Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:02 pm
More people died in one night in Tokyo from fire bombing then from the 2 A bombs, so do we blame Lemay? We should drop a few more in some places I can think of today.
Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:47 pm
...Perhaps another view...
I have been interviewing and speaking with WWII era veterans for many years now. I generally ask very few direct questions, but try to get them talking on their own terms in their own way and go wherever their conversation heads.
In all these conversations (at least dozens, perhaps over 100), only two WWII veterans have told me they disagreed with the decision to use the atomic weapons in combat. They are life-long (post war) friends and both felt the blockade of Japan and the air campaign, while taking longer, were enough to end the war.
One of these veterans was very young Marine slated to invade Japan (as his first combat). The other was an (african-american) tanker who served with Patton in Europe.
I do not agree with these two veterans, who are friends of mine, but I respect their view. More than me and the others who did not serve in WWII (and post on this board, often vehemently), they certainly have earned the right to have that opinion.
I have been interviewing and speaking with WWII era veterans for many years now. I generally ask very few direct questions, but try to get them talking on their own terms in their own way and go wherever their conversation heads.
In all these conversations (at least dozens, perhaps over 100), only two WWII veterans have told me they disagreed with the decision to use the atomic weapons in combat. They are life-long (post war) friends and both felt the blockade of Japan and the air campaign, while taking longer, were enough to end the war.
One of these veterans was very young Marine slated to invade Japan (as his first combat). The other was an (african-american) tanker who served with Patton in Europe.
I do not agree with these two veterans, who are friends of mine, but I respect their view. More than me and the others who did not serve in WWII (and post on this board, often vehemently), they certainly have earned the right to have that opinion.
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:07 pm
I will quote the motto of the WWII U.S. Navy submarine, SS 257, the U.S.S. Harder...........
"HIT THEM HARDER"
"HIT THEM HARDER"
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:50 pm
Truman did the right thing!... DROP THE BOMB!
Topics like this irritate the heck out of me! This was 62 yrs ago! Would'of..Could'of...Should'of! It happened, and for a good reason. Yeah there were civilian casualties..but YOU'RE AT WAR!
They are called "The Greatest Generation!", and for a reason!!! Unlike today, they didnt sit around and debate and pout like a bunch of tree hugging hippies! They did what they needed to do!!
I have family that served in the Pacific during those days and I believe that Truman made the right choice, hands down!
You still wearing your tie dyed flight suit, Bill?
Topics like this irritate the heck out of me! This was 62 yrs ago! Would'of..Could'of...Should'of! It happened, and for a good reason. Yeah there were civilian casualties..but YOU'RE AT WAR!
They are called "The Greatest Generation!", and for a reason!!! Unlike today, they didnt sit around and debate and pout like a bunch of tree hugging hippies! They did what they needed to do!!
I have family that served in the Pacific during those days and I believe that Truman made the right choice, hands down!
You still wearing your tie dyed flight suit, Bill?
Last edited by Elroy13 on Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:53 pm
Great post Elroy!!!!!! Sums up my feelings pretty well. 
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:58 pm
Elroy13 wrote: . . . I believe that Truman made the right choice, hands down!
That's my boy.
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:07 pm
While dropping the atomic bombs on Japan occurred primarily to end the war, saving Allied lives and untold amount of money, I have to wonder if there was a secondary reason behind it that carried just as much, if not more importance than ending the war and he along with his cabinet knew this. Did our use of the bombs send a message to other countries that were on the cusp of having the same capability that they needed to practice great restraint with their own world ambitions since we had proven we have the technology and are not afraid to use it?
John
John
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:12 pm
jpeters wrote:I support Truman's decision to drop the bomb. Far more Japanese were killed during regular bombings of Japan than were killed by both atomic bombs. Dropping the "bomb" actually saved far more Japanese and American lives than it killed. I'm just glad that the emporer finally came to his senses after the second bomb hit Nagasaki. I remember reading somewhere that the U.S. only had enough uranium for three bombs at that time (the test bomb, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki). If the war hadn't have ended it would've taken months to process enough uranium for further bombs.
