67 Years

[Unkotare]

You don't know X or Y for any of those.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Despite the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet declaration of war, and growing worry about domestic instability, the Japanese cabinet could not form a consensus to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Hirohito had become convinced that the preservation of the monarchy was at stake. What was at stake was the definition of the kokutai (national policy). Togo's proposal would have been generally consistent with a constitutional monarchy because it defined the kokutai narrowly as the emperor and the imperial household. What Hirohito accepted, however, was a proposal by the extreme nationalist Kiichiro Hiranuma which drew upon prevailing understandings of the kokutai: the mythical notion that the emperor was a living god. This was the affirmation of the emperor's theocratic powers, unencumbered by any law, based on Shinto gods in antiquity, and totally incompatible with a constitutional monarchy. Thus, the Japanese response to the Potsdam declaration opposed any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of his Majesty as a sovereign ruler. This proved to be unacceptable to the Truman administration.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

^The Japanese emperor was preoccupied with preserving his own "divine" status and Japan's surrender was delayed considerably because of his personal ego and despite the high number of civilian casualties in Hiroshima, Hirohito and military hardliners were still in no mood to surrender contrary to the revisionist claims made by some Japanese historians that the Japanese Empire was ready to surrender before the atomic bombings and the “shock and awe” effect of the atomic bombings could only force Japan's unconditional surrender and under Operation Downfall, the US would have lost about 300,000 soldiers with five times more civilian deaths on the ground.

 

[Unkotare]

If you are going to take text directly from a source you need to use quotation marks as well as citing the source.

 

[whitehall]

By the time we dropped the two Bombs Japan was already defeated. It's once powerful navy hardly existed except for a few rogue subs. Before he died FDR left instructions not to negotiate with Japan under any conditions and "give 'em hell Harry followed the instructions even though Japan was so desperate for surrender terms that they contacted Stalin (who was a US ally). The big hangup about surrender terms was the preservation of the Emperor and not executing him but Truman refused to talk. The ironic thing was that the Emperor was preserved anyway after we incinerated two cities with a horrific weapon. Life was cheap during WW2 and we Americans have been taught that the wholesale killing of civilians to force a crazy regime to surrender was a legitimate concept. Maybe it was but we have to acknowledge what we did and the mistakes we made along the way.

In actual effect the atom bombs produced devistation no different from the bombing of other cities during WWII, except it only took one bomb per city. The fire bombing of tokyo was far more destructive, but isnt given as much attention as it took hundreds of bombers to create the same effect.

We gave Japan the same conditions we gave Germany. Germany capitulated, Japan did not. While Japan was near defeat, thier millitary leadership was determined to go down fighting, and stuck to the concept that if they caused enough casualties on the invasion beaches, they could get away with negotiated terms. They also wanted to maintain thier army, have no occupation, try thier own war criminals, and handle thier own disarmament, above and beyond thier requirement for immunity for the emperor.

If Japan didnt surrender, the options were blockade, further coventional air bombing, and invasion. Blockade would result in millions of starvation deaths, conventional air bombing millions of civilian casualties, and invasion millions of casulaties on both sides. With invasion we might have also needed help from the Soviets, and guess what they would have asked for. Imagine a cold war with a "North and South" Japan.

Let me get this straight marty. Is it the pro-Truman argument that using the Atomic Bomb was no different than any other weapon in history? I beg to differ. In fairness I think the Military was running the administration and the timid little bean counter former senator former haberdasher would sign anything the generals and admirals put in front of him. Clearly there was a disconnect between the eggheads who created the monster and the monsters who decided to use it. Long after the war the admirals and generals were forcing American Troops into the deadly radiation in "training " exercises. During the Bikini Is. Atomic tests the Navy actually thought that spraying radiated ships with radiated water would make them safe. Sailors died and Truman dodged the buck.

 

[martybegan]

By the time we dropped the two Bombs Japan was already defeated. It's once powerful navy hardly existed except for a few rogue subs. Before he died FDR left instructions not to negotiate with Japan under any conditions and "give 'em hell Harry followed the instructions even though Japan was so desperate for surrender terms that they contacted Stalin (who was a US ally). The big hangup about surrender terms was the preservation of the Emperor and not executing him but Truman refused to talk. The ironic thing was that the Emperor was preserved anyway after we incinerated two cities with a horrific weapon. Life was cheap during WW2 and we Americans have been taught that the wholesale killing of civilians to force a crazy regime to surrender was a legitimate concept. Maybe it was but we have to acknowledge what we did and the mistakes we made along the way.

In actual effect the atom bombs produced devistation no different from the bombing of other cities during WWII, except it only took one bomb per city. The fire bombing of tokyo was far more destructive, but isnt given as much attention as it took hundreds of bombers to create the same effect.

We gave Japan the same conditions we gave Germany. Germany capitulated, Japan did not. While Japan was near defeat, thier millitary leadership was determined to go down fighting, and stuck to the concept that if they caused enough casualties on the invasion beaches, they could get away with negotiated terms. They also wanted to maintain thier army, have no occupation, try thier own war criminals, and handle thier own disarmament, above and beyond thier requirement for immunity for the emperor.

If Japan didnt surrender, the options were blockade, further coventional air bombing, and invasion. Blockade would result in millions of starvation deaths, conventional air bombing millions of civilian casualties, and invasion millions of casulaties on both sides. With invasion we might have also needed help from the Soviets, and guess what they would have asked for. Imagine a cold war with a "North and South" Japan.

Let me get this straight marty. Is it the pro-Truman argument that using the Atomic Bomb was no different than any other weapon in history? I beg to differ. In fairness I think the Military was running the administration and the timid little bean counter former senator former haberdasher would sign anything the generals and admirals put in front of him. Clearly there was a disconnect between the eggheads who created the monster and the monsters who decided to use it. Long after the war the admirals and generals were forcing American Troops into the deadly radiation in "training " exercises. During the Bikini Is. Atomic tests the Navy actually thought that spraying radiated ships with radiated water would make them safe. Sailors died and Truman dodged the buck.

One or two atomic bombs, the bombs of a size used in Japan, were no different in scope than the massive bombing raids done during the war, the only difference was all the bombs exploded at one point, and it only took one bomber to do the damage.

 

[Unkotare]

That's "the only difference" huh? Really?

 

[The Professor]

The a-bombings were immoral and necessary. It is never right to wantonly murder civilians. And particularly of a nation that wanted to surrender. Japan has been seeking surrender terms for months. The idiot progressive Truman and the fascist FDR demanded unconditional surrender leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths by both sides.

Japan was done by July '45. They were incapable of continuing the war. Their navy and air force were gone. We have complete control of air and sea.

The bombing was NOT about winning the war. It was about showing the world our power and it was hoped, scare Stalin (how the hell did we align ourselves with histories greatest tyrant and murderer???), which of course, failed.

Immoral and unnecessary.

This is stupid and false. Japan was not ready to surrender.

The use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless lives.

If killing women, children and old men in order to scare the enemy into submission is appropriate, how in the hell do you define "war crimes?"

Now, I know fully well that in war the only way to victory is to either destroy the enemy's capacity to make war or to destroy his willingness to make war. However, we have a choice to either conform to certain rules of conduct or dispense with them. The USA cannot expect to hold other countries to a standard which it violates. If we can kill hundreds of thousands of non-combatants to shorten the war, then other countries who fight against us must have the same rights. Right?

Frankly, I think that war is the epitome of insanity. In the overall scheme of things, there is little difference between killing young men who have been forced to fight and killing civilians including women and children. War should have no rules and when people finally realize how stupid wars are, then perhaps we shall find that elusive thing called peace. Making rules of war serves no purpose other than to confer a disingenuous facade of fairness to that which is inherently jaundiced, unjust , dishonorable and despicable.

Lets see if I have it right: Atomic bombs used against civilians is OK but mustard gas used against combatants is not? Who is the fucking idiot who made that determination? Sensible people realize that how you kill someone is not nearly as important as the fact that you are killing them!! Can anyone explain to me why gassing someone is heartless but flame throwers and napalm are soooo humane!

A comedian once suggested that all wars should be settled by a wrestling match between the leadership of the countries involved. This makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything I have heard to date.

To those who support the bombing of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just remember this: what goes around comes around.

 

[The Professor]

I believe that the best defense against enemy attack is to make a credible threat that they entire government of the attacking country will be immediately assassinated. With available technology we certainly should be able to determine the whereabouts of this fools and take them out.

Why kill innocent conscripted young men when the real blame lies with those in power who gave the orders to initiate warfare?

The entire notion of having innocent young men kill each other to advance the interest of those in power is asinine.

Who invented this silly game? Oh, right...those in power. I shoulda known.

 

[Unkotare]

Your 'idea' is...emotional...but not practical.

 

[gipper]

Yes, war is insane. However it is regularly practiced by those who seek more power and control. The stinking progressives and neocons love war. It centralizes power into their hands, while reducing or eliminating the people's liberty.

The Founders warned us about an interventionist foreign policy. They knew it would reduce liberty and centralize power into the hands of the statists, while causing great suffering and often resulting in dreadful unforeseen consequences. But, few know or care what the Founders said.

 

[gipper]

funny how the war ended after the second one was dropped.

Funny how you said the bombings saved millions of lives, but now change the subject.

You are right...murdering women and children in cold blood did end the war...but then the Japanese wanted to surrender before they got incinerated by the stinking pro-war statist Truman.

Thier military wanted a 4 part conditional surrender. No war crimes trials held by outsiders, No occupation of Japan, No military disamament and yes, nothing affecting the emperor. The Allies would not accept the first 3, regardless of finally "accepting" part 4.

The bombs gave the civilians the ability to shut up the military, in particular the Emperor was able to force them to accept his judgement to surrender, even if he had to face crimes.


Trh

I do not believe that is correct. By July '45 the Japanese only asked that the Emperor be allowed to stay on the throne. They feared that the Americans would try him for war crimes and hang him in front of the palace. So, Truman ignored the surrender requests so that he could drop the a-bombs....and ultimately agreed to allow Hitherto stay on the throne after killing thousands of Japanese women and children.....must immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian...apparently war-loving statism trumps theology.

Now imagine had we accepted the peace offerings by the Japanese in early '45, how many young American GIs and Japanese would not have been sacrificed? The actions of Truman and his fellow pro-war statists were most evil.

This more accurately explains the situation....and it contradicts your statements.

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.
Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

Peace Overtures

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

[gipper]

Japan was training women to fight with wooden rifles, they would have fought to the death, to extinction.

Don't be stupid. Women, children, and the elderly would not have taken to the streets en mass to fight with armed US soldiers. That's just ridiculous. The people of Japan were starving, exhausted, and long since sick of the war. If you have to swallow silly exaggerrations to believe your simplistic view then you don't really believe it much yourself.

Well, if you are going to lie, there's really no point.

Death before dishonor is an insane Jap trait, deny it if you will, but don't expect me to buy it.

Your statement is racist. But, you are not alone. Truman was also a racist, which allowed him to drop those a-bombs on those 'dirty Japs' without an inkling of guilt.

If there is a hell, he is there burning right now.

 

[JoeB131]

50,000 mark 67th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion


Always a somber and reflective anniversary.

Yup. Bombing people who were already looking to surrender to test out a new toy is always kind of sad.

 

[namvet]

and today it came to an end.

 

[whitehall]

In actual effect the atom bombs produced devistation no different from the bombing of other cities during WWII, except it only took one bomb per city. The fire bombing of tokyo was far more destructive, but isnt given as much attention as it took hundreds of bombers to create the same effect.

We gave Japan the same conditions we gave Germany. Germany capitulated, Japan did not. While Japan was near defeat, thier millitary leadership was determined to go down fighting, and stuck to the concept that if they caused enough casualties on the invasion beaches, they could get away with negotiated terms. They also wanted to maintain thier army, have no occupation, try thier own war criminals, and handle thier own disarmament, above and beyond thier requirement for immunity for the emperor.

If Japan didnt surrender, the options were blockade, further coventional air bombing, and invasion. Blockade would result in millions of starvation deaths, conventional air bombing millions of civilian casualties, and invasion millions of casulaties on both sides. With invasion we might have also needed help from the Soviets, and guess what they would have asked for. Imagine a cold war with a "North and South" Japan.

Let me get this straight marty. Is it the pro-Truman argument that using the Atomic Bomb was no different than any other weapon in history? I beg to differ. In fairness I think the Military was running the administration and the timid little bean counter former senator former haberdasher would sign anything the generals and admirals put in front of him. Clearly there was a disconnect between the eggheads who created the monster and the monsters who decided to use it. Long after the war the admirals and generals were forcing American Troops into the deadly radiation in "training " exercises. During the Bikini Is. Atomic tests the Navy actually thought that spraying radiated ships with radiated water would make them safe. Sailors died and Truman dodged the buck.

One or two atomic bombs, the bombs of a size used in Japan, were no different in scope than the massive bombing raids done during the war, the only difference was all the bombs exploded at one point, and it only took one bomber to do the damage.

Rationalize the use of the first WMD if you want to but I don't recall any bombing raid unleashing TWENTY THOUSAND TONS OF TNT in one shot not to mention the radiation.