One last thread on December 7th

[outhereincali]

and far more significant than 12/7/96. On 12/7/41 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR called it a day that shall live in infamy. A very long war was started but the United States was victorius maybe the greatest moment in American history certainly one of the greatest. Until 9/11 it was the worst attack on American soil.

One of the great things about Americans is that we've never forgotten the brave men who died that day and we never will.

 

[2300 Nueces]

I agree with you. I had an uncle who enlisted in the Marines at 16. Yes, he lied to get in and fight in ww 2. He fought on the islands in the pacific. He was shot on guadalcanal by the japanese. I had another uncle who fought the germans. He landed on Omaha beach d day +7. He fought with the 82nd infantry. He went through the hedge rows to the north of France to belgium, and into germany. This took him through the major battles of hurtgen forest and the buldge. He was the last in his company to be shot or killed in fighting. My grandmothers first husband was shot down in the beginning of ww2 in fighter combat. My grandfather was aslo a fighter pilot in ww2 against the japanese. My wife's grandfather who was of Mexican decent and a dual citizen, was with Patton in north africa as a medic and made it all the way to germany's surrender. With all this being said, there is a reason we fought ww2 and it's never discussed. I have attached a great article that discusses what went on behind the political and finance scenes to produce ww2.

I expect something similar to happen in the near future. I expect that once China figures out the block chain that we will be in the same boat as b4 ww2. As of late much has been said of china's social credit system. It's not new. Japan did it long ago.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.c...r-ii-fought-to-make-the-world-safe-for-usury/

 

[LongfellowDrew]

I’ve been fortunate to visit Pearl Harbor. Very humbling and I was lucky enough to see a Japanese and American war veteran discussing the war. Amazing.

 

[outhereincali]

There was interesting documentary on the history channel about Admiral Yamamoto the architect of Pearl Harbor. if you're interested I'm sure you could find it on Google or YouTube. I learned that he was a formidable adversary. Check it out

 

[freeper]

There was interesting documentary on the history channel about Admiral Yamamoto the architect of Pearl Harbor. if you're interested I'm sure you could find it on Google or YouTube. I learned that he was a formidable adversary. Check it out

Yamamoto was a helluva strategist. A real naval hero for Japan. He spent a lot of time in the US and knew our capabilities well. He knew there was no way in hell to win a battle of attrition with America which is why he went for the knockout blow. He didn't have much faith in that gamble either but he took it as the political situation in Japan left him no alternative.

 

[clob94]

I don't know if it's revisionist history or what, but I'm hearing/reading things now that say the generals all knew Japan was basically done for, they could hold on for maybe 4 more months and it was over. No invasion would be needed.... but they kept that from Truman because they really wanted to test out their two new toys.

Boom.

 

[outhereincali]

Yamamoto was a helluva strategist. A real naval hero for Japan. He spent a lot of time in the US and knew our capabilities well. He knew there was no way in hell to win a battle of attrition with America which is why he went for the knockout blow. He didn't have much faith in that gamble either but he took it as the political situation in Japan left him no alternative.

I don't know the details but oil played a huge part in the defeat of not only Japan but Germany as well.

 

[freeper]

I don't know if it's revisionist history or what, but I'm hearing/reading things now that say the generals all knew Japan was basically done for, they could hold on for maybe 4 more months and it was over. No invasion would be needed.... but they kept that from Truman because they really wanted to test out their two new toys.

Boom.

Well @clob94 that's the thing about history. It is constantly being revised as new information comes available. So in that sense, all modern history is revisionist. The problem is that sometimes we re-interpret events to such a degree that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I could launch into a lengthy discourse on the problems with current historiography but that would bore you to tears, so instead I will address your statements.

Everyone in the Pacific, with the exception of the Japanese general staff knew they were done for. The great secret of the Pacific War was not the atomic bomb, or the success of American carrier operations supplanting the old doctrine of the battle line after Pearl Harbor. The real success story of the war in the Pacific was our submarine operations that by 1944 had literally cut Japan off from her empire. Japan was starving even before the Twentieth Air Force began bombing Japanese cities in late 1944. Even had Japan had much of a fleet left after the twin disasters at the Philippine Sea (June '44) and Leyte Gulf/Cape Engano (October '44), the national oil reserves only allowed for a couple weeks worth of fuel for combat. While on paper, Japan still possessed formidable numbers of aircraft, she did not have sufficient trained pilots or fuel to make them really combat effective. Despite all this, the Japanese high command refused multiple demands to surrender. Modern revisionist and social historians, looking for any reason to throw some shade at America, point to the impossible Japanese situation and claim that we only dropped the atomic bombs in order to A) forestall Soviet occupation demands and B) to play with our new toy.

