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

[elektra]

Report on American Prisoners of War in the Philippines, OPGM 1945

CAMP O'DONNELL

[NOTE: See here for clarification on this next section.]

Many of the Americans who surrendered at Bataan died enroute to their final destination at Camp O'Donnell, and the health of those who survived was so undermined that they perished at the rate of fifty a day on a starvation diet in that unsavory place of internment. More than 2,000 Americans in all died there of disease and undernourishment before the others were finally moved to Cabantauan in July 1942.

Corporal Arthur A. Chenowith, an American prisoner of war at Camp O'Donnell, describes the conditions there as follows:
From 10 Apr 1942 to 5 May 1942, (6 weeks) nearly 1600 Americans and 26,768 Filipinos died from lack of quinine and food, [although] the Japanese Army had plenty of food and medicine on hand.
Captain Mark M. Wohfeld had this to say about the maltreatment of American prisoners of war at Camp O'Donnell:
Lacked water. Cooking water taken from a murky creek two miles away in empty oil drums carried on bamboo poles. For drinking water the prisoners had to stand in long lines in front of 3 spigots in the center of the camp for the greater part of the day.

3rd week: Salt, sweet potatoes and squash added to rice diet. Plenty to eat as most of the sick could not force the rice down due to malaria and dysentery. So-called hospital had patients lying in two rows on the floor which was saturated with feces, blood, and vomit: all of which was covered with flies.
The G.H.Q. Weekly summary No. 104 of 29 October 1943

 

[elektra]

When the American invasion forces arrived on 4 February 1945 the prisoners of war had reached such a point of starvation that none of them could have survived much longer. Many of them had fallen victim to tuberculosis, dysentery, beriberi and other tropical diseases, and practically all of them were suffering from malnutrition or acute starvation. What the coming of their rescuers meant to the prisoners at this camp can scarcely be imagined by one who has never himself been in a similar situation.

 

[gipper]

^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?

 

[elektra]

^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?

Yes

 

[gipper]

^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?

Yes

Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.

Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.

 

[elektra]

Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.

Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.

Incapable of offensive action? That is not a measure of defeat during war or even a fist fight. You are the ignorant espousing those views.

Atrocity? War by definition is an atrocity. Of course I bet you the 10 year old virgin chinese girl raped to death by a platoon of Japanese soldiers would disagree with you, as far as what is an atrocity.

Truman, sworn to protect American lives. Protect Americans from certain death. You are on the wrong side of the battle arguing we should of allowed the Japanese to continue killong.

If we were to stop fighting as you have advocated, that is surrender.

You and those who support this OP have been stating, the usa should of surrendered.

 

[gipper]

Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.

Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.

Incapable of offensive action? That is not a measure of defeat during war or even a fist fight. You are the ignorant espousing those views.

Atrocity? War by definition is an atrocity. Of course I bet you the 10 year old virgin chinese girl raped to death by a platoon of Japanese soldiers would disagree with you, as far as what is an atrocity.

Truman, sworn to protect American lives. Protect Americans from certain death. You are on the wrong side of the battle arguing we should of allowed the Japanese to continue killong.

If we were to stop fighting as you have advocated, that is surrender.

You and those who support this OP have been stating, the usa should of surrendered.

Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities.

This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.

 

[elektra]

[.[
Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities.

This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.

As I said, you are stating, the president should of surrendered.

 

[gipper]

[.[
Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities.

This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.

As I said, you are stating, the president should of surrendered.

Please don’t be a dumbass again.

 

[elektra]

Please don’t be a dumbass again.

As I stated, you have said you would of surrendered.

You would not of bombed nor attacked Japan.

You would not of attacked Okinawa.

It is hard too see that you would of fought any part of the war.

When you stop fighting, give up, that is surrender.

Feel free to correct me, simply calling me a dumbass does not change a valid point.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here are a few points in reply to various responses:

* So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book Racing the Enemy. For example, Hasegawa reveals that Soviet intelligence in Tokyo informed Stalin in April 1945 that the Suzuki cabinet (which began in April 1945) was looking for ways to end the war and that they (the cabinet members and others in the government) believed that Japan could, at best, only continue the war for eight more months (i.e., not past December 1945):

Stalin did not rely on Malik’s information alone to gauge Japan’s reaction. He also had the military intelligence network, which operated separately from diplomatic channels. On April 11, the Tokyo rezidentura—the headquarters of intelligence—reported that “the new cabinet, in view of the extremely unfavorable military situation and constantly worsening difficulties in the country, is pursuing an objective to create conditions for extricating Japan from the war.” More important, the rezidentura informed Moscow that the Japanese believed they could not continue the war for more than eight months, and that this period might be even shorter if the Americans intensified military actions. (pp. 56-57)​

This agrees with the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey and with numerous accounts that it was common knowledge in the War Department in spring 1945 that Japan was beaten and could not last much longer.

* Hasegawa also points out that Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender and not to give Japan any reason to hope for conditions (pp. 85-86). Stalin feared that if Truman softened his surrender demand, the Japanese would surrender before the Soviets could enter the war (p. 86). Truman followed Stalin's advice. Just great.

