Was it necessary to drop the bomb?

[Ramius75]

I still think that the 1st bomb should be dropped in Bay of Tokyo or somewhere near the coast where its observable. If the 1st warning is not heed, then drop the 2nd bomb.

 

[Elrohir]

No as I've come to understand, history is only interesting to you Americans if it confirms your beliefs, I asked for a link to Elrohir's assertion got nothing and won't because it's false, I ask you to deny the textual documents from the CIA, from the war ministry in England, and from the Japanese I get nothing, I ask you to get off your arse and actually debunk the original premise and you do nothing.

So let's recap: at the moment, I'm looking as if my premise is 100% correct, nothing to debunk any of the factual evidence just words and semantics, what if, my grandiose fat ass? What if we would of actually just conceded to what we gave them anyway? Debunk the source or not, at the moment, I'm untouchable. Bring it on....

No offence but you guys are looking like a bunch of amateurs just spouting x as if it must be true, what I want is actual proof that all these documents are false, that intelligence agency reports and assumptions are false. I can see I'm not going to get it, but it doesn't matter, because that's it really you know your fault, you wont admit and you never will as per frigin' usual.

*Coughpost61coughcough*

 

[Gogf]

Necessary? No, but it saved an awful lot of lives, both Japanese and American.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

IA nuclear weapon does more blast damage when it goes airburst, because of air pressure.
A nuke going off at ground level, or worse, just under the surface of the earth is much more dangerous in the long-term, because of maximised fallout. AAt airburst, it's minimal.

Ah, I recall reading about the fallout from a ground-detonation before. I think it was when they tested Tzar Bomba, they set it off at a high altitude so it wouldn't kick up any dirt; it still fried the ground for several miles under the explosion, though. That sucker had power enough to take out the whole London Metropolitan Area...

Anywho, the bomb went off above the city, in fact, there's still a building there, supposedly directly under the centerpoint of the explosion, that's still standing today, I think it's called the Atom Building or something like that.

 

[Swedishguy]

Here is my swedish neutral point of view: It was completely unnecessary to drop the bomb. Many lives could've been saved.

Cue comments about my age in...
3...
2...
1...

 

[Sidhe]

On the Insitute for Historical Review;

I read the article from this site, Sidhe, and it is not worth taking seriously.

The 'Institute for Historical Review' has a video link on it's front page in which Mark Weber, Director of the Institute, claims that Holocaust rememberance is a Zionist conspiricy designed to garner support for Israel and further Jewish interests. He hails David Irving as 'couragous' in the video.

The Institute is also known for Holocaust denial

I think the credibility of this source is a bit questionable.

The other article put forward (from lewrockwell.com) is better, and much more credible. The Japanese did send out peace feelers to the USSR in early June 1945, however these were half-hearted efforts, and in any case Stalin was keen to prolong the Pacific conflict in order to grab Manchuria from the Japanese, and perhaps get his foot onto Japan itself. So appealing to Stalin as a mediator to peace was a bad move anyway.

The Japanese also did not look to offer unconditional peace, as they wanted to preserve the Imperial system of 'Tenno', which had committed horrific crimes during the war, as much intact as possible. In fact, as far as possible, they wanted to keep the Allies out of post-war Japan; they wanted no occupation of Japan, to try their own war-criminals, and to oversee their own disarmament with as little involvement from the Allies as possible. Stalin reported the peace-feeling to Truman and Chruchill later in June, probably with a little spin of his own, and Truman stuck to his insistance on unconditional surrender. Afew days later Truman announced the Potsdam Declaration re-iterating the demand for unconditional surrender; the Japanese refused.

The Japanese made no offers of surrender directly to the Western Allies, AFAIK, until after the two nuclear bombs had been dropped on their home-islands on 6 and 9 August.

Even then, the descision was taken just barely - the highest council of the Imperial government was deadlocked 3-3 over the issue of weather to offer a surrender. Even then *none* of them wished to surrender on America's terms, which were quite generous. Especially when compared with the horrors that the Japanese themselves inflicted on for example the Chinese, or indeed, I think, the peace terms the Japanese would offer America if, somehow, the Japanese had won the war. Even at this point, half of the council still wanted Japan to refuse to accept Allied occupation, have no Allied involvement in war-crime trials, and insist on seeing to their own disarmament. In effect, more an offer of 'lets stop fighting' than surrender. However the Emporer's intervention saw to it that they offered surrender as long as the Emporer's power remained intact, and only when this offer was refused, did they finally offer total unconditional surrender.

