A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Craig234]

I did nothing of the kind

No, you didn't. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the author of the linked article.

 

[Craig234]

We made every effort to get Japan to surrender.

I disagree. Refusing to accept surrender with the emperor not subject to prosecution did not make every effort.

Ike was the only military leader who opposed using the A-bombs before they were used, and his opposition was pretty feeble and insignificant.

The evidence says otherwise. I understand you want change the topic from their opinion on the need for the bomb, to how much they actively spoke out against it.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Show your plenty of evidence then

"On December 29, two days before the Emperor's "declaration of humanity," the same unit reported that "informed sources claim that many people have reached a state where it is almost immaterial to them whether the Emperor is retained or not".

"Shortly after this, the US Strategic Bombing Survey conducted a survey asking Japanese what their feelings had been when they heard Japan have given up in the war. In a striking demonstration of the extent to which ordinary people have become bystanders where the emperor was concerned, only 4% checked off 'worry about the Emperor, shame for Emperor, sorrow for him'".

"Jokes about the emperor and flippancy in speaking of him were another small sign that awe toward the sovereign was not so great as the royalists or Fellers and MacArthur insisted."

 

[Craig234]

OK, fine. I am wrong.

Now provide a single piece of evidence that somebody who had the authority of the Japanese Government tried to surrender prior to 6 August 1945.

No, not these "nameless schmucks" we keep hearing. The name and place where somebody of authority made such an offer.

You are the one that claims they tried to surrender, put up or shut up.

Oh, and the meetings of the Privy Council of the Empire of Japan are easy enough to find. They were the only ones with the power to surrender. Please find in their meetings any mention of their desiring to surrender prior to 10 August 1945. I will wait for that also.

I didn't say were trying to surrender, you are arguing a straw man. I've seen some claims of the US rejecting their offer to surrender with protection for the emperor. But my point was that we did not make an effort to get their surrender on those terms. We demanded unconditional surrender, and dropped the bombs instead.

 

[Tigerace117]

The US was opposed to Japanese expansion in that part of the war. Of course we criticized their atrocities, we are America, after all, but the bit of research I just did said it was their expansionism, brutal or not. They killed hundreds of thousands. In our hemisphere the US was opposed to any leftist movement, however democratic, in Latin America, due to our blind anti-communism and our own softer imperialism. We armed and trained soldiers and supported governments that murdered hundreds of thousands in our region. When Carter’s human rights policy criticized and withdrew aid from some of these countries, some on the moderate left in the region were flabbergasted. I saw an article in a Spanish language Christian magazine suggesting this was a way of recovering moral standing after Vietnam, else why would a country that had overthrown democracy and supported tyranny for decades care about, say, torture in Chile?

The difference between what Japan did in Asia and what the US helped others to do in Latin America was like the difference between dog **** and cat ****. Dog **** comes in larger quantities. Both stink.

I worked on these issues for 20 years. If you want stats and stories, I can provide them.

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?

Congrats, you’ve only managed to further expose just how completely ignorant you are about Imperial Japan.

No amount of whataboutism changes the facts about Japanese atrocities. Crying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “terrorism” only goes to show how completely clueless you are.

 

[vegas giants]

“You know the most terrible decision a man ever had to make was made by me at Potsdam. It had nothing to do with Russia or Britain or Germany. It was a decision to loose the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings. The Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, and I weighed that decision most prayerfully. But the President had to decide. It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think that they were and are. But I couldn’t help but think of the necessity of blotting out women and children and non-combatants. We gave them fair warning and asked them to quit. We picked a couple of cities where war work was the principle industry, and dropped bombs. Russia hurried in and the war ended.”


The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive




Truman's own words.

Yeah truman did not care about those women and children.

 

[vegas giants]

"On December 29, two days before the Emperor's "declaration of humanity," the same unit reported that "informed sources claim that many people have reached a state where it is almost immaterial to them whether the Emperor is retained or not".

