Why we had to drop the bomb.

[Swede]

The world was war weary,hundreds of thousands of GI's were dead. A million more were ready to invade Japan. It was over. Japan was on a suicide run. Without the bomb the war would have gone on for years. Millions would have died. We could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo or Osaka and killed millions. It was over,that Japanese warlords had to be stripped or power,this was the only way.

[nofurylike]

1. learn history. n/t

[Swede]

28. I have dude.

War is hell.

[Kanary]

2. We? I didn't know Sweden dropped a bomb on Japan.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Kanary

[Swede]

6. I had dozens of relatives in the war.

My uncle Bob flew bombers over Dresden. My uncle Patch was in at Cassino in Italy. They wanted to come home.

[Swede]

23. I also had an uncle in the Luftwaffe.

He died in 1956.

[Kanary]

153. Understood. BUt, did they drop an atomic bomb?

[bpilgrim]

3. None of the Military Leaders in theater at that time agree with you

none of the military leaders in theater at that time agree with you.

* 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:

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. . . .

In 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 DECISION, p. 3.

* 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. THE DECISION, p. 334.

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." THE DECISION, p. 334.

* 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 (the dropping of the atomic bomb) 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. THE DECISION, p. 335.

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. THE DECISION, p. 335.

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

psst... pass the word

peace

[nofurylike]

10. absolutely, bpilgrim. "barbarous" !! n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

18. That was great - thank you!

Dropping the bomb had nothing to do with ending WWII. It was about starting WWIII - the Cold War - on a good footing.

[Kool Kitty]

50. Brilliant and correct.

Well said.

[JohnKleeb]

51. You got a point there

Really though, I am undecided on the decision, something tells me it saved lives, other things tell me it was the wrong move. Thanks for that info though, it was interesting.

[Swede]

58. A couple people disagree with every other historical author doesn' t

make it so.

[bpilgrim]

64. EVERY leader in theater DISAGREE not just a COUPLE

small nit.

peace

[Swede]

77. google american losses of invasion of japan dude.

Millions dead.

[bpilgrim]

78. i don't need to

imagine how many would have LIVED if we had accepted their 1 condition in the spring of 45



peace

[leftistagitator]

82. Especially since that condition was to not prosecute the Emperor.

which we didn't do anyway.

[Baltimoreboy]

154. Weren't the Japanese negotiating?

Doesn't that mean that might have been ONE of their conditions?

Weren't they still killing people in the field? Don't those people also matter? Wouldn't the Japanese military have objected to a surrender under other circumstances?

You are trying to rewrite history into a whitewash of Japan.

[bpilgrim]

200. anyone who knows anything about japanese history KNEW that that condition

must be met before the japanese would surrender and we knew it too.

but in our arrogance we thought we could get a twofer...

but when they still didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb and the russins movin in we 'cut our losses' and that decision has stood the test of time as being a WISE one.

would have been worse than vietnam and what would we have gained, NOTHING but even MORE death.

i would trade IWO JIMA for 1 japanese EVERYDAY of the week.




Mt. Soribachi

wouldn't ANYBODY?

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

207. Not me

Iwo was the last stop on the way to Japan.

And even with your one condition there was no guarantee the Japanese military would surrender since even with it, they tried to coup. And of course there are those armies still in the field killing and raping and maiming.

I love people who try to revise history hoping they could make it better, only you never know the consequences of such hubris.

Iwo was hard fought and only a tiny sample of what we would have encountered if we had tried to invade the main islands. But it was necessary.

[bpilgrim]

210. obviously

fyi: IWO WAS NOT the 'LAST STOP' on the way to japan mainland OKINAWA was.

a TINYY minority of radicals TRIDE a pathic coup and were immediately ARRESTED.

though prior to that 1 condition being met not 1 japanese would have surrendered and IWO JIMA and all the rest give witness to that fact.

the japanese were ready and able to fight to the last man women and child to protect their nations honor, their emperor.

fortunately we ran out of nukes and the russians invaded and we did away with our unusual unconditional surrender demands and gave in, FINALLY.

think how many lives could have been saved and a COLD WAR possibly averted and a nuclear arms race certainly.

we americans have been haunted by our own devils ever since and that has givin rise to our current strangelovian administration who actually have their man in as the president this time.

"I don't know how WWIII will be fought but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Einstein

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

214. So, sorry,

I meant to say ONE of the last stops. Posting before 7:00 is hazardous to the health.

So, too, is reading rationalization after rationalization of how history could have been if only someone naive enough to believe the evil empire of Japan had been in charge.

Thank goodness no one was.

You are right, the Japanese were "ready and able to fight to the last man women and child to protect their nations honor, their emperor." But not all at once, ANY ONE OF THOSE. That meant that victory was more than the empire.

Fortunately, sanity prevailed among the Japanese and they surrendered.

How do you think ANY actions could have prevented the Cold War. (This should be funny.)

"America needs you, Harry Truman. Harry you'd know what to do."

[PATRICK]

220. Small question

Not that posting this late into the discussion it will be answered, but these theater commanders were systematically destroying whole civilian populations in those paper cities even though the primary targets were military. Also, they maybe had no more sense of what it would take to achieve a negotiated surrender than the administration diplomats. I will not mention the scurrilous subtext of jealousy over letting some super weapon take the credit for shortening a frustrating and unpromising air force decimation of Japan. When thousands upon thousands or civilians are going to die in any scenario they unfortunately cease to matter in the equation except to end the war quickly.

I wonder what their views were on the fire bombing of Dresden and other Churchill projects with incredibly less value and justification?

The actual question is whether the Japanese leaders(minus the Emperor)were ready to surrender at all ever. Dealings with a less stoic gangster like Hussein suggest these fellows as a rule have an infinite capacity to fight to the last drop of their people's blood and this has more weight than hints and conjectures that diplomacy was working. Which it wasn't.


If Russia alone had moved, say, and based their own air force to strike and start claiming chunks of Japan, it still would have taken a lot of time for the grudging deal with the US- who they must have realized didn't want Russia to get too far either.

More chilling is the degree of the administration's assessment. They had seven cities targeted for the first ROUND of available bombs, sparing only Kyoto because Sec. Stimson had visited there and realized its cultural value to Japanese civilization. Would FDR, weakened and sickened of war, had he survived, gone through with it? Probably. And there is no evaluation after all these years to indicate a long period of equal or greater slaughter would not have been necessary to force capitulation. As it was, it took the Emperor to force the leadership circle's hands while they were stunned and morose(if that is how it went down?). At the time the US must have thought everyone was getting off mercifully.

Back in the Pentagon, not the theater, they were also coldly calculating the beginning of the nuclear deterrent factor which needed a demonstration to the Russkies. There is a lot of murk about the use of the bomb, though it did likely save lives and shorten the war. That murk began when the US invested great resources to match the stillborn threat of Germany's project and could have ended as a weapon without a target of necessity. For Japan was in its endgame. It was only a calculation of when and at what cost and on what terms. That there was a need for logic and anguished discussion over its use is the meager comfort one can derive when even US allies would have showed far less compunction about using it. Churchill probably would have liked to threaten the Russians with it the day after.

Hats off to Gen Arnold anyway, for showing healthy dissent to this horror.

[bpilgrim]

242. they all recommended accepting japans 1 condition to surrender

in order to SAVE LIVES - ironic ain't it.

now who would know better japans ability to wage war than the military LEADERS who where shaping the FACTS ON THE GROUND?

now when even our own military leaders are shocked and horrified by what they have seen you know it is something terrible and since it is the bomb that keeps on killing even years after detonation reaching up into the womb and attacking even the unborn i think you can understand some of the subtle and not SO subtle differences between our firbombing and NUKING a DEFEATED trying to surrender nations cities TWICE.

the 'nuclear deterrent factor' only served to ESCALATE the tensions in the world and precipitated the LONG and COSTLY cold war AND the NUCLEAR ARMS RACE.

now look at where we are... i hope you take comfort in what these mysterious 'pentagon men' have done for all of us.


BTW: russia DID move and that is why we had no more time to dilly daily with the jaanese and FINALLY accepted their one condition after we ran out of nukes and time wasn't on our side.

anyways i have shown quotes from all our military leaders in theater at that time who ALL said it wasn't necessary militarily and if anyone should know it would be them.

peace

[Nederland]

317. Yeah

...and Vietnam military leaders in theater will tell you we could have won that war. Believing military leaders is a suckers move.

[bpilgrim]

319. well the military leaders in theater during wwII actually WON their war.

though we all would have lost if we didn't give in to thier 1 condition.

peace

[lanparty]

4. I doubt it would have gone on for years ...

But I really don't see much difference between destoying a city with one nuclear device vs destroying a city with 10,000 encendiary bombs. One method takes longer than the other.

I used to be a bit outraged and felt that the bombing was NOT necessary. But now my only beef is I wish they would have chosen a pure military target for the first "demonstration".

[MadHound]

352. One crucial difference between conventional and nuclear bombing

Conventional bombing casualties are immediate and direct. One hundred thousand dead from a conventional bomb is just that, one hundred thousand dead. Whereas a nuclear bomb is the gift that keeps on giving. Generations after the bomb people are still falling ill, or dying due to cancers, birth defects, latent radiation poisoning, etc. People who were born decades after the bomb was dropped are still paying the price with ravaged health and death. Big difference friend.

[rwenos]

5. And The Russkies . . .

Wouldn't commit about helping us. I don't believe they declared war against Japan until the last few weeks of the war.

You're probably gonna get flamed for your opinion, but I agree with you.

Wonder what NoFuryLike meant by "learn history." It may be obvious to her/him, but not to me.

People forget the Japanese had fought to the last man in the Aleutians, on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. What else did the Allies have to base their strategy on?

[nofurylike]

15. bpilgrim put a good starting place

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

then, go from there.

[rwenos]

30. Read it, but . . .

saw nothing to change my opinion. Truman wanted to end the war quickly, scare the Russkies and break the propaganda spell the Japanese High Command had cast over the population.

It was a horrible decision. But criticizing it now is so much Monday morning quarterbacking.

Thanks for the link, though. WW2 is endlessly fascinating to me.

[bpilgrim]

33. you must be a speed reader

http://www.doug-long.com

maybe that explains you missing it :shrug:

peace

[rwenos]

41. Since you challenge my reading . . .

BA (honors) 1975, MA 1977, JD 1991, 21 jury trials to date, unassisted.

Yes, I read fast. Doesn't mean I don't know ad hominem when I see it, though, eh mate?

[bpilgrim]

44. pfft...

wtf does that prove?

that you think you know all the truth?

uh, huh.

peace

[rwenos]

47. You Overstate . . .

Didn't say I know everything. Only that I read the page and a couple of the linked articles in the 20 or so minutes between posts, and nothing changed my mind.

Actually, your pettishness is pretty transparent. I'm not insulting you, I just disagree with you. It's a difficult moral issue, and reasonable minds can differ.

Or is this about something else?

[bpilgrim]

52. supporting TERRORISM is a pet peeve of mine

sorry :hi:

peace

[rwenos]

57. No Prob, but

what does the decision to drop the Bomb have to do with modern Terrorism? I despise terrorism. Maybe we agree about more than we disagree about.

[bpilgrim]

67. NUKING a defeated nation's cities that was trying to surrender

and which were filled with INNOCENT men, women and children is INDISCRIMANTE MURDER on a MASSIVE SCALE in the BLINK of an eye from 1 plane.

hope that helps :hi:

peace

[YankeeFan]

149. I Respectfully Disagree With You

You should look up the book, “Japan’s Longest Day”. It deals with their surrender. As it has been out of print for several years, I’ll boil things down for you:

1. There nearly was a coup over the Emperor’s surrender in the first place. Many Japanese Military leaders wanted to fight on. Bombs or no bombs. How many Japanese surrendered on Iwo Jima or Tarawa? Less than 300 out of over 21,000 in the former, only laborers in the latter.
2. Japan was ruled more by the military than by any civilian body. Democracy didn’t come until MacArthur came around. So while the civilian population might have wanted peace, the leaders didn’t.
3. Check out Japans history. During the early 1930’s there were plenty of assassinations on any leader, military or civilian who tried to have some control over its military. Try reading “The Eagle and the Rising Sun”. It tell much of pre-war Japan.
4. The Bomb was a great way for Japan to save face. If you don’t understand the phrase, I don’t think I can explain it.

I could go on and on…but…

By the way, Military History is a hobby of mine. Ever since Viet Nam I’ve tried to keep abreast of something that might get me killed by either accident or on purpose. And with that, I have to say, all too much of today’s revisionist re-writings are based on wishful thinking. I can say without a possibility miscalculation, Japan would not have surrendered so quickly if Nagasaki had not have been Bombed.
Please notice that said Nagasaki and not Hiroshima. Too many people forget the second city.

[bpilgrim]

197. you mean you disagree with Eisenhower, MacArthur, Admiral Leahy, etc

not me...

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

peace

[MadHound]

354. And yet there is one fact that flies in the face of your theory

And that is the Japanese had sent out peace missions on the quiet starting in the fall of '44. These missions were manned by both military and civilian officers. Their one condition for surrender was to retain the status of their emperor. The US pressed for unconditional surrender, and yet accepted this very same condition AFTER we dropped two bombs. So why didn't we save lives all around, and accept this one condition before we dropped the bomb. Because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to demonstrate to the Russians that we had a significant edge in the upcoming Cold War.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

158. The "Russkies" won the war!!!

Well, rwenos, first of all I have this unusual personality quirk, I hate the word "Russkie". It seems on the same level as "n*gger" and "yid". Second of all, your comment that the Russians didn't really commit about helping the Allies...have you ever heard of Stalingrad? Of Kursk? Of the siege of Leningrad? Russia didn't worry much about Japan because Russia was too busy KICKING NAZI ASS and losing millions of lives in the process. No country fought harder in the entire war, and had the Soviet Union not been one of the Allies, we would all be speaking German right now. No country fought harder and I hope the world never forgets the tremendous sacrifice that Russia made to fight the Nazi menace.

[Swede]

168. I don't think many here have read the history of wwll.

Hey KL welcome to DU. What does your name translate to English. Red somethink,I think.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

230. glad to be here

Thanks 4 the welcome Swede!! I'm very glad to be here with my progressive comrades! And you're right about "Krasnaya" means "Red". "Lastochka" is a kind of bird, a swallow I think. For me it refers to this certain song by the GREAT Russian songwriter Boris Grebenshikov, called "Lastochka" and it is essentially an anti-war song. PEACE everybody!!

:toast:

[bpilgrim]

204. yes they did and made the GREATEST SACRIFICES of all over 20 million DEAD

i salute my comrades in arms who stood toe to toe against the facist of our fathers and grandfathers day :toast:


The surrender location of the 6th Army Staff at Stalingrad

peace

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

252. A salute to fallen comrades

Hear hear!!! The world must never forget the 20 million who gave their lives in the fight against evil.

A DU salute!!

:kick: :toast: :kick:

It ticks me off whenever people are always like "oh, the USA won the war, the USA beat the Nazis". BS. The Russians beat the Nazis, the Americans helped out.

