Is the US really any better with its history than Japan?

[ButterflyBlood]

With all the controversy in China and Korea lately about how Japan is trying to whitewash its WWII history, I got thinking. It's true how Japan tries to gloss over its many atrocities is pretty despicable. But is the US any better? It wasn't too long ago that I was in school and our history classes were pretty slanted. The Spanish-American War, a blatant colonial power grab, was portrayed in a fairly positive light, basically that it was a "good war" because casualties were relatively low. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII usually got only a paragraph or two of mention. But perhaps worse of all, the genocidal campaigns against Native Americans were either completely downsized or not even mentioned. I hardly knew anything about Andrew Jackson's actions until I was out of high school, "battles" which were basically massacres like Tippecanoe were glorified and many of the invaders, like General Custer, were in fact portrayed as heroes.

Is the US really any better in this aspect?

[Maple]

1. I think

we need an 'objective' history of the world.

A country's history should be written by an objective 3rd party, not the citizens of a country, and not it's enemies.

Someone who has nothing to either gain or lose...so they can tell the truth.

[jdj]

2. "better"?

we're the ones that dropped the bomb, remember?

[queeg]

4. I remember vividly

when we dropped the bomb on korea to end that damn MASH series.

[Lone Pawn]

5. You wanna talk WW2 bad guys?

See: Rape of Nanjing.

[REP]

7. See also: Bataan Death March

see also: "Comfort Women"
see also: Pearl fucking Harbor

I'm usually the only one mentioning the firebombing of Dresden as an American atrocity, but for fuck's sake, Japanese actions during WWII were unspeakable. America is not the only county capable of evil.

[deadcenter]

9. just an fyi

while we were involved in the firebombing of Dresden, it was a mainly a British mission.

[REP]

10. 773 Brit Planes; Over 520 American Bombers

US involvement was hardly incidental.

[deadcenter]

15. from the bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_3549000/3549905.stm

800 RAF bombers
761 US bombers

I'm not discounting or defending our involvement, just relating what I've learned from reading the histories. I wasn't there, but from what I've read it served no purpose in shortening the war. There's speculation that it was in retaliation for Coventry and that it was meant to awe the Soviets. A waste in my opinion.

[durutti]

45. Pearl Harbor?

C'mon. The Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March and the use of comfort women were all genuine atrocities. Pearl Harbor was not. It was a military target. Moreover, it was a colonial possession; the U.S. had no more right to it than Japan.

There can be no doubt that the Axis powers were guilty of some of the worst atrocities imaginable. But did that, in itself, justify American involvement in WWII, a war that killed 58 million people? No.

[Redstone]

28. Thank you for pointing that out to the apologists.

Redstone

[solinvictus]

46. They were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor..

remember?

[MountainLaurel]

74. Military target

Big fucking difference than obliterating a city with almost no legitimate military value, and leaving hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS to deal with post-bomb radiation sickness.

[AngryAmish]

63. dropped 2 big ones

[Selatius]

3. The answer is obvious. The question is do you want to deny it?

It's uncomfortable, but sometimes somebody has to speak the frank, sober truth, and it's not pretty. You're liable to be called anti-American in far too many circles for examining past events through the critical eye, but if it's the truth, then it should be defended for the sake of everybody. You cannot learn if you do not come to grips with what really happened. You cannot learn if you cannot or will not understand the past. There is just no way.

As far as my views are concerned, I see the US as no different than Israel or China. With the Israeli government, it's the Palestinians. With the Chinese government, it's the Tibetans. With the US government, it was the Native Americans. It is a moral imperative that we speak out strongly on both points, but no one wants to.

The only difference between the US and the other two is that it is still not too late to stop the systematic destruction of a culture and of a people. For us, it is far too late to halt the devastation, and that's a millstone that the US will have to carry for as long as it will exist as a nation, but it is not yet too late for Israel and China. The future is not yet set. It can still be changed.

It would be an absolute tragedy if we, as conscientious citizens, allow what happened to Native Americans to happen once again to Palestinians and Tibetans and all others who face total annihilation.