"Shortly after this, the US Strategic Bombing Survey conducted a survey asking Japanese what their feelings had been when they heard Japan have given up in the war. In a striking demonstration of the extent to which ordinary people have become bystanders where the emperor was concerned, only 4% checked off 'worry about the Emperor, shame for Emperor, sorrow for him'".

"Jokes about the emperor and flippancy in speaking of him were another small sign that awe toward the sovereign was not so great as the royalists or Fellers and MacArthur insisted."

This really sounds like opinion and I see no link

 

[Oozlefinch]

They were radical ideologues, and I don't see any room for talks working with them.

What we could have done was try to work AROUND them with the others who were not the militarists, including the emperor. But yes, by that time, concerns about the value of Japanese life seem to have been pretty low.

Uhhhh, they WERE the Government.

First, there is the Taisei Yokusankai, or "Imperial Rule Assistance Association". This was the "Ruling Party", created to bring all of the conflicting political parties into line and truly turn Japan into a "Single Party State". All political parties, trade unions, guilds, media outlets, industry, all immediately came under the control of the Taisei Yokusankai.

In essence, it was the "Japanese NSDAP Party".

And this was done in 1940. In 1942 they had their only elections, and the Taisei Yokusankai claimed 381 of 466 seats in the Diet. Which became pointless, because after the election all members of the Diet were mandated to disavow their previous political affiliations and become members of the Taisei Yokusankai. Either that, or they could not hold their seat.

So that eliminates the entire political system. The Privy Council is the next step, and even on the day of the first bomb they voted 6 to 0 to continue the war at all costs. So they are out.

The Emperor? Now I know you do not know what you are talking about. He was a Spiritual Leader, not an actual Leader King. He literally had no power, the most he could do is in the event of a tie in his Privy Council he could break that tie. Which happened only once.

He never even spoke on a telephone or on the radio prior to the announcement of the surrender. And somehow you were going to use him? Even though he did not allow his voice to be broadcast on the radio, he did give personal speeches. And all through the war he was a strong supporter, even making speeches and writing letters encouraging his people to fight on no matter what the cost, and that death was preferred to surrender.

And you were somehow gonna get him to listen? Might as well try to claim you were going to kidnap the Pope and get him to deny the Divinity of Christ.

 

[Tigerace117]

Elaborate invasion plans exist right now for china, Russia. North korea.


It's just paper.

Can you quote any generals saying the bomb was needed before it was dropped?

The US has moved huge numbers of men around the world to prepare to invade Russia, China or North Korea? Got a source for that? Because they did move said men to prepare to invade the Home Islands, and I rather doubt it was just for ****s and giggles.

Did any generals talk about the top secret super weapon before it was used? No, they did not. Again, do you have any evidence that...well....anyone thought we weren’t going to have to invade Japan prior to the atomic bombs being used?

 

[Bullseye]

The Truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Common Dreams Views

Can't be a good article if it argues Truman was wrong. Common (Wet) Dreams blathers the loony left crap constantly.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This really sounds like opinion and I see no link

It's from "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" By John W. Dower

Amazing what a simple google search will reveal.

 

[vegas giants]

The US has moved huge numbers of men around the world to prepare to invade Russia, China or North Korea? Got a source for that? Because they did move said men to prepare to invade the Home Islands, and I rather doubt it was just for ****s and giggles.

Did any generals talk about the top secret super weapon before it was used? No, they did not. Again, do you have any evidence that...well....anyone thought we weren’t going to have to invade Japan prior to the atomic bombs being used?

The US plans for every eventuality in war. Most war plans never see the battlefield.


So you can quote no generals saying they were for it except marshall and I can quote lots saying they against it

 

[vegas giants]

It's from "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" By John W. Dower

Amazing what a simple google search will reveal.

The page you requested can not be found. Lol

 

[Jredbaron96]

The page you requested can not be found. Lol

Try again.

 

[Tigerace117]

The US plans for every eventuality in war. Most war plans never see the battlefield.


So you can quote no generals saying they were for it except marshall and I can quote lots saying they against it

Again......if you have evidence of generals opposing a ground invasion of Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped.....provide it.

Otherwise, it’s just meaningless posturing.

The US government doesn’t expend vast amounts of resources to move men thousands of miles for a plan that will “never see the battlefield”.

 

[Craig234]

"On December 29, two days before the Emperor's "declaration of humanity," the same unit reported that "informed sources claim that many people have reached a state where it is almost immaterial to them whether the Emperor is retained or not".

"Shortly after this, the US Strategic Bombing Survey conducted a survey asking Japanese what their feelings had been when they heard Japan have given up in the war. In a striking demonstration of the extent to which ordinary people have become bystanders where the emperor was concerned, only 4% checked off 'worry about the Emperor, shame for Emperor, sorrow for him'".

"Jokes about the emperor and flippancy in speaking of him were another small sign that awe toward the sovereign was not so great as the royalists or Fellers and MacArthur insisted."

It's an interesting topic, people's real views versus the official status as a divine rule claiming lineage going back to 660 BC. The emperor had long been of extreme symbolic importance, yet often actually powerless, such as being kidnapped by forces who used his prestige to rule.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I didn't say were trying to surrender, you are arguing a straw man. I've seen some claims of the US rejecting their offer to surrender with protection for the emperor. But my point was that we did not make an effort to get their surrender on those terms. We demanded unconditional surrender, and dropped the bombs instead.

Yea, great. "Claims".

I have seen them also, all meaningless, pointless, and without any evidence that they ever even happened.

We made the demand of surrender way back on 26 July.

Now if Japan had been serious about trying to surrender, they would have reached out to us and tried to at least have a discussion. But they did not. In fact, their only public acknowledgement of this was the previously mentioned "Makusatsu" speech. And they never again either brought it up, or attempted any form of negotiation after that date.

You see, that is how nations usually do things. One side makes a demand, then the other side comes back with a counter-demand. And eventually either they come to an agreement, or one is crushed militarily.

They did not even tried. They outright rejected it, then said not a single thing until after 2 bombs were dropped on their heads.

If they wanted "Terms", they should have at least tried to reach out and arrange terms. Not simply completely reject them and not respond ever again.

 

[Craig234]

Uhhhh, they WERE the Government.

First, there is the Taisei Yokusankai, or "Imperial Rule Assistance Association". This was the "Ruling Party", created to bring all of the conflicting political parties into line and truly turn Japan into a "Single Party State". All political parties, trade unions, guilds, media outlets, industry, all immediately came under the control of the Taisei Yokusankai.

In essence, it was the "Japanese NSDAP Party".

And this was done in 1940. In 1942 they had their only elections, and the Taisei Yokusankai claimed 381 of 466 seats in the Diet. Which became pointless, because after the election all members of the Diet were mandated to disavow their previous political affiliations and become members of the Taisei Yokusankai. Either that, or they could not hold their seat.

So that eliminates the entire political system. The Privy Council is the next step, and even on the day of the first bomb they voted 6 to 0 to continue the war at all costs. So they are out.

The Emperor? Now I know you do not know what you are talking about. He was a Spiritual Leader, not an actual Leader King. He literally had no power, the most he could do is in the event of a tie in his Privy Council he could break that tie. Which happened only once.

He never even spoke on a telephone or on the radio prior to the announcement of the surrender. And somehow you were going to use him? Even though he did not allow his voice to be broadcast on the radio, he did give personal speeches. And all through the war he was a strong supporter, even making speeches and writing letters encouraging his people to fight on no matter what the cost, and that death was preferred to surrender.

And you were somehow gonna get him to listen? Might as well try to claim you were going to kidnap the Pope and get him to deny the Divinity of Christ.

That's a partly accurate, partly distorted picture. It ignores the actual views of people, the power breakdown, WHY they'd vote 6-0 that way, and so on. The most important fact IMO is how the radical right-wing militarization fanatics took over the country, defeating the left-wing and peaceful factions, and how to defeat them when the war was lost. They WERE defeated after the bombs in August and the emperor's speech, but that doesn't mean it was the only way.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The emperor had long been of extreme symbolic importance, yet often actually powerless, such as being kidnapped by forces who used his prestige to rule.

This is untrue. The Emperor did in fact play a prominent role in Japan's elite, and was in fact a driving force on the way to war. He played a far bigger role in leading Japan to war than Tojo, for example.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It's an interesting topic, people's real views versus the official status as a divine rule claiming lineage going back to 660 BC. The emperor had long been of extreme symbolic importance, yet often actually powerless, such as being kidnapped by forces who used his prestige to rule.

This is actually not unusual.

It is not actually the Emperor himself, he was but a divine mortal man. It was the Imperial Lineage that mattered. Not unlike say the Lineage of the throne of England, or the Lineage of the Popes.

A single man matters little, so long as the Lineage survives.

 

[vegas giants]

Again......if you have evidence of generals opposing a ground invasion of Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped.....provide it.

Otherwise, it’s just meaningless posturing.

The US government doesn’t expend vast amounts of resources to move men thousands of miles for a plan that will “never see the battlefield”.

They said that we did not need to invade.


If I get a quote from a general saying invasion was unnecessary is that enough?


Of course not. But I can


The US did not invade. They never had to

 

[swing_voter]

Yeah truman did not care about those women and children.

You're hatred of America is palatable.


Canada helped us build the bomb as did Britain.


Where will you immigrate to?

 

[Cordelier]

No, you do not understand how it works. You're trying to create some imaginary inflexibility because it helps your argument. IMO your 'weakness' argument is just one more thing you make up for the same purpose. The Japanese views were based on other things, like facts, and wouldn't be affected by the US communication.



I guess I shouldn't be surprised you get Vietnam wrong, too. Here's what's relevant there: LBJ spent 1968 pursuing peace. He got an agreement with the North Vietnamese. Nixon secretly, treasonously persuaded the South Vietnamese to refuse, to help Nixon win the election. Under Nixon, the North had little reason to agree to peace on US terms, until the US finally essentially surrendered with some pretenses trying to save face.



I don't think we could have done things 'into the hands' of the militarists in Tokyo.

They were radical ideologues, and I don't see any room for talks working with them.

What we could have done was try to work AROUND them with the others who were not the militarists, including the emperor. But yes, by that time, concerns about the value of Japanese life seem to have been pretty low.

Johnson bent over backwards in 1968... not only did he withdraw from the re-election campaign, but he also gave into the North Vietnamese by pledging not to bomb north of the 19th parallel. That still wasn't good enough for Hanoi... so he sweetened the deal and agreed not to bomb North Vietnam at all. And in exchange for this, what did Hanoi agree to? A ceasefire? Did they agree to stop sending forces down the Ho Chi Minh trail? Nope. They agreed to have talks about having talks.

Nixon didn't have to do a damned thing... from Saigon's point of view, the US was making concession after concession... and the North Vietnamese weren't giving up a damned thing.

Which side do you figure was playing the stronger hand there?

 

[vegas giants]

You're hatred of America is palatable.


Canada helped us build the bomb as did Britain.


Where will you immigrate to?

Let's talk about you and me. I served my country for ten years during one war.


Your turn hero

 

[Nickyjo]

We had to support bad guys during the Cold War in order to prevent the Soviets from conquering the world.

That doesn't mean we liked supporting bad guys.

Yeah, that Vietnam thing worked our real well. Steinbeck said it best with the words he gave to a grower during a farm labor strike: “A communist is any son of a bitch who asks for forty cents an hour when I am paying thirty.” It was a dumb policy that drove leftists who might otherwise have even admired the US towards communism. I did some work with Cuban exiles professionally back in the day. They got it. Also, when a teen in 1960, I worked in a restaurant in NYC with a Cuban refugee, ironically named Fidel. His words: “I hate Castro but the US got what it deserved in Cuba.”

Fidel lived less than a hundred miles from a superpower who had practically owned Cuba, using it as our whore house in some ways. (See Godfather II). For all his considerable tyranny, he never did things the likes of which I learned about Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, etc., through the human rights and refugee work work I did for 20 plus years.