I think yes. Had he not, more civilians would have died. About 500,000 Americans would have died, not to mention all the civilians in Japan during the invasions.

We also have to count medical costs and pain and suffering. The bombs killed most people instantly. Had conventional bombs and attacks occured we would have had a greater number of wounded. With more of Japan destroyed, we would have has less resources to rebuild and help the surviors and wounded.

What do you think? If you wished to not drop the bombs, what would you have done to end the war against people that believed that surrendering was dishonor to their family, which meant they would die before surrender?

:kick:
J4Clark

Your logic is not good enough.

I say maybe. If there really were offers of surrender from Japan with the single condition of the emperor remaining in power before the bomb, then it was wrong. But whether that's true or not is unclear, and if it isn't, then yes.

President Truman Did Not Understand
Dr. Leo Szilard, 62, is a Hungarian-born physicist who helped persuade President Roosevelt to launch the A-bomb project and who had a major share in it. In 1945, however, he was a key figure among the scientists opposing use of the bomb. Later he turned to biophysics, and this year was awarded the Einstein medal for "outstanding achievement in natural sciences."
At NEW YORK
Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

A I opposed it with all my power, but I'm afraid not as effectively as I should have wished

http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

Most the designers of the A-Bomb didn't want it to be used. I know Albert didn't. But I see no other way to break the back of a people who refused to surrender. Surrendering and being Japanese was like being a cow and flying. They two just don't go together. I think it would take something this big to end the war. As long as they were willing to die for the cause, and some even tried to die for the cause when they didn't need to, I can't see a better ending to a horrible war.

:kick:
J4Clark

Have you read the interview? He offers some extremely cogent reasons.

It is like asking the Pope how to have sex. Not the right person to ask.

:kick:
J4Clark

They have too much sense.

Once again, I suggest that you read the Leo Szilard interview that I linked above.

as well.

as a matter of fact, they said that we should accept japans surrender in order to SAVE LIVES.

sadly we waited until we ran out of nukes to finally 'see the light'

peace

A couple maybe, but I have a hard time believing that most were of that opinion. But I'm sure you have a reliable source to back up that claim.

II: MILITARY NECESSITY. Centrally related to all of this is information we now have concerning the views of top World War II American military leaders. In this connection it is also important to note at the outset that the recent debate, like much traditional literature, has been characterized by a continued unwillingness to confront some of the most significant modern evidence.

The issue of what U.S. military leaders felt and advised occupies four chapters of THE DECISION. A fundamental claim of those who reject views like those cited above is that the use of the atomic bomb was a matter of military necessity. President Truman himself repeatedly stated that he made the atomic bomb decision because his military advisers told him it was absolutely essential to do so.

If so, one would expect to find evidence of this--both at the time and after-the-fact.

(A) The rather stark truth, however, is that with one very "iffy" exception virtually all the important high-level World War II military leaders who had access to the relevant top secret information are on record as stating that the use of the atomic bomb was not a matter of military necessity. Indeed, many repeatedly, forcefully and consistently stated positions which in today's parlance would be termed strongly "revisionist."

An important contention of THE DECISION is that this fact can no longer be ignored or swept under the rug on the basis of one or another speculative theory as to why all these men would say what they did--and say it so regularly and so often, both privately and publicly, even while President Truman held office and was in position to decide issues of great importance to the various services:

...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

* The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a NEW YORK TIMES reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:

The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.

In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

* Arnold's deputy, Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, summed up his understanding this way in an internal military history interview:

Arnold's view was that it was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it.

Eaker reported that Arnold told him:

When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.

* On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LEMAY: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

THE PRESS: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LEMAY: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

* Personally dictated notes found in the papers of former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman describe a private 1965 dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF) and was subsequently chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. Also with them at dinner was Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general at USASTAF, Frederick L. Anderson. Harriman PRIVATELY noted:

Both men . . . felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used.

Harriman's private notes also recall his own understanding:

I know this attitude is correctly described, because I had it from the Air Force when I was in Washington in April '45.

* On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . .

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . .

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . .

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

* In his "third person" autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated:

The President in giving his approval for these attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.

* Private interview notes taken by Walter Whitehill summarize King's feelings quite simply as: "I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it."

* In a 1985 letter recalling the views of Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy elaborated on an incident that was

very vivid in my mind. . . . I can recall as if it were yesterday, insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question . . . the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision.

* In a separate memorandum written the same year McCloy recalled: "General Marshall was right when he said you must not ask me to declare that a surprise nuclear attack on Japan is a military necessity. It is not a military problem."

There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . .

* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION .)

much more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

for the preliminary campaign although after the first two it would have taken some time for the rest. Kyoto was spared by Sec. of State Stimson because he had visited it and was aware of its cultural and religious importance. Modern evidence still shows dictators don't give up until you make the. negotiations were foggy and shut down by them. The Manchurian invasion coupled with the fact that we were already annihilating their paper cities with high casualties seems to support the argument we had other pressing reasons to use the bomb.

In hindsight you can argue against Truman but the Japanese had made 95% of that choice for him. The bomb frankly stole the regular military's thunder and put a lot of awesome tactical power into the president's hands. I note that the generals opposing Truman had political motivation also to criticize him. Does one sense the shift of military power to the President's desk with this act was an element of their concern? Especially since the measures they were already doing were numberwise more devastating to the island populace?

The "humane" blockade bugaboo still comes up. More lives are more quietly lost in those "bloodless" tactics than in violence because the dictatorship does not care. Truman equally felt a negotiated peace was out of the question on our side as well. He believed his justifications were sound.

What would Churchhill have done? Bombs away. What did MacArthur want for the Red Chinese? Bombs away. This same sort of military also became a lot more hawkish on A-bomb use later, didn't they?

Personally, I wish it hadn't been done. I am not sure it was justified.

...who values human life and liberty so little that he believes no human life nor liberty is worth fighting for.
(unknown sourse)

:shrug:

peace

I haven't read what the general's said yet. Kurt Vonnegut supported it, though. Read "Slaughterhouse 5", where he writes that Dresden wasn't necessary, but Hiroshima was.

Hiroshima is the SECOND most horrid word in the american lexicon succeeded only by Hiroshima (parapharsing)

so i have no clue where you pulled that interpertation of Kurts view other than some invented charector that Kurt was good at creating though i am sure he would only have allowed it to pass the lips of a villin.

peace

nt

peace

nt

or maybe another DU'er will provide a link i don't have one, sorry.

peace

say that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary?

nt

but that doesn't matter to those who play so loosely with the facts.

peace

EARLIER and SAVING MORE LIVES?

peace

nt

we choose to SHOCK and AWE first, then accept their surrender.

peace

..."The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes, for a more complete history of the whole issue.

On edit: Oops, my HTML sucks!

"In March, 1945, I prepared a memorandum which was meant to be presented to President Roosevelt. This memorandum warned that the use of the bomb against the cities of Japan would start an atomic-arms race with Russia, and it raised the question whether avoiding such an arms race might not be more important than the short-term goal of knocking Japan out of the war."

Oh wow.

But I've read so much that's conflicting, that I really can't say what I would have done at the tme.

Now I'm seeing more Americans argue that we didn't need it, but some Japanese are arguing that it was the only thing that stopped the war.

I doubt the question will ever be settled. It was done, and now the important thing is that another one never be dropped.

we must all learn that history if we even hope to achieve your concluding hope.

"It was done, and now the important thing is that another one never be dropped."

peace

If not the US.

A better question is should the US have dropped the bombs where we did, on large civilian populations.