Our own Joint Chiefs were well aware that the new bombs worked once the Trinity test was successfully concluded in July of 1945. So yes, we could have starved Japan into submission, but how many millions would have died due to that policy? President Truman was being advised that an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would cost between 500,000 and 2 million American lives, and approximately 20 million Japanese. To that point in the war, in both the ETO and PTO, our losses had been less than half a million dead, and about another million wounded. What social historians tend to ignore is that the Japanese culture of the time was not given to entertaining the idea of national surrender. The fighting in the Pacific to that point did nothing to indicate otherwise. To the Japanese, and especially the general staff, this was an existential war. It took the atomic bomb to shake them from the idea that they could still negotiate more favorable terms by engaging us in a battle of attrition on their home islands.

Finally, with respect to a common complaint that Truman only dropped the bomb to keep the Russians out of Japan, horsehockey. The Soviets had done next to nothing to contribute to the victory in the Pacific War. Geography was going to keep the Russians out of occupying any Japanese home island absent our consent. Certainly Stalin had designs on gobbling up as much territory as possible from Japan and he was accustomed to dealing with a much more pliant Roosevelt. Truman was a rude awakening to "Uncle" Joe who now had to deal with an American from the heartland and not a member of the Northeastern elite who were much more amenable to Stalin's schemes. That the Russians finally got off the dime and declared war on Japan simultaneously with our dropping the a-bombs on the Japanese was a result of many factors coming to a head. Russian spies in our nuclear program had certainly advised Stalin that we were about to drop the bomb and the Red Army had finally completed its task of denuding Central and Eastern Europe of any industrial capacity that might be useful back in the Motherland.

It amazes me each semester when I get students who question Truman's decision to employ the atomic bomb. I quickly disabuse them of that nonsense. Maybe the issue is too personal for me. My father had already been wounded at Leyte and again at Okinawa. His unit was slated to go ashore on Y-Day on the Tokyo Plain as part of Operation Coronet during the planned Invasion of Honshu. The dropping of the A-bombs meant those plans wouldn't be needed, and that my father would make it home.

 

[FlourBluffHorn]

Well @clob94 that's the thing about history. It is constantly being revised as new information comes available. So in that sense, all modern history is revisionist. The problem is that sometimes we re-interpret events to such a degree that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I could launch into a lengthy discourse on the problems with current historiography but that would bore you to tears, so instead I will address your statements.

Everyone in the Pacific, with the exception of the Japanese general staff knew they were done for. The great secret of the Pacific War was not the atomic bomb, or the success of American carrier operations supplanting the old doctrine of the battle line after Pearl Harbor. The real success story of the war in the Pacific was our submarine operations that by 1944 had literally cut Japan off from her empire. Japan was starving even before the Twentieth Air Force began bombing Japanese cities in late 1944. Even had Japan had much of a fleet left after the twin disasters at the Philippine Sea (June '44) and Leyte Gulf/Cape Engano (October '44), the national oil reserves only allowed for a couple weeks worth of fuel for combat. While on paper, Japan still possessed formidable numbers of aircraft, she did not have sufficient trained pilots or fuel to make them really combat effective. Despite all this, the Japanese high command refused multiple demands to surrender. Modern revisionist and social historians, looking for any reason to throw some shade at America, point to the impossible Japanese situation and claim that we only dropped the atomic bombs in order to A) forestall Soviet occupation demands and B) to play with our new toy.

Our own Joint Chiefs were well aware that the new bombs worked once the Trinity test was successfully concluded in July of 1945. So yes, we could have starved Japan into submission, but how many millions would have died due to that policy? President Truman was being advised that an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would cost between 500,000 and 2 million American lives, and approximately 20 million Japanese. To that point in the war, in both the ETO and PTO, our losses had been less than half a million dead, and about another million wounded. What social historians tend to ignore is that the Japanese culture of the time was not given to entertaining the idea of national surrender. The fighting in the Pacific to that point did nothing to indicate otherwise. To the Japanese, and especially the general staff, this was an existential war. It took the atomic bomb to shake them from the idea that they could still negotiate more favorable terms by engaging us in a battle of attrition on their home islands.

