Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Commemorating a Major U.S. War Crime
National Catholic Register ^ | 8/8/10 | Jimmy Akin

Posted on 08/10/2010 5:42:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 next last
To: frog in a pot

Yes, you are right. I reposted the criticism after I realized what he was up to. He kind of led me down the primrose path there, but it’s my duty to be sure before I post.

I wonder how Japan would have liked being the Western Pacific’s Berlin.

My father spent time in Japan shortly after the end of the war. He told me how polite the people were to him. He even had pregnant ladies try to get up and give him their seat on public transportation.

One lady told him they didn’t hold the U.S. responsible for the actions it had taken.

And now we have some blithering idiot trying to set the record straight about 65 years later.

Makes my blood boil.


51 posted on 08/10/2010 6:36:55 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Just send him a link to buy this book:

The author above is an Hiroshima cultist if ever there was one.

52 posted on 08/10/2010 6:36:57 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

You are assuming that our Commanders did not know the Japanese mindset which had an ultranationalist government and a state religion which worshiped the emperor.

Our Commanders knew how radical those people were and how willingly they would kill—even themselves in battle. They were brutal, inhumane and ruthless to all their enemies which made a joke of the Geneva Convention and made water boarding look like paradise. ANY regard for individual rights, life, women, and their people, was non-existent.

Our Commander knew that they would probably give up only under a dire situation and he was willing to drop that bomb and create that situation to get the insane Japanese to surrender. They didn’t care about their own people, but, our Commanders DID care about their people. They had to force the Japanese to give up and, thus, not only saving many of our men from a brutal insane tortured death, but also theirs. “Them or us” was Truman’s ONLY decision. He said “Them!”, thank God.

I see no moral ambiguity at all. Neither did my father who went onto the Island after the surrender. He was the next in line to engage in battle, and would have probably been killed, if the bomb was not dropped.


53 posted on 08/10/2010 6:37:25 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

That meant that the U.S. leadership was formally participating in evil. It does not matter if the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could (through some stretch of the imagination) be justified in themselves. The fact is that they were used to send a message telling the Japanese government that we would kill massive numbers of the military and civilian population, without discrimination. That message is evil, and to knowingly and deliberately send that message is to formally participate in evil.

That made these attacks war crimes.

The above paragraph is where the essay turns to bunk. It is gratuitous to say that America is guilty of War Crimes. I gratuitously deny that fact.

The Japanese were a totally mindless mass, bent on and rejoicing in the act of suicide. Their treatment of Nanking alone gives credence that they deserve to cease as a people. But we do not think such things nor do we say such things.

America, as a nation, is not guilty of War Crimes in WWII.


54 posted on 08/10/2010 6:38:00 PM PDT by HChampagne (I am not an AARP member and never will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
I agree. I might well have used the atomic bomb in Korea to prevent a loss of Pusan. That was a close run thing.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

55 posted on 08/10/2010 6:38:31 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think the author forgot to mention that the US dropped leaflets in both cities and the surrounding areas telling people to leave! The leaflets told the civilians that a horrific weapon was going to be used on the city!

Too bad they didn’t believe us, maybe they could have saved a few more of their people.

This was NOT a war crime!


56 posted on 08/10/2010 6:41:18 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgchief
See my post 33 for the book that just came out on this. Your father's investigation done in detail, by a former editor at Military Review.

My dad served in Europe and his unit was on the way to the Far East when the bomb was dropped.

57 posted on 08/10/2010 6:41:53 PM PDT by omega4412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
As others have put this in earlier posts this is an idealized concept versus a real world situation. Here are some facts; the Japanese in this time period were not fighting in any way that we of Western Civilization would call 'civilized'. There was a "Rape of Nanking", there were numerous atrocities against civilian as well as military prisoners, there was a "Bataan Death March" and there were medical experiments the equal if not worse than Dr Mengele.

It is a fact that about 50% of the casualties in the Pacific Theater came after the start of officially sanctioned suicide attacks (kamikaze etc.), it is a fact that the Japanese authorities were preparing their women and children to conduct suicide attacks against invading troops and it is a fact that the die-hards were hoping too incur such horrendous losses to Allied invaders as to force a negotiated settlement in 1946-47.