[Lone Pawn]

18. The Tibetans don't face annihilation.

Their 'way of life'? Perhaps. The Chinese have a way of modernizing their people by force. But China has taken great strides in the last 20 years, especially on minority relations.

[Selatius]

25. You're missing the point about Tibetans.

They're not necessarily being blown off the face of earth, but I doubt trying to dilute the Tibetans and ruin their culture by encouraging the settlement of Han and Hui Chinese into the area is something many folks would agree with.

The point is people are being stomped on in the world. I'm not as concerned about how they are being stomped. I just wish to see it stopped.

[solinvictus]

47. Ethnic cleansing..

That's what the Han and Hui Chinese are doing to Tibet. Their trying it with the Muslim Turkmen as well. China is a prisonhouse of nations.

[RBHam]

6. Not any more...the veil has fallen.

Sad days indeed.

[Fescue4u]

8. Yes.

Neither country is spotless though.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. History is written by the victors

The "white-washing" from Japan is no different than that of China on her own history. All countries make themselves look as good as possible. Think about your own personal situations where you were the "victor." Then, think about how you may have been portrayed in a situation where you "lost."

Rarely is history very accurate. History is nothing but the past editorialized. Some accounts are going to be closer to the truth than others. Fifty years from now, how will the "Iraq War" be recounted? Will it be a decisive "victory" of 'good over evil?' Or, will it be told as a move similar to Hitler invading Poland?

Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is the glass half-empty of water or half-full? "Half-empty" is correct if you can be considered a pessimist. "Half-full" is correct if you are seen as an optimist. "Both" is correct if you can see both options could be accurate. "Neither" is correct if you debate over the definition of "half," "glass," and "water!" :)

[UdoKier]

12. Of course not.

How many people were taught that America STOLE Hawaii from the Hawaiians in a violent takeover? Very few. How about the Philippines?

I'll never forget one time as the war was starting, the local radio station went out asking kids what made them proud to be Americans, and one kid said "because America is free, and because we don't attack or take over other countries. It provoked the blackest laughter from me...


Besides, despite Koizumi's unbelievable sycophancy to Bush, Japan has renounced its wartime past and mostly upheld its pacifist constitution. That's a far cry from the way the US has behaved in recent years.

I would prefer Japan own up to its wartime atrocities, but shit, the US has yet to acknowledge that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (not to mention the firebombings of other cities) were totally unnecessary terrorist attacks. Mass murder on an unthinkable scale. Who the hell are we to lecture them?

[Lone Pawn]

17. So, tell me.

It's 1945. You're Truman. The war is closing on its final days, and you're all wondering why the fuck Japan isn't surrendering yet. Of course, in every single island-hop, the Japanese fought to the last god-damned man, and your generals are all telling you that the only way this war is going to end would be a massive invasion of Japan, in which over one million American soldiers would die, not to mention the millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians who would surely die in both weeks of pre-invasion bombing and shelling and brutal, Stalingrad-style house-to-house fighting--and the Japanese had no compunctions about sending civilians on near-unarmed suicide attack missions. Hell, there are widespread reports of poor farmers cutting bamboo spears. On the other hand, your generals say there is another way--we have a new, massively powerful weapon sure to terrify the Japanese into immediate surrender. Tremendous numbers of civilians will die, but the war will be over--and the death rate will certainly be several orders of magnitude greater than an invasion.

Does the atomic bombing seem 'unnecessary?'

[leyton]

22. I agree with you.

Also IIRC from my history class, conventional warfare was far more deadly than the atomic bombs. The firebombing of Tokyo took, I believe, more lives than either of the atomic bombs we dropped.

PS - it was learned after the war that the Japanese were planning to attack us with, I believe, the plague virus, along our Pacific seaboard. Add that to the list of atrocities they would have committed had we not ended the war on August 6/9.

[bpilgrim]

29. the bomb that keeps on killing, even reaching into the womb

to spread its DEATH.

FYI: Hiroshima has recorded almost a quarter million deaths in that city alone.

