Skip to main content

View Diary: When Truman Dropped the A Bomb (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  First, you can't undo history... (10+ / 0-)

    ...second, the brass may have been against dropping Little Boy and Fat Man, but the troops believed it saved many lives, particularly their own. My late father-in-law, a retired Navy commander, served in the Pacific in World War 2, and he always felt that the atomic bombs meant he would live to retire from the Navy and be able to raise a family.

    The real test has been that, since those two bombs were dropped in anger in 1945, no nuclear weapons have since been used in any conflict. I'd say that's something.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 08:59:24 PM PDT

    •  The brass was politicking.... (0+ / 0-)

      The rivalry between Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy was intense. These rivalries determined what people like Eisenhower said. If he was so down on nuclear weapons, why did he go ahead with the development of the hydrogen bomb when he was President? As with so many other things Eisenhower, he talked the talk, but he didn't walk the walk.

      This is the landscape that we understand, -
      And till the principle of things takes root,
      How shall examples move us from our calm?

      (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

      by sagesource on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not the same as targeting civilians (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        Developing is one thing. Deliberate civilian targeting another.

        Homepage- http://alcarroll.com Presidents' Body Counts- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/419159 An eye opening look at evil done by presidents, mass murder, incompetence, terrorism. An insightful damning expose of presidents by a history professor.

        by Al Carroll on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Can't undo history, but one can discover it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alhambra

      as more facts come to light.

      What ended World War II?

      For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender.

      ...

      On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.

      In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.

      “Hasegawa has changed my mind,” says Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” “The Japanese decision to surrender was not driven by the two bombings.”

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 09:43:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a meaningless question. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe

        The USSR only invaded Manchikuo after Hiroshima. The more interesting question is whether they invaded after Stalin was told, by Trumas at Potsdam, of the US weapon...not that he needed to be told, because of the successful Soviet espionage program.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 04:15:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There wasn't any need for a land invasion (0+ / 0-)

      since the Japanese were already defeated and had made overtures to surrender.

      The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
      Gar Alperovitz

    •  Your in law was wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena

      And anecdotes and wishful thinking are not evidence. No invasion was necessary in the first place. In the second place, he likely would have survived any invasion in the unlikely event it happened.

      It's difficult to say if dropping the bombs prevented a larger nuclear war. Peace movements did use the tragedies as powerful arguments.

      Homepage- http://alcarroll.com Presidents' Body Counts- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/419159 An eye opening look at evil done by presidents, mass murder, incompetence, terrorism. An insightful damning expose of presidents by a history professor.

      by Al Carroll on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:55:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I doubt I could have convinced him... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe

        ...otherwise, and he went to his grave with that belief, as did the crews of the Bock's Car and the Enola Gay.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 02:39:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site