John
I agree. My father was with a B-29 bomb group in the 20th Airforce. The effects of Curtis LeMays doctrine of bombing was devasting on the civilian population. The results of a land invasion of Japan would have had far more horrific casualties then would occurred with the dropping of the atomic bombs on two cities.
Truman
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:19 pm
John, in my opinion you are on to something. Discussions of the Bomb, as this one has mostly stick to the conventional line, saving Allied lives was pretty much it. It is just sort of a hunch, I don't really have research to support it, but I guess Truman was also trying to send a strong message to the Russians. This is the kind of thinking I was hopeing this site might bring out.
I am Harry Truman's damaged sense of purpose...
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:28 pm
(remember "Fight Club"?)
My opinion and some editorial about Harry Truman. Truman was a political compromise for many reasons. One of the big ones was that he was a total machine politician- he really believed in walking up the steps of the ladder on the Democratic Party's blessing. He got a real name for himself chasing the dragons of wasted expenditure during the war- his biggest effort was against Glenn L. Martin and the B-26 Marauder. He lost that battle because GLM did an end run around him and his senatorial inquiry powers, and got a bigger contract to boost- the B-26 G. One should not tread lightly on the toes of FDR's old cronies. Harry was not much thought of in upper political circles- he was chosen for his solid southern block voter appeal, and because he was an antithesis to the big Northeastern companies which generated a lot of resentment when they expanded their factories to the south. Like many of the VP's chosen he was picked for his additive effect to the election, and his popular appeal to southern voters.
So when April 12th 1945 came around, Harry was a straphanger. He was mostly occupied prior to that time with duties in the Senate, and was left out of most briefings of importance, including the Manhattan Project. Nearly 12 solid years of FDR had put most people on a treadmill, with a comfortability developed by a smooth running White House Staff, and not too much variance. It was said that so many people felt lost upon FDR's death because they just couldn't remember a time when he was not President, and had a hard time visualizing a world without the man who brought them out of the Depression and had led them in a time of a terrible war. Truman felt the same way- in some of his first speeches after being sworn in, he referred to FDR as "the president," although he was "the president."
So a new president of whom not much was expected was thrust into this position of decision making. Think of 1944, when the first photos of KIA Marines at Pelelieu were released- there was a terrible uproar, including a small movement to impeach FDR. The photos were of three bodies floating face down on the beach. The outrage was terrible and forced stricter photo release protocols. October, November, December 1944, January, February and March 1945 and all the telegrams. Eisenhower had to put out a memorandum, advising troop commanders to anticipate heavy casualties and NOT to wait for actual losses, but to project them 48 hours in advance and request replacements before those whom were being replaced were actually killed. My Uncle Steve was one of the ones killed then. Late 1944 and early 1945 were the time when the real killing was going on, and when it was beginning to make itself felt at home.
The early capitulation of Germany didn't surprise everybody, including Truman, but the ease of the finish did. And the enormity of the task against Japan was coming into focus. Jimmy Doolittle flew to the Pacific to begin the transfer of the 8th AF to the theatre in April 1945. Operations Coronet and Olympic were in middle planning stages. In the ongoing operations on Okinawa, over 250,000 combined US, Japanese, and Okinawan killed and wounded horrified those taking part in the campaign, and those planning Coronet and Olympic. These casualties were on less than 870 square miles, an area smaller than Tokyo prefecture.
Not only do you have to attack Japan. You have to interdict their extremely strong army in China, which is more than capable of crossing and aiding the defense, submarines be damned. You have an awesome effort to entrust to who? Eisenhower, MacArthur, Bradley, Nimitz? They are successful, but can they be successful against what they are facing. All of them have had their setbacks against surprises during the war. But you are gambling 1.5 million US soldiers against an enemy which just caused almost 300 casualties per square mile of territory on Okinawa. Against this, you have a rapidly surging economy which is making people wish for no blackouts or rationing, and praying that their sons which have given so much will not have to give all they have left against a misunderstood, still very powerful, violent enemy.