BTW: when we NUKED them they were suing for peace.

peace

[Redstone]

26. If you're one of the million or so Americans

who would have been casualties, or the several milloin descendants of those Americans (who would have never been born because their father / grandfather died in the invasion), the A-bombs sure seem to have been necessary, don't they?

And I'm glad you mentioned that millions of Japanes (probably at leaset 5, maybe 10 million) would have died as well, rather than the half-million from the two nukes. How about their descendants who would never have been born?

People who second-guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki either haven't read, or don't understand history.

Redstone

[bpilgrim]

30. imagine

if we had accepted their offer to surrender sooner?

maybe the terrible sacrifice at Iwo Jima could have been avoided and saved thousands of REAL lives.

BTW: no military leader in theater at the time agrees 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:

(T)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. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

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

Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI. - Kurt Vonnegut

bone up

peace

[Redstone]

35. Mind telling us, what "offer to surrender sooner"

you're referring to?

Redstone

[bpilgrim]

52. certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 Nov

(A) One of the earliest and most respected students of the issue was Herbert Feis. Not only was Feis an important scholar, but as a former Special Assistant to Secretary of War Stimson (and other Cabinet members as well), he had privileged access to inside information and opinions. Here is one critical judgment of this leading scholar's 1961 book JAPAN SUBDUED: THE ATOMIC BOMB AND THE END OF THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC:

(B)y far the easiest (question) to answer, is whether it was ESSENTIAL to use the bomb in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on our terms within a few months. It was not ... There can hardly be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached by the members of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... "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."

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

psst... pass the word

peace

[Lone Pawn]

56. We only knew that AFTER THEY HAD SURRENDERED.

We had no evidence that they were going to surrender beforehand.

[bpilgrim]

61. not true

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

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

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

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (THE DECISION, p. 331.)

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

bone up and pass the word :hi:

peace

[Lone Pawn]

66. See post #64 for my response.

[bpilgrim]

71. here's mine...

again...

* 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.)

many more quotes and detailed scholary analysis here....
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm


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

peace

[Lone Pawn]

72. No, see, you only have to post that once.

And I'll only reply to that once. Otherwise it'll be the same conversation eight times.

[bpilgrim]

27. we NUKED a defeated ready to surrender nations cities of civilians

NUKING a defeated, trying to surrender nations cities filled with INNOCENT men, women and children... young and old, friend(American POWS) and FOE alike, TWICE... against the advice of ALL military leaders in theater at the time!

that, will certainly be hard to 'top' the japanese didn't completly destroy nanking (think faluja)

* 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:

(T)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. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

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

Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI. - Kurt Vonnegut

psst... pass the word

peace

[Charon]

49. "Trying to Surrender"

The Japanese were not "trying" to Surrender. They were trying to find terms less harsh than the Cairo Conference and the Potsdam Declaration requirements. If they were really interested in surrendering, all they would have had to do is notify the Allies of their acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Accords. Their communications with the Russians did not signify their willingness to accept the Potsdam conditions.This did not happen until after the Nagasaki Bombing. Even after the Nagasaki bombing, the vote in the Japanese cabnet was split 50/50 on the acceptance of the Potsdam Accords. It took the intervention of the Emperor himself to settle the issue.

[bpilgrim]

53. bone up

(A) One of the earliest and most respected students of the issue was Herbert Feis. Not only was Feis an important scholar, but as a former Special Assistant to Secretary of War Stimson (and other Cabinet members as well), he had privileged access to inside information and opinions. Here is one critical judgment of this leading scholar's 1961 book JAPAN SUBDUED: THE ATOMIC BOMB AND THE END OF THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC:

(B)y far the easiest (question) to answer, is whether it was ESSENTIAL to use the bomb in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on our terms within a few months. It was not ... There can hardly be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached by the members of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... "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."

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

psst... pass the word

peace

[Lone Pawn]

57. They weren't trying to surrender.

"Trying to surrender" is what they did after Nagasaki--an immediate radio, telegraph, and diplomatic announcement of surrender.

[bpilgrim]

62. becuase you say so?

well no military leader in theateer at that time agrees with you...

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

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

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

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (THE DECISION, p. 331.)

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

peace

[Lone Pawn]

64. *sigh* Those were all opinions based on data gathered

AFTER the surrender. AFTER. "Peace feelers through Russia" are not "Immediately Declared Surrender" as the Potsdam declaration ordered. Those, to my understanding, were the Japanese attempting to keep the Russians from invading.

Nimitz's comment is exactly the same as all the others. "Well, it turns out that we didn't need to drop it after all. What a mistake. Also, it turned out the Japanese were talking to the Russians about a ceasefire. Too bad we didn't know."

Because you have yet to provide me with a single link or quote that states "We knew we didn't need to at the time."

[bpilgrim]

67. WRONG again...

* 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.)

many more quotes and detailed scholary analysis here....
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm


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

peace

[Lone Pawn]

69. See #68.

[bpilgrim]

75. YOU said there were no 'missgivings' beforehand

and now you are trying to duck ALL the other quotes by throwing up a strawman.

the japanese were already suing for peace well before we nuked their civilian populations, TWICE, and we knew it.

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

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

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

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (THE DECISION, p. 331.)

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

peace

[Lone Pawn]

80. Why the Hell do you keep posting the same thing twice?

I'm not going to respond with the same message twice.

[bpilgrim]

81. to point out your errors

sine you keep repeating untruths

peacce

[Lone Pawn]

83. No, see, when I explain what the quote is in context,

posting the same fucking thing three times won't change the full context of the quote.

[bpilgrim]

84. no you say that these attitudes existed only after we NUKED a defeated

nations civilian population centers, twice.

i showed that opinion is wrong.

got another opinion, now?

peace

[Lone Pawn]

86. There's a difference in what the word 'attitude' means.

I claimed that nobody thought the bomb was unnecessary before the bomb was dropped. You replied that Truman felt uneasy about the bomb, but still went ahead with it, because he thought it was necessary. That doesn't remotely disprove me.

[bpilgrim]

87. there you go again... forgetting all the other quotes

not to mention that i didn't post ANY Truman quotes.

anyways, i think the case has been made very well here...
http://www.doug-long.com

that ALL military leaders were not only against the idea of NUKING JAPAN before the horrid terrorist event but also KNEW before hand that the Japanese wanted to surrender.

that you are married to your own opinions no matter what facts come to light is obvious to all by now.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Lone Pawn]

88. Fuck it, the Eisenhower quote.

My mistake. Mistyped.

You have not posted A SINGLE FUCKING QUOTE THAT SAYS THAT THEY KNEW BEFOREHAND THAT THE JAPANESE WANTED TO SURRENDER.

NOT ONE.

Really. You haven't. ALL military leaders, you say? Okay, here's a Fact Attack.
MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz were all against a nuke. Not because they thought the Japanese were going to surrender, but because THEY DIDN'T THINK THE JAPANESE WERE GOING TO SURRENDER. They--especially MacArthur--were all in favor of an invasion. Marshall was in favor of an invasion as well. Eisenhower was in favor of an invasion. And the entire Defense Policy Board--the Interim Committee on the Use of the Atomic Bomb--UNANIMOUSLY reported that the Bomb should be dropped. That isn't "ALL military leaders" thinking the Japanese "would surrender beforehand."

But please. If you think they were, post ONE QUOTE FROM BEFORE THE BOMB that suggests that all military leaders are against it.

You don't have a single fucking fact. You have three fucking quotes, all of which were made after the surrender, and none of which implying, in the full context from whence they came, a single thing you've said--all things that fly in the face of actual military history.

Jesus, you're dense.

Oh, and reply to #85 first, making certain that you're addressing the unanamous report of the Interim Commitee.

[bpilgrim]

91. screaming, hollering, calling DU'ers names and cursing doesn't change fact

firstly....

A full-scale review of the modern literature concerning the central issues was published in DIPLOMATIC HISTORY in early 1990. Here is its conclusion:

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTERNATIVES TO THE BOMB EXISTED AND THAT TRUMAN AND HIS ADVISERS KNEW IT. (Emphasis added; DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 110.)

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

secondly...

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

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

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

psst... pass the word ;->

peac

[UdoKier]

38. Don't get me started on mass-murderer Truman

If I was Truman I would have listened to all the military advisors and generals, who old me not to use the bomb, or to test it on an unpopulated island.

I've been to both ground zeros. I've met hibakusha. Japan is my second home and these people are my friends and neighbors, not "collateral damage". You cannot justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of human beings in PURELY CIVILIAN targets. You simply cannot.

The estimates that "one million" would die in Japan are an outright lie.

Go to Hiroshima. Go to Nagasaki. Do some real research. There was no compelling reason for this attack, but it was crucial to Truman's demented intention to start a cold war. FDR was one of the greatest presidents of all time, IMO, but his succcessor was scum.

[Charon]

50. Advise

Exactly which of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised President Truman not to use the Atomic Bomb.

[Lone Pawn]

58. None suggested they do nothing.

Some suggested a catastrophic invasion, claiming the atomic bomb 'might not be forceful enough.'

Some suggested the nuke.

[UdoKier]

77. Eisenhower. MacArthur....

"We now know, for example, that none of Truman's military advisors thought that the use of the bomb was either necessary or desirable. Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur opposed the use of the bomb, as did Admiral Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff. All of the best intelligence estimates available to Truman and his advisors, including key intercepted Japanese cables referring to terms of surrender, indicated that the use of the bomb was not necessary to end the war. During the seven weeks preceding Hiroshima, the U.S. government was barraged by powerful evidence that Japanese morale and power had drastically deteriorated and that Japanese leaders wanted to end the war but to save face if possible."


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n7_v41/ai_8257981/pg_2

[bpilgrim]

78. excellent link

thanks :toast:

peace

[Lone Pawn]

89. Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Leahy, were in favor of invasion.

Leahy didn't think the bomb would even go off.

And the Interm Committee was fully in favor.

[aaronnyc]

48. As horrible as it is- the atomic bomb saved lives

Had we had a full-scale invasion of Japan more Americans and more Japanese would have died. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens would have died of starvation. In that context, one could even argue that dropping the atom bomb was actually the humane thing to do

Of all the war crimes and horrible atrocities which have been committed, in the history of this world, it seems absurd to harp on the atom bomb.

[bpilgrim]

54. BS

(A) One of the earliest and most respected students of the issue was Herbert Feis. Not only was Feis an important scholar, but as a former Special Assistant to Secretary of War Stimson (and other Cabinet members as well), he had privileged access to inside information and opinions. Here is one critical judgment of this leading scholar's 1961 book JAPAN SUBDUED: THE ATOMIC BOMB AND THE END OF THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC:

(B)y far the easiest (question) to answer, is whether it was ESSENTIAL to use the bomb in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on our terms within a few months. It was not ... There can hardly be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached by the members of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... "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."

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

psst... pass the word

peace

[Lone Pawn]

60. Nobody thought that BEFORE the surrender. Some people

believed that AFTER the surrender. You can't claim that Truman was evil for not having one scholar's opinion that was formed 15 years after the war ended.

[bpilgrim]

65. more BS - read the links i provided to actuall quote from our MILITARY

LEADERs in theateer at that time, please.

* 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.)

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

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

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Lone Pawn]

68. Here, let me translate to you.

"Recitation of the relevant facts:" The military saying, "Invade or nuke."
"Misgivings:" I had a gut feeling that I shouldn't kill a bunch of civilians.

This is Truman saying to his JCS: "Okay, you all are telling me I need to either order an invasion or drop a nuke. I'm kinda worried about both, because a lot of people will die. But it seems like the nuke will kill less, and if you tell me all intelligence shows the Japanese won't surrender on their own, I'll believe you, despite my gut feelings on the matter."

But isn't it more fun to throw quotes out of context?

[bpilgrim]

73. YOU said there were no 'missgivings' beforehand

and now you are trying to duck ALL the other quotes by throwing up a strawman.

the japanese were already suing for peace well before we nuked their civilian populations, TWICE, and we knew it.

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

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

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

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (THE DECISION, p. 331.)

