Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll never understand the questioning of what was done in WW2, with regards to the US vs. the Japanese. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor. They launched war on us, and we were in the right to do as we please.
Weapons of mass destruction or not, I believe Iraq and Hussein were involved in 9/11 too, a modern day act of war. We were in the right to go there too. I wish we had not; due to the loss and cost of it all. My solution would have been modernized and technological, to rid the world of Hussein.
I know the paralells might be hard to understand, but i do believe the US had the right to use the force it did, and I believe FDR would have done as Truman did.
Yep, I also believe Obama would have reacted the same way Bush did after 9/11.
Truman exulted in the obliteration of Hiroshima, calling it “the greatest thing in history.” America’s military leaders didn’t share his exuberance. Seven of America’s eight five-star officers in 1945 — Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry Arnold, and Adms. William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey — later called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Nor did the bombs succeed in their collateral purpose: cowing the Soviets.
Leahy, who was Truman’s personal chief of staff, wrote in his memoir that the “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” MacArthur went further. He told former President Hoover that if the United States had assured the Japanese that they could keep the emperor they would have gladly surrendered in late May.
Truman exulted in the obliteration of Hiroshima, calling it “the greatest thing in history.” America’s military leaders didn’t share his exuberance. Seven of America’s eight five-star officers in 1945 — Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry Arnold, and Adms. William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey — later called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Nor did the bombs succeed in their collateral purpose: cowing the Soviets.
Leahy, who was Truman’s personal chief of staff, wrote in his memoir that the “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” MacArthur went further. He told former President Hoover that if the United States had assured the Japanese that they could keep the emperor they would have gladly surrendered in late May.
Truman exulted in the obliteration of Hiroshima, calling it “the greatest thing in history.” America’s military leaders didn’t share his exuberance. Seven of America’s eight five-star officers in 1945 — Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry Arnold, and Adms. William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey — later called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Nor did the bombs succeed in their collateral purpose: cowing the Soviets.
Leahy, who was Truman’s personal chief of staff, wrote in his memoir that the “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” MacArthur went further. He told former President Hoover that if the United States had assured the Japanese that they could keep the emperor they would have gladly surrendered in late May.
What's this have to do with FDR?
Anyways you can take any out of context quote, letter, 2nd hand statements, mumblings, rumours, regrets and add it to fit your argument one way or another, I will add another one:
"Yes, of course they would be used. In any combat where these things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn't be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. "
-Eisenhower on whether small atomic weapons would be used if war broke out in the Far East. Press conference March 16, 1954.
For the records by the way - Hiroshima (headquarters of Japan 2nd army and major military supply depot) and Nagasaki (Mitsubishi ordnance and arms factories) were both considered military targets.
Would FDR have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?
FDR authorized the Manhattan Project, correct?
Yep, at the urging of Albert Einstein (after consulting with Leo Szilard and Co.). At that time the Nazis looked pretty strong and we were looking for things to give us an edge.
I think the more focused question would be: Would FDR have dropped the bombs if he understood how horrible they were. That would require him to have knowledge that wasn't available in 1945, however. So the point is really moot, IMNSHO.
Yep, at the urging of Albert Einstein (after consulting with Leo Szilard and Co.). At that time the Nazis looked pretty strong and we were looking for things to give us an edge.
I think the more focused question would be: Would FDR have dropped the bombs if he understood how horrible they were. That would require him to have knowledge that wasn't available in 1945, however. So the point is really moot, IMNSHO.
+ 1
FDR, as mentioned, had no problem leveling German and Japanese cities via conventional bombings. Nor should he have had a problem with it.
He also had no problem detaining Americans of Japanese descent.
Somehow I think he would slept pretty well after dropping the A bombs, especially considering they yielded the unconventional surrender.
WWII was a total war and not one of our choosing. Why people still beat themselves up over nothing perplexes me.
FDR, as mentioned, had no problem leveling German and Japanese cities via conventional bombings. Nor should he have had a problem with it.
He also had no problem detaining Americans of Japanese descent.
Somehow I think he would slept pretty well after dropping the A bombs, especially considering they yielded the unconventional surrender.
WWII was a total war and not one of our choosing. Why people still beat themselves up over nothing perplexes me.
This debate is an ugly stepchild of the anti-war movement of the Vietnam War. People cast around for other examples of the US being "evil" in a war and the neuroses about the bombs that had developed were tailor-made for this kind of thing.
This debate is an ugly stepchild of the anti-war movement of the Vietnam War. People cast around for other examples of the US being "evil" in a war and the neuroses about the bombs that had developed were tailor-made for this kind of thing.
I think calling it the "step child" of any particular event in American history is incorrect.
What is true is that there are always "historical revisionists" in society. I think many of them are academics who view "revisionism" as a way to get attention, advance their career, and possibly sell books.
Revisionists succeed in getting attention because life is a complex thing and there are generally at least arguments that can be made against almost any historical decision or action that was made. Also, outrageous claims by their very nature get attention.
I have family who fought and even died in World War II. So does my wife. I take historical revisionists very seriously and I almost feel I have a duty to rebut incorrect information that is presented. I have no use for those who claim the Holocaust did not occur. Nor, do I have much use for those who continue to insist that we shouldn't have dropped the atomic bombs and thereby insinuate that our leaders were "murderers".
About fifteen years ago, I met two of the men on the "Enola Gay" that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. One of the men was "Dutch" Van Kirk. During his lifetime, Dutch went on a number of talk radio shows and defended the use of the bomb on Hiroshima. There is nothing new about his arguments, but he focused on the fact that the Japanese would not have surrendered without the use of the bomb and that--as horrible as it was--dropping that bomb saved both American and Japanese lives. However, its the only position that really makes any sense.
I suppose we will continue to debate this issue here on the history forum. It seems to come up quite regularly. I have yet to listen to any argument from the revisionists that is even slightly persuasive. No one is thrilled that all those people died, including thousands of innocent women and children. However, there just was no real alternative present.
Finally, I come back to the notion that if the Japanese hadn't attacked us without warning on December 7, 1941 than there would have been no war in the first place and we wouldn't have to discuss this issue. The blame lies with the aggressors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
