US actions in WWII

[IrishHand]

There has been some discussion in a couple of other threads about the benevolence, or lack thereof, of US actions, policies and behavior during the Second World War. Since this era is probably the most interesting historically to me (and since I think that that era provides invaluable lessons even in current times), I'd like to pursue the matter a little more.

The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are certainly interesting points of discussion, since they were a clear violation of both the Geneva convention (bombing civilian targets, intentional killing of civilians) and pre-WWII military ethics (and yes, there was such a thing - countries even respected neutrality then). Basically, in order to reduce or stop the high levels of casualties which accompanied invading and occupying Japanese-held islands, and which would surely result from an invasion of the Japanese mainland, the American government decided to eradicate not one, but two Japanese cities killing a total of 350,000 Japanese civilians. (Click here for brief summary of the bombings. (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/World/Hiroshima.html)) Basically, the US government traded a few thousand American military deaths in exchange for a few hundred thousand Japanese civilian deaths. Keep in mind that the result of the war was a foregone conclusion as Nazi Germany had already capitulated.

Personally, I think it was an atrocious decision. It makes a complete mockery of the higher morality supposedly embraced by most Americans now and then. War is war - people who are in the armed forces understand this. Putting (their) civilians on the front lines in order to protect (your) soldiers was Hitler's big plan - and was universally condemned by both Britain and US after 1939. The fact that the US embraced it wholeheartedly doesn't speak to well to this Nation's actions at that time.

As for the European theater, it can be argued that the US actions were just as bad if not worse. The US was in a unique position after Sept 1939 (Poland invasion) in that they were the only one of the eventual Allies who maintained a diplomatic and media presence in Nazi Germany. (See Russell's Berlin Embassy and Shirer's Berlin Diary for fascinating descriptions of this.) The US was actutely aware of Nazi behavior in regards to their own citizens, to Austria, to Czechoslovakia, to Poland and to all the 'neutrals' - Holland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium. From Day 1, America had a front-row seat to Hitler's treaty-breaking, oppressive rule and rampant slaughter of innocents at home and in occupied territories. To be sure, the other European democracies didn't do much to stop any of this until after two countries had been absorbed into the Reich (Austria, Czechoslovakia), but at least after 1939 France and England stood up to Hitler. The US didn't enter the war against Nazi Germany until Hitler stupidly declared war on the US in Dec 1941. It's altogether likely that the US would have ignored the European theater and focused exclusively on the Atlantic theater. Yes, it was nice that the US shipped England arms and airplanes after 1940. No, that wasn't enough.

Someone wrote that the "USA was a net hero, not a net villain, in wartime Europe." Well...the US only entered the war against Nazi Germany when Nazi Germany forced them to - they didn't chose to. They did nothing to stop the execution camps - which they were fully aware of - when they got into full swing (the camps, not the Americans) after 1941. (There's an interesting book out about whether the Allies should have bombed Auschwitz, although I have yet to read it.) As a practical matter, the US didn't enter the European war until it was already decided. After the winter of 1941, when the Nazis were badly beaten on their Russian front, it was only a question of time before they fell before the combined opposition of Russia and England.

There's nothing heroic about showing up and playing for the team that came back from a huge deficit to take the lead before you arrived, then taking credit or the victory. The only country in the European theater of war that can claim the title of 'hero' was England. Russia was just as barbaric as Nazi Germany - probably divine justice that it was those two countries that ultimately bore the highest (human and economic) cost of WWII.

[MMMMMM]

I'll leave it for others to argue--I'm getting tired of refuting absurd arguments, and while it may seem like I have unlimited time for this, I actually don't (cheers all around;-)).

Since you probably missed it, on this forum I've also questioned the need for dropping the Bomb on Japan, and I really don't know for sure about this matter (although you certainly seem to have it all figured out).

So, lets see... the US got involved in Europe after we were attacked; therefore our motives (and our sacrifices) weren't heroic enough or noble enough for you. Jeez. Do we have to be totally selfless in all our actions and sacrifices in order to merit your approval? Playing a major role in getting rid of Hitler and the evil Nazi machine isn't enough (and at great cost too); our motives are impure because we didn't do it before we were attacked; we didn't do everything in Europe we should have; whoa, wait a minute....let me ask the Pope if the USA will ever merit sainthood, and I'll get back to you when I have the answer. And by the way, since all the reconstruction the USA paid for in Europe might not have been necessary had we jumped in a lot earlier (maybe we should have even jumped in ahead of the Europeans--now there's a thought), let's just ignore that part too. Maybe if we were smarter we wouldn't have had to waste all that money rebuilding--so perhaps we're not only unsaintly, we're stupid as well.

[andyfox]

Just addressing the issue of Japan:

The U.S. had already destroyed, by conventional bombing, just about every other Japanese city of any size, except for Kyoto (spared by Secretary of War Stimson for aestheic/historical reasons) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not conventionally bombed to save as targets for the A bomb.
The decision to use the A bombs was not really a decision at all. Once we embarked on the project, if the bombs were available, they would be used.

No doubt other factors were considered: revenge; racism; avoiding an invasion; getting a handle on post-war Russa. But the biggest factor was simply that we were at war, a war in which bombing civilians was a deliberate part of policy for all countries with an air force. The bomb would be used when available.

[IrishHand]

Your rationale for destroying 2 Japanese cities and killing 350,000 civilians is:
(1) We had the bombs, so we might as well use them.
(2) Hitler thought bombing civilians was a good idea, so why shouldn't we?

Excellent reasoning.

[IrishHand]

I realize you're not forsaking posting here, so I don't expect a response. However - the entire thrust behind your argument is faulty. The US was never 'attacked' by Nazi Germany. They were attacked by the Empire of Japan. The US only entered the war in Europe officially after the Nazis decided they should. Prior to this decision by Hitler, the US had not decided to engage Nazi Germany, nor did they have plans to do so.

This is widely considered one of Hitler's major gaffes. He figured that the US was about to declare war on Germany, and wanted to beat them to the punch. The reality that the US probably would have focused their efforts on Japan (as Hitler wanted) apparently escaped Hitler and his advisors (who were all pretty useless when it came to understanding the US). If Hitler doesn't declare war on the US when he did, Nazi Germany surely still loses WWII. It probably takes a bit longer, and rather than Germany being split into East and West after the war, you'd end up with a unified and communist Germany, but the net result is still a beaten Germany and a generally restored Europe.

This is my only complaint - that the US seems to think it did some great thing and was some big factor in the European theater when (a) they were basically dragged into it by Hitler and (b) this was at a time when the Russians had already turned the tide at an enormous cost of life. The US gets an assist for the result of WWII. The British and Russians scored the points - and the British only because they were the only country to contest Hitler from 1939 until the end (militarily, they were a bit of an embarassment for the most part).

Frankly, I personally couldn't care less that the US didn't feel the need to do anything about Nazi Germany from 1938 until 1941. I understand the reasons behind this position. Just keep in mind that they were aware throughout this period of what Hitler was doing and chose to do very little about it. I just think it's interesting that you find the US so heroic given the highly moral nature of your arguments on many other issues. (Along those same lines, I have no problem whatsoever with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I'm fairly militaristic and don't have some of the moral restrictions about waging war that many people do.)

[brad]

well everybody knows those oriental guys dont value life as much as we do.

(still trying to think of a reason for dresden. churchill was really pissy that day? )

[IrishHand]

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[adios]

As far as the USA not entering the WWII in Europe if Hitler had not declared war, that's certainly open to debate and many would argue that the USA had increasingly been giving more aid and had been more aggressive towards Nazi Germany. Certainly Hitler thought so in his speech to the Reichstag declaring war on the USA, Dec. 11, 1941:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

Germany, Japan, and Italy had entered into an agreement in September of 1940 call the Tripartite Pact.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm#art3

Note article 3 of the Tripartite Pact:

ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

I wonder who the by power that "at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict" is referring to? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Certainly it can be argued that Germany could have easily backed out of this committment but whether or not the USA would have been inhibited from declaring war on Germany is open to debate.

Also your conclusion about Germany losing the war irregardless of the USA entry into it is probably true but I have my doubts about England establishing air superiority in Europe and mounting an invasion force to re-take the continent. BTW that's not a knock on England at all as IMO they simply didn't have the resources to do it. Neither one of us can prove the other is wrong so in my mind it's a difference of opinion.


