You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.
You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.
This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.
I shake my head at your stupidity.
It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.
It is amazing that you could make these statements after reading my reply. I suspect you read the first paragraph and then skimmed over the rest. My reply answers every essential argument you've made about Ike's statements on nuking Japan. All of your arguments against Ike's statements follow the general thrust of Maddox's arguments, except that some of your assumptions are erroneous and are not even made by Maddox. Let's examine your arguments:
Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson.
I addressed that argument in my reply.
Two versions that contradict each other.
No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa.
That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."
Again, the two accounts are not mutually exclusive. Even in the first account, Ike made it clear that he expressed misgivings about nuking Japan. As I mentioned in my reply, it is entirely reasonable and understandable that Ike's first account, written in 1948, would be rather circumspect, but that his later account, written 15 years later, would contain more information because he felt more at liberty to provide a fuller version.
I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?
We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not.
LOL! Uh, as even Maddox admits, one of Stimson's aides recorded that Ike and Stimson discussed the atomic bomb! Did you even read my reply?
Furthermore, just FYI, Truman, Stimson, and the rest of Truman's gang
hated MacArthur! How can you not know this?! So it's not at all surprising that Mac was kept in the dark. Furthermore, MacArthur was not nearby when Stimson was in Potsdam, whereas Eisenhower was, and Truman and Stimson liked Ike. And, again, we have documentary evidence from one of Stimson's aides that Stimson and Eisenhower discussed nuking Japan.
I might add that Eisenhower insisted to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, that he objected to using nukes on Japan when he met with Stimson. I mentioned this fact in my reply as well, but you ignored it.
So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period.
My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot."
In point of fact, there is no credible reason to doubt that Eisenhower opposed nuking Japan before the fact. And, of course, there is no question that the more he studied the issue, the firmer he came to believe that nuking Japan was both wrong and unnecessary, as he explained in his 1963 interview with
Newsweek.