I agree, knowing what we know now, that we should have dropped them in a less populated area. But we didn't know what exactly it was going to do and if the bombs would actually go off. We only had two bombs, so we had to use them in the correct places as if we only had two shots. We could not drop them on Emporer or the Generals because we needed people to surrender. I think we should have dropped one in a less populated area, and waited for a surrender, then, if that didn't work, drop the other on another area that meant more militarily.

:kick:
J4Clark

this is simply the BS they feed us to keep us QUITE and quite frankly very CHILDISH.

peace

You said the US only had two bombs, which is wrong. The Manhattan Project built three bombs and tested one before the other two were used on Japan. There's no way they didn't know what the outcome was going to be...

Violet...

The not-so-impartial historian :)

provided reputable references indicating the Japanese wanted to negotiate a surrender before the 1st bomb. The Japanese initiated discussion but the U.S. ignored those communiques.

There was a faction of Pentagon and military strategists who wanted to use the bomb as a demonstration of power to the Russians.

That faction influenced the huge estimate of expected U.S. troop losses on "island to island" fighting if the bomb was not dropped.

===

we all choose what we want to believe. I have not found disproof of ANY of Howard Zinn's factual material.

Japan wanted to keep a military. And didn't want a US occupation. I also know that they wanted to surrender to the Russians, not the US. What you have to realize is that Japan, attacked the US first.

Would Americans accept a partial surrender from Osama Bin Lauden, or a partial surrender from Hitler, after these people liked millions and millions of people for no real purpose?

Would you allow them a military after what they did to the Chinese? How about the way they treated our troops. Even after our troops were released they died, because they were so gone in starvation.

Troops in line being marched by the Japanese were often killed just for the fun of it. The Japanese even sunk an entire cargo ship full of American captured troops days before surrendering rather than give them up and let them go, because they feared what they would say to the Americans about their treatment.

If you lost all five of your sons, that died for no other reason then for the greed of the Japanese to want US Land, would except anything less than a full unconditional surrender? I would not.

:kick:
J4Clark

But after we dropped both our nukes and firebombed Tokyo, then we allowed them to surrender conditionally.

The only condition they wanted was to keep their emperor.

thaqt was not their only condition. In fact, most of the ranking japanese were against even discussing surrender.
Hirohito himself, through his ambassador, in top secret fashion, talked to Stalin about arranging peace talks with the allies.
Even after the bombs, Hirohito withered as to actually surrender. His cabinet was divided totally.
Read Downfall by Richard B. Frank. It shows how much the Japanese were really looking to surrender before the bombs.

riddle me this than batman... and i am sure you must know the answer since you, and many others, dance so closely around the issue... why DID THEY eventually ACCEPT?

hint: "a ceremonial title only"

same as it ever was... ;->

peace

Peace with Russia, great, but guess what, we are the US. Perhaps the Japanese should be making peace with the US, not Stalin the mass murderer.

:kick:
J4Clark

yet we still nuked them to our eternal shame.

peace

Truman was aware of this top secret desire to surrender at the end of May after Harry Hopkins cabled him telling him that Japan was doomed and the Japanese knew it AND that peace feelers were being put out by the Japanese. Wow, that's like a fair few months before the Potsdam Proclamation. Seems to me that whether or not Japan was wanting to surrender wasn't as big a factor in the bombs being dropped as the fact that the USSR was going to declare war on Japan, and the US didn't want another Berlin-styled occupation happening in Japan...

Violet...

made some overtures to Stalin. But Hirohito never made any of the major decisions and was merely a figurehead in japan at the time. The real power was in the hands of the generals, who were determined to continue the war.
Hirohito NEVER made one attempt before August 1945 to overrule the militarists that ran Japan.

so he couldn't have had any control over the generals at the time and could only be seeking peace with the consent of the leaders at that time.

peace

He had barely done anything at all about putting controls on the militarists--he was a weak personality, and afraid to rock the boat.
On the other hand he had supreme power, but refused to exercise it.
He made several overtures to Stalin, but at that stage was still willing to go against the militarists--who were still in favor of continuing the war.
Only after Nagasaki did Hirohito except responsibility.

the military were running the show.

peace

they were not prepared to except anything like surrender terms. The terms they wanted would have basically created a cease fire while the old regime was still empowered, and able to restart the war in a few years.
The Emporer made a few half hearted gestures toward the Russians, but never ever made any major decisions on his own until after the second bomb was dropped on nagasaki. Even then, he was barely able to overcome a deadlock on wether to continue the war in his own cabinet.
3 voted to continue and 3 voted to sue for peace--the emporer finally, after 14 years made a decision to surrender.

Unconditional surrender nothing else
They were not going to surrender even when surrounded by the 3rd fleet
Truman did the right thing

Remember Wake Island
Phillipines
Truk Island

Yes.

the bomb didn't need to be dropped to end that war.

I'll just re-use a post I made on another forum on this exact same topic. MacArthur didn't think it needed to be used, Eisenhower didn't think it needed to be used Leahy didn't think it needed to be used. British intelligence didn't think it needed to be used. Japan was, in fact, attempting to negotiate a surrender prior to the dropping of the bombs. The only sticking point is the US refused to yield (at the time) on the point of eliminating the idea of an "Emperor", which the Japanese would never agree to (and never did, the US yielded on this after we dropped the bombs). With the godlike status the Emperor has in Japanese tradition, this is not surprising. Had the US yielded on this point weeks earlier, the war would have ended almost instantly. . . . (now on to my older post):

Let's see what British Intelligence had to say about the matter shall we?

"We believe that a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat to be probable. The increasing effects of sea blockade and the cumulative devastation wrought by strategic bombing, which has already rendered millions homeless and has destroyed 25% to 50% of the builtup of Japan's most important cities, shoud make this realization general"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=5#reader-link

Most historians agree (as the excerpt from this book shows) that Japanese defeat was virtually a surety. There was no need to drop an atomic bomb. None.

General Eisenhower had this to say:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

and

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Eisenhower (who had a pretty good handle on what was happening in the war) didn't think the use of the bomb was necessary.


Admiral Leahy (Chief of Staff to FDR and Truman):

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


One of MacArthurs consultants had this to say:

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

So, if Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy (who were certainly privvy to all the same information and intelligence) didn't think it was necessary, how can you believe that it was?

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


I find it interesting that there are so many people in this group (who are normally willing to question the official story and actually look at the facts behind the story) have so willingly accepted the text book version of the use of the atomic bomb. Firstly, to whomever it was that said most died instantly, this is not true. More died later from radiation sickness, cancer, birth defects, etc. In fact, the death toll several years later as a direct result of the bombing was DOUBLE what the initial death toll was. To whomever compared this to the bin Laden situation, that is an entirely inaccurate comparison, it would be better to compare it to Iraq and requiring Iraqi's to give up their belief in Allah before we would accept their surrender. To the Japanese (especially at that time), the Emperor was godlike, they could no more give up that institute than the Vatican could the Pope. It just was not going to happen. The thing is the US DID relent on this point later. Had they done it weeks earlier, well over 200 thousand civilian lives could have been saved.

Of course. It ended the war. It brought peace with Japan. Japan is now a U.S. ally. The proof is in the result.

After all, bin Laden attacked first, had we nuked Afghanistan, it would have ended the war instantly. . . .

I find it surprising that ANYONE on this board would condone the use of an atomic weapon against a nation that was ALREADY defeated and posed no further threat to the US.

It seems a bit hypocritical to me that you people (many of you) are in favor of a historical use of nuclear weapons, despite evidence that it wasn't necessary, but you bash Bush for starting an unnecessary war.

This just seems contradictory to me. How can you support one and denounce the other?

Last time I checked, to be already defeated you would have had to have surrendered and stopped fighting. Japan had done neither.

