Oppenheimer

[Mutaman]

I absolutely love Cillian Murphy and will eventually see the film because of him.

Just read that he was living in London but when he realized that his kids were developing British  accents, he packed them up and moved back to Ireland.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Just read that he was living in London but when he realized that his kids were developing British  accents, he packed them up and moved back to Ireland.

Read the interview in Rolling Stone.  He definitely says this in that interview.
It's not a long read.

[Hards Alumni]

Never said our motives were pure. The political nature of the decision alone was opportunistic. Even if the choice was 500,000 American lives saved if our weapon killed 2 million Japanese, a President would have been derelict in his duty not to use it. President Truman had no choice.

President Truman's decision was heroic but one I'd never want to make. Ever.

Leo Szilard and the crowd that tried to persuade the President against atomic weaponry in the Japanese theater were interesting characters. They acted as if the bomb was their's and they had a right to decide how it was used. Most of them had a grudge with Germany and would have been happy to use it on the Nazis but less so on the Japanese. To the President's credit -- and that of Secretary of State Byrnes -- the Szilard and University of Chicago crowd had their day but were ultimately not followed.

The real war crime -- the one conveniently forgotten by people who think the United States was irresponsible and criminal at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

It was a surprise attack.  War crimes typically are the results of unnecessary suffering for the sake of it.  Does the attack on Pearl Harbor fit the technical definition?  Sure, I guess.

But, calling Pearl Harbor a war crime is reductive, in my opinion... enslavement, rape, torture, wanton killing of non combatants, use of child soldiers, you get the picture.  Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I don't mean to minimize the events of Pearl Harbor.  But by that definition, isn't every surprise opening attack of a war, a war crime?

[Hards Alumni]

Brother dgies,

Our mistake was not exerting our power more strongly after the war.  It would have prevented the horrific acts of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, etc.  When people complain about American hegemony my response is another country could not maintain any semblance of a Balance of Power ideology then or now.  I have some hawkish tendencies but imagine this world had we not dropped the hammer?   We have a plethora of problems, no doubt about that.  Multiply those problems by 1000 if we aren't the dominant superpower.

That's very Americentric of you.

[pbiflyer]

It was a surprise attack.  War crimes typically are the results of unnecessary suffering for the sake of it.  Does the attack on Pearl Harbor fit the technical definition?  Sure, I guess.

But, calling Pearl Harbor a war crime is reductive, in my opinion... enslavement, rape, torture, wanton killing of non combatants, use of child soldiers, you get the picture.  Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I don't mean to minimize the events of Pearl Harbor.  But by that definition, isn't every surprise opening attack of a war, a war crime?

The firebombing of Tokyo using napalm which killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was really more of a war crime. But the idea of only bombing military targets had long since been in the rear view mirror.

On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I’m pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

[Hards Alumni]

The firebombing of Tokyo using napalm which killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was really more of a war crime. But the idea of only bombing military targets had long since been in the rear view mirror.

On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I’m pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

Oh, absolutely.  Bombing of London, Dresden and Tokyo... et al.  Much bigger war crimes.

Yeah very fortunate.  I'm not against the dropping of the bomb, I just think it was more complicated of a decision than to 'end the war in the pacific'.

[MU82]

On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I’m pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

Great story about your dad. Glad he and his mates survived the war, and extra glad you're here to tell about it!!!

(My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge. What heroes that generation produced.)

[dgies9156]

Brother dgies,

Our mistake was not exerting our power more strongly after the war.  It would have prevented the horrific acts of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, etc.  When people complain about American hegemony my response is another country could not maintain any semblance of a Balance of Power ideology then or now.  I have some hawkish tendencies but imagine this world had we not dropped the hammer?   We have a plethora of problems, no doubt about that.  Multiply those problems by 1000 if we aren't the dominant superpower.

Brother Muggsy:

This is a fascinating take on the immediate post-ear era. It's very Pattonesque.

What the Soviets didn't want anyone to know was that everything from the Ural Mountains to the westernmost regions of their country was destroyed. The industrial capability of the Soviet Union was in shambles and the military strength of the Soviet Army came from enormous supplies provided by the United States.

The rebuild of European Russia took decades -- one of the key reasons why the Soviets detested the U2 flights as they exposed the country's weaknesses. Without Marshall Plan assistance and with a required huge military investment, the westernmost portions of the Soviet Union took decades to rebuild.

In the Soviet mind, the atomic bomb was the one thing that kept the U.S. out of their country after 1949.

Four years of all-out war left the US war weary itself. Apart from the battles we faced in war, our country was in all-out war production mode. There was little taste for another set of battles aimed at toppling a Soviet Communist government. Indeed, politicians like Henry Wallace had fostered the notion that the Soviets were a friendly government -- a notion that even Franklin Roosevelt conveniently harbored. The bloom came off that rose at Potsdam and a year later at Fulton, Missouri, where Prime Minister Churchill gave the Iron Curtain speech.
 

