Just a place to hang out talk about some history. Whether it be about the events themselves, favorite historical books, favorite historians, a public debate like liberalism vs. Socialism, or anything else pertaining to history. Maybe even lessons we could learn from the past that would help us today.

Heck, I'll even start a topic: Was Truman justifying in dropping the atomic bombs, either at the time he did or at all?

I personally like liberal socialism ;3 Yeah I'll join, I enjoy learning about aspects of history.

If it lives, consider me in. My only concern is that all of history may be too broad a topic, but still count me in.

And yes, he was justified in dropping the Bomb.

Oh I love history. Great idea for a club.
Also, yes I think he was justified.

I'm starting to think reasons for why he was justified would be good. That way we have a little more to talk about. Like, by Truman dropping the bomb we were able to see firsthand the effects of the bomb. Tests in the desert only go so far, and this showed us how it affect humans with disease and disintegration and whatnot. Also, with that bomb, he established America as the major world power we are. In short he said that we're here to stay, and to stay on top of the world. And when you take human life into account, then he probably thought the Bomb would be the quickest way to end the war with the least amount of deaths. More American lives would have been lost continuing how we were with the "island hopping" tactic.

What about the Japanese lives? Probably equal either way. Maybe.

Sweet, I'll join.

He clearly was justifying when he dropped the bomb. I got to give my props to Truman. He gets sworn into office after FDR and says "Let's just end this." Pretty badass in my opinion.

History is good stuff. I'll drop by here once in a while.

Also, I think that Truman was not entirely justifed in dropping the bombs on non-military bases, many scientists working on the Manhattan Project themselves did not want to see the bombs dropped on Japan. One alternative idea that I have read about during these petitions was that the US should have demonstrated the power of the bomb in a testing site open to Japan's viewing so that Japan could have the option of knowing the forces that were about to be unleashed upon them and surrender before such disaster.

However, if you look at the aftermath of the disaster, with the international nuclear restraints developed over time, it was worth it to keep countries in check with their nuclear power, so at least we were able to see the human destruction first hand, which thus prevented every other country that had access to resources building up a nuclear arsenal and just hitting "go".

The bomb was originally going to be used on Germany, I feel with all the support the allies had gained - they could have won the war in Japan killing less people than with the bomb.

At 2/7/09 09:03 AM, sirtom93 wrote: The bomb was originally going to be used on Germany, I feel with all the support the allies had gained - they could have won the war in Japan killing less people than with the bomb.

But Germany would not have fought without the leadership of Hitler. i would not of dropped the bomb on Germany due to their economic weakness, while Japan still had a decent economy at the end of the war, therefore being a bigger threat to us.

Well, welcome all. Let's just hope this crew survives, it's not getting many views.

Also, I to believe we were justified in dropping the bomb. Although I personally would have waited a bit longer being that we dropped in 2 days before Russia was to declare war.

I would have personally waited until Russia had declared war and I would have granted the emporer safety, since that was the main request of the Japanese before they would consider surrendering. If they did not surrender after 2 weeks, I would have dropped the bomb. Mainly because estimates of possible casualties were 800,000+ for the American side alone. Casualties of that magnitude would be unacceptable.

Im reading a complete biography of Andrew Jackson.
Why do people think history is boring?

At 2/7/09 04:12 PM, aninjaman wrote: Im reading a complete biography of Andrew Jackson.
Why do people think history is boring?

Probably because its usually a hard and very boring subject in school.

I would love to join!

At 2/7/09 04:17 PM, turtleaja wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:12 PM, aninjaman wrote: Im reading a complete biography of Andrew Jackson.
Why do people think history is boring?

Probably because its usually a hard and very boring subject in school.

I would love to join!

In my school it is by far one of the better subjects.

Since this is about history I'll feel that I'll have to contribute.

About the first atomic bombs. The first bomb, over Hiroshima, I can see how it was justifiable for the US government, it was a way to end the war against Japan quickly and they wouldn't have to invade mainland Japan at high costs in both lives and equipment. In retrospect though, seeing the suffering the radiation brought, doubt comes. But it is always easy to be critical when you have all the answers.

The second bomb, over Nagasaki, was not necessary. If the US had waited just a few days the Japanese would probably have surrendered without loss of either American or Japanese lives. But from what I've read the US government very much wanted to test the other bomb, being an H-bomb rather than a A-bomb, which can be seen in the fact that the target was fifth on a list based on target importance. The rest of the targets being disqualified due to weather or other circumstances.

At 2/7/09 04:35 PM, vdviking wrote: which can be seen in the fact that the target was fifth on a list based on target importance. The rest of the targets being disqualified due to weather or other circumstances.

What were the other targets that the U.S. could have potentially bombed?

At 2/7/09 04:26 PM, sirtom93 wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:17 PM, turtleaja wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:12 PM, aninjaman wrote: Im reading a complete biography of Andrew Jackson.
Why do people think history is boring?

