[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It always bothers me when people try to give Truman shit for that… they have no idea of the absolute destruction that would have been heaped on Japan had we invaded- everything from the bombing of every major city to killing of everyone who didn’t surrender.
That island would still be a damned wasteland…[/quote]
It’s also sometimes falsely portrayed as if ol Harry made that decision easily because he was itching to blow something up with his new toy. Everything I’ve read indicates that he agonized over whether to to go ahead with operation downfall or drop those bombs. As you have said, Japan would have fought to the last man woman and child screaming BANZAI!!! all the way. Untold multitudes would have died on both sides and in warfare not dying yourself is of paramount importance so he was rightly more worried about how many more Americans he’d lose.
The public was losing it’s enthusiasm, it was costing an astronomical fortune and millions of lives and only a demonstration of utterly overwhelming destructive power had a prayer of convincing Hirohito’s regime to surrender. Truman did the right thing considering the alternatives.
A blemish on an otherwise impressive presidency. Missouri’s own Harry Truman. Read the McCullough biography. He was a truly extra-ordinary man.[/quote]
Blemish? Blemish my ass. Ten times that number would have died if we had to invade the Japanese mainland, probably more.
And with that psychotic, cultish culture at the time, none of them would have surrendered, and we would have had to butcher them all.
I say good for Truman. He saved more lives than he ended, including probably the life of my grandfather, who fought in the Pacific.
You don’t want to get nuked, don’t go starting wars.[/quote]
Hey! You said what I said but more angry like!
I just think maybe a warning nuke across the bow would have been the considerate thing to do…
Yeah, my late great grandfather in law said he was waiting to deploy from a carrier in the pacific when they got the news. Said he couldn’t fault Truman at all.
[quote]Fallen wrote:
Did you guys know Truman was also a Klansmen?
I agree with Irish. The union would’ve slaughtered their way to Japan’s surrender. The bombs although devastating were not as bad as an invasion. I dont think it was a blemish in any way. America had to flash that cock to show the Soviets what the US could do and to defeat Japan. [/quote]
My god that assertion could not be more suspect. As pointed out by the article you linked.
“According to Salisbury’s version of the story, Truman was inducted, but afterward â??was never active; he was just a member who wouldn’t do anythingâ??. Salisbury, however, became Truman’s bitter enemy in later years, so this version is suspect.[2]
According to Hinde and Truman’s accounts, the Klan officer demanded that Truman pledge not to hire any Catholics or Jews if he was reelected. Truman refused, and demanded the return of his $10 membership fee; most of the men he had commanded in World War I had been local Irish Catholics”
The man who integrated the armed forces? Who amicably ran a business with a jewish man?
…I just think maybe a warning nuke across the bow would have been the considerate thing to do…
[/quote]That warning shot actually occurred. In fact it hit the bow > Hiroshima.
The Japanese Supreme Council for the Direction of the War said “Fuck you.” It took the payload of the Bockscar and a Soviet invasion of Manchukuo to get the white flag waving. Yes, even after the devastating consequences of the Hiroshima bomb it STILL took more (massive) persuasion to get Hirohito, Tojo and the boys to “invite” MacArthur into Tokyo Bay.
With that in mind why would one consider the notion that the Japanese weren’t willing to continue the war on the home islands for quite some time?
[/quote]
I thought they were dropped hours apart on the same day. I’m going to assume I’m wrong until shown otherwise. In that case, one of my favorite presidents is exonerated.
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.
[quote]Fallen wrote:
The only war where I would willingly enlist to fight for America. [/quote]
WWI?
[/quote]WWI was a different breed of cat. In fact it was vastly different from WWII.
[Edit] What I meant was I can understand the perspective that WWII was a “holy war” if you will, a true war of survival and national defense for the USA. WWI did not bear the same ominous apprehensions to Americans. [/quote]
Push hit the nail on the head for me. WWII and Mr. Polks War on the behalf of the enemy.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
You need to shut the fuck up methinks. We are not glorifying anything. We are merely discussing the second World War.
[quote]Fallen wrote:
Did you guys know Truman was also a Klansmen?
I agree with Irish. The union would’ve slaughtered their way to Japan’s surrender. The bombs although devastating were not as bad as an invasion. I dont think it was a blemish in any way. America had to flash that cock to show the Soviets what the US could do and to defeat Japan. [/quote]
My god that assertion could not be more suspect. As pointed out by the article you linked.
