Not much more than that. My mind is like a Shell No-Pest Strip; it collects little bits of what I happen to read. But when I peel them off the Strip, they are still dead flies. I'm afraid you'd have to look it up under something like "Smithsonian Atom Bomb Display Controversy." And then you would probably get left-liberal-slanted press accounts. The bomb targets were the result of a concerted target review process to identify crucially significant targets from a military capability standpoint. Kyoto was excluded owing to its cultural-historical nature. There were primary and secondary targets for each mission, as the weather over Japan was notoriously cloudy. Hiroshima was an important logistics port and was the primary target for its mission. Nagasaki was an important military marshaling center and was the secondary target for its mission. (There is a very good historical account of the target selection process, but I cannot currently locate it in my library or recall its title.)
It all gets into the "humanitarian" controversy. I have long noted that those who complain over Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to say about the preceding Tokyo fire-bombing raid that killed far more people and devastated far more land area, which indicates to me a case of selective condemnation. They are comfortable with the alternative continuation of a land-naval war to its conclusion, involving a projected million casualties. President Truman had been a Captain of Artillery in World War I and fully understood the nature of warfare. I am confident his attitude was, "If there is anyone to be killed in the conclusion of this war, let it be the Japanese---but not one more American life." This attitude I believe was commonplace. By 1945, the nation was sorely fatigued by war, and dismayed by the fiendish fury of the Japanese forces in their battles to the death of the last man. The Pacific island campaign was replete with horror: battleship artillery vs. Japanese bunkers, and flamethrowers against holdouts. The Japanese would not surrender, notwithstanding they were doomed. I am fully in agreement that not one more American life should have been put at risk. War is NOT a "fair fight." It is a battle for life and death, survival and destruction. As Patton famously said, it is the soldier's job to make the "other dumb bastard" die for HIS country.
My father was in convoy when the surrender was consummated. The fleet went on an extravagant display of artillery fireworks in celebration. The surrender was a reprieve from Hell. He later ported in Nagasaki and was able to tour the ruins by foot. It made a lasting impression on him. He ever afterward said the headquarters of the United Nations should have been situated in the center, and that it should never have been reclaimed, to reveal for generations the issues at stake for peace and war.
That's interesting...do you have more info ksr?
Not much more than that. My mind is like a Shell No-Pest Strip; it collects little bits of what I happen to read. But when I peel them off the Strip, they are still dead flies. I'm afraid you'd have to look it up under something like "Smithsonian Atom Bomb Display Controversy." And then you would probably get left-liberal-slanted press accounts. The bomb targets were the result of a concerted target review process to identify crucially significant targets from a military capability standpoint. Kyoto was excluded owing to its cultural-historical nature. There were primary and secondary targets for each mission, as the weather over Japan was notoriously cloudy. Hiroshima was an important logistics port and was the primary target for its mission. Nagasaki was an important military marshaling center and was the secondary target for its mission. (There is a very good historical account of the target selection process, but I cannot currently locate it in my library or recall its title.)
It all gets into the "humanitarian" controversy. I have long noted that those who complain over Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to say about the preceding Tokyo fire-bombing raid that killed far more people and devastated far more land area, which indicates to me a case of selective condemnation. They are comfortable with the alternative continuation of a land-naval war to its conclusion, involving a projected million casualties. President Truman had been a Captain of Artillery in World War I and fully understood the nature of warfare. I am confident his attitude was, "If there is anyone to be killed in the conclusion of this war, let it be the Japanese---but not one more American life." This attitude I believe was commonplace. By 1945, the nation was sorely fatigued by war, and dismayed by the fiendish fury of the Japanese forces in their battles to the death of the last man. The Pacific island campaign was replete with horror: battleship artillery vs. Japanese bunkers, and flamethrowers against holdouts. The Japanese would not surrender, notwithstanding they were doomed. I am fully in agreement that not one more American life should have been put at risk. War is NOT a "fair fight." It is a battle for life and death, survival and destruction. As Patton famously said, it is the soldier's job to make the "other dumb bastard" die for HIS country.
My father was in convoy when the surrender was consummated. The fleet went on an extravagant display of artillery fireworks in celebration. The surrender was a reprieve from Hell. He later ported in Nagasaki and was able to tour the ruins by foot. It made a lasting impression on him. He ever afterward said the headquarters of the United Nations should have been situated in the center, and that it should never have been reclaimed, to reveal for generations the issues at stake for peace and war.
Your Father was a wise man and you are on target in your comments. My mind is like a Shell strip also ..kek!