Was Truman right to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[elperromagico]

Poll question: Was Truman right to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Th1onein]

1. This was, pure and simple, an experiment on the people in those cities.

Our planes were flying over Japan at will, not having to worry about being shot down, before we dropped those bombs on Japan. We wanted an unconditional surrender, and wouldn't agree to the ONE condition that the Japanese people asked for: that they could keep their emperor. Keeping their emperor was a part of their religion, yet we would not extend to them the same freedom of religion we espoused believing in for all mankind as an inalienable right.

We didn't save any lives by dropping the bomb, as the propaganda would have us believe. In fact, Hiroshima was the site of a large POW camp in Japan that held AMERICAN prisoners. We bombed our OWN men who had fought for our country, when we bombed Hiroshima.

And those two bombs? They were designed differently. We were interested in which design would do the most damage.

[Swamp Rat]

5. You are correct

My grandfather worked at Los Alamos on the child bomb experiment. If he were alive today, he would agree with you - he told me this very same thing back in the 1970s. The scientists all knew what they were doing for the U.S. gvt.

There was NEVER any need to actually use the bombs. To say otherwise is fiction. Let's see who is going to post here with their version of history.

[UdoKier]

9. It was wrong to even test it.

Before detonationg the first bomb, the scientists were unsure whether an uncontrolled chain reaction would ignite the entire atmosphere and annihilate all life on earth.

The fact that they would take such a risk shows unmitigated gall.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Yes. My grandmother died of cancer because of the test.

My family owned much of the land that is now White Sands, and we still own some of the property nearby (I have a few acres too). The flash from the blast bleached white the hide of our cattle on the side facing the Trinity site.

And you are also correct that they truly did not know if there was going to be a chain reaction. Today, our government (and others) continues to operate in this foolish manner.

Isn't it 2 minutes to Midnight?

[mitchtv]

31. the emperor should have been hung

fuck that kind of religion > He should have been held accountable.

[UdoKier]

52. "Hanged" not hung.

Sorry, it's a grammatical pet peeve. As for the emperor, he had been suing for peace for quite sometime, but was helpless to stop the military. He was almost as much a figurehead as he is now, but with the added bonus of being a terrestrial god for a propaganda tool to control the masses.

[TahitiNut]

67. Well, that depends on whether the emperor was hung or not.

:evilgrin: How happy was the Empress?

[diamond14]

60. and OUR government conducted radiation experiments on OUR citizens! (link)

here's a link to the United States Government "Human Radiation Experients"....injecting unsuspecting victims with PLUTONIUM and other radionuclides, exposing pregnant women and prisoners to radiation, and more ghastly experiments...read it and weap...
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/index.html


and never forget that the military nuclear bomb complexes and raw materials (i.e., exposing Navajo Indians to radioactive material in Uranium mines, from which they died or suffered cancers and genetic defects)....WE POISONED OURSELVES...and America was trying to clean up the highly toxic messes all over USA, until bush* stopped that by cutting off all funds...Hanford, Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge, Savanah River, the Mound Site, and more...the nasty toxins that just keep on giving, migrating through water, soil and air continuously....some radioactive materials now being 'recycled' into Iraq weapons creating radiation exposures in OUR soldiers bones, and blowing radioactive particles all over Iraq in sandstorms...KILLING children, babies, and deforming OUR soldiers babies....


the ONLY cost estimate done on this, was completed in 1998 (6 years ago), and bush* banned any further cost REVELATIONS....Atomic Bombs in the USA, estimate cost up to 1997....estimated at $ 5.5 TRILLION dollars (yes, TRILLION)....and American CONTINUES to make nuclear bombs, WHY?....bush* also just began to create MORE Plutonium this year (we have LOTS of Plutonium, and don't even know where to put all the radioactive Plutonium that we already created - Nevada?, the WIPP site in New Mexico?...who knows ! the bush* madness is to CREATE MORE PLUTONIUM !!!!)


people wonder why more Americans suffer from cancers...well...OUR OWN GOVERNMENT spewed radiation all over our country and OUR troops, deliberately, with full knowledge of radiation's effects...and EVERY SINGLE above ground American test continues to spew radiation on us, everyday, as the world turns...for more than 24,000 years, WE HAVE POISONED OURSELVES....


Troops participating in exercises at "Camp Desert Rock" (the Nevada Test Site) observe the formation of a mushroom cloud following the detonation of the Dog test on November 1, 1951. This test involved a 21 kiloton device dropped from a B-50 bomber. The device exploded at a height of 1,417 feet (432 meters).

[wurzel]

2. It was a huge war crime by any standards.

I have no sympathy for the WW11 Japanese. They were total barbarians who were never really held accountable for their atrocities. But Truman dropped those bombs on two totally civilian populations. This was mainly to test the effectiveness of the two different types of bombs used, and as a warning to the USSR. No question it ended the war. But that was not the only, or even primary reason.

[Doctor Smith]

3. It was mass murder.

[Massacure]

7. And having 600 planes drop firebombs to burn entire cities isn't?

If I had a choice of being firebombed and risk burning for minutes before I die, or being incinerated instantly by a nuke, I'd pick the nuke.

If I were president and I had a choice between killing a 100,000 Japanese or a million Americans, I would chose kill the Japanese.

If I were president and I had to a choice between tomorrow and a year or two from now, I would chose to end it tomorrow.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Statements like yours concerns me.

"And having 600 planes drop firebombs to burn entire cities isn't?" Of course it is. Why would you ask this question?