As far as dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the justification that IMO is most often given is that a conventional invasion of Japan would have cost many American lives and in some sort of macabre rational these acts actually saved lives. Many arguments have been presented against this "logic" so I won't get into them. In my mind it amounts to a belief as to what would have happened had they not been dropped which is hard to prove.

[IrishHand]

Excellent response, for the most part. I'm going to have to object to one part though - or at least interpret it a little better.

"ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
(bold is mine, not Mr. Haley's)

"Certainly it can be argued that Germany could have easily backed out of this committment but whether or not the USA would have been inhibited from declaring war on Germany is open to debate."

There was no commitment. According to my readings and research, Hitler and Ribbentrop were of the opinion (and correctly) that they had no obligation whatsoever to declare war on the US or in any way act against them according to the terms of the Tripartite Pact. Their obligation only arose if the US attacked one of the three Axis countries. They chose to declare war when they did primarily because they wanted to steal the thunder from what they felt was an inevitable "US declares war on Germany" headline in the near future. Other than that, as I noted above, I understand your positions and agree that they're reasonable.

It is an interesting (although unrelated) note that during the Nuremberg trials, Ribbentrop asked the prison psychologist (American Dr. Gilbert - see "Nuremberg Diary") no fewer than three times why the US entered the war, and seemed perplexed that the answer was "because you declared war on us." Of course, Ribbentrop was an idiot...

Oh - and you referred to the difficulties England might have had establishing air superiority on their own. I agree entirely. However, my assertion that the war's anti-Nazi end is a foregone conclusion is based on the fact that the Soviet Union was going to roll over the German army given enough time - not that England was going to do anything of note offensively. Soviet production after the German winter disasters in 1940 and 1941 was in full gear and would have overwhelmed Germany sooner or later - the US entry merely accelerated the process as a result of the Italian and French landings.

[adios]

I have no disagreement about the Soviet Union.

BTW I did an Internet search for some of Hitler's statements at the time. I simply read the speech and didn't realize that the site that posted the speech is a racist site until after I made my post and went back sometime later. My apologies for offending anyone as I certainly don't hold the views myself. It was a horrendous mistake on my part.

[ccardspeak]

[Clarkmeister]

Do you even read what he writes? 4 posts above yours Irish says:

"I have no problem whatsoever with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"


Remember, Shaquille O'neal says reading is fun-damental!

[John Cole]

Sociologist Kai Erickson, in his essay "Of Accidental Judgments and Casual Slaughters," makes essentially the same argument Andy does. He says that inertia, the idea that once something is put in motion it remains in motion, is one reason for the use of the bomb. He also confounds the notion that the bombs were dropped to avoid an invasion: since we had the bombs, why would we invade? Would you? Erickson then goes on to offer acceptable alternatives that were entertained.

John

[andyfox]

It's not my rationale, it was the rationale of the U.S. government. The war began with Roosevelt urging all combatants to not involve civilians populations. It ended with the U.S. laying waste to every Japanese city except Kyoto. And with Dresden and Hamburg. I believe Hiroshima was a tragedy and Nagasaki a crime.

The fire bombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 people in a single night. Many tried jumping into the river to escape the holocaust, but the river was so hot they boiled to death. We had thought about burning Tokyo for many years before Pearl Harbor.


Please don't shoot the messenger.

[John Cole]

Tom,

Despite its academic look, complete with footnotes and copious citations, The Journal of Historical Review is the house organ for Nazi revisionists.

John

[whiskeytown]

As someone who has studied WWII in depth and and is somewhat qualified to comment on it (both from a study perspective as well as years spent playing various military simulations...) - let me address the situation..

1. In regards to the Military's use of the Atomic Bomb...first off...no less then 4 plans for the invasion of the Japanese mainland were drawn up...the Japanese men, women, and children were to be ordered to fight to the death. US causalities were estimated to be as high as 100,000, with Japanese casualties reaching 1 Million if the invasion went forth. The fanaticism of the Japanese in this cannot be underestimated...

