Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

[Montecresto]

Where novice status, both in research and in debate is determined, one of the signs is that of someone setting a premise first and then working everything else to fit it. Other than you I have not set out to completely reject the possibility of intentional provocation of Japan, there's just more research pointing towards the unlikelihood than there is pointing away from it.

And with that this topic is complete for me for now. As I pointed out your research is wanting in its lack of extent.

What you consider me to be is of no relevance but you may consider me to be short on patience with the likes of your kind.

On which note I'll now bow out.

That's just fine.

 

[Montecresto]

One point from a link you provided. I don't care about Stimson.

Lol. Of course you don't, the records from the man in charge at the time destroy your position, the best thing to do is dismiss him. :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Lol. Of course you don't, the records from the man in charge at the time destroy your position, the best thing to do is dismiss him. :lamo

He was not in charge, and not especially influential.

 

[Montecresto]

He was not in charge, and not especially influential.

He was secretary of war!!!!????? What's up with you. He also oversaw the entire manhattan project. His notes at the time have more relevance about the issues of the time than anything you can ever say.

 

[Jack Hays]

He was secretary of war!!!!????? What's up with you. He also oversaw the entire manhattan project. His notes at the time have more relevance about the issues of the time than anything you can ever say.

But when the great architects of victory are listed, you don't find his name.

 

[Montecresto]

But when the great architects of victory are listed, you don't find his name.

For precisely the same reasons. The historians that defend both our entrance into the war as well as our use of WMD on civilian targets, go to great lengths to explain away the prosecuting comments of his diaries. It's almost humorous that you or anyone else suggest that Stimson was neither in charge of anything or influential. But I understand the purpose of the effort.

 

[Jack Hays]

For precisely the same reasons. The historians that defend both our entrance into the war as well as our use of WMD on civilian targets, go to great lengths to explain away the prosecuting comments of his diaries. It's almost humorous that you or anyone else suggest that Stimson was neither in charge of anything or influential. But I understand the purpose of the effort.

Historians minimize his role because his role was minimal.

 

[Jack Hays]

For precisely the same reasons. The historians that defend both our entrance into the war as well as our use of WMD on civilian targets, go to great lengths to explain away the prosecuting comments of his diaries. It's almost humorous that you or anyone else suggest that Stimson was neither in charge of anything or influential. But I understand the purpose of the effort.

I'm not sure why you think he helps your case.

In 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, Stimson, as secretary of state, proclaimed the famous "Stimson Doctrine." It said no fruits of illegal aggression would ever be recognized by the United States. Japan ignored it. Now, according to Stimson, the wheels of justice had turned and the "peace-loving" nations (as Stimson called them) had the chance to punish Japan's misdeeds in a manner that would warn aggressor nations never again to invade their neighbors. To validate the new moral order, he believed, the atomic bomb had to be used against civilians. The question for Stimson was not one of whether soldiers should use this weapon or not. Involved was the simple issue of ending a horrible war, and the more subtle and more important question of the possibility of genuine peace among nations. Stimson's decision involved the fate of mankind, and he posed the problem to the world in such clear and articulate fashion that there was near unanimous agreement mankind had to find a way so that atomic weapons would never be used again.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29]
[/SUP]



Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson ready for his Truman cabinet in August 1945.


As Secretary of War, Stimson took direct personal control of the entire atomic bomb project, with direct supervision over General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. Both Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman followed Stimson's advice on every aspect of the bomb, and Stimson overruled military officers when they opposed his views.[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP]
The Manhattan Project was managed by Major General Groves (Corps of Engineers) with a staff of reservists and many thousands of civilian scientists and engineers. Nominally Groves reported directly to General George Marshall, but in fact Stimson was in charge. Stimson secured the necessary money and approval from Roosevelt and from Congress, and made sure Manhattan had the highest priorities. He controlled all planning for the use of the bomb. Stimson wanted "Little Boy" (the Hiroshima bomb) dropped within hours of its earliest possible availability — it was; Japan was to be forced to surrender and the bombing of Hiroshima August 6 would likely be a finishing blow for Tokyo. When prompt concession did not come, he pressed for Truman to drop "Fat Man" on Nagasaki on August 9.[SUP][23][/SUP]


Henry L. Stimson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson


Wikipedia


Henry Lewis Stimson (September 21, 1867 – October 20, 1950) was an American statesman, lawyer and Republican Party politician and spokesman on foreign policy. He served as Secretary of War (1911–1913) under Republican William Howard Taft, and as Governor-General of the Philippines (1927–1929).‎Early career - ‎Secretary of War (1st term) - ‎World War I - ‎Nicaragua and Philippines

 

[Montecresto]

Historians minimize his role because his role was minimal.

