What the Oliver Stone docu says about the nuclear bombing of Japan is...

[redgreenandblue]

...that the bombs had no effect on the willingness of the Japanese to surrender and that it was the pending invasion of the Japanese mainland by Russian troops that made all the difference.

Furthermore, that not only the bombs did not prompt the surrender, but that they in fact had little to no strategic impact on the war.

Furthermore, that the people in charge were well aware of the fact that the bombs would be of no strategic consequence in the context of the war, and that the decision to drop them had nothing to do with the war and everything to do with showing off the new weapon to Stalin.

Further, that the idea that the bomb saved lives was invented as a post-factum justification and that the number of saved lives kept growing over the years, largely unchallenged by anyone in part because of the fear of being labeled a communist during the McCarthy era.

I have no idea whether this is factual, but it certainly contrasts with the story that is usually told.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. There is always more than one side to every story.

This story line seems as plausible to me as the "official" version. I like Oliver Stone because he challenges authority.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

41. "THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB" *** LINK ***

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

A serious, scholarly work on this horrific decision.

Required reading for anyone who demands a fuller picture of the reasoning behind the decision then the typical pap offered up e.g. "It saved lives" (a testament to the power of propaganda)

[GreenStormCloud]

47. See link in post 8. His book is discussed in that link. N/T

[ceonupe]

53. true

but i always thought the bomb drop was to show russia we would do it to them if they kept advancing

both the US and Russia wanted world control. Complete world control. both USA and USSR working under this. the end result was the cold war between us both.

[jimlup]

116. THank you

Unfortunately the propaganda will win again as we can see in this thread. People will dismiss the Stone work based on his other questionable work.

[louis-t]

202. Sometimes Oliver Stone challenges authority...

just to challenge authority. His bending of facts for the JFK movie showed me that.

[Blue_In_AK]

204. Sure, but I don't think he ever claimed it was a documentary.

I thought he did a masterful job of presenting an alternate theory that was circulating -- and, in truth, do we REALLY know what happened on November 22, 1963? As long as I live, I won't trust the official version, and that has nothing to do with Oliver Stone's JFK.

[louis-t]

210. I've never seen anything that says to me..

"There is no way he could have done it himself." Stone's 'magic bullet theory' was based on fudging the position of Connally and Kennedy in the limo. Any claim that the bullet that was found in 'pristine' condition was based on a one-dimensional view. Any claim that he was a lousy shot or could not have fired 3 rounds in 7 seconds or whatever, have been disproven. I have seen tests that showed a single bullet actually did go through Kennedy and Connally. The only thing that didn't happen was the test bullet did not stick in the leg of the test dummy after going through Connally's chest and wrist. It hit but did not puncture.

Now, as to who may have put him up to it....

[jakeXT]

2. It was in Truman's speech with the military base claim

[PufPuf23]

3. Chilling audio clip. nt

[michigandem58]

13. Which was cut off in mid-sentence...

n/t

[Enthusiast]

4. More Japanese were killed in incendiary attacks on Tokyo

than in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet they did not surrender.

I believe Stone's assertion has some merit.

We have to remember, the only narrative the American people received was thoroughly massaged to favor and glorify the United States.

When I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s we were led to believe that it was almost solely through the efforts of the United States that Nazi Germany was defeated.

To understand the truth we must strive for objectivity.

If Japan had not surrendered when they did, there would have been an invasion force comprised of American, Soviet, British, French, Canadian, Australian, Chinese and possibly even Korean troops. Not a good scenario for the Japanese.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. America needed to prove it could be ruthless.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

10. The invasion of the home islands of Japans was estimated 10 - 1 losses, with the US losing

a million lives to do it.

America needed to prove it could be ruthless? Japan attacked us without provocation because the US stopped supplying them with the raw materials they were using to be as ruthless, cold-blooded and genocidal on the Chinese.

Sook-Jing
Singapore
Bangka Island (Indonesia)
Manila (PI)
Parit Sulong (Thailand)
the Rape of Nanking
Bataan Death March
Unit 731 in NE China
Littering the ground with pathogens and disease in Jiangxi and Zhejiang
Giving children poison and opium laced candies in Hebei, Shandong and Henan

Nice revisionism there, buddy!

[MADem]

55. I had relatives who had prepared their wills and written their "I love you goodbye" letters

who were stationed aboard vessels waiting to participate in the invasion of Japan.

I find it astounding how the years can blur reality and make it so easy for some to accept revisionist explanations. It's troubling. How long before people think Hogan's Heroes is an accurate representation of life in a POW camp?

[PADemD]

62. My Dad was also one of those people.

He was sent to Florida to train for the invasion of Japan.

[tumtum]

118. My dad was also slated to be with the initial invasion force.

I have no problem with the atomic bombing of those 2 cities.
Let's be real here, Japan started the pacific war with the attack on Pearl Harbor, we finished with the attack on Japan.

Oliver Stone can kiss my ass with his revisionist history.

[okieinpain]

135. I agree. n/t.

[dlwickham]

203. weren't those wills and letters pretty much stardard operating procedure

and I agree with you about the revisionist explanation issue

I've watched Stone's shows on Showtime, I think, and he does present some very interesting ideas, but I have to stop and remember that this is Oliver Stone who has made lots of money on his revisionism

[MADem]

208. Yes; the wills were strongly suggested, the letters were encouraged, and one

had to tell personnel where one wanted the last paycheck to go. They also had a ten grand "National Service" insurance policy (seems like chickenfeed but it went further back then): http://www.insurance.va.gov/gli/general/nsli.htm

Nowadays they have gotten way better at institutionalizing this process-- because everyone has a SGLI http://benefits.va.gov/insurance/sgli.asp policy (worth $400K unless you actively ask for a lesser amount--the premiums are cheap as hell, it's worth it), one has to designate a beneficiary in boot camp. The Services are supposed to get everyone to recertify their choices every two years or so, or when they change duty stations. Also, single parents have to designate a person, in writing, who will care for their kids while deployed and if something happens to them.

The whole issue of writing a will is personal, but the JAG offices still encourage people to it and they help them complete the process.

[dlwickham]

225. I remember watching Saving Private Ryan and in one scene they were signing wills or something

that's why I asked

[HardTimes99]

117. Don't forget imposing sexual slavery on Korean women - nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

153. Seriously. The USA had a reputation of being "nice" before WWII....

We also had a reputation for not wanting to get involved. We felt that whole "Europe thing" wasn't any of our business and besides, those people were always getting into wars anyway. There was a need to prove to Stalin that we were willing to use nukes.

[GreenStormCloud]

160. There was a need to get WWII over with.

And that need was stronger than anything else.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

169. The bomb didn't do that....

The Russians are the ones that beat the Nazis and they were fixing to win against the Empire.

The bomb provided America with a convincing story that we won.

Over the years, you would think America won both wars single handed.

BTW: You know it was a race to Berlin,...right?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

181. WRONG again: There was no race. Patton was ordered to the let the Russians take Berlin first

That was the deal the Roosevelt made near his death at Yalta with Churchill and Stalin. Since Russia bore the brunt of Nazi aggression, when it was time to lower the hammer, Russia got first crack.

Besides, if Patton had his way, he wouldn't have stopped at Berlin. He, like that asshole MacArthur during Korea, would have gone straight to Moscow and embroiled us in a war with the Russians. MacArthur made statements that he wouldn't stop at the Yalu and Mao mobilized the PLA against him as soon as the Americans were within sight of Dandong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about when you spout this nonsense about this era.

Oliver Stone is just wrong, and I am a huge fan of his.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

205. Patton was a right wing asshole. Hooverville proved that.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

211. What does that have to do with anything?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

213. It proves he was all bluster and didn't give a damn about his men.

BTW: Ever hear of this incident?

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

[Nanjing to Seoul]

221. What does Patton have to do with the Asian Theater? Honestly, you're way off topic.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

223. See any familiar names?

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

Go down to the "U.S. Army intervention" part.

Patton and Douglas MacArthur have a history. They were both right wing assholes that were convinced that the enemy of the United States was communism. BOTH had to be reined in at the end of the war. You can bet there was a Right Wing element in the shiny new Pentagon that was itching to do the same. Can you imagine if those guys were allowed to use nukes?

[GreenStormCloud]

189. Not a race to Berlin.

Ike decided not to push for Berlin. He stopped and let the Russians pay the blood price for Berlin. Indeed, the Russians fought the bulk of the land war against the Nazis. To you really think I didn't know that?

The Russians were not included in Operation Downfall, which were the plans for the invasion of Japan. Nor were the Russians capable of launching an invasion of Japan on their own. They didn't have a navy, nor did they have any seaborne logistical transport. WWII for them was a land war. They could not afford to waste resources on a navy. They needed an army and air force to fight the Nazis so that is what they built.

The Japanese Emperor Hirohito, in his surrender speech of Aug 15, 1945, credits the A-bombs as being the reason why further fighting by Japan would be futile.

