Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- From: Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:26:52 -0400
"Jim Garner" <an410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eveg0a$k5o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The usual argument for having used the Bomb is that it saved thousands,
possibly millions, of lives. Without it, goes the argument, it
would have been necessary to invade Japan and millions of soldiers and
civilians would have become casualties.
But did Truman and his advisers really think through the alternative?
Short answer = yes. There are by now whole libraries of
speculation about (in)decisions of the mighty in Washington,
Moscow, Tokyo, etc. But we can particularly recommend
Paul Fussell's Thank God for the Atomic Bomb (1988) for
the point of view of cannon-fodder (a platoon commander
with combat experience in France, wounded and
convalescent, reassigned in 1945 to the invasion force
against Japan.) As well as probable US and Japanese
casualties Fussell considers civilians and combatants
in other theatres and PoWs. (Orders were issued
throughout SE Asia that Japanese guards should
massacre PoWs to prevent their liberation by
advancing Allied forces.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- From: mtfester
- Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- References:
- Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- From: Jim Garner
- Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- Prev by Date: Re: Hitler's war aims
- Next by Date: Re: Hitler's war aims
- Previous by thread: Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- Next by thread: Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|