Hiroshima, 6 August 1945

In the interest of balance after all the nuking and fire bombing posts, America did hold the moral high ground.

Nazi Germany looted Europes great artistic master pieces.

The American Army hired art historians to track down and return Europe's artistic heritage to their rightful owners.

To me, that says a lot right there.
 
Cypress said:
Right, I suggested before that I am not sold that racism was the driving factor in nuking Japan. We certainly turned Germany into a parking lot. I think the reason for nuking Japan really comes down to the fact after victory in Europe Americans were pretty much done with this war and a land invasion would have been politically, militarily, and logistically problematic.


The German Army's decision to defy Hitler and leave Paris unscathed is an interesting story. I doubt enemy combatants were thinking about saving Leningrad or Tokyo from destruction.
Click to expand...

Not sure about a driving factor, but certainly a factor. Is there any doubt the bomb would have been used on Germany as designed?

The objective was to end the war with victory. Mission accomplished with reasonable efficiency. I fail to see the problem.

I hadn't heard that about the Generals. How many Wehrmacht Generals did Hitler have shot?

Like the Germans with London? In both wars?
 
In his biography, Ike said that he was against using the Abomb for 2 reasons. First he said that Japan was defeated and the dropping of the bomb was not necessary.
Second he did not want to be the focus of the world opinion of being the country that used it on citizens.
Ike was far from the only one who said it was not needed. However, once you used it, you had to justify it. The claim that we would save zillions of lives in landing in Japan was a natural way to phrase it. Japan was talking with nations about ending the war.
The US saved a few cities for the bomb. We were firebombing cities across Japan. We were killing people in huge quantities. The devastation was incredible. But a few cities were pristine. The army was using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a test of the bombs. They wanted to see what the bomb could do. So they left them alone.
 
dukkha said:
maybe because I went to Catholic school and then Catholic HS -I learned all that.
Or maybe because history and civics were always my fav subject ( anything but math and chemistry! lol)
I always had an obsession for historical perspectives. However the trail of tears and such were not covered. true
Click to expand...

History is taught differently now and includes more of the not-so-lovely bits. There's a reason that the Reichtards started screeching a couple of decades ago about "schools are teaching our kids liberal propaganda" and the efforts to whitewash slavery, the Civil War, the treatment of the original people here, etc. etc.

I agree that math sucks. lol
 
Nordberg said:
In his biography, Ike said that he was against using the Abomb for 2 reasons. First he said that Japan was defeated and the dropping of the bomb was not necessary.
Second he did not want to be the focus of the world opinion of being the country that used it on citizens.
Ike was far from the only one who said it was not needed. However, once you used it, you had to justify it. The claim that we would save zillions of lives in landing in Japan was a natural way to phrase it. Japan was talking with nations about ending the war.
The US saved a few cities for the bomb. We were firebombing cities across Japan. We were killing people in huge quantities. The devastation was incredible. But a few cities were pristine. The army was using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a test of the bombs. They wanted to see what the bomb could do. So they left them alone.
Click to expand...

You and actual history have obviously never crossed paths.
 
Cypress said:
In the interest of balance after all the nuking and fire bombing posts, America did hold the moral high ground.

Nazi Germany looted Europes great artistic master pieces.

The American Army hired art historians to track down and return Europe's artistic heritage to their rightful owners.

To me, that says a lot right there.
Click to expand...

I believe that we also redeemed ourselves by helping to rebuild Europe after the war.
 
Sailor said:
You and actual history have obviously never crossed paths.
Click to expand...

Nordberg is correct.

"Eisenhower is also the only US president to have criticized the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fearing the bombings would destroy the prospects for friendly post-war relations with Russia, at one point he advocated international control of atomic energy and turning the existing US stockpile over to the United Nations for destruction." (https://thebulletin.org/2011/04/jap...ctive-eisenhower-and-atoms-for-war-and-peace/)


Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/ke...iroshima-nagasaki/opinion-eisenhower-bomb.htm)
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Nordberg is correct.

"Eisenhower is also the only US president to have criticized the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fearing the bombings would destroy the prospects for friendly post-war relations with Russia, at one point he advocated international control of atomic energy and turning the existing US stockpile over to the United Nations for destruction." (https://thebulletin.org/2011/04/jap...ctive-eisenhower-and-atoms-for-war-and-peace/)


Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/ke...iroshima-nagasaki/opinion-eisenhower-bomb.htm)
Click to expand...

He is not correct at all.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
History is taught differently now and includes more of the not-so-lovely bits. There's a reason that the Reichtards started screeching a couple of decades ago about "schools are teaching our kids liberal propaganda" and the efforts to whitewash slavery, the Civil War, the treatment of the original people here, etc. etc.

I agree that math sucks. lol
Click to expand...
Im fine with the "not so lovely bits" - i want accuracy as well
What I dont want is to pretend we are the same society as we were in Jim Crow or slaveholders CRT propagates

IOWs there is a solid middle ground where US history is taught -good and the bad.
I dont want the blemishes airbrushed out, but I dont want them magnified where nothing else is seen either.
I think that's a fair way to do it?
 
Cypress said:
In the interest of balance after all the nuking and fire bombing posts, America did hold the moral high ground.

Nazi Germany looted Europes great artistic master pieces.

The American Army hired art historians to track down and return Europe's artistic heritage to their rightful owners.

To me, that says a lot right there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's a difference between trying to minimize casualties and not giving a shit. Faulty information and/or flawed plans cost lifes. WWII's Operation Market Garden sought to end the war by Christmas 1944. The failure cost the allies over 15,000 casualties and the Germans well over 6,000.

The lives lost were due to a sincere effort to end the war. They failed despite their best efforts. That's how war is. The same goes for taking out Hiroshima.

FWIW, when I was there in the 80s, they were still whining about being nuked. I refrained from wearing my "Nuke'em 'til they glow" t-shirt..which is surprising since I was pretty much an asshole back in those days.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Nordberg is correct.

"Eisenhower is also the only US president to have criticized the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fearing the bombings would destroy the prospects for friendly post-war relations with Russia, at one point he advocated international control of atomic energy and turning the existing US stockpile over to the United Nations for destruction." (https://thebulletin.org/2011/04/jap...ctive-eisenhower-and-atoms-for-war-and-peace/)


Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/ke...iroshima-nagasaki/opinion-eisenhower-bomb.htm)
Click to expand...

With all respect to Ike, he was in Germany at the time documenting Nazi death camps. While the Japanese were definitely in desperate straights, as proved at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the Japanese weren't surrendering even if all they had were rocks to throw. They were die-hard warriors and the people felt the same way as a culture. Spartan-like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Liberation_of_France_and_victory_in_Europe
The Soviet Red Army captured Berlin in a very large-scale bloody battle, and the Germans finally surrendered on May 7, 1945.

In 1945, Eisenhower anticipated that someday an attempt would be made to recharacterize Nazi crimes as propaganda (Holocaust denial) and took steps against it by demanding extensive still and movie photographic documentation of Nazi death camps.
 
Sailor said:
ThatOwlWoman said:
Nordberg is correct.
Click to expand...
He is not correct at all.
Click to expand...

The quotes prove Nordberg was correct about Ike, who was in Germany and never fought the Japanese, but his conspiracy theory crap about bumping up casualty numbers to justify usage of the weapon is as full of shit as the accusations about puffing up COVID deaths.

There are a lot of eyes on big things like this. The Manhattan Project was our biggest secret and even it got out to the Soviets in a couple of years. Secrets don't stay secret for long.

All of this backbiting ignores the fact Americans were dying in combat every day; on land, on sea and in the air.

It is the duty of every American leader to end all wars successfully and with minimum losses. They did that in August 1945.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Not sure about a driving factor, but certainly a factor. Is there any doubt the bomb would have been used on Germany as designed?

The objective was to end the war with victory. Mission accomplished with reasonable efficiency. I fail to see the problem.

I hadn't heard that about the Generals. How many Wehrmacht Generals did Hitler have shot?

