Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (41981)	1/4/2002 3:26:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

What information are you referring to; and which decision makers? At first the decision makers where FDR, and some senior military or political people, primarily FDR, then later Truman who made the final decision. The information would be a lot of things that where discovered or confirmed after WWII. For example I have seen interviews with senior war time Japanese officials used as evidence that the Japanese would have surrendered. Even if you assume that the people interviewed where completely honest and that their opinion was correct, FDR would not have had access to this information or a lot of other historical information that we now have. He would have had to make the decision based on info he had very high confidence in, in April 1945 or earlier, and Truman would have had to make the final decision based on information from July or August 1945. I think overall you have made a good case that perhaps the bombs where not needed to swiftly end the war, but not that they where definitely not needed, let alone that that Truman, FDR, or other people involved in deciding to drop the bomb knew that they where not needed. One argument I saw why researching this issue is that dropping the bombs was not necessary because the fire bombings of Tokyo showed the Japanese that we would destroy them if they would not surrender. This may have been true, however those bombings where worse then the atom bombs. If we could have avoided one or the other it would have been better to spare Tokyo rather then Nagasaki and Hiroshima. An even more clearly unnecessary atrocity was the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't an issue of bomb or invade, we did invade anyway. I suppose there was military utility in destroying Dresden but it seems to me that it wasn't enough to justify the destruction. Of course I can say this with the benefit of hindsight. I know that Germany was defeated and I know how bad things where at Dresden. Before the attack neither was known (the war was going well by then and it could be fairly certain that Germany would eventually go down but it was unsure how long this would take or how many casualties would be caused in the process). In the middle of a horrible war that caused millions of deaths, and without the benefit of hindsight it is harder to make such decisions. Tim