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

[LA RAM FAN]

The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.

The truth s*cks , and some will simply do anything to avoid it Unkotare

You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."

Yes we can, because those senior officials did make those statements, the Truman administration created a gag order for them, them revised history to claim the bomb was entirely necessary to save lives.

~S~

That’s why the revionist apologists here can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are sparky.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

what do you believe you posted here? again it does not support anything you have posted previously?

Do you believe a biography by a biased author written 40 odd years after an incident trumps what the actual person was quoted at the time ?

~S~

Obviously so,Lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base," and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians." Either Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima or he was ignorantly repeating what others had told him.

Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:

Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."​

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing "all those kids." Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:​

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” (The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com)​

Many books incorrectly claim there were 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers stationed in Hiroshima, but there were actually only about 10,000, and they were reservists and supply troops (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 410).

The British scientific mission to Japan, aka the British Mission, concluded that at the time of the attack there were 10,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and that the city’s population might have been as high as 320,000:

The census figures quoted are probably what Japanese call the “registered” population, used for such purposes as rationing. This is usually thought to be about 80 per cent, of the actual population which, with about 10,000 troops, and perhaps 5,000 workers brought in to cut fire breaks, may therefore have been as high as 320,000 at the time of the attack. (The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Report of the British Mission to Japan, London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1946, p. 1)​

I might add that Hiroshima had no fortifications and that its troops were garrison troops.

Why do we suppose that the Enola Gay flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.

Always fun watching you educate and school the revionist apologists here as you have.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yes, links, as the rule states, so we can keep you lying liberal revisionists at least address your posted bull shit

Misdirected comments like that are entirely WHY historic revisionism exists

~S~

QUOTE="sparky, post: 22936164, member: 12980"]

And did you forget about linking to the quotes you posted?

meaning the top brass quotes

yes i've linked to them many times , in many threads

and so could YOU Einstein

welcome to my ignore list

~S~
[/QUOTE]

A fact too complicated for their drugged up brains to comprehend.lol
Yeah next thing to do with the troll,he keeps ignoring all your links you HAVE posted he kept asking for,so best to give him a taste of his OWN medicine,ignore his trolling posts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I’m guessing that those who are defending the government’s version of Japan’s surrender have never read any of the mountain of scholarly research that has debunked that version. One such research piece is Professor Ward Wilson’s famous article “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” published in the prestigious journal International Security in 2007.

Wilson documents what numerous other scholars have documented, namely, that Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, caused the moderates to push harder than ever for surrender and caused some key hardliners to soften their opposition to surrender. Wilson notes, for example, that after the nuking of Hiroshima was confirmed, this was not enough to cause the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to meet (this council is commonly referred to as the Supreme Council or the Supreme War Council). However, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately. Here is an excerpt from Wilson’s article:

When Japanese responses to the Hiroshima bombing are placed side by side with responses to the Soviet intervention, it is clear that the Soviet intervention touched off a crisis, while the Hiroshima bombing did not.​

Japanese governing bodies did not display a sense of crisis after Hiroshima. First reports of an attack on that city reached Tokyo on August 6 and were confirmed the next day by fuller reports and an announcement by President Truman that a nuclear weapon had been used in the attack. Even after the attack was confirmed, however, the Supreme Council did not meet for two days. If the bombing of Hiroshima touched off a crisis, this delay is inexplicable. . . .​

In all, three full days elapsed after the bombing of Hiroshima in which the Supreme Council did not meet to discuss the bombing. When the Soviets intervened on August 9 and word of the invasion reached Tokyo at around 4:30 a.m., on the other hand, the Supreme Council met by 10:30 that same morning. . . .​

Following the bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito took no action except to repeatedly request “more details.” When word of the Soviet invasion reached him, however, the emperor immediately summoned Lord Privy Seal Kido and told him, “In light of the Soviet entry . . . it was all the more urgent to “find a means to end the war.” He commanded Kido to “have a heart-to-heart talk” with Prime Minister Suzuki without delay. (https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf)​

Literally hundreds of other scholars have documented these same facts. For example, Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington, in her recent book Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, using previously unexploited Japanese sources, presents additional evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that caused the moderates to push harder for surrender than they had ever done before and that created the circumstances that enabled the emperor to order the military to surrender.


Incidentally, Dr. Kawamura also debunks the slanted portrayals of Hirohito and the Japanese government painted by scholars like Herbert Bix and Robert Maddox. She points out that Bix mistranslated several of the Japanese sources that he used.

No they haven’t mikegriffith1

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.

This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely unharmed in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the Enola Gay totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.

It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.

300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.

We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.

300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.

FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.

You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.

I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.

First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right? You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.

Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hiroshima: Quotes

We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it

You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, 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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​

They are crying in defeat after you checkmated them and took their sorry asses to school. Lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.

I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. The overtures to the Soviet Union were a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China and no disarmament or occupation. Keep lying it suits you.

