Why did President Franklin Roosevelt bomb Hiroshima?
Why did President Franklin Roosevelt bomb Hiroshima? OK, Franklin Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. The very first successful nuclear explosion was July 16, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed on August 6, 1945. Franklin Roosevelt did not make the decision to bomb Hiroshima.I know he bombed Hiroshima seeking vengeance for Pearl Harbor-No.Hiroshima was the 43rd Japanese city that was completely destroyed by bombing in WW2.but japan attacked Pearl Harbor which is a naval base and it was wartime during thatWhat?but USA dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, wiping out almost the entire cityThat was the goal. The US was destroying entire Japanese cities to destroy the Japanese economy, prevent them from making weapons or continuing the war, and in the hope of forcing the Japanese to surrender .and the negative effects still last.You can read all about this topic on Quora, dozens of questions have been asked and there are hundreds of answers.Was the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima a crime against humanity?Did Hiroshima and Nagasaki have military significance or were they purely civilian targets?Should the US have dropped the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?What are the effects of the atomic bombs that have been dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today?How long was it unsafe to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombs were dropped?
I have a debate about Harry S. Truman?
in this debate i have to play the role of Harry S. Truman, and debate why he was a good president. I just want to know what are some points that will be used against me, the counter to those points, and points i can use against Douglas MacArthur. Thank you
Why would FDR dump his previous V.P., Wallace, and choose a relatively unknown senator, Truman, to be his running mate in the 1944 election?
In the 1940s, the tradition that the presidential nominee exercise total control over who the VP nominee should be was not yet written in stone.Amazingly, even such dominant figures as Abraham Lincoln and FDR did not necessarily pick their VP running mates, as hard as that is to believe.That was back in the day of “brokered conventions”… which meant that even a popular figure such as FDR had to either appease the party bosses OR they had to spend considerable political capital trying to get their way.Harry Truman was the pick of the more moderate, and more Southern, bosses in the Democratic party. They were willing to put up with FDR’s New Deal, because the country needed something to give people hope. But these same Southern bosses weren’t that happy about Wallace, because he was just a little bit too “socialist” for their tastes.These influential “movers and shakers” within the Party wanted Harry Truman as the more moderate pick, as well as one more appealing to the South and Midwest, as he was from Missouri. (Plus, Truman was not altogether unknown… as a Senator he had greatly distinguished himself by chairing a committee investigating businesses that had overcharged for military expenses and/or produced inferior military products, to make huge profits).FDR actually preferred Wallace personally but wasn’t quite willing to “to go the mat” to keep him, instead desiring party unity.Also, FDR was in his declining years, not a well man, and his limited attention was almost entirely on the war effort, not on his VP running mate… although, in retrospect, paying attention to the running mate should have been the most important item on his agenda, not the last.What happened to change everything? Well, in the modern era of television, well after WW2, politicians realized that the most important thing about a convention was to have a united convention, where the entire party rallied behind the nominee… anything else would be suicide when it was broadcast on television. Therefore, in the interest of party unity, both the major parties got to be very good about just backing the nominee’s suggestions, so as to have a show of unity. Anything else in the modern era would be folly.But as I pointed out, that was a more recent development.
Who is your favorite president of all time and why?
Fabulous question! Here are mine, in order. Washington - brilliant war strategist and understood the need not to repeat rule by monarchy in the US FDR - understood that a wartime president, who has to make unpopular decisions, must lead by consensus rather than autocracy Lincoln-another tough and brilliant leader unafraid to do what was best for the country instead of himself Teddy Rooseveldt - erudite, idependent and tough as nails. never asked anyone to do what he would not do himself. trust buster for a reason Wilson - understood world politics much better than his own xenophobic country. Tried to prevent WWII with better German policy. Truman - made tough and unpopular decisions Ike- Thoughtful and candid, but knew how to work both parties Adams (sr) - Spartacus is right on. Here are two I didn't like (because of the Trail of Tears and Indian "policies") but who also made huge contributions to our country - Jackson & Polk - absolutely horrible to the Native Americans, but created the idea of the Westward Expansion.
Why do most feel MacArthur was a better general than Patton given his huge errors in 1941-42 and 1950-51, and what did Marshall, Eisenhower and Truman think of his performance?
Good question, given that Patton and MacArthur are generally seen as America’s best two generals although that point can easily be debated, though the Germans and Italians though he was the best Ally general in Europe at the time (I suspect ole Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery would beg to differ).MacArthur was a theater commander along the lines of Eisenhower in Europe, while Patton was an army commander under Ike. You could think of it as MacArthur being a big picture strategist while Patton was regional tactical commander. Both men had monstrous size egos. Both were vain and arrogant. Both thought they were the best thing to happen to warfare since the invention of the rock.Both men bucked at authority yet could not stand to have their’s questioned. Both were, in many ways, throwbacks to another era.However, MacArthur was often openly contemptuous of authority figures; those either above him or even those of senior rank in either Allies armies/navies, or within the US military (he had numerous run-ins with Admiral Nimitz and Admiral “Bull” Halsey despised him. Even Ike, who had served as his aide disliked him, as did FDR). Patton, on the hand, at least respected other senior officers (although he thought his ideas were, of course, better). He liked and respected British General Anderson or US General Omar Bradley for instance and while he disliked “Monty” personally, he did respect his genius for tactics (while often disagreeing with them at the same time).I suppose the key difference came to this. Patton understood his role as a General and a soldier. Patton would, ultimately, do his job. MacArthur on the other hand didn’t. He often overstepped his authority to the point of criminal. He ever liked civilian oversight, and increasing rejected it. When Patton issued an order, he expected it to be followed to the letter. When MacArthur issued order, it was presumed to have come from God himself.Of the people that I’ve known who served under both, many of them hated Patton but respected him. That would have followed him anywhere, and still would. However, those that served under MacArthur hated him then and still hate today, however, his strategy usually worked.