50 Years ago, President Ike gave his famous final address where he not only warned of the growing military industrial complex, but also the need to maintain the balance between the public and private sector. He also spoke about while it is nice to have the best equipment and weapons, but it must be balanced with our funds. A great speech, one for the ages.

Part I
[video=youtube;jnaM8TqAzzo][/video]

Part II
[video=youtube;KCRDp4OF5Ig][/video]

Text:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=90&page=transcript


Some quotes:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Phenomenal. Had to read i since I can't do vid or audio at work, but phenomenal.

I like Ike.

Thanks for posting P-Towne. Didn't need to read it now...have read it 30 times in the past.

Here is a 5 star general....one of the top 3 war heroes of WWII....yet a person who vociferously denied support for using the atomic bombs in Japan. He coined the oft used term "military industrial complex" as a cancer to what we had stood for for over 170 years.

Other than getting us involved in Korea, (didn't last long, though), he epitomized the non interventionalist foreign policy that echoed throughout the chambers of our forefathers' beliefs.

We didn't listen to him then....and we certainly don't listen to him now.

Ike is easily one of the top ten presidents this country has had.

Footwedge;641214 wrote:Here is a 5 star general....one of the top 3 war heroes of WWII

Eisenhower was one of the many great military leaders in our nations history. He led the allies to victory in Europe. He deserves credit for that. I would not put him in the top three heroes of WWII however. Eisenhower never experienced combat directly. There were countless other men that charged beaches under intense machine gun fire, were dropped behind enemy lines, the general who told the Germans "nuts" at the idea of surrender during the battle of the bulge at the direct risk of his life and his troops, those that fought through out Europe, and the Pacific theater. I think Eisenhower would agree.

Footwedge;641214 wrote: a person who vociferously denied support for using the atomic bombs in Japan.

After the battle of Okinawa it was made quite clear. The use of atomic weapons would spare the lives of both American and Japanese lives to achieve their immediate unconditional surrender. Operation Downfall would have been far more costly in lives to America as well as Japan. It would have resulted in the utter and complete destruction of the whole nation of Japan. American troops storming Tokyo would have incurred mass casualties and the Japanese defenders would have inured far greater. In both military and civilian. Had we not dropped Atomic weapons on Japan and proceeded to invade the mainland it would have been a far greater bloodbath.

One other side effect of the use of the Atomic bombs on Japan. The world witnessed the horror of this power. And with that witness all powers on this earth greatly fear it. I do not believe they and their people would have feared it so greatly had they not witnessed its use. Directly or in pictorial history. Such is human nature.

Lessening American bloodshed was one of the reasons Eisenhower let the Russians take Berlin. He knew the mass casualties we would incur. It was not worth leverage at the negotiating table. Taking Berlin cost the Russians over 81,000 dead and missing. Eisenhower wisely knew it was not worth American blood and treasure to gain a better hand at the surrender table. Perhaps this was even negotiated at Yalta.

I despise nuclear weapons. On one hand I wish they never existed. On the other hand I realize their existence in the past 65yrs has prevented the major powers on this earth from going at each other. Had nuclear weapons not existed I believe the Cold War would at some point became hot between the major powers.

Footwedge;641214 wrote:He coined the oft used term "military industrial complex" as a cancer to what we had stood for for over 170 years.

Like the words of a prophet the words he uttered 50yrs ago warning us of the coming "military industrial complex" he saw developing are a reality today.

Footwedge;641214 wrote:Other than getting us involved in Korea

Eisenhower did not get us involved in Korea. Truman did. Eisenhower presided over its negotiated settlement and so called ending. So he deserves no blame for our involvement. It should be pointed out nearly 60yrs after the settlement he presided over we are still stuck providing defense for South Korea against the North. 60yrs from that settlement we continue to base nearly 30,000 troops and airman in South Korea. Any renewal of hostilities between the nations will assuredly draw us into their war. I doubt that is what Eisenhower envisioned, but that is what the weakness of the agreement he presided over gave us.

Footwedge;641214 wrote:(didn't last long, though)

It did not last long? Only three years. Nearly 40,000 American dead and missing. Over 2 million dead Koreans. I would say it lasted long enough. And today their is still a grave threat that those numbers will be added to. I find it ironic that you brush off this war as "not lasting long" yet it produced far greater loss of life that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will likely ever get remotely close to achieving.

Footwedge;641214 wrote: he epitomized the non interventionalist foreign policy that echoed throughout the chambers of our forefathers' beliefs.

Idealistically perhaps that may have been what he believed. But practically he did not act on it when he held power. For whatever reason he saw the need for our continued presence to be maintained in foreign lands. Perhaps he justified it by the recent destruction he had witnessed in his lifetime. Understandable. I do however doubt that Eisenhower ever envisioned 50yrs after his famous speech that our military forces would still remain in those lands today.

Okay, lets say we accept the explaination for using the atomic bomb. How do you explain using it twice?

You're right about Korea being far more than long enough. However, the current Iraq conflict does have an estimated loss of Iraqi life at more than 1,000,000 so it's not as though it's some clean little surgical conflict.

I Wear Pants;642288 wrote:Okay, lets say we accept the explaination for using the atomic bomb. How do you explain using it twice?

A. Try not to use today's kumbaya political mindset as a basis for judging political and military decisions made during an entirely different set of world circumstances. Fascism was directly responsible for the deaths of 50 to 70 million people worldwide. It had to end.
B. The Japanese high command was still not ready to accept surrender even after Hiroshima. I'm absolutely convinced it was a prudent move at the time to drive our point home not to mention it saved thousands of American lives.
C. The Soviet Union needed to know without a doubt that we were nuclear capable.

Footwedge;641214 wrote:Thanks for posting P-Towne. Didn't need to read it now...have read it 30 times in the past.

Here is a 5 star general....one of the top 3 war heroes of WWII....yet a person who vociferously denied support for using the atomic bombs in Japan. He coined the oft used term "military industrial complex" as a cancer to what we had stood for for over 170 years.

Other than getting us involved in Korea, (didn't last long, though), he epitomized the non interventionalist foreign policy that echoed throughout the chambers of our forefathers' beliefs.

We didn't listen to him then....and we certainly don't listen to him now.

No problem.
Sidenote, while he may have been against the usage of Japan, you must remember during his Presidency the nuclear weapon stockpile grew from about a hundred or so to nearly 18,000. Also, the U.S. in order to save money, reduced the number of troops in Europe, but substituted nuclear weapons to offset the massive Soviet army. The doctrine of massive retaliation was adopted that was actually pretty scary.

While he may have seemed non interventionalist, he did authorize coups in South America, Iran and intervention in Lebanon and gave the initial green light to the Bay of Pigs.
He was a great President in my mind, one of the best for the period, but let's not make him a saint. He did what he had to do to keep the peace against the Soviet Union.

believer;642332 wrote:A. Try not to use today's kumbaya political mindset as a basis for judging political and military decisions made during an entirely different set of world circumstances. Fascism was directly responsible for the deaths of 50 to 70 million people worldwide. It had to end.
B. The Japanese high command was still not ready to accept surrender even after Hiroshima. I'm absolutely convinced it was a prudent move at the time to drive our point home not to mention it saved thousands of American lives.
C. The Soviet Union needed to know without a doubt that we were nuclear capable.

Yeah, those are pretty much the reasons. It is a real debate on whether the Japanese would surrender after the first one, but at the time, America just wanted to end the war. I doubt, just me, that if we didn't drop them, the Japanese would not have surrendered and many more Americans would have died in the invasion.

Broader point, during the Cold War, even with the destructive power of nuclear power, actually brought stability between the two powers. But, we had to get to a point where our doctrines were on the same page, and had to survive some tense moments (Berlin Airlift, Suez Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Six day war, etc.)

Asked my stepfather about Ike last night. He was about 65/35 on him. He liked Truman better... alot better. He also told me that you'd have to have lived back then and not just read about it, to understand. On paper, it seems to me that they've both had certain pros and cons that make it seem pretty even.
Talk to your parents and grandparents - great sources of info!

P.S.

I just busted him wearing his hearing aid without the battery. Waiting on him to go to dialysis, wondering why I had to yell at him. Checked it - sure enough. Said he didn't want to hear the chatter buzz of the nurses out there and listen to the Dr. Phil they always have on the tv haha!

believer;642332 wrote:A. Try not to use today's kumbaya political mindset as a basis for judging political and military decisions made during an entirely different set of world circumstances. Fascism was directly responsible for the deaths of 50 to 70 million people worldwide. It had to end.
B. The Japanese high command was still not ready to accept surrender even after Hiroshima. I'm absolutely convinced it was a prudent move at the time to drive our point home not to mention it saved thousands of American lives.
C. The Soviet Union needed to know without a doubt that we were nuclear capable.

I agree. And we had more atomic bombs in production that could have been deployed within weeks. And we would have used them. The first two were more psychologica in nature. The next would have been more strategic in nature to support the land invasion of Japan.

True with the Soviets. They had jus declared war on Japan and we did not want them to be any part of a victory over Japan. As the Iron Curtain was beginning to decend on Europe, we wanted no part of that for Japan.

ptown_trojans_1;642382 wrote:Yeah, those are pretty much the reasons. It is a real debate on whether the Japanese would surrender after the first one, but at the time, America just wanted to end the war. I doubt, just me, that if we didn't drop them, the Japanese would not have surrendered and many more Americans would have died in the invasion.

Estimated casualties for a land invasion of Japan were as high as a million for the allies and millions of Japanese civilian and military. I have no doubt the casualties would have been high. The battle for Japan would have been the fiercest we had faced yet in the war. The Japanese soldier rare surrendered. They fought to the death or committed suicide. Kamakazi pilots would have reaked havoc on naval vessels supporting the invasion. Rooting Japanes soldiers out of every hill, cave, building, house, and hole in Japan would brought complet and utter destruction them and their nation.

The use of the atomic bombs brought and abrupt end the war and the need for a devastating land invasion. I subscribe to the opinion that because of their use and the immediate surrender of Japan not only spared American lives, but countless Japanes lives as well.

majorspark;642686 wrote:I agree. And we had more atomic bombs in production that could have been deployed within weeks. And we would have used them. The first two were more psychologica in nature. The next would have been more strategic in nature to support the land invasion of Japan.

Not exactly, any other bomb would have taken a few months as we did not have enough material for another bomb.
Even into 1948, we only had a few weapons that were huge. It wasn't until the Ike years where we could deploy many of them.

ptown_trojans_1;642701 wrote:Not exactly, any other bomb would have taken a few months as we did not have enough material for another bomb.
Even into 1948, we only had a few weapons that were huge. It wasn't until the Ike years where we could deploy many of them.

Are you sure? This George Washington University study says we did and one would be deployable by the 17th of August. They have links to some declassified document and communications. Check out document #67 and #72. Document #72 indicates that several more bombs would be avialable in September and October. Check it out what do you think?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

majorspark;642773 wrote:Are you sure? This George Washington University study says we did and one would be deployable by the 17th of August. They have links to some declassified document and communications. Check out document #67 and #72. Document #72 indicates that several more bombs would be avialable in September and October. Check it out what do you think?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Haha. Touche. Correct. That's what happens when I try and go off of memory haha.

BTW, the archives at GW are fantastic. Nice find.

We still had just a few until the 1950s though. I just mixed up the dates.

I Wear Pants;642288 wrote:You're right about Korea being far more than long enough. However, the current Iraq conflict does have an estimated loss of Iraqi life at more than 1,000,000 so it's not as though it's some clean little surgical conflict.