[Dangerman]

277. Yep.

Too bad we would later fight against them in the Cold War.

Not too take away anything from Hitler, who did unforgivable things. But Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Stalin was a discussingly brutal dictator, just as evil as Hitler is. Though the Nazis did worse, Russia was then under the leadership of that murderous son of a bitch.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

298. actually Stalin was worse

Actually Stalin was even worse than Hitler. I mean, they were both f*cking bastards who never should have been let out of hell, but Stalin was the worse of the two. But does the tyrannical rule of one dictator forever impact policy toward Russia? During most of the Cold war Russia was under the rule of weirdo Khrushchev and uninspiring deadwood Brezhnev, not Stalin. Russia is not Stalin.

[DBoon]

7. To show Stalin we had the Bomb

The target wasn't Japan - it was the Soviet Union. With the war in Europe over, Stalin was able to concentrate his forces on the east.

The reason two bombs were used was to show Stalin that we had more than one. How many more wa up to him to figure out.

The atomic bomb wasn't the last weapon in WWII - it was the first weapon in the Cold War.

[bpilgrim]

9. our first SHOCK-n-AWE operation

aimed at the WORLD.

peace

[DBoon]

21. We started the first nuclear war!

n/t

[Kool Kitty]

56. Yes, we did.

And we are still the only power possessing nuclear weapons that have ever used them. And we still are (depleted uranium). Sad, sad, sad.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

160. yikes

Oy vey!!! Gadzooks and scary!!! So to scare Stalin, we murdered millions of civilians. To scare Stalin. Millions of civilians.
God, we never had any 'moral high ground', did we?


DISARM ALL NUKES

[RoeBear]

222. Not millions...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm


Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

231. still too many...

I don't care about the exact figures. All right, maybe it wasn't millions. But even one civilian death in a war is one too many.

[Spiffarino]

326. Whoa. Millions?

Are you still talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In that case, the number of souls lost was about 300,000. Horrible by any estimation, but not millions.

The Militarists of Imperial Japan murdered untold millions in Asia
Hitler's Nazis murdered well over 20 million in Europe

Wars should never be entered into without an extremely compelling set of circumstances and never voluntarily. Vietnam and Iraq are glaring examples of the fact. War should always be a last resort. However, sometimes - as in WWII - war is all that is left and when that time comes, the only option is to end it quickly and with as few lives lost as possible.


On edit: removed lousy example

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

364. I'm bad with numbers

I've had several people comment on my overestimation of the number of souls lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I admit I didn't really check my facts very well and I'm bad with numbers anyway. But I stand by my original comment, just Wite-Out "millions" and put in "hundreds of thousands".

[Junkdrawer]

166. That's the correct answer - and the one I think most serious historians...

who have looked at the record would agree with.

[Faust]

260. exactly....

the rest of you guys can argue and rationalize all night about how we "had" to drop two nuclear bombs on civilian targets to beat Japan so you can keep your illusions about America intact... but the truth is our government committed these war crimes to impress and scare a potential enemy (the Soviets), whom we needed as an enemy to continue spending billions for our War Department and keep our economy out of depression.

[Spinzonner]

8. It's easy for us from the perspective of over 50 years

to question the decision because our opinions have no unanswered consequence.

However ...

while those are presented as arguments the actual situation wasnt quite so certain.

There is no evidence that the politicians and military people at the highest reaches of the US Govt ever considered any moral aspects of using it. After the effects of the incindiary raids over Germany and Japan that devastated civilian populations, it is hard to make the moral case that because while results were quantitatively similar, just because it was done with one bomb instead of thousands, the action was qualitively different.

There were things going on in Japan that might have led to a surrender. POlitical feelers through other countries had already been made. Whether they would have accepted unconditional surrender under that basis is unknown.

Dropping the second bomb so soon is questionable. There really wasnt time for the Japan leadership to comprehend and make the political movement necessary. Also, the hostorical records indicates that the dropping of the second bomb wasnt seriously debated; having dropped the first successfully it was essentially automatic that the second would be dropped quickly.

OTOH, they werent sure the plutonium bomb would work and were wary of preannouncing it only to have it fail.

And there is an argument to be made that, having once used it and seen in real terms the devistation, it made it difficult for the world to consider using it again. That might have prevented an atomic war.

[bpilgrim]

14. we can simply read what the military leaders in theater then thougt

they were all against it and recommended accepting japans 1 condition to surender in order to SAVE LIVES... once we ran out of nukes - temporarily - we accepted and has stood the test of time.

there aren't anymore japanese flying planes into our stuff anymore, eh.

peace

[Spinzonner]

25. I dont believe that the theatre commanders were part of the

decision group and that many of them were necessarily aware of or significantly informed about the bomb.

The comments above from them were retrospective judgments, not evidence that they either knew or had a say.

And it was easy to say once the issue had been decided already - another way.

I'm not saying they were wrong, merely pointing out the 20/20 hibndsight nature of it.

[bpilgrim]

31. believe what you will but the record shows otherwise

as the decision was supposedly made tsue to military reasons the military POV is/was certainly important.

they were made RIGHT THEN and all of them stood by them throughout the years till their deaths.

20/20 hindsight, look whos talking THEY were THERE.

i think they make a much better case then the BS propaganda regurgitated here in a sentence or two - sometimes even a paragraph.

* 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. . . . THE DECISION, p. 4.

* 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 pp. 352-358

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

[Bush was AWOL]

53. Do you believe what your military leaders in theatre today

tell you?

[Must_B_Free]

11. We had to show the world that it worked

and that they were next if they dared to mess with us.

(cynical this evening)

[Swede]

12. The world was so war weary.

Would you send your sons to die when everyone but the regime in Tokyo knew it was over?

[MikeG]

13. We forget the daily toll of horrible deaths from 1939 to 1945.

I'm reading Martin Gilbert's "The Second World War."

It belongs in the horror section of the bookstore.

Thank God someone found a swift way to end the killing.

[Swede]

20. Conservative estimates ot 60-70 million!!!!!!

Thats California times two.

[nofurylike]

29. your thread title said you won't hear reason.

you are wrong.

you are fortunate some will even try to teach. please learn form them.

[Swede]

184. Your post said you won't hear reason

You are wrong.
Don't believe all the revisionist history you hear.

[bpilgrim]

22. we NUKED a DEFEATED, trying to surender, nation's cities filled with

INNOCENT men, women and children, TWICE.

that my friend is TERRORISM on its GRANDEST SCALE.

HIROSHIMA is the SECOND most HORRID word in the american lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI - kurt vonnegut

think about it and read up on what our military leaders who were there thought about the decision...

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

peace

[MikeG]

27. I'll ask my uncle, who would have had to invade Japan..

And was stationed on Okinawa for that purpose.

Not some officer who wouldn't have to do any of the dying.

The war killed 60-70 million people. Most horribly.

I'm not going to cry over the loss of 70,000 enemy. Yes, enemy.

[bpilgrim]

34. you ain't got a CLUE

the number todate from hiroshima ALONE is almost a quater MILLION people HELLO.

would you have SPARED the men on IWO JIMA their fate if we would have accepted their 1 condition for surrender sooner?



think about it...

peace

[MikeG]

38. You're overstating the numbers.

And these fuckers attacked us. BOO FUCKING HOO.

[bpilgrim]

42. BULLSHIT

i just read that in an article on hiroshima the other day right here on DU the numbers were 240,000 or there abouts JUST for HIROSHIMA.

so do you think iraq has the right to NUKE US now?

and BESIDES they were on already DEFEATED and trying to SURRENDER.

if this is how the average joe things we are all doomed.

peace

[MikeG]

152. They weren't trying to surrender.

The Japanese Military attempted a coup of the emperor right before his announcement.

They almost succeeded.

They weren't going to give up because they knew they would be tried for war crimes. They would have fought to the last man if only conventional weapons were used. Just like the Germans did. The Japanese fought to the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Do you forget how brutal the Japanese were to China and the Philippines?

You're dreaming. Live in the real world.

[Djinn]

290. so if the Iraqi resistance somehow

got hold of a nuke and used it to murder hundres of thousands of American civilians it'd be OK-doaky with you coz after all you "fuckers" attacked them! in a far more aggressive and deadly manner than Pearl Harbour?

For my money the transcripts of the Yalta conference tell me all I need to know, it was a clear start to the next war.

[nofurylike]

54. those are the facts.

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

65. They absolutely are not the facts!

I deplore what we are doing in Iraq now and what Israel does to Palestine, but this is one instance when mass murder needed to take place. I am way too tired to list numerous reasons--which there are--why it was without a doubt one of the greatest decisions ever made.

[bpilgrim]

70. then when we get NUKED you will understand

since we are behaving JUST LIKE imperial japan.

read up on GEACPS sounds just like our plans for bring PEACE, PROSEPERITY and DEMOCRACY to the ME.

they even used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS to circumvent due process... JUST LIKE US.



think about it...

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

169. Let me know when we rape Nanking

[bpilgrim]

198. Abu Gharib

Iraqi Woman Recalls Abu Gharib Rape Ordeal
... CAIRO (IslamOnline.net) - The rape ordeal she suffered at the hands of US soldiers, both males and females, in the notorious Abu Gharib prison will continue to ...
www.rense.com/general54/aaby.htm

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

208. LOL, I was waiting for that bullshit answer

Not even a vague ghost of Nanking. Hundreds of thousands mutilated and used for weapons practice.

The Japanese army was monstrous. It needed to be put down.

[bpilgrim]

211. that's just one... they are popin up ALL OVER not only IRAQ but AFGHANISTA

i don't remember reading that the japanese military killed ALL the inhabitants of nanking or completely LEVLING during their occupation of the city unlike what we did to HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI.

i don't think you wan't to argue it by simply counting bodies since we might WIN.

how many MILLIONS did we KILL in VIETNAM?

google it and get back to us.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

215. They did their best in Nanking

One barbarous killing after another -- chopping off heads, using live human beings for bayonet practice, raping and killing like the monsters they were.

Somehow, in the insanity of your post, you equate defeating such an enemy with the actions of that enemy. More's the pity.

[RummyTheDummy]

151. Nuclear weapons and atomic weapons are different

Or didn't you know that?

[bpilgrim]

212. whatever

SHOCK-n-AWE

peace

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

16. The urban bombing policy was a HOLOCAUST

Millions of CIVILIANS were murdered by the allied bombing of germany and japan. And it's questionable whether it even did any good.

[ConsAreLiars]

17. That massacre of innocents was not aimed at Japan.

It was the opening shot in the renewed war against communism.

[JohnnyRingo]

19. Face it....

we dropped the "bomb" because we needed to see the results on human health and society.

There was no other way to test it.

Turns out...it was terribly demoralizing. Let us hope that no civilization ever thinks it can get away with nuclear deployment again.

And if any nation tries, may the world be one and intervene.
THIS is why we need the U.N., to give nations a forum to exchange grievances instead of missles.

[UdoKier]

24. Show some decency and let the innocent victims be memorialized.

There are 363 other days of the year to rationalize the acts of terrorism and mass murder that were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Have you lived in Japan? Have you met the hibakusha? Have you been to the hypocenter? I seriously doubt it.

What is it that compels people to post this kind of rot- on this of all days. I'm sure that the muslim fundamentalist fanatics have all kinds of great "reasons" for why 9-11 "had to be done". The result is the same. Terrorism and mass murder must be condemned, whether practiced by states or by vigilante extremist groups.

Today is a day to remember the victims, not to try to inoculate yourself so as to avoid aven the slightest pinprick to your conscience as an American.

I'm very proud to be an American, and at the same time deeply ashamed of what we did to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam and Iraq. It is possible to possess both feelings.

[PsN2Wind]

26. You might as well give up Swede

We have folks here that can clearly state what should have been done sixty years after the decision had to be made. I personally had two brothers that were set to participate in the invasion of Japan, one of whom later died in Korea. I was glad to see the war end by whatever means.

[Swede]

35. I grew up with people that weren't sure our side would win.

They were scared shitless,and when the bomb dropped they were glad it was over. If you can convey that fear maybe you can let them know why it had to be done.

[bpilgrim]

37. i am QUOTING the military leaders who were THERE

please...

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

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

40. Maybe they are agenda driven like swift boat vets for truth?

Good decision by Truman and most historians agree.

[Faust]

261. phew...

by the look of a lot of these pro-bomb responses, there needs to be some efforts at denazification around here.

[Baltimoreboy]

262. It's the pro-imperial Japan posts that are pro-fascist

America was fighting a fascist nation.

[PsN2Wind]

48. Well I'm quoting my brother

who married a Japanese. "I didn't want to have to try to fight them fuckers in their homeland".

[bpilgrim]

55. noone did

but IMAGINE if we could have ended it EARLIER how many lives could have been saved and i bet your brother would have prefered THAT.

:hi:

peace

[Nevernose]

62. The Japanese APPEARED to reject the Potsdam agreement

On July 28, 1945. According to your site http://www.doug-long.com/stimson9.htm

And what I'm primarily saying is nothing is ever black and white, especially when discussing history. Hindsight is 20/20, afterall, to both sides of the argument.

Stimson's diary, btw, indicates that while the order to prepare the bomb had indeed been given on July 25th, by July 28th the Japanese had appeared to confirm the belief that they would not surrender. An argument could be made that this justifies the dropping of the bomb, regardless of the timing of the order given.

Personally, I'll pray for the women and children of Nanking, and pray for the women and children of Hiroshima. Someday we will all be brothers, and there will be an end to war. It may be a long time coming, but of the end to war, I have no doubts.

[bpilgrim]

76. because we wanted UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

which is NOT the norm in WARFARE btw.

once we accepted their one condition it ended and that decision to let them keep the symbolic institution of emperor has stood the test of time.

al i am saying is wouldn't it have been WISER and MORAL to have accepted their offer sooner.

think how many would have lived.



DEATH OF ERNIE PYLE, American war correspondent, took place while he was observing the fighting on Ie Shima. Above he is pictured talking to a Marine infantryman on Okinawa a few hours after its invasion. After the close of the Ryukyus campaign Brig. Gen. Edwin R. Randle, assistant commander of the 77th Division, unveiled a monument (below) over Pyle's grave.


source...
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter7.htm

peace

[MUSTANG_2004]

165. William Manchester's take on it

One excellent point that the author William Manchester (a WWII Pacific veteran) makes is that Truman had just recently ascended to the presidency and may have missed some diplomatic cues that Japan could have been induced to surrender.

On the other hand, there were plenty of cues that Japan was not close to giving in, and, as my father was finishing up his training and was about to be deployed to the Pacific theater, I'll come down heartily on the side of Truman.

[bpilgrim]

201. none of the military leaders in theater at that time saw it that way

i'll take their perspective on the war not to mention the 60 years of information as the one being more informed when it comes to the BIG PICTURE.

no offense.

peace

[MUSTANG_2004]

251. You're not entirely correct

While MacArthur is on record as thinking the atomic bomb was a terrible weapon to use, he had told the joint chiefs that he thought that the navy and air-power alone would not get Japan to surrender and that an invasion would be necessary. If he didn't think the Japanese were about to surrender, I don't see why you think Truman should have been certain of it.

