“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
You guys are completely brainwashed. The US government started the conflict with Japan as a back door into Europe because no one wanted to go back to war with Germany.
Regardless of having to “take out the trash,” as orion put it, it was still a horrible thing Truman ordered done.
It is murder in all sense of the word.
[quote]jmarshburn wrote:
The things you say are incredibly inflammatory and largely ignorant in the light of recorded history, however, I relish in the fact that a “warmonger” such as myself protects the very right for you to say the things you do.
[/quote]
No.
Your very existence umltimately destroys that right.
Gary Garet on empires:
"Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy. That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. The consequences of its having happened to the British Empire are tragically appearing. The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us. It needs hardly to be argued that as we convert the nation into a garrison state to build the most terrible war machine that has ever been imagined on earth, every domestic policy is bound to be conditioned by our foreign policy. The voice of government is saying that if our foreign policy fails we are ruined. It is all or nothing. Our survival as a free nation is at hazard.
“That makes it simple, for in that case there is no domestic policy that may not have to be sacrificed to the necessities of foreign policyâ??even freedom. It is no longer a question of what we can afford to do; it is what we must do to survive.”
You are not protecting anyones rights, you make their erosions possible.
In part because you help create an empire that makes their destruction necessary, in part because those that do it can hide behind you.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jmarshburn wrote:
The things you say are incredibly inflammatory and largely ignorant in the light of recorded history, however, I relish in the fact that a “warmonger” such as myself protects the very right for you to say the things you do.
[/quote]
No.
Your very existence umltimately destroys that right.
Gary Garet on empires:
"Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy. That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. The consequences of its having happened to the British Empire are tragically appearing. The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us. It needs hardly to be argued that as we convert the nation into a garrison state to build the most terrible war machine that has ever been imagined on earth, every domestic policy is bound to be conditioned by our foreign policy. The voice of government is saying that if our foreign policy fails we are ruined. It is all or nothing. Our survival as a free nation is at hazard.
“That makes it simple, for in that case there is no domestic policy that may not have to be sacrificed to the necessities of foreign policyâ??even freedom. It is no longer a question of what we can afford to do; it is what we must do to survive.”
You are not protecting anyones rights, you make their erosions possible.
In part because you help create an empire that makes their destruction necessary, in part because those that do it can hide behind you. [/quote]
FYI, an American recently got killed, because he said some bad, bad things, by people like you.
No judge, no trial, just a bomb from up high.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh yeah, and there are couple hundred thousand dead Japanese that would also take exception to your statement about no president ordering the murder of innocent civilians.[/quote]
You are a dumb fucking idiot for saying that’s what I said. A dumb fucking idiot. A stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.
You really are a whole lot less intelligent than I previously thought. Your dumb ass just compared Qaddafi with Truman. [/quote]
Clearly Truman should have sacrificed 1 million G.I.'s on a land invasion of Japan (My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific and would undoubtedly been in on the landing, our family would like to thank the President for saving his life).
LIFT you plumb crazy baby.[/quote]
What do killing innocent Japanese women and children have to do with saving GI’s lives? Why are their lives more important than innocent people in Japan who have nothing to do with what their government does?
What if the Japanese were getting ready to surrender (which they were) and you just believe in the lies your government tells you?
[/quote]
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
By that same standard of judgment, American women who worked for the war effort were also fair game in a war they had nothing to say about, no?
That a piddly mayor of a Japanese city would sacrifice innocent women and children – already long dead – means nothing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh yeah, and there are couple hundred thousand dead Japanese that would also take exception to your statement about no president ordering the murder of innocent civilians.[/quote]
You are a dumb fucking idiot for saying that’s what I said. A dumb fucking idiot. A stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.
You really are a whole lot less intelligent than I previously thought. Your dumb ass just compared Qaddafi with Truman. [/quote]
Clearly Truman should have sacrificed 1 million G.I.'s on a land invasion of Japan (My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific and would undoubtedly been in on the landing, our family would like to thank the President for saving his life).
