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

[mikegriffith1]

Let us digress a bit, and address your blatant errors. You call me a "high school" student for not realizing the Big Six and the Supreme War Council are the same thing. Yet, you made that error before me?

Uh, nope, I never made that error. I have always said that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was also called the Big Six and the Supreme War Council.

By your "rules", you are not even a grade school student:

MIKEGRIFFITH1: * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council)

SMH. Do you know what "aka" means? Explain to me how what I said was in error. What is it that you don't understand about the statement that Big Six and Supreme War Council were and are two common nicknames for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War? What don't you grasp about this simple fact? I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you.

GIPPER: There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play. 1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.

ELEKTRA: Was it just 1? Or was it over 900 on the Indianapolis, another 18 on a submarine, 1,000's in prisoner of war camps?

I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?

And yes, if the Atomic bombs saved just one american, it would of been worth it. In this case it saved untold thousands.

So killing over 200,000 civilians would have been an acceptable price to save one American soldier? Wow, that's just evil and vicious.

Your boy Truman was the one who refused to help the peace faction in the Japanese government and who therefore delayed surrender by weeks. We've already covered this ground several times, and you simply refuse to deal with the fact that an invasion was not necessary, that by no later than June most of Japan's leaders wanted to end the war on terms acceptable to us, that Truman played right into the hardliners' hands by refusing to clarify the emperor's status, and that Japan would have surrendered without nukes.

You somehow misread McNay's review, not to mention Hasegawa's book. If you had read McNay's review with any care, you would have seen that he explained that Hasegawa's point is that the only impact the nukes had was that it caused the peace advocates to push harder to try to get the hardliners to agree to surrender. The peace advocates needed no convincing. They had been trying to bring about a surrender for weeks. Hiroshima simply gave them another excuse to make another push for surrender. The point you keep ducking is that Hiroshima had zero impact on the hardliners. That's why Hasegawa said that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting for several more months until "numerous" more nukings, or until conventional bombing or an invasion, rendered them unable to fight any longer. It is just amazing that you keep acting like you missed this central point of the entire book.

ELEKTRA: Murder? Not in a war, not in a war the Japanese started, not of those who actively participated in the war. Murder? Murder was what was happening to our Americans being tortured to death by the Japanese.

What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?

 

[elektra]

I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?

Okay, we will ignore your blatant errors, cause they dont count, cause technically someone else made the errors, you just cut/pasted the errors without having the educational skills to find them and correct them. I get it, not your fault, you just copied them.

Now I will address your silly idea that Truman could of ending the war in june, even though you have made the false claim that the sovuets ended the war by simply declaring war on Japan after the atomic bomb was dropped.

The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occured. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.

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

* The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met

 

[elektra]

I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?

You just stated, that Truman should of opened a line of communication to the japanese and try to get them to surrender during the battle of Okinawa? Of all the stupid ideas that have spewed from your mouth, this has to be the dumbest yet.

Truman, during a horrific battle, should of asked the Japanese to please stop and surrender. Truman and all those smarter than you with responsibility of the lives of the men fighting decided that was strategically stupid. It could cause the Japanese to think they may be winning, renewing thier will to fight harder, turning the win into a lost.

 

[gipper]

Let us digress a bit, and address your blatant errors. You call me a "high school" student for not realizing the Big Six and the Supreme War Council are the same thing. Yet, you made that error before me?

Uh, nope, I never made that error. I have always said that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was also called the Big Six and the Supreme War Council.

By your "rules", you are not even a grade school student:

MIKEGRIFFITH1: * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council)

SMH. Do you know what "aka" means? Explain to me how what I said was in error. What is it that you don't understand about the statement that Big Six and Supreme War Council were and are two common nicknames for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War? What don't you grasp about this simple fact? I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you.

GIPPER: There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play. 1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.

ELEKTRA: Was it just 1? Or was it over 900 on the Indianapolis, another 18 on a submarine, 1,000's in prisoner of war camps?

I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?

And yes, if the Atomic bombs saved just one american, it would of been worth it. In this case it saved untold thousands.

So killing over 200,000 civilians would have been an acceptable price to save one American soldier? Wow, that's just evil and vicious.

Your boy Truman was the one who refused to help the peace faction in the Japanese government and who therefore delayed surrender by weeks. We've already covered this ground several times, and you simply refuse to deal with the fact that an invasion was not necessary, that by no later than June most of Japan's leaders wanted to end the war on terms acceptable to us, that Truman played right into the hardliners' hands by refusing to clarify the emperor's status, and that Japan would have surrendered without nukes.

You somehow misread McNay's review, not to mention Hasegawa's book. If you had read McNay's review with any care, you would have seen that he explained that Hasegawa's point is that the only impact the nukes had was that it caused the peace advocates to push harder to try to get the hardliners to agree to surrender. The peace advocates needed no convincing. They had been trying to bring about a surrender for weeks. Hiroshima simply gave them another excuse to make another push for surrender. The point you keep ducking is that Hiroshima had zero impact on the hardliners. That's why Hasegawa said that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting for several more months until "numerous" more nukings, or until conventional bombing or an invasion, rendered them unable to fight any longer. It is just amazing that you keep acting like you missed this central point of the entire book.

ELEKTRA: Murder? Not in a war, not in a war the Japanese started, not of those who actively participated in the war. Murder? Murder was what was happening to our Americans being tortured to death by the Japanese.

What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?

It’s not leftism. Many on the right think the same way. They have been taught by the state to accept the state’s lies. They can’t overcome the brainwashing from the state, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong.

I thought as they do until I did the research. So I know how they are. Many Americans just can’t accept their government is evil.

 

[elektra]

What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?

Replying to you is the same as chasing a french poodle across a yard, you go everywhere at random, never stopping long enough to discuss one topic within this giant rant of yours.

I presume that you had no answer to your other errors and misconceptions hence you moved to another tirade.

Fighting the war with japan is no different than provoking a smaller, weaker person to hit me? Uh, you really are this dumb!

First and foremost, comparing Japan the nation to a small weak person shows you have no facts to back up your crazy opinion. And crazy you are, when you can look at all the books written about the history of japan and open a comment with hard facts you choose an emotional appeal, an analogy, meant to influence ones emotions. Why must you first manipulate people into feeling sorry for the japanese by using such a far fetched, disconnected analogy?

The answer is simple, you wish for people to hate and the hard facts do not help.

You still.have not answered, how many days should we have waited before dropping the 2nd atomic bomb. It was the basis for your OP?

But, again, you have argued nothing but emotions and feelings with a few distorted facts thrown in to make it seem you wished to talk of history.

Immature you are at best, your understanding of history, narrow, ignorant, and full of hate.

 

[elektra]

FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken. He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.

This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.

Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.

Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken. He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.

This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.

Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.

Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.

hypocrite post.

 

[gipper]

FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken. He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.

This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.

Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.

Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.

I win! You have accepted defeat with that silly post.

Thank you.

 

[elektra]

I win! You have accepted defeat with that silly post.
Thank you.

You are welcome, just saying, people who wear pink tutus are far from being an anarchist. I guess, on the internet, you can say you are whatever makes you feel the biggest.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occurred. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous? Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:

* Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.

* It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.

* The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.

* The hardliners on the Big Six could block any meeting of the council and could also block the convening of an imperial conference, since Japan was not a dictatorship. The emperor could not just snap his fingers and order the Supreme War Council to meet, much less to attend an imperial conference. There were checks and balances--that's how Tojo was forced to resign after the loss of Saipan, and that's how the next two prime ministers were both pro-surrender.

* If Truman had given assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the Big Six hardliners would have lost their number one argument against surrender and would have then been under tremendous pressure to agree to convene the Big Six and to attend an imperial conference. If they had refused, this would have given the peace faction a powerful justification to force an extra-constitutional showdown over surrender.

* If Truman had also advised the Japanese, even privately, that the Soviets would soon attack Manchuria and Korea if Japan did not surrender, this would have been a devastating blow to the hardliners because it would have demolished their second and final argument against surrender, which was that the Soviets would not attack until the non-aggression pact expired in April 1946 and that therefore Japan should keep trying to get the Soviets to broker a peace deal with the U.S. This was not a compelling argument anyway because Japanese intelligence was reporting a significant Soviet buildup near the Manchurian border, and the hardliners' only answer was the questionable argument that the Soviets were getting the troops into position but would not move until the non-aggression pact expired, and that therefore there was still time to make concessions to the Soviets and to get them to broker a peace deal.

* When Hiroshima was nuked, the hardliners refused to agree to convene the Big Six.

* But, when the news of the Soviets invasion reached Tokyo, the hardliners quickly agreed to convene the Big Six, and then to attend an imperial conference.

* When the full cabinet voted on surrender following the receipt of the Byrnes Note, the vote was 12 to 3 in favor of surrender. The three negative votes were the hardliners, but the hardliners, given the overwhelming support for surrender in the cabinet, chose not to block the convening of an imperial council meeting, and this enabled the emperor to order a surrender.

 

[elektra]

What in the world are you talking about? Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous? Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:
.

You should re-word that statement of yours, to this; "you will believe what I dictate to be truth regardless of history and facts"

 

[elektra]

* Months before Hiroshima......

Months before Hiroshima, Truman was not president!

 

[gipper]

The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occurred. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous? Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:

* Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.

* It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.

* The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.

* The hardliners on the Big Six could block any meeting of the council and could also block the convening of an imperial conference, since Japan was not a dictatorship. The emperor could not just snap his fingers and order the Supreme War Council to meet, much less to attend an imperial conference. There were checks and balances--that's how Tojo was forced to resign after the loss of Saipan, and that's how the next two prime ministers were both pro-surrender.

* If Truman had given assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the Big Six hardliners would have lost their number one argument against surrender and would have then been under tremendous pressure to agree to convene the Big Six and to attend an imperial conference. If they had refused, this would have given the peace faction a powerful justification to force an extra-constitutional showdown over surrender.

* If Truman had also advised the Japanese, even privately, that the Soviets would soon attack Manchuria and Korea if Japan did not surrender, this would have been a devastating blow to the hardliners because it would have demolished their second and final argument against surrender, which was that the Soviets would not attack until the non-aggression pact expired in April 1946 and that therefore Japan should keep trying to get the Soviets to broker a peace deal with the U.S. This was not a compelling argument anyway because Japanese intelligence was reporting a significant Soviet buildup near the Manchurian border, and the hardliners' only answer was the questionable argument that the Soviets were getting the troops into position but would not move until the non-aggression pact expired, and that therefore there was still time to make concessions to the Soviets and to get them to broker a peace deal.

* When Hiroshima was nuked, the hardliners refused to agree to convene the Big Six.

* But, when the news of the Soviets invasion reached Tokyo, the hardliners quickly agreed to convene the Big Six, and then to attend an imperial conference.

* When the full cabinet voted on surrender following the receipt of the Byrnes Note, the vote was 12 to 3 in favor of surrender. The three negative votes were the hardliners, but the hardliners, given the overwhelming support for surrender in the cabinet, chose not to block the convening of an imperial council meeting, and this enabled the emperor to order a surrender.

He’s incredibly disingenuous. The statist warmonger can’t be anything else, since the truth is evident and it destroys his entire position.

 

[gipper]

* Months before Hiroshima......

Months before Hiroshima, Truman was not president!

Yep. Totally disingenuous.

 

[elektra]

What in the world are you talking about?
* Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.

What in the world are you talking about? And when? Give me a break already! Do you not know nothing of what you post? Seriously. A peace faction? As if the Japanese united and created a peace faction! How about using names, dates, and places!

Of course a little detail will blow up your distortion of the facts. Detail would be facts and if you began to introduce facts into your posts everyone would see you for the charlatan that you are.

Is it the Fujimura group that Allen W. Dulles received authorization from the U.S. State dept, to begin peace negotiations with, you wish to discuss? They were self appointed peace makers. There was never a meeting of the Big Six, aka the Supreme Council, therefore everything they did was unauthorized and ultimately rejected by the Japanese. They used a Navy Type 94 code machine to communicate with...........

Your vagueness shows your ignorance, which is a result from your over use of google searches. How about replying with concise facts, I can certainly reply with facts, as I just proved.

Will this be another of a long list of posts you ignore, I do have a tendency to use facts which you hide from.

 

[gipper]

What in the world are you talking about?
* Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.

What in the world are you talking about? And when? Give me a break already! Do you not know nothing of what you post? Seriously. A peace faction? As if the Japanese united and created a peace faction! How about using names, dates, and places!

Of course a little detail will blow up your distortion of the facts. Detail would be facts and if you began to introduce facts into your posts everyone would see you for the charlatan that you are.

Is it the Fujimura group that Allen W. Dulles received authorization from the U.S. State dept, to begin peace negotiations with, you wish to discuss? They were self appointed peace makers. There was never a meeting of the Big Six, aka the Supreme Council, therefore everything they did was unauthorized and ultimately rejected by the Japanese. They used a Navy Type 94 code machine to communicate with...........

Your vagueness shows your ignorance, which is a result from your over use of google searches. How about replying with concise facts, I can certainly reply with facts, as I just proved.

Will this be another of a long list of posts you ignore, I do have a tendency to use facts which you hide from.

So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.

Why don't you find this abhorrent?

 

[elektra]

* It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.

* The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.

It was made clear? What is clear, without the Supreme Council authorizing surrender, it was not going to happen. Even you stated nothing happens without the Supreme Council making or approving the decision.

so, how about it, sources, dates, names, otherwise you are simply bullshitting

 

[elektra]

So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.

Why don't you find this abhorrent?

How is that pink tutu, an anarchist? Do you even know what that means? You post like a guy who wears a pink tutu, honestly.

How about asking a question based on reality, on the facts of history, then I would gladly answer, until then you could answer how you can be an anarchist yet wear a pink tutu.

 

[gipper]

So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.

Why don't you find this abhorrent?

How is that pink tutu, an anarchist? Do you even know what that means? You post like a guy who wears a pink tutu, honestly.

How about asking a question based on reality, on the facts of history, then I would gladly answer, until then you could answer how you can be an anarchist yet wear a pink tutu.

Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.

 

[elektra]

Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.

. You should stop calling yourself an anarchist when it is obvious you are a nut in a pink tutu