I wouldn't call it cheating and it's a good way to "read" books. I was resistant to it for years, not because I didn't think it was a good idea but because my mind tends to wander when I am listening to audio. That doesn't happen when I'm actually reading, of course. But I recently got a Great Courses CD series on How to Listen to Great Music by Robert Greenberg, and I'm hooked. I don't spend so much time in my car so I have to make sure I listen to all of it. I recommend it if you haven't heard it. I got it from the library. However, I do think our minds process what we read better than what we listen to, though listening to tapes is a lot better than not "reading" at all. When I was commuting by train to my job in New York City, I tried to read classics during the commute because I was more or less forced to read them that way. I read War and Peace and Anna Karenina back to back. I considered that my Russian period. ;) After that I gave myself a break and read somewhat easier classics and short stories. I was glad I read them, though. LoisI agree. Before I started using audiobooks I was lucky if I could get through a book a year. Now I get through 15-20. I spend all day reading medical reports. I have to scan them pretty quickly to get through the volume I need to in a day but that sort of technique does not work well for pleasure reading. I'm actually a pretty slow reader when I am reading books so given the limited time and how exhausted I was after speed reading all day I didn't do a lot of pleasure reading except for short easy things like pop sci and the news. I also agree that you retain a lot more when you read rather than listen ( especially names) but as you said listening is better than not reading at all.
Again, you need to put yourself in the mindset of the people living through this if you want to be fair to them and to the decision they made. You can analyze it in a more critical way if your intent is to learn something that may help in future situations but its disingenuous for us to pass moral judgement on them given what they knew and had suffered through at the time without having lived through that ourselves. That's why I think its important to read personal accounts like the one in this book and others before we pass judgment.This seems to be an argument for emotional appeal. That's excellently what I don't want from my leaders. This is not that long ago, so it's not like putting myself in the mindset of a 1st century who advocates slavery. This is our grandparents. We are now the country that drops nuclear bombs and tortures and doesn't get tried for war crimes.
Not really. My point was that if you were living at that time in the middle of everything that was going on and if you were aware of the atrocities then it was reasonable to drop those bombs even if you had no proof (and of course you never could have such proof) that they would end things earlier or save more lives overall.Yes, it is reasonable to want revenge. No MacGyver, I can very well imagine that I would call for the dropping of the bombs when being in such a camp. But pity enough, that does it make reasonable. To drop the bombs is only reasonable when it would help. Without the supposition that it would help, more than other possible options, it is not reasonable. Maybe we should say: sometimes the one in the arm chair is right.
Yes, it is reasonable to want revenge. No MacGyver, I can very well imagine that I would call for the dropping of the bombs when being in such a camp. But pity enough, that does it make reasonable. To drop the bombs is only reasonable when it would help. Without the supposition that it would help, more than other possible options, it is not reasonable. Maybe we should say: sometimes the one in the arm chair is right.Officially revenge didn't enter into Truman's decision even though his admin. Did take a straw poll concerning what to do with the Emperor, whom the American people blamed for the war and atrocities committed by the Japanese military. As to making it reasonable, hindsight is Better than foresight to use an old cliche. Truman's ultimate decision to use the bombs was based on 1. Casualty reports from the head of the Joint Chiefs ( inflated of course but there could have been as many as 500,000) 2. Fear of growing Soviet hegemony in the Far East (up until they declared war they were in constant communication with the Japanese Gov't via their ambassador. 