Harry S. Truman Decided To Nuke Hiroshima And Nagasaki

Well a smart idea would have been to not invade then. An Invasion was not important and i think an agreement could have been found between our nations.

Your nuclear bombs achieved nothing. Our military did only lay down the weapons because the emperor demanded it. Not because any bombs.

 

Dropping an atomic bomb on those two Japanese cities was IMO one of the worst decisions ever by the US government. 99.9% of the people living in those two towns were innocent every day people having nothing to do with military fighting. Bombing one city was stupid but bombing two cities was an atrocity to mankind! If they were such great and heroic ideas then why haven't we used nuclear weapons since then...

 

If we hadn't most of them would be dead anyway. Japan had vowed to fight to the last man. It would have taken a full invasion to defeat them which would have cost a hell of a lot more lives than was lost in those two cities. Both Japanese, American and our Allies. I mean a hell of a lot more lives.

 

LOL....Nixon bragged that he was the first president to open relations with China. You Fox News advocates make my arse crave lime juice.

The criminals are Reagan and the Bushes...They quadrupled then doubled again the national debt to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. 'Course all those millionaire Republicans stick together like flies on a horse turd.

 

Killing can be an objective. If I kill more I then have to spend less ressources to secure that objective.

 

Not if you want to actually win. I've already pointed out have wars of attrition do not result in victory.

 

Just remember one thing. No Pearl Harbor no Hiroshima!!!!!

 

I would have called up the Japanese premier and said 'have some of your lieutenants gather in this remote area on such a date, watch what happens, then have them report back to you', and then drop one atomic bomb in that 'remote' area. After dropping the bomb, I would call the premier again and say 'you have three days to cease all military operations and if not a Japanese city will be destroyed each day until you do'. And I would start with Okinawa where the Japanese naval headquarters were located.

I would have done anything to avoid killing thousands of innocent people...

 

If Saddam Hussein had called us in 2003 and said, "Hey, get all your soldier together right here...no reason...", would we have done it? Of course not. Japan wouldn't have either.

I agree that innocent lives should be preserved at all costs, but this was unavoidable.

 

All that was needed was a couple of trusted lieutenants to report what they saw. I'm not implying it would be easy to orchestrate but IMO there were many options to use prior to killing thousands of innocent people. And why not drop the first bomb on Okinawa?

 

You forget that the cry of the American people and Congress was "Unconditional Surrender". Kind of hard to get around with that. Just as the war in Europe was completed and ended with the Unconditional Surrender of Nazi forces. It was also the will to completely win the war against Japan with the Unconditional Surrender of Japan.

 

It did for Germany and Japan and countless others before that.

 

Those were NOT wars of attrition.

If you want to find a war of attrition that didn't end in stalemate/the failure of the invading party you are going to have to go further back than Frederick the Great and modern conception of war.

 

Of course it was a war of attrition, up until the time we invaded. Why do you think we bombed the hell out of them?

You really lack any knowledge of this subject or any other it seems. Maybe you should find one more appropriate for you, something about teen idealism would probably be good for you.

 

Really? So the entirety of the fight against Germany and Japan consisted of bombing all the way up until invasions of Germany/the planned invasion of Japan?

You really need to inform historians of this because they seem to think that there were things like the Battle of the Atlantic, the naval battles and Island Hopping campaign in the Pacific, the North Africa Campaign, the battles in France and the Low Countries, the entire Eastern Front campaign, the naval strangulation of supplies from both nations, and dozens of other events that mark wars of maneuver and the seizure of strategic objectives and not wars of attrition.

But you really should get the word out so you can get your Nobel Prize. Just curious, where did you get your PhD in History and how many thousands of hours did your research take to completely contradict everything we know about WW2?

