|
Regarding number 1: Roosevelt and Churchill wanted
Russia to enter the war against Japan, which Stalin had agreed to do after
Germany was defeated. I don't think Roosevelt or Churchill had much regard
for Stalin, but they knew that defeating Japan would be difficult and cost a
number of lives.
Regarding number 2: Very true.
Regarding number 3: Very true, but consider the military and
psychological impact if the damage from one bomb from one plane equaled the
same effect as hundreds of planes carpet bombing a city over several
hours.
Regarding number 4: History is supposed to be the thread that binds the
dead with the living to the unborn. Unfortunately, each generation sees
the past through its eyes.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore
Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com
(H)
While not completely rejecting your position, I
have some concerns:
1. If the purpose of using nuclear weapons was to prevent
intervention by the USSR, it obviously didn't work. My, I'll admit
limited, understanding is that this intervention was by agreement with the
U.S. If Truman didn't want the USSR getting involved, why did he
promulgate this agreement?
2. The invasion preparations seemed too intense just for show.
I hate to think of how many GI's, after battling Germany for months were,
following a quick "attaboy," shipped to the Pacific rather than going home, as
they deserved. For a bargaining chip? This seems to be a Nixonian
manipulation well beyond Truman's thinking or ethics. Besides, if we
knew we were going to use nuclear weapons, why did we need any more than token
preparations?
3. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the Japanese would have
fought to the bitter end, with or without Russian intervention. It seems
that we would have had to kill virtually every Japanese citizen to end the war
without the psychological impact of nuclear weapons. (The physical
impact, while truly horrendous, was on the same scale as the fire bombing of
Tokyo.)
4. The other side is always the revisionists.
. .
.
|