Finally, with respect to a common complaint that Truman only dropped the bomb to keep the Russians out of Japan, horsehockey. The Soviets had done next to nothing to contribute to the victory in the Pacific War. Geography was going to keep the Russians out of occupying any Japanese home island absent our consent. Certainly Stalin had designs on gobbling up as much territory as possible from Japan and he was accustomed to dealing with a much more pliant Roosevelt. Truman was a rude awakening to "Uncle" Joe who now had to deal with an American from the heartland and not a member of the Northeastern elite who were much more amenable to Stalin's schemes. That the Russians finally got off the dime and declared war on Japan simultaneously with our dropping the a-bombs on the Japanese was a result of many factors coming to a head. Russian spies in our nuclear program had certainly advised Stalin that we were about to drop the bomb and the Red Army had finally completed its task of denuding Central and Eastern Europe of any industrial capacity that might be useful back in the Motherland.

It amazes me each semester when I get students who question Truman's decision to employ the atomic bomb. I quickly disabuse them of that nonsense. Maybe the issue is too personal for me. My father had already been wounded at Leyte and again at Okinawa. His unit was slated to go ashore on Y-Day on the Tokyo Plain as part of Operation Coronet during the planned Invasion of Honshu. The dropping of the A-bombs meant those plans wouldn't be needed, and that my father would make it home.

Teach them the truth! There are enough lies in History to go around for a long time


Hook'em

 

[2300 Nueces]

My point was that the world is suffering under a worldwide banking system that is enslaving each and every one of us through debt of all sorts and interest.

The world has not always been like this. Quick research project. Which countries do not have a banking system connected to the swift system? Where are we fighting wars?

How is a dollar created? A: A debt instrument must be created for a dollar to be created. When debt is paid, currency is destroyed or taken out of circulation. To make a long story short. For our economy to grow, ever increasing amounts of debt HAVE to be created because without increasing amounts of currency (assuming a growing population) the econ will contract (assuming interest due). So logically, we will never be free from an ever increasing national debt. The greater the debt, the more unstable markets become because the counter party risk (re-payment risk) grows greater and greater. Who is responsible for paying the national debt?

Japan freed itself from debt based currency. It could not be allowed to be free of the yoke of usury because everyone would want to be free. Think about it.

 

[clob94]

So you're saying that you see those event through the looking glass of a personal bias. If the bombs don't drop, you possibly lose your father in the invasion and you never would have existed.

OK, I have to admit--- it's hard to disagree with that rationale. But at the same time, you yourself readily admit that it's a biased reasoning. As you stated, Russian spies had already infiltrated Los Alamos and reported back to their handlers that we had a functioning bomb. Lighting it off over Japan simply put the REST of the world on notice. As you alos pointed out, our subsurface naval fleet had a complete strangle hold on the japanese ports and shipping lanes. Their fuel sources were running dry. They were so short on pilots that they taught them how to take off, but not land. They were incapable of mounting a counter attack. They could protect their shores, but that was it. So why invade? Yes...... the suffering and starvation would have been on a level unseen before in human history. The japanese would have died a slow, very painful death. It would have started with eating grass, leaves, tree bark etc..... and probably ended in cannibalism. And one must ask if that would have been better for mankind than the loosing of the atomic genie from her bottle. Once I was actually old enough to understand the math and science of it all, I realized the minimal yeild of the weapons used in both bombings, and within 15 years bombs were being detonated that exceeded those weapon's power by several orders of magnitude. Hell the Russians once set off a Tsar bomb that was so large it actually blew sh!t into outer space. I often wonder if Truman would have had a window into the future, if he would have taken a different route.
Back to my original point---- bias is a powerful lens and the further out we get from historic events, the more reshaping of said event seems to be happening.

Well @clob94 that's the thing about history. It is constantly being revised as new information comes available. So in that sense, all modern history is revisionist. The problem is that sometimes we re-interpret events to such a degree that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I could launch into a lengthy discourse on the problems with current historiography but that would bore you to tears, so instead I will address your statements.

