Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Necessary Evil?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mike Griffith View Post
    A few points:

    * The fact that by 1945 Japan was increasingly virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan--in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).

    * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur's staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay's fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history" (John Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 41).

    * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was "completely unnecessary" (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313).

    Eisenhower's son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, "I'd sure hate to see it used, because Japan's licked anyway, and they know it" (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; http://www.doug-long.com/summaryc.htm).

    Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, pp. 425-426).

    * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur's pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur "saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb." Added Cousins,

    The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (The Pathology of Power, p. 71)

    * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall's staff, stated,

    We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn't need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 359; see also http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)

    * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

    No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 336)

    * To give you some idea of Japan's prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham's book, among other sources):

    -- In July the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1500 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health.

    -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

    -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

    -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat things that no one usually ate, such as the pamphlet "Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn't Eat." One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

    -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

    -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

    -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10 aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

    -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

    -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

    -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

    -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japanís merchant vessels had been destroyed.

    -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan's 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima's port was shut down. Nagasaki's port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

    -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

    -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

    Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
    After reading this load of claptrap I am puzzled as to why it took so long for us to defeat Japan ? You must stop reading these Comic Books, they are stunting your intelligence!! lcm1
    'By Horse by Tram'.


    I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
    " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mike Griffith View Post

      It is Alperovitz, not Alperowitz, and he is by no means the only scholar who has argued that nuking Japan was unnecessary and wrong. Maddox comes across, to me anyway, as a diehard partisan who seems to find it necessary to personally attack those who disagree with him.

      The argument about how many saved American lives would be the threshold for using nukes misses two points: One, an invasion simply was not necessary by July 1945--Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks, cut off by sea, and running out of iron, steel, rubber, and oil, not to mention food (food rations were already well below what was required to maintain basic health).
      So, your argument is that it's better to kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians by starving them, rather than by bombing them with nukes.
      And, on top of that, every day that you wait for starvation, which is slower than nuking, to take its toll, you are not just killing Japanese civilians. You are also allowing Japanese troops to starve, or outright murder, tens of thousands of Chinese civilians and POWs, and thousands of Western POWs and civilian internees.

      Nice job.





      Two, if nukes had to be used, they should have been used against genuine military targets--a city with a division or two garrisoned among hundreds of thousands of civilians is not a military target, and the factories in Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been easily destroyed with conventional bombing and without killing hundreds of thousands of women and children.
      You know, we are continuing to ask you to provide concrete alternatives, and you continue to wiggle away from the questions. There must be a reason for this.
      Now you seem to be making a concrete proposal: bomb a military target. Only, you don't name it. What military target? And how do you know that bombing a purely military target, assuming you can find one, would convince the Japanese government to surrender?
      Be specific, if you don't want to continue to lose your credibility.


      One big flaw I see with the defenses of Truman's decision is that they fail to consider the dynamics, nature, and workings of the Japanese government. The argument repeatedly seems to be that since the Japanese hardliners prevented the government from surrendering before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were justified in using nukes, never mind that at every turn we aided the cause of the hardliners and hamstrung the cause of the moderates.
      You seem to be missing the fact that the hardliners in the war cabinet (a mere 6 persons plus the Emperor), did not want to make peace before the nukes, and still voted against peace after the nukes. Got that? It was a tie vote, 3 vs. 3, and it took the Emperor's unprecedented move to speak up at the meeting in favor of peace to break the tie. Would the Emperor have done the unheard of and spoken, without the tremendous blow of the nukes? We don't know and cannot know.

      Still waiting for a reference to the Magic decrypts in order to try and demonstrate the rest of your hypotheses and allegations.
      Michele

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mike Griffith View Post
        A few points:

        * The fact that by 1945 Japan was increasingly virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan--in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).
        Nobody argued that Japan's defenses weren't weak. We all knew that already. But you avoid answering the following question:

        Ah, so if in a town there's only one enemy soldier, a sniper perched in the bell tower, and he keeps firing at your platoon, you won't call down an artillery strike, because the town is virtually defenseless. You'll take whatever casualties are necessary, instead, then you'll write the letters to your deceased men's families. How many letters are you willing to write because the town is only "virtually" defenseless? Will you mention that detail to the wives and parents and children?

        Sorry, other posters, for reposting something that has already been asked, but it's too convenient for this poster to ignore hard questions.
        Michele

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
          At this point after weighing the historical evidence and political perspective (even those projected back into the event) of Truman's decision to drop the bomb, it would be interesting if each poster would assume the role of Truman and give his decision and main reason for choice. I will start:

          Drop the bombs on hand to save American military lives.
          End the war ASAP.