LIFT you plumb crazy baby.[/quote]
What do killing innocent Japanese women and children have to do with saving GI’s lives? Why are their lives more important than innocent people in Japan who have nothing to do with what their government does?
What if the Japanese were getting ready to surrender (which they were) and you just believe in the lies your government tells you?
[/quote]
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
By that same standard of judgment, American women who worked for the war effort were also fair game in a war they had nothing to say about, no?
That a piddly mayor of a Japanese city would sacrifice innocent women and children – already long dead – means nothing.[/quote]
What, these women !?!
But, but, who in their right minds would call them legitimate targets?
[quote]orion wrote:
You are not protecting anyones rights, you make their erosions possible.
In part because you help create an empire that makes their destruction necessary, in part because those that do it can hide behind you. [/quote]
Truth!
To The People in the American Military, if you truly care about the freedom of those you assert to be protecting then lay down your DC sanctioned arms, come home, and protect your family from the despotic, domestic invaders.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh yeah, and there are couple hundred thousand dead Japanese that would also take exception to your statement about no president ordering the murder of innocent civilians.[/quote]
You are a dumb fucking idiot for saying that’s what I said. A dumb fucking idiot. A stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.
You really are a whole lot less intelligent than I previously thought. Your dumb ass just compared Qaddafi with Truman. [/quote]
Clearly Truman should have sacrificed 1 million G.I.'s on a land invasion of Japan (My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific and would undoubtedly been in on the landing, our family would like to thank the President for saving his life).
LIFT you plumb crazy baby.[/quote]
What do killing innocent Japanese women and children have to do with saving GI’s lives? Why are their lives more important than innocent people in Japan who have nothing to do with what their government does?
What if the Japanese were getting ready to surrender (which they were) and you just believe in the lies your government tells you?
[/quote]
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
By that same standard of judgment, American women who worked for the war effort were also fair game in a war they had nothing to say about, no?
That a piddly mayor of a Japanese city would sacrifice innocent women and children – already long dead – means nothing.[/quote]
What, these women !?!
But, but, who in their right minds would call them legitimate targets?[/quote]
No one in their “right mind” would.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh yeah, and there are couple hundred thousand dead Japanese that would also take exception to your statement about no president ordering the murder of innocent civilians.[/quote]
You are a dumb fucking idiot for saying that’s what I said. A dumb fucking idiot. A stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.
You really are a whole lot less intelligent than I previously thought. Your dumb ass just compared Qaddafi with Truman. [/quote]
Clearly Truman should have sacrificed 1 million G.I.'s on a land invasion of Japan (My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific and would undoubtedly been in on the landing, our family would like to thank the President for saving his life).
LIFT you plumb crazy baby.[/quote]
What do killing innocent Japanese women and children have to do with saving GI’s lives? Why are their lives more important than innocent people in Japan who have nothing to do with what their government does?
What if the Japanese were getting ready to surrender (which they were) and you just believe in the lies your government tells you?
[/quote]
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
By that same standard of judgment, American women who worked for the war effort were also fair game in a war they had nothing to say about, no?
That a piddly mayor of a Japanese city would sacrifice innocent women and children – already long dead – means nothing.[/quote]
What, these women !?!
But, but, who in their right minds would call them legitimate targets?[/quote]
No one in their “right mind” would.[/quote]
I think that this is a tad unfair.
After all, those women were hardly white, anglo saxon or protestant.
I am sure that you will agree that Americans as a whole are almost demi gods and it will not to do insinuate that the same rules apply to them as to anyone else.
I mean, come on.
The same is true for Iraqi women and children, they are brown and talk funny, how could they possibly be compared to a real Americans?
Thats right, they cant.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[/quote]
Cut-and-paste history; quotes taken out of their context are not proof of anything but a limited and borrowed repertoire.
