• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. The Japanese government did not present any peace overtures to the US, by any route or through any intermediaries whatsoever, until August 10, 1945.
Click to expand...

True that.
 
Craig234 said:
Used restraint in using such weapons to needlessly destroy cities. If I felt a need to demonstrate them, it could be done without mass killing. I'd like to think I would either have not used them, or used them in a non-lethal demonstration. The Japanese were asking for peace on the terms we eventually met; we should have accepted.
Click to expand...

LOL

Japan's atrocities in China alone were worthy of the two egg plants dropped on them.

They got exactly what they deserved.
 
zyzygy said:
True that.
Click to expand...

It was a complicated situation. The reason Japan had gotten into the war in the first place was that a radical, militarized political faction, which included the military by that point, had become dominant. Reports are, that Hirohito himself feared assassination by them if he just came out for surrender.

And so they were indirect how they pursued it. They contacted the Soviets wanting them to work on a deal, who were not interested. The officials dilly dallied, but they were close.

The US knew all this, because they saw the most secret communications. They could easily have made some efforts to pursue peace there is a good chance could have succeeded.

Part of the situation was also understanding the unique role of the emperor to the country and working around that, with his not being treated like a criminal if not executed, even though he would not retain much actual power - which they refused to do before the bombs, but then did after the surrender anyway.

I saw one argument today (from a former secretary of defense, and opponent of nuclear weapons) that 'Truman did not understand the devastation the bombs would do, and after he did he said they should never be weapons in war again'.
 
AmNat said:
The point was rather clear. Your inability to understand it notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Yeah I'm sure.

Anyway, your thinly veiled efforts to defend Japan's decision making leading up to the Pacific War is noted.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
I confess that I as well didn't really understand your point in that post.
Click to expand...

Three systems of government vied for dominance in the 20th century. Only one survived. Ours. Whether our government is moral or even sane is of much greater practical concern than our defeated enemies were.

Jredbaron96 said:
Uh huh. Yeah I'm sure.

Anyway, your thinly veiled efforts to defend Japan's decision making leading up to the Pacific War is noted.
Click to expand...

I have never *defended* Imperial Japan. In studying history, I try to understand why people did the things they did. You are prevented by your ideology from believing that conflict can occur when both sides have comprehensible motives. I am not impaired in that way.
 
AmNat said:
I have never *defended* Imperial Japan.
Click to expand...

Lying won't help you.

You are prevented by your ideology from believing that conflict can occur when both sides have comprehensible motives. I am not impaired in that way.
Click to expand...

lol

You're blinded by an affinity with other nationalist movements and reactionary elements because you see them as ideological kin. It's why you go out of your way to defend them with such claims as "Japan had to fight the USA because America forced it to" or "Nazi Germany had to invade the USSR because the Soviets were about to invade", even though there is no proof of validity in either of these concepts.

Your claim about comprehensible motives is stupid of course. Sure it's "comprehensible" in the sense that I can see *why* Japan went to war...

...just as I can "comprehend" that their decision was not based on any rational or logical line of thinking, but very much the result of temper tantrums of megalomaniacs blinded by fatalist and nationalist desires. While there were plenty of views on the decision to go to war with the United States, in the end the underlying themes behind the Japanese decision rested on emotion appeals to insulted honor and hurt national prestige, not calculated economic or political consideration. Even the Third Reich was more calculated in it's strategic decision making.

You have tried, over the course of several threads now, to attempt to rewrite history and to paint Japan's decision to go to war in a more favorable light. It's as hollow now as it was before.
 
Craig234 said:
It was a complicated situation. The reason Japan had gotten into the war in the first place was that a radical, militarized political faction, which included the military by that point, had become dominant. Reports are, that Hirohito himself feared assassination by them if he just came out for surrender.

And so they were indirect how they pursued it. They contacted the Soviets wanting them to work on a deal, who were not interested. The officials dilly dallied, but they were close.

The US knew all this, because they saw the most secret communications. They could easily have made some efforts to pursue peace there is a good chance could have succeeded.
Click to expand...
The US government was in fact making every effort to pursue peace. Japan was not interested in working with us. They only wanted to deal with the Soviets.


Craig234 said:
Part of the situation was also understanding the unique role of the emperor to the country and working around that, with his not being treated like a criminal if not executed, even though he would not retain much actual power - which they refused to do before the bombs, but then did after the surrender anyway.
Click to expand...
The US wasn't refusing to do that before the A-bombs. Japan refused to deal with the US at the time because they were interested only in working through the Soviets.
 
AmNat said:
Three systems of government vied for dominance in the 20th century. Only one survived. Ours. Whether our government is moral or even sane is of much greater practical concern than our defeated enemies were.
Click to expand...
Ah. I understand now.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The US government was in fact making every effort to pursue peace. Japan was not interested in working with us. They only wanted to deal with the Soviets.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. They were simply saying all they would accept would be unconditional surrender. The only bone they threw was saying that did not mean the extermination or enslavement of the Japanese people. Nothing about the emperor, no efforts to work with them directly or address the political situation. If you disagree, provide evidence.

The US wasn't refusing to do that before the A-bombs. Japan refused to deal with the US at the time because they were interested only in working through the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were. I'm not aware of the US saying one word about the emperor before the surrender. Since you disagree, provide evidence.
 
swing_voter said:
1. Brits were actively helping the US to build the bomb, if it weren't for the Brits we wouldn't have had the bomb until after the war. You can go online and find photos of British scientists working at Los Alamos.

2. All four parties involved had a nuke program, Britain, Soviets, US and Japan. Nobody knew how far Japan was along with their nuke.

3. Potsdam declaration said two important things

a. "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

(this is the allies saying "we have the nuke and will use it")

b. The second thing is what wasn't said. No mention was made of the Emperor, in diplomatic speak this meant that the Japanese Emperor could stay.

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia

Ten days before Hiroshima millions of leaflets with the Potsdam Declaration were dropped all over Japan. By this time the US had powerful AM radio transmitters that could reach all of Japan and the announcers told listeners about the Declaration. Yes it was illegal for the Japanese to listen to US radio or read the leaflets but everyone in Japan knew of the Declaration.

The Japanese decided to "kill it with silence" a Japanese negotiating tactic. They didn't respond to the Potsdam Declaration.

Hiroshima was nuked.

Also when the Emperor finally declared he was going to surrender, military officers attempted a coup, they hoped to imprison the emperor and continue the war. The coup was defeated.

Also when Germany was defeated they sent all of their processed Uranium to Japan via submarine, like 100s of kilos of the stuff. The German uboaters decided to surrender to US forces and the two Japanese officers on board committed ritual suicide. Much of the captured uranium was used on the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

August 1945:

News of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima reaches Ottawa just before noon on August 6, 1945. As a member of the Combined Policy Committee, Howe expects it. In a prepared statement, he says:

''It is a particular pleasure for me to announce that Canadian scientists have played an intimate part, and have been associated in an effective way, with this great scientific development.''

Three days later, on August 9, Nagasaki is bombed.

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — When a captured Nazi U-boat arrived at Portsmouth, N.H., toward the end of World War II, the American public was never told the significance of what was on board.

The German submarine was carrying 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide, ingredients for an atomic bomb, bound for Japan. Two Japanese officers on board were allowed to commit suicide.

Two months later, in the New Mexico desert, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb, a prelude to the obliteration of two Japanese cities.

Unknown to many of the people who built those bombs, not to mention the public, Japan was scrambling to build its own nuclear weapon.


New Details Emerge About Japan'''s Wartime A-Bomb Program - Los Angeles Times


A Canadian scientist working on the bomb at Los Alamos accidentally irradiated himself. He died of radiation poisoning.

When Truman told Stalin America had the bomb, Stalin said, "Good, I hope you use it on them."
Click to expand...

A very accurate explanation of what happened.

The choice was to invade Japan where tens of not hundreds of thousands of American lives would be lost, or blow them up. With no lost American lives. Americans were tired of American lives being lost. It was an easy choice.
 
jimbo said:
The choice was to invade Japan where tens of not hundreds of thousands of American lives would be lost, or blow them up. With no lost American lives. Americans were tired of American lives being lost. It was an easy choice.
Click to expand...

That's the myth, the justification used. Politically, you're right about the incentives for Truman. I think it largely comes down to not placing any value on the lives of the Japanese people.
 
Craig234 said:
That's the myth, the justification used. Politically, you're right about the incentives for Truman. I think it largely comes down to not placing any value on the lives of the Japanese people.
Click to expand...

0r maybe placing more value on American lives.

The Japanese were warned.

"The purpose of war is not to give your life for your country. The purpose war is to make the other bastard give his life for his."
 
jimbo said:
0r maybe placing more value on American lives.

The Japanese were warned.

"The purpose of war is not to give your life for your country. The purpose war is to make the other bastard give his life for his."
Click to expand...

You have no interest in the truth IMO. For example, you ignore things like the emperor feeling he'd be killed if he pushed for surrender. 'They were warned' makes killing hundreds of thousands of civilians peachy to you. Of course values was placed on American soldiers. That ignores the point you could care less about that none was placed on Japanese civilians. You don't care about other options. It's like talking to a wall, except walls can have decoration.
 
Craig234 said:
You have no interest in the truth IMO. For example, you ignore things like the emperor feeling he'd be killed if he pushed for surrender. 'They were warned' makes killing hundreds of thousands of civilians peachy to you. Of course values was placed on American soldiers. That ignores the point you could care less about that none was placed on Japanese civilians. You don't care about other options. It's like talking to a wall, except walls can have decoration.
Click to expand...

The choices were: Kill a bunch of Japanese, or let a bunch of Japanese kill Americans. We were going to invade Japan.
 
jimbo said:
The choices were: Kill a bunch of Japanese, or let a bunch of Japanese kill Americans. We were going to invade Japan.
Click to expand...

Those were not the only choices.
 
jimbo said:
And the others were?
Click to expand...

As I said, they could have made a real effort to try to work diplomatically with the situation to get a surrender, especially when they had all the confidential info on the situation and thinking of the leaders. There's every indication it would have worked.
 
Craig234 said:
As I said, they could have made a real effort to try to work diplomatically with the situation to get a surrender, especially when they had all the confidential info on the situation and thinking of the leaders. There's every indication it would have worked.
Click to expand...

Craig - They were flying themselves into ships. You had civilians jumping off cliffs holding their babies to avoid surrendering. Talking wasn't going to get them to surrender.

I can understand the mindset - they had never been defeated by a foreign invader.... just like us. If the US was about to be invaded, at what point would you give up?
 
Craig234 said:
As I said, they could have made a real effort to try to work diplomatically with the situation to get a surrender, especially when they had all the confidential info on the situation and thinking of the leaders. There's every indication it would have worked.
Click to expand...

There's no indication it would have worked. Didn't you just say that the Japanese brass feared for their lives if they caved?
 
Craig234 said:
It was a complicated situation. The reason Japan had gotten into the war in the first place was that a radical, militarized political faction, which included the military by that point, had become dominant. Reports are, that Hirohito himself feared assassination by them if he just came out for surrender.

And so they were indirect how they pursued it. They contacted the Soviets wanting them to work on a deal, who were not interested. The officials dilly dallied, but they were close.

The US knew all this, because they saw the most secret communications. They could easily have made some efforts to pursue peace there is a good chance could have succeeded.

Part of the situation was also understanding the unique role of the emperor to the country and working around that, with his not being treated like a criminal if not executed, even though he would not retain much actual power - which they refused to do before the bombs, but then did after the surrender anyway.

I saw one argument today (from a former secretary of defense, and opponent of nuclear weapons) that 'Truman did not understand the devastation the bombs would do, and after he did he said they should never be weapons in war again'.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but even after Japan was nuked twice there was a coup attempt to try and keep the war going.
 
Craig234 said:
That's the myth, the justification used. Politically, you're right about the incentives for Truman. I think it largely comes down to not placing any value on the lives of the Japanese people.
Click to expand...

Lol what? Far more Japanese civilians would have died had the US launched a conventional invasion of the Home Islands, whether when conscripted into being used as cannon fodder by the IJA or committing suicide due to the propaganda they had been force fed like on Saipan and Okinawa. And no, just letting them starve to death is not a more moral option.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The truth is that there was a major coup attempt to try and continue the war even after both cities were nuked.

A conventional invasion would have been a massive bloodbath.

Starving the Japanese wouldn’t have worked because the fascist dictatorship’s Tripp’s would have happily seized food from the civilian populace to stay in the field.

The Soviets did not have the naval capability to launch a large scale invasion of Japan. Maybe they could have taken Hokkaido, but even that is a stretch.

The truth is that Truman did the right thing.
Click to expand...

The biggest, and one of the most successful acts of terrorism in history. Top that, Osama!
 
Nickyjo said:
The biggest, and one of the most successful acts of terrorism in history. Top that, Osama!
Click to expand...

“Terrorism” my ass. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major military targets.

Oh, and considering that Unit 731 was in the middle of launching a bioweapons attack on San Francisco whine the nukes dropped(to start nothing about what they did.....well....just about everywhere they conquered), crying about the poor poor Imperial Japanese being “terrorized” is rather ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom