The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Pogo]

The Soviets were supposed to join in. We asked them to.

Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.

I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.

That doesn't add up. The Soviet advance was part of defeating Japan. It was faced with nukes from afar plus Russians up close. Simultaneous, not serial.

I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.

The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.

That's projecting far too much speculation. The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade". That's simply not the case. The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender. Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.


Along the same lines:

If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.

"Communism" was not a player in this war. Imperialism was. They're not even related. Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.

This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality. All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own independence; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.

The fuel of Imperialism cannot be understated here. Japan wanted an empire. Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline. And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba. None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.

Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe. "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century. They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas. Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.

Again, nothing to do with "communism". It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was. As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an imperialist state of mind.

All I can offer you on this is that we can agree to disagree.

It's worth the rumination though.

This may veer somewhat off topic, but in pursuit of the whole "commie" mythology ... a 2004 film called "Heir to an Execution" supplied me with a lightbulb epiphany of perspective all of this. It's by Ivy Meeropol, who is the granddaughter of Juilius and Ethel Rosenberg. The revealing comment was not in the film itself but in the director's commentary track, something she I guess thought was a throwaway anecdote but I found it profound. The filmmaker was not setting out to examine the political dynamics behind the execution of her grandparents; rather she was exploring who they were as people.

She relates how her father, Michael Rosenberg-Meeropol (adopted after his parents' execution) would play a child's game with his father, Julius Rosenberg in which the boy Michael would get on his hands and knees and pretend to be a bridge. Julius his father would then run a toy truck over his back saying "Here comes the American truck" and Michael would stay in place allowing the truck to pass. Then Julius would run the truck again saying "and here comes the Fascist truck" and Michael would stand up, sending the Fascist truck tumbling to its doom, whereupon Julius would shake his hand and congratulate the boy on defeating the Fascists.

That's when it dawned on me ---- all this "commie" this, "Commie" that rah-rah fearmongereing boogieman massive propaganda campaign we know all too well, was not aimed at its targets because they were "Communist" but rather, because they were Anti-Fascist. They were a threat not to "America" or "freedom" or whatever emotional buzzword of the day, but rather. they were a threat to Fascism and Imperialism, the former being a tool to effect the latter. Being "pro-communist" threatens nothing; being anti-Fascist very much does. After all only "anti" denotes a threat to anything. It's right there in the definition of the prefix. But you can't sell a demonization on the basis that "they're against fascism" so you invent the "Commie" brouhaha and dress it up as a "threat".

And that leads to the next eye-opener, albeit specific to European derivation rather than directly on the topic of war in the Pacific, and that is: we often teach ourselves that in WW2, the European side of it, "Fascism was defeated", in that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were vanquished. That's not true. Those countries were defeated; Hitler and Mussolini were defeated. But on the other hand their contemporary fascist Francisco Franco, was not. "We" didn't even fight him. That's why I point out that what we were fighting was Imperialism, and specifically picking sides of whose Imperialism. Germany invaded its neighbors all around it in the cause of (first) corralling German culture into one larger state, and (subsequently) for more Liebensraum (room) for them. Spain however didn't invade France or Portugal or Morocco or even Andorra. So fascism, common to both, wasn't the impetus for Germany; Imperialism was.

The revealed perspective is this:
The hyper-right wing Fascist totalitarianism did not lose World War Two. It lived on, got assimilated and thrived, and continues to thrive right now. Hitler lost WW2. Mussolini lost WW2. But their fascist inclinations did not. Not only did they survive in Spain, and soon take over Greece; they also survived and assimilated in the US with the whole "Red Scare" and "Red Channels" and "blacklisting" and McCarthyism and the endless demonization of the mythological "Commies" everywhere, from Europe to Iran to Guatemala to Southeast Asia to various independence movements in Africa. Hitler's secret police system simply took on new English names as the "CIA" (externally) and "FBI" (internally), accomplishing the same task for the victors as it had for the vanquished. They're still with us today right down to mandatory flag worship at football games and classrooms, endless wars on "Commies", and the ongoing "Commie conquest" fantasy itself that still hasn't been seen for the fascistic propaganda it was.

Fascist totalitarianism wasn't exterminated; it was moved. We're living in it. Example: "Commie" Guatemala could not be allowed to stand while it was a threat to the Fascist collusion of the State and United Fruit (replace "Guatemala" with "Cuba", same thing. different result). Example two: "Commie" Iran could not be allowed to have its own government either, as it was a threat to the Fascist union of the State and Big Oil. So Fascist totalitarianism stepped in and "fixed" that too. Other examples abound.

That's why the whole Red Scare business was relentlessly marketed and mythologized used as military pretext: the egalitarian spirit of the target "Commies" threatens the Fascist-authoritarian doctrine of a top-down striated meritocracy where the State rules and the people submit and obey. Fascist totalitarianism demands obedience; democracy invites the opposite. Free expression is a threat. Therefore, they must be eliminated, under whatever name works. That's arguably where the whole infamous conformist mentality of the 1950s comes from.

And it's not a random coincidence that this is the same period where the same Fascist element started demonizing and polarizing the term "Liberalism", which is in fact what founded this nation on very different principles. Liberalism by definition means free expression; that is a direct threat to Authoritarianism, therefore it must be redefined as the "enemy".

For that matter Hitler did the same thing, creating the S.A. "Brownshirts" to assault Communists and send them to be the opening act at Dachau. Our methods are more covert and subtle; instead of a Dachau we have Red Channels and a HUAC and a malleable media selling every kind of demonization quote from "I have here in my hand a list..." to "they'll fall like dominoes" to "get that sumbitch off the field, he's fired". All in the name of mob mentality State-worship and You'd Better Submit.

Same shit, different day, the State demands that you obey.
Watch your TV every day and above all else Do What We Say.

And to accomplish that they'll invent whatever Emmanuel Goldstein serves the purpose. If Göbbels were alive right now he'd be in absolute awe.

/ End tangential rumination

Long story shortened, that's why I have to reject the idea that there was some "competition" for conquest of Japan going on or that it had anything to do with "communist conquest". That's a propaganda myth and it needs to be seen through. Japan was clearly out for Empire and had been for decades; the USSR had not.

 

[Pogo]

So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you".

No, what he said is you got the shit beat out of you by a third grader wielding a nutshell, that is why you are so stupid. Put some ice on that brain damage.

That post hadn't even been addressed to me in the first place. It's a simple dilution of what his post actually says, that's it.
"Buy my Appeal to Emotion, or I'll beat the shit out of you". Not exactly anything remotely near logical argument. QED.

Again ---- reading comprehension.

 

[elektra]

I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.

That doesn't add up. The Soviet advance was part of defeating Japan. It was faced with nukes from afar plus Russians up close. Simultaneous, not serial.

I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.

The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.

That's projecting far too much speculation. The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade". That's simply not the case. The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender. Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.


Along the same lines:

If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.

"Communism" was not a player in this war. Imperialism was. They're not even related. Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.

This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality. All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own independence; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.

The fuel of Imperialism cannot be understated here. Japan wanted an empire. Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline. And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba. None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.

Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe. "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century. They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas. Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.

Again, nothing to do with "communism". It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was. As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an imperialist state of mind.

All I can offer you on this is that we can agree to disagree.

It's worth the rumination though.

This may veer somewhat off topic, but in pursuit of the whole "commie" mythology ... a 2004 film called "Heir to an Execution" supplied me with a lightbulb epiphany of perspective all of this. It's by Ivy Meeropol, who is the granddaughter of Juilius and Ethel Rosenberg. The revealing comment was not in the film itself but in the director's commentary track, something she I guess thought was a throwaway anecdote but I found it profound. The filmmaker was not setting out to examine the political dynamics behind the execution of her grandparents; rather she was exploring who they were as people.

She relates how her father, Michael Rosenberg-Meeropol (adopted after his parents' execution) would play a child's game with his father, Julius Rosenberg in which the boy Michael would get on his hands and knees and pretend to be a bridge. Julius his father would then run a toy truck over his back saying "Here comes the American truck" and Michael would stay in place allowing the truck to pass. Then Julius would run the truck again saying "and here comes the Fascist truck" and Michael would stand up, sending the Fascist truck tumbling to its doom, whereupon Julius would shake his hand and congratulate the boy on defeating the Fascists.

That's when it dawned on me ---- all this "commie" this, "Commie" that rah-rah fearmongereing boogieman massive propaganda campaign we know all too well, was not aimed at its targets because they were "Communist" but rather, because they were Anti-Fascist. They were a threat not to "America" or "freedom" or whatever emotional buzzword of the day, but rather. they were a threat to *Fascism* and Imperialism, the former being a tool to effect the latter. Being "pro-communist" threatens nothing; being anti-Fascist very much does. After all only "anti" denotes a threat to anything. It's right there in the definition of the prefix. But you can't sell a demonization on the basis that "they're against fascism" so you invent the "Commie" brouhaha and dress it up as a "threat".

