Is the West really morally superior?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: sandorski
OP makes an interesting point that most have ignored. Though I don't think doing a number vs number comparison really fits, it does provide some context in which to draw a conclusion from. That conclusion, IMO, is that Al Queda is a nuisance and not the dire threat it has been made out to be. That said, it is a nuisance with a very possible chance of becoming a Threat and as such should be dismantled ASAP.

They are a great threat as is because they can get their hands on WMDs in a short period of time. When you have Islamic countries with WMDs already, that puts the world at a greater danger. But its good to see some of my fellow leftists disagree with the mainstream crap thats being said around here.

As for the West being morally superior, in today's times, yes. We are ahead of other countries by centuries in terms of treatment of humans. The West these days stands for good while other places represent mostly bad.

Keep in mind that we live in an imperfect world and will always live in an imperfect world. When you people who always seem to blame everything on America or even the West realize that, you will come to your senses. Compared with other parts of the world, we are morally superior. (In the 21st century)

They've had plenty of "short periods" already, but still there's no evidence of acquiring such "WMD".

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

Oh????

Dresden I am not going to defend but the bombing of Japan I will. It saved millions of lives and if you dont believe that, I would consider learning a little bit more on the subject.

You knew it would have saved millions of lives? How? Can you see the future? There were other targets, that didn't have a civilian presence. Go read Trumans' memiors on the subject.

I hate to agree with Genx, but he's totally right when it comes to bombings of Japan. It would be a bloody battle, with millions of Japanese, and hundreds of thousands of Americans dead if the invasion of the home islands had to occur.

 

[Orignal Earl]

There is alot of misinformation in this thread, alot of people calling others dumbasses while making dumbasses out of themselves


Against the bombing-

The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany, several scientists working on the project felt that the United States should not be the first to use such weapons. One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [15] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [16]; Major General Curtis LeMay [17]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [18].

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[19] (pg. 312-313)"

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[20]"

However, it should be noted that the survey assumed that continued conventional attacks on Japan?with additional direct and indirect casualties?would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned

Another criticism is that the U.S. should have waited a short time to gauge the effect of the Soviet Union's entry into the war. The U.S. knew, as Japan did not, that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan three months after V-E Day, on August 8, 1945

Many critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union

For the bombing-

Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the Emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option?as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly.

Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. (It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.)

Finally, supporters also point to Japanese plans, devised by their Unit 731 to launch Kamikaze planes laden with plague-infested fleas to infect the populace of San Diego, California. The target date was to be September 22, 1945, although it is unlikely that the Japanese government would have allowed so many resources to be diverted from defensive purposes.

It's also important to note that most Japanese civilians were terrified of the allies because of government propapanda. But they did not strike in large numbers at the allies, they would commit suicide. Large numbers would grab their children and jump off cliffs when the Americans were in view. There is lots of footage of this

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

Oh????

Dresden I am not going to defend but the bombing of Japan I will. It saved millions of lives and if you dont believe that, I would consider learning a little bit more on the subject.

You knew it would have saved millions of lives? How? Can you see the future? There were other targets, that didn't have a civilian presence. Go read Trumans' memiors on the subject.

I hate to agree with Genx, but he's totally right when it comes to bombings of Japan. It would be a bloody battle, with millions of Japanese, and hundreds of thousands of Americans dead if the invasion of the home islands had to occur.

Battle of Okinawa - the first (and last) major "homeland" invasion of Japan.

93% death rate amongst Japanese troops. 33% death rate amongst civilians. 20,000 US dead, 50,000 wounded.

For the little island of Okinawa....but hey they were ready to surrender! :roll:

 

[astrosfan90]

My perhaps-oversimplified answer:

We are not the same nation we were 60 years ago. The West is not the same West it was 60 years ago. Methods that were considered acceptable back then may not be considered acceptable today. I thus find it to be a fallacious parallel to draw to compare actions of such a nebulous amalgamation of cultures as the "West" several generations ago to those of a currently existing group which acts in a modern context.

If you want to make a parallel, find an appropriate example within the last 5-10 years. Otherwise, it's not particularly valid IMO.

 

[SMOKE20]

First, I'll address Dresden. Dresdan was a strike that was planned, pushed and carried out by Churchill and Brittish forces. It was done as many have stated because Dresden was a major rail hub and also, as many believe because Churchill wanted to reciprocate for the frequent air strikes against Brittan as well as ever increasing at that time V1/V2 attacks. Ike was NOT in favor of the strike but was sold into it by Churchill.

Along the same lines since we're in Europe, the atrocities carried out by Hitler were only rivaled in WWII by what the Japanese did and by what the Russians did on their march into Berlin and while occupying it. And as far as the U.S. being a "Johnny come lately", well, let me remind you that much of the arms, food, ammo and equpement used by the allies, especially Russia was made in the good ole' USofA! That's right buckoes.....if it weren't for the support of the US as well as the battles and planning carried out by the US in WWII Europe, they may all well be speaking German right now!

Now, on to the Bombing in Japan. Do some real research and you'll find that indeed the bombing save far more lives than it cost. Negotiations were being attempted even up to the night before the initial drop and up to the second dropping.......the Japanese refused to surrender and have stated bluntly and honestly that they would have fought to the last man/woman/child if not for the overwhelming devestation caused by the two bombs.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Do some real research and you'll find that indeed the bombing save far more lives than it cost. Negotiations were being attempted even up to the night before the initial drop and up to the second dropping.......the Japanese refused to surrender and have stated bluntly and honestly that they would have fought to the last man/woman/child if not for the overwhelming devestation caused by the two bombs.

But this is STILL not addressing the central issue.

Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? In it's struggle against the West, Al Qaida can claim that its short-term strategy of terrorizing civilians - perhaps killing thousands - will in the long run save lives, since the West's will to continue the fight might be broken. In other words, Al Qaeda can claim that if the West abandons the fight, a protracted war between the West and the Middle East will be avoided, thus saving many, many thousands of lives. Why is that argument not JUST as valid as those put forth in support of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It seems to me either that targeting civilians is NEVER acceptable, regardless of the "big picture" (in which case Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Al Qaeda's acts, and perhaps Dresden CANNOT be justified), or it IS acceptable (in which case we really can't criticize Al Qaeda for its strategy).

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Do some real research and you'll find that indeed the bombing save far more lives than it cost. Negotiations were being attempted even up to the night before the initial drop and up to the second dropping.......the Japanese refused to surrender and have stated bluntly and honestly that they would have fought to the last man/woman/child if not for the overwhelming devestation caused by the two bombs.

But this is STILL not addressing the central issue.

Why cannot Al Qaeda make the same claim that its terror tactics are, in the long run, saving lives? In it's struggle against the West, Al Qaida can claim that its short-term strategy of terrorizing civilians - perhaps killing thousands - will in the long run save lives, since the West's will to continue the fight might be broken. In other words, Al Qaeda can claim that if the West abandons the fight, a protracted war between the West and the Middle East will be avoided, thus saving many, many thousands of lives. Why is that argument not JUST as valid as those put forth in support of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It seems to me either that targeting civilians is NEVER acceptable, regardless of the "big picture" (in which case Hiroshima and Nagasaki [and perhaps Dresden] CANNOT be justified), or it IS acceptable.

OK, first, go back the last 100 years just to start, and tell me the longest term in years the Middleeast has NOT be at war with itself or others. It's been a hotbed for violence for years to numerous to mention. It can be said that invlovement by western countries (including Europe) can be the cause of some of this, but, western involvment in most cases was requested by a middleastern country at odds with a larger or stronger middleastern country or with Israel. (which was not given to the jewish people by the USA but by Europe after WWII.

As far as intentionally targeting civilians..........um, check your history once again............both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both inland (as inland as you can get in Japan) weapons and wartime manufacturing centers. Beyond that, how do you go about NOT having collateral civilian deaths with the weapons, especially arial ordinance used in current times or with atomic/nuclear arms?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: shira
It seems to me either that targeting civilians is NEVER acceptable, regardless of the "big picture" (in which case Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Al Qaeda's acts, and perhaps Dresden CANNOT be justified), or it IS acceptable (in which case we really can't criticize Al Qaeda for its strategy).

Indeed.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Beyond that, how do you go about NOT having collateral civilian deaths with the weapons, especially arial ordinance used in current times or with atomic/nuclear arms?

So you acknowledge that we know beforehand that we will indeed cause 'collateral' civilian deaths but it's okay to proceed because we're fighting what we consider a just cause?
Why then do we act shocked and horrified when the enemy kills our civilians in the process of their attacks on our military and financial centers?

Why should AQ be held to a higher standard than we hold our own military? Aren't we better than them?

The problem is, as shira is pointing out, if we can justify the deaths of innocents even as 'collateral damage' then certainly they can also justify the deaths of innocents.

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Beyond that, how do you go about NOT having collateral civilian deaths with the weapons, especially arial ordinance used in current times or with atomic/nuclear arms?

So you acknowledge that we know beforehand that we will indeed cause 'collateral' civilian deaths but it's okay to proceed because we're fighting what we consider a just cause?
Why then do we act shocked and horrified when the enemy kills our civilians in the process of their attacks on our military and financial centers?

Why should AQ be held to a higher standard than we hold our own military? Aren't we better than them?

