Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

I guess it would have been better if we invaded. And killed over 1 million US and 7 million Japanese.

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

I guess it would have been better if we invaded. And killed over 1 million US and 7 million Japanese.

More of the US propagandist tripe you all were fed by your world class lyingest governments ever.

 

[Bodi]

Who was our Ally?

Not the Russians... we just fought a common enemy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

More of the US propagandist tripe you all were fed by your world class lyingest governments ever.

Uh-huh. Are you able to respond at all with some kind of evidence, or do you just ramble on like this all the time?

Either you somehow believe that the Japanese were going to actually surrender otherwise, or that the invasion would have been some kind of cakewalk. Or maybe you believe in something else completely different.

Care to actually respond on topic, or are you just going to continue like this?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Not the Russians... we just fought a common enemy.

Realize, I do not actually consider them an "Ally" in the way that the UK-US were, but once the Soviets entered the war, they did go all out in their pursuit of it (other than not returning our military members and equipment).

But we were both occupying Europe, and we pretty much bullied them out of occupying Japan. How exactly would we have been able to pull off a Third World War right after the Second just ended? Most of Europe would have been against us. In fact, the UK may very well have joined in the fighting against us, they had no interest in continuing the war any longer.

And after years of atrocities by the Germans, most of Eastern Europe saw the Soviets as liberators. They had yet to earn their own reputation for equally barbaric treatment after attempted revolts in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other nations in the 60's.

 

[Medusa]

General Eisenhower and MacArthur said it was completely unnecessary. I side with the generals on that.

I have my own thoughts ,killing people is wrong.....

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

Either you somehow believe that the Japanese were going to actually surrender otherwise, or that the invasion would have been some kind of cakewalk. Or maybe you believe in something else completely different.

As I said, totally brainwashed individuals.

The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today

The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today

...

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."


The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

As I said, totally brainwashed individuals.

Uh-huh.

I notice the reference to the "Japanese Peace Overtures". Are you even aware of what those were?

Well, they wanted a Quid Pro Ante Bellum. In other words, a return to the status before war breaking out. And in these proposals were things like returning all Japanese territory captured until that time, the Japanese would return to their Pre-1942 control area of China, and that the Philippines would be a demilitarized zone. No occupation, no war crimes trials.

Yea, in other words impossible. That would be like Hitler doing that after the failure of the Invasion of Russia, and saying that they would pull back to Western Poland.

But tell me this then. If Japan was so eager to surrender, why did it take 2 bombs, the invasion by the Soviets, and the intercession of the Emperor combined to cause them to surrender?

On 27 July 1945, when they received the Potsdam Declaration the response was outright rejection. In fact, the very words used was mokusatsu, which essentially translates to "kill with silence". In other words, they ignored it.

At the same time they were trying to negotiate through Switzerland yet another peace overture. But it yet again was just a repeat of earlier ones. The only difference is that Japan would pull out of most of China (but continue to occupy the ports). And that all Japanese territory (now including Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa) would have to be returned. And no occupation, no demilitarization, no reparations.

They were living in a fantasy land.

Now at this time, Japan was controlled by the Gunji sangiin, or Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. This was composed of 6 individuals, the leaders of the government and military with the Emperor as a neutral observer (not unlike the Vice President in the Senate).

Now the votes of the Gunji sangiin prior to Hiroshima was always 6-0 to continue the war.

After Hiroshima on 6 August, it had changed, to 5-1. Admiral Soemu Toyoda - Navy Chief of Staff had information from interrogations of prisoners that the US had many more bombs to use.

Now advance to 8 August. The Gunji sangiin still voted 5-1 to continue the war.

On 9 August they had news that both the Soviets attacked, and the bombing of Nagasaki. That day, both Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki and Foreign Minister Tōgō Shigenori concluded that a modified Potsdam could be acceptable. So now the Council was divided, 3-3.

It was not until 10 August, after Emperor Showa told them his intent was to end the war, that the Council finally voted 6-0 to end the war.

Now each and every one of those is a fact. Not propaganda. Now can you actually present anything, or are you just going to scream over and over again that anybody that does not agree with you is brainwashed?

Oh, and can you please provide a reference for that 5 May 1945 cable? Because I have tried to find one, and have been unable to do so. In fact, I have to question if that even exists. And here is why:

By 5 May 1945, the German Government was already preparing to surrender. Hitler was dead, and the government was already preparing to flee out of the country or to the West away from the advancing Soviet hordes. And Japanese Foreign Minister Togo on 5 may 1945 handed German Ambassador Heinrich Georg Stahmer a formal protest accusing the Germans of abandoning their Japanese ally.