          I wouldn't consider making a negotiation offer a way to end the war quickly. I'd be aware of the Japanese style of negotiations, back from 1941 and even before. I'd be aware that if I made an offer concerning the Emperor's status, the Japanese would wait a week or two and then come back with a counter-proposal, and feelers concerning their empire and armed forces, etc. etc. And meanwhile, they'd try to come separately to terms with the Soviets.

          And, every day I waited, regardless of actual and potential loss of life in Japan involving Japanese civilians, Japanese soldiers and Allied soldiers who would have to land there, I'd be also losing tens of thousands of lives on the Asian mainland.

          So drop the bombs.

          There might be some discussions about what targets are the best to achieve the desired result. But in the end, if I were the political leader, I'd feel I can only take my military experts' indications. If they say, "this list of cities is the likeliest to be successful in the shortest time", I'd sign it.
          Michele

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Mike Griffith View Post
            A few points:

            * The fact that by 1945 Japan was increasingly virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan--in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).

            * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur's staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay's fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history" (John Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 41).

            * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was "completely unnecessary" (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313).

            Eisenhower's son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, "I'd sure hate to see it used, because Japan's licked anyway, and they know it" (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; http://www.doug-long.com/summaryc.htm).

            Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, pp. 425-426).

            * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur's pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur "saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb." Added Cousins,

            The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (The Pathology of Power, p. 71)

            * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall's staff, stated,

            We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn't need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 359; see also http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)

            * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

            No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 336)

            * To give you some idea of Japan's prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham's book, among other sources):

            -- In July the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1500 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health.

            -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

            -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

            -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat things that no one usually ate, such as the pamphlet "Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn't Eat." One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

            -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

            -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

            -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10 aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

            -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

            -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

            -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

            -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japanís merchant vessels had been destroyed.

            -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan's 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima's port was shut down. Nagasaki's port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

            -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

            -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

            Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
            All this is irrelevant : Japan continued the war and every day American and Allied soldiers and civilians were killed and murdered, even after the nuclear attacks . Even if the attacks saved only one Allied life, they would be justified . Japan could have avoided the attacks ... by capitulating : it refused and it was responsible for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Mike Griffith View Post

              The June 8 declaration is irrelevant posturing by the hardliners. By at least two weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, we knew from decrypts and other sources that the emperor wanted to end the war and that the only real sticking point was the emperor's status. Even when Truman found out from decrypts that the emperor wanted to send Konoye to Moscow to negotiate a brokered peace deal, Truman did nothing to explore this opening.

              Numerous people, including Admiral Leahy, told Truman that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would likely surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. When Eisenhower was approached on the subject, he expressed strong opposition to nuking Japan, noting that Japan was already clearly beaten and was looking for a way to surrender with a modicum of face-saving.

              I agree that Alperovitz is an ultra-liberal, but I think he has the facts on his side in most cases.




              In all fairness to Harry Truman, suing for peace was the responsibility of the Empire of Japan - who should have asked for terms after the first of the year in 1945.
              http://www.econdolence.com/learn/art...anding-shinto/
              In all the reading I have done on the case, no one has ever reported that " we will surrender if the status of the emperor is protected, and or the Royal House continues." was ever sent by anyone in the Japanese government with any authority.

              There were serious discussions about whether the Japanese nation, if it perished, would have it's souls transformed into 'millions of spiritual Kami."



              I DO AGREE that more could have been done by the neutral nations o act as a conduit for negotiations.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by lcm1 View Post

                After reading this load of claptrap I am puzzled as to why it took so long for us to defeat Japan ? You must stop reading these Comic Books, they are stunting your intelligence!! lcm1
                Well Ken;

                I hear and agree with you, and will acknowledge that your first question might be a bit rhetorical and worth it's own post or thread ...

                As to the origin of the "claptrap", some basic S2/G2 Intel~Recon using available 'web resources begins with looking towards the Thread title/OP-Opening Post here;
                Mike Griffith

                Why not a "... Necessary Good?" in place of a " ... Necessary Evil?" ???

                Seems right off we are seeing an intent and likelihood that the Thread will start with a Slant and Roll towards a certain bias.

                Next point of investigation might start with the OPr = Opening Poster ; so we could start here via his email contact:
                http://miketgriffith.com

                Click from there to his "About" and we see his email is this;
                https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/m...griffith/about

                Which implies a website of his own which is this;
                http://miketgriffith.com/

                There we can find his Philosophical~Ideological~Theological Foundations;

                LDS Information Web Page


                Michael T. Griffith


                Basic LDS Doctrines and History

                Which Church Is Right?

                Defending the Faith

                LDS Perspective

                LDS Links


                http://ldsinfo.miketgriffith.com/

                Which provide some insights into his perspectives/bias; ...

                REAL ISSUES

                HOME PAGE


                christus3
                statueofliberty
                ph1
                cwsoldiers
                0a858580 jfk addressing nation
                Michael T. Griffith



                http://miketgriffith.com/


                Which seem likely to be rather "Anti-West Civ", Anti-USA, Anti-Allies,; and looking to lean a bit Pro-Axis/Pro-Japan (at least in the WWII context)...

                Real Issues Home Page





                PEARL HARBOR

                Tragedy, Deception, and FDR's Handling of WW II


                Michael T. Griffith


                Introduction

                Evidence of Foreknowledge

                The Pearl Harbor Debate

                Our Unnecessary War with Japan



                http://pearlharbor.miketgriffith.com/

                Then we have this as a start point on his case as presented in the OP starting this thread and posts ever since ...

                Our Unnecessary War with Japan . . .
                and Its Cruel, Tragic Ending
                http://miketgriffith.com/files/unnecessary.htm


                The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan

                Among many others on that "unnecessary" link-list show above ...


                (Subject to later edit, time to start dinner, etc.)
                Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                Comment


                • #83
                  Oh, my sweet Aunt Tilly! Suddenly it a becomes crystal clear. IMHO it is apparent that Mr Griffith has never met a conspiracy cult he could not refrain from joining . . . JFK, Lincoln, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima . . . surprised he has not glomed on to the Moon Missions, that one is right up his alley.
                  hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by RLeonard View Post
                    Oh, my sweet Aunt Tilly! Suddenly it a becomes crystal clear. IMHO it is apparent that Mr Griffith has never met a conspiracy cult he could not refrain from joining . . . JFK, Lincoln, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima . . . surprised he has not glomed on to the Moon Missions, that one is right up his alley.
                    HMMMM>>>>>
                    Just when I thought this was photoshopped......
                    Actually, his writing is quite good. HOWEVR, IT IS IMPORTANT BTWEEN WHAT WAS AN HONEST ERROR, and what was either negligence or conspiracy.
                    Ferrago's classic " the Broken Seal' (1965) is really worth reading. as Ferrago puts it "NO heroes, and no villains, but ; a lot of dammed FOOLS"
                    Last edited by marktwain; 12 Feb 19, 00:55.
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      This is one of those issues where there is a large gap between the consensus among scholars and the common view among the general public. This gap was highlighted in 1995 when the Smithsonian Institution prepared to put on an exhibit about the Enola Gay as part of a larger exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII. When veterans groups obtained a copy of the script that was to accompany the Enola Gay exhibit, they angrily condemned it, even though it was accurate and represented the broad consensus among historians. So fierce was the pushback against the exhibit and its script that the Smithsonian agreed to markedly revise the script and to remove images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims from the exhibit. What follows is the letter written by over 50 historians who protested the errors and omissions in the watered-down/revised script:

                      Mr. I. Michael Heyman
                      Secretary
                      The Smithsonian Institution
                      Washington, D.C. 20560

                      July 31, 1995

                      Dear Secretary Heyman:

                      Testifying before a House subcommittee on March 10, 1995, you promised that when you finally unveiled the Enola Gay exhibit, "I am just going to report the facts."[1]

                      Unfortunately, the Enola Gay exhibit contains a text which goes far beyond the facts. The critical label at the heart of the exhibit makes the following assertions:

                      * The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths." This substantially understates the widely accepted figure that at least 200,000 men, women and children were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Official Japanese records calculate a figure of more than 200,000 deaths--the vast majority of victims being women, children and elderly men.)[2]

                      * "However," claims the Smithsonian, "the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." Presented as fact, this sentence is actually a highly contentious interpretation. For example, an April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded, "The war would almost certainly have terminated when Russia entered the war against Japan."[3] (The Soviet entry into the war on August 8th is not even mentioned in the exhibit as a major factor in the Japanese surrender.) And it is also a fact that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, the Japanese still insisted that Emperor Hirohito be allowed to remain emperor as a condition of surrender. Only when that assurance was given did the Japanese agree to surrender. This was precisely the clarification of surrender terms that many of Truman's own top advisors had urged on him in the months prior to Hiroshima. This, too, is a widely known fact.[4]

                      * The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower[5], Admiral William D. Leahy[6], War Secretary Henry L. Stimson[7], Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew[8] and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy[9]--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945. It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.

                      * In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]

                      * In a 16-minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information. Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.

                      The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited post-war justification of the atomic bombings.

                      Such errors of fact and such tendentious interpretation in the exhibit are no doubt partly the result of your decision earlier this year to take this exhibit out of the hands of professional curators and your own board of historical advisors. Accepting your stated concerns for accuracy, we trust that you will therefore adjust the exhibit, either to eliminate the highly contentious interpretations, or at the very least, balance them with other interpretations that can be easily drawn from the attached footnotes.

                      Sincerely,

                      Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin
                      Co-chairs of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

                      (see the attached sheet for additional signatories)


                      References

                      1. "Enola Gay Exhibit to 'Report the Facts,'" Washington Times, March 11, 1995.

                      2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 364.

                      3. "Memorandum for Chief, Strategic Policy Section, S&P Group, OPD, Subject: Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan," April 30, 1946, ABC 471.6 Atom (17 August 1945) Sec 7, Entry 421, Record Group 165, National Archives.

                      4. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years 1904-1945, Vol. II (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), pp. 1406-1442; U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Japan's Struggle to End the War (Washington, July 1946); Gar Alperovitz, "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess," Foreign Policy, Summer 1995, pp. 15-34; and, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race, rev. ed. (New York, Random House, 1987), p. 225.

                      5. See "Notes on talk with President Eisenhower," April 6, 1960, War Department Notes envelope, Box 66, Herbert Feis Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Division; and, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, "Memorandum of Conference with the President, April 6, 1960," April 11, 1960, "Staff Notes--April 1960," Folder 2, DDE Diary Series, Box 49, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; and also, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), pp. 312-313.

                      6. William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 441. See also his private diary (in particular the June 18, 1945 entry) available at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

                      7. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947, 1948), pp. 628-629.

                      8. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, pp. 1406-1442; Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, p. 225.

                      9. See John J. McCloy interview with Fred Freed for NBC White Paper, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," (interview conducted sometime between May 1964 and February 1965), Roll 1, p. 11, File 50A, Box SP2, McCloy Papers, Amherst College Archives.

                      10. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

                      11. The papers of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, are filled with his statements to the effect that he wanted a virgin target large enough so that the effects of the bomb would not dissipate by the time they reached the edge of the city. See for example the letter from Groves to John A. Shane, 12/27/60 on target selection, in the Groves Papers, Record Group 200, National Archives. See also, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, pp. 229-230.

                      12. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

                      Source: http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm
                      Mike Griffith
                      Real Issues Home Page

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        It would be nice if the OP actually bothered to answer some of the questions put to him instead of just pushing his own agenda. It would certainly do much to improve his credibility in my eyes.
                        However that doesnít seem likely to happen given the background provided on the websites associated with him.

                        for those interested here is the response to the above letter from the Air Force Association:

                        http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteColle...cialreport.pdf

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by CarpeDiem;n5096387[B
                          ]It would be nice if the OP actually bothered to answer some of the questions put to him instead of just pushing his own agenda[/B]. It would certainly do much to improve his credibility in my eyes.
                          However that doesnít seem likely to happen given the background provided on the websites associated with him.

                          for those interested here is the response to the above letter from the Air Force Association:

                          http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteColle...cialreport.pdf

                          WADR, I disagree. Our answer and response sessions have a bad history of going personal all too quickly. the OP has presented a fair argument, and should be enough.


                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by marktwain View Post


                            WADR, I disagree. Our answer and response sessions have a bad history of going personal all too quickly. the OP has presented a fair argument, and should be enough.

                            That is not how debate works. If one does not participate in a mutual bilateral exchange of questions and answers, then that is proselytizing, an agenda, not a debate. Go publish it as a book if one does not want debate. However, posting in a debate forum opens one up to be openly challenged to defend his POV.
                            Last edited by Salinator; 12 Feb 19, 21:40.
                            Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                            Prayers.

                            BoRG

                            http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post


                              WADR, I disagree. Our answer and response sessions have a bad history of going personal all too quickly. the OP has presented a fair argument, and should be enough.

                              I fail to see how this is conducive to the discussion of history, which is what this forum is about. If someone comes on here and makes statements about historical events, other members are allowed to call them into question with their own evidence or ask the OP to clarify or respond to points they find problematic. The OP can of course chose to respond or ignore questions posed to them as they wish. However how they respond or fail to respond to questions posed them is a telling method in establishing credibility or illustrating a desire to engage in honest and open debate.
                              This WW2 forum operates and always operated under an "address the post and not the poster" philosophy and is how I will continue to moderate it. However, the background of someoneís posting history here or in this case elsewhere can help flesh out motivation or agenda. This is not the same as engaging in unsupported personal attacks.

                              If posters have an issue with the to and fro concept of historical debate, then this may not be the forum for them.


                              Last edited by CarpeDiem; 12 Feb 19, 22:57.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                As an OLD soldier who has only his sometimes dodgey memory to rely on, I love to read the debates on WW2 events from people that do honestly know a little about the subject , even if it is only out of books ( ), no offence meant, the age of many of you makes it impossible to be firsthand. I do realise that but allowing for my dodgey memory do you think that perhaps sometimes I may be right? ( When my company of the 33rd Btn: returned to the war for instance!! ) lcm1
                                'By Horse by Tram'.


                                I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                                " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X