• 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

AmNat said:
According to the Chicago Tribune, Japan made at least five overtures in January 1945, offering full military surrender, specifically including the following items:

1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

General MacArthur communicated this to President Roosevelt prior to the Yalta Conference. FDR never acted on the offer as he was too busy consigning hundreds of millions of people to Bolshevik tyranny.
Click to expand...
The Chicago Tribune is wrong. No such offer was presented until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.
 
AmNat said:
According to the Chicago Tribune, Japan made at least five overtures in January 1945, offering full military surrender, specifically including the following items:
Click to expand...

Uhhh, what is this exactly?

Yes, this has been floating around as well for years. 5 times that "unnamed officials" talked about surrender. But here is what really matters. Who were these "officials", and in what way did they have this authority?

There were in reality only 8 people who could have made such an offer. And they were all in the Privy Council, and voted the morning of Hiroshima 8 to 0 to continue the war.

The very fact that these 5 individuals are never mentioned by name, or by what authority they were making such overtures is what causes me to reject it.

And if true, then please explain to me the Mokusatsu speech of 28 July by Prime Minister Suzuki. Because if Japan was really interested in surrender way back in January, then the Prime Minister rejecting any attempt to negotiate in July makes absolutely no sense.

Care to try again, and use an actual verifiable reference?
 
AmNat said:
According to the Chicago Tribune, Japan made at least five overtures in January 1945, offering full military surrender, specifically including the following items:
Click to expand...

Ans now to slam this shut a little more. The transcript of a 1970 interview of Mr. Trohan.

HESS: You think it was an error?

TROHAN: I think he -- see, I think -- unlike most of my colleagues who think that Mr. Truman's going down as the greatest President of this time -- I do not. And I'll tell you why I do not. One, is the firing of MacArthur which I think is going to be held to be a mistake, they should have left him in there and they should have let him win that one and we wouldn't have this one in Vietnam. Also the other
one (there's no malice on this on my part), he dropped that pineapple on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we've got...

HESS: What's your opinion on that?

TROHAN: We've got ourselves a guilt complex about that and always will have and we will not make a great man out of Mr. Truman because of that. I don't think he should have dropped that bomb. Of course, I'm a very curious fellow. I fought our entry into World War II to the last ditch. I was against going to Korea, and I was against going to Vietnam. However, once in, I wanted to win. I wanted to win all of it. Now in Korea, where Syngman Rhee, the President of Korea, was a very close personal friend, I still didn't want to send American boys over there.
Click to expand...

Walter Trohan Oral History Interview | Harry S. Truman

Funny, no mention of these "surrender attempts", but lots of mentions of his belief we should never have dropped the bombs, and never should have gotten into the war in the first place. And I have never found a single instance other than that one article you quoted (which had no evidence) to confirm that claim. However, interestingly enough in the same interview he commented on how he agrees a lot with the ideals of the John Birch society, and Barry Goldwater.

A rather interesting interview.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
No, it was “about” destroying the ability of Imperial Japan to continue to wage war against the United States and the other Allied Powers. Crying that they were “coerced” or “terrorized” is ridiculous and akin to claim the Allies committed “terrorism” against Germany by kicking them out of their lebensraum and ultimately smashing the Nazis.

The war was fought due to a surprise attack by Imperial Japan, a nation which even in 1941 had already committed a boatload of horrific atrocities, against the United States because the United States refused to fuel their war machine. There was absolutely no equivalence between the Allies and th Imperial Japanese; the United States did not proceed to enslave the peoples of Asia to fuel their own desires, as Japan had during their own occupation. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorant.

“Blood lust”.

If there had actually been “bloodlust” we would have let the people of Japan starve instead of pouring in vast amounts of material and funds to help rebuild. Or we would have launched a conventional invasion which would have killed far more Japanese civilians than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We “accepted” Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki because all were necessary in destroying some of the most despicable and horrific regimes on the planet, and no amount of second guessing years after the fact can change that.

How is killing far more Japanese civilians in a conventional invasion(because they absolutely would have been thrown into combat by the IJA), or letting untold numbers starve, somehow more “moral”? Spoiler alert— it’s not.
Click to expand...

