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

[RetiredGySgt]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity.

The ignorance of Sensei Snowflake never ceases to amaze everyone on this board.

1. It doesn’t matter what Japan was discussing. They were still fully engaged in war against the U.S.

On what 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.

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.

2. Dropping the nuclear bombs has prevented wars and saved millions of lives. It was a deterrent that made the enemies of the United States realize it was a grave mistake to attack the U.S.

That is downright macabre. Using that logic, Mao could have said, "Hey, killing 30 million Chinese has saved many more millions of lives by discouraging other Chinese from acting on any idea to revolt against my tyranny."

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.

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

 

[Levant]

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

Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.

Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge. It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually Truman FDR w

 

[Levant]

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

Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.

Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge. It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.

Good catch. Thanks.

 

[Unkotare]

... it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.

fdr had no such emotion, and his puppet carried out his final wish to slaughter civilians. fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya the Japanese Army ran the Government and oversaw the BRUTAL slaughter of MILLIONS of civilians in China the Philippines and across the Pacific and when faced with a TOTAL collapse REFUSED to surrender when clearly beaten, BUT you go ahead and blame a US president for their stupidity.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

What an amazingly ignorant and dishonest argument.

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)

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?!

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.” (https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html)

 

[LambertLunatic]

Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war. When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.

But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?

 

[Unkotare]

Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war. When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap[anese] people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.

But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?

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.

 

[Levant]

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:

How does being the chief prosecutor - a lawyer - qualify anyone to speak to credible justification for Nagasaki? Were all of the classified documents that Truman had about the war in Japan included in the prosecutorial documents in Germany?

You keep coming up with the most bizarre not-experts to back up your argument. Opinions are like ass-holes... Everybody has one and most are full of scat.

 

[Levant]

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 | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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 | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.

You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. 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 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. 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. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, 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.

 

[Levant]

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 | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.

You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. 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 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. 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. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, 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.

Really?!?! That's news I hadn't heard. The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki? I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post. Please debunk the myth that they didn't. The world is anxiously awaiting that.

 

[Unkotare]

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 | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.

You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. 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 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. 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. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, 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.

Really?!?! That's news I hadn't heard. The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki? I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post. Please debunk the myth that they didn't. The world is anxiously awaiting that.

Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

And, yet, they did not surrender. That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering. Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation. It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise. And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not. Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat. Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.

You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. 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 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. 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. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, 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.

Really?!?! That's news I hadn't heard. The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki? I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post. Please debunk the myth that they didn't. The world is anxiously awaiting that.

Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.

All he NEEDS to know is you can not link to a single document that supports your claim while I can link to lots that show the RULING Japanese Government never offered to surrender and even after 2 atomic bombs and a soviet Invasion voted to continue the war, when the Emperor over ruled them they staged a Coup to stop THAT surrender.

 

[P@triot]

Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.

How does one “try” to surrender? You either do or you don’t. It’s not something you have to “try”.

Have you ever heard of General McArthur? He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.

And you take the word of Stalin’s communist U.S.S.R. over the U.S.?

 

[P@triot]

Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.

Everyone has. All it does is illustrate what a limp-wristed, soy-boi, beta “male” you are. Move along.

 

[gipper]

Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.

How does one “try” to surrender? You either do or you don’t. It’s not something you have to “try”.

Have you ever heard of General McArthur? He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.

And you take the word of Stalin’s communist U.S.S.R. over the U.S.?

No. When your opponent won’t accept your surrender, you tried.

You don’t know who is Stalin’s Stooge? Hint: his initials are FDR.

 

[P@triot]

fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.

FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.

You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.

 

[P@triot]

No. When your opponent won’t accept your surrender, you tried.

Good! You bomb Pearl Harbor, you don’t get to surrender. Our only mistake was not dropping a third nuclear bomb on the miserable mother fuckers.