A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[vegas giants]

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.

All of that is your opinion. It is laughable that you want to claim all 7 military geniuses and the us army study got it wrong.

 

[vegas giants]

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.

Prove that

 

[MAGAnificent]

The Truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Common Dreams Views

Personally, I think the use of the atomic bombs in Japan was justified. Yes the war could have been won with an invasion of the mainland, however it would have been at much greater cost in lives......not only the lives of allied soldiers, but Japanese soldiers and civilians as well. At that point in time, the japanese were fanatical. They would have fought down to every last street corner. As harsh as it may sound, going nuclear against Japan likely saved over a million lives.

 

[vegas giants]

Everyone is entitled to a opinion.


I just happen to go with the opinion of the greatest military minds this country has ever known

 

[swing_voter]

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. "

So he did.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The entire war was unnecessary. Certainly, the refusal to accept Japanese surrender offers was purely a matter of FDR and Truman's desire for progressive world domination.

Learn the history. Japan's initial offers of surrender were their attempts to gain surrender terms favorable to them. Truman was not biting. The goal in any world war is unconditional surrender. The victor offers the terms, not the loser. Germany surrendered unconditionally. I think the only notable exception in the ultimate japanese surrender was they were allowed to keep their emperor.

 

[vegas giants]

Learn the history. Japan's initial offers of surrender were their attempts to gain surrender terms favorable to them. Truman was not biting. The goal in any world war is unconditional surrender. The victor offers the terms, not the loser. Germany surrendered unconditionally. I think the only notable exception in the ultimate japanese surrender was they were allowed to keep their emperor.

The bottom line is no atomic bombs were needed

 

[Jredbaron96]

Prove that

Your army study that you cling to so religiously blatantly says the Air Force intended to attack distribution networks for Japan's transportation infrastructure. What do you think is going to happen to the Japanese people when they can't eat? They're going to starve to death.

 

[Jredbaron96]

All of that is your opinion. It is laughable that you want to claim all 7 military geniuses and the us army study got it wrong.

See how you can't actually refute anything?

You can't even refuse that Hirohito said the bomb was the reason for Japan's surrender. You have no evidence and no argument.

 

[vegas giants]

Your army study that you cling to so religiously blatantly says the Air Force intended to attack distribution networks for Japan's transportation infrastructure. What do you think is going to happen to the Japanese people when they can't eat? They're going to starve to death.

We had done that already. You made a argument it would be worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Prove it

 

[vegas giants]

See how you can't actually refute anything?

You can't even refuse that Hirohito said the bomb was the reason for Japan's surrender. You have no evidence and no argument.

You admitted the bombs were not needed

 

[Jredbaron96]

We had done that already.

Actually no. The strategic bombing campaign for the most part had focused on industrial targets and manufacturing, stuff directly related to the war effort and weapons production.

Prove it

Prove that people need to eat food to survive? Are you serious?

 

[Jredbaron96]

You admitted the bombs were not needed

Sure, we could have starved Japan to death and killed many more. Or invaded and kill many more.

Just because there were other options does not mean they were better ones.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually no. The strategic bombing campaign for the most part had focused on industrial targets and manufacturing, stuff directly related to the war effort and weapons production.



Prove that people need to eat food to survive? Are you serious?

Give me your estimates of the losses and back it up with evidence

 

[vegas giants]

Sure, we could have starved Japan to death and killed many more. Or invaded and kill many more.

Just because there were other options does not mean they were better ones.

I'll ask a again. Prove it

 

[Jredbaron96]

Give me your estimates of the losses and back it up with evidence

"In 1944, officials in Osaka prefecture estimated that 46% of all economic crimes in their jurisdiction involved food. Hunger was compounded by a disastrous harvest (1945 was the worst since 1910, a shortfall of almost 40% from normal yield) and exacerbated by the confusion, corruption, and ineptitude of the postsurrender elites. Food shipments from the U.S. helped avert the anticipated disaster of as many as 10 million Japanese starving to death through the fall and winter, and, in the process, enhanced the image of the U.S. as a generous benefactor." - Embracing Defeat, Japan in the Wake of World War II by John w. Dower.

 

[vegas giants]

"In 1944, officials in Osaka prefecture estimated that 46% of all economic crimes in their jurisdiction involved food. Hunger was compounded by a disastrous harvest (1945 was the worst since 1910, a shortfall of almost 40% from normal yield) and exacerbated by the confusion, corruption, and ineptitude of the postsurrender elites. Food shipments from the U.S. helped avert the anticipated disaster of as many as 10 million Japanese starving to death through the fall and winter, and, in the process, enhanced the image of the U.S. as a generous benefactor." - Embracing Defeat, Japan in the Wake of World War II by John w. Dower.

So what is the number if the US says no war crimes for the royall family if you surrender now

 

[Jredbaron96]

So what is the number if the US says no war crimes for the royall family if you surrender now

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking what would have happened had the Japanese offered to surrender in exchange for no war crimes trials being held?

 

[swing_voter]

So what is the number if the US says no war crimes for the royall family if you surrender now

I do know the emperor's brother was a war criminal. He wasn't tried after the war.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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.

Everybody knew Italy was done in June 1944 when the Allies were at the outskirts of Rome, but they fought on.

The same in Germany in early 1945 when the Soviets and US-UK entered Germany from France and Poland. Yet still Germany fought on.

As somebody keeps ignoring and refuses to answer, why would Japan be any different? And surrender before any Allied solders were marching into Tokyo?

Saddam's case was hopeless even by the end of January 1991. Huge amounts of his offensive capability was eliminated, his air force destroyed, and his offensive capability gone. Yet, he did not surrender. He literally could have turned his forces around on 20 February, and the coalition would have done little but watch them leave. But he did not, and starting on 24 February the Coalition forces moved in, and destroyed what little he had left.

And this was repeated 12 years later.

But Japan was going to surrender because.... who knows why?

 

[vegas giants]

I do know the emperor's brother was a war criminal. He wasn't tried after the war.

So was the emperor. He should have hung from a rope

 

[Jredbaron96]

Everybody knew Italy was done in June 1944 when the Allies were at the outskirts of Rome, but they fought on.

To be fair to the Italians, they tried to give up. The Germans had something to say about it though.

And to be honest, the Italians were the smart ones. We all make fun of them for switching sides, but they're the only ones that didn't get nuked or split in half, or taken over by communists.

 

[vegas giants]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking what would have happened had the Japanese offered to surrender in exchange for no war crimes trials being held?

That's what we gave them anyway.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So was the emperor. He should have hung from a rope

On that we agree.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That's what we gave them anyway.

No we didn't. We tried many Japanese leaders for war crimes and executed several.

Even one who probably shouldn't have.