The Atomic bombs

[onedomino]

In my personal opinion from what I have read and learned over the years Mac Arther was the direct cause of Chinese intervention in Korea. His mouth enabled the Soviets to convince a reluctant China to intervene. The Communist Chinese were in no great position in 1950, they had only with in the last year or 2 managed to conquer all of mainland China.

If he had kept his mouth shut and not spouted off repeatedly to the press about Invading and nuking China I believe the Soviets would have had a hard sell. Would they have acted with out his mouth? Maybe, we did push right to the Chinese boarder. But I am not positive they would have invaded if he had just shut up.

You are blaming Communist Chinese aggression in Korea on MacArthur? You cannot be serious. The US was in no position to invade China, regarless of being on the border. The Chiese knew that. They wanted Korea as a buffer against Japan and the US in NE Asia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are blaming Communist Chinese aggression in Korea on MacArthur? You cannot be serious. The US was in no position to invade China, regarless of being on the border. The Chiese knew that. They wanted Korea as a buffer against Japan and the US in NE Asia.

I believe they would prefer a buffer, but I do NOT agree that they invaded just because the UN took the North. We had nukes and your buddy Big Mac was demanding we use them on China. He was demanding, long before China intervened, for us to bomb China, to invade China. And he kept demanding it publicly every chance he got including after being ORDERED to stop.

The Soviets supported North Korea, not the Chinese. The North Koreans were trained, equipped and supplied by the Soviets and most likely invaded at the behest of the Soviets.

The Chinese were ill equipped and were still securing control of their country after driving the Nationalists out. Now if you want to curse Truman, THAT is a valid complaint, he and Marshal are directly to blame for the loss of the Nationalists.

The Chinese did not even have enough rifles for their armies, nor an adequate supply of heavy weapons or ammunition. As forward troops died, follow on troops picked up the fallens weapons.

I suspect that the Chinese would have been willing to wait and see about Korea if Mac had not kept running his mouth. They invaded at the prodding of the Soviets. The Soviets could not intervene directly as Truman had already threatened them with nuclear attacks if they did. Further Soviet armies in Korea against western armies would have lead to WW3 in Europe. China did not have that problem, while huge they had no strategic capabilities and could only effect local conditions.

One could argue also that the UN invasion of North Korea was against the authorization to save the South. In fact the only reason the UN was involved at all was the Soviets were protesting the UN and were absent during the time the measure was drafted and the Security Council passed it. The Soviets had a veto power.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I read something about Korea just the other day but can't find it now. RetiredGySgt is right though; neither China nor Russia liked or trusted Kim Jong Il and were reluctant to support him. Stalin said something to the extent of "if you get kicked in the teeth you will be on your own" to Kim. They changed their minds after the US started getting involved though.

 

[onedomino]

I believe they would prefer a buffer, but I do NOT agree that they invaded just because the UN took the North. We had nukes and your buddy Big Mac was demanding we use them on China. He was demanding, long before China intervened, for us to bomb China, to invade China.

My buddy? You are odd. Your theory is that the Chinese were afraid of MacArthur and the use of nuclear weapons. So their response was to invade North Korea and behave in the way most likely to precipitate the release of tactical nuclear weapons? That makes no sense. I have lived in Shanghai and traveled extensively in China. I have discussed this topic with Chinese students and professors. The principle reasons the Chinese invaded North Korea were that they did not want US troops on their NE border, and they were ideologically opposed to the system of democratic representative government that the US would support on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese knew that a US invasion of China could not succeed without at least a million troops deployed for the effort. With the number of troops at MacArthur's command in the 1950s the Chinese knew that the Americans were no threat to invade.

 

[doniston]

Ok on the matter of the claim that we knew the Japanese were prepared to surrender and thus the bombs were not needed...

From my link of SOURCE documents....

Document 29 and 30 are the only 2 that even really apply for the claim japan was ready to surrender, but both are clear that Japan will not surrender except under their own terms.

Document 33 CLEARLY states that NO UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is acceptable. That instead Japan will fight to the death.

Read document 4o and document 42, both show japan is not ready to quit EXCEPT under their own terms.

EVEN after the first bomb is dropped and the Japanese are faced with Soviet Invasion there is no consensus on surrender. The Army insists it can force peace on its terms. Document 55b, 62 and 64b.

Document 69 shows that the Japanese peace party believes the 2 bombs and Soviet invasion have HELPED make surrender possible. Which on the contrary would mean it was unlikely BEFORE those 3 events.

As to that even after all that the ARMY tried to prevent surrender. Read Documents 71, 73 and 74.

Spin it anyway you wish. You are proving that you can't comprehend anything you read.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we had not dropped the bombs and gone ahead with the invasion -- costing millions of lives, both Japanese and American -- what would we have gained?

The bombs allowed us to do with one aircraft what we had been doing with hundreds. Given that, what rason is there for not dropping them?

 

[Shogun]

indeed, noting justified using nukes like hypotheticals and estimates.


for all the talk in this thread about evil scary commies it sure is ironic that every one of you will be using at least 4 products from that very chinese commie nation today...

..meanwhile, you still want to **** with cuba for being commies....


Indeed, it doens't take much to rationalize the "necessity" of your own Final Solution. Pretending that the fact that the US is the ONLY nation to ever USE a nuke while going around the planet trying to decide who gets them in the first place is a lesson in pure stupidity. Hey, let's pretend that muslims don't notice when we allow Israel to abide by a double standard with their nukes too. I hear that it's all in the CONTEXT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Spin it anyway you wish. You are proving that you can't comprehend anything you read.

Your the one ignoring reams of documentation that refutes your ignorant claim. But do pretend otherwise.

 

[doniston]

Your the one ignoring reams of documentation that refutes your ignorant claim. But do pretend otherwise.

You do, or I do, or perhaps we both do, but one thing is certain--- We definitely DO agree that we disagree.

 

[Gunny]

You're changing the topic, and backpedaling rapidly away from your assertion that we were fighting for freedom in those wars. We weren't. Korea, Kuwait, and South Vietnam were nowhere close to being free, independent, democratic governments. The history of Korea, Kuwait and Vietnam are easily available on the internet. I suggest you read them.

What is it with you lefties? All you do is make bullshit accusation of backpedalling. There's none, Einstein.

I just explained how we WERE fighting for the freedom of one side from the other ... in rather simple English, I might add. Your personal definition of freedom is irrelevant.

Any day you want to match wits with me on history, talkin' part's done ... bring it.

 

[Warner]

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

MacArthur wanted to nuke China. Had he done so this would have brought the Russians into the war and resulted in a nuclear WWIII. Most likely such a war would have cost millions of lives and ended with the Soviet's holding most if not all of Europe. Once the nuclear card was played and spent we really had no way to stop them, and the Russians were more able to suffer those kind of losses than were we. Likewise, it would probably not have stopped China - they would have eaten their losses and once we were engaged with the Russians they would have rolled over all of SE-Asia.

I agree Truman made a huge goof, but it was not in his Korea policy. It was in allowing the French to try to reclaim their colonies in SE Asia - namely Vietnam. Prior to WWII the French ran Vietnam as a giant slave plantation, and they clearly wished to re-establish this profitable policy in the post-war, contrary to the Roosevelt policy of self determination.

Ho-Chi-Minh tried repeatedly to strike a deal with Truman and was ignored. Had Truman not supported the French and instead supported Ho-Chi-Minh he would never have had to get in bed with the Communists and instead of fighting a bloody war against the Vietnamese they would instead have been one of our most valuable allies against Communism. Ho-Chi-Minh had no love for the Chinese or Communism (at least up through the critical period of early post-WWII). If you look at WWII intel reports they recommend the US back Ho-Chi-Minh in SE Asia after the war. He was a valued ally during the war.

Given what they were fighting - slavery, it was inevitable that the Vietnamese would win that war.

 

[Shogun]

it's nice to see the chickenhawks applauding how we dropped nukes on Japan's civilians because Japan would not give up on it's own....


...but will cry the loudest about 9/11 killing OUR civilians even though we also have no intention of rolling over...


apparently, Jap civilians in two cities are less than American civilians at the WTC.


Im sure the world isn't scoffing at such logic. They probably don't also make the same observation when our pet israel flaunts it's double standard in having nukes... Indeed, No one probably pays attention to the clearly selective reason being filtered through a pair of ethnocentric shades..

 

[doniston]

If we had not dropped the bombs and gone ahead with the invasion -- costing millions of lives, both Japanese and American -- what would we have gained?

The bombs allowed us to do with one aircraft what we had been doing with hundreds. Given that, what rason is there for not dropping them?

If I am right that they were vready to surender, then no invasions was necessary-- simply occupation.

If your are right, then we should have bombed a less populated area, and thus providing the same proof.---but without the horrendous loss of life,

 

[M14 Shooter]

MacArthur wanted to nuke China. Had he done so this would have brought the Russians into the war and resulted in a nuclear WWIII. Most likely such a war would have cost millions of lives and ended with the Soviet's holding most if not all of Europe.

Remember that in 1950-51, there were no ICBMs. Nukes were delivered by strategic bombers, which were slow and eary to stop. Any nuclear war between us and the Russian swould have been limited by the stockpiles on hand and the ability to deliver them.

And, in 1950, the only effective stratgic bomber the Soviets had was the Tu-4 Bull, a copy of the B29.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I am right that they were vready to surender, then no invasions was necessary-- simply occupation.

If your are right, then we should have bombed a less populated area, and thus providing the same proof.---but without the horrendous loss of life,

The bombs allowed us to do with one aircraft what we had been doing with hundreds. Given that, what reason is there for not dropping them?

 

[Shogun]

um..

the human civilian casualties?


you know...


kinda like why we don't like planes running into our civilian populated areas?

 

[M14 Shooter]

um..
the human civilian casualties?

How many civilains died in the 10 MAR 45 firebombing raid over Tokyo?
How much of the city was destroyed?
Compare and contrast that with Hiroshima.
Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse.

 

[doniston]

How many civilains died in the 10 MAR 45 firebombing raid over Tokyo?
How much of the city was destroyed?
Compare and contrast that with Hiroshima.
Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse.

they are not comparable.

1.it may not have been necessary at all

2.you are ignoring the radiation after effects, deaths, birth deformations, etc.

 

[dilloduck]

they are not comparable.

1.it may not have been necessary at all

2.you are ignoring the radiation after effects, deaths, birth deformations, etc.

Please read up on the firebombings of Japanese civilians---the made the nukes look like firecrackers.

 

[Shogun]

How many civilains died in the 10 MAR 45 firebombing raid over Tokyo?
How much of the city was destroyed?
Compare and contrast that with Hiroshima.
Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse.

Hell, I'll RAISE you Dresden.

Firebombing Tokyo is a shit stain on our hands too. If our military, in whatever capacity we understand it, can get away with the mass murder of the civilian population of the perceived enemy then guess how silly it looks to regurgitate 9/11 every other sentence?

If the GERMANS sucked for bombing the shit out of London then guess where soon-to-be-dead civilians in Dresden could have pointed a finger. It's easy to say that the victor writes the history and gets to polish the turds of it's own similar behaviour but it really is a two way street. If WE don't like it when saudi muslims perceive us as the enemy and fly planes into OUR civilians then it makes no sense to make EXCUSES for killing of our enemies civilians. Hell, do you include every Vietnamese civilian caught up in napalm too?

I guess iraqi insurgents could conceivably find their way here and blow up new york and you'd just say, "well, thats war! We play to win TOO!"? No. THEN it's a ******* travesty of humanity. Meanwhile, you rationalize dropping a ******* nuke on two cities in Japan. Do you just not see the irony of the double standard?