The enemy, moreover, has begun to employ a new most cruel bomb, the power which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation . . . but would lead also to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save millions of our subjects, or ourselves, to atone before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial ancestors? This is the reason we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the Powers.
http://www.japanorama.com/surrendr.html

You will understand why I choose to believe the Emperor, regarding why he was surrendering, as opposed to revisionists. Especially when revisionists can't even get the most basic facts right about the Russian capabilities against Japan. Russia could have occupied Manchuria, China, Korea, and maybe Indochina. Those had already been cut off from Japan by the U.S. Navy. But Russia could have done very little against the home islands.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

206. Much of that is spin to make the Emperor look good.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

165. And yet, a few years later, the Soviets has nukes. And two Jews, the Rosenbergs, were blamed

for giving them them the information. . .yet that information was so secretive it could have been found in any University Physics textbook.

Your revisionism makes me vomit. Since this entire episode is part of my PhD dissertation, I will just allow you to be narrow minded. I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm ignorant to the fact that USA is this big, bad hegemony.

The USA deserved to be attacked by Japan. Okinawa was a bloodbath and scared the US Centcom to death about invading the home islands. They knew they would have to fight over every pebble and blade of grass.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your blind zealotry. Please proceed with your constant "America is always wrong" attitude without knowing the truth behind it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

170. Ask yourself why there was a deal to keep the Emperor in power.

[joshcryer]

171. Deal? He was revered as a God.

Charging him or any of the royals would've been a very bad idea. Even one of them participated in Nanking and got away with it. The Emperor of Japan was literally, not figuratively, but quite literally thought of as a God.

Article 3. The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.

The real deal was over the Unit 731, where the US gave immunity to the researchers / collaborators over some of the most evil "science" the world has known.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

172. Never occured to you that Japan surrendered to us because the Soviets would have,...

....well,...you get the idea....

[joshcryer]

173. Sure, sure.

If the Soviets killed their God though, well, erm, that would've just been an even bigger mess. That's why we didn't bother. Back then we understood things like insurgency were bad.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

174. History could have played out differently with Japan following China.

[joshcryer]

175. Or North Korea...

[Nanjing to Seoul]

179. China fell to the communists not because of WW2, but because of the corruption of the KMT and the

stupidity of Jiang Jie Shi and his power-addicted wife, Song Mei-Ling.

They lost the faith of the abject poverty stricken Chinese poor and Mao gave them "hope," which, needless to say, was a disgusting mistake.

Jiang and Mao were the same. . .except one was a two-faced, anti-communist military dictator and the other was a two-faced, pro communist "people's" dictator. The American government actually believe Mao's Communists were better at fighting the Japanese than Jiang's KMT army. Joseph Stilwell said that many times, and preferred to Generalissimo Jiang Jie Shi as "peanut."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

201. One of the more annoying talking points from BushCo was,..

"We must stay until Iraq can defend itself".

IOW: Our generals wanted to be able to sit in the shade of a reviewing stand as tens of thousands of loyal robots marched in perfect formations to impress them.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

212. What does that have to do with Hiroshima?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

215. We always consider our version of history to be the only valid one.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

222. I consider the research done for my dissertataion valid, as do my professors

And since my dissertation deals with the Asian Theater of WW2. . .just saying.

But, please proceed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

224. You can't picture Patton and MacArthur working together?

[GreenStormCloud]

191. The Soviets would have done nothing. They had ZERO sea invasion capability. N/T

[Spitfire of ATJ]

214. Betcha they coulda hitched a ride.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

177. To be more exact, it was Prince Asaka that lead the Rape of Nanking, Hirohito's uncle.

[joshcryer]

178. Thanks.

I didn't want to look up the name but I recalled one of the royals that was in on it.

edit: to clarify I'm not saying the US was right to give immunity but it was a countries' literal god, to not give immunity would've proven to be far more difficult for the transition in the long run, the needs of the many, and all.

[GreenStormCloud]

192. The Emperor was NOT kept "in power".

As part of the surrender he was allowed to live and retain his throne, but he was REQUIRED to renounce his divinity and to obey any orders from Allied High Command. He lost his power. We allowed him to live because he was useful to us as a puppet.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

207. Actually, those around him went with the story that he wanted peace for the good of his people....

Japan was losing prior to the bombs. They were looking for a way to end it with honor.

BTW: All the gains they had made on the mainland were effectively GONE the moment the Soviets entered the war and they knew it.

[GreenStormCloud]

216. The mainland gains were ALREADY gone. The U.S. Navy had cut the shipping lines.

Russia could take Manchuria, Korea, China, and maybe Indochina, but they could not do a thing to the Japanese Home Islands.

The A-bombs did give them a way out that wasn't totally humiliating.

[joshcryer]

180. Hook me up with your PhD dissertation when finished.

I'd love to read it.

My email is public and easily guessed: [e-mail]

Confidentiality, etc, assured.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

183. Will do.

My dissertation is on the life of Chinese citizens under the collaborationist Japanese government of Nanking of Wang Jingwei after the Rape of Nanking. . .pretty much from the sack of the city, the Rape, the aftermath and the resolution in 1946 with the Chinese trials of the Japanese officers they could try.

If anyone wants to venture an attempt, there are four Japanese officer's bodies in unmarked graves in Nanjing today in place called Yu Hua Tai (Rainwater Terrace). It's where they were executed after their trial.

[joshcryer]

184. At least they didn't make it to Yasukuni Shrine.

[davidpdx]

232. I live in South Korea

and it really pisses them off when the Japanese PM visits there. I can tell you for sure none of the people on the mission where Hiroshima was bombed are in Arlington National Cemetery.

[davidpdx]

231. I'd like to read it as well

I know you've spent a lot of time here in Asia. I'll trade you my dissertation when I'm done in about 19 months.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

42. The Original SHOCK-N-AWE

[AngryAmish]

66. The concept is as old as war

Make an example of the first city that fights against you and the others become more compliant. If the opponent does not capitulate, learn 'em again.

[Android3.14]

6. Link?

That's some pretty specific claims to make about a film that is incomplete, unreleased, and as far as I know, untitled. The surrender as a consequence of the impending Russian invasion is a relatively recent interpretation of history, which is plausible and convinced some historians, while others argue otherwise.
Here's an article on the new interpretation.
Decision making occurs within an array of information, and I would suspect the Japan's decision to surrender also happened based on several factors.

[burnodo]

7. Oliver Stone's Untold History of the US

aired on Showtime back in the winter

[redgreenandblue]

11. see post #7

the docu is called "The Untold History of the US". Can be watched on Youtube and other places.

[GreenStormCloud]

193. Russia could not have invaded Japan.

All the revisionist that shove that line are overlooking some basic facts.

1) Manchuria was already lost to the Japanese. The U.S. Navy had already cut all shipping. Japanese troops in Manchuria were like and arm that has been cut off from the body - useless to the body. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria changed nothing in the home islands.

2) Russian had no seaborne invasion capability at all. They could not have invaded. That takes a navy, and Russia had not built one in WWII, for the obvious reasons.

So Russia was no threat to the Japanese home islands.

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. A very good historiography that sorts out the conflicting claims that are made...

http://www.theamericanpresident.us/images/truman_bomb.pdf

H/T to DUer Yukari Yakumo from this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023412139#post40

[steve2470]

167. reading now, everyone needs to read this imho , thank you nt

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Then why did the Japanese surrender when they did?

There was no pending Russian invasion of the Japanese home islands. Russia could only attack Japanese troops in China as they didn't have the naval capacity for an invasion. WWII for Russian had been a land and air war, not a naval one.

While the bombs did not signifigantly add to the destruction of Japan, they were something new and horrible and gave the Japanese leadership an honorable excuse to surrender. Even then the vote to surrender was only 3-3. The Emperor himself had to act and record a surrender record. There was an attempt at a coup which almost succeeded, but the record was played over the radio to the Japanese public.

From that speech: The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/the-emperors-speech-67-years-ago-hirohito-transformed-japan-forever/261166/

Those are the words of Emperor Hirohito as he told the Japanese public of the surrender. He specifically references the atomic bomb.

In saying what he does, Oliver Stone completely ignores the very words of the Japanese Emperor on August 15, 1945.

[redgreenandblue]

15. From what I remember, in the documentary it is mentioned that...

...Russia had captured a strategic position from which they could have launched the invasion. I am not very sure on the details, but it is discussed in the film.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Still need a navy to transport the troops,

and need seaborne logistical capability. Russia had not built those during the war as they were building tanks and artillery. Russia did not have an invasion capability at all.

[JVS]

71. I think the US was more afraid of the USSR having time to take all of China than Japan was of...

a Soviet invasion, but Russia had been gathering the means to do at least some amphibious invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula

Also, one could argue that the nuclear bombs were enough of a surprise to allow the authorities to save face and not appear to be surrendering out of fear of an expected invasion. Further, one aspect that seems to be overlooked is that the losses suffered by the navy in Okinawa were the worst in the history of the US navy (over 300 ships damaged and nearly 5,000 men killed), which was very discouraging when one considered an upcoming invasion of the mainland.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. Yes.

The nukes allowed the Japanese military to save face. So many here don't understand that. And the invasion would have been horribly costly. The Japanese air force still had thousands of planes to use for kamikaze strikes. Their plan was to keep a low but steady stream of planes coming to the fleet so that they had to stay at battle stations around the clock until exaustion sapped their efficiency, then a large kamikaze strike would be launched.