The problem is, as shira is pointing out, if we can justify the deaths of innocents even as 'collateral damage' then certainly they can also justify the deaths of innocents.

Exactly. Why do we act shocked?

Difference............We generally give warning when we're going to attack just as we did each time in Iraq, Libia, Grenada, Afghanistan. They on the other hand try at all cost to keep an attack a secret and use passenger jets for instance to fly into large buildings!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both inland (as inland as you can get in Japan) weapons and wartime manufacturing centers. Beyond that, how do you go about NOT having collateral civilian deaths with the weapons, especially arial ordinance used in current times or with atomic/nuclear arms?

One of the "laws of war" states that one may not attack the enemy when it is known that an unacceptable number of innocents will be in harms way. I don't think ANYONE believes that our attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily intended to destroy military targets, with the completely predictable loss of 100,000+ lives merely unavoidable "collateral damage". No, the vast loss of life was THE main objective of the attacks.

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both inland (as inland as you can get in Japan) weapons and wartime manufacturing centers. Beyond that, how do you go about NOT having collateral civilian deaths with the weapons, especially arial ordinance used in current times or with atomic/nuclear arms?

One of the "laws of war" states that one may not attack the enemy when it is known that an unacceptable number of innocents will be in harms way. I don't think ANYONE believes that our attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily intended to destroy military targets, with the completely predictable loss of 100,000+ lives merely unavoidable "collateral damage". No, the vast loss of life was THE main objective of the attacks.

Hmm, tell, me who has gone out of their way to avoid that in any recent war? Ever heard the old saying "All's fair in love and war"? Think Germany was worried about it when the bombed London, Paris, Moscow, Etc? How about Japan?

Another point.......you're trying to justify a position you're debating some 60 years after it took place. It's REAL easy to say things should have been done this way or that now, but can you truely say what your decsion would have been if you were living it in 1945? I don't think so because the world was a different place in 1945! It's real easy for you to sit here and say it was wrong.......but ask the majority of those still alive whom lived through it and I'm positive they will be just as sure what was done was right at that time.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's real easy for you to sit here and say it was wrong.......but ask the majority of those still alive whom lived through it and I'm positive they will be just as sure what was done was right at that time.

I'm starting to believe that if your post is over 2 sentences long, it's just ignored

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [15] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [16]; Major General Curtis LeMay [17]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [18].

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[19] (pg. 312-313)"

See above post and read that article

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Exactly. Why do we act shocked?

Difference............We generally give warning when we're going to attack just as we did each time in Iraq, Libia, Grenada, Afghanistan. They on the other hand try at all cost to keep an attack a secret and use passenger jets for instance to fly into large buildings!

So, you're saying the dead innocents and the families of the dead innocents should at least be grateful we gave warning before attacking?

I wonder if the 14 members of this family recieved warning before being obliterated? As the Police Colonel in the article says "Even if there had been (terrorists running into the house) why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?". Or at least warn the uninvolved occupants of the house since we are kind enough to warn people first.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
"All's fair in love and war"?

Indeed I have. Which is why I, again, wonder why Americans are shocked when some of the death and destruction we've exported gets laid back on our doorstep.

 

[AragornTK]

um... on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki... weren't they all centers for industry?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: AragornTK
um... on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki... weren't they all centers for industry?

Yup, just like the WTC was a financial center.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: AragornTK
um... on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki... weren't they all centers for industry?

Yup, just like the WTC was a financial center.

The thing is that since I'm an American, I look at things from an American perspective. You and others like you seem to look at things from an anti-American or even a foreign perspective. For our interests, bombing those two targets was necessary. Usually, what is good for us is good for others.

I think most would agree that the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped end the war quicker and reduced the Japanese lives lost. But some of our firebombing practices were a bit much.

What do you have to say about the atrocities committed by the Japanese and the Nazis? All I hear from you people is how America is so bad. Then you have the people here legitimizing the attacks on the WTC saying that is a strategic target.

Tell me, what country did those terrorists on 9/11 represent? If they did, lets blow a chunk off that country right now. Those terrorists represent radical Islamists and they don't have a single country. They are in dozens in countries. We need to cooperate with other nations if we want to win this farce called the war on terror.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: AragornTK
um... on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki... weren't they all centers for industry?

Yup, just like the WTC was a financial center.

The thing is that since I'm an American, I look at things from an American perspective. You and others like you seem to look at things from an anti-American or even a foreign perspective. For our interests, bombing those two targets was necessary. Usually, what is good for us is good for others.

Who told you 'what's good for us is good for others'? Nonsense. The US acts in US interests alone... helping the same countries we will crush years later (Iraq) when they turn against our interests.

