Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[PoliticalChic]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?

You weasel, Why, then, are you running from post #275?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?

Did I call you a weasel???

Ooops!

I meant 'you lying sack of effluvia.'



Here is your most recent lie:

"So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?"

Find where I ever said that "Hitler would have surrendered."



You can't can you.

As an apologist for Roosevelt, you are truly scum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC continues to mindlessly chatter like a chip munk and ignore the fact here OP was defeated in the first page.

 

[Camp]

Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.

You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.

"....refuted her thesis with academic responses."


Bogus.


One more time.....watch me blow your lies out of the water:

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.

Yes, but they did not have the power or authority to produce results and many of them were communist who had already been rejected by Stalin

Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep

It didn't matter. FDR and Churchill along with de Gaulle didn't formalize unconditional surrender until the Casablanca Conference where Stalin was absent.
Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.

Only in you conspiratorial mind.


So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????

Decades of documented reliable scholarly research by thousands of dedicated academics over a period of decades and only political pundits and commentators to refute their mountains of work'

I wasn't running, just getting bored with refuting the same old stupid concepts that flow out of you conspiratorial brain.

 

[regent]

From these posts I now get the impression that both Germany and Japan spent the entire war trying to surrender, but FDR, because of Stalin, would not let Germany and Japan surrender. Poor Germany and Japan, innocent pawns in that whole war debacle.
The sooner we get all those history books rewritten the better.

 

[gipper]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?

You continue to post nonsense. No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender. Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.

Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?

 

[gipper]

From these posts I now get the impression that both Germany and Japan spent the entire war trying to surrender, but FDR, because of Stalin, would not let Germany and Japan surrender. Poor Germany and Japan, innocent pawns in that whole war debacle.
The sooner we get all those history books rewritten the better.

Making lite of the facts, only proves you are lacking intelligence.

 

[gipper]

Not at all. HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%. You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

 

[Camp]

One of the more ridiculous claims made during this thread has been that it would have been easy for the allied forces, particularly the 9th under Lt. Gen. Simpson who was under the command of Montgomery at the time, to advance to Berlin ahead of the massive Russian forces. It assumes that the German forces in and surrounding Berlin would have surrendered to allied forces as soon as they showed up, without a fight. It irresponsibly ignores the consequences of the results of a misguided assumption and would have put American forces in the middle of the final battle of Berlin.

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=xF1W-dhptts"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=xF1W-dhptts[/ame]


Did someone suggest taking Berlin would have been easy?

 

[regent]

Not at all. HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%. You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not at all. HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%. You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

"....to dictate surrender terms...."


Did you know that 'dictate' means "To prescribe with authority; impose"

If you did know it, you're a liar. If you didn't, a fool.




Never ceases to amaze, the lengths and torture of the language, that you self-proclaimed Roosevelt protectors, will go to.


You know you can't defend the view that anyone......anyone....said that Germany or Japan should 'dictate surrender terms."


In point of fact, the attempt at obfuscation indicates that you realize your defense is vapid.

 

[gipper]

Not at all. HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%. You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable. Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.

How dumb is that?

 

[Camp]

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?

You continue to post nonsense. No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender. Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.

Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?

Explain how Germany would surrender without Hitler approving of a surrender? Claiming that Germany would surrender is the same as claiming Hitler would surrender. What is the difference? So how is that concept not projecting nonsense? Your and PC's claim omits Hitler from the equation and are the ones projecting nonsense. How do you have an intelligent discussion about the WWII European Theater of Operations without including Hitler? You can't, that is the obvious answer. To build a thesis around German surrender in WWII without the inclusion and consideration of Hitler is just friggin retarded.

 

[Camp]

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable. Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.

How dumb is that?

The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.

 

[Meathead]

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?

You continue to post nonsense. No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender. Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.

Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?

Explain how Germany would surrender without Hitler approving of a surrender? Claiming that Germany would surrender is the same as claiming Hitler would surrender. What is the difference? So how is that concept not projecting nonsense? Your and PC's claim omits Hitler from the equation and the ones projecting nonsense. How do you have an intelligent discussion about the WWII European Theater of Operations without including Hitler? You can't, that is the obvious answer. To build a thesis around German surrender in WWII without the inclusion and consideration of Hitler is just friggin retarded.

Camp, I knew you could major and minor in history, but I never knew you could midget.

Having said that, Camp, as scatter-brained as he is, is right.

 

[gipper]

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable. Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.

How dumb is that?

The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.

I thought you would never ask. I am happy to oblige.
Once again I post these links. Will it inform you or are you closed minded?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson

The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson
Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace."
The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[75][76] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[74] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[77]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[67]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] 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... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[78]

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets.[6]
Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.[7] The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."[8]

And for Truman's true intentions read this.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf


And how about this??????

Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’



and this from Thomas E Woods....have a blown your mind yet?

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Learn Austrian Economics
[​IMG]


In time for the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the leftist National Catholic Reporter treats us to an entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard. (Thanks to Laurence Vance for the link.) My comment, which is “awaiting moderation,” ran as follows:
I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like “Japan started the war” helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if “Japan” started it, can “Japan” be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?
Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to “defame our country” (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with “our country&#8221.
I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to “defame our country”? Or how about L’Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
Oh, but “we” had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, that’s all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because that’s all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions “alternatives” to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)
For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.
Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods

And here is more...

Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary to End World War II?

The first use of an atomic bomb in warfare took place on August 6, 1945. The weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the U.S. bomber Enola Gay, instantaneously destroying four square miles in the middle of the population center. The blast killed 66,000 men, women, and children, and injured an additional 69,000. A full 67 percent of Hiroshima’s buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed.
The next (and only other) atomic bomb to be dropped in warfare was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later. That blast killed 39,000 civilians and injured another 25,000; 40 percent of the city was destroyed or unrepairable. The Japanese government surrendered to the U.S. government on August 10, 1945.
Since the last “good war,” a debate has ensued over the moral legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons, particularly against civilians. The critics hold that it is a crime to incinerate civilians en masse; defenders commonly claim that the bombing was necessary to bring the war to a close, thereby saving countless American lives.
Most of those who make this claim do so in earnest. The problem is that this defense is both historically false, and taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.
But a discussion of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot proceed without an overview of the imperialist motives for Japanese military aggression, which reflected the age-old drive for power through military intimidation and conquest. The Japanese desired a series of conquests, to constitute the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This involved, most importantly, penetration into Korea, Manchuria, China, French Indochina, Malaya, and Burma.
What was clearly not their goal was a prolonged conflict with the United States or any of the other Allied Powers. After establishing their Asian imperium and a defensive perimeter, the Japanese expected to reach a negotiated peace.
It should be clear that the attack on the American military base at Pearl Harbor was not a part of the long-term planning of the Japanese government. Indeed, conservatives and isolationists have long held the view that the Roosevelt administration provoked the Japanese into their aggressive stance as a back door to war in Europe.
Consider the facts leading up to the attack: Roosevelt had made a commitment to Churchill that the United States would enter into the Asian conflict if the British were attacked; the United States was shipping munitions to both Russia and Great Britain; Roosevelt had placed an embargo on oil and metals against Japan; and in the most egregious example, had sent the “unofficial” Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese in China in 1941. All were violations of U.S. neutrality and acts of belligerency.
Vocal critics on the Old Right—such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes—held that the Roosevelt administration was aware of the attack in advance, both from decoded transmissions and intelligence reports. The weight of history has ironed out the appearance of radicalism from the latter contention. Whatever the truth of the Pearl Harbor affair, an extended war with the United States was not a desire of the Japanese.
Japanese Objectives
Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fight—they did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
“Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur’s headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.”
Clearly, then, the bomb did not have to be dropped to save the lives of American soldiers. The war in the Pacific could have ended prior to the European conflict. One suspects that the conflagration’s extension beyond the confines of necessity had more to do with the politics of war than military strategy. The fact that consultation with Stalin played a key role in the decision tends to implicate both what historian William L. Neumann pointed to as “the historic ambitions of Russia in Asia” and “the expansionist element in Stalinist Communism.”
The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
“Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.”
Even if the Japanese had showed no signs of surrender and had remained obstinate in belligerency, the notion that the most human carnage possible must be inflicted on the civilians of an enemy government to force a surrender and minimize the losses of one’s own troops is perverse. Consider the consequences of adopting a policy of total war. Logically, if you expect an enemy to pursue this strategy, you will do everything in your power to do the same before the enemy has the opportunity to annihilate you.
Critics of the bombing have made a strong moral case against the action. This is why the defenders of the bombing use strongly moralistic terms themselves. One of the results is possibly the most bizarre and obviously wrong.
Most veterans and defenders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claim that whatever the reasons for the bombing and its support, racism was not among them. This is simply not true. The U.S. War Department and related agencies that specialized in producing hate propaganda and lies developed specifically racialist attacks on the Japanese.
Propaganda films, shown to theaters across the country, whipped Americans into war hysteria with films attacking the Japanese with their “grinning yellow faces.” American movie audiences were encouraged to cheer as they watched images of the “upstart yellow dwarfs” meeting their timely ends. The government played on and encouraged prejudice and specifically racial animosity against the Japanese. To be fair, the Japanese held—and still hold—similar views of Americans, views not discouraged by their government.
The most revealing aspect of this latter point is not that racism was involved in drumming up the war spirit, but rather that the truth of the matter has been so thoroughly obscured.
Oddly enough, many apologists are conservatives, who should be the first to recognize that the essence of government is its monopoly on violence. This is a paramount consideration in their analysis of the role of the government in domestic affairs. Consistency demands that conservatives begin to apply their principles across the board—to foreign policy as well as domestic policy. The alternative is the road we now travel, and it leads to total war and the total state.The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

I have much more damning information from many experts. If you would like to see them, just ask.