Like the Germans with London? In both wars?
Click to expand...

There was a movie about the German General who defied Hitler's orders to raze Paris to the ground. I don't remember if he was arrested and shot.

The take away for me is that among cultured Europeans, including even Wehrmacht flag officers, there was a recognition that Paris and Rome were western civilization's cultural heritage. There was extreme reluctance to raze them to the ground.

No such restraint was shown to Warsaw, Leningrad, or Minsk. Or Tokyo.

I do not think it is racism necessarily. But it seems to speak to a kind of chauvinism for the culture of western Europe.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
With all respect to Ike, he was in Germany at the time documenting Nazi death camps. While the Japanese were definitely in desperate straights, as proved at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the Japanese weren't surrendering even if all they had were rocks to throw. They were die-hard warriors and the people felt the same way as a culture. Spartan-like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Liberation_of_France_and_victory_in_Europe
The Soviet Red Army captured Berlin in a very large-scale bloody battle, and the Germans finally surrendered on May 7, 1945.

In 1945, Eisenhower anticipated that someday an attempt would be made to recharacterize Nazi crimes as propaganda (Holocaust denial) and took steps against it by demanding extensive still and movie photographic documentation of Nazi death camps.
Click to expand...

My post was in response to Sailor's claim that Nordberg didn't know any history when Nordberg said that Eisenhower was against the use of the atomic weapons.
 
dukkha said:
Im fine with the "not so lovely bits" - i want accuracy as well
What I dont want is to pretend we are the same society as we were in Jim Crow or slaveholders CRT propagates

IOWs there is a solid middle ground where US history is taught -good and the bad.
I dont want the blemishes airbrushed out, but I dont want them magnified where nothing else is seen either.
I think that's a fair way to do it?
Click to expand...

IMO that is exactly how history -- ours, other nations', world -- should be taught. An individual or a nation cannot improve and prosper if it doesn't face the flaws and resolve to fix them. People are fond of saying "never forget" about historic horrors like the Holocaust. We must likewise never forget the wrong things that we as a country have done, so that we don't repeat them in the future. Unfortunately far too many, mostly on the RW, want to gloss over the ugly parts because they wrongly believe that learning about Japanese-American internment camps, slavery, residential schools, etc. will make kids hate America. In fact, when we bring up those ugly parts in discussion, we are often told that we hate America.

Patriotism is seeing both the good and the not-very-good in America, and loving her anyways.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
My post was in response to Sailor's claim that Nordberg didn't know any history when Nordberg said that Eisenhower was against the use of the atomic weapons.
Click to expand...

Sailor is just a bag of hot air. Don't pay any attn to him. That toss away post that you are referring to is typical fare.
 
Cypress said:
There was a movie about the German General who defied Hitler's orders to raze Paris to the ground. I don't remember if he was arrested and shot.

The take away for me is that among cultured Europeans, including even Wehrmacht flag officers, there was a recognition that Paris and Rome were western civilization's cultural heritage. There was extreme reluctance to raze them to the ground.

No such restraint was shown to Warsaw, Leningrad, or Minsk. Or Tokyo.

I do not think it is racism necessarily. But it seems to speak to a kind of chauvinism for the culture of western Europe.
Click to expand...
He lived as shown in link below.

The Germans were not only working on a nuke (too bad they pissed off the Jews, eh? LOL) and also what they called the Amerikabomber. Hitler, and Tojo, made some strategic calls early in the war that would cost them the war. One of Hitler's was thinking he only needed medium bombers to conquer half the planet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Choltitz
Choltitz is chiefly remembered for his role as the last commander of Nazi-occupied Paris in 1944, when he disobeyed Adolf Hitler's orders to destroy the city, and instead surrendered it to Free French forces when they entered the city on 25 August. Choltitz later asserted that his defiance of Hitler's direct order stemmed from its obvious military futility, his affection for the French capital's history and culture, and his belief that Hitler had by then become insane, while other sources point to the fact that he had little control of the city thanks to the operations of the resistance, and could not have carried out such orders.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top