The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Nuke attacks were:

[Gringo]

On an earlier thread (which was regrettably lost) I was shocked that some were defending the hideous atomic bombing of Japan. I've visited there and met bombing victims, and livved in Japan for 5 years, and am appalled at "progressives" defending this filthy attack that Truman's generals and advisors opposed, while Truman knew damn well that the Japanese were teetering on the verge of surrender.

Your take:

[Gringo]

1. Hey thanks, freeper lurker for that

about it being Truman's finest hour. This will give us a good idea how many of them are here.

[OrdinaryTa]

2. The Second One Was Inexcusable

The first one might have been excusable on the theory that Truman didn't know how devastating an atomic bomb could be. But the second one was inexcusable. By then, Truman knew what it could do.

[FlashHarry]

11. Agreed. N/T

[Mike_from_NoVa]

12. This should have been one of the choices

Dropping the first one can be justified because Truman thought it was a souped up fire bomb. It was used to send a message - "quit or we'll drop more of these." The theory that fewer lives were lost than if we'd had to invade the Japanese home islands is a widely accepted rationale. Certainly fewer lives would have been lost if we'd left it to the one at Hiroshima to send the message.

Once the first one was dropped and Truman knew what he had, dropping the second one without giving the Japanese a reasonable amount of time to understand what had just happened to them amounted to mass murder.

[Leftist78]

185. The first one can't be justified either.

If we'd just wanted to send a message, we could have dropped it somewhere relatively unpopulated like Hokkaido Island. The result would have been a much smaller loss of life, but the Japanese would have still seen the power of the bomb.

The fact is we wanted some human guinea pigs so we could fully understand what the radioactive fallout would do to a large urban population. We also wanted to send a clear message to the Russians that we had a terrible weapon, and just look what it can do when we drop it on lots of people.

We knew that most of the Japanese leadership had lost the stomach for war, and that an invasion of Japan would have probably been unnecessary, but we had to test our new toys on "those little slant-eyed bastards".-Truman

The scientists working on the project were divided. Most of them thought it would be about as destructive as it was. A few didn't think it would be that bad. Some scientists not involved with the project actually thought it would react with our atmosphere and cause a worldwide nuclear firestorm.

So while we weren't exactly sure of what it could do, we had some idea. That makes the dropping of those god-awful bombs even more inexcusable.

[diamond14]

3. Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand

Dr. Leo Szilard was one of the scientists who built the first atomic bomb...this interview was published in August 15, 1960, U.S. News & World Report. It created a crisis, because it challenged the thinking that America was right to have vaporized TWO cities, killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians. By making atomic bombs, we have forever poisoned ourselves with cancer-causing Plutonium, Uranium, and other environmental toxins in our water supplies, soils and air.



-snips-

Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

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

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

A I do not think they did. They thought only in terms of our having to end the war by military means. I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace.

------------

Q Would most other nations, including Russia, have done the same thing we did, confronted with the same opportunity to use the bomb?

A Look, answering this question would be pure speculation. I can say this, however: By and large, governments are guided by considerations of expediency rather than by moral considerations. And this, I think, is a universal law of how governments act.

Prior to the war I had the illusion that up to a point the American Government was different. This illusion was gone after Hiroshima.
Perhaps you remember that in 1939 President Roosevelt warned the belligerents against using bombs against the inhabited cities, and this I thought was perfectly fitting and natural. Then, during the war, without any explanation, we began to use incendiary bombs against the cities of Japan. This was disturbing to me and it was disturbing many of my friends.

-------------
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.




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

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. I have the Leo Szilard link and was just about to post it.

Great minds, etc.

[redeye]

4. Option #2 is closest to my views

The bombings were teh two worst terrorist attacks in history. Terrorism is defined as intended killing of civilians in order to terrorize a government into a certain course of action (as opposed for bombing for strategic reasons). Here, the bombings clearly featured an intent to kill innocent civilians in order to force the Japanese government to surrender - in other words, all conditions required for terrorism are satisfied.

[maveric]

5. An abomination but an invasion of the Japanese mainland would

have cost the lives of 60,000+ Americans and up to 600,000 Japanese.
I'm not condoning nuking Japan but at that time, when the nation and world was tired of war,Japan's willingness to fight to the death and the possibility of the Soviets getting there first to occupy, it may have been the lesser of the evils to end the war and to save as many lives as possible.

[Gringo]

6. That's a very good summation of the conventional wisdom

regarding the attacks. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary though, even in mainstream sources, which I've belabored to ko end with people so I'll just suggest that you maybe check out this:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html

and seek more info on your own.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. War

In war, it's your job to win with the fewest casualties on your side. So a couple facts:

* An invasion would have cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of casualties and who knows how long it would have lasted. (I used to work with a guy who was a consultant and had been in WWII. He was slated to be part of the first wave of any invasion. HE was sure Truman did the right thing, because the casualty estimates for that group were immense.)
* An invasion would have cost a ton of Japanese lives and resulted in a nationwide devastation of everything. Do you think American troops would have been genteel after losing thousands in a horrific invasion? Remember, the Japanese had plans to fight to the death and they would have been defending their homeland.
* Everyone is critical about the second bombing, but the fact is the Japanese DIDN'T surrender after the first one. In fact, internal struggles almost led to a fanatic coup.
* Ultimately, it worked. I tend not to argue with history when the results are so obvious.

[aneerkoinos]

209. In war

the hardest thing but the most important job, is to remain human being.

You've failed before the beginning.

[Character Assassin]

212. What a quaint notion

In war, the point is to win. When one is first attacked by a power such as Japan was at the time, doubly so.

[bpilgrim]

214. we had WON

and the logical next question is WHAT have we WON?

which is what i believe he was pointing out.

:hi:

peace

[aneerkoinos]

217. quaint schmaint

In a game, the point is to win. War is not a game. Loosing a war does good once in a while, USAns sadly seem to need to repeat that experience more than the rest of us to learn the lesson (that war is no good). I call that hubris. Or maybe the problem is that USA has forgotten what war means when it is fought at home. There is no good or bad, just killing and suffering and raping. And propaganda and justifications by the more succesfull murderer you accept for history.

In life, the point is not to lose your soul, even when a war intrudes your life. Heard of Karma? Humanity has grown up a lot since the days of Alexander the Great, who by the standards of his day was a great man and a humane leader. If You are saying that human progress is impossible, what are you doing here?

History does not justify repeating the same stupidities. Evolution and having been evolved with brain gives us a chance, shouldn't it give us some sense of responsibility to face the responsibility to evolve according to our abilities and potential?

It saddens me every day that USAns are so willing to drop out from the progress of human cultural evolution. You have given a lot to humanity (and taken a lot), but if you stagnate, you will be gone and missed, but evolution does not tolerate loosers in the only big game, game of life.

[bpilgrim]

213. well said

i don't think he even bothers to read the awesome material posted or linked to here.

sad

peace

[Kellanved]

8. Japan had already offered to surrender

Truman didn't like the conditions (he accepted them afterwards though) or misread the signals.
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html

[kubi]

9. The Bombs saved lives

Low estimates would of been at least one million deaths on both sides if we would of invaded the home islands. Japan always want's us to say we are sorry about the bomb but I never hear them apoligize for the rape of Nanking. They butchered 340,000 non combatants there, believe that stands as a record for the number of people killed in one city. Another thing to remember our fire bombings killed more people then the nukes, I beleive the fire bombings were more heidious then the two nukes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Don't Forget The Bataan Death March

where the Japanese promised the American commanding officer that if they surrendered the Phillipines peacefully, the soldiers would be treated decently. Instead they were tortured.

The Japanese waged aggressive war and lost.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

31. In WWII, unconditional surrender was the only acceptable option

Nothing short of unconditional surrender could have been or should have been accepted.

Nothing.

[Kellanved]

37. IMHO you are mistaken

Japan did surrender to the virtually the exact terms they had offered before being nuked.
They were allowed to keep their emperor- the only condidtion they had AFAIR.
http://origin.sundayobserver.lk/2002/08/25/fea06.html
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html

[Walt Starr]

41. Please provide a reliable source for your assertions

Neither of your links can be considered reliable.

[Kellanved]

45. Tons (not as outspoken though)

http://www.historians.org/archive/hiroshima/010746.html
http://www.math.yorku.ca/sfp/sfp.ex.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
(Ok, you won't consider this one reliable)
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/necessary.html

From http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/capio.html:
--snip
From the perspective of US government officials who made decisions regarding the development and use of atomic weapons, the bombings aided in bringing about the surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri.37 While he was still at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin, President Truman found out that that the atomic bomb had been successfully detonated at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The conference itself was a difficult give-and-take among the Allies over the terms upon which the war should be ended and the conditions for the postwar peace. Buoyed by the Alamogordo success, Truman had decided upon and issued a harsh ultimatum-the Potsdam Declaration-that called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction."38 Japan had been subjected to overwhelming aerial bombardment, including firebombing and carpet bombing of most of its cities and civilian population, as well as devastating naval blockades by long-range submarines and surface vessels. Consequently, despite opposition from the imperial army, Japan began to realize that it had lost the war. Clearly defeated, the Japanese made peace overtures through the Russians, who had not yet entered the Pacific war. Their only request was that they be allowed to keep their emperor.

The Japanese were ready to surrender...
--snap


One might argue, (and many do) that he nukes led to a faster, better peace. This is much an opinion and no fact, as my position. One thing is a fact: the Japanese offered the Missouri Terms before the nukes.

Edit: the last sentence pushes it a little far; many historians consider it a fact.

[Walt Starr]

47. This is the first I've ever heard of these assertions

And I have seen no clear evidence that this is the case, only assertions that it is.

Where are the original documents?

[Kellanved]

61. That is the downside

Hardly any good sources are available via the internet.
Some very respected historians wrote about it; I had some courses about the matter. EDIT: These ended without an unambiguous result.

Doug Long has some good sources, both in favour and against dropping the nukes: http://www.doug-long.com/ .
http://www.doug-long.com/summary.htm

This one has a complete Bibliography at the end:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/capio.html


To the other poster: AFAIR Japan did not oppose occupation after spring 1945.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. It's not the first I've heard of it...

But then I did a course about it last year. Why are you asking for original documents when the first link I clicked on led to a primary source? A good book to read would be "Great Mistakes of the War" by Hanson W. Baldwin. Unfortunately you won't find it conveniently online. When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan was already negotiating a surrender, and seeing as how Japan by that stage was pretty much militarily exhausted, the excuse that it needed to be done to save millions of lives in an invasion of Japan seems to be just an excuse. And the timing was interesting. The bomb was dropped on the 6th and the USSR declared war on Japan on the 8th, though if I'm remembering this right, the US was aware that the USSR was going to enter the war. Obviously the US had a real interest in making sure the occupation wasn't going to turn into something similar to Germany and wanted to do it alone. Also, what better way to give the USSR a demonstration of what the US could do? Dropping the bomb meant that in the post-war world, the US didn't need to mobilise huge numbers of troops. All it had to do was threaten to use the bomb and the idea was that was supposed to scare other nations into behaving. They had the ultimate superiority with the bomb, but it didn't take the USSR long to develop their own and then get into a neck and neck race with the US to keep on building more and more devastating weapons of mass destruction...

Of course in hindsight, it's hard to imagine that any of the nations involved in WWII wouldn't have dropped the bomb if they'd had it, though one bad side of dropping it was that it turned Japan into a victim and played a part in the still-lingering unwillingness to apologise for the many atrocities Japan committed during the war....

Violet...

[theboss]

57. That's not true

The other major sticking point for the Japanese was avoiding occupation. Large segments of the military did not want American troops on their island after surrender. This obviously went out the window after the bombings.

It is entirely possible that if we had waited a day or two, Nagasaki may have been avoided. But we should also note that after surrender, parts of the military staged a coup in the hopes of continuing the war.

[Uzybone]

179. I agree with unconditional surrender

the Japanese didnt agree to this till after the second bomb. Not only did they want thier emperor, they also wanted NONE of thier high ranking officials prosecuted for crimes and they wanted to maintian thier own government. That didnt change till the 2nd bomb.

[Loonman]

14. Necessary

It happened. Crying about it now doesn't change anything, and obviously N. Korea, India and Pakistan have not learned about the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

[ShaneGR]

15. This board is starting to freak me out

Uh, remember Pearl Harbor? The Rape of Nanking? The Bataan Death March? Kamikazee pilots? 8 year olds being trained to defend the Japanese beaches when the invasion came?

Well over a million lives were saved by dropping those bombs. The story about an impending surrender is straight up bullshit. The Japanese wanted a conditional surrender, where the emperor was still in charge and they were allowed to keep their military. They were not going to surrender unconditionaly unless we showed them we could literally annihalte there entire nation if they didn't. So we showed them what would happen, and we have a better world because of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. During The Bataan Death March Filipino

mothers smeared feces on their daughter's faces so they would be unattractive to the Japanese soldiers and less likely to be raped.

[ShaneGR]

17. Yeah, I wonder what the fascination is

Seriously, if they're going to make sweeping statements about WWII, they need to read a history book detailing Japanese atrocities. The Japanese made the Nazis look tame sometimes.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. How do Japanese atrocities justify the bomb?

React to atrocity with atrocity? And I don't need to read a book to know about Japanese atrocities. I heard about some of them first hand from my grandfather. My suggestion to you is that if yr going to make sweeping and selective statements about WWII, you need to read some books that don't just take on the narrow perspective of Japanese atrocities so that you have a better understanding of the war and the lead-up to the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

Violet...

[Leftist78]

190. Apples and oranges

Here all this time I've been thinking it was the conservatives who did all the justifying for American atrocities. Using another country’s atrocities to justify our own is the lowest form of human reason. "They were bad people, so they deserved to be hurt". The 5-year-old logic in that one would be funny if we weren't talking about people's lives.

Hey I've got an idea, we should go kill about six million Germans. After all, look what they did to the Jews.

:eyes:

[Sick of Bullshit]

23. Remember the Trail of Tears?

Who was responsible for that?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[ieoeja]

85. President Jackson despite opposition by US Congress

Wouldn't it be nice if the United States were just one monolithic good or evil being? Congress actually considered recognizing Cherokee statehood down in what is now the Carolinas, and the US Supreme Court went so far as to APPROVE the request for statehood. Jackson, credited with coining the phrase, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian", ignored the other two branches and went his own way.

Few things are black & white (and isn't recognition of that fact the primary difference between Conservative and Liberal?). While not denying the fact that the Japanese were brutal by WW-II era European standards, even the Bataan Death March has some extenuating circumstances. While you had typically ignorant rank & file happy to "keep the Americans in line", higher brass in the Japanese Army were horrified when they discovered what had occured.

They had ordered the American prisoners trucked off the peninsula then left it to underlings. When the trucks were full, the underlings marched off the rest without supplies. The number the brass assumed they had taken was a tiny fraction of what they actually had. The Americans hadn't been "beaten", they simply ran out of supplies (as they would again in New Guinea and again in Korea; unlike Patton, MacArthur had no Omar Bradley).

[Parche]

77. EXACTLY

I have read and studied the Pacific war for years, and know that
dropping both bombs on Japan was the right thing to do,
The Japanese were fanatics, and were run by the Army, who after the
fire bombs and the first Nuclear bomb were still not going to surrender, Admiral Halsey and the 3rd fleet had Japan surrounded,
B-29's were flying over hourly and daily, along with all of the
planes of Task Force 38, plus the new airfields of Okinawa.
And still they would not surrender, so it did take the 2bombs to
make them realize what situation they were in.

And also they were the ones that did start the war, and the US finished it.
They attacked at Pearl Harbor, Baatan, Wake Island
Remember the soldiers and civilians at Wake Island, Truk
The Australians on New Guinea
The Japanese soldiers back then were vicious in their victory and their defeat, they took it out on our POW's.
The US had the means to end the war and victory and they used it.
I am glad that we did.

[jonnyblitz]

18. wow..necessary to win the war? people still believe that??

Guess this is why I am still NOT a DEM...too similar to Repubs in philosophy and belief in empire

[Loonman]

19. What does that have to do with Repubs and Empire?

Japan was the empire. Nazi Germany was the empire.

[Sick of Bullshit]

24. Britain was the empire. France was the empire.

Belgium was the empire, Portugal was the empire. The Netherlands was the empire. The Soviet Union was the empire.

Gee, there were lots of empires back then. Guess they have to be divided into "good" empires and "bad" empires, eh?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Victims

Why not ask the victims if the Japanese were a "good" empire?

[Sick of Bullshit]

29. Why not ask the people of the Congo whether Belgium was a good empire?

Why not ask the people of Angola and Mozambique whether Portugal was a good empire? Why not ask the people of Indonesia whether the Netherlands was a good empire? Why not ask the people of India whether Britain was a good empire? Why not ask the people of Algeria whether France was a good empire? Why not ask the people of Ukraine and Finland whether Russia was a good empire?

[aneerkoinos]

215. Actually, for the people of Finland

Russia was a good empire except the last years of slavophil ideology. Finland was autonomous and had a rule of law.

The statue of Alexander I is still at the center of the Helsinki, at the Senaatin Tori.

In his older days the same emperor was much less benevolent towards Polish people, I'm sad to say.

[JVS]

49. Soviet union was not an empire

[maveric]

66. Czarist Russia was. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

115. If the Soviet Union was not an empire,

Why did the republics have to be held together by force? And why did it crumble into so many different countries with so many different languages and cultures after the threat of force was lifted? Hmmm?

And what, exactly, was the status of the Eastern European satellites, if they were not part of an empire?

[aneerkoinos]

220. Sure it was

continuation of the Russian empire with similar interests (to the sea, to the sea!). Nation states rarely change, all the power they keep they use like little children. Soviet union was no exception, communist schmommunist what ever. It was just as tyrannical and evil as the rest of the crowd and some ways much more.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

30. coming from you, that's a compliment

[Blue_Chill]

48. What?!

I guess you think the US was the bad guy in WWII?

Nevermind waht Japan was doing to China. Nevermind that more loss of life would have resulted from invading the main island. Nevermind that Japan ATTACKED US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sigh....

[slackmaster]

21. Political calculation based on information Truman had at the time

Advisors were pushing every conceivable direction. Truman made the best decision he was capable of making under the circumstances. Nobody outside of the top scientists had any idea what unintended consequences might ensue. Truman's decision considered the impact a dramatic ending to the war would have on the people of the US and the rest of the world.

The generations of my parents and grandparents say the nation was sick to death of the war. They wanted it over. Hearing about the bomb was the best news they could have hoped for.

[Gringo]

39. The effects of the Los Alamos test were clear

The idea that Truman thought it was a glorified m-80 is ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

51. Please don't put words into my mouth

And the test occurred near Alamogordo, not Los Alamos.

[diamond14]

197. hear Truman lie: : "...Hiroshima, a MILITARY BASE..." (links)

here are the DECISION documents, the petitions of many nuclear scientists, who wanted a different approach...

and transcripts, as well as other documents from the U.S. National Archives....

scroll down to Truman's address to the Nation and listen to his BIG lie...(or read the transcript), claiming that Hiroshima was a MILITARY BASE....(and that lie continued in American minds, justifying this major war crime against civilians just like themselves....)

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

[Gman]

22. Gotta vote "Regretable but necessary" because

my dad was a Marine in the South Pacific during The War. He was on a troop ship waiting to invade Japan when he saw the flash from the bombs.

The stories he told us about what it was like fighting the Japanese leave me with the impression that the decision, while regretable, was neccessary.

[Walt Starr]

28. I support the dropping of both bombs 100%

Did anybody bother to look at casualty estimates for an invasion of the main island? We would have paid a horrible toll, and so would have the Japanese.

Both were absolutely necessary. IT was the right decision at the right time and knowing what I know now, if I could go back in time to talk to Truman about the consequences of his actions, I would advise him to follow precisely the course which he ultimately did.

[Walt Starr]

32. BTW, I do not even believe it was "regretable"

I don't regret it one little bit. The only reason I voted for that is it comes closest to the truth.

[Sick of Bullshit]

33. Totally unecessary

Japan was ready to sue for peace by at least May 1945:

May 12
William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services, reports to President Truman that Japan's minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities."

Even Eisenhower thought the atomic bombings were unnecessary,

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html

[Walt Starr]

36. Unconditional surrender was the only acceptable option

Sueing for peace is not unconditional surrender.

Truman was not only correct, history proves Truman was correct.

Both bombs were necessary and I support the action 100%. If it were my decsion, I would do the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. If that's the case...

Then why did the US demand unconditional surrender, drop the bombs, and then accepted a conditional surrender?

I'm glad it wasn't yr decision to make, btw. At least when Truman made his decision he didn't have the gift of hindsight that we have now...

Violet...

[Set]

82. Come on....

Do you really think Hirohito would have made the radio broadcast if his country's position was ANYTHING OTHER than one of facing complete nuclear annihilation?

As late as the 1970's, small numbers of WWII Japanese troops still under arms were "holding out". We're talking a group of SERIOUSLY brainwashed people, willing to resist to the death.

The dropped nukes "brought him to the podium"...and if we had invaded, it would have been an absolute bloodbath, on BOTH sides.

Yes, it sucked for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However the alternatives would have been much, MUCH worse.

BTW, didn't ONE night of firebombings in Tokyo kill many more people than BOTH nukes?

[Gringo]

87. This is an appallingly ignorant post

Everything I've ever read indicates that the emperor was opposed to much of what the military did in WWII and was powerless to stop them. In spite of his being a deity, he was a nearly powerless figurehead, and though he wanted to surrender quite early on, his generals would not hear of it. Although he bore some complicity in the war, the much-reviled General Tojo showed a great deal of class in shouldering all the blame personally.

Whether we could have brought him to the table is nothing but specualtion, since we never really tried.

As for the few post-war holdouts - there are still would-be confederates in this country praying for a race war, so I don't quite get your point.

And yes, many more were killed in the firebombings, but if you escaped unharmed, that was the end of it. The people lucky enough to survive Hiroshima/Nagasaki "unscathed" were shocked days later when their hair started to fall out and blood gushed out of their asses, only the beginning of a horrible new kind of death. Personally, I'd take a conventional firebombing any day over an a-bomb.

[Set]

94. While Hirohito was a figurehead...

he didn't make a broadcast ordering surrender after Tokyo was firebombed, slaughtering a sizeable fraction of a million people (far more than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima, even including later deaths from radiation sickness). It took nuclear weapons, the likes of which had never been seen before and the level of destruction which was unheard of to bring it about. Once the bombs were dropped, and ONLY AFTER THAT, was he willing to make the statement and force the surrender.

While Hirohito didn't wield real power in government, he DID wield real power with the people.

The fact that you'd prefer to be incinerated alive rather than dying quickly if in a nuclear blast zone is touching...but makes me think you've never spent much time with people suffering from 3rd degree burns gotten from conventional methods. Both methods of death are bad...but being instantly vaporized is preferable, IMHO, to being set on fire and burning to death. And yes, lots of people died from the firebombings after a considerable period of time in excruciating pain. I've never interacted with people with radiation sickness...but I have had a fair bit of experience on a burn ward during the 1990's, and NOTHING can be worse than that. If you'd ever sat in on or helped with a debridement, you'd understand that.

[Blue_Chill]

35. I agree with Walt

Invading the main island would have had a horrible death toll. Unconditional surrender was the only option, Japan had not offered it and thus the war went on.

BTW - Read up on what Japan was doing to China.

[mitchtv]

74. agree with Walt

regettable that the Emperor wasn't charged afterwads.Guilty , Guilty, Guilty.

[bryant69]

40. I find myself amazed that this is even being discussed

This was the right thing to do--it was terrible, but it saved more lives than it cost.

[Chicagonian]

34. Japan & Pearl Harbor was another case of our own blowback

Japan was very content to remain an isolationist nation, until Admiral Perry steamed into Tokyo Harbor, and demanded at gunpoint that Japan join the world trading community (almost WTO-ish)...They did, and ultimately became the monster we faced in WWII...the monster we basically helped to create(almost Iran-ish, Iraq-ish, Afghan-ish...)

As to the Atomic Bombs- a regrettable choice, but hindsight isn't always 20-20. I would have preferred to see some type of offshore deomnstration given for the benefit of the Japanese people, as opposed to the course we actually took(which was ultimately a demonstration for the Soviet government as much as an attack on Japan)-
BUT-
I wasn't alive at the time, don't know all the particulars, but I do know thru my father-in-law, who had returned from Europe, and was preparing to be part of the invasion force on the Japanese mainland; and my mother-in-law, that nobody involved at the grunt level wanted to go 'over there' anymore, and saw anything that could be done to avoid that as very good.

[Walt Starr]

38. Offshore demonstration was not a viable option at the time

They could not be 100% certain the boms would have worked. An offshore demonstration that failed would have made matters worse.

[Leftist78]

194. How could that have possibly made anything worse?

There was just as much of a chance that it wouldn't work when it was dropped in Hiroshima, as there would have been with an offshore demonstration or a demonstration on unpopulated land.

[charlie]

202. For what it's worth

even the scary Strangelovian Edward Teller thinks we should've staged a demonstration:

"I have regret connected to Hiroshima. We should have dropped the bombs not on Hiroshima but in Tokyo Bay. Ten million Japanese would have seen the blast and nobody would have been hurt. With the Japanese seeing that, we could have ended the war without killing. Or we could have dropped the atomic bomb over Tokyo at an altitude of twenty to thirty thousand feet, at eight o'clock in the evening, so they would have seen it and felt the shock. Hirohito would have seen the bomb and used it to surrender."

http://www.esquire.com/features/learned/020101_mwi_teller.html

[JVS]

53. By that logic PNAC America is a case of blowback

If Europeans hadn't come sniffing about the Americas in 1492, the Pilgrims and others wouldn't have come over here and created plans of world domination against the old world.

[Chicagonian]

76. If PNAC were being perpetrated by Native Americans-

against the whites of Europe, that might be closer to true. but the domination of the "old world" is being carried out by the descendants of those same Europeans
And Perry went into Tokyo Harbor less than 100 years before the Japanese went into Pearl Harbor...you're trying to go back 500 years.
Had Japan not been forced to join the modern world of the day back in the 1850's, it's doubtful they would have become such a potent force in time for WWII.

[Generic Other]

42. I always believed the first nuke should have targetted Mt. Fuji

This is what the scientists suggested, but the military wanted to test the bomb on civilians to scare the Soviets. Seeing a national icon permanently marred would have gotten the attention of the Japanese with much less loss of life.

The thing that really upsets me about the damn bomb was that scientists tested the thing when they were uncertain as to what it would do. They believed it was possible that detonating one would ignite the atmosphere and destroy the entire planet. To me, that was the crime. To test a weapon when there was even the slimmest possibility that such a thing might occur, that makes those men monsters.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. Go to the Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos

and then you can answer this question.

http://www.lanl.gov/museum/index.shtml

[Gringo]

54. Their exhibits look very attractive, sterile and non-threatening

How a museum concieved by a certain military-industrial-complex-oriented science cummunity could be very enlightening of the human reality of the A-Bombings (or the Japanese atrocities of WWII) is beyond me. I'm sure that those who create the weapons of "math death" as Dumbya calls them, would have no particular bias on the subject. The only one of them with any credibility was Opperheimer when he said:

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

[Ready4Change]

44. The choice really was: Destroy 2 cities, or Destroy an entire nation.

In preparation for a landing and assault of the Japanese mainland we would have had to conduct a firebombing campaign that would have destroyed half of the Japanese cities. THEN we would have to land and take the rest with ground forces. The entire island would have become a charnel house, rather than "just" 2 cities.

To bring ALL of Japan to the surrender table required a clear demonstration of their impending defeat. 2 planes=2 cities was that clear demonstration.

Good thing it worked, too. Not well know was that we didn't have any more a-bombs in our inventory at the time. Yes, we were building more. But, we would have firebombed half of Japan by the time those were ready. Had THAT happened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have just been footnotes to a greater devestation.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. A friend's father died recently- an Iwo Jima Marine veteran

In addition to Iwo Jima he fought on Saipan and Tinian.
The fighting was fierce and brutal and deadly. As the American troops advanced closer to the Japanese mainland the defenders only dug in all the deeper. Fighting on Iwo was measured in yards advanced per day, which initially amounted to only a handful of yards with the cost in American lives numbering in the uhndreds and then thousands.
When Saipan fell, rather than surrender, the Japanese civilians threw themselves off the cliffs rather than surrender to the Americans pleading through bullhorns.

All of this would be amplified many fold in a Japanese landing.

[THUNDER HANDS]

50. I have no clue

All I know is that every veteran I've ever talked to, inlcuding my grandparents, say the bomb was a good thing.

And I'm sure for them, it was.

BTW, it never occured to me to ask why Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed and not Tokyo. You know, considering Tokyo is the big city there.

I think I read somewhere that Tokyo was virtually destroyed by constant firebombing that dropping the A-bomb on it wouldn't have done anything...there was nothing left to bomb!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

52. The Americans selected targets of military value

and avoided targets where there would be significant "cultural" loss. The prime example is the ancient city of Kyoto. It is an ancient spiritual capitol, the site of many shrines and temples, and was NEVER bombed.

[Gringo]

55. There may have been targets of value within either city

But that does not justify vaporizing two cities in their entirety.

Anyone with any real interest should see these films:

Shohei Imamura's "Black Rain"
the amimated "Barefoot Gen"

[Parche]

80. Kokura was primary

The city of Kokura was the primary target, Nagasaki was the secondary, cloud cover saved the city of Kokura
Hiroshima was one of the major industrial cities
Nagasaki was a huge naval port

I think if anyone has any doubts about the use of the 2 nuclear bombs
they should look up the Wake Island struggle, and the ship that took the POW's from Wake to Japan and to China
Also the Baatan March, the Nanking massacre, the POW's on Truk Island, Makin Island raiders.

[ieoeja]

86. "Black Rain"

Isn't Black Rain the movie about two orphans starving in Japan during the last days of the war with the younger eventually dying despite all of her brother's efforts? And doesn't that actually portray what the "devastation would have been worse if we hadn't" argument is about, that the suffering shown in Black Rain would have gone on much longer and across a much wider range had we continued the war on the Japanese mainland for several more months?

[Gringo]

88. No, that's "Grave of the Fireflies", a very good animated film

Black Rain details the story of a girl and her family who survive the Hiroshima blast.

"And doesn't that actually portray what the "devastation would have been worse if we hadn't" argument is about, that the suffering shown in Black Rain would have gone on much longer and across a much wider range had we continued the war on the Japanese mainland for several more months?"


Um, no. The suffering of the victims continued for years and years, and for a few survivors, still continues. Not to mention the genetic damage being passed down to future generations.

[Generic Other]

60. Good point

Americans can be charitable in the most enigmatic ways. We have a great admiration for the past. Maybe because we are cut off from our own "roots" in a sense, we value our links to the past even more.

Kyoto was worth sparing no matter how angry Americans were with the Japanese.

I don't think the Japanese ever complained about America dropping the bombs. Maybe because they believed in total surrender to authority, a show of absolute force was necessary to gain authority over them.

I have often wondered why the whole country didn't collectively commit hari kari after coming to such a shameful end. Maybe if the emperor had done so...

For them to have capitulated so thoroughly to the Americans means that they didn't expect to survive at all. So, in that respect, Americans were merciful something the Japanese might not have been under similar circumstances.

That said, I must add that since I myself am Japanese American and my mother was a Japanese national during WW2, I can't be sure of my objectivity.

[bpilgrim]

81. though tokyo was bombed mercilessly

2. Japan

Mass area-bombing was possible once Saipan was reached in 1944. Japan was bombed mercilessly.

* Tokyo - March 9/10 1945 - 333 B-29s 140,000 died, 34.2 sq. miles destroyed (Toland, p. 744)
* Nagoya- March 10/11 1945 - 313 B-29s napalmed it
* Tokyo - May 23 and 35 - 562 B-39 bombers. 16.8 sq. miles destroyed. There was a firestorm. By this stage anti-aircraft guns were not working.
* Yokohama - May 29, 1945 - 517 B-29s 85% of the city destroyed.
* Osaka and Kobe recieved similar treatment.

In all 2 million buildings were destroyed, about 1/3 of building in Japan. 13 million were homeless.

more...
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/core4-16.htm

bombing a defeated nations with NUKES is unforgivable I hope I live long enough to see america come to terms with that evil we perpatrated and then LIED about it.

we admited that interning japanese americans was wrong so i do indeed have hope.

the more we try to justify it the greater the chance that not only will it happen again but that someone will use the same justification against doing the very same thing to our cities :scared:

peace

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. Yes Tokyo was bombed, Kyoto was NOT.

and you are right, Tokyo was bombed mercilessly, in fact fire bombed as badly as Dresden- no worse- because they knew the many wood buildings provided ample fuel for an especially devestating effect.

[Art_from_Ark]

129. Himeji was also spared

because of its magnificent castle. And Nara was spared because of its temples and historical significance.

But Tokyo was bombed mercilessly. I know someone who survived the bombing as a child. Her family fled to nearby Ibaraki, but unfortunately their new haven was near a military base that was also bombed.

[theboss]

84. One big reason

Another reason Hiroshima was targetted was that it had not been bombed during the war and therefore would be a good test as to the damage caused by the A-bomb. Something like 100,000 people died in Tokyo during a firebomb raid earlier in '45 (I believe, though it could have been '44). Leveling Tokyo would have been redundant at that point.

[azrak]

56. Talking about History or teaching it

makes it very important to look at what happened "in context." Today it is very hard to imagine why we would annhilate two entire towns from the map. But the people who lived during WW2 feel a lot diffrently.

Everyone likes to complain about the Homeland security warnings and the whitehouse fear mongering, but I grew up in the 60's as a school student and we had nuclear raid drills. We put our little heads under our desks and then went to the civil defense shelter area. But certainly that wasn't fear mongering, we were just being taught about how horrible the Russians were.

Today it would be horrible, because now we would understand from seeing it graphically depicted in movies, that we were really in position to kiss our butts goodbye!

Bombing Japan was necessary because we were faced with a country willing to die to its last man for the "cause". I fear bigger and larger Middle East wars for the very same reason.

[Gringo]

63. Huh?

"But certainly that wasn't fear mongering, we were just being taught about how horrible the Russians were."

"Teaching kids how horrible the Russians were" wasn't fear-mongering?

If the "duck and cover" drills were done for civil defense purposes, they were not fear-mongering. If the idea was to teach that the Russians were going to kill us all, that's fear-mongering and paranoia at its worst.

[diamond14]

208. Ultimate "fear mongering"...they knew your little desk would NOT

protect you from nuclear bombs...there was plenty of evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that "hiding under your little wooden desk" is simply a lie, garbage spieled out of our government to create fear and fuel hate...

by the way...your average fallout shelter is also of NO VALUE in saving you from nuclear bombs...in fact, the goverment all ready knew that it would be MERCIFUL if you were killed during the first explosion....

I grew up in the 60's and was terrified of the possibility that we would be KILLED at any time...having been brainwashed by government propaganda at my elementary school, and the continuous nuclear bomb drills...I frequently came home from school and huddled under my father's big wood desk, with my back up against the wall...it felt safer to stay there...

it was very important for the BIG DEFENSE CONTRACTORS to keep up the fear...afterall, we have now enough nuclear bombs to blow up the whole world many times over..what could be more insane and more expensive ?, and poisoning our air, land and water with radionuclides the whole time...

on edit: here in metro DC area....many parents have fought bush* attempts under "homeland security" and "war on terror" to bring government fear-mongering into the local schools....because now, people realize that instilling fear in children creates a new generation of war-mongering people spewing more hate and KILLING...

[MrPrax]

58. The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb

subtitled: and the architecture of an American Myth
Good book and very thorough by Gar Alperovitz

One urban legend that floated around Japan in the Spring of 1945 was that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not being bombed because they had large christian missions--christians wouldn't bomb other christians--so Japanese flocked there for safety
this is why the death toll was so high...
The Japanese tried to surrender starting in december of 1944--envoys in sweden, switzerland, portugal, the Vatican all sent terms of surrender to the US.
FDR said publically that it was 'unconditional surrender' and among his staff that and that alone became the justification for the Japanese to fight to the death...
As such the terms of surrender were unconditional except for protections of the Japanese Emperor--just as the Japanese asked for consistently since March of 1945

The Truth will set you free...

[Walt Starr]

59. I'm not buying what you're selling

So far I've seen a lot of blanket assertions that run counter to accepted history with no corroborating evidence, just assertions being cited by others making the same assertions.

Show me the documented evidence that they woulda grree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombings and that such documentation made it into the hands of U.S. Envoys. I'll believe it after I see the evidence.

[Aidoneus]

64. so, how long can a modern war machine last without oil?

like the US aggression against Iraq, Japan started the wars in the first place to acquire the resources needed to enforce their regional hegemony (which was also the reason why European imperialists sailed all over the world and carried out horrible massacres and exploitations too, but no atomic weapons dropped on those uppidy crackers, but that's another story); deprived of those supplies, how long can a large military last?

[Blue_Chill]

109. uppidy crackers?

Nice........

[Aidoneus]

123. Nice

Of everything in that post, you focus in on the most irrelevant part and carefully ignore the rest of it. Nice. Could you care to explain the point made before that pseudo-sarcastic/more or less ironic/partly provocative because I figured nobody was reading it anyway remark?

The European countries invaded and exploited almost the entire world--including your own country of Chile on occasion--, yet unlike Japan, no atomic weapons were dropped on the cities of Paris, London, Madrid, Lisbon, Rome, Washington DC, Moscow, etc. I guess the "You've Gone Too Far(TM)" line is just when it's another European/American land being attacked, and not when it is the entire rest of the world, a formula which unfortunately carries on to this day.

[Nazgul35]

140. ummmm....

the bomb program was started out of fear that an "Uppity European country" would develop the technology and use it on NYC, where the Germans where also developing the technology to deliver it...had Germany succeeded at the battle of the bulge and was still in the game, there would have been A-bombs dropped on a European city...

What some seem to forget is that this was total war!! The very survival of democracy and civilization was being waged against some of the most brutal regimes in the history of humanity...

The Japanese have still not apologized for the atrocities committed in China, Korea and other regions that were under there control...

This constant need to go back in time and second guess the actors and the decisions they made is silly...now the dropping of the bombs was not our finest hour, but it was neccessary, for reasons both good and bad...nation's are not perfect, people are not perfect and they will never be...least of all at times of great stress and survival...

It is also interesting to note that many who complain about the dropping of the bombs fail to take into consideration that almost 60 years of aid and cooperation that occured after the last shot was fired...something that modern Americans dont seem to have the ability to rise to....How are realtions with Vietnam and Iran going today? How long after the war in Vietnam before we were ready to talk?

Learn the lessons of that period in time but dont try and apply 21st century morality on mid twentith century people...it's not fair and it serves no purpose for our needs today...

[Uzybone]

181. well said...

and eventually they would have been dropped everywhere else, Africa, N.America, Asia etc. Whoever had the bomb first would HAVE used it without warning. It was a very strange time indeed.

[masmdu]

69. Here you go....this may help you

Try reading the very well documented

Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam
-the use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power

Gar Alperovitz

It offers dramatic evidence to support the arrgument that atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not in order to win the war in Japan but to "make the Russians more manageable"

It sites the diaries, records and officail communications of Truman, Eisenhower, Secretary of State Byrnes, Sec. of War Stimson and others showing that US leaders knew that Japan was seekng surrender on terms that were acceptable to the US several month before the bombs were dropped.

Not a "blanket assertion" just the facts of the written record of those involved in the dicision. Check it out

[masmdu]

62. Completely UNNECESSARY!...if you know the facts of History you couldn't

conclude otherwise.

Using Nuclear Bombs on Japan Was a Political, Not Military,
Decision
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-05.htm

The conventionsal "wisdom" is that the bombs saved lives by avoiding an invassion.

Looking at the historical record suggest otherwise.

"our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would
make Russia more manageable in the East . . . The demonstration
of the bomb might impress Russia with America's military might."
U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~sotillos/Hiroshima.htm

And these quotes from others involved in the war.

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

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan...during his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that
Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world
opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that
very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

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

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


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

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

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

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




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

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

"When I
asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He
replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did
anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

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


~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself
among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be
demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic."