Eisenhower (above) had no part in the planning of the invasion of Japan; I do not believe Marshall shared with him any intelligence about the Pacific theater. Show me similar quote from MacArthur.
As for Nimitz, he was misinformed. The Japanese had not sued for peace; its military leaders had stopped any such talk and were still planning the defense of the home islands, even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
I somehow cannot believe that Ike or Nimitz or Leahy truly relished the idea of a million men invasion force, and were not relieved by the Emperor’s surrender.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[/quote]
Cut-and-paste history; quotes taken out of their context are not proof of anything but a limited and borrowed repertoire.
Eisenhower (above) had no part in the planning of the invasion of Japan; I do not believe Marshall shared with him any intelligence about the Pacific theater. Show me similar quote from MacArthur.
As for Nimitz, he was misinformed. The Japanese had not sued for peace; its military leaders had stopped any such talk and were still planning the defense of the home islands, even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
I somehow cannot believe that Ike or Nimitz or Leahy truly relished the idea of a million men invasion force, and were not relieved by the Emperor’s surrender.
[/quote]
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Well, I’m not going to re-hash the decision. But I do suggest you who are arguing against dropping the bomb(s) take some time to look at things from a Japanese perspective.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
Yep
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[/quote]
Cut-and-paste history; quotes taken out of their context are not proof of anything but a limited and borrowed repertoire.
Eisenhower (above) had no part in the planning of the invasion of Japan; I do not believe Marshall shared with him any intelligence about the Pacific theater. Show me similar quote from MacArthur.
As for Nimitz, he was misinformed. The Japanese had not sued for peace; its military leaders had stopped any such talk and were still planning the defense of the home islands, even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
I somehow cannot believe that Ike or Nimitz or Leahy truly relished the idea of a million men invasion force, and were not relieved by the Emperor’s surrender.
[/quote]
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.[/quote]
Let me give you some advice Joe. Cousins is regarded as an “early revisionist” on the Pacific War along with P.M.S. Blackett, Carl Marzani, William Appleman Williams and D.F. Fleming. If you want Pacific War revisionist batshit nowadays you need to cite more recent ‘historians’ like Gar Alperovitz who attributes the motive to a power-crazed Truman wanting to terrify the Soviet Union. But that’s old hat too. You could go for some Chomsky batshit on the Pacific War - that’s always good: The conquests of the Imperial Japanese Army were ‘highly beneficial to the people of Asia.’ Or you could just wake up to yourself. So long fella.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[/quote]
Cut-and-paste history; quotes taken out of their context are not proof of anything but a limited and borrowed repertoire.
Eisenhower (above) had no part in the planning of the invasion of Japan; I do not believe Marshall shared with him any intelligence about the Pacific theater. Show me similar quote from MacArthur.
As for Nimitz, he was misinformed. The Japanese had not sued for peace; its military leaders had stopped any such talk and were still planning the defense of the home islands, even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
I somehow cannot believe that Ike or Nimitz or Leahy truly relished the idea of a million men invasion force, and were not relieved by the Emperor’s surrender.
[/quote]
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.[/quote]
Let me give you some advice Joe. Cousins is regarded as an “early revisionist” on the Pacific War along with P.M.S. Blackett, Carl Marzani, William Appleman Williams and D.F. Fleming. If you want Pacific War revisionist batshit nowadays you need to cite more recent ‘historians’ like Gar Alperovitz who attributes the motive to a power-crazed Truman wanting to terrify the Soviet Union. But that’s old hat too. You could go for some Chomsky batshit on the Pacific War - that’s always good: The conquests of the Imperial Japanese Army were ‘highly beneficial to the people of Asia.’ Or you could just wake up to yourself. So long fella.[/quote]
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy’s base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.
“While I was working on the new plan of air attack… [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.”