Considering that days before the bomb was dropped, Premier Suzuki had said the unconditional surrender terms were beneath notice, and considering that the US knew that the Japanese were trying to open secret negotiations with the Soviets (with the possibility of Japan trading land in China to the Soviets), it seems reasonable for Truman to do all that he could to hasten the end of the war.

[bpilgrim]

254. well at least i post actuall quotes

sorry but i think it is clear that NONE of our military leaders thought it was necessary not JUST MAC.

the japanese were in dialog with the russians since 44 and we know it.
our foolish and unorthodox demand of unconditional surrender is what cost so many lives.

once we accepted their 1 condition the war ended.

peace

[nofurylike]

60. the war was already over. it is not "giving up" to learn. n/t

[Djinn]

291. a neighbour of mine who I used to help out

who passed away a few years ago was a POW in Changi and one of his brothers was killed during the infamous Sandakan March, he had absolutely no illusions re the Imperial Japanese army and it's brutality, and not surprisingly stayed fairly anti-Japanese throughout his life, yet he believed the the bombing of Hiroshimi and Nagasaki were about the next war not the one they'd been fighting.

It's not like he wasn't more than happy for the war to end too.

[Bush was AWOL]

32. Clearly, without a doubt, one of Truman's finer

decisions. He saved millions of lives. I am not being sarcastic because that is the overwhelming truth.

[bpilgrim]

39. you support NUKING a defeated, trying to SURRENDER nations citied

fillied with the INNOCENT... TWICE :puke:

sound like something OBL would say.

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

43. You do realize that they were ready to fight to the death

don't you? They would've either committed suicide or killed our soldiers. Hell, some of these guys thought the war was still going on nearly 20 years after the bomb was dropped. Truman saved Millions of lives. And that is the truth.

[bpilgrim]

49. once we accepted their 1 condition the war ended

and their symbolic institution of emperor and head of state remains to this very day.

can you imagine us letting hitler carry on?

ever wonder why we HAD TO let him and the institution remain?

it was a WISE DECISION that has stood the test of time BUT just think how many lives could have been saved if we had accepted their offer in the spring of 45?



peace

[nofurylike]

74. exactly exactly exactly....

"just think how many lives could have been saved if we had accepted their offer in the spring of 45?"

the same terms the u.s. accepted after.....

atrocity


peace

[PsN2Wind]

81. Or better yet

Think of how many lives would have been saved had THEY not decided to attack the United States.

[neverborn]

45. your .25MIL statement

Is irrelevant. We had no idea that there would be long-term effects of the bomb.

[MadHound]

358. Oh there were plenty of worries about long term and short term affects

Radiation and it's long term detrimental effects were well known at the time of the bomb. Lots and lots of research had already been done on the effects of radiation.

[stickdog]

336. I've also learned to stop worrying and love the bombings! (nt)

[KelleyKramer]

36. Instead of civilians, Why not nuke a military base?

Why did we have to target civilians, wouldn’t nuking a few large military bases have sent the same message?

[Swede]

46. The firebombing of Tokyo killed 100,000,of Dresden 80,000.

Out side wanted it over already.

[ConsAreLiars]

61. Yeah!!! ???

Glorifying and celebrating the slaughter of innocents is what makes America great. What wonderful memories! Hooray for US! We can kill more than anyone! Hundreds of thousands at a time! Wow!

[Swede]

69. What I am saying is you had to be there.

We wanted it over now. Read some history already.

[KelleyKramer]

71. But why not nuke a few military targets?

Thats my question

[ConsAreLiars]

73. You weren't there

The innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. This was not their wish. This vile act was a demonstration aimed at the Soviet Union, not an act of war. It was a genocidal act aimed at another target altogether.

[DaveSZ]

63. Well

I likely wouldn't be alive had the Japanese not surrendered when they did.

My grandfather was about to be shipped to mainland Japan.

Does this justify anything? I don't know, but it's interesting how history plays out.

[PsN2Wind]

75. There are probably some here

that might well not be here since a land invasion of Japan would have probably removed tens of thousands of men or more from the gene pool. I've seen the tunnels in Japan where the rail guns were hidden, not something I or anyone here, on either side of this issue, would want to go against.

[KelleyKramer]

88. There is one here who wants to know...

Why wouldn’t nuking military targets have gotten us the same result?

[PsN2Wind]

59. Sure we coulda done that

The naval facility at Yokasuka would have been a prime target and probably would have killed a Helluva lot more civilians.

[KelleyKramer]

68. Not all of Japans military bases had 250k+ civilians

So... Wouldn’t nuking a few large military bases have sent the same message?

[YankeeFan]

138. We Didn't Have a "Few Nukes"

...At the time.

You are thinking of a few years later when we had the Nukes on assembly line basis. We were only producing about one Bomb per month or so at the time.

Check out the books by Robert Rhodes about the construction of the Bomb. They are fascinating. They include the politics of Why and Why Not.

By the way, Hiroshima was a legitimate target. There was an Army HQ there and a few other legitimate targets that I can't remember at the moment.

And by the way, did you know that Tokyo was scheduled to be either the 3rd or 4th target to be attacked by the Bomb? That is Fact, not revisionist writing.

[KelleyKramer]

148. We had at least 2 and used them both on civilians

We probably had more, but that doesn’t matter because we KNOW we had two.

So your point is moot, we could have used the first one on a legitimate military target and then used the 'back-up' to kill 100s of thousands of women, children, and old people.

[F.Gordon]

193. There were no military targets left

We had been bombing the shit out of Japan for over a month prior to dropping the A-Bomb. Any target we wanted and with little to no opposition from the Japanese. By the end of July Stars & Stripes had reported that the Japanese Naval Fleet was completely destroyed.

"History's first atomic bomb was dropped into the center of Hiroshima, on 9:15am Sunday. Col. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. of Miami Fla, pilot of the atom-carrying Superfortress apparently had not been restricted to any particular target. He picked Hiroshima 'because it was clear there.'"

Why did we have to kill civilians? At first we tried not to, but our military decided that the best strategy for winning on both fronts was breaking the will of the people. By the time we got to Berlin 85% of that city had already been turned to rubble.

Of course, you can listen to all the resident DU "military historians" tell you that the A-Bomb saved millions of American lives. I'm not sure who was going to "kill" all these Americans. Maybe a few Japanese women and children throwing sticks and rocks.
:crazy:

[OneBlueSky]

66. makes you proud that the US is the only country . . .

to have ever used the most demonic weapon of mass destruction ever created by mankind, does it? . . . makes me ashamed . . . and quite sure that, give the proper circumstances, we'd do it again . . . particularly if Bush isn't removed from office in November . . .

[Swede]

72. Of course not. Read some history books.

Our side won,barely. Think about Nazi-Japan-Facist with the nukes and what do you think would happen?

[JohnKleeb]

79. Swede I think I see your point

I am on the fence on this really, either way my opinion turns out, I wont hate Truman, I admire him a lot on a personal level.

[bpilgrim]

84. what POINT

if it is about SAVING LIVES i thing i demonstrated that that was a LIE.

and i didn't quote bleeding heart liberals i quoted our military leaders from that time so i would REALLY like to know what your are basing your opinion on.

:hi:

peace

btw: who is telling you to 'hate' truman?

The only thing NEW in this world is the HISTORY you DON'T KNOW - H. TRUMAN

peace

[SmileyBoy]

87. So what then, bpilgrim, would you rather have the US invade Tokyo?

Do you think less people would have died if we didn't drop the bomb???

[JohnKleeb]

89. pilgrim I am on the fence here man

You both have great points. No one is telling me to hate Truman man, some people think hes scum because of this decision he made and I think despite it all I like the guy. I am basing my opinion on knowing that a mainland invasion of Japan would have cost many lives but I also hate NBC weapons, I cant decide. Oh and I know you didnt quote bleeding hearts, thats why I think you have a point, remember I am undecided in this, I lean towards reluctantly for the use but at the drop of a hat, I could be the other way around.

[SmileyBoy]

93. John, here's all you have to know:

1) WWII was the most horrible time in the history of the human species.

2) Considering the circumstances of that horrible time, dropping the A-Bomb was the only necessary way to immediately end this horrible time in humanity.

3) The Japanese were willing to fight the Americans until every single Japanese person on Earth was dead.

4) They would not have cared if 1 million or more American troops died.

5) The war could have dragged on to 1946-47 if the bomb was not dropped.

6) The act of dropping the bomb and the number of innocent civilians killed in that act was unfortunately, due to the circumstances of this tragic period in human history, was the least horrific of all potential outcomes. It's a testament to the horible state of that war when 600,000 dead Japanese was the least deadly thing that could potentially happen.

7) The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT good things. They were NOT events in which we should take pride in. We should be ashamed of it. But can you honestly give me any other circumstance in which less lives (Japanese and American) would be lost???

[JohnKleeb]

107. See man

thats why I am on the fence, you all do make good points though, I'll give you my final decision in 67 years on my death bed :D.

[stickdog]

337. That's the company line.

Don't forget that we also had to kill the injuns because they were scalping everybody.

[KelleyKramer]

94. Instead of civilians, Why not nuke a military bases?

Why did we have to target civilians, wouldn’t nuking a few large military bases have sent the same message?

[nofurylike]

127. as was demonstrated by the pentagon papers about Vietnam,

this country does regular demonstrations of its superior inhumanity.


peace

[bpilgrim]

97. what is his 'GREAT POINT'

that is what i want to know?

that it 'saved lives' i think that point has been proven FALSE and he has provided NOTHING but INNUENDO to 'prove his'

that is what i am having trouble understanding. something as SERIOUS and HORRIBLE as this and you support it some days and not the other.

I hope at least you read about it more seriously though... i know you have an open mind and that is the best thing to have of all even more important than knowledge itself.

:hi:

peace

[JohnKleeb]

110. he doesnt have a "great point"

what you all do, the pro bomb and anti bomb people have is good legitimate points, I have to say I am undecided.

[bpilgrim]

what POINT

???

peace

[JohnKleeb]

124. jeez

The point that it may have been nesscary to save American lives from an invasion, it was a terrible thing dont get me wrong.

[bpilgrim]

132. so i am annoying you by asking a question?

jeez.

now i have just shown that that point is FALSE and that all military leaders in theater at that time thought it wasn;t necessary to end the war and had recommended that we accept japans 1 condition to end the war earlier in order to SAVE LIVES.

after knowing that how can you think that dropping the bomb 'saved lives'

i like hearing from the folks who were in the know and actually there and ALL of them said on the record REPEATEDLY that it wasn't necessary.

so what evidence do you have that it was necessary besides the opinions of folks who aren;t even that well informed about the details of that desicion.

ah, whatever... i'm tired and going to bed, just keep an open mind.

peace

[JohnKleeb]

134. No, you called me ignorant I believe

thats what annoyed me. I am keeping an open mind, I think both sides made good points, thats open minded is it not?

[bpilgrim]

139. you believe?

but whatever, you are IGNORANT on a lot of the facts surring the decision aren't you?

nothing wrong with that, right.

but to say that these folks who have been posting dozens of innacuracies with NOTHING to even back them up and others posting direct quotes from the leaders who were there and yet you think both sides have made good points?

well i have seen NOTHING but the same old tired war time propaganda that survives to this very day.

and in these dangerous times to think that good folks, even here on DU, can see the justifyication of NUKING a DEFEATED - hello - TRYING TO SURRENDER nation's cities, filled with innocent men, women and children... twice is very SCARY to me.

oh, well.. thats just my 2 cents

peace

[JohnKleeb]

143. I didnt call you guys inaccurate

Ive said that both sides have brought up legit points. Yes, I plead guilty to being ignorant, happy? I cant help it, I dont know total history. I really dont know, so you got me, I am ignorant, but I really dont know truly what to believe.

[bpilgrim]

145. bone up

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

peace

[Junkdrawer]

186. That's a good site...

I knew about James Byrnes from my reading about the decision a long, long time ago. When I Googled for a cite, that site came up.

I think you said this earlier, but, to all the posters on this topic:

If you want to know WHY we dropped the bomb, look at the men who advised Truman and what their agenda was. Everything else is just "If I were there, this is what I would have done" and that's just not very interesting to me.

[Spiffarino]

327. Look, you have your sources...

...and I have mine. BFD.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm

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. - Leo Szilard, physicist and one of the "fathers" of the atomic bomb

Note Szilard's comments. If the Allies "could have had a negotiated peace." Exactly how does he know this? Hindsight is wonderfully perfect, and a perfectly useless thing.

What I've learned has come over four decades of talking to people who actually fought in the Pacific theater, including my father.

If you want a taste of history, listen to the people who had to go and do the fighting. Listen to the family members of those who were sent into the fray, and to those whose loved ones died. You will find many who are sorry, but few who disagree that the bombs should have been used.

[MadHound]

359. And note the wording here,

"Unconditional Surrender" The Japanese had been sending out both civil and military peace missions for months with one condition, the retention of the position of the emperor. One condition, that's all, and in the end, a condition that we granted. In fact we granted two conditions. The second one was to forego massive Japanese war crime trials, in exchange for the Japanese turning over all of their data they collected from the human experiments they performed.

[OneBlueSky]

96. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BOMB CITIES!!!

the same message could have been delivered by bombing military installations . . . or even unpopulated countryside . . . the destruction of innocent lives was unforgiveable . . .

and I've read plenty of history books . . .

[OneBlueSky]

98. sorry . . . dupe . . . please delete . . .

.

[Swede]

102. They actually bombed two smaller cities

More were killed in Dresden.

[OneBlueSky]

108. well, I'm sure that's comforting to the residents of Hiroshima . . .

and Nagasaki . . . particularly the ones who died the slow agony of radiation poisoning . . .

[no name no slogan]

282. How did we "barely" win?

Other than a couple islands in Alaska, was our soil occupied by a foreign invader in WWII? Were entire GENERATIONS of people erased from the face of the earth?

How many of our industrial cities were LEVELED by firestorms created by Japanese and Nazi bombing?

How much of our rich farmland was rendered untillable for years afterward?

After the war, this country DID NOT have to spend an entire generation rebuilding itself to get halfway back to where it was before.

Every relative I had that went to WWII NEVER came back. They NEVER would have had to go had we properly finished WWI in the first place with a REAL peace settlement, and had the captains of our industry (like Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and several other rich capitalists) NOT TRADED with the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Spanish Falange in the FIRST PLACE.

Hell, had our OWN government sided with the rest of the Democratic world against Hitler's support of Franco in Spain, there's a very good chance he would have "learned his lesson" and NEVER attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Yes, we did lose many people, and I lost several relatives. But to say that we "barely won" belies the losses suffered by the Soviets, the Chinese, the Spanish AND the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Djinn]

292. stop telling people to read history

many of us have - extensively and we disagree with you - you're not making a coherent argument you're just coming across as arrogant and actually pretty ignorant

[SmileyBoy]

80. I won't be popular here, but I agree with you.

The Japanese were insane at that time. They were willing to fight until their ethnic group became extinct. "Fight to the last man" meant every single Japanese person. They were very insane. And I don't know of any BS surrender proposal they made in spring of 1945. they were FAR from surrendering. If a million more US troops would be killed, they obviously wouldn't care.