It is easy to understand, from the Western Allies perspective, why they would want to distmantle as much of the Imprerial Japanese regime as they could, lest it rise again. Looking at it this way, it is easier to understand Truman's insistance on total surrender, including the surrender of the Emporer, who had overseen some terrible crimes during the war, especially in China.

Personally, I agree with Irish Caesar that it is disgusting that Hirohito remained Emporer, even with reduced powers.

The book is what I want debunking, no one can I win case closed. Truman would only accept unconditional surrender, despite every man jack in the allied command(show in documentary form) Telling him to accept the terms the Japanese offered, was the bomb necessary? As non-comformist says, yes but only if you accept that the primary motivation wasn't to save lives, but more to scare the Russians. I like you didn't want to believe the truth, fact is if you dig into it, it is the truth, and it is a shameful part of your history you need to at least acknowledge if not openly. Your only lying to yourselves really.

The fact is we have strong evidence that Truman would only accept unconditional surrender and that Japan would accept only if the emperor remained and was not tried for war crimes,Elrohir all this other made up crap is just avoiding the issue with the CIA, governmental/comnmuniques?

Oh the articles rubbish ergo the book must be, pretty lame guys, really. That is a Synopsis of a book, you can't just say the article is rubbish and leave it at that, take a look at the credits the historical account it got from it's peers, hello is there anyone out there?Well at least Elrohir you read it this time I suppose even if you don't understand the point I'm making.

Do a little bit of digging and you'll find about a thousand web sites, all with better more creditable sources, to this, not that you can really argue with government documents, or expert witness testimony anyway.

 

[Elrohir]

Since you never seem to see my posts Sidhe, I'll repost what I said yesterday, but it's the last time. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not, but I find it hard to believe that keep missing my posts.


Post 61, reposted:

The article is a synopsis of the book, so you are saying the whole book is crap, even though it was widely critically acclaimed by his peers? You obviously can't debate or you would provide something other than the article is crap.

If the book is accurately reflected in the article, then it's crap. I don't know if that article does it justice, though, so I'll refrain from judging it. And in case you're blind, I did provide something other than "that's crap" - see below.

Japan had two provisos only, The emperor should be spared and he should remain the Emperor, both of which happened anyway.

EDIT:Elrohir I had a look actually I can find no mention of your secondary terms, the US demanded an unconditional surrender and that nothing else was acceptable, I don't seem to be able to find Japan saying what you claim can you link it?

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

In fact can you back up your statement as communiques by Japanese saying the exact opposite that they were in fact prepared to accept all the terms provided the emperor was spared and retained power, which as I said happened anyway, these pieces of evidence seem to conflict with all of your statement.

Where's your source on that? And anyway, if the US wanted to have Hirohito executed for his crimes, (Which we didn't) then it was our right to demand that. We had every right to demand an unconditional surrender, and to attack Japan until they met our terms.

 

[Sidhe]

Try going to Amazon link and reading the reviews, like I say, it's unsettling stuff. Just posting the officially sanctioned lies doesn't make them true Elrohir, not when you consider the sources that completely discredit this.

Another very fine book that makes the same point is James Carroll's recent "House of War." James Carroll's father was the first director of the Defense Intelligence Agency as an Air Force LTG, giving James himself special insights into the very political decision to drop the A-bomb on the Japanese. In the words of Curtis LeMay who was very much involved in influencing and executing this action, "kill 'em, just kill 'em all," and "bomb them back to the stone age." Although these words were spoken by LeMay concerning WWII and Vietnam, respectively, they reveal a state of mind extant in the "House of War" (the Pentagon) and the president and his war-mongering advisors such as James Byrnes. As a resident of South Carolina, it is an embarassment to acknowledge Byrnes as a SC native. In fact, his statue stands in front of the courthouse in our small town.

If that's not good enough then google a search, you wont have to look very far before you find a million and one sources that show how documentary evidence supports the book.

Enola Gay: Was Using the Bomb Necessary?
by Gar Alperovitz


Tomorrow's opening by the Smithsonian Institution of an exhibit featuring the Enola Gay, the B-29 Superfortress that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, has occasioned the protest of hundreds of prominent scholars, writers and religious leaders. The reason is that the plane is being put forward with no mention of the huge number of civilians killed at Hiroshima (and subsequently at Nagasaki), and no acknowledgment of the ongoing domestic and worldwide controversy over the use of the atomic bomb. Instead, Air and Space Museum Director General John ''Jack'' Dailey has put the emphasis elsewhere -- on the plane ``in all of its glory as a magnificent technological achievement.''

News of the century

In 1999, a distinguished group of journalists deemed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the most important news event of the 20th century. A recent poll found that more Americans age 30-39 disapprove than approve of the bombings by a margin of 50 percent to 45 percent -- with almost as many (49 percent to 46 percent) also disapproving in the 18-29 age group. One of the main reasons why controversy still persists after almost 60 years is that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is very little evidence that top U.S. military leaders at the time believed that the atomic bomb was needed to end the war without a costly invasion. Indeed, quite the opposite appears to be true.

Adm. William D. Leahy, President Truman's chief of staff and the man who presided over meetings of both the U.S. chiefs of staff and the combined U.S.-British chiefs of staff, minced few words. Seven weeks before Hiroshima, his diary shows that he believed that the war could be ended in a manner that achieved all U.S. security aims.

`This barbarous weapon'

In his memoirs, the conservative admiral wrote: ``[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.''

Among the many other top World War II leaders who are on record as stating that the bomb was unnecessary are the commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. ''Hap'' Arnold; Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet; Adm. William F. Halsey Jr., commander of the U.S. Third Fleet; and the famous ''hawk'' who commanded the 21st Bomber Command, Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall privately proposed that the bombs be dropped first on a military target such as a large naval base -- then, if that didn't work, that civilians be warned to leave before a city were targeted.

In his memoirs, President -- and former general -- Dwight D. Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Henry Stimson informed him that the atomic bomb would be used: ''During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression, and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.'' In a 1963 interview, he put it bluntly: `` it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.''

Notwithstanding these and many related facts, writers who defend the atomic bombings claim that a fanatical Japanese military leadership would have fought on, no matter what. It is, of course, impossible ever to fully resolve the historical dispute, because the bombs were, in fact, used. However, the evidence that we have strongly indicates that the Japanese emperor would likely have ended the war without the use of the atomic bomb -- just as so many U.S. military leaders believed.

Top U.S. leaders were advised as early as April 1945 -- four months before the bombing -- that a combination of the forthcoming declaration of war by the Soviet Union (which occurred almost simultaneously with the bombings) plus a clarification of the surrender terms for the emperor would almost certainly have brought an end to the fighting. With three months still to go before the November invasion could begin, the bomb could have been used if the shock of the Red Army attack failed to produce the expected results. When the Japanese Army general staff issued a statement on surrender, it explained that the existence of the nation was threatened ''as a result of Russia's entrance into the war.'' No mention was made of the atomic bomb.

International law

There are also ongoing questions of morality and international law involved in the Truman administration's decision to sacrifice large numbers of civilians. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who during World War II helped plan the bombing of Japanese cities as an aide to LeMay, recently observed that he and LeMay ''were behaving like war criminals.'' A prosecutor, McNamara says, would have argued that directly targeting cities was not proportional to our war aims, thus prohibited under international law. He quotes LeMay as stating explicitly: ``If we lose the war, we'll be tried as war criminals.''

An additional reason why the bombing is still controversial is that it was done in a way that minimized the possibility of what later came to be called ''arms-control'' measures. Instead of initiating some kind of ''confidence-building'' negotiation in advance with the Soviets (as many had advised at the time), a major goal was to demonstrate what Stimson called the ''master card'' of American diplomacy in as dramatic a way as possible.

The role of force

Obviously, the issues surrounding Hiroshima still bear on the role of force in foreign policy and on the possible future use of nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration explicitly threatened the possible use of nuclear weapons in Korea, and the Bush administration's policies in general -- to say nothing of its new more-aggressive nuclear posture -- open the clear possibility that such weapons will be used in questionable ways.

In light of these many considerations, however one judges the numerous still-debated issues concerning the bombing of Hiroshima, the Smithsonian as one of the nation's premier educational institutions had, and still has, an obligation to present all sides and all important aspects of the continuing controversy.

Gar Alperovitz, author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, is Lionel R. Bauman Professor of political economy at the University of Maryland, College Park.

 

[Elrohir]

Try going to Amazon link and reading the reviews, like I say, it's unsettling stuff. Just posting the officially sanctioned lies doesn't make them true Elrohir, not when you consider the sources that completely discredit this.

So you're saying I should trust LewRockWell.com over the US government, just because you say the USG is biased and your online barely-above-a-blog-website is Holy Writ? No thanks. How about you go to the trouble of actually proving your assertions, instead of linking to such biased media?

Just because some idiot wrote a book on it, doesn't mean it's factual Sidhe. "Oh my gosh, there's a review on Amazon that said the Japanese wanted to surrender, but the evil Americans nuked them anyway! IT MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN!!" Stop allowing yourself to be used by such ignorant people.

 

[Sidhe]

So you're saying I should trust LewRockWell.com over the US government, just because you say the USG is biased and your online barely-above-a-blog-website is Holy Writ? No thanks. How about you go to the trouble of actually proving your assertions, instead of linking to such biased media?

Just because some idiot wrote a book on it, doesn't mean it's factual Sidhe. "Oh my gosh, there's a review on Amazon that said the Japanese wanted to surrender, but the evil Americans nuked them anyway! IT MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN!!" Stop allowing yourself to be used by such ignorant people.

No I'm saying trust the generals and Admirals and politicians who are on the record as saying it was unnecessary, and I'm saying judge the book not this synopsis? But of course you are on some other planet somewhere with the faries, living in your own delusional twee world, where you'll take propaganda over considered opinions of your own generals, government officials, admirals, historians as being purely false?

Did you read the above links, these people are on the record as decrying the bomb unnecessary, how much more evidence do you want?

Among the many other top World War II leaders who are on record as stating that the bomb was unnecessary are the commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. ''Hap'' Arnold; Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet; Adm. William F. Halsey Jr., commander of the U.S. Third Fleet; and the famous ''hawk'' who commanded the 21st Bomber Command, Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall privately proposed that the bombs be dropped first on a military target such as a large naval base -- then, if that didn't work, that civilians be warned to leave before a city were targeted.

Probably just lying eh?

 

[Elrohir]

No I'm saying trust the generals and Admirals and politicians who are on the record as saying it was unnecessary, and I'm saying judge the book not this synopsis? But of course you are on some other planet somewhere with the faries, living in your own delusional twee world, where you'll take propaganda over considered opinions of your own generals, government officials, admirals, historians as being purely false?

Did you read the above links, these people are on the record as decrying the bomb unnecessary, how much more evidence do you want?

A record is only as good as who is recording it - all we have is an Amazon review saying that those people are on record saying that. That's not even as reliable as Joe Bob in West Virginia's blog. The first review you posted is by "The Knave" - that's it. We have no clue who this guy is, or whether he's qualified to say these things. Sidhe, post actual sources which are actually reliable and maybe someone will believe you. But linking to Amazon reviews is pathetic and won't convince anyone. I could register and post a review right now calling "everything in that book a lie", and then quote myself. Why would that be a less reliable review than all the others?

You need to learn to discern between a reliable source and an unreliable source.

 

[Sidhe]

A record is only as good as who is recording it - all we have is an Amazon review saying that those people are on record saying that. That's not even as reliable as Joe Bob in West Virginia's blog. The first review you posted is by "The Knave" - that's it. We have no clue who this guy is, or whether he's qualified to say these things. Sidhe, post actual sources which are actually reliable and maybe someone will believe you. But linking to Amazon reviews is pathetic and won't convince anyone. I could register and post a review right now calling "everything in that book a lie", and then quote myself. Why would that be a less reliable review than all the others?

You need to learn to discern between a reliable source and an unreliable source.

So politicians and the generals who ran the war are unreliable sources? Are you really that delusional, when it says on the record it means they officially stated and were prepared to be documented saying these statements and in fact were, this book was widely acclaimed by historians, and nominated for an award, are historians in the habit of nominating books that have unreliable sources? Honestly your just lying to yourself, if you think that presidents and admirals and field marshal in command of the war are lying?

The link above is not the same link, and it is not an amazon review, it is a news story from the Miami Herald

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1214-06.htm

Sorry I missed the link, here it is.

Obviously you don't understand the media term on the record, if you did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Sidhe:

With the qualifier that I have not read the Alperovitz book:

Upon further reading of the article, it is clear that the main sticking point here is the Japanese peace feelers (not offers, just feelers) sent out to the USSR in July 1945. Specifically some sources claim that the Japanese were willing to surrender with the one proviso of keeping the Emporer in power, where others claim that the Japanese wanted far more strict conditions than that; no occupation, to see to their own affairs to do with the war ie war crimes trials and disarmament.

