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

[LA RAM FAN]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Lets see here: yeah, it took 2 nukes to convince the Japanese military they were washed up. And more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo. Its too bad for the Japanese. It sucks, most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years? How humane would that have been? Explain that to us.

"most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?"

right.


because THOSE were the only 2 choices.

There was absolutely no way that we could have nuked 2 of their military bases, installations or armies....

nope.

couldn't be done.

impossible.

we HAD TO nuke 2 cities of old people and children.

and obviously nuking 2 cities shortened the war.
where-as if we had nuked 2 armies the ghosts of the dead soldiers would have killed even MORE of our troops.


(sarcasm)

anynameyouwish

You are making too much sense for the revionists apologists to comprehend.lol

 

[HenryBHough]

Someday we'll look back fondly on the nuking of Beijing. But not until at least 1,273,353 Americans are killed by China's newest and best bio-warfare toy.

 

[toobfreak]

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC:

The nuking of Japan may have been the proudest, high-water mark in the history of American Imperialism. Too bad we can't go back and do it all over for a 2nd time.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.

f 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.

This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?

So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.

Actually the Nips lost the argument.

Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.

Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?

I’ve noticed everytime you bring up that excellent point,the two revionists apologists trolls evade that post and play dodgeball everytime single time.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement? Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?

The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937...

Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?

"Can you never admit to being wrong", I just got the book, Togo was not authorized to offer any territories that japan was holding. Togo got admonished, chastised.

We will certainly not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality

The phrase was devoid of all connection with reality? Why? You leave out so much and accuse me of being the one who cannot accept being wrong! You are a CHARLATAN, all you do is parrot other's work you cut and paste from the internet. If that is not true, than you are devious low life liar. You list academic credentials, proudly, yet it appears you know nothing of simply reading a book.

I include a bit more with the pics to prove I got the book, you even get a bonus, feet.

View attachment 276588 View attachment 276589 View attachment 276590

Proof Truman same as The other mass murderer before him FDR,also loved Stalin,Mass murdering traiters FDR and Stalin loved him because he was exactly the same as they both were,mass murderers of women and children.three peas in a pod,these mass murderers need to stick together.

 

[Unkotare]

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC:

The nuking of Japan may have been the proudest, high-water mark in the history of American Imperialism. Too bad we can't go back and do it all over for a 2nd time.

It was done twice, idiot.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.

You nailed it TheProgressivePatriot

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................

HUH??? The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.

History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.

I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.

Trashing America for Racial politics..................

No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule.

Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers.

Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.

You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

All the revionist apologists that have come on here trollimg never read your op or your replies obviously.

 

[eagle1462010]

The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................

HUH??? The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.

History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.

I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.

Trashing America for Racial politics..................

No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule.

Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers.

Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.

You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

All the revionist apologists that have come on here trollimg never read your op or your replies obviously.

All this BS WOKENESS on revisionist history is BS.........Japan pulled the trigger on us........and LOST.........oh well.

This thread is the NEW AMERICA SUCKS crusade...........to hell with that..........and to hell with WOKENESS......what kind of mental midgets came up with that name...........BRAIN DAMAGE.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.

Uh-huh. You bet.

The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.

I already addressed this point, but, as usual, you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.

At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.

See above. You do realize that by mid-June, at the latest, the Japanese had ceased all offensive operations, right? We were needlessly pursuing them when they were clearly contained and posed no threat to us, such as on Luzon.

Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie. You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.

No, the problem is that you only seek talking points and refuse to read scholarship that challenges your warped sense of "patriotism."

Yeah he has a that habit of ignoring posts that don’t go along with his babble.

Inside Japan's WW2 unit that disembowelled screaming PoWs & popped out eyes

JAPAN’S forces were notorious for their ruthlessness and cruelty in World War II and tales of their sadism towards Allied prisoners have become infamous. Many know the horrific stories of the…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk? The Java Sea.

August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.

Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.

Defenseless, nope, not at all.

Is this nonsense how you justify Truman's barbarism in your own mind? Go read the USSBS's report on Japan's prostrate condition as of July 1944. As I've pointed out, by June 1945, the odds of an American bomber or fighter getting shot down over Japan were 3 in 1,000, or 0.003%.

Technically speaking, one can say that the Japanese were not completely defenseless against air attack, but when they were only able to shoot down 0.003% of our planes, one can certainly say that they were "virtually defenseless."

The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.

If we had thought there was any chance that the Enola Gay and its two sister planes would come under attack, we would have sent fighters to escort them once they neared Hiroshima. The fact that we did not bother to do this speaks volumes.

Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering.

More ahistorical and disingenuous comedy. Japan had ceased offensive operations in the Pacific many months before Hiroshima. The only Americans who were killed after Okinawa were those who were engaged in offensive operations. No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.

But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".

Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey? Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. Admiral Leahy would have done the same thing. So would Admiral Nimitz. So would General Feller. So would General Clarke. So would many other good and decent senior American military officers.

It is sick and sad to see anyone seek to excuse Truman's cruelty and barbarism by wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to be "patriots." Well, your warped definition of "patriotism" defends a man who not only nuked two cities when he knew Japan was willing to surrender on acceptable terms, but who also handed over China to Mao's Communists and thus sentenced over 30 million Chinese to death.

George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.

You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.

He indeed is no patriot in the least and is totally unamerican,that is so true that Jefferson,Washington,Adams,Lincoln and other presidents never would have used nukes including some of the more modern presidents like John Tyler,calvin coolidge,Eisenhower as you have proved in the entire thread,and some real recent presidents even including kennedy and jimmy carter.

 

[badbob85037]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

The Japaneses killed over 2,000 Americans in their sneak attack. In China they butchered cities including women and children. Medical experiments and their death marches. What are you some bleeding heart or just hate America?

 

[Turtlesoup]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Oh Brother---I forget which was which.....as you try to play the christian card now to make the americans the bad guys----------BUT both cities were military targets and as such both cities were bombed as they should have been and needed to be.

One City was the home of the Japanese 2nd battalion or some such huge military complex and the other was a massive shipping port for Japanese weapons.


The US was righteous and did the RIGHT thing and bombed the EVIL very evil Japanese that had attacked us in their quest to take over the world killing million many in very horrific ways including by slicing babies out of their mothers pregnant bellies. Bombing two cities instead of one not only harmed their military complex but showed them that the first bomb was no accident and that we could and would take one city after another if they didn't STOP. The US ended the war this way, had they not bombed the Japanese into total submission, WW2 would have continued on with Japanese and Americans (our european allies weren't really going to help us by the way) both losing millions of more people.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.

What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.

Hiroshima: Quotes

Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador?

Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense. I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties. I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, the only concern, was his status in a surrender.

But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.

This is a dishonest dodge. Of course the Japanese government was not completely unified on surrender! Our government wasn't unified on surrender either! There were numerous senior military and civilian officials who were arguing strongly that we should assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, that we should warn the Japanese that we had the atomic bomb, and that we should advise the Japanese that Russia would enter the Pacific War in the near future. I've pointed this out dozens of times!

In Japan, there were hardliners in the military who kept thwarting surrender efforts because they were able to argue that the emperor would be deposed in a surrender! That was why it was so critical for Truman to stipulate that this would not happen!

You've simply shifted the goalposts by dozens of yards to try to avoid dealing with facts that refute your position.

As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.

LOL! You even twist well-known, undisputed history. The Japanese surrender offer insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be deposed, even though the Soviets had invaded and we had nuked two cities.

We did not reject that condition. Truman wanted to convey our acceptance of that condition but to do so in language that would not seem to be a concession on our part. The Byrnes Note, which was our reply to the Japanese surrender offer, implied that the emperor would remain in place but that he would act under our authority. Most of Japan's leaders read the note as indicating that the emperor would not be deposed, although most--not all, but most--of the hardliners took advantage of the lack of a clear statement to this effect and argued that the note gave no guarantee about the emperor. Plus, the Japanese were getting back-channel indications that we would not depose the emperor.

And, of course, there is also the fact that we did not depose the emperor when we occupied Japan. In fact, the emperor proved to be a great ally and help in getting the Japanese to accept occupation and the transition to democracy.

I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.

No, what it proves is that your attitude toward the Japanese is not only hateful and bigoted but that it borders on being sadistic. Your barbaric and vicious posturing is thoroughly un-American.

Americanism does not mean you butcher hundreds of thousands of women and children when you know you can achieve an acceptable surrender without killing any more people. Americanism does not mean you side with a murderous tyranny that was twice as bad as Nazi Germany and then hand over Eastern Europe to that tyranny and hand over China to an even worse tyranny. Americanism does not mean you spurn peace offers from an anti-communist, capitalist nation and deliberately provoke that nation to attack you so you can get your country to enter a war on the side of the Soviet Union.

This troll so much plays dodgeball.no surprise,he is a dude that thinks he is a woman.hee hee comedy gold.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!

I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.

Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?

You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.

Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.

The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:

Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so 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…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​

How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.

HUH? My "credible source"?! I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.

If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.

And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.

You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.