Now I'm not saying that it was a good thing. It was a nasty, horrible thing. It was an inhuman thing. However, it was not an unnecessary thing.

[Swede]

83. Talk to your grandparents,they didn't know if our side would win.

Just think about that for a second.

[SmileyBoy]

85. Like I said, I agree with you.

I'm not saying it was a good thing to do, I don't think it at all. But it was completely necessary.

And yes, I agree, I don't know if we would have come out victorious if we decided to invade Tokyo, because the Japanese sure as hell weren't willing to give up.

Why do you think some people have called WWII Imperialist Japan "The largest cult in world history"???

[Swede]

92. I have read too many stories of allies killing civilians

Have you read of the betrayal of the partisans. From Poland to the Caucasus millions of people on "our" side were turned over to Stalin. He butchere them of course-Hungarians-Romanians-Czechz-Slovaks-Ukrainians-Moldovans-Poles-Kossacks-he killed them all. We turned our back on them in the name of peace.

[JohnKleeb]

86. thats for damn sure

I am on the fence honestly, I know I am a genuine John Kerry flip artist :D, sometimes I say I would have supported, others I would have opposed, now I am on the fence, you do bring up some good points honestly, and youre right, victory wasnt certain, and as northwest says, the Japanese were willing to fight to the last guy, and a mainland invasion of Japan would have I think had more US casualities and Japanese as well. I am still undecided but I lean towards reluctantly for it.

[nofurylike]

113. this has been answered and answered. so many keep repeating this.

now here this:
Japan tried to surrender with one proviso.

u.s. said no,

did a despicable mass HUMAN EXPERIMENT!!!
and demonstration NOT of a weapon, but of having the INHUMANITY TO USE IT!!!!

MASS MURDER, BECAUSE NO REASON TO DO IT!!!
NO REASON!!!
NO REASON!!!!

TWO CITIES OF CIVILIANS!!!!

then said yes to the exact terms of surrender they'd said no to just months before.


peace

[Swede]

181. No, it ended the war.

Saved millions of lives,American and Japanese.

[bpilgrim]

91. what!? you don't have a CLUE

after PH we were UNDEFEATED all the way accross the pacific AND we MASSIVELY OUT PRODUCED them in EVERYTHING.

WW2 aircraft production
Sponsored links:
Category:World War II aircraft World War Two aircraft production by country and year.

{| border="2" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="margin:4px; border:4px solid #cccccc; font-size:80%;" |-bgcolor="#cccccc" |Country || 1939 || 1940 || 1941 || 1942 || 1943 || 1944 || 1945

|- |UK || 7,940 || 15,049 || 20,094 || 23,672 || 26,263 || 26,461 || 12,070

|- |US || 2,141 || 6,086 || 19,433 || 47,836 || 85,898 || 96,318 || 46,001

|- |USSR || 10,382 || 10,565 || 15,735 || 25,436 || 34,900 || 40,300 || 20,900

|- |Germany || 8,295 || 10,826 || 12,401 || 15,409 || 24,807 || 40,593 || 7,540

|- |Japan || 4,467 || 4,768 || 5,088 || 8,861 || 16,693 || 28,180|| 8,263

source...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/WW2-aircraft-production

in the last year of the war we were CRUSHING EVERYBODY in PRODUCTION shoot NONE of our cities were even bombed.

you reveal your IGNORANCE in almost every post but even that doesn't give you pause.

peace

[JohnKleeb]

117. Sorry but I really dont know what to say

and I dont appreciate being called ignorant btw you can still beat an occupying army even if they do have more vehicles and etc. I dont even have a final opinion on this so please try to respect my views, I am conflicted on this so please try to understand my view on this.

[bpilgrim]

133. huh

i wasn't talking to you john.

peace

[JohnKleeb]

136. you werent? I am so confused

I am trying to see both points, btw I know youre gonna disagree with me here but the pro bomb side has good points but so does the anti, here's one thing I think we can all agree on, the bomb dropping was terrible.

[bpilgrim]

144. you keep saying things

but nothing comes out... 'both sides have good points' then you don't even BOTHER to explain WHAT those good points are so noone knows what you are talking about.

look this is the aniversery of a TERRIBLE MOMENT in our history and i have relatives in japan so i may be a little short tying to discuss mass murder with folks especially when they are trying to defend it.

btw: my post, that you responded to was directed to the originator of this sick thread.

peace

[SmileyBoy]

123. They had more armed and trained civilians than we had troops.

They were giving guns to 5 year-old children, fer chrissakes. Japan was like a gigantic cult at that time. Do you think American forces would be met by a depleted, wounded Japanese army if they stormed Osaka or Fukuoka??? HELL NO. They would be met by millions upon millions of ARMED, CRAZY CIVILIANS.

Decreased amounts of warships and tanks? WHO CARES?? Almost every man, woman and child in Japan were being given weapons, and many were being trained for their final battle. American forces invading the mainland would be SOL. It wouldn't be like Normandy. The bays of southeastern Japan would be pooled with the blood of American soldiers.

[bpilgrim]

135. american forces were met with respect and not a single attack

once we had accepted their ONE CONDITION.

as iraq and vietnam and japan has demonstrated you can't BOMB people into complete submission.

and i am NOT arguing it would have been very bloody if we stormed the main land i am repeating what our leaders in theater at that time were saying...

IT WASN'T NECESSARY.

peace

[neverforget]

190. Only AFTER the Emperor did a radio broadcast accepting surrender.

The military leaders were against this and they tried a coup to stop it but thankfully, it failed. After the broadcast most of the military leaders committed suicide. Death before dishonor was their code and they saw surrender as dishonoring themselves and their family.

[bpilgrim]

199. After The world's longest unbroken imperial line was GUARANTEED

the chrysanthemum throne remains to this very day as testimony.

can you imagine hitler and his descendants still remaining in even symbolic power?

think about it...

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

241. I wouldn't base TOO much on what the current military leaders said.

After all, Japan was a different enemy than Germany. Also, our current military leaders fucked up the current wars we're in. They thought it WASN'T NECESSARY to increase troop numbers to win and keep the peace in Iraq. They thought we'd be welcomed with open arms, for Christ's sake.

Hindsight is never 20/20, no matter who's looking.

[bpilgrim]

302. apples and oranges

we NUKED a DEFEATED nation that was trying to SURRENDER... TWICE.

sorry pal, thats TERRORISM.

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

304. Of course it's not apples and oranges.

Both were making a military judgment...and making it on the judgement of the enemy. Same thing going on here.

I'm not supporting or decrying the bombing. I tend to stay away from hindsight judgements if they aren't completely clear...and this one wasn't, IMO. Applying standards of 2004 to 1945 is apples and oranges.

[bpilgrim]

305. but you just said so

"Applying standards of 2004 to 1945 is apples and oranges."

but anyways...

i will agree though that the politicos of both eras ignored the wise advice of their military leaders.

i haven't seen ANY evidence to refute what has been stated that japans was defeated and ready to surrender yet we still nuked them.

that my friend was TERRORISM.

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

306. No, I was talking about applying terrorism standards,

and acceptable behavior can't be compared from 1945 to 2004. The top military leaders can be wrong in any era.

But, regardless, I agree that using today's standards the bomb dropping was terrorism. I don't understand why it wasn't dropped off the shore of Japan to show its power, or at least used against a military target. I've never seen a good explanation for it...and no, the fact that we only had two isn't a good explanation.

[bpilgrim]

307. well the top leaders were RIGHT this time and THEN, yet IGNORED

fyi: TERRORISM is TERRORISM. in any era.

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

308. I was editing while you were replying...so you may want to check it.

but it's not cut and dried that the military leaders WERE correct in their assessment. That is absolutely impossible to know. From your doug-long source,

"It is easy to find statements by Japanese generals and others which indicate they would have fought to the death." He tries to explain this away, but unconvincingly, IMO.

And, to be fair, letting the Russians enter Japan could have had disastrous effects on the post-WWII world order.

Again, not condoning the bombing. I'm playing devil's advocate here and trying to have a civil discussion.

[bpilgrim]

309. huh? we have the benefit of hindsight to KNOW that they were DEFEATED and

we KNOW by their behavior that once we accepted their one condition the occupation was peaceful yet prior to they ALL fought practically to the last man in all their battles.

look lets not get side tracked... the evidence makes it pretty clear that japan was militarily defeated AND that they were suing for peace.

so then the question becomes WHY did we do it?

to 'save lives'?

hell no.

SHOCK-n-AWE the WORLD

you'd have to believe in childish fairy tales to believe we didn't know japan was defeated it was purely a POLITICAL decision.

"Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI" - K. Vonnegut

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

310. And I'll repeat this quote.

"It is easy to find statements by Japanese generals and others which indicate they would have fought to the death."

This means that maybe the Japanese WOULDN'T have surrendered if we hadn't dropped the bomb. We'll never know.

There are some inconsistencies in the link you post earlier in the thread. One part paints the emperor as hopelessly weak, and another says that the emperor wouldn't have allowed his army to fight to the death. Something doesn't add up there. Can't have it both ways.

[bpilgrim]

316. i doubt anyone who knows how the Japanese fought in WWII

would have any doubts about Werther or not they would have fought to the last man, women and child IF we hadn't accepted their 1 condition.

that wise decision has stood the test of time, and the long unbroken reign of the CT remains to this very day as witness to this fact.

imagine what japan mainland would have looked like IF we hadn't accepted and we had to invade because of our ARROGANCE and desire to SHOCK-n-AWE the world.



for someone, who has the benefit of hindsight, is not able to see clearly how wrong that act was is simply shocking to me and does not bode well for the future.

i can understand it from a grunt on the front lines pov but not someone who wasn't even THERE. :shrug:

peace

[Donkeyboy75]

321. I partially have that point of view because my grandfather was a

"grunt" (shitty term, BTW) on the front lines, and I saw how that war fucked him up for life and ended it early. But that's neither here nor there. Again, if you read my posts, I said that I didn't agree with dropping it on a city. It should have been dropped in an area where its power was clear for the Japanese military to see, but been of little harm to civilians. Did you even bother to read that? Or are you too busy talking over everyone to take notice?

Your condescending post has ended my part in this civil discussion with you.

[bpilgrim]

322. most of us have stories like that and we all honor their SACRIFICES

and i apologize for being short it's been a long 3 years and i am serriously worried about our rationalization in using NUKES especially the last time.

anyways, i'm sorry if i offended.

good night.

peace

on edit: i used the term 'grunt' affectionately and descriptively of their lot/role which they even used themselves... btw: i was - debatable, i know - a deck ape ;->

[stickdog]

338. That was the CIVILIAN neocons, not our military leaders.

Are you even ignorant about last year's history?

[Donkeyboy75]

341. Uhhh, it was both. Both made errors.

See, you must be confused because military officials don't often discuss their war plans with the media, while politicians make their case to the people.

Rumsfeld didn't put this plan together himself. Tommy Franks had a lot to do with it. And last I checked, he wasn't a civilian when doing that.

“A platoon out of any one of my battalions could defeat the threat, readily. I don’t need any more forces. We need the Iraqi people to help us and give us the intelligence we need.”—Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander, combined joint task force in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7.

*Hmmm...certainly seems like he was expecting Iraqi help, no?*

[stickdog]

342. There's always somebody who will play ball for a big promotion.

But this was Rummy's and Wolfie's baby.

[neverforget]

189. We were beating the hell out of the Japanese producing war

material but that's not the same as victory. In order to defeat a nation, you have to destroy their ability and will to fight. In July 1945, the Japanese were a defeated nation in everything but spirit. Logic dictates that they should have surrendered long before they did because they had no chance of winning the war. But Japanese ideology and the Bushido code are not logical. The Japanese were preparing their nation for national suicide in the defense of their homeland should the US invade.

Speaking of surrendering, why did the Japanese fight to the death in their battles with the US? Very few Japanese prisoners were ever taken in any battle. They were either all killed in battle or they committed suicide.

[bpilgrim]

238. thats right

and once the safety of their emperor was assured they surrendered and not a single american solider was killed while occupying the mainland by any imperial solider.

the japanese were ready and willing to fight to the last man women and child to prevent that from happening.

good thing our politicos came to their senses because it would have made vietnam look like a cake walk if we had to fight a gorilla war there.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

240. Guerilla only for a while

A war like you describe would have resulted in the entire destruction of Japan. We would have destroyed city after city to force them to surrender.

Fortunately, they came to their senses a tiny bit and surrendered.

[bpilgrim]

244. thats exactly what they said about vietnam

grow up.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

256. Different times

The U.S. wouldn't have fought a constrained war. After nearly four years of combat, the American public wanted its soldiers home. If the Japanese had refused to surrender, they would have been killed en masse.

Time to leave the could-have-been fantasy world.

[bpilgrim]

263. all connected

isin't time we all faced the reality of our own past instead of feeding the CARTOON WORLD VIEW which has gotton us into another mess.

the FACT is we could have saved american lives by accepting their 1 condition instead of stubborningly insiting on UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER which in the end DIDN'T WORK.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

265. The endless fascist fantasy

That they would have surrendered without the bombs. They didn't during the many years of their conquests, why do you think they would have then? Because you trust them?

Enough said.

[Spiffarino]

329. It wasn't just the 1,000,000 Allied troops that would have died

That was just the beginning. It was estimated that a strike at the heart of Japan would have killed millions of Japanese civilians, too.

Remember Okinawa? The Japanese military brass told the citizens of that island that the Americans would do all kinds of horrible things to them. When the soldiers arrived, women were jumping off cliffs with their children out of fear of what U.S. soldiers would do. All because of the lies their own leaders told them!

The Japanese Militarist leaders were zealots of the worst order. They were every bit as insane as the Nazis, but even more brutal. To believe that they would have accepted surrender at the time was unthinkable to G.I Joe after what he witnessed in Okinawa.

[ConsAreLiars]

90. Right - They were insane subhumans

http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/pacific/photo/photo.html

And the Moslems are the spawn of Satan. And the Vietnamese were godless gooks. Just ask anyone.

Buy the propaganda. Live the lie. Rinse and repeat.

[Swede]

99. No, it was total war. Where you there?

Would you want the Nazis to win? Think of Hitler with an H-bomb.

[KelleyKramer]

105. "Of course not. Read some history books."

That’s a quote from you, and I took your advice and in response to your question "Would you want the Nazis to win? "

I found out that Hitler was ALREADY DEFEATED when we nuked civilians in Japan.

[ConsAreLiars]

115. Now you claim the victims of this holocaust you so admire were NAZIS!

Or that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki somehow had an impact on the war against Hitler? Get a simple chronology of WWII before you post such idiocy. Your illisions are matched only by your delusions.

(edit typo)

[Djinn]

294. um what?

The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshimi and Nagasaki had nothing to do with preventing Hitler doing anything - Germany surrended unconditionally on 8th May 1945, Hitler killed himself a week earlier.

The bombings we're talking about happened 3 months later - Hitler was stone cold dead and the Nazi's were completely defeated, the decision to drop the bombs had nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism, and as we accepted their one condition shortly after the smoke cleared obviously had SFA to do with "unconditional" surrender either.

[Jack_DeLeon]

95. I support the Atomic Bombing of Japan.

If Germany had held out longer it would have probably be A-Bombed aswell.

[Swede]

100. Hitler was within a couple years having his own nukes.

Think about that.

[bpilgrim]

103. that is FUCKING SICK

even here on DU :puke:

shows how powerful PROPAGANDA is even more than 60 years afterwards.

so if someone NUKES one of our cities you will understand where they're comming from, eh? :crazy:

peace

[Swede]

120. I hear you.

But you can't understand people like that.

[tinanator]

353. lol

how sad

[neverforget]

289. I'm sure if Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used

it too.

[bpilgrim]

301. even after we were defeated and trying to surrender?

maybe but that STILL only makes us JUST LIKE THEM :argh:

peace

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

161. !!!!!!!!!!

OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS. I am sick to my stomach just reading the words "I support the Atomic Bombing."

[Baltimoreboy]

226. Life's tough

"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."
"I support the Atomic Bombing."

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

243. oh how very kind of you

Oh, thank you so much. That was so kind. All right, so maybe I sounded a little goofy, but I am perhaps the worlds last remaining idealist and I detest the thought of violence or war in any form. I saw a good quote from Che on someone's signature line...something like "You must be able to feel deeply any injustice commited against anyone anywhere in the world. That is the most beautiful quality of a true revolutionary."

[bpilgrim]

246. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. - Thomas Paine

one good quote deserves another ;->

:hi:

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

257. I detest losing to a bunch of murderous fascist psychopaths

But hey, whatever works for you.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

365. they were INNOCENT CIVILIANS

"Murderous fascist psychopaths"??? Is that what you think of innocent Japanese civilians--men, women and children--just sitting in their homes or offices in Hiroshima or Nagasaki when all of a sudden they were ANNIHILATED by an Atomic Bomb????? For sure, the Emperor was rather megalomaniacal, but bombing hundreds of thousands of ordinary PEOPLE to defeat a GOVERNMENT?? I suppose you would have destroyed Moscow and Leningrad in the 50s to defeat Stalin?!

:mad:

[Baltimoreboy]

370. Some were, some weren't

But the net effect of the bombings ended the war that was prosecuted by millions and millions of murderous psychopathic Japanese soldiers.

[bpilgrim]

377. some were our own troops...

The U.S. government notified the families of at least three U.S. prisoners of war of their deaths in the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima to their families soon after the end of World War II, although it did not officially admit they died in the bombing until 1983, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned.

...

Based on the record, Barton Bernstein, a professor of American history at Stanford University, made an inquiry to the U.S. government. The U.S. government, however, had not officially admitted the existence of U.S. soldiers who died in the bombing until 1983, when it notified the professor that at least 10 had died.

source...
http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter23/in131203hiroshima.html

i know, whos counting, eh?

peace

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

339. I've also learned to stop worrying and love the bombings! (nt)

[SmileyBoy]

101. Question for those against the bombing:

What should have we done then??? Should we have invaded mainland Japan???

The Japanese were NOT ready to surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[bpilgrim]

106. ACCEPTED their 1 condition EARLIER as ALL miltary leaders in theater RECOM

RECOMENDED in order to SAVE LIVES.

* 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.


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

now, question for the supporters of TERRORISM on a GRAND SCALE why don't yall support ending the war EARLIER and SAVING LIVES?

peace

[SmileyBoy]

111. BZZZZZZZT WRONG. They were NOT ready to surrender.

The day before the bombing in 1945, the Japanese were not any closer to surrendering than they were at the height of their conquest of eastern Asia.

[bpilgrim]

114. ill take our military leaders who where in theater over your OPINION

with absolutely 0 evidence to back it up.

i'm sure you can understand.

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

118. Just like you believe your military leaders now, right?

[Bush was AWOL]

116. You are absolutely right.

I've talked to many historians about this FACT and they all agree with what you said. There were Japanese men on Islands that thought the war was still going on 20-25 years after the war ended and refused to believe they would ever surrender...that says a lot about the propaganda that was going on in Japan.

[bpilgrim]

121. they DIDN"T SURRENDER until we acepted their 1 condition

and their long tradional institution of emperor remains to this very day due to that fact.

if they were all as mad as yall spew and ready to fight to the last man why did they suddenly STOP?

think about it...

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

125. Because after that bomb was dropped they knew

they could not win. The world did not know what the United States was capable of until that bomb was dropped.

[bpilgrim]

129. what?

they knew that long before that.

NEWSFLASH: they didn't surrender for another week after BOTH bombs were dropped.

it was ONLY after they were givin their 1 condition.

try to IMAGINE germany wresting such a condition from us.

well the japanese people are very tough and would have kept going if we hadn't and by that time our SHOCK-n-AWE mission was accomplished and besides the russians were coming and TIME was not on our side and we capitulated as we should have done in the spring of 45, imho.

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

131. ...........

..........

[YankeeFan]

147. So Why Was a Military Coup Planned

In Japan nearly come to fruition? The Military Leaders wanted to continue the war regardless of how many civilians died.

In the end key Generals declined to support the coup. If they had supported the coup, who knows how many civilians would have died.

[Hippo_Tron]

179. I think that you just nailed the exact problem

The Emperor was ready to surrender before the atmoic bombing but the problem was that Japan was basically in a state of martial law and he had little real power. The military leaders were running the show and they had no intention of surrendering.

[bpilgrim]

205. no, only a small extremist handful tried a weak and thoughly unsuccessful

coup even after the saftey of the emperor was agreed to... before then NO japanese would have surrendered.

the handful of officers was swiftly arrested.

after that not one of our soliders were killed during the occupation by any japanese soilders like whats happening in iraq DAILY.

peace

[idlisambar]

126. They were not ready to surrender unconditionally

Before the bombs were dropped they were prepared to surrender if they could keep the emperial system.

After the bombs were dropped, we accepted their terms -- the emperial system was allowed to remain.

This is at least the account given by Ronald Takaki in his book on the subject.

[stickdog]

343. Evidence?

Just wondering ...

[KelleyKramer]

122. Nuke military bases instead of civilian cities

Not only would it have taken out strategic resources, it would have also sent the same startling message that we have nukes and we are not hesitant to use them.

[Endangered Specie]

187. Drop the bomb on an unpolulated area of Japan.

[Djinn]

295. what makes you state this?

"The Japanese were NOT ready to surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

what sources do you glean that from? people here posting that the bombing was about the start of the cold war and not the end of the second world war have provided quotes, research, links, books to back up their argument you simply insist that the Japanese were not ready - can you back this up at all with anything?

[PsN2Wind]

104. I tried to tell you Swede

I wish my brother-in-law were still alive to give his perspective on this moral issue. I'm pretty sure that since he had fought in Guadalcanal, the Fiji Islands, New Guinea he would probably not have had a great deal of enthusiasm for the invasion of the islands of Japan. He was Army (Guadalcanal wasn't just Marines) Bronze Star recipient that suffered recurring bouts of malaria until his death and did what he did, for those years, so we could sit here in front of our computer screens and debate the morality of how the war was concluded.
So again I say, Think how many lives could have been saved if the Japanese had not decided to attack the United States and "awaken the sleeping giant".

[bpilgrim]

112. "awaken the sleeping giant" - the CARTOON WORLD VIEW in full display

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations

we were reading their mail AND activelt provoking them to war we were not asleep, please.

peace

[PsN2Wind]

119. Actually if you were as fucking smart as you think

you are, you would have recognized that as a quote from a Japanese admiral, Yamamota (sp), I believe.

[bpilgrim]

128. pretending that we didn;t know what was going on is NONSENSE

yamamaoto KNEW japan would lose from day one since he KNEw we were a GIANT but they were being CUT OFF from their VITAL NATIONAL RESOURCE oil and figured they had no choice and foolishly hoped we wouldn't have the stomache to bring the war all the way to their shores and that we would negotiate a settlement in the end.

anyways this is about the decision to use the NUKES on a DEFEATED trying to surrender enemy.

it was TERRORISM plain and simple.

peace

[Swede]

130. How did Yamamoto know this,when we didn't??

I don't know how old you are but our side was backed in a corner. We did not know nothing. Read stories about Midway,it could have went either way.

[bpilgrim]

140. pfft... we WON MIDWAY because we were READING THEIR MAIL

you keep revealing your ignorance.

they even had more carriers but when you know where they are and when they are comming it certainy makes it a little easier.

peace

[Swede]

146. We won Midway.......barely .

Read some books.

[neverforget]

180. We knew they were after Midway only after we broadcast in the

clear a message that said Midway was having fresh water problems. When the Japanese intercepted that communication, only then were we able to figure out that they were after Midway. We didn't know how many carriers they were using in this operation, only estimated numbers. And, had it not been for a some lucky hits by Navy dive bombers on the Japanese carriers, Midway could've turned out way different as the US Navy was outnumbered in planes and carriers. What we had on our side was surprise and luck.

[PsN2Wind]

137. OK you've convinced me.

The war was all our fault. We should have done nothing. After all, the rape of Nanking etc. was just those noble Japanese in their search for oil. Their alliance with the Germans and Italians was of no concern to us. Dominating the rest of the world would not have impacted the good ol'USA because they would certainly have treated us fairly.
When your argument goes from the merit or morality of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to being an apologist for a nation bent upon and well on the way to dominating their entire region and eventually the world I no longer think you worthy of my time.

Good night.

[bpilgrim]

141. stop putting words in my mouth...

and what are you going to say when someone NUKES us?

remember abu ghareb?

'no longer worthy of your time' - lol

night

peace

[Swede]

142. Sorry

delete

[rman]

109. yeah it was pretty much over, before the bomb was dropped. n/t

-

[KelleyKramer]

150. Question for supporters of the bombing

Instead of civilians, Why not nuke a military base?

Why did we have to target civilians, wouldn’t nuking large military bases have sent the same message?

[Baltimoreboy]

156. It was a total war

Why wipe out Nanking in the most barbarous way the world has ever known?

[bleedingheart]

155. It is always convenient to judge Truman in hindsight

however my dad fought in that war and came back emaciated and seriously ill from many bouts of malaria...it cost him his spleen and nearly killed him.... two bronze starts and he ended up a functional alcoholic to numb his pain. The men fighting that war in the trenches were grateful to have the war over with....

To be honest the fire bombings of Japan were just as merciless (many in the USA don't know about those)...yet no one was upset about that...and it went on for a longer time and probably killed as many if not more.

[idlisambar]

157. Truman probably felt guilty about it

Once Truman received word on the effects of the two bombs he refused to drop another one. Later in Korea, Truman refused to consider the nuclear option against China even though MacArthur had been pushing for it.

You're right about the fire-bombing. Overall it caused more damage in more places than the nuclear blasts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

159. simply put: NO we didnt

there is no real reason to kill civilians especially if their country had the courtesy to not kill your civilians.

[idlisambar]

162. Courtesy had nothing to do with it

opportunity is a more appropriate word. The Japanese military killed, raped, and enslaved plenty of civilians throughout East Asia.

Do not confuse immoral acts on the part of the U.S. with virtue on the part of the Japanese. There was plenty of brutality to go around.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

163. i am not. i am aware of the brutality of japan in regard to the east.

however our retaliation was unneccessarily brutal.

[Baltimoreboy]

170. What "retaliation?"

We fought an enemy bent on world conquest. That's not retaliation, that's survival.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

171. We fought an enemy bent on world conquest

funny how we didnt care of said world conquest till it was on our doorstep...which makes it retaliation not some wonderful act of goodwill.

[Baltimoreboy]

172. We weren't ready for war in case you forgot

And retaliation sounds like revenge. We were fighting to keep from being conquered. Or maybe you also forgot about those Japanese invasion fleets that aimed for the Aleutians and Hawaii.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. do you really believe Japan would have conquered us?

i am not sayign we should not have gone into war, all i am saying is there was no need to drop those bombs

[SmileyBoy]

177. Japan would have liked nothing more than to conquer American territory.

Read your history books. Some of the whacko generals in Japan wanted to take over (among other things) Vancouver Island, Seattle, Alaska, Hawaii, San Francisco, etc.

I've been studying WWII history for years. I know this.

[bpilgrim]

202. not by the summer of 1945

unless he was a raving lunatic, literally.

lets stay focused...

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

209. Only because they had been defeated

Every post of yours in this thread reads like it comes from the Japanese Ministry of Propaganda.

[bpilgrim]

232. exaclty

yet we still nuked them.

fyi: most of my post site OUR military leaders who were there... I just happen to agree with there assesment.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

235. You can be defeated in battle and still keep fighting

Such was the case with Japan.

They kept on fighting.

I tend to agree with the man who made the decision who was the boss of those other, lower-ranked individuals.

[bpilgrim]

239. thats right but once their surrender terms were agreed to it STOPED

i am an american and i don't put all my faith in 1 man and he was getting his information about the FACTS ON THE GROUND by the military leaders who were there.

hero worriship is just the kind of thing the imperial japanese drilled into their subjects heads, too.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

259. More pro-Japanese marketing

I swear, I haven't seen so much revisionist history since Reagan. You must be so proud.

Your beloved generals weren't the only ones there and weren't the only ones with opinions about what needed to be done. Harry Truman had all of their info and more.

Yet somehow you have the audacity to think you could have done better than one of the best Democratic presidents of the 20th century.

[bpilgrim]

264. at least i quote sources and provide links to back up my take

i have the audacity to think that is all.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

272. You don't want to hear the other side

Your posts indicate that you believe that if we all sat down and sang Kumbaya, then the kindly Japanese would have just apologized and we'd all drink ourselves a Coca Cola together.

Gee they were such nice folks, I'm sorry we didn't let them conquer us, just like they did to much of Asia.

[bpilgrim]

283. pfft... i've been brought up on 'the other side'

and now you resort to rethuglican tactics name-calling and strawmen how persavive.

no one said we should have let them 'conquer' us we are talking about the decision to NUKE a defeated nations cities filled with inoccent civilians TWICE.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

299. Name calling

The name calling is what I call the Japanese from that time -- barbarous. Or monstrous. How about barbarous monsters?

I am sure that you remember that civilians were fair game under the rules of war at the time.

[bpilgrim]

303. "civilians were fair game under the rules of war at the time" - wtf

you have a lot to learn i see.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

311. Nothing to learn, we all know it

The world was in the middle of a total war. As long as you weren't deliberately targeting civilians, you were OK. Collateral damage (don't you love that euphemism?) was the rule of the day. Especially since those very same "civilians" in the case of Japan were building the tanks, ships and aircraft that was being used to try and conquer the globe.

[bpilgrim]

318. actually japan was just focused on 'aisa for aisians' but don't let that

get in the way of your hyperbolic rhetoric.

" Collateral damage (don't you love that euphemism?) "

no, sheesh, do YOU?

by the summer of 45 japan could hardly produce bullets-n-bread let alone fule or churn out "tanks, ships and aircraft".

get a clue

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

347. Asia for Asians

As long as Japan ruled them and anybody who got in their way was killed or chopped up and killed or starved and killed or, in the case of women, raped and killed.