Probably because its usually a hard and very boring subject in school.

I would love to join!

In my school it is by far one of the better subjects.

In my school its one of the easiest subjects but also a huge joke. I go to a math and science school so all the liberal arts (English, History, Art) are huge jokes and a waste of time.

At 2/7/09 04:39 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:35 PM, vdviking wrote: which can be seen in the fact that the target was fifth on a list based on target importance. The rest of the targets being disqualified due to weather or other circumstances.

What were the other targets that the U.S. could have potentially bombed?

Yokohama, Kokura and Kyoto are among those I can remember. But it was a long time since I read Tibbet's book about the bombings.

And I'm sorry I called the Nagasaki bomb an H-bomb, it was in fact a different kind of A-bomb.My bad, but a mistake one shouldn't make.

About the bombs.
Has no one considered that the bombs were also a way to intimidate the Soviets?

At 2/7/09 04:26 PM, sirtom93 wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:17 PM, turtleaja wrote:

At 2/7/09 04:12 PM, aninjaman wrote:
Why do people think history is boring?

Probably because its usually a hard and very boring subject in school.

I would love to join!

In my school it is by far one of the better subjects.

You lucky bastard!

At 2/7/09 06:47 PM, aninjaman wrote: About the bombs.
Has no one considered that the bombs were also a way to intimidate the Soviets?

As well, it could have been a way to justify the expenditure of 2 billion dollars, 2 billion in 1945 currency, who knows how much that would equal today, the government spent creating the bomb to the American people.

We must also remember that in WWII, life was often considered as cheap.

At 2/7/09 06:47 PM, aninjaman wrote: About the bombs.
Has no one considered that the bombs were also a way to intimidate the Soviets?

A good point, but had the relationship between USA and USSR that much already? Let us not forget that they were allies during the war against Germany.

I am of course aware of the fact that neither USA or USSR trusted the other one, but since this happened way before the cold war, would USA sacrifice tens of thousand of innocent people just to warn or intmidate the USSR?

Sure I'll join, it's been one of my major interests for a while now.

Anyway:
I do think it was necessary to drop the bombs. It was inevitable that such a weapon would be created and the fact that we've seen how much they devastate has likely created a hesitation to use them again.

But yeah, not only that, they did bring an end to the war quickly. I know there were some arguments that Japan was going to surrender anyway, but they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped so I don't see why this could be true. The bombs probably did save thousands (or millions) of soldiers lives, though at the expense of many civilians. But I can't say whether it was a necessary sacrifice.

The only subject I was even remotely interested in! woo

I'm fond of Egypt.

At 2/9/09 12:33 AM, SapphireLight wrote: I'm fond of Egypt.

What are you, like 12 now?

Anyway i'm a mjor Dark ages + Medieval ages nut, i'm in.

Only eleven year olds like that time period.

At 2/9/09 12:35 AM, AniMetal wrote: Anyway i'm a mjor Dark ages + Medieval ages nut

Personally, I love anything from anytime before the advent of guns.

Ancient, iron age, medieval, Renassance, you name it. And yeah, I spelled that wrong.

My favourite history topic would be World War 2 history and the events leading up to it. I'm currently studying Tsarist Russia at college, which is very interesting.

But I also like reading on Europe in the middle ages and during the colonial years.

Hi, ill join.

I love History and Mythology. I mainly like Histoy before the 16th century, after that it was all about muskets and gunpower, which i though was really boring. Nothing like pulling your sword out of your sheeth and slicing at the enemy on horseback.

My favorite historic age was the Greeks and Romans, the Medieval ages was cool but i prefer the BC period. Very Primitive.

I'm interested in joining. I am also currently looking into the American Civil War, and it would be nice to have the views of some Americans on this topic.

I will be writing a dissertation for my History class some time soon. The title being; "Can the outbreak of the American Civil War be attributed to a single factor?"

At 2/9/09 03:21 PM, GodsBitch wrote: I'm interested in joining. I am also currently looking into the American Civil War, and it would be nice to have the views of some Americans on this topic.

Sure, I can be of a little help, I think.

I will be writing a dissertation for my History class some time soon. The title being; "Can the outbreak of the American Civil War be attributed to a single factor?"

And no, it cannot. Sure the divide over slavery was a major player, but other factors like Lincoln's election, outright dissent in the South, and a series of ineffective previous Presidents also had some influence.

And I'm Northern, for the record.

At 2/9/09 03:21 PM, GodsBitch wrote: I'm interested in joining. I am also currently looking into the American Civil War, and it would be nice to have the views of some Americans on this topic.

Im acually a little obsessed with the civil war. One of my ancestors wrote a civil war diary and another wrote a book about what it was like to be a woman at home during the war.

I will be writing a dissertation for my History class some time soon. The title being; "Can the outbreak of the American Civil War be attributed to a single factor?"

No. Slavery was the driving factor but not the only one. There were also cultural, economic, and states right's differences.