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

[gipper]

No; apparently you're not smarter than me. Did I ask if you were Japanese? Did I imply it? Suggest it? Insinuate it? Apparently you can't read. Have your nurse read a bit more slowly so you can understand what she's saying to you.

I accept the truth. You are man enough to accept it.

There you go again, reading comprehension. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. Let me say it a little slower for you. D..i..d......I......a..s..k......i..f......y..o..u......w..e..r..e......J..a..p..a..n..e..s..e..?

Matters not.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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?

A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.

AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (USSBS 26)​

Yeah i think you are right,has to be an imposter posting as wrongwinger,the real wrongwinger would never in a million years be agreeing with your on something so much important to our history as this,must have been his wife posting while he wasn’t looking,this for sure is not the real wrongwinger

 

[Levant]

The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.

Of course we have control. The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right. If they wanted change, they'd vote change.

You’re very naive. Maybe some day you will grow up and realize the people have little say in their government.

Because the USSR and GDR are still in power? Because we're now the Fifty Colonies? The problem is that there are too many fake anarchists in the world that actually love the most authoritarian, murderous governments in the history of humanity.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:

* Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.

* By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.

* By April 1945, the Japanese people were nearing the point of starvation. Their calorie intake was already well below the level needed to maintain basic health.

* By April 1945, we were bombing Japan at will and suffering virtually no aircraft losses in the process, because Japan was practically defenseless against air attack.

* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.

* Yes, the Japanese focused more on the Nationalists than the Communists because the Nationalists, at that point, were much stronger and posed a greater threat, and because the Nationalists had decided to side with the Communists. So, *of course* the Japanese focused on the Nationalists, but they also fought the Communists.

* WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.

* Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.

* The events surrounding Japan's surrender offer prove that if we had stipulated weeks earlier that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese moderates could have overcome the hardliners and enabled the emperor to order a surrender weeks earlier.

* Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.

Best damn post on this thread,bar none in fact,everything else after this threa in the 99 pages since then is all irrelevent because this is the complete truth

 

[Levant]

Prove it. ...

Illogical.

Yes, to an America-hater... completely illogical to actually document their lies. In addition to illogical, it's impossible.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.

That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.

It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb

Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
And then prolong the war???

I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.

Not defending wrongwinger in the least,biggest shill to ever penetrate this site,but oh my the irony,pot meet kettle,two peas in a pod

 

[Levant]

Revisionist historians would like to convince you (and apparently have) that it wasn't the bombs at all, that ended the war; ....

I have quoted (many times) prominent US military leaders of that time who said that the bomb was unnecessary and immaterial to ending the war. Are they "revisionist historians"?

They're armchair, Monday-morning, quarterbacks, thinking their hindsight is 20-20 when, in fact, they're blind as bats - all of them. Not a single one of them had the weight of the decision on their shoulders. Not any of them had the responsibility to stop the killing of Americans and allies. In fact, not any of them had the full set of knowledge that Truman and Churchill had in front of them. The opinions of random underlings in the armed forces mean nothing at all.

Those who were involved with the program were simply trying to ease their conscious. Most you mentioned had zero to do with anything - like a mess-cook Marine sergeant.

 

[candycorn]

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “ the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"

If they had only surrendered, we wouldn't have had to dust them. Instead thousands of Americans were killed at Guadalcanal,Perilu, Iwo Jima, etc...

As a result, nobody in Nagasaki or Hiroshima needs a night light.

 

[candycorn]

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.

Comedy gold from you as always you have been brainwashed by hollywood and our corporate controlled media as well as having your only research confined to our textbooks from our corrupt school system,but that’s normal foryou. Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they have an ignorant life

You thought it would give you more credibility if you were to change your user name from "911 was an inside job" to LA RAM FAG? You have none because of your moronic posts; not your user name.

 

[Levant]

And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.

And none of those whose after-the-fact opinions he keeps quoting had all of the knowledge and all of the responsibility that Truman and the Allied leaders had when they had to make the decisions. They weren't easy decisions and I imagine many second-guessed themselves for the rest of their lives. The doubt and guilt must have been terrible but that doesn't change the necessity and the right of the decision they had to make and did correctly make.

"
prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
That was a conclusion of the 1946 U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman in the wake of World War II.

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “ the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"

‘It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing’ — Why dropping the A-Bombs was wrong - Washington Examiner

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. "

2020 hindsight. And that the Japanese "might" have surrendered 3 to 4 months later just proves that the bombs saved many thousand American lives. There was actually zero actual evidence that the Japanese were prepared to unconditionally surrender. What we do know is that on August 15 they did surrender. Bombs dropped on August 6 and August 9. Surrender on August 15. Those are indisputable facts. Everyone else can give their opinions all they want but they can't back them up with a single piece of intelligence or evidence.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated

Imagine that. The Japanese thought we shouldn't have bombed them.

To justify the bombing, you need to scuttle this principle in exchange for consequentialist thinking. With a principle as strong as “don’t murder kids” I think you’d need a lot more certainty than Truman could have had.

History proves that the Japanese killed kids - well over a million of them. but the statement quoted proves that the author of the article's goal is a feel-good, emotional, goal and not militarily defensible. In fact, the attacks probably saved far more children that it killed. The bombs and the body counts actually should be considered separately anyway. The Japanese should have surrendered after the first one. As I said before, having seen the destruction in Hiroshima, the Japanese should have stopped fighting before Nagasaki.

 

[Levant]

Why do you post obvious lies? First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.

On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.

Hitler delegated killing the Jews as well. I guess he was innocent.

 

[Levant]

You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.

He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.

And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe. It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.

Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president. He was a politician. I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.

Comedy gold from you as always you have been brainwashed by hollywood and our corporate controlled media as well as having your only research confined to our textbooks from our corrupt school system,but that’s normal foryou. Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they have an ignorant life

LOL so let me get this right.... we wanted Japan to stop its war in China, but were not willing to attack them over it, so the Country quit selling scrap metal and oil to a country we wanted to end a war and THAT is what forced Japan to attack us? Please be very specific now and tell me why we should keep supporting a Government waging a war we disagree with cause that is what you are claiming.

 

[Picaro]

You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.

He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.

And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe. It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.

Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president. He was a politician. I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.

Some of the bombing was in no small part British extracting revenge for the terrorist bombings of civilian targets in Britain. The old saying "You reap what you sow" comes to mind as to why we shouldn't ever lose sleep over what happened against either Japan or Germany, or the Soviet Union for that matter; they have no claim to sympathy. See the fire bombing of London and its suburbs along with other cities for why it's dumb to piss off people you can't defeat.

 

[Picaro]

Ah, so now the claim is FDR forced Japan to invade China, sign the Tripartite Pact, demand Malaysia, the Dutch Indies, Singapore, the Phillipines, and let them order the U.S. to abandon the Pacific Ocean, while all the time they still had already agreed among themselves to attack us by December, because that was the latest they could attack due to the weather seasons.

It really is getting harder and harder to tell who is crazier, right wing loons or let wing ones. Why not just deport them all? Few reasons left not to.

 

[gipper]

You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.

He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.

And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe. It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.

Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president. He was a politician. I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.

Lol

Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM. There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.

 

[gipper]

Why do you post obvious lies? First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.

On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.

Hitler delegated killing the Jews as well. I guess he was innocent.

Of course you missed my point, due to your mental midgitry.

The Dumbfuck Grunt claimed Ike directed aerial bombing, hence Ike had no right to criticize mass murdering civilians as the war criminal Truman did. PROBLEM IS HE DIDN’T DIRECT AIR FORCES.

LMFAO. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Please try harder

 

[gipper]

Tryin

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “ the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"

If they had only surrendered, we wouldn't have had to dust them. Instead thousands of Americans were killed at Guadalcanal,Perilu, Iwo Jima, etc...

As a result, nobody in Nagasaki or Hiroshima needs a night light.

Justifying mass murder of defenseless civilians is impossible and completely anti-American.

STOP IT!

 

[JoeB131]

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “ the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"

"That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. "

Where is the contemporaneous news story from 1945 where he said that?

One more time, Dripping Poop, nobody really thought of the nukes in 1945 the way we think of them now.

Yes, 1963, EVERYONE WAS HORRIFIED OF NUKES.

In 1945... It was just another weapon to be used against an enemy we had convinced ourselves was less than human.

 

[Levant]

Lol

Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM. There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.

The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings. He didn't stop them when he did take over. He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.

Can you say, ATOMIC BOOM?