And that leads to the next eye-opener, albeit specific to European derivation rather than directly on the topic of war in the Pacific, and that is: we often teach ourselves that in WW2, the European side of it, "Fascism was defeated", in that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were vanquished. That's not true. Those countries were defeated; Hitler and Mussolini were defeated. But on the other hand their contemporary fascist Francisco Franco, was not. "We" didn't even fight him. That's why I point out that what we were fighting was Imperialism, and specifically picking sides of whose Imperialism. Germany invaded its neighbors all around it in the cause of (first) corralling German culture into one larger state, and (subsequently) for more Liebensraum (room) for them. Spain however didn't invade France or Morocco or even Andorra. So fascism, common to both, wasn't the impetus for Germany; Imperialism was.

The revealed perspective is this:
The hyper-right wing Fascist totalitarianism did not lose World War Two. It lived on, got assimilated and thrived, and continues to thrive right now. Hitler lost WW2. Mussolini lost WW2. But their fascist inclinations did not. Not only did they survive in Spain, and soon take over Greece; they also survived and assimilated in the US with the whole "Red Scare" and "Red Channels" and "blacklisting" and McCarthyism and the endless demonization of the mythological "Commies" everywhere, from Europe to Iran to Guatemala to Southeast Asia to various independence movements in Africa. Hitler's secret police system simply took on new English names as the "CIA" (externally) and "FBI" (internally), accomplishing the same task for the victors as it had for the vanquished. They're still with us today right down to mandatory flag worship at football games and classrooms, endless wars on "Commies", and the ongoing "Commie conquest" fantasy itself that still hasn't been seen for the fascistic propaganda it was.

Fascist totalitarianism wasn't exterminated; it was moved. We're living in it. Example: "Commie" Guatemala could not be allowed to stand while it was a threat to the Fascist collusion of the State and United Fruit (replace "Guatemala" with "Cuba", same thing. different result). Example two: "Commie" Iran could not be allowed to have its own government either, as it was a threat to the Fascist union of the State and Big Oil. So Fascist totalitarianism stepped in and "fixed" that too. Other examples abound.

That's why the whole Red Scare business was relentlessly marketed and mythologized used as military pretext: the egalitarian spirit of the target "Commies" threatens the Fascist-authoritarian doctrine of a top-down striated meritocracy where the State rules and the people submit and obey. Fascist totalitarianism demands obedience; democracy invites the opposite. Free expression is a threat. Therefore, they must be eliminated, under whatever name works. And it's not a random coincidence that this is the same period where the same Fascist element started demonizing and polarizing the term "Liberalism", which is in fact what founded this nation on very different principles.

For that matter Hitler did the same thing, creating the S.A. "Brownshirts" to assault Communists and send them to be the opening act at Dachau. Our methods are more covert and subtle; instead of a Dachau we have Red Channels and a HUAC and a malleable media selling every kind of demonization quote from "I have here in my hand a list..." to "they'll fall like dominoes" to "get that sumbitch off the field, he's fired". All in the name of mob mentality State-worship and You'd Better Submit.

Same shit, different day, the State demands that you obey.

And to accomplish that they'll invent whatever Emmanuel Goldstein serves the purpose. If Göbbels were alive right now he'd be in absolute awe.

/ End tangential rumination

The only thing to say to this rant, is you really are an idiot.

 

[elektra]

Again ---- reading comprehension.

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
Yes, reading comprehension, yours does not exist. How come you have not responded to this post, at the least to say, "oops, I messed that up".

It certainly is a sign of character when one ignores their gross errors.

 

[Kilroy2]

Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary

There is a trove of information revealing that many senior U.S. military officials believed the bombs were not needed to end the war in the Pacific. President Truman approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction, but many of the top-ranking brass, from Douglas MacArthur to Chester Nimitz, knew better.

In “Mandate for Change,” Eisenhower’s autobiography, Ike related this exchange: “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.’”

There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:


--“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.” That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.

This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.

 

[Unkotare]

Link?

People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead. Nuking them would have fixed all this

Link?

Nuclear blast cure all disease

Trust me

Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.

What disease survives a nuclear blast

Man u r tupid

Radiation poisoning.

 

[Unkotare]

Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.

This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.

And Russia has still not returned that territory; a sticking point between full diplomatic relations between the two countries to this day.

 

[Frannie]

People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead. Nuking them would have fixed all this

Link?

Nuclear blast cure all disease

Trust me

Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.

What disease survives a nuclear blast

Man u r tupid

Radiation poisoning.

Nope that is created by the blast.

Keep trying

 

[Unkotare]

Link?

Nuclear blast cure all disease

Trust me

Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.

What disease survives a nuclear blast

Man u r tupid

Radiation poisoning.

Nope that is created by the blast.

Keep trying

Just admit you were wrong and move on, dopey.

 

[Frannie]

Nuclear blast cure all disease

Trust me

Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.

What disease survives a nuclear blast

Man u r tupid

Radiation poisoning.

Nope that is created by the blast.

Keep trying

Just admit you were wrong and move on, dopey.

Better than you have failed, it's ok, you will get over it

 

[elektra]

This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.

Russia attacked some tiny islands, so what, that was not japan and not what the idiot stated, how about going back and addressing the posts you ignored. Oh, you can not do that, you have not the education to support your own premise.

I will get back to it, maybe you missed them. I will re-post them so you can not ignore them, for a fifth time?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in The Rising Sun, by Lester Brooks in Behind Japan’s Surrender, and by Gar Alperovitz in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

-- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.

-- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.

Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.

-- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.

Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did not shut down the approach.

Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.

So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.

On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”

So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.

-- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.

This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.

When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.

We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”

William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.

-- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.

Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:

The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​

 

[elektra]

Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.

How come you do not mention we were busy fighting in Okinawa at this time. Why don't you mention that while our men were dying in Okinawa it would be pitifully stupid to start weakening demands for surrender which the Japanese could interpret as they were turning the tide and hence continue fighting.

It was discussed, by people with a lot more knowledge and intelligence than you have.

It was discussed by Truman and Grew. Grew, after the battle of Okinawa was won, did not demand the emperor step down in our terms of surrender, given to Japan before the bomb was dropped.

So much of history you ignore and get wrong. Maybe you should read books by Truman, Grew, Hull. Or maybe you should read the books that you point links to, it is obvious you have not read those books, only cherry picked quotes linked by google.

 

[Frannie]

Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.

This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.

Too bad them great Russians didn't attack Iwo Jima Guadalcanal and Okinawa. Seriously are you a nippy

 

[elektra]

First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.

Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.

How can you have it both ways? This is the sixth time I have asked you this. You keep ignoring your hypocrisy.

How can documented statements by American military leaders be fact when you state explicitly the documents are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and fraudulent.

You have based the premise of this OP on documents that are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and fraudulent. This is what you have stated. You just destroyed your OP.

There is nothing factual, you have attempted to prove your opinion with inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and fraudulent documents. These are the documents your "authors" have cherry picked, misquoted, and used despite being compromised as you have stated.

 

[elektra]

His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.

Yes, and as we know, the shot from a rifle killing a helpless prisoner of war protecting by the Geneva convention, that shot can not be heard more than a few feet, let alone a yard, or a hundred yards. Rifle shots are simply not that loud!

 

[elektra]

in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
.

They gave them food and water? Before or after they chopped off their heads? We are speaking of 3000 soldiers dying on the Bataan death march?

And how many more died in the prison camp? 20,000? Did they get a little water and food from those very nice japanese? The same ones who saw to it that some 23,000 men died? How about rapes of civilians? What about the killing of people who were civilians?

They gave them food and water, yet 23,000 men could not survive on all that food and water?

 

[Frannie]

in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
.

They gave them food and water? Before or after they chopped off their heads? We are speaking of 3000 soldiers dying on the Bataan death march?

And how many more died in the prison camp? 20,000? Did they get a little water and food from those very nice japanese? The same ones who saw to it that some 23,000 men died? How about rapes of civilians? What about the killing of people who were civilians?

They gave them food and water, yet 23,000 men could not survive on all that food and water?

I am getting the impression that MikeGriffith is really Aiko Yukimura

 

[elektra]

. See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific.

'
Ah, yes, the award winning book that states this:

By the Well of Remembering and Forgetting

But yet, context is everything.

The book also features the memoir of a New Zealand soldier working with a Fijian regiment who came across the bodies of two native women, pegged out on an earthen mound.

They had been "raped to death" by Japanese soldiers. Then they found a dead American soldier who had stakes driven through each shoulder and his hands cut off. "As we moved away again, one of my corporals said to me: "No more prisoners, turaga[sir]." I agreed with him.''

Well, using your source (I may have to buy the book, for I doubt you read it), it appears that those water and food and rest giving Japanese were brutal sadistic sexual perverts!

Your source. The Japanese Army was an immoral horde of barbarians bred by those kind mothers and fathers who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who do you think taught them such things, who taught them such respect for women and children. It was innocent mom and dad who were busy at home going to the factories to make bullets and bombs for their sons at war!

Yes, the japanese were immoral sexually perverted rapists, according to the source you have given.