Your View: Truman's decision an act of barbarism?

Your View: Truman's decision an act of barbarism | SouthCoastToday.com

 

Oh boy, here we go again!

I always laugh when people cite Halsey in their list of commanders who didn't like the bomb used on "moral grounds".

This is the same guy with the motto, " kill japs, kill japs, and kill more japs". He was more concerned that people would think the bomb was the entire reason the war was won, and that they would forget the soldiers and sailors who fought and died pushing Japan back to it's homeland.

The allies were losing 7000 people a week by 1945 fighting the Japanese. The bombs killed many thousands, but saved thousands on my side (including possibly my grandfathers lives) which in wartime, is all that matters in the end.

 

This is one of the main reasons I never really pay much attention to the stuff you post; as a corolary, it is also one of the reasons I rarely salute or rep you, You bring this antagonistic crap into the forum. We have discussed the morality of the Atomic bombings ad nauseum and yet you insist upon dredging up this same argument for no other reason than to extoll your contempt or serve whatever agenda you are aligned with. If you don't like the United States (or the steps we have taken to end world tyranny) then go find a forum that shares your views and lack of: ingenuity, inspiration and originality.

So, hopefully this will answer the question : "Why did Brad neg rep me for this post?" and the answer to that question, of course is, because the comment section is relegated to 140 charecters.

Hope you have a great day!

 

Actually I posted it because it was a news item related to WW2 from this morning. The fact that you disagree with the views expressed by the article does not invalidate its chance to stimulate discussion, and posting it was not intended to antagonise anyone. I personally have nothing against the US and regret that you think so. Apart from the sort of attitude you obviously have I find most Americans stimulating and interesting.

If your problem is the fact that it has been discussed before, then fair enough, it has, but this was a viewpoint expressed very recently by a respected academic and it seemed worth posting. I'm sorry if I ruined your day.

 

Yeah, here we go again...

Douglas MacArthur was against the atomic bomb, because of either military or moral grounds.

Isn't this the same Douglas MacArthur that wanted the US to "nuke" China during the Korean War...

Yeah...sure...He was "against" atomic weapons...

 

The problem I have with it is; not only has it been discussed before, but that you also failed to include any of your own thoughts on the matter. All you did is "cut and paste" the article. That tells me that you are more concerned with inciting conflict than you are, true thought provoking discussion.

 

True. My thoughts were that it obviously is a matter still disputed and with divided opinion among those that spend their time analyzing this issue. I was surprised to find that it is still not a matter where the facts themselves appear to have been agreed upon, even after so long.

My own view on the bomb issue itself is that it shortened the war, there may have been other ways to do so, but the bomb was going to get first used sooner or later, and the fact it was used well before anyone else manufactured one probably had more to do with avoiding atomic war than many of the factors.

Not true. If the subject does incite the conflict which you suggest, then someone please remove the thread. I have no desire to incite conflict. Anything I post is posted because I think there is a chance someone on the forum will find it interesting, and have something WW2 related to read and discuss rather than 'I'm Bored' type threads.

I'll try harder next time not to incite you to conflict.

 

There seem to be two issues here. First the inclusion by cut and paste of a article that has an agenda, and second, a topic that has been debated in the forum before that generated a good deal of passion.

When I joined this forum I was working 60 to 70 hours a week and had little free time to surf the web, so tidbits like these were of value, because otherwise I would miss them. Not all of them I liked and a few made want to throw a brick through my monitor, but I was glad to have the chance to see them none the less. Perhaps Spartan could have added some perspective or placed this in one of the open threads on the subject (if there is one), but we have all opted for speed over clarity in our posts from time to time.

Certainly we have debated this topic before, and I have no fire in my belly to hash it out again, at least until somebody comes up with something new. Still we have new people join every week who I am sure would like to debate these topics, and I feel we should otherwise they have little reason to join us do they? Perhaps this should be moved to an appropiate thread on the subject?

 

BINGO!

As for cut and paste; it's irrelevant. If any member has an issue with it, bring it up to the admins, or complain about it in the Counter Battery sub forum.

 

There you go expecting us to be reasonable again! Where's the fun in that But your right of course.

 

Well consider what ever you want; but, there are at least three threads in this same section, which have been closed, concering this same subject. So, spin it however you want but I will reserve the right to say: "I told you so" when this thread gets closed.

 

I really don't have a problem with cut and past, although it does make it more interesting if the poster puts his two cents in to spurr some conversation and debate.

As far as discussing it before, yeah we have. But they are timeless debates that will never go away. Just look at all the Dresden threads. I do feel for the "cleaning crew" though, as was mentioned.

Nothing gets up the dander at this place like bombs dropped from planes. That's what I find interesting.

 

This thread may be the first ever closed because we debated the idea of debating something.

Brad is absolutely correct that this subject has a high mortality rate, but are we going to have a list of subjects that are taboo for us to discuss? It is incumbent on us posters to keep the thread polite and respectfull, what ever the subject may be. If we can't that's when the mods must step in. It's why we pay them the big bucks afterall.

In debating ideas here I have found some of my cherished thoughts reaffirmed, while others have crashed and burned, but overall I am the wiser for the debate. (even if some of my posts sound like they came from an addled monkey smoking refer)

 

Gentlemen, lets keep things on subject and be nice.

 

Well to dispute the article quoted I would say no need to consider what troops opposed the orders to use the bomb...it is the commander in chief who gets to utilize his resources to come up with a decision and it is my belief that Roosevelt---then Truman had a plan in place based on what they thought they needed to do. The opinions of all those commanders listed takes a back seat to the man collecting the data for the final decision. So based on estimates of casualties at the moment the decision had to be made and he felt he needed to use this weapon. This was the calculation based on what they knew of conventional bombing in other places that had already begun in Japan. The cost of casualties in other places was also considered and applied to the Japan question. Historically, it is my belief that our leadership made a very honorable decision to use the bomb based on what they knew of the situation at the time. There is a lot of revisionist questioning of this matter that does not hold up to the facts. It always amazes me how easily they are able to ignore the horrible burning and mutilation of the human body that occurs in conventional bombing and how easily they sway themselves away from considering the massive numbers that would have suffered this when they argue their considerations. For it is a humane person that considers the totality of both Nuclear and Conventional Bombing as it was planned to be done in those days. Spartanroller needs to be guided by what has been presented on this forum as a very detailed presentation of non-revisionist fact that has been presented that no matter how many articles he can find to quote from spurious sources of revisionist thought, he cannot truly and factually alter what reasonable thought on the matter leads so many of us to conclude. I could try to prove the world is flat and keep finding articles that say it is shaped like a tortilla and if you sail your ship far enough you will fall off the edge and perish. I could continue to disregard the things Copernicus kept saying about the earth rotating around the sun because religion of the day considered him a heretic. However many times I find those articles does not subtract from the factual concept that as it was studied, fact became the accepted knowledge of this strange belief. And furthermore I could add in some articles of how the earth is shaped like a bent tortilla to account for ships shrinking low on the horizon but my ability to find more derisive articles on the bent tortilla does nothing to further scientific thought other than to provide us with the idea of possible making a burrito to further take us astray. Such are my thoughts on this new article. Excuse my use of good food in this matter however.