As for the use of the nukes, we CAN'T use what we know NOW. We have to put ourselves in Truman's shoes THEN. He listened to his advisors, knew the risks and the rewards and ended the war.

Quick question, if Japan was so ready to end the war, why didn't they surrender unconditionally? Why didn't they surrender after the FIRST bomb?

The US did not agree to retaining the institute of Emperor until after the 2nd bomb was dropped.

This is NOT something that was negotiable to the Japanese. The US did agree to this prior to the Japanese surrender, but after the 2nd bomb. Had the US agreed weeks earlier, the war would have been over.

This is much like telling Catholics to give up the Pope or you'd blow them all up. Do you think they'd surrender the office of Pope? No, they would not.

The plain and simple fact (which you obviously failed to see from the lengthy post you apparently failed to read) was that Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy ALL disagreed with the use of the bomb, these were all people that were very privvy to all the information available at the time, and they did not think it was necessary.

You cannot ask a nation to give up an institution as old as the nation is. The Emperor is divine in the minds of the Japanese at that time. They could not give up that institution, as it was part of their entire existence.

The Japanese were slaughtering the Chinese and attacked us for no frickin reason. Unconditional surrender was the only option the deserved, plain and simple. They refused and they got nuked. The rest is history.

Old Testament or New?

Vengeance or Peace?

In each of these questions (if forced to choose), I'd choose the latter.


(edited to add "if forced to choose")

I don't believe a just God would hold what we did in WWII against us. The US played a crucial role in saving the world. Japan attacked us for no reason and dragged the US into the war. Germany and Japan were slaughtering innocents in huge numbers and attacking nations.

They had to be stopped and they were. Result?

Germany - Economic power house
Japan - constitution of peace

Your reference to a "just" God. Does that mean you think of God more as a God of Justice? (as opposed to a God of Love)

IMHO God would want us to do whats right. In times of peace we must strive to better our fellow man and keep the peace. But in times like those of WWII the right thing to do is to fight.

but several times in the OLd Testament a god of love is portrayed.

Yes. Japan did attack the U.S. for a reason. That reason was the U.S. led oil embargo in response to Japanese aggresion on the Asian mainland in late '39-'41. Whether you or I agree or not with the reason is pretty much irrelevent, as a valid reason did exist.

And that reason has been used previously and since by nations we consider(ed) both allies and enemies. Arguably, that very reason was the factor which motivated the U.S. to attack Iraq in the early nineties, with the justification of coming to the aid of another country used to placate the sensibilities of the "righteous".

As for being "dragged into war", yes. But not by Japan. We had been heading down that road since the fall of France. Roosevelt did everything he could to get us involved, without regard to Japan. Germany was the "enemy" of choice. Lend-Lease, the Destroyer-For-Bases deal on so on. Be aware, America would have gotten involved in Europe sooner or later, with or without the 'push' by the Japanese military forces.

That's like saying I won't sell you my car, so you can beat me up and take it.

Embargos are a legal way that nations express dissatisfaction with the actions of other nations.

"Embargos are a legal way that nations express dissatisfaction with the actions of other nations."

yep, and it is a good way to start a war.

peace

The post I was responding to was, in effect, blaming the U.S. for causing the war when it was Japan all the way.

No nation is required to trade with another. War is not a legal or legitimate response to an embargo.

I love how you end your messages with peace while rationalizating Japan's war, btw. (If we are going to be criticized for avatars, it seems only fair to criticize your signoff.)

the u.s. tried to intice japan into attacking, FDR was very shrewed and it worked.


more...
http://globalfreepress.com/images/perl_harbor/recomondations/


"I love how you end your messages with peace while rationalizating Japan's war, btw."

thank you, but i thought we were talking about OUR decision to NUKE a defeated, trying to surrender nation TWICE.

peace

I don't see it.

And, again, not defeated and trying is lame.

peace

So all I can read is what is there.

too bad you can't see it, you may have learned something

:hi:

peace


more...
http://globalfreepress.com/images/perl_harbor/recomondations/

Military brainstorming. Gee that NEVER happens. This is not a plan, it is a proposal.

you have served your purpose, good bye

peace

I'm impressed. Not.

How much did you lose from the Japanese? If they came into your home, raped you or your wife, bombed men, women and children in several countries, and said they will commit suicide rather than surrender, what would you do, tell them "I love you"? Their religious beliefs said they should kill you.

:kick:
J4Clark

I thought we nuked civilians in Hiroshima. People who had no or little choice in their countries military aggression. Much like Americans in the WTC, innocents.

We did, we killed lots of Japanese people that raped, killed, murdered, and believed they were supreme beings.

I am not saying that we should target civilians if we can help it. But, the civilians were making the bombs, guns, ships, and feeding the army that was hurting us. Not to mention most of the Japanese troops were now back on the mainland.


:kick:
J4Clark

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

your cartoon world view must make things easier to understand, eh.

peace

An unimaginable weapon destroys a city. Those surviving don't know what hit them. They are staggering blindly, parts missing, skin melted off and guts exposed. The farther away from the city, the less the witnesses know what happened.

Now which of these witnesses is going to inform the Japanese leadership of the horror of that weapon?

====

The fact is, the war was already over. We had destroyed 90% of their cities. Hiroshima was chosen not because it was a military center (the vast majority of the victims were non-military). Hiroshima was chosen because it was one of the few cities not already leveled.

====

The fact is, the weapon HAD to be dropped to show the Russians what crazy muthafukkas we are with a terrifying weapon. A cruel crime against humanity.

The war was not nearly over, the next step would have been the Japanese mainland and that my friend would have been ugly. Truth is I think people had very little empathy for the japanese at the time. They hit us for no reason, and they were slaughtering the Chinese who to this day STILL hold a grudge about it.

It was hard to feel bad for them at the time, they certainly had done nothing to deserve sympathy from anyone.

"The war was not nearly over"

talk about revisionist history, they had been tryin to surrender for a months by then not to mention defensless against our bombers.

'They hit us for no reason'

you REALLY need to read a FAIR and BALLENCED history book of that era, you sound like a naive HS student here :crazy:


'they were slaughtering the Chinese'

and i wonder where they learned that from? other imperial powers, maybe?

'they certainly had done nothing to deserve sympathy from anyone'

innocent men, women and children CIVILIANS!

you would FIT RIGHT IN with OBL crew :puke:

they are HUMAN BEINGS.

peace

you REALLY need to read a FAIR and BALLENCED history book of that era, you sound like a naive HS student here :crazy:

Oil good enough for them to hit pearl harbor? Perhaps you should rethink yor stance on the Iraqi war then.

and i wonder where they learned that from? other imperial powers, maybe?

Blaming the west for Japans crimes? Sounds like you are pretty fair and balanced yourself huh?

comming from you that is rich, thanks for the chuckle.

"Oil good enough for them to hit pearl harbor? Perhaps you should rethink yor stance on the Iraqi war then."

being DENIED access to oil and resources is a grounds for war throughout time, hello...

and you said there was NO reason for them to attack us.

"Blaming the west for Japans crimes? Sounds like you are pretty fair and balanced yourself huh?"

i am not blamming just point out FACTS of OUR history in the apparently futile hope that you might learn something.

thats aight though... there are plenty of lurkers ;->

peace

You don't have right to OUR property. Your nation doesn't have a right to OUR oil. That's not a valid reason for war.

they may think it is...

peace

That is a rationalization, not an explanation. Japan had no right to trade with the U.S., just as North Korea has not right to such trade right now.

what do you think we would do if 2 or more nations conspired to cut off our access to oil?

welcome to the REAL WORLD.

peace

Sure sounds like it anyhow. Securing resources from other nations without their permission.

face it

our actions are even worse since we still had access to the oil but now can't afford it so we are TAKING it... by any means NECESSARY!

peace

Which you defend.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are the one who is confused and now have turned abusive.

