The horror of Hiroshima lives on

[ensho]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/KH05Dh01.html


-snip-

The death count
In Hiroshima, Little Boy's huge fireball and explosion killed 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. Another 70,000 were seriously injured. As Joseph Siracusa, author of Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction, writes: "In one terrible moment, 60% of Hiroshima… was destroyed. The blast temperature was estimated to reach over a million degrees Celsius, which ignited the surrounding air, forming a fireball some 840 feet <256 meters> in diameter."

Three days later, Fat Man exploded 561 meters above Nagasaki, with the force of 22,000 tons of TNT. According to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered," a web resource on the bombings developed for young people and educators, 286,000 people lived in Nagasaki before the bomb was dropped; 74,000 of them were killed instantly and another 75,000 were seriously injured.

In addition to those who died immediately, or soon after the bombings, tens of thousands more would succumb to radiation sickness and other radiation-induced maladies in the months, and then years, that followed.

In an article written while he was teaching math at Tufts University in 1983, Tadatoshi Akiba calculated that, by 1950, another 200,000 people had died as a result of the Hiroshima bomb, and 140,000 more were dead in Nagasaki. Akiba was later elected mayor of Hiroshima and became an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.
-long snip-
---------------------------


read it all, if you can

[mshasta]

1. still no apology from the US?

I wonder if we ever going to learn ...

[Rebubula]

5. Apologize for what?

Pearl Harbor? Bataan Death Marches (read some eyewitness reports on this one - but not before eating)? Rape of Nanking (epically sad and disturbing book) and the overall enslavement of the Chinese coast? Comfort Women?

It sucks that the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had to endure the atomic bombs - but after all they (the Japanese Government)had done in the previous 25 years I cannot gather up much sympathy.

You can apologize if you want, but perhaps you should look at the scorecard first.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Implying it was about revenge and "keeping score" rather than necessary to end the war.

[Rebubula]

7. Revenge, keeping score..

...ending the war...however you want to frame it is OK with me.

I grew up listening to my uncle talk about the Prisoner Marches after he was captured. I would have no problem with the bombs being about revenge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Hey, as long as you admit it.

[Rebubula]

13. Anyone...

...that says they never think about revenge is a liar. It should not be government policy (and I do not think that was the motivation at the time, but I was still 20 years out when the bombs dropped), but individual humans are far more prone to fallacy.

I admit that I am not perfect in a Buddha-like way and I am prone to poor thought process sometimes especially in the face of emotional situations. As long as my cats still love me and my housekey works...so be it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Revenge is fine.

Arguing that revenge is a justifiable reason for Hiroshima just puts you up with the rest of history's scum. Hitler, Osama bin Laden, the Japanese Army, etc.

[Rebubula]

19. as the Dude says...

...well....that's like, just your opinion man.

Sorry...your logic is flawed. My debating something that someone else did 20 years before I was born certainly DOES NOT equate with the actions of Hitler and others. Toothless opinions 64 years after the fact do not equate to genocide.

[Joe Fields]

42. you must respect the Dude!

:toast:

[BB1]

32. And it was revenge allright.

Several days before the bombs dropped, the Japanese govt had already surrendered to the Russians. No need to destroy the cities.

But hey, if you've got a bomb like that, you'd want to try it out, right?

[TheWraith]

34. That's completely false.

You're perpetuating a lie. The Japanese government did not surrender to the Russians before or after the bombings. In fact, they never technically left a state of war with Russia until decades later.

[Statistical]

40. +1. Actually fear of the Russian and what a Russian invasion would do weighed upon the Emporer ...

as much as the atomic bombs did. The atomic bombs simply confirmed that American's would never let up the pressure and in the meantime Russian troops would move ever closer to an invasion of the mainland.

Russia was in pure expansion mode at the end of WWII in preparation for what would be the Soviet Union. There was 0% chance Russia would accept a surrender from Japan that didn't involve Japan being part of the Russian empire.

[BB1]

77. Okay. I didn't know.

You see, history books are more often than not dead wrong. I read some, I'm sorry.

Still, you got a bomb like that....

[Echo In Light]

47. And use it to scare others, and drum up lucrative defense contracts

Aren't we fortunate to have such vile ideas put into action by our best and brightest. Onward, extinction!

[Arugula Latte]

9. So it's okay with you that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were annhilated

in revenge? You think that's a proportionate response?

[Rebubula]

10. I do not know the motive of the US...

...at that time.

I am only saying that it is hard for me to create sympathy or a need to apologize for the bombings based on the actions of the Japanese government at the time.

Most estimates (I recognize that most of these studies were done by the military and may be biased) showed that the US stood to lose at least that many (2-400,000 US dead) if we staged an assault on Japan. If the bombs saved American lives, then I have absolutely ZERO problem with the bombings.

Pardon me if I am not Zen enough to get past a little revenge.

I feel for the people in the two towns, but not a need to apologize.

[Craftsman]

15. Agreed

[CatWoman]

17. I have to agree with you

Most estimates (I recognize that most of these studies were done by the military and may be biased) showed that the US stood to lose at least that many (2-400,000 US dead) if we staged an assault on Japan. If the bombs saved American lives, then I have absolutely ZERO problem with the bombings.

[defendandprotect]

25. So if someone nuked innocent Americans now for what Bush did . . .

you'd have no "sympathy" for those Americans?

[Rebubula]

29. LOLZ

If Bush even did a FUCKING QUARTER of the damage that the Japanese did back in the 20s, 30s and 40s - then we could debate that idea.

I know that Bush was a deranged asshole - but on the whole, his evil does not compare to many of the past.

Read The Rape of Nanking and any book on the Bataan Death marches and the POW camps and get back to me.

Oh....and it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives...

[defendandprotect]

59. You want to count the Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians . . . .

1.3 million Iraqis . . .

Philippines - Greece -- Native American genocide/30 million or more? --

Africans enslaved here/how many killed/6 million? How about Korea?

There are a few books, as well, written about our wholesale murder innocents

there as well.

There are no numbers you could ever come up with to compare with what

the US government/CIA have done -- directly and indirectly.

Catch up with history -- everyone said "no" to this immoral act of dropping atomic

weapons on citizens which was unprecedented in every way. And that included Ike,

who I think knew a bit about how the war was going. There was no need for this

brutality.

[Mariana]

11. What innocent people?

They were Japanese, weren't they?

:puke:

[AsahinaKimi]

65. "They were Japanese, weren't they?"

What exactly, does that mean?

[Mariana]

66. To some, it seems, ALL Japanese were guilty of war crimes.

Women, babies, old people, sick people. No matter. It was just dandy to kill them in revenge or for any other reason because of the actions of the Japanese military.

I apologize for not using a sarcasm smiley. I thought the puking smiley was enough to make the point that such thinking sickens me.

[AsahinaKimi]

75. You had me worried for a moment

but yeah, the sarcasm icon would have been best.

[KamaAina]

67. I'm thinking the "puke" icon should have been the "sarcasm" one

At least, I'm hoping... :scared:

[ieoeja]

23. Is 100s of thousand a proportionate response to their killing millions?

They killed millions of innocent civilians. We killed hundreds of thousands.

You're right. Our response was proportionately too small if it truly was about revenge.

[closeupready]

44. Correct. A good analogy would be us using a smart bomb to their mindless slaughter.

I feel bad for the innocents who died, and I support the banishment of nukes, but I don't feel the US needs to apologize for the bombs.

There's a saying I recall from years back, said by a Lutheran pastor, IIRC, from Dresden, who was asked to comment on the 50th anniversary of Dresden's firebombing, and not only did he not ask for apologies from the Allies, he went on to suggest that the initiation of hostilities and war unleash monstrous forces in combatants that sometimes lead to horrible, regrettable outcomes, which are nonetheless, inevitable, "and so, Dresden had to die."

[malaise]

54. Clearly you haven't read your country's history

or let's hope people on the rest of the planet don't share your views about revenge.

[Tesha]

64. And the women and children if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had exactly *WHAT* to do with the Imperial...

Army's attrocities?

So if, for example, Iraqis decided to take revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we've killed by, say, nuking New York and Chicago, that would be okay with you?

Tesha

[defendandprotect]

22. ...and we had to one-up on all of that . . . ????

There was no need for using the atomic bomb against citizens --

except as a power play.

[Rebubula]

26. Read Post 20..

...and realize that the world war is a bit different now than 60 years ago.

Need is hard to see when 60 years have passed. Unless you can prove that Hirohito was about to surrender unconditionally (many theories and no proof)and we would not have lost the 2-400,000 lives that were estimated to be lost on an land assault on Japan - then it was necessary.

It sucks that it happened. War sucks.

[defendandprotect]

73. How about Ike is "proof" . . . how about all the military leaders are "proof" . . .

Your post also seems to be running right-wing propaganda that this was an industrial
hub --

these were civilians, long recognized as such in history --
evidently, history that many don't want to hear!

See post #22 --

Japan didn't end up surrendering "unconditionally" --!!!

And, again, I think Ike and other military leaders probably had a better idea than you
what was happening militarily. Japan was a defeated nation which they well understood
and that's why they said "NO" to the bomb.

In every way possible -- as a non-necessity and as immoral -- and as new precedent of
violence being set by America.

[krispos42]

20. In full-scale war, the civilian population is as much a part of the miltary as the soldiers

In modern times, we're used to having such overwhelming superiority of the military that the kind of grinding, prolonged combat that characterized World Wars One and Two is not something we see nowadays. Nonetheless, in total war, cities and their populations are critical targets to hit.

In total war, the cities are major sources of manufactured goods as well as logistical support. Cities are where guns and muntions are made, where aircraft and ships are fabricated, where electrnonics are assembed. They are where supplies from across the nation are shipped, the centers of road, rail, and water transport. They are the source of much of the military personnel. They are the source of strategic planning and military organization. They are the centers of government and of communication.

Take out a city and the nation becomes less able to fight effectively. Supplies do not move; troops run out of ammo and food, planes and ships run out of fuel and spare parts. Troops cannot move from one area to another, putting them out of the war and giving the enemy the tactical and perhaps strategic advantage. Intelligence is not gathered and processed. The logistical structure breaks down, preventing raw materials from being moved to where they are needed.

In strategic warfare, the places that make and direct the machines of war are targeted as much as the machines of war themselves. It's war fought at a distance. Individuality is lost.

While it's true that if a company of soldiers were storming an enemy tank factory, the soldiers would not indiscriminately slaughter the workers. They are in intimate contact and are able to pick and choose individual people to shoot or not shoot. But this is lost when you're dropping bombs from 20,000 feet or launching cruise missiles from 300 miles away.


As things exist nowadays, we don't need to do this. Our military and technological superiority negates the need for this kind of warfare in the kind of fights we choose to fight now. But 64 years ago, the sides were roughly equal in terms of technology and both sides were fully engaged in this war. And when it was over, there was peace. With both sides exhausted, there was no insurgency or simmering hatred. We won, we treated them civilly afterwards, and we helped them rebuild.

[defendandprotect]

24. ...it was precedent setting to attack civilians which was done in Hiroshima/Nagasaki ---

Just as the fire bombings in France and Japan ....

[krispos42]

31. World War Two was the first war this could really happen to

The ability to seriously attack strategic targets without physically occupying them.

Cities throughout history have been razed, but not by air. Military column fought there way to them, burned the countryside, starved the defenders into submission, then looted the city before putting it to the torch. But from that point on the city and the area around it was occupied. And the defending nation had to be weak enough to prevent the attackers from razing the city in the first place.


Since WW2 we've been able to attack cities from the air while being unable to get troops within a thousand miles of that city.


And of course, when using explosives to destroy strategic targets, it is impossible to not kill civilians.

[defendandprotect]

60. And now . . . there is nothing this nation gets its hands on which isn't converted into a weapon . .

and from microwave weapons, to mini-nukes, from HAARP to heaven knows what . . .

the insane not only have control over government/military but they have power way

beyond atomic weapons now.

[TheWraith]

35. The precedent had long since been set. We had nothing to do with it.

Bombing cities and targeting civilians was commonplace in both the European and Pacific theatres long before we even entered the war.

[defendandprotect]

68. Forget the war . . . look at the violence of your own government . . .

and how many precedents we've set including being the only nation to have

ever dropped atomic bombs on anyone -- least of all civilians!!!

[slackmaster]

43. General William Tecumseh Sherman ordered the city of Atlanta burned to the ground on 11/11/1864

Except for churches and hospitals.

[DrCory]

46. Actually, Deliberate Attacks By Japanese....

On Chinese civilians established a precedent in the Sino-Japanese conflict long before we entered the war.

[defendandprotect]

69. Again, the history of our own nation -- which we should be looking at because

that's what WE are involved with -- began with genocide against the Native

American here . . . polishing it off by using organized patriarchal religion,

once again, to finish the job in Mission schools run by Catholic and Mormon

Church. Essentially we kidnapped these children, forbade them to speak their

own language ever again. Cut their hair, took their clothing. Dressed them

to our liking. Sexually abused them, tortured them, beat them, hung them.

And, then move on to the African in America --

and you haven't even come to the women's holocaust yet!

[Nevernose]

70. The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand/Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters

Henry the Fifth was probably a war criminal, but this speech from Act Three, Scene Two illustrates perfectly the idea that targeting civilians wasn't new at the time. In fact, it's only been SINCE WWII that we decided that attacking civilians was wrong. Until very recently -- and then only in industrialized Western nations -- killing civilians was how wars were won.

And even WWII had the Blitz on London, the Rape of Nanking...

How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?

[Xithras]

33. The civilians weren't even factored in.

Hiroshima was targeted because it was the headquarters for three different Japanese armies, it was the staging area for all Japanese soldiers being sent to fight in the Pacific, and because it was relatively untouched from the war, meaning that we could better gauge the efficacy of the weapon there than in other more heavily damaged areas. The presence of civilians was really an afterthought. Impeding their civilian workforce was certainly an objective, but it was pretty low down their list of priorities.

[proteus_lives]

49. None is needed.

They did what had to be done.

[Romulox]

2. And yet the memory of Nanking slipped away long ago...

The attempt to portray the Japanese as the victims of WWII (and the US, their aggressor!) is wholesale revisionism. It is true that many civilians suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but no where near the number that suffered at the hands of the genocidal imperial Japanese.

When Japanese "peace" advocates endeavor to remind the world of Japan's own, far more ghastly war crimes, I will believe Japan has learned the lessons of WWII.

[sailor65]

3. Well said n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

4. In war, there is always an excess of shame to go around.

[Mugu]

14. Hear, hear. n/t

[TheWraith]

36. Agreed entirely.

It seems some people would have preferred we carry out the mainland invasion that was estimated likely to kill three to five million Japanese soldiers and civilians.

[rockymountaindem]

38. Yep

Best post in the thread. I need to remind myself to stay away from the A-bomb threads this year though.

[proteus_lives]

50. Very true.

:thumbsup:

[Hugabear]

12. The Axis powers weren't the only ones committing horrific war crimes during WWII

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden... We killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent civilians ourselves.

[closeupready]

45. Yeah but see my comment about that, post #44.

n/t

[slackmaster]

16. It's that time of year again

:nuke:

[ShamelessHussy]

30. Fortunately, at least once a year this horror is discussed.

It should be more often, imho.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Gandhi said it best....

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[defendandprotect]

27. ...and look at our record since them in destruction of lives all over the planet --

Immediately, the US/CIA moved to keep right-wing government in place --
Greece, Itay, France, Japan -- etal --

We had immediate designs on Vietnam, financing the French war there to keep their "colony."

Everywhere we've spilled the blood of innocent people --

two wars now -- Iraq an "illegal" war -- preemptive which used to be a dirty word --

1.3 million innocent Iraqis dead -- ???!!!!

[ShamelessHussy]

28. Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon

Succeeded only by Nagasaki - Kurt Vonnegut

That we NUKED a defeated nation, who wanted to negotiate terms of surrender, is a stain we shall NEVER be able to wipe away, and which continues to haunt us to this very day... for if we are able to do this, just imagine what the 'evil doers' are willing to do.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls...

[TheWraith]

37. The Japanese did NOT want to negotiate terms of surrender. That's a myth.

What the Japanese government offered was much closer to a truce. Their government would be solely responsible for deciding if war crimes had occurred, and whether to punish them; they would oversee demobilization of their army; and they get to keep any territory conquered from people other than European colonies.

[defendandprotect]

71. Exactly . . . Truman was insisting on "unconditional surrender" . . .

which didn't happen in the end --

the Japanese were finished which was what all of our military leaders said.

This was an opportunity to test a new weapon -- and Truman took it with advice

from Nazis like John McCloy.

[ShamelessHussy]

74. The Chrysthanthemum throne remains the oldest hereditary monarchy, to this very day

In the end, the U.S. powers that be, finally negotiated a surrender, and accepted Japans major condition which turned out to be a very wise move... too bad we had decided to use TERRORISM as a way of dominating the world, and the only way to prove it to the world, was to show we had what it took to use it no matter how weak your position.

And we have led with terrorism to this very day, folks bring up Nanking as if that justifies our much greater, in scale, reach, and time, atrocities, without batting an eye over Fallujah, etc.

and so it goes...

:cry:

[defendandprotect]

79. Their beliefs about a righteous/conspiracy-free America are being challenged everyday . . .

if they're paying any attention at all --

The arguments are nonsense if they read any history on this --

And, I agree, it was terrorism against innocent civilians --

same thing we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq --

Insanity, pure insanity!

[ShamelessHussy]

80. The Bush/Cheney reign of terror certainly openned a lot of eyes

I was truly worried that they might have used NUKES, again, if they went into Iran.

:hi:

[NeedleCast]

39. I'm not haunted by it

[proteus_lives]

51. You're keeping a lie alive.

The Japanese were not surrendering and were trying to keep their empire.

We defeated the Japanese after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Don't be ruled by emotions, look at the facts.

[armyowalgreens]

55. The military did not want to surrender. The leaders of Japan did.

Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to stop a military so determined to succeed that they fly manned planes into ships.

There was no easy solution. There still is no easy answer. What happened on those two days is horrific. But the calculations of casualities upon a full scale land invasion were much much higher than the casualties of the two bombs.

[DrCory]

56. Considering The Scale And Nature...

Of Japanese atrocities in Asia, the terms of the Potsdam Declaration were quite reasonable. They KNEW what they did, and were more concerned with "saving face" than making the "sacrifice" to end a war THEY started before the nukes fell.

[defendandprotect]

72. Yes . . . and would we, ourselves, expect mercy? Guess it depends on who's doing the torturing . .

and who the torturers are -- !!!

[eridani]

76. I'd put it the other way around

If you want to accept (for purposes of argument) that demonstration of the bomb's effects was necessary to avoid the bloodshed of a full-scale invasion, that only justifies Hiroshima. What then, was the BLOODY POINT of Nagasaki?

[ShamelessHussy]

78. That's the order he put it in...

In other words, Nagasaki is THE most horrid word in the American lexicon.

[melm00se]

41. Much of the analysis and handwringing

from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are incomplete as they take into account only the Allied casualties from an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, when the numbers of dead Japanese Military and Civilians that would have died (estimates, based upon the numbers of dead from that assaults on Okinawa plus the deaths from starvation and disease, put the number in the 10-15 million range)are factored in, the decision tree is fairly simple (but extremely cold hearted):

sacrifice 300-400,000 Japanese immediately or kill, wound and maim 10+ million

the choice is, at that time, a no-brainer.

[Supersedeas]

52. loss of two cities was enough to cause the surrender--most probably or more honestly, the

calculation of the number of American troops that would be killed/maimed to take two cities was enough to make instantaneous occupation by fire and radiation a logical conclusion for 'number crunchers'

we simply do not know how long the mainland would have held out--but if suggesting off-hand that 10+ million would necessarily and conclusively have to die to achieve our objective--then the all-consuming unquestionable numbers must not lie.

Here's an odd non-sequitor for nuclear logicians to consider though....that U.S. troops were personally required to distinquish between combatant and non-combatant before pulling the trigger. Not so for twiggetts consumed with predicting numbers.

And doesn't the argument that torture is sometimes necessary follow the same numbers logic--if torture can possibly save some foreseeable number of people...going nuclear on a detainee whom we are AT WAR with is a calculable virtue in the morality of war....in conflicts where there is no honor or human dignity...only victory.

A thought.

[defendandprotect]

61. That's nonsense . . . Ike and others certainly knew what the threat was . . . they said "NO" ...

[ShamelessHussy]

48. None of our military leaders in theater at that time thought it was necessary

For those who are interested in learning what our military leaders thought about it I encourage you to visit this site to learn more about this important topic.

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

here are a few quotes...

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. - THE DECISION, p. 3.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . - THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . the scientists had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. - THE DECISION, p. 331.

more quotes...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

These folks are not peace-nicks, or lefty's and these folks were there at the time and the revisionist of today or propagandist of yesterday.

[defendandprotect]

62. True, but the truth is difficult to swallow . . . . .

especially when many want to avoid even thinking about what we've done and

seeing it in its true light.

John McCloy was again one of those pushing Truman to use the atomic bomb on Japan.


Meanwhile, I've been reading "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" by Jim Marrs and

there's the suggestion that we may have picked up the atomic bomb from the

Germans -- we may not have actually produced the first two bombs dropped . . .

Evidently, we made the third bomb? One would have been used in testing, as I recall.

[ShamelessHussy]

53. How many lives would have been saved IF we accepted their 1 condition earlier?

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Washington,DC_Cherry_Blossoms.jpg


I'm haunted by that # whenever thinking about this terrible issue...

no Okinawa (March through June 1945)


http://www.ww2f.com/honor-service-valor/31553-ernie-pyle-killed.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

no Iwo (February 19–March 26, 1945)


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

[madokie]

57. I'll always wonder if we could have won the war without the use of either

[BooScout]

58. The horror lives on elsewhere too...

Millions dead in Nazi death camps, the United Kingdom blitzed for years, Europe ripped asunder, how many American and allied soldiers dead all because Germany, Italy and Japan decided to try and steamroll over the rest of the world. War is hell. We didn't start that one, but we sure as hell finished it. If they don't like the way it ended then perhaps now they know not to do it again.

If I sound harsh, my father, stepfather and uncles all fought in WWII. My husband's family lived thru the bombings of Britain. Innocent civilians were bombed here throughout the war. I don't want to hear bullshit about innocent civilians when it comes to stopping aggressors in war.

[LostInAnomie]

63. Yawn...

[ShamelessHussy]

81. kick