As an example, there were two rulers of Japan. The Emperor, who was basically a figurehead, and the military leaders. The ONLY think that brought peace after the 2nd atomic bomb was the Emperor saying "ENOUGH" - The military was more then willing to continue fighting to the last man...don't forget-those jackasses invented the suicide bomber. It is commonly accepted by ALL historians that it saved more Japanese civilian and American military lives then would have otherwise been lost in a mainland invasion.

If you really want to talk about the atomic bomb, you should talk about how we threatened to keep dropping them after the 2nd one when the truth is, we were out of nukes for a few months...that was a BLUFF on Truman's part, and it worked beautifully -

so yes, Truman decided on killing 300,000 people instead of 1.2 million...he's a real bastard that way...heartless fucker that he is.. - but truthfully, your argument has no validity cause the Japanese were already going to throw their civilians headlong into the US.

-------

In regards to the European theater...you have to bear in mind the circumstances. We got dragged into WWI for stupid reasons, and had no real desire to be there...The isolationism mentality that was around in the US in the 20's and 30's, coupled with the Great Depression, left people with a strong sense of letting Europe sort out it's own differences for a change. (In the same way that many people don't REALLY want to start wars in Iraq or N. Korea today when the economy is so bad at home) -

WWII was started when the treaty of Versailles was signed. From that moment, a chain of events was set that guaranteed Hitler or someone just like him was going to come back and start WWII...The British and French were just as sick of war as the US, but instead of being isolationists, they had to negotiate and appease.

And don't think for a second that Britain and France didn't have a clue as to what was going on in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and to the Jewish population before 1939. They negotiated the [censored] thing...they sold out half of Czechoslovakia for "peace in our time" - Finally, they drew the line on Poland...and didn't do anything till Hitler attacked Poland....

Then they swooped in and saved their friends...I mean...whoops...nope...they sat on their asses on the border and waited for Germany to hit them...and depended on Belgium to hold the northern border...LOL - with outdated tactics and a no reserves mentality, they were doomed from the start.

So the US has a problem...we want to help, but Congress won't allow American boys to be sent over there...Roosevelt was able to sneak some Lend-Lease over there...but our hands were tied and the American electorate wouldn't have tolerated going to war in a foreign country for some other country who couldn't defend themselves.

I also think you are overestimating US intelligence on our knowledge of the Nazi Death Camps in Eastern Europe. From what I understand, it was pretty hush hush for years...(and don't forget...the Final Solution didn't really roll until 1942, although certainly Germany had no problem shooting people before then) -

If you really want to start bashing the US and it’s roll in settling WWII, I suggest a bit more research on the topic then just saying "I feel it's wrong" - A decision to kill 300,000 vs. 1.2 million is the lesser of two evils, but one choice had to be made. As it turns out, we also made the choice to save 100,000 US lives in the process...you don't like it, develop your own damned weapons of mass destruction.

In conclusion, the single biggest factor that defeated Germany was Hitler. In the 30's, he wound up a tremendous population, got installed as chancellor, and set himself up as dictator. At the start of the war, he commonly overrode the orders of his Generals and was successful (France had more troops and better tanks, but Hitler said attack anyways, and the German Blitzkrieg fried them in 6 weeks)

Somewhere along the way, the man's judgment collapsed. He chose to invade Russia when he and Stalin were good buddies having chopped up Poland between them. Having done so, he delayed for weeks while he helped his friend in Italy take out Greece and Yugoslavia - He invoked that stupid excuse to declare war on the US.... - he failed to properly put the resources necessary into Africa, with which he could have turned the Med. sea into an Axis lake and threaten British colonies that were supplying them with raw materials - paranoid psychopathic Hitler was the best ally we had in WWII, cause the German military machine and soldier was so good, it always took a 3-2 ratio of men, and a 2/3 to 1 ratio of trucks and raw materials to stand a chance of defeating him in combat up till the end of the war. (bear in mind, this is in NO [censored] WAY a praise of Nazism...merely an observation that in WWII, the Germans had the best troops, weapons, and tactics for the first 5 years of the war, and it was only with the massive resources of the US that he was defeated...and no, Russia alone couldn't have done it....sorry. Russia was saved in '41 by Mother Winter, and made little progress out of Russia till late '44 - and even then, remember Hitler the idiot who overrode his General's orders to shift to a defensive strategy on the Eastern Front in late '42..Thank you Hitler...Mr. "Let's let 600,000 German troops get surrounded cause I REALLY wanna take Stalingrad to insult Stalin..." - That was the turning point of the Eastern Front...totally Hitler's stupidity, not the fighting mettle of the Russian soldier...the Russian army was crippled by purges, and the generals threw men at obstacles like they were the bullets themselves...it was sad...It's not commonly known that Russia kind of had a manpower shortage in late '41 - early '42 cause of their moronic tactics...

