IKE: "the Japanese were ready to surrender & it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"

[Faryn Balyncd]

DWIGHT EISENHOWER, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, 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. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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 secondly 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..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63











ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.





http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Views of Navy Admirals Leahy, Nimitz & Halsey, AF commanding Gen. Hap Arnold, Gen. LeMay, Gen. MacArthur, & Gen. Eisenhower on the Bombing of Hiroshima

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

[jberryhill]

1. WTF would Eisenhower know?

Damn pacifist.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Yeah. No military experience of judgment at all.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. This is, of course....

Eisenhower remembering the facts 18 years later, and quite possibly deliberately misremembering the facts in order to burnish his reputation as a statesman and "first citizen of the world" (quoting Nixon).

[HardTimes99]

38. Funny how that works, isn't it? Good on you to point this out. Also, Stimson was no

longer around to give his version of the conversation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

81. As was pointed out downthread...

By 1963, Japan was a critical strategic ally in the Far East (THE critical strategic ally, really). So it's not like Eisenhower was going to take a victory lap and crow about how much those lousy Japanese had it coming.

[former9thward]

83. There were plenty of people still alive that could have disputed his account.

They didn't.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. Harry Truman, for one...(nt)

[WinkyDink]

86. Really? You think he was both senile and egotistical? How about those "predicted deaths" were the

true revisionism.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. I didn't say he was senile...

And I have no idea about the size of his ego. But has been stated elsewhere, Eisenhower had ample reason to say what he said, regardless of the facts of the matter.

And contemporaneous accounts of casualty figures put the number at between 500,000 and 2 million.

Here's a reprint of a 1997 article from the Journal of Military History

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Earmarking for the next time someone objects to a General making all the decisions nt

[liberal_at_heart]

4. K&R

[WI_DEM]

5. yet he also said this...

ATOMIC WEAPONS
Yes, of course they would be used. In any combat where these things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn't be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.

On whether small atomic weapons would be used if war broke out in the Far East. Press conference March 16, 1954.

http://www.nps.gov/features/eise/jrranger/quotes2.htm

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Big difference

between the question of using nukes on military targets versus civilian targets.

[arely staircase]

31. He was refering to small nuclear weapons, mainly fired from artillery

against massed infantry and mechanized units. one can argue the morality of that as well but it is a far cry from putting entire cities to the sword.

[Gravitycollapse]

113. Nuclear artillery of the era were roughly equivalent in power to Fat Man and Little Boy.

10 to 20 kilotons

These certainly weren't grenades. Nor were they comparable in destruction to other artillery rounds.

And they absolutely had the power to level cities.

[Scootaloo]

102. "Small atomic weapons"

"Strictly military targets"

[Gravitycollapse]

114. 10 to 20 kilotons is not a "small" weapon.

It of course is small in comparison to the Tsar Bomba. But that's not really a fair statement.

10 to 20 kilotons seats an average roughly equal in power to Fat Boy and Little Man. These nuclear artillery would level cities and would leave human silhouettes very much in the same vein as the bombings of Japan.

[WI_DEM]

6. you have to recall, too, that Eisenhower was the allied commander in Europe not the Far East

Eisenhower had clear views on what became one of the most controversial decisions that a President has ever made, authorizing the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He expressed his ideas in July 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, a meeting between President Harry S. Truman, Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who was replaced by Prime Minister Clement Atlee because of the results of the British elections. After news of the test in the New Mexico desert of the first atomic bomb reached U.S. officials at the beginning of the conference, Eisenhower told Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that the bomb was unnecessary, as Japan was on the verge of surrender. Eisenhower also feared that the first use of atomic weapons in combat would tarnish the image of the United States at the very moment that its prestige was at an all-time high. But Truman accepted the counsel of other advisers, who, unlike Eisenhower, had been at the center of discussion about the war in the Pacific, and authorized the Army Air Forces to drop whatever bombs were available—then two—as soon as possible.

http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/2

[jberryhill]

7. Ergo, rendering him less competent to make an opinion than a DUer circa 2013

[whatchamacallit]

12. I'm lovin you today Jberry!

[Iggo]

16. Yee-ouch!

[dbackjon]

25. Seems to be many a DU'er in 2013

Second guessing and re-writing history.

