The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[Faun]

LOLOL

You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.

Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.

I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

 

[gipper]

Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.

I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.

 

[Faun]

I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.

LOLOL

If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.

 

[gipper]

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.

LOLOL

If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.

Proving you don’t know history too.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.

LOLOL

If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.

Proving you don’t know history too.

Right backatcha.

 

[Toronado3800]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “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.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Some random thoughts while I'm distracted.

Japan screwed up surrendering.

We COULD have avoided dropping the bombs.

It sure sent a message to Stalin.

Wonder how many cold war era lives dropping them bombs saved.

Man, that's a cold hard decision. I might have used one on Berlin in August of 45 (Yup, I know the surrender date, my judgement of Western Europeans is harsher for some reason). Maybe the other on Hiroshima. I dunno. Its a nightmare scenario.

 

[regent]

WWII is unique in that it was the first war in which new types of weapons were introduced. I wonder if Neanderthal had the same complaints about wooden clubs?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Revisionist clap trap, even after 2 BOMBS the Government REFUSED to surrender and attempted a Coup when the Emperor did surrender.

Then General Eisenhower, Admiral Halsey, Admiral King, Admiral Leahy, General MacArthur, General Clarke, and many others were "revisionists."

Hiroshima: Quotes

You can repeat the official myth about the atomic bomb's role in Japan's surrender a hundred times, but it will still be a myth. The Japanese "government" did not refuse to surrender after the two nukes. The "government" was split between those who had been trying to surrender for weeks with the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed, between those who wanted to surrender with four conditions, and between those who opposed any and all surrender terms, and at every turn Truman did nothing but help the hardliners' cause by refusing to merely give an assurance about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender.

And it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, not the nukes, that finally enabled the moderates to get "the government" to surrender. The prime minister couldn't even get an agreement to convene the Supreme War Council after Hiroshima, but when the Soviets invaded two days later, he had no problem getting the council to convene, which led to the surrender decision hours later. The Japanese government did not get scientific confirmation that Hiroshima had in fact been nuked until 11 August, five days after the fact, and the government was misled into believing that the Nagasaki bombing had caused minimal damage because the city official who reported to the government had only seen part of the damage when he reported to Tokyo.

If Truman had simply done what many/most of his advisers had repeatedly told him to do in the weeks leading up to Hiroshima and had informed the Japanese that unconditional surrender did not mean deposing the emperor, the hardliners would have lost their main argument and the moderates would have been able to carry the day and end the war before 6 August 1945.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Government did NOT surrender dumb ass, the Emperor did. And then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Cold War politics played a role, too. Soviet troops would have taken Tokyo easily within weeks because the northern half of Japan was sparsely populated and largely defenseless. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent a Soviet takeover of Japan to some extent and it was much easier to invade the Japanese archipelago from the north. The second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido was originally planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken. But the Soviets were held off due to apprehension of the United States' new position as an atomic power. In this scenario similar to Nazi Germany's surrender, Japan would have been divided into Communist East Japan and American-controlled West Japan and the emperor could have committed suicide in the underground bunker of the Palace. In the worst case scenario, Japan might have been entirely taken by the Soviet Union, while the American troops were stuck in Okinawa.

Stalin revealed his intentions even more clearly in his August 17 directive to General Kuz´ma Derevianko, who was appointed Soviet military representative to General Douglas MacArthur’s Allied headquarters in Manila. Stalin instructed Derevianko to present Soviet demands to include the Kurils and the northern part of Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone. In addition, Derevianko was to demand the creation of a Soviet occupation zone for stationing Soviet troops in Tokyo.75

Stalin’s proposal to include northern Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone was not a diplomatic ploy. He was dead serious about capturing Hokkaido. It should be recalled that he had remained non-committal regarding Hokkaido, when the Politburo debated this issue on June 26-27. Shortly before he wrote his August 16 letter to Truman, he ordered Vasilevskii to implement the Hokkaido and southern Kuril operation. On August 18 Vasilevskii, in turn, ordered the commander of the First Far Eastern Front “to occupy the northern half of Hokkaido from Kushiro to Rumoi and the southern part of the Kuril Islands” by September 1. For this operation three divisions of the 87th Rifle Corps would be deployed: two divisions for the Hokkaido operation, and one division for the southern Kuril operation.77

Soviet policy toward Japan during World War II

 

[Picaro]

Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.

I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.

For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.

LOLOL

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.

Actually it was British aid that stopped the loss of Moscow, particularly some 125 tanks that allowed the Soviets to launch some winter counter-offensives, along with other aid. The British also provided aviation fuel boosters , without which most of the Soviet air force was grounded or barely able to get off the ground.

The Soviets would never have defeated Germany without Allied aid, massive amounts of it. They stopped the 'blitzkrieg', because of the massive and deep mine fields, but could never have launched the Kursk offensive and would have been in a distinctly defensive posture, if not having to sue for peace terms, for the foreseeable future if left on their own.

 

[Picaro]

Cold War politics played a role, too. Soviet troops would have taken Tokyo easily within weeks because the northern half of Japan was sparsely populated and largely defenseless. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent a Soviet takeover of Japan to some extent and it was much easier to invade the Japanese archipelago from the north. The second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido was originally planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken. But the Soviets were held off due to apprehension of the United States' new position as an atomic power. In this scenario similar to Nazi Germany's surrender, Japan would have been divided into Communist East Japan and American-controlled West Japan and the emperor could have committed suicide in the underground bunker of the Palace. In the worst case scenario, Japan might have been entirely taken by the Soviet Union, while the American troops were stuck in Okinawa.

Stalin revealed his intentions even more clearly in his August 17 directive to General Kuz´ma Derevianko, who was appointed Soviet military representative to General Douglas MacArthur’s Allied headquarters in Manila. Stalin instructed Derevianko to present Soviet demands to include the Kurils and the northern part of Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone. In addition, Derevianko was to demand the creation of a Soviet occupation zone for stationing Soviet troops in Tokyo.75

Stalin’s proposal to include northern Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone was not a diplomatic ploy. He was dead serious about capturing Hokkaido. It should be recalled that he had remained non-committal regarding Hokkaido, when the Politburo debated this issue on June 26-27. Shortly before he wrote his August 16 letter to Truman, he ordered Vasilevskii to implement the Hokkaido and southern Kuril operation. On August 18 Vasilevskii, in turn, ordered the commander of the First Far Eastern Front “to occupy the northern half of Hokkaido from Kushiro to Rumoi and the southern part of the Kuril Islands” by September 1. For this operation three divisions of the 87th Rifle Corps would be deployed: two divisions for the Hokkaido operation, and one division for the southern Kuril operation.77

Soviet policy toward Japan during World War II

Exactly. Glad to see someone else who knows this and the Geo-politics of the era.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.

This is the standard by which you wish to live? I hope you have no small children.

 

[gipper]

In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.

This is the standard by which you wish to live? I hope you have no small children.

Many Americans think this way because they don’t think it will ever happen to them. Never considering the consequences.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:

* It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313).

Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).

Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, pp. 425-426).

* Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,

The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (The Pathology of Power, p. 71)​

* General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,

We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​

* General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 336)​

* Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 41).

* The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).

* To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​

-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​

-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded:

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. (p. 26)​

There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet after 2 atomic Bombs the Government REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor DID surrender the Government attempted a coup to stop it.

 

[Picaro]

In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.

This is the standard by which you wish to live? I hope you have no small children.

Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.

It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.

 

[gipper]

Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:

* It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313).

Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).

Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, pp. 425-426).

* Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,

The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (The Pathology of Power, p. 71)​

* General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,

We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​

* General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 336)​

* Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 41).

* The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).

* To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​

-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​

-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded:

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. (p. 26)​

There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.

There it is, but don’t expect the statists to learn. They never do.

Apparently the mass murdering of defenseless civilians, is okay in their minds.

The brainwashing of Americans by the State’s education system, is difficult to overcome for some Americans. They choose to live a life in ignorance.

 

[gipper]

In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.

This is the standard by which you wish to live? I hope you have no small children.

Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.

It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.

Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.

 

[harmonica]

Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:

* It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313).

Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).

Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, pp. 425-426).

* Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,

The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (The Pathology of Power, p. 71)​

* General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,

We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​

* General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 336)​

* Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 41).

* The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).

* To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​

-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​

-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded:

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. (p. 26)​

There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.

is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?