Everyone in the Pacific, with the exception of the Japanese general staff knew they were done for. The great secret of the Pacific War was not the atomic bomb, or the success of American carrier operations supplanting the old doctrine of the battle line after Pearl Harbor. The real success story of the war in the Pacific was our submarine operations that by 1944 had literally cut Japan off from her empire. Japan was starving even before the Twentieth Air Force began bombing Japanese cities in late 1944. Even had Japan had much of a fleet left after the twin disasters at the Philippine Sea (June '44) and Leyte Gulf/Cape Engano (October '44), the national oil reserves only allowed for a couple weeks worth of fuel for combat. While on paper, Japan still possessed formidable numbers of aircraft, she did not have sufficient trained pilots or fuel to make them really combat effective. Despite all this, the Japanese high command refused multiple demands to surrender. Modern revisionist and social historians, looking for any reason to throw some shade at America, point to the impossible Japanese situation and claim that we only dropped the atomic bombs in order to A) forestall Soviet occupation demands and B) to play with our new toy.

Our own Joint Chiefs were well aware that the new bombs worked once the Trinity test was successfully concluded in July of 1945. So yes, we could have starved Japan into submission, but how many millions would have died due to that policy? President Truman was being advised that an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would cost between 500,000 and 2 million American lives, and approximately 20 million Japanese. To that point in the war, in both the ETO and PTO, our losses had been less than half a million dead, and about another million wounded. What social historians tend to ignore is that the Japanese culture of the time was not given to entertaining the idea of national surrender. The fighting in the Pacific to that point did nothing to indicate otherwise. To the Japanese, and especially the general staff, this was an existential war. It took the atomic bomb to shake them from the idea that they could still negotiate more favorable terms by engaging us in a battle of attrition on their home islands.

Finally, with respect to a common complaint that Truman only dropped the bomb to keep the Russians out of Japan, horsehockey. The Soviets had done next to nothing to contribute to the victory in the Pacific War. Geography was going to keep the Russians out of occupying any Japanese home island absent our consent. Certainly Stalin had designs on gobbling up as much territory as possible from Japan and he was accustomed to dealing with a much more pliant Roosevelt. Truman was a rude awakening to "Uncle" Joe who now had to deal with an American from the heartland and not a member of the Northeastern elite who were much more amenable to Stalin's schemes. That the Russians finally got off the dime and declared war on Japan simultaneously with our dropping the a-bombs on the Japanese was a result of many factors coming to a head. Russian spies in our nuclear program had certainly advised Stalin that we were about to drop the bomb and the Red Army had finally completed its task of denuding Central and Eastern Europe of any industrial capacity that might be useful back in the Motherland.

It amazes me each semester when I get students who question Truman's decision to employ the atomic bomb. I quickly disabuse them of that nonsense. Maybe the issue is too personal for me. My father had already been wounded at Leyte and again at Okinawa. His unit was slated to go ashore on Y-Day on the Tokyo Plain as part of Operation Coronet during the planned Invasion of Honshu. The dropping of the A-bombs meant those plans wouldn't be needed, and that my father would make it home.

 

[wadster]

So you're saying that you see those event through the looking glass of a personal bias. If the bombs don't drop, you possibly lose your father in the invasion and you never would have existed.

OK, I have to admit--- it's hard to disagree with that rationale. But at the same time, you yourself readily admit that it's a biased reasoning. As you stated, Russian spies had already infiltrated Los Alamos and reported back to their handlers that we had a functioning bomb. Lighting it off over Japan simply put the REST of the world on notice. As you alos pointed out, our subsurface naval fleet had a complete strangle hold on the japanese ports and shipping lanes. Their fuel sources were running dry. They were so short on pilots that they taught them how to take off, but not land. They were incapable of mounting a counter attack. They could protect their shores, but that was it. So why invade? Yes...... the suffering and starvation would have been on a level unseen before in human history. The japanese would have died a slow, very painful death. It would have started with eating grass, leaves, tree bark etc..... and probably ended in cannibalism. And one must ask if that would have been better for mankind than the loosing of the atomic genie from her bottle. Once I was actually old enough to understand the math and science of it all, I realized the minimal yeild of the weapons used in both bombings, and within 15 years bombs were being detonated that exceeded those weapon's power by several orders of magnitude. Hell the Russians once set off a Tsar bomb that was so large it actually blew sh!t into outer space. I often wonder if Truman would have had a window into the future, if he would have taken a different route.
Back to my original point---- bias is a powerful lens and the further out we get from historic events, the more reshaping of said event seems to be happening.