And forgetting Eisenhower firebombed Dresden - killing tens of thousands of civilians

[Tagurrit]

94. Yes we did bomb Dresden but..

it was primarily a British venture. We had planes there but the operation was run by "Bomber" Harris of the UK. Culturally a disaster because of the old town being targeted but "only" 25,000 people lost their lives. I say only because in some raids in Japan the number may have been 4 to 8 times that. An unnecessary tragedy yes but at least understandable given this was total war. V2's, V1's, and the Nazi's working on an Atomic bomb that there is no question they would have used on London, not to mention the systemic destruction of whole races and classes of people in the Holocaust. Dresden was used as a war manufacturing center to some degree and most importantly the Allies overestimated the number of factories that were there but that's understandable given that the German's didn't publish information about factories in the newspapers. Erring on the high side isn't the same kind of mistake that Hiroshima was. Hiroshima was unnecessary then and now while Dresden had a logical reason to happen then and that reason might have faded after we found out after the war that we had overestimated the amount of military activity that was going on. I had friends in Dresden during the bombing. The stories they tell are horrific but everyone of them are now proud American citizens. Comparing Dresden with Hiroshima is like comparing apples and oranges. The US using the Atomic bomb on Japan was totally different.

[dbackjon]

97. You were good until the last sentence

And while there were more British planes in Dresden, not many more than American

[Kelvin Mace]

13. And yet, ultimately

Ike was right.

The weapons did NOT need to be used, and their use tarnished our image and set us up for the brinksmanship of the Cold War.

We could have ended the war in Japan by simply dropping a bomb on an uninhabited island near a Japanese city and made our point. But, we wanted to kill people.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. Like the "who's the best second baseman of all time" question...

This one is open to debate.

Dropping it on an uninhabited island would have caused Japan to surrender? We dropped the fucking thing on a populated city and they didn't surrender. And since we only had two of the damned things, it would have been pretty foolish to "waste" one by blowing up an uninhabited island

[Tagurrit]

96. 2 -10 what's the difference..

Not to quibble but although we “only” had two Atomic bombs at the moment of Hiroshima we had eight more that were in various stages of completion and were ready soon after.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

104. No, we had two....

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

There was no third atomic bomb ready to be dropped on August 12. It would be weeks before the next bomb was available (and possibly longer if weather conditions weren't right over the target). And it might have been weeks after that before a fourth bomb was operational. We were trying to create the illusion that we had an endless supply of bombs ready to drop on Japan, but that was simply not the case. Wasting a bomb over an uninhabited area would have been a strategic error.

[former9thward]

84. MacAuthur and Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy also opposed the bomb.

I believe they "had been at the center of discussion about the war in the Pacific.'

[Koios]

8. Also the scumbag who ...

... tacitly agreed with McCarthy during his first presidential run that the great General George Marshall ( whose Marshall Plan saved much of Europe from communist elements growing in the aftermath / destruction of WWII) was "pink."

So Ike the general was a remarkable man. Ike the politician, offering opinions on stuff Truman/Truman Admin did, ain't worth a plugged nickel. He merely pandered to the looniest far right nincompoops, for political gain.

And this subject too, is merely that.

[Rex]

11. Bah, what would he know!

[jeff47]

14. How 'bout we pick this quote instead?

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.

Boy, that Japanese high command sure looked like they were ready to surrender.

Before the atomic bombs, the "Big Six" that ran the Japanese side of the war were 1-5 against surrender. After the bombings, they were 3-3 and the Emperor broke the tie.

Their plan was to try and reach some sort of stalemate via massive casualties, and then trying to negotiate an end to the war. That isn't "about to surrender".

Sorry, but Ike here was playing politics. Especially with the new Cold War and our new ally in that war, Japan.

And Admiral Leahy was playing wishful thinking - our blockade had not suddenly become significantly more effective. We had already destroyed the Japanese merchant fleet years earlier. If a blockade was going to work, it would have already worked by the time the bombs were dropped.

[joshcryer]

52. Surrender of Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

One of Wikipedia's better articles (for the simple fact that this is such a contestly debated topic).

[JVS]

15. If you think that Eisenhower would say something in 1963 that would antagonize our best cold war...

ally in Asia, I have a bridge to sell you.

In West Germany we were more than willing to look the other way for a lot of people after we had executed some of the bigwigs. We also looked the other way while some myths developed. A prime example of this is the myth that war crimes were not generally committed by the normal German army (the Wehrmacht) but were nearly exclusively the work of the SS. This isn't true, but in the 1950s when W Germany was re-arming and joining NATO, it was convenient for both NATO and W Germany to be able to rehabilitate Germany's military culture. For another example, see the popularity of the Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler.

Japan was no different. In fact, in contrast to Germany, Japan has cultivated a sense of national victimhood while downplaying their own culpability for the war and in war crimes. But politics is usually a game about being happy, not being right. So if Japan wants to delude themselves about the past and letting them do so is going to strengthen the strategic interests of the US in the region against the USSR and a soon to have nukes China, why wouldn't Ike blow a little smoke up their asses?

[JustAnotherGen]

22. +1

On everything. And my father never really fell for the "respect" the former German Officers gave him when we lived there in the 1970's. His words: "They only understood Herr Commandant. Something happened to these men long before they lost the war."

[former9thward]

88. So why didn't Truman dispute the account if he said something else?

Truman was still alive in 1963.

[JVS]

90. Why would Truman want to antagonize an ally any more than Eisenhower?

Did you even read the post?

[former9thward]

98. Yes I read it.

There would be literally scores of people if not hundreds who would know the truth. I guess they all wanted to avoid antagonizing an ally so they joined The Conspiracy To Hide The Truth.

[JVS]

100. And you know that nobody contradicted Eisenhower how?

[former9thward]

103. The same way I know what Eisenhower said.

But maybe the media and historians also joined The Conspiracy To Hide The Truth.

[JVS]

106. I'm going to need some evidence of the conspiracy you claim exists

[former9thward]

109. It is your conspiracy.

The conspiracy to falsify what Eisenhower really advised about the bomb in order "to avoid offending an ally." With each post of yours it grows exponentially.

[JVS]

112. You're the one making it up. I'm just saying that I have good reason to doubt Eisenhower's word.

You shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

[bvar22]

17. Not just Ike, but General MacArthur said the same thing.

...and General MacArthur was not exactly a pacifist.


The dropping of Atomic Weapons on Japan was NOT a MILITARY decision.

It was a POLITICAL decision,
and a warning to Stalin.

[geek tragedy]

26. got a link to back that claim up re; not a military decision. nt

[bvar22]

46. Well, Geek, Lets take a look at the HISTORY.

General Douglas MacArthur, [font size=3]Supreme Commander Pacific[/font][/font] and the Military Commander who accepted the Official Surrender of Japan,
says he OPPOSED the dropping of Atomic Weapons on Japan.

General Dwight Eisenhower, [font size=3]Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe[/font] said he opposed dropping the bomb on Japan.

We KNOW where the order to Drop the Bomb came from.

Can you do the math?

The Official Cover Story is that dropping the Bomb was "necessary" and "saved a million American Lives",
but this is NOT the whole story nor the true story,
but a story that was necessary in 1945 to protect the image of the USA in the aftermath of WW2.

This IS an issue that the military has kept very quiet for Political reasons,
but if you care to do the research, more material is turning up every day as these guys get old and want to clear their consciences.

It is also fairly easy for anyone with Critical Thinking Skills and even a superficial knowledge of Geography and World History WW2 to punch holes on the "We HAD to" cover story.

I first heard the "We didn't have to drop the bomb" from a high ranking Marine Officer who fought HIS way across the Pacific with the 1st Marines.
He told me in the mid-50s that the Cover Story was BOGUS.

[geek tragedy]

49. What proof do you have that Japan was ready to surrender, disarm, subject itself

to military occupation by the Allies, and turn over its generals for war crime trials--before the first nuke was dropped?

