Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements)

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
news:bt9uq8$nul
:


"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Jeroen Wenting" wrote in
:


"No military justification for the dropping of the bomb".
Douglas MacArthur


And yet McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea


Just so. MacArthur wasn't against nukes;
he just saw that the Japanese situation didn't
require them.


He was not involved in the planning for the Invasion
of Japan and was not in a position to make an informed
decision



and Eisenhower at an NSC meeting 11th feb 1953 said,
"We should consider the tactical use of atomic weapons in the
Kaesong area." (Korea)


Just so. Ike wasn't against nukes; he just
saw that the Japanese situation didn't require them.


He was not involved in the planning for the Invasion
of Japan and was not in a position to make an informed
decision





Fact is Eisenhower wasnt part of the decision making process
in August 1945 and hadnt seen the briefing material that would
have allowed him to make an informed decision. The Japanese
were NOT ready to surrender as they could easily have done


Yes, they were. The turning point after
Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't the bombs but
Russia's entry into the war. THAT was the
key factor showing defeat was certain.


The Japanese cabinet disagreed. The minutes of the meeting at which
surrender was agreed show clearly that the bomb was the decisive
factor

That meeting began the night of the 9-10 August AFTER the
news of the Soviet attack had been received and was once
again deadlocked. It was only when the news of the Nagasaki
attack was received that an audience was sought with the
Emperor who urged them to "bear the unbearable"



Even after 2 A-bombs were dropped the militarists wanted to fight
on and only the intervention of the Emperor forced them to
accept surrender.


The firestorm raids of LeMay were far
more lethal than the A-bombs and the Japanese
endured THOSE without surrendering. But being
surrounded by all sides by warring victorious
powers was more than any island nation can
withstand. Mac and Ike were right.


Even if I accept your categotrisation of their views they werent,
the Japanese were all ready cut off from the Asian
continent by the USN and had already lost entire armies in Okinawa,
India and Burma without surrendering

The last word belongs to the Emperor of Japan
who said in his surrender speech

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the
power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of
many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result
in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it
would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

He seems pretty clear that the bomb was the decisive factor
as do all the Japanese participants. The decision to surrender was
taken before the extent of the defeat of the Kwantung army
was clear.

Keith

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
news:bt9uq8$nul
And yet McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea

Just so. MacArthur wasn't against nukes;
he just saw that the Japanese situation didn't
require them.

Or perhaps he felt cheated out of finishing off Japan.

"John Keeney" wrote in :


"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
news:bt9uq8$nul
And yet McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea

Just so. MacArthur wasn't against nukes;
he just saw that the Japanese situation didn't
require them.

Or perhaps he felt cheated out of finishing off Japan.




No commander hates his troops that much to
see so many killed for the joy of "finishing off"
the enemy.

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"John Keeney" wrote in
:


"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
news:bt9uq8$nul
And yet McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea

Just so. MacArthur wasn't against nukes;
he just saw that the Japanese situation didn't
require them.

Or perhaps he felt cheated out of finishing off Japan.




No commander hates his troops that much to
see so many killed for the joy of "finishing off"
the enemy.

Yeah, instead ol' Dougie just sacrifiiced thousands at the altar of his own
vanity when he insisted on reconquering the PI, and he damned near did the
same thing when he tried his best to invade Rabaul rather than bypass it.
Dougie had about as much concern for his troops as a tomcat has for his
kittens.

Brooks

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman
wrote:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping
the
bomb was completely unnecessary"
Dwight Eisenhower, "Mandate for Change", pg
380

Unless one wanted to reduce total casualties.


"the Japanese were ready to surrender and
it wasn't
necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Dwight Eisenhower, Newsweek, 11/11/63

As above. (And how much Pacific planning was
DDE involved with in 1945?)