 

If I remember correctly the Marshall Plan was used to rebuild a devastated Europe. I traveled Britain, Holland, Belgium France and Germany extensively during the late 50's and found that Britain and Europe were still digging themselves out of the rubble of war. Without the Marshall Plan and solving the issue of Displaced Persons Europe would not have recovered. Just taking a walk through Berlin you could see where the Marshall Plan ended at the Russian sectors. Food rationing continued well into the 1950's throughout Europe especially in the Russian held areas. That's my personal eye-witness account.

Rationing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom Cached
This was partly in response to increasing public concerns that "luxury" off-ration foodstuffs ... 26 May 1950: Petrol rationing ... food rationing ended in Britain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

 

You should read on those subject before trying to argue that they weren't part of a war of attrition. For exemple the Battle of the Atlantic, was germany tring to deprive the UK of ressources and reinforcements, in short it was part of a war of attrition.

Leave Call of Duty and go hit the books instead.

 

That is not a war of attrition. A war of attrition revolves around exactly what you are claiming war is: killing more of the enemy than they kill of you.

Every single war of attrition in the modern era has resulted in either stalemate or failure by the invading party. Battles can be based on attrition, but even those tend to result in failure by the invading party (QED the Battle of the Atlantic for the Germans).

The only successful wars have been those that revolve around seizing strategic objectives.

 

Something that I'm always sorry to see is that on the day of the Japanese surrender, an

ultimatum was also delivered. The largest armada of allied warships ever assembled in all

history was waiting in the Japanese harbor. Nearly a million allied troops stood ready to

invade. Russia had secured the Japanese food supply in Manchuria and Korea. The allies

had effectively stopped all shipping to and from the Japanese Islands with mines and

submarines. Japan would cease hostilities, or the World would utterly annihilate them, on

the spot.
Hiroshima was a military base. So much for assembling your Lieutenants to witness the

A-bomb. Military assets had to be destroyed anyway. Nagasaki served to inform Japanese

leadership that further hostilities would result in the swift and complete decimation of the

entire race of Japanese. On the day of the surrender, the assemblage on an invasion force

made that abundantly clear.
I'm glad that's all in the past, and we didn't eradicate the Japanese people.
In the early 80's, I was an American sailor, visiting Yokosuka. I had discovered Absinthe, and

after drinking way too much of it, I decided to tour the island by rail. In my condition, a 5

year old could have beaten me up and stole my money. Everywhere I went, the Japanese

people went out of their way to help me. This could not have happened anywhere else on

earth.
The Japanese are the most evolved race in world history. They proved to be such formidable

foes because all that is good about them had been totally corrupted by evil leadership.
In the present day, we see that evil leadership has come back into power, having learned

from the past. America is being as totally corrupted as Japan was then. Gay marriage, and

the rest proceeds from there.
We haven't seen the end of the conflict between good and evil.

 

Nixon already had no choice, Red China was already established and the US was no longer in position to squash her.

 

It was not unconditional. The USA accepted evry single term we demanded before the surrender. You made yourself a servant of our emperor. We were weak after the war. It would have been possible that China takes revenge or russia invades. We kept our system, we used you as our sword during this time until we were able to profit extremly in the korea war and trigger our 2nd rise to the top.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Finley99 View Post

Reagan didn't run up that debt giving tax cuts to the rich. Sure he gave tax cuts, but he also raised taxes several times. That debt came about mostly in an arms race with the Soviets. Reagan worked desperately to try to catch up and pass them and to try and bankrupt them, knowing they were already in financial trouble. He did a damn good job helping to do it too.

 

I don't dispute the numbers that may have been killed during an invasion, I am disputing the idea that there would have been an invasion. The bomb droppers came up with those numbers, for propaganda purposes, to justify using the bomb.

 

Nothing was getting on or off those islands in the final few months. No food, no oil, no nothing. Japan would have unconditionally surrendered with a few weeks anyway. If they didn't, we wait a few more weeks.

 

Unlike the divider in chief Obama and the democrats of today back in the days of WWII both republicans and democrats approved of the use of the a-bomb.