What evidence do you have that the US was made aware of this by the Japanese?

[bvar22]

54. What proof do I have?

Did you READ the testimony of the OverALL Allied Supreme Military Commander
and the Supreme Commander of US Forces in the Pacific???!!!


What evidence do YOU have that contradicts the testimony of these men Who Would KNOW?

[geek tragedy]

59. The Japanese War Council was split 3-3 after Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war.

Before Hiroshima, no way Potsdam would have been accepted.

[heaven05]

95. a

tragedy is right.

[Jim Lane]

115. The links you demand are at the bottom of the OP.

Now, back atcha: Got a link to support the insinuation that the high-ranking U.S. military commanders thought the bombings were a military necessity? As far as I know, as shown in those links, the majority of them, and probably all of them, believed that the war could be won without the atom bomb and without an invasion of Japan. If I'm wrong about what they thought, please enlighten me.

[geek tragedy]

119. The decision had been made that an invasion would occur if Japan did not

surrender. The navy had argued for blockading, bombing and starving Japan into surrender, but the army successfully argued for an invasion.

The Japanese, btw, were not ready to surrender after the twin shocks of the Soviet declaration and Hiroshima. It took Nagasaki to push them over the edge.

The Japanese military called the shots, and they were fanatics.

[dionysus]

61. and MacArthur wanted to use them in Korea...

[sgtbenobo]

101. Bingo!

Give this man a cigar!


Carry on.

[Junkdrawer]

18. So many of the Bomb Defenders today used "Armchair Warrior" as a put down....

Oh, the irony....

[Iggo]

92. Happens every year.

Ya just gotta roll wit it.

[ananda]

19. My dad was on Saipan waiting for the order to firebomb Tokyo ...

... when word came of the nuclear bomb and the end of the war.

[DCBob]

20. Yes, perhaps, but for sure if the Japanese had possessed an atomic bomb..

they would not have had any reservations using it against us or anyone else who stood in their way to dominate Asia.

[Dragonfli]

24. Yes and perhaps we should not have been so quick to emulate the worst of their cruel leadership

Becoming what we claim to despise is not only hypocritical, it makes us the monsters we claim to hate for entertaining such actions. Does it not?

[DCBob]

41. I think the goal was to eliminate their "cruel leadership" not emulate them.

[Dragonfli]

47. by nuking civilians rather than attacking the leadership? What a strange tactic -

doing what you claim those "evil basteds" would have done to us, IE using a nuclear weapon on civilian targets.

[DCBob]

67. I think the nukes effectively eliminated their "cruel leadership" once they surrendered.

[Dragonfli]

70. Would have been less sociopathic to blow up the Emperor and not hundreds of thousands of civilians

We then would have actually killed the evil bastard rather than so many women and children, as it turned out he survived comfortably as a figure head Emperor after that.

I guess I have trouble following the we must do evil and become as evil as our enemy to defeat him before he does evil first rationale.

I guess pesky things like morality and empathy keep me from effectively killing civilians, torturing prisoners and committing genocide to prevent the killing of civilians, the torturing of our POWs and the genocide that evil men would commit. If evil is evil for the goose is evil not also evil for the gander?

[DCBob]

72. I doubt "blowing up the Emperor" would have stopped them.

In fact it would probably have further enraged them and convince them to fight on even more.

[bvar22]

124. I've read that the percentage of those unable to experience "empathy"..

... is as high as 10% of our population.
My guess would have been a lot higher.

Some people are just unable see beyond their own shell and realize that "those others" are REAL people who love their wives and children, and have hopes and dreams too, JUST LIKE THEM!

[Dragonfli]

21. I think the complete disregard for the deaths of women, children and grannies shown on this board

are a symptom of sociopaths or downright psychopaths, having stated so I was kicked out of a thread and the message was hidden.

Such is the modern neo liberal, they applaud psychopathic acts in the name of fear and revenge, then get angry when one points out that being cold to the torturous burning death or lingering and painful cancerous deaths of many thousands of civilian children is proof of a lack of human empathy and an indication of the diseases I mentioned.

