Happy Hiroshima Day!

[Unkotare]

MacArthur informed the bloodthirsty scumbag that overtures to surrender had been sent out prior to his leaving for Yalta.

.

 

[Unkotare]

The bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand, thus strengthening the position of the hardliners in the Japanese government and undermining those who were considering offering the same terms of surrender that we eventually accepted anyway AFTER incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians, and AFTER the terrible loss of US servicemen at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other battles that might need not ever happened.

.

 

[Unkotare]

Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.

.

 

[Open Bolt]

It is surprising to see some conservatives cheering Truman's needless, barbaric nuking of anti-communist Japan.

It is in the nature of conservatives to support the good guys.

Hardly needless. Japan was refusing to surrender.

Japan did not "mess with America."

In that case, we didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

FDR refused Japan's reasonable peace offers

Most people do not agree with your position that support for genocide is reasonable.

and provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so he could enter WW II and save his beloved Soviet Union.

Japan got their comeuppance when they provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There was absolutely no need to nuke Japan.

Yes there was. Japan was still refusing to surrender.

Japan was prostrate, starving, and was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack.. Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, wanted to end the war and were willing to surrender on very reasonable terms.

Truman knew that Japan was still refusing to surrender, and he didn't know what it would take to make them surrender.

 

[Open Bolt]

Do you think MacArthur did the right thing when he encouraged fdr to investigate overtures to surrender prior to Yalta?

Overtures to surrender had been floated via the Russians and through Swiss envoys, but the bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand.

Tell that to MacArthur. He wrote fdr a 47 page letter about it. fdr threw the letter in the garbage (much the same way he considered the Constitution and the lives of US servicemen).

If fdr had any interest in peace, the war might have ended BEFORE Okinawa.

MacArthur informed the bloodthirsty scumbag that overtures to surrender had been sent out prior to his leaving for Yalta.

The bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand, thus strengthening the position of the hardliners in the Japanese government and undermining those who were considering offering the same terms of surrender that we eventually accepted anyway AFTER incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians, and AFTER the terrible loss of US servicemen at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other battles that might need not ever happened.

Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.

Fake news. Never happened.

 

[Open Bolt]

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.

www.lawfareblog.com

This article still contains a number of blatant falsehoods. Repeating it didn't change anything.

The Hopkins claim was the most recent inflation of estimates building on what Rufus Miles called the “myth of half a million American lives saved.” Secretary of War Henry Stimson originally claimed in his famous 1947 Harper’s article that an invasion was expected to produce “over a million American casualties [wounded and killed] to American forces alone” (emphasis added). Winston Churchill, in his memoirs, claimed instead that the invasion would have produced one million American fatalities and an additional 500,000 thousand allied fatalities. But the serious historians studying this issue come to a different conclusion, finding that the range of estimates of U.S. deaths in the 1945 military records was significantly lower than the mythical half a million figure.

There were official estimates that invading Japan could result in a million American deaths, plus millions more Americans maimed and gravely wounded.

Claims that there were no such estimates, or that the estimates were exaggerations, are lies.

Although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities—an army headquarters and troop-loading docks—the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel.

Another lie. About 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.

Describing the headquarters that was in charge of repelling our invasion as merely "an army headquarters" is also deliberately misleading.

As is true with all counterfactuals, we can’t know with certainty whether the Japanese government would have surrendered without the dropping of the bomb if this compromise had been offered when Stimson suggested. Among the many tragedies of Hiroshima, however, is that Truman refused to try this diplomatic maneuver earlier.

Truman had no ability to try it earlier, since Japan was not willing to try it before August 10.

The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle).

All sorts of lies here. The US didn't intentionally attack civilians. The identified military targets in Hiroshima were highly significant and far from modest.

The implication that the US did not try to minimize collateral damage is also a lie. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned with leaflets that they would soon be destroyed by the US Air Force.

Because it would have entailed the awful human costs of an invasion, Truman’s demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender to end the war was indefensible. Seeking to avoid the larger losses that would flow from an unjust demand for unconditional surrender cannot justify the Hiroshima attack.

Truman didn't demand unconditional surrender. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of surrender terms.

But had Truman actually demanded unconditional surrender, that would have been entirely defensible and perfectly legitimate.

 

[rightwinger]

Non-Japanese Asian civilians were dying at a rate of at least 100,000 a month under the tender mercies of Japanese occupation.



Invasion was necessary until Japan surrendered. They did not surrender until after the second atomic bomb had been dropped.



That was way too long of a wait. We should have recast the uranium from Little Boy into a bunch of composite implosion cores back in the early summer.

Then we should have nuked at least two targets every day, starting with Kyoto, then moving on to Hiroshima, then Kokura Arsenal, then Yokohama (which should have been saved for the atomic bombs), then Niigata, then the Nagasaki shipyards, then Yokosuka Arsenal.

Nuke em all
Ask questions later

 

[Dayton3]

Nuke em all
Ask questions later

I prefer

"nuke' em till they glow then shoot'em in the dark".

 

[Unkotare]

... About 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.

...

And what does that mean, Captain Math?

 

[Dayton3]

And what does that mean, Captain Math?

Unkotare seems to be under the impression that if the U.S. tries to kill the enemy during wartime that it is a crime.

 

[Open Bolt]

And what does that mean, Captain Math?

It means that the article lied about the figures in order to unjustly demonize the US.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare seems to be under the impression that if the U.S. tries to kill the enemy during wartime that it is a crime.

Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.

 

[Unkotare]

Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.

.

 

[Dayton3]

Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.

Do you deny suggesting that the U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes?

You do know that the Japanese were our enemies during World War Two don't you?

 

[Mushroom]

We didn’t need to occupy Japan.

Actually, we did.

One of the most costly lessons of WWI was that unless you put an occupation force in in place, you will only encourage those even more radical to come into power, and your next war will be even worse.

And amazingly, since 1945 none of the Axis powers have started another war. And all have moderate governments.

Without an occupation, then odds are WWIII would have followed sometime in the 1960s.

 

[Mushroom]

I have never seen a report of Japanese slaughtering civilians in 1945

Oh holy hell, have you never heard of the Battle of Okinawa? Where tens of thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese Army?

It should be well known that in Japan, suicide was preferred to surrender. However, Okinawa was a recent acquisition to the Japanese Empire, and that was not part of their culture. Knowing that, the Japanese soldiers took it upon themselves to ensure that the civilians on Okinawa if possible would be saved from the eternal guilt of surrender by killing them.

If you think that never happened, then you obviously have never studied the Pacific War. Hell, it is even included in Japanese textbooks now.

 

[Unkotare]

Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.

.

 

[Mushroom]

Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.

And you repeat yourself again, so I will repeat myself yet again.

Who did he meet that had the authority to make such an offer from the Japanese? Where did they meet? Why are there absolutely no records of this amazing meeting either anywhere among Japanese or American records. Just a claim from General MacArthur yourself, with absolutely nothing to back this up.

In other words, where is your proof this ever happened? Because the Big Six never authorized anybody to discuss such terms. Not even their own Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

 

[Unkotare]

Article clipped from Chicago Tribune

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune published in Chicago, Illinois on 8/14/1965.

www.newspapers.com

 

[Unkotare]

Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.

.