The Worst President, your thoughts?

[Crisp Conditions]

I can see how Harrison would be on the list for "most ill while in office." But I don't think being physically ill and as a result dying has anything to do with the spirit of the question, "Who is the worst president?" For, that is a question about decisions that the president made while in office. Now, if he had committed suicide, that might be a different matter. To choose Harrison as the worst is just a cop-out.

 

[KJbushway]

This is for the last comment. It was planned, of course that was how our military did things back then, but what you don't know is that was planned from the very beginning, it wasn't planned later on.

That's nonsense, how could it be planned at the beginning of the war? Nobody knew what forces would be where or what islands could be used for bases. The offensive strategy in the Pacific (SW vs. Central) was not even decided till mid '44. The Joint Chiefs issued orders to begin planning for the invasion of the Japanese home islands in the spring of 1945.

The Japanese were on their way to surrender.

Ah, hell, you're going to make me go to the bookshelf. A meeting of the War Cabinet and the Emperor in June 1945 decided that the "fundamental policy" in an invasion of the home islands would be for every man, woman and child to fight to the death. Richard Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, Random House 1999. There were 14 army divisions and 10,000 kamikaze aircraft ready to defend the homeland, ibid.

More important, Truman et al did not know whether Japan would ever surrender. The experience so far in the war had indicated that they would not. The defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa was virtually suicidal, and in the first US invasion of an island with a substantial number of civilian Japanese subjects, Saipan, the civilians had jumped off cliffs rather than be captured.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were chose in part because they were not damaged, so the effect of the bombs could be better judged. Both were not high on the list of targets for conventional bombing because they did not have much in the way of aircraft prodcution, which was high priority, and Nagasaki's position as a naval shipyard was thought to be countered by minelaying operations. Frank again.

Japan's internal state, was nothing. No threat. Starving was better than what happened. Your saying the japanese would have agreed that hundred of thousands of Civilians(non-military) died, and the aftermath was 60 years worth of birth defects, disease, radiation poisoning, and not being able to grow healthy food on that soil. It wasn't necessary and it wasn't more ethical.

Hindsight. Many of the long-term medical consequences of the bombings were not understood at the time. At the end of the war it was estimated that as many as 10 million in Japan would have starved to death without US food supplies. And the Japanese people were not the only ones who would have suffered from the slow strangulation of the blockade and bombings. There were thousands of allied POWs and millions of Chinese under Japanese domination who would have starved right alongside them. And for an example of the vengeance that losing Japanese occupation forces took upon civilians, look at Manila 1945.

Maybe the bombings weren't more ethical. But I can't say they were less ethical, either. They broke the political deadlock between the surrender/non-surrender factions and finally bring about peace in 1945 instead of who knows when. A bad end to a horrible situation, but an end.

I believe General Marshall was against it.
[...]

That quote refers to the atomic bombs; the question was about the generals who were against the invasion.

--Justin

No My comments are about the generals and government staff, who knew alot more than any of us, that says dropping two atomic bombs on Japan wasn't necessary and the invasion wasn't needed.

You don't actaully believe the Japanese actually fed our POWs do you. Or even the Chinese slave labor force. Millions were already dieing in Japan, besides its population.
And lets no forget, there was planning of Japan once the Pacific war started itself. Also your going to books written by the poeple who won, they generally put themselves in the lime light, so they don't get crapped on for doing such an un-necessary thing.
Who the heck said it was an End. Becuase all it did was install fear into a dead enemy, and install fear into a future enemy. Japanese citizens suffered incredibly due to the side effects by those Ethical(?) atomic bombs. Not all the citizens would have fought back, not even a majority thought it was a worthy cause.
Once the invasion would have happened, far less deaths would have happened, the citizens were just afraid of the leader, and couldn't speak out.

I am curious did you not see the list I gathered, and didn't just come from my ass. Those people know the truth and know a hell of alot more than me, you, or shamless.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Once again, i'm referred to as Shamless.

