My old friend and mentor Bill Luti says "Thank God for Hiroshima" (Monitor letter, Aug. 8). But the Almighty would hardly be in need of thanks for the atomization of two cities if I'm correct about the bomb being militarily unnecessary to end the war.
This is precisely the issue raised by Dan Williams ("The bomb saved millions of lives," Monitor letter, Aug. 7) who claims that, yes, nukes are worrisome weapons, but they were needed to end World War II and save lives.
That view is not borne out by the evidence. General Dwight Eisenhower opposed the bombing saying: "The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Ditto for Admiral William Leahy (chief of staff) and for Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The Japanese were defeated and had been suing for peace through the Russians for several months. But they wanted a conditional surrender which would leave the emperor intact - a condition which we granted them in the end anyway.
Of course it could be that Eisenhower et al were not privy to the inside dope. Maybe. But surely the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, done at the end of the war, was. As they put it: "Certainly prior to Dec. 31, Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
RAY PERKINS Jr.
Concord
Beckapalooza: half revival, half AA meeting has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
BOSTON (AP) -- Officials in New England's coastal areas…
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- William Smart, who was devastated…
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- Two men are free on bail after…
Comments
Go back and read
By R. St.Lawrence - 08/28/2009 - 8:08 amYou say, "if I'm correct." Well, personnally I think you aren't. This topic was pretty thoroughly discussed back at the anniversary in the beginning of the month. Ikes' statement that you "quoted" has never actually been attributed to him and Leahy was flat out against anything other than an invasion of the home islands. With the fanatical cast of the Japanese mind, it was apparent that the bombs were absolutely necessary.
Abe. I now understand why you can't do some reading on topics that back up some of your posts. You obviously spend your time reading really bad fiction novels. If Hitler had had the bomb, as well as the V-2 ( and larger) rockets for a delivery sysytem, don't you think he would have used it against England at a minimum and that he would have tried to use it against us? There's a difference between an open mind and gullibility. It looks like you haven't found the difference.
Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open.
R. St.Lawrence
to vote
Who cares, we won they lost. Thank God for the bomb.
By Joshtiffany - 08/28/2009 - 7:50 amWho cares, we won they lost. Thank God for the bomb.
to vote
Sometimes ya gotta hammer the Left
By Devil Doc - 08/28/2009 - 6:26 amThe people that you quote all became political enemies of Truman. When did they say what they said?. I wouldn't put too much stock into what THOSE people had to say about decisions made by ol' Harry.. You seem to know just enough history to get yourself into trouble.
Doc.
to vote
I've read of this theory
By Honest Abe - 08/28/2009 - 6:07 amI've read of this theory that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were actually build by the Nazis and smuggled into the US for that purpose. Is there any evidence that this is true?
to vote
the decision was Trumans
By kenstcyr - 08/28/2009 - 5:09 amand his alone. Again, there may have been political reasons for dropping the bombs.
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
Stuck
By armyvet - 08/28/2009 - 5:03 amStuck in the past. Are you a member of the Bash Bush from the past also. Donate half your pay check to the people in Japan whose relitives were killed because of the dropping of the A Bomb that saved thousands of our troops lifes including my Dad and two of his bros.
to vote
The Past is Prologue.
By Honest Abe - 08/28/2009 - 6:07 amThe Past is Prologue.
to vote
Gee whiz
By kraftypat - 08/28/2009 - 4:20 amAre we still fighting WWII?
It's over already.
Pat Kraft
to vote
the "me" point of view
By glk.interests - 08/28/2009 - 8:12 amApparently some are still fighting -- at least for their "me" point of view. All too often, the "me" generation and its several offspring generations don't care to hear the facts in a case, just their individual thoughts. If more tolerance were allowed for other points of view and fewer of the restrictive "me" or "my" ways, then there likely would be fewer conflicts of all sorts.
to vote
is that comment
By kenstcyr - 08/28/2009 - 8:54 pmalso from the "me" point of view?
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote