Hiroshima justified?

Dave Smith wrote:
Richard Periut wrote:

I suppose they could have done it Japanese style, murder all the men by the
most barbarous and sadistic means available and then systematically rape and
murder all the women. Of course, they would have had to risk who knows how
many thousands of lives in an invasion before they would get to play those
sadistic games.

Two wrongs have never made a "right."

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, the statement has nothing to do
with the topic. Destruction is a part of war. It would be more likely
to avoid war if you avoid starting one by attacking the other party.
The destruction of Hiroshima was fully justified by it's result. In
fact, it produced an end to the war with less impact on Japan than any
other end that could be envisioned at the time. FFM

They don't? I would suggest that in this case it did.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:49:36 +0000, Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Two wrongs don't make a right. However, the statement has nothing to do
with the topic. Destruction is a part of war. It would be more likely
to avoid war if you avoid starting one by attacking the other party.
The destruction of Hiroshima was fully justified by it's result. In
fact, it produced an end to the war with less impact on Japan than any
other end that could be envisioned at the time. FFM

None of which is anywhere near as significant as the impact it had on
Stalin. Which looking at the Potsdam transcripts, was clearly the
foremost thing on Truman's mind.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:49:36 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, the statement has nothing to do
with the topic. Destruction is a part of war. It would be more likely
to avoid war if you avoid starting one by attacking the other party.
The destruction of Hiroshima was fully justified by it's result. In
fact, it produced an end to the war with less impact on Japan than any
other end that could be envisioned at the time.

That's a very short summary of Richard Frank's book, "Downfall". I was
convinced by the book, and I agree with your statement of the case.

Perhaps the case for Little Boy might be strengthened if we moved
outside Japan to consider the plight of the Asians dying under the
Japanese military. Frank estimates that the death toll amounted to
100,000 a month in China alone.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

devil wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:49:36 +0000, Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Two wrongs don't make a right. However, the statement has nothing to do
with the topic. Destruction is a part of war. It would be more likely
to avoid war if you avoid starting one by attacking the other party.
The destruction of Hiroshima was fully justified by it's result. In
fact, it produced an end to the war with less impact on Japan than any
other end that could be envisioned at the time. FFM

None of which is anywhere near as significant as the impact it had on
Stalin. Which looking at the Potsdam transcripts, was clearly the
foremost thing on Truman's mind.

How would the Potsdam transcipts indicate to you what was foremost
on Truman's mind when he gave final authorization to use the bomb?
He didn't decide at Potsdam. Why wouldn't it be a more reasonable
presumption, on an occum's razor sorta basis, that the previous 4
years of deadly war, rationing, and misery was the basis, including
some fairly recent and extremely deadly island battles in the Pacific?
Just because he realized there may be other benefits to using the bomb,
doesn't mean that they were either the "justification" nor "foremost
on his mind". An incredible number of soldiers had already died.
They were expecting, and preparing for, an incredible number to die
in the taking of the island. Why wouldn't you presume THAT was
foremost on his mind?

on an occum's razor sorta basis,

We also have his postwar recollections. Not to mention his letter to
Bess from Potsdam: "Think of all the boys that won't be killed!" --
words to that effect.

Well, here it is exactly, written on July 17:

"I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the
kids who won't be killed!"

Again, I recommend Downfall for the details of how the war ended.
www.warbirdforum.com/downfall.htm



all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com