 

[KJbushway]

I am sorry. ShamelessMcBundy.

 

[Sector 7]

Once again, i'm referred to as Shamless.

You are not Shamless. I gave you a Sham-Wow!! for Christmas. Shameless, yes; Shamless, no.

EDIT: It was funnier before he apologized. I took too long to post.

 

[brian577]

This is for the last comment. It was planned, of course that was how our military did things back then, but what you don't know is that was planned from the very beginning, it wasn't planned later on.

That's nonsense, how could it be planned at the beginning of the war? Nobody knew what forces would be where or what islands could be used for bases. The offensive strategy in the Pacific (SW vs. Central) was not even decided till mid '44. The Joint Chiefs issued orders to begin planning for the invasion of the Japanese home islands in the spring of 1945.



Ah, hell, you're going to make me go to the bookshelf. A meeting of the War Cabinet and the Emperor in June 1945 decided that the "fundamental policy" in an invasion of the home islands would be for every man, woman and child to fight to the death. Richard Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, Random House 1999. There were 14 army divisions and 10,000 kamikaze aircraft ready to defend the homeland, ibid.

More important, Truman et al did not know whether Japan would ever surrender. The experience so far in the war had indicated that they would not. The defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa was virtually suicidal, and in the first US invasion of an island with a substantial number of civilian Japanese subjects, Saipan, the civilians had jumped off cliffs rather than be captured.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were chose in part because they were not damaged, so the effect of the bombs could be better judged. Both were not high on the list of targets for conventional bombing because they did not have much in the way of aircraft prodcution, which was high priority, and Nagasaki's position as a naval shipyard was thought to be countered by minelaying operations. Frank again.




Hindsight. Many of the long-term medical consequences of the bombings were not understood at the time. At the end of the war it was estimated that as many as 10 million in Japan would have starved to death without US food supplies. And the Japanese people were not the only ones who would have suffered from the slow strangulation of the blockade and bombings. There were thousands of allied POWs and millions of Chinese under Japanese domination who would have starved right alongside them. And for an example of the vengeance that losing Japanese occupation forces took upon civilians, look at Manila 1945.

Maybe the bombings weren't more ethical. But I can't say they were less ethical, either. They broke the political deadlock between the surrender/non-surrender factions and finally bring about peace in 1945 instead of who knows when. A bad end to a horrible situation, but an end.

I believe General Marshall was against it.
[...]

That quote refers to the atomic bombs; the question was about the generals who were against the invasion.

--Justin

Not all the citizens would have fought back, not even a majority thought it was a worthy cause.
Once the invasion would have happened, far less deaths would have happened, the citizens were just afraid of the leader, and couldn't speak out.

Even if only 10% of the population choose to fight back that is still almost 7 million new enemy combatants plus their own armed forces it would have been a bloodbath on both sides. In addition

American soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered. According to Richard Aldrich, who has published a study of the diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, they sometimes massacred prisoners of war.[55] Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[43] According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[56] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[57] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[58]

if that kind of shit goes down during an invasion you can bet the percentage is going to go up ALOT.

 

[KJbushway]

Their armed forces are those civilians. their army was completely dismantled and not even fight worthy.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

I am sorry. ShamelessMcBundy.

Haha no apology is necessary. No one's actually made that mistake in years so i thought it was funny.

Once again, i'm referred to as Shamless.

You are not Shamless. I gave you a Sham-Wow!! for Christmas. Shameless, yes; Shamless, no.

EDIT: It was funnier before he apologized. I took too long to post.

Yay Sham-Wow!

Their armed forces are those civilians. their army was completely dismantled and not even fight worthy.

It wasn't dismantled. Their military on the outlying islands we took over, sure, but they still had (to coin a phrase) a shit-ton of troops and planes still based in Japan. And like i have said before, they would not have accepted being taken prisoner, rather flinging themselves in a final death charge. So the invasion would have been very bloody.

