Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#1

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 18 Apr 2018, 23:08

After the A bombing of Hiroshima, the president Truman justified it in a radio speech saying Hiroshima was a military base.
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.


He repeat it in his diary Diary entry of Harry Truman, July 25, 1945: https://www.stripes.com/news/special-re ... t-1.360308
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world …”

“This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

“He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that but we will have given them the chance. “
Of course we know Hiroshima was not a military base but a city full of civilians, women and children. The bomb killed like 100.000 of civilians, how many soldiers ?

I wonder when the truth about Hiroshima came into light in the USA ? Did Truman ever apologize for having said such a lie in front of the world ?

Truman is also saying that the Japaneses were on the edge of using the A bomb... but once again we know it was absolutely not the case.


What about Nagasaki now ? Nagasaki was not a military base, and Truman bombed it three days after Hiroshima... Once again like 100.000 civlians dead for how many soldiers ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#2

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Apr 2018, 02:49

DavidFrankenberg wrote:I wonder when the truth about Hiroshima came into light in the USA ? Did Truman ever apologize for having said such a lie in front of the world ?
What "truth" and "lie" were those? As best I can make out, Hiroshima's population was about 255,000, according to Japanese ration records...plus about 43,000 military personnel of the 5th Area Army and 2d Infantry Division, as well as IJN personnel. It was also a major port of embarkation.
What about Nagasaki now ? Nagasaki was not a military base, and Truman bombed it three days after Hiroshima... Once again like 100.000 civlians dead for how many soldiers ?
What about it? Nagasaki was also a major port and industrial area, with 90% of the working population employed at the Mitsubishi Keiretsu, including shipyards, electrical plants, armaments plants, and steel production.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell


South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#3

Post by South » 19 Apr 2018, 11:57

Good morning David,

Translate this book title "Der totale Kreig" into English.

Just about everyone in the FDR and Truman administration read it.

Avoid Aristotelian logic. What's the difference between a baker preparing biscuits for soldiers and soldiers ?

The Truman diary entry is like the phrase on some coins: "Gott Mit Uns".

Unlike FDR or Wilson or the other presidents of modern times (Although Hoover fought in the Boxer Rebellion defense), Truman had served in combat with troops in the Great War Part I. In nice terms, Truman understood the content of his diary entry and his broadcast. Both were used to serve a purpose in prosecuting the war. His letter to Bess Truman said as much.

Back to Aristotelian logic; The 9 March 45 US bombing of Tokyo destroyed 267,000 buildings and 18% of Tokyo's industrial area. The April, May and June attacks on Nagoya, Kobe, Osaka, Yokohama and Kawasaki made 40% of Japan's urban areas into ruins. Millions were homeless. Damage and casualty assessments from the atomic attacks "merely" added to the numbers.

For a more explicit reply to your post; You're actually asking about the US public opinion on the Truman broadcast.

From a September 1945 Fortune Magazine poll:

Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb?" The smallest group of 5% were against dropping the atomic bombs. The largest group, 54%, supported the Truman administration's use of both bombs on both cities.
See: "War, Presidents and Public Opinion", John E. Mueller, 1973, ISBN: 0-471-62299-0.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#4

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 19 Apr 2018, 12:42

Thank you both for your replies. I appreciate.
Richard Anderson wrote:
DavidFrankenberg wrote:I wonder when the truth about Hiroshima came into light in the USA ? Did Truman ever apologize for having said such a lie in front of the world ?
What "truth" and "lie" were those? As best I can make out, Hiroshima's population was about 255,000, according to Japanese ration records...plus about 43,000 military personnel of the 5th Area Army and 2d Infantry Division, as well as IJN personnel. It was also a major port of embarkation.
How many of those "43.000 military personnel" were killed by the bomb ?
What about Nagasaki now ? Nagasaki was not a military base, and Truman bombed it three days after Hiroshima... Once again like 100.000 civlians dead for how many soldiers ?
What about it? Nagasaki was also a major port and industrial area, with 90% of the working population employed at the Mitsubishi Keiretsu, including shipyards, electrical plants, armaments plants, and steel production.
Any idea about the niumber of military personnel in Nagasaki ? how many died ? how many military ships were sunk ?

@t South : so the Americans didnt care about the civilan losses ? about the fact that indeed nor Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were "military bases" but big civilian cities at first ?
There was absolutely no questionning in the american press about the accuracy of the Truman' speech ?

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#5

Post by South » 19 Apr 2018, 15:14

Good morning David,

As far as "the Americans" being the American political establishment, no; enemy civilian losses were considered a function of prosecuting the war. Although Hiroshima was the city hosting the homeland Second Army, both cities were part of Japan's industrial base.

As far as absolutes re the American press, I do recall reading about challenges to Truman's statement in small national publications.

The only American journalist to witness the Nagasaki bombing was the New York Times' science reporter William L. Lawrence.

Few of the modern American presidents believed in a "free" press. Truman did not. Nor did the many owner-editors of the large national publications. See: THE KINGDOM AND THE POWER-The Story of the Men Who Influence the Institution That Influences the World-The New York Times, by Gay Talese, 1966.

Reread the 2 polls I posted earlier that were from Fortune Magazine.

It's all as clear as white light passing through a prism.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#6

Post by LineDoggie » 19 Apr 2018, 18:37

DavidFrankenberg wrote:After the A bombing of Hiroshima, the president Truman justified it in a radio speech saying Hiroshima was a military base.
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.




Of course we know Hiroshima was not a military base but a city full of civilians, women and children. The bomb killed like 100.000 of civilians, how many soldiers ?

I wonder when the truth about Hiroshima came into light in the USA ? Did Truman ever apologize for having said such a lie in front of the world ?

Truman is also saying that the Japaneses were on the edge of using the A bomb... but once again we know it was absolutely not the case.


What about Nagasaki now ? Nagasaki was not a military base, and Truman bombed it three days after Hiroshima... Once again like 100.000 civlians dead for how many soldiers ?
Hiroshima had

the 2nd General Army HQ inside it. That alone was reason enough

but it also was home to Eta Jima the IJN Annapolis in Hiroshima bay

the 59th Army HQ


Some 40K + Japanese troops in various units stationed in Hiroshima

By the way the 20th USAAF killed more Japanese outright on 9 March 1945 in Tokyo than Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Now to EDUCATE You on Nagasaki, it was home to a major Naval base and Mitsubishi heavy industries shipyards and the Mitsubishi Aircraft factory, the IJA Tank Arsenal
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#7

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Apr 2018, 19:40

LineDoggie wrote:Now to EDUCATE You on Nagasaki, it was home to a major Naval base and Mitsubishi heavy industries shipyards and the Mitsubishi Aircraft factory, the IJA Tank Arsenal
I already did, but we immediately moved to hair-splitting over how many of whom died, how many ships sank, and so on, so I think I can see the way this one is going.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#8

Post by R Leonard » 20 Apr 2018, 04:55

Big bad Americans drop the big nasty bombs.

Okay, let's say it never happens if it makes some people so outraged or squeamish.

The Japanese were NOT going to surrender. This the Allies knew, they'd been reading the Japanese diplomatic mail since the late 1930's, so any nonsense about negotiating through the Soviets or OSS types in Switzerland was exactly that, nonsense. No one in the Foreign Ministry had the authority to make concrete agreements, no one in Moscow or Berne had authority to speak for the Japanese government on actual termination of hostilities, it was all smoke and mirrors and from the messages back and forth (if one were bother to look them up which one can do for themselves) 'twas just so much weaseling. Not to mention the Soviets were just leading the Japanese on, they were not going to lift a finger to help the Japanese end the war, they wanted their piece of the pie. And, of course, as we know, the Japanese foreign ministry was not running the show, the Army and the Navy ran the show and would throw the foreign ministry under the bus in a heart beat (read: have them taken out and shot) if they thought there were, indeed, serious negotiations with anyone.

So, had the Japanese wanted to surrender, all they had to do was say so, to the people who mattered, the Allied forces closing in on their islands . . . they did not.

It is now July 1945. For apparently humanitarian reasons, you, in charge, have made the decision NOT to use the bombs. That leaves you three choices: (1) total blockade, (2) invasion, (3) both. Obviously an invasion would be proceeded by a blockade, it only a question of for how long. Meanwhile, the 5 or so targets reserved for the A-bombs get released to the 20th AF for the firebomb program, so within a couple of weeks they, like Tokyo and so many others, will, literally, be toast . . . that accomplished a lot did it not? Now they've used up all the big targets, so they'll start working down the pecking order, which by the way, absent the A-bombs was the plan all along . . . the firebombings were not going to stop.

If the choice is blockade only, the longer the blockade, the smaller the targets for B-29s become. Meanwhile there are carriers ranging up and down the Japanese coast striking with impunity, three days on and two days off for replenishment. Soon the USN would have enough carriers on hand to split the force in half and there would truly be two fleets, not just in name but in being . . . carrier strikes every day that weather allows. And AAF assets, heavy bombers and long range fighters were already swarming out of Okinawa and Iwo Jima that summer and their numbers would only increase; even the RAF had heavy bombers soon to be on the way. There is not a thing the Japanese can do about it, nothing, not a damn thing.

And let us not forget a couple of other things . . . first of all, people were dying in areas of China, SE Asia, & the Moluccas, just to name a few, where the Japanese still held sway, at a rate of about 30,000 a month. What about them? Oh, they aren't Japanese so we don't worry about them? They don't count? What, you don't like Tonkinese, Malays, and Chinese? That's interesting.

Secondly, what does "Blockade" mean? For a country, such as Japan, without the means to feed its own population when times are good, it means starvation, plain and simple, so let us call a spade a spade. It would not be a blockade, it would be deliberate starvation of a population on a national scale, especially since, though the Allies had not counted on it, there was a massive failure of the domestic rice crop in 1945. Of course it really did not matter, after mid-July there was no coal coming out of Hokkaido since TF38 destroyed the shipping to do so; nothing to cook, nothing to cook it with, and by the way, Japan gets cold in the winter and without coal the only thing to keep them warm would be the residue from incendiaries. Anyone want to cry about that? Starvation, you know, first the babies, then a race between children and old people, I think the old people will die out first, then after the children, the women, all in order. Anyone who thinks the army would give up its rations or allow any foodstuffs to go to non-essentials (read: civilians) better guess again . . . you only to look at how the army treated their own civilians on Saipan and Okinawa for the answer to that question.

Sometimes it seems that an invasion after a long, say 12 months, starvation blockade, might even be a relief, but at that point, why put Allied ground troops at risk? Wait another 6 months and the Japanese army would be in no condition to stop a crab from coming ashore, much less troops. Small consolation to the 500,000 people who have died under Japanese control in the 18 months of the meantime, but its seems some only worry about the Japanese . . . or what would now be left of them.

So, no bombs, no invasion (that way we don't have to weigh the expert opinions of academics 70 plus years later against the opinions of those who were facing the actual prospect at the time and did so for a living). Just a nice tidy naval blockade, nothing in, nothing out, nothing along the coast and for quite a distance inland, operating under a silver and blue umbrella that would eventually be reduced to shooting up hand carts because that was all that was left. So, which is a better idea? For the Allies, a blockade is a pretty good idea, it has its attractions, a cost of time, of course, but not as many bodies as invasion; for the Japanese, most assuredly a very, very, very bad idea. And to the people to the south and east, since the bombs were such a bad idea, I guess they just become the cost of doing business, eh? But, hey, they aren't Japanese so the folks who cry over the bombs tend to dismiss them altogether.

Again, had the Japanese wanted to surrender, all they had to do was say so. One might note they had no problem reaching out after Nagasaki so it was not like they had no clue. But, alack and alas, they did not. Had they wanted to surrender after Hiroshima, all they had to do was say so, they did not. Sorry, but there seemed from the Allies side to be a little impatience with the Japanese government's refusal to cede the issue even after specific warnings, thus, a bomb, and when that bomb apparently did not get their attention, another. It was never a matter of "let's go kill everyone in Hiroshima" or "Oh, that worked well, let's do the same at Nagasaki (or more correctly, I believe, Kokura, as Nagasaki was a secondary target). No, it was Japanese had failed to respond to Potsdam, failed to reach out on their own, so drop the bomb, get their attention. They are still were not paying attention, so drop the second bomb. Now they are paying attention.