The US rebuilding of Japan was exemplary, a credit to our country that I presume still resonates positively there. The reasons for war were not. Our country often didn’t show itself opposed to the type of brutal things Japan did in Asia, as we did much the same in the Americas. As I understand it, it was a turf battle. The fight was over control of the Pacific, no different than fights for centuries among imperial powers of the past.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Yes, this has been floating around as well for years. 5 times that "unnamed officials" talked about surrender. But here is what really matters. Who were these "officials", and in what way did they have this authority?

There were in reality only 8 people who could have made such an offer. And they were all in the Privy Council, and voted the morning of Hiroshima 8 to 0 to continue the war.

The very fact that these 5 individuals are never mentioned by name, or by what authority they were making such overtures is what causes me to reject it.
Click to expand...

The actions of a still living regime are of more relevance than those of a dead one. Technical arguments about why Imperial Japan's attempts to negotiate didn't count are of little import given that that regime no longer exists. Of much greater relevance is the FDR regime's (which still rules the world today) complete refusal to accept any conditional surrender.

And if true, then please explain to me the Mokusatsu speech of 28 July by Prime Minister Suzuki. Because if Japan was really interested in surrender way back in January, then the Prime Minister rejecting any attempt to negotiate in July makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

WWII propaganda, like much of Whig history, consists of so many direct inversions of the truth. Suzuki didn't "reject any attempt to negotiate". The Allies rejected any possibility of a negotiated peace. That's literally what "unconditional surrender" means.

Care to try again, and use an actual verifiable reference?
Click to expand...

It's not clear what you'd consider an acceptable source (the opinion of General MacArthur apparently being insufficient), though I note that you haven't posted any.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Ans now to slam this shut a little more. The transcript of a 1970 interview of Mr. Trohan.



Walter Trohan Oral History Interview | Harry S. Truman

Funny, no mention of these "surrender attempts", but lots of mentions of his belief we should never have dropped the bombs, and never should have gotten into the war in the first place. And I have never found a single instance other than that one article you quoted (which had no evidence) to confirm that claim.
Click to expand...

It is not clear how mentioning that the bombs shouldn't have been dropped is supposed to be a renunciation of his reporting regarding the surrender offers.

However, interestingly enough in the same interview he commented on how he agrees a lot with the ideals of the John Birch society, and Barry Goldwater.

A rather interesting interview.
Click to expand...

Indeed. At first the only people not fully on board with WWII mythology were committed FDR-haters, i.e. the Old Right. It wasn't until Roosevelt's memory receded a little into the past that the left went at it.
 
Nickyjo said:
The US rebuilding of Japan was exemplary, a credit to our country that I presume still resonates positively there. The reasons for war were not. Our country often didn’t show itself opposed to the type of brutal things Japan did in Asia
Click to expand...

Huh?

We did not "show ourselves opposed to the type of brutal things Japan did in Asia?"

The final break between us and our former WWI ally was the Rape of Nanking. Where the Japanese Army slaughtered over a quarter million unarmed civilians. Where mass beheadings were reported in the Japanese newspapers like it was a sporting event.

Care to show me where the US did things like that? Where even 6 weeks after the capitulation of the city, murders, mass executions, and systematic raped occurred?

The slaughter of civilians is appalling. I could go on for pages telling of cases of rape and brutality almost beyond belief. Two bayoneted corpses are the only survivors of seven street cleaners who were sitting in their headquarters when Japanese soldiers came in without warning or reason and killed five of their number and wounded the two that found their way to the hospital.

Let me recount some instances occurring in the last two days. Last night the house of one of the Chinese staff members of the university was broken into and two of the women, his relatives, were raped. Two girls, about 16, were raped to death in one of the refugee camps. In the University Middle School where there are 8,000 people the Japs came in ten times last night, over the wall, stole food, clothing, and raped until they were satisfied. They bayoneted one little boy of eight who [had] five bayonet wounds including one that penetrated his stomach, a portion of omentum was outside the abdomen. I think he will live.
Click to expand...

1938 letter from Dr. Robert Wilson to his family about the horrors he witnessed while working at a hospital in Nanking.

Then there is this. A letter from the Legation Secretary of the German Embassy to his own Foreign Ministry in Berlin:

And I am aware much will probably be censored, and the descriptions are brutal.

During the Japanese reign of terror in Nanking – which, by the way, continues to this day to a considerable degree – the Reverend John Magee, a member of the American Episcopal Church Mission who has been here for almost a quarter of a century, took motion pictures that eloquently bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Japanese.… One will have to wait and see whether the highest officers in the Japanese army succeed, as they have indicated, in stopping the activities of their troops, which continue even today.