 

[KJbushway]

This might interest to you, but one of the last attempts by the Japans navy, was an attack at the atoll where U.S ships gathered for the purposed invasion of Japan. Four submarines took off from japan, and in order to escape U.S ships went in separate directions, with plans to meet 300 miles from the attack site. But before they could even meet, the Atom bombs fell. They got the word to late, one sub was sunk, one went to the Americans to surrender, and the two remaining made a failed attempt to contuine the attack. What was interesting about this was they had planes with them, of course suicide runners. Suprisingly even though their pacific naval and air forces where for the most part gone, they were told to paint the planes American, the pilots argued against it.

 

[brian577]

This might interest to you, but one of the last attempts by the Japans navy, was an attack at the atoll where U.S ships gathered for the purposed invasion of Japan. Four submarines took off from japan, and in order to escape U.S ships went in separate directions, with plans to meet 300 miles from the attack site. But before they could even meet, the Atom bombs fell. They got the word to late, one sub was sunk, one went to the Americans to surrender, and the two remaining made a failed attempt to contuine the attack. What was interesting about this was they had planes with them, of course suicide runners. Suprisingly even though their pacific naval and air forces where for the most part gone, they were told to paint the planes American, the pilots argued against it.

So in other words, the bombs scared them into surrending? Doesn't that kinda prove a point? You still haven't answered my previous post, don't you think the number of civilians fighting back would increase significantly if the allies engaged in the kind of atrocities they were known for committing? (and you damn well bet they would have if civilians started attacking them)

 

[Sam McCord]

In order of epicness of fail:

-Obama
-Carter
-G. W. Bush

 

[KJbushway]

This might interest to you, but one of the last attempts by the Japans navy, was an attack at the atoll where U.S ships gathered for the purposed invasion of Japan. Four submarines took off from japan, and in order to escape U.S ships went in separate directions, with plans to meet 300 miles from the attack site. But before they could even meet, the Atom bombs fell. They got the word to late, one sub was sunk, one went to the Americans to surrender, and the two remaining made a failed attempt to contuine the attack. What was interesting about this was they had planes with them, of course suicide runners. Suprisingly even though their pacific naval and air forces where for the most part gone, they were told to paint the planes American, the pilots argued against it.

So in other words, the bombs scared them into surrending? Doesn't that kinda prove a point? You still haven't answered my previous post, don't you think the number of civilians fighting back would increase significantly if the allies engaged in the kind of atrocities they were known for committing? (and you damn well bet they would have if civilians started attacking them)

You must have edited your post and added, becuase I never saw that. Now the reason for that is becuase there was hatred between Japanese military forces and U.S military forces.The commander of that sub was in-expirenced, and felt he had no choice but to surrender. Plus, none of the other ships met at the meeting place. One becuase how the japanese treated american prisoners of war and Pearl Harbor. Now the same thing went for the Nazi's, it was just hatred. Japanese civilians were different. Yes, had that 10% actually launched a suicide run, they would have been mowed. But if the japanese citizens decided not to fight back, nothing would have happened.
surprisingly enough it wasn't only the u.s that would have envaded. Russia, britian, pretty much the allies all had separate plans.

Heres some qoutes.

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one Rochester and the other on Buffaloand then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."
(So many years later and they were right.)

"This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision...If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War."
​

"Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known. . . . The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc. . . . They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization."
​

 

[brian577]

This might interest to you, but one of the last attempts by the Japans navy, was an attack at the atoll where U.S ships gathered for the purposed invasion of Japan. Four submarines took off from japan, and in order to escape U.S ships went in separate directions, with plans to meet 300 miles from the attack site. But before they could even meet, the Atom bombs fell. They got the word to late, one sub was sunk, one went to the Americans to surrender, and the two remaining made a failed attempt to contuine the attack. What was interesting about this was they had planes with them, of course suicide runners. Suprisingly even though their pacific naval and air forces where for the most part gone, they were told to paint the planes American, the pilots argued against it.