The 9/11 terrorists believed they acted in their people's best interest also.

The problem is we expect others to play by the very rules we break.
If we could invade Iraq in our interests why couldn't Iraq invade Kuwait in their interests?
Americans appear to the rest of the world to play by a different set of rules and to be above the laws we've taken upon ourselves to enforce.

The inability to look at something from another's perspective is what causes wars. I expect us as Americans to take the high road and be BETTER than the terrorist scumbags.

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's real easy for you to sit here and say it was wrong.......but ask the majority of those still alive whom lived through it and I'm positive they will be just as sure what was done was right at that time.

I'm starting to believe that if your post is over 2 sentences long, it's just ignored

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [15] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [16]; Major General Curtis LeMay [17]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [18].

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[19] (pg. 312-313)"

See above post and read that article

Not ignored..... Simply difference of opinion. The meeting at Potsdam and the japanese straight forward answer not to surrender lead to a decsion by several respected men of the time and it was done. Of course there will be remorse and second guessing. For example, Eisenhower did not say anything negative about the dropping of the bomb until many years later. McCarthy was against it mainly because he was army and his plans for invasion was the alternate to dropping the bomb. McCarthy was another Patton...........Prima Donas looking for their piece in history.

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
"All's fair in love and war"?

Indeed I have. Which is why I, again, wonder why Americans are shocked when some of the death and destruction we've exported gets laid back on our doorstep.

And again, I'll answer the same, I don't know why they do......for sure the government and military know better. Hell, they're taught that! "Do it to the other poor schmuck before he does it to you!"

As far as your other post, well, look at it this way, if you're military, you become rather tired and fearfull of doing things the "safe" way after seeing many friends blown to pieces or shot. Add to that if they had gone in and lost many of our own boys, that would have been an even bigger story. Decsions are made by men whom hopefully have seen enough to make the right call............most of the time they will, but sometimes, they won't.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's real easy for you to sit here and say it was wrong.......but ask the majority of those still alive whom lived through it and I'm positive they will be just as sure what was done was right at that time.

I'm starting to believe that if your post is over 2 sentences long, it's just ignored

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [15] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [16]; Major General Curtis LeMay [17]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [18].

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[19] (pg. 312-313)"

See above post and read that article

Regarding Eisenhower, it should be noted that the only such account of this exchange between him and Stimson is Ike's own memoirs, which he did not even begin drafting until several years later. Stimson himself kept a contemporaneous and detailed diary in which he noted no such misgivings by Eisenhower at any time in July 1945. It's hard to believe Eisenhower would've been arguing to the Secretary of War that "Japan was already defeated" when that same month he wrote an old friend stating he had not the "slightest idea" what was going to happen in the Pacific. If Ike or any other major U.S. military leader had objections to the bombing, there is scant evidence those objections were made prior to the bombings.

Edit: And regarding Admiral Leahy, while he did call the atomic bombs "barbarous weapons" after the war, he also supported a blockade/bombardment strategy as a way to force Japan's surrender without either the use of nukes or a bloody land invasion. Since even Japanese sources put civilian deaths by conventional aerial bombardment at equal to or greater than those by nuclear bombs, one has to wonder how it's less barbarous to die via conventional bomb rather than nuclear bomb. Plus, assuming the Allies just continued to bomb and blockade Japan, who knows how long that would've taken? Japanese food supplies were already critically low in 1945, such that when the war ended in August '45, 1/5 to 1/4 of the entire population displayed serious nutritional deficiencies. Any sort of continuation of the blockade would've just resulted in mass starvation (rationing was down to less than 1300 calories/day/citizen). Had Leahy's views prevailed (even assuming he expressed them at the time, and there's no evidence he did), it's reasonable to say deaths would've been higher.

 

[Fox5]

Why compare the bombings of WW2 to modern terrorist acts? What happened in WW2 was not committed by the current generation of Americans, nor are even most of those involved in those bombings still alive. Compare what the West acts like now to what the terrorists act like now; was the bombing, destruction, and invasion of Iraq as cruel as 9/11?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Okay, so it's a bit of a generalization? What's wrong with the Neo-Conservative label? I'll admit, I do fall into the "liberal" catagory concerning a number of issuses.

While I do disagree with many about the issuses we are discussing that's not the reason why they fall into the "Neo-Conservative" catagory.

Personally, I would agree the Shira. America often proclaims its' moral superority over the rest of the world, but that's not exactly the case. In High School we're tought that the reason for the Civil War was the issuse of slavery and the reason for World War II was the Jewish Prison Camps. Eventually, we found out these reasons aren't true. So much for our moral superority huh?

You were taught that the reason for World War 2 was the concentration camps? Jesus, your school system failed you.