"If I had a choice of being firebombed and risk burning for minutes before I die, or being incinerated instantly by a nuke, I'd pick the nuke." - Really? And risk destroying the world? Remember, they didn't know if there would be a chain reaction or not. Also, nuclear bombs do more than just kill people instantly.

"If I were president and I had a choice between killing a 100,000 Japanese or a million Americans, I would chose kill the Japanese." - I'm glad you will never be president.

"If I were president and I had to a choice between tomorrow and a year or two from now, I would chose to end it tomorrow." - Please do.

[Massacure]

16. You'll kill a million people to save 100,000? Your statement concerns me

[Swamp Rat]

19. No! I would never kill anyone, and don't you ever try to put murderous

words in my mouth again. Anyway, that was a false dichotomy.

[mark414]

98. no it's not

at the time, military leaders were estimating the invasion of japan could cost up to a million american soldiers, plus countless japanese citizens and military.

the nuclear bomb is a horrendous thing, but truman had no other choice.

however, once the world saw just what kind of devastation these things could inflict, it would make people think twice about using them.

i believe that if we hadn't ever used them, there definitely would've been nuclear war with the soviets at some point in the last 50 years.

[UpsideDownFlag]

61. here's the key: the million aren't white american soldiers.

-sarcasm off-

[UdoKier]

14. If you were firebombed, you would have a CHANCE of escape.

But yes, the firebombing of non-military areas in Tokyo and Dresden were also immoral.

That Germany and Japan have been able to forgive the US to the extent they have is a testament to their dignity and grace as much as to the healing effects of the Marshall Plan.

[Massacure]

17. How do you escape when the entire city is on fire?

You would have to be really close to the outskirts.

[UdoKier]

21. Thousands of people did.

They were prepared. They soaked kerchiefs in water and ran for shelters. Are you completely unaware of what happened there?

Do you think that people just sat in their houses when they heard the B-29's going over? That they just blissfully burned with their homes? They had a civil defense program too

You should see the movies "Barefoot Gen" and "Grave of the Fireflies" for a tiny introduction to what went on.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Thanks for mentioning those movies. Americans need to learn what really

happened. ;)

[mitchtv]

29. Dresden was a result of unlimited bombing of London

in case you forgot. Was it ok to destroy Nanking?

[UdoKier]

51. The war was essentially over. Dresden was about terrorizing Germany.

Are you making the argument that two wrongs make a right? Who's defending the rape of Nanking? Not me. The post asked about Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

If the question was "Were we right to take Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima & Okinawa?" my answer would be an unqualified YES.

[WMliberal]

73. dresden was to terrify russia

the germans were already terrified by years of firestorms and thousand bomber raids.

[Doctor Smith]

18. Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo was also mass murder.

Most A-bomb victims did not die instantly, but died slow and agonizing deaths.

Remind me again, how many US civilians were killed by the Japanese?

The appearance of people was . . . well, they all had skin blackened by burns. . . . They had no hair because their hair was burned, and at a glance you couldn't tell whether you were looking at them from in front or in back. . . . They held their arms bent like this . . . and their skin - not only on their hands, but on their faces and bodies too - hung down. . . . If there had been only one or two such people . . . perhaps I would not have had such a strong impression. But wherever I walked I met these people. . . . Many of them died along the road - I can still picture them in my mind - like walking ghosts.

A survivor quoted in Robert Jay Lifton, Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima (New York: Random House, 1967).

[TexasSissy]

68. Your post indicates you are not fully familiar with the facts, or the

effects of nuking.

You should read up on this subject. It's very interesting. The emperor was in the process of negotiating surrender, when Truman decided to go ahead and drop the bomb anyway. Not just one. Two of 'em. It was unnecessary at that time to do that.

Millions did not die instantly from nuking. It burns the body off the skin, and leaves you alive. Then there are the aftereffects of radiation....deformed babies, cancer en masse, etc.

There are documentaries on the History channel occasionally about this episode in history. Very interesting, if you ever get a chance to watch it.

I'm all for cutting the war short and saving the lives of Americans and its allies. For sure. But I end up with the thought that it does not appear to have been necessary, or to have shortened the war much, if at all. And it did great harm to millions of innocent children.

As one of the scientists who created the bomb said,.....the thing is, when you make a weapon, it's like a toy. You make it to use, not sit on the shelf. Once the bomb was made, it was going to be used. That's all there was to it.

[Yupster]

4. Yes/ No

Yes on Hiroshima.

I think there should have been more of a gap between the second and third bombs than three days.

I think the second drop which was aimed at Kokura but hit Nagasaki should have been a couple weeks later to give the Japanese government time to evaluate the first bombing and come up with a new government policy on ending the war.

I don't know what the immediate rush was.

[pnorman]

35. The immediate rush was

that the Soviet Union was scheduled to declare was on Japan at about that time. Russia was then under a neutrality pact with Japan, and the US had been importuning for a long time, to them to break that pact and attack Japan. They agreed at the Potsdam conference to do so, within 90 days of victory over Germany. That would have been around August 15. Since then, the Trinity test having been a success, it was determined that the USSR's support was no longer needed. The Hiroshima bomb was to inform them of that, and the Kokura (ultimately Nagasaki) attack was a further warning.

I'm not trying to assert that Truman and others didn't have more idealistic reasons ("to save many more MILLIONS of lives"), but the above, subconsciously or otherwise, would have underlain those other reasons.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_070700_potsdamconfe.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWpotsdam.htm

pnorman

[TheDonkey]

47. I sort of agree.

It was a terrible think with 10s of thousands dying.
I'm not sure why the rush to devestate 2 cities when, destorying one should have been gruesome enough.

Knowing what he knew then, I'm sure dropping the bomb was the greatest strategic choice.

[Jim Sagle]

6. FUCK YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UpsideDownFlag]

62. ...tell us how you really feel, mr. sagle.

i wish you could be a little more excited about the notion of incinerating millions.

[Jim Sagle]

69. I'm glad we won and the Axis lost. The A-bomb saved lives.

[bpilgrim]

85. BULL

as usuall

:hi:

peace

[Jim Sagle]

90. I ain't got no time for revisionism.

The historical verdict is in, and I agree with it. End of story.

[bpilgrim]

91. but you got time for regurgitating propaganda, eh?

how familiar.

bone up...
"THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB"
GAR ALPEROVITZ AND THE H-NET DEBATE

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

peace

[Jim Sagle]

92. Gar Alpo is a pro-red wacko.

[UdoKier]

8. It was mass murder and terrorism.

It was aimed at scaring the Russians as much as the Japanese.

I agree with the joint chiefs who advised him NOT to drop them.

[Kimber Scott]

10. It was the ultimate act of terrorism.

nt

[diamond14]

13. U.S. News and World Report, August 15, 1960.....(link)

read the MOST important interview on the use of the Atomic Bomb


"President Truman Did Not Understand"

Q Would a United States Government today, confronted with the same set of choices and approximately the same degree of military intelligence, reach a different decision as to using the first A-bomb?

A I think it depends on the person of the President. Truman did not understand what was involved. You can see that from the language he used. Truman announced the bombing of Hiroshima while he was at sea coming back from Potsdam, and his announcement contained the phrase - I quote from the New York "Times" of August 7, 1945: "We have spent 2 billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won."

To put the atomic bomb in terms of having gambled 2 billion dollars and having "won" offended my sense of proportions, and I concluded at that time that Truman did not understand at all what was involved.

Copyright, August 15, 1960, U.S. News & World Report

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



nuclear scientist, atomic bomb maker, Dr. Leo Szilard, home page
http://www.dannen.com/szilard.html

[diamond14]

28. one of SEVEN cardinal sins: Science without Humanity (caution: graphic)

the ATOMIC BOMB is frequently glorified as America's greatest achievement....and I ask: what is so great about this? why are we PROUD of this? and lastly: we actually POISONED OURSELVES in creating this horrible weapon, spending TRILLIONS of dollars, and polluting land, drinking water, animals all over America: Hanford, Rocky Flats, Pantex, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, etc., leaving thousands suffering and dying from Radiation, with many more to come...and most horrifying, bush* has restarted the manufacture of even MORE nuclear bombs, and nobody can stop bush* in his madness...


Third degree flash burns were caused by this radiant heat ray. Bandages were not available, blood and pus formed jelly and scabs, and maggots ate the scabs.


About two weeks passed. Those who had not been injured but were within a 0.8 mile radius noticed that their hair started to fall out. Half of these people later died


About the same time "purpura", a purple spot disease, appeared among the victims. The capillaries were destroyed and the blood lost its coagulation function, thus leading to blood leakage. This is also called "death spots". This young boy died the following day.




A month and a half later, in late September, a joint research commission of the United States and Japan came into the city. In this town where all human activity had ceased, the sky remained beautiful and fair.

[underseasurveyor]

46. Yes A voice of reason

There is nothing great about it what so ever and certainly nothing to be proud of :-(
Thanks for your post amen1234:thumbsup:

[diamond14]

58. just this summer, Japanese victims came to America to ask just a

simple polite request of bush*...that the new Smithsonium museum exhibit, with the completely restored Enola Gay airplane (the one that DROPPED THE ATOMIC BOMB on Hiroshima and pulverized everything in seconds, leaving a TOTAL DEATH ZONE)....

the simple request was that bush* allow a 'little' sign, just one little sign that said how many people were killed and maimed by the first ATOMIC BOMB...and bush* refused...over and over...despite such a simple request from the victims, old now, some of the very few who survived and were asking just for a little sign next to the Enola Gay GLORIOUS WAR display....

because if bush* allowed that 'little' sign, some American tourists might actually question the wisdom of America's monster terrorist: OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.....


"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Revelation 18:2

[mfritz]

15. Yes

You have to put yourself in Harry's shoes, not look back with 60 years of hindsight. They were already bombing the hell out of Japan. It was more efficient - one bomber instead of a whole fleet of bombers. The really nasty side effects were not fully understood at the time.

There's no way a president could tell the country he was going to send their men to invade Japan, and take perhaps a million casualties, because he had a weapon he didn't want to use. The defensive preparations in Japan were truly horrifying, and it would have been a holocaust of immense proportions. The end of Japan.

[wuushew]

20. Why was invasion necessary?

we had a 100% effective naval blockade of the Japanese home islands. Removing all morality from the decision, would it not been just as effective to starve the enemy to death and save the two A-bombs for possible use in Europe against the Soviets?

Fighting against an enemy that can no longer project force against you is stupid. As is the requirement of unconditional surrender which prolonged WWII on both the European and Pacific fronts.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Ahh, a voice of reason in the wilderness! Invasion was never "necessary."

;-)

[UdoKier]

27. I'm personally glad we invaded.

The Japanese were in the grip of a militaristic and emperor-worship fervor. Our physical presence and cultural influences have enabled them to embrace other ways of thinking, including pacifism.

It's a little sad that their culture has been somehat diluted, but the vast majority of Japanese I knew when I lived there were grateful for the occupation, and very impressed with how kind the US troops were.

How things have changed. Today, there are constant incidents of US soldiers raping local girls and causing DUI accidents around our bases, to the point that many Japanese are so fed up that they want us to leave.

And Bush letting his energy industry cronies drive a Navy sub and kill a bunch of students -kids on a Japanese ship didn't help matters much.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Well, it still wasn't "necessary," but things worked out somewhat OK.

I understand your feelings about this as I share them, insofar that I can tell.

[diamond14]

64. Bullsh*t...effects of radiation were understood very clearly (caution!)

Maria Curie and her husband both DIED from radiation poisoning many years before Hiroshima....it was and still is a HORRIBLE way to die...protective equipment was used at Los Alamos (glove boxes, respirators, suits, etc, because THEY KNEW)...

in addition, the United States Military did it's own calculations on DEATHS and TNT equivalents of the Atomic Bomb...OUR military figured the whole destructive force from the Trinity test, on the Nevada desert...which many military proudly watched....and which was reported in great detail to the U.S. Secretary of WAR....the elderly U.S. Secretary of WAR in his own handwritten notes was THRILLED, "It's size and character. We don't think it mere new weapon. Revolutionary Discovery of Relation of man to universe. Great History Landmark like Gravitation, Coperican Theory....May destroy International Civilization...May be Frankenstein..."

nuclear bomb scientist Oppenheimer wrote to his report to the Secretary of WAR, citing the electromagnetic and radiation it would expel, and wrote "...the visual effects of an atomic bombing would be tremendous. It wouldbe accompanied by a brillant luminescence which would rise to a height of 10,000 to 20,000 feet. The neutron effect of the explosion would be dangerous to life for a radius of at least two-third of a mile."
(OUR Government was THRILLED that the bomb exceeded their expectations: TOTAL DEATH for about 1.2 kilometers)
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/English/Stage1/S1-5E.html

killed by heat, not radiation....



Truman's Secretary of WAR (now called the "Defense Dept" as a public relations ploy), Henry Lewis Stimpson (77 years old, the rumsfeld of WWII)...said this: ..."we cannot give the Japanese any warning...the most desirable target would be a vital war plant, employing a large number of workers, and closely surrounded by workers' houses."

The Twentieth Air Force bombing directive revealed the United States POLICY:

"....it should be remembered that in our selection of any target, the 20th Air Force is operating primarily to laying waste all the main Japanese Cities....not leaving one stone on top of another...

the Atomic Bomb crews were told that that Little Boy would be 20,000 equivalent TONS of TNT....at that time, America was dropping 100,000 equivalent TONS of TNT a month on Japanese cities, creating firestorms that sucked in innocent civilians and burned them in their homes...and OUR Government was THRILLED....

and all those bitter scientists, most bitter because they lost their academic positions and homes under hitler...were actually seeking REVENGE...using their gift of scientific talent to KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS THEY COULD...most of those nuclear scientists then began to congratulate themselves for their crimes, awarding themselves scientific PRIZES, and glorious labs, and working on building even BIGGER nuclear bombs until they died...living the high life, enjoying high honor and WEALTH, and KILLING in OUR name....the US Military INSISTED that nuclear bomb creator, Glenn Seaborg, MUST have an ELEMENT named to honor him for his crimes, on the Periodic Chart of the Elements...despite objections from scientists in America and world-wide...the element "Seaborgium" is one of a handful of elements named after human beings (Plutonium is named after the Planet Pluto)....


OUR military was real angry when this very important book was published in 1986....heavily reference, Pulitzer Prize winner, National Book Award and Nation Book Critics Circle Award....give great insight into the GREED and criminal motives of OUR government...and the WWII WAR PROFITEERS, the same companies profiteering from today's Iraq war...this book was condemned by military killers all over America...read this eye-opening book....before it's banned by bush*....
"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhoves, ISBN 0-671-44133-7

[Deja Q]

24. What Truman should have done...

Truman could have bombed an area outside of a city first and then do his happy vulgar slaughtering should his big bang had been ignored. That would have been the civilized solution.

But that's his choice and it was 59 years ago.

The present is our concern, however.

We should be asking if the US deserved to be attacked on 9/11. (Well, I asked that and got flamed considerably and wrongfully by many.)

[Swamp Rat]

25. I won't flame you

I have the same question as you.

[stavka]

59. I'll answer you both in this "non-poll"

Did the US deserve 9/11?

Yes

We arm murderers, Arab, Christian, and Jew, Militarist, Theocrats, and Monarchists in the middle east.

Those murders hurt people and impose their will....those people get ticked.

Strike at the head of the snake, make them feel their pain.

THose that ordered it are probably motivated by their own greed, but in a way we arm them too...with armies of followers, and often actual training.

The US as a nation deserved 9/11 because we were already at war - we just hide it from the American people

[Swamp Rat]

65. You give a harsh, stark version of our national tragedy

but you are essentially right... of course the innocent folks in the WTC did not deserve this, but I see your point. I don't think you really needed to "answer me" but I appreciate your input.

Since I lived in Brasil last year, I had access to many different perspectives, including many Europeans I met. When they told me things, much the way you describe, they were usually shocked that I agreed with them. Apparently, their encounters with other American travelers left them either angry or disgusted. Then, after the ice was broken I got to hear many wonderful things about America and Americans.

You are also correct to say that we have been at war for a long long time. Americans who have never ventured outside this continent or opened a book, are doomed to a rude awakening.

[qwertyMike]

26. When the military has a new toy

they HAVE to use it.

Better demo to the Japanese would have been to destroy an uninhabited island and allow them to inspect it before surrendering.

Aug. 6 - Hiroshima might be justified as some posters have said.

Aug 9 - Nagasaki was a war crime.

PS I was born 30 days before Hiroshima - maybe when I'm 100 I will be one of the few left who doesn't glow in the dark!

[Kool Kitty]

83. That is precisely what scares me about the new

set of "mini-nukes" (yikes, what an innocuous name for such horrendous weapons) that the little Emperor wants developed. :scared:

[Mick Knox]

32. Lame 20 20 hindsight BS of the worst kind

Truman learned a lesson of the power of the A Bomb - respected it despite have at his disposal the massive power to do what he wanted, and he chose to stop using it. He didnt use it after WW2, even at the expense of allowing Stalin to get the power. He knew what he did after he did it and he didnt use it again; despite having many opportunities, motives, and pressures to use it again. He didnt use it in Berlin - he didnt use it in Korea or China. Ww2 was not pretty and there were very few holds barred by the time we bombed Japan with the A bomb.

The race or gamble that is being misrepresented in this thread is the race against every other nation trying to get it. Japan would not have hesitated to use it if they had it.. Germany most certainly would not have hesitated either. They had their long range bomber plans ready. We won the race - we and our allies won the war. It easily could have gone the other way in the race for the A Bomb.

[Zhade]

33. Cool - looks like we've got more informed people than not.

Just one condition agreed to (which we did after both bombs anyway), and all of those innocent lives would have been spared.

Good to see that the majority here recognize the truth about the matter. It gives me hope.

[Mick Knox]

36. Inncocent lives would have been spared?

We were destroying Japan without using it; that would have continued even longer. You actually think we would have killed less innocents without using it? Pick up a book and see what we were doing to Japan that year.

[Zhade]

38. Yes, I do.

I am, of course, well aware of the deaths-by-firebombing, the huge loss of life before we nuked two cities.

Perhaps I should have said "SOME innocent lives would have been spared", to avoid confusing you.

As for picking up a book, thanks for the insult, but I'm quite well-read - which is exactly why I know that if we had allowed the one condition the Japanese wanted (which we agreed to after the attempted coup and after we dropped the bombs anyway), we would not have needed to drop them in the first place.

I'm sure you've learned that in all your reading.

[Mick Knox]

41. Wrong - so very very wrong

What would have happened is Russia would have gotten involved in Japan. The surrender would not have happened quick enough and the red army was on the way. That is what would have happened. And there is no way that could be construed as "saving Japanese lives". We would have continued bombing.. and very Soon Russia would have been there - who knows - taking 1/2 of Japan? Japan surrendered unconditionally as was demanded by the American Public and the Japanese were relieved to have been allowed to retain their emperor .. albeit without any power whatsoever. We let them keep their figure head; we stripped him of any say so it didnt matter. Anything less than an unconditional surrender was unacceptable to the US Public at the time.

[Zhade]

42. Yes, you are. But it's okay, you'll learn one day.

When you do, you'll be surprised you ever believed as you now do.

[Mick Knox]

43. Oh Ok

Stalin would have stopped ..

The American people at the time would have accepted just ceasing hostilities and leaving well enough alone with a permanant blockade.

I'll read a few revisions of history and discover that is true and be smart like you.

[wuushew]

44. I thought it was us who wanted the U.S.S.R. to declare war

Remember great secrecy was taken to conceal and hide American B-29 crews that landed in Russian territory. Stalin did not wish to appear to be aiding America against Japan.

[LanternWaste]

54. USSR didn't have suffiecient force projection to go "island hopping"

Soviet Union didn't have the airlift or sealift capability to project a force relevant enough to have political major consequences in the Islands. The San Francisco Peace Conference was held and Japan agreed to give up any claim on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands of which the Soviet Union *did* have an historic claim (due to the 1905 war). In other words, the islands were deeded back to the Soviet Union by a treaty rather than by Soviet force.

:)

[wuushew]

39. What is the difference between suicide and national suicide?

A blockade is a passive measure that does not actively kill people. It does prevent the enemy from getting to and engaging our forces which is the primary goal in such a conflict.

A population can attempt to grow adequate food, surrender individually or pressure their government to sue for peace.
Who are we to determine what forms of government are more appropriate than others. Personal and societal behaviors are governed by a wide range of emotions be them pride, greed or religious motivations. More than half the American people opposed war with Iraq yet the world community is not questioning the legitimacy or removal of the American government. Our sense of righteousness comes from the successfulness of our global interventions and the stories we invent to prevent cognitive dissonance.

[Bush was AWOL]

34. Yes. and any other answer is absurd

[Seabiscuit]

37. Absolutely, Truman was right

The Japanese at the time were determined to fight to the last man, woman and child. Their military leaders were ruthless madmen, and they had the blessings of their Emperor.

It saved countless thousands if not millions of American and Japanese lives.

And it was the only thing that ended the war.

And remember, it took a second bomb to convince the Japanese leadership that we had more than one. The first one worried them, but didn't shake their determination to fight to the bitter end, becuase they still imagined perhaps since this bomb was so new, we only had two. Fortunately, once they got hit with the second one in Nagasaki, they suspected there were even more to come, and never knew that that bomb was our last one at the time. Had they known we only had two, they would have continued to fight, die, and kill us any way they could.

Otherwise, the war would have gone on indefinitely, and the casualties would have been so staggering that the dead, wounded, and diseased Japanese from those bombings would have looked miniscule in number by comparison.

I personally am sick and tired of hearing Truman's judgment questioned on this issue.

[Seabiscuit]

40. Typo correction:

When I wrote: "The first one worried them, but didn't shake their determination to fight to the bitter end, becuase they still imagined perhaps since this bomb was so new, we only had two." - the last words should be: "...we only had one."

[JamesA1102]

95. I agree. Truman was right.

We were at war and Truman had a weapon that would end it immediately. The Japanese military was determined to fight to the last man, woman and child. They even tried to stage a coup after the second bomb was dropped to continue the war. There was no way Truman could morally ask US servicemen to sacrifice their lives and not drop the bomb.
Continued discussion of this 60 years after the fact only serves to de-legitimize valid discussion of the immorality of the Vietnam & Iraq wars and fuels the right's 'blame America first' argument.

[EndElectoral]

45. They could have detonated it over land where the power of the weapon

was displayed. And avoided killing innocents, except as a last resort. This was not a last resort, and Truman choose not to do it in Korea or China when MacArthur pushed for it.

Possibly second thoughts?

[tjfreeman]

48. No, absolutely not!

That this is still a subject of debate illustrates all that is wrong, terribly wrong, with this country.

I wrote the following:
http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-freeman080803.htm

in response to this essay:
http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-krieger070803.htm

Read it and tell me why it was necessary. If it wasn't necessary it was a war crime, perhaps the worst ever committed by any nation.

And we are engaged now in another prolonged war crime. And Kerry will not hesitate to ask many more young men and women to die for a mistake...not just a mistake, but a war crime.

And is it really any wonder that the majority of Americans still support Bush? The majority have no conscience. And they think God blesses America.

The United States of America is proving to be a failed experiment in democracy.

[MrSlayer]

49. Absolutely.

He did what needed to be done.

[mike_c]

63. very apropos moniker...

...Mr. Slayer. And a career militarist's picture in your sig, too!

[jonnyblitz]

50. It's why I despise Truman and cringe that he is considered

a hero of the Democratic party.

[DrWeird]

53. No. The Japanese were ready to surrender.

The entire argument for the use of the weapons, that it would have saved more American lives, relies on the concept that a land invasion of Japan was inevitable. I used to subscribe to that argument. But it's wrong. The Japanese were ready to surrender and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely unnecessary.

I wish people would wake up about that.

[stavka]

57. ...so close they tried a coup against the Emperor...

The Japanese were not close to surrender....why would they be? - because they were losing? - They had been losing since 1942

Still - if I were Japanese general or admiral I would be going ape over the chance to defend Japan against an invasion given the performance of Imperial forces in the islands.

The Japanese held nearly all of continental Asia - why would they surrender?

They knew the US/Britain couldn't suffer major casualties (the lateness of D-day was proof of that reality), so the invasion was unlikely before 1946...by which time the Soviets may well have split the alliance in two...

[DrWeird]

100. Kind of contradicts your argument, doesn't it.

Why would hard-liners attempt a coup, a failed coup, on the Emperor if they were not worried he may surrender?

"The Japanese held nearly all of continental Asia"

Yeah, and Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them.

The Japanese were soundly defeated in August of 1945. No argument about it.

[Guy Fawkes]

55. This is much more complicated then yes and no...

You have to think about how the war could have gone. How many civilians would we have killed in a hostile takeover? How many americans would have died? Would Japan have made a bomb to drop on us?

there is no right answer.

[Darranar]

56. Not at that point, no...

he should have pursued peace more aggressively first.

[Mike Niendorff]

66. Absolutely, positively, and without question:

NO.

It was a monstrous war crime, and mark of shame on our nation that can never and will never be erased.


MDN

[welshTerrier2]

70. slaughtering non-combatants is never OK

yes, the bombs MAY have shortened the war ...

it doesn't matter ... even warfare must be conducted with rules ... Truman was wrong to do what he did ... let's hope it never happens again ...

[not systems]

71. It will be remembered in a thousand years.

We will be remembered for our barbarity.

And people like you who support it unthinkably primitive killers.

[i like pizza]

72. no

no he wasnt right, but im glad to see the japanses turned out ok

[stickdog]

74. Sorry, no. It's one of the worst decisions ever made by a US President.

[Gwerlain]

75. I am not sure, but

this historian covers it as dispassionately as I have seen. The historian also shares something with me: in the fine print at the bottom of the page, he notes that his father was in the war zone, in his case on a carrier, the Ticonderoga; my father was in Panama, a sergeant in the U.S. Army supply corps, getting ready for the mainland invasion, in which he tells me he expected to participate.

I have no idea whether he would have died in the invasion, but had he died I would never have been born, and it is certain that the invasion never happened because the bomb was dropped. This makes me feel kind of funny when I think about it. I'm not real comfortable with the idea that I might be worth 300,000+ lives, which is pretty much the way this historian describes feeling.

[Renew Deal]

76. He was absolutely right.

It did three things. It beat the Japanese into submission. It saved thousands of American lives. It showed Russians that we were the big guns on this planet.

[veracity]

77. To understand the impact - if you were not around then.....read this.

For those who simply read about Hiroshima, or saw a Hollywood movie, - or learned about it in school....here's the reaction of an American who remembers her childhood, when the bombs were dropped.....

The Bombs of August...In Remembrance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

http://tvnewslies.org/html/bombs_of_august.html

[diamond14]

78. A Nation of the DEAD: 100 million KILLED in the twentieth century

I often feel that today's political discussion are really about WAR vs. Peace for America....not about Iraq or Afganistan...or Vietnam (which is VERY important to the discussion of WAR vs. Peace)...in the past few years, because of big screen movies, like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, D-day doesn't look so glorious anymore....and Vietnam is still simmering between GLORIOUS war and a complete failure...and Iraq/Afganistan looking real bad while I fear that bush* will use a nuclear bomb, and maybe several, if he is re-selected.....


Gil Eliot wrote TWENTIETH CENTURY BOOK OF THE DEAD, 1972 published by Charles Scribners Sons.

in that landmark document, Eliot looked at the evolution of WAR and population size, and the real increases in the numbers of humans on earth since 1914, coupled with the gigantic mega-increases in KILLING each other...to the point where we have arrive at TOTAL DEATH, creating a giant "Nation of the DEAD", 100 million people in the twentieth century....(with bush* on the fast-track for the twenty first century...)...

-snips-

"The world has evolved from big guns, small arms in combat, small arms in massacre, aerial bombs, ghettos, camps, sieges, occupations, dislocations, famine, blockades. Behind the weapons Eliot encountered a phenomenon more basic and more malign: the war machine evolving over the decades into a total war machine and intermittently to create areas of TOTAL DEATH: Verdun, Leningrad, Auschwitz, Hiroshima."

"The most compact, efficient, inexpensive, inexorable mechanisms of TOTAL DEATH are nuclear weapons (side note: bush* names these... Weapons of Mass Destruction). Since 1945, they have therefore come to dominate the field. "The lesson we should learn from all this", I.I.Rabi remarks, "and the frightening thing which we did learn in the course of the war (WWII) was...how easy it is to kill people when you turn your mind to it. When you turn the resources of modern science to the problem of KILLING people, you realize how vulnerable they really are."

"The change from a total-war machine capable of gouging out pockets of total death in a living landscape to a total-death machine capable of burning and blasting and poisoning and chilling the human world is Oppenheimers turn of the screw. The moral significance is inescapable. If morality refers to relations between individuals, or between the individual and society, then there can be no more fundamental moral issue than the continuing survival of individuals and societies. The scale of man-made death is the central moral as well as material fact of our time."

Eliott explains how we got to this point, refering to World WAR ONE...."The one thing that stands out overall is that at no time, before, during, or after the war, was there a living organic structure in society with sufficient strength to resist the new man-made and machine-made creation: organized death. The necessity now is to begin to dismantle the death machine. The energies rich and intelligent peoples have squandered on the elaboration of death need to be turned to the elaboration of life."

......................

....I believe it's up to us...and hopefully, pro-PEACE John Kerry can lead us, where Bill Clinton began...to dismantle the death-machine, before the blow-back KILLS us all....

[adamrsilva]

79. The results of this poll are the reason people don't trust liberals/Dems

during war time. The Japanese emperor didn't give a damn about his people and he would have allowed more of them to die for years than surrender. To say otherwise it revisionist history. Many innocent people died with the dropping of the atomic bombs, but more would have died had the war gone on. Saying anything else really is just "America is evil" bullsh*t. It's one thing to questions our actions in Vietnam and Iraq, it's quite another to question them during WWII!

[bpilgrim]

81. most are ignorant

and the conservatives will always hate liberals and progressives...

* 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.)

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

psst... pass the word

peace

[wuushew]

82. How do you know the Emperor didn't care about Japan?

All wars should be questioned, those who do not are intellectually lazy at the the very least.

[diamond14]

84. all our wars were WON BY DEMOCRATIC Presidents...reTHUGlicans have always

failed at conducting war...and starting with Vietnam, reTHUGlicans do NOT even serve in the military....as shown by OUR CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL and White House CHICKEN HAWKS, sneaking out of serving in the military but thrilled and excited about sending other people's children to fight their stupid wars (and my brother's son is currently in Iraq, as a marine...are you willing to sacrifice YOUR relatives for the bush* KILLING machine????...killing and maiming everyday...it's the bush* way)

how dare you claim that Democrats are unable to conduct and WIN WARS....


I was born after WWII, but my father, and seven of my uncles (both my mother's brothers and my father's brothers) FOUGHT in WWII, many winning war medals, one was a POW in the Pacific theater...and NOT ONE of my American Hero relatives feels that WWII was justified or glorious in any way....it's about time that those voices be heard, and NOT stifled...the voices of peace seem to be always stifled by those who demand KILLING KILLING KILLING....questioning WWII is part of moving OUR country to PEACE with the world...seems that you forget the commandment "YOU SHALL NOT KILL"...and it doesn't say "you can go ahead and KILL because it's a war, or because someone hurt you, or kill without cause before someone gets you (the bush* policy)....it's simply "YOU SHALL NOT KILL", simple words, good for all times, no matter what....

in WWII, everyone had a parade and were told not to talk about the KILLING, because THAT would be unpatriotic....and for a while that stifled the peacemakers, even more so as McCarthy started his Congressional-sponsored witch hunts...similar to bush* USA-PATRIOT act round-ups...my father, who never talked about WWII, broke down in tears when watching SAVING PRIVATE RYAN....then I finally learned about WWII being WRONG, a full-blown government-sponsored massacre conducted for greedy war profiteers at the expense of duped patriotic citizens....my father was also very well read on the logistics of WWII, and felt that hitler was already overextended and losing his war on several fronts in a napoleonic failure, irrespective of what we did....America was shoved into that war by WAR PROFITEERS, including the WWII 'convicted of trading with the enemy": bush* grandpa, Prescott bush*....