“According to Salisbury’s version of the story, Truman was inducted, but afterward â??was never active; he was just a member who wouldn’t do anythingâ??. Salisbury, however, became Truman’s bitter enemy in later years, so this version is suspect.[2]
According to Hinde and Truman’s accounts, the Klan officer demanded that Truman pledge not to hire any Catholics or Jews if he was reelected. Truman refused, and demanded the return of his $10 membership fee; most of the men he had commanded in World War I had been local Irish Catholics”
The man who integrated the armed forces? Who amicably ran a business with a jewish man?[/quote]
It seems he did it mainly for political reasons. In reality who knows but Truman himself.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
You need to shut the fuck up methinks. We are not glorifying anything. We are merely discussing the second World War. [/quote]
There usually entails much cock twirling and glorification of WWII. Ironically, it’s often done by people who have never been in the military, much less fought in the conflict.
Not saying this is necessarily happening in this thread, but in past WWII related threads in this forum, this has been the case.
I would also point out that telling someone to “shut the fuck up”, especially someone who usually makes valid points in their posts, is not the best tact to use. I have seen a few of your posts before and you really have no business dictating who can speak and who can’t.
I would also point out that telling someone to “shut the fuck up”, especially someone who usually makes valid points in their posts, is not the best tact to use. I have seen a few of your posts before and you really have no business dictating who can speak and who can’t.[/quote]
True, but in this format its merely the flexing of my first amendment rights.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that the war itself was either good or manly- it’s that the reaction of the average people in this country was VERY manly. They knew what had to be done, and I’ll be damned if millions of them didn’t volunteer to go right onto Iwo Jima and the shores of Normandy and risk their lives for the rest of the world.
And we have gone to war on many whims- the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, Vietnam… but WWII was far from a “whim.” It was a concerted effort by an expanding superpower to destroy our navy and force us to sue for peace on their terms under the threat of destruction. All the while, we were faced with a growing evil empire in the east with Germany.
That’s not a whim… that’s some comic book shit where there’s no other way to do it. And believe me, if there was another way to do it, Eisenhower would have thought of it.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
You need to shut the fuck up methinks. We are not glorifying anything. We are merely discussing the second World War. [/quote]
Have you ever fought in a war? Were you ever in the military? If you were, were you in an infantry unit? Have you ever seen one of your friends die? Have you seen a child get their limbs blown off? Have you ever seen grieving parents at their son’s military burial?
Judging by your sophomoric writing style and responses I would guess no on all counts. If you had you might change the way you see the world.
War is never a good thing, and it is never a truly “good vs. evil” battle, no matter what the media wants you to believe.
I am worried about the future of our country. This constant sabre rattling that has been going on by our elected officials needs to stop. It has been getting louder by the day. I fear that we are being led down a path towards another World War.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that the war itself was either good or manly- it’s that the reaction of the average people in this country was VERY manly. They knew what had to be done, and I’ll be damned if millions of them didn’t volunteer to go right onto Iwo Jima and the shores of Normandy and risk their lives for the rest of the world.
And we have gone to war on many whims- the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, Vietnam… but WWII was far from a “whim.” It was a concerted effort by an expanding superpower to destroy our navy and force us to sue for peace on their terms under the threat of destruction. All the while, we were faced with a growing evil empire in the east with Germany.
That’s not a whim… that’s some comic book shit where there’s no other way to do it. And believe me, if there was another way to do it, Eisenhower would have thought of it.
[/quote]
Good points. The people in this country were much different than they are now. That whole Depression/WW2 generation was about sacrifice. Too bad it was followed up by the Baby Boomers, the worst generation.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.
I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]
You need to shut the fuck up methinks. We are not glorifying anything. We are merely discussing the second World War. [/quote]
Have you ever fought in a war? Were you ever in the military? If you were, were you in an infantry unit? Have you ever seen one of your friends die? Have you seen a child get their limbs blown off? Have you ever seen grieving parents at their son’s military burial?
Judging by your sophomoric writing style and responses I would guess no on all counts. If you had you might change the way you see the world.
War is never a good thing, and it is never a truly “good vs. evil” battle, no matter what the media wants you to believe.
I am worried about the future of our country. This constant sabre rattling that has been going on by our elected officials needs to stop. It has been getting louder by the day. I fear that we are being led down a path towards another World War.
[/quote]
Sorry to be a downer, but it is enevitable that another World War will come about. This time the whole world will be involved, not just Europe, and Asia.