62 YEARS AGO TODAY

[JDK]

I know in the former Soviet Union, there is a memorial to the Russian Civilians that died in WWII (the number in a prior post was a LOT lower), but I remember it as 15 million. They understood the sacrifice and made it, but of course they were on the "defensive" not the "offensive" (I'm trying to get across that the Russians were not the agressors and they didn't start the war). The civilians knew they had to fight and they did a heck of a job (and they had a crappy government too).

With respect, Soviet Russia fought at least two 'wars' while the rest of us were fighting one. Stalin made one dubious pact with the Nazis, refused to fight on two fronts (smart but a choice no-one else got) and were certainly the aggressors on occasion - ask a Pole or a Finn.

You've clearly missed my point (which is of course debatable) that the bloodbath on the Eastern front can clearly be seen (and I'm happy for someone to prove otherwise) as the result of two totalitarian regimes head to head. There's no way we can know how much the Russian peoples would have wanted to defend the motherland without the Stalinist control and propaganda in place.

To call Stalinism 'crappy government' is as inaccurate as calling Hitler 'naughty', IMHO. For a start, if under Stalin you didn't do what you were told, you'd be shot, or sent to Siberia - and that included millions of entirely faultless people also including aircraft designers and factory workers. Apart from being very inaccurate I'm mildly impressed you see this level of coercion as in any way admirable.

Well off topic, but whatever.

Mike F - Just for you, here's a summary: "Me good - you bad." "No! Me right, you wrong!" "Rhubarb..." You may now return to normal service. "Awesome."

[mike furline]

No sense of humor JDK?

Unfortunately each person here has a different interpretation of the same "facts" from 62 years ago. As hard as we try to understand this instance in time, no solid conclusion will be found. No one person being completely right or wrong.

While an interesting and long read, it hasn't changed the past or my views on the bomb.

I would be interested to know if any other WIX members have changed thier views on the bombs since reading this thread.

Regards,
Mike

[Bill Greenwood]

Mike, I don't mean this as an insult, but if you have read all the info and opinions on this site and not changed your views even slightly, you must either be the brightest and best informed person around; or else so set in your ways that you don't want to allow anything outside your mindset to enter. For instance I wrote we could have used several thngs as negotiating points for peace(like leaving the Emperor in power)and Lance wrote that the Allies had a pact to demand unconditional terms. So I learned something. I could also sense how strong the desire for revenge against the Japanese is, even extending to civilans.

[mike furline]

Mike, I don't mean this as an insult, but if you have read all the info and opinions on this site and not changed your views even slightly, you must either be the brightest and best informed person around; or else so set in your ways that you don't want to allow anything outside your mindset to enter. For instance I wrote we could have used several thngs as negotiating points for peace(like leaving the Emperor in power)and Lance wrote that the Allies had a pact to demand unconditional terms. So I learned something. I could also sense how strong the desire for revenge against the Japanese is, even extending to civilans.

Bill,

I said, "I haven't", not that I wouldn't.

With all the facts, figures, quotes & theories that have been posted, you haven't changed your view to pro bomb have you? Didn't think so.
You interpret the facts in your own way, nothing wrong with that. Thats what we all do.

We sit here after the fact and look at who, what, when, where and why all compiled together in a nice little bundle and try to come up with an answer.

One of the quotes was from Ike (who never fought against the Japanese), "the Japanese are defeated" or something along those lines. Thats from his book, post war. Did Truman hear this by Aug. 5th??? Who knows?

My point is that you can't use all the facts, figures, etc. that were compiled post war to come up with a conclusion. We should only use what was known on Aug. 5th and by whom to come to an understanding. The "A" bomb was top secret at the time, it wasn't the talk of the town like it is today. "Who" knew "what and when" makes a huge difference in this discussion.

Remember, there were no cell phones, embedded reporters, instant messaging, text messaging availible back then. Just because a General or Sec. of Defense said something back then, doesn't mean that everyone was privvy to it the next day.

I feel Truman made the best decision that he could, with the information that was availible to him by Aug. 6th.. I can't be 100% sure of what he did or did not know at that time.


Regards,
Mike

Last edited by mike furline on Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mike, Helldiver started the forum by giving the standard view that the Bomb saved all those lives which would have been lost in an invasion. I just pointed out that IF PEACE WAS ARRANGED neither the Bomb nor invasion were the only choices. You and many others on both sides make many good points, such as Ike's book was written after the war. Some points are just silly, that Ike never fought the Japanese. Prior to the Bomb, Tibbets never fought the Japanese either, Truman never personally fought the Japanese, almost all the pro Bomb comments on the site came from people who never fought the Japanese. Ike and Hap Arnold were miltary men, even Republicans, and certainly experts on invasion and bombing. If you give no credence at all to their views then I think you have a pretty closed mind. Try to look at all sides, one could even say that using the Bomb on civillans was a good thing becasuse the results were so horrible it detered future use of the Bomb?

[mike furline]

Mike, Helldiver started the forum by giving the standard view that the Bomb saved all those lives which would have been lost in an invasion. I just pointed out that IF PEACE WAS ARRANGED neither the Bomb nor invasion were the only choices. You and many others on both sides make many good points, such as Ike's book was written after the war. Some points are just silly, that Ike never fought the Japanese. Prior to the Bomb, Tibbets never fought the Japanese either, Truman never personally fought the Japanese, almost all the pro Bomb comments on the site came from people who never fought the Japanese. Ike and Hap Arnold were miltary men, even Republicans, and certainly experts on invasion and bombing. If you give no credence at all to their views then I think you have a pretty closed mind. Try to look at all sides, one could even say that using the Bomb on civillans was a good thing becasuse the results were so horrible it detered future use of the Bomb?

It's not that I don't give credence to Ike's views, but wouldn't his thoughts on an invasion be based on fighting a totally different type of enemy?
The fight against the Japanese was certainly different than the fight against the Germans.
Look at the difference between the Germans vs. Russians compared to the Germans vs. US.

Obviously "Give Peace a Chance" would be better for eveyone, but that option wasn't on the table back then.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Japanese ever ask for a truce or any kind of peace before Aug 6th?

Last edited by mike furline on Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

No sense of humor JDK?

My last remark was intended as a joke - sorry if it didn't go over. I for one have found it an interesting discussion - the feedback I've had from others (participants and lurkers) indicates we aren't alone in that.

This WIX member's leant a lot, as ever, so in that sense my views have changed - to being better informed. (Incidentally, anyone summarising I've got a final 'view' or am pro-or anti- the use of the bomb is making a major assumption - and is wrong.)

Nothing to disagree with in your post thanks for that. (I'd not call it long winded - would you?) You make some excellent points. Just a minor item however -

My point is that you can't use all the facts, figures, etc. that were compiled post war to come up with a conclusion. We should only use what was known on Aug. 5th and by whom to come to an understanding.

Depends if you are aiming to assess the decision (which I wasn't aware of) at the time, or looking at it from today, but using alternate but contemporary views of a peer (Eisenhower) to check against today's assumptions. As I posted earlier, both Teller and Oppenheimer gave different accounts of what they said and thought at a significant specific point in time - the Trinity test. It both proves Mike's point about the mutability of facts and accounts, and shows there's plenty to study, should one care.

Finally, among the various incorrect statements made in this thread was Mark H's: "America invented the "bomb";..."

No-one would under-rate the leading, vital, role that the USA played in inventing the atomic bomb. But likewise, it's unarguable that there was significant input from other nations. At the least this input saved time and thus (probably) Allied lives, at the best may have overcome issues that would have stopped the project. Teller for one was prepared to go off chasing windmills - the then un-viable Hydrogen bomb. However, while I'm no expert, I understand that (specifically) a Dane, plus Canadian and British scientists and facilities played a significant role in the project. Interesting, and a reflection of America's strength at the time to bring that together - something indeed, to regard as a major achievement.

Regards,

[mustangdriver]

If there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima. What was the feeling of the Japanese people about their government while they were invading China, and killing those people? The feeling of the Japanese civilian about their government was great as long as they were on the offensive. But as soon as B-29's started showing up, they no one had anything to do with it. War was brought to their home. They got an idea of how the millions of Chinese felt. There is such a thing as getting what you deserve. Now I DO fell for the small children and babies that really did have nothing to do with it. They saying is war is Hell. It is true. Let's hope we saw the last use of a weapon like this. As for it's use in WWII. I think it was the only real thing to do, while not getting more of our boys killed.

Last edited by mustangdriver on Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mike, did I read you right, did you actally ask a question related to negotiating the peace? If so we are getting somewhere. To answer I don't know, somone, I think it was James wrote we were using the Russians as a channel to the Japanese. Ike said negotiations had already begun. Obviously even having real talks with the Emperor may have been hard, and maybe nothing woudl have come of the effort, but why didn't Truman give it a full effort, somthing more than 12 days? Was the Bomb to scare off the Russians, or just revenge factor for domestic poitics?Last, am I pro Bomb? I have about the same opinion of the Japanese as most of us on WIX, if I had the chance to drop it on the slimy emperor, or the batch of military butchers I probably woud have been glad to, but not on children unless there was no other way.

[visaliaaviation]

I think the real point is there didn't HAVE to be a Pearl Harbor anymore than there HAD to be a Hirosima.