3. The reluctance of the Military controlled government to surrender unconditionally (Truman didn't want a repeat of post-war Germany and a rise of disgruntled masses easily controlled by a new militant regime) he wanted the present government dismantled for good. 4. An end to the wartime U.S. Economy which was growing thin as a result of the nationalization of industries and a curtailing of labor unions. These are just a few of the major causes of his decision and yes there were advisors who opposed the dropping the bombs but ultimately the decision was his and his alone and I've already shown that he went to his grave with no regrets. In case you weren't aware, two days before the bombs were detonated U.S. Bombers dropped thousands of leaflets over the cities warning of a weapon of mass destruction but the local military leaders were instructed to shoot anyone distributing them to the public. It was very regrettable and a horrific atrocity that has never been repeated and we should never forget the destruction suffered by civilians, plus opening the door to the most freightening time in human history (many anecdotes available by we baby boomers). But putting historical accounts within the framework of the period gives a much clearer picture of the thinking at that time. Looking back we can say "well, if we had only done this, or said that, starved them into surrender or invaded with a million men and equipment, or just allowed the Japenese government to surrender on their own terms take our chances later, if, if if... . That's why I detest revisionist history. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst/d.htm Cap't Jack
You keep talking about Truman waffling. The more important reason I responded to you was the “millions of lives saved" part. That’s pretty hard to prove. But since you seem to know a lot about that, I’ve always thought the fact that they did implement the “button" was compelling evidence that it was a military decision and since the government wasn’t happy with what they did, they wanted to take it out of their hands. If not, then what was the reason for the “button"?First of all Lausten I want to apologize for my snarky response; I try not to let emotion guide my posts and denigrating someone's response is just gain saying and plain stupid on my part. Now, in response to the button, yes it was there as it always is but the only one who can push it is the Commander-in-Chief and most of his advisors are civilians. He doesn't even have to use the Joint Chiefs to make a decision. Even Roosevelt had to smack MacArthur down in making invasion plans for the Philippines. Truman was no stranger to the military either (he was an artillery captain in WW I) and knew His chief of Staff George Marshall and head of the Army Air force Curtis LeMay had their own agendas, e.g. LeMay's was to create a separate Dept. of the Air force with himself as the head. Even though military reports helped Truman to make the decision, there were many other things to consider as I just posted. Personally, I wish we hadn't opened Pandora's Box; it would have made the post-war years a hellova lot less scary and saved the Rosenbergs from the chair but most of us lived through it. The question now is, and this is off topic, will we live without a "nuclear Winter" only to perish from AGW? Cap't Jack
First of all Lausten I want to apologize for my snarky response; I try not to let emotion guide my posts and denigrating someone's response is just gain saying and plain stupid on my part. Cap't JackNot a problem. Appreciate your expertise.
Not really. My point was that if you were living at that time in the middle of everything that was going on and if you were aware of the atrocities then it was reasonable to drop those bombs even if you had no proof (and of course you never could have such proof) that they would end things earlier or save more lives overall.Yes, it is reasonable to want revenge. No MacGyver, I can very well imagine that I would call for the dropping of the bombs when being in such a camp. But pity enough, that does it make reasonable. To drop the bombs is only reasonable when it would help. Without the supposition that it would help, more than other possible options, it is not reasonable. Maybe we should say: sometimes the one in the arm chair is right. I never said anything about revenge. But if you know atrocities are being committed, and you have already lost hundreds of thousands of men fighting an aggressor it is reasonable as you have already stated to use the bomb if you think it will help even if that only means a quicker end to the war. TVA obviously knows more about this than I do and makes some pretty strong points to support the use of the bomb. It also important to remember that the president is the president of the U.S. Not the president of the world. He has a responsibility to protect the citizens of his country and within reason one could argue that he has a responsibility to use a weapon that might stop the war even if it killed 10 of our adversaries for every one American saved. He has some level of moral responsibility to the people of the world ( ie. He can't destroy the world to end the war) and to uphold our ideals (he should never authorize torture) but his primary obligation is to the people he serves.
The Japanese had a "kill-them-all" date set for POWs held in Japan. If the A-bombs had been just a week or so later, than they were, this might have happened. Over a hundred thousand Allied POWs might have been massacred. I think that there were a lot of reasons that Truman used the A-Bombs (no seeking vengeance required). I think that it was the best option among horrible options. War is hell.Yes, it is reasonable to want revenge. No MacGyver, I can very well imagine that I would call for the dropping of the bombs when being in such a camp. But pity enough, that does it make reasonable. To drop the bombs is only reasonable when it would help. Without the supposition that it would help, more than other possible options, it is not reasonable. Maybe we should say: sometimes the one in the arm chair is right.Officially revenge didn't enter into Truman's decision even though his admin. Did take a straw poll concerning what to do with the Emperor, whom the American people blamed for the war and atrocities committed by the Japanese military. As to making it reasonable, hindsight is Better than foresight to use an old cliche. Truman's ultimate decision to use the bombs was based on 1. Casualty reports from the head of the Joint Chiefs ( inflated of course but there could have been as many as 500,000) 2. Fear of growing Soviet hegemony in the Far East (up until they declared war they were in constant communication with the Japanese Gov't via their ambassador. 3. The reluctance of the Military controlled government to surrender unconditionally (Truman didn't want a repeat of post-war Germany and a rise of disgruntled masses easily controlled by a new militant regime) he wanted the present government dismantled for good. 4. An end to the wartime U.S. Economy which was growing thin as a result of the nationalization of industries and a curtailing of labor unions. These are just a few of the major causes of his decision and yes there were advisors who opposed the dropping the bombs but ultimately the decision was his and his alone and I've already shown that he went to his grave with no regrets. In case you weren't aware, two days before the bombs were detonated U.S. Bombers dropped thousands of leaflets over the cities warning of a weapon of mass destruction but the local military leaders were instructed to shoot anyone distributing them to the public. It was very regrettable and a horrific atrocity that has never been repeated and we should never forget the destruction suffered by civilians, plus opening the door to the most freightening time in human history (many anecdotes available by we baby boomers). But putting historical accounts within the framework of the period gives a much clearer picture of the thinking at that time. Looking back we can say "well, if we had only done this, or said that, starved them into surrender or invaded with a million men and equipment, or just allowed the Japenese government to surrender on their own terms take our chances later, if, if if... . That's why I detest revisionist history. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst/d.htm Cap't Jack
I never said anything about revenge. But if you know atrocities are being committed, and you have already lost hundreds of thousands of men fighting an aggressor it is reasonable as you have already stated to use the bomb if you think it will help even if that only means a quicker end to the war.Unless you have better alternatives to end the war, e.g. let the Japanese know that the Emperor could stay. According to the minutes of the Japanese cabinet, on August 10th, i.e. after both A-bombings, the main topic was the position of the Emperor after the capitulation, not the A-bombs. Japan was already on the eve of destruction anyway. The American secret service let the government know on April 18th 1945 that Japan would capitulate if the Emperor could stay. (Röling gives sources: G. Alperovitz, in Atomic Diplomacy). And I know you did not use the word revenge. But I think this is the feeling that a people in Japanese concentration camps would have: if it does not help, at least it kills as many of these Japs as possible.
It also important to remember that the president is the president of the U.S. Not the president of the world. He has a responsibility to protect the citizens of his country and within reason one could argue that he has a responsibility to use a weapon that might stop the war even if it killed 10 of our adversaries for every one American saved. He has some level of moral responsibility to the people of the world ( ie. He can't destroy the world to end the war) and to uphold our ideals (he should never authorize torture) but his primary obligation is to the people he serves.I agree that the first task of the president of the USA is to look for his own people. But it looks like he could have done in other ways.
Officially revenge didn't enter into Truman's decision even though his admin.I did not imply that it was Truman's motive. See on what remark of McGyver I reacted.
Did take a straw poll concerning what to do with the Emperor, whom the American people blamed for the war and atrocities committed by the Japanese military. As to making it reasonable, hindsight is Better than foresight to use an old cliche. Truman's ultimate decision to use the bombs was based on 1. Casualty reports from the head of the Joint Chiefs ( inflated of course but there could have been as many as 500,000) 2. Fear of growing Soviet hegemony in the Far East (up until they declared war they were in constant communication with the Japanese Gov't via their ambassador. 3. The reluctance of the Military controlled government to surrender unconditionally (Truman didn't want a repeat of post-war Germany and a rise of disgruntled masses easily controlled by a new militant regime) he wanted the present government dismantled for good. 4. An end to the wartime U.S. Economy which was growing thin as a result of the nationalization of industries and a curtailing of labor unions.That's all nice and fine, but it doesn't explain why Truman did not stop the war by not demanding unconditional surrender. Why not give the message that the Emperor could stay? You see, your points just give the motivation to end the war asap. They do not show that throwing the A-bombs was only viable alternative. BTW, my point is not that Truman did not decide. My point is that the atomic bombs were not necessary, and that people knew that (no hindsight). If you can show me that Röling's points] are incorrect according to modern historians, then let me know which sources substantiate those claims. And one other point: I cannot begin anything with the label 'revisionist'. If history is revised in the light of new evidence, then it is just what a science is supposed to do. So please show where authors are wrong. To denigrate someone as 'revisionist' will not work for me. From Wikipedia]:
In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history. (...) There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful.
... My point is that the atomic bombs were not necessary, and that people knew that (no hindsight). If you can show me that Röling's points] are incorrect according to modern historians, then let me know which sources substantiate those claims...Rolings points may be absolutely correct. It also seems clear that Japan would have eventually capitulated without the use of the A-bombs. However, neither of those assumed facts, are sufficient to declare that the use of the A-bombs was not the better (among horrible) option/s available.
It also seems clear that Japan would have eventually capitulated without the use of the A-bombs. However, neither of those assumed facts, are sufficient to declare that the use of the A-bombs was not the better (among horrible) option/s available.They did not even try. Why not declare much earlier (April 1945!) that the Emperor could stay? Capitulation might have happened then already! No, it where geo-political considerations that the war continued, and one of these considerations was the possibility to test the A-bombs 'real-life', especially after Germany capitulated. The USA were never unscrupulous enough to sacrifice their own soldiers (see Afghanistan and Iraq) if it serves a political or strategical aim.
GDB if you had two options to pursue and one had even a small chance to end the war more quickly than the other why would a leader ever choose the approach that might possibly be less expeditious?
You say that all we needed to do was to allow the emperor to stay. Would we have ever considered letting Hitler stay if that became part of the negotiations with Germany? These were both leaders of countries that had attacked the world and brought on a tremendously costly war in both lives and resources. Both men presided over horrible atrocities. Every day the war was extended was one more day that our soldiers died at the hands of these people.
I find it incomprehensible that anyone much less a committee and a president would make a decision to drop two A-bombs for no other reason than to “try them out” like they were kids with a new toy. No doubt there are complex reasons that lead to this decision but as these bombs really were no worse than the fire bombing of many cities that occurred, it was justifiable if it meant there would possibly be fewer Allied deaths and if it put us in a stronger position against our adversaries (reducing the likelihood of future wars and deaths) as a result.
It also seems clear that Japan would have eventually capitulated without the use of the A-bombs. However, neither of those assumed facts, are sufficient to declare that the use of the A-bombs was not the better (among horrible) option/s available.They did not even try. Why not declare much earlier (April 1945!) that the Emperor could stay? Capitulation might have happened then already! No, it where geo-political considerations that the war continued, and one of these considerations was the possibility to test the A-bombs 'real-life', especially after Germany capitulated. The USA were never unscrupulous enough to sacrifice their own soldiers (see Afghanistan and Iraq) if it serves a political or strategical aim. Perhaps declaring that Hirohito could stay as the Supreme Power, would have ended the war. Perhaps. Perhaps we "knew" that. What we did not know was how much Hirohito was dedicated to the idea of Japan ultimately fulfilling its desire to dominate all of southeast Asia. Furthermore the geo-political factors were extraordinarily important, coming out of the worst war in world history. Japan was indeed devastated at the time, but they had not capitulated. Japanese women and children were arming and readying themselves to fight an invasion. If it had come to a mainland invasion, the horrific repercussions may have well been worse for all, especially Japan. What we know for sure is what actually happened. Truman's decision and McArthur's subsequent decisions resulted in Japan relatively quickly coming back from profound devastation to become a modern functional and contributing nation, with no further imperialistic designs. You can very legitimately, IMO, criticize the US military incursions in recent history, but comparing that to what took place at the end of WWII, is apples to oranges, not only in terms of scope, but also, IMO, in terms of putting an exclamation point on the end of the perversity of the Axis Powers eugenics inspired philosophies.
As to the non-fiction, it's The Monuments Men. I'm not too deep into it yet... But it is intriguing. (And refreshing to learn that people value such things as cultural treasures!)Finished this yesterday. Really informative and interesting. I learned some things I didn't know about that time period. Take care, Derek
I read “Unbroken”. Still haven’t seen the movie. It is a testament to man’s-inhumanity-to-man and to the incredible resilience of some humans. I am still processing the apparent Billy Graham cure of the protagonist’s PTSD. (I don’t think that part will be in the movie.)
I read "Unbroken". Still haven't seen the movie. It is a testament to man's-inhumanity-to-man and to the incredible resilience of some humans. I am still processing the apparent Billy Graham cure of the protagonist's PTSD. (I don't think that part will be in the movie.)I agree with all of that. Don't really understand the whole Billy Graham revelation thing either but again its non-fiction so for whatever reason it happened it at least turned his life around when he was floundering and sinking so for what its worth it helped him.
McGyver,
My point is that they did not try everything before dropping the bombs. The USA could have reached a quick ending of the war without the need to throw them. Your argument about Hitler beats thin air, because Hirohito was not punished, and could still be Emperor. It obviously was a decided case. Why not decide this before? Why after the bombs had been dropped? Also, Hirohito was not so much in the foreground as Hitler was. Hitler clearly was the great dictator/communicator/aggressor in person. Hirohito (originally) seemed just to agree with the war plans of his ministers and generals.
I gave more reasons than ‘just to try them out’.
Anyone who takes the position that the US was right to drop nuclear bombs on Japan must also take the position that any country that is being invaded, where innocent people are being killed and maimed, where their people are being tortured, has the right to do the same. There should be no double standard.
Lois
Anyone who takes the position that the US was right to drop nuclear bombs on Japan must also take the position that any country that is being invaded, where innocent people are being killed and maimed, where their people are being tortured, has the right to do the same. There should be no double standard. LoisI think that is true. Any country that has the means to protect itself should use those means if it is in imminent danger and there is no other option but the response needs to be proportionate with appropriate consideration of the aftermath and repercussions of the decision. 100's of thousands of Americans had died in WWII. For every day that the war continued more soldiers died in the war and in horrible conditions in POW camps. While less than 1% of POW's in German camps died during the war the death rate in Japanese POW camps was over 30% due to torture, beatings, and starvation. At the time we were the only nation with the bomb so there was no danger of other countries reciprocating and leading to all out nuclear war. In addition Japan is an island nation so that fallout from the bomb posed little risk to anyone except the enemy. There is a huge difference between the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan at the end of WWII and any decision to use such weapons today. Any country that uses nuclear weapons today is likely to be met with a counter attack that could eventually escalate into global warfare so that any use of nuclear weapons now endangers everyone on the planet. This was not the case in 1945. As I stated above. Nuclear weapons of the type which were dropped were not much different in their effect than many of the mass bombings that took place with standard weapons and we don't condemn those attacks. A lot of the second guessing and hand wringing here is emotional rather than logical. If there was even a small chance that dropping these bombs would save Allied lives during the war and into the future then it was the right thing for the president to do IMO given the oath he takes and the responsibility he has to his electorate. As GdB states we could have tried other approaches and I am not knowledgeable enough about the facts to know everything that went into the decision but I doubt this decision was made lightly. If the thinking was that negotiations might take a little longer and the bomb will work today then it was the correct thing to drop the bomb IMO. Consider how you would have felt if your son, father, brother was in one of those POW camps or on the front lines. And if some of the factors were related to post war considerations I see nothing wrong with that. The last thing we needed after WWII was WWIII.
Anyone who takes the position that the US was right to drop nuclear bombs on Japan must also take the position that any country that is being invaded, where innocent people are being killed and maimed, where their people are being tortured, has the right to do the same. There should be no double standard. LoisIt was a vastly different world. Also, there were no standards for using atomic bombs as it had never been done. Also, in my understanding, the repercussions of radioactive fallout were not understood. The dropping of the A-bombs, were followed by the unconditional surrender of the last Axis power and the end of WWII. So we know that what actually happened was a desired result. Anything else re: what might have happened if other actions had taken place is speculation. And to GdB, what would happen to Hirohito was not a foregone conclusion. McArthur was charged with dealing with post war Japan. If his investigation had discovered that Hirohito was culpable, he might have been executed as a war criminal, as were a relatively small number of other Japanese military leaders.