Japan used an excuse of an oil embargo to bomb a US military installation. Hitler declared war on the side...so we got involved the hard way..

If you REALLY want to talk about criminal actions and the US military...talk about this instead...It is believed that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack (rumor, although it was clear the Japanese were planning something) – Everyone in the US govt. knew that it was gonna get worse, but couldn’t do anything with the country still in a depression and unwilling to send more sons to die in Europe. Anyway, it’s felt that Roosevelt was aware of the attack and it's thought he let many US servicemen get killed so he had an excuse to dive in and clean up the mess the rest of the world couldn't do...If anything is criminal, sacrificing US soldiers for a reason to declare war is...but then the democracy that we have doesn't allow for people to go half cocked declaring war without accountability...(except for the occasional police action and quagmire in Southeast Asia which we have since enacted legislation to prevent from happening again) and I'm happy to keep it that way...

Or let's talk about the crime that put Germany's leaders on trial for war crimes but let the Japanese go scott free, and even left the Emperor in charge post WWII. -

As far as the theory of Total War goes, it's understood that when the civilian population supports a war whole-heartly, it becomes necessary to take out that support to end the war...not just kill the troops, but demoralize the population...Sherman taught us that during the Civil War /forums/images/icons/wink.gif - while I'm not a big fan of bombing civilian targets, every target there had military complexes and industry dedicated to turning out instruments of war...we have to hit them...and sometimes we kill the Civilians who are in the building putting the artillery shells together to give to the army to fire at us...it happens...

Best advice I can give to a country that doesn't want it's civilians killed is 1. Don't go around backstabbing other countries and 2. - stop using your civilians as a human sheild.

Hey...time for Joe Millionaire...later

RB

"I'm like a wino with a twenty dollar bill, yeah forever and eternally yours" - Bill Mallonee

[IrishHand]

He also confounds the notion that the bombs were dropped to avoid an invasion: since we had the bombs, why would we invade? Would you?
That's innacurate. The primary plans were for an invasion of the Japanese mainland. They were dropped in favor of the atomic bomb approach. Why would we invade? Both because that's how war is/was waged (it's certainly what we'd do today - invade, not bomb) and because we intended to take over control of the Island anyway.

Would I? No - as noted above, I'd have turned the Hiroshima and Nagasaki into an atomic wasteland in the exact same manner that we did. Again - my argument has nothing to do with whether I agree with it. It's with the concept of supporting it while also thinking that the US is some great, moral heroic defender of international democracy.

[IrishHand]

That's my point exactly - the blantant hypicrosy of the US leadership at the time. We condemn certain behavior when it doesn't involve us (rampant bombing of civilians), then embrace this behavior wholeheartedly when its our soldiers at risk.

[andyfox]

"The ONLY think that brought peace after the 2nd atomic bomb was the Emperor saying "ENOUGH" - The military was more then willing to continue fighting to the last man."

-This is not quite so. It is indeed true that the atomic bombings did not influence the Army, which had refused to even attend a meeting calling to discuss surrender on August 8. However, on the following day, after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, senior military leaders did agree to attend surrender discussions. Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda all argued that Japan should not surrender without certina conditions. Indeed, a direct plea from the Emperor persuaded them to no longer block the civilians' efforts to make peace.

But Anami could simply have refused to endorse the Emperor's decision since, under the Meiji constitution, Cabinet decisions required unanimous consent. Or he could have resigned, thsu dissolving the government and effectively vetoing the decision for surrender: a new government could not be formed without the Army's approval of a new War Minister.

So the plea from the emperor was significant, but it would have been useless had the military leaders decided to make it so.