That could be used by the freepers as an excuse to attack the middle east in the next oil shortage.

our military leaders in theater at the time and accepted japans 1 condition in the spring in order to 'SAVE LIVES'...

as you said that decision - finally accepting their 1 condition (after running out of nukes) - has STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.

peace

If half the Japanese population was starving, and you blocked off the food shipments, how many people would have died before they finally surrendered? Half the population could not wait another 4 monthes. Ending the war earily allowed Japan to reconstruct and saved so many more than a land invasion would have.

:kick:
J4Clark

you make me puke.

How many would they have killed if these people were not supporting them?


:kick:
J4Clark

between 1931 (when they invaded Manchuria) and 1945. The japanese caused at least 30 million deaths, mostly in China but also vast numbers in South east Asia, the Phillipines, Korea. They used biological and chemical weapons, used slave labor, forced women in to prostitution--the list goes on and on.

just with different targets.

though i fail to see what that has got to do with not accepting their surrender and nuking 2 cities filled with innocent civilians.

and remember our hands are covered in blood as well.

peace

Check out Gerhard Weinberg's 'A World at Arms'. Also Japan at War by Ted Cook.
Biological warfare was used by Japanese Unit 731 stationed in Harbin, Manchuria. A Japanese Court even found it to be true just last year in a lawsuit by a victim.
In 'Japan at War: An Oral History' a former chemical weapons troop recounts that there were more than 1000 times that chemical weapons were used in China
Read about Japan's malaysian railroad (1000 slave laborers died per mile), Bataan, Singapore, Comfort Women (Korean sex slaves), Manila, Nanking (the worst of thousands of massacres in China)...the list goes on and on

Why must pacifists try to blame everything on the west--every nation has blood on its hands?

Technically there was no surrender to accept until August 15, 1945.
The terms were 'unconditional surrender'
Remeber in 1918 when Germany was not forced to accept unconditional surrender---perhaps people wanted to avoid the misunderstandings of Japanese ultranationalists.
And further--it is not clear what the japanese would have accepted in return for peace before Hiroshima--anything less than a total reform of Japan and the removal of the militarists would have been unacceptable and it was not clear what they would have wanted.

not to mention our own experiments on our own people as well.

like i said we have blood on our hands and we might loose(win?) a 'body count' debate.

'Why must pacifists try to blame everything on the west--every nation has blood on its hands?'

this is a pretty narrow topic 'was it right to nuke japan' a defeated trying to surrender nation twice. 2 defenseless cities filled with inoccent men, women and children?

the evidence makes it plain it wasn't neccessary yet if one points that out they some how 'blame everything on the west'

interesting 'conclusion'... now where have i heard that argument before ;->

peace

He just wants to blame America.

that the early and mid twentiest century Japanese were racist.

They literally thought there was a hierachy among Asians and the Japanese were at the top and they considered non-Japanese Asians untermenschen which literally means underpeople.

and realize there was no need for a 'land invasion' or the dropping of the nukes if we had accepted japans 1 condition to surrender as our military leaders recommended back in the spring.

peace

Allow the leader that killed 26 million people to go free?


:kick:
J4Clark

as he was before the war which we finally agreed to and now history has shown to be a wise decision.

btw: he was a figure head before the war as well and had been for a very long time.

the right wing military was running the show and guilty of all atrocities.

peace

Read Downfall by Richard B. frank. Their being on the verge of surrender is a myth.

.

would you support their bombing U.S. cities to prevent the worldwide destruction and loss of life that Bush's actions are threatening (pre-emptive invasions, global warming, economic mayhem)?

If the United States, and the population, decided to go out and bomb a nation that was neutral in a war, minding its' own damn business, not hurting anyone, would I blame the country for wanting us to surrender completly after a five year war, NO!

That is what Japan did to us. They sent out a force to attack Hawaii, just for the sake of attacking it. Killing many man, women, and children.

So, if you are going to do that, you should pay the penalty.

If Bush went to Japan and just decided to attack it because it looked like a nice piece of real estate, and American said, "yeah! right on" and we continued to attack Japan with our superior weapons and larger army, and willfully and enjoyfully built weapons to assist, would I blame Japan for dropping a Nuclear bomb on New York and LA, no I would not.

Now imagine if we did not drop the bombs. It was the dropping of the bombs on these two cities that has done two things, one, it notified the world what we can do, and second, it prevented anyone from using a weapon on another since.

Gen. McAurther wanted to drop 50 Nuclear bombs on China in the Korean War, because they kept sending in troops. The evidence from Japan is what opponents used to stop it, like Loyd Benston, Secretary of Tresuary and later US Senator, VP candidate with Dukakas.

So what little service it many have been, besides ending WWII earilier, it also prevented WWIII.

:kick:
J4Clark

and your rather loose interpretations of history as well.Both targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were chosen, not for their military importance (they had none), but because their geography would magnify the destructiveness of the bombs.

The Japanese attacked our largest naval base in Pearl Harbor, despite your attempt to state otherwise, in order to cripple our ability to oppose them, compared to a nuclear attack on two cities with NO military importance.........

There is no evidence that any one else HAD a bomb so your other point seems moot as well, excepting that you seem to say that making the entire world fear us is a good idea(?).

MacArthur was a lunatic who was relieved of his command by Truman before he could start another war, and again, your supposition that our shameful actions, slaughtering innocent civilians, has somehow prevented a third world war makes little sense and is simply unproveable.

In my opinion, as the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on anyone, civilian or military, we have forever shamed our nation....

Japanese believed in wiping out the entire white race. They torured millions of CHinese, and assisted the destruction of the Jewish race. DO you think a slap on the wrist was the proper punishment? Or do you think a conditional surrender that allowed war criminals to go free was just fine?


:kick:
J4Clark

that was trying to surrender?

also the japanese did NOT believe in trying to wipe out the white race they believed in COPYING IT ever hear of the Meji Restoration?

look it up...

also look up 'the greater east asian co-prosperity sphere' that is what they were trying to do.

sound familiar?

it should, look to the current day ME situation to refresh your memory.

peace

Calling world war two a slap on the wrist betrays any credibility you might have. But ,in the interest of possibly educating a junior high school student, I wil state simply that allowing the awful actions of others to force you into similarly awful acts is D-U-M-B!
By your specious rationale we were correct in overthrowing Hussein because he tortured his own, better yet ,we should have, by your silly argument nuked Baghdad!

Get a clue........

.

I am torn.

I believe that killing civilians is morally wrong, and should be avoided to the extent that it is possible to do so. But it is my understanding that in WWII killing civilians was pretty much typical behavior on all sides. It should not have been so, but it was a different time, with different morals, and before smart bombs and precision targeting.

I am not a historian. But I have heard that the conventional bombing of Dresden was even more deadly than the either of the Atomic bombs in Japan. Yet we do not agonize over the morality of Dresden. Which begs the question: Is it morally worse to kill tens of thousands of people with an Atom bomb than with conventional bombs?

Then there is this interesting piece, posted recently on DU, which provides an interesting perspective from one faction on the Japanese side. I think it is worth reading:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=4735&mesg_id=4735

I think the Bombs probably shortened the war, and they probably saved lives. Would we have had the same result if we dropped the bombs on unpopulated areas? There is no way of knowing.

If we had not dropped the bomb, and if the war went on for months or years, with hundreds of thousands of more deaths, would we now be discussing the morality of our decision NOT to drop the bomb?

