The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[JoeB131]

I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war. Millions. Guaranteed.

That's nice.

The reality. Japan was out of war materials, most of their Navy was sunk, they had expended all their aircraft as Kamikazes to very little effect, and most of their experienced Army divisions were trapped in China.

SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.

 

[miketx]

I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war. Millions. Guaranteed.

That's nice.

The reality. Japan was out of war materials, most of their Navy was sunk, they had expended all their aircraft as Kamikazes to very little effect, and most of their experienced Army divisions were trapped in China.

SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.

Prove it liar.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.

As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.

Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book East Wind, Rain. Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.

When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.

Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.

Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.

Says who? These figures that came out saying, "Millions of Casualties" didn't come out until the war and the government had to justify why it vaporized hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?

 

[JoeB131]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists?

Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon". 70 million people had died on all sides at that point.

The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.

Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia

According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year

Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia

The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]

sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...

 

[JoeB131]

Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?

Irrelevant to the point. I mean, yeah, it freaked the Marines out when they committed suicide, but they weren't a military threat.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?

Irrelevant to the point. I mean, yeah, it freaked the Marines out when they committed suicide, but they weren't a military threat.

And neither is an 11 year old with a vest, nonetheless as we see in Afghanistan and Iraq peace is unobtainable.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.

As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.

Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book East Wind, Rain. Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.

When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.

Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.

Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.

Our POW’s appreciated the expedited plan, especially considering many were being murdered to eliminate them as war crime witnesses.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists?

Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon". 70 million people had died on all sides at that point.

You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving. That is just basic human decency, and it is sad that you can't grasp that.

The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.

No, it is not. It is a presentation of fact.

Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia

According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year

Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia

The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]

sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...

Well, yeah, given the fact that the Chinese Communists have long been brainwashing the Chinese people with anti-Japanese propaganda, I'm not a bit surprised by those numbers.

South Korea's anti-Japanese propaganda has not been as bad or as pervasive as China's, which perhaps explains the difference in the survey numbers. Another fact to keep in mind is that after WW II, millions of Koreans emigrated to the United States. So any poll done in South Korea is not going to include those Koreans who moved to America, nor will it include the children of those Koreans who moved to America.

Again, read Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang interviewed numerous Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea. She expresses surprise that most of them never experienced cruelty. At one point, she asks, "Where are all the atrocities?" It is an eye-opening book.

 

[sparky]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.

As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.

Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book East Wind, Rain. Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.

When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.

Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.

Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.

Our POW’s appreciated the expedited plan, especially considering many were being murdered to eliminate them as war crime witnesses.

The 23 American pow's who survived the bomb ,were beaten to death shortly afterwards

~S~

 

[rightwinger]

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo

Nope, there were only the effective targets. There was no guarantee the bomb would of worked, anywhere. Had it failed, then what? What if Japan did not believe the documentation. Then a bomb in which we only had two is lost. Another 30 days? While we are winning? In a fight, or war, you never stop until defeat is achieved. Too much can go wrong.

Either way, it was considered. We can refer to what the Secretary of War wrote on the matter.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf

In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area. Both of these suggestions were discarded as impractical. They were not regarded as likely to be effective in compelling a surrender of Japan, and both of them involved serious risks. Even the New Mexico test would not give final proof that any given bomb was certain to explode when dropped from an airplane. Quite apart from the generally unfamiliar nature of atomic explosives, there was the whole problem of exploding a bomb at a predetermined height in the air by a complicated mechanism which could not be tested in the static test of New Mexico. Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warningor a demonstration followed by a dud––and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had

As you can see, I do not post my opinion. I also have this in Stimson's book.

We showed we had a working bomb at Alamogordo
By early 1946 we were in full production of atomic bombs, under any scenario we would have had multiple bombs to drop on Japan
Even if we dropped a “dud” we had one of the original three

I don’t agree with the assumption that the only way Japan would have surrendered was by slaughtering 150,000 innocent civilians

 

[mikegriffith1]

The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.

What is your basis for this claim? Whatever information you find and cherry-pick in a hurried Internet search? Based on your comments, I'm guessing you have not done any serious research on Japanese rule in Manchuria, Saipan (Taiwan), and Korea. What books have you read on Japanese rule in any of these places?

You label as "apologetic nonsense" the factual statement that Japan invested billions of dollars in infrastructure (school, roads, bridges, power grids, railroad lines, sewer systems) in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria. The fact that Japan did this is documented in dozens of scholarly studies on Japanese rule in these locations.

I've cited Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang discusses the fact that the Japanese brought Korea into the modern area with their enormous infrastructure projects, which included hundreds of schools for Korean children, many of whom had never been able to attend school before because there were none in their area.

Or, you might read Paul Maruyama's book Escape from Manchuria: The Rescue of 1.7 Million Japanese Civilians Trapped in Soviet-occupied Manchuria Following the End of World War II.

Or, Louise Young's book Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism. Young puts a negative spin on just about everything, but even a halfway attentive reader will notice all the discussions about the technological improvements that the Japanese brought to Manchuria: roads, schools, power plants, bridges, sewer systems, railroad lines, etc., etc., and how Manchuria (Manchukuo) became an economic success story that attracted people from all over Asia.

 

[Unkotare]

General MacArthur is awaiting your call, Rain Man.

LINK? to something other then an un sourced book.

There are several threads many hundreds of pages long full of evidence that you ignored while in Rain Man mode. Go eat your Jell-O.

 

[Unkotare]

What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.

YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.

Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

Our military leaders of the day disagreed.

 

[rightwinger]

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo

30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
it would mean nothing
that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city
....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed

Choose a military target with military infrastructure and a port. The Japanese were capable of assessing the magnitude of the destruction.

Again, give them a reasonable amount of time to assess their situation. Three days is not enough.

If, after the time has passed and they refused to capitulate, then go to a more densely populated target.

In any case, Nagasaki was too quick. We killed 70,000 civilians in haste.

 

[harmonica]

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo

30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
it would mean nothing
that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city
....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed

Choose a military target with military infrastructure and a port. The Japanese were capable of assessing the magnitude of the destruction.

Again, give them a reasonable amount of time to assess their situation. Three days is not enough.

If, after the time has passed and they refused to capitulate, then go to a more densely populated target.

In any case, Nagasaki was too quick. We killed 70,000 civilians in haste.

ports usually are civilian areas

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is surprising to see conservatives defending FDR's provocation of Japan and Truman's nuking of Japan. As we have known for at least two decades now, both men's administrations were riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers.

In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, a number of Republicans pointed out that in imposing more and more sanctions on Japan, FDR was doing the bidding of the Soviets, who were deathly afraid that Japan and America would renew their friendship and that Japan would attack the Soviet Union in the east. Soviet assets and their sympathizers in the American press endlessly provided exaggerated accounts of Japanese military actions in China, in an effort to sway American public opinion and to try to provoke hostilities between Japan and America.

Similarly, the Soviets wanted to ensure that Japan did not surrender before Soviet forces could invade Manchuria and hopefully occupy the Japanese main island of Hokkaido. Truman, in refusing to give the Japanese any assurance about the emperor's status, even though he knew from intercepts that this was the only real sticking point for surrender, carried out Soviet policy and enabled the Soviets to invade Manchuria. Had it not been for determined Japanese resistance on Hokkaido, the Soviets might have ended up in control of that island before we had a chance to get a single soldier there.

 

[harmonica]

It is surprising to see conservatives defending FDR's provocation of Japan and Truman's nuking of Japan. As we have known for at least two decades now, both men's administrations were riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers.

In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, a number of Republicans pointed out that in imposing more and more sanctions on Japan, FDR was doing the bidding of the Soviets, who were deathly afraid that Japan and America would renew their friendship and that Japan would attack the Soviet Union in the east. Soviet assets and their sympathizers in the American press endlessly provided exaggerated accounts of Japanese military actions in China, in an effort to sway American public opinion and to try to provoke hostilities between Japan and America.

Similarly, the Soviets wanted to ensure that Japan did not surrender before Soviet forces could invade Manchuria and hopefully occupy the Japanese main island of Hokkaido. Truman, in refusing to give the Japanese any assurance about the emperor's status, even though he knew from intercepts that this was the only real sticking point for surrender, carried out Soviet policy and enabled the Soviets to invade Manchuria. Had it not been for determined Japanese resistance on Hokkaido, the Soviets might have ended up in control of that island before we had a chance to get a single soldier there.

sure--FDR wanted the Japanese to attack the US

 

[miketx]

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.

We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.

As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.

Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book East Wind, Rain. Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.

When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.

Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.

Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.

Why dont you move to japan and get the hell out of here?