What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Book review: Killing The Rising Sun by O'Reilly & Dugard

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,933
Points
290
I just finished reading Killing The Rising Sun by Bill O'Reilly & Martin Dugard, published by Henry Holt & Co LLC, NYC NY, 1st Edition 2016.

My niece gave it to me as an Xmas present.

Took me 32 hours cover to cover including time for sleep and meals.

Found it to be the best book I have ever read, second only to the Greek New Testament in Greek.

Could not put it down once I started reading it. My sister wants to read it next so I will give it to her tomorrow. Our father was a veteran of WW2 in Europe and he used to shout in his sleep in the middle of the night and I as a small child would get out of bed and go running to his bedside and wake him so that his nightmares would stop.

O'Reilly points out astutely and with meticulous documentation that the US leadership and it's military and naval brass were split on the decision by Truman to drop the two A-bombs. He lists each of them individually and discusses why. Generally speaking the military was opposed to it except for the brass stationed in Washington DC close to Truman. However the rank and file including Tibbitts who dropped the first A-bomb were in favor of it.

O'Reilly tells this story from the viewpoints of several carefully documented first hand witnesses and participants of WW2 in the Pacific including his father.

I can now see having read the book that the USA was hungry and thirsty for a faster victory in Japan since the war in Europe had ended. There was a tremendous fear that Japan would never surrender.

While I agree with the noble view of MacArthur who opposed the use of the A-bombs that civilians should never be killed if avoidable, this point of view was overruled at the time. I do not however agree with MacArthur that Japan should have been invaded. I would have used naval power to isolate and blockade Japan and conventional air power to destroy their factories and food production. However in the end as many or more of the Japanese both military and civilian would likely have died as well by starvation then, so the debate is essentially moot.

So it does not matter whether Truman used the A-bombs or not. Either way many Japanese were going to die in order to end WW2 in the Pacific.

O'Reilly and his dad are correct however, that there is a chance that had the A-bombs not been used, then his father and my father might not have survived WW2. And then he and I might not be here now. The invasion of Japan which MacArthur favored might have cost a million or more American lives.

Those of us who are sons and daughters of WW2 veterans must carry on their legacies and teach what our fathers taught us to our sons, daughters, nephews, nieces and grandchildren so that the lessons of that war are always remembered.

O'Reilly has done a masterful job of this with his book. It will probably stay on the shelves of military history as long as there is a USA.
 
Last edited:

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,505
Reaction score
3,172
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
A few political histories that explain America today and below that a primitive tribe, a mass murderer, and a hillbilly who made it out of the hills.

'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg
'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein
"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer

And these are fascinating reads:

'Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle' by Daniel L. Everett
'Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis' by J. D. Vance
'One of Us: The Story of a Massacre in Norway - and Its Aftermath' by Seierstad, Åsne and Sarah Death

PS my dad served on a carrier during the war and my father in law came ashore on D Day plus one.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
41,079
Reaction score
12,671
Points
2,250
I just finished reading Killing The Rising Sun by Bill O'Reilly & Martin Dugard, published by Henry Holt & Co LLC, NYC NY, 1st Edition 2016.

My niece gave it to me as an Xmas present.

Took me 32 hours cover to cover including time for sleep and meals.

Found it to be the best book I have ever read, second only to the Greek New Testament in Greek.

Could not put it down once I started reading it. My sister wants to read it next so I will give it to her tomorrow. Our father was a veteran of WW2 in Europe and he used to shout in his sleep in the middle of the night and I as a small child would get out of bed and go running to his bedside and wake him so that his nightmares would stop.

O'Reilly points out astutely and with meticulous documentation that the US leadership and it's military and naval brass were split on the decision by Truman to drop the two A-bombs. He lists each of them individually and discusses why. Generally speaking the military was opposed to it except for the brass stationed in Washington DC close to Truman. However the rank and file including Tibbitts who dropped the first A-bomb were in favor of it.

O'Reilly tells this story from the viewpoints of several carefully documented first hand witnesses and participants of WW2 in the Pacific including his father.

I can now see having read the book that the USA was hungry and thirsty for a faster victory in Japan since the war in Europe had ended. There was a tremendous fear that Japan would never surrender.

While I agree with the noble view of MacArthur who opposed the use of the A-bombs that civilians should never be killed if avoidable, this point of view was overruled at the time. I do not however agree with MacArthur that Japan should have been invaded. I would have used naval power to isolate and blockade Japan and conventional air power to destroy their factories and food production. However in the end as many or more of the Japanese both military and civilian would likely have died as well by starvation then, so the debate is essentially moot.

So it does not matter whether Truman used the A-bombs or not. Either way many Japanese were going to die in order to end WW2 in the Pacific.

O'Reilly and his dad are correct however, that there is a chance that had the A-bombs not been used, then his father and my father might not have survived WW2. And then he and I might not be here now. The invasion of Japan which MacArthur favored might have cost a million or more American lives.

Those of us who are sons and daughters of WW2 veterans must carry on their legacies and teach what our fathers taught us to our sons, daughters, nephews, nieces and grandchildren so that the lessons of that war are always remembered.

O'Reilly has done a masterful job of this with his book. It will probably stay on the shelves of military history as long as there is a USA.
For the most part, O'Reilly's book is a rehash of things written by other statist historians. Nothing new and much of it inaccurate.

If you study it in depth, you would know the US gov lied about the number of American deaths had they invaded and not dropped the A-bombs. Truman used the lie that hundreds of thousands of American boys were saved by the a-bombs. His tortuous reasoning for the incinerating so many Japanese women, children, and old men...but only after the bombings occurred and he was getting critical press. The a-bombing was a war crime and Truman should have been executed for it. Much like the allies executed leading German war criminals.

There was no need to occupy Japan. They had offered to surrender several times...every time FDR and Truman said, "fuck you Jap."

War is the health of the State.
 
OP
Y

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,933
Points
290
My dad came ashore on D-Day +1 also with his company of tanks.

He was a fresh 1st lieutenant with no combat experience and 12 tank crews to worry about on that day.

Judging from his yelling in the night during his sleep it was no easy job.

My uncle flew bombers over Japan.

They both agreed with Tibbitts.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
41,079
Reaction score
12,671
Points
2,250
My dad came ashore on D-Day +1 also with his company of tanks.

He was a fresh 1st lieutenant with no combat experience and 12 tank crews to worry about on that day.

Judging from his yelling in the night during his sleep it was no easy job.

My uncle flew bombers over Japan.

They both agreed with Tibbitts.
How about some truth? Here is some of it....

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
By Gar Alperovitz

August 6, 2015
The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity.
American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin.

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
48,321
Reaction score
11,912
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
I didn't read the book (yet) but I wonder if it included the fact that Japan was desperate to surrender but Truman would not talk about anything but FDR's doctrine of "unconditional surrender". The Japanese holdouts were even trying to negotiate terms with U.S. ally ( at the time) Joe Stalin. The biggest hangup apparently was not executing the Japanese Emperor which Truman could have easily agreed to without dropping two A-Bombs.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
41,079
Reaction score
12,671
Points
2,250
I didn't read the book (yet) but I wonder if it included the fact that Japan was desperate to surrender but Truman would not talk about anything but FDR's doctrine of "unconditional surrender". The Japanese holdouts were even trying to negotiate terms with U.S. ally ( at the time) Joe Stalin. The biggest hangup apparently was not executing the Japanese Emperor which Truman could have easily agreed to without dropping two A-Bombs.
No. You will find the book entirely to your liking.
 
OP
Y

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,933
Points
290
I didn't read the book (yet) but I wonder if it included the fact that Japan was desperate to surrender but Truman would not talk about anything but FDR's doctrine of "unconditional surrender". The Japanese holdouts were even trying to negotiate terms with U.S. ally ( at the time) Joe Stalin. The biggest hangup apparently was not executing the Japanese Emperor which Truman could have easily agreed to without dropping two A-Bombs.
He goes into even deeper detail and shows that the Japanese emperor was complicit in much of the mass murders however MacArthur single handedly decided that the emperor was not to be tried as a war criminal.

Mac felt that the only way to get the Japanese people to agree with democracy was to allow the emperor to live on.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
41,079
Reaction score
12,671
Points
2,250
I didn't read the book (yet) but I wonder if it included the fact that Japan was desperate to surrender but Truman would not talk about anything but FDR's doctrine of "unconditional surrender". The Japanese holdouts were even trying to negotiate terms with U.S. ally ( at the time) Joe Stalin. The biggest hangup apparently was not executing the Japanese Emperor which Truman could have easily agreed to without dropping two A-Bombs.
He goes into even deeper detail and shows that the Japanese emperor was complicit in much of the mass murders however MacArthur single handedly decided that the emperor was not to be tried as a war criminal.

Mac felt that the only way to get the Japanese people to agree with democracy was to allow the emperor to live on.
Funny thing about allowing the Emperor to live and not be subject to prosecution....that is the only surrender requirement they asked for, before Truman incinerated women and children with the a-bombings.
 

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,123
Points
245
To surrender all the Japanese had to say was: "We surrender." and allow us to land on their beaches with no shooting etc.
 

Preacher

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
29,645
Reaction score
5,906
Points
290
Location
Georgia Mountains
I haven't read any of his books and seeing how O'Reilly is your typical conservative cuck etc I won't. I refuse to entertain any book that refuses to acknowledge the REASON Japan attacked the US and shines a light on the US's own hand in the attack etc.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
41,079
Reaction score
12,671
Points
2,250
I haven't read any of his books and seeing how O'Reilly is your typical conservative cuck etc I won't. I refuse to entertain any book that refuses to acknowledge the REASON Japan attacked the US and shines a light on the US's own hand in the attack etc.
All of his books are establishment statist works. Nothing new and little truth in them.
 

Preacher

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
29,645
Reaction score
5,906
Points
290
Location
Georgia Mountains
I haven't read any of his books and seeing how O'Reilly is your typical conservative cuck etc I won't. I refuse to entertain any book that refuses to acknowledge the REASON Japan attacked the US and shines a light on the US's own hand in the attack etc.
All of his books are establishment statist works. Nothing new and little truth in them.
Not a surprise. I enjoy his show sometimes but I am pickier about the type of information I read especially when I know what I am going to read aka the US was a bastion of freedom against evil tyranny blah blah blah.
 

peabody

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
98
Points
130
Not a surprise. I enjoy his show sometimes but I am pickier about the type of information I read especially when I know what I am going to read aka the US was a bastion of freedom against evil tyranny blah blah blah.
Hey Odium. Check out this song. Forget abot the title. Listen to the lyrics

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top