The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[GreenAndBlue]

The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in the invasion of Japan.

But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen


Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico

Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex


Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed

Yes, well, Ike waited until he was retired to get all philosophical n stuff, nerve when it would have made a difference.. He made many errors in judgement himself, among all those good ones he also made, like stopping our advance in 1945 right where he said he we should stop in 1942, in his original plan that got him the big command leaping over many others. He shortsightedly forced Israel and France to give up the Suez Canal, among other things, fearful of angering insane Arabs, but it turns out it doesn't matter what one does, they're crazed morons and will invent something to get angry over anyway, no matter what; many other Presidents have made the same kinds of errors since.

No
Ike already gave his opinion saying it was not needed because.jspan was weak and could not come out of its island to harm Americans

So the reason to nuke Japan was bogus and another admiral said the same thing as Ike

This action got Russia scared of us and they got their nukes 2 years later

If America had not shown they had the nukes less chance for a nuke war


Einstein explained this well and regretted writing FDR to do the Manhattan project to get the nuke bomb

This clearly was lies.

This was not to save American lives as Ike explained because all we had to do is wait a couple more months

 

[GreenAndBlue]

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?

They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.

There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.

There is record of Russia and China both about to attack Japan on the other side

So it was a lie. To say America nukked Japan to save American lives

 

[GreenAndBlue]

In 1945, not many Americans seemed to be thinking things through. Those cold statistics and that war-time hatred made using the bomb easy to rationalize. Leo Szilard was one of those few, when he worried that using it without any warning would hurt America’s moral standing in the world. In the years that followed, some Americans who were intimately involved with the atomic bombs did start to think things through. Admiral Leahy, President Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his memoir:

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

It doesn't matter if it is "my standard" or "the standard" or anything.

Facts are facts. If you support the people who go to war, you are a target.

The terrorists know this. You support a system they hate... you are part of that system. They will have no problem causing death and destruction, including you, your children, or the elderly, or anyone.

The bottom line is, if there is a World War 3, which there will be I am convinced... the side which is willing to harm the most people to achieve victory, will win.

Doesn't matter if I say "it's my standard" or not. You act like if you refuse to believe reality, that somehow that will change the outcome. Like if you magically believe that children are non-combatants, that magically no enemy to the US will try and kill them.

Don't live in a fantasy world. It only harms you. Not me.

 

[harmonica]

Rather than quote and yourespond 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?

They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.

please link reputable sites on how they tried to surrender
you are full of shit

You just proved you’re uninformed. Get informed.

wow--that's a lot of links/etc
hahahahahhahahah

 

[harmonica]

for all who mentioned Ike/MacArthur/etc and what they THOUGHT [and I won't get into the many details/etc ]
--MacArthur was caught with his pants down HOURS after he was notified of the Pearl attack
--Mac at first wanted to fight a forward battle, but then changed his mind in the Philippines, thereby losing much supplies

----the Big one--here is the big one to shoot down anything anyone has said about Mac and what he THOUGHT about the Japanese surrendering:
....Mac created one of the biggest US military disasters ever by thinking he had the Korean War won....
..the Chinese kicked A$$ to many units in their First Offensive--except the Marines
..all intelligence/evidence/etc said the Chinese would intervene if we crossed the 38th
..the Chinese even said so themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...so the Chinese had already kicked a$$ in their First Offensive and dumbshit Mac kept wanting to STRING OUT/DIVIDE his forces !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--everyone except the Marines--who were the only unit to not get their a$$ kicked because they ''disobeyed'' Mac...Gen. Smith knew Mac's orders were stupid....but a whole Corps was thrown off the peninsula

....so you can't listen to what he had to say about a Japanese surrender
he has proven to be a dumbass

 

[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?

They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.

There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.

There is record of Russia and China both about to attack Japan on the other side

So it was a lie. To say America nukked Japan to save American lives

yes, the bombs did save lives
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is one of those issues where there is a large gap between the consensus among scholars and the common view among the general public. This gap was highlighted in 1995 when the Smithsonian Institution prepared to put on an exhibit about the Enola Gay as part of a larger exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII. When veterans groups obtained a copy of the script that was to accompany the Enola Gay exhibit, they angrily condemned it, even though it was accurate and represented the broad consensus among historians. So fierce was the pushback against the exhibit and its script that the Smithsonian agreed to markedly revise the script and to remove images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims from the exhibit. What follows is the letter written by over 50 historians who protested the errors and omissions in the watered-down/revised script/exhibit text:

Mr. I. Michael Heyman
Secretary
The Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560

July 31, 1995

Dear Secretary Heyman:

Testifying before a House subcommittee on March 10, 1995, you promised that when you finally unveiled the Enola Gay exhibit, "I am just going to report the facts."[1]

Unfortunately, the Enola Gay exhibit contains a text which goes far beyond the facts. The critical label at the heart of the exhibit makes the following assertions:

* The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths." This substantially understates the widely accepted figure that at least 200,000 men, women and children were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Official Japanese records calculate a figure of more than 200,000 deaths--the vast majority of victims being women, children and elderly men.)[2]

* "However," claims the Smithsonian, "the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." Presented as fact, this sentence is actually a highly contentious interpretation. For example, an April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded, "The war would almost certainly have terminated when Russia entered the war against Japan."[3] (The Soviet entry into the war on August 8th is not even mentioned in the exhibit as a major factor in the Japanese surrender.) And it is also a fact that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, the Japanese still insisted that Emperor Hirohito be allowed to remain emperor as a condition of surrender. Only when that assurance was given did the Japanese agree to surrender. This was precisely the clarification of surrender terms that many of Truman's own top advisors had urged on him in the months prior to Hiroshima. This, too, is a widely known fact.[4]

* The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower[5], Admiral William D. Leahy[6], War Secretary Henry L. Stimson[7], Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew[8] and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy[9]--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945. It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.

* In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]

* In a 16-minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information. Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.

The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited post-war justification of the atomic bombings.

Such errors of fact and such tendentious interpretation in the exhibit are no doubt partly the result of your decision earlier this year to take this exhibit out of the hands of professional curators and your own board of historical advisors. Accepting your stated concerns for accuracy, we trust that you will therefore adjust the exhibit, either to eliminate the highly contentious interpretations, or at the very least, balance them with other interpretations that can be easily drawn from the attached footnotes.

Sincerely,

Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin
Co-chairs of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

(see the attached sheet for additional signatories)


References

1. "Enola Gay Exhibit to 'Report the Facts,'" Washington Times, March 11, 1995.

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 364.

3. "Memorandum for Chief, Strategic Policy Section, S&P Group, OPD, Subject: Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan," April 30, 1946, ABC 471.6 Atom (17 August 1945) Sec 7, Entry 421, Record Group 165, National Archives.

4. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years 1904-1945, Vol. II (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), pp. 1406-1442; U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Japan's Struggle to End the War (Washington, July 1946); Gar Alperovitz, "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess," Foreign Policy, Summer 1995, pp. 15-34; and, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race, rev. ed. (New York, Random House, 1987), p. 225.

5. See "Notes on talk with President Eisenhower," April 6, 1960, War Department Notes envelope, Box 66, Herbert Feis Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Division; and, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, "Memorandum of Conference with the President, April 6, 1960," April 11, 1960, "Staff Notes--April 1960," Folder 2, DDE Diary Series, Box 49, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; and also, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), pp. 312-313.

6. William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 441. See also his private diary (in particular the June 18, 1945 entry) available at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

7. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947, 1948), pp. 628-629.

8. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, pp. 1406-1442; Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, p. 225.

9. See John J. McCloy interview with Fred Freed for NBC White Paper, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," (interview conducted sometime between May 1964 and February 1965), Roll 1, p. 11, File 50A, Box SP2, McCloy Papers, Amherst College Archives.

10. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

11. The papers of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, are filled with his statements to the effect that he wanted a virgin target large enough so that the effects of the bomb would not dissipate by the time they reached the edge of the city. See for example the letter from Groves to John A. Shane, 12/27/60 on target selection, in the Groves Papers, Record Group 200, National Archives. See also, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, pp. 229-230.

12. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

Source: Hiroshima: Historians' Letter to the Smithsonian

 

[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.

is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?

They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.

There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.

True. There is no record that you will accept. LOL. Sadly, you are the typical dumb American.

Truman should have been hung at Nuremberg, along side the Nazis.

Truman was told by Stalin, who the Japanese had approached, that they wanted peace. Truman wrote it in his notes...
Truman Library: Notes by Harry S. Truman on the Potsdam Conference, July 18, 1945. Truman Papers, President's Secretary's File. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ross.

Another great example comes from General Douglas MacArthur, who sent a 40-page memorandum to President Roosevelt that clearly outlines five different surrender overtures from high ranking Japanese officials. This memo was also revealed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times on August 19th, 1945.

Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:

• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan.
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees
• Surrender of designated war criminals

Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden and Portugal, who were neutral at the time. They also approached Soviet Russia’s leaders “with a view of terminating the war if possible by September.” (source)

American intelligence agencies, with the full knowledge of President Roosevelt’s and President Truman’s administrations, were fully aware of Japan’s search for ways to honorably surrender months before Truman gave the fateful order to incinerate Hiroshima.

Japan was working on peace negotiations through its ambassador in Moscow as early as April of 1945, with surrender feelers from Japan occurring as far back as 1944. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code even before Pearl Harbor, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo wrote: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, including the deposing of Emperor Hirohito) is the only obstacle to peace.”

Truman’s advisors knew about these efforts, and the war could have ended through diplomacy by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor (who was regarded as a deity in Japan). That reasonable concession was
– seemingly illogically – refused by the USin their demands for unconditional surrender, which was first demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and then reiterated at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill and Stalin. Still, the Japanese continued searching for an honorable peace through negotiations
similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.(source)


On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out…” He further stated that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment” and that it was“a mistake to ever drop it.” (source)

“The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that (quite apart from the inaccuracy of this figure, as noted by Samuel Walker) most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.” – Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland Professor of Political Economy, former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Spec

 

[elektra]

Revisionist history, how sad. Yes, Americans prisoners of the japanese should of died. How dare the Americans, end this 4 year war! With the Russians entering the war Japan would of surrendered in months, we think. And who cares if Pappy Boyington or Louie Zaparino died of torture. You had to kill Japanese civilians. Japanese civilians that worked in the shipyards repairing war ships. It is not as if they were actually firing guns.

 

[elektra]

Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:

HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No!

Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?

 

[Picaro]

The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in the invasion of Japan.

But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen


Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico

Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex


Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed

Yes, well, Ike waited until he was retired to get all philosophical n stuff, nerve when it would have made a difference.. He made many errors in judgement himself, among all those good ones he also made, like stopping our advance in 1945 right where he said he we should stop in 1942, in his original plan that got him the big command leaping over many others. He shortsightedly forced Israel and France to give up the Suez Canal, among other things, fearful of angering insane Arabs, but it turns out it doesn't matter what one does, they're crazed morons and will invent something to get angry over anyway, no matter what; many other Presidents have made the same kinds of errors since.

No
Ike already gave his opinion saying it was not needed because.jspan was weak and could not come out of its island to harm Americans

So the reason to nuke Japan was bogus and another admiral said the same thing as Ike

This action got Russia scared of us and they got their nukes 2 years later

If America had not shown they had the nukes less chance for a nuke war


Einstein explained this well and regretted writing FDR to do the Manhattan project to get the nuke bomb

This clearly was lies.

This was not to save American lives as Ike explained because all we had to do is wait a couple more months

there is nothing magical about Ike's political opinions, for one, and for two, many disagreed with him as well; this is much like the claim of 'most of the Founders were Deists n stuff'm wehn actually almost none of them were, outside of a couple of famous ones, who hardly carried more weight at the time than the other 75 'Founders', or 225, depending on how one defines 'Founders'. My father, getting ready in the Philippines for the invasion of the Japanese islands, certainly thinks it saved lives, as did all of my uncles, and millions of others. Nor was there anything wrong with using them to discourage Soviet aims, either.

 

[Picaro]

Revisionist history, how sad. Yes, Americans prisoners of the japanese should of died. How dare the Americans, end this 4 year war! With the Russians entering the war Japan would of surrendered in months, we think. And who cares if Pappy Boyington or Louie Zaparino died of torture. You had to kill Japanese civilians. Japanese civilians that worked in the shipyards repairing war ships. It is not as if they were actually firing guns.

Even the Japanese in the U.S. were fanatically proud of all Japan was doing all through the century, until the bombing of Pearl, sent aid packages, and held celebratory marches whenever a Japanese victory was announced.

these clowns are merely just making up rubbish in order to bash Democrats; too bad reading Ann Coulter's historical fictions has become a form of mental illness.

 

[Picaro]

for all who mentioned Ike/MacArthur/etc and what they THOUGHT [and I won't get into the many details/etc ]
--MacArthur was caught with his pants down HOURS after he was notified of the Pearl attack
--Mac at first wanted to fight a forward battle, but then changed his mind in the Philippines, thereby losing much supplies

----the Big one--here is the big one to shoot down anything anyone has said about Mac and what he THOUGHT about the Japanese surrendering:
....Mac created one of the biggest US military disasters ever by thinking he had the Korean War won....
..the Chinese kicked A$$ to many units in their First Offensive--except the Marines
..all intelligence/evidence/etc said the Chinese would intervene if we crossed the 38th
..the Chinese even said so themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...so the Chinese had already kicked a$$ in their First Offensive and dumbshit Mac kept wanting to STRING OUT/DIVIDE his forces !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--everyone except the Marines--who were the only unit to not get their a$$ kicked because they ''disobeyed'' Mac...Gen. Smith knew Mac's orders were stupid....but a whole Corps was thrown off the peninsula

....so you can't listen to what he had to say about a Japanese surrender
he has proven to be a dumbass

MacArthur was not a great general; it was his staff who made him look good, and nothing he did himself. he was typical political appointee and 'good ole boy ' networker. Mommy and her connections got him his appointments. so was Patton an 'old boy', but Patton left his personal ambitions at home and supported promoting Eisenhower over the 'good ole boy' network to a top command based on Ike's tactical and managerial skills, a man MacArthur hated, as he did anyone more talented than he was.

 

[gipper]

Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:

HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No!

Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?

You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue. The statist education is tough to overcome.

Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

Please read to column posted in the OP. Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted. Then go to posts 668 and 669.

Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.

 

[elektra]

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).

This is pretty good revisionist history that is easily proved as myth.

As we know, only a few people knew the bomb was being developed. Truman did not know of the bomb as vice president. If Truman had no idea the bomb was being developed, because it was that good of a secret, did a general such as Eisenhower know more than the vice president?

Facts are facts, Truman was told by Stimson, after Roosevelt died.

Eisenhower was not told.

So how is it that Eisenhower can make the claim that he advised against using a secret a weapon he knew nothing about?

According to this post, and whatever source is used, Eisenhower even told his son about this Top Secret Weapon, even though the Vice President was never told?

I guess that means we should of prosecuted Eisenhower for mishandling of Top Secret information during war, punishment, death? Live in prison? Eisenhower, risked all this? Or are these simply stories after everyone dies?

I guess I could quote Eisenhower's books, which I own, which contradicts all this, as well.

So, what is it, Eisenhower is a traitor during wartime, exposing Top Secret weapons existence, as a highly decorated General. Or this is all politics and revisionist history, told after everyone dies?

 

[elektra]

You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue. The statist education is tough to overcome.

Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

Please read to column posted in the OP. Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted. Then go to posts 668 and 669.

Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.

How about I just go to my library of books written by all the key players in this?
You can go to google and nitpick history, I will use my books.

Sorry, but I do not need to give life to your other thread. Truman simply used the biggest piece of artillery we had at the time. If I can paraphrase truman.

Okinawa, over 12,000 americans killed
Okinawa, over 100,000 japanese soldiers killed
Okinawa, over 120,000 japanese civilians killed

and you think ending the war dropping two, simple, bombs was wrong?
you think less people would of died invading the mainland?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:

HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No!

Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?

You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue. The statist education is tough to overcome.

Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

Please read to column posted in the OP. Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted. Then go to posts 668 and 669.

Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.

They wanted to surrender, but they were bound by honor and Truman et al were not willing let them keep honor.

It's sad.

 

[elektra]

Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden

Really, I did not know Sweden was fighting the war with Japan?
Seems kind of stupid, does it not, when you could actually end the fighting by surrendering to those who you are fighting!

 

[elektra]

They wanted to surrender, but they were bound by honor and Truman et al were not willing let them keep honor.

It's sad.

You have to do better than that, who wanted to surrender? How did they try to surrender? And you do know that in Japanese culture there was no honor in surrendering, under any circumstances. Your comment does not stand up to the facts of history.