Unfortunately, morality comes in all shades of gray.

mostly of the reasons you mentioned. I think the war has been going on for 6 years, over 60% of the male population was in Europe and Japan, people wanted the war to end as soon as possible. But I don't blame Truman for what he did, that was probaly the one of the most, if not the most difficult decision a US President ever had to make.

we should have accepted japans 1 condition to surrender, let them keep their emporer, in the spring of 45.

a decesion that has stood the test of time, we no longer have japanese airplanes flying into us anymore.

to drop that horrid thing on a defeated, ready to surrender nation's two defenseless cities, filled with innocent civilians, without warning will be our eternal shame, which grows worse as we continue to stay in denial.

you raised dresden as somehow being an excuse when the point is the massive death and destruction that can be caused by a SINGLE PLANE carrying a SINGLE BOMB.

there was and is no excuse ESPECIALLY when you expose the BIG LIE - to save lives - since that seems to be the FAVORITE excuse that has been programmed into us since day 1.

peace

the point is the massive death and destruction that can be caused by a SINGLE PLANE carrying a SINGLE BOMB

Why does it matter?

Why is One plane worse than One Thousand planes?

Why is one bomb worse than thousands?

Dresden was much WORSE than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden had NO point other than to show the Soviets (and Stalin in particular) what the combined might of the US and British airpower could do. It served no purpose militarily, it did not hasten the end of the war, it did not 'break' the Germans. Dresden was going to be in 'Allied' hands within a few weeks whether or not it was destroyed by air. You can nominally make the argument that the Atomics used in Japan helped bring about the surrender of the Japanese, you cannot do that with Dresden.

And while you might be right that some elements within Japan were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped, you cannot make that argument in regards to the Japanese Military, they were still looking for 'terms' that would allow them to stay in power, which is one condition we, the US, were not going to (and did not) allow to happen. And face it the Japanese Military was in control. And looking at Okinawa, the invasion of Japan would have been horrenous to everyone, The US Military, the Japanese Military, and the Japanese citizens themselves. Millions would have been killed on ALL sides.

"the point is the massive death and destruction that can be caused by a SINGLE PLANE carrying a SINGLE BOMB"

>> Why does it matter?

hello...

"Dresden was much WORSE than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden had NO point other than to show the Soviets (and Stalin in particular) what the combined might of the US and British airpower could do. It served no purpose militarily, it did not hasten the end of the war, it did not 'break' the Germans. Dresden was going to be in 'Allied' hands within a few weeks whether or not it was destroyed by air. You can nominally make the argument that the Atomics used in Japan helped bring about the surrender of the Japanese, you cannot do that with Dresden."

what? the same case is made for dropping the bombs in japan, not to mention it is the bomb that keeps on givin long after it has been dentonated.

the second point i already addressed but will again, the japanese had 1 condition to surrender for many months by that time and when we ran out of nukes we finally accepted their 1 condition which has stood the test of time.

"And while you might be right that some elements within Japan were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped, you cannot make that argument in regards to the Japanese Military, they were still looking for 'terms' that would allow them to stay in power, which is one condition we, the US, were not going to (and did not) allow to happen. And face it the Japanese Military was in control. And looking at Okinawa, the invasion of Japan would have been horrenous to everyone, The US Military, the Japanese Military, and the Japanese citizens themselves. Millions would have been killed on ALL sides"

no japanese politician, nor military officer, who were running the show, could surrender without that 1 condition being meet, keeping the emporer, which we eventually conceeded, thankfully.

just think of how many LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED if we had accepted their surrender before okinawa as the military leaders in theater had recommended in order to SAVE LIVES.

you see even though i feel STRONGLY on moral grounds that we should never use such weapons or any others for that matter that TARGET CIVILIANS, i need not even get into that argument when we have our own military leaders in theater at the time pointing out it's missuse.

hope that helps :hi:

peace

IS your point, why is one bomb so much worse than thousands?

And btw you are incorrect when you say 'one condition' and you mean 'maintence of the the Emperor', the conditions the Japanese Military wanted prior to August '45 included the Japanese Military Heirarchy staying in power. Which was something the US (nor the Brits for that matter) was not going to go for. It wasnt until after the use of Atomics and the Firebombing of Tokyo that the Japense Military (and even then not all of them accpeted it) realized that the US was not going to accept them staying in power.

Surrender terms issued by a 'civilian government' with no real power over the country are not terms than could be accepted.

are you joking :crazy: ever hear of radiation?

the japanese were ready to surrender and there was 1 main condition that EVERYONE agreed on and that was the emperor and as i have said repeated our military leaders at the time recommended we accept it TO SAVE LIVES.

'Surrender terms issued by a 'civilian government' with no real power over the country are not terms than could be accepted.'

then why did we finally accept them then :crazy:


sorry pal, but i really on the men who were there and the historical documents to base my decisions on not propaganda but out by OUR side.

some will NEVER accept even one of our crimes in history even one as obvious and horrific as this after all these years.

peace

Please, read your history. Case closed.

If you're going to read your history though, don't read the textbooks supplied by US high schools. Read the ones that actually delve into the history.

Then read the opinions of people who were actually involved (such as those of MacArthur, Leahey, Eisenhower, etc. that I've already posted).

which as a loyal Dem I hate to use

"Here we go again"

First Japanese perfidy:

They raped half of Asia with thier bogus Asia for the Asiatics campaign which was really a codeword for Japanese hegenomy of over other Asian peoples.

The Bataan Death March where Americans and Filipinos (who the Japanese considered untermenschen) were marched to their death. This was after the Japanese commander promised the American in command his troops would be treated humanely if they surrendered.

In fact during the march to prevent the Japanese soldiers from raping their pubescent daughers Filipino mothers smeared feces on their daughter's faces to make them unattractive.

Don't forget the Comfort Girls. The Japanese willy nilly took Korean women into bondage and used them as their prostitutes

Don't forget the Rape of Nanking.

There was an editorial in the NY Times recently by Nicholas Kristoff who is no rightiwinger and he relied on recently released Japanese archives to reenforce the case for the bombings.

On August 8th after the bombs were dropped an American pilot was shot down.

To stop the torture at the hands of the Japnese he "confessed" that the Americans had another fifty to one hundred atomic bombs.

What was the reaction of the Japanes military to this revelation?

Pause

Pause

They wanted to fight on.

One military leader said they were willing to commit clllective suicide.

The civilian leadership latched on to the bombing and used it as the justification to surrender.

We let them keep the Emperor so he could maintain a sense of continuity in the post war period.

Case closed.

As it pressed on, it became clear that the Japanese warriors, following their Bushido code, would not just quietly surrender.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/saipan.htm
...30,000 {Japanese} soldiers held Saipan. The civilian population was indoctrinated that the Americans would rape the women, kill the children and leave no one alive...
<snip>
But on the night of July 7 {1945}, 3,000 Japanese charged in the largest suicide rush of the war. Stunned, the Americans fell back, but quickly recovered and wiped out the Japanese in an all-night fight. {Admiral} Nagumo and his staff committed suicide before giving the order to advance.

All but 1,000 of the Japanese military units were dead, along with 22,000 civilians. The soldiers had pushed or pulled many over cliffs, but most had committed suicide by jumping themselves or by holding onto grenades in the caves. American casualties numbered 16,525.

My father would have been next to die in one of those suicide attacks by the Japanese.

Well said.

I do not agree that he dropped the Atomic Bomb, but I do agree with him afterwards when he told his advisors "this bomb should never be used again."

bombing of Japan. I read once that Truman read all the hate mail he received after the bombings. He refused to be shielded from people's thoughts about what he had done. I have never been able to resolve this question. I keep thinking about all those innocent people who died so horribly.

the purpose of war is to inflict the greatest amount of casualties in the shortest amount of time possible, so that the end of war is quicker.

