Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 3, 10:39?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 4, 1:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:



Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of
surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The
authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state
shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...."

That line is saying that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces
can depose the Emperor if he feels like it.

Which is fundamentally different than a treaty declaring that the
insitution of Emperor shall be definitely abolished. It's compromise
language in its purest form. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 3, 10:28?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:

You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?

Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy.

Leahy's observations to that effect were not made "during that time".
They were made years after the war had ended.

Ike is about the only one who claimed Japan was trying to surrender,
but he didn't make a big deal over it, and the only person he told
(Stimson) didn't take him very seriously.

Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Not necessarily. Historians have access to pretty much all the
knowledge that they had during the war.

Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?

According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.

That was MacArthur's view years after the war. Just after Hiroshima
his view was still that Japan wouldn't surrender until the US invaded
Japan.

And we never made any agreement regarding keeping the Emperor. The
surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor if he
felt like it.

Why would MacArthur change his view after the war was over?
He may have waited to express his opinion, but what could have
possibly happened to change his view entirely?

More importantly, what would motivate him to lie about the conclusions
he reached in 1945? I can't think of a single thing.

Even today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an action that
many Americans feel must be defended as a good, right, maybe even holy
episode in our history. Voicing any willingness to examine whether
there were alternatives and whether in retrospect we still think we
chose the best if there were is an unpopular exercise even afer 60
years. Closer to the event, public sentiment in favor of the bombing
was
undoubtedly stronger. It was pretty courageous of MacArthur to voice
his private conclusions at any time, even if the doubts and
reservations he later expressed didn't prevent him doing his public
duty at the close of WWII.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...


Even today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an action that
many Americans feel must be defended as a good, right, maybe even holy
episode in our history. Voicing any willingness to examine whether
there were alternatives and whether in retrospect we still think we
chose the best if there were is an unpopular exercise even afer 60
years. Closer to the event, public sentiment in favor of the bombing
was
undoubtedly stronger. It was pretty courageous of MacArthur to voice
his private conclusions at any time, even if the doubts and
reservations he later expressed didn't prevent him doing his public
duty at the close of WWII.


You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:


You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 2:35 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:

You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

Capitulate is not the same as unconditional surrender. The end result of
the war in the Pacific was always unconditional surrender from Japan.

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

The Korean War has not ended, there has been no victory nor defeat on
either side of the 38th parallel.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god


Wasnt' there a book about him called "The American Caesar"?

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.


You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you can't.

Eisboch

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.


You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you
can't.

Eisboch


Amen....

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:

You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

Capitulate is not the same as unconditional surrender. The end result of
the war in the Pacific was always unconditional surrender from Japan.

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

The Korean War has not ended, there has been no victory nor defeat on
either side of the 38th parallel.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god. See above
regarding unconditional surrender.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)