This entry was posted by stageleft on Monday, August 6th, 2007 and is filed under International.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Up until about a year ago, I had always believed that it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that it ultimately saved more lives (both Japanese & American) than if we had invaded Japan. However, I saw a documentary on PBS last year that made me have doubts. According to this documentary, the Japanese had put forth feelers for peace through the Russians. The President had been informed. Of course, the sticking point for the US was that the Japanese did not want to depose the Emperor, and the Allies did. Quite a few people advised Truman to allow them to keep the Emperor, as it would promote stability. As it turned out, they were allowed to anyway. The point of this ramble is, the Japanese may have been trying to surrender (on unconditional terms), we knew that, and bombed them anyway. We bombed them as much to send a message to Russia as to end the war. That I find reprehensible. In fairness, though, there was a lot of hatred of Japan in America, and anything less than total destruction would not have appeased the majority here. There was quite a lot of brutality by the Japanese during the war.
One of the videos I watched today on YouTube included a clip of Truman’s announcement to the American people about the bombing of Nagasaki, it referred to Hiroshima as a military installation.
There is a lot of talk about the “nuclear option” and Iran, it’s dangerous talk, it is important that we remember the last two times the “nuclear option” was exercised.
I wouldn’t wish that fate on even my worst enemies… The atomic bomb shouldn’t have been invented. As for those that still believe that those horrific massacres were necessary, the Americans could have easily have detonated the bomb in the harbour and the Japanese would have gotten the message.
It’s pretty scary how casually American politicians talk about using tactical nukes… If/when the American empire finally crumbles, it’s the nukes that I worry about, nobody should EVER have that much destructive power, and it’s that much more scary knowing that George W has the authority to use them if he so wishes.
I think this video is also appropriate, I can’t imagine how guilty I’d feel if I was in Oppenheimer’s shoes…
I caught a ‘wee bit of Lou Dobbs tonight, one of his guests was wondering why Clinton refusing to take the nuclear option off the table was viewed as a good thing, but impeaching Bush & Cheney was a bad thing ….. priorities ‘eh?
First of all, while I’ve read a fair bit about WWII, I’m no expert.
Second, it’s inappropriate (IMnot-soHO) to apply today’s knowledge and/or social mores to situations in the past, particularly decades ago.
So I will comment as follows:
(1) The results of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far more brutal than (I think and hope) were expected.
(2) There may have been other options that, in retrospect, were better.
(3) Monday-morning quarterbacking is much easier than being the poor sucker running with the ball, especially when “instant replay” is an option.
(4) Regardless of 1-3, we don’t EVER want to go there again, so I’m okay with Monday-morning quarterbacking in the context of “let’s not go there again.”
That wasn’t a flip, dismissive recommendation I made earlier. “The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb” is quite authoritative about what the President and his advisors did and did not know, and its documentation is absolutely excellent.
Interestingly, one of the opponents of the bomb’s use was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who considered it militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and politically unwise.
Balb, I seem to recall that Einstein didn’t like it, either. Nor was I trying to be flip, but I do believe that those who made the decision to use it made the best decision they could in the circumstances.
It’s easy to look back and say “Yo, dumba$$, what were you thinking?” and it was probably easier for Einstein and the like, who truly understood the potential devastation, to balk at the idea. But for Joe Politic, the president, or Bob Politic, the Senator, I doubt that it was so black and white. Which was the point I was trying to make.
“”I made one great mistake in my life… when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification – the danger that the Germans would make them.”
‘I doubt that it was so black and white. Which was the point I was trying to make.”
One of the reasons that the aforementioned book is so interesting is that it really illustrates the incredible complexity of military political decision making.
Disclaimer: The writings, musing, comments, thoughts, and ideas, put forward within the stageleft.info domain belong solely to their individual authors who hold ultimate responsibility for them. While here be mindful of the words of Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
Designed by Gabfire slightly modified by stageleft
Up until about a year ago, I had always believed that it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that it ultimately saved more lives (both Japanese & American) than if we had invaded Japan. However, I saw a documentary on PBS last year that made me have doubts. According to this documentary, the Japanese had put forth feelers for peace through the Russians. The President had been informed. Of course, the sticking point for the US was that the Japanese did not want to depose the Emperor, and the Allies did. Quite a few people advised Truman to allow them to keep the Emperor, as it would promote stability. As it turned out, they were allowed to anyway. The point of this ramble is, the Japanese may have been trying to surrender (on unconditional terms), we knew that, and bombed them anyway. We bombed them as much to send a message to Russia as to end the war. That I find reprehensible. In fairness, though, there was a lot of hatred of Japan in America, and anything less than total destruction would not have appeased the majority here. There was quite a lot of brutality by the Japanese during the war.
An excellent and even handed book, with excellent scholarship, is “The Decision to Drop The Atomic Bomb”, by Dennis Wainstock.
One of the videos I watched today on YouTube included a clip of Truman’s announcement to the American people about the bombing of Nagasaki, it referred to Hiroshima as a military installation.
There is a lot of talk about the “nuclear option” and Iran, it’s dangerous talk, it is important that we remember the last two times the “nuclear option” was exercised.
I wouldn’t wish that fate on even my worst enemies… The atomic bomb shouldn’t have been invented. As for those that still believe that those horrific massacres were necessary, the Americans could have easily have detonated the bomb in the harbour and the Japanese would have gotten the message.
It’s pretty scary how casually American politicians talk about using tactical nukes… If/when the American empire finally crumbles, it’s the nukes that I worry about, nobody should EVER have that much destructive power, and it’s that much more scary knowing that George W has the authority to use them if he so wishes.
I think this video is also appropriate, I can’t imagine how guilty I’d feel if I was in Oppenheimer’s shoes…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8w3Y-dskeg
I caught a ‘wee bit of Lou Dobbs tonight, one of his guests was wondering why Clinton refusing to take the nuclear option off the table was viewed as a good thing, but impeaching Bush & Cheney was a bad thing ….. priorities ‘eh?
First of all, while I’ve read a fair bit about WWII, I’m no expert.
Second, it’s inappropriate (IMnot-soHO) to apply today’s knowledge and/or social mores to situations in the past, particularly decades ago.
So I will comment as follows:
(1) The results of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far more brutal than (I think and hope) were expected.
(2) There may have been other options that, in retrospect, were better.
(3) Monday-morning quarterbacking is much easier than being the poor sucker running with the ball, especially when “instant replay” is an option.
(4) Regardless of 1-3, we don’t EVER want to go there again, so I’m okay with Monday-morning quarterbacking in the context of “let’s not go there again.”
That wasn’t a flip, dismissive recommendation I made earlier. “The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb” is quite authoritative about what the President and his advisors did and did not know, and its documentation is absolutely excellent.
Interestingly, one of the opponents of the bomb’s use was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who considered it militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and politically unwise.
Balb, I seem to recall that Einstein didn’t like it, either. Nor was I trying to be flip, but I do believe that those who made the decision to use it made the best decision they could in the circumstances.
It’s easy to look back and say “Yo, dumba$$, what were you thinking?” and it was probably easier for Einstein and the like, who truly understood the potential devastation, to balk at the idea. But for Joe Politic, the president, or Bob Politic, the Senator, I doubt that it was so black and white. Which was the point I was trying to make.
Einstein on the bomb:
“”I made one great mistake in my life… when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification – the danger that the Germans would make them.”
‘I doubt that it was so black and white. Which was the point I was trying to make.”
One of the reasons that the aforementioned book is so interesting is that it really illustrates the incredible complexity of military political decision making.