A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Tigerace117]

No invasion was necessary according to our military leaders

And yet elaborate invasion plans were drawn up, so clearly the overwhelming majority of “military leaders” said otherwise.

Can you provide any evidence of “military leaders” claiming no invasion was necessary before the bombs were dropped? Otherwise it’s just hindsight and grasping at straws.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

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.

FDR did not know any such thing.

Japan was not willing to surrender to the US until after FDR had already died.

 

[Craig234]

Fair enough... so you tell me - what diplomatic channels did the Japanese Government or elements capable of speaking on behalf of the Japanese Government try to open prior to Hiroshima?

You're making a straw man, to change 'the US could have pursued surrender with the Japanese' into 'the only thing that counts are certain officials using one specific channel to say specific things'. See my previous post for an example of mentioning the US rejected surrender without the right to prosecute the emperor, so all the atomic bombs did was get to the same policy when MacArthur decided to do it anyway when he got a better understanding of the responsibility.

 

[vegas giants]

It's rather telling that the same president did not use atomic bombs in the Korean war, with the US suffering a lot of casualties instead to fight it conventionally - with the political cost not only of that war, but of firing the extremely popular MacArthur who wanted to use atomic bombs. Truman did not run for re-election.

These guys are simply inconsistent in their arguments

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The war was over. The bomb was not needed.

The war was over

The war was over.

Japan was still refusing to surrender when the A-bombs were dropped.

This was what every top.military leader at the time said except one

Ike was the only military leader who opposed the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.

Ike only told a single person: Stimson. And he said it only just before the A-bombs were dropped, when it was too late to stop their use.

After Stimson called Ike an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about, Ike crept back under his rock and didn't bother anyone else about Japanese surrender until many years later.

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*said*in 1963, “*the Japanese were ready to surrender*and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Stimson said in 1945: "Ike you're an idiot and you have no idea what you are talking about."

Ike waited until 1963 to bring the subject up a second time.

Actually that was nit the consensus of the military leaders of the time. They said invasion was not needed

There are many more quotes than that saying the bomb was a mistake.

I can quote many military leaders saying it was a mistake.

The finest military leaders in the world at the time disagree

There is no evidence of any military leader other than Ike opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.

Eisenhower, leahy, Nimitz, lemay, Stinson, arnold, MacArthur ....etc did not know if the war was over? Lol

Glad you agree the war was over. Japan knew it and and our military leaders knew it too. Thats why they said so

There is no evidence of any military leader other than Ike opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped or saying before the A-bombs that the war was over.

The fleet could have sat in Tokyo bay and waited. Lemay said the war would have been over in two weeks

As I said Lemay gave it two weeks and later said it probably would have been less

There is no evidence that Lemay said such a thing before the A-bombs were dropped.

So do you claim the generals who said the war was over were lying?

I claim except for one private conversation between Ike and Stimson, no general or admiral said before the use of the A-bombs that the war was over.

The Japanese only wanted one thing to surrender....and we gave that to them anyway

They only asked for that one thing after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

We flatly refused to give it to them and they surrendered without getting it.

Give them what they wanted....no war crimes for the imperial family....and they would have signed the peace treaty. We gave them that anyway.

Japan wanted Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

Japan didn't ask for that until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

We flatly refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

Who dies by sitting on your ship and waiting? Japan was no real threat

Our POWs would have kept dying in Japanese camps.

But in any case the alleged lack of threat was not apparent when the A-bombs were dropped.

Bolster what defenses? Are you kidding? They were putting up little resistance at that point.

Japan was making preparations to fight to the death against our coming invasions of Kyushu and the Tokyo Plain.

Those bombs were a message to russia.

Truman wanted to send a message to russia that we were the big dogs on the street now

That is incorrect. The A-bombs were attempts to weaken Japan's resistance to our coming invasions.

No ground invasion would ever have been needed.

That certainly wasn't apparent when the A-bombs were dropped.

U.S. Forces Were Against the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs/The Liberty web GLOBAL: IRH Press Co. Ltd., Happy Science

Wow. You are resorting to holocaust denial type sites.

"the lies about 'comfort women,' and the 'Nanking Massacre,'"

"it has already been settled academically that the 'Nanking Massacre' by the former Japanese military is fictional"

 

[vegas giants]

And yet elaborate invasion plans were drawn up, so clearly the overwhelming majority of “military leaders” said otherwise.

Can you provide any evidence of “military leaders” claiming no invasion was necessary before the bombs were dropped? Otherwise it’s just hindsight and grasping at straws.

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?

 

[vegas giants]

Japan was still refusing to surrender when the A-bombs were dropped.




Ike was the only military leader who opposed the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.

Ike only told a single person: Stimson. And he said it only just before the A-bombs were dropped, when it was too late to stop their use.

After Stimson called Ike an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about, Ike crept back under his rock and didn't bother anyone else about Japanese surrender until many years later.




Stimson said in 1945: "Ike you're an idiot and you have no idea what you are talking about."

Ike waited until 1963 to bring the subject up a second time.







There is no evidence of any military leader other than Ike opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.





There is no evidence of any military leader other than Ike opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped or saying before the A-bombs that the war was over.





There is no evidence that Lemay said such a thing before the A-bombs were dropped.




I claim except for one private conversation between Ike and Stimson, no general or admiral said before the use of the A-bombs that the war was over.




They only asked for that one thing after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

We flatly refused to give it to them and they surrendered without getting it.




Japan wanted Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

Japan didn't ask for that until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

We flatly refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Our POWs would have kept dying in Japanese camps.

But in any case the alleged lack of threat was not apparent when the A-bombs were dropped.




Japan was making preparations to fight to the death against our coming invasions of Kyushu and the Tokyo Plain.





That is incorrect. The A-bombs were attempts to weaken Japan's resistance to our coming invasions.




That certainly wasn't apparent when the A-bombs were dropped.




Wow. You are resorting to holocaust denial type sites.

"the lies about 'comfort women,' and the 'Nanking Massacre,'"

"it has already been settled academically that the 'Nanking Massacre' by the former Japanese military is fictional"

You are claiming every military leader quoted after the war is lying.


That is laughably stupid


Dismissed

 

[Cordelier]

You're making a straw man, to change 'the US could have pursued surrender with the Japanese' into 'the only thing that counts are certain officials using one specific channel to say specific things'. See my previous post for an example of mentioning the US rejected surrender without the right to prosecute the emperor, so all the atomic bombs did was get to the same policy when MacArthur decided to do it anyway when he got a better understanding of the responsibility.

You don't understand how this works, Craig. The stronger party doesn't sue for peace.... the weaker party does. If the US had made that pitch to the Japanese - say, via our respective embassies in Sweden or Switzerland - then it would have been perceived in Tokyo as a sign of weakness on our part. Perhaps US willingness to continue the war is flagging?

I think that was a lot of our problem in Vietnam. We'd propose this peace deal or that one.... we'd follow up every lame-brained peace feeler some functionary in the French embassy came up with. We'd have bombing pauses to demonstrate our willingness to negotiate. And the whole while Hanoi was silent. They saw us thrashing around, and they rightly perceived it as a sign of weakness on our part.

So, in that light, can you see how our making a unilateral peace offer with any concessions whatsoever would have actually played into the hands of the militarists in Tokyo?

 

[vegas giants]

You don't understand how this works, Craig. The stronger party doesn't sue for peace.... the weaker party does. If the US had made that pitch to the Japanese - say, via our respective embassies in Sweden or Switzerland - then it would have been perceived in Tokyo as a sign of weakness on our part. Perhaps US willingness to continue the war is flagging?

I think that was a lot of our problem in Vietnam. We'd propose this peace deal or that one.... we'd follow up every lame-brained peace feeler some functionary in the French embassy came up with. We'd have bombing pauses to demonstrate our willingness to negotiate. And the whole while Hanoi was silent. They saw us thrashing around, and they rightly perceived it as a sign of weakness on our part.

So, in that light, can you see how our making a unilateral peace offer with any concessions whatsoever would have actually played into the hands of the militarists in Tokyo?

You honestly think if the US sued for peace japan would have thought we are weak. Dude they were being crushed. Man that is ridiculous

 

[Craig234]

Wow. You are resorting to holocaust denial type sites.

I have to agree with you, denying the Nanking Massacre removes his credibility for me. But that doesn't make him wrong or right on other things, it just means not to take his word for it.

 

[vegas giants]

I have to agree with you, denying the Nanking Massacre removes his credibility for me. But that doesn't make him wrong or right on other things, it just means not to take his word for it.

