A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Oozlefinch]

So in other words you ignore the very declaration of surrender, just as you ignore the meeting on 9 August 1945.

Oh my goodness, I am actually rolling in laughter here.

He is quite literally doing a "Mokusatsu".

Quite literally, he is treating the actual surrender speech exactly as the Empire of Japan treated the Potsdam Declaration.

I ascribe no meaning to that speech.

The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu suru.

Oh, the irony is almost to much to bear.

In other words, he is as blind as the Privy Council was on 8 August 1945, but seems proud of that fact. Not even realizing he is almost word for word quoting their own Prime Minister on 28 July 1945.

 

[vegas giants]

Oh my goodness, I am actually rolling in laughter here.

He is quite literally doing a "Mokusatsu".

Quite literally, he is treating the actual surrender speech exactly as the Empire of Japan treated the Potsdam Declaration.





Oh, the irony is almost to much to bear.

In other words, he is as blind as the Privy Council was on 8 August 1945, but seems proud of that fact. Not even realizing he is almost word for word quoting their own Prime Minister on 28 July 1945.

You seem to know nothing about the war. You have not posted a single reference. It is very very easy to do this....



Dismissed

 

[vegas giants]

So in other words you ignore the very declaration of surrender, just as you ignore the meeting on 9 August 1945.

I only ignore it as much as you ignore the quoted opinions of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study by the US army and a famous Japanese historian that says the bombs were never needed.



Why do you ignore the truth?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I only ignore it as much as you ignore the quoted opinions of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study by the US army

The quotes you keep parading around point out that Japan's position was hopeless and victory was guaranteed.

Yes it was. Everyone knew Japan had been beaten. They just refused to surrender.

Why do you ignore the truth?

You are ignoring the truth by literally refusing to accept the information regarding the Japanese meeting where they decided to surrender.

 

[vegas giants]

The quotes you keep parading around point out that Japan's position was hopeless and victory was guaranteed.

Yes it was. Everyone knew Japan had been beaten. They just refused to surrender.



You are ignoring the truth by literally refusing to accept the information regarding the Japanese meeting where they decided to surrender.

Then you need to read them again. They say the bomb was not needed.

Deny they say that

You also ignore the study put out by the US army. Why do you think you know more than them?


You also ignore a Japanese expert on the issue. Why do you think you know more than them?



Stop running. Face the truth

 

[Jredbaron96]

Then you need to read them again. They say the bomb was not needed.

From a military standpoint no, it was not. Japan had been defeated. They just hadn't surrendered.

Which is what you are struggling with. There is a difference between the objective reality and what the Japanese thought.

Stop running. Face the truth

The truth is that Hirohito very clearly labeled the atomic bombing as the reason for Japan's surrender. Go ahead and cite where he said the Soviets were the reason then if you're so certain. Cite Hirohito saying the Soviets were the reason Japan surrendered.

 

[vegas giants]

From a military standpoint no, it was not. Japan had been defeated. They just hadn't surrendered.

Which is what you are struggling with. There is a difference between the objective reality and what the Japanese thought.



The truth is that Hirohito very clearly labeled the atomic bombing as the reason for Japan's surrender.

So you wish to ignore the opinion of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study that was done by the US army right after the war and a noted historian on the subject?


Cone on dude. I would go with admiral Leahy alone over your opinion

 

[Jredbaron96]

So you wish to ignore the opinion of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study that was done by the US army right after the war and a noted historian on the subject?

Not a single American general got to decide what Japan did for themselves.

 

[vegas giants]

So you wish to ignore the opinion of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study that was done by the US army right after the war and a noted historian on the subject?

Not a single American general got to decide what Japan did for themselves.

That's nice. So what?


Keep running

 

[vegas giants]

So you wish to ignore the opinion of 7 of the greatest military minds this country has ever known and a study that was done by the US army right after the war and a noted historian on the subject?

Not a single American general got to decide what Japan did for themselves.

Are all those people I quoted lying?

 

[Jredbaron96]

That's nice. So what?

Your entire premise is based on the idea that because American generals thought the war was over therefore Japan had to listen to them. They didn't.

The Japanese were in fact preparing to fight on.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Are all those people I quoted lying?

Not really. Lying implies intent. Some of them you are taking out of context, some are just incorrect.

 

[vegas giants]

Your entire premise is based on the idea that because American generals thought the war was over therefore Japan had to listen to them. They didn't.

The Japanese were in fact preparing to fight on.

So the generals are wrong.


When the army studied this more than you ever have they still got it wrong too.


But you got it right.



Come on dude

 

[Jredbaron96]

So the generals are wrong.


When the army studied this more than you ever have they still got it wrong too.

The Army Study does not back up what you think it does.

 

[vegas giants]

Not really. Lying implies intent. Some of them you are taking out of context, some are just incorrect.

Then prove it. Show a different context.


Watch this folks

 

[vegas giants]

The Army Study does not back up what you think it does.

Really? What does it say?

 

[vegas giants]

Read for yourselves folks

The 1946 United States*Strategic Bombing Survey*in Japan, whose members included*Paul Nitze,[citation needed]*concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Really? What does it say?

The Army study showed the Japanese had no hope to win and were essentially defeated.

Which is true. They just refused to give up.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Then prove it. Show a different context.


Watch this folks

The fact that the Japanese themselves said it was because of the atomic bomb. You know, the Emperor did. Amazing how you keep ignoring that.

 

[vegas giants]

The fact that the Japanese themselves said it was because of the atomic bomb. You know, the Emperor did. Amazing how you keep ignoring that.

You said I quoted out of context. Be a man and own that you got that wrong or show a different context

 

[vegas giants]

The Army study showed the Japanese had no hope to win and were essentially defeated.

Which is true. They just refused to give up.

You keep missing it. It's ok. Others can see it




Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

 

[swing_voter]

The fact that the Japanese themselves said it was because of the atomic bomb. You know, the Emperor did. Amazing how you keep ignoring that.

Did he?

Do you have a link?

I believe you, I just want to read about it.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You said I quoted out of context. Be a man and own that you got that wrong or show a different context

Okay.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,

The Japanese offers to surrender prior to 9 August 1945 would have been unacceptable, because General Anami and half the War Council refused to accept surrender unless Japan was spared from occupation and that they would not be tried for war crimes, terms the Allies would never have accepted. The latter part is true, Japan had already been beaten. They just wouldn't surrender. Hence the bomb.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons"
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

Again, the Japanese had been beaten. They just refused to surrender.

"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

Emperor Hirohito directly contradicts this.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it."
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946

The scientists in the Manhattan Project had no say in the authority to drop the atomic bomb.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You keep missing it. It's ok. Others can see it

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Which would have killed more people than the atomic bombs. The Strategic bombing campaign against Japan was planned to attack the transportation and distribution network, which would have collapsed Japan's food supply leading to mass starvation. You'd killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions more, than were actually killed with the bombs.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Did he?

Do you have a link?

I believe you, I just want to read about it.

Hirohito directly states it in Japan's declaration of surrender.

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. "