Dropping the bombs brought a swift and decisive end to the war.

B

No. The purpose and agenda of war is to deny the opposition the ability to wage war. (Sun Xsu, Guderian, Eisenhower and Churchill and pretty much said the same thing re: this.)

Your statement may be part and parcel of the total depending on variables such as geo-politics, but is is not complete nor true in every case.

his Diary

July 25, 1945
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

If someone who is opposed to using it on women and children does so, the reasoning must have been very profound.


:kick:
J4Clark

Q At the Oak Ridge and Chicago branches of the A-bomb project, was there any division of opinion?

A I'll say this: Almost without exception, all the creative physicists had misgivings about the use of the bomb. I would not say the same about the chemists. The biologists felt very much as the physicists did.

Q When did your misgivings first arise?

A Well, I started to worry about the use of the bomb in the spring of '45. But misgivings about our way of conducting ourselves arose in Chicago when we first learned that we were using incendiary bombs on a large scale against the cities of Japan.

This, of course, was none of our responsibility. There was nothing we could do about it, but I do remember that my colleagues in the project were disturbed about it.

Q Did you have any knowledge of Secretary of War Stimson's concern at this time on the question of using the bomb?

A I knew that Mr. Stimson was a thoughtful man who gave the bomb serious consideration. He was one of the most thoughtful members of the Truman cabinet. However, I certainly have to take exception to the article Stimson wrote after Hiroshima in "Harper's Magazine." He wrote that a "demonstration" of the A-bomb was impossible because we had only two bombs. Had we staged a "demonstration" both bombs might have been duds and then we would have lost face.

Now, this argument is clearly invalid. It is quite true that at the time of Hiroshima we had only two bombs, but it would not have been necessary to wait for very long before we would have had several more.

Q Were you aware then of the attitude of Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard or of the memorandum by Lewis L. Strauss?

A No.

Q So, in effect, there was no concerted opposition to military use of the bomb?

A No, there was none. You see, it would have been impossible for me to go and talk with Lewis Strauss because of the secrecy rules.

Q Do you feel that President Truman and those immediately below him gave full and conscientious study to all the alternatives to use of the atomic bomb?

A I do not think they did. They thought only in terms of our having to end the war by military means.

I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace.

Much more
http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

There was good evidence at the time that the Japanese were ready to surrender, without us dropping the A-bomb on them.

The "it saved lives" argument is a lie.

We did not drop the A-bomb to make the Japanese surrender.

We did it to scare the Soviets.

End of story.

when they thought we had fifty more atomic weapons?

And why did they fight so ferociously at Okinawa when they lost all land cover?


Facts are stubborn things.

not that we couldn't have rapidly made more i suppose but the SHOCK and AWE of the world had been achieved.

no politician, let alone military leader as you pointed out, at that time would have surrendered without that condition being met.

so that is why they accepted as they had been trying to surrender for a long time.

peace

ting

http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

The Japanese Empire of that era is not the same thing as the country of Japan is now.

If anyone doubts what they were capable of back then, read up on what happened in Manchuria during WWII.

The dropping of the bomb was unfortunate.. but the whole situation was unfortunate anyway... Truman had to decide what would be more of a disaster, and what would be less....

Considering how dedicated they were to fight down to the last man... it's hard to imagine this.. but the LEAST disasterous thing to do was to vaporize the city.. buildings, civlians, women, children... everything.

It's very sad, there's no doubt about it. But the story we'd be talking about today, had we been forced to scrap it out down to the last man standing, would have been much more heartbreaking.

Remember, there was even a failed coup after the second bomb to prevent the surrender.. they were ready for a knockdown/dragout.

Anon

If he did forgive me, but if he didnt i think it was pretty bad.

Japanese soldiers murder Chinese civilians. In response, the US Army terrorizes Japanese civilians whose sole fault is having been born in the same coutnry as the Japanese soldiers.

People are not their countries.

Humm, so who build all the bombs and missles and ammo that killed millions of people? They just appeared, poof, out of thin air?


:kick:
J4Clark

poof

peace

exactly how destructive the bomb was.

Dropping the first bomb was wrong, but possibly excusable, considering the context. The people making the decision didn't fully realize the implications of what they were doing, especially in the midst of all of the other craziness that was going on around them.

The second bomb was almost certainly not necessary, though.

This is one issue that can only properly be approached from the standpoint of the times in which the decision was made. From a practical standpoint, Truman had no choice. FDR would have done the same thing. Even William O. Douglas, had he been chosen VP in 1944, as supposedly was considered, would have dropped the bomb, his later assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

WW II was a war of a sort that is almost impossible to understand from today's perspective. It was a true war of national survival. If ever there has been a war that truly placed good against evil in a battle with everything on the line, this was it. This was a war the allies had to win -- had to -- no maybes allowed. And in carrying on the fight, not only did the U.S. send millions of American boys into battle, but we also totally transformed the domestic landscape, as mobilization and support for the war effort became the overwhelming reality of daily life. And as everyone knows, the sacrifices made in America are nothing compared to those made in Western Europe and the Far East.

Given all this, there is no way any U.S. president could have withheld the use of a new weapon that had the capacity of posting a knock out blow to the other side. To have done that, while allied soldiers continued to die in the field, would have been inconceivable under the realities of the time.

The fact that the U.S. was the first country to use the bomb is, in my view, something that will always stain our national heritage. It's original sin, in a non-religious sense. It's a guilt we will always carry with us.

But did Truman have any real choice? No way. It was a done deal the second those bombs were created.

in theater at the time recommended accepting it in order to SAVE LIVES.

he had options yet they choose to SHOCK and AWE the WORLD and they did, to this very day...

peace

I respect your viewpoint, but that's revisionist history and not well accepted at all. Eric Alterman has a good summary of the current views on the subject on his blog (scroll down to Aug. 6).

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp

(edit for wrong date on Alterman blog)

in theater at the time... OUR military leaders.

and you call that 'revisionist' history, lol

sign of the times i suppose...

i've said it before and i'll say it again, some will never accept any of our crimes no matter how obvious or especially how HORRIFIC even after all these years.

Hiroshima is the SECOND most horrific word in the american lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI.

~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

There's no point in going tit-for-tat on whose history is better. That will take us nowhere. Most leading historians disagree with you, but some worthy ones agree. But as you probably know, the information that has come out of Japanese archives strongly indicates Japan still had a lot of fight left in her prior to the bombs falling.

As I'm sure you also know, many military leaders of the time have reported very different feelings than those reflected by Admiral Leahy.

"the information that has come out of Japanese archives strongly indicates Japan still had a lot of fight left in her prior to the bombs falling."

that is my POINT. no one in japan would have surrendered WITHOUT that condition being met, even if we were ready to drop 50 more nukes as the Kristof NYT article points out but he fails to reveal WHY they finally did surrender even with such an attitude... it was because their 1 condition was FINALLY MEET in secret and it has withstood the test of time as being a WISE decision.

"As I'm sure you also know, many military leaders of the time have reported very different feelings than those reflected by Admiral Leahy."

i am talking about the ones RUNNING the SHOW and i am not aware of 'MANY' other military leaders thinking different other than the one who heading the nuke project.

peace

I guess that's your way of dismissing an editorialist for one of the world's great newspapers.

By the way Marx was a newspaper columnist too.

leaders who where in theater and in command AT THE TIME.

peace

In a democracy, the military leaders don't get the final say. The president does.

or any other totalitarian state. and i suppose that makes him infalible, eh?

interesting defense...

peace

The president has the final say, that's why he ends up in that office. He listens to input and that takes ALL of the input and makes a decision. Military leaders are often woefully ignorant of diplomacy and only tend to think about military options.