BTW - As it happened, in real life, in October of 1945 Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa. It was a strong typhoon and did massive damage to the base and ships. A total of 12 ships were sunk, 222 grounded, and 32 damaged beyond the ability of ships' companies to repair. Since Okinawa was to be the gathering place for the invasion fleet, the invasion would have been delayed beyone its November date. Japan would have seen this as another "divine wind" and morale would have increased.

[1-Old-Man]

57. There are long-standing disputes between Russia and Japan over some northern islands

I believe the dispute continues to this day and if my memory serves me correctly there are two of the islands. I believe they are close to the mother Island of Japan.

I have seen the part before where it was said that the Japanese were much concerned about Russia possibly occupying their country but virtually everything I've ever read said that they much more feared that we had more of those bombs headed their way.

Oh, and here is a sidelight that I'll be you didn't know about. First is that after we dropped the second bomb on Japan there wasn't enough enriched uranium on earth to make another bomb - but that is pretty common knowledge. The second is much more interesting to me. When Eisenhower came to the White House, about 5 years later, he was shocked to learn that our entire nuclear arsenal, at that time, consisted of just 5 bombs. I believe that number climbed to about 25,000 by the end of the Cold War.

[telclaven]

74. Not accurate

There was a third core being assembled when the Japanese surrendered.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. The third bomb was ready in October.

Our production capability would have allowed about one bomb per month.

[telclaven]

78. Yeah, that's what I remember

But I thought it was September.

[hunter]

199. These numbers are incorrect.

Our arsenal of the uranium "gun type" bombs was five. These were dangerous and discontinued because uranium enrichment was very expensive and they were the sort of munition that could go off by accident in a fire, plane crash, lightening strike, etc. Oops, there goes your air base. In a plutonium bomb, if the detonation of the conventional explosive is not symmetrical (which it would not be in any accident) then the chunks of plutonium core simply go bouncing off unexploded, leaving a radioactive mess to clean up, but no nuclear explosion.

At the time of the Trinity test all the tooling was in place to build plutonium implosion bombs at a rate of two a month. The plutonium production reactors at Hanford had been built to have greater production capacity than anything the Germans might conceivably have built. By 1950 the USA was already replacing the 120 "Fat Man" Mk-III plutonium bombs we'd built with new, improved designs.

By the time of Eisenhower's presidency the USA already had hundreds of nuclear bombs and by the end of his presidency we had thousands.

[MADem]

58. Oliver Stone is a guy who, when he hears hoofbeats, he thinks zebras, not horses.

He likes to go for the unlikely explanation.

It makes for good storytelling, but shitty history.

[michigandem58]

12. They surrendered six days later

The timing suggests it was the reason.

[redgreenandblue]

14. not by implication, no.

Correlation does not equal causation.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Why do you ignore the Japanese Emperor own words?

Look at his speech. Are you claiming that Hirohito was in conspriacy with Truman to justify the bomb?

[redgreenandblue]

18. I am not, I am pointing out that timing does not in itsself imply causation.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. You are ignoring what Hirohito said.

Hirohito, himself, states that they are surrendering because of the atomic bomb. He said that on August 15, 1945. Are you saying that he was lying?

[redgreenandblue]

22. No....

What I did with this thread is report what I saw in a movie. What I did with the post that you replied to above is state that timing in itself does not imply causation. Other factors may indeed imply causation (or may not), but that was not the toplic of the post which you replied to above.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Try addressing what Hirohito said.

You can't, and maintain your original theses at the same time. His words directly contradict Stone's revisionism.

[redgreenandblue]

27. I cannot address it, because I lack in dept knowledge of the broader situation.

I repeat, the purpose of this thread was to report what saw in the film. Maybe it is wrong, but there it is.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Great broader knowledge isn't needed to understand Hirohito's speech.

It is very straightforward. I will post it again for you: "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

He is afraid of Japan being OBLITERATED by the atomic bomb.

That directly contradicts Stone's revisionism.

[1-Old-Man]

60. Hate to but in on a good argument, but that's not what the guy said.

All he was saying is that just because it happened a couple of days after the second bomb was dropped doesn't mean that the dropping of the bomb caused it.

Its a pretty straight forward rule of analysis: Just because one thing happens and then another thing happens it does not mean that the first thing that happened caused the second thing to happen. For instance, I was born and within days Roosevelt died but that doesn't mean that it was my birth that caused Roosevelt's death.

That is all the guy you were chatting with was saying.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. I think his speech is very obvious at to his meaning.

"The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

You can tap dance all you want. His meaning is straightforward.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. It's usually around here someone comes in and says

"bad translation" or some such.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. I always wondered why

we didn't announce that we were going to explode a new weapon on an uninhabited island and unleash the nuke there. I'm told the military was afraid it wouldn't work and we would end up with egg on our faces. Seems like a small price to pay considering the alternative.

Stone's interpretation is an interesting one and one that isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Notice that they didn't surrender after the first one.

It took two bombs to force the issue. We only had two.

Stone's claims are soundly refuted by the words of Japanese Emperor Hirohito himself. So who am I to believe, A) A national leader who was there and was the decision maker? or B) A Hollywood flake with an ideological axe to grind?

[burnodo]

24. And you believe everything a politician says?

[paleotn]

29. The facts speak for themselves....

...no need for Stone to "make up" new ones.

[burnodo]

34. and what makes you say that Stone is making something up?

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. Because that's what he does for a living?

[burnodo]

87. So no person in Hollywood is capable of telling the truth?

or being a citizen? or thinking independently?

[GreenStormCloud]

31. And you believe a Hollywood flake? N/T

[burnodo]

33. Hollywood flake?

Interesting judgement you laid out there, but Stone didn't actually write it.

[SidDithers]

94. And you never believe anything a politician ever says?...nt

Sid

[burnodo]

98. considering history, I take everything a politician says with a grain of salt

why, do you believe everything Republicans say?

[SidDithers]

102. Republican? You're the one who quoted Cutis Lemay downthread...

Sid

[burnodo]

104. So you believe what he said

along with Hirohito, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy

[MADem]

136. Truman was a Democrat... nt

[burnodo]

166. No kidding

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Hirohito was a weak leader

who allowed the military to call the shots. He could have, at any time, ordered the military to surrender, but he chose not to because he was convinced the military was right. I'm not making a claim that Stone is completely correct -- pretty much everyone knows he takes, shall we say, "artistic license." The thing about Stone's stuff is, there's often a kernel of truth in his claims so it's difficult to dismiss it en toto.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. "Artistic license" = Lie. N/T

[paleotn]

28. That was argued....

...by Oppenheimer and others, but they weren't certain the darn things would work. And as Green says above, there was a very limited supply of fissionable material and it took months to years to refine more for additional weapons. This was the absolute tip of cutting edge at the time. Little Boy was chosen to be used first, since it's design as simpler that Fat Man. It seemed much more reliable to fire a fissionable bullet down a tube into a fissionable target. Fat Man, like the Trinity test, used a controlled implosion to produce fission. Much more could go wrong and the bomb just fizzle.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. I understand the logic,

but I still say the price was too high. It was, after all, the military's new toy and they were itching to try it out. The Japanese people paid the price for America's burgeoning MIC and Japan's shameful leadership who were perfectly willing to lead their own people to imminent slaughter.

[hack89]

43. In the context of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not extraordinary events

when it comes to civilian deaths. They were not even the deadliest air attacks against Japan - the US Air Force had just spend the summer burning Japanese cities to the ground.

If the atomic bomb had not been dropped and the Japanese had held on for another 6 month or so, it is highly likely that just as many Japanese would have died from starvation and disease during the winter.

But lets also consider all those enslaved people in China and Southeast Asia living in countries conquered by Japan. They died by the millions during the war. To end their suffering was reason alone to drop the bomb.

[Recursion]

46. The atomic bombs killed fewer people than the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo

It was actually a way to eliminate industrial capacity with fewer civilian casualties.

[1-Old-Man]

75. Well, immediately at least. Probably not over the longer term thought.

Dresden was just to see if we could do it of course, that's why its destruction was kept Top Secret for decades afterward. I believe Dresden took place over just one or two nights as well. Tokyo was just plain genocide, and we were proud of it; the fire-bombing was long term and its as likely as not that the estimates of death, as horrible as they are, are still understated. I don't know much about the bombing of Nagasaki, other that the bomb landed off target and that greatly reduced the number of casualties that resulted but at Hiroshima there was no such luck. While I think you are right if only the immediate deaths, say within a week, are counted but the 'black rain' that followed the bombing spread more death and the radiation poisoning that followed as well as the additional deaths from leukemia and other cancers in the following years really need to be included too. Of course the Emperor could not have known anything about those matters.

One concern that Roosevelt is also reported to have had was that considering how expensive the bomb had been to build it had to be used. So it wasn't only a matter of people being lead to believe he was weak because he had this astounding weapon at his disposal but did not use it while more American lives were lost but also that he (Roosevelt Administration in which he was VP) had spent billions of dollars with nothing to show for it but one test in the desert.

