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

[gipper]

There was no inflation.

Those high casualty estimates were always that high.



The reality of those estimates is not a myth.

And try as progressive scholars might, no scholar has yet debunked reality.



Reality is not a myth. Nothing has been padded.



Fake news. Truman never rejected reasonable surrender terms.



Fake news. The atomic bomb was dropped near the military headquarters and military barracks.

The military casualties were quite satisfactory.



They targeted the military heart of the city.



Fake news. The military casualties were quite satisfactory.



Leahy was a goofy moron.

During the war before Japan surrendered the only thing he had to say about atomic bombs was that, as an expert in explosives, he could guarantee that atomic bombs would never work.



Not a lie at all.

It does seem though that Truman was under the mistaken impression that nuking a military base would not result in collateral damage.



There were plenty of men killed as well.



The exhibit was filled with anti-American lies. It is right that people forced it to be taken down.

Talking to yourself again and making absolutely no sense again.

 

[Open Bolt]

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

He sounds like he was pretty goofy. Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

The justification for Nagasaki was that Japan was refusing to surrender.

The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki.​

The justification is that Japan was refusing to surrender.

It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​

Not difficult to contest at all. Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

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

Japan was free to surrender any time they liked.

Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.

Well, it isn't particularly noteworthy.

 

[Open Bolt]

Talking to yourself again and making absolutely no sense again.

Wrong on both counts. I have never talked to myself, and I have always made sense.

 

[Mushroom]

Hardly a wild estimate. The "Shockley numbers" are higher than estimates for "Downfall alone" because Shockley gave numbers for the conquest of all of Japan, whereas Downfall only planned for the capture of southern Kyushu and then the Tokyo plain.

Plus Secretary Stimson knew the estimates he was given were outright wrong. In most of the Pacific Campaign battles, casualties were coming in at rated 3-5 times higher than estimated before the battles. He knew that the estimates were entirely wrong, because they were using estimates based on fighting Germany. Those figures did not work when fighting Japan, so he commissioned William Shockley to prepare a new estimate, using the casualties experienced when fighting the Japanese on other islands, like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Saipan (the last two were important as it gave a better baseline for civilian casualties).

Because unlike in Europe, when fighting the Japanese there were many cases of suicide among the civilian population, them taking up primitive arms, or even Japanese soldiers killing them so they would not be "dishonored by being captured". The estimates Secretary Stimson was given would likely have worked, in Italy, France, Germany, etc. But for fighting the Japanese, they were way too low.

To give an idea how low, the Army estimated casualty figures for 18 months of fighting in Japan at around 43,000. General MacArthur estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days, 125,000 after the first 4 months. To put that into perspective, the 2 months of fighting on Okinawa (not even a home island but another conquered territory) was around 60,000. And that actually landing on the "Home Islands" would be even worse, especially as many more civilians would likely take part in resisting the invasion, then committing suicide as the Allies pushed forward.

But you are slightly mistaken on the names. "Operation Downfall" was the name of the entire operation to conquer Japan by land. "Operation Olympic" was the name for capturing and securing Kyushu. The following operation to capture Honshu was "Operation Coronet". That would have started with landing on the Kanto Plain, then pushing north to Tokyo.

 

[Mushroom]

Where is a link to your claim?

No, that is not how it works.

You are the one that made the claim that Mac was the Ruler of Japan. Please, provide any proof to verify that original insane claim. In fact, please provide any proof that would be acceptable or even legal for the US to have done. Like, any case in the past where the US Government gave over to a military (or civilian) commander such powers without oversight.

Oh, and that the other Allied Powers (UK, China, Soviet Union) would have agreed to that either. Because it was a Joint Occupation, and I can't see the British (let alone the Soviets) agreeing to allow a single person to act as ruler of a nation without significant civilian oversight.

It is a silly claim, and completely preposterous. I named who was actually in charge, you have to prove that they were not really in charge, and that somehow a single American was acting as a ruler entirely on his own.

 

[BS Filter]

No, that is not how it works.

You are the one that made the claim that Mac was the Ruler of Japan. Please, provide any proof to verify that original insane claim. In fact, please provide any proof that would be acceptable or even legal for the US to have done. Like, any case in the past where the US Government gave over to a military (or civilian) commander such powers without oversight.

Oh, and that the other Allied Powers (UK, China, Soviet Union) would have agreed to that either. Because it was a Joint Occupation, and I can't see the British (let alone the Soviets) agreeing to allow a single person to act as ruler of a nation without significant civilian oversight.

It is a silly claim, and completely preposterous. I named who was actually in charge, you have to prove that they were not really in charge, and that somehow a single American was acting as a ruler entirely on his own.

I provided you with a link to a reputable site containing the information. You have provided nothing. That's how this works. Read this and learn. General McCarthur had absolute authority in Japan.

Douglas MacArthur, America’s Emperor of Japan – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org

 

[Open Bolt]

But you are slightly mistaken on the names. "Operation Downfall" was the name of the entire operation to conquer Japan by land. "Operation Olympic" was the name for capturing and securing Kyushu. The following operation to capture Honshu was "Operation Coronet". That would have started with landing on the Kanto Plain, then pushing north to Tokyo.

Downfall only encompassed Olympic and Coronet. It didn't include plans for forcibly capturing territory beyond what those two operations captured.

They assumed that once we captured Tokyo, Japan would then surrender no matter what, and there would be no need for further use of force.

Shockley's estimate assumed that there would be no surrender ever and we'd have to fight a bloody battle over every single square inch of Japan with even schoolchildren attacking with spears.

 

[Open Bolt]

They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them.

Japan didn't try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.

Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.

Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.

True, but not really relevant to the bombings. The point of the bombings was to make Japan surrender.

In other words, you think mass murdering women and children of a defenseless nation is entirely okay, as long as they attacked you first.

Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.

PS...Japan didn’t kill millions of people. You have been duped.

Yes they did. Your holocaust denial is appalling.

 

[Open Bolt]

If Truman had more than a one-time use pair of nuts he'd have nuked Moscow when he finished with Japan. Even if he had to wait a few months whilst the boffins brewed 'nother nuke.

Where would the B-29s take off from in order to carry out such a mission?

 

[Open Bolt]

Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located.

If nothing else, you are wrong about where the military facilities were.

The primary military facilities were located in the center, where the bomb hit.

Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them.

Are you under the impression that there is any sort of significance to Byrnes having said this??

Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms.

The very existence of the surrender terms shows that Truman was not taking Stalin's advice to stick to unconditional surrender.

The leniency of the Potsdam Proclamation shows that Truman was wise enough to reject your advice to let Stalin be a party to the Potsdam Proclamation.

Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack.

Your error is ignoring the vast defenses Japan had against our coming invasion. They had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.

Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months.

Does this fact have any relevance to anything?

That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.

You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right? You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right? You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right? You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?

Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.

Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.

Your apology for Japan's genocidal rampage through Asia is breathtakingly appalling.

 

[Open Bolt]

You have cherry-picked two statements from his book and have ignored everything else he says in the book, not to mention everything else he has said in his subsequent articles. Let us review a few facts about Hasegawa’s book, not just the two statements you have cherry-picked (and misinterpreted).

FACT: Hasegawa states in plain English that the idea that the nukes caused Japan to surrender and that nuking Japan saved American lives is a “myth," and he says that there were alternatives to nuking Japan that Truman failed to pursue:

Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​

Hasegawa is wrong. Truman pursued every method of forcing Japan to surrender.

FACT: Hasegawa notes that Stalin hoped that Japan would not surrender before the Soviets were able to enter the war. The Soviets were worried that Truman would soften the surrender terms and that Japan would surrender before the Soviet Union could enter the war. Therefore, Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender:

To his mind, the war would have to last long enough for the Soviet Union to join it. . . .​

Stalin also feared the early termination of the war as a result of Japan’s premature acceptance of surrender. In order to prolong the war long enough for the Soviets to complete their preparations to attack Japan, he urged the United States to adhere to the unconditional surrender demand. (p. 86)​

I think it’s a travesty that Truman chose to follow the advice of one of the biggest mass murders in world history.

Mr. Truman didn't follow Stalin's advice. The Potsdam Proclamation abandoned unconditional surrender.

But if Truman had followed your advice, he would have made Stalin a party to the Potsdam Proclamation, which would have meant letting Stalin have input over how harsh the terms were.

You, on the other hand, have ducked and dodged all over the place when confronted with the fact that Truman followed the very policy that Stalin wanted him to follow.

That isn't a fact. Truman didn't follow your advice and let Stalin be party to the Potsdam Proclamation.

Truman instead disregarded Stalin and abandoned unconditional surrender.

By the way, Hasegawa also notes that Stalin was worried about the peace feelers that Japan was sending through Sweden and Switzerland (p. 88). We know Truman was made aware of these peace feelers, yet he did nothing to pursue them.

Wrong. We know that Truman did pursue them.

Truman knew that the peace feelers lacked legitimacy, but he pursued them anyway in the hope that they might evolve into legitimate contacts with the Japanese government.

It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.

Nor did Truman modify the surrender terms even after he learned that Hirohito himself wanted to end the war, that Hirohito had authorized an approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal, and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed in unconditional surrender.

That wasn't the only obstacle, and Mr. Truman knew it wasn't the only obstacle.

The primary obstacle was the fact that the Japanese Army was refusing to surrender no matter what.

We know that in May, Acting Secretary of State Grew carefully explained to Truman that the Japanese would never surrender if they believed we would depose the emperor. Grew also explained how and why the emperor's power was limited by Japanese law and tradition. But Truman, bound by his unbelievably ignorant belief that the emperor was one of the militarists, wouldn't listen.

Nonsense. Truman listened to what Grew had to say.

FACT: Hasegawa notes that the peace faction had to be careful or else the hardliners might force the appointment of a new cabinet, and violent hardliners might assassinate peace advocates:

Togo also knew how delicate the domestic situation was. One false step and the cabinet might implode, or political figures who worked for peace might be assassinated. (p. 95)​

Yep.

FACT: In May 1945, the Big Six adopted a document that stated that “Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire” (p. 73).

This explains why the hardliners on the Big Six immediately agreed to convene a Big Six meeting after they learned of the Soviet invasion, whereas they saw no need for a Big Six meeting after they learned of Hiroshima.

The Japanese Empire was dealt a death blow when the US military captured Okinawa. That was long before the Soviets got involved.

In fact, Japan was doomed from the moment they lost the Battle of the Philippine Sea, mid 1944.

 

[Open Bolt]

But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.

Wrong. Even though Truman knew that the peace feelers were illegitimate, he followed up on them just in case they might lead to legitimate contacts.

It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.

Hasegawa . . . also says . . . that Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking.

If so then he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mr. Truman pursued every way possible to force Japan to surrender.

I myself am unsure whether Truman acted out of malice or out of ignorance and incompetence, or a mix of both.

None of the above. Mr. Truman acted out of heroism and compassion.

Hasegawa argues that . . . there were alternatives to nuking that Truman refused to pursue.

This Hasegawa character really has no clue what was going on at the end of the war.

Hasegawa acknowledges that the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) reached the opposite conclusion, but he contends that the USSBS got it wrong and that some of the Survey's evidence contradicted their conclusion (pp. 294-295).

The Strategic Bombing Survey were indeed a bunch of hacks.

I agree with Hasegawa, namely, that . . . Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking.

That merely means you both are wrong. Truman did everything possible to try to force Japan to surrender.

 

[Mushroom]

I provided you with a link to a reputable site containing the information. You have provided nothing. That's how this works. Read this and learn. General McCarthur had absolute authority in Japan.

Oh my goodness, I love how you keep giving me references that show you are wrong.

Although, ostensibly guided by directions from Washington, MacArthur exercised a great deal of independent authority. In theory, it was the Far Eastern Advisory Commission, which comprised representatives of all the allied countries, that established general policies for the occupation.

In fact, the real authority for issuing policies and directives to SCAP resided in Washington. But MacArthur took a rather imperial view of his role and was not unduly influenced by instructions from Washington or guidance from the Far Eastern Advisory Commission….

That is right from your own reference.

The fact is, Mac learned a lot of governing an "Occupation" as he had been military governor of the Philippines. A role rather close to one he himself held years later in the Philippines. He knew that all he needed to do was to give advice, and it would likely be followed. But he also knew that if he stepped out of line, both Washington and the Advisory Commission would step right in and overrule him. He was smart and experienced enough to never do that.

What, are you surprised that a great many actually do things as they are supposed to?

Once again, you fail to show in any way how he "ruled", and while your own reference refers to him as having "a great deal of independent authority", and that he acted "imperial", it never says that he himself ruled.

As I said, you keep trying to prove your points, but apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours. And all you do is provide even more references confirming exactly what I am saying.

 

[Mushroom]

Shockley's estimate assumed that there would be no surrender ever and we'd have to fight a bloody battle over every single square inch of Japan with even schoolchildren attacking with spears.

Which in many ways is what would have happened.

Because without a surrender, they would have never stopped fighting until the entire nation had been conquered. This can be seen in the "holdouts" that were still trying to fight the war decades later. Still hiding and fighting, because they had never been ordered to surrender.

 

[Mushroom]

If nothing else, you are wrong about where the military facilities were.

The primary military facilities were located in the center, where the bomb hit.

The headquarters for the 2nd General Army was about a half mile from "Ground Zero" of the Hiroshima blast. Over 20,000 Japanese Soldiers were killed when it detonated.

In fact, almost the entire command staff of the 2nd General Army were killed, and Marshal Hata only survived because he was visiting a remote logistics location at the time of the bomb. He ordered all surviving personnel to assemble at the nearby Ujina Air Base. Which was heavily damaged, but largely survived.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh my goodness, I love how you keep giving me references that show you are wrong.



That is right from your own reference.

The fact is, Mac learned a lot of governing an "Occupation" as he had been military governor of the Philippines. A role rather close to one he himself held years later in the Philippines. He knew that all he needed to do was to give advice, and it would likely be followed. But he also knew that if he stepped out of line, both Washington and the Advisory Commission would step right in and overrule him. He was smart and experienced enough to never do that.

What, are you surprised that a great many actually do things as they are supposed to?

Once again, you fail to show in any way how he "ruled", and while your own reference refers to him as having "a great deal of independent authority", and that he acted "imperial", it never says that he himself ruled.

As I said, you keep trying to prove your points, but apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours. And all you do is provide even more references confirming exactly what I am saying.

Perhaps you don't really understand words and their definition. I have provided historical fact. You have provided your opinion.

 

[Open Bolt]

Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary,

And others just realize that necessity is totally irrelevant.

Japan refused to surrender so we kept attacking them. The end.

to say nothing of the terrible immorality. It’s just a bridge too far.

My morality finds the atomic bombing of Japan to be absolutely delightful.

And what is sad and ironic is that many of those Americans are conservatives--they just seem to have a mental/emotional block when it comes to this issue. They will excoriate FDR and Truman on a host of other issues, and rightfully so,

That's the thing about us conservatives. We will happily condemn actual wrongdoing. But when someone does something that is actually good then we support it.

The atomic bombing of Japan was a wonderful event. All good people support it.

but they can't seem to bring themselves to condemn FDR for his treasonous and/or horrendous handling of WW II nor to condemn Truman for his treasonous and/or horrible handling of the end of the Pacific War and its aftermath.

No such treason. No such horrendous handling.

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . Gosh, really? After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response? And "China"?! You must be kidding. Go back and read this thread.

Some of us just object to genocide I guess.

There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there? And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?

Japan started the fight. We had every right to embargo their genocide.

There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?

Let's start with Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.

What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?

All of them.

 

[Open Bolt]

This is a disingenuous argument

No it isn't. The facts are just inconvenient for you.

and an erroneous comparison.

There are no errors in the comparison.

Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets attacked in response to Japan's provocations.

Unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a war atrocity. Japan attacked during peacetime.

To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.

The events are quite different. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an atrocity. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.

Japan did not attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender.

Our military's capture of Okinawa caused Japan's surrender. The Soviet invasion merely made their mediation impossible.

We did not need to nuke Japan.

Too bad. Japan didn't need to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan didn't need to perpetrate the Bataan Death March.

Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.

Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes.

Too bad. Japan didn't surrender so we got to keep attacking them.

Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender.

Wrong. Japan's actual leaders were refusing to surrender no matter what. It took an order from the Emperor to change that.

Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.

Using nukes was entirely reasonable considering Japan's refusal to surrender.

 

[Open Bolt]

I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

His point is appalling and even evil. Pearl Harbor was a war crime. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were filled mostly with women, children, and seniors,

Fake news.

especially given the fact that Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready to surrender, if only he would guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed,

More fake news.

and that Japanese officials had been sending out peace feelers for weeks.

Feelers that had no legitimacy.

Feelers that Truman pursued, despite knowing they lacked legitimacy, in the hope that they might evolve into legitimate communications with the Japanese government.

Feelers that the Japanese government killed off.

Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan? What do you think any nation would do if three other nations froze its assets, making it virtually impossible for it to make purchases on the international market, cut off 90% of its oil supply, cut off most of its supply of vital raw materials, moved a major naval base thousands of miles closer to it, and also stationed bombers within 700 miles of its territory and within 600 miles of some of its military installations--and then rejected every reasonable peace offer that the nation made to get those hostile acts revoked? Hey?

A moral nation would halt the genocide that they were perpetrating that was the cause of the sanctions.

Your jingoistic ignorance is matched only by your rudeness.

Your whitewashing of Japan's atrocities and your false accusations against Truman and FDR are pretty appalling.

You are no "patriot."

Sure he is.

Your heroes FDR and Truman handed over hundreds of millions of people to Communism, preserved one of the most murderous regimes in modern history, and enabled another historically murderous regime to come to power.

How would you have had Truman stop the USSR?

Determined to preserve and aid the Soviet Union, FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan,

Well there was the small matter of that genocide that Japan was perpetrating.

Then, his lackluster VP took Stalin's advice and refused to modify the surrender terms because he was determined to drop at least two nukes,

Fake news. Truman did abandon unconditional surrender.

However, had Truman taken your advice and made Stalin a party to the Potsdam Proclamation, unconditional surrender would have been back on the table.

If that's your version of "patriotism," Eisenhower and a whole bunch of other senior military officers weren't patriotic.

Indeed they were not.

 

[Mushroom]

After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response?

You do know what those sanctions were about, right? The brutal and unjust war against China. Which in a single battle saw over 200,000 civilians killed. That is why the US placed sanctions upon Japan.

By your logic, we are at this time provoking Russia to attack us, because we put sanctions against them for attacking Ukraine.

Sanctions are not to provoke a nation to attack, they are to encourage them to stop a barbaric action that a country opposes. If Japan had stopped slaughtering the Chinese, the sanctions would have ended.