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

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,592
Reaction score
8,420
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity.
The ignorance of Sensei Snowflake never ceases to amaze everyone on this board.

1. It doesn’t matter what Japan was discussing. They were still fully engaged in war against the U.S.
On what planet? By June 1945, the Japanese were entirely on the defensive, were nearing starvation levels of food, were essentially defenseless against air raids, and had no meaningful presence at sea.

What makes Truman's decision all the more revolting is that he KNEW that even the emperor was ready to end the war as long as we would grant him the sole condition that he would not be deposed.

2. Dropping the nuclear bombs has prevented wars and saved millions of lives. It was a deterrent that made the enemies of the United States realize it was a grave mistake to attack the U.S.
That is downright macabre. Using that logic, Mao could have said, "Hey, killing 30 million Chinese has saved many more millions of lives by discouraging other Chinese from acting on any idea to revolt against my tyranny."

We could have demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.
And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
713
Points
893
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.

Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge. It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
713
Points
893
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.

Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge. It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.
Good catch. Thanks.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
89,013
Reaction score
7,558
Points
1,815
... it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.
fdr had no such emotion, and his puppet carried out his final wish to slaughter civilians. fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,592
Reaction score
8,420
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Ya the Japanese Army ran the Government and oversaw the BRUTAL slaughter of MILLIONS of civilians in China the Philippines and across the Pacific and when faced with a TOTAL collapse REFUSED to surrender when clearly beaten, BUT you go ahead and blame a US president for their stupidity.
 
OP
mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,375
Reaction score
1,866
Points
380
Location
Virginia
And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
What an amazingly ignorant and dishonest argument.

Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:

The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)

What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!

Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.

When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the New York Times printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the New York Times article on Byrnes’ comments:

The New York Times reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html)
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
18
Reaction score
19
Points
1
Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war. When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.

But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
89,013
Reaction score
7,558
Points
1,815
Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war. When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap[anese] people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.

But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?
If the bloodthirsty fdr had any interest in peace the war might well have been over long before either bomb, or before the terrible loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for that matter. Like all leftists, human life meant nothing to fdr.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
713
Points
893
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:
How does being the chief prosecutor - a lawyer - qualify anyone to speak to credible justification for Nagasaki? Were all of the classified documents that Truman had about the war in Japan included in the prosecutorial documents in Germany?

You keep coming up with the most bizarre not-experts to back up your argument. Opinions are like ass-holes... Everybody has one and most are full of scat.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
713
Points
893
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
The New York Times reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top