First, it is probably best to point out that in this sort of OT Forum, I'm not trying to force anyone to view things "my way or the highway"... quite the opposite. No one should just read a post (mine or otherwise) and accept it as gospel. One reason is obvious... the poster could be wrong; the other is less obvious. Your own opinions and views in life should be based on what you yourself have learned and (objectively) evaluated to your own satisfaction.
Second, even such things as textbooks could be wrong. Human knowledge is evolutional in nature... we didn't get it all correct in revision number one.
My guess is that there are indeed books out there now that, if nothing else, print the data (or most of it) in one or two volumes. Professional historians make their living from such things. When you find such books, don't be led by the nose to what the author necessarily concludes... look at the source data. A book from "either" pro-this or anti-that should still give references, or it's just another opinion.
I got started looking into it one day when someone that had a better knowledge of history at a think tank said the bomb should not have been dropped... and my posts are nowhere near as effectual as a real-life encounter when I'm stirred up. I went down the list about why we should have nuked the Japs, and explained how it was the best thing that could have happened to them. He gave me basically the same pointers about reading the original records that were not available when much of the current history books were written.
It's just like good old Monty in North Africa. It turns out he was just as much a clown and ineffectual General as his sacked predecessor.... but the vital difference was the Ultra project, the most closely guarded British intelligence secret of WW II. It was not generalship. Only recent texts even mention Ultra and Enigma, where together with Churchill's masterful direction, the course of the war and the course of battle in North Africa turned. But that's not what is in 50 years of texts.
It will be in 50 or 100 years, as people look back, however.
Ditto with the Bomb question. I went to the library and researched the issue because I don't like telling the Japanese (I used to fly to Japan a lot, and usually was there about 6 to 12 weeks a year) something I was not sure about. Or anyone else.
So I'm not going to start a research project at this point to provide footnotes for a Forum whose members could do the exact same thing themselves. You have been informed of an alternative possibility... what you do with it is up to you. No posts I make in OT or History are intended to "convert" everyone blindly to whatever I'm talking about. In fact, a lot of what I extend from basic facts are interpretation of hypotheticals... one might say opinions. Usually quite logical, and with much more background than even a 100,000 word post could convey, but usually quite logical and progressive from source facts.... and sometimes with colorful wording in the end to make it stick.
But obviously, I've been wrong in the past, LOL. I used to espouse the "we nuked 'em and by golly they should like it" position. Everything I'd read in the late 60's, and 70's and even 80's seemed to support it, even though I was never a Truman fan based on his cumulative actions as President, and even his post-President days.
So.... feel free to disagree or whatever, I take no offense. This WH forum is pretty civil because it sticks to arguing about the topics and events and opinions, as opposed to name calling and such.
Just be aware that on many things in life, including the Atomic question, things that seem pat may not really be so pat after you gain knowledge of more facts, source material, etc. None of what I discuss in CFC requires access to classified information; it is all open source material.
As I said, your arguements on this subject are new to me.
That's why I take time to post them
.
... I am just trying to convey how I have to evaluate what you have said on an anonymous Internet forum. ...
I recommend you take it as an alternative, and when you have time in future months or years, look into it more. If you want instant answers to everything, read the sports column... it took a long time of reading lots of stuff on this subject in my case. I was quite entrenched in my view of things as I had learned for over 20 years.
t could be construed that I am just looking for the easy way of getting the information. In a sense I am, since I don't feel I have time to do the exhaustive research you mention in your post.
I don't have an easy answer for you. It's a lot like the old question of someone who wants the Bible summed up in a couple incontrovertible sentences. It usually does not turn out that way, and if tried, gets way out of context. BTW, I have not read every word, much less comprehend every word, and I have several copies and version in my hoome, as well as links in my NS bookmarks.
