MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I say he was a hero. Made the toughest decsion a President has ever had to make. And he chose victory.
Approximately 103,000 deaths. Bombs dropped intentionally on civilian targets.
Why was he not tried at Nuremburg?
Would we lose that war today?
Further, if dropping atomic bombs is a war crime, why do we have a nuclear arsenal?
I say he was a hero. Made the toughest decsion a President has ever had to make. And he chose victory.
Maybe, maybe not. The top generals of the Imperial Army were fully prepared and expecting to fight to the last man, woman and child. However, Hirohito was not. He was ready to surrender provided that he would remain monarch; if that term was not agreed upon, he too was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child.There's sufficient evidence to suggest the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway.
I don't think there's any question that the bombs were meant to scare the **** out of Stalin. I doubt those particular bombs were meant for Moscow, but the implication was that some like them could very easily be deployed against them.There's a theory out there, that suggests that the reason the bombs were dropped on Japan, had a ulterior motive. Basically it suggests that "Those bombs weren't meant for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were meant for Moscow".
Meaning America's message was "This is what we have, so when we meet in Central Europe, don't **** with us."
Of course its speculation, but it makes sense.
There's sufficient evidence to suggest the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway.
There's a theory out there, that suggests that the reason the bombs were dropped on Japan, had a ulterior motive. Basically it suggests that "Those bombs weren't meant for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were meant for Moscow".
Meaning America's message was "This is what we have, so when we meet in Central Europe, don't **** with us."
Of course its speculation, but it makes sense.
Truman is dead, doesn't matter what we think. If the god some people here suggests exists. He's either in heaven sipping champagne with FDR, or he's in hell feeling the effects of Nuclear Fallout over and over and over.
Maybe, maybe not. The top generals of the Imperial Army were fully prepared and expecting to fight to the last man, woman and child. However, Hirohito was not. He was ready to surrender provided that he would remain monarch; if that term was not agreed upon, he too was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child.I don't think there's any question that the bombs were meant to scare the **** out of Stalin. I doubt those particular bombs were meant for Moscow, but the implication was that some like them could very easily be deployed against them.
There's sufficient evidence to suggest the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway.
There's a theory out there, that suggests that the reason the bombs were dropped on Japan, had a ulterior motive. Basically it suggests that "Those bombs weren't meant for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were meant for Moscow".
Meaning America's message was "This is what we have, so when we meet in Central Europe, don't **** with us."
Of course its speculation, but it makes sense.
Truman is dead, doesn't matter what we think. If the god some people here suggests exists. He's either in heaven sipping champagne with FDR, or he's in hell feeling the effects of Nuclear Fallout over and over and over.
Would not scaring people into political change fit the definition of terrorism?
ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com
I know some believe a state can't be terrorist, but I'm not sure I accept that. Especially if this was meant to scare someone other than who we killed. But both were scared for political reasons, right?
If you were fighting in the Pacific, about to invade mainland Japan, would you prefer to drop the bomb and end the war or to continue with the invasion?
Not all terrorism is bad. Sure, I suppose nuking Japan to scare the Soviet Union fits the definition. I think if the US had nuked Japan strictly to scare the USSR, that would have been wrong, but that's not what happened.Would not scaring people into political change fit the definition of terrorism?
ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com
I know some believe a state can't be terrorist, but I'm not sure I accept that. Especially if this was meant to scare someone other than who we killed. But both were scared for political reasons, right?
To answer you question Maggie, I do think that, if somehow, the U.S. lost WWII Truman would have been brought up on War Crimes for not only dropping the nukes, but various other crimes committed by the Allies. Dresden, for example, comes to mind. The fact that the war turned out the way it did is part of the reason why he wasn't brought up on war crimes. Although, I read something freshman year to suggest that the Soviets would have the brunt force of the crimes.
QFT.From the viewpoint of the 19 year old soldier, recently released from a German POW camp, sitting on the dock in Seattle with his buddy as they sharpened their bayonets, it was all good news that Harry had dropped this great big wonderful bomb. See The Good War: An Oral History of World War II.
Based on the recent experience of Okinawa, the US was expecting a million US casualties during the invasion of the home islands and perhaps ten times that many Japanese. Under those conditions, the two bombs saved a lot of lives by convincing the upper echelons to surrender.
I asked this question because of all the bru-ha-ha about Bush being guilty of war crimes for okaying waterboarding.
And how critical has waterboarding been to bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end?
Its pretty much the crux of the matter though. Since pretty much nothing about war can be considered just, I think the best way to decide in situations like this are a cost benefit analysis. Everything about war is bad, the only thing you can try and do is make it the least bad.
To answer you question Maggie, I do think that, if somehow, the U.S. lost WWII Truman would have been brought up on War Crimes for not only dropping the nukes, but various other crimes committed by the Allies. Dresden, for example, comes to mind. The fact that the war turned out the way it did is part of the reason why he wasn't brought up on war crimes. Although, I read something freshman year to suggest that the Soviets would have the brunt force of the crimes.
How has waterboarding, in real terms, have made the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War less bad?
Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three Alls Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Japanese government and military were incredibly brutal in WWII, in some ways more so than the Nazis. We are talking about millions of people dying in an invasion, and hundreds of thousands already dying a month in China and southeast Asia from Japanese mistreatment, and for what? Do you think that the people of Asia would be better off with Japanese domination. Sometimes the lines can get pretty grey.
Approximately 103,000 deaths. Bombs dropped intentionally on civilian targets.
Why was he not tried at Nuremburg?
Would we lose that war today?
Further, if dropping atomic bombs is a war crime, why do we have a nuclear arsenal?
I say he was a hero. Made the toughest decsion a President has ever had to make. And he chose victory.
The Japanese government and military were incredibly brutal in WWII, in some ways more so than the Nazis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?