All I remember reading was dropping those bombs saved thousands of American lives because it shortened the war and Japan was never going to surrender. I really had No sympathy for the Japanese military. My great uncle lost his life in the Bataan Death March! Brutal and barbaric! I did not agree with what happened to Japanese women and children!!
I would rather the bombs weren't used. The problem is would Japan have surrendered or would the allies have to invade Japan? Estimates for allied casualties for an invasion of Japan were very high.
That seems to be the standard history: that if Japan didn’t surrender soon enough, the Allies would have to invade and endure significant casualties.
However, by most accounts, the Japanese war effort was in its final days. Stalin had entered the war against Japan through Manchuria, the Japanese Navy had been depleted, and Japanese officials in the weeks and months prior to the use of the atomic bomb were attempting to hammer out a negotiated surrender with the Allies.
It is believed by many that neither an invasion nor the atomic bomb were necessary to end the war. Hoover, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and various others all took this position.
I don't know for sure. I do know that the U.S. military was gearing up and planning for an invasion of Japan. I know that anyone involved in combat arms was relieved that that didn't happen. I would have been.
Ian Toll said in a talk at the WWII Museum in New Orleans that seven of our eight five-star officers of 1945 later admitted deploying these weapons on cities was unnecessary , immoral, or both. I looked up the careers of these men-- 287 years of combined expericnce, some of which, e.g. Adm Leahy, dated to the 19th century, and all of whose predated the 1919 birth of McGeorge Bundy, the true author of the 1947 defense of the bombs everyone unthinkingly parrots. Who got to watch DDay through his thick glasses as an Army liaison on a ship offshore. Wow! He's the expert! A "Harvard Fellow", i.e., deemed too smart to waste in grad school.
Bundy was later part of the LBJ team that frightened voters with an ad about Goldwater's proposal to leave nuclear decisions to the generals and admirals. But it looks like they would be LESS likely to use them on human targets (let alone civilians) than the general public, unschooled in just-war theory, would. Nimitz himself quashed a feud between scientists and officers by saying the decision was purely civilian.
Lesley Blume suggested that MacArthur's opposition to the bombs may have been mere professional jealousy. They took attention and credit that were rightfully his. This seems unfair.
However, this was almost certainly true of Le May. He obviously had no compunctions about the mass killing of civilians, and suggested using nukes in Korea. He said using the bombs in 1945 was unnecessary, not in any way wrong.
Well, if you have heard the history some speculate as the big WWII was coming to an end the desire for a hegemony - the seed of that desire was planted firmly and I suspect that informed the decision to drop the needless bomb of harm. Then the hegemony desires were in full bloom, and now here we are.
Now, if you go back a bit before the whole WWII thing happened there are some who argue that all Hitler wanted was to get Danzig back.
The rest is history I reckon but with the value of time passed, I think it is fair to speculate that nefarious forces were about then who wanted war - sort of the same situation we find ourselves in today and is that not pathetic to say the least?
Great slice of history.
All I remember reading was dropping those bombs saved thousands of American lives because it shortened the war and Japan was never going to surrender. I really had No sympathy for the Japanese military. My great uncle lost his life in the Bataan Death March! Brutal and barbaric! I did not agree with what happened to Japanese women and children!!
Can't share on Twitter because of Elon's censorship police. I have been using Facebook, Gab, and Truth Social instead.
I would rather the bombs weren't used. The problem is would Japan have surrendered or would the allies have to invade Japan? Estimates for allied casualties for an invasion of Japan were very high.
That seems to be the standard history: that if Japan didn’t surrender soon enough, the Allies would have to invade and endure significant casualties.
However, by most accounts, the Japanese war effort was in its final days. Stalin had entered the war against Japan through Manchuria, the Japanese Navy had been depleted, and Japanese officials in the weeks and months prior to the use of the atomic bomb were attempting to hammer out a negotiated surrender with the Allies.
It is believed by many that neither an invasion nor the atomic bomb were necessary to end the war. Hoover, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and various others all took this position.
I don't know for sure. I do know that the U.S. military was gearing up and planning for an invasion of Japan. I know that anyone involved in combat arms was relieved that that didn't happen. I would have been.
Ian Toll said in a talk at the WWII Museum in New Orleans that seven of our eight five-star officers of 1945 later admitted deploying these weapons on cities was unnecessary , immoral, or both. I looked up the careers of these men-- 287 years of combined expericnce, some of which, e.g. Adm Leahy, dated to the 19th century, and all of whose predated the 1919 birth of McGeorge Bundy, the true author of the 1947 defense of the bombs everyone unthinkingly parrots. Who got to watch DDay through his thick glasses as an Army liaison on a ship offshore. Wow! He's the expert! A "Harvard Fellow", i.e., deemed too smart to waste in grad school.
Bundy was later part of the LBJ team that frightened voters with an ad about Goldwater's proposal to leave nuclear decisions to the generals and admirals. But it looks like they would be LESS likely to use them on human targets (let alone civilians) than the general public, unschooled in just-war theory, would. Nimitz himself quashed a feud between scientists and officers by saying the decision was purely civilian.
Lesley Blume suggested that MacArthur's opposition to the bombs may have been mere professional jealousy. They took attention and credit that were rightfully his. This seems unfair.
However, this was almost certainly true of Le May. He obviously had no compunctions about the mass killing of civilians, and suggested using nukes in Korea. He said using the bombs in 1945 was unnecessary, not in any way wrong.
A small but confusing mistake in the last paragraph of an otherwise excellent article:
You wrote:
By no means were Eisenhower, Leahy, Truman, and MacArthur the only prominent individuals at the time to oppose the nuking of Japan.
Obviosuly you meant to include MacArthur in that list NOT TRUMAN, who was the man responsible for dropping the bombs.
Corrected. Thanks for pointing that out!
"War is a racket"
Smedley Butler
Did you learn your lesson in military school - or do they not teach about what Smedley said anymore?
Well, if you have heard the history some speculate as the big WWII was coming to an end the desire for a hegemony - the seed of that desire was planted firmly and I suspect that informed the decision to drop the needless bomb of harm. Then the hegemony desires were in full bloom, and now here we are.
Now, if you go back a bit before the whole WWII thing happened there are some who argue that all Hitler wanted was to get Danzig back.
The rest is history I reckon but with the value of time passed, I think it is fair to speculate that nefarious forces were about then who wanted war - sort of the same situation we find ourselves in today and is that not pathetic to say the least?