Excellent watch given the media hype about Obama's visit to Hiroshima

[BugI02]

I don't believe those are good arguments though. "They committed war crimes so X is justifiable". That's part of history, being able to learn from past actions. The supreme allied commander said, at the time of the bombing, that it was unnecessary. I don't think anyone would accuse Eisenhower of wanting to lose American lives, or not being in a position to criticize the decision The bomb or invasion is a false dichotomy.

And would you then argue that having seen the destruction caused by the bomb contributed nothing to stabilizing the framework of MAD, with the emphasis on Assured Destruction?

 

[spec4]

How does one apologize for wining a war? Not mentioned in this thread is that I believe Truman and co. were concerned about Stalin sticking his nose in Japan post war.

 

[SmileDocHill]

these two cities saw most technoligically advanced weaponry of the time, however, the loss of life and the amount of destruction was not as bad as other cities we traditionally bombed. wiping cities off the map was something we were doing pretty well in japan, and these would have happened either way, with 1 bomb or 1,000.

This is the best argument yet. The progressives should love that we used the nuke. Think of all the fuel we saved by taking one long flight vs multi hundreds. We were saving the planet and going green way before we started getting credit for it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How does one apologize for wining a war? Not mentioned in this thread is that I believe Truman and co. were concerned about Stalin sticking his nose in Japan post war.

True, but there is an ethical issue if some of your motivation in killing hundreds of thousands, was to send a message to an "ally."

 

[actaeon277]

I don't believe those are good arguments though. "They committed war crimes so X is justifiable". That's part of history, being able to learn from past actions. The supreme allied commander said, at the time of the bombing, that it was unnecessary. I don't think anyone would accuse Eisenhower of wanting to lose American lives, or not being in a position to criticize the decision The bomb or invasion is a false dichotomy.

Those weren't justifications.
Those were, "If you play rough, don't cry when someone plays rough".

The justification was "Total War".
So let's reimagine WWII.
With no attacks on any civilian city, property, business, or person.
War material keeps getting made.
More men are killed.
More men are called to fight.
More material is made.
More men are killed.
More men are called to fight.

You grind up EVEN MORE PEOPLE.

A ball bearing plant makes war material, yet employs civilians.
Food plants, the same.
Oil refineries
Etc

 

[Kutnupe14]

Those weren't justifications.
Those were, "If you play rough, don't cry when someone plays rough".

The justification was "Total War".
So let's reimagine WWII.
With no attacks on any civilian city, property, business, or person.
War material keeps getting made.
More men are killed.
More men are called to fight.
More material is made.
More men are killed.
More men are called to fight.

You grind up EVEN MORE PEOPLE.

A ball bearing plant makes war material, yet employs civilians.
Food plants, the same.
Oil refineries
Etc

I have to agree with you, "total war" easily justifies it, end of story. To end a war, and prevent further ones from a particular enemy, you have to make it as destructive, with great loss of life, that the mere thought of undertaking it again would be distasteful. No one wages wars like that anymore.

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[Jludo]

So double guessing Dwight Eisenhower is what, monday morning quarter backing.

 

[Jludo]

How does one apologize for wining a war? Not mentioned in this thread is that I believe Truman and co. were concerned about Stalin sticking his nose in Japan post war.

They are very much concerned with Stalin making Japan a part of the USSR. That's by far the biggest factor in dropling the bomb

 

[Kutnupe14]

So double guessing Dwight Eisenhower is what, monday morning quarter backing.

Heck, most of hierarchy of the Navy thought dropping the bombs were overkill. Nimitz, Halsey, and a number of others. It's a fair question to ask if it was a military requirement.... but I think it goes beyond that, as to why it was used.

 

[spec4]

True, but there is an ethical issue if some of your motivation in killing hundreds of thousands, was to send a message to an "ally."

Not so much to "send a message", but to end it, keeping the Russians out was an added bonus.

Considering the attitude Americans had towards the Japanese then, I doubt many could be found who had a problem with the bombs. My father, wounded on Peleliu, did not like Japanese. He died at an early age and never saw how Japan roared back economically and the way they changed our auto industry.

 

[actaeon277]

Heck, most of hierarchy of the Navy thought dropping the bombs were overkill. Nimitz, Halsey, and a number of others. It's a fair question to ask if it was a military requirement.... but I think it goes beyond that, as to why it was used.

Was it thought of as being overkill?
Cause it could easily be, that they were just being parochial.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So double guessing Dwight Eisenhower is what, monday morning quarter backing.

Fair issue to raise, but it is important to remember that Eisenhower was more a politician in uniform than what we think of as a soldier in the sense of a man at arms. It is also important to remember that he spent most of his career in logistics. In fact, after the war, when asked his opinion on the instruments that won the war, his answers were the jeep, the bulldozer, and the 2 1/2 ton truck. Patton, by contrast, credited the Garand.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

They are very much concerned with Stalin making Japan a part of the USSR. That's by far the biggest factor in dropling the bomb

So it had nothing to do with World opinion of a land invation having to fight woman and children?

 

[Jludo]

Heck, most of hierarchy of the Navy thought dropping the bombs were overkill. Nimitz, Halsey, and a number of others. It's a fair question to ask if it was a military requirement.... but I think it goes beyond that, as to why it was used.

You're exactly right, the question is much deeper than invasion or nuke.

 

[Jludo]

So it had nothing to do with World opinion of a land invation having to fight woman and children?

I'll let you argue with eisenhower and nimitz

 

[Jludo]

Fair issue to raise, but it is important to remember that Eisenhower was more a politician in uniform than what we think of as a soldier in the sense of a man at arms. It is also important to remember that he spent most of his career in logistics. In fact, after the war, when asked his opinion on the instruments that won the war, his answers were the jeep, the bulldozer, and the 2 1/2 ton truck. Patton, by contrast, credited the Garand.

Who was right?

 

[Jludo]

Not so much to "send a message", but to end it, keeping the Russians out was an added bonus.

Considering the attitude Americans had towards the Japanese then, I doubt many could be found who had a problem with the bombs. My father, wounded on Peleliu, did not like Japanese. He died at an early age and never saw how Japan roared back economically and the way they changed our auto industry.

No, keeping the Russians out was by far the main objective. The war was over, the cold war was just starting.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who was right?

Both are important. The Germans had superior arms with the exception of heavy bombers and semiautomatic rifles as the STG44 appeared in quantity too late to make a significant difference to overcome that gap, yet suffered from logistics problems which cost them greatly. The flip side is that logistics don't help you so much if you don't have a worthwhile product to move. Take tanks for example. We could have done a hell of a lot better than the Sherman with the technology we had available, yet didn't. We sacrificed lives unnecessarily in the process of overwhelming the Germans with numbers. On that note, I am with Patton about having the best weapons being very important. Both are right in their context, but my point is that there is an inherent hazard in taking the opinion of a logistics man as the final authority covering all aspects. Conversely, if Patton didn't have more restrained superior officers, the war would have been reminiscent of god presiding over chaos.

 

[actaeon277]

Fair issue to raise, but it is important to remember that Eisenhower was more a politician in uniform than what we think of as a soldier in the sense of a man at arms. It is also important to remember that he spent most of his career in logistics. In fact, after the war, when asked his opinion on the instruments that won the war, his answers were the jeep, the bulldozer, and the 2 1/2 ton truck. Patton, by contrast, credited the Garand.

Who was right?

Probably both.
Logistics are just as important as tactics.