So please provide a reference to the raw data for this "surrender appeal".

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

Uh-huh.

You can't provide anything to a brainwashed brain. Such is the power of brainwashing and no one is better at it than the USA.

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
By Gar Alperovitz


Visitors to the National Air and Space Museum—America’s shrine to the technological leading edge of the military industrial complex—hear a familiar narrative from the tour guides in front of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic weapon on the civilians of Hiroshima 70 years ago today. The bomb was dropped, they say, to save the lives of thousands of Americans who would otherwise have been killed in an invasion of the Home Islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely destroyed and the lives of between 135,000 and 300,000 mostly Japanese women, children, and old people were sacrificed—most young men were away at war—as the result of a terrible but morally just calculus aimed at bringing an intractable war to a close.

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the “good” war.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

 

[Quag]

Re: The devil's in the details

Uh-huh. Are you able to respond at all with some kind of evidence, or do you just ramble on like this all the time?

Either you somehow believe that the Japanese were going to actually surrender otherwise, or that the invasion would have been some kind of cakewalk. Or maybe you believe in something else completely different.

Care to actually respond on topic, or are you just going to continue like this?

Havent you learned yet, Cam has an aversion to actual evidence he only accepts the imaginary kind

 

[Quag]

Re: The devil's in the details

You can't provide anything to a brainwashed brain. Such is the power of brainwashing and no one is better at it than the USA.

:lamo the irony

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

Havent you learned yet, Cam has an aversion to actual evidence he only accepts the imaginary kind

This from a charter member of the USGOCT Zero Evidence Group. Notice how he has zero evidence to offer and he offers it right after my post offering evidence.

 

[Quag]

Re: The devil's in the details

This from a charter member of the USGOCT Zero Evidence Group. Notice how he has zero evidence to offer and he offers it right after my post offering evidence.

As usual nothing but lies and insults from Cam

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

This from a charter member of the USGOCT Zero Evidence Group. Notice how he has zero evidence to offer and he offers it right after my post offering evidence.

You spam posts over and over, and think that proves your point?

I think maybe you need to go down to the Conspiracy Theory section, there they accept such ramblings as fact.

Here in the History section, we like to see a little more proof.

Oh, and good job in providing that elusive telegram that you claim proves your point.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

Havent you learned yet, Cam has an aversion to actual evidence he only accepts the imaginary kind

I have now.

Remember, I pretty much stick almost exclusively to the History and Military threads. Where things like evidence and proof are required to be taken seriously.

In looking at where the majority of his posts are, it is not surprising I have not run across him before.

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

Here in the History section, we like to see a little more proof.

Americans don't like history, they like their propaganda served up warm and often, from shortly after birth.

Gar Alperovitz proved you wrong.

You offer "War is an ugly thing ..." but it's not to Americans. They thrive on war, they lust after war, American has been at war for 93% of its years as a "nation".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

Americans don't like history, they like their propaganda served up warm and often, from shortly after birth.

Gar Alperovitz proved you wrong.

You offer "War is an ugly thing ..." but it's not to Americans. They thrive on war, they lust after war, American has been at war for 93% of its years as a "nation".

Uh-huh. And for evidence you bring up, an American Communist. And still not one shred of evidence.

BTW, that quote you are making fun of. In case you did not know, it was made by an English Philosopher, when talking about the American Civil War.

Goodbye, it is obvious that you have absolutely nothing of interest to add to this thread.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: The devil's in the details

"No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, ... .

Hold on here. There was in fact very little local fallout from the A-bombs (being airbursts).

The NYT was telling the truth there.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.

Not a crime to bomb an enemy military target during a time of war.

More of the US propagandist tripe you all were fed by your world class lyingest governments ever.

No. He was correct to point out that the invasion of Japan would have been a horrific bloodbath.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives.

No lie there. The reason why we dropped the A-bombs was because we were trying to force Japan to surrender.

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

That was easy for them to conclude in hindsight. But during the war when people were still dying, no one knew what it would take to make Japan surrender.

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued.

That is because these fictitious overtures did not exist. The Japanese government did not start talking to us about surrender until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard".

There was considerable doubt. The German ambassador did not speak for the Japanese government.

And when efforts were made to follow up such leads, the Japanese government made it clear that they had no such intentions whatsoever.

Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength".

That was easily resolved by holding back Hiroshima from any of the conventional bombing.

He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".

He was politely answering a very stupid person from the audience at the event where he was speaking.

Achieving surrender to avoid using the bombs?!? We had no idea how to make Japan surrender. That's why we were dropping A-bombs on them!

His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip".

Given the way the Soviets were misbehaving, that was a reasonable hope.

But that's a bit far afield from the fact that we dropped the A-bombs on Japan with the goal of forcing them to surrender.

General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis."

The Soviets were indeed a menace to civilization. But that's getting a bit far afield from the fact that we dropped the bombs on Japan with the hopes of forcing them to surrender.

The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

Given the desperate need to force Japan to surrender, the success of the Hiroshima bombing must have been a relief to everyone involved.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: The devil's in the details

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

They knew no such thing.

Ike believed it. And even then, only Ike, not any of the other generals.

And Ike only expressed his views to one other person, who he failed to convince.

Visitors to the National Air and Space Museum—America’s shrine to the technological leading edge of the military industrial complex—hear a familiar narrative from the tour guides in front of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic weapon on the civilians of Hiroshima 70 years ago today. The bomb was dropped, they say, to save the lives of thousands of Americans who would otherwise have been killed in an invasion of the Home Islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely destroyed and the lives of between 135,000 and 300,000 mostly Japanese women, children, and old people were sacrificed—most young men were away at war—as the result of a terrible but morally just calculus aimed at bringing an intractable war to a close.

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the “good” war.

Actually that is pretty close to the truth. The reason why we dropped the A-bombs was to force Japan to surrender.

Gar Alperovitz proved you wrong.

Gar Alperovitz is a discredited fraudster. His untrue statements prove nothing.

PS: Do I know you under a different ID on a certain other board? If so: friendly wave, despite our disagreement. (You'll likely recognize me from my defense of the A-bombs.)

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I have my own thoughts ,killing people is wrong.....

Not putting up a fight and letting the bad guys kill or enslave you and all your friends and relatives isn't a very attractive alternative.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: The devil's in the details

Uh-huh.

I notice the reference to the "Japanese Peace Overtures". Are you even aware of what those were?

Well, they wanted a Quid Pro Ante Bellum. In other words, a return to the status before war breaking out. And in these proposals were things like returning all Japanese territory captured until that time, the Japanese would return to their Pre-1942 control area of China, and that the Philippines would be a demilitarized zone. No occupation, no war crimes trials.

Yea, in other words impossible. That would be like Hitler doing that after the failure of the Invasion of Russia, and saying that they would pull back to Western Poland.

That is indeed what the Japanese government was insisting on at the time. But Japan was refusing to even talk to us at that point, so we never received this offer. Even if that offer had actually been acceptable to us, there is no way to accept an offer that you've never received.

The first time the Japanese government was willing to talk to us was the day after Nagasaki.

But tell me this then. If Japan was so eager to surrender, why did it take 2 bombs, the invasion by the Soviets, and the intercession of the Emperor combined to cause them to surrender?

On 27 July 1945, when they received the Potsdam Declaration the response was outright rejection. In fact, the very words used was mokusatsu, which essentially translates to "kill with silence". In other words, they ignored it.

At the same time they were trying to negotiate through Switzerland yet another peace overture. But it yet again was just a repeat of earlier ones. The only difference is that Japan would pull out of most of China (but continue to occupy the ports). And that all Japanese territory (now including Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa) would have to be returned. And no occupation, no demilitarization, no reparations.

That Switzerland overture came from a "lone wolf" (to borrow a terrorism term) without the approval of the Japanese government. The US suspected this, but followed up on it anyway in the hopes that it would lead to real contacts with the Japanese government. When the Japanese government finally learned of this Switzerland overture, they shut it down.

 

[Captain America]

Re: The devil's in the details

Right thing?

It was many things.

It was a sad and tragic thing. It was a desperation thing.

It also was a necessary thing.

It's okay to feel the pain of second guessing and perhaps some guilt, now and then. It's okay to mourn the loss of the civillians and wish it weren't so. You would have no heart if you didn't.

But, I will not say that the Japanese civilians are somewhat responsible for their own demise for supporting their brutal armies because that's what Al-Qaeda said about all the American civilians killed during 9/11. I will not use that excuse just to try to justify some kind of unsettling in my soul like some slithering terrorist would.

I heard from the old timer's, first hand, just how bloody-cruel and evil the Japanese were. If there will ever be any "right-thing" worthy of a nuclear attack, this was one of them.

What's done is done.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

That is because these fictitious overtures did not exist. The Japanese government did not start talking to us about surrender until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

Oh, they existed. However, like a great many he is mis-characterizing what they really were. Japan was not trying to send peace overtures, nor were they talking about surrender. They wanted a Quid Pro Ante Bellum, returning to the way things were before the war, with some advantages in favor of Japan.

They had started trying to send signals as early as 1943. However, those were not surrenders, they were armistices. Essentially a cease fire. Not unlike what ended the First World War, or the Korean War. And after the attacks and atrocities in the Philippines, Wake Island, China, Indochina, Burma, and other parts of the region there was no way that the Allies would have accepted a cease fire.

The only reason the First World War actually ended that way is that the opponents in that war essentially collapsed. The German, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian Empires all collapsed (they were not defeated), which did more to end the war than anything else. And even 60 years later both North and South Korea essentially are in an ongoing conflict, with occasional flare-ups.

For example of attempted "peace treaties", one that had been the proposal that was drafted to send with John Leighton Stuart. Mr. Stuart was the President of Yenching University in China, and was among the many foreigners incarcerated after war broke out. Officials in Japanese Occupied Japan considered having him released so he could present to the US a peace proposal in 1943 that would propose Japan relinquishing all claims in China, but keeping all Pacific territories under her control (to include the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, etc). This was shot down by Japanese authorities before it was even attempted.

Then in July 1945 this idea was brought back again. The 1943 draft was brought out again, and Mr. Stuart met with the head of the Japanese Diplomatic Corps in China. However, by this time the Potsdam Declaration had been made, and Mr. Stuart informed them that this attempt would be futile. The proposed release was scrapped, and Mr. Stuart spent the rest of the war in a prison camp.

But every attempted proposal sent by Japan was never passed along simply because the nations and individuals they contacted knew it was completely impossible. Sweden, the Swiss, the Soviets, John Stuart, they all knew that there was no way the war was going to end short of a Japanese capitulation. To many deaths and atrocities had happened to make that possible.

For the US specifically, there was no way they were going to accept either a Japanese controlled Philippines, nor a demilitarized Philippines. There were simply to many deaths between Corrigador and Wake, let alone Pearl Harbor.

They knew no such thing.

Ike believed it. And even then, only Ike, not any of the other generals.

And Ike spent the war in Europe. The man in command of the Pacific Theater (Mac) knew that only by beating them into submission would Japan surrender. There was no other way.

That is indeed what the Japanese government was insisting on at the time. But Japan was refusing to even talk to us at that point, so we never received this offer. Even if that offer had actually been acceptable to us, there is no way to accept an offer that you've never received.

The first time the Japanese government was willing to talk to us was the day after Nagasaki.

And it would not have to be acceptable to just us. The UK, France, and the Soviets would have to agree as well. That is what a lot of Potsdam was all about after all. There would be no separate peace agreements between the remaining Axis powers. All had to agree, or the war would continue. Could anybody imagine those other nations agreeing to simply resetting things to how they had been in December 1941?

Nope, I can't either.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: The devil's in the details

But, I will not say that the Japanese civilians are somewhat responsible for their own demise for supporting their brutal armies because that's what Al-Qaeda said about all the American civilians killed during 9/11. I will not use that excuse just to try to j

The issue here is really a major difference in culture.

Prior to the Meiji Restoration, Japan was really still a feudal state, with a culture so brutal that the Romans seem like peaceful philosophers. The Shogunate ran the island with an iron fist, outsiders (including shipwrecked sailors) were put to death as soon as they were found, and the samurai had almost unheard of powers over the population.

Until the Meiji Restoration, any samurai had the power of Kiri-sute gomen, literally "authorization to cut and leave". This means that any individual of lower caste who the samurai felt had cause offense to him could be summarily executed without repercussion. This could be anything like accidentally being hit with a stick thrown at another (which really happened to a blacksmith named Hichizaemon), to a dispute over a bill or not bowing low enough as the samurai passed by.

And not unlike the fundamentalist Islamic fighters, this not only is a culture with no taboo against suicide, it actively embraced it with living in their form of paradise if they died in the service of the Emperor.

It is simply such a foreign culture that most Westerners can only barely comprehend it. I do not entirely joke when I say that the culture most Westerners are familiar with that equates is that of the Klingons.

 

[camlok]

Re: The devil's in the details

...

Being an American conservative makes you and anything you say a total disgrace except to the American propaganda system.

Here you are, with a lick of evidence, making apologies for Class A USA war criminals. Even the great war criminal, Curtis LeMay knew he was a war criminal, but like most US war criminals he was proud of what he did. He'd have made a dynamite death camp guard, which, in retrospect, was all he really was.