What is atomic power? It is Buck Rogers. It is beyond the ordinary understanding of 99 % of most high school graduates, which are still in a minority during WWII. It has cost the US economy almost 2% of its total resources (remember you like to count defense dollars and are known for that). And you are not privy nor patently willing to follow the obscure ideas of your predecessor. I am nearly completely sure that FDR, had he survived, would NOT have used the Bomb in other than a demonstration, sans casualties. His clearest surviving ideas are that he would have done this, and it is thought that Truman never knew this. And you need to make a statement as President, to assert your authority, preserve the hegemony of your party, and close this war.
I know that Truman later was very aware of the unfortunate consequences of the Bomb. One of his definite motivations for removing MacArthur during Korea was Mac's idea of using it to influence the war.
Truman was no stranger to building defense systems in the rapidly growing cold war. I have no doubt that he had the faith that US and Allied Forces would prevail against Japan. But he knew the cost and it was high. So he had a gamble. It was a wild card, and untested. But on July 16th, he had an answer. It is good. It is going to change warfare, and there is a foreboding sense of that among all involved. But it has a BIG chance to end this war. The Japanese are already sending out peace feelers. Through back door channels, they have tenuously agreed to nearly all the Potsdam Declaration essentials. But they do so tenuously because the whole country is crazily following their militant ways, and will do so with a national will that is amazing to this day. You need a spark to break that hold. You have in your hands.
The scientists tried to dissuade him, by first talking to Jimmy Byrd. And the plans went forward for Operation Coronet. It was probably tempting to not use the bomb. But weighing on your mind are all those mothers receiving telegrams about their sons, the near prospect of more to come, and how it will look in 2 and a half years when you are running for re-election, and you didn't use the one wild card, the weapon of all weapons at that moment. Dewey would have won, no question. And any amateur politician could see that.
So he did it. He launched the bomb like the Greeks launched Greek Fire, the Romans launched the flying wedge, the archers launched the long bow at Crecy, the Turks fired artillery at Constantinople, Hitler launched the Vergeltungswaffe, and Japan launched the divine wind. He asserted his place in the world as an innovator. And the gamble worked. We likely saved many more than 1,000,000 Americans, British, Russians, and Japanese.
This debate will go on long after the fission and fusion bombs reign as terror supreme are gone. It was a step forward and back in individual and collective security for nation-states, and that cannot be denied. People gasp at the revenue spent in Iraq; what about the revenue spent during the Cold War? Iraq pales in comparison.
I don't think Harry had any other choice. Personally, I wish that the secrets of the awesome power of the atom had been unlocked not during the desperate times of WWII. In the perfect world, I would have it done at some other time when the development of nuclear weapons could be more carefully thought out and debated internationally, instead of the way they have grown organically with each nation getting the technology when they make the effort, as Iran and North Korea have done. But that is just a wish and should not cloud our views of the history surrounding the first use of these weapons.
As for the consequences, there is no disputing that. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese suffered, and most of them were civilians. They should not be forgotten in this whole equation and the memory of an atomic bomb used in war should not be remembered without its casualties, and literally generations of casualties. In war, there are always victims, and they are not always conveniently wicked or empowered to change their circumstances. In light of this, we should remember one very important thing:
What man builds, man can destroy, and thus building, let us seek not to destroy, but to preserve...
I think all wixers can understand that last idea...
My opinion and some editorial about Harry Truman. Truman was a political compromise for many reasons. One of the big ones was that he was a total machine politician- he really believed in walking up the steps of the ladder on the Democratic Party's blessing. He got a real name for himself chasing the dragons of wasted expenditure during the war- his biggest effort was against Glenn L. Martin and the B-26 Marauder. He lost that battle because GLM did an end run around him and his senatorial inquiry powers, and got a bigger contract to boost- the B-26 G. One should not tread lightly on the toes of FDR's old cronies. Harry was not much thought of in upper political circles- he was chosen for his solid southern block voter appeal, and because he was an antithesis to the big Northeastern companies which generated a lot of resentment when they expanded their factories to the south. Like many of the VP's chosen he was picked for his additive effect to the election, and his popular appeal to southern voters.