Oh my the irony.we both know you EXCEL at that,one troll yelling at another troll,priceless,l love it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.

I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. The overtures to the Soviet Union were a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China and no disarmament or occupation. Keep lying it suits you.

Oh my the irony.we both know you EXCEL at that,one troll yelling at another troll,priceless,l love it.

I have linked to ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS from the US Government. You have linked to NOTHING. I have linked to ACTUAL Historians and their books, you have linked to NOTHING.

 

[Mushroom]

I have linked to ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS from the US Government. You have linked to NOTHING. I have linked to ACTUAL Historians and their books, you have linked to NOTHING.

Hell, we have linked to actual speeches by the Emperor, and those 6 who were actually in charge at the time. Even talked about the offers they had made, and they still reject them.

I love the fact that many in here go on and on about the "mysterious offer" that Mac had gotten in 1944. Even though Mac never once said who made this offer, by who's authority the offer was made, why they went to him instead of the Government, or how he was even able to meet with such high Japanese officials in a time of war with nobody else knowing about it.

An offer that gave away a hell of a lot more than even the one we know they legitimately made through the Soviets just weeks before the bombs were used. That armistice offer had advanced as far as they were "willing to stop fighting for Manchuko". That was as far as they were willing to go in the last half of July 1945. They still wanted all the rest of their land back, would continue to hold their captured territory, and might consider giving back the Philippines if it was demilitarized.

All that, in exchange for no longer fighting to keep Manchuko, and the war ending.

That was the July 1945 offer they made through the Soviets. Now if the MacArthur offer of December 1944 was real, why not just propose that again? It really was most of what the Allies wanted. But they did not, they just rehashed their offer through the Swiss and Swedes from 2 yeas before, with Manchuko added.

I would love to know from some of these "experts" why the "Mac Proposal" was not routed through the Soviets, instead of the one they did send which even the Soviet Ambassador thought showed they were insane.

 

[Picaro]

It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.

Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.

 

[Mushroom]

Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.

Gunny, so many in here are so badly skewed that they would even see President Obama as a radical Right-Winger.

I am damned near the middle politically. But I have been saying for a while now that the Left keeps pushing me to the right, because of how they treat almost anybody that does not automatically fall in step with some of their more loopy beliefs.

Of course, I also often chuckle when somebody who is way far to the kookoo Right tries to compare me to Stalin.

 

[Picaro]

It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.

Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.

I have no idea what you're whining about, tard; it's right wingers for the most part spreading the bullshit. Gipper is a right wing 'libertarian', so is 'LA Fan', and Crusader FRank, not 'far left', and 'Unkotare' is a Republican; Griffith isn't a left winger, either. Why would Democrats smear FDR??? You're the stupid one here, not me; I'm not one of those who are agreeing with the OP, dumbass.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Four farts in a row from the government paid shills.comedy gold.

 

[gipper]

It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.

Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.

Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.

Gunny, so many in here are so badly skewed that they would even see President Obama as a radical Right-Winger.

I am damned near the middle politically. But I have been saying for a while now that the Left keeps pushing me to the right, because of how they treat almost anybody that does not automatically fall in step with some of their more loopy beliefs.

Of course, I also often chuckle when somebody who is way far to the kookoo Right tries to compare me to Stalin.

Now for the truth, but dumb statists are too weak to accept it. They prefer believing lies because their government and the establishment tell them to. Pitiful losers.


The Hiroshima Myth
By John V. Denson
Mises.org
August 12, 2020
Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “patriotic” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90 percent) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy

was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war….Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, cost us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace.

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history, dating back to 660 BC. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, “Why then were the bombs dropped?”

PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

[Markle]

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.

As you know, you are wrong again.

The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power. As you know, that was totally unacceptable.

 

[gipper]

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.

As you know, you are wrong again.

The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power. As you know, that was totally unacceptable.

Wrong, but your point is meaningless. If you think Truman was right to incinerate hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians because Japan wanted the emperor to stay in power, you’re an imperialist idiot.

All they asked is that the emperor not be prosecuted and hung, which Dirty Harry agreed to after his war crime.

 

[Unkotare]

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.

As you know, you are wrong again.

The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power. As you know, that was totally unacceptable.

But after deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we accepted the retention of the emperor anyway.

 

[Mushroom]

PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Let's see. Somebody who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS, and is government created. Somebody who believes that vaccines cause autism. Who has even written articles which claim that the US started WWII, and the Confederacy was fully justified in starting the Civil War to protect their "property rights".

Yea, I think I'm good. No reason to read a bunch of nutcase conspiracy theory crap. But you know something? There is a section of the forum just for that kind of nonsense, why not take this nonsense down there with you?

Yea, I am about to take an article written by Lew Rockwell or his National Socialist institute about as seriously as I do something posted by David Wolfe.

 

[Markle]

But after deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we accepted the retention of the emperor anyway.

The Emperor was retained...WITHOUT POWER. He became a figurehead.