"Truman decided on killing 300,000 people instead of 1.2 million"

-There was discussion, and concern, about American casualties in a proposed invasion of Japan, but I have not seen any concern about saving Japanese lives. Truman later made up many numbers about how many American casualties there would be in an invasion of Japan, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that an element in the decision to drop the bombs was to save 900,000 Japanese lives. Any sources you can recommend?

[Zeno]

Andy,

In the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes there is a detailed overview of all the dissussions by the military and political leaders of the implications of the newly built (but as yet untested) atomic bomb. Some of these discussions started before Germany surrendered. It is very informative and interesting. It includes discussions of targets, reasons for each one, implications on present bombing strategy, politics, (the british were informed of the existence of the bomb for example), The Russian reaction, etc.

It is included in the first part of Chapter 18, called Trinity. Military options to end the war with Japan are also discussed. One advisor wanted to blockade Japan and starve them into surrender. An estimate by Marshall, with MacAuthur concurring, predicted 31,000 americans, killed, wounded, or missing in the first 30 days following an invasion of the southernmost Japanese home island. An invasion of "the main island of Honshu across the plain of Tokyo would be proportionely more violent. I suppose you could times this by the number of months if would take to subdue the Japanese. It is a fact that much of the resistent would have been fanatical. But I doubt that a truly accurate number can be made. An important quote of Truman in the chapter is this: "that he would judge among his options 'with the purpose of economizing to the maximum extent possible the loss of American lives'". Is not this the President's "job" - indeed, his duty as acting leader of the country and the military?

This entire chapter of the book is one of most interesting as it also gives some scientists views of the bomb and the interesting fact that they did not know very well what the Yield would be for Fat Man or Little Boy. Anyway, I just skimmed the chapter.

I hesitate to involve myself in these discussions but the information in this book is very relevant. I recommend the book to all.

I suppose this will just be more fuel for the fire. Fire away.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"One advisor wanted to blockade Japan and starve them into surrender."

-Naval blockade of Japan began on a small scale shortly after Pearl Harbor and escalated continuously until, by the summer of 1945, Japan was cut off virtually completely. Japan was exceptionally vulnerable to commerce warfare: 75% of the country's most important raw materials and high percentages of other basic goods and foodstuffs were imported from overseas. The naval blockade destroyed the Japanese economy.

[andyfox]

Here's what Atomic Energy Commission chairman David E. Lilienthal wrote in his diary in 1947:

"Then we burned Tokyo, not just military targets, but set out to wipe out the place, indiscriminately. All ethical limitations on warfare are gone. . .And it was we, the civilized, who have pushed standardless conduct to its ultimate."

[Rick Nebiolo]

Andy,

You wrote: I haven't seen anything to indicate that an element in the decision to drop the bombs was to save 900,000 Japanese lives. Any sources you can recommend?

Would it be fair to extrapolate the causulty figures (Japanese armed forces, American armed forces, and Japanese civillian) from the battle of Okinawa to an island with the size and population of Japan?

Here is one link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm

BTW, I agree with you that the line was crossed far before the dropping of the two atomic bombs (the March fire bombing of Tokyo was especially horrific).

Regards,

Rick

[whiskeytown]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
"Truman decided on killing 300,000 people instead of 1.2 million"

"There was discussion, and concern, about American casualties in a proposed invasion of Japan, but I have not seen any concern about saving Japanese lives. Truman later made up many numbers about how many American casualties there would be in an invasion of Japan, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that an element in the decision to drop the bombs was to save 900,000 Japanese lives. Any sources you can recommend?"

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough....gonna have to dig on that one...that stat is from a documentary on the History Channel..

Truman didn't know dick....The Army and Navy were planning for an invasion and making estimates out of frank consideration....this is because they DIDN'T know about the bomb...they were trying to provide realisic estimations of what it would cost to invade and drawing real plans and I believe they felt those numbers were accurate because the vast majority of the Military didn't know about the atom bomb project....(Hell, the guys flying the thing were caught off guard...) - Truman was not informed about the atom bomb project till after he became president...(that's how secret it was...) - the decision wasn't final...and he made it based on the facts or estimates he had...and God knows the Japanese made it difficult up to that point...

and yes, the Japanese did try to bomb civilian targets in the US...they used a number of hot air balloons filled with explosive send into the weather currents back in the midpoint of the war (42'-43-...may have to find that source too...) - ..meant to lose altitude and drop on the US and kill whoever they hit......most failed miserably although a family on a hike did stumble onto one that landed and accidently set it off, resulting in the only civilian casualities of WWII on U.S. soil...