read about bush* inheritance, created by the pResidents' own grandpa working Jewish slaves to death in the Silician coal fields and steel mills, known as the Auschwitz Concentration Camp
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

that's where pResident bush* learned how to do Iraq...from Grandpa Prescott bush*....pre-emptively attack to steal their natural resources (for Poland coal and steel mills, for Iraq: OIL), bomb water treatment plants and electrical plants, block food deliveries, blockade Falluja into a ghetto, block internation aid agencies and deliver NO medical supplies, and money-launder American taxes through Halliburton thieves...soon you'll have some (who will consider themselves lucky) to work in your stolen oil fields and chemical factories, and you can easily work them to death...there'll be plenty more if they drop over from unsafe conditions, or lack of food/water, or long working house...the supply of cheap labor for oil in Iraq is endless, if they are forced into starvation, diseases, and war...NO PHOTOS ALLOWED...reporters will be EXECUTED...




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and SERVILE, but is MORALLY TREASONABLE to the American Public. (President Theodore Roosevelt)

[welshTerrier2]

86. excuse me but ....

It's one thing to questions our actions in Vietnam and Iraq, it's quite another to question them during WWII!

shouldn't the actions of our government always be questioned? i thought that's how democracies were supposed to work ...

[Gwerlain]

97. You have committed a logical fallacy:

this one. It is called the "Appeal to Popularity," or "Ad Populem," and is also known as the "Jump On the Bandwagon" fallacy. I recommend careful review of that web site, followed by obtaining and reading the book, The Art of Clear Thinking by Rudolph Flesch.

As far as what Hirohito thought, Japanese and American historians claim that he was a reluctant participant in a war that Tojo and the industrialists insisted upon, as was Admiral Yamamoto. Tojo was hanged in 1949 for war crimes, and Yamamoto was killed 18 APR 1943 over Bougainville after a decoded message gave his planned location four days in advance. Hirohito remained emperor of Japan, until his natural death in 1989.

To demonize the Japanese for what happened is senseless. Some Japanese individuals in the government overstepped; most prominent among them were Tojo and the industrialists; of course, Tojo paid with his life and most of the industrialists did not. The error that they made is highly reminiscent of the actions of the Shrubbery.

Historians now have uncovered contemporary writings by Hirohito and others showing that Tojo was under extreme pressure to end the war. It is quite likely that surrender offers would have begun being made not long after the bomb was dropped; Truman also apparently was under pressure from his advisers, though not as strong as the pressure on Tojo, to change the unconditional surrender demand to indicate that Hirohito would not be deposed, which Truman had never intended in the first place. Had he done this prior to dropping the bomb, there is little doubt that it would never have been dropped, because Tojo would either have agreed to surrender or been ordered by Hirohito to commit seppuku, which the emperor had the power to do, and his replacement would have handled the surrender.

I suggest that before you vent your passions the next time, you take the time to study the history of the time you want to pronounce upon. A few minutes' research would have spared you embarrassment, since all of these facts- and yes, they are facts- are available on easily researched sites on the World Wide Web.

[UdoKier]

99. Nobody said America is evil.

Saying that Truman was wrong is to admit that America is imperfect, not evil.

A great many of us have BEEN THERE, MET THE VICTIMS and LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE SUBJECT aside from just the glory-filled portrayals we usually see.

Are you suggesting that we lie, and give our approval to what was a vicious act of terrorism, simply because it doesn't fit the conventional (uninformed) wisdom?

Besides, DU does NOT pretend to represent the mainstream of the democratic party. This is definitely a PROGRESSIVE-oriented site, though aligned with the democratic party, and not some third party. Democrats.com has plenty of the "mainstream" opinion you seek.

If you get tired of that and want the TRUTH, you're welcome anytime.

[bpilgrim]

80. No Military Leader in Theater at the Time thought it was necessary

* 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.)

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

It is good to see a majority of DU'ers are informed on this important matter.

peace

[independentpiney]

87. Conventional firebombing and invasion would have killed far more

All this revisionist history about the Japanese being ready to surrender is bullshit. Japanese militarists had propagandized the masses into believing the US plan was to completely wipe out the Japanese people. Women and children were being trained to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks.They were shocked when the Emperor finally went against the war pigs and agreed to surrender.

[bpilgrim]

88. all military leaders in theater at that time DISAGREE with YOU

The President's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy--the man who presided over meetings of the Joint Chiefs--noted in his diary of June 18, 1945 (seven weeks PRIOR TO the bombing of Hiroshima):

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (THE DECISION, p. 324.)

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

"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." - Harry S Truman

peace

[independentpiney]

94. Thanks for the link

I'll have to read through all that.I'm never averse to changing my positions based on legitimate info. I don't doubt that the Japanese position was hopeless, but the off-line reading I've done of primary sources,both US and translated Japanese, doesn't indicate that a Japanese surrender was imminent. Admittedly, my studies have been more so on the overall Pacific war as opposed to this specific subject.

[bpilgrim]

96. my pleasure

it is the best debate i've seen yet on the internet on this topic.

:hi:

peace

[veluthukaran]

89. no

no

[diamond14]

93. Blessed are the Peace-makers for they shall be called children of God

Welcome to DU, veluthukaran....we're glad you joined us.....

Pro-Peace People are always welcome to join us here....thanks for joining the conversation....


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:



:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Robin Hood]

101. OMFG!!!! I can't believe that 66 DUers' voted yes.

I don't know if I belong here anymore.

[DrWeird]

102. No surprises really.

Japan doesn't like to teach its people about Pearl Harbor. So why would Americans be educated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?