But hey, don't let that propaganda get in your way. Why not visit Korea and ask some former "Comfort Women" how nice it was to be raped about 100 times a day for years at a time.

[Djinn]

297. LOL

"Or maybe you also forgot about those Japanese invasion fleets that aimed for the Aleutians and Hawaii."

Mainland US was NEVER going to conquered by Imperial Japan - perhaps some of the islands that the US had CONQUERED were at risk of being under the control of someone else.

I have NO problem with the defeat of the Japanese - Australia had a little more to worry about from them than the US - and consequently I'm glad the Japanese threatened US power in the Pacific because otherwise you would never have got involved but lets not pretend it was about anything as righteous as protecting average Americans from being "conquered" or that it had ANYTHING to do with protecting the people of South East Asia - it was about strategic power and control of resources - like it always is.

[Zynx]

213. They would have if they had the chance.

Look at what they did in China. The Japanese regime of Tojo and his predecessors was one of the most brutal regimes in the history of man, just a few shades below Hitler and Stalin.

[leesa]

164. bullshit. it was done as a warning to Russia and a war toys demo

The Japanese had called it quits.

[Junkdrawer]

167. Correct. Actually James Byrnes mostly made the decision...

Byrnes was also one of Truman's advisors on the atomic bomb. He was Truman's representative on the Interim Committee, a group formed to study post-war nuclear issues but which also briefly discussed how the a-bomb should be used on Japan.

Byrnes had his own ideas about the a-bomb. In addition to defeating Japan, he wanted to keep Russia from expanding their influence in Asia; he also wanted to restrain them in Europe. Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945. Szilard later wrote of the meeting,


" was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." (Spencer Weart and Gertrud Szilard, Leo Szilard: His version of the Facts, pg. 184).


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

[J Williams]

173. There was a better way...

The U.S. did not have to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, setting a terrible precedent and causing Americans with conscience to bear the shame of it.

There were alternatives, including dropping a demonstration bomb on a nearby unpopulated island, or something of the sort, to demonstrate the awesome power the U.S. had achieved. THAT would have been enough, and we didn't have to kill and maim hundreds and thousands of innocent women, men, and children.

[Baltimoreboy]

174. America only had two bombs

They didn't have anything to practice with. And even then, it took both bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender.

You live in a fantasy land.

[Junkdrawer]

176. It wasn't about convincing Japan to surrender. It was about Stalin.

Japan was already looking for surrender terms.

[J Williams]

183. Not so

It didn't have to take two bombs on Japan. Not even one. And I don't live in a fanasy world, just facing the truth. That's something most Americans don't want to do because they don't want to admit any faults or wrongdoings. That's immature, and arrogant.

[Baltimoreboy]

191. It wasn't wrong, so there's nothing to admit

Except that Truman was brave enough to end the war.

[J Williams]

293. It's wrong to kill innocent civilians, women and children

Are you saying that's not wrong?

[Jack_DeLeon]

196. It took two Atomic bombs to get Japan to surrender...

and we were lucky that they finally did because we didnt have anymore atomic bombs for another several months.

So what if we dropped one bomb on an empty island, and then we dropped one bomb on some population center, and what if Japan still didnt surrender?

We would have to continue to carpet bomb them for the next several months till the next bomb was ready.

Japan didnt know how many Atomic bombs we had, that is why they surrendered. They thought we could crank them out quickly or had a larger supply of them.

Had we wasted one bomb they might realized our limitations in production and fatalistically decided to continue the war even longer.

[bpilgrim]

206. actually they still didn't surrender even after the 2nd NUKE

if you remember... and not only didn't we have any more NUKES left we had the russian army movin on our turf and the japanese not only knew that TIME was on their side in the end but they were negotiating with them.

japan only had 1 condition the insistance that NO HARM come to the emperor nor the chrysanthemum throne, the world's oldest unbroken hereditary monarchy wich remains to this very day in mute testimite of this fact.

but how many lives were WASTED in the wating for the opprotunity to SHOCK-n-AWE the world.


Mt. Soribachi, IWO JIMA

peace

[J Williams]

296. The end doesn't justify the means

Many Americans try to justify the dropping of two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, believing that the end justified the means.

It doesn't, and it never does, expecially if the means are inhumane and involve indescriminate killing of civilians, and women and children.

Al Queda tries to justify their indiscriminate killing of civilians and women and children. But they are dead wrong.

America, in committing this atrocious act, was also wrong. And it would be good for America to admit that for the record.

[stickdog]

344. Right! See if the second bomb hadn't worked, we'd still be fighting to

this day!

Thank heavens for that SECOND bomb! It changed EVERYTHING for the better!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

178. In hindsight I don't think we had to, HOWEVER...

Had I been in Truman's shoes, I might've made the same decission. All of us today have seen or read about 50 years of modern warfare and know how destructive it is. Now put yourself in Harry Truman's position. You're Vice President of the United States (and no that doesn't mean, the President's chief foreign policy advisor like it does in the current administration), basically you've been kept out of the loop about much of what's going on. Suddenly the president dies and you have to step up in the middle of a war and basically have no idea what to do. Scientists tell you that they have this new extremely destructive weapon called the atomic bomb. How destructive? You have no idea, but considering the weapons of the time, you couldn't imagine it being as destructive as it actually turned out to be. Millions of Americans have already lost their lives in this war and America wants it to be over. And while showing off a destructive weapon to the soviets may seem like a dumb idea now, at the time it may have seemed like a way of scaring them into not coming into conflict with the US.

[Kamikaze]

182. Millions of Americans died?

Maybe you're confusing the USA with the USSR.

[devilgrrl]

185. Simply put... bollocks!

We wanted to play with our new toys...plain and simple.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

188. Yeah right

You're demonizing the other side. THEY would not have stopped at anything. THEY would kill with no thought. THEY have no problem with suicide mission. George W. would be proud. The FACT is THEY were trying to surrender. And as has been stated here MANY times, their only condition, that the emperor be allowed to remain, ended up being followed anyway. It's that simple.

Group A; We will surrender if you let us keep the emperor.
Group B: No way! Here's two bombs.
Group A: Ok we surrender.
Group B: Good, now you know your place, here's your emperor.

The bombs weren't about Japan, they were about showing the USSR why they shouldn't mess with us. In fact, that's what the next half century was about.

[neverforget]

192. Somehow the attempted coup by the military is never mentioned by

the revisionists. The military wanted to continue this war to the death. If the coup had succeeded, then the war would have continued.

[bpilgrim]

203. a small minority wanted to fight on even after the safety of the emperor

was agreeded to... before that no military officer or enlisted would have gone along but once they had secured that 1 condition only a handfull of extremist wanted to fight on.

that is what happened though it in no way demonstrates that it was right to use WMDs on a DEFEATED and trying to SURRENDER nation's cities filled with INNOCENT CIVILIANS, men, women and children!

even japan didn't do that to NANKING yet NOONE forgets to bring that up :puke:

peace

[neverforget]

288. A small minority? Only the General Staff of the Imperial Army!

[Swede]

314. Yeah,they did it the old fashioned way. Bullets and bayonets.

I disagree with your take on history. Read some history books written by someone other than the one you keep quoting.

[ProfLefty]

194. Wrong!

Where is your logic? Soldiers are combatants in a war theatre of operations...by indiscriminately dropping hydrogen bombs on two innocent and unsuspecting japanese cities we annhilated thousands upon thousands of innocent noncombatants (women, children, elderly and infirm). Where is the honor in that?

[CaTeacher]

195. you are so right!

this is one of the most reprehensible things that Amerika has ever done. We targeted all those innocent people. We could have shown the might of the bomb WITHOUT targeting populous cities. To me--dropping a nuclear bomb on these poor folks was a war crime and the people responsible for this horror should have been prosecuted for it.

Of course--we did many other war crimes--such as the fire bombing of Tokyo--people just forget all the indiscriminate and purposeful killing of innocent civilians that we did during WW2.

[Sirveri]

216. We didn't need to invade.

We could have sat there for quite a while, they were already bombed into the stone age. The only real reason to use the bomb was to show the Soviets and the world what it could do. Which in retrospect is a good thing, otherwise the MAD Doctrine would not have come about.

[Baltimoreboy]

217. Just leave an undefeated enemy sitting there?

With troops in the field still killing? Still able to attack us? Still forcing us to have whole armies and navies at the ready to fend them off?

You really must be joking.

[Sirveri]

218. they weren't in any fields killing anything when we dropped it.

They were trying to surrender multiple times, all they wanted was to keep their emperor. But Truman just kept saying, nothing but unconditional surrender. The entire army of Manchuria surrendered in a matter of weeks. That was more stunning to them than the bomb was, we were firebombing entire cities that whole time as is, the nuke wasn't that much differant.

It was good to demonstrate the effects to the world, but that's about it. We never needed to invade, and we had already won. They didn't even have the capabilities to launch air patrols to even think about shooting down our bombers at that stage of the war. Let alone the oil to fuel them.

[Baltimoreboy]

223. Yes, the were still killing

Japan had troops elsewhere and they were still doing their dirty work.

No, they wanted more than to keep their emporer, they wanted to negotiate. They began the war. They prosecuted the war in the most heinous of ways. They had no right and no authority to claim any power over the peace.

And they did have the capability to launch air patrols, but they were saving everything they had for the invasion.

[stickdog]

345. That's fucking hilarious! 1945 Japan was saving it all for the big coming

invasion!

"It's merely a flesh wound. Now come back and fight like a man!"

Who is going to invade us next? Palestine?

[quaker bill]

219. Dropping the bomb was and still is obscene.

So was the fire bombing of Dresden, the concentration camps, Stalingrad, and a whole host of other things that happened in WWII.

However, as my father was part of the force set to invade Japan, I don't spend alot of time debating the decision. Had they not dropped the bomb, I would likely not be here to discuss the matter.

[PATRICK]

221. A better question

Looking at the decision, what circumstances would call for an administration to use it today? It is highly likely there is more openness and more scenarios that the Bush would use to justify a show of power. One is in place of an invasion(the Truman excuse), another is to stop a full scale invasion. The former- Iran, the latter and more probable- North Korea.

The itchy fingers rule in America today so we should worry less about the wide array of administration opinion back before Hiroshima and a LOT MORE about the inevitability of the simpleton neocons dropping a big one today. Since no clear public attitude about the Decision back then has developed, there is far less a hurdle to overcome for Bushco. It is too late to win this debate if it can't even be won on DU. Instead it is necessary to stop this administration which itself has created many of the circumstances for an atomic opportunity- which the nauseating macho right lusts for while the rest of the nation is not listening.

Nuclear disarmament being a ruined policy, proliferation entering an uncontrollable stage are factors a thousand times worse than any guilt of the Truman White House. These come form imperial arrogance and exploitation, not self defense, not against powerful enemy nations.

This is THE contemporary question that is going by the boards so to speak so we can pass meaningless judgment on another generation in a real war.

[DemonFighterLives]

225. Had to go to the end of the thread

To find a very reasonable post. The nukes of the past have not taught us a damn thing. At least some of us. Neocons and * especially. They are willing to reactivate past horrors and sell arms to most anyone. Proliferation is taking place at an alarmning rate.
As far as the past nukes: Whether it saved lives or not, the US citizens were put in the role as the most destructive uncaring people on the planet. Maybe the power of the bomb was not realized at the time, but now that we know, we should abolish any use of them or thoughts about them. They are NO good and * and the bomb worshippers should be removed from power before the Nuc-U-Lar football is dropped again.
B pilgrim has done a great job in this thread. There were other solutions evident. The new version from the Neocons stating that All Muslims want to kill us and will fight to the last child is rubbish as was most likely the statement that 5 year old Japanese were coming to get us. That is propaganda to get us to worship the bomb.
:nuke:

[Baltimoreboy]

227. "most destructive uncaring people on the planet"

The tried and true "Turning Japanese" propaganda.

The U.S. didn't start the fucking war. The U.S. didn't attack Pearl Harbor. It didn't turn the female Korean population into daily rape victims. It didn't torture, rape, butcher and kill entire cities.

The U.S. fought a DEFENSIVE war against one of the worst threats the world has ever known.

[DemonFighterLives]

228. Not to put the tinfoil hat on here

But I understand there is a conspiracy theory out there as to what happened in Pearl Harbor. I remember seening a memo. about an attack warning in an old movie. Patton, I believe. The story lingers on.

I am not by any means discounting any other war crimes or whatever, just stating that dropping an undiscriminating bomb on a civilian population was wrong IMHO. Especially if the surrender was attainable without it. These weapons are too wicked for Americans to use at their whim. And the deaths continue from the radiation sickness or are they all dead now? We have to also endure our use of depleted Uranium in Iraq and other places. How wicked is that? Our own military is suffering from the effects. Of course this has not been disclosed as of yet to the vast unwashed.

[Baltimoreboy]

236. No one made Japan attack Pearl Harbor

No one made them invade Manchuria. No one made them invade China. No one made them kill millions, torture endless victims and rape their way across Asia.

The bombs ended a war that Japan began. They had the option to end it long before that.

Guess what? They didn't take it. Only when faced with overwhelming force did they give up.

Suppose surrender was "attainable" without the bomb. How many more AMERICANS would have died? Remember, it's the president's job to ensure the safety of AMERICAN lives first. If dropping the bomb saved 1,000 American lives instead of a couple hundred thousand, it was still the right thing to do.

[Bush was AWOL]

247. You're right on every point you make in this entire thread

we were drawn into the war, and we faced our darkest hours as a nation for 4 years. I don't question ANYTHING they did during that time achieve victory.

[bpilgrim]

253. yeah, we were just going along minding our own business whem out the blue

WHAM we are caught with our pants down and for no reason whatsoever.

eh, the cartoon world view strikes again.

the vietnamese faught long and hard to rid the imperialst japanese imagine their suprise when even us freedom loving americans simply took the japanese place and killied MILLIONS.

think about it...

peace

[F.Gordon]

271. Damn straight dude!!

And if we hadn't invaded Iraq we'd all be sucking VX right now.
:eyes:

You know, I always wondered how it was that people worshipped the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al... but then I read your posts and others on this thread and I have a much clearer understanding of it.

History does show that Japan was trying to surrender. Guess what? We wouldn't let them.

[Baltimoreboy]

274. We didn't stop them, they stopped themselves

To surrender, you drop you guys and put up a white flag.

That is, unless you want to cut a better deal than you deserve.

As for Limpballs, fuck that fat piece of crap. He didn't fight a single war -- ever. And he'd bash Harry Truman too because he was a Dem.

[F.Gordon]

276. You missed my point

But at least you're consistent.

[MadHound]

360. Actually, you're wrong on that score friend

The US and FDR DID manuver Japan into attacking us. Here is how it went.

FDR wanted to jump into the war to help out Europe, but couldn't get the domestic support needed to do this. Thus, he figured he needed to force an attack on the US. To this end, he had an aide(sorry, I've forgotten who) draw up a seven point plan that would force Japan's hand. After this plan was formally presented, he caught a bunch of flak from his other advisors, so he formally dropped the idea. Yet US and FDR's foreign policy followed the course of this very plan, up to and including the attack on Pearl Harbor. Conviently, the most irreplacable ships, the aircraft carriers, had been moved out of PH shortly before the attack.

I would love to give you the title of my reference materials for this, but I'm not at my home computer, so it will have to wait for a few hours.

[bpilgrim]

366. in the mean time heres copies of the original report...

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

373. Attacking the greatest Democratic president

Just to try and rewrite history to make the murdering bastards of Nippon look good.

Shame.

[MadHound]

380. LOL friend, your knee jerk reaction is laughable, truly

Nowhere in my post did I condemn FDR for what he did. In fact I think the man was rather clever in his manuvering for war. He realized that the US needed to get into WWII before it was too late, yet he was being forced to sit idle by the obstructionists in this country. He realized that the most effective way to remove the objections to war was for the US to be attacked, and he forced the issue to get his desired results. I commend him for his actions, for I also believe that WWII was a war we needed to fight. But, I believe in historical accuracy, and will not blind myself to the truth just to keep a President's image untarnished.

So I'm sorry if you don't like the truth, but there it is. Your adhominem attacks are childish and baseless. You have been presented with evidence that FDR LIHOPed Pearl Harbor, yet out of blind foolishness, with no source backing you, you feel the need to baselessly attack me. That's fine, I have a thick skin. However, I would suggest to you that you go out and read about the history of FDR and Pearl Harbor. Then you wouldn't look so foolish.

[bpilgrim]

249. the US provoked the war and put a strangle hold on japans VITAL resources

OIL.

this declassified 8 point memo lays out the plan.



more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations

"the only thing new in this world is the history you don't know" H. Truman

peace

(on edit: my whole point is that two imperial powers went toe to toe over who was gonna dominate that region of the world and they lost, fortunately, BUT just because we won doesn't mean we didn't commit our own atrocities and the sooner we wake up to this fact and STOP calling our enimies MONSTERS the sooner we may reach a point were we can avoide these massive acts of terrorism all together.)

[Baltimoreboy]

258. No, the two powers were not at all alike

And Japan had no inherent "right" to that oil.

And one silly memo doesn't indicate a plan, it indicates an idea and analysts generate those by the truckful.

[bpilgrim]

266. just a coincidence that events went according to 'plan', eh

we were just going along minding our own business and out the blue BAMM.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

267. People had theorized Japan MIGHT attack Pearl since the 1920s

So what? That never required them to do it. And FDR had no ability to make them do so.

[bpilgrim]

269. guess they weren't no dummies

and if you think our gov then had no ability to act you are living in a FANTASY WORLD.

time to WAKE UP and smell the DU.

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

275. People also theorized that Martians might invade

And a whole bunch of other things. People theorize a lot, only a little turns out true.

[Jack_DeLeon]

333. So you are saying...

that Japan was right in fighting us because they needed oil?

So does that mean that the war in Iraq is justifed because we need the oil?

[bpilgrim]

355. i am saying that if any nation blocks access to another nations VITAL

resources, WAR is likely to break out.

now as far as i know iraq didn't deney us access to their oil so that case can't even be made in this situation.

let me ask you this, if any nation blocked our access to OIL what do you think we would do?

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

371. Ah the daily affirmation

That Japan is all good and did nothing bad during WWII. It was all brought on by those evil white devils in America.

Your post makes me ill.

[bpilgrim]

248. yes and no

the historical precedent needs to be examined closely to show how WRONG it was even from a president who was very capable if we are to hope to deter any future use.

but if we continue to justify the FIRST ONE we are all doomed.

and it was precisely the use of the firt one that brought about the extreme arms race that followed including NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION and the COLD WAR.

it is all directly linked back to our first use and by our continued behavior of global domination the rest of the world only sees a nation that is blinded by our own power one that has still not come to terms with the first use of TERRORISM on a MASSIVE SCALE from a single deviced used on a defeated and trying to surrender nation let alone committing to never use them again under any circumstance save protecting the homeland from invasion but even the i would still be against it since what would it bring but the end of the world.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

peace

[w4rma]

224. This was fascist Japan. Most who lived there were totally propagandized.

Japan's political leaders were assassinated when they did something that the military leaders (who very much had a die or win mentality) didn't agree with.

I've scanned over alot of the information here and now I fully support President Truman's decision on Hiroshima. I also think that some folks have bought into some of the pro-fascist propaganda, against President Truman, that the right-wing, at that time, was propagating.

[bpilgrim]

234. they were trying to surrender and were militarily defeated yet

you agree that it was necessary by what you read here?

i have read every post in this thread and i have yet to see any of those who agree it was the right thing to do even post any historical evidence to even back up what they believe :crazy:

I have posted numerous quotes by our OWN military leaders at that time and yet you have been convinced otherwise by the tired regurgitated simplistic wartime propaganda?

scary.



peace

[w4rma]

281. I dont think they would have been able to surrender, as I noted above.

Their political leaders would have been assassinated as soon as they had actually surrendered. Also the Japanese people would have still been under their die or win propaganda spell.

And do your military leaders includes President Eisenhower? Eisenhower was politically backed by some of the same folks who backed Hitler in Germany because they despised President Truman's economic policies and adored Hitler's economic policies.

[bpilgrim]

285. save for that one condition, you are exactly right and no japanese politco

would have even thought of not fighting to the last to preserve the institution of emperor regards of the military leaders.

but once that condition was met only a HANDFULL of EXTREMIST RADICALS still wanted to fight on who were promptly arrested.

"And do your military leaders includes President Eisenhower?"

yes...

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. THE DECISION, p. 358 n. 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. . . . THE DECISION, p. 4.

* 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." THE DECISION, p. 356. (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION pp. 352-358.)

peace

[F.Gordon]

250. Pro-Fascist Propaganda?

Too funny. So, there were "freepers" back then attacking Truman? Yes, there were anti-War people protesting back then but they weren't "right wing".

December 11, 1944
The U.S. Navy estimates it will take five more years of fighting in the Pacific before the Japanese are defeated. Walker Mason, WPB regional director, told a labor conference yesterday."

August 1, 1945
Top Level Dispute Reported Over Need for 7,000,000 GIs
(That the Army was saying we needed to defeat Japan)

The U.S. was the master of propaganda during WWII.

When Pilots started questioning the need to bomb benign targets in Germany they were told that the Germans had built huge underground factories.

[w4rma]

280. Thats what I said.

Also note that General Eisenhower ran on the Republican ticket *against* Truman's policies. President Eisenhower was an honorable President (as was President Truman), but their economic policies were opposites. The folks backing Eisenhower were the same folks backing Hitler in Germany. Note, that imho, Eisenhower was no fascist, but imho, his backers were.

[F.Gordon]

286. How did Eisenhower run against Truman's policies.....

if he didn't run against Truman?
:shrug:

This thread already has about 100 sub-threads going on, so I don't think bringing the 52' election into an "A-Bomb is Kewl" thread would add much to the mix. And I'm still not sure what propaganda you're referring to that was used against Truman during WWII.

I'd be more than willing to entertain this notion if you could provide me with just a small specific item or two.

Are you referring to China? If so, I believe the McCarthy gang brought this up after the War had ended. I don't remember exactly when, but I'm kinda' thinkin' it was after the war.

[Toby109]

229. I guess history IS written by the victors.

I have read that both the Japanese Air Force and their Navy were decimated by the time of Truman's decision to drop the bombs. Japan is an island(actually an archipelago). Exactly how was Japan to continue the war? Their allies had already been defeated. All this talk about the necessity of a land invasion is pure speculation on the part of some posters here.

The bombings were an act of state-sponsored terrorism, plain and simple. They were dropped to stop the Soviet Union from entering the Pacific theater and to show the world our might. And, as a bonus, Japan surrendered. Shameless, really.

[bpilgrim]

237. as always

but japan did NOT surrender even after the second bomb was dropped.

no japanese soilder or officer would have before they were assured the safety of their emperor.

once that was FINALLY agreed to THEN she surrendered and the world's longest unbroken imperial line stands to this very day as a testimite to this fact.

knowing that we could have avoided IWO JIMA and OKINAWA if we had accepted their one condition sooner is really hard to take just so we could SHOCK-n-AWE the world with that barborous device which only brought our world the NUCLEAR ARMS RACE and the COLD WAR.

yet many still supported under the delision that it saved lives when the exact opposite is true is frightening and clearly demonstrates the power of propaganda and the blindness of nationalism.

i believe that the world has learned those lesson though and that is why they are standing up to our current ideologs today. noone will tolerate another imperial facist regime bent on world conquest no matter what the cost.

peace

[Swamp Rat]

233. Karma

Now that we are becoming more and more like Japan and Germany of the last century, will someone drop a bomb on us? One day, perhaps, other countries will contemplate "why we had to drop the bomb on the USA." Those on this thread that refuse to consider this are living in the "bubble of American supremacy."

[F.Gordon]

255. More "revisionist" history....

April 5, 1945
USSR Denounces Jap Treaty
In a sensational note which accused the Japanese of helping Germany in the war against Russia, the Soviet Government today served notice that is denouncing the Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact.

April 5, 1945
Premier Kuniaki Kolso of Japan, the "Tiger of Korea" and his Cabinet resinged en bloc today......the "gravity of the situation" the annoucement admitted, was the fundamental cause of the resignation.

August 8, 1945
Russia has declared war on Japan.

Russia has received requests from Tokyo to act as a mediator in the Far Eastern conflict, the statement continued, but rejected them in view of Japan's failure to act on the US-British-Chinese ultimatum delivered from Potsdam last week.

Yea. Japan was going to "fight to the end". Sure. Whatever.

[bpilgrim]

268. they only had one condition

and only someone who is clueless about how the japanese faught during wwII would doubt they would have continued to fight to maintain their symbolic institution of emperor.

the FACT is they had only 1 condition and once it was met they surrendered.

and NO military leader in theater at that time thought it was militarily neccessay to do so.

that is the whole point.

remember that they still hadn't surrendered even after the 2nd NUKE.

our stubborn insistance on UNCONDITIONAL surrender cost even more lives as the japanese had shown even 'monsters' were willing to negotiate.

i don't mean to be harsh i am just frightened by many of the posts here especially on DU.

peace

[F.Gordon]

273. Harsh away...I'm on your side

:hi:

I'm not as frightened by the posts I'm reading....more saddened. Sad that we seem to have a generation growing up that has no interest in History or the people that lived that History.

It's the same lack of interest that will have people 50 years from now arguing that Saddam did, indeed, have WMD's.

Oh well.

[Spiffarino]

270. My dad fought on Iwo Jima

He saw the Imperial Japanese Army's willingness to brainwash their own people into believing that their honor was all that mattered. They fought like religious zealots nearly to the last man to resist the invasion and occupation of Iwo. How much more would they have fought to resist the invasion of their own home islands?

On the subject of revisionist history, does anybody really believe we should have asked for anything but unconditional surrender from the oligarchy that ruled Japan at that time? Hirohito was a tool the warmongers used to make the Japanese people compliant. Anything other than unconditional surrender would have given marginal legitimacy to the warmongers, and could very well have led to the rise of these fiends in the future.

Before you go demonizing Truman and the U.S. military for dropping the bombs, remember Manchuria, Nanking, Korea, Burma, the Bataan death march, the POWs, Pearl Harbor, etc., etc.

The Japan we know now is nothing like the Japan of 1923-45. In many ways they made Hitler look small-time by comparison. Read your history.

[idlisambar]

279. The interesting thing is...

...that even after the nuclear blasts and the threat of more to come the Japanese did not accept unconditional surrender. In fact, we decided to change our position and accept their condition for surrender --the emperor was allowed to remain.

[bpilgrim]

284. i wonder if he would have trade iwo for one japanese man

i bet he and everyone other man there then would have in a HEARTBEAT.

"does anybody really believe we should have asked for anything but unconditional surrender from the oligarchy that ruled Japan at that time?"

Not only was it NOT the norm in warfare but i bet PLENTY of folks who were there would have as well.




DEATH OF ERNIE PYLE, American war correspondent, took place while he was observing the fighting on Ie Shima. Above he is pictured talking to a Marine infantryman on Okinawa a few hours after its invasion. After the close of the Ryukyus campaign Brig. Gen. Edwin R. Randle, assistant commander of the 77th Division, unveiled a monument (below) over Pyle's grave.



peace

[UdoKier]

335. "They" made Hitler look small-time?

"The Japan we know now is nothing like the Japan of 1923-45. In many ways they made Hitler look small-time by comparison. Read your history."

Actually, it's very much the same, culturally. I lived there for many years. My in-laws are all Japanese. And using the word "they" implies that all Japanese were like Hitler. Many Japanese didn't know any better. They believed the propaganda that they were helping and uniting Asia against western colonialism. Those who didn't like it had to comply or face prison or worse for being "un-Japanese". And there were more than a few who opposed the war and went to prison or to their deaths.

Your eagerness to blame an entire nation of people who grew up under confucianism that teaches that every person should know their place in society and fulfill that role without question, is appalling. I remember all the atrocities you name, as well as the horrors the Japanese endured. The Japanese citizenry didn't ask for that war, it was foisted on them by a military junta with absolute power.

We on the other hand supposedly are a democracy and thus are all responsible for the actions of our government. By your logic, it would serve us right if the Iraqi resistance attacked an American city in retaliation for our unporovoked conquest of their nation and killed 30,000 of us. After all we killed at least that many of them.

Your "logic" on this subject smacks of racism as does any rationalization of the a-bombing, IMO.

[Ladyhawk]

346. Boy, do I agree.

"And there were more than a few who opposed the war and went to prison or to their deaths."

The Japanese people have been vilified in this thread. I don't ever remember the Germans being dragged through the mud like this, even though they were in a similar position, most of them having been conned by Adolf Hitler.

Not all Japanese were evil imperialists. I have a hard time buying into the idea that the women and children of Japan were ready and willing to fight to the last person. That is pure propagandist bullshit meant to justify the slayings of hundreds of thousands of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Dropping the bomb on innocent civilians is completely unjustifiable.

[Dangerman]

278. As for dropping the bomb,

We don't have to.

If we have not ended WWII with THAT horrific monstrosity, America and Russia would have not stockpile them to point them at each other for the next five or so decades, an we would have not had a Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Sirveri]

287. I don't think I agree with that statement.

I still think Russia would have built them and pointed them at us, and we would have done the same. The main thing I'm concerned about is their willingness to use them had the bomb not been dropped. Japan provided a perfect field run test, and showed us everything that would happen after a nuclear detonation in a heavily populated civilian area. Show us the effects of radiation poisoning and what not.

There were at least three major powers working on the bomb at that time, Russia, Germany, and Us. It was theorised that Russia raced so hard to get to Berlin because they wanted to capture the documents they had and some of the refined materials there. And if it weren't for various scientists giving up secrets about the bomb it would have taken the Soviets a longer ammount of time to develope the bomb most likely. But that would in retrospect probably be a bad thing, as the threat of nuclear war has made it so the two big kids on the block won't go tow to toe. Just fight a bunch of stupid proxy wars and mess up people around the world.

[J Williams]

300. Indiscriminate killing is never justified

Certainly there was widespread agreement among most Americans at the end of the Second World War that the dropping of two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities was justified.

However, that agreement came in the context of heavy war propaganda that depicted all “Japs” as buck-teethed, slant-eyed, evil hoards. And I find it very odd that there is now a movement to try to again justify America’s horrific use of atomic bombs, as if it was unavoidable and necessary to “save American lives.”

No one who has ever seen just a few photographs of the carnage and destruction and devastation in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the atomic blasts could ever think it was justified. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were burned to death. Those who survived were terrible burned and maimed, and their homes and cities were totally destroyed. And that’s not to even mention the horrible consequences of radiation which have caused horrible suffering ever since.

We can argue about whether or not the bombs “made” Japan surrender. There is admittedly some evidence that was the case. However, there is much more evidence that Japan would have surrendered anyway. They were losing the war, and the use of Kamikazi suicide pilots was clearly a last-ditch desperation tactic.

However, whatever you believe about that, we should not argue whether or not the use of atomic bombs was justified or unavoidable or necessary. It was not.

Indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and women and children is never, and never will be, justifiable.

[Baltimoreboy]

312. America should have surrendered

To the benevolent protectorship of Imperial Japan.

We should have willingly handed over our ill-gotten territory and helped support the glory of Nippon.

American women should have opened their arms -- and legs -- by the millions as their Korean sisters were compelled to do.

American cities should have been opened to the Japanese planes for bombing practice -- as the Chinese cities were forced to do.

American civilians should have willingly allowed themselves to be bayoneted for target practice and for just good old samurai fun, just like the citizens of Nanking "volunteered" to do.

And Americans should have voluntarily ended the war when the Japanese asked because, underneath it all, they weren't evil, they were just misunderstood.

I see it so clearly now.

[UdoKier]

313. No, the war should have been won in as humane a way as possible.

Truman instead resorted to mass murder and terrorism. It was completely unnecessary. Your sneering post, in failing to make a cogent case in favor of the bombing only reinforces that truth.

[Baltimoreboy]

315. There is only one humane way to deal with war

Win it and end it.

Japan tried the first and long refused the second. Truman did both. Now, the nations are friends. Hmmmm, I guess he did a horrible job.

[Guaranteed]

323. Mass murder?

Just in dropping the bomb?

Do you know how many millions of people died in that war? You know how many civilians we killed WITHOUT that thing?

War is SHITTY as HELL. It IS mass murder.

And I believe that those two bombs ended a war at otherwise would have ended with our invasion of Japan and hundreds of thousands of casualties. And plenty of those would have been civilians.

[UdoKier]

328. Of course. Hundreds of thousands vaporized in an instant.

Not to condone the firebombing of other cities in Japan or the leveling of Dresden, but in both of those cases, a person who heard the planes coming or noticed bombs going off over yonder would have had a chance to run for the hills or head underground. I'm quite positive that the civilian survival rates in Tokyo and Dresden were much higher than in the A-Bombed cities.

Also, if you survived a conventional bombing, you survived, great. But those who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if they weren't covered with horrifying burns found their hair falling out in handfuls within days, blood running from their anuses, only to die an agonizing death from radiation sickness. Still others recovered only to contract cancers and Leukemia years later. Many had children and passed genetic damage down to them.

Which would you rather have happen in your city, a conventional bombing or an H-Bomb? Personally, I'll take the one where I have a chance to run away and not live afterwards in a nuclear nightmare.

[Guaranteed]

330. That's actually not true.

The figure I've heard for Dresden was over 100,000 dead in the bombings and subsequent fires. We absolutely leveled that whole city. There was nothing left but a bunch of rubble.

Compared to the (at least instant) deaths of around 70,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I guess the point is that you don't have to use an A-bomb to destroy a whole city and kill a whole lot of innocent people.

[bpilgrim]

367. almost a quarter million from Hiroshima alone and still counting...

as the mayor of Hiroshima mentioned just last week...

and only 1 structure remained standing the church that was reinforced with steel.



the bomb exploded almost directly over head.

you reveal your ignorance and your mastery of the 'popular' version of events propagandized here at home ever since.

thanks :hi:

peace

[Guaranteed]

368. You clearly have no answer for my point.

Dead civilians = dead civilians.

And a finished war is a finished war. We'll never know how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives were saved by those bombs- again, including Japanese civilians, who would certainly had the worst of an invasion.

[bpilgrim]

369. how many...

would have been SAVED if we had accepted their one condition sooner?



think about it...

peace

[Baltimoreboy]

372. Still counting?

That's so sad it's almost funny. The bomb was dropped in 1945. If they are still adding names to it from people who die now, then their stats are almost Bush-like.

[bpilgrim]

374. "so sad it's almost funny" - wtf

r u some kinda FREAK :puke:

or r u still in HS?

:crazy:

peace

[Spiffarino]

325. Disagree...the cogent point was made.

Imperial Japan had to end, just as Nazi Germany did. You are obviously a kind and gentle person who sees the bombing as an evil event that taints our country. I cannot. Imperial Japan spent 22 years devastating Asia and its people. Their level of brutality has seldom been matched in the history of the world. I will never be sorry that we stopped Japan's aggression, no matter how we had to do it.

Harry Truman said the hardest thing he ever had to do as president was send troops to Korea; dropping atomic weapons on Japan wasn't even second. I try, with varying levels of success, to examine history through the eyes of those who were alive at the time. My understanding is that Truman saw this show of unstoppable force as the best way to end Imperial Japan's 22-year reign of terror for all time with the fewest casualties.

Dropping bombs on non-combatants is horrible. Is it inexcusable? I would say that depends on the circumstances. In this case, Truman saw it as the loss of 300,000 civilians against the loss of, at minimum, a million plus if the Allies were to invade Japan and take Tokyo. That is what Truman was presented with in 1945.

Do we feel bad about it now? Sure. I see it as a terrible choice Truman was forced to make. He did what he thought was in the best interest of his country. That was his job, and that's why we don't want to go around electing smirking chimps to do it. They tend to f*ck these things up.

[bpilgrim]

356. japan was defeated AND suing for peace

you left that bit out :hi:

peace

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

351. Deleted message

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

[Guaranteed]

324. War IS mass murder. The quicker the war is over, the better.

Whatever it takes.

The last thing you want is a long, drawn-out war. That multiplies the suffering many times over.

Just finish it.

[UdoKier]

331. "Glassing" Iraq would've saved at least 900 American lives...

So would you condone that? Where do you draw the line?

[Guaranteed]

332. That's not even comparable.

You draw the line when you know that you're going to be saving lives by bringing the war to a quick, decisive, sure end.

[stickdog]

334. We should have dropped it on a place that wasn't inhabited, if at all.

[Baltimoreboy]

349. You forget we only had two bombs

And it took both of them dropped on real cities to convince the Japanese to surrender.

[stickdog]

350. You keep saying that. But that's not what happened.

Here's what happened.

1) They wanted to negotiate a surrender, but we wanted unconditional surrender.

2) We dropped one bomb.

3) Three days later we dropped the next bomb.

4) One week later we accepted a surrender that WASN'T unconditional -- the same surrender we could have accepted BEFORE the we dropped the two bombs.

[Baltimoreboy]

375. You left out the failed coup

and successful peace -- either of which have been altered had it not been for the bombs.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who try and rewrite it are just doomed.

[bpilgrim]

376. that weak attempt by a handful of extremist who where immediately arrested

and not 1 of our soilders were killed by ANY imperial soilder during the length of the occupation which continues to this very day.

but you also left out how many would have LIVED if we had accepted their 1 condition sooner?

peace

[stickdog]

378. Those who don't come to terms with history are doomed to fall for the

exact same load of shit next time around.

Nothing justifies dropping twp A-Bombs on a beaten nation that was simply trying to surrender with a shred of dignity.

Just how were they going to inflict any more damage on us at this point in the war?

[suigeneris]

340. Then anything goes

I am astonished at what I read as the line of reasoning most commonly used by supporters of the atomic bombing of Japan in this thread. It is approximately this:

1. The nature of the weapons is of no consequence. Incendiary weapons killed civilians in the cities just as extensively, so what is the big deal?

2. The bombs were justified because they ended the war, saving lives on both sides, but particularly, huge numbers of American lives.

3. The Japanese were a murderous and immoral foe, transgressing any rule of civilized behavior in war and freeing us from the same in the process.

4. Collective punishment and the deaths of innocents was not an issue because the whole population had gone over to the dark side and bore direct collective responsibility for the atrocities of the nation's far-away armies, including those blood-thirsty five-year-olds. Civilians were not innocents. (Where have I heard this lately?)

It seems to me that the logical consequence of accepting these assertions (don't get hung up on my slight sarcasm in 4) is to argue that any weapon or any tactic with the potential to shorten the war was not just acceptable but was legitimate and highly desirable, without any limit whatever. (After all, as has been observed, even exploding Little Boy and Fat Man was no guarantee of surrender, they were three days apart and it took another week after that along with acquiescence to their demands regarding the monarchy.)

So, following the logic of the bomb supporters:

Instead of chasing Japan's army and navy around the Pacific, a dangerous and man-killing proposition to be sure, we should have ignored them as much as possible and immediately gone after the homeland. And, not to strike at the military-industrial sectors particularly, but directly at the civilian population itself. Kill enough of them and the supply lines collapse and it's over, and it's a far safer proposition than facing the Japanese military all the time, so there definitely would have been fewer American deaths.

N.B. I'm well aware of the Japanese propagation of the Fortress Japan myth. I have a clue about our strategic bombing capability, and our submarine capability in the Pacific as well.

So, by the logic of those happy with the atomic bombs shouldn't Billy Mitchell, in the spring of '42, instead of dropping a few tactically ineffectual but American morale-building high-explosive bombs on Tokyo have dropped anthrax and smallpox instead? Since any war-shortening weapon is fine by the pro-bomb crowd, why in the world not? What could possibly be the moral distinction between mass civilian death by A-bombs and germs?

You think there were practical problems with killing huge numbers of civilians this way? Not really, it doesn't take much of these agents anyway, and there were only problems bombing Japan for a little while. Though our ability to overfly Japan was limited in 1942, it was coming on fast - the B-29 had been in development even before WWII and first flew in '42. Still, we could have launched more B-25s and they could have easily spawned rapidly spreading epidemics of numerous lethal and debilitating disease within the Japanese population that no medical system on earth could have coped with.

But while we ramped up our strategic bombing capability to drop the germs we could have delivered death by biological weapons to Japan by submarine all throughout the islands and we certainly could have done so by any number of means on the battlefield too. And why not, it was total war. And, those rabid rat bastards, the Japs were working on their own biologicals eventually even testing them on our prisoners. By god, that justifies using anything we've got, doesn't it?

Further, we had plenty of WWI chemical weapons available and their production was quick and easy. We could have added these weapons to the mix and used them against Japanese civilian populations to very good effect. We've all seen the pictures of Saddam's handiwork. Nerve gas is a damned good weapon against civilians.

Oh, and shame on the faint of heart. Neither of these weapons systems should be looked at as diabolical, of course, and since it was *total war*, international treaties were all null and void anyway, right? I mean, nobody in the pro-atomic bomb quarter is raising any objection to the direct attacks on civilians, including fire-bombings of cities, correct? I have read lengthy, tortuous analyses by scholars in one of our war colleges justifying these deliberate, intentional, overt killings of civilians as trumping any international law against them on the grounds given above, that it tended to weaken the war machine and shorten the war by de-moralizing the populace. I bet it did de-moralize them. Killed millions of them too.

So, prithee, oh great justifiers of mass destruction of the civilian innocents in a good cause, make the moral case that there was any limit whatsoever in attacking population centers and to the kinds of weapons that were perfectly okay.

Using the bombs was wrong.

---

Since so much has also been made by the pro-bomb contingent regarding the capability of Japan to fight on, the invasion of the homeland by a million Americans, etc., I think it will be useful to examine some pertinent facts gathered very carefully and systematically and officially, by us, immediately at the end of the war, to test the accuracy of some of these bold propositions being made here. I'll try to post excerpts and a link to that eye-opening material soon.

Using the bombs was unnecessary.

[bleedingheart]

357. What war has been merciful?

Let us be honest, any war is merciless and it kills the innocent as well as the combatants.

If anything those individuals killed by the A-Bombs were martyrs for the activism against using them ever again. Unfortunate martyrs and they were also unfortunate in the fact that their government put them in that position to begin with by starting the war in the Pacific.

War is ugly and hindsight is always 20/20.

[allemand]

361. Even if one accepts the reasons for dropping the first bomb

what about the second? Why was that necessary? And why after only 3 days? I never understood that.

[suigeneris]

362. Japan Would Fight On?

I'd very much like to hear supporters of the Atomic bombing of Japan respond to my previous post, but as promised, here are some facts and analysis hard to refute. In my experience, few people who are pro-bomb have never read this important document. Remember, this is not the work of some single historian, rather, a well-planned, well-funded effort of over 1,000 people, military and civilian. Every schoolchild ought to read this as a matter of course. I implore you to do so and will quote just enough to whet your appetite about the thoroughness of this contemporary study and its conclusion.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#pagei

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946

excerpts:

"Foreword

"The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt. It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study of the effects of our aerial attack on Germany, to be used in connection with air attacks on Japan and to establish a basis for evaluating air power as an instrument of military strategy, for planning the future development of the United States armed forces, and for determining future economic policies with respect to the national defense. A summary report and some 200 supporting reports containing the findings of the Survey in Germany have been published. On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan."

...

"The Survey's complement provided for 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. Sixty percent of the military segment of the organization for the Japanese study was drawn from the Army, and 40 percent from the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy gave the Survey all possible assistance in the form of men, supplies, transport, and information. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with subheadquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland.

"The Survey secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry. In addition, studies were made of Japan's over-all strategic plans and the background of her entry into the war, the internal discussions and negotiations leading to her acceptance of unconditional surrender, the course of health and morale among the civilian population, the effectiveness of the Japanese civilian defense organization and the effects of the atomic bomb. Separate reports will be issued covering each phase of the study."

...

"There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

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."

...

So all you folks so cocksure of opposite propositions, kindly refute the methods, facts and conclusions of the serious people who actually studied the problem on the ground and whose findings are summarized in this document. You know so much more about the subject, right? Your uncles then?

You cannot. All you can say is that at the time of the decision these facts were imperfectly known.

The necessity of invasion, the invincible Japanese will to fight to the last five-year old and lots of other rot put forth in this thread are simply ancient propaganda, founded in myth not fact, and fine balm to soothe the consciences of all who willingly support deliberate mass deaths of civilians in war.

Edited to place quotes around survey material.

[stickdog]

379. kick

One side has presented evidence. The other has presented comforting aphorisms.

[suigeneris]

363. Well worth...

... a bump.

Smallpox okay? Mustard gas okay?

Strategic Bombing Survey all wet?