A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

Nickyjo said:

Government by death squad was installed in Guatemala in 1954, when republican Ike was president. Their elected government had a quarrel with United Fruit Company, which had influence in DC with the Dulles brothers. The government of Iran was overthrown around the same time and the Shah was installed. The government of Chile was overthrown during Nixon’s time with his administration’s assistance. We sponsored efforts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua during Reagan’s time. He also overthrew the government of Grenada.

Click to expand...

Grenada had been under a Marxist government for a while without the US doing anything to it. We only intervened when hardliners overthrew the (Marxist) president for daring to try and remain nonaligned.

Oh, and since you dodged the question.....

Which Latin American cities did US troops rampage through, murdering tens of thousands of people? Which Latin American civilians did the US carve up for bioweapons testing? What Latin American cities did the US deploy stockpiles of plague, typhoid, and other bioweapons against? How many Latin American women were systematically kidnapped to be used as prostitutes for US soldiers? How many Latin American POWs were systematically murdered as a matter of US governmental policy?

There did not seem to be anything in those intercepted messages that would have told the Americans that the Japanese were ready to surrender and on top of that the idea of unconditional surrender excepting for the preservation of the Emperor was implicitly rejected.

The US analysis of the MAGIC messages was that:

there was a split in the Japanese high command between a "peace party" and "war party"; the "peace party" were the ones looking for a diplomatic end to the war, and were scheming to find a non-suicidal end to the war

that even the "peace party" was insistence on the preservation status of the Emperor at an absolute minimum — to abandon the Imperial system would be abandoning what made Japan "Japan" in their eyes

Depending on who you were you read this differently. Those who thought the Japanese were far from surrender read it in that light; they were clearly unwilling to support unconditional surrender in any case. Those who thought that this offered up a "wedge" of possibility — if the US relaxed unconditional surrender regarding the Emperor — saw it in this light. In the latter camp included the Secretary of War and Winston Churchill, who encouraged Truman to relax that requirement in the Potsdam Declaration with the hope that it might open up the door to a quicker surrender.

Were the Japanese preparing to surrender before the dropping of the atomic bombs? : AskHistorians

Click to expand...

And Truman did drop the requirement that Japan get rid of their emperor.

And still no surrender.

maxparrish said:

As I have no idea who you think comprises "every other military leader" who expressed an opinion is, your assertion must be rejected. Name them.

Click to expand...

Name 2 that agree with you.


You cant.


Read the thread

swing_voter said:

And Truman did drop the requirement that Japan get rid of their emperor.

And still no surrender.

Click to expand...

That is a flat out lie.


It was a unconditional surrender

Jredbaron96 said:

It's reality. Hirohito personally endorsed the order that the IJA no longer had to treat Chinese POWs in accordance with international law.

Click to expand...

'Those are your words' refer to your description of Hirohito you imply was mine.

Here's an article about a major incident before the war involving Hirohito. A couple of key points include how the rebels were 'ostensibly acting in the Emperor's name even though he actually opposed them', and how 'this established the complete control of the military over the government', and how leaders who opposed war and wanted to work with the US were killed.

The politics, the power distribution, were complicated. The military could bring down any government any time it liked by withdrawing their ministers. It's not suited for simple assumptions about what the Emperor could and could not, did and did not do, in many cases.

But one thing that does seem clear is that it was Hirohito who finally did use his power to overrule the council and force surrender, putting him at odds with the militarist leaders at that point, whatever had happened. He CLAIMED in 1946 that he had been powerless to stop the militarists and was like a prisoner to them; that's dubious, but it's part of what has to be sorted out.

Usually, the emperor had been a relatively powerless figurehead, with whoever took power using the emperor to claim legitimacy. The 1868 changes on paper put the emperor in charge, but that history didn't complete disappear. The emperor watching his prime ministers assassinated by the militarists wasn't lost on him.

People want to make assumptions - he was called emperor, so he was like Napoleon.

Finally, perhaps ironically, he played the role the emperor had so long played, but this time it was the Americans who had the power, and used the emperor for legitimacy, helping them rule.

1936 coup failed, but rebels killed Japan's 'Keynes' | The Japan Times

Craig234 said:

I assume you praise Sherman's march across the south? Grant let them keep their stupid citizenship. He should have punished them a lot more for their war crimes. They started war, and murdered Americans to keep enslaving people they saw as subhuman. Sherman killed and raped the sonabitches. Talk about getting somebody's attention. Right? I'll watch for the other guy's post calling it poetic justice.

Click to expand...

You may be a little confused.

I am a real Conservative and a non interventionist. I could give you a dozen reasons why we never should have been involved in WWII. Especially in Europe. Back then I would have been spouting Isolationism. I think that idiot FDR's interventionist policies caused the Japs to have serious security issues with the US. For instance, we cut them off of oil at a time when we were the largest oil exporter in the world. Things like tend to piss countries off.

However, once they attacked us and we went to war then it was our duty to kick their ass and we did it.

I never met him because I was born later but the Japs killed one of my uncles. My Mother's brother. He died as POW.

My father fought in Europe but his his unit was slated to be part of the invasion of Japan had we not nuked the sonofabitches. Without nukes I may very well have never been born.

The firggin Japs were assholes back then. They started something they couldn't finish.

I don't feel sorry for them at all.

The stupid Japs really screwed up on Okinawa.

They thought that if they fought to the last man and inflicted heavy losses on the Americans that we would say "screw it, ain't worth invading Japan".

However, all it really caused us to say was "screw it, lets nuke the bastards".

What the hell were they thinking?

There were enough high level Japs that had been to America (like Yamamoto) and knew that we could kick their ass in any prolonged war. Who let the "lets attack the US, what could possibly go wrong" idiots set policy?

The civilian and military blood is on the hands of the Japanese Imperial government. They started the crap. Dumb idiots!

vegas giants said:

That is a flat out lie.


It was a unconditional surrender

Click to expand...

Least I don't lie about my military service.


1. Show me in the Potsdam declaration where it says the word "emperor".

It does say if Japan doesn't immediately surrender "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." That's diplomatic speak for "We have the bomb and we're going to us it."

2. Japan has an emperor at this very moment. He's the descendent of their WWII emperor. We didn't remove the Japanese emperor at the end of WWII.

PCB66 said:

You may be a little confused.

I am a real Conservative and a non interventionist. I could give you a dozen reasons why we never should have been involved in WWII. Especially in Europe. Back then I would have been spouting Isolationism. I think that idiot FDR's interventionist policies caused the Japs to have serious security issues with the US. For instance, we cut them off of oil at a time when we were the largest oil exporter in the world. Things like tend to piss countries off.

However, once they attacked us and we went to war then it was our duty to kick their ass and we did it.

I never met him because I was born later but the Japs killed one of my uncles. My Mother's brother. He died as POW.

My father fought in Europe but his his unit was slated to be part of the invasion of Japan had we not nuked the sonofabitches. Without nukes I may very well have never been born.

The firggin Japs were assholes back then. They started something they couldn't finish.

I don't feel sorry for them at all.

The stupid Japs really screwed up on Okinawa.

They thought that if they fought to the last man and inflicted heavy losses on the Americans that we would say "screw it, ain't worth invading Japan".

However, all it really caused us to say was "screw it, lets nuke the bastards".

What the hell were they thinking?

There were enough high level Japs that had been to America (like Yamamoto) and knew that we could kick their ass in any prolonged war. Who let the "lets attack the US, what could possibly go wrong" idiots set policy?

The civilian and military blood is on the hands of the Japanese Imperial government. They started the crap. Dumb idiots!

Click to expand...

You're showing a sense of 'justice' that is selfish - YOU might never have been born, but nevermind all the people who weren't because of the bombs.