Hard to say. I do know this. My father was a Marine in the Pacific. He had been in every major landing on the way toward Japan and he told me that he was certain he was going to die during the invasion of the main island, which he was certain was coming. He said it was the atom bomb that saved his life and nothing else. Might have been right, might have been wrong. I dunno.

[tumtum]

122. My dad was a Marine in the pacific also,

he was also slated to be in the first invasion wave, broke his heart when I joined the Army instead of the Marine Corp.

[Whiskeytide]

124. Whether the Japanese surrendered because of the bombings...

... can probably be debated forever. But, the backlash for Roosevelt had he NOT used the bombs he had at his disposal, and instead invaded with the anticipated loss of American lives, would have been politically devastating and would likely have changed the course of our Nation's history. Can you imagine how American mothers and wives would have viewed that seemingly unnecessary sacrifice?

I suspect that the bombs played a significant role in the decision to surrender (among other influences, certainly). The Japanese war machine's mentality was to fight to the last breath and die with honor. There was a certain glory to be achieved in battling to the last - even in hand to hand combat. But sitting there and allowing the enemy to bomb you into oblivion from the safety of high flying bombers, with no real ability to fight back and inflict casualties yourself, was probably viewed as a very different and less honorable way to perish. Sometimes the line between honorable and foolhardy gets blurred. I think Hirohito probably recognized that, and used it in his decision to cast the deciding vote to surrender. Just my opinion.

I'm glad your dad made it home.

[tumtum]

126. It wasn't Roosevelt who made the decision to use the bombs,

it was Truman, Roosevelt was already dead. Other than that, your correct in your assessment of the backlash Truman would have experienced by a very bloody and costly invasion of American lives.

[Whiskeytide]

130. Damn. I knew that.

Brain spasm, I guess. Getting more and more frequent it seems.

[visca]

26. Not Revisionism - Truman Lied

When I worked in D.C. in the early 60's our legislative assistant for Rep. Kastenmaier was using newly opened WWII archives to examine the only use of atomic weapons in history.
His results: the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki had nothing
to do with Japan or ending the war (Japan had already agreed to end the war on conditions we later accepted after the bombings).
The bomb was used in order to intimidate Russia (we all know how well that worked).
He wrote a new version of the book when additional verifying
evidence emerged twenty years later.
The book is titled "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz published by Vintage Books. It's 660 well-documented pages and another example of how our presidents, (Republican or Democrat) feel free to lie to us when we would just be to dumb to understand their reasoning.
You haven't heard of the book? Hardly surprising, you
expected more from mainstream media?

[GreenStormCloud]

30. See the link in post 8. It discusses that book.

Hirohito himself said that the bomb was the reason they were surrendering.

[Enthusiast]

39. I do not understand why you insist that Hirohito was any more credible than anyone else involved.

Maybe the Emperor saw the bomb as a convenient excuse to prevent an invasion.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. By surrendering he did prevent an invasion and accepted occupation.

Prior to his speech Japan was rejecting the idea of occupation. They were willing to fight to avoid being occupied and disarmed. So the war continued, until the bomb convinced Hirohito that further resistance would be futile.

Why do I believe him? Because he was the final decision maker for Japan, and because of the history surrounding his surrender recording.

[HardTimes99]

119. My friend, you are displaying the patience of Job and, for that, I salute you. - nt

[MADem]

139. Allow me to associate myself with HardTimes99's remarks.

You are indeed displaying the patience of a saint--and your comments come from a place of knowledge, not speculation or fantasy.

[GreenStormCloud]

146. Thank You. N/T

[burnodo]

40. And George Bush himself said Saddam Hussein had WMD's

Why take what Hirohito said at face value?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. Because Hirohito was the one doing the surrendering.

The night before he had recorded the surrender speech. There was a coup attempt against him by the Army which almost succeeded. They wanted to keep fighting.

What makes you think Hirohito was lying? Have you even read his words: "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

What in that speech is untrue?

[burnodo]

49. August 9th was also when the Soviets invaded Manchuria

And Hirohito was the god of the Japanese people...whatever he said had to be carefully vetted with consideration of the Japanese people

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Manchuria isn't Japan.

The U.S. Navy had already cut off those troops from Japan. Russia wasn't about to invade the home islands as they didn't have the naval capacity.

The nukes gave Hirohito the excuse he needed to end the war. Before then the military was powerful enough to tell him what to do.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

182. Manchuria WAS Japan, sort of

Japan invaded Manchuria in the early 1930's, and ran the place until WW2 ended. So, if Russia attacked Manchuria, they were probably attacking Japanese troops, not Chinese.

Almost similarly, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was not a state. So why did we care? :tongue-in-cheek:

[GreenStormCloud]

190. AT that point in the war, Manchuria was ALREADY a lost cause for the Japanese.

The U.S. Navy had already cut all shipping between Manchuria and Japan. The Russian Army could attack Manchuria, which did have Japanese troops, but they had no land connection to Japan. So the Russian land attack was meaningless to the Japanese command. Manchuria was already lost to them.

And Russia had ZERO seaborne invasion capability. None at all. Nada. Zip.

The Russians were not included at all in the invasion plans being drawn up by Allied Command.

At most, Manchuria was a minor sideshow at that point.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

112. Manchuria is northeastern China. Nice geography there, buddy

[burnodo]

185. Manchuria was occupied by the Japanese

way to follow along, buddy

[GreenStormCloud]

194. Those troops were already cut off by the U.S. Navy.

At that point in the war there was no shipping between Manchuria and Japan. The Japanese troops there were completely useless to Japan, just as the troops on bypassed Pacific islands were of no use.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

195. Manchuria is northeastern China and Japan should never have occupied it in the first place

Way to deny China their land in the name of Russia invading "Japan" in 1945, buddy!

[burnodo]

226. well...they did...and...they were

buddy!

[tumtum]

125. Manchuria is not Japan.

It's northern China.
The Soviets didn't have the Naval capacity to invade the Japanese Home Island, they didn't have the transport craft, they didn't have any capital warships to speak of, they're war was a land war, basically all they had in Naval assets were craft for coastal patrol.

[Scootaloo]

79. This does not make the bomb the only available option

That's the claim being contested, the notion that "we had to."

[GreenStormCloud]

90. According the Japanese Emperor Hirohito, it WAS the bomb that forced the end.

From his speech on Augsut 15, 1945: "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

If you will read through other posts about the fighting capability of Japan at the end, you will see that they could have still put up a stiff final fight. They were NOT about to surrender. The bomb allowed them a fac saving way to surrender. Otherwise they would have fought like they did on Siapan and Okinawa, where even civilians killed themselves rather than allow capture.

[Scootaloo]

164. Sure, but you're ignoring the point

The bomb was not the only method for gaining Japan's surrender. They had already offered surrender, conditional on keeping their emperor. We were already crushing their ability to fight without raining nuclear fire down on them (regular fire was doing the job well enough, as others have pointed out.) At this point in the war a land invasion would have been needless ANYWAY - With the condition Japan was in, even a blockade would have done the trick - and seeing as how Japan had been swept back to the home islands and was surrounded by Allied forces on every side, it's not a difficult concept.

And killing yourself is really different from putting up a stiff fight. Let's not pretend that you're making a humanitarian argument for the use of nuclear weapons, kay?

[GreenStormCloud]

187. They had not offered surrender. You are badly misinformed.

They were trying to get an armistice, which would keep their militaristic gov't intact. That same gov't would then oversee their own disarmament, and conduct their own war crimes trials, and no occupation. It would have been like having the Mafia judge the Mafia with no oversight. They would have been able to rearm and try again in twenty years.

We wanted that gov't removed and the country occupied.

Do you really think a blockade is gentle? The result would have been millions dead by starvation and disease - mostly the very young and the old. The Army would still have been fed from locally grown food. So a blockade would have accomplished nothing of military value.

The land invasion was already planned and gathering in Okinawa. It was scheduled for Nov 1.

The Japanese still had 10,000 aircraft, of which 2,000 were to used as kamikazes against the initial landing forces. Due to the mountains of Kyushu the planes would not have been detected on radar until they were close to the invasion fleet. The pilots were to aim for transports (Transports have to be close to the beach, and have lots of troops on them.) instead of trying to reach the covering warships. At Okinawa, the kamikazes got one hit for every nine planes launched. With the advantages of Khushu the hit ratio would have been somewhat higher. Likely that well over 300 transports would have been hit.

They had thousands of small suicide boats, packed with explosives. Some of those would have gotten through.

On land, the Japanese Army had 900,000 men to defend Kyushu. Due to terrain, the location of the expected landing was obvious, and the mountains favored the defense. In addition, all men aged 15-60 and women aged 17-40 (28 million total) were being trained to fight, using whatever was at hand.

Instead of parroting revisionists, you would do well to learn what was actually happening.

[AsahinaKimi]

37. Monku itta tte shouganaiyo.

Mina no tame no inori

[The Link]

38. Stone is full of it.

Revisionist bullshit.

[hack89]

48. Of course it saved lives

Think of all those enslaved people in China and Southeast Asia living in countries conquered by Japan. They died by the millions during the war - disease, slave labor, war atrocities, you name it. To end their suffering was reason alone to drop the bomb.

