world’s sole nuclear weapon state, but it wasted that chance by A-bombing Japan. Now the only way out of imminent world-wide destruction is unilateral nuclear disarmament. So, hindsight does serve a purpose here by pointing the way to the only feasible solution.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Else, of course, the Soviet program for a nuclear weapon, mused on in 1940, started in 1942, aided by the successful Soviet espionage programs at Los Alamos (inter alia) featuring many star spies, (Klaus Fuchs: Morris Cohen, Allan Nunn May, and a cast of less than thousands, not to forget the junior over-achiever, Ted Hall), which had the Soviets up date on each step of the process, down to David Greenglass’ rough sketches of the implosion lens for the plutonium weapon, would have produced nothing and First Lightning would never have occurred, since the 5 year gap would have caused the Soviets to end their crusade for nuclear weapons, from boredom, instead of striving to overcome the raw materials problems and the labor shortage would never have been put into Beria’s hands, said problems plus the general state of Soviet industry, post war, being so similar to that of the US, in the war.
Life is so simple.
Life is so simple.
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
I gather that you didn’t bother to read the books he suggested. If you had, you’d have found that they’re well researched, with copious references to actual declassified intelligence reports that you could then go read for yourself. It’s not a matter of trusting either me or him; it’s a matter of being intellectually honest enough to study more of the evidence than the selected quotes that have been totally stripped of context, and that you’ve been given by anonymous quoteminers with an agenda. But rather than take up the challenge, you dismiss it out of hand with absurd comments about how the actual contemporary intelligence data isn’t worth bothering with.
“Downfall”, by Richard Frank. $10 at abebooks. Take the challenge.
G
GKMotley
Guest
It’s a start.
Plus a few more characters.
Plus a few more characters.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that it was your books that had an agenda.
How does the context change the fact that Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific all said that Japan was ready to surrender?
A
AlNg
Guest
You might try reading:
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (New ed.)
by Gar Alperovitz
and
Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath
by Paul Ham
and
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
and
Hiroshima in America by Robert J. Lifton and Greg Mitchell.
Last edited:
- Status