Turn on the History channel. We didn't have to A Bomb Japan.

Japan and the emporer had already asked Stalin to intervene to surrender. Truman and the gov't knew about it but kept it secret. He used the bomb only to intimidate russia and stalin.

Once again, our gov't lied to us and as a bonus killed a couple of hundred thousand japanese.

I'm so proud of my gov't.

Truman was suspicious of the Russians and didn't want them getting a foothold in Japan.

There was no need to drop those bombs. Most certainly, no need to drop the second one, even if you could argue the first was necessary to keep Russia in line.

doesn't mean you should use that as a source for history. i didn't see the show but if the posters syampsis is correct, that's not the whole story.

The Russians were planning on invading Japan (more Japanese died in Siberia, prisoners and civilians from Manchuria and Korea, after the war than died in the atomic blasts).The Soviets, Chinese and everyone else did not want to negotiate an armistice with the Japanese. But the Japanese were not planninmg on surrendering---they wanted a negotiated cease fire.

And Russia was actually on our side in this war, too.
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth

Japan did indeed ask for Stalin's help in negotiating a cease-fire. Stalin left them twisting in the wind as he built up his forces along the border of Manchuria for a surprise attack. It became abundantly clear to the Japanese that they would get absolutely no help from the Soviets.

Our government was aware of the Japanese overtures, but was intent on total surrender, not conditional surrender. Particularly, the hawks in the Truman administration wanted to dethrone the emperor and make Japan a democracy. This became a sticking point in negotiations which led a group of powerful Japanese generals to try to overthrow the government. They surrounded the royal household, confiscated taped copies of Hirohito's surrender announcement, and almost succeeded in toppling the government. For some insight into the whole situation, I recommend "Behind Japan's Surrender: The Secret Struggle That Ended an Empire" by Lester Brooks. Fascinating book.

Further, based on the casualty rates in the Pacific campaign, particularly Okinawa, it was estimated that America could expect something on the order of 1 million casualties in an invasion of the Japanese islands.

I can't condone the use of the bomb, but I'm damned thankful the decision wasn't mine to make.

Don't get your history from TV; it sucks.

so it's not just the teeVee...

peace

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

Don't ask for such a regressive thing. TeeVee does suck; it sucks the brains out of people’s heads directly. That is the reason why the GOP worships it like it was a god and cannot think for them selves.

http://www.plim.org/SkullBones.htm
(snip)
William Taft (initiated into Skull and Bones in 1878) was elected president of the U.S. in 1909 and President Harding appointed him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921, which he served until his death in 1930.

Henry L. Stimson (initiated into the Skull and Bones 1888) was appointed to seven high government positions by seven presidents. His first appointment was Secretary of War by President Taft. His last appointment was Secretary of War under President Roosevelt and Truman. Mr. Millegan states at his web site: “He was “ultimately responsible” for the internment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII and oversaw the Manhattan Project, America’s atomic bomb program. Stimson also took credit for swaying Truman into dropping “the bomb” on Japan.”

In the JFK administration Skull and Bones members played an important role in dictating policy. According to the paper entitled George Bush, Skull & Bones and the New World Order by Paul Goldstein & Jeffrey Steinberg, it states that Kennedy had personally asked Robert A. Lovett, a partner in the Wall Street investment firm of Brown Brothers, to join his Cabinet. Robert A. Lovett did not want to become a part of JFK’s administration. Instead, he recommended a number of Bonesmen into the critical posts. McGeorge Bundy was appointed Kennedy’s National Security Adviser. Averell Harriman was made Under Secretary of State for Asian Affairs, a position that placed him in charge of many of the most critical decisions along with the disaster in Vietnam. William Bundy remained in a senior post at CIA (see website http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/whitepaper.htm).
These men and others in JFK’s administration had more control over foreign policy than JFK did as president. There was a network of secret societies besides Skull and Bones, such as Council of Foreign Affairs (CFR) that also dictated policy.

Two quotes in the book Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs confirms this. Special Advisor to JFK John K. Galbraith said: “Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had say, but foreign policy was still with the Council of Foreign Relation people (p. 127).” The Former Ambassador to Saigon, Frederick F. Nolting said: “The axis of Lodge (CFR) and Harriman (CFR) was too strong for President Kennedy to thwart or overcome (p. 130).” These are just a few instances of the CFR’s influence in the world of U.S. politics. This should be proof to the skeptic that there are secret organizations that dictate polices of the country without the consent of the American people.
(snip)

they were beaten already.

In fact, if a President HAD ordered the invasion of Japan, that President would have deserved to be impeached and removed from office for needlessly having sent to their deaths 1 million Americans (their number).

Until Japan surrendered. They were still fielding millions of troops and the military wanted to fight to the last.

which we finally accepted when we ran out of nukes.

all military leaders in theater at the time agree that nuking a defeated nation was unecessary, so don't bother with your revisionist history of how it saved lives, please.

peace

They weren't defeated. You can say it a million times, but it doesn't make it true. They were still negotiating. We didn't wish to do so. We wanted it ended quick on OUR terms.

They started the war on their terms. They had no reason to expect to end it that way as well.

when we finally accepted, the war ended after being prolonged and costing even more lives against the recommendations of the military leaders in theater at the time who recommended we accept their offer in order to save lives months before we used it.

no terrorist has been able to match our murder, destruction and terrorism in a single blow since.

the terrorist in our own gov is what most of the world are frightened of and justifyably so considering our past and how many continue to bury ther heads in the sand to this very day.

some will NEVER recognize our own sins no matter how obvious or horrific the scale.

peace

Japan continued to negotiate long after the point where a sane nation would have surrendered. The Japanese military continued to make preparations to fight to the death in Japan. Meanwhile, while the military prepared for war, the government tried to negotiate a favorable peace.

That was rejected. The blame falls squarely on the militaristic and psychotic Japanese leadership that failed to surrender.

As for sins, ours are amateurish compared to the imperial Japanese.

so would you support someone nuking NYC and LA even after we had been defeated militarily and were looking to surrender?

I betcha OBL would. not nice company to keep.

think about it...

peace

Read up on the Japanese atrocities during WWII and get back to me.

very simular propaganda... they even used the term 'ILLEGAL COMBATANTS' when in china.

we baked hundreds of afghans in trailers, with reports of mass graves and torture, shooting first and asking questions later.

the longer this goes on the WORSE the atrocities we will commit...

remember VIETNAM? more than 2 million killed, so don't think we aren't capable.

peace

The Japanese excelled. Comfort women, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, millions dead, hundreds of thousands tortured.

Iraq is nothing like that. I opposed the invasion, but let's be real.

PNAC is only just getting started in the ME.

the things we are doing right now there is very simular to what the japanese were doing then. as things got worse for the japanese the worse they became... same thing will happen with us and we got history to demonstrate it.

we all talk about the massacre of nanking - though the numbers are disputed - but look at what we did to vietnam.

so do our cities deserve to be nuked?

peace

Nice change of topic.