I mean, I understand indigination at the US for a few things...we barely pulled of Korea, and we [censored] up in Vietnam and a few other police actions, but does anyone really think the world is a better place if we killed 100,000 US soldiers and 1,000,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians (estimates, granted) - versus the 300,000 casualities of Hiroshima. And where the [censored] do a bunch of compromisers and appeasers and dealstrikers with Hitler (Russia) get off on attacking our entry into the war in the first place...Next time, when a homicidal dictator acts you for a piece of a country or to chop a country up with you...

YOU [censored] SAY NO!!!!!

Don't bitch at the US cause you all kept giving Hitler land until he came after you....jeez....

Note to self...if I get married and have a son of draft age...and he is eligable to go to war in Europe for some reason...tell him to run to Canada and let those ungrateful motherfuckers deal with their own problems for a change...

RB

[WTF]

"Also your conclusion about Germany losing the war irregardless of the USA entry into it is probably true but I have my doubts about England establishing air superiority in Europe and mounting an invasion force to re-take the continent."

It's often argued that if Germany's Messerschmitt Me262 (the world's first fighter jet) had entered active service perhaps six to eight months earlier, the tide of the war may have been changed. The U.S. certainly played a part in slowing the 262's production (in part by dropping some 1,456,088 tons of bombs in Europe, Germany had to move production many times). So if the U.S. hadn't been there to make their much more accurate day-light bomings (than England's night bombings), who knows....we may have all been doing the Goose Step Boogie.

[andyfox]

I think so. Japanese casualties, military and civilian, may well have been on the order of 20 times American casualties.

My point is that I have never seen anything indicating this calculation figured in the American decision-making process. It seems that avoidance of an invasion to save American lives was a part of the process. But not to save Japanese lives.

[whiskeytown]

As most of you know.. I tend to try my best to stay in the Neutral Zone... ...I recieved the following from another BBS yesterday and, obviously, sat on it for a while. While it may not adhere to my views 100%... ...It is a point of view I felt I should share. Don't bother to flame me... I didn't compose it... I'm just the messenger.

RB

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea. He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts on countries that
don't "like" us.

Why They Don't They Like Us

If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete now. If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen.

Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus. I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "goodneighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in
while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.

Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry also. For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.

Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.

Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea
currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.

I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die? Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says if we would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us. Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if We "like" THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how about them worrying about us?

We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994 as we followed the policies of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were freezing. In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my Cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American"Empire", and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't all survive.I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.

Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone.

Happy New Year.

Sig

[IrishHand]

That boy was in the US military for waaayyyy too long. I agree with some of their propaganda - our lounges and rec rooms are stocked full of the stuff - but I don't embrace it nearly as blindly and wholeheatedly as that veteran apparently does.

His basic arguments (that the US military engaged in every war since WWI because we wanted to help other countries, not because it benefitted us, and that we maintain bases their for the benefit of others, not to assert an imperialistic control all over the world) are straight out of both past and present military propaganda for its armed forces. We do the whole 'but we're only doing what's best for them - why don't they appreciate us' bit very well.

I should again clarify - in order to somewhat head off the inevitable cries of unpatriotism or other such nonsense - that I have no problem with our imperialistic and militaristic ways. I've long been a proponent of the 'might makes right' approach to foreign policy. I just don't like the fact that our government feels the need to lie about its motives constantly in order to toy with popular opinion. Be honest - say that we've still got a military presence in Europe in order to to have a hand in the Continent because we think that history has shown they (a) do stupid things if left to their own devices, and (b) don't act in our best interests. If our government were honest like that, I'd be happy as a clam.

[andyfox]

I don't think you're going to find an honest government until you get to the Pearly Gates, and even then . . . /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

Might not find it, but doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards a little more reality and a little less manipulation. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[jackssuk]

[IrishHand]

The enemies of freedom shall be punished by the terrible swift sword.
Did someone forget to take their happy pills today? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif