Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

[basquebromance]

In honor of the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, here's Paul Fussell's stunning essay, "Thank God For the Atom Bomb"

Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

This post is a stunning essay by Paul Fussell published in The New Republic in 1981. Here’s a link to a PDF of the original. On August 2, we observed the 76th anniversary of the atom bomb th…

davidlabaree.com

 

[White 6]

In honor of the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, here's Paul Fussell's stunning essay, "Thank God For the Atom Bomb"

Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

This post is a stunning essay by Paul Fussell published in The New Republic in 1981. Here’s a link to a PDF of the original. On August 2, we observed the 76th anniversary of the atom bomb th…

davidlabaree.com

Great article. Thanks for posting it basqueman.

 

[fncceo]

In The 2nd World War, the Allies faced Japan, the most fanatical force in the world at the time. A force dedicated to victory at any price. A force that launched thousands of suicide attacks on Allied Forces and frequently chose suicide over capture.

Unlike Nazi Germany, when faced with certain defeat, Japan would would not surrender. Japan trained even its children to fight the invading Allied Armies with spears if necessary.

The application of two, relatively small, nuclear weapons was all it took to turn this fanatical enemy into a nation of pacifist capitalists. Overnight they abandoned their military government and adopted a pledge never again to be the aggressor in any conflict.

The subsequent fear of nuclear war has kept even the most aggressive nations over the last 80 years from waging full-scale war again.

As inventions go, Nuclear Weapons have done more to foster peaceful co-existence than any other.

 

[DudleySmith]

As inventions go, Nuclear Weapons have done more to foster peaceful co-existence than any other.

^Fact.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[whitehall]

Why is university professor Paul Fussell's opinion important?

 

[elektra]

^Fact.

Fact

 

[mikegriffith1]

In honor of the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, here's Paul Fussell's stunning essay, "Thank God For the Atom Bomb"

Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

This post is a stunning essay by Paul Fussell published in The New Republic in 1981. Here’s a link to a PDF of the original. On August 2, we observed the 76th anniversary of the atom bomb th…

davidlabaree.com

The article makes ridiculous militaristic arguments that have been utterly debunked for decades now. I thought you were a liberal? Ah, I guess since Truman ordered the atomic bombings, you're defending them. You're aware that the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Hiroshima and Nagasaki reject the myth that nuking Japan was necessary and saved lives, right?

The following article by historian Ward Wilson debunks every argument made in Fussell's silly propaganda piece:

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf

 

[elektra]

The article makes ridiculous militaristic arguments that have been utterly debunked for decades now. I thought you were a liberal? Ah, I guess since Truman ordered the atomic bombings, you're defending them. You're aware that the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Hiroshima and Nagasaki reject the myth that nuking Japan was necessary and saved lives, right?

The following article by historian Ward Wilson debunks every argument made in Fussell's silly propaganda piece:

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf

The vast majority of scholars? You are full of shit. Prove that the vast, majority of scholars reject that the nuking of japan was necessary to save lives.

Many people have answered your tired OP's and proven beyond a doubt that nuking nagasaki and hiroshima saved lives. I have even used the sources you have provided, those sources have contradicted you.

Your problem is you reference things you find with a google search, I doubt you have actually read the books your google searches link to.

And again, you simply provide a link, you are so fucking lazy you can not even quote and comment on your own link. You simply think a google search result is winning hand, as if you are playing cards and google is the deck.

 

[elektra]

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf

The article does not mention that the Japanese did not quit fighting the Soviet Union. The article does not mention that after Japan surrendered to the USA that they fought the Soviet Union for weeks after!

How is it that Japan surrendered to the USA but not to the Soviet Union? Does surrender not mean, to quit fighting? If Japan surrendered to the Soviet Union? Where is that surrender and why did the fighting not end August 10th?

Another anti-nuclear, history revisionist, fails to provide all the facts and analyze all the events of World War II

 

[Silent Warrior]

The article makes ridiculous militaristic arguments that have been utterly debunked for decades now. I thought you were a liberal? Ah, I guess since Truman ordered the atomic bombings, you're defending them. You're aware that the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Hiroshima and Nagasaki reject the myth that nuking Japan was necessary and saved lives, right?

The following article by historian Ward Wilson debunks every argument made in Fussell's silly propaganda piece:

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf

You really should read all of your sources instead to just those parts you think fit your preconceived ideas.

 

[elektra]

You really should read all of your sources instead to just those parts you think fit your preconceived ideas.

I have found when I read the grifter's sources, those sources prove him wrong.

 

[elektra]

From the grifter's link
In the spring of 1945, Japan was already largely defeated

According to grifter, this debunks the "militartistic arguments" . Did we make "arguments"? Or did we simply state the facts. We stated facts, history, things that happened that are indisputable.

In the spring of 1945 Japan was capable of killing over 12,000 of our men in the Battle of Okinawa. Hardly was Japan defeated. After the Battle of Okinawa did Japan continue to fight or were they largely defeated.

Japan sunk the Indianapolis which killed over 900 sailors after the spring of 1945. Largely defeated? We must accept the false premise that Japan was defeated in order to accept the revisionists arguments.

And it is the revisionists that are making arguments based on a false premise.

Japan was already largely defeated

Sorry Mr. Revisionists, your arguments are all based on the false premise, that Japan was already defeated. Of course if we accept that as fact, that Japan was defeated in the Spring of 1945, who was it that caused that defeat? Russia who had not entered the war? Or the United states that just inflicted over a 100,000 causalities on the Japanese at the Battle of Okinawa. Who won the war, in the spring of 1945, and put the final nail in the coffin, with the bombing of Nagasaki, which did result in the Japanese surrendering to the USA.

The USA defeated Japan, and Japan surrendered to the USA.

Do we need more facts to back that fact up, sure, why not, because there is more.
The Soviets fought Japan until September 1st of 1945.

Japan was more than ready to continue a conventional war, as we see with the fighting against the Russians. Japan could not fight a new, Atomic war, which did result in the Japanese surrender on august 15th to the USA.

Yet the war continued, seperately, against the soviets.

 

[zaangalewa]

In The 2nd World War, the Allies faced Japan, the most fanatical force in the world at the time. A force dedicated to victory at any price. A force that launched thousands of suicide attacks on Allied Forces and frequently chose suicide over capture.

Unlike Nazi Germany, when faced with certain defeat, Japan would would not surrender. Japan trained even its children to fight the invading Allied Armies with spears if necessary.

The application of two, relatively small, nuclear weapons was all it took to turn this fanatical enemy into a nation of pacifist capitalists.

Seldom I heard such a summary of propagandistic nonsense about the pacific war side of world war 2. The USA forced Japan in 185x with canon boats to open their markets for business. Japan had been unbelieveabel fast in learning the racist rules of the colonialist powers. The racism of the Nazis and the racism of Japan had the same origin: industrialisation, darwinism (racism) and colonialisms.

Overnight they abandoned their military government and adopted a pledge never again to be the aggressor in any conflict.

The subsequent fear of nuclear war has kept even the most aggressive nations over the last 80 years from waging full-scale war again.

As inventions go, Nuclear Weapons have done more to foster peaceful co-existence than any other.

So I guess so you agree with Klaus Fuchs to share this technology with the Russian Soviets.

 

[fncceo]

So I guess you agree with Klaus Fuchs to share this technology with the Russian Soviets.

The physics of atomic weapons was self-evident to physicists around the world. The Soviets would have developed nuclear weapons with or without our sharing.

 

[zaangalewa]

From the grifter's link
In the spring of 1945, Japan was already largely defeated

According to grifter, this debunks the "militartistic arguments" . Did we make "arguments"? Or did we simply state the facts. We stated facts, history, things that happened that are indisputable.

In the spring of 1945 Japan was capable of killing over 12,000 of our men in the Battle of Okinawa. Hardly was Japan defeated. After the Battle of Okinawa did Japan continue to fight or were they largely defeated.

Japan sunk the Indianapolis which killed over 900 sailors after the spring of 1945. Largely defeated? We must accept the false premise that Japan was defeated in order to accept the revisionists arguments.

And it is the revisionists that are making arguments based on a false premise.

Japan was already largely defeated

Sorry Mr. Revisionists, your arguments are all based on the false premise, that Japan was already defeated. Of course if we accept that as fact, that Japan was defeated in the Spring of 1945, who was it that caused that defeat? Russia who had not entered the war? Or the United states that just inflicted over a 100,000 causalities on the Japanese at the Battle of Okinawa. Who won the war, in the spring of 1945, and put the final nail in the coffin, with the bombing of Nagasaki, which did result in the Japanese surrendering to the USA.

The USA defeated Japan, and Japan surrendered to the USA.

Do we need more facts to back that fact up, sure, why not, because there is more.
The Soviets fought Japan until September 1st of 1945.

Japan was more than ready to continue a conventional war, as we see with the fighting against the Russians. Japan could not fight a new, Atomic war, which did result in the Japanese surrender on august 15th to the USA.

Yet the war continued, seperately, against the soviets.

Japan was not able to win the war against the USA so the war crimes Hieroshima and Nagasaki had been a good excuse for the leaders of the Japanese nation to end this war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were test 2+3 who had followed the first nuclear test in Los Alamos which had been called "trinity" - a clear blasphemy. And whoever "thanks god" for the death of so many innocent human beings should speak with a psychotherapist about the own unreal view to the world.

 

[zaangalewa]

The physics of atomic weapons was self-evident to physicists around the world. The Soviets would have developed nuclear weapons with or without our sharing.

What's nonsense. In the team in Los Alamos were many of the most intelligent people of the planet. I fear the step they made - motivated from deep fear - had been 300-400 years too early for all mankind. Still we have the problem that many people like to do wars - but this is not possible any longer.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The article does not mention that the Japanese did not quit fighting the Soviet Union. The article does not mention that after Japan surrendered to the USA that they fought the Soviet Union for weeks after!

How is it that Japan surrendered to the USA but not to the Soviet Union? Does surrender not mean, to quit fighting? If Japan surrendered to the Soviet Union? Where is that surrender and why did the fighting not end August 10th?

Another anti-nuclear, history revisionist, fails to provide all the facts and analyze all the events of World War II

This argument shows supreme ignorance. The Japanese fought the Soviets after August 15 because the Soviets did not stop attacking after the Japanese surrendered! The Soviets did not honor or recognize the Japanese surrender; they kept attacking Japanese forces. So, yeah, the Japanese fought back. If an American army had started attacking a Germany army after Germany surrendered, of course the German army would not have just lay down and been slaughtered--they would have fought back.

So the only thing you could say in response to Wilson's research is to harp that the Japanese kept fighting the Soviets after August 15. That's it? Wilson shredded every standard argument put forward by those who defend the nukings. And all you could do was make the silly argument that, gee, the Japanese kept fighting the Soviets after the emperor announced Japan's surrender.

If nuking two cities was really a moral, necessary act, why did Truman and his military buddies lie through their teeth about the effects of the bomb? Why did they try to conceal the effects of radiation? Why did they deny that Japanese were dying of radiation poisoning? Why did Truman claim that Hiroshima was a "military target" when 85% of the city's population was civilian?

And, yes, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the atomic bombings reject the myth that the bombings were necessary or that they saved lives. Here are some books and articles you might break down and read:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/unnecessary.pdf

Hiroshima: Quotes

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.

www.doug-long.com

It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

qz.com

Can the Hiroshima Bombing Be Morally Justified?

Faithful Catholics have always roundly rejected the utilitarian logic undergirding the decision to use the atomic bomb

www.ncregister.com

https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf

Amazon product

Amazon product

Amazon product

Amazon product
This book is especially useful because it discusses the fact that when the militarist crowd was attacking the Smithsonian's planned exhibit for the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima, the vast majority of the scholars who took part in the debate defended the exhibit and rejected the myth that the bombings were necessary and saved lives.

Amazon product

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb | Ralph Raico

[Excerpted from "Harry S.

mises.org

https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy...y&qid=1551581597&s=books&sr=1-1&tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Japan...51581520&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr&tag=ff0d01-20

Truman on Trial: The Prosecution, Opening Argument | History News Network

hnn.us

 

[elektra]

This argument shows supreme ignorance. The Japanese fought the Soviets after August 15 because the Soviets did not stop attacking after the Japanese surrendered! The Soviets did not honor or recognize the Japanese surrender; they kept attacking Japanese forces. So, yeah, the Japanese fought back. If an American army had started attacking a Germany army after Germany surrendered, of course the German army would not have just lay down and been slaughtered--they would have fought back.

So the only thing you could say in response to Wilson's research is to harp that the Japanese kept fighting the Soviets after August 15. That's it? Wilson shredded every standard argument put forward by those who defend the nukings. And all you could do was make the silly argument that, gee, the Japanese kept fighting the Soviets after the emperor announced Japan's surrender.

If nuking two cities was really a moral, necessary act, why did Truman and his military buddies lie through their teeth about the effects of the bomb? Why did they try to conceal the effects of radiation? Why did they deny that Japanese were dying of radiation poisoning? Why did Truman claim that Hiroshima was a "military target" when 85% of the city's population was civilian?

And, yes, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the atomic bombings reject the myth that the bombings were necessary or that they saved lives. Here are some books and articles you might break down and read:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/unnecessary.pdf

Hiroshima: Quotes

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.

www.doug-long.com

It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

qz.com

Can the Hiroshima Bombing Be Morally Justified?

Faithful Catholics have always roundly rejected the utilitarian logic undergirding the decision to use the atomic bomb

www.ncregister.com

https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf

Amazon product

Amazon product

Amazon product

Amazon product
This book is especially useful because it discusses the fact that when the militarist crowd was attacking the Smithsonian's planned exhibit for the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima, the vast majority of the scholars who took part in the debate defended the exhibit and rejected the myth that the bombings were necessary and saved lives.

Amazon product

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb | Ralph Raico

[Excerpted from "Harry S.

mises.org

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan: Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi: 9780674022416: Amazon.com: Books

https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Japans-Surrender-Secret-Struggle/dp/0962694681/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=behind+japan's+surrender&qid=1551581520&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr&tag=ff0d01-20

Truman on Trial: The Prosecution, Opening Argument | History News Network

hnn.us

You are a pure hack. The Japanese could of surrendered to the Soviets but they did not, they fought.

The Japanese could of dropped their rifles and said I give up but they did not. Show us all the war meetings and correspondence related to the continued fighting between the Soviets and Japanese. You won't because you have only read other peoes work, at best rewrapped into into an essay of your own as if you know something.

I have books you have used here, after finding a clip in a Google search, and books you reference showed your arguments to be wrong.

And what is your argument now, more Google links to books you have not read. You certainly did not read the other books you referenced otherwise you would realize how wrong and tired your argument is.

 

[elektra]

The grifter wishes my fact was an argument which is why the grifter phrases it as such.

The Japanese fought the Soviets, because they were not beaten as the grifter claimed. They fought for weeks after the bombs were dropped. "The Japanese were defeated and but fought the Soviets months later, and for weeks after they surrendered".

The revisionists must get us to believe up is down to make their ridiculous arguments.