[Hards Alumni]

Are you suggesting the US didn't know that the Western USSR was devastated by a years long modern war involving aerial bombardment, artillery barrages, and tank warfare until the U2 flights?

Oh boy.

[dgies9156]

Not at all big boy.

Of course we knew there were problems. But the U2 was 15 years later and the lack of progress was embarrassing.

I doubt even the US knew exactly how bad it was. No doubt we had a general idea but the extent of the destruction was probably not known.

[Hards Alumni]

Not at all big boy.

Of course we knew there were problems. But the U2 was 15 years later and the lack of progress was embarrassing.

I doubt even the US knew exactly how bad it was. No doubt we had a general idea but the extent of the destruction was probably not known.

You've heard of the CIA, right?

[MuggsyB]

You've heard of the CIA, right?

Whether the CIA knew or not is irrelevant. We clearly fked up strategically just as we did with the stupid  Dawes Plan in 1923.  Globalists should take note of both disastrous decisions which caused insane amounts of human suffering and slaughter. 

[Pakuni]

Whether the CIA knew or not is irrelevant. We clearly fked up strategically just as we did with the stupid  Dawes Plan in 1923.  Globalists should take note of both disastrous decisions which caused insane amounts of human suffering and slaughter.

Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

[pbiflyer]

Great story about your dad. Glad he and his mates survived the war, and extra glad you're here to tell about it!!!

(My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge. What heroes that generation produced.)

Yeah they were. I was fortunate enough to be present at a Veteran’s Day celebration in 2019 honoring WWII vets. Got to spend time with some of  them. Amazing men. Amazing stories.
Strangely enough, one of the guys was a UDT who was part of the Saipan invasion. My dad’s ship delivered UDT teams for that invasion. While the gentleman was not on my dad’s ship, he was likely within a few hundred yards of him. Strange that they sat side by side so many decades later.

[MU82]

Yeah they were. I was fortunate enough to be present at a Veteran’s Day celebration in 2019 honoring WWII vets. Got to spend time with some of  them. Amazing men. Amazing stories.
Strangely enough, one of the guys was a UDT who was part of the Saipan invasion. My dad’s ship delivered UDT teams for that invasion. While the gentleman was not on my dad’s ship, he was likely within a few hundred yards of him. Strange that they sat side by side so many decades later.

That's incredible, pbi.

All too soon, there won't be a single WWII veteran left, but thankfully their stories and memories will live on. I've been lucky enough to go to both the Pearl Harbor site on Oahu and the WWII museum in New Orleans, and both were fascinating experiences.

My dad didn't like to talk about the war and just about never did. Years ago, my son (then 8 I think) "interviewed" him for a school project. I was listening in and taking notes - I hadn't heard most of the stuff my dad told my son, and that report remains an important part of our family archive.

[Boozemon Barro]

Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

That's a tough one. Fight in a war or live under communism, which is worse? Well, I guess fighting in a war so that you can live under communism is kind of the worst of all worlds scenario.

[MuggsyB]

Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him. 

[Uncle Rico]

Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

You can revise history all you want but Americans were done with war in 1945

[MuggsyB]

Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

You can revise history all you want but Americans were done with war in 1945

I get that.  War or occupation isn't fun.  Not acting wound up being less fun imo. 

[Pakuni]

Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

"Invading Russia is a great idea. What could go wrong?"
Co-signed,
Napoleon and Hitler

[Uncle Rico]

I get that.  War or occupation isn't fun.  Not acting wound up being less fun imo.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It’s not provable either way. 

[MuggsyB]

"Invading Russia is a great idea. What could go wrong?"
Co-signed,
Napoleon and Hitler

Your making a false analogy.  The Russians were completely decimated after WW2 and lost more lives than anyone by far.  The Finns essentially kicked the crap of them proportionally.  RIP Simo Hayha. 

We probably could have annexed the country in a few weeks. 

[HutchwasClutch]

Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

Gen George S Patton as well was very forward thinking then knowing Stalin and the Soviets were dangerous and not to be trusted. 

[HutchwasClutch]

Your making a false analogy.  The Russians were completely decimated after WW2 and lost more lives than anyone by far.  The Finns essentially kicked the crap of them proportionally.  RIP Simo Hayha. 

We probably could have annexed the country in a few weeks. 

I agree we probably could have defeated Russia expeditiously, but keeping peace and the Communists from regaining power would have been a very long and difficult task.  The long term was the biggest problem.

[Lennys Tap]

Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

I imagine the British were tired too - they’d been at it years more than the Americans.