On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at No. 5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha's death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14 [were]. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.
Click to expand...

And you dare to say the US "pretty much did the same thing"?
 
Craig234 said:
The Truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Common Dreams Views
Click to expand...

Good article for those who like dwelling in an old left revisionist echo chamber of their own beliefs - not so much for those who read and know WWII history.

The first half of the article is a petty lambasting of Wallace and Fox News over using the correct film clips, fretting over imagined first use doctrine, and other errata of no historical interest.

And if the reader has the good sense to 'weed out' the hindsight of interested parties an outline of the facts are self-explanatory:

1. Yes Japan was suffering, but not so much that it couldn't field millions in armed resistance or dispatch 10,000 kamikazes against any invasion.

2. Those "desperate peace feelers" were so desperate that IN SPITE of the invasion of Manchuria by Stalin and wholesale destruction of Japanese armies on the Chinese mainland, and in spite of the dropping of two atomic bombs wiping out two Japanese cities the fanatical Japanese leadership, the 8 men who controlled Japan could STILL could only manage an even split on fighting on or surrender between the war faction and the peace faction.

This impasse of the eight men who controlled Japan was only broken by Hirohito because he realized the the A-Bomb made the Ketsu-go war strategy of attrition pointless...confirmed in his mind when the second bomb was dropped.

3. No military officials counseled President Truman against using the weapons prior to Hiroshima. He had acted with the advice and full support of his chief civilian and military advisers and with the unequivocal endorsement of his British allies. There wasn't any question that the bomb, considered as a "super explosive" would be used - so much so that even Marshall planned to use these weapons as battlefield bombs to clear the way for the invasion of Kyushu (oblivious, as were all, to the dangers of fallout).

4. The use of two bombs were the least costly option in human lives, not only of American, British, and Commonwealth men and women, but also of Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and that of the occupied people's.

So yes it was not only justified, and it would have been immoral not to use them.
 
AmNat said:
Technical arguments about why Imperial Japan's attempts to negotiate didn't count are of little import given that that regime no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Japan did not attempt to negotiate with the US.

Japan flatly refused to talk with the US.


AmNat said:
Of much greater relevance is the FDR regime's (which still rules the world today) complete refusal to accept any conditional surrender.
Click to expand...
The US government did in fact accept a conditional surrender. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.


AmNat said:
WWII propaganda, like much of Whig history, consists of so many direct inversions of the truth. Suzuki didn't "reject any attempt to negotiate".
Click to expand...
Suzuki did however reject our surrender terms.


AmNat said:
The Allies rejected any possibility of a negotiated peace. That's literally what "unconditional surrender" means.
Click to expand...
There really wasn't anything to negotiate. But we were happy to talk with the Japanese government if they had any questions about the surrender terms that they were required to agree to.

It was only the Japanese government that refused to talk.


AmNat said:
It's not clear what you'd consider an acceptable source (the opinion of General MacArthur apparently being insufficient), though I note that you haven't posted any.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any evidence that MacArthur actually said any of the things that the Chicago Tribune article attributes to him.

But the fact that the claims contradict reality means that they would not be credible even if it was established that MacArthur did say those things.
 
Another article on the subject
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It | The Nation
w.thenation.com/article/archive/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff
“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
 
AmNat said:
FDR and Truman didn't directly enslave the peoples of Asia. Their buddy Stalin did it for them. I don't see any great moral significance in that distinction.
Click to expand...

Stalin didn’t actually “enslave” anyone in Asia considering that he didn’t enter the war in the Pacific until the final months. You not seeing a distinction between FDR and Stalin just goes to show why you have no credibility whatsoever.
 
Craig234 said:
You're just making it up IMO. Many people had fanatical loyalty to the emperor.
Click to expand...

That was what MacArthur and his staff had thought, but once Japan had been occupied it turned out that all that fanaticism to the Emperor was nowhere near as serious as imagined. As so summarily stated;

"With regard to the Emperor system, it is the opinion of observers especially as far as the middle classes are concerned that the Allies are unduly apprehensive of the effect on the Japanese if the Emperor were removed. It is claimed that at most there might be demonstrations, particularly in rural districts, but they would soon pass. People are more concerned with food and housing problems than with the fate of the Emperor." -Embracing Defeat, by John Dover.
 