Damn you ain’t kidding,he sure does sound like a kid in a candy shop not getting his way sense they don’t have the candy he wants so then starts bawling.lol

 

[Turtlesoup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good grief--despite the propaganda that haters of america put out--both cities were military targets---one was the home of the Japanese army and one was a huge shipping port for the Japanese army. And to answer your question yes---we had to chose to kill a bunch of japanese in order to convince these EVIL invaders to stop attacking others. ...and no no lethal demonstration would have done nothing---these were brutal evil people then who sliced babies out of chinese women's tummies among others for sport.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yet, they did not surrender,

You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender. You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender." They were trying to surrender. And we knew they were trying to surrender. But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor.

The moderates desperately needed our help to overcome the hardliners, but Truman did nothing but help the hardliners over and over again. It was as if he wanted to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender until he could nuke them and until the Soviets were ready to invade.

and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?! That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.

The word "offensive operation" in a military context refers to multiple forces launching a coordinated attack with an objective of seizing territory and/or destroying substantial numbers of enemy personnel and equipment (ships, tanks, planes, etc.).

Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.

Uh, yeah, that's the point. They were only fighting because we were still attacking them. They were powerless to attack us in any kind of an offensive operation. Most of their ships were stuck in harbor for lack of fuel (and fear of getting sunk). Their air force rarely sortied out in even halfway substantial numbers due to a lack of fuel, and their airplane production was almost zero due to a lack of raw materials. That's why our losses in air raids were less than 1%.

Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.

He keeps losing his credibility major big time trolling saying they did not try and surrender,comedy gold.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.

You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.

This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.

I shake my head at your stupidity.

It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.

It is amazing that you could make these statements after reading my reply. I suspect you read the first paragraph and then skimmed over the rest. My reply answers every essential argument you've made about Ike's statements on nuking Japan. All of your arguments against Ike's statements follow the general thrust of Maddox's arguments, except that some of your assumptions are erroneous and are not even made by Maddox. Let's examine your arguments:

Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson.

I addressed that argument in my reply.

Two versions that contradict each other.

No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa.

One must be a lie.

That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."

Which book to believe?

Again, the two accounts are not mutually exclusive. Even in the first account, Ike made it clear that he expressed misgivings about nuking Japan. As I mentioned in my reply, it is entirely reasonable and understandable that Ike's first account, written in 1948, would be rather circumspect, but that his later account, written 15 years later, would contain more information because he felt more at liberty to provide a fuller version.

I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?

We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not.

LOL! Uh, as even Maddox admits, one of Stimson's aides recorded that Ike and Stimson discussed the atomic bomb! Did you even read my reply?

Furthermore, just FYI, Truman, Stimson, and the rest of Truman's gang hated MacArthur! How can you not know this?! So it's not at all surprising that Mac was kept in the dark. Furthermore, MacArthur was not nearby when Stimson was in Potsdam, whereas Eisenhower was, and Truman and Stimson liked Ike. And, again, we have documentary evidence from one of Stimson's aides that Stimson and Eisenhower discussed nuking Japan.

I might add that Eisenhower insisted to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, that he objected to using nukes on Japan when he met with Stimson. I mentioned this fact in my reply as well, but you ignored it.

So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period.

My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot."

In point of fact, there is no credible reason to doubt that Eisenhower opposed nuking Japan before the fact. And, of course, there is no question that the more he studied the issue, the firmer he came to believe that nuking Japan was both wrong and unnecessary, as he explained in his 1963 interview with Newsweek.

Of COURSE he just read the first paragraph and skimmed over the rest of. Your post,the way he has kept playing dodgeball with you in this entire thread,it’s obvious he has done that with every post of yours.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

You mean "scum" like General and President Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, Admiral Nimitz, Ambassador Grew, Ralph Bard, General Clarke, General MacArthur, etc., etc.?

Not one American soldier would have died in the Pacific in August if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and what he knew about them from intercepts.

Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the American way and is not what America is about. Handing over hundreds of millions of people to Communist tyranny is not the American way either. The American way is to fight honorably and to pursue every option for peace before resorting to force. The American way is to hit military targets, if you must use force, not bomb virtually defenseless cities filled mostly with seniors, women, and children.

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy. Richard Frank is the other major Truman/nuke apologist. In the article below, Hasegawa dismantles Frank's arguments and along the way shows how Frank misuses sources and ignore statements that don't fit his narrative. It's a very long article, but it has to be--it's very thorough. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.

The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

As always mike griffin is the winner and has checkmated the troll Elecktra taking him to school handing his ass to him on a platter .lol

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.