We didn't nuke any innocent cities.

and you like to hang at the DU? strange...

peace

And I don't laugh at that, I was laughing at your alleged arguments.

innocent civilians... TWICE is not TERRORISM according to you - though all the military leaders in theater at that time disagree with you - but you agree that 911 was?

sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

you see, we TAUGHT the world about terrorism by targeting civilians in their cities. why should we be shocked when they use our own tactics against us?

that is why america is so frightened because we know what WE are capable of and know one day our enimies will inflict what we have and continue to do around the world on us.

think about it...

peace

Defeated -- Nope. They hadn't lost and were still fighting.

Trying to surrender -- Nope. They were trying to negotiate. You don't have to try to surrender, like Nike says, just do it.

Prostrate -- Not at all. They were only prostrate to the emperor, not us.

Terrorism -- Nope, an act of war. War was declared in a response to a Japanese sneak attack. Japan had not surrenedered, so war continued.

and present the facts at that time so others who can see will.

NEWS FLASH: It wasn't a 'sneak attack' we not only KNEW they were comming - hard to miss such an armada sailing across the pacific after we had broke their codes - we had proded them into attacking - pretty clever, eh?

all the military leaders in theater at that time disagree with you yet you still defend the TERRORISM.

i can tell you have NEVER suffered.

peace

Who would have thought it?

No, at the time of Pearl, we only knew SOME Japanese codes and YES, it was a surprise attack and undeclared.

But given some of the Japanese behavior during the war, that was minor compared to what they later did.

You can tell I've never suffered? What bullshit. You don't know anything about me except that I am glad we won WWII and glad that Truman was smart enough to end the war the way he did because history proves him right.

but being an apologist for the elite i am not suprised that anything negative that is revealed about our leaders would be taken as an attack by you. but i got news for you and your cartoon world view... we are not all good and our enemy all bad.

secondly we KNEW and it has been revealed beyond debate by our OWN recently declasified documents that you can look up and read.

the japanese had sent a letter to their embassy in DC that was late - couple hours - being delivered to washington due to translation that had notified us that they had broken off diplomatic relations with us. not to mention that we KNEW they were comming and it was what we whished.

notice they attacked a military base though...

no matter what they did during the war does not justify us sinking to their level and many would argue even WORSE.

it was TERRORISM plain and simple wether you refuse to see it or not.

to be honest it is OFFENSIVE to me that we allow someone who condones TERRORISM to post on this board since i think it may put this entore board in jepordy considering the state of world affairs now.

peace

But this long-standing anti-FDR BS is unwarranted.

No, we are not all good. Terrible things happen in war. However, we HAD NO CHOICE. Japan began the war and then refused to end it.

I have read the documents, we didn't know they would attack.

Oh wow, they sneak attacked a military base. I guess that's OK. Ask the folks in Nanking about that.

We didn't sink to their level, we used a weapon that ended the war.

Well, it's offensive to me that your posts have such a naive approach. Fighting a war against an enemy bent on world domination is not terror. Losing it would be.

what 'long-standing anti-FDR BS' are you talking about?

they went to war with us becuase we commited an act of war against them.
we provoked them into attacking us according to our plan.
we knew they were comming.
they delivered diplomatic documents on that day breaking off relations with us.

these things are all true. that doesn't mean i am defending the imperial japanesee though some blind nationalistic folk will see it that way doesn't matter those are the facts.

i actually think FDR was very shrewed and wise to bring his nation to confront the japanese empire the way he did, briliant in fact.

and i am certainly glad that we won as my familly FAUGHT in that war and i am an american yet i will not condone acts of terrrism by my country or any other.

your blind nationalism reminds me of the blind nationalism of the imperial japanese and our current NEO-CONS.

but your defense of TERRORISM is something that should not be tolerated and is extremely offensive considering current world affairs and i repeat that it is probably harmful for this board as well.

peace

We committed no acts of war against Japan. That is until after they started attacking us.

We cut off trade with them as is OUR RIGHT. Because we didn't like what they were doing -- what with the conquering and rape and murder and all.

I don't have blind nationalism, I just don't tamper with history when it works out.

Your blind assault on historical fact and your revisionism are hilarious and sad.

as we all know that is any industrialized nations life blood and they will fight to turn it back on considering who was running the show in japan at the time... the military.

POD

peace

Japan had another choice, to rein in its military and the shipments would not have ceased.

Look up Japanese unprovoked terrorism on innocents in China and Korea, as well as other South Pacific nations. Look up Pearl Harbor. Look up Japanese kamikaze attacks on young 18 year old Americans who had never done a single thing to deserve being in the disease infested jungles watching other 18 year old Americans being blown to bits who prayed for an end to the war - which appeared would not happen without huge additional losses of innocent American and other lives, despite your twisting of facts. You know, the things you like to forget while trying to paint us as the bad guys.

Let's see some threads about the terrorism of the Japanese upon people of many nations. Or do you only bash Americans?

two wrongs don't make a right.

peace

We had two bombs and they ended a war.

but i hope they are not pulled so you may be revealed to others.

POD

peace

Unsurprisingly, some of yours have.

and only one of mine was when i compared you logic to one of our neo-cons.

so be it since it is obvious and not necessary to be stated.

peace

Look up Japanese unprovoked terrorism on innocents in China and Korea, as well as other South Pacific
nations. Look up Pearl Harbor. Look up Japanese kamikaze attacks on young 18 year old Americans who
had never done a single thing to deserve being in the disease infested jungles watching other 18 year
old Americans being blown to bits who prayed for an end to the war - which appeared would not happen
without huge additional losses of innocent American and other lives, despite your twisting of facts. You
know, the things you like to forget while trying to paint us as the bad guys.

Let's see some threads about the terrorism of the Japanese upon people of many nations. Or do you
only bash Americans?


The Japanese cherished their 18 year-olds as much as people in the U.S. cherished theirs.

Sorry, Woodstock, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. There is always going to be someone somewhere that is doing worse than we in the U.S. are doing. If we always look around to see who in the world is the worst-behaved, we can "justify" just about anything we do, no matter how immoral, no matter how horrific. All that baloney started way back when Adam pointed to Eve and said "the woman made me do it... she did it first." Well, Adam didn't get a pass on that one, and neither does anyone else. We don't have wrong, wronger, and wrongest here.

The Japanese did many, many terrible things. Frankly, there's not one thing that anyone in the U.S. could do about the Japanese. We can, however, have a say in what our country does either by voting or by letting our representatives hear from us. In addition, it in no way makes the Japanese look any better to honestly admit that we also did wrong... of a different sort, but still wrong.

A lot of people "justify" the U.S. invasion in Iraq by pointing to Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people as well as his invasions and crimes against Iraq's neighboring nations. That's pretty much how the U.S. got into this whole mess we are in now.

IMO, it doesn't matter what any other nation is doing. We in the U.S. have the responsibility to reflect, reason, and figure out what response (if any) this nation should make without regard to what any other nation is doing.

