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

[Weatherman2020]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.

So you do not approve of economic sanctions against nations conquering other nations for exploit of their resources or people. Interesting insight of you.

What of what Japan did to citizens they conquered?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
THey ignored it !!!
The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient

The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.

We lost 400,000. You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.

The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.

The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was. In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.

Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.

Commies at their finest.

 

[rightwinger]

...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.

Did it save lives?

 

[Weatherman2020]

...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.

Did it save lives?

Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.

 

[Anathema]

Did it save lives?

I believe it did. I cannot point to some study or survey for definitive proof, but I do believe the second bomb proved to the Japanese thst we could recreate the destructive force of Hiroshima and force them to accept unconditional surrender. Without the Nagasaki attack I’m not so sure they wouldn’t have continued to fight on for longer, until we did utilize the second device.

 

[elektra]

* By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.

All you can do is cut/paste a Google search. Yse, you heard something somewhere that you believe but you really dont know anything about the war.

Japan was beat? Ready to surrender, yet they did not.

How many Americans did the Japanese kill after April 1945?

 

[elektra]

Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:

* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.

Wow! You really do not know anything. The Japanese were thee most horrific people on the planet.

The rape of the Chinese capital was mild compared to what the Japanese did in Burma.

Mild? You dont know a fucking thing about this topic.

 

[percysunshine]

All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...

Uh huh....

 

[elektra]

The fact of the matter is simple. The faster WW II could be ended, the better.

It was a horrific war. The torture and death beyond brutal.

The Japanese got much less than they deserved. The Japanese got much less than they gave.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Revisionist history? I thought you were smarter than that. I guess you are dumber than a libtard!

 

[elektra]

All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...

Uh huh....

All who died at the hands of the Japanese in WW II raise your hands.

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

 

[percysunshine]

All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...

Uh huh....

All who died at the hands of the Japanese in WW II raise your hands.

So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?

 

[elektra]

Truman was the only real advocate. Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.

The real negotiation card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the public execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.

~S~

Where did you hear this, it is wrong.

 

[elektra]

So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?

??? I will say this slow so you can understand......
Your point is what? It seemed like a ridiculous comment with zero relevance on your part.

 

[percysunshine]

So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?

??? I will say this slow so you can understand......
Your point is what? It seemed like a ridiculous comment with zero relevance on your part.

Finally...we found an adult from 1945.

 

[rightwinger]

...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.

Did it save lives?

Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.

I have already said a mainland invasion was unnecessary once we had the bomb. Why would we endure an invasion if we already had the a bomb

The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?

 

[rightwinger]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

 

[anynameyouwish]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

you must be a conservative.

you missed the actual point completely....