* Regarding Truman’s falsehood that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that it was bombed to “avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians,” Dr. Robert Jacobs says the following in his review of the National Geographic documentary 24 Hours After Hiroshima:

The film reiterates the misleading claim that wartime Hiroshima was “a city of considerable military importance: it houses a communications center and an assembly area for troops.” Paradoxically the narrator then states that Hiroshima was “far from just a military target,” and that its population is 80% civilian. A communications center and assembly area hardly vest a city with “considerable military importance,” a claim that echoes the introduction of Hiroshima to the American public by Harry Truman on August 6, 1945, who referred to it as “an important military base.” Three days later Truman reinforced this, stating, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.”​

There are many points to consider here. First of all, as the film itself mentions, virtually every major city in Japan had been burned to the ground in the spring of 1945 by the firebombing squadrons of Curtis LeMay. Can it be that the US Army attacked and burned 67 cities, but preserved several targets of “considerable military importance” as showcases for future weapons? The fire-bombings crippled Japan’s war making ability and only stopped because of the lack of critical targets. The cities that were taken off the firebombing list (to preserve virgin targets so that assessments of the effects of atomic bombs could be made) were clearly of secondary importance to Japan’s ability to continue to prosecute the war.​

Consider the map below, printed in the New York Times on Friday August 10, 1945 (the day after Nagasaki was bombed). This map purports to show up to 30 important targets in Hiroshima and their scale of damage after the nuclear attack. The map shows conclusively that the two or three most important military targets (the Army transport base, Army ordnance depot, food depot and clothing depot) are all located in the Ujina port area, and are outside of the area of destruction. Almost all of the “targets” that are inside the area of destruction are bridges, hardly targets that were primarily of military importance. The map vividly reveals that the bomb did not target the military assets clustered at Ujina, but rather the city center: it targeted specifically civilian Hiroshima. (p. 3) (https://apjjf.org/-Robert-Jacobs/3446/article.pdf)​

* One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note.

* The cruel and unnecessary August 14 bombing included a bombing raid by 150 B-29s that dropped 700 one-ton bombs on Osaka. Again, this raid occurred after Japan had sent its surrender message to us through the Swiss.

Surely, surely Truman had to have some understanding that Japan’s leaders were rather busy trying to formulate a reply to the Byrnes Note, which they received on August 11. Yet, he bombed them two days later, on August 13, and then again on August 14. No one thought to make any plans to recall the bombers if Japan sent a surrender message before the bombers took off or while they were en route.

 

[elektra]

* One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note.
.

Pontificating again about a topic you know nothing about.

Why not just stick to the facts you know? Oh, that is right, you have no facts so you must lie and hope nobody takes the time to research the fable you tell.

This is a pretty big lie;

it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese,

We did inform them, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement and written into the surrender.

We had flown over Japan the 2 days prior as well. The japanese knew we were flying photo recon missions.

 

[elektra]

Here are a few points in reply to various responses:

* One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. I.......
there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note.
.

Yet, interviews with the Japanese aces who shot down the recon flight tell a different story then you. They said they were angry and not about to allow our planes to fly in thier sky. They did not fear a bombing attack. There were no orders to defend, it was simply what we fought against the entire war. THE JAPANESE WOULD NEVER SURRENDER!

How many times can you lie in one paragraph! The count is coming.

 

[elektra]

He
* One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, ......

It was two b-32s, flying a recon flight, the 3rd day in a row. NOT A FORMATION OF BOMBERS.

That is 3 lies in one paragraph. Why do you lie so much. If I can find 3 lies in one paragraph then everything you post must be riddled with lies.

I do thank you again, every time you post you destroy yourself. The best was when you discredited the person you based your OP on.

You are certainly not a scholar.

 

[elektra]

The japanese, beaten, but still capable of killing, and still killing.

A nation is a huge thing not to be compared to a boxer fighting in the ring. A nation is big enough with so many ways to kill, it is not until after they surrender and disarmed that they can be considered, not dangerous.

 

[elektra]

Here are a few points in reply to various responses:
* So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book Racing the Enemy.

And it is best you only cite a small part, for the small part you have cited has proven you wrong on the Japanese willing to surrender and the impact of the Soviet Union declaring war against Japan.

You have shown that the Supreme Council never authorized any talks of peace nor surrender to anyone at anytime. Hence, there was nothing for the USA to respond to.

You have also shown that the Soviet Union declaring war on china, without the Atomic bombs, would of guaranteed war to at least November and likely longer.

You also showed that you will ignore the posts that you have no answers to, hence you conceded, you have shown, you are wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.

Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:

This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​

Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.

The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:

American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​

Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.

The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 Enola Gay Exhibit:

The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 Enola Gay exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​

Uh, you do realize that once again you have offered zero proof that you are right, you simply posted something that dictates it is so?

You have zero proof that the causalties estimates were inaccurate.

Yes, you posted something that dictates what we are to believe.

And, then you can not concentrate on one topic, you ramble off into other directions.

Truly, you are an idiot.

Truly, you are a hypocrite. You have been BURIED all through this thread in facts and sources that dispel the decades-old falsehoods about this terrible event, and all you do is take pictures of your bathroom, promote illogical conclusions, and insist you are correct.

 

[Unkotare]

That Japan remains afloat is testimony to Democrat Truman's weakness.

Psssst.....Islands don't really "float."



Are you Congressman Johnson?

 

[elektra]

* So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book Racing the Enemy. .

Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.

I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:

The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​

What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!

Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.

When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the New York Times printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the New York Times article on Byrnes’ comments:

The New York Times reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)​

Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.