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

[Lone Pawn]

79. I've already answered those quotes.

and what they mean IN CONTEXT. See #64.

And one man's 'gut feeling' is not 'official misgivings.' The latter is "Gee, the Japanese have said they would surrender, and they certainly look like they're going to collapse." The former is "Gee, all evidence we have states that they're going to resist like Hell, but I still feel uneasy about killing civilians. But if I have to, I will."

[bpilgrim]

82. the Japanese were suing for peace and we know it before we NUKED'm TWICE

they were a defeated nation and every military leader in theater at that time KNEW it, BEFORE we nuked them.

though you can continue pretend otherwise those posts are for other DU'ers who are serious about our history, but thank you for the opportunity to help pass the word. thanks, again :toast:

peace

[Lone Pawn]

85. A-hah. Sure they were.

And we know this based entirely off quotes from people who in speeches, with full context, were explaining how we realized the nuke was not needed AFTER the invasion. Tell me, sir.

If you claim Truman had misgivings--why was he DISAGREEING with his Secretary of War if it was the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the bomb be dropped? And if he thought it was unnecessary, why did he drop it, saying "I had reached a decision after long and careful thought. It was not an easy decision to make." in the declaration that it had been dropped?

Never mind. You'll probably just post the Truman 'misgivings' quote again and pretend that I never put it in context.

Tell me why it is that the Japanese did not announce surrender via radio and telegram after the Potsdam declaration, while they did the day after Nagasaki? We gave the Japanese a chance to publically surrender. It was called the Potsdam Declaration--'surrender or we will unleash a weapon of destruction on Japan.' The Japanese did not respond. We then airdropped 27 million leaflets with the Declaration written in Japanese and English on it. The Japanese government still did not surrender. The first bomb was dropped. No surrender. The second bomb was dropped. The next day, the Japanese announced over radio and telegram that the Empire of Japan had surrendered. Now explain to me why the Japanese didn't do that after Potsdam if they "were suing for peace."

If Truman's military advisors were all against it, why does every history source say the Interim Committee on the Use of the Atomic Bomb unanamously for it?

Here:
The work of the Interim Committee was completed 1 June 1945, <21> when it submitted its report to the President, recommending unanimously that:

1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.

2. It should be used against a military target surrounded by other buildings.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm

Oh, and by the way, the only military leader who was not in favor of either a nuke or a full-scale invasion was Adm. Leahy, who wanted a blockade. The rest were either in favor of the bomb or of an invasion.

But anyway, back to Potsdam. From the declaration:

" are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist...we call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Does that sound ambiguous? No. Did the Japanese surrender? No. It's not hard to surrender, you know. You don't have to sue for peace, especially when your enemy has declared that he will accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. You don't sue. You surrender. You go to a microphone attached to a radio transmitter and say, "we give up. It's over." And it's over. And the Japanese did not do this. And so, rather than risk an invasion, we dropped a bomb.

Now, you can try to post another quote out of context that says nothing more than "This general realized a year later that we didn't need to drop the bomb" or "The President felt uneasy about killing civilians but thought it was the best option, all things considered," but it won't change history.

History isn't a collection of out-of-context quotes. It's facts and nuance, and you have neither.

[bpilgrim]

90. all the military leaders in theater at the time thought so...

FYI: the Interim Committee wasn't made up of military leader in theater.

5/9/45 Diary Entry: (The first Interim Committee meeting)

"At ten minutes to ten my first conference of the Interim Committee which I am appointing in S-1 got under way. Everybody was present except Dr. Conant, viz: Byrnes, Bush, Compton, Bard, Clayton, Groves, Bundy, and Harrison and myself. Several of the members did not know the basic facts in the matter and I explained them to them, and we had a talk over the whole subject until nearly eleven when Harrison and Groves took them off into another room to go further into details."

(In the Interim Committee notes for the 5/9/45 meeting, the topics Stimson told the Committee they should address are almost identical to those listed in his invitations to join the Committee. The 5/9/45 meeting notes state)

"Secretary Stimson... expressed his views as to the purposes and functions of the Committee. Appointed by the Secretary with the approval of the President, the Committee was established to study and report on the entire problem of temporary war-time controls and later publicity, and to survey and make recommendations on post-war research, development, and control, and on legistation necessary for these purposes." (Manhattan Engineering District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 100, RG 77, National Archives).

