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

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.
Idiot.
 
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
You keep checkmating all the trolls here that All have a farting problem unable to open their mouth without doing so.lol
 
that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read

And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?

Here are some books you might wanna read:

James Johns, Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack

Dr. George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

Dr. Timothy Wilford, Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941

Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:

Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR

Being well read makes you a minority here Mike

~S~
Damn you ain’t kidding.
 
that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read

And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?

Here are some books you might wanna read:

James Johns, Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack

Dr. George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

Dr. Timothy Wilford, Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941

Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:

Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
....you act like you are the only one who reads..I've been reading about WW2 for longer than you have been alive
 
Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper


Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
Must be fun living in pretend land
Which you,and the rest revionist historians excel at. Lol
 
that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read

And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?

Here are some books you might wanna read:

James Johns, Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack

Dr. George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

Dr. Timothy Wilford, Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941

Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:

Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
....you act like you are the only one who reads..I've been reading about WW2 for longer than you have been alive


:rolleyes:
 
A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God
There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die

what a convenient morality

They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed

Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population

I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory

That Velcro comes off so easily
You handed his lying ass Trolling to him on a platter.
 
Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary

There is a trove of information revealing that many senior U.S. military officials believed the bombs were not needed to end the war in the Pacific. President Truman approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction, but many of the top-ranking brass, from Douglas MacArthur to Chester Nimitz, knew better.

In “Mandate for Change,” Eisenhower’s autobiography, Ike related this exchange: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”

There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:


--“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor.” That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.
MacArthur unlike Truman,was a humane human being.
 
Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in The Rising Sun, by Lester Brooks in Behind Japan’s Surrender, and by Gar Alperovitz in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

-- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.

-- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.

Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.

-- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.

Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did not shut down the approach.

Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.

So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.

On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”

So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.

-- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.

This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.

When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.

We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”

William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.

-- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.

Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:

The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
As always,mike owned the asses of the revisionist apologists here.lol
 
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......

Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children. But you just don't care, do you?

It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.

Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
He would rather kill himself first before owning up to being a jerk.
 
Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima
Nice adjectives? Is that correct mr. griffter? After all you are the super college educated master and bashing the USA?

Bashing you say, well, again I will point out the obvious insults you have directed at the patriotic Americans.

You call our leaders, "Immoral", You call their actions "Immoral". You call events in our history that was necessary to win a war, "immoral".

Then you follow that up by dictating that if we are to offer facts of history, that those facts are, "embarrassing arguments".

So yes, you have flamed and trolled with the title of your OP and with your very first statement. Where is the proof, in the title, or in your opening statement, of the immorality?

And of course, what you do not dare to tell us because you are afraid and can not defend, is that you are a mormon and you are arguing your religious beliefs.

Cowardly and unjust you behave. You denigrate and insult and then act as if we are the offensive when we react to the tone you have set by being a big fat prick!

So explain the title, your opening statement, show us how it is not a troll thread, flaming those who respond. show us how you are simply not some worthless angry #($($, angry at americans, with this obviously demeaning attack on our patriotism and our knowledge of history and war.

What in the world are you talking about? "Angry at Americans"? Huh? Criticizing a handful of politicians and their killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the same as attacking all Americans. Were Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Halsey, among many other senior American officers, "angry at Americans" because they said we should not have nuked Japan?

Apparently your idea of "patriotism" is to blindly support FDR and Truman's handling of WWII, never mind the fact that their policies led to the subjugation of Eastern Europe to Soviet tyranny, the subjugation of China to Maoist Communist tyranny, the subjugation of North Korea to Communist tyranny, and the murder of tens of millions of Chinese by Mao's Communist regime.

Based on everything I've seen you say so far, you really don't seem to care very much about those terrible events, and you don't seem very interested in attacking the Soviets and the Maoists and the Nationalists, but you excoriate the Japanese, even though they killed fewer people than did the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Chinese Communists, and even though they were strongly anti-communist and pro-capitalist.

By any rational measurement, the Japanese were clearly the lesser of the available evils, but FDR and Truman chose to support the worst of the evils and to nuke the lesser of them.
Amen to that.
 
Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!

I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.

Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.

You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.

Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.
He is going wah wayh wah after you handed his ass to him on a platter.lol

There the coward troll goes lying again,the one that insulted people was him,he did all the insulting and when you did not ignore his lies and called him out,he acted like an innocent victim in it all.
 
Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!

I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.

Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.

You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.

Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.
He is going wah wayh wah after you handed his ass to him on a platter.lol

There the coward troll goes lying again,the one that insulted people was him,he did all the insulting and when you did not ignore his lies and called him out,he acted like an innocent victim in it all.
Historical records, OFFICIAL Government records Magic intercepts, documents from the Japanese Government all PROVE beyond any doubt that the Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender before the Emperor did so after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets. After both bombs and the Invasion the Japanese Government VOTED NOT to surrender putting the lie to the claims they were actually trying to surrender. After the Emperor taped his surrender acceptance the Army staged a coup to stop that but failed.

The Japanese were offering the Soviets an alliance against the US if the Soviets would get them a CEASEFIRE and NO surrender. All well documented and LINKED to repeatedly in this and other threads. The only trolls are you lot. NONE of you can link to a single source of the Japanese Government offering to surrender and in fact everything that has been linked to says what I have said. All the off book NON Government attempts were simply an offer of ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China no consequences for Japan.
 
One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf
A link to your website? As a source of this? You are kidding?

Where do you get your poor narrative of Joseph Grew from? Quote and link. (that will be three failures, bundy, eisenhower, and now grew).

Truman believed the Emperor was a militarists? Gee, what would give him that idea, after Pearl Harbor? After the invasion of China? After the invasion of Korea? After the invasion of Manchuria? After the invasion of the Philippines? After the invasion of French indo-china? That is just crazy talk, to think the leader of Japan was a militarist? And after the 10's of thousands of American men died in Pacific war. After the 10's of thousands who died as prisoners, I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.

Truman's acceptance of propaganda, link to the propaganda. Show us, in it's entirety, the propaganda. Go ahead and link to the propaganda that Truman accepted as fact so that we can see for ourselves. Or is this simply another one of those FAKE news/opinion items of yours we are suppose to believe? As you dictate!

The surrender, or let us call it what it is, The Potsdam Declaration. If we call it what it is, it will be easier to link to and quote. The surrender demands never stated the Emperor had to step down. Never, not once.

Feel free to link to the demand, stating the Emperor must step down.
Link to Eisenhower's statement.
Link to Grew's statements.
Link to the propaganda you refer to in regards to the Emperor
Link to McGeorge Bundy

Or, go ahead obfuscate and distract us from what we are proving lies, by posting more stuff we are suppose to accept.

Is this some kind of joke? The fact that Eisenhower and Grew, among many others, opposed nuking Japan has been documented in literally hundreds of scholarly studies. Eisenhower expressed his views in his memoir, which is readily available, and I've provided you with several links that quote from his memoir. Or, you can go read his memoir if by chance you think all the links I've provided have fabricated Ike's statements.

It is beyond silly to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor justified Truman's professed belief that the emperor was just another one of the militarists. This argument shows an amazing, surreal ignorance of the emperor and of Japanese history from the early 1900s until 1945. If you can ever dare yourself to read something that challenges your PC brainwashing, you should read Emperor Hirohita and the Pacific War (University of Washington Press, 2016), by Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington.

If you would read her book, or several others I could suggest (but hers is the best because she uncovered previously unknown sources), you would learn that the emperor did all he could--within Japan's existing system of government--to oppose the hardliners over and over again, that the emperor did not want war with the U.S., that the emperor admired America and England, that the emperor pushed for lenient governance of Japan's colonial holdings, that the emperor had to put down a revolt by radical hardliners in 1926, that in the 1926 revolt the radical hardliners targeted some of Hirohito's cabinet members for assassination, and that Hirohito began to look for ways to end the war after the fall of Saipan (Taiwan), among many other important facts.

By the way, the "link to your [my] website" is a condensed version of Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous article "The Obliteration of Hiroshima," which answers every major excuse given for nuking Japan. Clearly, you have not yet bothered to read it.
Yep yep and yep mike.
 
Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:

This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”

But the A-bombs’ advent automatically changed that, allowing the US to wield the threat of nuclear attack. With the first device tested and proven in July 1945, and numerous others being readied early in August, America could have used their power as a new dimension of threat—rather than crudely dropping the bombs as mass killers.

Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan—of Americans, Japanese and any others, from invasion, firebombing, A-bombing and ground warfare. That is, of course, precisely what the A-bombs did achieve. But the US hastily destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki first.

Tokyo Bay would have been the ideal place to display the bombs’ power. A large open area, the bay is next to Tokyo and all of Japan’s leaders, including the emperor. It offered a wide array of places—on vacant land or on water—to drop an A-bomb, for fully awesome effect. The mushroom-cloud explosion could be near or not-so-near to Tokyo, and more or less dangerous to Japan’s emperor, leaders, citizens and urban capital.

In this way, the US could have carefully maximized the scope of the threat, while minimizing the harm to Tokyo itself. And if the Japanese were crazily intransigent, we could have simply dropped another A-bomb, closer to Tokyo or in a low-population area. Even another, if needed.

But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden. US Air Force leaders such as Jimmy Doolittle gained instant fame from bombing raids over Japan. The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.

With the Japanese A-bombings, a key player was Leslie Groves, who had built up and managed the Manhattan Project over the years. He now chaired the committee guiding Truman’s actions, and he closely managed—daily and hourly—the planning, loading, and crew work to fly the bomb for dropping. Grove was determined to deploy them fast. Separately, a supposed threat of the Soviet Union’s invading Japan was cited as a reason for haste. Such an excuse to rush to bomb can likely be chalked up, at least partly, to self-interest by the US.

And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared. Hiroshima was distant from Tokyo, and the blast itself wiped out all communication, so the Japanese leadership in Tokyo didn’t fully see the destruction. When the leveling of Hiroshima predictably gave Tokyo little awareness, Nagasaki was added. But that choice was even less logical, and it doubled the death toll and the stifling stain on America’s moral character.

The US had already exceeded rational and civilized bounds with our massive bombings in Europe and Japan. Our job was to conclude the war with a minimum of mega-deaths. By using the Tokyo Bay method to display the A-bombs’ power, America would have shown its compassion and humanity. But Truman and his people failed, and the harm was widespread and lasting.

On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.

This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​
He wont read it sense it debunks his babble.
 
Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:

This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”

But the A-bombs’ advent automatically changed that, allowing the US to wield the threat of nuclear attack. With the first device tested and proven in July 1945, and numerous others being readied early in August, America could have used their power as a new dimension of threat—rather than crudely dropping the bombs as mass killers.

Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan—of Americans, Japanese and any others, from invasion, firebombing, A-bombing and ground warfare. That is, of course, precisely what the A-bombs did achieve. But the US hastily destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki first.

Tokyo Bay would have been the ideal place to display the bombs’ power. A large open area, the bay is next to Tokyo and all of Japan’s leaders, including the emperor. It offered a wide array of places—on vacant land or on water—to drop an A-bomb, for fully awesome effect. The mushroom-cloud explosion could be near or not-so-near to Tokyo, and more or less dangerous to Japan’s emperor, leaders, citizens and urban capital.

In this way, the US could have carefully maximized the scope of the threat, while minimizing the harm to Tokyo itself. And if the Japanese were crazily intransigent, we could have simply dropped another A-bomb, closer to Tokyo or in a low-population area. Even another, if needed.

But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden. US Air Force leaders such as Jimmy Doolittle gained instant fame from bombing raids over Japan. The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.

With the Japanese A-bombings, a key player was Leslie Groves, who had built up and managed the Manhattan Project over the years. He now chaired the committee guiding Truman’s actions, and he closely managed—daily and hourly—the planning, loading, and crew work to fly the bomb for dropping. Grove was determined to deploy them fast. Separately, a supposed threat of the Soviet Union’s invading Japan was cited as a reason for haste. Such an excuse to rush to bomb can likely be chalked up, at least partly, to self-interest by the US.

And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared. Hiroshima was distant from Tokyo, and the blast itself wiped out all communication, so the Japanese leadership in Tokyo didn’t fully see the destruction. When the leveling of Hiroshima predictably gave Tokyo little awareness, Nagasaki was added. But that choice was even less logical, and it doubled the death toll and the stifling stain on America’s moral character.

The US had already exceeded rational and civilized bounds with our massive bombings in Europe and Japan. Our job was to conclude the war with a minimum of mega-deaths. By using the Tokyo Bay method to display the A-bombs’ power, America would have shown its compassion and humanity. But Truman and his people failed, and the harm was widespread and lasting.

On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.

This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​
Excellent job taking the revionists apologists to school mike,yeah no surprise that Curtis lemay was the advisor for Truman,he was a warmonger Warhawk.
 

Forum List

Back
Top