Yes, the Japanese were bad guys and yes, the Iraqis were bad guys (at least the leadership in both nations were bad!), but we are not only the most powerful nation in the world but we are supposed to be the most moral. Moral isn't judged by comparison to what everybody else is doing. You are either moral or you are not.

It was a necessary evil
Japan was not going to surrender, their Army was in control
they were surrounded by the 3rd fleet and Admiral Halsey,
yet they were still fanatical and fighting
They were given the ultimatum by President Truman
He did the right thing.


Remember Wake Island
Truk Island
China
Makin Island

Indeed. The Japanese bombed China with smallpox and anthrax viruses in 1937/38 and murdered more than 10 million people before they were through. It was the Japanese themselves who coined the term "total war". The Bushido Code allowed for no quarter given and none asked.

and we are following in their imperial footsteps.

peace

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

over and over - quotes taken out of context and complete disregard for the big picture and annoying little things like facts.

I only WISH things had been as simple as he paints them.

the third one would have been ready within two weeks, with a flood to follow. So we hadn't "run out of nukes" -- we had a brief pause.

B/t/w the aiming point for #3 was to have been the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. The Japanese military was told this by a P.O.W. who knew nothing, but -- under torture -- guessed correctly. The gov't -- including Hirohito -- believed it. I've always belived that chickenhawk Hirohito gave up because -- for the first time -- his OWN skin was at risk.

And today, we, the US, are the nation led by a chickenhawk.

just think if we had accepted it in the spring of 45, as our military leaders in theater at the time recommended in order to SAVE LIVES.

peace

We might never have successfully transitioned Japan out of a militaristic nation into a democracy. Imagine the millions who might have died when we fought Japan again.

The nukes forced even the Japanese military to accept defeat.

Don't tamper with history that worked.

would have been saved as recommended by the military leaders in theater at that time.

think about it...

peace

Tampering with history that worked leads to disaster. Never second guess success.

there was not 'one condition'--they wanted a cease fire, not a surrender.
That would have led to yet another war.

The JAPANESE did not realize they were defeated. They made tenative approaches to Stalin about negotiating a cease fire, but even Stalin rebuffed them.
There were 2 scenarios--either the Japanese would try to negotiate and end to the war, which killed over 20 million in China alone, and get away with minimal effects on japan itself and would be in a position to avenge itself later.
Another would be Japan dragging out the negotitions while they prepared a better defense and then choose to fight it out.

It is important to remember that the Japanese leadership did not see themselves as beaten. They felt if they could mobilize all of japan to repel the invaders, they would be saved like they were in the 1200s from the Mongols.

Read more about it.

Negotiations with them. They were too confused about what they wanted so they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The thing that seem a little crazy to me is of another thing I heard about. They only had an enough material to produce the two bombs at the time; the next one was a few months away.

The Doves of Japan lobbied the emperor to make peace for their fear the next and third one dropped on the Emperor. More of a good story about it here http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html

The revisionists don't want to look further than quotes on misguided websites that back up their agenda.

They just wanted to know which was the most "effective".

and both were used. And the production facilities for both were up & running (isotope separation plants for the uranium bomb, breeders plus chemical separation facilities for the plutonium bomb). And the full output of both types of bomb would have been used until the war was won.

We kept those facilities running from then until now -- and ended up with over 50,000 bombs -- and no rational use for them -- even by the insane standards of the arms race. We ended up decommissioning the majority -- and have about 25,000 today. The material for the decommissioned 25,000 is what the primitives in the Bu$h administration intend to use for their "mini nukes".

B/T/W, the best argument I can think of FOR nuclear power (which is otherwise a dangerous and uneconomic technology given the present state of the art) is that it uses up fissile materials that could otherwise be processed to make bombs. What I'd really like to see is a class of nuclear reactors that burned bomb-grade material -- it's the one irreversible way to dispose of it.

It's not impossible -- as we run out of oil and other conventional energy sources --that we may yet end up fissioning the bombstuff to keep the energy-wasteful American standard of living going a little while longer...

The US was involved in World War II to defend ourselves and to protect Democracy. We really didn't have any imperialistic agenda so intimidating Russia would make absolutely no sense.

not that I'm trying to insult you, but man, where did you come up with that one??? What do you base your opinion on?

Our involvement in World War II was not about imperialism. The country was even reluctant to get involed with the war until we were attacked. I'm not saying that the US has not been imperialistic many times in the past, just not in this particular case.

You realise that Nazi Germany was funded, in part, by American financiers, Right???

Not that we have an "imperialist agenda" of course.

has the US NOT been imperialistic? From 1898 on when have we been anything but, with the exception of the Marshall Plan, and maybe the Korean
war? I would not ever rely on TV for history.

I think there are exceptions -
WWI , WWII
and times we have betrayed ourselves by devious acts or supporting the wrong side
Chile
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
the Contras
the Philipines
Panama
Cambodia
Iran 1953
Indonesia
El Salvador
Iraq

Japan is an island nation. They were militarily surrounded and defeated.

All of their imperial acquisitions were rolled back in defeat with the "Island Hopping Campaign" that was the Pacific War strategy.

Another obstacle to ending the war sooner was the US insistence on "unconditional surrender". As it turned out, the "conditions" of surrender that Japan wanted were only that Japan be allowed to keep the Emperor in place. This happened, after they were nuked.

The argument that "nuking Japan was needed to end the war" just does not stand up to logic.

Japan was nuked to show the Russians how reckless the US could be. In essence, innocent Japanese men, women, and children were vaporized to send a political message to the "communists"....How sane is that?

fire bombing Dresden in Feb 1945.

At the time the bombs were dropped on Japan, they were already defeated.
Navy gone, Merchant marine gone, and producttvity wiped out by waves of constant connventional bombing.

I am not proud of this.

Total surrender. They chose to stall and try and negotiate good terms.

when we ran out of nukes we accepted japans 1 condition and the war ended.

peace

They still wanted to negotiate. So who knows how many conditions they would have gone for in a protracted peace debate.

We had all the cards, they refused to accept that.

then we accepted their 1 condition...

that is TERRORISM on a scale OBL can only DREAM about. lets work to make sure such TERRORISM is never unleashed again but at least speaking the TRUTH about the last time it was used.

peace

Japan was still at war. Hence your statement is incorrect. THEY chose to continue to negotiate, trying for a better deal. Truman chose to actively pursue the end rather than face either an invasion of a Soviet occupation of Japan. He chose correctly. History bears this out.

when we ran out of nukes, we accepted it and the war ended.

we had all the options at the end and we decided to inflict TERRORISM on them instead... our first SHOCK and AWE program for the world.

there is no defense for it accept the one that TERRORIST use...

peace

It was an act of war. A war, I might add, that Japan began and prosecuted in a horrific way that included torture, rape and mass murder on a scale rivaling only their allies.

and that we did it to a DEFEATED and prostrate nation trying to surrender is indefensible and will be part of our nations eternal shame just like slavery, the genocide of the native americans and vietnam.

peace

We ended a war that the Japanese began. It's not our shame. Japan had a choice to end the war. While the politicians on their side tried to negotiate a favorable peace, their military prepared to defend the island and continued to fight the war.

Japan was not defeated, but it should have surrendered sooner.

cold blodded politicos who ordered it then or their predesesors who wouldn't hesitate today. that doesn't mean it wasn't TERRORISM and that if you understand that that you would be revolted horrified and ashamed.

i know i am...

peace

Japan should have ended the war sooner. They didn't.

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

BTW: we were in the drivers seat and japan had only 1 condition to surrender, we choose to nuke them twice instead, then we accepted their 1 condition to our eternal shame.

peace

Why do you repeat like a broken record: "They had one condition, we ran out of nukes and accepted it." That's simply not true.

Once more. Here is the text of the Unconditional Surrender:

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=203

The documents are there. "Unconditional surrender" is written repeatedly. No conditions. It concludes:

"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 ef-
fectuate these terms of surrender."

Signed by Hirohito and everyone else. It's a historical fact. You can't change it.

that they recognized the institution of the Emperor is exactly what the Japanese were seeking.

peace

It was not a condition. There were no conditions.

As Germany strove to retake a place of power after being trampled by Europeans in the Treaty of Versailles.

So you think it was NECESSARY?

You are wrong, it's never necessary to make an adversary capitulate.

In fact, wisdom would provide one's adversary a way to save face during surrender.

This is how warfar was conducted through most of history.

It's interesting to note that Saddam learned the lesson... don't be around to be seen in defeat. forget siting at the table.

Why do you think they had to "topple" the statue in Iraq a couple of months ago.

Really...

Like all absolute statements it's absolutely wrong...


I am familiar with the axiom that in war you do not block all your enemy's escape routes so he has an exit and doesn't have to fight to the death....

Makes sense sometimes...

However I don't think we should have allowed the South to maintain slavery if it meant an earlier end to the Civil War and I don't think we should have allowed Hitler to maintain his death camps if it meant an earlier end to WW2..

Some enemies need to be defeated.... I subscribe to the just war theory of conducting war but I don't elimanate the need for total war when the situation demands it..

most wars are unnecessary...it's just what people want to do!

America was the nation that ended it.

on a defeated, prostrate trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent civilians... TWICE, no less :puke:

though i am sure to some extremist it is perfectly reasonable.

peace

You wish to rewrite history that worked.

And, to be accurate, the Japanese were only prostrate to their emporer not us.

and i am the extremist :crazy:

peace

They tried to NEGOTIATE, but hadn't done as we demanded.

You are defending the indefensible!!!

Ended the war. Until that point, Japan hadn't surrendered and the Japanese military was preparing for an all-out defense of the island.

History proves Truman was correct.

how do you explain not one military leader in theater at that time agreeing with you?

you are defending TERRORISM.

peace

Is the ultimate military leader in all situations. HE is the commander in chief. Only he knows all of the information. Only he juggles the reality of people at home with threats abroad. Truman (and his secretary of State) agreed on the need to drop the bombs.

And you know what? It worked.

until we admit our wrong and work to eliminate WMD from the planet.

Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon succeded only by nagasaki - kurt vonnegut

peace

You can't eliminate knowledge, though we both would agree on doing it if possible.

and see our handiwork firsthand. It is hard to maintain an intellectual distance to the cold realities.

American policy so far has only created incentive for WMD proliferation.

FDR2004

Should I stop at Bataan, Nanking and Korea?

The bomb was horrible, but it paled in comparison to the acts of Imperial Japan. And, in the case of the bomb, it brought about the end of the war.

Intercepted Japanese communications clearly show the mindset of the decision makers in Japan.
As late as August 1945 the unyielding Japanese leaders were trying to forge an alliance with the Russians and carve up Asia between them. Then the Russians invaded Manchuria (Japanese-held territory) and might have proceeded to attack Japan---imagine where that might have led. Plus an American invasion---whether or not fouled up by Russian involvement as in Germany---would have cost innumerable American lives. Read "Marching Orders" by Bruce Lee (you can get it on Amazon for $2 used; DU homepage has a link to Amazon). This book combs through the intercepts and discusses the decision to use the bomb.

While you're at it read these archived threads:

Should Truman have dropped the bomb? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=174804

about that "should we have dropped the A-Bomb" discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=196175

Hiroshima mayor lashes out at Bush on atomic bombing anniversary http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=133254

It was totally unnecessary-- even Dwight Eisenhower said so. Japan had made overtures to surrender as early as May 12, 1945 (after her Nazi allies surrendered), and again in July 1945, but they were turned down. The war in the Pacific was prolonged to allow the Soviet army time to get in place to seize Japanese islands and set the stage for permanent Japan-USSR friction (how convenient for the USSR to declare war on Japan the day after Hiroshima), and to give the US an excuse to test the bombs under conditions that no one would question.

"The war in the Pacific was prolonged to allow the Soviet army time to get in place to seize Japanese islands and set the stage for permanent Japan-USSR friction"

Praytell, how would this have benefitted America?

Japan was NOT trying to forge an 'aliance' with russia. They asked stalin to pass along an offer of surrender. And our gov't new it because we had broken their diplomatic codes and were reading their messages before they were delivered to their diplomats. In fact, we read this message before stalin did.

Is this more of your 'my country, right or wrong'?

They prolonged the war by not outright surrendering.

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

You show your wits -- all 50%.

If your reading of my posts leaves you thinking I espouse "My country right or wrong," you need to stop reading them and spare yourself the confusion.
As to Japan and Russia, the intercepts made it quite clear: the Japanese spoke of joining forces with the Russians in Asia. Not that you should go read that, if you have such trouble reading me.

And again, the dedicated bunch of revisionists here will ignore you. Things like looking deeply at the whole story, taking things in context, facts, you know, little meaningless things like that just get in the way of their agenda.

Getting so crapped on around here! :)

:-( We had a new war toy and we wanted to see what it would do .

They should've thought about that before they bombed Pearl Harbor. I have a mixed feeling on the subject in one sense I feel sorry for all of those civilians who died because of the nukes in another sense I just wish terrorists and other countries would fucking leave us alone so that we don't need to use our military like that.

Dropping the bombs quickly ended the war. The Japanese deserved it.

and hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilian men women and children DID NOT 'deserve it'

you sound as bad as OBL :puke:

peace

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

Equating me with a terrorist is pretty low.

about us.

nice company you are in :crazy:

peace

deserved to be killed because of past US foreign policy? You're logic is breathtaking.

Yes, I was.

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

i guess they were 'liberal apologists' according to you as well :shrug:

peace

Wasn't he a major player in the Pacific Theater?

btw: that has nothing to do with us nuking japan.

peace

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

BTW, running Ike into the ground is all for naught. It does zilch for your "case".


Thought I'd throw in Admiral Leahy for shits n giggles.



"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

- Paul Nitze quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.


"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands would have been necessary."

- Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.


========
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

- GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR from William Manchesters, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


========


William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

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."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.



====
"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."

- ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I Was There, pg. 441.

:toast:

peace

Then you'll love throwing the full weight of your historical ignorance against these "liberal apologists.




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..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380



======


"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."

- ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHYChief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I Was There, pg. 441.




======


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

- GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR from William Manchesters, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


========


William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

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."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


========



In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

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

...then you might want to know that documentary has a very delibrate slant. Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times wrote a column a couple of months ago, based on recently released documents from the Imperial War College (I believe, going from memory here), that strongly suggested that the Japanese military was nowhere ready to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagaski. I don't have Kristof's column handy, but I think that even he was surprised by the implications of these recently released documents - since he used to be of the opinion that the dropping of the bomb was unnecessary.

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

"Air Force General Curtis LeMay had argued in July at Potsdam that the war would have ended in two weeks independently of whether the bomb was used or the Russians entered the war. 'The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.' Back in April he had maintained that the war would be ended in September without a U.S. invasion."

www.mind.net/rvuuf/pages/decision.htm

He'd overseen the firebombing of Japanese cities that killed more people than died in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. He thought that was probably sufficient, as did other military leaders cited in the referenced article--& elsewhere.

But you just consider him a pinko pacifist, I guess.

Your link purports a premise I don't buy into, that of the "innocent civilian" myth. The Japanese certainly never bought into it, nor did Stalin, nor does Osama bin Laden according to his own analects.

There is especially no such thing as an "innocent civilian" in a democracy. How can there be? Are our troops in Iraq "guilty" and the Democratic civilian congress that voted almost unanimously to send them there, "innocent civilians"? Are the people who voted them into office "innocent civilians"?

I am almost positive, given mankind's track record for the past 10,000 years, that had we not used the bomb on Japan as a demonstration of future deterrence, a far more ghastly scenario would almost certainly have followed sometime after WWII involving many more weapons. Dropping the bombs on Japan may be the only reason mankind still inhabits this planet. It was horrible, yes, but it was an object lesson no one could ignore. Such weapons haven't been used since....have they?

So, you've backed down from your original statement & agree with General LeMay (that flaming pacifist) that the bomb may not, after all, have been necessary to end the war. But, hey, it was a cool demonstration!

The current regime in this country is investigating nukes once again.

They aren't attacking anyone, just on the receiving end. Were there any "innocent civilians" at Pearl Harbor?

Yes, no nukes have been dropped since 1945. Your theory about why they haven't been used again is in jeopardy with the current administration. Remember how they want to open the possiblitiy to first strike nuclear attack, baby-nuke bunker-busters and the like??

Dropping the A-bomb on Japan was just plain wrong and immoral. "Unconditional surrender" is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle to use against your own population to reinforce the validity of the evil you are partaking in.

...it would have been the humane thing to do. Then if the Japanese military still said, "Kiss my ass," Truman could have said, "Sayonara" and dropped it on their city.

Yes, the Japanese committed terrible war crimes, but that does not absolve Truman for his act of genocide against Hiroshima. Achieving victory by resorting to the same tactics as your enemy does not make you morally superior. The eye for an eye school of foreign policy only escalates bloodshed in the end. Look at Israel's endless vendetta against the suicide bombers.
Pearl Harbor meant our military retaliation was justified defensively, but I do not believe our use of nukes was. If a nation seeks to take the road less traveled and govern with humility, it must commit acts of war only after exhausting all other options. In the case of Hiroshima, Truman had the options.

:kick:

They worked in the factories that made weapons. They built ships and maintained ships of war. And, of course, they supported the government that was committing war crimes all across the Pacific.

and that since japan wasn't a democracy then and people had no choice but to work for their daily bread that we then murdered innocent civilians?

peace

But WWII was a declared war on all sides and fought as a total war by all sides.

and we with him, supposedly

peace

nt

if you are not a nation than it is illegal.

interesting.

peace

We can't all just go around declaring war on other nations.

Would have fought Japan or Nazi Germany in a heartbeat. They were monstrous.

Hitler had another final solution in mind -- for my people. We fought him by the thousands and would have been destroyed had we not done so.

and that is what leads to wars and TERRORISM.

something you could learn from MLK and others if you dared to listen.

peace

I listened to MLK a lot actually. He advocates peace, but not stupidity.

I love Dr. King but he chose passive resistance because it was the best tactic to achieve civil rights for his people by pricking the conscience of the white elites...

I doubt Dr. King would have counseled the Jews of Nazi Germany to use passive resistance against Hitler as Gandhi did....


Dr. King would have supported the just war theory which is part and parcel of Christian theology....

Trying to second guess something that happened almost 60 years ago. That also means Dr. King would have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and could see how it all worked out.

Since it did work out and end up saving lives and building a peace-loving democracy where none had been before, I have faith he would support it.

This is not warmongering, this ENDED a war.

Of course, Columbus didn't discover America. He did do so for the West, but the Native Americans already knew they were here.

But the argument in THIS thread is that we should not have dropped the nukes. But all events after those bombings have led us to the point where Japan has totally turned around its nation. Change one piece of that history and it ALL changes.

NUKED into peaceful people?

i understand that you apparently are ignorant of the racism implicit in your words and conclusions but i think it is proper to point them out when you say them so you may come to recognize them in the future.

you see a whole race of people from the narrow and racist perspective of old wartime propaganda and it can be mighty offense to folks who have a greater perspective on history then you apparantly do.

i hope you plan to attend university or at least your neighborhood library as you continue to age... on second thought, at least you hang out here, i am sure you are learning a great deal. :toast:

peace

The Axis was the greatest evil ever visited on the world. I have complete faith Dr. King would have seen that and worked actively to end their dominion.

In fact they were preparing the civillian population for a U.S. invasion where every man woman and child would fight U.S. soldiers to the death. "One million lives for the emperor" was a song that was being sung by the Japanese at the time.

There is a book about the bombing called "Thank God for the Atom Bomb (and other essays)" by Paul Fussell. You will not find a more exhaustive display of critical thinking outside of such a body of work.

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

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

Instead of the typical 'say that to a Marine' response, direct their attention to Dresden.

Btw, I'd love to hear how Jimi Hendrix supported the Army...

-Semper Fi

You make an excellent point here. You can get David Irving's book on the Dresden fire bombing as a free download from his web site. I read it last year. Its fascinating.

Why doesn't left-wing America decry the three million German civilians who died directly or indirectly as a result of our bombing? Not a peep of protest over that. No race-card opportunities you see.

Jimi was the most famous veteran ever of the 101st Airborne Division. I served in its Ranger Company in Vietnam.

and was out by 62, hmm, kicked out?

"and was out by 62, hmm, kicked out?"