2 things to add to this thread. 1) we were going to be in a nuclear world whether Truman set off the bomb or not. We had the technology and the Russians weren't far behind. Setting those 2 bombs off weren't going to change that. Whether it was the right thing to do or not, I'm not sure. Starving them to death wasn't either. How many men did the emperor allow to die on Iowa and Okinawa to buy him a few more days. How many did he allow to die in Tokyo fire bomb raids? He wasn't going to surrender until forced beyond any normal human decisioning. He was as nuts as Hitler. 2) My dad was on the West Virginia at Leyte and Okinawa. Had a 500lb bomb hit the ship but not detonate. Only reason I'm here is because one bomb didn't explode. As the Japanese POW camps were liberated, they brought the prisoners on the battleships because they had good medical care. He heard all the stories about what happened in the camps. Never talked about it until the day he died, but he also never bought a Japanese car. He never forgave them for what they did. Does that make dropping the bombs right? Not sure I know. There were no good options. The emperor had proven he'd continue fighting with sticks and old men just like Hitler. Hitler never did surrender. Not sure it would have been much different in Japan. All I know is I'm glad I wasn't Truman. One minute you're the vice president and the next you have to make maybe the biggest decision ever made in human history.

 

[Wildcat414]

Forgive my late contribution to the discussion, but there are two important points having to do with the argument about whether or not the US decision to drop the bombs on Japan was justified that I don't see mentioned above and which weren't included in history courses when I was a history major, though they might be more widely known today (sorry if this is gibberish, it's close to bedtime, see my links for better info):

1. The surrender of the German submarine U-234 en route to Japan on May 14, 1945 revealed a secret cargo which in addition to the Japanese officers who proceeded to commit suicide included 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of uranium oxide. The US could have had no idea at the time if U-234 (it's a total coincidence that U-235 is the main fissile isotope of uranium) was the only such German sub which had embarked for Japan or not. What they would have known was that if any others had embarked and had been successful in getting through-- depending on how the Japanese decided to weaponize whatever materials the Germans had sent-- it would mean a horror show for the millions of US forces massing for a physical invasion of Japan over that summer.

One of my uncles was the sole survivor of his aircraft carrier gun crew following a Kamikaze attack in the Pacific. Japanese planes loaded with uranium oxide flown into our ships would have wreaked unknown havoc, killed untold thousands or hundreds of thousands. The fact that this uranium oxide had been discovered was, as you'll see if you read either the NYTimes or Wikipedia article below, kept secret through the entire Cold War.


https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/us/captured-cargo-captivating-mystery.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234

Now, whether or not the discoveries on board U-234 played the kind of role in the American decision to drop the bombs on Japan that I personally think they did, those who continue to argue that the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender by August 1945, and that the only reason we did drop the bombs is that we are evil racists who didn't care about anything other than keeping the Russians from entering the Pacific war in time to stake out some territory, need to then explain the Kyujo incident.

2. The Kyujo incident (again, you can read the details in the Japan Times article or Wikipedia article of your choice below) was an attempted coup by fanatical Japanese officers on the grounds of the Imperial residence on the night of August 14, a full five days AFTER the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, in an attempt to find and destroy the recorded message by the emperor accepting unconditional surrender so that it could not be played to the nation over the radio the next day.

Not even our leadership knew about the Kyujo incident at the time it happened but taken in combination with the U-234 incident (which we did know about but kept secret) and the now well-proven will of the Japanese to fight to the last man, woman, and child while killing as many US soldiers in the process by the use of suicidal attacks of various kinds, then second guessing the decisions of our leadership at that time is the worst kind of revisionist history imho-- not the good kind which is necessary from time to time to correct errors and misconceptions using research and facts, but the kind with a philosophical axe to grind fueled by a willingness to see things that aren't absolute fact while ignoring things that are.


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...y/coup-emperors-broadcast-never/#.XBCD7WhKjmY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

 

[outhereincali]

Yamamoto was a helluva strategist. A real naval hero for Japan. He spent a lot of time in the US and knew our capabilities well. He knew there was no way in hell to win a battle of attrition with America which is why he went for the knockout blow. He didn't have much faith in that gamble either but he took it as the political situation in Japan left him no alternative.

The admiral was a fascinating person. He wanted no part of the Axis disliked Hitler and Mussolini was suspicious that Hitler was using Japan and would eventually turn on Japan. Before he signed off on Pearl Harbor he said that if Japan did not win the war in 18 months she would lose mostly because of oil shortages. From what I've read the naval battles in the Pacific were brutal. Yamamoto himself was killed in battle in 1943.