I did not say the Iraq war was a clean surgical conflict. Those are your words. I said that the Korean war produced a much greater loss of life than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ever will. Also we will not have 30,000 American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan 60yrs from now.

majorspark;643056 wrote: Also we will not have 30,000 American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan 60yrs from now.

I'm not sure you can say this with absolute certainty. It is likely, but not absolute.

majorspark;642699 wrote:Estimated casualties for a land invasion of Japan were as high as a million for the allies and millions of Japanese civilian and military. I have no doubt the casualties would have been high. The battle for Japan would have been the fiercest we had faced yet in the war. The Japanese soldier rare surrendered. They fought to the death or committed suicide. Kamakazi pilots would have reaked havoc on naval vessels supporting the invasion. Rooting Japanes soldiers out of every hill, cave, building, house, and hole in Japan would brought complet and utter destruction them and their nation.

The use of the atomic bombs brought and abrupt end the war and the need for a devastating land invasion. I subscribe to the opinion that because of their use and the immediate surrender of Japan not only spared American lives, but countless Japanes lives as well.

SMH. The Japanese were negotiating a surrender with conditions. The US would rather incinerate 200,000 citizens in lieu of allowing peace for Japan...with just a smidgeon of pride remaining. This is clearly documented and it is a shame that American history books have distorted the truth about Japan.

We bitch and complain about 3,000 dead American citizens on 9-11...and rightfully so. But when it comes to annihilating human beings from other parts of the world at 100fold levels, it is always "justifed" in the propagandized US...abetted by a media that is bought and paid for by the military interests.

majorspark;642699 wrote:Estimated casualties for a land invasion of Japan were as high as a million for the allies and millions of Japanese civilian and military. I have no doubt the casualties would have been high. The battle for Japan would have been the fiercest we had faced yet in the war. The Japanese soldier rare surrendered. They fought to the death or committed suicide. Kamakazi pilots would have reaked havoc on naval vessels supporting the invasion. Rooting Japanes soldiers out of every hill, cave, building, house, and hole in Japan would brought complet and utter destruction them and their nation.

The use of the atomic bombs brought and abrupt end the war and the need for a devastating land invasion. I subscribe to the opinion that because of their use and the immediate surrender of Japan not only spared American lives, but countless Japanes lives as well.

There was never going to be an invasion of Japan. Hurohito was in the process of surrendering. This point is not even open for debate. The incineration of 200,000 Japs was mass terrorism at it's finest....but I do agree there was a message being sent to Stalin.

What a mecabre and disgusting way to send a message. These weapons could have been detnated in a desolate area....with the published results used to hasten the end of WWII. Read your history from international netral sources....or google the subject on the American military that knew that the war with Japan was tacitly over.

Ugh, I'm not a fan of this debate really.
I have my own view, above, but is Japan was going to surrender, Truman didn't know about it. In Truman's diary and briefings, there is no mention of Japanese surrender. Plus, different time period on the death scale.

footwedge, the GW archive has the documents, and Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb provide some great info.

In the end, it is irrelevant and to me misses the point.
The most important aspect of the decision was it created what Thomas Schelling called, "The Nuclear Taboo." The effects were so great that other leaders did not want to cross that line. From Truman, to Ike, to Kennedy and Johnson onward, no President wanted to cross that line because they knew of the effects.

If there were no dropping of the bombs, that taboo may not have been established.

Footwedge;643079 wrote:SMH. The Japanese were negotiating a surrender with conditions. The US would rather incinerate 200,000 citizens in lieu of allowing peace for Japan...with just a smidgeon of pride remaining. This is clearly documented and it is a shame that American history books have distorted the truth about Japan.

Yes the Japanese were discussing terms of surrender. Terms of their own. A conditional surrender. Several terms were put out to the allies. No occupation by the allies of mainland Japan, Korea, Taiwan, preservation of imperial rule of the emperor of Japan, trial and punishment of percieved Japanese war criminals to be conducted by the empire of Japan, and demobilization and disarmament of Japanese armed forces to be conducted by the empire of Japan.