Keep in mind that there were many factions within the Imperial government who all had different ideas on what kind of surrender would be acceptable, including at least half of the Supreme Council who wanted to keep fighting unless they could get no Allied involvement in post-war Japan, and IIRC many senior figures in the army who wanted to fight to the death no matter what! Or at least wait until the Americans attempted an invasion, which they hoped they could defeat, and then use this possible victory as a bargaining chip for negociating a more favourable surrender.

The elements calling for a surrender offer with the proviso of keeping the Emporer in power were by no means in the majority. Even if the Allies had offered peace terms that left the Emporer in power in July 1945, there was no guarantee that the Japanese would accept. There was no final word or consensus on the subject until the Emporer stepped in and ended the debate in August, after the bombs had been dropped. And, even then, there was the attempted coup with aim of preventing the surrender and continuing the war. Remember that the concept of death or dishonour was a key part of Japanese culture at this time - defeat wasn't just a worst case scenario to many of them, it was simply not an option.

Therefore I think it's pretty easy to see how confusion could arise from the topic, and indeed there are many sources on both sides of the debate which are perfectly credible. It is a murky issue, but one thing is clear; the Japanese made no clear and definate offers until after the bombs had been dropped. Until then it was a case of many factions arguing against one another, and a vague diplomatic foray into the USSR to test the water, as it were. If anything, the factions that wanted to keep fighting outnumbered the ones who wanted some kind of surrender (ie, with the Emporer stays proviso).

In addition, it is probable that the insistance on total surrender lengthened the war. However, when put into consideration with the terrible crimes overseen by the Imperial Japanese, the demand becomes easier to understand IMHO. It is possible that a peace could have been reached prior to the bombs being dropped, but this would likely entail keeping the Imperial regime in power, something that Truman was evidentally not willing to accept. Hell, Roosevelt could have surrendered right after Pearl Harbour in 1941 - that would have shortened the war, right? Yes - but the Japanese would be allowed to continue their Pacific blitz. I tend to think that persuing the total surrender of Japan was the right course of action.

Another possibility is that the Emporer would eventually have offered an unconditional surrender at some point in late 1945, even if the Allies had stopped attacking Japan in say, July. Maybe this is the case, but we will never know for sure. The Japanese were still divided over the question of surrender even after the bombs were dropped, so it's a very, very slim chance at best, and certainly wouldn't have been seen as a realistic option by Truman in 1945.

But then again I haven't read the Alperovitz book; maybe if I did it would change my mind. Maybe not. But for now I still tend to think that the bombs shortened the war.

By the way, the link that Elrohir posted actually gives a pretty good account of the surrender: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

 

[Sidhe]

What about the recorded on the record testimony of all those politicians and generals and military brass directly involved with the decision? What about Winston Churchill's on the record, or at least on the top secret record of advising Truman to remove the unconditional and accede to the demands of the Japanese for clemency on the emperor? If it was just some random documents, and they weren't on the record as stating they did not think it shortened the war, then I wouldn't take it seriously, and it seems if you thoroughly research this you can only really come to the conclusion that the propaganda you are so fond of is in fact lies. Does the opinion of the top brass directly involved in the decision making process not matter? Is the more pertinent question, do you think they were lying when they went on the record as saying x?

Actually I don't want to turn this into some sort of advertising campaign but I think it might be worth investing in a copy of this praised tome?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

What about the recorded on the record testimony of all those politicians and generals and military brass directly involved with the decision? What about Winston Churchill's on the record, or at least on the top secret record of advising Truman to remove the unconditional and accede to the demands of the Japanese for clemency on the emperor? If it was just some random documents, and they weren't on the record as stating they did not think it shortened the war, then I wouldn't take it seriously, and it seems if you thoroughly research this you can only really come to the conclusion that the propaganda you are so fond of is in fact lies. Does the opinion of the top brass directly involved in the decision making process not matter? Is the more pertinent question, do you think they were lying when they went on the record as saying x?

Actually I don't want to turn this into some sort of advertising campaign but I think it might be worth investing in a copy of this praised tome?

For one thing Sidhe, the Japanese didn't make this offer until after the bombs were dropped.

Secondly, to be honest I haven't looked into the opinions of the leaders that you (or noncon) mentioned, other than I know that Eisenhower once said "we didn't need to hit them with those awful bombs" or something along those lines. Certainly the bombs weren't the only way of convincing Japan to surrender uncondtionally.

But I'm sure that there are top brass on both sides of the debate as well. Harry Truman for one was in favour of dropping the bombs.

 

[Sidhe]

For one thing Sidhe, the Japanese didn't make this offer until after the bombs were dropped.

Secondly, to be honest I haven't looked into the opinions of the leaders that you (or noncon) mentioned, other than I know that Eisenhower once said "we didn't need to hit them with those awful bombs" or something along those lines. Certainly the bombs weren't the only way of convincing Japan to surrender uncondtionally.

But I'm sure that there are top brass on both sides of the debate as well. Harry Truman for one was in favour of dropping the bombs.

Well that's the point isn't it, if it's true that they are on the record, and lets face it, if you are nominated for an award by a prestigious organisation we can only assume they did actually say this? Then your argument breaks down. If it's false, these are lies then you are correct, however I have bought the book so I will see what it says and relate where the sources come from. I'm very much of the opinion though that the book is a historical account, it is written by a US citizen who has no reason to lie, and it is widely acclaimed by his peers? That's a fairly reputable source IMO.

Just a note on the poll, I noticed almost without exception that every one who voted for yes is an American, or Australian, and nearly everyone who voted for no, is a European/other, the maybes are divided, the others are almost all European/other. Looks like we get taught a different history from the US doesn't it? Who's right though? hmmmm.......

The abstainers are pretty much irrelevant I suppose.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Well that's the point isn't it, if it's true that they are on the record, and lets face it, if you are nominated for an award by a prestigious organisation we can only assume they did actually say this? Then your argument breaks down. If it's false, these are lies then you are correct, however I have bought the book so I will see what it says and relate where the sources come from. I'm very much of the opinion though that the book is a historical account, it is written by a US citizen who has no reason to lie, and it is widely acclaimed by his peers? That's a fairly reputable source IMO.

Just a note on the poll, I noticed almost without exception that every one who voted for yes is an American, or Australian, and nearly everyone who voted for no, is a European/other, the maybes are divided, the others are almost all European/other. Looks like we get taught a different history from the US doesn't it? Who's right though? hmmmm.......

The abstainers are pretty much irrelevant I suppose.

It seems that the countries that were most concerned with the defeat of Japan (i.e. the United States and Australia) believe one thing and those that are halfway around the world believe another?

 

[Sidhe]

It seems that the countries that were most concerned with the defeat of Japan (i.e. the United States and Australia) believe one thing and those that are halfway around the world believe another?

Might have something to do with what is established hisotry and in the best interest of propaganda, and what is actual history, two countries with the most to lose from admitting being mislead are? I'd say if the sources are creditable then it's pretty much the case that history has been elided by the victors, if not I'd like to see where these sources are wrong? But I guess I'll have to wait for the book

I'm sure at the moment though that what is presented as the truth and what is actually true are two different things. And I don't think unless someone can debunk the source I am going to agree otherwise. I'd actually not be at all bothered to be wrong, after all I was on the allied side, so it reflects badly on everyones countries. On us: not any more than WWII does on the youth of Germany or Japan or any country, unless like non-com you were Herman Guering in a previous life

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Well that's the point isn't it, if it's true that they are on the record, and lets face it, if you are nominated for an award by a prestigious organisation we can only assume they did actually say this? Then your argument breaks down. If it's false, these are lies then you are correct, however I have bought the book so I will see what it says and relate where the sources come from. I'm very much of the opinion though that the book is a historical account, it is written by a US citizen who has no reason to lie, and it is widely acclaimed by his peers? That's a fairly reputable source IMO.

Well as I said Sidhe, there are credible opinions on both sides of the debate.

I suspect that the arguement in the book comes down to the specific conditions of the surrender, and weather it would have been preferable for the Allies to offer less strict surrender conditions prior to the bombs being dropped, rather than holding out for an unconditional surrender.

As I said, I tend to think that insisting on an unconditional surrender was preferable.

But then again, I haven't read the book.

It's definatley an interesting question though.

 

[Sidhe]

Well as I said Sidhe, there are credible opinions on both sides of the debate.

I suspect that the arguement in the book comes down to the specific conditions of the surrender, and weather it would have been preferable for the Allies to offer less strict surrender conditions prior to the bombs being dropped, rather than holding out for a unconditional surrender.

As I said, I tend to think that insisting on an unconditional surrender was preferable.

But then again, I haven't read the book.

It's definatley an interesting question though.

Now that's something that is utterly indisputable, it's an interesting question indeed? Who's right? Well maybe one day we'll find out, but for now it's a matter of which side you think has more credence, and which side is best served by maintaining x I suppose? It's a political decision as well as an intellectual one, which is reflected in the poll, which for a change is actually quite relevant.