21
Contributors
241
Replies
242
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jbennet
Featured Replies
  • I didn't read the entire thread. But, it's just the internet. Don't let people upset you. It's not worth it. People talk alot of smack when they are behind the safety of their own computer. Back to the topic, I like historic sites. I really want to go to Normandy … Read More

  • 1

    Daniweb is my life lol reality is but a sidestory Read More

0

Grover Cleveland.

Do you think he was a bad president or made some mistakes during his administration?

0

There's one thing I don't entirely agree on, and that was the detonation of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during WW2, does anyone disagree?
I think that President Truman made a huge mistake by doing that. He knew there were other options than slaughtering thousands of innocent Japanese lives. (They were relentless though).

0

There's one thing I don't entirely agree on, and that was the detonation of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during WW2, does anyone disagree?
I think that President Truman made a huge mistake by doing that. He knew there were other options than slaughtering thousands of innocent Japanese lives. (They were relentless though).

I disagree 200%! It was war! The Japanese were being relentless, and It was taking too long to end the war. Truman did a great job by detonating the first and only nuclear weapons ever used in war. It's just too bad we didn't develop nuclear fusion and the hydrogen bomb until the 50s.. It could have been much worse.. In my opinion, we should have researched the neutron bomb and developed its technology completely. Hypothetically, It is a nuclear weapon that is supposed to kill people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

0

The nuclear bomb has also been considered as a political move to prevent the Russians from invading Japan, both to show the power of the US and to end the war before the Russians had a chance to get involved on that side. That way the US was able to build Japan into the capitalist nation it has come to be, without worrying about Russian communism during the reconstruction. I've not researched the theory myself, but it does make a lot of sense given the following 30 years of the Cold War against communism.

0

ah, yes. I forgot that aspect of it as well. Pretty much the end of ww2 started the cold war. And the nuke was what made the U.S. emerge from the war as a world power... The soviets were right on our tail from that moment on. Only 2-3 years behind in developing nuclear weapons, then the hydrogen bomb. And the launch of sputnik put the Soviets ahead of the Americans in the space race. However, the Americans were then the first to land on the moon (supposedly).

0

There is a thread about it actually. joshSCH should have a link.

i think in the future people may very well be studying the internet revolution and the War Of Terror in history classes. I maen my mom, she grew up in like the 50/60s and they studied like the boer war and stuff (because most of the stuff we consider hostory, cold war, ww2 etc... was new at that time)

0

The nuclear bomb has also been considered as a political move to prevent the Russians from invading Japan, both to show the power of the US and to end the war before the Russians had a chance to get involved on that side. That way the US was able to build Japan into the capitalist nation it has come to be, without worrying about Russian communism during the reconstruction. I've not researched the theory myself, but it does make a lot of sense given the following 30 years of the Cold War against communism.

I do not know about political considerations involved in this; I haven't heard of such before. What I've always heard was that the bloodprice (X# Japanese killed) of using the bomb(s) was weighed against the bloodprice (Y# Japanese killed + Z# 'Allied' killed) of attempting a direct invasion and the end choice was to use the bombs. Considering that Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be perfectly happy giving pretty much everything else away at Yalta, I doubt he'd have had too many qualms about doing so with Japan, and Truman was following in FDR's footsteps. (Side note: After Winston Churchill's famous 'Iron Curtain' speech, Truman apparently invited Stalin to the US to give a rebuttal.)

ah, yes. I forgot that aspect of it as well. Pretty much the end of ww2 started the cold war. And the nuke was what made the U.S. emerge from the war as a world power... The soviets were right on our tail from that moment on. Only 2-3 years behind in developing nuclear weapons, then the hydrogen bomb. And the launch of sputnik put the Soviets ahead of the Americans in the space race. However, the Americans were then the first to land on the moon (supposedly).

Mostly because the Soviets had numerous agents working for them within the United States, especially within the government. For some extra material on this topic, look up information on the US Military's Venona Project.

There is a thread about it actually. joshSCH should have a link.

i think in the future people may very well be studying the internet revolution and the War Of Terror in history classes. I maen my mom, she grew up in like the 50/60s and they studied like the boer war and stuff (because most of the stuff we consider hostory, cold war, ww2 etc... was new at that time)

Quite true. Apparently, history ends and current events begin ~20,30 years $ago. [Note: That's a sliding scale, variable $ago is defined relative to 'now'.] Wonder if anyone on Daniweb'll make a big enough impact to get a mention in the history texts of 2030 and beyond?