~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
“The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before
Russia’s participation.”
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/stowell/a-bomb.htm

~~~Truman
“The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was
because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar was possible, the killing of civilians.”

It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing
Survey said in its official report.
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

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

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/A-bombdecision.html

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html

[IndianaGreen]

65. Our minds are made up, don't confuse us with the facts!

We are the product of the American educational system. We were not taught critical analytical skills, we were taugh to be happy, obedient consumers.

We have also been conditioned to reject any idea that conflicts with the officially-sanction version of events.

This is why we will disregard any data on the attempts by elements of the Japanese government to sue for peace, and how America's call for "unconditional surrender", and its implication on the fate of the Emperor, actually prolonged the war!

Our minds are made up, don't confuse us with the facts!

[Uzybone]

183. Of course calling for unconditional surrender

prolonged the war. What you expected the allies to take the easy way out and make "peace" with nations that slaughtered human beings in wholesale fashion. That tested chemical weapons on hapless peasants as a matter of policy.
Now the West was not and is not close to perfect, but they was no option but totally defeating the Nazis and Japanese in WWII.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. They did

The bombs DID make dealing with the Soviets more manageable. At the end of the war, the Soviet war machine was massive and could have easily turned West should Stalin have chosen to do so. He didn't, maybe facing nuclear devastation hindered his ambitions a tad.

[IndianaGreen]

72. The Soviets were not interested in invading the West

but thank you for repeating the old worn out Cold War lie.

The Soviets did want to have a buffer of countries to protect from future invasion form Germany or the US. Unlike the US, Stalin did adhere faithfully to the sphere of influence concocted at Yalta between the warring parties.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Thank you

I am sure you know EXACTLY what Stalin was thinking. After all, pretty much everybody who thought THAT in the Soviet Union ended up dead or purged and dumped in Siberia.

The man was crazy but smart and if he had faced off with a much weaker West there was nothing to stop him from taking more land -- maybe all of Germany or something else. Maybe a lot more.

[aneerkoinos]

89. Muddle

Iwas born into people that fought Stalin and almost won, the Finns. He gave up Finland and Jugoslavia very early on (not to speak about rest of the world), but please go on believing everything McCarthy told ya... muddle-everywhere

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. Pontificating

Do you just want to pontificate or do you have a point?

[aneerkoinos]

211. Pontificating? Maybe little

But I did have a point, Stalind didn't wan't to eat more than he could stomach. Keeping people under iron boot is not easy task, and it's not wise to try it on too many peopla, as USA is now finding out in Iraq, and Stalin was smarter than Bushistas. Romania and Jugoslavia never became full members of Soviet empire, and Stalin and his followers never even tried. It is worst kind of revisionist history to claim that Stalin was trying to conquer the world when he most of all wanted a healthy safety buffer between Russia and west. It had been only about 20 yers since Soviets won their war of independence against capitalist intruders, and on top of that Stalin was also paranoid, very very bad way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

218. Not revisionist

None of us really know. We know how Stalin acted when he faced nuclear weapons and a unified west. We don't know how he would have acted otherwise.

[Art_from_Ark]

128. You need to brush up on the Yalta Conference

Ever hear of that? It laid the foundation for spheres of influence in the post-WW II world. The USSR was not about to invade deeper into Europe-- after VE-Day, much of their army was rerouted toward Japan.

As for the American island-hopping, it looks increasingly like a delay tactic. It made about as much sense militarily as launching an invasion of Washington D.C. from Key West. The Americans controlled the skies over Japan, they did not have to wrangle over insignificant islands. But the slowness of the island-hopping would provide a convenient excuse to drop the bomb. It also gave the Soviets enough time to reach the Japanese motherland practically at the same time the first bomb was falling on Hiroshima. The Soviets then started taking all the Japanese islands that were promised to them at Yalta, including islands that were guaranteed to cause a rift between Russian and Japan in the post-war world (and help keep a strategic Japan in the American camp).

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. Monday Morning Quarterbacking

It's always soooooo easy to critique history in retrospect. If it worked, in my mind, it's awful hard to say you could have done better. Perhaps, by trying to do better, you would have done far worse.

As for Yalta, since when has a conference or a piece of paper guaranteed anything when dealing with the likes of Stalin?

[Art_from_Ark]

152. So how many agreements from the Yalta Conference did Stalin break?

Come on, lay them out.

And while you're at it, you also might want to mention how many Indian treaties the US broke.

After all, we're talking about credibility here.

[Character Assassin]

142. You need to brush up on military strategy and history

As for the American island-hopping, it looks increasingly like a delay tactic. It made about as much sense militarily as launching an invasion of Washington D.C. from Key West.

Are you kidding? How, precisely, were Allied troops going to be supplied without the islands?

The Americans controlled the skies over Japan, they did not have to wrangle over insignificant islands. But the slowness of the island-hopping would provide a convenient excuse to drop the bomb.

Categorically incorrect. Once the Marianas were taken in 1944, the construction began to prepare airfields to receive the new B-29s with a range exceeding 3,000 miles, meaning they could reach most Japanese cities. Iwo Jima, lying 750 miles southeast of Tokyo, was needed both as an auxiliary base for crippled B-29s returning from their bombing raids over Japan and as a base for long-range escort fighters.

Those fighters were needed at the time because we did not control the skies over Japan, we could merely reach them.

[Art_from_Ark]

151. So how many islands are there between Iwo Jima and Tokyo?

Take a nice, long look at a map of Japan. Then take a look at the "island-hopping route" from Okinawa to Tokyo. It makes no sense from a military viewpoint to take this route.

Moreover: Iwo Jima fell of February 23, 1945. The Japanese government made overtures for a conditional surrender on May 12, 1945, just a few days after V-E Day. They again made overtures to surrender in July 1945. Dwight Eisenhower knew of these overtures.

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

Unfortunately, these overtures were ignored to give the Soviets time to get to Japan to take the northern islands (to set the stage for post-war USSR-Japan tensions), and to use the bombs. Read about the Yalta Conference and other agreements made during the war-- don't rely on John Wayne movies for your information.

Finally, toward the end of the war American airplanes were not merely "reaching" Japan (as Doolittle's raiders had done in 1942)-- they were bombing Osaka, Kobe, Tokyo, Nagoya, and scores of other targets at will, with little or no resistance. For all practical purposes, that was controlling the skies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

163. I'm glad

YOU aren't running anything military.

Do you know anything about supply lines? How to protect them? Leaving large groups of enemy troops behind those lines?

I'm thinking no will be your answer.

[Art_from_Ark]

164. You have learned nothing, have you?

There is a ton of information that has been brought to light in ths forum, but you just close your eyes to it and pretend you know everything.

Well. sorry, but you don't know jack. You knew nothing about the history of Japanese-American relations before the war, you knew nothing of the Yalta Conference, you knew nothing about the islands north of Hokkaido that the Soviets were coveting, you knew nothing of the overtures that Japan was making to end the war long before the war officially ended.

But, at any rate, if I had been in charge, I would have made every effort to end the war without resorting to the use of the bombs. May 12, 1945 provided an excellent window, and we blew it. Japan was also making overtures in July 1945, and once again we refused. Even a military strategist of the stature of Dwight Eisenhower (Allied supreme commander in Europe, in case you've forgotten) went on record as saying Japanese peace overtures should have been recognized and the bombs were unnecessary.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Completely and utterly wrong

Clearly you have no idea what I knew before this discussion. I knew all about Yalta (who doesn't), all about the Soviets, etc. Your knowledge base is not especially daunting.

As for ending the war, Truman did. As POLITICAL leader of the nation, he sized up both the military and internal/external political realities and made a choice. America didn't begin the war with Japan, but it sure as hell ended it. Perhaps, rather than critique Truman for his actions, you might analyze what led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor rather than seek a peaceful solution.

[bpilgrim]

171. to drop the bombs...

and the case has been made very plainly here, in this thread, time and again that there was no valid military purpose to use them on japan and it reamins absolutely morally indefensible yet you continue to spew the same old tired propaganda every american, and the rest of the world has been force feed since birth perhaps demonstrating how well you have retained it though it does not address any of the new info that is now widely known about the period and the men involved which clearly demonstrate the war could have ended without their use and could have even ended earlier ar recommended by the military at the time to 'SAVE LIVES' which litteraly BLOWS your whole case out the water since the popular defense - which you have graciously provided as well to us - is that it ENDED the war and therefore SAVES LIVES.

now if you were actually using logic to govern your postions instead of your heart you would now be on our side of the debate but alas the heart is a powerful influance ;-)

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

180. Second guessing

Despite your endless attempts to express dissatisfaction with the historical result (victory, Japan conquered, long-term peace, creation of an ally), I remain unmoved.

The attacks on a historically SUCCESSFUL decision, are ridiculous. No one knows what would have happened if Truman had acted otherwise. Perhaps Japan would have done everything we wanted (unlikely), perhaps it would have worked out acceptably well (maybe) or perhaps the war would have lasted another year (also maybe). NONE of us knows the answer.

And that is the ultimate point. We can't second guess sucessful history. What happened is a product of the information, attitudes and desires of the time. It worked.

Case closed.

[bpilgrim]

188. call it whatever you like, but theres no denying if it ended spring of 45

as recommended by the military leadership at the time in order to...

SAVE LIVES

that outcome would have been far more preferable to what actually did happen as far as proloning the war is concerned, increasing the risk of invasion by russia, and most importantly costing tens of thousands more lives both AMERICAN and JAPANESE which ironically is usually at the crux of the pro-bomb side of the argument.

and as you like to point out history has proved that allowing japan her 1 condition before surrender was a wise decision that has stood the test of time.

to me it is elementary that we should have accepted japans terms in the spring of 45 instead of waiting till we ran out of nukes and russia invaded.

and remember this doesn't even take into account the moral argument and how we have set a barborous low standard for their use and kicked off the global arms race we now all live in till doomsday...

it is disgusting to even try to defend the use from a moral perspective even if you are ignorant of the military and geo-political circumstances of the time and can be furstrating at times to try and debate this kind of 'logic' but this is a public space and hope that there may be some useful information for others to learn from.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

192. Military

As I have said before, the military only sees part of a picture. Their actions are ONLY focused on a military solution and don't take into account the political and geopolitical realities of allies, enemies and potential enemies like the Soviet Union.

Actually, we haven't set a low standard for the use of nukes. I think using them against one enemy to end a world war that cost millions of lives is a pretty HIGH standard. Morally, that's easily defensible to all but the most revisionist types.

It is disgusting to even try to attack the use from a moral perspective even if you are ignorant of the military and geo-political circumstances of the time and can be furstrating at times to try and debate this kind of 'logic' but this is a public space and hope that there may be some useful information for others to learn from.

[bpilgrim]

198. i point out that issue in responce to your argument

it's not my fault it doesn't work for your argument though i am glad that at least now you seem to recognize it's faults.

and now you try to shift to the soviet threat... even though that was addressed above as well, the sooner we had ended the war the better, since there would have been no russian invasion.

not to mention, lives lost, nuke arms race, and having to live in a world where the barbarically low standard of when it is acceptable to use nukes has been set by none other then ourselves while we are currently being led by a bunch of thugs waging agressive preventive war in the world.

americas arrogance comes from 2 sources

1. our consumer culture which deliberately or not serves to keep us ignorant

2. we haven't suffered as the rest of the world has, yet...

and considering history our odds don't look good.

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

- Albert Einstein

[Muddleoftheroad]

203. Nope

Not shifting anything. Truman, as I have said till I am blue in the face, had to take EVERYTHING into account. One of those things that was of lesser importance was the bomb's impact on an enemy was one of the most vicious and deadly in history.

"We" haven't suffered? Bullshit. That is a white man's argument, not one for the rest of us. And actually, most of their groups have suffered too. THAT'S why they came here.

OK, so now Truman is to blame for our consumer culture. Perhaps he is also to blame for the popularity of "Friends?"

[bpilgrim]

206. sorry pal

they weren't the most deadly... we were, we won, right.
and look at our record since.

your subjective propaganda now of they DESERVED it :puke: is more a reflection of your own prejudices then anything else.

""We" haven't suffered? Bullshit. That is a white man's argument, not one for the rest of us. And actually, most of their groups have suffered too. THAT'S why they came here."

that's who we are talking about, hello...

"OK, so now Truman is to blame for our consumer culture. Perhaps he is also to blame for the popularity of "Friends?""

ah, now time to throw out a red herring, i think i am finished, hopefully you have learned something that down the road, removed from your emotions, you will embrace as your own.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

207. One of

Note I said "one of the most deadly." Ask the citizens of Nanking about that, if you can find any survivors of the attack.

Tons of Americans have suffered -- all U.S. minorities (which includes MANY white people as well).

As for red herrings, you are the one who threw that one out in the first place, not I.

[bpilgrim]

210. it is still sick to try to argue now that they deserved it

i liked your original track better, the popular one, "we did it to SAVE LIVES by ending the war", which is BS and anyone who has read the evidence now knows that as well, but to say the inoccent men women and children in that civilian city DESERVED it cause they were EVIL is the same way the neo-cons think, imo.

"Tons of Americans have suffered -- all U.S. minorities (which includes MANY white people as well)."

not the way europe and asia had during wwII.

"As for red herrings, you are the one who threw that one out in the first place, not I."