The stark choices facing the Allies 65 years ago were an invasion with millions of casualties and a real possibility of stalemate, a blockade and de facto low-level war-without-end that would have civilian starvation in Japan going into incredible numbers OR the SHOCK of a new weapon that could wipe out large cities without using more than a single airplane. It took the latter to break the military dictatorship and allowed/convinced the Emperor and the civilians to surrender. Thus I disagree with the author, a weapon is a weapon is a weapon and while ideally a civilized person does not want innocent deaths, war is a profoundly uncivil activity and all of his rationale fails to convince me.

58 posted on 08/10/2010 6:44:02 PM PDT by SES1066 (Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Hmmmm....is it really that much difference if I'm killed by 1,000,000 subatomic particles or a single big lead particle (a bullet)? And why are the atomic bombs singled out here and not the massive firebombing of Tokyo at the same time?

The entire argument decorrellates into a diatribe against atomic energy, and is rendered invalid by its own subterfuge.

59 posted on 08/10/2010 6:45:29 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Now, make no mistake. I’m an American. I’m a fan of the U.S.

Nice of the author to clarify. Because the author could not possibly be more wrong.

There's no doubt that the atomic bombings were a horrible human tragedy. But virtually everyone in a position of responsibility with the Japanese government admitted that without the atomic bombings, Operation Downfall, or the invasion of the Japanese mainland, would have been necessary and that the Japanese nation might have been completely destroyed.

The cost in human lives, both Japanese and Allied, would have been infinitely worse had an invasion been needed to end the war. The moral responsibility of everyone involved in war is to end it as soon as possible. That meant using the atomic bombs.

60 posted on 08/10/2010 6:46:54 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (No apologies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
It's like he's looking at it through a pinhole. His logic just seems puny.

It was two exhausted nations and dropping the bomb was a merciful coupe de grace. I don't see why he can't just take a step back and see that.

He's so wrong that he's not even wrong. His argument doesn't have standing. It would be a waste of words to rebut him.

61 posted on 08/10/2010 6:50:13 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
“It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.

We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.” President Truman

Thank God we had a President ready to do whatever it took to end the War. Apparently this author's view of a “just war” is one that goes on needlessly. Is it any wonder that people had reservations about handing the Presidency to the disciple of such a doctrine? Our entire nuclear deterrence is BASED upon the President's willingness to “commit war crimes, apparently.”

62 posted on 08/10/2010 6:50:42 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The day I read about Nanking was the day any feeling of guilt over Hiroshima was forever swept away.


63 posted on 08/10/2010 6:51:07 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o


The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war
directed to the destruction of whole cities or—at least—vast areas
with their inhabitants.

Funny (i.e., ironic) that folks forget the firebombing the proceeded
the atomic bomb drops.
IIRC, more civilians (some wartime workers) were hideously fried by firebombing
than by the two nukes.

When you have an adversary that refuses to surrender and is ready to
send all its’ men (the ones remaining), women and children at you
with a “take one with you” on steroids attitude...
extreme measures are indicated.

What has always baffled me is that it took TWO bombs to get the Japanese
leaders to face the truth that they were done.

And for those that think the US forces were barbarians...heck, we
bombed the most Christianized city in Japan (Nagasaki) instead of
Kobe, the cultural capital of Japan.
Talk about “cultural sensitivity”.


64 posted on 08/10/2010 6:51:42 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Watch the films of japanese civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs when the U.S. took Saipan. They had been told by their leaders that the U.S. troops would brutalize them. Now imagine those scenes played out thousands of times if we had invaded Japan. The atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of japanese lives.


65 posted on 08/10/2010 6:51:57 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Nonetheless, I don't see the use of those two bombs as having been necessary either. I'd have saved them for Mecca and Medina. WW-II was basically over, Japan's 75 largest cities were in ashes, and they were looking for a way out. There were 20,000,000 people walking around in forests because the cities in which they used to live no longer existed.

Well, then you have a poor knowledge of history then. Japan was NOT going to surrender. In fact it took two A bombs before they did surrender and there was a plot by military leaders to scotch that surrender but it didn't work out.

The US was expecting a million US troop casualties and Japan about the same. The people were gearing up to fight alongside the Japanese armed forces in order to protect their homeland.

The bombs were necessary in order to save millions of lives.

66 posted on 08/10/2010 6:51:57 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie
So I cheered what Harry S Truman had done, and basically still feel the same way 65 years later.

I cheer what he had done as well.