I did nothing of the kind

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Eisenhower was even more specific in his memoirs, writing that when he was informed by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson the bomb was about to be used against Japan “…I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…”

The article completely forgets to mention that Ike only said this just before the bombs were dropped when it was too late to stop their use.

It also completely mentions that Ike was unconvincing and Stimson called him an idiot. Ike didn't tell anyone else his views until decades later.

But then again, the article is written by Gar Alperovitz, a known fraud.

Eisenhower was not alone.

Yes he was. There is no evidence of any other military leader opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet stated publicly two months after Hiroshima: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.”

Someone should have helped the guy out with a calendar before he opened his mouth and embarrassed himself.

Japan didn't sue for peace until August 10.

America’s top military leader, General George C. Marshall, “thought these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave—telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers...”

Which happens to be exactly what we did do.

The US military carried out General Marshall's plans to the letter.

use the atomic bomb without warning against a predominantly civilian target

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets. And warning was given.

President Truman was advised well before Hiroshima that a Red Army declaration of War against Japan, planned at U.S. request for the first week of August, together with assurances for the Japanese Emperor, would bring an end to the war long before even the first stage landing of an invasion might occur three months later on the Island of Kyushu (and long before any possible general invasion in the spring of 1946.)

People were giving Truman all sorts of contradictory advice.

No one was foolish enough to say that any particular course of action "would" result in surrender. No one knew what would finally bring about Japan's surrender.

 

[vegas giants]

The article completely forgets to mention that Ike only said this just before the bombs were dropped when it was too late to stop their use.

It also completely mentions that Ike was unconvincing and Stimson called him an idiot. Ike didn't tell anyone else his views until decades later.

But then again, the article is written by Gar Alperovitz, a known fraud.



Yes he was. There is no evidence of any other military leader opposing the use of the A-bombs before they were dropped.



Someone should have helped the guy out with a calendar before he opened his mouth and embarrassed himself.

Japan didn't sue for peace until August 10.



Which happens to be exactly what we did do.

The US military carried out General Marshall's plans to the letter.



The A-bombs were dropped on military targets. And warning was given.



People were giving Truman all sorts of contradictory advice.

No one was foolish enough to say that any particular course of action "would" result in surrender. No one knew what would finally bring about Japan's surrender.

You post no evidence for your claims do they are roundly dismissed

 

[swing_voter]

You honestly think if the US sued for peace japan would have thought we are weak. Dude they were being crushed. Man that is ridiculous

Japan could've contacted America through one of the neutral embassies at any time.

They didn't surrender.

A big sticking point in the negotiations was whether or not the emperor could stay in power. We agreed to letting him stay in power, but still no surrender.



.

 

[vegas giants]

Japan could've contacted America through one of the neutral embassies at any time.

They didn't surrender.

A big sticking point in the negotiations was whether or not the emperor could stay in power. We agreed to letting him stay in power, but still no surrender.



.

We could have agreed to that before we dropped the bombs and they would have surrendered

 

[maxparrish]

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?

Three responses:

General Marshall, who also supported their use in the ground invasion of Japan.
The civilian and military advisors that supported Truman's decision to use the bomb, as well as the British. No doubt that included generals.

Can you name a general that recommended against dropping the bomb before it was dropped?

Ex post regret doesn't count.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I don't believe that.

You are right not to believe it.

The only military opposition to using the A-bombs came from Ike in a private conversation with Stimson.

Ike only raised his opposition just before the A-bombs were used when it would have been too late to stop their use.

Ike was spectacularly unconvincing, and Stimson made it clear to him that he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[vegas giants]

Three responses:

General Marshall, who also supported their use in the ground invasion of Japan.
The civilian and military advisors that supported Truman's decision to use the bomb, as well as the British. No doubt that included generals.

Can you name a general that recommended against dropping the bomb before it was dropped?

Ex post regret doesn't count.

There is no evidence for what you are saying. Name the generals that supported dropping the bomb before it was dropped

 

[vegas giants]

You are right not to believe it.

The only military opposition to using the A-bombs came from Ike in a private conversation with Stimson.

Ike only raised his opposition just before the A-bombs were used when it would have been too late to stop their use.