So in other words, the bombs scared them into surrending? Doesn't that kinda prove a point? You still haven't answered my previous post, don't you think the number of civilians fighting back would increase significantly if the allies engaged in the kind of atrocities they were known for committing? (and you damn well bet they would have if civilians started attacking them)

You must have edited your post and added, becuase I never saw that. Now the reason for that is becuase there was hatred between Japanese military forces and U.S military forces.The commander of that sub was in-expirenced, and felt he had no choice but to surrender. Plus, none of the other ships met at the meeting place. One becuase how the japanese treated american prisoners of war and Pearl Harbor. Now the same thing went for the Nazi's, it was just hatred. Japanese civilians were different. Yes, had that 10% actually launched a suicide run, they would have been mowed. But if the japanese citizens decided not to fight back, nothing would have happened.
surprisingly enough it wasn't only the u.s that would have envaded. Russia, britian, pretty much the allies all had separate plans.

And even if a small group fought back they would all be suspect and a lot of people would end up dead just because they looked the wrong way. A formal surrender by the Emperor holds a lot of weight and without it, the fighting might have continued regardless. I'm going to switch gears here and ask you what do think Japan would be like to day if the bombs hadn't been dropped? After a long and bloody invasion would their be enough of their industry left for them to bounce back the way they did? Look at how messy Germany's occupation was with half the country behind the Iron for 50 years. Germany still hasn't fully recovered from that. In the long term do you believe that Japan would be a shadow of what it is today if it had to endure a full scale invasion from multiple sides with possible claims on it's territory?

 

[KJbushway]

I'm not quite sure how Japan who end up. Hopefully better off than they are today.
However, there is a statement that I read where the Japanese citizens knew the current government didn't care for them. My guess is that, it would have gone the same. We owned the seas around Japan, their naval fleet was gone. We could have easily dropped food down and secured the Japanese people as an ally toward us. t would have been a long process, but guess what there wouldn't be shadows on their walls.

Germany was completely different, it was constantly attacked, while japan was left alone until the very end of the fight. Plus the germans suffered because of the fact that we were in it with Russia.

 

[J.T.B.]

I believe General Marshall was against it.
[...]

That quote refers to the atomic bombs; the question was about the generals who were against the invasion.

No My comments are about the generals and government staff, who knew alot more than any of us, that says dropping two atomic bombs on Japan wasn't necessary and the invasion wasn't needed.

And? That response was about Subcommander R's post.

You don't actaully believe the Japanese actually fed our POWs do you. Or even the Chinese slave labor force. Millions were already dieing in Japan, besides its population.

So that would seem like a good reason to end the war sooner. And I know quite a bit about how the POWs were fed, my grandmother's brother Ray was a POW in Japan for four years and I have talked to him about it many times.

And lets no forget, there was planning of Japan once the Pacific war started itself.

I don't understand that sentence.

Also your going to books written by the poeple who won, they generally put themselves in the lime light, so they don't get crapped on for doing such an un-necessary thing.

No, I'm going to books written by historians. Frank's Downfall was published over ten years ago, has extensive source references, and is regarded by other historians as one of the best works on the subject. If you can find a source that contradicts his information, go ahead and post it.

Who the heck said it was an End. Becuase all it did was install fear into a dead enemy, and install fear into a future enemy.

I suggest you read up on occupation-era Japan. It is widely regarded as one of the best post-war outcomes in history.

Japanese citizens suffered incredibly due to the side effects by those Ethical(?) atomic bombs.

Again, irrelevant to Truman's decision making process because many of the side effects and long-term damage were not well understood at the time. The US was exposing its own forces and even regular citizens to atomic testing for years afterward because of this ignorance.

Not all the citizens would have fought back, not even a majority thought it was a worthy cause.
Once the invasion would have happened, far less deaths would have happened, the citizens were just afraid of the leader, and couldn't speak out.

But that's just a guess based on hindsight. As I said above, the evidence that Truman had, based on wartime experience, was that the people of Japan would resist very strongly. And they weren't all afraid of the emperor, they were afraid of Americans because of constant propaganda about GI's raping women and killing children. The no-surrender faction in the army even attempted a coup that would put a more sympathetic member of the imperial family on the throne.