They get very angry and vindictive when faced with the truth of what a sociopath is, only a sociopath would take such personal umbrage at the pointing out of psychological facts about such disorders.

I hate people that applaud acts of violence against civilians, be it by drone or nuke.

I find that because of this I have little in common with the neoliberal conservatives that have taken over DU and so post very little.

[tumtum]

27. Your post was hidden for personally attacking me.

And I still stand by my statement.
If Truman hadn't made the difficult but correct decision to use those 2 bombs, it's highly likely my dad would've been killed in the invasion of Japan, so I have no qualms stating that I'm comfortable with Truman's decision.

[Dragonfli]

34. I did not personally attack you

I correctly judged your "defense of the wholesale slaughter of women and children" as "psychopathic and cowardly", such an empathy free defense of such horrible actions IS psychopathic and cowardly, even if the truth of it offends you.

[tumtum]

36. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3415135

Dragonfli This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
161. No I don't like the wholesale slaughter of women and children

Nor do I like the ravings of a psychopathic coward such as yourself.
Join AQ they think just as you do and you have so very much in common.
A Jury voted 5-1 to hide this post on Tue Aug 6, 2013, 11:17 AM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

Sure looks like a personal attack to me, and 5 of the 6 jurors agreed.

FYI, I didn't alert on it, I've got a thick skin, I can take the attacks.

[Dragonfli]

39. An honest evaluation of your empathy free and cowardly defense of the deaths of several thousands of

civilians (mostly women and children) is not an attack. It was my honest evaluation of your obvious lack of humanity, empathy, and courage.

Perhaps an honest evaluation of your character flaws and loss of humanity appears to you as an attack because the truth about your views are painful for you to face.

[tumtum]

40. Spin it any way you want.

It's there for all to see, it was a personal attack and that's why it was hidden.
I'm very comfortable in my old age with my character and humanity, but thanks for the concern.

[tumtum]

48. Ahhhh, so your one of these.

Again, thanks for the concern, but you know nothing about who I really am beyond a single issue on a chat board.

[Junkdrawer]

30. +10000000000000000000000000000

[HardTimes99]

44. I'm a Democratic Socialist and radically anti-war. That said, I am not an absolute pacifist

and think some wars have to be fought.

I would be interested to get your response to my OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023414732

Specifically, what should Truman have done w/ regard to Japan if he was not going to use atomic weapons to end the war quickly?

I mentioned your post to my wife and she thinks there is an element of truth to what you are saying about neoliberals. That said, Truman faced a set of bad choices. What would you have had him do?

[Dragonfli]

62. That is not only a valid question to ask me, it is a very good one.

Let me start by noting my agreement with you that some wars need to be fought, I am a pacifist, but one that has had to physically fight several times in his life for both personal protection and the protection of victims being preyed upon. I look at fighting wars the same way, it is for defense.

It is for me also about what should not be done, evil should not be done. I would never even consider crushing a five year old's testicles as a method of interrogating his father who is a suspect (even tho John Yoo declared such actions legal and acceptable).

I would not threaten and kill a persons family or blow up a school to dishearten even an evil enemy lest I also become evil and my own enemy.

I would not use children or other civilians as booby-traps with bombs attached to them as an effective method of killing an enemy (no matter how effective it might be)

I would not drone attack a wedding party because one criminal may be in the crowd of innocent well wishers, and I would also not follow up with a missile directed at the first responders trying to save as many hurt civilians as they can.

In this case I would not consider as an option the bombing of two large concentrations of civilians with nuclear weapons in order to intimidate an evil leader far from the scene of my attack, it just would not be among my strategies to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly women, children and elderly as a valid tactic, such tactics belong to those such as the Japanese Emporer at the time and his Nazi friends with their ovens, becoming evil is no way to defeat evil.

I am not aware of what honorable tactics were available at the time, but many generals disagreed with the use of those horrid weapons on civilian populations, they felt their were other options, as one who does not wish to become as evil as what I would fight, I would have listened to their advice to find viable alternatives to such a horrid and evil solution.