A preservation of their political power. A chance for them to rise again. These terms were unacceptable to the allies and rightfully so. Did we learn no lessons from WWI? Would you have advocated accepting similar terms for Hitler's Germany? Even in the case of 10's of thousand being incinerated in Dresden? Elements in the German government were suing for peace on their terms when the war turned against them. They were told to go to hell as well.

We so completely defeated these nations that they have become pacifist nations that will not offensively raise arms against opposing nations for likely at least a hundred years. Had the Allies not achieved unconditional surrender of these nations and occupational rule of them to reshape them politically they would not be our allies today. They would be our adversaries. Their smidgen of pride that they had left would compel them to fight another day. Both Japan and Germany with their technological might would be nuclear armed states today.

I keep up on history. I will say this about the writing of history. To the winner goes the spoils. The victors write the books. I can agree with you there. Its up to educated individuals applying common sense and weighing the facts to come to their own just conclusions. Your interpretation of history is based too much on your emotions rather than based in reality. The world sucks. The depravity of man sucks. Just men must find a way to deal with what the depraved world deals us. In this case I believe our actions were just.

Footwedge;643088 wrote:There was never going to be an invasion of Japan. Hurohito was in the process of surrendering. This point is not even open for debate. The incineration of 200,000 Japs was mass terrorism at it's finest....but I do agree there was a message being sent to Stalin.

Surrendering under their terms as mentioned in my post above. Those terms were unacceptable. The message sent to Stalin was secondary. Not primary.

The unconditional surrender of Japan was a necessity. Our leaders realized that it had to be done at all costs. They were students of history. The invasion of Japan was immanent. Just as the invasion of Germany was. The United States in its righteous might (as FDR said) would have gone house to house, cave to cave, hole to hole, and rooted out everyone of these SOB's.

Footwedge;643088 wrote:What a mecabre and disgusting way to send a message. These weapons could have been detnated in a desolate area....with the published results used to hasten the end of WWII. Read your history from international netral sources....or google the subject on the American military that knew that the war with Japan was tacitly over.

Had we detonated an atomic weapon in a desolate area the Japs would have laughed us of. The US dropped one on Hiroshima and their war council would not immediately unconditionally surrender.

Hostilities do not end with tactical victories. They end by breaking the enemy's will to continue the fight. We had many tactical victory's in Vientam, yet the enemy's will to fight was never broken. Tactically we achieved victory in Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. In Afghanistan we have yet to break their will to fight.

ptown_trojans_1;643107 wrote:The most important aspect of the decision was it created what Thomas Schelling called, "The Nuclear Taboo." The effects were so great that other leaders did not want to cross that line. From Truman, to Ike, to Kennedy and Johnson onward, no President wanted to cross that line because they knew of the effects.

If there were no dropping of the bombs, that taboo may not have been established.

I agree. I mentioned this in a previous post above. A side effect of the dropping of the bombs revealed to the world their horror.

Footwedge,

I defend your right to be pacifist but your neo-pacifism completely ignores the political and military realities of the time.

The Japanese military high command and the Japanese imperial government operated under an entirely culture-centric mindset that viewed Japanese society as superior in every way. That mindset would have reared its ugly head again had the United States agreed to conditional surrender as the Japanese had demanded.

In today's world-view the "macabre and disgusting way to send a message" is understandable. But after the world had just witnessed the deaths of 50 to 70 million people worldwide due to fascism, I'm quite sure the American government was not particularly concerned with political correctness.

And as Ptown mentioned, the positive side to the use of the bombs clearly demonstrated the terrible consequences of using them resulting in the ability of the United States and the Soviet Union to exist in precarious harmony.

Can you imagine being the President at the time to make that terrifying decision? I cannot imagine...