JamesC, thanks for reading and for your comment. Your argument that the mentality of the Japanese soldiers and civilians was even more extreme than that of the Germans is definitely plausible. The mass suicides in Okinawa were, I believe, encouraged by the Japanese military. That’s hardly fatal to your point, though, if the powers running Japan were ready to encourage civilian suicides rather than surrender.

Here is a brief point-counterpoint I found by searching for the phrase “already defeated” that you mention in your post. The scholar who argues “no” doesn’t quote anyone from the Pacific Theater.

I’m very new to this debate, embarrassingly, which is why I was so taken aback by the passage quoted in this post. I’m not arguing one way or the other, for lack of knowledge. But I’m realizing that it’s at least complicated enough that I can’t just assume we did good because we’re us, which was how I’d always tended to think of it.

As for WWII books, “Is Paris Burning?” is very readable, written I think by two Newsweek reporters. It’s a history of how the liberation of Paris happened, the stories of various key figures and witnesses, rather than purely military history, though many high-level military sources are quoted.

I’d like to offer my perspective regarding Eisenhower’s oft quoted remarks that the Bomb was not necessary because Japan was “already defeated”. There was a big difference between Eisenhower’s European Theatre and the Pacific Theatre. As the Allied forces closed the noose on the Nazi forces, bringing the fight across the Rhine into the German homeland, there were more and more cases of German soldiers surrendering. Sure there were a few fanatical SS soldiers, but they were the exception. Villagers would flag their sheets on every window to show their intent to surrender. The only suicides involved top commanders here and there. Now compare that to what was happening in the Pacific. As the noose closed on Japan the reaction was quite different. Japanese commanders on Iwo Jima charged each of their soldiers to kill 10 Marines before they themselves were killed or committed suicide. On Okinawa the Japanese forces had a similar strategy and wholesale use of kamikaze pilots also came into play. Civilians deaths there were approximately 100,000 including thousands of suicides encouraged and even assisted by the Japanese military. As the U.S. military planners looked to the invasion of the main island of Japan they had hard statistics from which to base their calculations of hundred of thousands of casualties on both sides. And Japan was bringing hundreds of thousands of additional troops back from China to help defend the home island.

So I understand Eisenhower’s opinion from his perspective of fighting Germany. But Japan was a completely different story.

Sorry for delay in commenting. The author Pach seems real enough (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~pach/) but I wonder how he sourced Eisenhower’s view that using the Bomb might “tarnish the image” of the US. It somewhat triggers my anachronistic projection detector (that is, I suspect the author is projecting his own view of the result).

If you have the book, did Eisenhower have anything to say about the firebombing campaign against Japan (which in my mind comes much closer to being a war crime than Hiroshima, was already well in gear by the time of Potsdam, and was hardly a secret)?

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

And also states that only He Who Shall Be Named by the president can make treaties for the UNITARY EXECUTIVE BRANCH:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 409(h) of title 39, as enacted by section 404 of the Act, which relates to legal representation for an element of the executive branch, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Sweet, just sweet.

And dead-on— they evaluate opinions based on the political correctness of the person who advances them. And they’re in the thrall of a crazy base that doesn’t care about their losses in 2006. They have further to fall, unfortunately.

I’ve heard of a National Review writer, whose name you probably know, responding to Josh Marshall’s evisceration of an anti-Democratic AP story by saying, “I don’t see why I should trust Marshall more than the AP.” Using our brains to evaluate the merits of what they’re each saying certainly isn’t a possibility!

That AP writer has since moved on to the Washington Times.

I’m being bias. The corporate media won’t address certain issues. Neither will Obama.
The US Government practices intervention. Obama will not challenge the status quo.
So he may be popular, but he won’t change anything.

If you’re suggesting that Clinton might have an advantage over Obama on issues, then on Social Security and health insurance, you may be right.

I agree that President Obama could see a country in dire fiscal straits.

Thanks for commenting.