 

[FlourBluffHorn]

I think that Tarawa was the turning point as we lost so many men and was the 1st time that cameras were allowed to film and put in the theaters and it appalled the American people and that's what put the pressure on Truman to drop the bomb, they figured the casualty rate versus the bomb and then they use the bomb, Japan got all they deserved, shoulda dropped 2 more, my wife had a uncle that was on the Death March at Bataan and he made barely , after what he went thru and others , they shoulda just swept the island of Japan and the others into the Ocean

You look back and the see the same problems today, we had Korea, the cold killed more than both sides, and then Vietnam, a complete waste of good soldiers, and now Iraq, that's why is so hard for people to come here after a war, the Japs got put into camps, when my wife's mother a German married her father a soldier, she got shunned here because of the fact she was German, and then Korean had troubles coming over here, The Vietnamese did far so well;, and now the Iraq people damn sure now doing it so well, and that makes it hard for the border down south,

The War with Germany being over helped to get more stuff to the South pacific when McAuthor was Island hopping, he was smart at it , cutting supply lines and destroying Air support of the Japs, when they lost the Air , that broke the game wide open, he just bypassed them and let them staved to death

Patton was right in Germany, we shoulda went on the Russia while we was there and McAuthor was right in Korea, we shoulda went on before Truman relieved him, every War we have fought has followed us in some manner, That's why the VA couldn't keep up, so many WW2 vets and then a lotta Korea vets, then the WW2 started dieing off and the Korean vets where started to get better care, then Vietnam came and the VA was doing what was left of WW2, and Korea and now Vietnam,then Desert Storm, Iraq and then the system was overwhelmed, I think kids need the truth about all o0f it, they need to know that back then it wasn't fancy with computer and drones, I think they play BF2 too much or COD and it gives them the wrong impression of War.

I do live a lot in the past as thats my comfort zone, when ya had a hand on things sorta back then, if not for me and other old folks living there then there would be no history to look back on and no one to tell the story...when ya get old you always wish you could go back at some point and do better, but, the clock won't let, all ya can do is think about it




Hook'em

 

[2300 Nueces]

I think that Tarawa was the turning point as we lost so many men and was the 1st time that cameras were allowed to film and put in the theaters and it appalled the American people and that's what put the pressure on Truman to drop the bomb, they figured the casualty rate versus the bomb and then they use the bomb, Japan got all they deserved, shoulda dropped 2 more, my wife had a uncle that was on the Death March at Bataan and he made barely , after what he went thru and others , they shoulda just swept the island of Japan and the others into the Ocean

You look back and the see the same problems today, we had Korea, the cold killed more than both sides, and then Vietnam, a complete waste of good soldiers, and now Iraq, that's why is so hard for people to come here after a war, the Japs got put into camps, when my wife's mother a German married her father a soldier, she got shunned here because of the fact she was German, and then Korean had troubles coming over here, The Vietnamese did far so well;, and now the Iraq people damn sure now doing it so well, and that makes it hard for the border down south,

The War with Germany being over helped to get more stuff to the South pacific when McAuthor was Island hopping, he was smart at it , cutting supply lines and destroying Air support of the Japs, when they lost the Air , that broke the game wide open, he just bypassed them and let them staved to death

Patton was right in Germany, we shoulda went on the Russia while we was there and McAuthor was right in Korea, we shoulda went on before Truman relieved him, every War we have fought has followed us in some manner, That's why the VA couldn't keep up, so many WW2 vets and then a lotta Korea vets, then the WW2 started dieing off and the Korean vets where started to get better care, then Vietnam came and the VA was doing what was left of WW2, and Korea and now Vietnam,then Desert Storm, Iraq and then the system was overwhelmed, I think kids need the truth about all o0f it, they need to know that back then it wasn't fancy with computer and drones, I think they play BF2 too much or COD and it gives them the wrong impression of War.

I do live a lot in the past as thats my comfort zone, when ya had a hand on things sorta back then, if not for me and other old folks living there then there would be no history to look back on and no one to tell the story...when ya get old you always wish you could go back at some point and do better, but, the clock won't let, all ya can do is think about it




Hook'em

FB, no need to live in the past. Only your conscious lives there. Look forward to the future, it's all any of us has.


Ecclesiastes 3:9-15

God's Works Remain Forever

9What does the worker gain from his toil? 10I have seen the burden that God has laid on men to occupy them.11He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end.

12I know that there is nothing better for men than to rejoice and do good while they live, 13and also that every man should eat and drink and find satisfaction in all his labor—this is the gift of God. 14I know that everything God does will remain forever; nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God works that men should revere Him. 15What exists has already been, and what will be has already been, for God will call to account what has passed.

 

[okiehorn]

After World War One it was questioned whether the United States should have gotten into the War. This led to the isolation movement in the 1930's. After World War Two people questioned whether the bomb should have been uses on Japan, and trying to blunt a new isolationist movement strong rebuttals were brought forth to quail any new movement toward isolation.

 

[clob94]

Clob like a smidge of isolation. Kind of like "don't touch my sh!t and I won't break your nose" isolation.

After World War One it was questioned whether the United States should have gotten into the War. This led to the isolation movement in the 1930's. After World War Two people questioned whether the bomb should have been uses on Japan, and trying to blunt a new isolationist movement strong rebuttals were brought forth to quail any new movement toward isolation.

 

[TX1972]

Well @clob94 that's the thing about history. It is constantly being revised as new information comes available. So in that sense, all modern history is revisionist. The problem is that sometimes we re-interpret events to such a degree that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I could launch into a lengthy discourse on the problems with current historiography but that would bore you to tears, so instead I will address your statements.

Everyone in the Pacific, with the exception of the Japanese general staff knew they were done for. The great secret of the Pacific War was not the atomic bomb, or the success of American carrier operations supplanting the old doctrine of the battle line after Pearl Harbor. The real success story of the war in the Pacific was our submarine operations that by 1944 had literally cut Japan off from her empire. Japan was starving even before the Twentieth Air Force began bombing Japanese cities in late 1944. Even had Japan had much of a fleet left after the twin disasters at the Philippine Sea (June '44) and Leyte Gulf/Cape Engano (October '44), the national oil reserves only allowed for a couple weeks worth of fuel for combat. While on paper, Japan still possessed formidable numbers of aircraft, she did not have sufficient trained pilots or fuel to make them really combat effective. Despite all this, the Japanese high command refused multiple demands to surrender. Modern revisionist and social historians, looking for any reason to throw some shade at America, point to the impossible Japanese situation and claim that we only dropped the atomic bombs in order to A) forestall Soviet occupation demands and B) to play with our new toy.

Our own Joint Chiefs were well aware that the new bombs worked once the Trinity test was successfully concluded in July of 1945. So yes, we could have starved Japan into submission, but how many millions would have died due to that policy? President Truman was being advised that an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would cost between 500,000 and 2 million American lives, and approximately 20 million Japanese. To that point in the war, in both the ETO and PTO, our losses had been less than half a million dead, and about another million wounded. What social historians tend to ignore is that the Japanese culture of the time was not given to entertaining the idea of national surrender. The fighting in the Pacific to that point did nothing to indicate otherwise. To the Japanese, and especially the general staff, this was an existential war. It took the atomic bomb to shake them from the idea that they could still negotiate more favorable terms by engaging us in a battle of attrition on their home islands.

Finally, with respect to a common complaint that Truman only dropped the bomb to keep the Russians out of Japan, horsehockey. The Soviets had done next to nothing to contribute to the victory in the Pacific War. Geography was going to keep the Russians out of occupying any Japanese home island absent our consent. Certainly Stalin had designs on gobbling up as much territory as possible from Japan and he was accustomed to dealing with a much more pliant Roosevelt. Truman was a rude awakening to "Uncle" Joe who now had to deal with an American from the heartland and not a member of the Northeastern elite who were much more amenable to Stalin's schemes. That the Russians finally got off the dime and declared war on Japan simultaneously with our dropping the a-bombs on the Japanese was a result of many factors coming to a head. Russian spies in our nuclear program had certainly advised Stalin that we were about to drop the bomb and the Red Army had finally completed its task of denuding Central and Eastern Europe of any industrial capacity that might be useful back in the Motherland.

It amazes me each semester when I get students who question Truman's decision to employ the atomic bomb. I quickly disabuse them of that nonsense. Maybe the issue is too personal for me. My father had already been wounded at Leyte and again at Okinawa. His unit was slated to go ashore on Y-Day on the Tokyo Plain as part of Operation Coronet during the planned Invasion of Honshu. The dropping of the A-bombs meant those plans wouldn't be needed, and that my father would make it home.

My late father in law had just been qualified in B 29s when we dropped the bomb. He was so relieved. There was a pile of wrecked bombers at the cliffs at the end of the airstrip at Tinian.