Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ya we should have waited while Japanese troops continued to kill US and allied forces Killed Chinese and the Soviets took a couple Home Islands. Great plan RETARD. By the way if we had waited MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have starved to death or frozen to death.We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.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 island campaigns were pretty much over and the Russians knocking on their back door and the civilian population looking at starvation was why they would have eventually surrendered. Truman and the military wanted to see those bombs in action, to see if they were in fact 'war stoppers' They could have cared less about the massive loss of civilian life on that island as a result.Ya we should have waited while Japanese troops continued to kill US and allied forces Killed Chinese and the Soviets took a couple Home Islands. Great plan RETARD. By the way if we had waited MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have starved to death or frozen to death.We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.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.
Sure we could "wait them out" meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.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.
They were ready to surrender if we assured them their Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal and imprisoned or hung. So all this 'they would have went on a murderous rampage' doesn't make sense. They were beat and they knew it. We had no intention of abasing their Empeor but we didn't tell them that because we needed a little more time..time to test the bombs under war time conditions.Sure we could "wait them out" meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.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.
www.archives.gov
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.They were ready to surrender if we assured them their Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal and imprisoned or hung. So all this 'they would have went on a murderous rampage' doesn't make sense. They were beat and they knew it. We had no intention of abasing their Empeor but we didn't tell them that because we needed a little more time..time to test the bombs under war time conditions.Sure we could "wait them out" meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.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.
...
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
The blame is square on the Japanese leadership. They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid. They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans. So who cares what any Jap sympathizers say about it.History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
Revisionist history isn’t what I don’t like, it’s changing the facts. What I posted were the facts. That was the official Japanese government peace offer. Would they have settled for less? Possibly, but any sane person would recognize that the Japanese weren’t in any position to dictate surrender terms. The only choice the allies offered them was the same one offered to Germany: take it or die.History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
The blame is square on the Japanese leadership. They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid. They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans. So who cares ....History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
.... What I posted were the facts. ....
I know all about the topic. Read many history books on WWII and Japan. Now F off.The blame is square on the Japanese leadership. They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid. They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans. So who cares ....History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing. You have been reading revisionist history....
No they weren’t. Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets. The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms. Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over. The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
You could have just said you know absolutely nothing about the topic and left it at that.
...
I know all about the topic. ....
My comments support the facts, the Japs didn’t surrender, so they got Nagasaki smoked....
I know all about the topic. ....
Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
My comments support the facts........
I know all about the topic. ....
Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
Sure there were dissenting views but the militarists ran things and the "peace party" had no power whatsoever.My comments support the facts........
I know all about the topic. ....
Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
The facts don't support your comments. If you have an active library card and really want to learn more, look up the conflicting views within the Japanese government during the war, including those of the emperor (who did not exercise political control anywhere near the degree that the cartoon-historians would have it). The question you are missing is why, if the scumbag fdr cared anything for human life (including especially the lives of American servicemen), the several overtures toward a much sooner end to the war were never even seriously considered let alone pursued.
Sure there were dissenting views but the militarists ran things and the "peace party" had no power whatsoever.My comments support the facts........
I know all about the topic. ....
Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
The facts don't support your comments. If you have an active library card and really want to learn more, look up the conflicting views within the Japanese government during the war, including those of the emperor (who did not exercise political control anywhere near the degree that the cartoon-historians would have it). The question you are missing is why, if the scumbag fdr cared anything for human life (including especially the lives of American servicemen), the several overtures toward a much sooner end to the war were never even seriously considered let alone pursued.
The Japanese government overtures weren't considered because official allied policy for both Germany and Japan was that nothing except unconditional surrender was acceptable. The allies had learned their lesson from WWI where conditional surrender led to the rise of Hitler and a resurgent Germany. Do you think the USA should have ignored the agreements it had with it's allies?
