USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
- Thread starter alfablue
- Start date
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
I have a hard time believing that Truman never had second thoughts or regret about it. There's no doubt how it helped end the war and save Anerican lives (my bombardier-in-the-Pacific grandfather among them, I suppose). And yet it also killed a LOT of civilians, so I don't know how that doesn't weigh on a man.
Edit: Well, as a politician, I doubt Truman had a soul, so maybe that explains the black-and-white perspective on it.
I have a hard time believing that Truman never had second thoughts or regret about it. There's no doubt how it helped end the war and save Anerican lives (my bombardier-in-the-Pacific grandfather among them, I suppose). And yet it also killed a LOT of civilians, so I don't know how that doesn't weigh on a man.
Edit: Well, as a politician, I doubt Truman had a soul, so maybe that explains the black-and-white perspective on it.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
To be fair, if you've ever seen old propaganda videos about Japan (you may see some on Youtube), people were pacified to believe that the Japanese are nothing but robots that only do stuff for their country and emperor, and are somehow sub-human. Also, Truman was in a bit of a no-win situation. Hitler had escaped to Argentina, but Hirohito wasn't giving up. As you mentioned, it was either the lives that were cost, or many more if we had sent troops in.
It's not like we didn't try to help out the civilians, either. Leaflets were dropped listing the potential sites for attack, although the Japanese government made it illegal to hold or even read one of those leaflets, as they had enacted martial law around the time the first one was dropped.
To be fair, if you've ever seen old propaganda videos about Japan (you may see some on Youtube), people were pacified to believe that the Japanese are nothing but robots that only do stuff for their country and emperor, and are somehow sub-human. Also, Truman was in a bit of a no-win situation. Hitler had escaped to Argentina, but Hirohito wasn't giving up. As you mentioned, it was either the lives that were cost, or many more if we had sent troops in.
It's not like we didn't try to help out the civilians, either. Leaflets were dropped listing the potential sites for attack, although the Japanese government made it illegal to hold or even read one of those leaflets, as they had enacted martial law around the time the first one was dropped.
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
A recent documentary I saw theorizes that Truman didn't really make the decision- he just let the work continue. I don't buy that, really- I think he did.
As for regretting, the same show suggested that the 3rd and 4th drops where held up by him. How that would have played out, we will never know.
It's interesting to note that compared to the firebombings, the actual destruction- both for human lives and physically- were much smaller. But the impact of one bomb vs. thousands to do the same thing was much bigger.
A recent documentary I saw theorizes that Truman didn't really make the decision- he just let the work continue. I don't buy that, really- I think he did.
As for regretting, the same show suggested that the 3rd and 4th drops where held up by him. How that would have played out, we will never know.
It's interesting to note that compared to the firebombings, the actual destruction- both for human lives and physically- were much smaller. But the impact of one bomb vs. thousands to do the same thing was much bigger.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
Because of a treaty, both the US President AND the UK Prime Minister had to sign off on the usage of any sort of weapon of mass destruction. So although it may not have been Truman's initial idea, he still had to give his consent.
Because of a treaty, both the US President AND the UK Prime Minister had to sign off on the usage of any sort of weapon of mass destruction. So although it may not have been Truman's initial idea, he still had to give his consent.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
The Beeb played a series of interviews recorded from survivors of the Hiroshima blast. Regardless of the way one views the bombings, it is a staggering experience to listen to someone quietly and carefully recount just what it was like.
I can't find the unedited interviews, but this is an overview.
The Beeb played a series of interviews recorded from survivors of the Hiroshima blast. Regardless of the way one views the bombings, it is a staggering experience to listen to someone quietly and carefully recount just what it was like.
I can't find the unedited interviews, but this is an overview.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
I was under the impression that we were a couple of months from having another nuke after August 9th.
I was under the impression that we were a couple of months from having another nuke after August 9th.
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
I don't. I remember when I first learned how long the war was going to continue from the US perspective. They'd reach the tip of the Japanese mainland sometime in '46, reach Tokyo by '47, maybe the whole island by '48 - the freakin' war was never going to end! As has been posted, the # of Purple Hearts they ordered was staggering and I doubt that would have been the final request. Truman did kill many with that decision, but a lot more where going to buy it had he not done that.
I've also heard about Truman is that he's the first Prez to order a nuclear attack and the first to overrule the military when it wanted to launch one (MacArthur wanted to bomb China during Korea).
I don't. I remember when I first learned how long the war was going to continue from the US perspective. They'd reach the tip of the Japanese mainland sometime in '46, reach Tokyo by '47, maybe the whole island by '48 - the freakin' war was never going to end! As has been posted, the # of Purple Hearts they ordered was staggering and I doubt that would have been the final request. Truman did kill many with that decision, but a lot more where going to buy it had he not done that.
I've also heard about Truman is that he's the first Prez to order a nuclear attack and the first to overrule the military when it wanted to launch one (MacArthur wanted to bomb China during Korea).
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
That's is correct. One more would not have been available til 8/19, with 3 more in Sept and 3 more in Oct.
They had to drop the bombs, more Japanese civilians would have been killed in the invasion and subsequent battles (projected 5 to 10 million) than were in the blasts and subsequent fallout. US casualties (K/W/M) were projected of upwards of 1 million.
That's is correct. One more would not have been available til 8/19, with 3 more in Sept and 3 more in Oct.
They had to drop the bombs, more Japanese civilians would have been killed in the invasion and subsequent battles (projected 5 to 10 million) than were in the blasts and subsequent fallout. US casualties (K/W/M) were projected of upwards of 1 million.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
This assumes they had to invade the mainland. A blockade would probably have forced a surrender.
Whether or not the bombs were necessary is an ethical quandary and there is no simple answer. Add to this that the bombs were dropped for geopolitical reasons as a message to Ivan, and it becomes even more difficult.
This assumes they had to invade the mainland. A blockade would probably have forced a surrender.
Whether or not the bombs were necessary is an ethical quandary and there is no simple answer. Add to this that the bombs were dropped for geopolitical reasons as a message to Ivan, and it becomes even more difficult.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
Given the culture of the Japanese soldier at the time, the propoganda both they and their citizens were fed, they'd have gone back to 18th century living before surrendering to American invaders. Add to that, their views of Japanese being far superior to all over peoples, as shown in their treatment of POWs and occupied citizens. Either a full conquering through traditional warfare would've finally caused the emporer to submit his full surrender, or the awe and fear of more bombings like they saw. It's sad to think, but using atomic bombs was the humane option.
Given the culture of the Japanese soldier at the time, the propoganda both they and their citizens were fed, they'd have gone back to 18th century living before surrendering to American invaders. Add to that, their views of Japanese being far superior to all over peoples, as shown in their treatment of POWs and occupied citizens. Either a full conquering through traditional warfare would've finally caused the emporer to submit his full surrender, or the awe and fear of more bombings like they saw. It's sad to think, but using atomic bombs was the humane option.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
It blows me away that people are so sure about things like this.
There are arguments both ways, but to say it's cut and dried (either way) is IMO abnegating responsibility for a very difficult moral choice. I make the same argument to people who declare it was "absolutely" a war crime. There is no absolute either way in this case.
It blows me away that people are so sure about things like this.
There are arguments both ways, but to say it's cut and dried (either way) is IMO abnegating responsibility for a very difficult moral choice. I make the same argument to people who declare it was "absolutely" a war crime. There is no absolute either way in this case.
My (future) father survived. Its good enough for me.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
I look at the evidence available to the public, what we know of a the Bataan Death March, stories of civilians that survived occupied countries during the war, our own soldiers' accounts of dealing with the enemy. Looking at how difficult it was to win the Battle of Iwo Jima, the entrenchments the Japanese made, they were skilled fighters with great ingenuity. While all soldier loss rates for an actual invasion of mainland Japan are estimates, you have to think those soldiers would fight harder and longer than their fellows did on those little atolls did that held merely strategic importance - not ancestral importance.
We can't know for certain that 1 million would've died during the invation of Japan, but we know full well that they would've far exceeded the 140,000 we saw by dropping two very strong bombs.
I look at the evidence available to the public, what we know of a the Bataan Death March, stories of civilians that survived occupied countries during the war, our own soldiers' accounts of dealing with the enemy. Looking at how difficult it was to win the Battle of Iwo Jima, the entrenchments the Japanese made, they were skilled fighters with great ingenuity. While all soldier loss rates for an actual invasion of mainland Japan are estimates, you have to think those soldiers would fight harder and longer than their fellows did on those little atolls did that held merely strategic importance - not ancestral importance.
We can't know for certain that 1 million would've died during the invation of Japan, but we know full well that they would've far exceeded the 140,000 we saw by dropping two very strong bombs.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
My (future) father did as well. It's certainly good enough for me, too. But that's neither here nor there.
It also points out the impossibility of discussing it, though.
My (future) father did as well. It's certainly good enough for me, too. But that's neither here nor there.
It also points out the impossibility of discussing it, though.
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945
Just because a decision was difficult doesn't mean it's not settled. I have thought quite a lot about this - was a War in the Pacific buff for quite a number of years - and I believe that Truman did the right thing. The fact that I came to a conclusion is not an "abnegation of responsibility."