snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Politics Archive » Rule of 72 (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Rule of 72
timetraveller70
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 203 posted      Profile for timetraveller70   E-mail timetraveller70   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
In his book, Presidential Leadership, James Taranto writes that "those who believe that history runs in cycles will be interested to note that the three great presidents took office at 72-
year intervals--Washington in 1789, Lincoln in 1861 and FDR in 1933-- and that this November it will have been exactly 72 years since the
election of our last great president."

http://tinyurl.com/576qk


Any real truth to this?

Posts: 84 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Spam & Cookies-mmm
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Spam & Cookies-mmm   E-mail Spam & Cookies-mmm   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
No. The last great president was Ronald Reagan.

--------------------
Did you see the Announcement?
There's a new snopes message board!

Posts: 7767 | From: Paradise Ceded | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spam & Cookies-mmm:
No. The last great president was Ronald Reagan.

Goodness, gracious, how differently the world appears to different people.

Truman was the last great president. Reagan was the second-worst prexy in living memory.

(Opinions are like armpits... Everyone has a couple...)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Truman was the last great president. Reagan was the second-worst prexy in living memory.

I'm right with you on Truman but I wonder if we're thinking of the same candidate for first-worst in living memory? My choice has the initials RMN.

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
mizake the mizan
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Goodness, gracious, how differently the world appears to different people.

Truman was the last great president.

Certainly appears differently to me. It is impossible for me to have any respect for one who would launch nuclear weapons against humans beings. If anyone would be appropriate to bring before a war crime tribinual, it would be he.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bender
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Goodness, gracious, how differently the world appears to different people.

Truman was the last great president.

Certainly appears differently to me. It is impossible for me to have any respect for one who would launch nuclear weapons against humans beings. If anyone would be appropriate to bring before a war crime tribinual, it would be he.
I somehow doubt that the 55 million other people killed in that war were comforted by the fact that the weapons used to kill them were a touch more antiquated. It seems to me that the leaders whose weapons started the war behaved far worse than the leaders whose weapons ended it.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Don Gato
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Don Gato   E-mail Don Gato   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by timetraveller70:


Any real truth to this?

No, it's absolutely false. There never were any American presidents named Washington or Lincoln. And FDR was elected in 1958.

Seriously, there are many different variations on political cycles in American history. In fact, famed historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book on that very topic. The most simplified version has to do with alternating decades: The '20s, '50s and '80s were conservative, the '30s, '60s and '90s (?) were liberal (I first heard this theory in the '80s as a prediction that the '90s would be liberal, but I don't know if most people would agree that actually came to pass). I'm not sure what the '10s, '40s, '70s and '00s have in common; decades of war, perhaps?

Another theory, which somewhat jibes with Taranto's, is that every 36 years produces a major political realignment. In addition to the 1788, 1860 and 1932 elections mentioned in the OP, there's also 1924 (well, technically it was 1928, but one could argue that Andrew Jackson was essentially robbed in '24); 1896, which ushered in a new period of Republican dominance while also showing the beginnings of the Southern-Western Democratic coalition; and 1968, which some would argue saw the dawn of the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" and dominance of the White House, or else was the beginning of a period of closely divided government (in only 5 of the past 36 years has one party controlled the White House and Congress).

There are two problems with these theories. The first is that they either shoehorn or ignore evidence that doesn't fit (as I did above with Jackson, or by ignoring the huge political realignment of 1800). The second is that, with all streaks and trends (including the Presidential "zero" curse), they're true until they're no longer true. In fact, Taranto himself recently wrote a column making that exact point.

Don Gato

Posts: 951 | From: The place to be | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RichardMi
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
small snip
Truman was the last great president.[/qb]

Certainly appears differently to me. It is impossible for me to have any respect for one who would launch nuclear weapons against humans beings. If anyone would be appropriate to bring before a war crime tribinual, it would be he. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't quite see the difference between killing people with fire bombs or nuclear bombs. Or a knife for that matter.

Yes, radiation continues for a longer time and is more insidous. But a fire storm as destroyed Dresden takes as long to recover from. Even the relatively small (only in terms of causlities not in meaning) attack on the US of 9-11 is taking years to recover from and will cause more deaths over the years.