And no, no one is infallible. However, based on the result, Truman was clearly right on this one.

the war yet at the same time u justify his actions as 'saving lives'?

you may need to take a logic course though i pitty the instructor.

peace

Well, Japan surrendered. We had a very peaceful transition of power. Japan became an ally and an economic power. So it worked.

Sometimes the lives you save aren't just those lives you save today. Truman secued true peace with Japan.

japan had 1 condition to surrender once that was met the war ended which had nothing to do with nuking to cities filled with the innocent and which could have happened earlier as the military leaders in theater at the time recommended, to SAVE LIVES.

if we would have accepted that 1 condition earlier REAL lives that were wasted in lie in real graves today would have been saved as well as those fictional lives you referenced since as even you admit the decision was a successful one letting them keep the figure head emporer in place.

peace

Started the war. THEIR condition delayed ending it. That seems pretty clear where the blame lies. Losing sides don't dictate conditions, especially when they started the war.

I admit the WHOLE scenario was a scucessful one. After the bombings, Japan rolled over and THEN truly became defeated. At that point, it worked to be magnanimous.

we NUKED her TWICE against the advice of our own military leaders in theater at that time.

yet some will continue to try and justify any of our sins no matter how horrific or obvious.

peace

I prefer, "Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."

I also think of nations still at war as NOT having been defeated. Nations willing to surrender are nations that are delaying to get better terms, not nations that are actually doing anything other than delaying.

advice, you know the ones who were there... at the time... in order to 'SAVE LIVES'

peace

How it's OK to take the advice of military leaders here, but then those same leaders get criticized every other time.

Japan was not just a military situation. It was a military, political and diplomatic situation. The guy in charge of all that is the president.

Clearly, the actions HE took worked.

tell it to the men and women and children who died on okinawa how that was funny?

his actions worked? what accepting their 1 condition? i agree, but this thread is about nuking a defeated nation TWICE.

seems to me it wasn't necessary since the war ended not because of the nukes but because we finally accepted their 1 condition.

peace

When, in fact, Truman took several in this situation. They included nuking two Japanese cities which made surrender a much more acceptable circumstance for them. You can't take one action without the others. They were integrated.

If you want to focus on Japanese attitudes about surrender, you should check out the island-hopping campaign. Take a look at how well Japanese soldiers and civilians surrendered in those cases.

was it right to nuke a defeated nation, that was trying to surrender, TWICE?

i say, no.

peace

Nations that negotiate are not yet defeated.

typically...

peace

And stop the war. Lay down their arms and accept their fate.

Too bad they didn't do that. It would make this debate nonexistent.

editorial.


An American pilot was shot down on August 8th after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After being tortured he "confessed" that America had fifty more atomic bombs.

And the loons in the Japanse military wanted to fight on.

The civilian government latched on to the bombings as a justification to surrender.

The Japanese waged aggressive war and lost.

out that they were ready to fight on even if we had 50 more nukes ready to go?

that one?

well, the answer is because we FINALLY accepted their 1 condition as OUR military leaders had recommended we accept all along, let them keep their figure head emporer in order to...

SAVE LIVES

and time has proven them RIGHT...

peace

In Alperwitz's book 'Decision' -- he pointed out that the GOP and Hoover were willing to keep Korea on the table to get them out of Manchuria...never mind the ONE condition the Japanese officially asked for months before the bombing.
But let's face it...the warmongers are hardly going to miss an opportunity to test a new toy
The real question would have been--why a city--some in FDR and Truman's cabinet were calling for it to be used on Mt Fuyijama or some other 'demonstration' site,,,
This topic question is more of the same history 'framing' that answers it'self


more bang for the buck...and more freedom

One thing I've never been able to get my hands on is any material looking into whether a complete and total embargo of the Islands were ever discussed or not.

From where I sit (deep into hindsight land), it seems to me that an embargo would have been an effective, if not efficient method of starving the country into submission.

Despite all the grandstanding that is often said concerning the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, not only did Japan have less than 250 "qualified pilots" (i.e., a trainee advanced enough in flight school to take off from the runway)from which to draw Kamikaze pilots from but also the oil situation was so critical that for the six days prior to the first atomic bomb being dropped, Japanese air flights were at an absolute zero (no pun intended). In other words, any air opposition to the embargo would have been, at best, minimal.

Naval opposition? What naval opposition? One battleship, three baby-carriers (with 27 qualified pilots between them), seven cruisers and less than twenty destroyers left.

So, in effect, I can't see how an embargo would not have worked. Granted, embargo's didn't become trendy in the West until the late 50's, but it appears to have been a valid strategy which was overlooked.

(Sources used: Paul Kennedy's 'Rise and Fall of the Great Empires' for critical oil situations; Charles Patterly's, "The Air War in the Pacific" for numbers of pilots and servicable aircraft remaining. Charles Patterly's, "The Naval War in the Pacific" for servicable ships of the line remaining- Great research material all if you dig that sort of thing...)

~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

Again, our hindsight is qualifiably 20/20. Many of the U.S Army Air Force commanders in Europe said much the same thing regarding the fire-bombing of non-military targets. According to the Paul kennedy source I cited earlier, by '44 and '45, the air-war over Europe was simply not the most effective means of waging war. As Churchill was asked what after America entered the war, What will it take for the Allies to win? He replies, "The proper application of overwhelming might". There are many, many instances in which our application was, in fact, not proper (or in context, neither the most effective or the most efficient means).

The reason America was hell-bent in using it is much the same reason America used inferior armored fighting vehicles- because we had them. Mistakes were made. American tactics at the beginning of our involvement in the war were, in many cases, downright criminal...

Ah heck, I've got to split and get some aspirin for my g/f. In any case, I've bookmarked this particular discussion and I hope to return to this (and your particular historical interpretation of the events as you seem to be a bit more well-read and civil, despite the fact that I think we fundamentally agree with each other...lol) discussion as soon as possible. Check back later if you're in the mood as I may have "eureka'd" another idea or two re: this...

this issue is very dear to me as my wife and children our japanese and i have family there as well as i myself having lived and taught for 5 years there.

after reviewing the historical record, in my free time as am am no historian by any means though i do subscribe wholeheartedly to standing on the shoulders of those who have done the research and learning from them, i'm so lazy ;-) , it has become clear to me, especially after following the work and the subsequent debate that has arison from Gar Alperovitz, that the bombs were not necessary to end the war firstly, and secondly the BIG LIE that it 'saved lives' is provably wrong and so i will join all debates here to bring these facts to light.

in a nut shell, it was well known even at that time by our leaders that japan was a defeated and prostrate nation looking to surrender, months before the bombs were dropped, with one condition that most of our military leaders recommended we accept in order to SAVE LIVES.

to look into more details from a real historian i recommend checking out this site that goes into plenty of detail regarding this issue and the work of Gar Alperovitz.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

i have booked marked this thread and, to borrow a phrase, shall return ;-)

:hi:

peace

And keep using them, even though they are wrong.

Japan was neither:

a) defeated -- you have to stop fighting for that to be true
or b) prostrate -- they were still bowing down to their emporer and not bowing down in complete surrender.

they were defeated wether you want to admit to it or not - a mental condition? - is irrelevant and by the summer of 1945 simply trying to defend themselves however poorly considering the fact that they were defeated by all practical definitions and could not even muster up any air power to defend their skys.

prostrate save for 1 condition, excuse me, and of course they never wavered on that 1 condition until it was met even after being nuked, TWICE.

think of how many lives, OURS included, IF we had accepted that one condition months before dropping those horrid weapons.

think about it...

peace

That "more civilians would have died" line is crap. We did it to save our OWN lives, not THEIRS. We wanted a quick and easy way to end the war, and well, who cares if we obliterate a couple of their cities?Hell, they're just a bunch of little brown people, right? And serves them right for bombing Pearl Harbor, right? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out...

