Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[SAYIT]

[
Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?

This is proper and truthful version that they should ... teach in school.

But anyway, it seems you only learn meaningful history and the reasons behind it on the internet from other enlightened people. Thank you.

Aug 8, 1945:
Soviets declare war on Japan; invade Manchuria

Soviets declare war on Japan invade Manchuria mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 8 8 1945

--------------------

Aug 6th 1945, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.

Aug 8th USSR declared war on Japan.

Aug 9th Bomb dropped on Nagasaki

Essentially, they did tell the truth in regards to saving American lives. Once they put the narrative out, that is what needed to be sold.

Of course we can thank the Rosenbergs for the USSR getting the bomb. They probably would have gotten it at some point, but they were at a real disadvantage when they did not have it.

Yes, the Rosenbergs along with many Jews that emigrated here from Russia certainly sympathize with the USSR. Yes, it was Emma Goldman that greatly influenced the mind of Roger Baldwin, who founded the ACLU.

Want to know where the Barbara Boxers or Dianne Feinsteins or Charles Schumers come from? There is your hint.

Russia?

 

[Unkotare]

You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa ...

I have. What you said is utter nonsense.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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.

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.

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

Hi, The2ndAmendment.

Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing. We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees. That's all true.

But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor. Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.

Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples. Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands. Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.

So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan. It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.

And what was the result? Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism. It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.

So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima. I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.

 

[SAYIT]

They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon. ..

No "might" about it, but they had no means of delivery at that point.

It is certain they were working on that, too:
"According to decrypted messages from the Japanese embassy in Germany, twelve dismantled V-2 rockets were shipped to Japan. These left Bordeaux in August 1944 on the transport U-boats U-219 and U-195, which reached Djakarta in December 1944. A civilian V-2 expert was a passenger on U-234, bound for Japan in May 1945 when the war ended in Europe. The fate of these V-2 rockets is unknown."

V-2 rocket - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[The Irish Ram]

How many innocent Americans were killed because Japan thought it was a good idea to start killing us? When someone takes an oath to kill you, do you immediately think lets keep the playing field even or end the war THEY started???????? What the hell is wrong with you people? How many American lives were saved by not allowing Japan's war against us to continue? That should be the question. If innocent Japanese were killed it is a direct result of their gov. not ours.

 

[The Irish Ram]

An embargo wouldn't have done it. They could feed their people....

No, they couldn't.

They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive. It was heroic to kill themselves by flying their planes into our ships. Killing us. They intended to conquer us. We said, "No." While you bleeding hearts would have sat on the weapon that ended their intentions, they would have used it on us, and our children would have bled instead.

 

[Unkotare]

An embargo wouldn't have done it. They could feed their people....

No, they couldn't.

They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive....

Don't be stupid.

 

[Theowl32]

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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.

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.

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

Hi, The2ndAmendment.

Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing. We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees. That's all true.

But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor. Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.

Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples. Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands. Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.

So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan. It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.

And what was the result? Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism. It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.

So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima. I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.

Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.

It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)

The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.

Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"

I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:

> Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.

> Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.

> Drop the bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.

Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?

Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land.

However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right.

Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe. It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.

Does 25,000 in Dresden assuage your sense of lost opportunity a bit?

A hundred thousand german nazi soldiers, circa 1945, would have been a good start instead of 100k plus innocent japanese civilians.

 

[Theowl32]

Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe. It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.

Does 25,000 in Dresden assuage your sense of lost opportunity a bit?

A hundred thousand german nazi soldiers, circa 1945, would have been a good start instead of 100k plus innocent japanese civilians.

If you were Truman, which one of these choices would you have made?

> Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.

> Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.

> Drop the bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have this site bookmarked for when some dumb ass says we did not need to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Hell after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government refused to surrender, they only surrendered when The Emperor over road the Government and then the Army staged a coup to stop that.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources SOURCE Documents that clearly show that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering that even after 2 atomic bombs they refused. That when the Emperor said it was over the Army attempted a Coup to stop him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An embargo wouldn't have done it. They could feed their people....

No, they couldn't.

They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender. The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources

 

[williepete]

No need to wonder or debate this one. (Again).

Just read, 'The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945' by John Toland. Take special note of the resources Toland used in his research. The book is a one of a kind.

And to really nail it home, read 'Truman' by David McCullough or at least the part pertaining to the end of WW2 with Japan and the use of the bomb.

 

[Dante]

We didn't 'have to' but we chose to

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa ...

I have. What you said is utter nonsense.

The Army ordered the civilians on mainland Japan to arm themselves with bamboo spears and to human wave assault any landings. This was an order to any one able to carry a spear to include children. the source documents I linked to prove it.

 

[Dante]

An embargo wouldn't have done it. They could feed their people....

No, they couldn't.

They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender. The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources

What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?

 

[Dante]

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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.

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.

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

You appear to be looking at a reflection in the mirror when you go to other people's motives. Is your anger reflected too?

Now go ask the peoples and nations invaded by Japan just who the sicks fucks where...

,\..then take your head out of your ass

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An embargo wouldn't have done it. They could feed their people....

No, they couldn't.

They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender. The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources

What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?

The Emperor over road the Army and ordered the surrender and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop the message getting out. Learn a little History.

 

[deltex1]

Nuke the japs, then nuke the Rooskies...a better world for all.

 

[Dante]

martybegan

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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.

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.

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before.

Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?

The danger is ignorance and revisionist history like yours. Read what the government scientists were worried about as they advised the President


geeze!