Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!
Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Mark Weber:
The Professional Denier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.
Please check your InBox. I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.
So you're relying on Samson to tell you my sources instead of asking me? How much sense does that make? One source is an article from August 1945:
"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.)"
Samson claimed my "only resource" is barnes when in fact I've never referenced barnes at all. So you just thanked Samson for outright lying.
Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Mark Weber:
The Professional Denier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Mark Weber:
The Professional Denier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here. All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions. I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Mark Weber:
The Professional Denier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Weber is not my source either you dumbfuck. That's the second time you've falsely accused a source I've not used. But you want to call others stupid......lol.
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Weber is not my source either you dumbfuck. That's the second time you've falsely accused a source I've not used. But you want to call others stupid......lol.
Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here. All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions. I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
What do you think about that fact? I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here. All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions. I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
What do you think about that fact? I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here. All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions. I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
What do you think about that fact? I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
They were wrong. Once again the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender.
I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.
and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.
the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide??? they got what they deserved.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack
Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere. They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies. Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that. Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.
But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder? How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet? What weapons did they help manufacture? What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?
The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was wrong. If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was right.
If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that. Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.
But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder?
What weapons did they help manufacture? What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?
"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."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Mark Weber:
The Professional Denier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Well CurveLight? Is this true? You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
What do you think about that fact? I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
They were wrong. Once again the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender.
Or, they never agreed to any such thing: Curvey's source is bogus: You may as well be arguing with someone that claims it was an "Indesputable fact" that Martians agreed the A bombs were not necessary, and quotes an article from the National Enquirer.
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Well CurveLight? Is this true? You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:
"Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim
quoted in The Decision to Use The Bomb, pg. 238ADMIRAL CHESTER NIMITZ said:"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
quoted in The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE said:"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
quoted in How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look Magazine, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.ELLIS ZACHARIAS said:"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.PAUL NITZE said:"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
quoted from War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.RALPH BARD said:"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."
quoted from American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR said:MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
quoted in William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.FLEET ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY said:"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.
"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."
quoted in Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:"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'.
quoted in Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima
Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
Madeline,
To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject..
Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
Ahh, yes.
Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Well CurveLight? Is this true? You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:
"Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim
quoted from War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.Madeline,
To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject.
You are right that both sets of facts cannot be right. The simple reality is analogous to the decision to invade Iraq, but with the added benefit of hindsight, declassification, and ample official documentation and historical review. There was an official line from the government, press secretary, president, and Secretary of War Stimson that the bombing was necessary, the only way to defeat the fanatical and inhuman Japanese, and that is saved first American lives, then inflated to 50,000 American lives, then 100,000 American lives, now 500,000 American lives and so on. This has become the traditional, mainstream narrative on the subject because it was the official narrative on the subject, so it's what is taught to 7th graders nationwide. I think you should perhaps consider the fact that those arguing for the official government line on this issue are also people defending the official government line on Iraq, that Saddam had WMDs and we had to invade and etc.
The problem with the official government line of the era, however, is that it's a total fabrication.
There really isn't much disagreement on the facts here. Historians may differ to this day on the intent behind the mythmaking, but there is no doubt that a land invasion of Japan by American forces was never in the cards and the number of projected casualties was literally an invention. The war was over and we'd known that for nearly a year.
In the 60+ years since the bomb was dropped, it has come to light that the Japanese were already thoroughly defeated, knew it, and actively, desperately trying to surrender, we knew that, but decided to bomb them anyway.
Put simply: Quartermass and CurveLight are right.
The Japanese had been suing for peace for months, unlike what GunnySgt is trying to claim, they frequently tried to reach a surrender agreement with a sole condition: they could retain the Emperor as their leader, rather than see him humiliated, arrested, tried for war crimes, etc. He was a living God to them and while there is no comparable analogy to the U.S., try to imagine asking Americans in 1945 to resurrect and re-crucify Jesus. We know they were trying to offer this sole condition, and not the land bargain GunnySgt claims (which was prior to their later, desperate efforts we're discussing), because we were intercepting their communiques and those communiques are now declassified and part of the public record. That sole condition to their surrender was rejected by the U.S. government, which instead demanded an absolutely unconditional surrender. The sad, terrible irony of what happened is that when we finally did bomb them, we allowed the Emperor to remain in his throne and capitulated to that single condition. In other words, the war could have ended months earlier with the same outcome except no use of the bombs, no hundreds of thousands dead, no unleashing of nuclear weapons upon the world.
From a strategic, military, and ethical standpoint, there was no practical use for dropping the bombs. It was primarily an experiment to test the bombs and an opportunity to assert our dominance in the post-war world, particularly over the Russians.
I'm not sure how much reading you're doing on the subject, but if you're truly interested I recommend the following books on the subject to give you a comprehensive understanding of the decision to drop the bomb, backed up my numerous firsthand accounts, primary sources, intercepted communiques, official reports, etc.
Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, a collection
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
The Decision to Use the Bomb: The Architecture of an American Myth by Gal Aperovitz
Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later by Robert James Maddox
A Postwar Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved by atomic scientist Barton J. Bernstein
Of course a wonderful, highly illuminating primary source is Harry Truman's personal memoirs from 1945 and Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy's book On Active Service in Peace and War.
Among historians who've written and spoken extensively on the subject, some of which can be found online, there's Howard Zinn, Sean Malloy, Sadao Asada, Ronald Takaki, J. Samuel Walker, and my former boss, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, Peter Kuznick.
Just a few good scholarly websites on the subject I can suggest if you're curious to learn more and want to get past this "he said-she said" back and forth are:
http://www.unl.edu:2020/alpha/Atomic_Bomb_Decision.html
Atomic Bomb Decision Pathfinder
Hiroshima: the Article
Finally, some of these have been posted before I believe, but I think quotes from the military and intelligence officers surrounding Truman at the time help make a simple and compelling case for the fact that it was strategically and militarily unnecessary and moreover that we knew that before we did it:
quoted in The Decision to Use The Bomb, pg. 238ADMIRAL CHESTER NIMITZ said:"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
quoted in The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE said:"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
quoted in How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.
[quoteRALPH BARD, Under Sec. of the Navy] "Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."
quoted in William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY said:"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.
"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."
quoted in Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:"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'.
quoted in Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