My dad was in the Army during WWII - ended up in Europe just after the Battle of the Bulge, so he was fortunate enough to be involved in a somewhat less deadly time (as compared to, say, the Normandy invasion). There is no doubt that had the US not had and used the Atom bomb, he would have been involved in the invasion of Japan. Hundreds of thousands would have died for no good reason. The bombs saved the lives of many, American and Japanese.

Truman did the right thing.

67 posted on 08/10/2010 6:52:01 PM PDT by meyer (Our own government has become our enemy,...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

To use the quote from Billy Madison:

“Mr. Akin, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”


68 posted on 08/10/2010 6:52:09 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
A second use would have shown our resolve and there would have been now doubt about our ability to use them again.

No one with an IQ even approaching room temperature would think that Obama would use a nuclear weapon to deter attack on the United States. Obama is about causing the destruction of the country, not protecting it.

69 posted on 08/10/2010 6:53:20 PM PDT by politicianslie (A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sandersp>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The intentional killing of noncombatants is murder

You need to look at the Japanese plans for civilian resistance to an invasion -- civilians using spears and such if that's all they had -- and consider who a "noncombatant" would be.

70 posted on 08/10/2010 6:54:29 PM PDT by omega4412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The protest is really about one plane dropping one bomb and killing all those people. Then it was done again a few days later.

If five hundred planes had dropped firebombs on the same cities and killed the same ammount of people nothing would have been said about it.

A few days after the bombing of Nagasaki a large raid was done with conventional bombs on (I believe) Tokyo. Tens of thousands were killed yet no one remembers them because all people remember is the BOMB!

I would like to take every one of the protesters and eurowenies, then place them in the front wave of landing craft heading into Japan just so they can feel good about not dropping the BOMBS.


71 posted on 08/10/2010 6:56:30 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Viva los SB 1070)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4412

This guy, atkin, is a revisionist moron. I happily would volunteer him to be in the front of the Japan invasion uf I had a time machine. I think he’s drinking too much free wine at the altar.


72 posted on 08/10/2010 6:58:05 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st amendment or reeducation camp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I just read the other day that several Japanese troops didn’t actually surrender until 1950 possibly 1951. Now that’s determination.

Try 1974 when Lt. Hiroo Onoda surrendered to local authorities on Luzon, Philippines, after getting official orders to do so from Tokyo! There were multiple other Japanese holdouts, mostly where the conditions allowed them to be self-sufficient.

73 posted on 08/10/2010 6:59:19 PM PDT by SES1066 (Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Well dandy, wasn’t vatican II implemented AFTER WW II??


74 posted on 08/10/2010 7:00:38 PM PDT by correctthought (Hippies, want to change the world, but all they ever do is smoke pot and smell bad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SES1066
Get in a fight for life and death, fight to win there can be no compromise.
75 posted on 08/10/2010 7:00:54 PM PDT by JamesA (You don't have to be big to stand tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Then I guess you would have refrained from using the bomb and consigned hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese troops and hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants to death by launching an Allied invasion of the home islands of Japan.

Having in our hands the tool to end the war abruptly rather than in a long action where we were using flamethrowers and other small arms to kill them individually in their holes, it would, in my opinion, have been a crime not to use it.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
76 posted on 08/10/2010 7:03:41 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Dear Mrs. Don-o,

I don't think I buy Mr. Akin’s analysis.

It was not our intention to kill civilians indiscriminately. Here, Mr. Akin gets it wrong. We specifically warned the Japanese to get the heck out of Dodge, cause a really big ugly thing was coming their way.

The purpose of the bomb was two-fold: to destroy anything that could be remotely used for war materiel, and to show the Japanese that we could destroy everything they had that could be used for war materiel. And without breaking much of a sweat.

If the intention of the American government was to show that we could kill lots of Japanese in one, fell swoop, it wouldn't have warned them to get out of their cities before the bomb fell.


sitetest

77 posted on 08/10/2010 7:04:37 PM PDT by sitetest ( If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Agree! What kind of crimes would these same utter fools be accusing Truman of if he had left the atomic bombs on the shelf and invaded Japan after months of preparatory bombing on cutoff of all supplies? Millions of women and children would have died needlessly.

The war needed to be over, and over in a way that it would not be repeated, as the war in Europe was ended in 1918, only to rekindle in 1939. And the proof is in the pudding. Japan has not had a war in 65 years.

There is no pleasing these fools until they surrender themselves and all their listeners to a violent death at the hands of the thugs of the world. Ignore them. Or, in time of war, lock them away.


78 posted on 08/10/2010 7:04:53 PM PDT by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

Unbelievable and they continued to wage “war” against the locals. Nuts.


79 posted on 08/10/2010 7:08:58 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Interesting that the catechism blurbs were written after the fact. This screed is from the same trashheap as the “Just War” knucklehead Catholics working with Commies.


80 posted on 08/10/2010 7:09:02 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

the real war crime would have been not to use the bomb and allow a million allied and american, soldiers to be killed and wounded and many more thousands of japanese to be killed on top of that.


81 posted on 08/10/2010 7:11:43 PM PDT by 1st Division guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
As I recall an invasion of Japan by the US would have had 100,000 US casualties in the invasion alone. To defeat the Japanese would have required killing more thousands of people. Hence the Atomic Bombs saved many US and Japanese lives.
82 posted on 08/10/2010 7:13:23 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (Trust but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Here’s my .02, which is not infallible.

The writer, a fool, cites a portion of the Catechism relating to the indiscriminate destruction of cities and areas. “Indiscriminate” is an enormous loophole, by the way, and probably intended to be.

To the best of my fallible understanding, the teaching derives from the Second Vatican Council and a pastoral document called Gaudium et Spes, which the Holy Father himself has taken exception to in some regards, so I would think it isn’t an infallible teaching.

There are parts of the Catechism that ARE considered infallible teaching, and parts that are not.

The part about indiscriminate destruction, cited here, is probably one of those that are not, and which are open to further exploration.


83 posted on 08/10/2010 7:14:20 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Edgar
My thought is that Jimmy Akin is a flaming idiot. The atomic bombs saved millions of both Japanese and American lives. Jimmy Akin knows nothing of history or of war making.

Absolutely. It is a shame that Akin's grandparents didn't go in on the first wave at Okinawa. He wouldn't be here and we would not have to read this vomit.
84 posted on 08/10/2010 7:18:43 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media. There are Wars and Rumors of War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

Isn’t that something. I remember that now that you mention it. I know that some of them surrendered decades after the war was officially over.


85 posted on 08/10/2010 7:20:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think that, in the face of gut-wrenching deaths from all sides because of the Japanese vow to fight to the death, Truman made the best decision he could make.

To pretend that hindsight is better than his decision in the light of what was known and suspected at that time is a tragedy of human chutzpah.


86 posted on 08/10/2010 7:21:20 PM PDT by MortMan (Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill: a four-putt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

dead on the money DC.


87 posted on 08/10/2010 7:23:41 PM PDT by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie

great thoughts O OK. thanks for you service for/to our Country. my God, men like you are few and far between. thank you.


88 posted on 08/10/2010 7:28:45 PM PDT by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: omega4412
Good post.

Yes, the civilian/noncombatant excuse for moral superiority by those not involved in hell dictating those who were in hell. I wish these revisionist would actually tell us who exactly was innocent, pure, and righteous. Nagasaki was known as a vital trading post in Japan and the center of Roman Catholicism and Buddhism as well. Too bad the weather (Who controls that?) played a factor with the second target.

What exactly is a noncombatant anyway? A person working in a factory making bombs, bullets, armor and other instruments of war, say in a Mitsubishi Aircraft plant and maybe the Ohashi Arms factory? A child learning to shoot a gun with an accompanied bayonet? Who?

Self-defense, just like a pregnant woman with severe endometrial cancer who undergoes a hysterectomy due to the fact that both would not survive.

Nothing wrong with using superior firepower against the enemy, the Israelites made good use in their war with the Canaanites. Heck, they had to kill the little ones, the females, and the elderly by hand, not from an airplane.

89 posted on 08/10/2010 7:30:53 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
My father was in the Navy in the Pacific during most of WWII. He was wounded during that service. Had the president lacked the guts to order the bomb dropped, I might not be here to state the following: The US did not start the war, rather we finished it. We used the most effective means possible to end it. I applaud that. While I certainly feel for the innocents, I also feel for the innumerable Chinese and other people (including our own) who suffered beheading (that's right, Imperial Japan carried those and other atrocities out)and other gruesome murders. Sorry, that War Crimes and Immoral crap just does not cut it, nor does it take any account of the realities of the times. War is immoral, that is its nature. I knew a priest (as a boy) who was a navy Chaplin in WWII. He was a real man in the church and proud of his Navy Service. He would not know what has become of the church. Nor do I for that matter.
90 posted on 08/10/2010 7:50:56 PM PDT by King55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The A bombs ended WWII, and unleashed an unbelievable amount of US effort to rebuild Japan, and Asia after the war!