As a general note about my opinions on WW II and the Korean War.... I've actually studied them not only from the perspective of reading the usual texts in an airconditioned room in Texas, but had both the fortune and opportunity to travel to many of the battlefields (particularly where US troops were involved), and talk and listen to the older people native to the areas, including Korea, Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Wake (no natives, just ruins there), Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Kwajalien (sp?), Truk, Iwo Jima, the Aleutians, Midway (see wake note), and of course Hawaii. It is interesting just to talk to people from other cultural perspectives on events that we learn a certain way in the US.
But on the Truman subject, it is Black and White, no shades of grey, once a comprehensive review of the subject with an unbiased perspective. In fact, on the Atomic question, it was a lot harder to swallow for me because I could not remain unbiased... I was pro-Nuking all the way, and so it took me a lot of extra time of reading and thinking to overcome that. Funny thing was up until that point, I thought I could remain pretty neutral, LOL.
So anyway, I would not even believe a credentialed professor of history in a think tank, face to face... so I will not presume to "convert" an opinion based on a post.
But at least now it's in the back of your minds
.
PS, Anyone who posts something to the effect that I espouse trading American or Allied lives for the enemy is just plain nuts, and probably juvenile. Suggest something like that to me in person, and you may not enjoy the physical response, LOL. But I can confidently say I know of no one in real life that would have such an idea pop into their mind.
Well, I'll say more about that. There are rules and responsibilities in War. The difference in America and most Western nations and some other nations and groups in the world is that we endeavor to conduct War according to certain rules, and even punish our own soldiers for violations. Ask the Korean "comfort women" if the Japanese did so in WW II. But that's a topic for another thread. And a topic that I don't need a history book or old telex to cite. That one's first person, reference source = me.
When you factor in even the lowest estimate (75 000 life) for Operation Olympics, then the whole notion of dropping the bombs simply make sense - at least it does to me, regardless of what certain generals had to say back then (and especially regardless of what MacArthur had to say, given his "skill" (or lack of thereof) as an actual strategist.
You have displayed almost no understanding of the situation, strategically or historically.
BTW, I might have been unclear before, but Mac Arthur had no prior knowledge of the deployment of the bomb. He was told by Marshall to plan Operation Olympic, and that was to be the final instrument of the Japanese defeat. MacArthur was doing so when the Americans finally accepted the formal Jap surrender.
However, it is very very interesting to read the thoughts of the people involved with the Atomic decision.
As for the bombs in Japan, I maintain dropping them was the only way to go without causing terrible losses to *BOTH* sides.
Of course you do. That is what was intended in Truman's coverup. But no matter how much you "maintain" it, this was not the only option. No historical leader of the time, even Truman, phrases it in such absolute terms. No insult intended, but you evidently don't have any idea about how the Bomb decision was made, how long it took to make it, what the actual positions of the Allies (Churchill) and advisors was, and what the experts advised. And definitely no idea about the diplomacy and negotiations were conducted. That's OK, but just should point you to an area you might want to research more thoroughly.
For starters, there's his claim that the surrender accepted in august 1945 was the same as the one offered earlier that year, which is utterly false.
Your consternation is caused by not understanding how Japan could communicate with the US. It was not face-to-face sit down negotiations, like people think of in the Korean war. It went through intermediaries and 3rd party nations, and the signals were usually sent through the Media. Truman wanted utter capitulation with no conditions. Japan was not ready to do that in early 1945 without assurances for their Emperor (the understanding of pre-1946 Japanese though and tradition is not adequately understood by most westerners, esp. ones of today). So the war continued beyond April/May 1945.
You decide if the loss of American life, the wounded, etc. justified the continuation to Aug/Sep 1945, esp. given that the Emperor
was granted concessions by "Unconditional Surrender Truman". The war could have ended in total victory for the Allies in April/May 1945. It did not. The cause was Truman and Truman alone. Tens of thousands more casualties were the price, not to mention allowing the Soviets a toehold and lots more dead Japs.
So you decide if Truman's delay was worth it, and feel free to post your rationale for killing so many more of our soldiers for a zero sum gain
.
EDIT: The usual typos.
(This post is 10,474 characters long)