You assign group blame. The radical right militarists who became in charge are not the same people as the civilians in the fields and cities. This was even understood largely about common German soldiers, much less civilians. That doesn't mean they were 'perfect people', but they aren't the same as the leaders who set bad policies.

You didn't address my point about Sherman's March, that matches your logic. I guess you are saying you don't care if Germany and militarist Japan ruled the rest of the world under tyranny, if the US was left alone. That was a popular view of Americans then, but it's pretty dubious morally, as well as practically.

You refer to leaders who knew the US would defeat them, and your version is, 'who let the idiots set policy' instead of them? Those people who opposed war tended to have been killed by the right-wing militants, during the years of conflict between the factions in which the militants gained complete control and killed or silenced opposition. Kind of bad things happen when you get bad leaders, as the US should know well now.

swing_voter said:

Least I don't lie about my military service.


1. Show me in the Potsdam declaration where it says the word "emperor".

It does say if Japan doesn't immediately surrender "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." That's diplomatic speak for "We have the bomb and we're going to us it."

2. Japan has an emperor at this very moment. He's the descendent of their WWII emperor. We didn't remove the Japanese emperor at the end of WWII.

Click to expand...

You are lying. It says what it says. Unconditional surrender.


Deny that

Craig234 said:

He CLAIMED in 1946 that he had been powerless to stop the militarists and was like a prisoner to them; that's dubious, but it's part of what has to be sorted out.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being sorted out; it's known that Hirohito was a major proponent in the decision to go to war, and many of Japan's crimes were earmarked with his approval, not just a rubber stamp.

swing_voter said:

Why do you lefties hate America so much.


Give us Americans the benefit of a doubt.

Click to expand...

Get em ranger. Lol

Jredbaron96 said:

It's not a matter of being sorted out; it's known that Hirohito was a major proponent in the decision to go to war, and many of Japan's crimes were earmarked with his approval, not just a rubber stamp.

Click to expand...

Oh, I guess it's simple then. Hirohito was solely responsible for everything Japan did in WWII. He was like the Kim Jong Un of Japan, there were no other political forces. Thanks for the fantasy.

Craig234 said:

Oh, I guess it's simple then. Hirohito was solely responsible for everything Japan did in WWII. He was like the Kim Jong Un of Japan, there were no other political forces. Thanks for the fantasy.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I claim that. But I can see you can't make an argument without putting words in people's mouth.

vegas giants said:

You are lying. It says what it says. Unconditional surrender.


Deny that

Click to expand...

lol

Why would I?

Potsdam implied that if they don't immediately surrender, unconditionally, we'd nuke them.

By omitting the emperor from Potsdam, it told the Japanese the emperor could stay.

swing_voter said:

lol

Why would I?

Potsdam implied that if they don't immediately surrender, unconditionally, we'd nuke them.

By omitting the emperor from Potsdam, it told the Japanese the emperor could stay.

Click to expand...

These may be the stupidest posts you have ever made.


Unconditional surrender means no conditions. Japan did not even know we had atomic weapons.


Even your pro nuke buddies will not bail you out of this one.


It is freaking hilarious

vegas giants said:

These may be the stupidest posts you have ever made.


Unconditional surrender means no conditions. Japan did not even know we had atomic weapons.


Even your pro nuke buddies will not bail you out of this one.


It is freaking hilarious

Click to expand...

No, unconditional surrender means "we" make the decisions, not them.

And we told them they could keep their emperor if they surrendered. This decision was on of thousands we made for the Japanese.

Craig234 said:

You're showing a sense of 'justice' that is selfish - YOU might never have been born, but nevermind all the people who weren't because of the bombs.

You assign group blame. The radical right militarists who became in charge are not the same people as the civilians in the fields and cities. This was even understood largely about common German soldiers, much less civilians. That doesn't mean they were 'perfect people', but they aren't the same as the leaders who set bad policies.

You didn't address my point about Sherman's March, that matches your logic. I guess you are saying you don't care if Germany and militarist Japan ruled the rest of the world under tyranny, if the US was left alone. That was a popular view of Americans then, but it's pretty dubious morally, as well as practically.

You refer to leaders who knew the US would defeat them, and your version is, 'who let the idiots set policy' instead of them? Those people who opposed war tended to have been killed by the right-wing militants, during the years of conflict between the factions in which the militants gained complete control and killed or silenced opposition. Kind of bad things happen when you get bad leaders, as the US should know well now.

Click to expand...

The stupid Japs decided to play stupid games and they got a stupid prize.

Their own damn fault.

If you don't want to get nuked then don't go bomb Pearl Harbor. Just saying.

swing_voter said:

No, unconditional surrender means "we" make the decisions, not them.

And we told them they could keep their emperor if they surrendered. This decision was on of thousands we made for the Japanese.

Click to expand...

Dude you are lying. No document exists that says you can keep your emperor.


You are being laughed at buddy. Lol

PCB66 said:

The stupid Japs decided to play stupid games and they got a stupid prize.

Their own damn fault.

If you don't want to get nuked then don't go bomb Pearl Harbor. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are able to understand the issues. You know how they talk about 'mob mentality', that's what I'm seeing.

Jredbaron96 said:

Nowhere did I claim that. But I can see you can't make an argument without putting words in people's mouth.

Click to expand...

That's the mentality you showed, the level of argument you made. I pointed it out.

Craig234 said:

I don't think you are able to understand the issues. You know how they talk about 'mob mentality', that's what I'm seeing.

Click to expand...

Ignore him dude. He would nuke mexico to stop illegal immigration

Craig234 said:

That's the mentality you showed, the level of argument you made. I pointed it out.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. What this has demonstrated is you aren't very skilled at reading comprehension.

I never said it was the Emperor himself who was the sole cause of Japan's war crimes. I pointed out that the idea that he was a neutral body forced by the militarists to do as they wanted is a false narrative, and that he in fact was a major part of Japan's decision to go to war, and was well aware of the crimes being committed by his military, and in many cases even endorsed their actions. Not because he had to, but because he agreed with them.

Jredbaron96 said:

No, it isn't. What this has demonstrated is you aren't very skilled at reading comprehension.

I never said it was the Emperor himself who was the sole cause of Japan's war crimes. I pointed out that the idea that he was a neutral body forced by the militarists to do as they wanted is a false narrative, and that he in fact was a major part of Japan's decision to go to war, and was well aware of the crimes being committed by his military, and in many cases even endorsed their actions. Not because he had to, but because he agreed with them.

Click to expand...

You appear to lack reading and writing comprehension.

That's not what you said. You rejected any complexity to the issue, demanding only simple things, when you said, your words, "It's not a matter of being sorted out". When YOU say what you said, above, you don't mention that you said that. If there's "nothing to be sorted out" with you, there's nothing to discuss with you.

Craig234 said:

You appear to lack reading and writing comprehension.

That's not what you said. You rejected any complexity to the issue, demanding only simple things, when you said, your words, "It's not a matter of being sorted out". When YOU say what you said, above, you don't mention that you said that. If there's "nothing to be sorted out" with you, there's nothing to discuss with you.

Click to expand...

I have a couple of problems with the OP.

It implies the Japanese weren't worthy opponents. That they were ignorant savages who couldn't make decisions on their own.

It implies America was the bully.


We Americans were the ones who were attacked. So what if we embargoed Japan, we embargo countries all the time.

Japan looked at our isolationism and saw it as a weakness. They'd bloody our nose at Pearl Harbor and we'd run away and hide.

That was a mistake.

Craig234 said:

"It's not a matter of being sorted out".

Click to expand...

Because it's true. If you had any evidence otherwise you would submit it.