Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hiroshima: The Decision to Drop the Bomb
The History Channel ^ | May 6, 2004 | The History Channel

Posted on 05/06/2004 7:07:24 PM PDT by walford

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last
To: Doctor Stochastic
I can tolerate questioning Truman's decision. 20/20 hindsight and all that, fair enough.

This History channel POS was not only questioning his motives, it was purporting sinister/inhumane motives as historical fact -- of him and the American people [who, according the the HC had revenge as the basis of THEIR support, not saving lives].

I posted this thread, because it is important that such propaganda is exposed for what it is.
51 posted on 05/06/2004 9:14:33 PM PDT by walford (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: walford
I've noticed these blatant distortions on the History Channel for several years now. And the productions are perhaps being passed on as "instructional videos" for school settings.
52 posted on 05/06/2004 9:14:59 PM PDT by mtntop3 ("Those who must know before they believe will never come to full knowledge.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad
When my son was in high school the world history class was debating the "morality and motivation" for dropping the bombs. Having read all of my military history books he proceeded to quote the same information that you did and more on both Olympic and Coronet. He then asked those thought the bombing was wrong to raise their hands; about 2/3s did out of a class of 30. He then asked that those whose grandparents were not in WWII to put their hands down and only one or two did. He then zinged them by stating that maybe the bombs should not have been dropped because then their grandfathers would never have met and married their grandmothers and he would not have had to put up with historical illiterates.

BTW, he got an A for the course. The teacher cited his skill for debate points, historical knowledge and class participation to reinforce the A earned from the exams.
53 posted on 05/06/2004 9:24:33 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: walford
54 posted on 05/06/2004 9:25:20 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (IF a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its green and white butt when it goes hippity-hop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
Well, on the one hand, a lot of the estimates for casualties from an Invasion are wholly bogus (especially the "1 million American Dead").

That's nothing but speculation on your part. Between the time Truman was sworn in as President and the dropping of the first nuke, the United States suffered over 50 percent of it's Pacific theater casualties for the entire war. Battle plans for the Second Marine Division did not exist for D+5 of the invasion because planners did not believe that the Division would still be functional due to casualties. People who were there know that you're WAG is just that.

55 posted on 05/06/2004 9:39:55 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: walford
Well thank God we only nuked them. Can you imagine how America would be looked at today if we had humiliated them.
56 posted on 05/06/2004 9:41:45 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Yes, I'm sure it was included but I often wondered why as I knew it had been firebombed before. I took my information directly from the original Manhattan Project papers "Records of the Manhattan Engineer District" (only enough microfilm to go around the world 10 times).

– “Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)”

I'm assuming it gets hit by LeMay sometime in between planning and designation as an atomic target.

57 posted on 05/06/2004 9:45:49 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Being that close to Tokyo would make it a good target too. Instant demonstration to the Japanese government.

On a personal note, I didn't have any near family fighting in WWII. They were too old or too young. But if Japan had been invaded or starved into surrender, what would have happened to my wife's family is another story. As it was, an aunt and a cousin of hers died at Nagasaki. They didn't live there, just picked the wrong day to go to the city. I still believe the bombs saved both Japanese and Americans lives.
58 posted on 05/06/2004 10:12:25 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!
IIRC, the Japanese were stunned out of the minds, but did make some noises about surrender
after the first bomb.

I was being a bit cavalier with my initial's just that even as a boy
I thought "those Japanese were fanatics...a nuke and given a couple of days and they
still didn't surrender!".

My fuzzy memory does seem to recollect that they did make some halting attempt at
surrender, but like you say, they were probably too stunned to bring off
a coherent and complete negotiation.

Even though the Japanese did have some conception of what a nuclear bomb would do,
it surely was nearly incompreshensible "shock and awe" to be the first recipient of
such a device.
59 posted on 05/06/2004 10:19:40 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

60 posted on 05/06/2004 10:20:16 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Second guessing history can be fun. But it should never be taken seriously.

If this history professor had been in Harry Truman's place, playing for the same stakes, without benefit of hindsight, I wonder what his decision would have been.

And, had his decision been not to use the bombs, he would have abrogated his responsibility to the nation and its armed forces -- causing even more needless death and suffering on both sides (not that he had any responsibility whatsoever for the Japanese).

Academic jerkism.

61 posted on 05/06/2004 10:34:49 PM PDT by okie01 ( Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: walford
Sad to hear some "historians" are still peddling this drivel on the unsuspecting. I saw a show, probably on the HC, that mentioned that the US was stockpiling a massive arsenal of nerve gas in the Pacific for use in the invasion of Japan. Two atom bombs saved a great many American lives, and a great many Japanese lives as well.
62 posted on 05/06/2004 11:14:14 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
"THe Man Who Won the War"

I was in the Boston area (mid-1990s) when MIT finally tore down the temporary Building 17 that was errected to house the
radar development during WWII.

One of the sayings repeated by the people that didn't want to work on "the bomb" and instead contributed to the radar
project was the "Radar won the war. The atomic bomb ended it."


63 posted on 05/06/2004 11:33:11 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
I'm just damn glad they did, because without them, I doubt I'd be here.

Even if your father was not killed in the line of duty, even if he was "safe" at sea, any delay of his return to America would have changed the circumstance of your conception. He may have sired an offspring but it wouldn't have the same exact genetic code that you posses.

64 posted on 05/07/2004 2:29:00 AM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: walford
Wouldn't be the first time bias creeped it's way into something on the history channel (or on Discovery or A&E). Sometimes the facts they leave out paint a totally different picture.

Between the biased historical reports and the tin foil, paranormal BS, I don't see why people think that these channels are "better television" or educational.

65 posted on 05/07/2004 2:31:56 AM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad
"And your point?"

Dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima saved American lives.
66 posted on 05/07/2004 3:50:50 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: walford
67 posted on 05/07/2004 3:52:51 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson