Hiroshima, 6 August 1945

[Dutch Uncle]

It wasn't Eisenhower's decision to make any more than it was MacArthur's or Nimitz' in the Pacific. The smart thing the US did was the Marshall Plan in Europe and Japan. That pretty much ensured that Germany and Japan would not have a grudge to bear from defeat, unlike Eastern Europe that learned to hate the USSR with a passion.

Agreed it wasn't his decision; it was Truman's, but certainly he had input. The logic of helping them rebuild is the same we should have done with Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated.

It's not nation building to help others rebuild since they become trading partners.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Agreed it wasn't his decision; it was Truman's, but certainly he had input. The logic of helping them rebuild is the same we should have done with Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated.

It's not nation building to help others rebuild since they become trading partners.

Actually, probably not. Marshall, his boss in the US would have been the one with input. Eisenhower was a theater commander. King and Marshall were the two that advised the President on military matters.

 

[Cypress]

That's a stronger argument, IMHO. That Ike would have given terms rather than force unconditional surrender. It would have altered the strategy for victory.

I'm not sure what you mean by nation-building, especially in 1945. Was the Marshall Plan, and MacArthur's Pacific version of it, nation-building? A smart strategy is to do what the Euros didn't do 25 years earlier, try to avoid a repeat of a world war.

Exactly, the strategy for victory is different depending on whether you are willing to offer terms, or whether you are playing for all the marbles.

The unconditional surrender, military occupation, the wholesale dismantling of the German and Japanese governments, and the rebuilding them from the ground up was the most successful example of nation-building in history.

^ That is not always the typical outcome of a conflict. We certainly did not do that after WW1, the Spanish-American War, or Gulf War 1.

There were Americans who would have been satisfied to let Japan surrender on terms and keep their government, as long as their military stood down and withdrew from occupied territories.

It is fortunate we had presidents with the vision to play for all the marbles, and utterly destroy the government and institutions of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, occupy them, and convert them from historically belligerent and militaristic nations, into modern democracies with constitutions that limited their international military capabilities.

 

[Cypress]

Try getting Owl to return her Land to the Rightful Owners. (The Bleeding Hearts here must Atone for theirs Sins)

You should write responses to what I actually wrote, not to what you wish I wrote.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually, probably not. Marshall, his boss in the US would have been the one with input. Eisenhower was a theater commander. King and Marshall were the two that advised the President on military matters.

Then why ask Ike at all? Why inform someone of a secret weapon if they have no need to know? Even Truman didn't know until FDR was dead.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Exactly, the strategy for victory is different depending on whether you are willing to offer terms, or whether you are playing for all the marbles.

The unconditional surrender, military occupation, the wholesale dismantling of the German and Japanese governments, and the rebuilding them from the ground up was the most successful example of nation-building in history.

^ That is not always the typical outcome of a conflict. We certainly did not do that after WW1, the Spanish-American War, or Gulf War 1.

There were Americans who would have been satisfied to let Japan surrender on terms and keep their government, as long as their military stood down and withdrew from occupied territories.

It is fortunate we had presidents with the vision to play for all the marbles, and utterly destroy the government and institutions of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, occupy them, and convert them from historically belligerent and militaristic nations, into modern democracies with constitutions that limited their international military capabilities.

I don't see the complete destruction of our enemies as "nation-building". OTOH, as you pointed out with previous wars, just burning down the country of your enemies and leaving often results in backlash.

Again, I do not see helping them rebuild as being nation-building per Oxford: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0217.xml
Nation-building may be defined as the process through which the boundaries of the modern state and those of the national community become congruent. The desired outcome is to achieve national integration.

The nation already exists. The Marshall plan and occupation were to help rebuild after a destructive war and get their economy going. I used to have a small 16mm camera that said "made in occupied Germany". Eventually Germany ran itself and the US stayed per NATO and other treaties to defend against Soviet aggression.

If it was up to me, our allies would ramp up and pay for their own defenses and the US could withdraw.

 

[Cypress]

I don't see the complete destruction of our enemies as "nation-building". OTOH, as you pointed out with previous wars, just burning down the country of your enemies and leaving often results in backlash.

Again, I do not see helping them rebuild as being nation-building per Oxford: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0217.xml
Nation-building may be defined as the process through which the boundaries of the modern state and those of the national community become congruent. The desired outcome is to achieve national integration.

The nation already exists. The Marshall plan and occupation were to help rebuild after a destructive war and get their economy going. I used to have a small 16mm camera that said "made in occupied Germany". Eventually Germany ran itself and the US stayed per NATO and other treaties to defend against Soviet aggression.

If it was up to me, our allies would ramp up and pay for their own defenses and the US could withdraw.

Eisenhower thought FDR was mistaken for his policy of unconditional surrender and harsh terms to be imposed on Germany and Japan.

Ike thought such a harsh policy of total war and unconditional surrender made the enemy fight harder, because they would feel they had nothing to lose.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/21/...icy-of-total-surrender-asserts-roosevelt.html

Germany and Japan were historic militaristic aggressor nations. Their entire system had to be pulled down and forcibly rebuilt from scratch.

In hindsight, we now see that FDR and Truman had the correct vision. A harsh U.S. military occupation and a wholesale dismantling of German and Japanese governments to rebuild them from the ground up as liberal democratic nations with constitutional limits on their military was exactly what was needed. History has proven the wisdom of that vision in hindsight.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Eisenhower thought FDR was mistaken for his policy of unconditional surrender and harsh terms to be imposed on Germany and Japan.

Ike thought such a harsh policy of total war and unconditional surrender made the enemy fight harder, because they would feel they had nothing to lose.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/21/...icy-of-total-surrender-asserts-roosevelt.html

Germany and Japan were historic militaristic aggressor nations. Their entire system had to be pulled down and forcibly rebuilt from scratch.

In hindsight, we now see that FDR and Truman had the correct vision. A harsh U.S. military occupation and a wholesale dismantling of German and Japanese governments to rebuild them from the ground up as liberal democratic nations with constitutional limits on their military was exactly what was needed. History has proven the wisdom of that vision in hindsight.

What was Church, De Gaulle and our other allied leaders thinking? Unconditional or just a cessation of hostilities?

Agreed what happened post-war was for the best.

 

[Jack]

You should write responses to what I actually wrote, not to what you wish I wrote.

Cypress: "In my opinion, teaching the true, aka unsanitized, version of American history to children is a form of moral instruction.
Here is where America lived up to it's professed values. And here is where she didn't, and what exactly did we learn from that?"

The English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all came to the New World, conquered the inhabitants, and started Colonies. What do you want to teach the children?
What 'Values' were lived up to?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

In my opinion, teaching the true, aka unsanitized, version of American history to children is a form of moral instruction.

Here is where America lived up to it's professed values. And here is where she didn't, and what exactly did we learn from that?

Ra-men. How can you (as a nation) resolve to never repeat the same mistakes again, if your citizens are unaware that mistakes were made?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Cypress: "In my opinion, teaching the true, aka unsanitized, version of American history to children is a form of moral instruction.
Here is where America lived up to it's professed values. And here is where she didn't, and what exactly did we learn from that?"

The English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all came to the New World, conquered the inhabitants, and started Colonies. What do you want to teach the children?
What 'Values' were lived up to?

Teach "how values have changed" and discuss "which values are best?" This both teaches history and how we can learn from it.

 

[Jack]

Teach "how values have changed" and discuss "which values are best?" This both teaches history and how we can learn from it.

That might be too much of a mindfuck for out Time Traveling friends here. (I'm sure they are still rubbing their hands together and lamenting the fact that 1/3 of Rome was composed of Slaves)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That might be too much of a mindfuck for out Time Traveling friends here. (I'm sure they are still rubbing their hands together and lamenting the fact that 1/3 of Rome was composed of Slaves)

Why a mindfuck? Human values often remain the same; love of family, appreciation for the benefits of society and a desire for a better future.

Cultures, OTOH, can be deviant. The Romans had Caligula, the US had Trump.

 

[Cypress]

What was Church, De Gaulle and our other allied leaders thinking? Unconditional or just a cessation of hostilities?

Agreed what happened post-war was for the best.

I don't know about Degaule, but Churchill, Stalin, FDR were playing for all the marbles: unconditional surrender, submission to total military occupation, tearing down the entire infrastructure of government and civil society, and rebuilding a peaceable democracy from scratch (at least West Germany, Stalin wanted a puppet state as a buffer).

^ That is a political decision.

Eisenhower was a theater battlefield commander. From his vantage point he was correct: a total war based on unconditional surrender and total submission probably prolonged the war and the fighting, because the enemy felt they had nothing to lose. If all you wanted to do was end the war as quickly as possible, all you would have to do would be offer terms to Japan and Germany, perhaps letting them keep some form of their existing government and autonomy, in exchange for standing their army down and withdrawing from occupied territories.

 

[redfish]

On the one hand, the argument can be made that it was morally reprehensible, but it was the least bad of a range of bad options.

On the flipside, it could be argued it crossed a line which should never be crossed.

those bombs saved millions of lives----------Japanese and American. the US was staging for a ground invasion of Japan when Truman called for the bombs.

On Truman, if he was alive today he would not be a democrat, same applies to Kennedy.

 

[redfish]

I don't know about Degaule, but Churchill, Stalin, FDR were playing for all the marbles: unconditional surrender, submission to total military occupation, tearing down the entire infrastructure of government and civil society, and rebuilding a peaceable democracy from scratch (at least West Germany, Stalin wanted a puppet state as a buffer).

^ That is a political decision.

Eisenhower was a theater battlefield commander. From his vantage point he was correct: a total war based on unconditional surrender and total submission probably prolonged the war and the fighting, because the enemy felt they had nothing to lose. If all you wanted to do was end the war as quickly as possible, all you would have to do would be offer terms to Japan and Germany, perhaps letting them keep some form of their existing government and autonomy, in exchange for standing their army down and withdrawing from occupied territories.

^^^ a very naive view of history. you must have been taught by the teachers union in California.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't know about Degaule, but Churchill, Stalin, FDR were playing for all the marbles: unconditional surrender, submission to total military occupation, tearing down the entire infrastructure of government and civil society, and rebuilding a peaceable democracy from scratch (at least West Germany, Stalin wanted a puppet state as a buffer).

^ That is a political decision.

Eisenhower was a theater battlefield commander. From his vantage point he was correct: a total war based on unconditional surrender and total submission probably prolonged the war and the fighting, because the enemy felt they had nothing to lose. If all you wanted to do was end the war as quickly as possible, all you would have to do would be offer terms to Japan and Germany, perhaps letting them keep some form of their existing government and autonomy, in exchange for standing their army down and withdrawing from occupied territories.

Agreed on the political decision. FDR, later Truman, had to consider the desires of his allies when making the decisions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

^^^ a very naive view of history. you must have been taught by the teachers union in California.

The fact you have nothing to refute or change that view proves you were homeschooled.

 

[redfish]

Ra-men. How can you (as a nation) resolve to never repeat the same mistakes again, if your citizens are unaware that mistakes were made?

ending the war and saving lives on both sides was a mistake? I guess you think we should have surrendered and declared defeat as we did in Viet Nam where 58,000 good americans died for nothing.

 

[redfish]

The fact you have nothing to refute or change that view proves you were homeschooled.

dropping the bombs was the decision of Truman and Truman only with input from Ike and others. It was Truman's call and he made the right one for everyone concerned.