"No military justification for the dropping
of the bomb".
Douglas MacArthur

And we know just how infallible McArthur was,
don't we?)
Anyone consider the possiblity that Big Mac was ****ed at not being able
to launch the biggest amphib assaults in history in Kyushu and the Kanto?


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Keith Willshaw"
wrote in news:bt9uq8$nul
:


"Mitchell Holman"
wrote in message
...
"Jeroen Wenting"
wrote in
:


"No military justification for the dropping
of the bomb".
Douglas MacArthur


And yet McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons
in Korea


Just so. MacArthur wasn't against nukes;
he just saw that the Japanese situation didn't

require them.



and Eisenhower at an NSC meeting 11th feb
1953 said,
"We should consider the tactical use of atomic
weapons in the
Kaesong area." (Korea)


Just so. Ike wasn't against nukes; he just

saw that the Japanese situation didn't require
them.



Fact is Eisenhower wasnt part of the decision
making process
in August 1945 and hadnt seen the briefing
material that would
have allowed him to make an informed decision.
The Japanese
were NOT ready to surrender as they could
easily have done


Yes, they were. The turning point after

Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't the bombs but
Russia's entry into the war. THAT was the
key factor showing defeat was certain.



Even after 2 A-bombs were dropped the militarists
wanted to fight
on and only the intervention of the Emperor
forced them to
accept surrender.


The firestorm raids of LeMay were far
more lethal than the A-bombs and the Japanese
endured THOSE without surrendering. But being

surrounded by all sides by warring victorious

powers was more than any island nation can
withstand. Mac and Ike were right.




It took the bombs and the Soviet attack to give the Peace faction what
they needed to get the Emperor to stick his neck out and request that the
Government accept Potsdam. You are also forgetting the attempted putsch on
the night of 14/15 Aug to put in a military govt to continue the war. Loyal
troops put things down without much trouble, and the plotters committed hari-kiri.
The Emperor was advised and said that if necessary, he would issue a command
to surrender.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In message , Stephen Harding
writes
Kevin Brooks wrote:
He was also the architect of the PI disaster--it was his communications to
Marshall that encouraged the change in the defensive strategy for the PI in
early 1941 (this came up during aprevious discussion, and I later found the
official US Army historical data relating to that communication between
Dougie and GCM), and he was the fellow who decided on the ludicrous forward
defense in the subsequent battle (giving up substantial resources and making
the later defense of Bataan and Corregidor a largely "come as you are"
affair), and refused to acknowledge that his Philippine Army was for the
most part smoke, mirrors, and dreams and was in no way ready for any kind of
combat operations in early 1941.

The guy is pretty easy to dislike in hindsight. But he was working
in the PIs with a severe material deficit. He really wasn't getting
much help from politicos in the US.

Claiming the Philippine Army was an effective combat-ready force wasn't
going to help pry reinforcements out of DC, though.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message ,
Stephen Harding
writes
Kevin Brooks wrote:
He was also the architect of the PI disaster--it
was his communications to
Marshall that encouraged the change in the
defensive strategy for the PI in
early 1941 (this came up during aprevious
discussion, and I later found the
official US Army historical data relating
to that communication between
Dougie and GCM), and he was the fellow who
decided on the ludicrous forward
defense in the subsequent battle (giving
up substantial resources and making
the later defense of Bataan and Corregidor
a largely "come as you are"
affair), and refused to acknowledge that
his Philippine Army was for the
most part smoke, mirrors, and dreams and
was in no way ready for any kind of
combat operations in early 1941.

The guy is pretty easy to dislike in hindsight.
But he was working
in the PIs with a severe material deficit.
He really wasn't getting
much help from politicos in the US.

Claiming the Philippine Army was an effective
combat-ready force wasn't
going to help pry reinforcements out of DC,
though.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing
to be polite.

W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Marshall actually offered MacArthur the ORNG's 41st ID in August of 1941.
Big Mac declined the offer, which spared the Oregon Guardsmen the Death March
and everything else that followed.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!