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.
User avatar
Wellgunde
Member
Posts: 1050
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 09:02
Location: Poway, CA, USA

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#16

Post by Wellgunde » 23 Apr 2018, 07:01

DavidFrankenberg wrote:If the target was military, why not drop the bomb directly above the military base in Hiroshima instead of above the down-town ?
First of all, there was more than one military installation in the Hiroshima area. Given the technology of the time, it was not possible to arrive at pin point accuracy when dropping bombs from 31,000 feet. In any case, the Hiroshima bomb was an air burst detonation (over the target not on it).
γνώθι σαυτόν

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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#17

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 23 Apr 2018, 19:08

Actually , the population of Hiroshima is estimated at 240.000 at the time of the explosion.
If we count 50.000 soldiers, it means like 1/5 of people was soldier and 80% civilian.

What is shoking me is the way Truman presented Hiroshima, "a military base". Could a city be a "military base" ? No. One city can shelter some military bases, but one city can not be a military base. The kind of cities which are military bases are very rare (some in SU and USA (like Fort Hood today)), and Hiroshima was not.

I just wanted to know in what extent Truman' speech was criticized by the US at the time. Looks like, it was absolutely not.


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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#18

Post by R Leonard » 24 Apr 2018, 01:59

Could a city be a "military base" ? No.
Actually, you are very wrong. This is what you do not seem to understand or even want to understand. 1945 was not 2018. And there are also cities in the US which were/are surrounded, edged, and infilled with military and naval targets, which in 1945 terms meant the entire city was a target simple by virtue of the gross inaccuracy of weapons delivery technology. There is no shock to it at all if you know your history, geography, and bother to read up on international laws of warfare. Places like Norfolk VA, San Diego CA, or, even better, San Francisco CA would all have been perfectly legitimate targets for some bomb toting German or Japanese bomber had they had the capability and all would have been judged as military targets.

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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#19

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 24 Apr 2018, 17:46

R Leonard wrote:
Could a city be a "military base" ? No.
Actually, you are very wrong. This is what you do not seem to understand or even want to understand. 1945 was not 2018. And there are also cities in the US which were/are surrounded, edged, and infilled with military and naval targets, which in 1945 terms meant the entire city was a target simple by virtue of the gross inaccuracy of weapons delivery technology. There is no shock to it at all if you know your history, geography, and bother to read up on international laws of warfare. Places like Norfolk VA, San Diego CA, or, even better, San Francisco CA would all have been perfectly legitimate targets for some bomb toting German or Japanese bomber had they had the capability and all would have been judged as military targets.
Truman perfectly knew that Hiroshima was not a military base but a city. He deliberately lied to the people.
The bombing of Hiroshima like the bombing of Royan and some other cties (Dresden, Nagasaki of course) are highly questionnable on both strategical and moral point of views.

Comparatively, if we look at the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which is very often presented like horrible), it was a model : 68 civilians killed for 2500 soldiers killed.

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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#20

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Apr 2018, 20:01

Please people, could we STOP feeding the troll?
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

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#21

Post by ljadw » 24 Apr 2018, 22:00

South wrote: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
In WWII almost all cities had military installations, in the center of the city ,and it was not possible to attack military installations (HQ or factories ) without hurting the cities .

75 years ago (April 5 1943 ) the USAAF attacked the Erla factories in the center of Mortsel (suburb of Antwerp),they missed the factories ,but 900 + civilians ,of whom 250 children, were killed . No one said that it was a war crime .
For Hiroshima the victims were enemy civilians, thus ... and a lot of them were as responsible as were Japanese soldiers : if it was allowed to kill a Japanese soldier, why not a civilian who was making weapons for this soldier ?
Besides, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of a lot of Japanese civilians (not that this was important ) and the lives of a lot of American soldiers : even after these attacks, the Japanese continued to murder Allied POWs .

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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#22

Post by R Leonard » 25 Apr 2018, 03:15

The problem, with our friend under the bridge, is that he only sees things as he wishes them to be, he does not see reality. One could go on and on about what constituted a legitimate target, and, circa 1945, a legitimate target WAS a military target, but that is not part of his world view and will not be even as he knows how that view flies in the face of reality. One could be nice and conclude a truly shocking lack of actual study of the subject, but, no, really it is apparent that the rose colored glasses, the warm and fuzzy, is quite deliberate in the face of reality.

RA you are right, one should not feed the creatures under the bridge, I shall desist . . . at least until his next outrageous twisting of reality.

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

Re: Truman' speech justifying Hiroshima

#23

Post by Takao » 26 Apr 2018, 23:12

DavidFrankenberg wrote: Truman perfectly knew that Hiroshima was not a military base but a city.
Well, Truman did know that there were several military bases within the city. He knew that many of Hiroshima's industries were involved in war work. He knew that there were tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Hiroshima. He knew that the city was defended by AA guns...What part of this progression escapes you?
DavidFrankenberg wrote:He deliberately lied to the people.
Ahhh, semantics...So if Truman had said Hiroshima was a city with a sizable military presence, or he had said Hiroshima was a city containing several military bases...Then, you would be A-OK with the bombing of Hiroshima?
DavidFrankenberg wrote:The bombing of Hiroshima like the bombing of Royan and some other cties (Dresden, Nagasaki of course) are highly questionnable on both strategical and moral point of views.
Actually, the bombing of Hiroshima is questionable from neither a strategic or moral point-of-view. What is highly questionable is the Japanese continuing to fight after they had realized the war was lost. Had they thrown in the towel during the summer of 1944, there would have been no fire raids, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki...Takes two to tango.
DavidFrankenberg wrote:Comparatively, if we look at the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which is very often presented like horrible), it was a model : 68 civilians killed for 2500 soldiers killed.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor is a model? So, what you are saying is that we should have made peace with Japan, then nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki...Ooooh, that is despicably evil, I like the way you think!

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”