(No mention was made in the meeting notes of any role for the Committee in recommending whether or not the atomic bomb should be used, nor was the Committee given essential military and diplomatic information that would have enabled it to make an informed recommendation on whether the atomic bomb should be used.)

source...
http://www.doug-long.com/stimson2.htm

the FACTS show that by the summer of 45 japan was devestated, could no longer even defend her airspace AND that they were suing for peace.

we knew it but we choose TERRORISM to SHOCK-n-AWE the world with are new power.

just try to imagine the shoe on the other foot, what would we say, then?

peace

[stpalm]

33. umm

"How many people were taught that America STOLE Hawaii from the Hawaiians in a violent takeover? Very few. How about the Philippines?"

I have. American History classes discuss this.

[UdoKier]

36. My history class glossed over the illegal takeover.

And focused on statehood. Do a survey and I guarantee you that 95% don't know we illegally took Hawaii by force.

[K-W]

41. How do they discuss this?

Do they discuss that we sent a invasion force into the phillipines that massaccred and terrorized the people during a bloody occupation all designed to keep them from organizing thier own soveriegn, populist government while the American people were told that the inferior brown people couldnt govern themselves and needed the US's help.

We sent armies to murder people under the guise of thier racial inferiority for the actual purpose of protecting colonialism. Is that how it was presented in your history class?

[stpalm]

42. Yep- and don't forget that the Americans of that time were motivated

...in part by religion. We learned about that too.

Your post seems to make me think you are skeptical of me. How long has it been since you were in high school? I'm in it now- I think I know what I'm talking about.

[K-W]

43. Why do you assume you are the norm?

You seem to find it odd that I suspect cultural bias in the teaching of history.

[Lone Pawn]

70. I learned about them when I was in high school too, actually.

[K-W]

40. The US will need a period of truth and reconcilliation at some point

if we are ever to move on to a more healthy society. So much wrong has been done and we have twisted reality so much to deny it.

[durutti]

13. No. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out...

Our regret over the Vietnam War is usually framed in terms of our losing the war (or fighting an unwinnable war), rather than inflicting so much suffering on the Vietnamese people.

[Lone Pawn]

16. Please, name any other war

in which the citizenry is truly upset for the suffering their nation has inflicted upon others. Perhaps WW2 Germany, and that's it.

[durutti]

44. Nothing I said suggested otherwise. n/t

[blindpig]

14. don't forget the war with Mexico

The most blatant single act of raw imperialism in US history. Like Iraq, the pretense was flimsy at best, laughable almost. A hugh land grab, combined with Texas relieving Mexico of a third of it's territory. Slavery had a lot to do with it, the South looking to balance the North advantage in the Plains and Old Northwest. If the slavers had won the Civil War some of them had designs on Sonora and Chihuahua. Filth.

Don't get me started on our treatment of Native Americans. Reading Bury My Heart On Wounded Knee should be required for citizenship.

[New Dealer]

19. History is written by the winners

Even one of the Americans in charge of the firebombings admitted that he would have been convicted of war crimes had Japan won the war.

[Generic Other]

20. Meet the Gablers the gatekeepers of our history

These people are no joke. What they say carries a lot of weight. The books Texas and California buy are the books all the smaller states get too. From their website.

<snip>
We are a conservative Christian organization that reviews public school textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas. Our reviews have national relevance because Texas state-adopts textbooks and buys so many that publishers write them to Texas standards and sell them across the country.

Our unique nearly 40 years' experience gives us expertise equal to or beyond that of the education establishment itself in all phases of the public school textbook adoption process, and in that our standard review criteria spell out what public school textbooks often censor on certain topics.

Publishers market textbooks -- and many teachers select them -- based on convenience of their teaching aids. Unlike them, we review textbooks for academic content only. Parents, teachers, and school board members can all profitably use our materials.