:nuke:

we had listened to our military leader in theater at the time who recommended accepting japans 1 condition in the spring in order to SAVE LIVES.

peace

We let them keep the Emperor so the Japanese could have someone to rally around during the post war period.

Also, the Emperor admitted his culpability and became a figure that was respected not revered.

i put secretly in quotes since it is hard to hide the FACT that japan to this very day still has an emporer.

peace

From the First Instrument of Surrender:

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender."

See the full text at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/j4.htm

Excellent collection of documents at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/wwii.htm

They terrorized other Asian people. The Japanese were as racist as the Nazis except they had different targets. They thought they were of a superior culture to other Asians.

They kidnapped Korean women and turned them into unpaid sex slaves or whores.

During the Bataan death march , mothers of Filipino pubescent girls rubbed shit on their daughter's faces so they would be unattractice to the Japanese soldiers and not be rape-bait.

Gimme a break. America is not close to cornering the market on racism and hypocrisy.

I keep coming back to another poster's most poingnant comment about this site

"Some folks at this site are just as reactionary as some of the Freepers but they come from another direction."

trying to SURRENDER... we were MUCH better at terror on a LARGE SCALE then they were and that is why we WON.

as a matter of fact we are now still in the 'GAME' and have pretty much borrowed japans playbook for 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' but are applying it to the ME.

don't forget VIETNAM either...

peace

Do you have any idea what a military campaign in Japan would have looked like?
Millions of japanese would have died.

you went to american public school right... well you PASS, i guess :evilgrin:

peace

Truman wanted to end the war and save the lives of US soldiers. Dropping the bomb did that. It also unleashed the cold war, although he didn't know at the time that it would. It killed a lot of japanese civilians and caused terrible problems with cancer and birth defects for people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived the blast.

I'm not sure exactly accurate any movie is...

However there has been a movie called "Hiroshima" on HBO recently.

It's newly made (last 10 years I would guess) but parts of it have that "old movie" feel, and wherever possible they have used clips of actual video from back then intertwined with it.

For anyone intersted in this thread, it's an interesting movie to watch. I highly reccomend it, I've seen it about 3 times.

Also, I'd like to give props to a point that was made earlier in the thread, we cannot judge this issue on what we know now. We have to judge by what they knew back then.

Also, someone suggested we should have threatened to drop it first instead of just doing it.

In the movie, and I'm sure this part is real because I think I've seen the actual footage. He did do that, but didn't let them know what we had. Something to the effect of, and I'm paraphrasing: "Surrender unconditionally now or you will face complete and utter destruction, save the people of Japan this hardship and surrender now"

Actually telling them "We have an atomic bomb and we will drop it" could have backfired in some way that neither me nor anyone here could predict. War and politics are fickle things.

Amazing how the lives of millions of people all over the world and the course of history would be forever changed by one small group of a few symbols...

E=MC^2

-An

it would have cost even more since they were still willing to fight to the end.

the irony of the whole 'It Saved Lives' justification - the only one folks use anymore - is that our OWN MILITARY LEADERS in theater, at that time, recommended we accept their 1 condition, months before, in order to SAVE LIVES.

peace

We all know those Japanese were rapists and killers! It doesnt matter if THEIR civilians died because they were never fully human to begin with! OUR soldiers NEVER rape or slaughter indiscriminately! WHO CARES if they were going to surrender! WHO CARES if the bombing of Nagasaki was (even IF Hiroshima was debatable) COMPLETELY UNNEEDED?

I wonder how this thread would go if it had been two American cities nuked by the Japanese....

What was the name of the bomber that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?

What was the name of the pilot?

What was the name of the bomb itself?

What island did the bomber take off from woth the bomb on board before it dropped it on the city?

What was the name of the bomber that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?

Enola Gay

What was the name of the bomb itself?

Fat Boy

The bombs names were Fat Man and Little Boy.

Also, that's the title of a great movie with Paul Newman, Laura Dern , and John Cusack.

Paul Newman plays the General in charge of the Manhattan Project.

It has portraits of all the players like Enrico Fermi and Oppenheim.

It's cool to see those guys sitting on a bench discussing physics.


Great movie..

Correct on Enloa Gay.

(whom the pilot, Paul Tibbets named after his mother Enola Gay Tibbets)

Correct on Fat Man and Little Boy.

FYI. The general Paul Newman played is General Leslie Groves.

The island the bomb took off from was Tinjan. (pronounced Tin-e-an)

also FYI, the aircraft carrier who delivered the bomb to Tinjan Island (forgot the name) was sunk immediatly afterwards by a Japanese sub on it's way home, taking 800 souls to the bottom.

Also, yeah, Enrico Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer.. Say what you will about ethics, it was a fantastic bit of physics.

-An

That character, played by the late actor, Robert Shaw delivered a harrowing monologue on the subject:

Quint: Ah, well. It's a tattoo. I got that removed.
Hooper: Don't tell me. Don't tell me. Mother. What is it?
Quint: Mr. Hooper, that's the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
Hooper: You were on the Indianapolis?
Martin: What happened?
Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, chief. It was comin' back, from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen footer. You know...you know that when you're in the water, chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. Well, we didn't know. ’Cause our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. Huh huh. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, chief. The sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know it's... kinda like old squares in battle like… uh, you see on a calendar, like the battle of Waterloo. And the idea was, the shark would go for nearest man and then and then he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark would go away. Sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into you. Right into your eyes. You know the thing about a shark, he's got...lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white. And then, ah then you hear that terrible high pitch screamin' and the ocean turns red and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin' they all come in and rip you to pieces. Y'know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don't know how many sharks, maybe a thousand. I don't know how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin' chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player, bosun's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up. Bobbed up and down in the water, just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. He's a young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper, anyway he saw us and come in low. And three hours later a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened? Waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went in the water, three hundred and sixteen men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb.

It saved AMERICAN lives and, in war, saving the lives of YOUR people matters more than saving the lives of the enemy that has tried to destroy you.

But I guess a great many other people do care. I care because my grandfather was a WWII veteran for whom an apology from Japan for what it did to the POWs would have been a good thing to have. But because of the bomb, Japan was able to build a history of itself being a victim in the war, so there never was an apology, and as far as I know there hasn't been to this day. And no offence, but Japan NEVER tried to destroy the US. Japan did enough terrible things without making up crap that isn't true about them. Japan was focused on creating their own sphere of influence in the Pacific, which involved taking control of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands, and cutting off Australia as a base for the Allies. Hell, the Japanese didn't even try to destroy Australia, so I find a claim that Japan tried to destroy the US a bit bizarre....

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It makes sense. I am sure if we send in our troops to die, we would build special tanks and bombs that weaved around the innocent people and only hit the enemy troops.

Why should we choose to save 250,000 US troops when we can kill them and the 200,000 innocent Japanese people that allied themselves with Nazis to take over the world and divid the United States and wipe out all non-whites and subject our people to an evil tryannical government?

I mean what was Truman thinking?!?!

Geez, we should have killed more people. I mean our troops are not innocent young 18 year old boys. They are soldiers that don't have wives, children, or lives. They are not real people like the ones in Japan.
<Sarcasm>

:kick:
J4Clark

what don't you get about accepting japans offer to surrender and ending the war even EARLIER to save OUR BOYS lives as OUR military leaders in theater at the time advised?

WHY is that so hard to understand and if we go by your logic - saving OUR boys lives - you would think you would be one of the first to get it.

:shrug:

peace