I wouldn’t do those things, but I don’t condemn them at anywhere near the same level as the dropping of two completely unnecessray atomic bombs.
Interesting. Did you actually read it?
So…Eisenhower is given a briefing in Germany (at his headquarters).
What does he base his assertion that ‘Japan was already defeated on’, exactly? He seemingly has no special knowledge, being the allied commander in EUROPE. His experience was with Germany, where, as the war drew to a close, German soldiers were increasingly more apt to surrender than fight to the death, and where civilians fled towards the allies (read: non-Soviet) for protection. Contrast this to the closing battles, such as Okinawa. The situation was completely different, and it’s understandable that Eisenhower, who was familiar with how things were in Europe, would make such an offhand statement, since, again, he had no special knowledge of the tactical or strategic situation in Japan.
You are basically just appealing to authority here by tossing around Eisenhower’s name and a brief comment he made.
As for the others, I don’t have the time or energy to go through each one right now (maybe another poster will be willing to play this game with you), but overwhelmingly the people who were in the know during the decision process agreed that Japan was far from defeated, and it was going to take either an invasion (which we were preparing to do) or dropping those bombs…or, worst case, both.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
So basically the best you can do is that Eisenhower was in Europe, and therefore knew less about the Japanese theater than you do.
The Commander of the Pacific fleet and Truman’s own Chief of staff both also said the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. Were they in the loop enough for you?
And if I remember right, the Allies would accept nothing less than an unconditional surrender from Japan. And Japan was not ready for THAT.
Well first he listed them as winning the war and the reason that the atom bombs were unnecessary.
Seeing as you are down with the silly hypotheticals involving other people’s children, which would you prefer - to have your child vaporized almost instantly or to have your child slowly starved to death?
I would choose not to inflict either. I can’t control what other people do.
Answer the question. It’s not about which you would inflict, it is about which you would prefer.
Wow! A lot of the same arguments are found here! 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So basically the best you can do is that Eisenhower was in Europe, and therefore knew less about the Japanese theater than you do.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no, you have that twisted (much like most of your positions in this thread). The way it should read is that the best YOU can do is a talking point from a guy who, while famous, had no special knowledge of the subject he was speaking too. That’s called an ‘appeal to authority’.
Nimitz had his own reasons for making the statements he did (IIRC, it had to do with infighting between the Navy, Army and the push for a new Air Force, and who would get the lions share of the glory for defeating the Japanese, and thus, the lions share of the new funding in the post-war world. The Navy was seriously concerned that the atomic bomb would make it obsolete).
I don’t recall exactly why George Marshall said what he said, but I vaguely remember it had more to do with a dispute over the estimates for the invasion (i.e., and if my memory on this tired old subject is still intact, Marshall didn’t believe the high estimates being given for causality figures, and thought we could do the invasion much easier than most of the commanders in the theater felt it could be done for).
They were, but that doesn’t mean that their word is gospel, or that they were right. Would you like me to give you some recent examples from the second Gulf War of folks supposedly in the know who actually were wrong about, well, just about everything? The thing is, that there were a lot of people who had a lot of different agendas, and a lot of people who THOUGHT they knew stuff that turned out to be wrong. Fog of war and all that. There certainly were a lot of folks who THOUGHT the Japanese were poised to surrender, but there were a lot of folks who thought that Saddam et al had WMD laying about in Iraq, too…and both sets of folks were wrong.
-XT
No, it’s about what I would inflict. All my posts in this thread are about what I would be willing to do myself, not about what I would want others to do. I am not responsible for the actions of others and have no choice about them.
Yeah, that’s where I got the quotes. I thought I’d linked to it. Guess I forgot.
Are you really trying to weasel out of the question that badly? It is a very simply question - which would you least like to see done to your child?
You have gone on the record here as saying it is less objectionable to vaporize a Japanese child than to starve one to death. Now you would do neither, but would look more kindly on a person who did the latter to a Japanese child than the former. I am assuming given your previous exposition here, you would hold similar views towards someone who did the same to your own child.
It’s an irrelevant question because it involves no choice of action on my part.
Just wow.
Sorry. I was tickled with the parallels between this thread and the wiki article. If you already linked it, I missed it.
I didn’t. I thought I did, but I forgot to.
I did not realise it, but the Japanese Emporer himself referred to the Abomb in his radio address, August 15, announcing Japan’s intention to surrender.
“The enemy, moreover, has begun to employ a new most cruel bomb, the power which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation . . . but would lead also to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save millions of Our subjects, or ourselves, to atone before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial ancestors? This is the reason We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the Powers.”
Was Hirohito lying, Dio?
As a sidebar, how’s this for understatement (Emporer Hirohito, again):
“[The war is]Our sincere desire to ensure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia…”, but “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.”
It should be noted that there were others that advised against using the bomb on Japan. The Franck Reportopposed the nuclear bombing of Japan, both on moral grounds and because of the concerns over a possible arms race.
Clearly, these people believed there were moral and pragmatic reasons for not bombing Japan. They were dead-on balls accurate WRT how the arms race would develop.
[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
Clearly, these people believed there were moral and pragmatic reasons for not bombing Japan. They were dead-on balls accurate WRT how the arms race would develop.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that an arms race would NOT have happened without Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Good thing they were overruled by people who disagreed, else there coulda been a disastrous toddler-burning invasion that fails, forcing the bomb’s use anyway.
They wouldn’t have needed an invasion. The Japanese were already suing for peace.