0

I disagree 200%! It was war! The Japanese were being relentless, and It was taking too long to end the war. Truman did a great job by detonating the first and only nuclear weapons ever used in war. It's just too bad we didn't develop nuclear fusion and the hydrogen bomb until the 50s.. It could have been much worse.. In my opinion, we should have researched the neutron bomb and developed its technology completely. Hypothetically, It is a nuclear weapon that is supposed to kill people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

The nuclear bomb has also been considered as a political move to prevent the Russians from invading Japan, both to show the power of the US and to end the war before the Russians had a chance to get involved on that side. That way the US was able to build Japan into the capitalist nation it has come to be, without worrying about Russian communism during the reconstruction. I've not researched the theory myself, but it does make a lot of sense given the following 30 years of the Cold War against communism.

Yes, I know that. I'm just saying a lot of people believed it was a mistake. I mean, Hiroshima was the target of the first atomic bomb used against civil population in history. And three days later, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb over the city of Nagasaki. In total, about one fourth of a million people were killed by just the two bombs. I know it was war, but I was just saying some people tend to disagree that it was the only way to end the war.

0

Truman did a great job by detonating the first and only nuclear weapons ever used in war.

It's just too bad we didn't develop nuclear fusion and the hydrogen bomb until the 50s.. It could have been much worse.. In my opinion, we should have researched the neutron bomb and developed its technology completely. Hypothetically, It is a nuclear weapon that is supposed to kill people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

Josh...there were two nuclear bombs dropped within three days of each other in Japan. The two bombs were named little boy and fat man, little boy was dropped on Hiroshima and fat man was dropped on Nagasaki.

Waiting for research wasn't an option for several reasons that have already been mentioned. Not only was it important to demonstrate that we had "the bomb", but to also demonstrate repeatability by dropping the second bomb.


Christina...apparently you made you post with similar information while I was writing mine.
On a personal note, I believe that Patton had the right idea that we should have immediately gone after the Russians after WW2.

Back to the question about my favorite period, with so many different periods shaping the future it's difficult to choose just one. If I had to pick one I guess it would be the Renaissance period, this period was the true beginning of modern man.

0

The nuclear bomb has also been considered as a political move to prevent the Russians from invading Japan. I've not researched the theory myself, but it does make a lot of sense given the following 30 years of the Cold War against communism.

That is a valid point. After the war the USSR occupied many countries. If the USSR got japan it would be bad (japan = very close to USA)

-1

Josh...there were two nuclear bombs dropped within three days of each other in Japan. The two bombs were named little boy and fat man, little boy was dropped on Hiroshima and fat man was dropped on Nagasaki.

Yes, I know this.. Why are you stating it?

Waiting for research wasn't an option for several reasons that have already been mentioned. Not only was it important to demonstrate that we had "the bomb", but to also demonstrate repeatability by dropping the second bomb.

I didn't say that they should have waited and researched further before dropping the bomb.. I just wished that they had completed the Manhattan project sooner, and developed better weapons.

Votes + Comments
In favour of bombing Japan? A big no no.
0

I agree with what has been said by some already. Even though I hate the killing of innocent lives a few other things have to be taken into consideration. More American and more Japanese lives (including civilians) would have been killed if an assault was used instead of the bomb. The Japanese were not ever about to surrender (it took TWO bombs didn't it?). The truth is, Japanese were telling their civilians to kill themselves before the Americans got there and they did!!! The Emperor was a living God to them and they wouldn't hesitate (I don't know if it was the Emperor that told them to kill themselves though). I think that's a much worse death. They killed their own families and themselves because they didn't want us to get to them.

0

To me the most interesting part of U.S. history is a collection of the beginning of all the wars. The things I'm about to say are only ideas of mine and I don't want to offend anyone. They also aren't proven, they are just some of my ideas.

The American government has always relied heavily on public support to enter into wars. In the Spanish American war the U.S.S. Maine mysteriously blew up in the Havana Harbor. This is what set off the American public and got us into the war (possibly set up by the government). In World War One the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat and I place all blame on the United States government. Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare. In other words Germany said to every nation, "We can't afford any more help for the English, if we see one vessel we'll sink it." Knowing full well what would happen, the American government allowed a civilian ship to go into those waters. What did they think would happen? Later it was proven (and likely at the time) that goods and equipment were being shipped to England aboard this ship. This event turned public opinion from isolationism to "let's get in this war". World War Two: This might pull at some people's hearts but I still think of it as a possibility. America cut off oil to Japan. They knew Japan would attack soon but didn't know where or when (how about the one place where almost the entire pacific fleet is located). Pearl Harbor was suggested as a possible target but was ignored because it was thought of as an impossibility. When planes were spotted on radar and reported to the high ranking officers, they said, "Ignore it. Those must be birds." That's like calling 911 and someone saying "Ignore it. It's a bogus call." Sure enough look what happened again. Americans were attacked and public support changes from isolationism to "Let's get in this war". Vietnam War: The Tonkin Gulf incident. Supposedly an american ship was in international waters and was fired upon so retaliated. Now we know that they were in Vietnamese waters and there was actually no torpedo. It's obvious that this attempt at public support failed (and interesting that the war was lost). Finally, the current war in Iraq. Where to start. It pains me to say this but everyone knows that 9/11 could have been prevented. The FBI had certain information and the CIA had other information. Had all this information been put together, the attack wouldn't have happened. The CIA AND FBI are always competing against each other and the Office of Homeland Security was created to deal with the problem. This attack was Bush's cue to go to war with Iraq. There was absolutely no connection with 9/11 and Iraq. He also used the weapons of mass destruction technique to get more public support. It has been proven that Bush has committed impeachable offenses by misleading the public. It scares me to think that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen, just like it scares me to think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen, and Lusitania, and the U.S.S. Maine. I don't know if I'm right about any of these. If anyone agrees or disagrees I want to hear your opinions. It would be better to know that these things aren't true but as of right now I have no little doubt that the government would do some of these things, especially when considering what comes from them.

0

I think personally that the most interesting parts of US history are:

A:

finding/settling the usa
war of independance
civil war

B:

wiping out the indians

C:

boom of 20s
wall street crash and subsequent depression

D:

ww2

E:

cold war and associated events

F:

dotcom boom

0

To me the most interesting part of U.S. history is a collection of the beginning of all the wars. The things I'm about to say are only ideas of mine and I don't want to offend anyone. They also aren't proven, they are just some of my ideas.

The American government has always relied heavily on public support to enter into wars. In the Spanish American war the U.S.S. Maine mysteriously blew up in the Havana Harbor. This is what set off the American public and got us into the war (possibly set up by the government).

An interesting side note I read on that once: Supposedly, Spain declared war on the United States. Then, when the Congress at the time announced an official declaration of war against Spain, they supposedly backdated the declaration to a few days before the date of the Spanish declaration.

In World War One the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat and I place all blame on the United States government. Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare. In other words Germany said to every nation, "We can't afford any more help for the English, if we see one vessel we'll sink it." Knowing full well what would happen, the American government allowed a civilian ship to go into those waters. What did they think would happen? Later it was proven (and likely at the time) that goods and equipment were being shipped to England aboard this ship. This event turned public opinion from isolationism to "let's get in this war".

If I recall correctly, Germany began engaging in submarine warfare not because of 'aid to Britain' but because the British fleet had begun a 'distant blockade'. If I'm remembering all of the terms and definitions corretly, in a 'close blockade' ships of one belligerent nation have the right to board and inspect others in a range semi-close to shore (x number of miles out), what Britain did was simply mine vast stretches of the waters and declare them off-limits to all sea travel. And I'd love to know how you can place all of the blame on the United States for the assault by a German submarine unit on the British ship.

World War Two: This might pull at some people's hearts but I still think of it as a possibility. America cut off oil to Japan. They knew Japan would attack soon but didn't know where or when (how about the one place where almost the entire pacific fleet is located). Pearl Harbor was suggested as a possible target but was ignored because it was thought of as an impossibility. When planes were spotted on radar and reported to the high ranking officers, they said, "Ignore it. Those must be birds." That's like calling 911 and someone saying "Ignore it. It's a bogus call." Sure enough look what happened again. Americans were attacked and public support changes from isolationism to "Let's get in this war".

Not just oil; from what I've read, America broke off all diplomatic relations with Japan, leading to the downfall of the Japanese Prime Minister's authority, and the rise of Tojo.

Vietnam War: The Tonkin Gulf incident. Supposedly an american ship was in international waters and was fired upon so retaliated. Now we know that they were in Vietnamese waters and there was actually no torpedo. It's obvious that this attempt at public support failed (and interesting that the war was lost).

The war was lost only because the United States abandoned the South Vietnamese people. By 1973, the United States had managed to at least draw a temporary hold against North Vietnam, and would have retained it except that the Democratic Congress of the time, under the cover of Watergate, basically threw away every promise of safety that Nixon had provided to the South Vietnamese people. Had we not 'cut and run' then, we probably would have won.

Finally, the current war in Iraq. Where to start. It pains me to say this but everyone knows that 9/11 could have been prevented. The FBI had certain information and the CIA had other information. Had all this information been put together, the attack wouldn't have happened. The CIA AND FBI are always competing against each other and the Office of Homeland Security was created to deal with the problem. This attack was Bush's cue to go to war with Iraq. There was absolutely no connection with 9/11 and Iraq. He also used the weapons of mass destruction technique to get more public support. It has been proven that Bush has committed impeachable offenses by misleading the public.

Had all the information been put together, the attacks might not have occured, no. However, the very process might have sparked a better chance at later attacks. (Note: This does not mean I'm condoning the originals.) Think about it: What would our hyper-politically-correct society have likely done if 19 arabic muslims had been prevented from boarding planes that day? The attacks wouldn't have occured, so we wouldn't be hearing anything on that. All we'd have been hearing would be long, droning commentary about how it was criminal, criminal I tell you, that those poor men should be treated like that. The most probable end result of that would have been a pc-driven loosening of the checks on air travel, again allowing a better chance for a successful second strike.

No connection? Iraqi-based terrorist training camps have been found, and there is some evidence that these camps were indeed used by the Al Quaeda, among others. And as to the WMD argument, no, we technically didn't find any full WMDs. Instead, we found clearcut evidence of WMD design, processing, and development. Would you prefer to have waited until Saddam's government had managed to rebuild? Or would it, perhaps, have taken a bio/chem/nuke warhead going off over Washington DC, or Colorado Springs, or New York or San Francisco to convince you?

It scares me to think that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen, just like it scares me to think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen, and Lusitania, and the U.S.S. Maine. I don't know if I'm right about any of these. If anyone agrees or disagrees I want to hear your opinions. It would be better to know that these things aren't true but as of right now I have no little doubt that the government would do some of these things, especially when considering what comes from them.

The 9/11 attacks weren't 'allowed' to happen unless you're arguing that the FBI and CIA, without knowing that each other had pieces of the information needed, should have illegally shared information with each other about the issue. Yes, I said illegally. It is my understanding that they were, in fact, prevented by law from doing so.

0

Pot. Kettle. Black

i find it funny how the usa is like WMDs are bad whereas they have huge stockpiles of them.

0

If I recall correctly, Germany began engaging in submarine warfare not because of 'aid to Britain' but because the British fleet had begun a 'distant blockade'. If I'm remembering all of the terms and definitions corretly, in a 'close blockade' ships of one belligerent nation have the right to board and inspect others in a range semi-close to shore (x number of miles out), what Britain did was simply mine vast stretches of the waters and declare them off-limits to all sea travel. And I'd love to know how you can place all of the blame on the United States for the assault by a German submarine unit on the British ship.

Each side hoped to blockade the other, thus preventing any war materials from getting through. German U-boats stalked British waters, continually looking for enemy vessels to sink without warning, which was a clear violation of international rules. There was no blame on the U.S., in fact, Americans were outraged to learn that 128 U.S. civilians were killed (on the Lusitania) in a war in which they were officially neutral.

0

Lusitania: not all the blame on the U.S. By that point I was just ranting a bit. It was also to my understanding that the Lusitania was an American ship. I guess I should research a little bit more. But had it been an American ship you could see my point.

I do think political correctness would have made things difficult, but isn't that exactly what I'm saying? The government relies on public support.

There's no doubt in my mind that Iraq had WMD's. They used chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds in the North. The French sold them nuclear technology with which they built a nuclear reactor that was immediately bombed by Israel. AMERICA sold them biological weapons way back when. The interesting thing is that none of them were ever found. There were some that were found but it was proven that those were from the earlier war with Iraq. I also think that if weapons of mass destruction were found, Bush would be running around in the streets waving them in everybody's face saying "Look! I found them!"

As for the linkage of terrorism to Iraq, the best choice to combat the terrorism from 9/11 was not to invade Iraq, although I'm glad Saddam is out of power, but let's not forget, we still don't have any idea of where Bin Laden is or if he is even still alive. The war hasn't helped much in that aspect. I don't think it has helped us much at all really but that's a controversial issue that I hate to fight over. I support the troops and I want the war to end, I'll leave it at that.

0

Pot. Kettle. Black

i find it funny how the usa is like WMDs are bad whereas they have huge stockpiles of them.

The USA understands how much it has to lose, but maintaining the threat of MAD is still a very good defense against other developed nations. We have 'em, but we don't use 'em.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.