The question of Hirosima and Nagasaki is did the deaths of the people in those cities save the many more who would have died in a conventional attack on Japan? That is, did the horror of a single airplane causing so much destruction cause Japan to surrender. And if Japan had not surrendered, how many people would have died in the invasion.
Richard

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 402 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I don't quite see the difference between killing people with fire bombs or nuclear bombs. Or a knife for that matter.
Frankly, I find the concept of applying "rules" to warfare to be a bit silly. Is any human endeavor a greater subversion of the principles of civilized society than war is?

Or, to quote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "Rules? In a knife fight?"

- snopes

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Truman was the last great president. Reagan was the second-worst prexy in living memory.
Silas

Now, why would you say Truman was the last great president? Personally I think Reagan was a great president, but I have never understood the fascination with Truman. Truman owes a lot of his political success to Pendergast.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mouse
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 204 posted      Profile for Mouse   E-mail Mouse   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
Certainly appears differently to me. It is impossible for me to have any respect for one who would launch nuclear weapons against humans beings. If anyone would be appropriate to bring before a war crime tribinual, it would be he.

I'm reminded of a Will Rogers quote that I can't seem to track down. It was something he said in response to people complaining about the government naming a sub after him. He said something along these lines, "And I suppose all those other weapons are just a pleasure to be shot by."
I found part of the quote.

quote:
"You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way."
Killing's wrong be it with the bayonet or the bomb.

--------------------
"You see? The mysteries of the Universe are revealed when you break stuff." Coop from MegasXLR

"I distrust who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

Posts: 2246 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RichardMi
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Killing's wrong be it with the bayonet or the bomb.
Amen

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bufungla
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 22 posted      Profile for bufungla   Author's Homepage   E-mail bufungla   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Goodness, gracious, how differently the world appears to different people.

Truman was the last great president.

Certainly appears differently to me. It is impossible for me to have any respect for one who would launch nuclear weapons against humans beings. If anyone would be appropriate to bring before a war crime tribinual, it would be he.
Dumb question: would FDR be cosidered to be such a horrible president had he lived and authorized the bombings himself (in other words, is this a "FDR would never deploy a weapon it had cost his nation a billion dollars to build" statement, or a "I have never heard of Operations Olympic and Coronet" statement)?

buf 'getting ready for atomic ache' ungla

--------------------
"Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

Posts: 4847 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it is Washington, Lincoln, and, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, Franklin Roosevelt. Truman and Reagan do not qualify: even if in a far away future Reagan may be reevaluated as a good president (which, being him such a strong proponent of the mental disease known as neoliberalism, I thoroughly disbelieve), today certainly neither would be respected by all citizens (and even citizens of other countries!) as the first two or three (I don't think people realised how much a great president Lincoln was until some decades after his death).

Truman, whatever his other qualities, has permanently stained his presidency with the deliberate murder of a quarter million innocent people in an already militarily defeated enemy country, just to scare a tactical ally that would become the next enemy and to "experiment" on nuclear weapons and their military, environmental, medical and political effects. This was a crime if there is one; no petty felony Richard Nixon has committed can compare to it.

Reagan was the proponent of an full-scale war against poor people, working people, third world countries, human rights, and common decency, which is still hurting most of us. He certainly wasn't a criminal as Truman, but rather inaugurated the "let's not care about consequences" policy stile that now plagues his country and others, including mine.

The two candidates that have a chance to win in 2004 do not have, in my opinion, what it takes to make a great president. Bush is a liar, an oil corporations' man inside the State, possibly a religious fanatic, and cannot properly differentiate his rhetoric about terrorism from reality - something that risks placing his country at war with everything else in the world. As a result, he has dangerously damaged his country image, leadership, moral standings, and ability to regroup allies, win over neutral countries, and neutralise or isolate enemies.

And Kerry is essentially the same policies with more emphasis in coercing others into being "allies", a frightening idea that Latin America should be more important to the United States than Bush has made it (vade retro!), a less extreme religious agenda, and an incredible difficulty to put himself, in the polls, above an incumbent candidate whose presidency is almost a disaster.

