Americans Were Too Delicate to See the Truth

[Blaise (imported)]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1001001583

[JesusA (imported)]

Thank you for the link. It's a powerful story. Some of my own research and teaching concerns this era and I need to see the film.

[Riverwind (imported)]

I read it also, If I understand it the person is trying to see the film of what happened so long ago. What is disturbing to me is trying to rewright history. If that is the case then I cant support his decision. So the question is should we have dropped the bomb, now we are in the second guessing decisions made 60 years ago. I am sure that even reading about WWII in detail but we dont understand the state of mind of the world at that time. Now to prove my point go back to 911, what was the mental state of America on 912.

River

[A-1 (imported)]

River,

I agree with you.

This is the alternative to dropping the atomic bombs. (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm)

Please, everyone, read it carefully. All of our fathers could have easily been killed in this invasion before we were born.

This would have amounted to a Viet Nam in 1945 and most likely the splitting of Japan with Russia similar to what has happened to Korea.

We would still be dealing with a radical regime in the north part of Japan instead of a free and prosperous Japan as provided by the implementation of the Marshall Plan.

A-1

[bobov (imported)]

So people were squeamish about the effects of the atom bomb. The question surrounding the bomb doesn't change: would the death and destruction have been greater had the bomb not been used? The answer is still arguably yes. The Japanese government and people were prepared for unlimited resistance rather than surrender. The toll on both Japanese and American lives would have been awful, perhaps far in excess of that caused by the atom bombs. No one can know for sure. Truman's intention of bringing the Pacific war to a quick end was ultimately humane.

Had people seen the pictures of suffering and devastation, would deployment of atomic weapons have been reduced or prevented? I hardly think so. No one knowing anything about Stalin and his regime can imagine he would have hesitated to pursue atomic weapons development. Once the Soviets had the bomb, continued U.S. development became inevitable. Other nations developed the bomb only many years later. The limited availability of fissionable uranium was the reason. Extraction of the fissionable component of uranium from ore once required hugely expensive plants that were beyond most nation's capability. It was the invention of an inexpensive extraction method, using uranium ore dust suspended in a laser beam, that made proliferation unstoppable. The only way to stop the bomb would have been never to use it at all, but the horror was not understood until it was too late.

Something remembered even less frequently than the effects of the atomic bombs is the effect on Japan, and also Germany, of so-called "fire bombing." In the 1940s, most buildings in Tokyo and other Japanese cities were made of wood. Exploiting the vulnerability of wooden buildings to fire, the U.S. dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo and several other Japanese cities. The resulting death and destruction were terrible, far exceeding that attributable to the atom bombs. Tokyo was almost totally destroyed, with vast casualties. In Germany, Dresden and other towns were similarly bombed. The allies knew the consequences of fire bombing. It was done deliberately to punish Japan and Germany for their crimes, and to create fear leading to surrender. While the effects of radiation on human beings may be especially horrible, it's not necessary to use atomic weapons to cause death and suffering on a large scale. The question is how much damage we are prepared to inflict in order to achieve victory.

[A-1 (imported)]

More reading...

1. (http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfal0.html)

2. (http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm)

3. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm)

4. (http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion4.html) This is the most interesting of all of these articles. Please read it and think about it.

I don't know how much more of this LIBERAL GUILT that I can take...



:shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk :shakemitk

A-1

[_g (imported)]

More reading...

clip....

I don't know how much more of this LIBERAL GUILT that I can take...

clip....

Always trying to rewrite history, second guess the leaders, and hide that war is hell. If you go to war you can't be nice, or you will loose.

_g

[Blaise (imported)]

I read it also, If I understand it the person is trying to see the film of what happened so long ago. What is disturbing to me is trying to rewright history. If that is the case then I cant support his decision. So the question is should we have dropped the bomb, now we are in the second guessing decisions made 60 years ago. I am sure that even reading about WWII in detail but we dont understand the state of mind of the world at that time. Now to prove my point go back to 911, what was the mental state of America on 912. River

The film, if I correctly grasp the site, pertains to history—a suppressed history. McGeorge Bundy, who was an assistant to Secretary of War Stimson at the time the United States deployed the bomb, wrote about how justification for the use of the bomb came after deployment. Bundy himself helped write the justification for using the bomb. I believe that Secretary Stimson felt that he had warned the Japanese government and that they had rebuffed us. Secretary Stimson raced against the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan. That had a start date of August 15, 1945.

Japan would have collapsed regardless whether the United States invaded the islands. What determined the need to use the bomb was our desire to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan.

Of course, Stalin knew all about the bomb. Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall had leaked the details.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DEGBOM.html

[bobov (imported)]

If the justification for use of the bomb was written after it was used, what was the actual basis of the decision? There must have been some reasoning behind what was done. Those who claim we were wrong to use the bomb must refute the justification regardless of when it was written. I suspect that what happened is that the decision was made for the published reasons, but that some staffers were asked to write a polished formal presentation after the fact. The staffers, suffering from intellectual vainglory, imagined themselves to be the originators.

[Blaise (imported)]

If the justification for use of the bomb was written after it was used, what was the actual basis of the decision? There must have been some reasoning behind what was done. Those who claim we were wrong to use the bomb must refute the justification regardless of when it was written. I suspect that what happened is that the decision was made for the published reasons, but that some staffers were asked to write a polished formal presentation after the fact. The staffers, suffering from intellectual vainglory, imagined themselves to be the originators.

If I recall correctly, there is much debate about why we used the gadget. One theory was that we used it to keep the Soviet Union from entering the battle--end the war before they had time to invade. Another was that we used it to intimidate the Soviet Union--that did not work. Another theory is that we used it simply because he had the damm thing.

There is a debate that the use against the first target was okay, but that the use against the second was not. Of course, the bombs were of two kinds. We did not even test the first design before we used it. We wanted to measure the effects of the different weapons.

I have not read about this in a long time. I would have to review the material that I have read.

McGeorge Bundy's book was, I recall, thoughtful. He no only had good sources; he was a participant of sorts.

At the end of the war, we had defeated Japan. We did not have to invade unless we simply wanted to keep the Soviet Union from doing it. The government in Japan was divided about whether to fight on or find a way to end the mess. After the first bomb hit them, they had no time to organize a response before we hit them with the second one.

Secretary Stimson hated the idea of bombing civilians, but he had to deal with the fact that an invasion would be more costly and barbaric both for the allies and the Japanese. The Japanese seemed ready to surrender if we would acceot something other than unconditional surrender. The problem was saving the monarchy. The monarchy was linked to militarism.

Secretary Stimson supported something less than unconditional surrender. Secretary of State Byrnes supported unconditional surrender.

My sense is that we used the bomb because he spent a lot of resources in developing it, had the thing, and wanted to see what it would do.

Mr. McBundy was not a simple staff member or lackey. He was young but he was also a brilliant fellow with powerful connections. Secretary Stinson might have been tired, but I doubt it.