[mike furline]

Mike, did I read you right, did you actally ask a question related to negotiating the peace? If so we are getting somewhere. To answer I don't know, somone, I think it was James wrote we were using the Russians as a channel to the Japanese. Ike said negotiations had already begun. Obviously even having real talks with the Emperor may have been hard, and maybe nothing woudl have come of the effort, but why didn't Truman give it a full effort, somthing more than 12 days? Was the Bomb to scare off the Russians, or just revenge factor for domestic poitics?Last, am I pro Bomb? I have about the same opinion of the Japanese as most of us on WIX, if I had the chance to drop it on the slimy emperor, or the batch of military butchers I probably woud have been glad to, but not on children unless there was no other way.

I undestand you think 12 days is to short a time to negotiate, but in the preceeding 3yrs 9 months the Japanese never offered a cease fire, truce or anything else remotely decent. The Japanese could have thought twice after Germany surrendered, but they didn't. Perhaps the US thought anymore time would be useless.

I also believe the US wanted a decisive victory/surrender after all we had been thru, otherwise it would have been like Korea, Viet Nam, etc..

I don't have any quick fix for the war on terror, but after 9/11 would negotiating peace with Muslim extremists be in anyones best interest?

How long have peace talks been going on in the Middle East? We've all heard "turn it into a glass parking lot" before.
When will it end, probably never or atleast not until one side ceases to exist.

[Bill Greenwood]

Good thing we had some real men in office during the glorious Nam war and not one of those namby pamby liberals. Otherwise think what could have happened, say if we made peace early and only had 580 killed instead of 58,000 and if John McCain and others had not spent years as POWs. Some of those wimps might have even been a little concerned about the hundreds of thousands of civilains we killed there. It is wonderful that we had real war heroes like Nixon to lead and inspire us to stay the course. Yea, Mike I think peace in WW II was a little different than Vietnam. I have seen movies, and read books about Pearl Harbor. Somehow I seem to have missed all those on when Vietnam attacked the U S. There was a thing LBJ referred to at the Gulf of Tonkin, and a good ole boy like that woudn't lie to us would he? Do you have the casualty figures from that Tonkin Battle; I seem to have mislaid them? I'm tired of writing about this, think I'll get back to playing with airplanes.

[bdk]

There was a thing LBJ referred to at the Gulf of Tonkin, and a good ole boy like that woudn't lie to us would he?

Certainly not! A Democrat lie? Must have been a "vast right-wing conspiracy"!

Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Vietnam? I hadn't heard that statistic (and of course I'm no expert).

[HELLDIVERS]

Hi,
Its amazing at the opinions that bubble up from some sensitive topics. I for one believe the right choice was made. The facts are the bomb was used three days later a second bomb was dropped ending global warfare for over sixty years. Not only did it end global warfare it has made even the most cynical supporters of war have second thoughts. Wheather prolonged peace talks with a very determind enemy, a demonstation of the power of an atomic weapon, or any of the myriads of other sugestions brought up here would have made any difference is truely speculation and holds no merit. The bomb was dropped, history was made and we have enjoyed the freedoms that so many that made the ultimate sacrafice have provided us with. Everyone has a opinion and that is what this forum is all about , we all learn here and I think that many of the very passionate on either side can grow from the experience. Was it right? Was it wrong? That topic will be debated as long as we are willing to learn from it and not repeat the choices of our forefathers and those of the enemy. Is modern man foolish enough to ever bring about an atomic war? Lets hope the lessons learned from August 6th and August 9th over 62 years ago will keep that from ever happening. Our goal should be to keep the revisionists and rewriters of history in their place and to be sure to tell the true story of the events that led up to the dropping of the atomic bombs and the end of WW2.

Thanks Mike

[Bluedharma]

Well guys, I have learned much. Thanks to JDK and others for some very good information.

This thread should be about honoring those who made sacrifices, and how next time we will improve ourselves and the human race.
Was it right? Was it wrong? Past is past... doesn't matter now.
But the future does. People should look at history and try to learn from past mistakes and to improve the human race.

I think Bill has got it right.

Last, am I pro Bomb? I have about the same opinion of the Japanese as most of us on WIX, if I had the chance to drop it on the slimy emperor, or the batch of military butchers I probably woud have been glad to, but not on children unless there was no other way.

Almost everyone here would drop that thing on the enemy. Yesterday, today and any bad nasty next week. IMHO the purpose of reviewing what has happened, is so we can more effectivley do just that (while minimizing non-combatants deaths). Nukes are like getting rid of the baby with the bathwater. Civilian deaths regardless of nationality should be reviewed, and steps taken to (try to)prevent that from happening again. Not on children unless there was no other way.

The kill them all, and let God sort them out may be a reality. But as human beings we are obligated to look back and say, Yeah #### happens, and it sucks that we were brought to that point. Next time we should do better.

Everyone has a opinion and that is what this forum is all about , we all learn here and I think that many of the very passionate on either side can grow from the experience..

Right on target!
We must learn and grow, or we are just wasting everyones time. Maybe this topic should wait another 62 years and review again...
Live the good life.