Looks like we are going to have to wait more 72 years...

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RichardMi:
Killing's wrong be it with the bayonet or the bomb.
Amen

Oh, certainly.

But killing innocent civilians is more wrong than killing armed soldiers; killing to scare an ally is more wrong than killing to defean an enemy; killing an enemy that is already defeated is more wrong than killing one that still is an earnest challenge; killing with a new weapon just to see how it works is more wrong than killing because you really need to.

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by snopes:
Or, to quote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "Rules? In a knife fight?"

Why not?

A good rule in a knife fight is, "once one of the fighters loses his weapon, falls to the floor, or pleads for his life, fight ends".

Abiding by that would have saved Mr. Truman's reputation a lot.

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham Left:
quote:
Originally posted by snopes:
Or, to quote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "Rules? In a knife fight?"

Why not?

A good rule in a knife fight is, "once one of the fighters loses his weapon, falls to the floor, or pleads for his life, fight ends".

Abiding by that would have saved Mr. Truman's reputation a lot.

Luís Henrique

Wouldn't that mean that we should have declared a truce with Japan after the Battle of Midway?

Wars are not knife fights. A nation is a much more difficult thing to subdue than a man.

When an enemy begins to lose his resolve is a very, very bad time to suddenly go easy on him.

When in a war, the only humane thing to do is to end the war. It is inhumane to prolong a war. It is especially inhumane to determine two paths a war may take, and choose the one that will result in the highest number of casualties.

An invasion of Japan would be like fighting Iwo Jima a hundred times over. The invasion plans expected combined American and Japanese casualties on the order of hundreds of thousands.

Is there any proof at all that the Japanese would have accepted an unconditional surrender without the threat of continued atomic bombing? The Japanese counter-invasion defense plans seem to indicate they were not quite ready to give up.

Alchemy

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy:
When an enemy begins to lose his resolve is a very, very bad time to suddenly go easy on him.

I basically agree with what Alchemy wrote, but this one little bit pained me.

When did the Japanese lose their resolve? As far as I can tell, only after the second atomic bombing.

There are pluses are minuses to going easy on an enemy seen to be losing his resolve. However, the classic indicator of loss of resolve, mass surrender of troops, was simply not occurring.

The Japanese not only hadn't lost their resolve, they also weren't close to losing, US forces never having laid a boot on the home islands.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
When I say, "beginning to lose resolve," I don't mean "giving up."

"Beginning to lose resolve" simply means a nation is less willing to fight than it was before. Not that it is unwilling to fight.

I did not mean to imply that, when a nation is weakened and unwilling to fight, one should be brutal and slay them.

I meant to imply that, when a nation is buckling - tactically or emotionally - under a military force, it is best to continue that force until the opposing nation surrenders.

Alchemy

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham Left:
Truman, whatever his other qualities, has permanently stained his presidency with the deliberate murder of a quarter million innocent people in an already militarily defeated enemy country, just to scare a tactical ally that would become the next enemy . . .

I'm very disappointed by this lapse in scholarship and etiquette.

You are in error in so many respects, it would take much more time than I have available even to scratch the surface (and I see others have already done that much.)

I'm afraid you may be condemned to repeat history...

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
mizake the mizan
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RichardMi:
I don't quite see the difference between killing people with fire bombs or nuclear bombs. Or a knife for that matter.

A knife doesn't poison soil, or water, or crops, or otherwise inflict long-term physical harm on later generations of people than the ones you are trying to kill.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wintermute
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wintermute     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
A knife doesn't poison soil, or water, or crops, or otherwise inflict long-term physical harm on later generations of people than the ones you are trying to kill.

Like Japan did in China? Sorry I have no issue with the United States using nuclear weapons against Japan. Japan did attack the United States first. Saying the US was more brutal then Japan is a farce at best. The atomic helped win the war I am personally glad that we used it.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
A knife doesn't poison soil, or water, or crops, or otherwise inflict long-term physical harm on later generations of people than the ones you are trying to kill.

