What Happened To The Thoughtful Conservative Republican?

H. E. Panqui · Aug 7, 2020

...does anyone wonder whether trump would've nuked japan? :lol:

American Conservatives Are the Forgotten Critics of the Atomic Bombing of Japan: News: The Independent Institute

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,” he wrote. “The only difference between this and the use of gas (which President Franklin D. Roosevelt had barred as a first-use weapon in World War II) is the fear of retaliation.”

Those harsh words, written three days after the Hiroshima bombing in August, 1945, were not by a man of the American left, but rather by a very prominent conservative—former President Herbert Hoover, a foe of the New Deal and Fair Deal.

In 1959, Medford Evans, a conservative writing in William Buckley’s strongly nationalistic, energetically right-wing magazine, National Review, stated: “The indefensibility of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is becoming a part of the national conservative creed.” Just the year before, the National Review had featured an angry, anti-atomic bomb article, “Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe.” Like Hoover, that 1958 essay had decried the atomic bombing as wanton murder. National Review’s editors, impressed by that article, had offered special reprints...."

H. E. Panqui · Aug 7, 2020

Truman's War Crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – The Future of Freedom Foundation

"It has long been pointed out that Japan had expressed a willingness to surrender. The only condition was that the Japanese emperor not be abused or executed.

President Truman refused to agree to that condition. Like his predecessor Franklin Roosevelt, Truman demanded “unconditional surrender.”

That was why Japan continued fighting. Japanese officials naturally assumed that U.S. officials were going to do some very bad things to their emperor, including torture and execution. In the minds of Japanese officials, why else would the United States not be willing to agree to that one condition, especially given that it would have meant the end of the war? The dark irony is that Truman ended up accepting the condition anyway, only after he pulverized the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs...."

gino · Aug 7, 2020

People keep mentioning the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. But we killed more people fire-bombing Tokyo than the atomic bombs killed.

I just can't feel sorry of Japan if they took a beating at the end of WWII. They committed just as many atrocities as the Nazis did, and largely got away with them. And let's not forget that they did star the war.

H. E. Panqui · Aug 7, 2020

gino said:
People keep mentioning the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. But we killed more people fire-bombing Tokyo than the atomic bombs killed.

I just can't feel sorry of Japan if they took a beating at the end of WWII. They committed just as many atrocities as the Nazis did, and largely got away with them. And let's not forget that they did star the war.

...do you dispute that the US was harassing japanese vessels PRIOR to 'pearl harbor'?...

gino · Aug 7, 2020

H. E. Panqui said:
...do you dispute that the US was harassing japanese vessels PRIOR to 'pearl harbor'?...

Sorry, but by that time, they were hip deep in Chinese blood. I just don't see how anyone could make the US out as the bad guys in WWII.

vegas giants · Aug 7, 2020

gino said:
People keep mentioning the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. But we killed more people fire-bombing Tokyo than the atomic bombs killed.

I just can't feel sorry of Japan if they took a beating at the end of WWII. They committed just as many atrocities as the Nazis did, and largely got away with them. And let's not forget that they did star the war.

That does not justify nuking women and children

Lfl · Aug 7, 2020

There is no such thing as a thoughtful Conservative Republican, the platform is built on hate. I have some older neighbors that are C R's and the are lovely people. I don't agree with their politics and they aren't dumb but they aren't particularly smart either. The old man had a stroke so his memory is bad. The old lady who I don't see often has said a few nasty things disparaging Democrats, I kept my mouth shut, next time I will politely tell her to keep hers shut by saying I don't want to discuss politics or we will have problems. She has also said she doesn't think the pandemic is a big issue.

They are church goers and very religious and she goes to an anti abortion group at church where they knit blankets to try to persuade women to be pro life. I respect their views, I don't think they would respect my opposite views so I don't share them. They are white middle class Red State around 90 years old.

Lovely people thoughtful on a personal level only. Filled with hate and only for their agenda against freedom of choice as Con Repugs.

SenorXm/Sirius · Aug 7, 2020

Trump would have nuked London to make room for a couple of new Trump golf courses.

Barnacle · Aug 7, 2020

vegas giants said:
That does not justify nuking women and children

War is ugly. All sides will do whatever it takes to demoralize or kill the other side.

General Sheridan didn't have to burn down the Shenandoah Valley ...

GhostlyJoe · Aug 7, 2020

Lfl said:
There is no such thing as a thoughtful Conservative Republican, the platform is built on hate. I have some older neighbors that are C R's and the are lovely people. I don't agree with their politics and they aren't dumb but they aren't particularly smart either. The old man had a stroke so his memory is bad. The old lady who I don't see often has said a few nasty things disparaging Democrats, I kept my mouth shut, next time I will politely tell her to keep hers shut by saying I don't want to discuss politics or we will have problems. She has also said she doesn't think the pandemic is a big issue.

They are church goers and very religious and she goes to an anti abortion group at church where they knit blankets to try to persuade women to be pro life. I respect their views, I don't think they would respect my opposite views so I don't share them. They are white middle class Red State around 90 years old.

Lovely people thoughtful on a personal level only. Filled with hate and only for their agenda against freedom of choice as Con Repugs.

From your description, these don't sound at all like hateful people.

Compare this lovely couple -- your description -- to the people lobbing explosives at buildings in Portland, to the people tagging Seattle with blocks of graffiti and rubble, to the people shooting little girls in Atlanta.

Reasonable can see where the hate is coming from at the moment, and it ain't from the right.

vegas giants · Aug 7, 2020

Barnacle said:
War is ugly. All sides will do whatever it takes to demoralize or kill the other side.

General Sheridan didn't have to burn down the Shenandoah Valley ...

By your logic we should have nuked Vietnam

Barnacle · Aug 7, 2020

vegas giants said:
By your logic we should have nuked Vietnam

That would have killed friend & foe & allies. Not my logic but rather your stupid thinking.

Toggle Almendro · Aug 7, 2020

vegas giants said:
That does not justify nuking women and children

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

Toggle Almendro · Aug 7, 2020

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
It has long been pointed out that Japan had expressed a willingness to surrender. The only condition was that the Japanese emperor not be abused or executed.

Japan did not offer to surrender until August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
Like his predecessor Franklin Roosevelt, Truman demanded “unconditional surrender.”

The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

Aside from Ike (whose opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance) there are no records of any of these people opposing the A-bombs before they were used.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
This bombings constituted war crimes because they targeted non-combatants, including children, women, and seniors with death as a way to bring about an unconditional surrender of the Japanese government.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
Truman justified his action by arguing that the bombings shortened the war and, therefore, saved the lives of thousands of American soldiers and Japanese people if an invasion had become necessary. It is a justification that has been repeated ever since by proponents of the bombings.

There are two big problems with that justification, however.

First, an invasion would not have been necessary. All that Truman had to do was to accept Japan’s only condition for surrender, and that would have meant the end of the war, without the deaths that would have come with an invasion and that did come with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japan did not attempt to surrender until August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
More important, the fact that lives of American soldiers would have been saved is not a moral or legal justification for targeting non-combatants.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

The Future of Freedom Foundation said:
And why was Japan so desperate for oil as to initiate war against the United States? Because President Franklin Roosevelt had imposed a highly effective oil embargo on Japan as a way to maneuver the Japanese into attacking the United States.

So much for this article's phony concern about civilians.

Our oil embargo was a reaction to Japan committing genocide.

H. E. Panqui said:
...do you dispute that the US was harassing japanese vessels PRIOR to 'pearl harbor'?...

Yes.

H. E. Panqui · Aug 8, 2020

vegas giants said:
By your logic we should have nuked Vietnam

...the 'logic' of the republican/crat-radio-level parrots would have us believe jesus the christ would've 'nuked the japs'... btw, many republicrats have consumed mass quantities of value-less information [poisonous propaganda], food, etc.. they bring to the table only carrion they pick up from ruse limbotomy, sean hannitwitty, etc. loud stooooopid foamers galore... :cuckoo:

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original

As with so many other dark chapters in US history, the official narrative of the decision to unleash the most destructive weapon humanity has ever known upon an utterly defeated people is deeply flawed.

‘Anxious to Terminate’

The Japanese had in fact been trying to find a way to surrender with honor for months before the atomic bombs were dropped, and US leaders knew it. Japan could no longer defend itself from the ruthless, relentless US onslaught; years of ferocious firebombing had reduced most Japanese cities, including the capital Tokyo, to ruins. General Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay, commander of strategic bombing, even complained that there was nothing left to bomb there but "garbage can targets."

After years of war and privation, Japan’s people had had enough, and so had many of its leaders. The Allies, through a secret cryptanalysis project codenamed Magic, had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Shigenori Togo, the Japanese foreign minister, to Naotaki Sato, the ambassador in Moscow, stating a desire to end the war.

"His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible," Sato cabled on July 12. However, saving face was imperative to the Japanese, which meant retaining their sacred emperor. Unconditional surrender was, for the time being, out of the question.

In a secret memo dated June 28, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that "the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender." In a 1960 interview, Bard reiterated that "the Japanese were ready for peace and had already approached the Russians" about capitulating.

Thoreau72 · Aug 8, 2020

H. E. Panqui said:
Truman's War Crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – The Future of Freedom Foundation

"It has long been pointed out that Japan had expressed a willingness to surrender. The only condition was that the Japanese emperor not be abused or executed.

President Truman refused to agree to that condition. Like his predecessor Franklin Roosevelt, Truman demanded “unconditional surrender.”

That was why Japan continued fighting. Japanese officials naturally assumed that U.S. officials were going to do some very bad things to their emperor, including torture and execution. In the minds of Japanese officials, why else would the United States not be willing to agree to that one condition, especially given that it would have meant the end of the war? The dark irony is that Truman ended up accepting the condition anyway, only after he pulverized the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs...."

It sounds like you might have seen the fine series by Oliver Stone named "The Untold History of the United States".

It was somewhat painful to watch, the unvarnished truth.

vegas giants · Aug 8, 2020

H. E. Panqui said:
...the 'logic' of the republican/crat-radio-level parrots would have us believe jesus the christ would've 'nuked the japs'... btw, many republicrats have consumed mass quantities of value-less information [poisonous propaganda], food, etc.. they bring to the table only carrion they pick up from ruse limbotomy, sean hannitwitty, etc. loud stooooopid foamers galore... :cuckoo:

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original

As with so many other dark chapters in US history, the official narrative of the decision to unleash the most destructive weapon humanity has ever known upon an utterly defeated people is deeply flawed.

‘Anxious to Terminate’

The Japanese had in fact been trying to find a way to surrender with honor for months before the atomic bombs were dropped, and US leaders knew it. Japan could no longer defend itself from the ruthless, relentless US onslaught; years of ferocious firebombing had reduced most Japanese cities, including the capital Tokyo, to ruins. General Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay, commander of strategic bombing, even complained that there was nothing left to bomb there but "garbage can targets."

After years of war and privation, Japan’s people had had enough, and so had many of its leaders. The Allies, through a secret cryptanalysis project codenamed Magic, had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Shigenori Togo, the Japanese foreign minister, to Naotaki Sato, the ambassador in Moscow, stating a desire to end the war.

"His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible," Sato cabled on July 12. However, saving face was imperative to the Japanese, which meant retaining their sacred emperor. Unconditional surrender was, for the time being, out of the question.

In a secret memo dated June 28, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that "the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender." In a 1960 interview, Bard reiterated that "the Japanese were ready for peace and had already approached the Russians" about capitulating.

Great reference

Toggle Almendro · Aug 8, 2020

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
The Japanese had in fact been trying to find a way to surrender with honor for months before the atomic bombs were dropped, and US leaders knew it.

Japan was free to surrender to us any time they wanted. We'd have been delighted to accept their surrender.

Japan chose to not surrender until August 10, by which time both A-bombs had already been dropped.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
On July 26, the leaders of the US, Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding unconditional Japanese surrender and vowing "prompt and utter destruction" – the US had successfully tested the first atomic bomb in New Mexico 10 days earlier – if Japan refused.

Actually the Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
The declaration was originally written so that Emperor Hirohito would not be removed from the Chrysanthemum Throne, with Japan to be ruled as a constitutional monarchy after the war.

Actually the removed language only promised that Hirohito's dynasty would continue as a Constitutional monarchy. It gave the US the option of executing Hirohito and installing his son as Emperor.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
However, Secretary of State James Byrnes removed that language from the final declaration. It would be unconditional surrender or total annihilation.

Except the Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
Seven of the eight five-star US generals and admirals in 1945 opposed using the atomic bomb against Japan.

That is completely untrue. Ike was the only one who opposed the A-bombs before they were used, and his opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance.

Ike only expressed his opposition to a single person (Stimson).

When Stimson reacted by calling him an idiot, Ike decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone else.

Even if Ike had managed to somehow be convincing, he was too late anyway. Stimson had sent the final orders to drop the A-bombs out to the military on July 25 and then departed the Potsdam conference. When Ike voiced his opposition in Frankfort on July 27 it was just hours before Stimson departed Europe for home. Truman was still at sea aboard the Augusta when Hiroshima was bombed, and had not been in the same room with Stimson since July 25.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
Throughout the spring and summer of 1945, Japanese officials increasingly sought an honorable end to the war.

Not in the spring. Up until the US overran Okinawa, Japan's strategy was to try to get Russia to switch sides and help Japan win the pacific war.

It was only after the US captured Okinawa that Japan gave up on trying to win the war.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
Despite Truman’s attempt at self-delusion, most of the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were women, children and old people, as most of the men were away fighting the war, or dead from it.

Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to repel our coming invasion. It was also the military headquarters in charge of repelling that invasion.

The second A-bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive weapons production complex. Due to a number of difficulties they could not drop the A-bomb on their primary target, could not reach their first alternate, and had to divert to their second alternate, which they then missed.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
The US wanted to maximize its own position as the dominant world power, and what better way to do this than to show the Russians that the United States had the cold resolve necessary to unilaterally wage nuclear war, even when it enjoyed an atomic monopoly and dropping the bomb wasn’t even necessary?

The A-bombs were quite necessary. Japan was still refusing to surrender.

vegas giants · Aug 8, 2020

Toggle Almendro said:
The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

And killed women and children

Toggle Almendro · Aug 8, 2020

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
As for the common claim that a US invasion of Japan would have cost a million lives, Kai Bird, who shared the Pulitzer Prize with Sherwin for their Oppenheimer biography, said it is simply not true.

The casualties from a D-day scale invasion of Kyushu followed by a D-day scale invasion of the Tokyo Plain would have been staggering.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
“When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used [the Japanese] as an experiment for two atomic bombs," said General Carter Clarke,

In reality we did need to do it. Japan was still refusing to surrender.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
What if the United States had clarified its unconditional surrender stance to assure that Hirohito would not be hanged? Or announced that he would be allowed to remain in a position of ceremonial leadership? After all, General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander, would ultimately allow Hirohito to remain emperor, even if only as a figurehead.

Such a change would not have made any difference whatsoever. Japanese records are very clear that Japan had no intention of surrendering to the US so long as they had hopes that the Soviets would mediate peace for them.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
The official US narrative blames the Soviet Union for starting the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, which on numerous occasions over the following decades brought the world within reach, and once to the brink, of thermonuclear annihilation. But it was the United States that fired the first fiery salvo, forcing the Soviets to scramble to develop their own deterrent and launching an arms race in which there are now thousands of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of a record number of countries, with the risk of nuclear armageddon as real as it has ever been.

The US is not in any way responsible for Stalin's crimes and aggression.

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Antiwar.com Original said:
Americans must admit that the nuclear war against Japan was one of the greatest atrocities in human history. For the first time ever, we humans now have the power to bring about our own extinction. There is absolutely nothing "necessary" about this evil.

Wartime strikes against military targets are not an atrocity in any way.

vegas giants · Aug 8, 2020

The war was over according to the military generals and no bomb was needed

Toggle Almendro · Aug 8, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
It sounds like you might have seen the fine series by Oliver Stone named "The Untold History of the United States".
It was somewhat painful to watch, the unvarnished truth.

Is that the one that a bunch of historians have all denounced as being completely untrue?

vegas giants · Aug 8, 2020

The 1946 United States*Strategic Bombing Survey*in Japan, whose members included*Paul Nitze,*concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war.

Toggle Almendro · Aug 8, 2020

vegas giants said:
And killed women and children

That's what happens when women and children stand next to a military target while it is being bombed.

vegas giants said:
The war was over according to the military generals and no bomb was needed

Ike was the only military leader who said that before the A-bombs were dropped, and his opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance.

Ike only expressed his opposition to a single person (Stimson).

When Stimson reacted by calling him an idiot, Ike decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone else.

Even if Ike had managed to somehow be convincing, he was too late anyway. Stimson had sent the final orders to drop the A-bombs out to the military and then departed the Potsdam conference on July 25. When Ike voiced his opposition in Frankfort on July 27 it was just hours before Stimson departed Europe for home. Truman was still at sea aboard the Augusta when Hiroshima was bombed, and had not been in the same room with Stimson since July 25.

vegas giants said:
The 1946 United States*Strategic Bombing Survey*in Japan, whose members included*Paul Nitze,*concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war.

They didn't say any such thing during the war before the A-bombs were dropped.

vegas giants · Aug 8, 2020

Toggle Almendro said:
That's what happens when women and children stand next to a military target while it is being bombed.

Ike was the only military leader who said that before the A-bombs were dropped, and his opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance.

Ike only expressed his opposition to a single person (Stimson).

When Stimson reacted by calling him an idiot, Ike decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone else.

Even if Ike had managed to somehow be convincing, he was too late anyway. Stimson had sent the final orders to drop the A-bombs out to the military and then departed the Potsdam conference on July 25. When Ike voiced his opposition in Frankfort on July 27 it was just hours before Stimson departed Europe for home. Truman was still at sea aboard the Augusta when Hiroshima was bombed, and had not been in the same room with Stimson since July 25.

They didn't say any such thing during the war before the A-bombs were dropped.

I'm sorry but you opinions are dismissed for lack of evidence.

What Happened To The Thoughtful Conservative Republican?

Active member