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

[AZrailwhale]

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "

That contradicts his earlier statement that by the end of the war, Japanese would only be spoken in hell. And disregards the fact that the Japanese "peace feelers" came from individuals NOT part of the Japanese government who were not authorized to make offers to the allies.

 

[Unkotare]

DIRECT
QUOTE

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I kindly included a direct quote previously.

You have not sourced any of your claim about peace offers ever. You can not link to the supposed letter Mac wrote and you can not link to any ACTUAL offers by the Big 6 prior to the bombs dropping.

 

[elektra]

I kindly included a direct quote previously.

And I provided a direct quote where as, before the Japanese surrendered and after the to atomic bombs were dropped your authority, the Admiral you tell us should believed, Admiral Halsey stated in exact words, "turn around and bomb them again before they surrender".

Admiral Halsey was all in on destroying the Japanese until they surrendered. Admiral Halsey was bombing the living shit out of the Japanese.

Yes, link to your quote, let us see how long after the war and in what context Halsey said what you claim.

Your quote means nothing unless we know it's source, when it was made, and the context.

My quote comes from the Admiral's book

 

[Unkotare]

Go back and reread the DIRECT QUOTES as often as you like.

 

[miketx]

Hilarious.

America hater.

 

[gipper]

America hater.

Of course. Same old same old.

 

[Open Bolt]

On what planet?

On this planet.

By June 1945, the Japanese were entirely on the defensive, were nearing starvation levels of food, were essentially defenseless against air raids, and had no meaningful presence at sea.

Japan was still refusing to surrender, and they had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our guys when we invaded.

What makes Truman's decision all the more revolting is that he KNEW that even the emperor was ready to end the war as long as we would grant him the sole condition that he would not be deposed.

Mr. Truman knew no such thing.

The Emperor was not ready to end the war on those terms until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Before that, the Emperor was holding out for ending the war in a draw without surrendering.

That is downright macabre.

Not really. It is good that we have a nuclear deterrent.

We could have demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.

We could have, and we did.

We did demonstrate our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.

We demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world by dropping them on military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender.

 

[Open Bolt]

And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.

What an amazingly ignorant and dishonest argument.

His argument is factually correct in all respects.

I realize that the truth is inconvenient for the left. But the truth remains true anyway.

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

He was wrong. Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

If you want an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

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?!

I'd shrug and say so what? Their bad for not surrendering earlier.

Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.
When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the New York Times printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the New York Times article on Byrnes’ comments:
The New York Times reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative)

So what? Their bad for not surrendering earlier.

 

[Open Bolt]

You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth.

You can deny reality 1,000 times, but it will still be reality.

This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."

The truth is always inconvenient to the left. But no matter how much you squirm, there is nothing disingenuous or misleading or dishonest about the truth.

Japan did in fact refuse to surrender until after both atomic bombs were dropped on them.

The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it.

That is incorrect. Japan was trying to end the war in a draw without surrendering. There was nothing about that that was acceptable to the US.

The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks.

The hardliners did not need or receive help from Mr. Truman. They were more than able to block surrender all on their own, and only the Emperor had the power to overrule them.

The Emperor was free to overrule them any time he wanted, and it was his choice to wait until after the atomic bombs had been dropped before he did so.

Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war,

The Emperor was free to overrule the hardliners and surrender any time he wanted to. It was his own choice to wait so long to do so.

and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.

There was nothing idiotic about Mr. Byrnes' reply. We had no intention of letting Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

 

[Open Bolt]

Was William Leahy delusional? Was MacArthur? Eisenhower? Halsey?

Yes.

If the bloodthirsty fdr had any interest in peace the war might well have been over long before either bomb, or before the terrible loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for that matter. Like all leftists, human life meant nothing to fdr.

Except it was not FDR who prolonged the war. Japan was free to surrender at any time.

It was Japan that prolonged the war by refusing to surrender.

 

[Open Bolt]

Doesn’t matter.
Why do you support the wanton cold blooded murdering of defenseless civilians? Are you a psychopath?

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets. Attacks on military targets are not murder.

Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.

No such mass murder. The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

The peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor was a horrific war crime. It more than justified our attacks on Japanese military targets.

They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.

Wrong. Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped on them.

Lol. See? You refuse to accept the truth.

Nothing that you have said is true.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes.

....

Of course YOU know better than our country's leading military commanders of the day. Of course.

 

[Unkotare]

...

It was Japan that prolonged the war by refusing to surrender.

That is incorrect. This has been demonstrated here many times.

 

[Unkotare]

...



Wrong. Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped on them.
...

Incorrect.

 

[Unkotare]

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets. .....

But the vast, vast, vast majority of those killed were civilians? That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Open Bolt]

That is incorrect.

The war was going to continue until Japan surrendered.

By putting off their first surrender offer until August 10, Japan prolonged the war until at least August 10.

This has been demonstrated here many times.

I've gotten up through page 112 now, and so far no one has demonstrated that Japan offered to surrender before August 10.

Incorrect.

The atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

Japan's first surrender offer came on August 10.

But the vast, vast, vast majority of those killed were civilians? That makes a lot of sense.

There was more military damage than just Japanese soldiers killed. There was also the destruction of the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion, and the destruction of the factory that made the specialized torpedoes to defeat Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.

Any civilians that were killed were collateral damage. They were not the target.

 

[Unkotare]

The war was going to continue until Japan surrendered.
...

The war was going to continue until that POS fdr (finally through his stooge truman) got a chance to use his new toy on hundreds of thousands of civilians. That scumbag would never have settled for less.

 

[Unkotare]

...



I've gotten up through page 112 now, and so far no one has demonstrated that Japan offered to surrender before August 10.



....

Apparently, you don't read very carefully.

 

[Unkotare]

....



There was more military damage than just Japanese soldiers killed. There was also the destruction of the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion, .....

Willfully ignorant of history.