If the United States had launched a conventional invasion of Japan, what would have prevented the Japanese from using chemical or biological weapons to hold their last, desperate lines of defense? How would such weapons (which still rear their ugly heads in Manchuria from time to time) be preferable to the limited radiological contamination at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How would it have been better for Japan (today and then) if the US Army Air Force had destroyed every single city in Japan with fire and iron, rather than destroyed two with nuclear weapons? How would it have been better if every Japanese city had suffered catastrophic civilian casualties, quite possibly approaching the scale of those suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in a conventional invasion? How would such devastation have affected the survivors and their near-Stone Age economy?

Most of it all, how would it have been better for Japan to suffer the horrors of Soviet occupation, and presumably the kind of division that plagued Germany for nearly half a century--the kind that plagues Korea to this day?

quote:
And, finally, we were planning for the occupation of Japan. This would be occupation by force. And it involved in the concept that was presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it involved the division of Japan into four occupation zones. The Soviet forces would occupy Hokkaido the northern island and Honshu down to about the level of Sendai. The Americans would occupy almost all of the rest of Honshu. The Chinese would occupy the island of Shikoku and the British were to occupy the island of Kyushu. Fortunately, that did not become necessary. Instead of putting into operation the plans for the occupation of Japan, we were able to put into operation the plan for actions in case of sudden collapse or surrender.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
mizake the mizan
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
[QB]How would it have been better for Japan (today and then) if the US Army Air Force had destroyed every single city in Japan with fire and iron, rather than destroyed two with nuclear weapons? How would it have been better if every Japanese city had suffered catastrophic civilian casualties, quite possibly approaching the scale of those suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You're setting up a bit of a false dichotomy.

Opposition to nuclear weapons does not imply support of coventional weapons. Claiming Truman's choice to lauch nuclear weapons was not a respectable choice does not imply that other president's use of non-nuclear weapons was appropriate.

I oppose war. I oppose violence. I consider murder, or attackes upon the person or property of another to be unacceptable in any circumstance. Because of this (and going back to the original discussion), I disagree with Silas' in considering Truman a "great president."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
[QB]How would it have been better for Japan (today and then) if the US Army Air Force had destroyed every single city in Japan with fire and iron, rather than destroyed two with nuclear weapons? How would it have been better if every Japanese city had suffered catastrophic civilian casualties, quite possibly approaching the scale of those suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You're setting up a bit of a false dichotomy.

Opposition to nuclear weapons does not imply support of coventional weapons. Claiming Truman's choice to lauch nuclear weapons was not a respectable choice does not imply that other president's use of non-nuclear weapons was appropriate.

The proper way to argue against a false dichotomy is to illustrate a third option.

You're Truman. It's June 1945 and you have just taken Okinawa. The Japanese are building extremely strong fortifications, and you are aware of 300,000 well-fed, elite Japanese infantry positioning themselves to defend against amphibious assault. They may double or triple their numbers by the time an assault is ready.

Every day your troops are stationed, hundreds die of disease, of sniper fire, of sabotage, and accidents. Every day, dozens of American, British, and Australian POWS die. Every day, thousands of Chinese civilians are raped, mutiliated, and murdered.

How, exactly, do you end the war without violence?

Keep in mind that allowing your enemy to hurt another person when you are able to stop them is, by proxy, hurting them.

quote:
I oppose war. I oppose violence. I consider murder, or attackes upon the person or property of another to be unacceptable in any circumstance. Because of this (and going back to the original discussion), I disagree with Silas' in considering Truman a "great president."
If you oppose the convention of committing a lesser evil to prevent a greater one, you have no business being a national leader. If all their choices were between an obvious good and an obvious evil, we wouldn't need them.

Alchemy

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mizake the mizan:
Opposition to nuclear weapons does not imply support of coventional weapons. Claiming Truman's choice to lauch nuclear weapons was not a respectable choice does not imply that other president's use of non-nuclear weapons was appropriate.

I oppose war. I oppose violence. I consider murder, or attackes upon the person or property of another to be unacceptable in any circumstance. Because of this (and going back to the original discussion), I disagree with Silas' in considering Truman a "great president."

I oppose war too. The sad fact is that war existed in August 1945. The best way to end it was to use nuclear weapons against Japan.