Nickyjo said:
The US rebuilding of Japan was exemplary, a credit to our country that I presume still resonates positively there. The reasons for war were not. Our country often didn’t show itself opposed to the type of brutal things Japan did in Asia, as we did much the same in the Americas. As I understand it, it was a turf battle. The fight was over control of the Pacific, no different than fights for centuries among imperial powers of the past.
Click to expand...

Uh....what? The US absolutely did show itself opposed to the atrocities Japan committed in China and elsewhere and from very early on. Which was why Japan attacked in the first place, as they saw the US being unwilling to support their rampage through Asia as a direct threat. Your attempt to draw an equivalence between the two is bizarre. There was no American equivalent of the Rape of Nanking or the “Co-Prosperity Sphere”(a rather cynical name for Japan’s colonial slavery system at that).

From what it sounds like, you don’t understand much of anything about the Pacific Theater.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Stalin didn’t actually “enslave” anyone in Asia
Click to expand...

Of course not. He "liberated" them from capitalism, right?

You not seeing a distinction between FDR and Stalin just goes to show why you have no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

FDR was practically begging Stalin to seize territory from Japan after he knew they were willing to surrender to us. He is therefore personally responsible for all the millions of Chinese slaughtered by Mao, and for the ongoing oppression of the North Koreans. Ditto for Soviet crimes in Eastern Europe.

He was far and away the most evil person to ever be President of the United States. Of course a Marxist like you would support him.
 
Without the bomb, there would be an invasion.

The invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were previews of the invasion of the mainland. American casualties would be extremely high, as would Japanese casualties.

The bomb saved lives.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Suzuki did however reject our surrender terms.

There really wasn't anything to negotiate. But we were happy to talk with the Japanese government if they had any questions about the surrender terms that they were required to agree to.

It was only the Japanese government that refused to talk.
Click to expand...

I find it quite telling that I can mention specific things, which are verifiable and recorded, and they just come back with more revisionist history and unverified claims.

I know I specifically references the Mokusatsu speech by Prime Minister Suzuki. This was made in a publicly broadcast speech, and is the only official record we have of the response by the Japanese Government to the Potsdam Declaration.

For those not familiar with it, here is the translation of this 28 July speech:

My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu suru. The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end.[/wuote]

Now "Makusatsu" is a Japanese term, it essentially translates to either "Kill with silence", or "treat in contempt by silence". In other words, according to the Prime Minister it was not even worth considering. This is confirmed by the end of that very sentence, where they vow to "continue our fight to the end".

Now in what kind of insane world is this the Government not rejecting a surrender offer? In what insane world can this be even a reasonable response , if they had actually been trying desperately to surrender since January as some claim? They bring up single newspaper references with no verification, that even the author himself never mentions again. Even when answering specific questions about the dropping of the bomb 25 years later he never mentions this incredible bombshell!

This is why I keep asking them for specifics. Who made the offer, when and to who? Of, they keep bringing up extremely vague references, but never seem to mention who, where, when, and what authority that person had to present such terms. Meanwhile I mention very specific speeches that are recorded, and they claim they never happened.

In case some have not gotten this yet, I have been studying this specific war for well over 35 years now. I have lived in Japan, and walked among many of the battlefields and visited the memorials. However, even Japan itself recognizes that they were wrong, and their intractability is what led to the use of the bombs. While they still generally refuse to admit to the worst of their atrocities, in this they do not deny that they are the ones that refused to surrender or negotiate.

That is left up to lying Westerners who have political axes to grind.
Click to expand...
 
swing_voter said:
Without the bomb, there would be an invasion.

The invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were previews of the invasion of the mainland. American casualties would be extremely high, as would Japanese casualties.

The bomb saved lives.
Click to expand...

Actually that was nit the consensus of the military leaders of the time. They said invasion was not needed
 
Ringo Stalin said:
Another article on the subject
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It | The Nation
w.thenation.com/article/archive/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff
“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
Click to expand...

There are many more quotes than that saying the bomb was a mistake. I can only find one that approved of it and that was because he had to give the order for it

The war was over
 
vegas giants said:
There are many more quotes than that saying the bomb was a mistake. I can only find one that approved of it and that was because he had to give the order for it

The war was over
Click to expand...



I don't believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom