A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Jredbaron96]

Well seeing as how he is a military genius

Who was not part of Japan's leadership and thus did not get to decide what decisions they made.

If you have evidence about something....post it

I have already posted several times about the meeting on 9 August 1945 where the War Council decided to surrender. They did so at the Emperor's insistence and he specifically mentioned the atomic bombing in his justification to surrender.

 

[swing_voter]

What link would you like? Just name it.


If you dismiss MacArthur do you dismiss every other 5 star military officer?

They weren't privy to all the information Truman and Truman's advisors had.

Second guessing after the fact is common. If you know anything about MacArthur, you know that he would always say "he would've done it better."

MacArthur was going to nuke the Chinese during the Korean war, before MacArthur was stopped.

It's one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't know what to say. The link states 10,000,000 casualties according to Leahy, and there were 6,095,000 people left in the Japanese forces. That leaves about 4,000,000 dead Japanese that aren't military.

Look at the mass civilian suicides at Saipan. And the Japanese military slaughtering civilians on Okinawa to prevent them from being captured or surrendering.

 

[Thom Paine]

The Truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Common Dreams Views

There s no 'good' article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons.

 

[vegas giants]

There s no 'good' article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons.

Aint that the truth

 

[vegas giants]

They weren't privy to all the information Truman and Truman's advisors had.

Second guessing after the fact is common. If you know anything about MacArthur, you know that he would always say "he would've done it better."

MacArthur was going to nuke the Chinese during the Korean war, before MacArthur was stopped.

It's one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur.

Hmmmm. So you dont want a link. Ok. Lol

 

[vegas giants]

Who was not part of Japan's leadership and thus did not get to decide what decisions they made.



I have already posted several times about the meeting on 9 August 1945 where the War Council decided to surrender. They did so at the Emperor's insistence and he specifically mentioned the atomic bombing in his justification to surrender.

Yes he did. As a way of saving face

 

[Craig234]

Aint that the truth

I don't think he meant what you thought he meant. He's wrong. He has no argument, he's just attacking the position that using the nukes was wrong.

 

[swing_voter]

Nuke or fire bombing? What do you think?


I think the nukes are what make it so controversial. We could've done the same to Hiroshima and Nagasaki with incendiary bombs and nobody would've said anything. Nobody says anything about all the other fire bombings.

It's like how the left freaks out about cluster bombs. All cluster bombs are is a drum full of grenades. The drum opens up in the air over an enemy and the grenades hit the ground and explode. There's nothing evil about a cluster bomb. Nothing a 100 men couldn't do, throwing grenades.

 

[vegas giants]

I don't think he meant what you thought he meant. He's wrong. He has no argument, he's just attacking the position that using the nukes was wrong.

My mistake

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes he did. As a way of saving face

Saving face in what? Why would the Emperor need to save face? What face would be saved by saying it was the atomic bombs that caused them to surrender?

 

[swing_voter]

Saving face in what? Why would the Emperor need to save face? What face would be saved by saying it was the atomic bombs that caused them to surrender?

August 11, 1945

United States Department of State Bulletin.

August 11, 1945

SIR:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of August 10, and in reply to inform you that the President of the United States has directed me to send to you for transmission by your Government to the Japanese Government the following message on behalf of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China:

"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:

"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms, and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms.

"Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.

"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved."

Accept [etc.]

JAMES F. BYRNES
Secretary of State

MR. MAX GRÄSSLI
Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland

https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-08-11a.html



Here's the actual note that convinced the emperor to surrender. Nagasaki was bombed 5 days earlier.

 

[swing_voter]

My mistake

Here is something interesting:

The official history confirms Hirohito’s bullheadedness in delaying surrender when it was clear that defeat was inevitable. He hoped desperately to enlist Stalin’s Soviet Union to obtain more favorable peace terms. Had Japan surrendered sooner, the firebombing of its cities, and the two atomic bombings, might have been avoided.

Opinion | Hirohito: String Puller, Not Puppet - The New York Times

 

[vegas giants]

Saving face in what? Why would the Emperor need to save face? What face would be saved by saying it was the atomic bombs that caused them to surrender?

I already posted the reference by a expert on this issue

 

[vegas giants]

Here is something interesting:

The official history confirms Hirohito’s bullheadedness in delaying surrender when it was clear that defeat was inevitable. He hoped desperately to enlist Stalin’s Soviet Union to obtain more favorable peace terms. Had Japan surrendered sooner, the firebombing of its cities, and the two atomic bombings, might have been avoided.

Opinion | Hirohito: String Puller, Not Puppet - The New York Times

Look at the first word on your link



HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Jredbaron96]

I already posted the reference by a expert on this issue

Your expert does not explain what you mean by saving face. Stop hiding behind links and explain why you think the Emperor needed to save face by talking about the atom bomb and not the Soviet invasion.

 

[vegas giants]

Your expert does not explain what you mean by saving face. Stop hiding behind links and explain why you think the Emperor needed to save face by talking about the atom bomb and not the Soviet invasion.

Yes he did. Quite clearly. Read it again. He is a Japanese historian and a expert in this area

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes he did. Quite clearly. Read it again. He is a Japanese historian and a expert in this area

I did, and he does not explain why the Japanese did not speak of the Soviet invasion, but of the atomic bombings in the meeting on 9 August 1945.

 

[vegas giants]

I did, and he does not explain why the Japanese did not speak of the Soviet invasion, but of the atomic bombings in the meeting on 9 August 1945.

This is his expert opinion

You are entitled to your opinion


Historian*Tsuyoshi Hasegawa*wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[102]*Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the*Potsdam Declaration*signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[103]*As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[104]*Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland*... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy*...[105]

Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[106]*it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.[107]*Hasegawa wrote:

On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs*... alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so.[102]

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is his expert opinion

That conveniently ignores that the Soviets were mentioned only in passing and the discussion of surrender on 9 August 1945 centers around the atomic bombings. If you have any evidence to counter this fact of recorded history you may present it, but thus far neither you nor your expert has.

 

[vegas giants]

That conveniently ignores that the Soviets were mentioned only in passing and the discussion of surrender on 9 August 1945 centers around the atomic bombings. If you have any evidence to counter this fact of recorded history you may present it, but thus far neither you nor your expert has.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about what that means.


But you are not offering a expert opinion

 

[swing_voter]

Look at the first word on your link



HAHAHAHAHA

Yet you hinge all your beliefs on the opinion of General MacArthur, a man President Truman fired.


Every argument about the bomb is based on someone's opinion.

 

[vegas giants]

Yet you hinge all your beliefs on General MacArthur, a man President Truman fired.

Actually I cited 7 five star military officers

 

[Jredbaron96]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about what that means.


But you are not offering a expert opinion

Why do you keep avoiding stating why the Soviets were mentioned only in passing and the discussion of surrender on 9 August 1945 centers around the atomic bombings?

It's almost like you don't actually have an answer, and the "experts" you're relying on aren't explaining that away so you're just choosing to ignore it.

 

[vegas giants]

Why do you keep avoiding stating why the Soviets were mentioned only in passing and the discussion of surrender on 9 August 1945 centers around the atomic bombings?

It's almost like you don't actually have an answer, and the "experts" you're relying on aren't explaining that away so you're just choosing to ignore it.

I dont avoid it. I ascribe no meaning to it.


You do. I have noted your opinion about it.