At the time of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan still controlled an absolutely huge amount of stolen territory (most notably in China, Indochina, and Indonesia). Its hard to imagine that it would have given up all of these vast holdings (particularly Korea, acquired long before the war), especially if the US expressed a desire to compromise after the bloody struggle for Okinawa. Indeed, the deceased Stephen Ambrose notes that

quote:
After the fall of Okinawa, Prime Minister Suzuki was willing to negotiate, but only on the basis of terms satisfactory to Japan.... No American would have accepted for one minute the proposition that Japan be allowed to keep her conquests or any part of them. But Suzuki was a hard-liner to an extraordinary degree. As late as August 12, he asserted in council that because the Allies were still insisting on Japanese disarmament it was necessary to continue the war. (Ambrose 130)
["The Atomic Bomb and Its Consequences." Americans at War. New York: Berkley Books, 1997.]

The coup attempt launched against Emperor Hirohito when it was learned he intended to surrender (after the nuclear attacks) came frighteningly close to success. How could those responsible have been defeated if the emperor suddenly went soft and surrendered with no apparent, catastrophic cause to do so? How could such a hard-line Japanese government, with the lives of its own members at stake, be expected to surrender from such a sound negotiating position?

(Certainly, the Japanese leadership must have known by that point that the war was unwinnable. But it must have known that since Midway--certainly by Iwo Jima and Okinawa--and still it was not persuaded to surrender. Japan sought not to win the war in August 1945, but to win the most favorable negotiated peace. It was in an excellent position to do so, barring US invasion or the unforeseen nuclear attacks.)

The war against Japan was only to be ended in invasion, nuclear attack, or unjust concession to Japanese aggression. President Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a great many innocent people. It saved a great many more who would have killed in a continued conventional war with Japan, and an even greater number whom Truman would have killed by sitting in the Oval Office and singing kumbaya.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Friend of a Friend
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Post deleted due to big fat misunderstanding.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Delta-V
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Delta-V     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
Most of it all, how would it have been better for Japan to suffer the horrors of Soviet occupation, and presumably the kind of division that plagued Germany for nearly half a century--the kind that plagues Korea to this day?

I think this is one of Truman's primary reasons for using the atomic bomb when he did. He was much more anti-communist than FDR, and I think he and a good idea what was to become of the Soviet-controlled territories. He was also, along with Marshall, responsible for the post-war recovery plans for Japan and Germany, which helped both countries recover much faster than anyone thought possible. He desegregated the military and fought to end discrimination and 'Jim Crow' laws in the South (a position that caused a three-way split in the Democratic party, between Truman, Strom Thurman's Dixiecrats, and Wallace's Progressives).

As for owing alot of his early political success to Tom Pendergast, even Truman himself would admit that. After all, he attened Pendergast's funeral despite FDR's staff's opposition, out of a sense of loyalty. There is no evidence, however, that his loyality to Pendergast ever influenced his vote in the Senate, besides that, for much of Truman's time in the Senate, Pendergast was spending time in jail.

For those of you who aren't familiar with him, Tom Pendergast was the political Boss of Kansas City (and most of Missouri, for that matter) for many, many years. He ran the local Democratic party and owned, among other businesses, "Ready-Mix Concrete". It's often said that Kansas City is build on Pendergast Concrete. It's also said that Kansas City, of any major US city, suffered the least from the Great Depression because of Tom Pendergast's leadership. Pendergast's organization was instrumental in getting Truman his first political position (no one in KC was elected to anything without Pendergast's approval), and Pendergast backed Truman's 1934 Senate bid.

Incidentally, a KC Star article a few years ago mentioned Tom Pendergast's old house. The current owner, a KC TV news anchor, wanted to remodel the basement, but needed to lower the floor as the basement ceiling was only some 5' high. The contractor who came to do an apprasal on the work used his longest drill bit (6'), and could not find the bottom of the concrete foundation! No telling what' in all that concrete...

--------------------
"My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere

Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moosedog
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A good rule in a knife fight is, "once one of the fighters loses his weapon, falls to the floor, or pleads for his life, fight ends".

Abiding by that would have saved Mr. Truman's reputation a lot.

Luís Henrique [/QB]

First of all, Japan hadn't 'fallen to the floor pleading for its life.' The Japanese were quite prepared for what our Spanish-speaking neighbors call 'guerra al cuchillo'; many more people would have died on both sides had the Allies invaded Japan than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Second, Japan was hardly known for its tenderness towards the civilian population. Ask the people of Hong Kong or Nanking, for example. It ill behooves a nation which will not abide by the laws of civilized warfare to try to shelter under them.

Third, a person whose people did not suffer in WWII is in no position to sit in judgment over those who did.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RichardMi
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Mizake,
There is an eternal effect from every death. A violent death spreads its ripples far. The problem with nuclear bombs is the longer, but not eternal, lasting radiation. Any extremely large bomb will kill those not directly bearing arms. But so do multiple smaller bombs. And as I originally said, even a small explosion such as the collapse of the World Trade Centers causes health affects for many years. We do not know for certainty how many more people, innocent and otherwise would have been killed had Japan been invaded. But we know the death toll would have been immense. And the affect on Japanese soil would be felt even beyond that of the now gone radiation.

Could the United States acting in concert with other countries stopped Japanese aggression in Asia? Perhaps fair trade practices in 1930 before Japan invaded Manchuria would have done it. Or may be it would have had to go far before then such as before Korea in 1910 or Tiawan in 1895.

As the only country to date to have a nuclear weapon used against it, Japan is especially sensitive. As a whole, the country is anti-war. But what options is Japan considering against North Korea? A question for thought.
Richard

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moosedog:
Third, a person whose people did not suffer in WWII is in no position to sit in judgment over those who did.

I disagree; he's entitled to his opinion.

I get to post my opinions on abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, etc., even though these issues have no relevance to me directly.

Also note that U.S. atomic bomb tests spread radiation that reached Luís' country, and a major nuclear war would not likely spare even neutral nations: it isn't entirely an abstract issue.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moosedog
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Moosedog:
Third, a person whose people did not suffer in WWII is in no position to sit in judgment over those who did.

I disagree; he's entitled to his opinion.
An opinion is like an a@@hole; everyone has one.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Most of it all, how would it have been better for Japan to suffer the horrors of Soviet occupation, and presumably the kind of division that plagued Germany for nearly half a century--the kind that plagues Korea to this day?
Japan is still in conflict with Russia over possession of the Kuril Islands. The Soviet Union occupied them in 1945. The Soviet Union (nor Russia) has signed the Treaty of San Francisco (1951) which oficially ended the war for Japan. China signed a seperate peace treaty in 1952.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Morrison's Lamentable Fowl
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
What country is Luís from? I was under the impression that he was Brazilian.

Brazil co-operated with the allies in both world wars, in fact it was the ONLY South American nation to send troops in the first and one of few to have any real military commitment in the second. They were never occupied or bombed, but neither was the continental united states (with the exception of a remote corner of Alaska occupied by Japan during the latter stages of the war). Brazil patrolled the South Atlantic on America's behalf and even contributed thousands of soldiers to the liberation of Italy.

If Luís is indeed Brazillian, as I thought was the case, he has as much right to an oppinion on WW2 as any yank. Your nations actually played very similar roles in both wars, Brazil just had far less resource than America with which to help, but they gave all they could. I believe Jesus said something about such instances [Wink]

If he's actually from Vanuatu or some place that didn't have contact with Western civilization at the time of the war I'm gonna feel mighty silly, but rest assured there are few if any major countries in the world unaffected by the war. In fact I can only think of one country in Europe that got only the benefits and none of the drawbacks: Iceland. But that's another thread.

--- G.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
quote:
Most of it all, how would it have been better for Japan to suffer the horrors of Soviet occupation, and presumably the kind of division that plagued Germany for nearly half a century--the kind that plagues Korea to this day?
Japan is still in conflict with Russia over possession of the Kuril Islands. The Soviet Union occupied them in 1945. The Soviet Union (nor Russia) has signed the Treaty of San Francisco (1951) which oficially ended the war for Japan. China signed a seperate peace treaty in 1952.

pinqy

Good point. The Kuril/Sakhalin dispute is a good sign of how serious a division of post-war Japan would likely have been.
Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2