If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

[Bfgrn]

I think I'd have to go with Vietnam and the mindset of the times of our young people. Not only for the unnecessary loss of so many lives, but it is in my mind the era of the beginning of the end of civility and unity in America.

There would have been no Americanization of that war had Kennedy lived.


Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right—under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race—Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

 

[Jarlaxle]

We don't live in a vacuum sonny boy.

If that was intended to make sense, it failed utterly.

Then you are not very smart.

The first atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, killed roughly 70,000 people immediately. Japan refused to surrender. Perhaps they reasoned that America had only one bomb, and could not make more.

The second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, killed roughly 40,000 to 70,000 people immediately.

Together, the two atomic bombs were responsible for the immediate and over-time deaths of around 140,000 people.

Awed and stunned by this raw power – and perhaps suddenly realizing that the ‘soft’ Americans were actually willing to use such power – the hard-hearted Japanese leaders were forced to unconditionally surrender.

Compare this to the cost in lives for a conventional military invasion of Japan.

In just the Battle of Okinawa alone, the invasion and securing of the tiny islands cost over 90,000 Japanese military deaths, close to 50,000 Allied deaths, and from 75,000 to 140,000 civilians dead or missing.

That’s a total of around 280,000 lives lost to secure just a foothold from which to invade the main Japanese islands.

Okinawa had a pre-invasion population of about 500,000. That means that up to a third of the entire civilian population was killed in the World War II invasion of the islands. Add to that military deaths equal to another one third of Okinawa’s civilian population.

Part of the reason for this was the fanatical bushido code of the soldiers, who encouraged or forced civilians to hold out to the death against the Allies – or even commit mass suicide rather than surrender and ‘lose face’.

And meanwhile in the homeland of Japan, the Shosango and later Ketsugo war policies were being implemented to encourage every single man, woman and child to fight the Allies to the death… Even if they had only bamboo to use as a weapon. (I, Scott, saw footage of such World War II Japanese women undergoing bamboo spear combat drills.)

If the main Japanese islands had been invaded, a bloody massacre far more grueling and drawn out than Okinawa could be expected.

In 1945, Japan as a whole had a population of around 52 million… Roughly 100 times as many people as Okinawa had.

If the Japanese had not been forced to surrender by the atomic bombs, a conventional invasion might have incurred a similar casualty ratio as Okinawa had.

That would be roughly 35 million lives lost, half of those being Japanese civilians forced or propagandized into fighting to the death.

I’m not conjecturing out of thin air here – the official Allied plans for invading Japan if it refused to surrender predicted a cost of 1 million American and 10 million Japanese lives. Even after the two bombs were dropped, the military planners were unsure as to whether the stubborn Japanese leaders would keep on fighting tooth and claw.

Yes, yes, I'm aware of all that...which is exactly the point I was making! What is your PROBLEM?!

 

[JWBooth]

Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.

Japan was nuked to prove that we could.

 

[numan]

'

Blow up the Continental Congress when both Washington and Hancock were there, and get rid of that nest of traitorous terrorists for good.

.

 

[numan]

Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.

Japan was nuked to prove that we could.

Once more, Americans are incapable of distinguishing propaganda hype from reality.

You are quite right, JW. Moreover, looking past the Japanese propaganda for domestic consumption, the Japanese leaders were desperate to get a negotiated settlement. That is historic fact.

The Americans were determined to test out their new toy bombs. The proof is that (apart from Kyoto) they left only two Japanese cities unbombed and undamaged -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- one to test the uranium bomb and one to test the plutonium bomb.

Many high-ranking American political and military figures were appalled by such callous and barbaric evil (that was when there were still a few decent Americans in govt.) and left a public record of their opposition.

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.

Japan was nuked to prove that we could.

Actually, it probably means...

Soviet occupation of Korea and a big chunk of China.
A possible Soviet occupation of Hokkaido, which would be a bloodbath, equal parts Okinawa and Stalingrad.
Millions of Japanese deaths due to a mass famine. (Even with US occupation and food supplies, 1945-46 was a very lean winter.)

There is also the fact that there was a very real chance that anyone in Japan pushing for a surrender would be assassinated! They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.

Japan was nuked to prove that we could.

Once more, Americans are incapable of distinguishing propaganda hype from reality.

You are quite right, JW. Moreover, looking past the Japanese propaganda for domestic consumption, the Japanese leaders were desperate to get a negotiated settlement. That is historic fact.

The Americans were determined to test out their new toy bombs. The proof is that (apart from Kyoto) they left only two Japanese cities unbombed and undamaged -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- one to test the uranium bomb and one to test the plutonium bomb.

Many high-ranking American political and military figures were appalled by such callous and barbaric evil (that was when there were still a few decent Americans in govt.) and left a public record of their opposition.

You are dumb as toast, kid. Note: the CONVENTIONAL bombing of Tokyo killed more than both atomic bombs COMBINED.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Contemplate how many Americans would not be here today. My dad was a paratrooper in the South Pacific theater. He said they were preparing for an invasion of the Japanese mainland, and had that occurred it would have been a fight to the death. MANY more human beings would have died on both sides if that invasion had occurred.