And besides the invasion casualties, the longer the war went on the longer conventional B-29 bombing would go on. They were already causing tens of thousands of deaths a night in incendiary raids. No radiation, but horrible burn casualties.

I am curious did you not see the list I gathered, and didn't just come from my ass. Those people know the truth and know a hell of alot more than me, you, or shamless.

You didn't cite where the list came from or add any explanation, so I ignored it. And you also never provided details on the statement that "all the generals" opposed the invasion of Japan. So far you've been shown to be wrong about when the planning for Operation Downfall started, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki having no military value, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being already neutralized by bombing, and about Japan having no forces in the home islands to oppose the invasion. You've not cited one verifiable source. So, unless you've got something else to bring, I don't see any point in continuing this line of discussion.

--Justin

 

[KJbushway]

I didn't include what was under those references because it would have taken a whole thread page to type in what they said, but here you go.
Ok saying all the generals were against it was a bit much, but there was people against it that know more than me and you ever did, even people who spoke to truman himself.
Heres the cite.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
The bombs were poor planning and therefore unnecessary. Look at what they have cost, and that was after the bombing took place. I can get more info if you wish, but I am not going to go after someone who wasn't even a main figure at the time.

Once the pacific war really took off, after the D-day. Many allie forces say Japan as a real threat, and therefore began planning an invasion.

 

[Nowhere Man]

This thread should not be based on speculation and guesses of what would have happened if x was done. Truman made a strategic decision based on evidence that the war would have continued and would have cost more lives, American lives yes because that is what you consider in a war. Now, he could have said let's bomb an uninhabited island near Japan, that was a real question at the time. It us true the long term effects of unleashing the bomb to the world is a horrible thing, but the Russians were working on an atom bomb too. So, if you want to put Truman on the list for things that did happen, go right ahead, but putting him on the list for speculation of things that may or may not be different is wrong. Things that were unknown at the time can not be blamed on Truman or Wilson or any other President. Again, what should be considered is what they did at the time, did it have long term effects and not what coulda shoulda woulda happen.

 

[Davros]

I'm a Democrat and, despite some differences, I think it would be difficult to keep Ronald Reagan off the top ten list... so I'm not sure how you could list him in the bowels of the president's list.

It's amazingly easy. Anybody putting him in their top ten list is either delusional or ignorant.

 

[Subcommander R.]

I'm a Democrat and, despite some differences, I think it would be difficult to keep Ronald Reagan off the top ten list... so I'm not sure how you could list him in the bowels of the president's list.

It's amazingly easy. Anybody putting him in their top ten list is either delusional or ignorant.

I happen to agree. The reason we have a favorable opinion of Reagan in general is testimony to his skill at presentation and politics. The reality was excessive spending, propping up thugs, a lot of bluster, and domestic policies that the GOP today loathes (gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants).

 

[KJbushway]

This thread should not be based on speculation and guesses of what would have happened if x was done. Truman made a strategic decision based on evidence that the war would have continued and would have cost more lives, American lives yes because that is what you consider in a war. Now, he could have said let's bomb an uninhabited island near Japan, that was a real question at the time. It us true the long term effects of unleashing the bomb to the world is a horrible thing, but the Russians were working on an atom bomb too. So, if you want to put Truman on the list for things that did happen, go right ahead, but putting him on the list for speculation of things that may or may not be different is wrong. Things that were unknown at the time can not be blamed on Truman or Wilson or any other President. Again, what should be considered is what they did at the time, did it have long term effects and not what coulda shoulda woulda happen.

Ok. You made a good point, that I can't argue with. Made me think about it in a different light.

Ok so heres the list
The guy who got stuck in the tub. I always get the president mixed up. I would have said clinton, but the guy has balls, and good economic plans. So next it would be Andrew Jackson.
And number one on all our minds.
G.W.Bush