The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[fncceo]

Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender,

War sucks. Probably not a good idea to start one.

In the words of the warrior poet, Will Smith...

"Don't start nothing, won't be nothing "

 

[Unkotare]

That is disingenuous BS meant to bury any guilty feelings that might come with a clear, sober evaluation of history. It is most certainly NOT "anti-American" to look at history directly and objectively, and anyone who cannot do so due to emotion is no historian.

.

 

[elektra]

Lol. No their military was getting its ass kicked everywhere. They had no fuel or food. An army can’t fight without those two things.

THINK!

denial is your argument? after four years, all you can do is offer a denial

 

[gipper]

War sucks. Probably not a good idea to start one.

In the words of the warrior poet, Will Smith...

"Don't start nothing, won't be nothing "

As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking. Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.

He knew they would attack and he had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl, and not only refused to notify commanders but he scapegoated them and ruined their careers.

Does this relive Japan of responsibility for their attack, fuck no. However most Americans refuse to believe their government also holds responsibility, just as it does now in Ukraine.

Its an story repeated throughout our history, but few Americans know it.

 

[gipper]

denial is your argument? after four years, all you can do is offer a denial

Lol. I offered you plenty you’re just too stupid to know it.

You!

 

[elektra]

Lol. I offered you plenty you’re just too stupid to know it.

You!

got it, you do not have the knowledge, you found links that you may quote from, quotes that are easily shown to be false.

 

[elektra]

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Gipper, is considering surrender, the same as surrender?

Gipper, Russia's move, entering the war was after we bombed Hiroshima. If anything, what you began your thread with, shows that Japan did not consider unconditional surrender until after the first bomb was dropped, not any earlier.

Stalin beat Japan? Yet Japan did not surrender to Russia, Japan fought Russia for weeks after Japan agreed to the USA's terms of surrender.

Complete nonsense, Stalin beat Japan, yet Japan only quit fighting when they surrendered formally to the USA. Japan did not surrender when Stalin joined the war, they fought the Russians.

Sure, you can make any claim you want, but you can not show how that opinion of yours fits the facts of the war.

 

[elektra]

The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Ambiguous circumstances?

Whoever you have chosen to defend in this here thread, is certainly being clever. What ambiguous circumstance is he speaking of.

I bet gipper refuses to answer, and if gipper can not reply to these simple questions, the premise is simply false, not supported by facts.

 

[elektra]

The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered.

The circumstance in which Truman encountered is simple, Japan attacked our allies, Japan attacked our people in Hawaii, Japan sided with Germany to force us to fight on two fronts. Japan took our men as prisoners of war. Japan attacked our forces in the Philippines, taking more prisoners.

The only question is, who should die. Americans or Japanese.

Why should our men die if we have the means to end the war? Why should our men taken prisoner have to suffer?

Our men are at least as innocent as the Japanese women and children.

Truman had to make the toughest decision ever made in history. Yet, it was also the easiest. Do we use our best weapon to save our lives. Our president, took an oath to protect American lives. If you do not like that fact, find another country to live in without a constitution that is the basis of our Republic.

Calling Truman a war criminal, a murderer, because he upheld his oath, is pathetic.

 

[elektra]

As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking. Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.

Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?

 

[BackAgain]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Nonsense.

 

[gipper]

Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?

Think about it. Think hard.

 

[BackAgain]

Think about it. Think hard.

Try to think. At all. For once in your life.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your posts have become?

Those are the facts. The Japanese military government planned to burn their nation to the ground rather than surrender. If you doubt it, look at the conduct of Japanese troops when in danger of losing battles. They mounted suicidal charges into the face of massed American firepower. That conduct was evident as early as the early battles on Guadalcanal and never changed. On Okinawa Japanese parents killed their children, then suicided by jumping off cliffs rather than surrendering. That’s a documented fact witnessed by thousands of troops and even filmed. The Japanese would have resisted even more fanatically defending the home islands. If anyone’s posts are ridiculous, they’re yours for persistently denying recorded facts that are backed up by Japanese diplomatic correspondence as well as Allied intelligence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking. Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.

He knew they would attack and he had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl, and not only refused to notify commanders but he scapegoated them and ruined their careers.

Does this relive Japan of responsibility for their attack, fuck no. However most Americans refuse to believe their government also holds responsibility, just as it does now in Ukraine.

Its an story repeated throughout our history, but few Americans know it.

There was no knowledge of any pending attack on Pearl. In fact, it was considered impossible for logistics reasons. The IJN had to draft nearly every modern tanker registered in Japan to make it possible. The USN was far better equipped for underway replenishment and the USN couldn’t make a round trip from Pearl to Japan. There was intelligence that the Japanese would attack somewhere, but the best guesses were the Philippines or Malaysia.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?

He’s referring to the Sino-Japanese war that started in 1936. There was plenty of popular support for the sanctions against Japan. FDR didn’t want to fight Japan, he wanted to fight Germany who he thought was Far more dangerous. Everyone underestimated the Japanese and thought they would back down and end their aggression against China in the face of crippling sanctions.

 

[Unkotare]

.... the plan was for every Japanese to die fighting the invasion, so no food was needed past the end of 1945.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? If "the plan" was for everyone to die, then why the hell would the atomic bombs have any influence? You are so desperate to hold on to a comfortable narrative that you have lost all reason.

 

[Unkotare]

... The Japanese military government planned to burn their nation to the ground rather than surrender. ....

Then why the hell would they care about the atomic bombs? You've watched too much anime. Everyone alive in the 1940s was human just like we are today. Get your shit together.

 

[fncceo]

FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking. Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.

Was FDR flying the planes at Pearl Harbor?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? If "the plan" was for everyone to die, then why the hell would the atomic bombs have any influence? You are so desperate to hold on to a comfortable narrative that you have lost all reason.

Because the nukes negated the plan. There were going to be next to no American casualties so no chance of getting a favorable peace out of a bloodbath. That’s why the Mikado blinked and surrendered,there was no longer any benefit to prolonging the war.