Printable View
And as to MacArthur, as you may recall he was more than willing to plunge the US into WWIII by invading China during the Korean conflict. He thought he had the right to be CiC and thought Truman would tolerate him voicing his opinions, contrary to the administration's, to the public at large and to Congress. Truman fired him and was right to do so.
My final thought on nuking Japan in 1945 is that they attacked us first, don't start something you can't finish!
I think you hit the nail on the head, GL, and I think that's where a lot of those who argue against the bomb (not necessarily LanD, but certainly many of those in academia)- it was almost like we "cheated" when we used the bomb.
As if it would have been alright for us to invade Japan. Yes I realize there is a controversy over how high the death toll would have been, but based on the count at smaller pieces of land like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, can we all agree that a U.S. invasion would have killed far more than those who died in the two atomic blasts (and I'm talking just Japanese here)?
But thousands of Americans would have died as well, as if that somehow makes it ok.
But alas, we cheated; we developed a weapon that killed thousands of their people without a single loss of life on our side (a weapon which Germany would most surely have used on the Soviets if they'd had it, and which most surely Japan would have used against our fleet if they'd had it).
There's no doubt in my mind Japan would have used it on us had they developed it first. Ask survivors of what they did in Nanking, China how they conducted war. Ask our own POWs. Those who survived that is...
And as to the opinions of MacArthur and Eisenhower at the close of the war I think it proper to keep in mind the political climate. Truman was considered a lame duck who would not get re-elected on his own. (He had only been POTUS since April when FDR died) and both Ike and Mac were in the GOP camp. Mac probably had presidential aspirations himself and we all know what direction Ike took. So I do not put a lot of stock into their second guessing Truman, based on the info available at the time. Truman did what he felt was best to reduce US casualties and that was his job. Period.
If they were ready to surrender, why did a 2nd city have to be leveled by the 2nd bomb before they actually did? Hiro Hito should have been executed as a war criminal and place someone else as emperor, with the US as a Regency.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At the time we were. So his point is valid.Quote:
Your point may have been valid when we were the sole member of the nuke club
And Lan touches on an issue that is always important in studying history- you have to keep in mind two contexts, namely, the context as it existed at the time, as well as the context of the present and all of the hindsight that has since elapsed.
In other words, it is possible (and perhaps some people feel this way) to suggest that, while in hindsight it may have been the wrong decision to use the bomb, in you put yourself in Truman's shoes at the time, you can see why he made the decision he did.
One of the items that has developed recently (more since his death) is the actual power of Hirohito. Tojo seems to get more blame these days, Hirohito seems to get less of the blame. Remember there were those in Japan who did not believe in surrendering even after the Nagasaki bomb. There was even a plot to attack the U.S. fleet in Tokyo Bay during the surrender.
But back to my original topic, LanD, what are your thoughts on Tibbets as a person?
LOFL Lew. You honestly expect any subject to stay on topic and not stray? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
The 2nd city had to be leveled because the U.S. was not yet ready to accept conditions on total surrender. (Re-read W. Manchester's quote above for why this was foolish.) We did accept conditions on surrender a few days later and again, we could have done so weeks or months earlier.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At the time we were. So his point is valid.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps, but it's also a moot point. As sole member of the nuke club, theoretically we could justify the use at that time, but the only time we did was for the wrong reasons. I don't recall that we ever articulated a justification for when they could be used. Mutually Assured Destruction justified ownership to ensure they were never used. Now it's difficult to imagine justifying their use at all...Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your point may have been valid when we were the sole member of the nuke club
I'm sure Tibbets was a fine person - soldiers earn honor which cannot be taken away by serving our country. In contrast, military and civilian leadership can and should be criticized for decisions and strategy...
9/11 was justification to nuke Afghanistan into a pile of glowing dust...