Does this make any sense to you?

[Deacon Blue]

73. How Many Japanese Civilians...

Would have perished in a protracted battle for the home islands? Hiroshima, 140,000, Nagasaki, 90,000. Surely many more would have burned, been starved, used in human wave, suicidal attacks, used as human shields, etc. Like it or not, the bombings saved civilian lives.

[Dragonfli]

79. We will never know, many generals felt there were alternatives to using atrocities as a tactic

Their suggestions to use honorable warfare rather than slaughtering hundreds of thousands of women and children in a move both Hitler and Hirohito would have been proud of were not taken seriously.

I would think that using conventional bombs on the Emperor and his lackeys directly may have helped to further dishearten an already defeated enemy, but such an attack was far less sexy than playing with our new God Power to kill hundreds of thousands with one bomb while condemning hundreds of thousands more to slow death by cancer, killing so many was sexy when Hitler fired up his ovens so we had to be just as cool as him i guess .

Please tell me, how can you not feel empathy for so damn many women and children that died such horrible deaths, do you consider them less than human or were you simply born without a soul?

[HardTimes99]

123. It makes a tremendous amount of sense and I am also no expert on what

'honorable tactics' were available either. I read here yesterday that Allied plans included fire-bombing every major Japanese city -- all highly incendiary -- by 1946 if the war was not yet over and the invasion still the sole option in the works (or under way). The degree of brutality in that proposed tactic is almost unimaginable to me now. But don't forget that the Japanese were hardly choirboys during this time either, having the blood of between 7-10 million Asians on their hands on the mainland. In such a setting, I'm not sure 'honorable tactics' remained as an option. But I appreciate your comments and they help me maintain my faith in humanity.

Hope you also get a chance to look at my OP from yesterday and comment there (if you are so moved).

[treestar]

50. If they had one and dropped it on us

then we'd have to regards the deaths of women, etc. as American ones. In your post above you seem to forget that.

[Dragonfli]

63. Not at all, I do not see their women as less human than our own, I condemn them equally for evil.

Why do you not understand the simple point that if it is evil when our enemy does, the same act is equally as evil when we do it?
Why do you not see that?

[bvar22]

93. It IS that simple,

and yet so many are afraid to Face that.

[font size=3]"if it is evil when our enemy does, the same act is equally as evil when we do it.[/font]

[DeSwiss]

80. Sickening, isn't it?

[Dragonfli]

82. Yes, vomit inducing for those of us still possessing souls....

[Skeeter Barnes]

111. +1 Good observations. Needed to be said.

[roamer65]

23. Too bad we didn't have one a year sooner.

I would have dropped that damn thing on Berlin and I think FDR would have as well.

[DavidDvorkin]

28. Britain thought it would have the bomb by 1943, and Churchill

planned to drop it on Berlin then.

But that would have been a different situation from Japan in 1945.

[dbackjon]

29. Yet the Japanese were in many ways much crueler

And killed up to 30 million civilians

[HardTimes99]

45. The cruelty sweepstakes will have no winner. The USSR lost 20 million fighting

Hitler and the Nazis along a 2,000-mile front for 4 years, most of the time we and the Brits were dinking around down in North Africa learning how to fight.

[roamer65]

58. That's when it was over for the Nazis.

The minute they crossed the border into the USSR in 1941, their fate was sealed.

The Great Patriotic War as the Russians call it.

[HardTimes99]

121. Well, in hindsight, I think you are right. However, at the time, it was far more

touch and go, at least until the Wehrmacht rolled up on a little town on the Volga called Stalingrad in the spring of 1942.

[arely staircase]

32. dropping the bombs had less to do with defeating japan than

putting the Russians on notice.

[madfloridian]

33. It was the 40's form of "Shock and Awe"....in 2003 it was televised over Iraq.

Putting the world on notice that we are the tough guys.

Ike was right about many things, especially right about this.

[Flaxbee]

42. Of course it wasn't necessary. The US just wanted to see what would happen - we experimented on the

Japanese like they were guinea pigs - after all, we'd spent years dehumanizing them in propaganda.