[ceonupe]

54. true but the strategic reason was to showcase our might to russia

true but the strategic reason to drop the bomb was to showcase our might to russia and the world. The USA was serious and would blow you the fuck up if you pushed us.

yes we may have stopped an oppressive Japan that hurt millions but we did it by killing largely civilians.

[hack89]

59. No - the strategic reason was to end the war.

and to ensure that no more Americans died. I am sure that impressing the Russians was a secondary goal but it was not the primary one.

Truman knew that if the American people knew he had a weapon that could have ended the war and he refused to use it, he would have been strung up. There was no way he could have justified another American death knowing of the potential impact of the atomic bomb on ending the war.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Well before that point in the war civilians had become fair game.

Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo (and dozens of other fire-bombed cities). The purpose of the bomb was to end the war before we had to invade. Have you ever considered what would have happened in an invasion of Japan? The idea that they were ready to surrender is total bullshit. On Siapan and Okinawa civilians killed themselves instead of allowing themselves to be captured. They were dedicated beyond your comprehension. Japan was training all civilians, even children, to attack with bamboo spears.

You will likely laugh at the idea of someone with a bamboo spear charging a Marine. But if that Marine doesn't shoot the kid with the spear, then the Marine will be skewered. The troops would have quickly learned that all Japanese were the enemy and would have killed them all, men, women, kids. There would have been no living Japanese behind U.S. lines. Millions of Japanese would have died, and about a million U.S. casualties.

The nukes stopped all of that.

[ceonupe]

64. im not arguing you point

im just saying TPTB the upper upper elite wanted to protect capitalism and our american economic system at all costs.

yes the bomb stopped the war faster and saved lives

and yes us using the Nuke in war was the ultimate "fuck wit me if you want" callout to russia who remember played its own games aginst the British ensuring their control of eastern Europe.

wars have multiple power plays going on outside of the actual battles and most of it is about who gets what booty. who controls what industries and trade routes.

The US pharma industry and wealth was won in war.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Would the world be a better place if we had allowed Germany and Japan to win?

[ceonupe]

81. no

and no one i have ever met in real or internet life has said so.

im just pointing out there were other power moves going on before, during and right after the war.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Would the world be a better place if the Soviets had gained world domination? N/T

[ceonupe]

91. no on that point

as well.


Im not arguing that either. just simply pointing out WW2 had lots of posturing by the USA and Russia and most of that was about who would control what in the post world war.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. So we needed to defeat Germany, Japan, and make Russia fear us.

I think we did a pretty good job. Personally, I fault Truman for the way he handled Korea. Because of that blunder we still have a problem with NK.

[ceonupe]

95. agree

and that was my point. Russia did the same thing to the Brittish pretty much

[zipplewrath]

50. Motivation is the easiest thing to argue

This whole argument always rests in the motivation of those involved. That has to be the easiest thing to argue (and a popular basis of argument on DU). No one can ever really be proven wrong. Heck, we barely understand what truly motivates ourselves, much less anyone else. Whole studies have been done that show often we make decisions, and then rationalize them after the fact.

With an action such as this, where there were so many involved, and now so many that are dead, almost any motivation can be found, and ascribed, to the final decision. There were many different motivations for many different people. And people came into these events with goals and objectives unrelated to the use of the bomb, and yet saw opportunities. Some Japanese had wanted to surrender for years. Some had never wanted the war to begin with. We were already aware of our future conflict with Russia, it predated the war. Many people were already focused on the post war period, both militarily and politically (not to mention economically).

But there is also this, and I don't think many people from boomers to the current generation can really understand the concept of "total war" and how it consumed this nation. By the time of the end of WWII, more than 19 million men had been in uniform in the US alone. Just men. We had no women in uniform. And that was a country that was around 200 million people at the time. Huge numbers of those men had been in for 3 years or so. There were huge disruptions in society and culture. Women going off to full time work in numbers never seen before. Universities and colleges practically closed down for a lack of students (The Navy practically took over Notre Dame. It fiscally saved the college. It is said that Notre Dame will always play Navy in football because of this). When you woke in the morning, you turned on the radio, much as people would later turn on the TV. You heard regular reports from the war. People knew the names of the generals. Then knew the divisions and armies. You went to a movie (which people did weekly) and there would first be the "movietone news" about the war. The papers (many people got 2 in a day) had large sections on the war, with maps and photos and reports. By the end of the war, every street had a "Gold Star Mother", every street had the flags for the killed, injured, captured, and serving. Practically every town of any size would have some military presence with people in uniform everyday. (My father spent the whole war "state side" and wore a uniform everyday. He practically had no wardrobe other than uniforms by wars end).

So by the end, people were very tired of war. They wanted their lives back. They wanted their brothers, fathers, husbands, and friends back. And yes, they wanted and end to rationing. And so, in reality, if they had found out that we had this super special bomb that was really big and could wipe out whole cities at once, they would have clamored loudly for it to be used. They had long past learned of Dresden. They had become "comfortable" with mass bombings of cities and otherwise "civilian" targets. They were learning more each day about the Holocaust in Germany, and about the "rape of Nanking". Men were coming back and telling about what happened in Iwo Jima.

Quite honestly, if they had learned that we had this bomb, and did not use it, you may have seen the first successful impeachment in history, or at least pitch forks and torches. The decision, to many at the time, would have been simple. Yes, there were those with a larger view who may have understood that it might not have been necessary or "worth it". But it is probably a safe bet that they were in the extreme minority.

The bomb was going to be used. The "why" wasn't really an issue.

[MADem]

73. No women in uniform? Your facts are WAAAAAY out of order!

There were a shitload of women in uniform, and those who weren't in uniform were doing "home front" jobs in defense factories, many of them. Not just here in USA, but also overseas--many, MANY women served--and their service was invaluable.









Have a look at some of the photos and jobs at this link: http://wwiiletters.blogspot.com/2008/02/women-in-military-during-wwii-photo.html

[GreenStormCloud]

80. I think he meant in direct combat roles.

The services of the women in uniform were indeed invaluable. However, the slogan was, "Free a Man to Fight". The poster showed a woman doing a service job and a man with an M-1.

[MADem]

88. This is what I read...and that wasn't what he said.

By the time of the end of WWII, more than 19 million men had been in uniform in the US alone. Just men. We had no women in uniform. And that was a country that was around 200 million people at the time.

Not all men served in direct combat roles, either--there were plenty of guys who flew desks for the entire war.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/warwwii/a/military.htm

Figures for women serving with the American military in World War II:

Army - 140,000
Navy - 100,000
Marines - 23,000
Coast Guard - 13,000
Air Force - 1,000
Army and Navy Nurse Corps - 74,000

The "free a man to fight" thing was more about Rosie the Riveter--the factory jobs in the defense industry.

[zipplewrath]

132. The 19 million were all men

Women served in a huge number of capacities, which contributed to the overall cultural dislocation. But the 19 million "in uniform" refers basically to the men. If you include the women in the WAVES and WACS that number will exceed 20 million fast. But probably more important in many ways is the large number of women who went into the factories, and into the Pentagon and other state side bases as civilians.

[MADem]

134. Your comments were not accurate. We aren't talking about 12 ladies in a knitting circle.

There WERE substantial numbers of women in uniform--I gave you numbers. I met a lot of them during my military career, and I never met a one that didn't impress the hell out of me. Spines of steel. Smart as hell. Confident and capable. They had to endure a lot of shit, the least of which was the lack of recognition for their work for so long. Many died before respect was paid.

They flew planes, they served as nurses and doctors, as logistics personnel, as mechanics, as intelligence specialists, as spies, and a slew of other specialities, not just secretaries and typists--and they did it IN UNIFORM. They were POWs, some of them, and some died.

....Approximately 543 military women died in the line of duty during World War II, including 16 from enemy fire, and others from a variety of causes including aircraft and vehicle accidents and illness. .... 67 Army nurses and 11 Navy nurses captured in the Philippines were held by the Japanese for nearly three years, and five Navy nurses captured on the island of Guam were held as POWs for four months. One Army flight nurse was aboard an aircraft that was shot down behind enemy lines in Germany in 1944. She was held as a POW for four months.

http://www.womensmemorial.org/H&C/Resources/hfaq.html


All branches had women serving--not just the WACS and Waves, but the Coast Guard (SPAR) and USMC as well.

Those are not costumes in those photos, they are military uniforms. These women beat down the door and paved the way for other women to be allowed to serve in uniform during peacetime. Had they not done their jobs superbly, the military would have remained an all-male bastion. Their contributions were important. Vital, in fact.

I was at this woman's retirement ceremony aboard USS CONSTITUTION in the mid eighties--she was a relative elder when she joined the Navy in 1944, at the age of 38: http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/hopper_grace.htm

Smartest person in the room, she was.

[zipplewrath]

142. They were not the 19 million

I'm not sure how any of this has anything to do with the point I was making, but the statistic I quoted was based upon the male population. There were 19 million men in the 2 services at one time or another over about a 5 year period out of a population of around 130 million. Today we have roughly 2.5 million, in a mixed gender military and from a population of over 300 million.

[MADem]

145. So what? They were there. These are your words, read them again:

By the time of the end of WWII, more than 19 million men had been in uniform in the US alone. Just men. We had no women in uniform. And that was a country that was around 200 million people at the time.

Your statement is just inaccurate. That is the point I'm making. It wasn't "just men" and we DID have "women in uniform."

The numbers are upthread, if you're interested.

[zipplewrath]

148. To what point?

How does the imprecision affect the point I was making? The significance of the comment was that the 19 million only drew from half the population, unlike our military today. There were women serving in all manner of ways that were new and different. The pentagon was chuck full of them, many in roles that may have been earlier filled by men. How many women were at Battan? How many at Iwo Jima? How many at Omaha beach? How many on the destroyers that sailed within yards of the shore? Unlike today, these wars were fought by men, at least on our side (the Russians took a different view. So did the French Resistence). I don't defend it, but don't conflate it either. The men signed up for "the duration plus 6 months", or were drafted for the same. The women served well, but let's not confuse the two. It serves neither well.

[MADem]

151. The "imprecision" as you call it, denies people who did the work

their rightful place in history.

The gear the servicemembers at Batan, Iwo, Omaha etc., utilized, from their boots to their bandages, was made by women. Their wounds, if they made it to field hospitals, were tended by women. The aircraft they flew in were ferried, repaired and built by women. The food they ate was prepared, canned and shipped by women. The orders that sent them to their duty assignments were prepared by women.

You are showing your bias by doubling down as you're doing, and dismissing the importance of what I'm trying to impart to you. Women played as large a role as they were allowed to play at the time. For you to downplay your significant error of fact as an "imprecision" speaks volumes.

And not in a good way, either, in case you're unclear.

You should just correct your statement--it's easier than trying to defend it.

[zipplewrath]

152. And had nothing to do with my point

I'm not sure what axe you have to grind, but start your own thread. You seem to be hung up on the expression "in uniform". Women worked hard whether they wore a uniform or not. They also wore nurses uniforms. But the 19 million refers to a specific group of people, and unfortunately, women were not part of that population.

[MADem]

154. Look, when you misrepresent the facts, it has everything to do with your point.

How can anyone trust what you say when you perpetuate a falsehood and then get irritated when someone points it out?

You did say this:

By the time of the end of WWII, more than 19 million men had been in uniform in the US alone. Just men. We had no women in uniform. And that was a country that was around 200 million people at the time.

One more time:

Just men. We had no women in uniform.

It's not accurate.

As I said, rather than yelling at me, and claiming that 'it doesn't matter' (hint--it DOES, to fifty percent of our population and their place in history, anyway), why not just correct the error? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that you misrepresented, you misspoke, you made a mistake?

Very curious--and the whole "axe to grind" assertion you come up with is curiouser, still. You've got a lot of crust, trying to BLAME me for noticing your blatant error of fact. Start my own thread? Why don't you correct your incorrect comment in THIS one? That's a good place to begin, IMO.

[zipplewrath]

158. Distinction looking for a difference

You're arguing a semantic distinction that has no substance within the context in which it was presented. They wore uniforms, yes, but no one was mistaking them for the men. Nurses wore uniforms, the postmen wore uniforms, but let's not make any mistake what I was talking about. Let's not compare the mixed gender force of today with the WACS and the WAVES. They served proudly and they did more than anyone thought they could. But none of that has anything to do with the subject at hand.

[MADem]

162. No, and as I said, you are demonstrating your bias with your stubborn refusal to admit your error.

Even nowadays, no one mistakes the women for the men--what kind of nonsense is that?

Do you think there were no male personnel clerks, yeomen, orderlies, corpsmen, mechanics, intel analysts, etc?

Your impression of that conflict is skewed. And your prejudice is showing. It's not a nice thing to see.

[zipplewrath]

163. What prejudice?

You've come here with some sort of agenda I still don't understand. It is a FACT that of the 19 million I referenced NONE of them were men. Do you dispute that? It was not a mixed gender military as it is now. Do you dispute that FACT? It was 1/3 of the male population over the age of 15. Roughly 350,000 women were in the WACS and WAVES. The dislocation I was discussing is due to this jarring difference. Are you really trying to compare these two populations? FAR more women served in a civilian capacity, taking clerk jobs in the government and manufacturing jobs in industry. And THAT was a major cultural impact (you remember, the point I was making?)

Is this really just all about the expression "in uniform" to differentiate between the male population subject to command and, well everyone else?

[MADem]

168. What this is about is your refusal to acknowledge that you said no women served in uniform.

You misspoke. You didn't tell the truth about the experiences of women in WW2. Then you double down and try to pretend that you meant they weren't part of the nineteen million, but it is plain to anyone with a second grade reading ability that this is not what you meant. Then you triple down, and try to insist that these women, who were, many of them, doing the same jobs that men were doing, were somehow "less than" because of combat exclusion.

As someone who knows, first hand, what women are capable of and the superb service they've given to our nation IN UNIFORM, serving IN THE MILITARY, I find your remarks biased and sexist. They certainly aren't progressive.

READ your words. Are you now going to suggest that because the services were segregated, that the black members of the military weren't "really" in the military because discriminatory laws kept them apart as well?

You really don't get it. You are dead wrong.

[zipplewrath]

197. They served in uniforms

They served in uniforms. But do not conflate what they were doing with what the 19 million were doing. The expression was plain as was the meaning. No one at the time would have confused the two as you have.

I didn't realize your whole point was a semantic one.

[MADem]

198. Please. Not all of your nineteen million were under combat arms.

In fact, contrary to your assertions, most of them were NOT. Your lack of understanding of this matter is nothing short of profound, and I will back up that statement with a source.

Plenty of males were "in the rear with the gear." They worked logistics, they worked HQ jobs, they worked "combat support" functions, and they worked in life support roles.

You apparently don't even bother to consider tooth-to-tail ratios as a function of warfighting, and that omission is what makes your comments so painfully inaccurate.

Here's a research work that might help you on this score. I invite your attention to the chapters on WW2, you'll be shocked to learn that a massive percentage, well in excess of one third, and in some cases considerably upwards of half, of your nineteen million weren't slogging and shooting, as you want us to believe.

There were plenty of paper pushers, desk jockeys and skivvie stackers in your nineteen million--not all of 'em have a bayonet in their teeth, about to go over the ridge.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA472467

You'll read details in this report along these lines:

...Despite the expansion of command and control elements, the World War II infantry division was still primarily a combat organization, with one and a half combat soldiers for every support soldier (Figure 12).

...Since motorization in 1941, logistical elements (including life support) ranged between 36 and 57 percent of the total force or between about half to three-fourths of all noncombat elements....

...The biggest shift in the functional T3R ratio was between World War I and World War II. Reflecting the effects of mass motorization and mechanization, the percentage of combat forces fell from 53 percent to 39 percent. While a drop of 14 percent is not as great as the post-World War I range (15 percent—see Table 9) of combat values, never do combat figures rise higher than 40 percent again. This provides a range or band of combat and noncombat values. Using average figures, combat forces have been about a quarter of the force, while logistics elements were roughly a third of the force or half of the noncombat elements. On an average, headquarters elements composed a quarter of the force (or slightly more than a third of all combat elements). Units or contractors providing life support functions formed less than 10 percent of the total force and slightly more than a tenth of all noncombat elements....

See? You have some learning to do.

But thanks for clarifying that one point, albeit begrudgingly.

You're wrong about "no one at that time..." too. See, the generation smack dab in front of me is chock-a-block full of all those "no ones" you reference. This isn't ancient history to me--it's one generation away, and I know, for a fact, that the men and women in my family, who served IN UNIFORM, didn't say that the women were "less than" because they were constrained from serving in combat.

In fact, you're the only one I've heard that kind of guff from.

You know, all those guys who were blown to smithereens at Port Chicago were also constrained from serving in combat--were they "not really in the military" either?


You just aren't coming at this issue from a place of knowledge, sexist implications aside. Read the paper I provided, I can guarantee you will learn a lot, and most of it, plainly, based on your uninformed comments, will be news to you.

[zipplewrath]

200. I know

I know, I'm not all that far removed either. Both my parents were in their 20's during the war. My father was one of those state side the whole time. But they were signed up for "the duration +6 months" (ended up being 9 months, but that's a long story. Needless to say, state siders got out last.). Mind you, during The Bulge the army was looking for just about anyone, anywhere. They came looking for him, but he was "protected". Both of them worked for the Manhattan project, my father did so in a uniform. No way the army was letting him in theater.

I checked with mom, the WAVES and WACS were proud women. My mother (90) considered being one (The Project gave her better opportunities). But no one confused them with the men. (Which in hindsight is really sad, the WACS often were excellent pilots and women statistically can endure cold, sleep deprevation, nutritional deprevation, and high g environments better than men. All things experienced on long duration flights, and fighter combat.).

As I say, you seem to have an agenda that goes way beyond semantics, I just can't quite figure out what it is.

[Javaman]

161. My Uncle was slated to be part of the invasion of Japan.

He was in the New Guinea and Borneo Campaigns.

Up until that point both my uncles and aunt had escaped injuries (aside from one purple heart that wasn't a ticket home). Anyway my uncle was already moved to a forward area for training. My other uncle who had been in Europe was on his way over in a ship to take part in the invasion.

My Aunt, who was a captain at a hospital in Paris was prepping to leave on a hospital ship.

My dad, who was at first rejected for the service 3 years before, got a stand by notice from the draft board.

Needless to say, there is a pretty good chance my uncles wouldn't have made it. And, more than likely, my dad would have gone and I might not even be here writing this.

Needless to say, my mom's family as well as my dads family were all greatly relieved.

[burnodo]

51. Curtis LeMay

Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

[1-Old-Man]

65. Ah Yes, Curtis Lemay, Barry Goldwater's VP pick way back when

He was also the first head of the newly formed Air Force if I remember correctly. It was also he who, it has been reported, had men standing by with fire axes at the Republican National Convention ready to chop through the TV cables if there was any disruption to discredit either him or Goldwater during the nomination. One hell of a man. I have heard him described as the most radical right-wing warmonger ever to run for office. This is the same guy who openly insisted that we go to war with the Soviet Union, that we "nuke 'em back into the stone-age". No shit, one hell of a man.

May he forever rest in peace.

[burnodo]

83. so everyone you disagree with is discredited

based solely on your opinion of them?

[HardTimes99]

121. Technical Note: I think LeMay wanted to 'nuke' the Vietnamese back into the Stone Age (not

the Soviets in the USSR).

Why you would wish that someone like that rest in peace is beyond me, unless you are expressing some cosmic sarcasm.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. His opinion. Other generals held other opinions. N/t

[burnodo]

85. Most of the generals at the time thought use of the bomb would be a mistake

That the bombs were unnecessary overkill and set a dangerous precedent by their use

[hack89]

68. LeMay had a personal agenda

He was a leading advocate for a separate Air Force (during WWII it was part of the Army). Without the atomic bomb, he could argue that conventional bombers caused Japan to surrender.

The Japanese were not within two weeks of surrendering. There was widespread starvation or disease yet - it would have been much different six months later during the war but not in the summer. The Japanese military was prepared to sacrifice the entire nation if need be - there was a massive mobilization of the population ongoing with the goal of training millions of civilians to fight. It is nonsense to think that Japan was on the brink of surrender. Hell, one atomic bomb was not enough to make them surrender.

[burnodo]

82. Most of the large cities in Japan had been nearly destroyed

The point made in Stone's docu was that Japan was more worried about the Soviets than the US

[hack89]

86. That doesn't mean they were close to surrender.

if they were willing to fight to the death against America, they would have fought to the death against the Soviets.

[burnodo]

89. but they had been putting out peace feelers for months

and the Japanese needed to find a way of surrendering without giving up everything. If the Soviets had invaded they would have killed Hirohito and wiped out everything else.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. How could the Soviets invade with no sealift capability?

During WWII the Russians had been building the material to fight the Germans. For them, that was not a naval war. No invasions by sea. The built lots of tanks and artillery, very few ships. Russia didn't have the ability to invade Japan, nor the desire. China, Korea, Indochina would have been the big prize for them. Those would have been easy picking. Let the Americans pay the price for defeating Japan, just as they paid the price for defeating Germany.

The Japanese peace feelers wanted the Japanese militaristic government to remain intact and no occupation. They were willing to fight for that. Basically they wanted an armastice that would allow them a couple of decades to rearm and try it again.

[hack89]

101. The Japanese government viewed the Soviets as potential mediators

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

they wanted the Soviets to intercede on their behalf in peace negotiations with the Americans. Remember that the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact was still in place - the Japanese misread Soviet intentions and thought that the Soviets were still friendly. Molotov himself told the Japanese ambassador that the treaty was still in effect until April 1946.

The Japanese were not trying to desperately fend off a Soviet invasion. They knew that it was America that was destroying them.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. It is greatly encouraging to see the numerous DUers...

...who are showing up and posting information and reasoning against Stone's revisionist agenda.

[burnodo]

100. "Stone's revisionist agenda"

sounds like "the Liberal agenda" or "the Gay agenda"

Have you even seen the series?

[GreenStormCloud]

103. Stone is a revisionist, and he pushes it in his movies. N/t

[burnodo]

105. so you haven't seen the series

[GreenStormCloud]

106. It was enough to read reviews of his movies.

Stone plays fast and loose with the facts.

[telclaven]

72. Oliver Stone is a moran of the first degree

He needs to get off his soap box and open up a history book.

[burnodo]

92. actually, someone else wrote the documentary

a histoirian who I suppose you could argue with

[CanSocDem]

96. What happens when you clik "Spell Check"...???

Does your computer crash...????


.

[MADem]

99. "Clik" spell check?

Are you not understanding the reference to the spelling of "moran?"



It refers to this photograph.

Your own spell check isn't working terribly well, I see...

[CanSocDem]

107. It's not that Americans don't get 'irony'...

...it is that I don't get when Americans are being 'ironic'. It's becoming harder to tell, at least for me.

.

[MADem]

115. The spelling of "moran" is an iconic thing, thanks to that photo...

It's as much iconic as ironic. "Moran" guy has lived in infamy for many years, a decade now.

Background here, you'll even see DU mentioned: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans

[CanSocDem]

120. I know all about that photo...

...that specifically highlights the spelling difficulties of the American Right. So when someone from around here spells it with an "a", I often wonder whether they're bad spellers, right wingers or just misusing the irony.

I just can't tell anymore.

.

[HardTimes99]

128. Your uncertainty ("I just can't tell anymore") is understandable. I've recently become

acquainted with 'Poe's Law' and I think it bears repeating\reposting here:

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

On a related note, I had a post hidden (the only one of which I'm aware) for calling Senator Wyden a 'racist' (back during the debate over whether the NSA and its attackers were 'racists'). I thought I had loaded a sarcasm smiley thingy on my post but was doing it from my (Android) phone and somehow the sarcasm smiley didn't make it. In its absence, DUers rightly concluded that I was way out of line. I learned not to post snarky stuff from my phone, since indicating my tone with smilies seems a bit problematic.

[CanSocDem]

155. Good to know about Poe...

...and you're right about trying to convey "sarcasm". Irony is a gentler way of making a point about something ridiculous like:

Mimicking the bad spelling of the Right because it makes THEM look bad.

.

[MADem]

129. I think you can be safe in assuming that 99.9% of the time, it's being used in a

mocking fashion.

[CanSocDem]

156. That might have been true...

...in the weeks and months directly following the photos first publication. It became glaringly tedious after that and has reached a point today, of raising more questions about the 'mocker' than the mocked.

It's like some people never heard of the word until they saw it on the sign. Which brings me back to my original point; Why don't people use the 'spell checker'?

.

[MADem]

157. Well, you certainly didn't use the spell checker...

It's not "clik" -- it's "click." http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023412703#post96

I pointed this out to you, but I guess it went right past you.

You're the first person I've come across on this board who doesn't have an understanding of the "Get A Brain! Morans!" guy, or who thinks that any iteration of "moran" is anything other than a deliberate misspelling to either joke, mock or point out a right-wing POV.

[closeupready]

109. Who cares what Oliver Stone thinks about anything.

He takes stories and makes movies out of them. That doesn't make him a Ph.D. in military history.

[Throd]

110. Conspiracy theorists with a certain axe to grind.

It isn't a huge industry, but it has done quite well for Mr. Stone.

[closeupready]

113. Very definitely.

+1.

[Javaman]

111. Operation Downfall..

Nuclear weapons[edit source]

On Marshall's orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.[36]

Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."[37] An air burst 1,800–2,000 ft (550–610 m) above the ground had been chosen for the (Hiroshima) bomb to achieve maximum blast effects, and to minimize residual radiation on the ground as it was hoped that American troops would soon occupy the city.[38]

[jimlup]

114. It is absolutely accurate

I was a graduate student in physics in the 90's and decided I had to know the answer to the question because I worked at one of the national laboratories (Livermore). I did a fair amount of research and eventually was lead to

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

The evidence is convincing - Japan didn't really even know what the atomic bomb had done when they decided to surrender. All that they really knew was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had "gone offline." They were much more attentive to the Soviet declaration of war.

Truman could have easily finessed the situation into exactly the surrender that was obtained.

My opinion eventually became that the bombing were not justified morally even under the American mythology that they ended the war and prevented the invasion of Japan but I am also absolutely convinced that Japan was more than ready to surrender and that the Soviet declaration was the tipping point not the atomic bombs.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0804704600/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&sr=&qid=

[hack89]

123. The Japanese government knew exactly what happened at Hiroshima within hours.

the government had first hand accounts within hours.

The Tokyo control operator of the Broadcasting Corporation of Japan noticed that the Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using another telephone line, but it too had failed.[93] About 20 minutes later the Tokyo railroad telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of Hiroshima. From some small railway stops within 16 km (9.9 mi) of the city came unofficial and confused reports of a terrible explosion in Hiroshima. All these reports were transmitted to the headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff.

Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and that the explosion was just a rumor.[94]

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly 160 km (99 mi) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, began to organize relief measures.[94]

By 8 August 1945, newspapers in the US were reporting that broadcasts from Radio Tokyo had described the destruction observed in Hiroshima. "Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death", Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japanese_realization_of_the_bombing

[MADem]

127. +1.

The book cited is noted as "controversial" and the one star reviews are written from a place of scholarship, while the five star ones come from a "I wanna believe" place.

The complaint that the book "lacks Japanese sources" is probably a clue to not spend good money on it.

[GreenStormCloud]

131. You are badly misinformed.

The pilot who lead the attack on Pearl Harbor survived the war. In his biography he tells of taking off in a plane, on the day of the explosion, to see what happened to Hiroshima, and reporting back. The blast, noise, and cloud were widely visible. By the end of the day Japanese scientists were telling the gov't what had happened.

China was already a lost cause for the Japanese. The U.S. Navy had already cut their sea lanes with China. Their troops there were isolated. The Russian attack into Manchuria changed nothing for Japan. And they well knew that Russia did not have any sealift invasion ability, Russia was not going to invade Japan.

Only days before, the Japanese had rejected the Potsdam Declaration. Their military was ready to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Their civilians were all being trained to fight with bamboo spears.

The bomb gave their leaders a face saving way out, and they almost didn't take it. On the night before the surrender record was played there was a coup against the Emperor that almost succeeded.

[Javaman]

159. +1 nt

[markiv]

133. Oliver Stone's greatest cinima achievement was

amassing an ego bigger than Orson Wells'

there's multiple motives for any actions, be it in war, or marketing

which conclusion would be bigger at the box office for Oliver

a conventional one, or a controversial one

doesnt mean he's wrong, just means that like war time decisions, there's mixed motivations for Oliver's conclusions

[MADem]

138. Well, the "Greatest Generation" is dying off at a fast clip--he's figuring there's no one left to

call bullshit on his his fictionalizing and revising.

He should be ashamed of himself. He is welcome to his own opinions, but not to his own invented "facts."

A talented director does not a talented historian make.

[markiv]

141. i've never liked the term 'the greatest generation'

not because i dont like giving the credit, but because i'm wary of relieving current and future generations of responsibility, which that term does, in a way

we dont know that the greatest challenge isn't ahead of us

for instance, i would consider the world war 3 threat of the cold war a far greater threat than world war 2, and no, i'm not expressing what role the 'greatest generation' did or didnt have in that or who gets the credit for ending it, you could make an entire website on that issue

i'm just stating an example of something that has already happened since WWII, although i will say that the cold war was little more than a very dangerous uneasy truce of WWII between former allies. WWII ended as a hot war in 1945, but continued on without a pause as a cold war until the very early 1990s

[MADem]

143. I liked it until Tom Brokaw started sucking it dry for an easy payday.

The first book was fine; when he started churning them out hand over fist, mostly recycled shit--the LETTERS written by others particularly grated-- I started getting pissed because I felt he was taking advantage. I suppose it's a good thing they're all dying off, otherwise we be treated to The Greatest Generation Cookbook and The Greatest Generation Exercise Video and The Greatest Generation Arthritis Pain Formula.

Enough, already.

They didn't ask to be heroes. It was a very specific time. They were conscripts, ripped from their everyday lives, but they had a sense that the stakes were most profound--so sure, they deserve the honor, they were "The Greatest" of their century, certainly, like Ali was "The Greatest" of his time. But Brokaw did beat the term to death--greed'll getcha, I guess.

The Cold War is a new chapter in that book, certainly--and it ain't over yet. It just took a breather. As I've said in other threads, the Pentagon's issuance of those stupid Cold War Certificates was most certainly premature.

[markiv]

144. yup, that too, that dirtbag released it as pro-iraq war propaganda

which just as a sheer coincidence, was great for his employer's profits

(GE owned NBC back then)

[MADem]

147. On an unrelated -- well, slightly related -- note...

I remember at one of the last big Normandy remembrances, some assclown reporter was trying to interview an old codger who had been in the invasion, and he tried to say, condescendingly, that the old guy was "77 years young" or words to that effect....to which the codger replied "Up yer ass!"

I love live TV....I wish I could find that clip!

I almost fell on the floor I was laughing so hard...it may very well have been a GE/NBC feed, though I don't remember, really!

[GreenStormCloud]

149. Thanks. I wasn't aware of those.

As soon as my lazy cat gets off the printer I will send in for my certificate.

[burnodo]

186. this was a documentary for Showtime

[Nevernose]

196. His Hiroshima/Japan Surrendering theory

Is based almost entirely on the work of a Japanese American professor at UC Santa Barbara. So in this one case, it's not his ego, it's the work of one "alternative" historian. Though to be fair, I think he/they are right as far as the Russia portion of the theory is concerned and think that the facts bear that out.

[cliffordu]

137. I saw JFK. I trust Oliver Stone to tell the truth no matter what.

[MADem]

140. Thank GAWD

for the icon in your post!

[Dreamer Tatum]

150. I'm waiting to see what Art Bell's analysis is.

[defacto7]

176. So Oliver Stone is now the keeper of American history now?

Have we sunk so low as to think Hollywood teaches us facts?

If Americans can't read or research history without being entertained, if we have come to the point that we can't be bothered by the terrible weight and annoyance of being educated, we are a lost cause.

[Egnever]

220. Well said

[rl6214]

188. It's a movie, not a documentary.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

209. "the bombs had no effect on the willingness of the Japanese to surrender"? Each and every Japanese?

[GreenStormCloud]

217. By "the Japanese" we usually mean the Japanese gov't. N/T

[AnotherMcIntosh]

219. Yep. And I suspect that not each and everyone in the gov't was ready to throw in the towel.

The Japanese gov't was working on and preparing to test its first atomic weapon before our bombs hit them.

[Egnever]

218. This in a nutshell is whats wrong with this country

Anything you see on the idiot tube is true!

I guess we can even add the internet to that now.

Oliver stone is full of shit.

[burnodo]

227. says you!

I'm sure the writers of the documentary, editors, musicians...I guess they're all stupid! Because they don't agree with Egnever!

[Egnever]

228. Yup says me.

[burnodo]

229. Brilliant!

I am awed by your greatness.

[madrchsod]

230. must be a really slow news day.

yup and i'm commenting on stone`s bullshit....

[burnodo]

233. slow news...like the anniversary of Hiroshima?

And what "bullshit" would that be?

[madrchsod]

238. no...slow news about stone not hiroshima

[burnodo]

246. This is a discussion board, after all

The OP was just asking a question

[BainsBane]

234. Don't ever listen to Oliver Stone on history

please.

[burnodo]

235. Thanks Bain

he didn't write it

[BainsBane]

236. Who did?

[burnodo]

237. Peter Kuznick

Also an interesting article from The Nation here:

http://www.thenation.com/article/171210/oliver-stones-untold-history#

<snip>
When I asked Stone at a recent book event in West Hollywood why he decided to take up TV documentaries, he said one man was responsible: Peter Kuznick, a professor of history and the director of the award-winning Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Kuznick is the author of Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America, and the co-editor of Rethinking Cold War Culture. He also provides a valuable service every summer: he takes an American history class on a field trip to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (He calls it “education abroad.”)

For years, Kuznick taught a course at American University titled “Oliver Stone’s America.” Stone finally accepted an invitation to come to the class, and at a dinner afterward, he says, Kuznick told him the story of how close Wallace came to getting renominated as vice president in 1944. Stone says that’s what convinced him to do a history documentary for TV, and to ask Kuznick to be his co-author and partner on what would become a four-year project. There’s never been anything like it on television; the prevailing notions of American “altruism, benevolence, and self-sacrifice” have never been challenged quite so effectively for such a wide audience.

<snip>

[BainsBane]

239. If you want to know how that argument has been received

Do a search for reviews of that book under Historical Abstracts and America History and Life. Those are databases for historians.

[burnodo]

240. so, are we away from the "Oliver Stone" stuff?

[BainsBane]

241. You just told me an actual historian wrote the script

Did you not? Are you interested in knowing if that interpretation is valid or in defending a Hollywood director?

[burnodo]

243. well, people in this thread are shitting on Stone in an abject, offhand way

And, valid to whom? I read some links about Kuznick. Many people don't like Howard Zinn's take on history either. Does that mean its invalid?

[BainsBane]

244. Stone is a big boy, and plenty rich

WTF does he care? Valid among people who study that area of history, experts in the field. What's annoying about Zinn is he made people like you think he was the only one doing social history, when that predominated the field from the 1970s on. He wrote a text book. There are many textbooks that tell US history from the perspective of ordinary Americans. There is nothing novel about that.

You can probably find reviews of the book and documentary on H-Net, which doesn't cost anything. Of course here I'm pretending you actually care what the leading interpretations of the bomb and armistice are, which doesn't appear to be the case. But in the event I'm wrong, you know where to look.

[burnodo]

245. Thanks

Thanks for dismissing my concerns. I'm sure everything you think to be true is true.

[krispos42]

242. Is it possible...

...that the use of nukes was to forestall a continuation of the war between the Soviet Union and the other Allies?

That the Red Army might have decided to push on to take all of Germany? Or Japan? Or both?

The Red Army had an awful lot of men and materiel at the end of the war.