That's false, twice. Firstly, SOME historians minimise his role, for the reasons I already pointed out. Secondly, particularly during times of war, the SOW's (now the SOD's) role is FAR from minimal. And chief overseer of the MP is of huge significance. Actually, your not just wrong in this Jack, your quite dishonest about it.

 

[Montecresto]

I'm not sure why you think this guy helps your case.
Atomic bomb



Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson ready for his Truman cabinet in August 1945.


As Secretary of War, Stimson took direct personal control of the entire atomic bomb project, with direct supervision over General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. Both Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman followed Stimson's advice on every aspect of the bomb, and Stimson overruled military officers when they opposed his views.[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP]
The Manhattan Project was managed by Major General Groves (Corps of Engineers) with a staff of reservists and many thousands of civilian scientists and engineers. Nominally Groves reported directly to General George Marshall, but in fact Stimson was in charge. Stimson secured the necessary money and approval from Roosevelt and from Congress, and made sure Manhattan had the highest priorities. He controlled all planning for the use of the bomb. Stimson wanted "Little Boy" (the Hiroshima bomb) dropped within hours of its earliest possible availability — it was; Japan was to be forced to surrender and the bombing of Hiroshima August 6 would likely be a finishing blow for Tokyo. When prompt concession did not come, he pressed for Truman to drop "Fat Man" on Nagasaki on August 9.[SUP][23][/SUP]


Henry L. Stimson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson


Wikipedia


Henry Lewis Stimson (September 21, 1867 – October 20, 1950) was an American statesman, lawyer and Republican Party politician and spokesman on foreign policy. He served as Secretary of War (1911–1913) under Republican William Howard Taft, and as Governor-General of the Philippines (1927–1929).‎Early career - ‎Secretary of War (1st term) - ‎World War I - ‎Nicaragua and Philippines

He doesn't help anybody's case. That's not the point at all. His notes on the conversations that he had with FDR during the provocation period of Japan are, as I stated earlier, vastly more relevant than anything you can say about the time.

 

[Jack Hays]

He doesn't help anybody's case. That's not the point at all. His notes on the conversations that he had with FDR during the provocation period of Japan are, as I stated earlier, vastly more relevant than anything you can say about the time.

Merely US policy to deny the fruits of aggression.

In 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, Stimson, as secretary of state, proclaimed the famous "Stimson Doctrine." It said no fruits of illegal aggression would ever be recognized by the United States. Japan ignored it. Now, according to Stimson, the wheels of justice had turned and the "peace-loving" nations (as Stimson called them) had the chance to punish Japan's misdeeds in a manner that would warn aggressor nations never again to invade their neighbors. To validate the new moral order, he believed, the atomic bomb had to be used against civilians. The question for Stimson was not one of whether soldiers should use this weapon or not. Involved was the simple issue of ending a horrible war, and the more subtle and more important question of the possibility of genuine peace among nations. Stimson's decision involved the fate of mankind, and he posed the problem to the world in such clear and articulate fashion that there was near unanimous agreement mankind had to find a way so that atomic weapons would never be used again.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][29]

 

[Montecresto]

Merely US policy to deny the fruits of aggression.

In 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, Stimson, as secretary of state, proclaimed the famous "Stimson Doctrine." It said no fruits of illegal aggression would ever be recognized by the United States. Japan ignored it. Now, according to Stimson, the wheels of justice had turned and the "peace-loving" nations (as Stimson called them) had the chance to punish Japan's misdeeds in a manner that would warn aggressor nations never again to invade their neighbors. To validate the new moral order, he believed, the atomic bomb had to be used against civilians. The question for Stimson was not one of whether soldiers should use this weapon or not. Involved was the simple issue of ending a horrible war, and the more subtle and more important question of the possibility of genuine peace among nations. Stimson's decision involved the fate of mankind, and he posed the problem to the world in such clear and articulate fashion that there was near unanimous agreement mankind had to find a way so that atomic weapons would never be used again.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][29]

But Stimson's role was "minimal". Lol.

 

[Jack Hays]

But Stimson's role was "minimal". Lol.

Perhaps I overstated that point.

 

[Montecresto]

Yyyeeeaaahhh.

 

[oliveryty]

Is the nuke bomb necessary....