Truism of all TRUISMS: Americans must learn that government ALWAYS lies. So one should never believe what the government tells you.

 

[Camp]

So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable. Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.

How dumb is that?

The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.

I thought you would never ask. I am happy to oblige.
Once again I post these links. Will it inform you or are you closed minded?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson




And for Truman's true intentions read this.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf


And how about this??????

Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’



and this from Thomas E Woods....have a blown your mind yet?

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Learn Austrian Economics
[​IMG]


In time for the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the leftist National Catholic Reporter treats us to an entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard. (Thanks to Laurence Vance for the link.) My comment, which is “awaiting moderation,” ran as follows:
I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like “Japan started the war” helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if “Japan” started it, can “Japan” be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?
Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to “defame our country” (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with “our country”).
I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to “defame our country”? Or how about L’Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
Oh, but “we” had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, that’s all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because that’s all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions “alternatives” to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)
For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.
Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods

And here is more...

Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary to End World War II?

The first use of an atomic bomb in warfare took place on August 6, 1945. The weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the U.S. bomber Enola Gay, instantaneously destroying four square miles in the middle of the population center. The blast killed 66,000 men, women, and children, and injured an additional 69,000. A full 67 percent of Hiroshima’s buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed.
The next (and only other) atomic bomb to be dropped in warfare was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later. That blast killed 39,000 civilians and injured another 25,000; 40 percent of the city was destroyed or unrepairable. The Japanese government surrendered to the U.S. government on August 10, 1945.
Since the last “good war,” a debate has ensued over the moral legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons, particularly against civilians. The critics hold that it is a crime to incinerate civilians en masse; defenders commonly claim that the bombing was necessary to bring the war to a close, thereby saving countless American lives.
Most of those who make this claim do so in earnest. The problem is that this defense is both historically false, and taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.
But a discussion of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot proceed without an overview of the imperialist motives for Japanese military aggression, which reflected the age-old drive for power through military intimidation and conquest. The Japanese desired a series of conquests, to constitute the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This involved, most importantly, penetration into Korea, Manchuria, China, French Indochina, Malaya, and Burma.
What was clearly not their goal was a prolonged conflict with the United States or any of the other Allied Powers. After establishing their Asian imperium and a defensive perimeter, the Japanese expected to reach a negotiated peace.
It should be clear that the attack on the American military base at Pearl Harbor was not a part of the long-term planning of the Japanese government. Indeed, conservatives and isolationists have long held the view that the Roosevelt administration provoked the Japanese into their aggressive stance as a back door to war in Europe.
Consider the facts leading up to the attack: Roosevelt had made a commitment to Churchill that the United States would enter into the Asian conflict if the British were attacked; the United States was shipping munitions to both Russia and Great Britain; Roosevelt had placed an embargo on oil and metals against Japan; and in the most egregious example, had sent the “unofficial” Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese in China in 1941. All were violations of U.S. neutrality and acts of belligerency.
Vocal critics on the Old Right—such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes—held that the Roosevelt administration was aware of the attack in advance, both from decoded transmissions and intelligence reports. The weight of history has ironed out the appearance of radicalism from the latter contention. Whatever the truth of the Pearl Harbor affair, an extended war with the United States was not a desire of the Japanese.
Japanese Objectives
Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fight—they did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
“Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur’s headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.”
Clearly, then, the bomb did not have to be dropped to save the lives of American soldiers. The war in the Pacific could have ended prior to the European conflict. One suspects that the conflagration’s extension beyond the confines of necessity had more to do with the politics of war than military strategy. The fact that consultation with Stalin played a key role in the decision tends to implicate both what historian William L. Neumann pointed to as “the historic ambitions of Russia in Asia” and “the expansionist element in Stalinist Communism.”
The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
“Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.”
Even if the Japanese had showed no signs of surrender and had remained obstinate in belligerency, the notion that the most human carnage possible must be inflicted on the civilians of an enemy government to force a surrender and minimize the losses of one’s own troops is perverse. Consider the consequences of adopting a policy of total war. Logically, if you expect an enemy to pursue this strategy, you will do everything in your power to do the same before the enemy has the opportunity to annihilate you.
Critics of the bombing have made a strong moral case against the action. This is why the defenders of the bombing use strongly moralistic terms themselves. One of the results is possibly the most bizarre and obviously wrong.
Most veterans and defenders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claim that whatever the reasons for the bombing and its support, racism was not among them. This is simply not true. The U.S. War Department and related agencies that specialized in producing hate propaganda and lies developed specifically racialist attacks on the Japanese.
Propaganda films, shown to theaters across the country, whipped Americans into war hysteria with films attacking the Japanese with their “grinning yellow faces.” American movie audiences were encouraged to cheer as they watched images of the “upstart yellow dwarfs” meeting their timely ends. The government played on and encouraged prejudice and specifically racial animosity against the Japanese. To be fair, the Japanese held—and still hold—similar views of Americans, views not discouraged by their government.
The most revealing aspect of this latter point is not that racism was involved in drumming up the war spirit, but rather that the truth of the matter has been so thoroughly obscured.
Oddly enough, many apologists are conservatives, who should be the first to recognize that the essence of government is its monopoly on violence. This is a paramount consideration in their analysis of the role of the government in domestic affairs. Consistency demands that conservatives begin to apply their principles across the board—to foreign policy as well as domestic policy. The alternative is the road we now travel, and it leads to total war and the total state.The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

I have much more damning information from many experts. If you would like to see them, just ask.
brn that government ALWAYS lies. So one should never believe what the government tells you.

Gipper, those guys aren't experts. What you are using are not scholarly works. They are for the most part essays published on libertarian blog sites. But the point you are making is valid. The decision to nuke Japan was a political decision and not a military one. The problem is that FDR died before it became time to decide on whether to use the nuke or not. Truman made that decision.

There is also a problem with the conclusion that the military leadership in Japan would have allowed surrender before the nukes were used. This has always been the great debate. The debate among scholars has not been about whether the decision to nuke was military or political. George Marshall even said it was political. The dead end in the debate has always narrowed down to the simple point of, would have and could have the Emperor and his closest allies overrule Tojo and the military before the dropping of the nukes. Remember, they attempted to assassinate the Emperor over the question of surrender. That is where the importance of Hasegawa and Racing With The Enemy comes into play.

The target of the thesis should be Truman, not FDR.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why? Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to. Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward. Does this mean anything to you?

Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.

So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable. Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.

How dumb is that?

You are that dumb, gipper. You are why we need men like Marshall, Eisenhower, Truman, and the rest to keep you idiots from policy decisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 John V. Denson is nothing but a Mises troll.

John V. Denson - Ludwig von Mises Institute
mises.org/authors/492/John-V-Denson
Ludwig von Mises Institute
John V. Denson is a practicing attorney in Alabama and an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute.

 

[gipper]

As I thought. You guys can't get passed your government school brainwashing. I was one of you once, but then I took the time to do the research. Luckily for you two, you can benefit from all the hard work I did to find the truth.

My sons, it is not Un-American to disbelieve the government. However, it is Un-American to believe the lies of a corrupt government. So please, find the courage to accept the truth.

You have heard the statement. "the truth will set you free." Do you want to be free or a slave? We shall find out...

I will not give up trying to educate you....just Google the following statements to prove their veracity.

One of MacArthur’s first acts after taking over as Viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He imposed total censorship over journalists on the ground about what really happened at Ground Zero in those doomed cities, again proving the old adage that “the first casualty of war is truth”.

Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.

Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: “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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said: “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey’s official report on the Pacific War appeared. The authors concluded that…
“the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan….certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 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.”

A major alternative discussed in detail by historian Gar Alperovitz in his indispensable book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb was the possibility of a negotiated peace with Japan involving a relaxation of the American demand for "unconditional surrender." In his monumental work, Alperovitz documents that from April to August 1945 the Japanese made a number of official attempts to secure a negotiated peace settlement and an end to the war. The major sticking point was the fate of Emperor Hirohito — would the man many Japanese considered to be divine be tried and hanged as a war criminal? In light of this concern, Truman was urged by many of his aides to alter the surrender formula to provide for the preservation of the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. Presented with opportunity after opportunity to craft a compromise, Truman refused to bend. Indeed, the most significant statement of Allied surrender terms prior to the bombings — the Potsdam Declaration issued July 26, 1945 — maintained the rhetoric of "unconditional surrender" while not even mentioning the fate of the Emperor. President Truman then most certainly acted without exhausting all other options — a gross violation of the jus in bello principles enunciated by the Christian Church for centuries.

The list of Truman's military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who's who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."