You are confused. There is no law of nature that says if you don't drop an atomic bomb and kill 100,000 people you have to go get 1,000,000 of your own people killed.

Japan was already defeated when we dropped the atomic bomb. Most Japanese cities already looked like they'd been hit by A-bombs. The purpose of dropping those bombs was to impress the Soviets, not to save American lives.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Contemplate how many Americans would not be here today. My dad was a paratrooper in the South Pacific theater. He said they were preparing for an invasion of the Japanese mainland, and had that occurred it would have been a fight to the death. MANY more human beings would have died on both sides if that invasion had occurred.

You are confused. There is no law of nature that says if you don't drop an atomic bomb and kill 100,000 people you have to go get 1,000,000 of your own people killed.

Japan was already defeated when we dropped the atomic bomb. Most Japanese cities already looked like they'd been hit by A-bombs. The purpose of dropping those bombs was to impress the Soviets, not to save American lives.

Please provide the American causality count for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I will be waiting...

 

[eflatminor]

'

Blow up the Continental Congress when both Washington and Hancock were there, and get rid of that nest of traitorous terrorists for good.

.

 

[JWBooth]

'

Blow up the Continental Congress when both Washington and Hancock were there, and get rid of that nest of traitorous terrorists for good.

.

Makes perfect sense from a Tory/anti-secessionist point of view.....

 

[Big Black Dog]

If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

The day I lost my virginity! Second time around, I would have done it sober.

 

[jon_berzerk]

that one cat

the one the road stripe painters painted a white line over

he surely deserved to live

i would go back in time and fix that

 

[Sallow]

the holocaust.

+1

 

[Pop23]

Lucy pulling the damn football away just as Charlie Brown was about to kick it!

Without that single event, feminism would never happen and whenever I wanted a sandwich , by god I would get one!

 

[Ernie S.]

So, no comments on my post #59?

 

[FA_Q2]

[...]

I would like to have stopped 9/11 but I know that such an even would have happened anyway. If not a nuclear device in a city or another set of planes, an event of that scale would have occurred with another weapon. In the case of a nuclear device in a city, I shudder to think of the response then. It would have likely been far worse.

Why are you so sure the 9/11 attack was unavoidably destined? The fact is it wasn't. That tragic event was brought about by the brutish arrogance of those whom we trust to competently maintain security while avoiding such disasters -- rather than provoking them.

When Operation Desert Storm was being planned, George H.W. Bush, via his close friendship with the Saudi Royal Family, arranged to construct an American airbase in Saudi Arabia, in the vicinity of the Islamic holy land, for the purpose of facilitating the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. While it was agreed the base would be removed upon completion of that operation it was not removed but in fact had undergone incremental expansion over the years between 1991 and 2001.

During that same time frame a serious outcry arose from the Palestinians in response to an aggressive expansion of Israeli settlements deep into the Gaza region. That encroachment would ordinarily have provoked armed resistance by the Palestinians and their Arab supporters but the contingency was rendered impractical by the threat of U.S. military support of Israel.

Those two situations gave rise to extreme anger on the part of such fanatically militant Islamic organizations as Al Qaeda, which at the time few ordinary Americans, if any, had ever heard of. While a number of Arab leaders had lodged protests about failure to remove the bin Sultan airbase from their holy land and the encroachment of Israeli settlers into the gaza region, those protests were routinely afforded little attention by the Clinton Administration.

Upon learning of these protests, PBS Frontline's John Miller made contact with this Al Qaeda organization and arranged to interview its leader, a fellow named Osama bin Laden, which took place in a cave in Afghanistan in May of 1998. In that interview, bin Laden clearly identifed the objects of his people's protest, the airbase and the Israeli settlements, and he warned that if some action was not taken to correct those situations the U.S. would have cause for regret.

Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS

That threat apparently was not taken seriously, either by Bill Clinton or by George W. Bush, both of whom ignored it, and on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world came to know who Osama bin Laden was. But most never knew the reason behind what he did.

What you should know is shortly after that attack George W. Bush quietly removed the bin Sultan airbase from Saudi Arabia and he pressured Israel's President Ariel Sharon to evict the settlers from the disputed Gaza region. If either Clinton or Bush had acknowledged and acted on the legitimate protests by Al Queda when they first were lodged the level of rage that prompted nineteen healthy young shahids to sacrifice their lives would not have existed and the attack could not have happened.

The question now is have our leaders learned that the most dangerous weapons in the world are people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to strike at an offender?

And change those specific circumstances and 9/11 does not happen BUT the underlying causes STILL EXIST. IOW, 9/11 specifically would not have occurred but a terrorist attack of that scale (or larger) would have happened.

The specifics in that case are not the point but rather the general attitudes and structures that allowed it to happen are. They would still be in place and we would eventually be attacked. You act like Bin Laden is the only one that wants to do such things to America. We have a long list of insane people that want to see Americans dead. Without a shortage of enemies, someone would have breached our lax security.

 

[MeNonPartisan]

hair loss?

 

[High_Gravity]

Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So you would do an invasion of Japan and cause many more deaths as a result?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So you would do an invasion of Japan and cause many more deaths as a result?

Or you could do neither.