Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've done a little research and see that Franklin Roosevelt also thought that cooperation with the Soviets might be possible. Again, we will never know what would have happened because Roosevelt died and the U.S. shifted course under Truman. <<(ii) The reactions of the United States: Despite the increasing Russian influence in eastern and central Europe, many politicians in the United States were optimistic about the chances of co-operation with the Soviet Union after the war and did not advocate strong resistance against Russian expansion. But from May 1945 onwards, the situation was changed. The U.S. government favoured a policy of strong resistance against Russia. The first reason was that President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. He was succeeded by Harry S. Truman. President Roosevelt was an optimistic man. He seemed to have believed that although eastern Europe had fallen under the influence of Russia, she would keep her promise (made at Yalta) by setting up freely-elected parliamentary governments in the area. So Roosevelt did not advocate strong resistance against Russian expansion. The new President, Truman, was a complete contrast to Roosevelt. He did not believe the communists. He thought that the communists would not set up democratic governments in eastern Europe. He also believed that after the Soviet Union had established her control in eastern Europe, she would continue to extend her influence into western Europe. Thus President Truman favoured a policy of strong resistance against Russian expansion. The second reason was that just before the Potsdam Conference was to take place, the United States had successfully exploded her atomic bomb. President Truman thought that since the United States alone possessed the atomic bomb, she could adopt a stiff attitude towards Russian expansion in Europe.>> Source: <a href="http://www.thecorner.org/hist/europe/coldwar.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thecorner.org/hist/ europe/coldwar.htm</a> If I advocate the same position that Franklin D. Roosevelt did, I feel pretty good about my position. I am not naive... it may not have worked and the Cold War could have resulted anyway. But wasn't it worth a try?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Douglas, are you suggesting Stalin was a bad guy? Seriously, Stalin was a known villain long before the onset of WWII. I doubt the western powers would ally with a character such as him under peaceful conditions. Guess it goes to show, war makes strange bedfellows.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Trippy-My wife says that everyone takes advantage of me too. I am a dreamer> just like you. Unfortunately, the enemy gets (satan) in the way
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, are you suggesting Stalin was a bad guy?> No more than your average tyrant who orders the deaths of millions of people. I'm not as certain as the source Road Trip quoted that FDR's and Truman's outlook on the Soviet Union were that different.
Originally Posted By barboy For those of you out there who have issues with lowering the boom on Japan back in '45 I invite you to examine or reexmine the proximal historical events in the war in the Pacific such as Saipan, Iwo Jima and especially Okinawa. Upon close inspection you will see why a building-to-building, door-to-door full scale invasion would have been catastrophic and not just for those Allied forces with rifles but for our boys being tortured and starved in POW workcamps.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O peration_Downfall</a> A big section on casualty estimates. Here're a couple of the first paragraphs: In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger And interesting last paragraph: Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Thank you barboy as I see you know your stuff as I do. These other links underestimating the casualities were strictly done for public consumption, i.e. war-time propaganda. Look at the problem now that the public has stomaching 2300 caualties. Again, after decades of exhaustive study the experts and me conclude a minimus of 1 mill casualties. I have to eat now and see yet another battlefield program on the military channel. Barboy must be a student of this stuff like me, and has seen the films of the Japanese training for house to house fighting throughout the entire country.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip So much for 1 million dead... I figured it sounded way out of line compared to our prior WWII losses.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe fyi--I hung out with not only Austwitz survivors in the seventies, but I played tennis with a vet's group who SURVIVED Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa. The parents said without the bombs, I wouldn't be playing tennis with their kids. This was in my drinking days and we used to have "fun little fights" with 12 OZ. boxing gloves after tennis. The point is these Marines were some tough cookies who fought hand to hand with the Japanese and they used to occasionally be brought to tears how Truman saved their lives by using the bombs. They trained and were ready to rock on the Japanese mainland. It was no glamour.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Trippy--I could get you links that say that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. So believe a couple of silly links or believe the truth. I did not buy this house for 860K and now it's worth 1.5 mill. Yeah right!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I find it hard to believe that 60 years later when you can look at history this much later, ANYONE would doubt the wisdom of dropping the a bomb on Japan to win that war and save our military from mass casualties. The only way to get peace is by massive strenghth or at least a threat of massive force. Why the libs STILL can't get this after countless examples that their appeasment only causes millions of innocents to die is yet another reason I think these people are so foolish.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe If a hydrogen bomb (1000 times stronger than Hirosima) was dropped on Manhattan, there would only be 100,000 casualties. I could show you links. See what I mean? It's silly talk. I don't know how to do the link thing, and I've spent 35 years plus studying so this is my last post on this. Rachel is sitting with me in the golf library and saying "Dad stop talking about WW11. No one cares" Well my old vet friends care and Barboy cares. I won't forget.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau--Isn't it interesting that after we annihilated the Japanese they're our best friends? "When in Rome, do as ." If I went to East Los> I'd act a certain way and so on and so forth. It's people skills to the max equals geopolitical skills. Hopefully George is doing the right things. I know darned well he is trying!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Iran is the next place we might have to drop a serious bomb on. They bragged today that they have enriched uranium.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Bequ--you care too and Trippy cares but he is misinformed by a couple links. Folks, I've lived this s....!
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I would love to see stategic "Daisy Cutters" so we can keep our post Nagasaki virginity anent nukes.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Okay Jim--Now you're with the program!) If I had my druthers, I'm with Macarthur who wanted to take out the Koreans and the Chinese Let's take out everyone so we won't have to figure out which links that LPer's send in to believe?)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You will never hear me say anything negative about the Japanese. In fact, I respect the hell out of their work ethic and their Disney parks. The fact is, the only way Japan was defeated, the only way Hitler was defeated, the only way facisim was defeated, the only way the Soviet Union collapsed was with war or the threat of war as Reagan used so well in his arms buildup. Appeasement, " lets get along with them ", lets cut and run, all that liberal crap has led to the deaths of MILLIONS and the spread of evil all over the world. This fight agaisnt Islamic fanatics might be the worst fight yet because these nuts want to die and they have their religion pushing them to kill anyone who they don't agree with. Bush is actually fighting these animals and making their lives hell. Because of this he has my respect no matter how much money he spends. He also never backs down when his poll nembers are supposedly down. This is why he is a gret leader and will be viewd as one of the gretest presidents ever in the next 50 years. And the libs will once again be on the wrong side of history as they always are.