i through that out in reference to a side issue to possibly explain the IGNORANCE regarding this horrid deed perpetrated in our name and then LIED about to this very day.

you choose to twist into something else as i pointed out.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. I don't care

What argument you prefer. You still seek to remake history in your ideal image. History is not ideal. It is messy, filled with imperfect choices. Truman made one and we all benefit from it.

True America has not been invaded since the 1800s. However, we have had tons of other problems -- slavery, disease, poverty, depression and discirmination to name a few.

[Snow]

75. And there was the matter of having lost the

little war with Japan a few decades earlier.....that tended to make Russia pretty nervous about the Korean peninsula, and resulted in the eventual drawing of the dividing line at the 38th parallel.

[legin]

67. From the Goebbels' Dairies

"We hear from our American sources that the Emperor of Japan is to be included on the list of war criminals. That is very good. The Emperor is revered as a god in Japan. No Japanese politician, however much tempted to compromise, will dare stop fighting the war if the Emperor is to be treated as a war criminal afterwards."

(from memory but quite close)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

71. That is key. Oil (or any other rationale) had nothing to do with it

Worship of the Emperor prevented any objective analyisis. The Japanese would fight to the end.

[maveric]

70. The Soviets were planning on invading Japan before the US.

They allready blew through what was left of the Japanese army in Manchuria and had there mind set on taking the mainland. They were in a better geographic position to get there first.

After half of Berlin was given to Stalin there was no way that the US wanted them to get Japan(or half of it). It was too much of a strategic area. Hence the beginning of the cold war IMO.

The US had to get the "quick fix" surrender and save possibly millions of lives in the process. The bombs also scared the shit out of the Soviets exhibiting a weapon that can destroy a city in a few minutes.

They kept there distance after the bombs were dropped.

[Art_from_Ark]

113. The US DID let the USSR take over Japanese territory

Southern Sakhalin Island, the Kurile Islands, the Habomai Islands, and Shikotan Island, to be exact. This was agreed to at Yalta-- the Soviets would enter the war against Japan (and in violation of their non-aggression pact) as soon as victory was achieved in Germany. This is one reason why Japan wanted to sue for peace on May 12, 1945, just a few days after V-E Day. Japan most likely would have surrendered conditionally at that time, because by then they had nothing-- they had no allies, they had lost the Philippines and Indonesia, they had no oil, no strategic metals and almost no coal, and they were being hemmed in from all sides. There is no way in hell they could have continued much longer.

However, the northern islands were likely seen as a way of creating a permanent rift between Russia and Japan-- and thus keep Japan out of the Soviet sphere of influence after the war. Thus, the Societ army was given time to make the great trek across Russia and Siberia to begin the systematic confiscation of Japanese islands, many of which had never belonged to Russia or the USSR. The Soviets declared war on Japan one day after Hiroshima, and continued grabbing islands long after Japan had surrendered. Eventually, they took all islands north of Hokkaido (including some just a mile from the mainland), which they have kept to this day and which remain a thorn in the side of Russian-Japanese relations.

The atomic bombs were dropped in large to show the Soviets our new firepower. They were totally unnecessary as a means of ending the war. The claptrap about "invading the mainland" was just another lie to justify the carnage. As posters have mentioned earlier, many prominent Americans were against this horrible bombing.

[bpilgrim]

78. close

it was actually used to 'SHOCK and AWE' the WORLD

hiroshima is second most horrid word in the english language
nagasaki is the FIRST!

peace

[bpilgrim]

79. The most IRONIC thing is that generals argued that 'to save lives...'

we should accept their 1 condition to surrender' back in the spring of 45.

which we finally did after we ran out of nukes and it STANDS THE TEST OF TIME to have proven to be a wise decision (abandoning unconditional surrender)

think of how many good people would have not have been killed had we followed their wise concil. :'(



Ernie Pyle's War: America's Eyewitness to World War II (Modern War Studies)
by James Tobin

Amazon.com
When World War II correspondent Ernie Pyle left for the Pacific Theater in 1945, he told friends and colleagues that he felt sure he would die there. Pyle was right; on April 18th, a Japanese machine gunner killed one of America's most beloved personalities, sending the entire nation into shock and mourning. In the years since Pyle's death, his particular brand of journalism has been criticized: he's been accused of ignoring the stupidity of generals, of downplaying the horror of battle, and of presenting the war in a better light than it actually deserved to be portrayed. James Tobin, author of the impressive biography Ernie Pyle's War, does not deny that his subject often smoothed the jagged facts of war, but he provides both the context--an era and a war in which correspondents were expected to be "team players" who helped their side to win hearts and minds at home--and the personal conflict raised for Pyle by the often irreconcilable demands of telling the truth and building morale.

more...
http://www.yellowairplane.com/34th/Ernie_Pyle/Ernie_Pyle.html
peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Orwell

This thread reminds me of Orwell's saying that "some ideas are so bizarre only an intellectual can believe them."

[Gringo]

91. There's nothing intellectual or pointy-headed about it.

You continue to argue that the Japanese were murderously cruel in battle, to American POW's, they committed the atrocities in Nanking, they would have never given up, and you just know it, and the casualty estimates of a hypothetical invasion are infallible, but the fact remains that we will never know whether Japan would have finally given in sufficiently because we never gave them the chance.

The fact remains that weapons of such unthinkable power should never, ever be used, except as a last resort (the shouldn't even be used as a last resort IMO) , but what Truman did wasn't anywhere near a last resort. Since when were the only 2 choices all out invasion of the mainland or drop the bomb on Aug. 6?

And going back to Japanese atrocities - why is it that the evil perpetrated by some Japanese soldiers (who operated under a very different worldview and culture than ours where it concerns war) justify the obliteration of entire cities of women and children, and decades of misery and radiation disease for the survivors? Why does one have to be an "intellectual" to understand the hypocrisy in that? And why is it wrong to have thought this thing out any further than just reading the three sterile lines dedicated to it in your HS history book and accepting it hook, line and sinker?

Go to Hiroshima, visit Ground Zero and the museum. Meet the hibakusha while some are still living, and listen to their stories. See the films "Black Rain" and "Barefoot Gen", and then tell me how morally justified this thing was.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Last Resort?

Sorry, America had been at war for four years, Britain for a lot longer than that. China and the rest of Asia the same. How long does one wait for a rabid enemy to stop fighting?

There is really only one fact to consider, the position that Truman found himself in. He made the decision, so you can only second guess him.

Well, to be blunt, it worked. You can hypothesize all you want about might-have-beens or should-have-beens. But Truman's actions worked. He ended the war. America didn't invade Japan. Americans repaired Japan and helped them rise to world prominence AND become a U.S. ally.

It's hard to argue with success.

[Gringo]

93. I finally agree with you - halfway

Though I disagree with your feeble rationalization of the bombings, I do agree that MacArthur's handling of the occupation and the postwar rebuilding were fantastic. I say MacArthur, because he was well known for being at odds with the idiots in Washington. I think of him as a great American hero, and the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japan, along with the New Deal, are 3 of the reasons I'm most proud to be an American. It's sad that those kind of accomplishments are so few and far-between today. I wish we were were handling Afghanistan & Iraq half as well as we handled Europe and Japan.

"Sorry, America had been at war for four years, Britain for a lot longer than that. China and the rest of Asia the same. How long does one wait for a rabid enemy to stop fighting?"

This makes no sense. We were at their doorstep, we had taken Okinawa and they were crippled. We should have made strong overtures to get a surrender. If you find the use of that crap okay then, then I suppose you find it acceptable today? Things continue to go badly in Iraq, what the hell, move our guys out and nuke Baghdad? Hell, it would save countless American lives, right? Oh sure, the occupation force would be awfully hot in those radiation suits, but it would be worth it, right? Hell, we could have kept the illegitimate and widely hated Saigon regime in power in 'Nam, if we'd just leveled Hanoi, and we wouldn't have pissed away 50K lives there for nothing, either. We lost a half million in the civil war. Too bad we didn't have the bomb back then. Oh, then there's Indonesia. They've slaughtered hundreds of thousands of E. Timorese over the last 30 years, by your logic we should have leveled Jakarta, too.

[Set]

95. Interesting...

you bring up Okinawa. Tell us, what percentage of the civilian population died at Okinawa? What makes you think that the Japanese would have fought any less hard in the home islands than the did at Iwo Jima or Okinawa? What makes you think that fewer civilians would have taken their own lives than happened at Okinawa? Have you seen the film of civilians at Okinawa jumping to their deaths to avoid capture by American barbarians? When the Germans were driven back into Germany, did they fight any less hard than when they were being driven from occupied territory? Did you realize that the Soviets lost 250,000 killed in the Battle of Berlin ALONE? Please keep in mind that the Germans were much less fanatical (and much more willing to surrender when the situation became hopeless) than the Japanese were.

We could have imposed a blockade of the Home Islands, and tried to starve them into submission, I suppose, while landing troops in China to drive them out there. How many would that have killed from starvation or combat?

Back-seat quarterbacking now is all well and good...but is really pretty irrelevant.

[Gringo]

96. None of this has any bearing on

the morality of using a doomsday weapon, since it's all pure spculation. The throngs jumping off cliff would have stopped jumping if the emperor told them to, if he'd have had a chance to surrender.

Most Japanese I know like America and are very grateful for America's postwar involvement. But I have never met a single Japanese person who thought that that bombing was just or necessary to force a surrender - not a single one. Also, most Japanese I know of are well aware of Nanking and other atrocities, and are bewildered at the LDP government's refusal to attempt to atone for them. It's as inexplicable as Koizumi's kowtowing to Bush RE the war in the face of a vast majority of Japanese being opposed to it.

I am grateful that none of the peoples we conquered in our murderous expansionistic phases ever used atomic bombs to level our cities, and then crow about how justified they were.

[Set]

97. don't you think you're blowing things out of proportion?

"the morality of using a doomsday weapon,"

We dropped two bombs. They were very destructive locally. But they certainly didn't constitute a "doomsday" weapon as I understand the term. After all, 60 years later, we (and most of them) are still here, right?

We had a wide variety of options available to us prior to dropping the bombs. These options included (but are not limited to) a conventional attack/invasion, surrounding and blockading Japan and starving them into submission, long-term repeated and widespread conventional bombing, and surrendering unconditionally to them. Of course, we could have simply abandoned Hawaii after Pearl Harbor, and hoped that they didn't attack us again...

To quote arguably one of the most competent cavalry commanders that America has ever produced: "War means fighting, and fighting means killing." ( I don't agree with his politics, but his command of the "Art of War" is undeniable) It's terrible that we dropped the bombs....but no more terrible than firebombing Dresden and Tokyo, or the unmentionable things the Axis did during that same time frame.

[bpilgrim]

104. you missed one...

we could have accepted their offer to surrender in the spring like the generals in theater RECOMMENDED to... SAVE LIVES!!!

and i got a few quotes for you...

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

— President Herbert Hoover
1945


~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

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

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

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

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



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

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

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

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


"Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. This basic force of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms.

"For there is no secret and there is no defense; there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world."

— Albert Einstein
1947


"The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one."

— Albert Einstein

peace

[Kellanved]

106. and some more

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm (from Doug Long' Website)

[bpilgrim]

108. posted below as well

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. Heavy is the head

That wears the crown. The buck stopped with Harry Truman, not any of them. He made the decision based on information he had at the time, based on the potential for further loss of AMERICAN and ALLIED life. In short, he did his job.

[bpilgrim]

131. BULLSHIT

in case you missed it all his generals said "TO SAVE LIVES WE SHOULD ACCEPT THEIR SURRENDER" and their 1 condition in the spring of 45.

so the real question is how many lives did we lose by NOT following their advice AT THE TIME.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Generals

The problem with generals is they see what is in front of them and don't often know the whole picture. Truman knew the whole picture and acted on it. And, of course, he happened to be right.

[bpilgrim]

199. lol

thanks for clearing that up muddle

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

204. Peace

Yes, peace, but not at any cost.

[Set]

145. and betray our allies?

Hadn't we made a pact ONLY to accept "unconditional surrender"? Didn't the Germans try to conditionally surrender to England and America in a separate peace, so that they could continue to fight the Russians?

[Kellanved]

148. We're not going anywhere with this Thread.

1. Japan did not surrender unconditionally.
2. I don't know anything about a conditional surrender of Germany - do you have a source handy?
In any case: the von Stauffenberg Group wanted to surrender conditionally after removing Hitler. That (failed) uprising is commemorated on 20/7 every year.

[bpilgrim]

200. to SAVE LIVES

YES

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. People Forget

that the Japanese were fighting and fighting fiercely at Okinawa without air cover.

[Darranar]

155. MacArthur was no great Amerucan Hero...

His handling of the Korean War was pathetic and bloodthirsty.

[bpilgrim]

103. wrong

1. we wanted unconditional surrender, yet the japanese got their 1 condition met, after we ran out of nukes.

2. we wanted to save lives, well think of all the lives lost from the spring of 45

3. it will always be a black mark on american history as we are witnessing.

dropping those hideous bombs on a defeated nation was barbaric then and especialy now, as we learn more about it, the harder it is to ignore - cept those who have been indoctronated with the US spin.

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. "they (nuclear weapons shouldn't be used even as a last resort imo)"

Really...

I can think of at least two situations where the use of nuclear weapons is justified:

1) In response to a nuclear attack.

2) As a latch ditch defense against an aggressor bent on annihilation of your country.

The Japanese waged aggressive war and lost. Our demands for unconditional surrender and the dropping of the atomic bombs were justified and all the rantings of revisionist historians standing on the head of a pin won't make it otherwise.

[Gringo]

102. I can accept the second

"1) In response to a nuclear attack.
2) As a latch ditch defense against an aggressor bent on annihilation of your country."

I can accept the second condition, have to disagree with the first.

If we are attacked in a massive nuclear attack, I realize that our missiles will be in the air as soon as we detect theirs. The use of our missiles, though will be a pointless act of futility since, in any event our entire nation and infrastructure, as well as most of the populace will be gone, leaving an uninhabitable America, and possibly, world, so I fail to see how our responding to a massive nuclear attack could do any good. The only use the missiles have is a deterrent.

The other possibility is a small-scale nuclear attack by a rogue state or terrorist group. Again it would be completely immoral for the mightiest country in the world to use its nuclear arsenal on the innocent citizens of another country.

As to a last-ditch act of desparation against an invading army: It may not be immoral, but it would probably not be effective or desirable.

[bpilgrim]

107. i agree

and there needs to be more OPEN DISCUSSION about this before we destroy ourselves.

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

peace

[bpilgrim]

105. so will you say the same when they are used against us?

even when we are defeated and trying to surrender?

btw: japan did get their one condition... when we ran out of NUKES though it has stood the test of time of being the right decision.

:nukes:

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Hmmmm

I can't conceive of any scenario where America will have to surrender to an invader.

Can you?

Japan wanted an conditional surrender

Like their Axis allies, Italy, and Germany they waged aggressive war and lost.

Did Germany and Italy get the opportunity to make a conditional surrender?

No deal.


The die was cast on December 7, 1941.

Like Tojo, said " we have awaken a sleeping giant and we will soon feel it's wrath."

[Art_from_Ark]

127. The War in the Pacific began long before December 7, 1941

Its origins can be traced directly to Matthew Perry's completely unprovoked bombardment of Yokohama in 1853. This act led to a civil war in Japan that pitted the old-time shogunate (who just wanted to be left alone but were forced to capitulate to Perry and the United States) versus the modernists who did not want Japan to suffer another humiliation at the hands of the West and end up being carved up like China. Eventually (in 1867), the modernists won, and Japan immediately set about on a course of modernization and militarization (the latter being a relatively easy feat considering that 1 out of 6 males in the country at the time had been samurais).

Thus, in addition to creating a viable national military, Japan launched ambitious programs of railroad building (they completed their first transnational railroad in the 1880s), industrialization, and agricultural improvements (originally relying on the British for assistance but, becoming dissatisfied with the English ways, looked to the Germans, who helped them develop the fertile lands of Hokkaido).

By 1890, Japan had become a force to be reckoned with. The West, which was very prejudiced against Oriental peoples at that time, looked upon Japan with both awe and loathing. After all, Anglo-Europeans liked to believe that white men were destined to rule the world, and this new upstart Japan was challenging their concepts of what a world order should be.

For its part, Japan was looking beyond its borders for its needs. Since imperialism for resource-poor but technologically advanced societies was the order of the day, Japan felt that it, too, had the right to start an empire, so in 1894 the country declared war on China and ended up with Taiwan a year later.

This caused a calamity among Western nations, particularly the United States, which was beginning to have its own dreams of a Pacific empire (Hawaii, for example, had been overthrown but not yet annexed). What was particuarly shocking to the United States was that Japan appeared to have eyes on Taiwan's southern neighbor, the Philippines.

The Philippines, of course, were controlled by a very weak Spain at that time. But lo and behold, three years later, the US found itself in a war with Spain. And wouldn't you know it, the US gained possession of the Philippines as a result of this war. And while the US was eager to grant Cuba its independence in 1902, when the Filipinos sought theirs in the same year, they were brutally repressed.

In the meantime, Japan saw the writing on the wall, and turned its attention northward and eastward, toward Korea and mainland China. Back in the United States, newspapers started screaming about the "yellow peril" (used for Chinese but most likely directed at Japanese. To make matters "worse", Japan's incursions in China had placed it in confrontation with Russia, which also wanted a piece of the Chinese pie. The czar sent his mighty navy to punish the Japanese, but, like the Spanish Armada before it, the czar's navy was soundly (and humiliatingly) defeated at the Battle of Tsushima.

With the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 came a rising anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. How dare heathen Orientals defeat the great navy of a God-fearing caucasian nation!! The next year, San Francisco passed an ordinance banning the integration of Asian (Japanese and Chinese) children in the schools. The next year, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a "Gentleman's Agreement" with Japan that placed severe restrictions on Japanese immigration to the US (effectively ending it). Immigration from Japan was completely prohibited in the 1920s. In addition, California and other states prohibited interracial marriages between Japanese and Caucasians. Thus, the stage was set for Pearl Harbor long before 1941.

[Set]

146. And the stage was set for WWII in 1870....

Of course, war in the west didn't really BEGIN until Sept. 1, 1939...

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. Stage

Actually didn't Columbus set the stage for the whole thing by discovering the New World for Europe?

[Art_from_Ark]

154. Since you did not actually read my post, I will summarize it for you

1) US unilaterally attacks Japan, a peaceful, secluded Asian country in 1853, at a time when China was being divided up by imperial powers.
2) This attack causes the Japanese government to capitulate, which eventually leads to a civil war in Japan.
3) In 1867, the militarists/modernists win the civil war, and set Japan on the road to becoming an imperial power.
4) Rapid Japanese advances in industrialization and militarization both awe and disgust the West, who believe that only caucasian nations should be playing that game
5) US businessmen overthrow government of Hawaii in 1893.
6) Japan takes Taiwan in 1895
7) US takes the Philippines in 1898
8) Japan redirects its overseas military adventures toward the north and west
9) Anti-Japanese sentiment in Europe and the US reaches a feverish pitch after the Russian navy is destroyed by the Japanese at Tsushima in 1905.
10) Many prohibitive laws against Japanese are passed in the US, including the banning of Japanese-American marriages, the banning of Asians from caucasian classrooms, and the banning of most immigrants from Japan.

Thus, two cultures very much at odds with one another were headed for disaster long before the Japanese attacked an island that had been taken by the US less than 50 years before.


And finally, the seeds of World War II in Europe were sown during the Napoleonic wars:

1806-1813-- Napoleon occupies German states
1870-- Bismarck rallies Germans against France to atone for the Napoleonic wars
1914-- France seeks to atone for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. France comes out on the winning side, and extracts a heavy toll on the defeated Germans.
1920s and 30s-- Germans seek to atone for heavy toll extracted from them after WW I.

[bpilgrim]

132. and in the end they had there 1 condition met

and it has stood the test of time to be a wise decesion though how many lives were wasted by not accepting that 1 condition in the spring of 45 as recommended by the military leaders of the day?

btw: there are many armed nuclear nations and there are more joinging the ranks every few years and i expect it to accelerate with you kno who at the helm.

the nuclear genie is OUT the bottle and will never be put back in and we set the standard on using the bomb very low.

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781

again i ask you what will you say when such a weapon is used against us?
will you be able to find some justification? a proper responce to our agrressive war in Iraq?

:shrug:

peace

[Woodstock]

110. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender

Many, many, many more people would have died horrible deaths.

I would not be here today had this happened - nor would a lot of us. My father would have surely died, because he was fighting in the thick of it. He was just a kid whose country had not bombed another country's harbor, slaughtering sleeping countless other innocent kids (ask Pearl Harbor mothers and fathers what they think of this), nor tried to brutally take over yet several other countries (ask the Chinese how they feel about what was done to them.) And he'd have to die along with all the others because the Japanese refused to surrender.

[Gringo]

111. This seems to be an article of faith for you and many others

And if it makes you feel better, so be it. It is, however, inconsistent with the facts that have been detailed exhaustively in this increasingly exhausting thread.

I wanted to know what DUers think of the attacks. I'm happy to know that most of us disagree with them. I'm also saddened that such a sizable minority support the attacks, and cling to their ignorance of the events as tightly as any Republican.

Perhaps if Truman had been a Republican. more DUers would be able to see him for what he was: an inhumane man who we can thank for the ridiculous waste of lives and money that was the cold war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. I Disagree

America won the cold war or at least the Soviet Union lost it. It was a war worth fighting.

As for Japan, they waged aggressive war and lost. Their brutality has been well detailed in this thread. Does the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, the comfort women ring a bell?

Truman demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese refused. A land invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.
The Soviets were threatening to get their first. Truman did the right thing.

There is a consensus among liberal and conservative historians that the bombing was justified. A few revisionist historians, who you could fit in a phone booth think otherwise.

[southern_demo]

119. Trumand to Blame for Cold War?

joe stalin was a boy scout?

[IndianaGreen]

124. Truman started the Cold War with his intervention in Greece

in support of a fascist government no less!

[Character Assassin]

205. That is utterly, completely ridiculous

Please, support your statement. I cannot conceive how even the most tangential reading of history could offer up that conclusion.

[IndianaGreen]

216. I decided to start a separate thread because this one is so large already

My reply to you is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=85108&mesg_id=85108&page=

[tlb]

114. My late dad blessed Truman for using the bomb

till we lost him several years ago. Dad was a very young enlisted man with the Army Air Force in the Pacific. He believed he would not have survived the war if Truman hadn't ended it when and how he did. Very good chance he was right.

I've read the outline of Operation Olympic, the war plan to invade Japan It would have been the most savage , bloodiest battle ever seen in modern warfare. Japan would have been devestated from end to end. The losses and suffering to each side would have been unimaginable.

I don't care about retroactive arguments of moral equivalency or ex post facto attacks of conscience. Truman had to deal with REALITIES. Damn right he was correct.

I know this reply is too far down the thread for anyone to see but the very question would have outraged my dad. This is how he would have replied.

[southern_demo]

116. Truman Was Right

It is so refreshing to see that someone had read the historical record, before speaking out against what Truman did.

I am sure that I would not be here, today, but for Truman (my father was a marine for 4 years in the South Pacific)

[bpilgrim]

133. how many lives would have been saved IF Truman ended the war in spring 45

as his generals advised?

and guess what their reasoning was?

To Save Lives

and guess what, history proves that it would have and that letting japan have it's one condition was very wise.

peace

[Loonman]

117. Truman did what he had to do

And that was almost 60 years ago, so get over it!

[bpilgrim]

134. a sign of the times

i suspect...

peace

[southern_demo]

118. shocked

that you are so uninformed.

Truman was a great President, a great Democract, second only to FDR (many of his decisions were harder).

My father was a Marine who enlisted under age to go to the South Pacific in early 1942. I have no reason to believe that he or hundreds of thousands of other Americans would have survived an invasion, to say nothing about what would have happened to the POWs (of whom I had the honor of knowing three when growing up). These people made sacrifices you will never know, understand, or appreciate so that you can be in a free country, speaking freely. You would honor them best by becoming informed and writing honestly about this and many other matters, instead of being part of the blame america first crowd

[bpilgrim]

136. that you don't know how many lives would have been saved IF

Truman would have followed the advice of his military leaders to end the war in the spring of 45.

It truely is sad and SHOCKING when you know how much they had already sacrificed.

but hey, that's politics right?

ours is NOT to reason why, OURS is but to DO and DIE...

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. Reading This Thread

reminds me of another poster's comments:

" Some of the posters here are as reactionary as the Freepers but in another direction."

[bpilgrim]

137. hopefully you learned something

there is some wheat in the chaf thats for sure, just gotta work for it :hi:

peace

[LuminousX]

135. Too Murky, Ask Again Later

We have the ability to look back in time with more knowledge than the Truman administration had. We now have more information regarding the Japanese defenses, state of government, and state of military during that time and we can formulate alternate battleplans that didn't rely upon the use of nukes.

Go back in time and sit at Truman's desk. Look at the reports from the battlefield, from your trusted admirals and generals, look at what Stalin was doing consolidating the conquered lands under his harsh iron fist. Now you are told that if the US cannot bring Japan to surrender within six months Russian forces will engage in the Pacific theater.

The decision wasn't one based on 'racism' seeing that the bomb was being developed to use against Germany and the fire-bombing of Dresden was also an atrocious act of military aggression. The decision was one being made on limited knowledge of the destructive force of a nuke and the belief that Japan would have to taken island by island. We already had enough of that kind of combat (Midway, Guadalcanal) to know that it would be devestating.

A lot of my family served in the services during WWII. My uncle was a telephone guy, stringing line on poles. They were sniperbait. From Truman's perspective, it was the correct decision and one I'm glad he made. From a modern perspective, armed with all the extra information regarding nukes, regarding the state of Japan at the time, regarding Stalin's inability to shift his forces to the Pacific in such a short period of time (all those people uprising against him he had to kill off), other options would have been much better, though one could argue we'd have a totally different Japan today - one that still had a standing military and one that would still be hated more than it is today by the entire region.

[bpilgrim]

138. if Truman followed the advice of his military leaders AT THE TIME

to accept japans offer to surrender in the spring of 45 AND their one condition TO SAVE LIVES

well, aparantly for political reasons he couldn't.

after we ran out of nukes we finaly accepted their 1 condition and it has stood the test of time of being a wise one indeed.

but how many lives were lost on both sides by NOT following the generals advice at the time :'(

and just think... we set the standard for when you can use nukes.

on DEFENSLESS CITIES filled with children and civilians.

disgusting :puke:

peace

[tanizaki]

139. Japan's nuclear program

The fact that Japan itself had a nuclear program during WWII tends to take a bit of the punch out of their self-righteous proclaimations about nuclear weapons. They also generally forget that as a US protectorate under the Status of Forces Agreement, everyone in Japan sleeps and rises under the aegis of American nuclear weapons.

[Art_from_Ark]

153. Umm, technically those American nuclear weapons

are not supposed to be in Japan. And people in Japan do not enjoy sleeping and rising under a nuclear aegis.

And please provide back-up for your claim about Japan's nuclear weapons program during WW II.

[tanizaki]

156. What's all this "technically" nonsense

I never said that the nuclear weapons were in Japan, but that is beside the point. I wonder why you say "technically", as there is nothing in Japanese law prohibiting the US from maintaining nuclear weapons in Japan. To what technicality are you referring? Indeed, the Navy's 5th Fleet is based in Japan and maintains nuclear weapons on its ships in Japan's territorial sea. It also might interest you to know that American nuclear components have been present on Japanese soil at various points in time since the US-Japan SoFA. And yes, they do indeed enjoy that aegis, even more so ever since that Tiny Elvis on the Korean peninsula decided to start shooting missils over Japan and into the Japan Sea.

You may wish to consult the Japanese government's recent midterm report of the Research Commissions on the Constitution, in which Hirai Takuya says on page 287 "•Ä�‘‚ª“ú–{‚Ì‚½‚ß‚ÉŠj•ºŠí‚ðŽg—p‚·‚邱‚Æ‚ÍŠù’莖ŽÀ‚Å‚ ‚é" (It is a certain fact that the US would use nuclear weapons on behalf on Japan). You also may wish to refer to the comments of various Koizumi cabinet officials on the permissibility and possibility of Japan maintaining its own nuclear arsenal.

I am not surprised that you have never heard of the Japanese nuclear program. Most people have not. The following link from the Federation of American Scientists will be a good start.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

[bpilgrim]

158. actually they keep it hidden from the people

though we still have the ULTIMATE say on what is and is not allowed to happen in japan constitution or no... remember who wrote their constitution.

shoot we are now twisting their arms to start developeing their own nukes.

something the vast majority are definately opposed to but i suspect that we will have our way, specially considering whos in power... as usual.

:hi:

peace

[Art_from_Ark]

160. You should have read your own link

"Although possession of nuclear weapons is not forbidden in the constitution, Japan, as the only nation to experience the devastation of atomic attack, early expressed its abhorrence of nuclear arms and determined never to acquire them. The Basic Atomic Energy Law of 1956 limits research, development, and utilization of nuclear power to peaceful uses, and beginning in 1956, national policy has embodied "three non-nuclear principles"--forbidding the nation to possess or manufacture nuclear weapons or to allow them to be introduced into the nation. Prime Minister Eisaku Sato made this pledge - known as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles - on February 5, 1968. The notion was formalized by the Japanese Diet on November 24, 1971. In 1976 Japan ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1968) and reiterated its intention never to "develop, use, or allow the transportation of nuclear weapons through its territory."

Thus, technically speaking, nuclear weapons are NOT supposed to be in Japan.

As for Hirai's remarks, let's look at them in a broader context:

‰ä‚ª�‘‚Í�A”ñŠjŽOŒ´‘¥‚̉º�AŠj•ºŠí‚ðŽg—p‚µ‚È‚¢‚Æ‚·‚éˆê•û‚Å�A•Ä�‘‚ª“ú–{‚Ì‚½‚ß‚ÉŠj•ºŠí‚ðŽg—p‚·‚邱‚Æ‚Í�D�ž‚Ý�Ï‚Ý‚Å‚à‚ ‚é�B”ñŠjŽOŒ´‘¥‚ª‚ ‚é‚©‚ç‚Æ‚¢‚Á‚Ä�AŠj‚Ì–â‘è‚ð”ð‚¯‚Ä’Ê‚é‚±‚Æ‚Í–³—�‚Å‚Í‚È‚¢‚©�B
"Japan has decided not to use nuclear weapons under the Three Non-Nuclear Principles; however, America's use of nuclear weapons for Japan has been intricately woven (into our defense fabric). Because of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, it may be impossible to avoid the nuclear problem."

These remarks were made at the 4th meeting of the Survey Subcommittee regarding Japan's Place in the International Community held June 6, 2002.

http://www.shugiin.go.jp/itdb_kenpou.nsf/html/kenpou/154-06-06-kokusai.htm

As for the nuclear "aegis", NO ONE that I know in Japan feels any safer with a nuclear umbrella. No one. If North Korea should somehow launch an attack on, say, Tokyo (and actually have the accuracy to hit the city), Tokyo would be gone, and America's nuclear arsenal would not have been able to do a damn thing to save it.

If anything, Japanese feel even less safe now, not because of North Korea's pathetic attempts to test a couple of extremely short-range missiles that could barely go the distance from Yokohama to Kita Senju, but because of all the belligerent talk between the US and North Korea and NK's attempts to restart its nuclear program as a result.

[tanizaki]

165. I did read the link

My point remains. The three non-nuke principles are Japan's formal policy, but they are not law. Thus, nuclear weapons may be in Japan, as they are right now. If you can point to any section of Japanese –@—¥ that prohibits the maintenance of nuclear weapons, by all means cite it. If there is a legal breach, there must be a legal remedy. State it.

The expanded quote from Hirai further supports my point, so thank you.

As for your "no one you know", thank you very much for an anecdotal sample of one that proves nothing. The point of a nuclear arsenal is not to save Tokyo through its use but through its existence. NK does not nuke Tokyo not because US nukes can get to NK beforehand to prevent the attack, but because US nukes will get there after the attack. Nuking Tokyo does little good if your country is leveled to volcanic glass 30 minutes later. This was the whole idea behind Mutally Assured Destruction during that little period called the Cold War. I presume you have heard of it?

If Japanese feel less safe now, it's because they sat around hoping that NK might not do anything if they chanted "“ú–{‚Í•½˜a" long enough. Ask some of the kidnapping victims what good that did. I hasten to add that the kidnappings took place long before Bush* became president.

If you think NK restarted their nuke program, you simply haven't been paying attention. "Restart" implies that they paused their program at one point.

BTW, no need to post English translations. Just post the Japanese text.

[Kellanved]

162. that existed

Look up U-234 (sorry, no good English links for this- just a DVD)
http://uboat.net/boats/u234.htm

[SyracuseDemocrat]

141. Do you live in the real world?

Truman had to drop both bombs. The japanese emperor shrugged the first one off like it was nothing; I mean he didn't die, so why should he give a shit? So we dropped the second, and he's down at the US's knees. I'm glad that he did surrender, otherwise the U.S. just might have had to drop the 3rd, perhaps over Tokyo? How else would anyone on here have suggested that we win the war in the Pacific? I mean the Japanese were kamikazing us to hell, and those were very hard to avoid when they hit the carriers. We had to drop the bombs, and Truman will always remain one of history's greatest presidents because of his courage to do so.

[Gringo]

149. Your version of history seems a bit muddled - time to hit the books?

There was no third bomb.

The emperor was little more than a figurehead - the Japanese military was in full control.

By the time of the A-bombing, Japan was crippled militarily, had no Navy left, and no industrial capacity to replace its ships & planes.

We had already won the war in the Pacific - the surrender was only a matter of time.

Also, I'm so sick of all these people saying that their dad or uncle or cousin was there, or got killed, or whatever. Not only does it have no relevance, it's insulting to those of us on the other side. My uncle was shot down over Kyushu on a recon flight, captured, and eventually killed. It destroyed my aunt to the point that she never fully regained her sanity. Please don't preach as though we who oppose murderous tactics like the a-bomb "don't get it", or were somehow unaffected.

The only reason we know about my uncle, is that a Japanese friend of his from college contacted my aunt after the war to tell her what had happened. He continued to correspond with her for years, and they started a Japanese-American pen-pal society called "Capt. Dick's Pen pals" as a way of fostering peace and understanding between the two countries.

To those who say that Truman didn't know this, or that, and we have to look at it from the perspective of the times, if that's so, why did his advisors and generals oppose it? Apparently, even from the perspective of the time, they all thought it was wrong, and so do I.

[Snow]

144. I'm having difficulty phrasing this thought well, but there is an

idea that's implicit in the conventional-wisdom, "Lies your teacher told you" story that needs clearer stating than I can perhaps give it. It has to do with the notion of the Japanese people regarding the emperor as a god, with the notion of their fanaticism and committment to fight to the death, every last man. There's a theme of homogeneity here - ie, they were all like this. For example, the (mistaken) legend of the kamikaze pilots all willingly and unquestioningly flying off to their deaths (I've seen some documentary interviews with elderly Japanese pilots that contradict this in no uncertain terms). There's a theme of the "mysterious far east" - who can understand them? putting their motives in some inscrutable box. It's somewhat like the demonizing of "The Huns" that happened during WWI.
In short, I think some of the rationale for the nukes comes from these ideas of the Japanese as emperor-worshipping (therefore superstitious and irrational), fanatic and unthinking (therefore determined to the point of suicidal) and definitely less civilized than us, and a lot stranger.

[bpilgrim]

150. your right, all part of the myth, but they dropped it to 'SHOCK and AWE'

the world.

and the japanese still didn't surrender until their one condition was met and we ran out of nukes.

you see the japanese would have continued to fight for their emporer who was revered as a GOD at that time and the supreme symbol for the japanese homeland and idenity it wasn't till the people heard his voice for the first time over the radio telling them the war was over did they stop.

though some abroad, who never heard the radio address, continued for many years afterward.

the main point i try to make is that our own generals recommended that we accept japans 1 condition in the spring of 45 to "SAVE LIVES"

but for political reasons we choose another path.

peace

[diamond14]

167. it's extremely important to DEMONIZE people, as bush* is doing

this is certainly part of "selling" a war to Americans...

then you can KILL at will, without objections...and many of my parents generation were caught up in a national pride of working for the WAR effort...they never saw photos of what my country did, until John Hershey's book "Hiroshima" came out...and that created a crisis...even the interview with Dr. Szilard in 1951 created a crisis, because he built the bomb and objected to it's use...

anyone who objected here was slapped down and destroyed...and as a child, I had to 'hide under my little wooden school desk' during regular drills, as our government tried to convince us through FEAR, that DEMONS will drop atomic bombs on us at any minute...and the little wooden desk drills will SAVE us...

it's very important for our government to keep GLORIFYing wars, parades, ribbons, medals, monuments...so they can continuously fuel a huge and unnecessary and wasteful DEFENSE industry that regulars KILLS large numbers of people, so they can RE-STOCK their weapons...

look at our current dismal situation...we have destroyed TWO countries, ordered pre-emptive wars on everyone, ordered political assassinations, and paraded their dead bloated heads on national TV, while encouraging people to CHEER our 'glorious' conquest...

all to defend ourselves over PAPERCUTTERS...we were attacked with PAPERCUTTERS...and rather than use our brains...we are using our BIG WEAPONS to create world wide chaos and lash out....

bush* and his reTHUGlican reagun regurgitations are a threat to humanity...

[southern_demo]

168. You are Right: the Japanese were a wonderful people

For example, look at the good things they did for Nanking:

"Between December 1937 and March 1938 one of the worst massacres in modern times took place. Japanese troops captured the Chinese city of Nanking and embarked on a campaign of murder, rape and looting.


"Historian Iris Chang describes the horrors of "one of the great atrocities of world history"
"Based on estimates made by historians and charity organisations in the city at the time, between 250,000 and 300,000 people were killed, many of them women and children. The number of women raped was said by Westerners who were there to be 20,000, and there were widespread accounts of civilians being hacked to death."

[bpilgrim]

191. we got that beat...

look at our record during wwII and since and were only getting better.

it takes less and less of us to kill more and more of them, shoot aint that the whole idea, right?

shoot, ain't NOBODY better at killin then we are so please, don't even go there.

may i remind you we are talking about the decision to drop 2 atomic bombs on 2 cities filled with INOCCENT CIVILIANS of a defeated nation trying to surrender and NOT attacking the leaders who ordered their own apparently simular 'strategy' of defeating their foe though obviously not as successfully as ours.

everyones hands are bloody here

peace

[ChemEng]

157. My father was in the Second Marine Division...

and he was originally suppose to land on Okinawa. But because that landing went well (relatively speaking), his division was put into reserve. His division then was scheduled to land as the first wave for Operation Coronet, the landing on Kyushu in Japan proper. He had survived Tarawa, Saipan, & Tinian. I doubt he would have survived Kyushu.

Over 110,000 Japanese and 12,500 Americans died on Okinawa. I shudder to think how many would Japanese and Americans would have died fighting on Japan.

[bpilgrim]

159. when did we land on okinawa again?

just think how many could have been SAVED if we had followed the military leaders in theater advice to accept japans 1 condition on surrender and stop the fighting in the spring of 45 to SAVE LIVES...

it truley is a crying, agonizing shame, imho.

i salute your dad's service and his sacrifices for OUR freedoms as i do all the others, including my own family members, who served then, before, after and now.

peace

[hertopos]

161. As a Japanese I have a thing to say

As a Japanese, who is married to an American, I just want to say a thing or two.

I do not take any of the position listed in the original thread because I am Japanese.

Being a Japanese means to me:
I know what is really like to have a fear of nuclear holocaust.
I know what is really like to know that our parents�Egeneration supported the government which committed hideous atrocity and committed those atrocities themselves.

At the same time, I am proud to be Japanese in 2004 because we are still keeping our 'Peace constitution', which permanently abandon the right to engage any war. No matter what LDP may try, overwhelming majority of Japanese people support this. In fact, the latest move by Koizumi administration (sending our unconstitutional defense only force to Iraq) is unconstitutional.

I don't deny any of atrocity that Japanese imperial army committed during the war. However, that does not imply that Japanese are violent and evil people by nature compared to the people in the countries where Japanese committed the most hideous crimes in their own history. Unfortunately, many Korean and Chinese people believes that Japanese are more violent and evil than them mainly because the inept Japanese government post-war diplomacy and rather biased education about Japanese national character by both Korean and Chinese government.

I repeat. Japanese really learned something from the war. Though American government was the one which originally forced peace constitution�Eon Japanese, we are the ones keeping it even after U.S. wanted us to have our unconstitutional defense only force.

I would accept the fact that many American feels those bombing was right thing to do then. My point is not criticizing the historic decision. What I am asking is that after knowing what is really like to be bombed by a nuclear bomb, will you support the use of nuclear weapon in future?

Pray, do not use same type of logic to justify the use of nuclear weapon in future. That will be no different from Panac and Bush administration.

Hertopos

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

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

[Droopy]

173. A bit over the top don't you think

As an American, I believe the right to free speech is an inalienable right. That means every person in the world should have it and if they don't, it's an injustice. And you say this person should never speak without first paying homage to Americans. What kind of free speech is that? And you insult this person by saying he/she has no decency for bowing down. I don't like your definition of free speech.

Second, if this person is a citizen of the U.S. he/she has every right to say how our government conducts itself no matter what his/her country of origin.

Third, those atomic bombs we dropped over there killed mostly civilians. Think about that before you blast a Japanese person for speaking his/her mind about WWII next time.

[bpilgrim]

175. a perfect example of the mindset of the imperial japanese of wwII...

when i read messages like these and look at our current leadership i truely fear for all our futures.

this disgusting, display of ignorance, hostility and nationalism are exactly the kind of thoughts required to drop such a horrid weapon, without warning, on 2 helpless cities full of innocent civilians.

this is the 'cartoon world view' typical of many americans that we are up against. it isist on seeing us as the good neighbor, minding our own business, and only responding to protect ourselves, well that is just foolishness to think that we are not actively engaged in the world and that our actions have no consequences.

what especially gets me upset is that people who are still extremely upset by the extreme actions of the imperal gov of japan at that time turn a complete blind eye to our own which can be argued to have exceeded theirs in some aspects and even worse completely onboard with our own gov aggressive and violent foreign policies since wwII.

i guess thats to be expected in a consumer orianted society.

the indian society is always looking better and better from where i'm sitting.

peace...

[IndianaGreen]

176. Spare us your nationalistic, jingoist, rightwing crap!

Your rant is typical of the racist and ultra-nationalist filth that comes out of the likes of an Ann Coulter or a Tom DeLay. You are no liberal!

Japan has never properly confessed or atoned for its actions in starting the war, let alone what it did to the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, etc.

America has yet to atone for our own atrocities in the Philippines! Remember the Philippines Rebellion, where our glorious Marines coined the name "gook" to refer to the Filipinos fighting for freedom?

Did America ever "properly confessed or atoned" for the thousands of civilian casualties we caused in our invasion of Panama, and the fire bombing of entire neighborhoods. Not even Israel has committed crimes of such magnitude during her occupation of the West Bank and Gaza!

Should I recite the long litany of America's crimes overseas, a never-ending list that continues to this very day?

Or are you among those that believe that GAWD has bestowed His Blessings exclusively on America, and that we must support the troops even when they attack a defenseless nation like Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, El Salvador, etc.

Spare us your nationalistic, jingoist, rightwing crap!

U.S. MILITARY CHARGED WITH MASS MURDER

The ninety minute film entitled THE PANAMA DECEPTION builds a substantial case against the U.S. military for the same types of war crimes. A portion of the film shows the exhuming of a large mass grave containing the bodies of both men and women, young and old. Almost all were civilians that were killed during the U.S. invasion. Some of the victims had been shot in the back of the head, execution style. It is asserted during the documentary that there are many mass graves within Panama but are located within the U.S. military controlled zone and are not accessible.

U.S. Army General Maxwell Thurman admitted during an interview shown in the film that there was a grave containing "some number" of bodies. He did not elaborate. A Pentagon spokesman said calling it a mass grave would be "imprecise".

The official U.S. toll of Panamanian deaths is approximately 256 and admits that 75 percent of those were civilians. Four different human rights groups put the death toll at 2,500 to 4,000 civilians.

THE PANAMA DECEPTION shows a "scorched earth" aftermath in the neighborhoods of Colon, San Miguelito and El Chorillo. Twenty thousand civilians lost their homes during the American bombardment and subsequent fire, and many lost their lives as well.

Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has condemned the invasion as illegal. He also said that is was characterized by a "shear, overwhelming use of raw firepower."

A spokesman for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in an interview included in the documentary that the U.S. invasion was a violation of the OAS charter (of which the U.S. is a signator), the U.N. charter and the the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention clearly prohibits attacks against civilian targets.

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/war/a102896b.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

195. Subtle

I love your little anti-Israel dig slipped into your bit of propaganda just to score more hate those Israeli points. History is full of nations that would have wiped out the Palestinian people by now. The fact that, having tolerated decades of Palestinian terror attacks, Israel still has not even vaguely done so speaks volumes about the bullshit comment you made.

[IndianaGreen]

221. Having a reading comprehension problem, Muddle?

Or trying to muddle the issue again!

Where is the "anti-Israel" dig in this?:

Did America ever "properly confessed or atoned" for the thousands of civilian casualties we caused in our invasion of Panama, and the fire bombing of entire neighborhoods. Not even Israel has committed crimes of such magnitude during her occupation of the West Bank and Gaza!

[Muddleoftheroad]

223. Not even

"Not even Israel" implies strongly that Israel is the worst possible example you can come up with. And, that is obvious, since it is what you intended.

[Uzybone]

187. Pathetic

No, he or she has the right to free speech because he/she is a human being. You know that little thing about inalieable rights? They belong to all of us regardless of country of origin and regardless of how many people died in wars to protect our natural born rights. Freedom is not a gift to anyone. You are totally out of line.

[Astarho]

201. Wow! That's some bullshit

First and foremost you have a right to free speech save only by the grace of thousands of young americans who died for your freedom.

Free speech is an inalienable right. People regardless of nationailty should be free to say whatever they wish (as you have just demonstrated)

It is wholly, totally, and completely a gift to you from the American people.

Like the same gift we gave when we forced them to open their ports about a hundred years earlier? They just learned from that and modernized themselves so they would not be exploited by the West again.

Second, no one from Japan has any right to say anything about America or how it conducts itself. Japan has never properly confessed or atoned for its actions in starting the war, let alone what it did to the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, etc.

I don't recall anyone in the American govt. confessing or atoning for it's actions at Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, or the Long March (and the Navajos were still kind enough to save us during the war!)

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

177. Since you posted your racist crap twice, I'll post my reply again!

Your rant is typical of the racist and ultra-nationalist filth that comes out of the likes of an Ann Coulter or a Tom DeLay. You are no liberal!

Japan has never properly confessed or atoned for its actions in starting the war, let alone what it did to the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, etc.

America has yet to atone for our own atrocities in the Philippines! Remember the Philippines Rebellion, where our glorious Marines coined the name "gook" to refer to the Filipinos fighting for freedom?

Did America ever "properly confessed or atoned" for the thousands of civilian casualties we caused in our invasion of Panama, and the fire bombing of entire neighborhoods. Not even Israel has committed crimes of such magnitude during her occupation of the West Bank and Gaza!

Should I recite the long litany of America's crimes overseas, a never-ending list that continues to this very day?

Or are you among those that believe that GAWD has bestowed His Blessings exclusively on America, and that we must support the troops even when they attack a defenseless nation like Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, El Salvador, etc.

Spare us your nationalistic, jingoist, rightwing crap!

U.S. MILITARY CHARGED WITH MASS MURDER

The ninety minute film entitled THE PANAMA DECEPTION builds a substantial case against the U.S. military for the same types of war crimes. A portion of the film shows the exhuming of a large mass grave containing the bodies of both men and women, young and old. Almost all were civilians that were killed during the U.S. invasion. Some of the victims had been shot in the back of the head, execution style. It is asserted during the documentary that there are many mass graves within Panama but are located within the U.S. military controlled zone and are not accessible.

U.S. Army General Maxwell Thurman admitted during an interview shown in the film that there was a grave containing "some number" of bodies. He did not elaborate. A Pentagon spokesman said calling it a mass grave would be "imprecise".

The official U.S. toll of Panamanian deaths is approximately 256 and admits that 75 percent of those were civilians. Four different human rights groups put the death toll at 2,500 to 4,000 civilians.

THE PANAMA DECEPTION shows a "scorched earth" aftermath in the neighborhoods of Colon, San Miguelito and El Chorillo. Twenty thousand civilians lost their homes during the American bombardment and subsequent fire, and many lost their lives as well.

Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, has condemned the invasion as illegal. He also said that is was characterized by a "shear, overwhelming use of raw firepower."

A spokesman for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in an interview included in the documentary that the U.S. invasion was a violation of the OAS charter (of which the U.S. is a signator), the U.N. charter and the the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention clearly prohibits attacks against civilian targets.

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/war/a102896b.html

[Joeve]

172. Sorry to disagree

On an earlier thread (which was regrettably lost) I was shocked that some were defending the hideous atomic bombing of Japan. I've visited there and met bombing victims, and livved in Japan for 5 years, and am appalled at "progressives" defending this filthy attack that Truman's generals and advisors opposed, while Truman knew damn well that the Japanese were teetering on the verge of surrender.

This is one progressive who understands that the bombings were necessary. I for one do not believe that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, if so they would have capitulated after the first bomb, not the second. An invasion of the Japanese main island would have cost millions of lives on both sides, so while I weep for the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think it was better than the alternative.

I also lived in Japan for a time, in Misawa when I was with the Air Force, and I have great love and respect for the Japanese people, who overcame great adversity after the war to build a prosperous nation.

But let's not forget that the Japanese were quite capable of a little atrocity themselves. The rape on Nanking and the Bataan Death March were examples of how the Japanese treated prisoners. They are, thankfully, not the same people as they were then, thanks in part to Gen. MacArthur (the only decent thing he ever accomplished) and liberal policies towards both of our former enemies. In my view, the end results of the necessary evils of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are plain to see.

[Ratty]

174. Can you imagine if they *hadn't* atom-bombed Japan?

The Soviet were poised to swoop in and join the war in days. The US was in a huge rush to drop the bombs and force the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets became involved.

We would have ended up with a divided Japan, a communist half controlled by the Soviet Union and a democratic American half. What a different world we would have today. Reunification would nearly shatter the Japanese economy as it almost did to the Germans.

I don't believe waiting for their surrender was ever an option. They would never have gotten the chance to surrender before the Soviets became involved.

Yes, the President was surely forced to use the bomb to justify the enormous expense of its development. Yes, providing a demonstration for the Russians was also a critical part of the decision. But these two facts don't somehow cancel out the possibility that it was also ultimately the right decision.

[diamond14]

184. Yes, I can imagine. and the "what if" this happens fuels the hate

that creates wars, maiming, killing and destruction....I can imagine that 'smart' people could have avoided many American deaths on the shores of Normandy...just sent those young soldiers to their deaths without proper air support....why not ? those DEFENSE industrialists don't care about us either...

"what if" g.w.bush* grandfather, Prescott, didn't fund hitler's rise to power...read about it here...written by the President of the Florida Holocaust Museum...
http://www.clamormagazine.org/bush.pdf

"what if" Iraq attacks us with NUCLEAR BOMBS in the next 45 minutes is the lie that spread the Iraq war idea...

and "what if" America did not CREATE AN ELEMENT, thereby playing GOD...let the genie out of the bottle in a madness that created majorly wealthy people making profits on war...poisoning ourselves in the process..."science without humanity" is one of the GREAT sins in the world...

here are the official documents on the atomic bomb decision:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

and the objections of the scientists who built it, and realized what they had done...and wanted to stop it...
http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

and "what if" America decided to explore the elements by researching each one to use it for the betterment of our world, rather than to fund wealthy and powerful individuals in a self-perpetuating drive for world conquest...wasting our resources, polluting our environment, and taxing the middle-class to pay for their follies and thrill with the KILL...

I can even imagine that if we used our brains against the PAPERCUTTER-WIELDING terrorists, we could have saved ourselves a lot of money, KILLING of innocents and the lives of our soldiers...hitting everything with the sledge-hammer of the military is not the solution...thinking people use their brains to solve problems...

[Uzybone]

178. I say a combo

of intimidation and just regrettable. I believe they didnt know the true effects the bomb could have on a population at the time they dropped it. They had learned some by the time the dropped the second one, but i still think they were not fully aware of its full power and destruction. I read somewhere that the planned invasion of Japan involved dropping 5-7 atom bombs, and then following immediately with ground troops. That tells me they had no clue what the after effects were (or maybe they didnt give a fuck about troops). Yes I do think they also used it to keep the Russians at bay.

[diamond14]

186. (link) Atomic Bomb: the decision documents (includes speech

and transcripts, as well as other documents from the U.S. National Archives....

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

[the_sam]

182. The Greatest Single Act of Terrorism Committed in Modern Times

The Japanese were already on the verge of defeat before we dropped the bombs.

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

[bpilgrim]

189. Hiroshima, the second most horrid word in the english language

NAGASAKI being the MOST.
(vonnegut says it alot better)

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

193. Verge

Being on the verge of doing something is, for all intents and purposes, NOT doing something. It was a war, until they fully surrendered the war continued.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[JackSwift]

219. The polling results haven't studied the period

It was the most brutal war in human history, with the most brutal atrocities. The destruction of these two cities was not done during peacetime, and in fact was part of standard operations for the war, merely using a new kind of explosive. The Germans and Japanese both bombed cities and civilian targets, and conducted experiments on humans on a mass scale, and committed criminal acts on civilians on a mass scale. We were at war with a government as brutal as the Nazis in a country with the Pacific Ocean for a moat. The people of Manchuria, Burma, Singapore, Korea, the Phillipines etc. are weirdly not asked their opinion on this matter.

[newyawker99]

225. I am locking this thread.

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=85108&mesg_id=85108&page=



NYer99
DU Moderator

[jody]

224. It's easy to second-guess Truman, but faced with the choice

of several hundred thousand Allied casualties and dropping the bomb, he made a rational decision. As to the second bomb, that's all we had and that was another rational decision.

It is so easy for people to criticize someone like Harry with the bomb, and JFK with missiles in Cuba, but I am convinced they were trying to do what was best for America. Fast-forward to the 21st century and we have AWOL who lets greed drive every decision.

Given a choice, I would take a Harry or JFK every time over someone like AWOL.