Paul Nitze, Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh yeah, and there are couple hundred thousand dead Japanese that would also take exception to your statement about no president ordering the murder of innocent civilians.[/quote]
You are a dumb fucking idiot for saying that’s what I said. A dumb fucking idiot. A stupid, dumb, fucking idiot.
You really are a whole lot less intelligent than I previously thought. Your dumb ass just compared Qaddafi with Truman. [/quote]
Clearly Truman should have sacrificed 1 million G.I.'s on a land invasion of Japan (My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific and would undoubtedly been in on the landing, our family would like to thank the President for saving his life).
LIFT you plumb crazy baby.[/quote]
What do killing innocent Japanese women and children have to do with saving GI’s lives? Why are their lives more important than innocent people in Japan who have nothing to do with what their government does?
What if the Japanese were getting ready to surrender (which they were) and you just believe in the lies your government tells you?
[/quote]
-
Many of those “innocent Japanese women and children” were actively participating in the war effort. Don’t believe me? Come to Hiroshima and walk the monuments set up to them. Come to the poison gas factory with me where those “innocent” women were working. Come see the locations where young students were mobilized to help out with the war effort.
-
“Getting ready to surrender?” So why DIDN’T they after Hiroshima? Why was there still so much disagreement about what to do in Tokyo at the time? Have you even read the history of the decision to surrender?
Sheesh.
The former mayor of Hiroshima is more balanced in his view than you are…[/quote]
By that same standard of judgment, American women who worked for the war effort were also fair game in a war they had nothing to say about, no?
That a piddly mayor of a Japanese city would sacrifice innocent women and children – already long dead – means nothing.[/quote]
What, these women !?!
But, but, who in their right minds would call them legitimate targets?[/quote]
No one in their “right mind” would.[/quote]
I think that this is a tad unfair.
After all, those women were hardly white, anglo saxon or protestant.
I am sure that you will agree that Americans as a whole are almost demi gods and it will not to do insinuate that the same rules apply to them as to anyone else.
I mean, come on.
The same is true for Iraqi women and children, they are brown and talk funny, how could they possibly be compared to a real Americans?
Thats right, they cant.[/quote]
It’s downright embarrassing to watch you two suck each other off in public like that…
And BTW, the Japanese would have gleefully A-Bombed any US military port and manufacturing city they could have if the US were refusing to surrender-- and rightfully so, IMO.
So, I guess I’m not in my “right mind,” eh?
[/quote]
Hardly anyone here is, but you manage an even more impressive feat for these here parts, you are consistent.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[/quote]
Cut-and-paste history; quotes taken out of their context are not proof of anything but a limited and borrowed repertoire.
Eisenhower (above) had no part in the planning of the invasion of Japan; I do not believe Marshall shared with him any intelligence about the Pacific theater. Show me similar quote from MacArthur.
As for Nimitz, he was misinformed. The Japanese had not sued for peace; its military leaders had stopped any such talk and were still planning the defense of the home islands, even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
I somehow cannot believe that Ike or Nimitz or Leahy truly relished the idea of a million men invasion force, and were not relieved by the Emperor’s surrender.
[/quote]
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.[/quote]
Let me give you some advice Joe. Cousins is regarded as an “early revisionist” on the Pacific War along with P.M.S. Blackett, Carl Marzani, William Appleman Williams and D.F. Fleming. If you want Pacific War revisionist batshit nowadays you need to cite more recent ‘historians’ like Gar Alperovitz who attributes the motive to a power-crazed Truman wanting to terrify the Soviet Union. But that’s old hat too. You could go for some Chomsky batshit on the Pacific War - that’s always good: The conquests of the Imperial Japanese Army were ‘highly beneficial to the people of Asia.’ Or you could just wake up to yourself. So long fella.[/quote]
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy’s base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.
“While I was working on the new plan of air attack… [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.”
Paul Nitze, Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37[/quote]
I don’t have time for this Joe. The revisionist standard model is built around that quote from Paul Nitze. If you are really interested see here:
Endy lesson.