Subject areas of concern include:


Scientific flaws in arguments for evolution
Phonics-based reading instruction
Principles and benefits of free enterprise
Original intent of the U.S. Constitution
Respect for Judeo-Christian morals
Emphasis on abstinence in sex education
Politically-correct degradation of academics

<more>

http://members.aol.com/TxtbkRevws/

[elehhhhna]

21. WHATHHEHELL does"Politically-correct degradation of academics " mean?

Hope not waht I think ...

[Generic Other]

24. People like me being teachers

:)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Japanese ignorance of their own history exaggerated

There have been tendencies to whitewash history in SOME of the textbooks approved for school history classes (individual schools get to choose from a list approved by the Ministry of Sports, Education, and Culture), but Japan's conduct in WWII is hardly a secret, even in Japan.

For every attempt to pretend that Japan was the innocent party in WWII, there is another equally vocal group on the other side.

There have even been books on the bestseller list about Japanese atrocities in China. (I translated one of them.) So the fact that Iris Chang's book about Nanjing was not published in Japan is no indication that the Japanese are trying to hide anything. Actually, her book was full of factual errors, especially concerning the names and biographies of figures on the Japanese side, so that may have been off-putting for Japanese publishers considering it.

As one of my fellow translators, an American who has lived in Japan since 1982, pointed out, if you go to a newsstand, you can often see magazines with headlines about World War II atrocities. The trouble is that they're in Japanese, which few Western reporters in Tokyo can read.

Whether Japanese people believe the accounts of the atrocities is another story. They definitely have their freeper-equivalents (the goons with the loudspeaker trucks, for those of you who know Japan), and these groups are closely tied with the yakuza.

Television over there is mostly brain candy, and wartime dramas tend to feature poor widows and orphans scrounging for food in the ruins.

However, the horrors that the civilian population suffered have greatly reduced the public's enthusiasm for war.

I think it's significant that Prime Minister Koizumi, who is the one pushing for a revision of the anti-war constitution, is the first prime minister who isn't old enough to remember much of WWII, since he was only 3 years old when it ended.

Actually, I think that the American people bear a lot of resemblance to the Japanese people before WWII, with their confusion of patriotism and militarism with a heavy portion of corrupted religion thrown in, their tendency toward hero worship, and their ignorance of the rest of the world.

[bpilgrim]

31. i agree

especially with this part...

"Actually, I think that the American people bear a lot of resemblance to the Japanese people before WWII, with their confusion of patriotism and militarism with a heavy portion of corrupted religion thrown in, their tendency toward hero worship, and their ignorance of the rest of the world."

i recently heard an NPR pro war piece given by supposedly an active duty air-force officer who talked about how we were nobly bringing peace, prosperity, and security to the ME region... all i could think of was the Japanese version during WWII call GEACPS :scared:

thanks for sharing :toast:
peace

[stpalm]

32. sorry, but we are.

I am in public High School and all those things are mentioned and discussed in depth- Internment of Japanese-Americans, Massacring Indians, Spanish-American war, etc. and they aren't portrayed in a positive light.

but that's just me, maybe you had a different experience.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

34. In my history classes,

We learned about Native American massacres as well as the other stuff you mentioned. And General Custer certaintly wasn't treated as a "hero".

[K-W]

37. Slavery, Genocide, Empire, Terrorism... the US is pretty aweful.

We are raised to believe we are special, moral, and free when our society is deeply diseased.

[ArkDem]

55. Yes, we are truly aweful.

[Toucano]

39. The U.S. is no better. n/t

[Charon]

51. History

My high school history books failed to mention that the Roosevelt Administration threw thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process because they were of Japanese descent.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Spider Jerusalem]

76. Is ANY country really better, for that matter?

There's a tendency to whitewash and glorify evident in EVERY nation's history. There's a reason; to instill a sense of patriotism, tradition, honour, and glory in the minds of impressionable young students, and to put one's nation in the best possible light...the purpose of education is ultimately SOCIAL INDOCTRINATION, not to actually educate. The end result is meant to be a compliant cog in the social machine, not an individual capable of independent thought.