??But more importantly, what - as a nation - are we now willing to do if a conventional assault on Iran or N-Korea lights up a nuclear response to us or our allies??

Have we become so wimpified that our government will cower underneath their desks, or will we have the resolve to kill their (innocent) citizens, as they will have killed ours??

The civilized world remains in the balance. Our leaders only get one vote, one time, and immediate!


91 posted on 08/10/2010 7:52:29 PM PDT by Noob1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

This was no war crime. It was the only logical thing to do. Our military planners were expecting a million dead soldiers in their planned invasion of Honshu, which would have come after Okinawa. During Okinawa, we found that the Japanese would either commit suicide or be killed fighting, but in no case would they surrender- civilian or military. Had we plowed ahead, our soldiers would have been standing in a pile of ashes and the only Japanese who would be around today would be the children of the Japanese soldiers in China and Japanese-Americans. So we spared ourselves the horror of putting every inch of Japan to the sword, employed technology, and in fact, saved the lives of the Japanese- they lost two cities, but they survived.

War is terrible. Period. But if one comes you have exactly two choices- 1. fight and win or 2. surrender and suffer whatever the winner dishes out. Number 1 is far and away the better option.


92 posted on 08/10/2010 7:59:31 PM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
The protest is really about one plane dropping one bomb and killing all those people.

Yes! It was a new weapon, much more powerfully destructive than any before, and that was appalling. In that regard, no different than the appalling new airplane, the appalling new submarine, the appalling new cannon, or the appalling new crossbow.

93 posted on 08/10/2010 8:04:20 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

After Nanking, Bataan, Wake Island, Manila and Okinawa in the Pacific alone it would have been a war crime to not to end the war so quicky & decisively.

After the catastrophe in Italy, D-Day, Market Garden, Bastogne, the Bulge, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, battles for Romania & Poland & Hungary, and the insane standoff in Berlin just 3 months before, anything less than dropping the bomb would have resulted in an apocalypse making Stalingrad & Berlin look like picnics.


94 posted on 08/10/2010 8:07:41 PM PDT by sanchmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Another smug leftist willing to let soldiers die to the last man to protect his sense of moral superiority. Reminds me of the anti-waterboarding crowd.
95 posted on 08/10/2010 8:13:31 PM PDT by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

If little Jimmy had been a Marine who finally took Sugar Loaf Hill on Okinawa in 1945, which resulted in many casualties and effectively wiped out entire platoons and companies, and faced the prospect of landing on Kyushu next, he’d be damn happy that Truman dropped the bomb.

And every Marine I’ve talked to agrees.


96 posted on 08/10/2010 8:18:50 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
My father was in the Marines during WWII--he was in the hospital when the war ended because of wounds received on Okinawa, but he would have been out of the hospital in time to take part in the invasion of Japan. He had no doubt that using the bomb was the right thing to do.

In fact, during the Vietnam War he was in favor of using the bomb on North Vietnam.

Truman's big mistake in 1945 was letting the Soviets have half of Korea as an occupation zone.

Considering the death toll on Okinawa, I think the official estimates of how many Americans and Japanese would have died if Japan had been invaded are probably considerable underestimates. The combined death toll of Japanese soldiers and civilians on Okinawa (April-June 1945) may have been higher than the death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

97 posted on 08/10/2010 8:22:47 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

The US was putting together invasion plans & casualty estimates while observice the Soviet invasion of an insanely defended Berlin, at a cost of 1.5 million casualties including over 500,000 dead over a mere 2 week.

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

“In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.”

“Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[45] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.”

“A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.”

“Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[48] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.”


98 posted on 08/10/2010 8:28:12 PM PDT by sanchmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

One Marine first lieutenant led a group of 26 reinforcements up Sugar Loaf Hill on the evening of May 14, 1945. The next morning he was the only one of them still alive.


99 posted on 08/10/2010 8:30:59 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

My father is alive today because we dropped the bombs. As a Result I and my brother were born and alive today and our children are alive today. Enough said?


100 posted on 08/10/2010 8:43:35 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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