[treestar]

51. Others disagree with him, including other generals

Especially the ones working in Japan I imagine.

[BillyRibs]

53. No, The Japanese were in August 1945,

the Final planing stages of an attack on the Panama canal reservoir damn. and plague bombs they had developed in Manchuria were also to be used on a west coast mainland US coordinated attack planned for September 1945. the 6 engine bomber was developed and manufactured in Nagasaki the sub/carrier for the planes to be used for the Panama attack was built in Hiroshima. in Fact the Sub had to be recalled as it had already sailed by the time the Enola Gay dropped her load. this is why the US never apologized to the Govt. Of Japan or Her people.
http://io9.com/5908290/during-world-war-ii-japan-plotted-to-unleash-a-plague-on-the-united-states
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episodes/japanese-supersub-watch-the-full-episode/591/

I think Ike Was Misinformed.

[orpupilofnature57]

55. His farwell speech was a warning

[Hulk]

56. An awful thing...but,

I feel it was justified. Not for vengence, but to bring the war to an end. THEY started it; they supported it; and THEY refused to stop it. The A-bomb was terrible; and hundreds of thousands paid the ultimate price; but THEY started it, and IT stopped it. I'd probably be in favor of doing it again, unless we had rock solid proof that they were ready to stop...and we didn't have.

[Stinger35]

57. Old arguments.

After all is said and done, war becomes very personal to participants. I suspect that Capt. HST remembered the hell of WW I when he picked up the buck that stopped on his desk and viewed the equation as " one GI life = X enemy lives." He made the right decision in my view.

[left is right]

60. My pop remembers it differently

He said that his unit was scheduled for a bombing raid directly on Japan and that at the last minute they were recalled but no reason was given. The next thing they heard was that the A-bomb had been dropped. He never flew another mission. He said that unlike other mission’s this one was strictly volunteer and everybody had prepared themselves to not return. Ge never explained why this one was different

[orpupilofnature57]

117. Probably from the sound of your Dads story,

the newly formed NSA, started Advising the military .

[lobodons]

64. Ya, like they were so quick to surrender after 1st bomb.

Good thing he was stuck in Europe.

[heaven05]

65. why

would a terrible weapon such as this be used on an already defeated people? One guess and it wasn't worry about invasion casualties. Don't get me wrong, the japanese were a vicious adversary and they were not saints. They killed with impunity. But to use those horrible weapons.......just doesn't reflect any type of empathy for the civilians. Oh there are many arguments and reasons for and against use of these weapons, so I'm saying, my bottom line is........what I stated in the beginning of this post....knowing america like I do.

[cab67]

66. With all due respect to genuine heroes...

...I disagree with them. There was considerable debate within the Japanese government, but most discussion of surrender was inconsistent with the Potsdam Declaration; those who favored capitulation wanted conditions the Allies were not prepared to accept.

[felix_numinous]

68. K&R

Some powers are too much for humans to have.

[Deacon Blue]

69. You Are Forgetting Okinawa

Very interesting thread, and a complex problem for Truman.

Politically, had Operation Coronet proceeded, the Russians would probably have taken several of the Japanese home islands before the war ended. And I agree that both bombings were used to spook Uncle Joe: he knew at Potsdam that Trinity was a success. Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that Trinity was no fluke, and that we had the wherewithal to use it. Also, because of Okinawa, US planners were predicting 1 million US casualties, killed and wounded, from a campaign in Japan. Had that happened, and the public learned we had a war-ending weapon developed at great expense but not used, Truman would have been impeached or accused of treason.

[DCBob]

71. How could we have been so sure Japan was honestly ready to surrender?

For all we know they could have been trying to delay things so they could prepare for another sneak attack.

[roamer65]

74. Here's what made the Japanese accept unconditional surrender.

"What if there is a 3rd, 4th, 5th one...."

They knew we'd use them as fast as we could assemble them.

"I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"

-Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Imperial Japanese Navy.

[DCBob]

77. +1

[PufPuf23]

75. I like Ike.

Ike was inaugurated about a week prior to my birth and the only POTUS I knew until 2rd grade and Kennedy.

My family and extended family liked Ike but were mostly registered and voted Democratic.

The Democratic Party wanted Ike as their candidate but he chose to run GOP.

Ike supported and extended New Deal and Social Security.

Ike was a humane military leader under the circumstances of WWII.

Ike desegregated the military and used Federal troops to force desegregation in the South.

Ike ended the Korean War under terms that have endured into the present. A similar situation exists in regards to Taiwan and China.

Ike offered Khrushchev the mutual option of opening American skies to the USSR aircraft and vice versa for the USA in USSR airspace but the USSR chose not to respond.

Ike probably most institutionalized the domino theory of communism.

Ike did not support Senator McCarthy (and Nixon in part mitigated this flank politically) and his antipathy was not overt, understandable for the times but unfortunate).

Ike was early (set into motion under Truman and Dulles) sponsor of coups in Iran and Guatemala, but also reflected the Domino theory of communism.

Ike brought the Interstate Highway System.

POTUS Ike was to the left of POTUS Obama in most policies, foreign and domestic.

I like Ike for what he did for the USA and World. I do not think Ike perfect at all but he was a fine and low keyed leader, wise and not greatly influenced by special and extremely strong special interests.

I like Ike. He would make a great Democratic Party Candidate now.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. There are a number of good reasons to like Ike, including his statement about Nixon when asked

in 1960 about Candidate Nixon's contribution of any idea to the Eisenhower Administration:

"If you give me a week, I might think of one."

[Kaleva]

76. " ...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" Admiral Leahy

"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. "

The conventional bombing of Japanese urban areas killed well over a million civilians. Apparently Admiral Leahy didn't have a problem with that.

[Bonobo]

78. More:

REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD BYRD
“Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan…..I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from…the tight blockade. “I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning.”

REAR ADMIRAL LEWIS L. STRAUSS (special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy)
“It [the atomic bomb] was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion…..it was clear to a number of people…that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate…..it was a sin – to use a good word – (a word that) should be used more often – to kill non-combatants….”

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER W. CLARKE
“We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAIRE CHENNAULT (Commander of the “Flying Tigers”)
“Russia’s entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped. “

[BeyondGeography]

87. Ike might not have hated Truman, but it's a point of fact that he deeply disliked him

Sometimes it's as simple as that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. There are many photos of them being respectful to one another.

Are you sure that Eisenhower deeply disliked Truman?

[BeyondGeography]

118. Yes...recently read "Going Home to Glory," by his grandson David

who would have no reason to say anything purposefully negative on that score. He was very clear about Ike's utter disdain and personal dislike for Truman. Ike was never fond of Truman and things really went sour when Truman tried to recruit him to run as a Democrat in '52 and was of course turned down.

They did have their moments of public civility, like all ex-Presidents. There was one scene prior to Kennedy's funeral that stood out when both were staying at the same residence and had drinks one evening. They agreed that only Presidents know exactly why they did the thing things that they did, and they were comfortable in that notion. But then they quickly went back to sniping at each other in private.

[jimlup]

91. Rec and 2nd! nt

[LittleBlue]

99. God bless Ike

On the balance, a great man.

Wish we had Republicans of his quality today.

[dsc]

105. The Ike stuff is rather self serving

and pretty convenient that he only told this story after Stimson was dead. The fact is Ike was running against the party of the architects of the war strategy he was criticising at the time.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

107. It's not just Ike saying these things...

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

[Niceguy1]

116. Too bad DU wasn't around back then.

I am sure that many posters here could have done a better job running g the war.

[DCBob]

120. I think many felt guilty about being a part of this and spoke out publilcy..

in an attempt to distance themselves from that "awful thing". However, I suspect if Ike had been in Truman shoes he would have done the same thing.

[Javaman]

122. eisenhower is the same guy who was critical of the military industrial complex he helped to build...

the opinion of a republican during a Democratic Administration against another former Democratic President holds as much water as a sieve.