Personally, while I have no angst over the bombs, either of them, I tend to agree with FAdm's King and Nimitz that a blockade would eventually, eventually, force a surrender, but, then again, at what cost, to the Japanese or to the people under their thumbs to the south and east? Bottom line was that the bombs, both of them, were the fastest way to end the war, period. And if you want to cry about someone getting vaporized in the blink of an eye, I suspect that might be a little more merciful than being slowly parboiled in a drainage or sewage ditch during a fire storm.

So, somebody pick, A-Bombs, starvation, or starvation and invasion. Then, presuming the bombs are not the choice convince me that there would be lesser civilian loss of life from either the latter two than from the former. Anyone who thinks there was really a better solution than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is living the same dream world as the Japanese Imperial General Staff with it collective dream of ultimate victory.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#9

Post by Takao » 20 Apr 2018, 10:50

DavidFrankenberg wrote:After the A bombing of Hiroshima, the president Truman justified it in a radio speech saying Hiroshima was a military base.
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.


He repeat it in his diary Diary entry of Harry Truman, July 25, 1945: https://www.stripes.com/news/special-re ... t-1.360308
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world …”

“This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

“He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that but we will have given them the chance. “
Of course we know Hiroshima was not a military base but a city full of civilians, women and children. The bomb killed like 100.000 of civilians, how many soldiers ?

I wonder when the truth about Hiroshima came into light in the USA ? Did Truman ever apologize for having said such a lie in front of the world ?

Truman is also saying that the Japaneses were on the edge of using the A bomb... but once again we know it was absolutely not the case.


What about Nagasaki now ? Nagasaki was not a military base, and Truman bombed it three days after Hiroshima... Once again like 100.000 civlians dead for how many soldiers ?
I get so tired of this...

I keep reposting this map, I would think that people would have gotten the word that Hiroshima had several major military complexes.
Image

It was also a defended city, hence a viable target.

There were about 44,000-48,000 troops stationed in Hiroshima proper. About half of those died in the blast or shortly thereafter, with most of the rest being wounded.

The "truth" was never hidden...However, skeptics, anti-nuclear types, and anti-American types only see what they want to see...The rest - the military significance of Hiroshima - remains invisible to them because it completely tears down their false argument that Hiroshima was not a military city.

Note, this does not include the many factories that participated in military work.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#10

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 20 Apr 2018, 11:44

Takao wrote:There were about 44,000-48,000 troops stationed in Hiroshima proper. About half of those died in the blast or shortly thereafter, with most of the rest being wounded.
It seems that Hiroshima was empty of troops the 6th august :
The 5th division headquarters buildings in Hiroshima Castle were destroyed by the atomic bomb explosion on 6 August 1945. Loss of life was light because the headquarters were already used to reinforce 125th division in Manchukuo in March 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Divis ... nese_Army)
wiki cites Madej, W. Victor, Japanese Armed Forces Order of Battle, 1937–1945 [2 vols] Allentown, Pennsylvania: 1981. I wonder if this book deals with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ge ... my_(Japan)
Together with the Fifth Division, Fifty-Ninth Army, and other combat divisions in the city who were also hit, an estimated 20,000 Japanese combatants were killed.
Hiroshima had 340.000 inhabitants and shletered 50.000 (?) soldiers. The bomb killed like 150.000 people (?). 20.000 (?) were soldiers. 130.000 were civilians.
86% of the victims were civilians. 14% were soldiers. Is it worthy to kill 6 civilians in order to kill 1 soldier ?
How Hiroshima could have been considered as a military target and not a city since only 15% of the population was supposed to be soldiers ?

We know how difficult it is to evaluate the losses after such a blast.
Most elements of the Japanese Second General Army headquarters were at physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle, barely 900 yards (820 m) from the hypocenter. The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki
If the target was military, why not drop the bomb directly above the military base in Hiroshima instead of above the down-town ?