So when April 12th 1945 came around, Harry was a straphanger. He was mostly occupied prior to that time with duties in the Senate, and was left out of most briefings of importance, including the Manhattan Project. Nearly 12 solid years of FDR had put most people on a treadmill, with a comfortability developed by a smooth running White House Staff, and not too much variance. It was said that so many people felt lost upon FDR's death because they just couldn't remember a time when he was not President, and had a hard time visualizing a world without the man who brought them out of the Depression and had led them in a time of a terrible war. Truman felt the same way- in some of his first speeches after being sworn in, he referred to FDR as "the president," although he was "the president."
So a new president of whom not much was expected was thrust into this position of decision making. Think of 1944, when the first photos of KIA Marines at Pelelieu were released- there was a terrible uproar, including a small movement to impeach FDR. The photos were of three bodies floating face down on the beach. The outrage was terrible and forced stricter photo release protocols. October, November, December 1944, January, February and March 1945 and all the telegrams. Eisenhower had to put out a memorandum, advising troop commanders to anticipate heavy casualties and NOT to wait for actual losses, but to project them 48 hours in advance and request replacements before those whom were being replaced were actually killed. My Uncle Steve was one of the ones killed then. Late 1944 and early 1945 were the time when the real killing was going on, and when it was beginning to make itself felt at home.
The early capitulation of Germany didn't surprise everybody, including Truman, but the ease of the finish did. And the enormity of the task against Japan was coming into focus. Jimmy Doolittle flew to the Pacific to begin the transfer of the 8th AF to the theatre in April 1945. Operations Coronet and Olympic were in middle planning stages. In the ongoing operations on Okinawa, over 250,000 combined US, Japanese, and Okinawan killed and wounded horrified those taking part in the campaign, and those planning Coronet and Olympic. These casualties were on less than 870 square miles, an area smaller than Tokyo prefecture.
Not only do you have to attack Japan. You have to interdict their extremely strong army in China, which is more than capable of crossing and aiding the defense, submarines be damned. You have an awesome effort to entrust to who? Eisenhower, MacArthur, Bradley, Nimitz? They are successful, but can they be successful against what they are facing. All of them have had their setbacks against surprises during the war. But you are gambling 1.5 million US soldiers against an enemy which just caused almost 300 casualties per square mile of territory on Okinawa. Against this, you have a rapidly surging economy which is making people wish for no blackouts or rationing, and praying that their sons which have given so much will not have to give all they have left against a misunderstood, still very powerful, violent enemy.
What is atomic power? It is Buck Rogers. It is beyond the ordinary understanding of 99 % of most high school graduates, which are still in a minority during WWII. It has cost the US economy almost 2% of its total resources (remember you like to count defense dollars and are known for that). And you are not privy nor patently willing to follow the obscure ideas of your predecessor. I am nearly completely sure that FDR, had he survived, would NOT have used the Bomb in other than a demonstration, sans casualties. His clearest surviving ideas are that he would have done this, and it is thought that Truman never knew this. And you need to make a statement as President, to assert your authority, preserve the hegemony of your party, and close this war.
I know that Truman later was very aware of the unfortunate consequences of the Bomb. One of his definite motivations for removing MacArthur during Korea was Mac's idea of using it to influence the war.
Truman was no stranger to building defense systems in the rapidly growing cold war. I have no doubt that he had the faith that US and Allied Forces would prevail against Japan. But he knew the cost and it was high. So he had a gamble. It was a wild card, and untested. But on July 16th, he had an answer. It is good. It is going to change warfare, and there is a foreboding sense of that among all involved. But it has a BIG chance to end this war. The Japanese are already sending out peace feelers. Through back door channels, they have tenuously agreed to nearly all the Potsdam Declaration essentials. But they do so tenuously because the whole country is crazily following their militant ways, and will do so with a national will that is amazing to this day. You need a spark to break that hold. You have in your hands.
The scientists tried to dissuade him, by first talking to Jimmy Byrd. And the plans went forward for Operation Coronet. It was probably tempting to not use the bomb. But weighing on your mind are all those mothers receiving telegrams about their sons, the near prospect of more to come, and how it will look in 2 and a half years when you are running for re-election, and you didn't use the one wild card, the weapon of all weapons at that moment. Dewey would have won, no question. And any amateur politician could see that.
So he did it. He launched the bomb like the Greeks launched Greek Fire, the Romans launched the flying wedge, the archers launched the long bow at Crecy, the Turks fired artillery at Constantinople, Hitler launched the Vergeltungswaffe, and Japan launched the divine wind. He asserted his place in the world as an innovator. And the gamble worked. We likely saved many more than 1,000,000 Americans, British, Russians, and Japanese.
This debate will go on long after the fission and fusion bombs reign as terror supreme are gone. It was a step forward and back in individual and collective security for nation-states, and that cannot be denied. People gasp at the revenue spent in Iraq; what about the revenue spent during the Cold War? Iraq pales in comparison.
I don't think Harry had any other choice. Personally, I wish that the secrets of the awesome power of the atom had been unlocked not during the desperate times of WWII. In the perfect world, I would have it done at some other time when the development of nuclear weapons could be more carefully thought out and debated internationally, instead of the way they have grown organically with each nation getting the technology when they make the effort, as Iran and North Korea have done. But that is just a wish and should not cloud our views of the history surrounding the first use of these weapons.
As for the consequences, there is no disputing that. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese suffered, and most of them were civilians. They should not be forgotten in this whole equation and the memory of an atomic bomb used in war should not be remembered without its casualties, and literally generations of casualties. In war, there are always victims, and they are not always conveniently wicked or empowered to change their circumstances. In light of this, we should remember one very important thing:
What man builds, man can destroy, and thus building, let us seek not to destroy, but to preserve...
I think all wixers can understand that last idea...
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:29 pm
John Beyl wrote:While dropping the atomic bombs on Japan occurred primarily to end the war, saving Allied lives and untold amount of money, I have to wonder if there was a secondary reason behind it that carried just as much, if not more importance than ending the war and he along with his cabinet knew this. Did our use of the bombs send a message to other countries that were on the cusp of having the same capability that they needed to practice great restraint with their own world ambitions since we had proven we have the technology and are not afraid to use it?
Bill wrote:John, in my opinion you are on to something. Discussions of the Bomb, as this one has mostly stick to the conventional line, saving Allied lives was pretty much it. It is just sort of a hunch, I don't really have research to support it, but I guess Truman was also trying to send a strong message to the Russians. This is the kind of thinking I was hopeing this site might bring out.
See: http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings ... shima.html
And: http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atom ... 88-1297236
Both books put forward the thesis that impressing the USSR was the primary, not just a secondary, motive for using the Bomb.
August
Truman
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:46 pm
Elroy, is your opinion so insecure that you need to resort personal insults? I doubt if you know what I believe about this issue. However, if as you state you don't like debate then why bother with this site. If you stick to the Russ Limpboy program(Politics and pharmacuticals) you won't have to be too bothered about thinking or debate.
Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:09 pm
Elroy, is your opinion so insecure that you need to resort personal insults? I doubt if you know what I believe about this issue. However, if as you state you don't like debate then why bother with this site.
Bill, as an expert on personal insults
, I can tell you that this is far from a personal attack. I don't understand why you would open up a debate on a subject, that you know is controversial, unless you wanted to get some highly charged responses. If you don't like the heat then don't start the fire. He may not know what your position is, as some of us in the know do , but you leave yourself up to speculation by not presenting your point of view.
Truman
Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:21 pm
Great post by "Forgotten Field" whoever he is, on insights into Truman the politician, and K5083 on the other reason for the bomb. August, certainly puts most of us away when it comes to research on any subject. Hey, where is Jimmy Hoffa really buried?
Re: Truman
Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:28 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote: is your opinion so insecure?
However, if as you state you don't like debate then why bother with this site.
Im secure in my opinons! Are you insecure about your tie dyed flight suit?
I like debates. I dont really care for your debates...but im always curious to see what spills forth from your mouth!