Close. Flipped out. ;-)

one make a quick buck with out a lot of fuss

Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php
basic stats for US imperialism
by cecil • Sunday November 24, 2002 Sunt 04:18 PM

a reference guide for activists.
Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism
Contents:
1—list of interventions for “regime change”
2—list of air warfare campaigns
3—list of client states
4—list of states held by debt-leverage imperialism
5—list of foreign base hosts
6—list of murder toll

(snip)
(snip)
6. Chronological list of US murder toll:
The murder toll has been achieved by either direct violence (e.g. the
firebombing and nuking of Japan or the firebombing of Dresden) or indirect/proxy
“low intensity conflict” (e.g. Rwanda in the 90s or Nicaragua in the 80s). (I
have not here accounted for the deaths attributable to SAP.) Some extremely
conservative estimates—
Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M
West Africans (1776-1865): 4M
Philippines (1898-1904): 600K
Germany (1945): 200K
Japan (1945): 900K
China (1945-60): 200K
Greece (1947-49): 100K
Korea (1951-53): 2M
Guatemala (1954-2002): 300K
Vietnam (1960-75): 2M
Laos (1965-73): 500K
Cambodia (1969-75): 1M
Indonesia (1965): 500K
Colombia (1966-2002): 500K
Oman (1970): 10K
Bangladesh (1971): 2M
Uganda (1971-1979): 200K
Chile (1973-1990): 20K
East Timor (1975): 200K
Angola (1975-2002): 1.5M
Argentina (1976-1979): 30K
Afghanistan (1978-2002): 1M
El Salvador (1980-95): 100K
Nicaragua (1980-90): 100K
Mozambique (1981-1988): 1M
Turkey (1984-2002): 50K
Rwanda (1990-1996): 1M
Iraq (1991-2002): 1M
Somalia (1991-1994): 300K
Yugoslavia (1991-2002): 300K
Liberia (1992-2002): 150K
Burundi (1993-1999): 200K
Sudan (1998): 100K
Congo (1998-2002): 3M
We should also take note that the United States bears more than superficial
responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust: e.g., the turning away of Jewish, Romani,
and other refugees; funding the concentration camp system; underwriting the
Third Reich’s military; delay in opening a western front; policies of
appeasement before the war; siding with the fascists during the Spanish Civil
War; turning down Stalin’s offer to attack Germany jointly in 1938; providing
theoretical inspiration for lebensraum, final solutions, anti-communism,
anti-Semitism, etc; rebuilding Germany after the war with the fascist
infrastructure still intact; saving war criminals; general ideological support;
and so forth.
(snip)

in China, for example.

Pearl Harbor they dismiss as nothing, but surely what Japan did in China, and the atrocites that ended with the end of the war (which came about as a result of the bombs, in addition to saving American lives - but then again, American lives are to be dismissed by them.)

I am sure those tough macho soldiers can handle a verbal assault if they could survive actual combat.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 2 major industrial centers and shipyards. They were military targets.

Also I have been tought that dropping the bomb saved many Japanese and American lives in the long run. If America had stormed the beaches of Japan it would have been a bloodbath. Remember the japanese considered it an honor to die in battle. They are not afraid. It would have made Normandy look like nothing.

Also they trained civillians in combat. It would be so much worse than Iraq.

But the good thing is the Japanese people don't hold grudges. It is just the kind of people they are. Their military leaders had tremendous respect for the enemy. It shows now as Japan is one of America's biggest trading partners.

I also had been taught that dropping the bomb saved many Japanese and American lives in the long run.

But my school books didn't carry any of the comments by many in the military who believed it wasn't neccessary.

Actually, it's more important to the Japanese that Americans and British people don't hold grudges. Considering the brutality of the Japanese empire, it is amazing that we helped lift up Japan after the war.

It was a Democratic administration. It happened almost 60 years ago when there was no Internet, no television. Most of the players are dead and cannot defend their actions now.

It's fine to debate the "woulda, coulda, shouldas" and have strong feelings but for Pete's sake there is no reason to get so emotionally riled up at people who disagree with you in a "what if" discussion like this.

It's too late to un-drop the Bomb. Nobody in their right mind would consider using a nuclear weapon now. There is no way anyone can credibly claim they don't know what the effects of a nuclear weapon would be.

Development of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Somebody was going to figure it out sooner or later, and in spite of what may have been a terrible mistake in using it on Japan I'm glad the USA has to bear that burden. Having the Soviets or the Nazis develop it first would probably have not been any better in the long run.

if you want to know what one of the first U.S. war correspondents had to say, I transcribed part of an article at the link below.

I've luckily become the proud owner of several ex-library bound copies of the NYTimes from 1943, 44, and 45. It's really incredible to sort of step back into that time and see what was reported, advertised, what books were promoted...

anyway, this is also interesting because of the seeming lack of knowledge, or cover up of the same, of the effects of dropping the bomb over the long term.

Reading these papers also helps me to get a better perspective on the present...many things seem so obvious when we view them in hindsight, while at the time, with the uncertainty of unproved choices and unknown consequences, things were not so simply chosen or understood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=6402

...it's a beautiful city. While I was there, I spent a day at the "hypocenter" and the atomic bomb museum. It was a very moving and sobering experience, even though I wasn't alive at the time. Knowing that my government had committed this crime against humanity made me feel ashamed. The firsthand accounts by citizens who lived through it were heartbreaking. I met a man on the city tram who had lost family to the bomb. He expressed no ill will towards America or me personally. If anyone here gets the opportunity, I highly recomend a visit to the city and the museum.

Now visit China and Korea or go visit Pearl Harbor or talk to the families of American vets killed in the Bataan Death March. See how THOSE folks feel toward the butchers of Imperial Japan.

Japan had refused surrender under the terms offered. The delay and the results were their fault.

japan had one condition... that we finally accepted after NUKING a defeated nations cities filled with innocent men, women and children, that were trying to surrender... TWICE.

some folks will NEVER admit to any of our crimes no matter how OBVIOUS nor HORRIFIC in scope.

peace

Japan had REFUSED surrender under the terms offered. Their choice, not ours.

we were flying over japan with impunity. our terms were total war with unconditional surrender. they had only one condition which we finally accepted.

japan could not hit us at all then. that was not self defense that was TERRORISM on a MASSIVE SCALE.

so according to you 911 wasn't terrorism since they are at war with us, eh? they are just 'defending themselves' :puke:

peace

Starting the war and then not ending it were both THEIR choices.

you may choose to accept that they were but i have history on my side and hopefully we can put an end to your type of thinking before it destroys us all.

POD

peace

Is on my side and President Truman's side. You can't argue with success. Or most folks don't try any way.

it only reveals you to be incapable of reason even when presented with facts.

peace

Clearly, we disagree on what that means. In my case it means that Truman was clearly right because history has shown that to be true. You believe you are right, but have no evidence that it would have worked out well.

of justifying one atrocity with another? It doesn't make the bomb blast any less damaging. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not commit the acts you refer to. They did not start the war, nor did they refuse to surrender. They were just living their lives. You can justify it all you want from a strategic standpoint, but it does not negate the fact that innocent men, women, and children were executed on a massive scale by the US government.

Japan still held huge slices of China including all of Manchuria. I could see why any president would want the war over now, rather than settling in for a siege for a few months.

On Nagasaki, I would have wished that Truman had waited more than three days to let the Japanese government access the damage and make a decision.

However, I don't think Truman owed the Japanese anything. They fought horrifically and there government needed to surrender unconditionally.

They got to keep their Emperor.

The other sides were practicing the same type of behavior but tit for tat only turns one into the lizard-animal one could claim they are not.

It amazes me how one rationalizes their paranoia into a good reason to kill other populations wholesale. Mostly it seems this is a "hands off" mental illness that many societies fail to deal with or understand.

:nuke: :nuke:

http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/gaskill2/bomb.html
When the Earth Caught Fire

At the end of WWII American citizens expressed the contradictory emotions of excitement and dread: excitment for the end of the war, and dread for having had to open up the nuclear age to do so. Recent scholarship also shows this mix of emotion in the scientists and politicians who made the decision. My research in the popular press of Time and Newsweek brings to light the fact that these same feelings appear in the American public. Simplistic views of joy and celebration existed, but closer examination of the popular press of the time reveals that authors, often in the same articles, also expressed impending anxiety and fear. The two emotions--joy and fear--coexisted. A one-sided interpretation and understanding of the American response to the dropping of the atomic bomb is therefore both inacurate and unfounded. Yes, Americans were happy for the end of the war, but they were also afraid that next time they would suffer the consequences of the birth of atomic weaponry. It is my contention therefore that the very basis for the American national sense of victory and excitment gave birth to the fear that next time they would mourn devestated cities left reeling from the very nuclear power Americans themselves created.

On 7 December 1941, Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor. The next day America declared war on Japan and entered WWII--tying the world together in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed "a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our public, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity."(1) A noble cause, but a cause which culminated in two distinct controversial actions four years later. WWII changed the way the world viewed war--especially with regard to noncombatants. Historian Barton J. Bernstein portrays the emerging internal struggle among the White House military advisors and cabinet members, pitting the old dying pre-WWII ethic of warfare which targeted only the soldiers against a new ethic where race, nationality, and treaty preference made people in general the enemy--uniformed or not.(2) The moral implications of such a paradigmatic shift troubled American political and military dedcision makers. They struggled, finally acted, and used atomic weapons to speed the end of the war. Ironically, however, the same action that granted the people of the United States what they coveted most--the end of the war and the soldiers coming home--created a paradoxically structured world where peace and potential annihilation tenuously existed hand in hand.

War by 1945 was no longer a Napoleonic chess match where strategy and movement of troops won. Instead it proved a Darwinian battle of technological evolution. In early October of 1939, the process which would culminate in the organization of the famed Manhattan Project began. Through a set of meetings, various interviews, and established committees sanctioned by Roosevelt, physicists found themselves searching for the answers to as of yet unknown atomic questions. The United States already believed itself years behind the Germans in an attempt to create atomic weapons through uranium, and later plutonium, fission. Thus, argues Stanley Goldberg, researchers such as Vannevar Bush, K. T. Compton, and Lyman Briggs deliberately pulled the U.S. government into the atomic age utilizing the fear of the very weaponry they would, in fact, create.(3) Whether this is true or not remains suspect. Nevertheless, it must be understood that this group of researchers played an important role in the evolution of atomic thought. It is in this light that we must look at their contribution --irrespective of the motives behind it. Goldberg, citing notes and letters sent and recieved by those researchers involved, establishes the evolutionary track of the inventive process. Thoughts of a bomb of "unprecedented power might be produced" (emphasis added) surfaced as early as May 1941. Merely six months later, projections implied that "a fission bomb of superlatively destructive power will result" with prototypes possibly ready as early as 1944.(4) It took a little longer, the first test held in the summer of 1945 putting all speculation about plausibility to rest in the ashes of a 200 foot tower.

The ethics and morals of using the atomic bomb, however, remained controversial. Proposals for a display of power for a Japanese audience and/or limited tactical/military use remained the two most viable options next to dropping it on a populated city. Because it is always impossible to know exactly what anyone was thinking, the facts are somewhat sketchy. But, as Bernstein discusses, the scientists in the research group initially pushed for a technical display of power to play on Japanese fear until Oppenheimer and others informed higher-ups that a technical demonstration alone would not necessarily be sufficient to bring an end to the war.(5) Thoughts evolved. Using weapons in the scheduled 1 November 1945 invasion of mainland Japan became the new push, but not necessarily out of the ethical concern for civilian life. Admiral Richard Connoly, who was stationed in the Phillippines (and whose responsibility it was to provide naval support for this scheduled) "wanted to put one on either side of each landing, before the troops landed." The researchers assumed the target to be purely tactical: military sites, industrial areas, troop placements--not cities.(6)


George C Marshall and Henry L. Stimson, Army Chief of Staff and Secretary of War respectively, likewise pushed for a use limited merely to military "objectives such as a large naval installation." The thought of using such a weapon on civilian areas was contrary to the long established war ethic founded in "Christian doctrine and in international law." In short, it made them uncomfortable. Stimson, therefore, in a conversation with Truman in late May of 1945, assured the President that the weapons would be used so as to spare civilian lives in the name of "fair play and humanitarianism." The true depth of this sentiment was short lived. The daily fire bombing of Japanese cities to the point where the new weapon may not have "a fair background to show its strength" testifies to this. What is more, two days after their discussion Stimson "stipulated that noncombatants would be acceptable targets." Aiming at a "vital war plant. . . closely surrounded by workers' houses" was not merely justifiable but desirable. This idea would proceed unchallenged until implementation less than two months later.(7)
(snip)

And neither was dropping these bombs on the Japanese, who had refused to surrender as was demanded of them. Had they done so, no bombs would have been dropped.

and there is NO denying the RACISM against the japanese was wide spread at that time.

peace

But bombs cannot be racist and we DEFENDED ourselves against the Japanese. Since they had not surrendered, the war continued.

i fear for our TOTAL DESTRUCTION one day, cept it will also take the rest of the world with it.

you remind me of the imperial japanese military leaders at that time and the ones who are now running the 'show' here at home.

mankind can not survive another world war but i fear we can not avoided if folks like you are at the helm which apparently they are.

don't forget that japan was doing what we and the west had been doing in asia and what we continue to do today around the world.

peace

Japan, Germany and Italy were intent on world domination.

Just because they have been defeated doesn't mean that they won't rise again or others like China will not try the same.

I fear for the world when people refuse to recognize that there is a time to negotiate and a time to fight.

gotcha. you sound just like the imperial japanese military of their day AND the NEO-CONS of today.

POD

peace

We were fighting for world survival. The Japanese were fighting for world domination.

it only adds up in your CARTOON world view of history.

i gotta run for now, but i want to thank you once again for giving me the opprotunity to raise awareness again on this important issue.

POD

peace

You think history is nice and neat and you can just change one piece so it can be the way you want it. But each change modifies the result.

As it is, Truman's actions -- ALL of his actions -- led us to this day where Japan is a peace-loving democracy and an ally of the U.S.

Don't argue with success.

The Japanese war in China, Indochina, Indonesia, the Phillipines and more killed over 30 million people. China lost over 20 million. Indonesia lost more than 2 million. In 1945, the Japanese tried to confiscate most of the rice in Vietnam and 2 million vietnamese died.
Hundreds of thousands of allied prisoners of war and asian civilians died working as slave laborers all over the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. On the Malay railroad, 1,000 men died per mile of track layed.

30 million is a new number for me...

i know russia lost 20 + 30 from asia that gives the total number killed in the war that i have read about.

but that is besides the point...

we are talking about our desicion to nuke a defeated trying to surrender nations cities filled with inoccent civilians TWICE.

peace

is less or not worthy of consideration which is a view contrary to the rise of most civilizations. The weakness’ displayed by partisan politicians and nationalistic movements demonstrate this rule as it has danced around the globe through the centuries always in an attempt to secure goods, services and space from others and eliminate the people and groups that are different than them.

These movements, that more often than not, willing and even to the point of inherently knowing that avoiding the other groups is necessary in keeping conflict from happening will at some point still come in contact with them. These movements that having to deal with the needs of the community that they encompass are at the beckon of its need to expand makes even violent conflict inevitable at some point.

Greed or natural ascension cannot make others the same as you or me. We are different and when we can understand that and go about embracing each others differences as an asset rather than a liability then we might have a chance to live in peace

As to muddle in the road; I might not debate if Atomic Bombs are racist to him and the views he holds, rather I would debate if the people who used them were knowingly or unknowingly racist in their views towards other people and have decided that a quick fix is the best thing to do, expediency if you will, because another weakness, what some would call impatience.

When he was in the US for the holidays a few years ago he told me he enjoys passing himself off as German just to see what the Japanese have to say.

He frequently gets comments from elderly veterans like "We almost did it!", with a nudge and a wink.

and folks wonder why folks hate us... some of us sound far more crazed then the terrorist.

wonder what yall will say when it happens to us? we deserved it? :puke:

did we deserve 911?

think about it... please

peace

others were stupid

i doubt it

peace

It was fascinating.

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

muddle serves a useful purpose in allowing us to do just that.

this debate doesn't happen enough but now it is needed more than ever.

hopefully by muddle continuing to kick this thread even more will be inticed to look into it and discover how dangerous a world we actually live in and become commited to doing away with such horrid weapons in the future.

:hi:

peace

It's another fantasy of yours like our blame in WWII.

I am more than happy to kick this thread to show just how nutty the extreme left of our party can be.

However when you start a war you can never fortell the consequences...

That's why I tell my kids not to talk trash to people or use "fighting words" because you can never fortell the consequences...

A good buddy of mine when I was growing up talked shit to a burned out ex cop who probably had lots of demons... The ex cop shot him dead ... My friend was only seventeen years old...

The direct result of all we did both during the war and after.

How many nations in history would have taken a nation some horrible and rather than destroy them, help rebuild?

Actually, I didn't want to nuke Japan. Had they surrendered as we demanded, it wouldn't have been necessary. But they didn't and their military wasn't ready to do so until the nukes.

I am not proud of the nukes nor am I ashamed. They simply are a fact. We didn't begin the war, we fought the war and we ended the war.

You can curse me all you want, but history has proven that Truman was right.

The masochistic self-hatred of country exhibited by Pilgrim is an example of why Liberalism is held in such low esteem by many in this country.

When you lack the will and gumption to hate an enemy like the Japanese and apologize for defeating them you deserve such low repute.

I suggest those here read "Downfall" by Franks for a good telling of how the war ended. Also read "Thank God for The Atomic Bomb" by Paul Fussel, an egghead prof at Penn who was an infantryman who'd fought the Germans and who was slated to go fight the Japanese when the war ended. He is convinced he was a dead man and that the Bomb saved his life.

Muddle knows what he's talking about, if you're interested in historical facts that is. If you're interested in screwball theories and self-hatred then no.

Japan has spent the last 50+ years re-writing history and now everyone believes it.

You write "When you lack the will and gumption to hate an enemy..."

I feel sorry for you.

Really. When you consider the ability to hate as a positive personality trait, you are someone I don't want to be in close proximity to. You would make a great Nazi.

How do I say it... Oh yeah:

Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trial: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

This thread, like so many lately, is, at least to me, quite disturbing.

That there can be a difference of opinion is not a problem. What strikes me as problematic is the sense that one can make an assertion, here without any facts, repeat it endlessly, and believe that one has made a valid point. That these posters inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks is truly objectionable.

I would propose that the proper inquiry here is whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him at that time. Please note that I do not believe that is appropriate or helpful to consider the ex post facto opinions of others who waited to speak until later, or who may have had a separate agenda at some later point in time.

In order to consider President Truman’s decision it would also be helpful to remember that he did not make this decision in the late Twentieth Century, with instant internet, television, or even radio communications.

To me the relevant factors in his decision making process are:
1. President Truman was the President of the United States, not any other country.
2. We were engaged in a war against Japan.
3. Japan started the war, and Japan was a tenacious enemy with a history of brutality.
4. President Truman’s primary goal was to end that war and save as many American lives as possible.

If we limit ourselves to what facts President Truman had at that time, and his necessary goal as President of this country, perhaps this discussion may be more meaningful.

called a Veto or absolute authority which in any case does not absolve that authority of responsibility. The victor of a war often writes the laws to their favor. Because someone has choice does not make it moral or just, it only makes it a choice.

Intimidation of others through making an example of a much weakened opponent is a inherent value displayed many vertebrates that travel in groups. This value has become very arcane in today’s world of machines and computers. Yet some still hold denial up to the very end of their life because it proves profitable to them personally or intellectually

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/wokusch9.html

China Upstages US at Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference
by Heather Wokusch
September 15, 2003

China was the undisputed star of last week's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) conference in Vienna, leaving Uncle Sam hiding in the wings.

The US has always been somewhat impatient with international non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium, in the past six years the States has conducted 19 nuclear tests, dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable.

But the Bush administration has upped the nuclear ante considerably. It plans another sub-critical nuclear test for 2004, and has authorized the nation's weapons labs to resume full-on nuclear testing with as little as six-months' notice.

And that's bad news for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The UN-sponsored organization was set up in 1996 to ban nuclear-test explosions and to establish a corresponding global monitoring system. But there's a catch - the treaty can't go into effect until all 44 of the nuclear-capable countries that joined in 1996 have ratified it, a prospect looking increasingly unlikely as holdouts point to US intransigence as justification for their own burgeoning nuclear weapons programs.

Take Iran, which as one of the original signatories, permitted five monitoring stations to be built on its soil. In January 2002, soon after the US began withholding funds from the CTBT's on-site inspection program, Iran began withholding monitoring data from the international community, thus rendering its stations useless
(snip)