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#11

Post by R Leonard » 20 Apr 2018, 13:05

May I suggest you peruse the target analysis studies, Volume 6 which includes Hiroshima and Volume 8 which includes Nagasaki, and then you can come back and tell us what you found. I'd really like to see you write after reviewing said volumes that there were no legitimate targets in either so that we can dismiss whatever else you say as equally untruthful.

Also this would be a lot more fun if you stopped increasing the number of deaths with your posts. You've gone from 100K to 150K. And, no, you can't say you are adding the military personnel, it does not work that way. For the measure of civilian losses, you subtract the military personnel from the total.

There is a lot of really good documents and studies you could read, but you are apparently sticking only to the big-bad-Americans presentations. Your regurgitated presentations and protestations smack of the journalism school of history . . . long on agenda and breathless accusations and extremely short on actual in-depth historic background.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#12

Post by Takao » 21 Apr 2018, 00:48

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
Takao wrote:There were about 44,000-48,000 troops stationed in Hiroshima proper. About half of those died in the blast or shortly thereafter, with most of the rest being wounded.
It seems that Hiroshima was empty of troops the 6th august :
The 5th division headquarters buildings in Hiroshima Castle were destroyed by the atomic bomb explosion on 6 August 1945. Loss of life was light because the headquarters were already used to reinforce 125th division in Manchukuo in March 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Divis ... nese_Army)
wiki cites Madej, W. Victor, Japanese Armed Forces Order of Battle, 1937–1945 [2 vols] Allentown, Pennsylvania: 1981. I wonder if this book deals with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ge ... my_(Japan)
Together with the Fifth Division, Fifty-Ninth Army, and other combat divisions in the city who were also hit, an estimated 20,000 Japanese combatants were killed.
I'm confused...First, you say that Hiroshima was empty of troops, and then, you quote a source that says some 20,000 died in the blast.

So, which is it? Or, are you in the habit of posting sources that contradict your claims.


DavidFrankenberg wrote:Hiroshima had 340.000 inhabitants and shletered 50.000 (?) soldiers. The bomb killed like 150.000 people (?). 20.000 (?) were soldiers. 130.000 were civilians.
86% of the victims were civilians. 14% were soldiers. Is it worthy to kill 6 civilians in order to kill 1 soldier ?
How Hiroshima could have been considered as a military target and not a city since only 15% of the population was supposed to be soldiers ?

We know how difficult it is to evaluate the losses after such a blast.
Most elements of the Japanese Second General Army headquarters were at physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle, barely 900 yards (820 m) from the hypocenter. The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki
If the target was military, why not drop the bomb directly above the military base in Hiroshima instead of above the down-town ?
The bomb killed 150,000 people? Well, that number is on the high end of the scale(65,000-200,000+). You can read this article concerning the number of Hiroshima deaths. https://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm

So, your percentage of civilian to military deaths is on a sliding scale...It could be as low as two-to-one if looking at the low end, or 3.5 to 1 if the middling ground is taken.

You have seen the map, there were several large military installations scattered throughout Hiroshima...How do you still consider it a civilian target?

Why not drop the Bomb directly on a military base in Hiroshima? Which military base were you talking about? As there were several to choose from...

The Bomb was dropped on downtown? Your own quote says otherwise...It hit just south of a major military base. Or have you forgotten
Most elements of the Japanese Second General Army headquarters were at physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle, barely 900 yards (820 m) from the hypocenter. The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#13

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Apr 2018, 04:42

Here's a hint, don't feed the creature under the bridge. Or at least visit the other thread where he's playing the same games.
Last edited by Richard Anderson on 21 Apr 2018, 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#14

Post by Takao » 21 Apr 2018, 14:47

Richard Anderson wrote:Here's a hint, don't feed the creature under the bridge. Or at least visit the other thread where he's plating the same games.
I know, It's mostly for those who come across this from a Google search, so that they can see that his claims have no basis...It always amazes me how many times I stumble on AHF threads using Google.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#15

Post by R Leonard » 21 Apr 2018, 15:01

Besides, to respond is a great opportunity to exercise the language in the face of those whose writing and research are snippet based.

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”