DireWolfSpirit Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Thank you Arakan, those are some important voices your putting forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Hasegawa is a good historian and Racing the Enemy is a serious contribution to the debate. The rest of those quotes (which have been copypasted into every online discussion on this topic since time began) are basically worthless - Eisenhower's is from his memoirs written years after the fact. It doesn't match up with his policy record in office, where he presided over the expansion (and de-civilianisation) of the US nuclear weapons arsenal as a military cost-cutting exercise, and at one point expressed worries that its potential use was becoming a taboo. The rest of the brass quoted weren't part of the planning process or privy to the diplomatic cables, and all had institutional reasons to deny the influence of the two bombs and champion the blockade and firebombing campaigns they were in charge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Hasegawa is a good historian and Racing the Enemy is a serious contribution to the debate. The rest of those quotes (which have been copypasted into every online discussion on this topic since time began) are basically worthless - Eisenhower's is from his memoirs written years after the fact. It doesn't match up with his policy record in office, where he presided over the expansion (and de-civilianisation) of the US nuclear weapons arsenal as a military cost-cutting exercise, and at one point expressed worries that its potential use was becoming a taboo. The rest of the brass quoted weren't part of the planning process or privy to the diplomatic cables, and all had institutional reasons to deny the influence of the two bombs and champion the blockade and firebombing campaigns they were in charge of. So the opinion of someone like Nimitz is worthless...interesting. They might have been biased but all of those quoted have been high(est) ranking US military commanders...involved in the planning process or not, those opinions are certainly not worthless. At least one should be open-minded and reflect about that what those people had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 So the opinion of someone like Nimitz is worthless...interesting. They might have been biased but all of those quoted have been high(est) ranking US military commanders...involved in the planning process or not, those opinions are certainly not worthless. At least one should be open-minded and reflect about that what those people had to say. But apparently not worth enough to actually change the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 But apparently not worth enough to actually change the outcome. Who says that? Anonymous people on an internet fourm? Horza made a bold stattement, would be nice if he could substantiate his claim. Until then, I take the word of Nimitz over the word of the person with the user name Horza or TrueMetis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 So the opinion of someone like Nimitz is worthless...interesting. They might have been biased but all of those quoted have been high(est) ranking US military commanders...involved in the planning process or not, those opinions are certainly not worthless. At least one should be open-minded and reflect about that what those people had to say. The worth of their remarks is based on how much information they had into the state of diplomatic negotiations with Japan and/or the planning process for the use of the bombs (none) and what incentives they had to downplay the effectiveness of the bombs (many). I don't want to blow your mind, Arakan but politicians and high-ranking generals have on occasion been known to rationalise, distort and embellish things in order to advance causes in which they have an interest (and the post-war fight over Air Force independence and budget was a big deal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Who says that? Anonymous people on an internet fourm? Horza made a bold stattement, would be nice if he could substantiate his claim. Until then, I take the word of Nimitz over the word of the person with the user name Horza or TrueMetis. The fact that they dropped the bombs does. You can take the word of Nimitz all you want, the people who actually had to make the choice didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 The worth of their remarks is based on how much information they had into the state of diplomatic negotiations with Japan and/or the planning process for the use of the bombs (none) and what incentives they had to downplay the effectiveness of the bombs (many). I don't want to blow your mind, Arakan but politicians and high-ranking generals have on occasion been known to rationalise, distort and embellish things in order to advance causes in which they have an interest (and the post-war fight over Air Force independence and budget was a big deal). I don't want to blow your mind either, Horza, so could you please provide statements of people supporting the bombings and who do so from a neutral, objective pov, i.e. people "in the know" but not been known to rationalise, distort and embellish things in order to advance causes in which they have an interest (to quote you). The quotes I provided are from high(est) ranking US military commanders of the time, not by some Soviets or Japanese (where the probability of bias is obviously high). Some generic comments are surely not enough to refute those quotes. Especially when we consider that the proclaimed military necessity has been the single-most important justification of the atom bombings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 The fact that they dropped the bombs does. You can take the word of Nimitz all you want, the people who actually had to make the choice didn't. What kind of strange logic is that? So the atom bombings were military necessary because those who decided to drop the bombs said so...indeed, interesting logic. Yep makes sense. "Hey Breschnew, was it really necessary to invade Afghanistan?" "Yes" "But why?" "Because I say so". (to not use the obvious Iraq example again and again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I don't want to blow your mind either, Horza, so could you please provide statements of people supporting the bombings and who do so from a neutral, objective pov, i.e. people "in the know" but not been known to rationalise, distort and embellish things in order to advance causes in which they have an interest (to quote you). The quotes I provided are from high(est) ranking US military commanders of the time, not by some Soviets or Japanese (where the probability of bias is obviously high). Some generic comments are surely not enough to refute those quotes. Especially when we consider that the proclaimed military necessity has been the single-most important justification of the atom bombings. None of these 'highest military commanders' were privy to the information on which the decision was made or tasked with making the decision. As such their opinions are just that. You're trying to make an argument from authority with them because they wore stars on their shoulders (like your good pal General Patton), but it's irrelevant when they weren't privy to the information on which the decision was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What kind of strange logic is that? So the atom bombings were military necessary because those who decided to drop the bombs said so...indeed, interesting logic. The hell are you talking about? You asked who says that Nimitz opinion wasn't enough to change the outcome of the bombing. Well that's pretty self evident isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 On the Patton quote: Patton is fun to read and what a great movie that was made of him, George C Scott was just incredible. I am very glad that not many listen to him and it is very disturbing how much an aching for war with Russia. His quote of absolute hubris and as in depth he was of Alexander the Great and other great commander, his statement is one of not paying attention to what happen between Germany and Russia over the last 4 years. It would have been much better for the people of Eastern Europe, and probably a good deal better for the Russian people as well, if the Allies had overthrown the Soviets after WW2. That it wasn't politically feasible is another question, and not what Patton is talking about. He is commenting on the dreadful state of the Red Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 "Bombing Hiroshima; The myth of saving lives, with Howard Zinn- http://youtu.be/vSKLVseJ9Xo Famed historian and former WWii bombardier pilot Howard Zinn reflects on his missions and the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Arakan, Given the massive invasion the US was planning to mount on Kyushu And later Honshu if necessary I doubt we would have had much in the way if sea lift capacity to spare for the Soviets. I do agree that the use of Nukes agains civilian populations is morally grey at best. Personally, I find the targeting of city centers repugnant. But then I see the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden as war crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 "Bombing Hiroshima; The myth of saving lives, with Howard Zinn- http://youtu.be/vSKLVseJ9Xo Famed historian and former WWii bombardier pilot Howard Zinn reflects on his missions and the consequences. Thank you! I did not know this gentleman before starting this, he said with simple words my view on this. He called this a "Myth", me I will go even further, and I repeat myself, I call this a lie, "The Lie of the Century". I am gonna put myself in trouble here again but it is just a discussion. 2015, the biggest threat in the word is what? Terrorism Everyday, you open the news and there is bombing with a lot of innocent live just gone. The victims are from rich, developing or poor countries it is just something terrible today. I won't name any organisation or any country but "IF"(yes I know...) knowing the terrorists organisations or countries who are sponsoring these, we could stop theses attacks for good and make it a better place by BOMBING an entire city of ANY country that use terrorism, would this be an option to be considered? My obvious answer to this is, NO! I don't care how long it would take to put an end to terrorism we or our family member can die tomorrow from any of these random attack. But I rather live or die in this dangerous and let the politics or military work something different what ever time or lives including mine it will take. In 1945, they choose THE OTHER OPTION. It was wrong then as it would be today. They knew it, then they have to come with this myth of sparing more military and CIVILIANS lives. People want to believe that today, I respect everybody opinion and thank you for taking part of the discussion. Me, I just don't believe in that, don't ask me what if they did not do it, the answer is: NOBODY knows... Only the people who choosed this option came up with this MYTH to try to JUSTIFY that decision, knowing that they will have to answer WHY to their own people, to world, the HISTORY and the entire Humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 If the world had not witnessed just how bad neucular weapons where, do you think they would have been more likely to have been used in the cold war? which would then result in WWIII since there would have been a retaliation. I don't know how much an effect it really had, but I personally feel people would have been less reluctant to start something. I know we came very close a few times as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 2015, the biggest threat in the word is what? Terrorism Nah, that is indeed a myth. Plenty of other things you should be much more worried about (out-of-control capitalism, climate change, traffic accidents...). In 1945, they choose THE OTHER OPTION. It was wrong then as it would be today. They knew it, then they have to come with this myth of sparing more military and CIVILIANS lives. People want to believe that today, I respect everybody opinion and thank you for taking part of the discussion. Me, I just don't believe in that, don't ask me what if they did not do it, the answer is: NOBODY knows... It's either "nobody knows" or a "myth" constructed ex post facto, you can't have it both ways. The fact is that the people who took the decision for the strategic bombing campaign against Japan, of which the use of nuclear weapons was just one facet, had the statistics of the island invasions of the pacific war up to 1945 to arrive at an estimate of what the result of an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be. People have pointed to the Battle of Okinawa and its hideous cost in civilian lives earlier in the thread, might be a good idea to look at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 You're trying to make an argument from authority with them because they wore stars on their shoulders (like your good pal General Patton), but it's irrelevant when they weren't privy to the information on which the decision was made. And I thought Nimitz was one of the highest ranking US military commanders in the Pacifc Theatre, i.e. the theatre where the US were fighting against the Japanese... Not to mention the other quoted US officers. Anyway can we please leave Patton out of this discussion? I don't know how he is relevant when it comes to the evaluation whether the atom bombs were military necessary or not. Do you have any objective primary sources who emphasize in a believable manner the military necessity of the atom bombings? I am always eager to learn. And believe it or not, I would even agree with someone like Beevor who said that pressumably the atom bombs cost less civilian lives than a full scale invasion would have had. Of course that doesnt mean that neither a full scale invasion nor the atom bombs would have been necessary to force Japan to surrender (it's very debatable and I think you are well aware of that). I think you would agree with me that the development in Manchuria absolutely must be considered to come to any meabingful conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 It would have been much better for the people of Eastern Europe, and probably a good deal better for the Russian people as well, if the Allies had overthrown the Soviets after WW2. That it wasn't politically feasible is another question, and not what Patton is talking about. He is commenting on the dreadful state of the Red Army. I am speechless. You seemingly really believe Patton's nonsense that the Western Allies could have won a conventional war against the Red Army post May 1945. Well, that's the Internet I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Arakan, It would have been a nasty fight but, then again, at that time the US had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.