Ike was spectacularly unconvincing, and Stimson made it clear to him that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Prove it. Show me statements of support for using the bomb before it was dropped

 

[Toggle Almendro]

My points: 1- that in this hemisphere the US installed and armed and excused brutal dictatorships who did some of the same things, though on a much smaller numerical scale in any one country, running “only” to the tens of thousands. The Carter administration was excoriated by the right for withdrawing support from some of these, but Reagan reversed that and explicitly supported dictators. In Argentina, if they arrested a pregnant woman, they waited til she gave birth before killing her. Imagine going thru labor knowing you would die after delivery. In Guatemala, the dictator had every living thing killed in some villages. Reagan praised him. He in turn said he would accept execution for his crimes so long as Reagan was put up against the wall next to him. Many thousands of horrifying deaths elsewhere in the region. 2- the US rivalry with Japan that led to the war was not based on the latter’s human rights record.

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.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Completely wrong. You do not place value on human life and you fight against such value passionately. To those who DO, it has value before, during, and after war. That's why war should be avoided if possible, not only profitable; why war should be minimized when necessary. Why peace should be sought as much as possible. You disagree since you place no value on the lives of the Japanese civilians.

Japan placed no value on American lives. Nor Chinese lives. Nor Filipino lives. Nor name them all.

Japan placed no value on Japanese lives either. Recall their Kamikaze pilots.

 

[Oozlefinch]

My points: 1- that in this hemisphere the US installed and armed and excused brutal dictatorships who did some of the same things, though on a much smaller numerical scale in any one country, running “only” to the tens of thousands. The Carter administration was excoriated by the right for withdrawing support from some of these, but Reagan reversed that and explicitly supported dictators. In Argentina, if they arrested a pregnant woman, they waited til she gave birth before killing her. Imagine going thru labor knowing you would die after delivery. In Guatemala, the dictator had every living thing killed in some villages. Reagan praised him. He in turn said he would accept execution for his crimes so long as Reagan was put up against the wall next to him. Many thousands of horrifying deaths elsewhere in the region. 2- the US rivalry with Japan that led to the war was not based on the latter’s human rights record.

And your point is what exactly? How this equates to the US doing what Japan did in Nanking, somehow it is absolutely lost in your irrational and off-topic rant.

The Soviets killed even more people by their support of butchers even more brutal, yet you reserve your hate for the US. So forgive me if I consider your entire response irrelevant.

Have a good day.

 

[Robertinfremont]

My points: 1- that in this hemisphere the US installed and armed and excused brutal dictatorships who did some of the same things, though on a much smaller numerical scale in any one country, running “only” to the tens of thousands. The Carter administration was excoriated by the right for withdrawing support from some of these, but Reagan reversed that and explicitly supported dictators. In Argentina, if they arrested a pregnant woman, they waited til she gave birth before killing her. Imagine going thru labor knowing you would die after delivery. In Guatemala, the dictator had every living thing killed in some villages. Reagan praised him. He in turn said he would accept execution for his crimes so long as Reagan was put up against the wall next to him. Many thousands of horrifying deaths elsewhere in the region. 2- the US rivalry with Japan that led to the war was not based on the latter’s human rights record.

That is one of the many reasons why I abandoned the Democrats and their party. They did that to Central America and all over the place. From 1933 to the time of Reagan, Republicans were essentially lacking in power.

I sat with a woman from Central America who ran for office on the republican ticket who told her that Reagan is beloved by most of Central America. Maybe more than in this country.

 

[Oozlefinch]

US fought Japan over rivalry in the Pacific

No, actually it did not. Japan wanted all of the Western Pacific, and we had a large island that was already slated for independence sitting right in the middle of their supply lines.

Truth is, Japan could not give a damn about the US, no more than it cared about the UK. However, both nations sat in a dangerous position to them in their advancement of their own goals. And they did not dare pass by such places as the Philippines, "Fortress Singapore", Hong Kong, or Australia. Because if for some reason if either the US or UK were to jump in after they advanced on the Dutch East Indies, they would have been cut in half and could have done nothing to stop it.

You keep bringing up these silly statements, that have not a shred of basis in reality. Care to come back to reality and debate based on facts, and not hysteria and self-abuse?

 

[maxparrish]

There is no evidence for what you are saying. Name the generals that supported dropping the bomb before it was dropped

Are you BLIND? I just named one, General Marshall. What's wrong with you?