what the world?? we don't regret it? ...wow


btw, today is the day it happened.


----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

I didn't know most of Japan was already destroyed by the time we dropped the nukes.

I'm pretty sure we never did. Some people still view it as the best way we could have ended the war...of course, those are the people who don't realize we had already all but won. Yeah, this is something we should do, but we never will. To do so would be to admit that in the "Great War" led by "The Greatest Generation," we committed "The Greatest War Crime" ever. This country is far too deeply rooted in the idea of American righteousness to ever apologize for something like that.

it was an act of war in a time of war, against an aggressor who attacked us first. should we have apologized for the dresden fire bombing? that was even deadlier than hiroshima, no?

on top of that, i don't think there is any policy consensus that using atomic weapons to conclude WWII was a mistake.

so to repeat, why would the United States apologize for hiroshima (not to mention nagasaki)?

why should germany apologize for the holocaust then?

dresden deadlier?

history books are available in all libraries.

nice...

The Dresden firebombing: "The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Estimates vary from 25,000 to more than 135,000 dead. Such estimates are made very difficult by the fact that the city was crowded at that time by many unregistered refugees and wounded soldiers. The foreign forced labourers may represent a large number of dead, since they were usually employed in the squads to fight fire storms. (In comparison, some 100,000 died in the bombing of Hiroshima, about 50,000 in the bombing of Nagasaki and 100,000 in the bombing of Tokyo and 200,000 were killed in Warsaw during the Warsaw uprising 1944.)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Impact_of_the_attack

It is conceivable that Dresden was deadlier and/or more destructive than Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki. Frankly I don't care which act of war was deadlier - my point was there have been many horrible acts of war in the past, and we're not going to apologize for all of them, so why apologize for Hiroshima in particular?

Ethically, I can't believe you are comparing genocide to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two attacks that totaled 67,000 people and effectively ended a war on one front, shouldn't be compared to genocide that annihilated 6 million Jews and more than 15 million Gentiles. What we NEED to apologize for is the plight of the Native Americans, especially the Trail of Tears.

If you can talk you can sing. If you can walk you can dance.
- Zimbabwean Proverb

And believe me, there's a lot of ignorance on these boards, but u're just as ignorant as my high school history books.

There is nothing in our book, the Quran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion.
Malcolm X (1925-65), U.S. Muslim leader. "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).

Why is that ignorant? I'd say you're being ignorant in denying reality, and ignorant in failing to grasp my meaning. So I repeat: Why would THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT apologize for bombing Hiroshima? Why would/should they do this? Moral arguments will only have the effect of highlighting your ignorance.

.

just wow

I kind of see what you're trying to say. In WW2, Japan was "the enemy"...they sided with the Nazis and pretty much caused a lot of pain and suffering in the Pacific and Asia. They attacked America first, occupied Chinese land and enslaved their people, and killed innocents.

You're right about the purpose of the bomb. What the U.S. did was an act of war and it created a weapon that would give them an advantage in said war. But that weapon worked too well and over 150,000 people lost their lives along with 300,000 people still suffering from the aftereffects of radiation from that weapon. Japanese-Americans who have no connection with the Axis saw their families and relatives from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed. As we speak, there are people who have developed cancer and all types of serious ailments because of the bomb.

I understand that to some, there are no apologies when it comes to war. But innocents were caught in the crossfire of that war...and the rammafications and aftereffects of that weapon are still felt to this day.

That was a well reasoned and worded response. I never said war wasn't horrible and that those particular acts of war weren't particularly horrible. But they happened and it's in the past, and the US government is never going to apologize for them, and probably shouldn't. We neither glorify nor ignore what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are honest about it. It seems like the US and Americans have assumed culpability for a very morally troubling historical act.

Japan was the aggressor in this war and they were given the chance to surrender. They were warned what would happen to them if they didn't surrender. Shouldn't the Emperor of Japan apologize for putting his people in harms way? Could the war been won without nuclear weapons, yes but at the cost of more American lives. Japan was a formidable foe.( I read somewhere that Japan can not have an army or any form of military. I have to look this up.)

How do you discount the 10,000,000 Chinese civilians that lost their lives? Has Japan apologized to them? They weren't killed by an atomic weapon but do their families suffer any less than the Japanese families ? What about the 16,900,000 Russians, have the Germans apologized to their families.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but everyone lost civilians during the war. We have or had been working with the Japanese to help the survivors suffering from radiation poison.




He's magically delicious-
Damon !

just checkin if that was a typo... anyway, point is, all that helping radiation victims is either comparable to (a) me helping you up after knocking you down cuz I know I shouldn't have done it or (b) me helping you up after knocking you down, which I don't regret because I simply had to do it in order to knock some sense in you.

If a lot of the people in this thread are right - that is, it wasn't necessary to kill all those innocents to knock sense into Japan - then the US should apologize. Just like Japan should for its own heinous crimes. And Germany, etc.

But I guess to some this is just "pacifist nonsense".

but yeah, the figure is somewhere up around ~17 million or so. The devastation in Eastern Europe was ungodly.

>If a lot of the people in this thread are right - that is,
>it wasn't necessary to kill all those innocents to knock
>sense into Japan - then the US should apologize. Just like
>Japan should for its own heinous crimes. And Germany, etc.

Man, Japan doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE its own heinous crimes from WWII, let alone apologize for them. I mean yeah it'd be nice if every nation on earth apologized to every other nation it's ever wronged in its history... but as dhalgren pointed out, nobody apologizes for anything for the most part, so why apologize for Hiroshima?

----------------------------------------------
"Oh, you're from Denver? John Elway sucks."

- my brother's first words to my boy from Denver

If they had the bomb, L.A. and San Francisco would be glowing. So fuck'em.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

I knew I'd have you cosigning, adding absolutely zero credibility to my statement. "Fuck 'em" is a hideous reaction to what happened. We killed thousands of innocent civilians, and whether that was the right or wrong tactic is difficult to say even today (despite the naivete of some of the above posters), but the fact is that a tremendous amount of suffering was caused by dropping those bombs, and not issuing an official state apology is hardly tantamount to saying, "fuck 'em."

>on top of that, i don't think there is any policy consensus
>that using atomic weapons to conclude WWII was a mistake.

Where have you been? LOL!

>>on top of that, i don't think there is any policy consensus
>>that using atomic weapons to conclude WWII was a mistake.
>
>Where have you been? LOL!

The OkayActivist message board does not reflect the opinions of the leaders of state OR the American public at large. Show me the data that proves Americans or American officials think the use of atomic weapons against Japan was a mistake.

okayactivist is the perfect cross-section of the american public...

see, the great thing is, okayactivist represents less than 1 percent of the american public. i can walk down the street knowing full well the majority of people agree with my beliefs one way or the other. i just post on here to see what all the say-alot do-nothing ass clowns are up to.

and feelings with me, Fox.

Your opinion is greatly
appreciated.

*Thumbs up*

yes, the lowest common denominator agrees with you congrats

>Show me the data that proves Americans or American officials
>think the use of atomic weapons against Japan was a mistake.

Dwight Eisenhower: "it wasn't necessary
to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike
on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).

After the bombing, Admiral William D.
Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barba-
rous weapon," also noting that: "The
Japanese were already defeated and re-
ady to surrender."

Winston Churchill: "The use of the atomic
bomb was not really needed to produce this
result. With 9/10 of Japan’s shipping sunk
or disabled, her air and sea forces crippled,
her industries wrecked, and her people’s food
supply shrinking fast, her collapse was already
certain." (Hart 696).

Harry Truman: "This weapon is to be used
against Japan between now and August 10th.
I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson,
to use it so that military objectives and
soldiers and sailors are the target and
not women and children. Even if the Japs
are savages, ruthless, merciless and fan-
atic, we as the leader of the world for
the common welfare cannot drop that terr-
ible bomb on the old capital or the new."
(Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off
the Record: The Private Papers of Harry
S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980)
pp. 55-56.) Truman's writings are in the
public domain.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, the "father of the
atomic bomb," Oppenheimer regretted the
use of the terrible weapon he had helped
built, and he worked with the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) to win approval for
international control of atomic energy.

The commanding general of
the U.S. Army Air Forces,
Gen. Henry H. "Hap" Arnold,
subsequently declared that
"it always appeared to us
that, atomic bomb or no at-
omic bomb, the Japanese were
already on the verge of col-
lapse."

The conclusion of the official
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's
far-ranging 1946 study was:

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, 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."

show me the data that a MAJORITY of the american public OR the american foreign policy elite do or ever did hold the believe that using atomic weapons was wrong, and then I will spend my days wondering why the US GOVERNMENT has never apologized for using them.

President Eisenhower thought it was a mistake; why then didn't he apologize? I wonder . . .

did not and do not believe
thatthe atomic bombings
were wrong.

What is your point?

The majority of Americans
once supported slavery.

Where is this going?

that the US government has never apologized for slavery either, einstein.

In post 70 you stated: "Show me the data that proves Americans or American officials think the use of atomic weapons against Japan was a mistake."

That was your inquiry.

First, I provided you with
evidence which indicates
top officials, including
Truman himself (in his lost
diary) thought the use of
the atomic bomb was a mistake.

Second, I stated to you that
most Americans believed it to
be justified.

All of this ties into the topic
of this post.

Now, why hasn't the U.S. apologized
for this atrocity? I'll tell you why.
An apology would be similar to an
admission of guilt; of wrong doing.

This is something the U.S. refuses
to recognize because it has always
created the illusion that it is the
leader of the "free world", a nation
supposedly predicated on the principle
of "liberty and justice for all."

Truman and his cronies spent a good
deal of time and energy misleading
the nation about why the bomb was
dropped. To this day, most Americans,
including some of you so-called libe-
rals, believe he did the right thing.
All this indicates is that the propa-
ganda system in the U.S. is more eff-
ective than any that had existed in
the Eastern Bloc nations.

The truth has always been a difficult
pill for this nation to swallow, which
is precisely why it denies most other
atrocities it has committed. It is al-
ways "the other guy".

To accept the truth would mean disregard-
ing most of our cherished beliefs about
U.S. democracy. It would shake the very
foundation upon which this country was built.
Therefore, 'twas ever thus, Americans chose
to live in denial, sheltered from the harsh
reality of the truth.

first of all I have not once said dropping the bomb was the right thing to do, so you're just making that up. I have indicated that it was debatable whether it was right or wrong, but truth be told I have always suspected it to have been an excessive show of force that was unnecessary to achieve victory. however it's not such an important consideration to me that I have to wade through archival materials relating to the bombings.

second, the public is not clamoring for an apology for hiroshima, and the government is not going to issue one on its own for all the reasons you described. plus, many if not most of the policy elite are not convinced that hiroshima is something worth apologizing for. end of discussion. that's the last i'm going to say on the matter, but feel free to continue banging your head against the wall.

You're having trouble understanding that the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were highly regrettable acts is good enough reason for people to wish that an apology would be made. THAT's what the post is about.

i believe your right about the full apology for slavery. but it wouldn't be fair to ignore the speach in 1997 that Bill Clinton gave to the victims of the tuskeegee syphillis experiments.


http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/New/Remarks/Fri/19970516-898.html


"The legacy of the study at Tuskegee has reached far and deep, in ways that hurt our progress and divide our nation. We cannot be one America when a whole segment of our nation has no trust in America. An apology is the first step, and we take it with a commitment to rebuild that broken trust. We can begin by making sure there is never again another episode like this one. We need to do more to ensure that medical research practices are sound and ethical, and that researchers work more closely with communities. "

----------
i think that clinton made a very respectable effort to go in that direction. and he explained the importance and value of apologies. this country has a huge ego and i am glad that clinton acknowledged a wrong.


here is another statement by him...from an interview
----------------

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/15/clinton/transcript.html


SESNO: We are mired in our history. A dozen white lawmakers
propose an apology to African-Americans whose ancestors were
slaves. Newt Gingrich says -- I think he called that
"emotional symbolism" -- that wouldn't teach one more child
how to read.

SESNO: How do you feel about that? Should there be an
apology, or is Newt Gingrich right?

CLINTON: To be honest, I didn't even know about this until
today. So I'd like some time to think about it.

But let me say generally, on the question of symbolism, an
apology -- under the right circumstances, those things can be
quite important. I think what I did on behalf of the
American people to those who were part of the Tuskegee
syphilis studies was very important.

SESNO: So you might favor an apology in this case.

CLINTON: I'd like some time to think about it. What I will
say, though, is that surely, every American knows that
slavery was wrong and that we paid a terrible price for it
and that we had to keep repairing that. And surely, every
American knows that the separate but unequal system we had
for 100 years after slavery was wrong. And surely, every
American knows that the discrimination that still exists in
this country is wrong.

And just to say that it's wrong and that we're sorry about it
is not a bad thing. That doesn't weaken us. Now, whether
this legislation should pass, I just need time to think about
that.


----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"for every mission that seems impossible, spit the gospel, to remind me what God can do, when it's not logical"
-common

as if THAT has anything to do with right or wrong

this post has nothing to do with right or wrong. it has to do with why the US hasn't apologized for hiroshima.

everyone that posted ^ needs to be a little more educated. the bombing was absolutely the best way to end the war. an invasion of the japanese main islands would have killed waaay more japanese and waaaay more americans. they had woman and children armed with sharpened bamboo rods ready to fight an invasion. it would have been very ugly. also continuing the blockade could have taken years, and it was costly to the americans and the japanese. you could also argue that if the americans hadnt dropped the bomb in WW2, then they or the Russians would have used it later not knowing the cost tehey would pay. dropping a nuclear weapon at a time when multiple nations had them would have been far far worse. it was a terrible, terrible thing that happened but it sadly had to be done.

As far as the person who said why did germany have to apologize for the holocaust...you are an ignorant bastard. the two are so unrelated its not even funny. comparing a genocide of innocent people who did nothing to harm the nation to bombing a country who started hostilities is just not right. and fyi way more jews were murdered in the holocaust than japanese who died in the bombings.

.

considering you posted all those quotes AFTER i posted your exactly right I hadn't, counting is not that hard player. and OF COURSE japan was going to lose the war, that is common knowledge. most of those quotes were completely irrelevent. churchill and eisenhower, while both obviously important to WWII, had NOTHING to do with the war in Asia. read a book, the bomb had to be dropped.

>considering you posted all those quotes AFTER i posted your
>exactly right I hadn't, counting is not that hard player.
>and OF COURSE japan was going to lose the war, that is
>common knowledge.

No, it is not common knowledge.
If anything it's an a fact which
flies in the face of conventional
wisdom and mainstream thought, and
has been ignored for too long.

>most of those quotes were completely
>irrelevent. churchill and eisenhower, while both obviously
>important to WWII, had NOTHING to do with the war in Asia.

It matters not that they weren't
physically present during the
fighting in Japan. These were
world leaders, who at the time,
had access to classified inform-
ation that was not available to
the general public.

If your going to discredit my
sources, do better than this...
PLAYA.

it hurt. hiroshima has a bizzarre feel to it. no matter how good it gets, the whole city was built after and on the site of a nuclear explosion. i think most of the localized radiation has cleared out, but this is just one bomb. and the ones made to day are as much as 100times(?) stronger and we have more of them.

i agree with a post saying that it was an act of war and it has been glazed over to make the shit that people did in the war ok. the generals from the horror of (in)human nature and the shock of the battlefield survival tend to have a grim outlook. it took vietnam maybe before people started to see war for what it was before it became an insane and inhuman enemy vs a righteous country sent in to do gods work. a bunch of greedy ambitious spinsters who can't handle their own shit mono a mono. if george bush would have had to celebrity k-1 fight osama bin laden or sadam hussein then a whole lot of lives could have been saved.

in the older days the king would ride out with his army and battle amongst them leading them to vicory and proving his valor or whatever. now it's just like press a button or make a 'difficult decision' with no accurate frame of reference. but then again how do you have a frame of reference that says it's ok to kill hundreds of thousands of people?

i don't know man. there were american soldiers who were pows in hiroshima who because japan had effectively surrendered expected to be rescued soon. instead.

booom.

we knew what we were doing. we wanted to decimate the innocent civilians in order to hurt the psyche of the enemy. those tactics and strategies seem like something we should apologize for.


we are not sorry we went to war, but let's apologize for the deaths of all the innocents...



----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

We did what we had to do to end the war and to save our soldiers' lives.

This is such a non-issue. Truman did the right thing.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

hmmmmm.



Date: February 17, 2004


"1st American POW added to gallery of Hiroshima dead

By Gary Schaefer
Associated Press

HIROSHIMA, Japan -- Near where the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima, the faces of the victims silently appear and fade on a wall of television monitors in a relentless display of the attack's human toll.

Amid the thousands of faces, one stands apart: that of Cpl. John Long Jr., U.S. Army Air Force.
Long, who died in the blast while being held by the Japanese, is the first American serviceman to be enshrined at a memorial here, throwing light on the little-known story of U.S. prisoners of war who perished at Hiroshima.

"It shows how indiscriminate the slaughter was," said Shigeru Aratani, a curator at the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims. "Enemies and friends, soldiers and civilians, women and children--they were all killed."

Long bailed out of his B-24 bomber as it was shot down near Hiroshima days before the Aug. 6, 1945, bombing. The 27-year-old steelworker from New Castle, Pa., was among at least 10 American POWs killed in the attack.

The names of seven American POWs have been added since the 1970s to an official book of victims updated annually by the city, but the list is encased in a stone cenotaph and is not visible to the public.

The American prisoners were absent from the memorial hall, which opened in 2002 and displays 9,000 bomb victims for 700 visitors a day, until Long's 35-year-old great nephew, Nathan Long, offered the airman's photo last month.

Long says the portrait is a "small story" compared to the catastrophic suffering of Japanese victims. The bombing killed some 68,000 people instantly, 140,000 by December. Thousands of Koreans brought to Japan as forced labor died, as did Americans of Japanese descent who were trapped after war broke out.

But the POWs are among the least remembered casualties--their fate wasn't widely known until researchers digging through archives began to document the story in the 1970s.

An important clue came in 1977 when a professor from Hiroshima University found a Japanese list of 20 American POWs listed as killed in the atomic attack.

Some of those names were later found to belong to prisoners who had been killed elsewhere in grisly experiments that the Japanese military apparently wanted to hide.

The others were the crews of three aircraft shot down near Hiroshima on July 28, 1945, after a raid on Japanese warships in nearby Kure.

© 2004, Chicago Tribune"

that we didn't do it to save soldiers because servicemen were held there?

What about the estimated 100,000 or so that would have been saved had we invaded?
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>What about the estimated 100,000 or so that would have been
>saved had we invaded?

President Truman declared the
hope that "this new weapon will
result in saving thousands of
American lives."

"The president's initial formul-
ation of 'thousands,' however,
was clearly not his final state-
ment on the matter to say the least,"
remarks historian Gar Alperovitz.
In his book, The Decision to Use the
Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of
an American Myth, Alperovitz documents
but a few of Truman's public estimates
throughout the years:

December 15, 1945: "It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities . . ."

Late 1946: "A year less of war will mean life for three hundred thousand - maybe half a million - of America's finest youth."

October 1948: "In the long run we could save a quarter of a million young Americans from being killed, and would save an equal number of Japanese young men from being killed."

April 6, 1949: "I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved."

November 1949: Truman quotes Army Chief of Staff George S. Marshall as estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan to be "half a million casualties."

January 12, 1953: Still quoting Marshall, Truman raises the estimate to "a minimum one quarter of a million" and maybe "as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy."

Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: "the dropping of the bombs . . . saved millions of lives."

That's not a flip-flop. Nice try tho.

Regardless, going into Japan would have led to too many people dying on our side. Hence, the bomb.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>That's not a flip-flop. Nice try tho.

Keep grasping at straws, son.

It's well documented that what
you refer to as so-called "est-
imates" were conjured up by Truman
& were never supported by a shred
of valid research. This is precise-
ly why Truman created the "saving
lives" myth subsequent to the bombings.

>Regardless, going into Japan would have led to too many
>people dying on our side. Hence, the bomb.

That's why there were other
viable alternatives that
could've been sought but
Truman wouldn't hear of it.

Under Secretary of State Joseph
Grew had explained this to Pres-
ident Truman in person on May 28,
1945. Grew had been U.S. Ambassador
to Japan for 10 years prior to the
attack on Pearl Harbor and was reg-
arded as the most knowledgeable on
Japan of any U.S. government official
(Leahy, pg. 274).

>Keep grasping at straws, son.

You better go make a son if you wanna call someone son.

>It's well documented that what
>you refer to as so-called "est-
>imates" were conjured up by Truman
>& were never supported by a shred
>of valid research. This is precise-
>ly why Truman created the "saving
>lives" myth subsequent to the bombings.

*LOL* That's cute...saying "valid", which gives you the option of determining which information is credible and which isn't. Nice trick.

However, the battle of Okinawa took over 40,000 American soldiers' lives. On top of that, the intercepted "Magic Summaries" intelligence stated Japan still had an estimated 2 million troops and still had a fairly strong Navy. Add that to potential hostility by the citizenry in the form of militias, and the U.S. would have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

>>Regardless, going into Japan would have led to too many
>>people dying on our side. Hence, the bomb.
>
>That's why there were other
>viable alternatives that
>could've been sought but
>Truman wouldn't hear of it.
>Under Secretary of State Joseph
>Grew had explained this to Pres-
>ident Truman in person on May 28,
>1945. Grew had been U.S. Ambassador
>to Japan for 10 years prior to the
>attack on Pearl Harbor and was reg-
>arded as the most knowledgeable on
>Japan of any U.S. government official
>(Leahy, pg. 274).

But you can't tell me what those are. The only excuse you made was to leave the emperor in power, and that was not allowed to happen. What others were there?
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>However, the battle of Okinawa took over 40,000 American
>soldiers' lives. On top of that, the intercepted "Magic
>Summaries" intelligence stated Japan still had an estimated
>2 million troops and still had a fairly strong Navy. Add
>that to potential hostility by the citizenry in the form of
>militias, and the U.S. would have lost hundreds of thousands
>of soldiers.

The "Magic Summaries" intelligence
finding, while accurate, also left
out the irrefutable fact that after
the fall of the Mariana Islands, in-
cluding Saipan, to the U.S. in July
of 1944, the impending defeat of Japan
became increasingly apparent to many
Allied and Japanese leaders.

While Japan was being bombarded from
the sky, a Naval blockade was strangl-
ing Japan's ability to import oil and
other vital materials and its ability
to produce war materials (Barton Bern-
stein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 54).
Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of
Staff to President Roosevelt and then
to President Truman, wrote, "By the
beginning of September, Japan was al-
most completely defeated through a
practically complete sea and air bloc-
kade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg.
259).

Those are the words of the Chief of Staff,
not some flower child, pothead from the
Bay Area.

>>>Regardless, going into Japan would have led to too many
>>>people dying on our side. Hence, the bomb.

General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary
of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use
of the bomb, told him that "Japan was al-
ready defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary."After the bomb-
ing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic
bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that:
"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
to surrender."

Again, no left wing revisionism, just the
facts presented by Truman's Sec. of War,
as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.

>Those are the words of the Chief of Staff,
>not some flower child, pothead from the
>Bay Area.

....I resent that.

I ain't no flower child or pothead, I'm from the Bay goddamnit!!!
*smiles*


RealTalkInfinite

.

>But you can't tell me what those are. The only excuse you
>made was to leave the emperor in power, and that was not
>allowed to happen. What others were there?

The following is a list of
alternatives proposed by
Rufus E Miles Jr., a former
senior fellow of the Woodrow
Wilson School, Princeton Uni-
versity, and a former thirty-
year career official of the U.S.
government.

Strategy Number One: A Negotiated Peace

In the spring of 1945, evidence mounted that the capacity of the Japanese air force to defend its homeland against escalating bombardment had rapidly deteriorated. This information, accompanied by a sharp drop in losses of American planes and pilots, convinced Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew that the Japanese would be open to a negotiated peace. Grew believed that the Japanese were so nearly beaten by the end of May 1945 that there was an excellent chance that they would capitulate soon thereafter if the unconditional surrender doctrine Truman had inherited from Roosevelt were publicly interpreted by Truman to allow retention of the Japanese Emperor -- the revered symbol of the thousand-year-old Japanese dynasty. Grew was the only official of Cabinet status or of high military rank with access to the President who had had lengthy experience in Japan (ten years as U.S. Ambassador there) and thus was able to assess the attitudes of Japan's ruling group. Grew sought to persuade Truman of his views on May 28, three weeks after V-E Day.

The timing was propitious in Grew's judgment since B-29s were causing enormous devastation throughout Japan. On March 29 they had rained incendiaries on Tokyo, killing and injuring more Japanese (83,000), it was later estimated, than did the Hiroshima bomb (70,000 -- 80,000). By the end of May, virtually all major Japanese cities had been attacked with incendiaries, disastrously impairing Japan's capacity to carry on the war. Truman, then President for only a month and a half, was impressed by Grew's arguments but thought it best to have him discuss his proposals with the Secretaries of War and the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Grew did so on the following day, May 29.

By coincidence, on the same day on which Grew met with Truman, Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's trusted international trouble-shooter, who had been called out of retirement by Truman to improve worsening relations with Stalin, was meeting in Moscow with the Soviet leader. Hopkins cabled Truman that "Japan is doomed and the Japanese know it. Peace feelers are being put out by certain elements in Japan and we should therefore consider together our joint attitude and act in concert about the surrender of Japan."

Grew's recommendation did not, however, come as a new idea to those present. The Joint Chiefs had been presented a month earlier with a report from their planning staff that contained the following statement: "The concept of 'unconditional surrender' is foreign to the Japanese nature. Therefore, unconditional surrender' should be defined in terms understandable to the Japanese who must be convinced that destruction or national suicide is not implied. This could be done at the governmental level by a 'declaration of intentions' which would tell the Japanese what their future holds. Once convinced of the inevitability of defeat, it is possible that a government could be formed that would sign and could enforce a surrender instrument."

Secretary of War Stimson and Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal seemed especially receptive to such a "declaration of intentions," but not eager to issue it immediately for reasons that were not clear to Grew. Stimson, almost totally preoccupied with the diplomatic and military implications of the atomic bomb, scheduled for test in early to mid-July, had been discussing the use of the bomb with Truman, including the probable need to make a crucial decision during the Potsdam meeting in late July. If the declaration of intentions were to be delayed until the bomb became a tested military weapon, the Japanese might be warned of its power while simultaneously being assured that "unconditional surrender" did not mean an end to the sovereignty of their nation or of their imperial dynasty. Because of the extreme secrecy of the "S-1 " -- the code for the atomic bomb -- Stimson could not reveal his reasons for counseling delay.

Within the Department of State, there was less agreement than there was in the War Department over the idea of redefining the unconditional surrender doctrine. Assistant Secretaries Dean Acheson and Archibald MacLeish argued against any change in the Roosevelt doctrine of total surrender, not only because they felt sure it would be very unpopular with the American public, but because they took a dim view of the Emperor and regarded him as having been a tool of the infamous Premier Tojo and his military clique, and even as a possible subject of war crimes prosecution. Both saw him as a stumbling block to the development of genuine democracy in Japan. Despite this opposition, Grew, with the support of his Far East expert, Eugene Dooman, persisted in his efforts. Yet he was to be disappointed. On the morning of June 18, Truman met with Grew and indicated that, while he was favorable to the idea of issuing a declaration of intentions to the Japanese to reassure them on the matter of their long-term sovereignty, he had decided to wait until the Potsdam conference a month later and issue it as a joint proclamation.

On the afternoon of the same day, President Truman held a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries Stimson and Forrestal, and Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy to help prepare himself for the Potsdam conference. He wanted to be briefed on the invasion plan that the War Department had prepared for an assault on Kyushu, Japan's southern island, scheduled for November I . Toward the end of the discussion, Admiral William Leahy, the President's personal chief of staff, recommended modification of the unconditional surrender doctrine. The minutes of that meeting record the following exchange:

"Admiral Leahy said he could not agree with those who said to him that unless we obtain the unconditional surrender of the Japanese that we will have lost the war. He feared no menace from Japan in the foreseeable future, even if we were unsuccessful in forcing unconditional surrender. What he did fear was that our insistence on unconditional surrender would result only in making the Japanese desperate and thereby increasing our casualty lists. He did not think this was at all necessary.
"The President stated that it was with this thought in mind that he had left the door open for Congress to take appropriate action with reference to unconditional surrender. However, he did not feel that he could take any action at this time to change public opinion on this matter."

By July -- the month of the Potsdam conference with Truman, Churchill, and Stalin -- the momentum of Japan's peace party developed very much as Grew had predicted. On July 12, Foreign Minister Togo, at the Emperor's behest, instructed the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, to inform Foreign Commissar Molotov that the Emperor wanted the war ended immediately and wished to send Prince Fuminare Konoye to Moscow with power to negotiate a peace on almost any terms, presumably short of the unacceptable sacrifice of the imperial dynasty. Ambassador Sato was rebuffed in his efforts to gain the cooperation of the Soviet Union as an intermediary, in large part because the Soviets were not eager to have Japan surrender before the U.S.S.R. could carry out its agreement, made at Yalta, to enter the war against Japan and claim its share of the spoils. On the next day, July 13, three days before the successful atomic test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, naval intelligence monitors intercepted and decoded the cables between Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo and Ambassador Sato in Moscow. They read, in part:

Togo to Sato: "See Molotov before his departure for Potsdam. Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war. . . . Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. . . .
Sato to Togo: "There is no chance whatsoever of winning the Soviet Union to our side and of obtaining her support on the basis set forth in your cables. . . . Japan is defeated. . . . We must face the fact and act accordingly. . . . "

Lewis Strauss, then special assistant to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal, recalled later that Admiral Redman, Chief of Naval Communications, brought him these intercepted messages on July 13, and that subsequent intercepts grew more desperate. Strauss said that as fast as they were received Forrestal sent them to Admiral Leahy, who was then with Truman in Potsdam. Forrestal had not been invited to attend the Potsdam conference but finally decided to go anyway, carrying with him the file of decoded messages, the last of which was dated July 25. Mentioning the imminence of a complete collapse, it instructed Ambassador Sato to go to any place that Molotov might designate, and while still maintaining "unconditional surrender" to be unacceptable, to state that Japan had "no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

Immediately on Forrestal's arrival in Potsdam on July 28, he took the messages to the new Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, who saw them "in detail" for the first time, although he had previously known of their existence and presumably the thrust of their content. In Strauss's words, "Forrestal was too late by forty-eight hours. The Potsdam Declaration -- the ultimatum to Japan -- had been dispatched on the twenty-sixth, and events were now in the saddle, riding the decision-makers." On the very day Forrestal and Byrnes were talking, Japan characterized the ultimatum with a unique Japanese word, mokusatsu, meaning "not worth of reply. " Although the ultimatum reassured the Japanese that they would remain a sovereign nation, it failed to assure them that they might keep their Emperor, and it promised stern justice to all war criminals. No mention was made of the atomic bomb.

Five days later, there was one last intercept. "The battle situation has become acute," it said, and concluded, "Since the loss of one day relative to this present matter may result in a thousand years of regret, it is requested that you immediately have a talk with Molotov. "

After the successful test of the atomic bomb on July 16, President Truman and his advisers felt sure that they had the means to end the war quickly without any concessions to or negotiations with Japan. And the Soviets had every reason to want to carry out their pledge to enter the war on or about August 8, thus staking out a share of the credit for the Pacific victory and the division of power in its aftermath. Upon Japan's rejection of the Allied ultimatum, the dynamics of the situation seemed to the decision-makers clearly to favor the prompt use of the new weapon.

As soon as Japan rejected the Allied demand on July 28, the Air Force had its green light. The Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6. The Soviet Union, as promised, declared war on Japan on August 8. The Nagasaki bomb was released on August 9. Japan sued for surrender on August 10, on the condition that they could keep their Emperor. The United States accepted Japan's conditional surrender on August 11, with certain stipulations. Three days later, Japan agreed to the stipulations. The war was over.

The Grew strategy, which had envisioned a successful American diplomatic effort to end the war by an offer and acceptance of a "conditional surrender" (the same condition that became the accepted basis for surrender in August) by the end of July, was subsequently considered by several people to have had more than an outside possibility of success. Among those who thought so in retrospect, in addition to Grew himself, were Hanson Baldwin, military analyst for The New York Times, and Robert J.C. Butow, author of Japan's Decision to Surrender. Especially significant was the view expressed by Secretary of War Stimson, as stated in his autobiography, co-authored with McGeorge Bundy. "It is possible," said Bundy, "in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war. . . . But in the view of Stimson and his military advisers, it was always necessary to bear in mind that at least some of Japan's leaders would seize on any conciliatory offer as an indication of weakness." At another point Bundy writes: "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war."

Obviously, if the Grew -- Stimson approach had been tried and proved successful, the use of the atomic bombs would have been unnecessary and could have saved no lives. It might have brought the war to the same conclusion, possibly even before the atomic bombs were dropped and before the Soviet Union had time to enter the war against Japan.



Strategy Number Two: Intensified Bombing and Blockade Until November 1, 1945

This scenario is based on the assumption that the war might have continued with the use of conventional weapons during the period from early August until the Japanese surrendered, and that capitulation would have occurred prior to November 1, 1945 -- the date of the scheduled invasion of Kyushu. During this period, the United States would have tightened its sea blockade and intensified its air bombardment. This hypothesis brings into bold relief the deteriorating condition of Japanese defenses and the accumulation of evidence that Japan would have surrendered before the scheduled date for the invasion of Kyushu, even without the atomic bomb. The following excerpts from postwar official reports make this clear:

Admiral Ernest King, Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet:
" the forces under Admiral Halsey's command had destroyed or damaged 2,804 enemy planes, sunk or damaged 148 Japanese combat ships, sunk or damaged 1,598 enemy merchant ships, destroyed 195 locomotives and damaged 109 more. In addition, heavy blows had been struck at industrial targets and war industries, effectively supplementing the bombings by B-29'(s. This impressive record speaks for itself and helps to explain the sudden collapse of Japan's will to resist."

General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff:

"During July the super-bombers had steadily increased the scale of their attacks on the Japanese homeland. From the Marianas bases the B-29's averaged 1,200 sorties a week. Okinawa airfields which now occupied almost all suitable space on the island began to fill with heavy bombers, mediums and fighters which united in the aerial assault on the Japanese islands, her positions on the Asiatic mainland, and what was left of her shipping. Fighters from Iwo Jima swept over the Japanese islands, strafed Japanese dromes and communications and gave the superbombers freedom of operation. The Third Fleet augmented by British units hammered Japan with planes and guns, sailing boldly into Japanese coastal waters. The warships repeatedly and effectively shelled industries along the coasts. . . . These mighty attacks met little opposition."

The devastation of Japan prior to the bombing of Hiroshima was confirmed by the Strategic Bombing Survey established by Stimson to assess the effects of the massive air attacks. The 1,000 members of the Survey interviewed hundreds of Japanese military officers, government officials, political and economic leaders, and others, and reviewed great numbers of Japanese records. At the end of this lengthy process, the conclusion of the Survey was:

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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to I November 1945, 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.
These and other reports were available to Stimson, Churchill, Truman, and others when they wrote their memoirs. Yet they showed no evidence of having paid any attention to those records. The mass of data presented by the Survey and its conclusions are simply not compatible with the clear implication of these men that without the use of the atomic bombs as many as a million American casualties or, alternatively, a half-million deaths might have had to be paid in battles in the heartland of Japan. It seems probable that what these memoirists meant to convey was that, at the time of the decision, they thought that this number of losses could be avoided by the use of atomic weapons, although later information made them realize that Japan was closer to surrender than earlier U.S. intelligence assessments had led them to believe. But that is not what they said. They had a responsibility to make this distinction clear. Even had they done so, however, many unanswered questions and inconsistencies would have remained.

According to this second scenario, based on information available after the war's end, American casualties would have been, at most, in the low thousands, with the number of deaths almost certainly not exceeding 5,000 and probably considerably less. So great was the destruction of Japanese air power that American aircraft losses from bombing missions over Japan dropped from a high of 5.7 percent in January to 0.4 percent in July. Naval losses would also have been extremely light, judging from the reports of Admiral King. Since Army ground forces would not have been engaged at all, losses would have been either zero or negligible.

In the light of General Marshall's and Admiral King's assessments of the extremely weak condition of Japan during the last months of the war, and in view of the conclusions of the Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan would in all probability have surrendered before November 1, 1945, and considering the shock to Japan of the Soviet declaration of war on August 8, this second scenario seems, in retrospect, to have been the more probable one in the event the atomic bombs had not been available or had deliberately not been used.

It can only be a matter of conjecture as to how long it would have taken Japan to surrender after the Soviet Union's declaration of war, and as to how many casualties would have been inflicted on Japanese forces and civilians pending final peace terms, but the evidence strongly suggests that surrender would have come quickly. The shock and demoralization of Japanese military officers that resulted from the Soviet attack was similar in effect to the Hiroshima bomb, in the opinions of Lt. General Seizo Arizue, chief of G-2 of the Japanese Army General Staff, and Genki Abe, Home Minister in the Japanese Cabinet, according to their postwar statements. Especially since the Emperor was then taking an unprecedented role in seeking a prompt end to the war, it seems highly probable that, even by itself, the sudden Soviet assault would have shifted the Japanese government's intense surrender efforts from communicating with the Soviets to negotiating with the United States via Switzerland, as occurred after the double shock of the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the war.

Key U.S. officials not only wanted to save American lives, but, as Army historian Louis Morton observed, ". . . some responsible officials feared the political consequences of Soviet intervention and hoped that ultimately it would prove unnecessary. " Any tentative peace offer made to the United States through Switzerland, therefore, would have been immediately pursued and concluded, especially since the Secretaries of War and Navy, Stimson and Forrestal, and their Joint Staff Planners had come to the conclusion in April that a statement to Japan that they could retain their sovereignty -- and by implication their Emperor -- might in their dire circumstances, end their resistance.

Because relations between the United States and Japan have followed so cordial a path for four decades, there has been an effort, especially of late, to make it appear that if the two atomic bombings had not occurred, the Japanese people would have suffered massive slaughter or starvation, or both,. in an Allied invasion of Honshu, and that, from the Japanese standpoint, the bombings might properly be viewed as benign. This thesis was advanced two years ago by Dr. Taro Takemi, president of the Japanese Medical Association, and by Edwin O. Reischauer, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan. The evidence presented here, plus evidence from Butow's Japan's Decision to Surrender, makes their argument seem extremely questionable.





Strategy Number Three: A November 1945 Attack on Southern Kyushu

This scenario assumes that, despite a tight naval blockade and extremely heavy bombing for three months after early August, as well as critical losses against Soviet armies in Manchuria and possibly Korea, the Japanese still would have wanted to hold out and would have been able to do so, and that they would not have surrendered until after the invasion of Kyushu, scheduled to begin on November 1, 1945. This scenario further assumes that the invasion would have proceeded according to the War Department's plan and that within thirty days the United States would have won the battle for southern Kyushu. This represents the most pessimistic of the possibilities envisioned by the Strategic Bombing Survey.

The meeting at which Truman gave his approval to the invasion plan, if that became necessary, was an important one. It was convened on June 18, 1945, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of War and Navy, the Assistant Secretary of War, and Admiral Leahy, the President's personal chief of staff. This was the same meeting at which Admiral Leahy unsuccessfully advocated modifying the unconditional surrender doctrine to permit the retention of the Emperor. Following are the other salient points of the meeting.

First, the presentation by General Marshall related solely to OLYMPIC, the plan to invade Kyushu. Neither then nor at any other time did the Joint Chiefs discuss with Truman a plan for the invasion of Honshu.
Second, all projections of losses were in terms of casualties. No figures on expected deaths were presented or discussed. According to the minutes, casualties for the first thirty days on Kyushu, by the end of which U.S. forces would have a firm hold on the southern half of Kyushu (separated from the north by a mountain range), with full control of its various airfields, "should not exceed the price we have paid for Luzon" -- 31,000 casualties. (Later reports showed that the Luzon casualty figures included 7,765 deaths, a ratio of 25 percent deaths, somewhat higher than the 20 percent ratio in 1944 and 1945 in the Pacific.) When questioned by Admiral Leahy about whether the 31,000 estimate might be too low in view of the reportedly heavier than expected casualties on Okinawa, Admiral King replied that he thought that a realistic casualty figure for Kyushu would lie somewhere between the Luzon losses of 31,000 and the estimated but not finally determined Okinawa casualties of 41,700. The final count for Okinawa casualties turned out to be 65,631, of which 7,374 were deaths. This confirmed Admiral Leahy's information about the much heavier casualties than expected on Okinawa, but not a greater number of deaths. Upon the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Truman gave his approval to the plan.
Third, the War Department plan, and General Marshall's comment on it, suggested strongly that by the time southern Kyushu was in Allied hands, Japan would surrender.
Fourth, according to the minutes, "The record of General MacArthur's operations from I March 1944 through 1 May 1945 shows 13,742 U.S. killed compared to 310,165 Japanese killed, or a ratio of 22 to 1."
Fifth, President Truman expressed the hope, at the meeting's end, that there would be a possibility of preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other, emphasizing his expression of concern, when the meeting was called, to minimize American casualties.
Finally, the meeting did not reveal or discuss any alternative to the invasion plan.
Top naval and air corps officers believed that Japan could be forced to surrender through the strangulation of its military machine and its economy by naval blockade and air bombardment. That view was not presented at this meeting because these officers had been persuaded by their Army ground force counterparts to think of the conquest of southern Kyushu as the final military engagement in such a strangulation strategy, to be accomplished at a tolerable cost -- 31,000 casualties, 7,000 -- 8,000 deaths, the price paid for Luzon. The discussion would have been very different if the War Department had sought preliminary approval of the invasion of Honshu, which both the Navy and the Army Air Force regarded as sure to be more expensive in human losses than was necessary.

If this "worst-case scenario" had occurred -- that is, if the atomic bomb had not worked or had not been used, and if Japan had somehow held out beyond November 1, 1945, and if the successful invasion of southern Kyushu had been carried out, and if the Russians had entered the war in August (as they did) and engaged the Japanese in Manchuria and Korea, and if at that point the Japanese had surrendered -- then a reasonable estimate of American deaths almost surely would have been not more than 20,000 and probably less than 15,000 (5,000 for air and naval losses before the invasion, not more than 10,000 during the invasion of Kyushu, and an added allowance of 5,000 for unforeseen losses).





Strategy Number Four: A Spring 1946 Invasion of Honshu

The fourth strategy is the one we began with -- that which Stimson, Churchill, and Truman implied would have been the only alternative to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It is based on the following assumptions:

That even after the defeat of Japanese forces on southern Kyushu, and after seven months of ever-increasing bombing of Japan during the fall and winter of 1945 -- 46, including three months of bombing and strafing from the close-in airfields of Kyushu, Japan could and would have held out;
That after the devastation of Japan's navy, merchant marine, and air force, Japan could and would have held out;
That after seven months of progress by Soviet armies that, in all probability, would have occupied all of Manchuria and Korea and been poised and eager to aid in the assault on Honshu from the west and north, Japan would still have continued to struggle;
That after the demolition of Japan's industrial capacity, essential to replace lost military equipment, it would have had the wherewithal to inflict extremely heavy casualties on an enemy that was superbly equipped and that completely controlled the air over the battlefields;
That the Japanese people, a large portion of whom would by then have been at or near the starvation level, would have been able and willing to continue to support the war;
That a nation whose government and Emperor were seeking, almost frantically, in July 1945 to work out terms of surrender would have kept fighting under hopeless circumstances;
And finally, that such a devastated and thoroughly beaten nation, whose armies in the Pacific had taken losses of 22 times as many deaths as they had inflicted on General MacArthur's forces during their march toward Japan in 1944 and 1945, could have inflicted some 500,000 deaths -- 70 percent more than the 292,000 the United States armed forces lost in all of World War II -- on the world's best-equipped army, navy, and air force.


In addition to these assumptions, this scenario asks that we believe that after the conquest of Kyushu, at a cost of under 15,000 deaths and probably no more than 7,000 -- 8,000, and after all of the above conditions had been realized, if President Truman had been presented with a plan for the invasion of Honshu that was estimated to cost half a million American deaths and many more Japanese troops, he would have approved it. It does not seem credible.

The puzzle is especially confounding when one seeks to determine where Stimson's figure of a million potential casualties -- the figure he first used in his 1947 Harper's article -- came from. There seems to be no evidence that any systematic and thoughtful effort was ever made by the War Department to estimate what it would cost in casualties or lives if Honshu were invaded. One is forced to conclude that Stimson's figure must have been an "off-the-top-of-the-head" estimate made in the early spring of 1945, before the War and Navy departments realized how rapid was the deterioration of Japan's capacity to resist, and then uncritically repeated on various occasions after the situation had radically changed.

One partial and plausible answer to the puzzle may be found in an obscure letter that Truman wrote on January 12, 1953, eight days before he left office. In reply to an inquiry by Professor James C. Cate, a former Air Force historian then at the University of Chicago, Truman said, "I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokyo plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at a minimum a quarter of a million American casualties. and might cost as many as a million, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military men agreed." Here, Truman talks of casualties, as Marshall surely would have. But if we use the Pacific ratio of deaths to casualties, Marshall is estimating a minimum of 50,000 American deaths and a possibility of as many as 250,000, quite different from the figures used by Truman two years later in his autobiography. Marshall's estimate in this version, it should be noted, was in response to Truman's specific question as to what it might cost to conduct a massive invasion of Honshu, and makes no mention of any discussion as to whether circumstances had by then changed to make the need for such an invasion very remote and its advisability even more questionable. One of Marshall's biographers, Forrest Pogue, believes that by then Marshall felt sure that Japan would capitulate before such an invasion could occur. This was also the view of Brigadier General George A. Lincoln, one of the Army's top planners.

Perhaps the strangest part of this last scenario is that the participants in the decision-making process -- those who wrote their memoirs and used these estimates of lives that may have been saved by the use of the atomic bombs, especially Secretary Stimson in 1947 and President Truman in 1955 -- did not seem to realize either its extreme unlikelihood or the implication that they and General Marshall would have agreed to such an invasion of Honshu if they actually believed that a half-million American deaths might eventuate.

Strangulation of Japan without the invasion of Honshu would surely have been tried first. Even more likely, Truman would have acted upon the belief of Grew, Stimson, Forrestal, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the unconditional surrender doctrine could and should be tempered enough to negotiate a conditional surrender that would end the war without an extremely costly invasion -- the same conditional surrender that did end the war on August 14.

Why Truman used the figure of half a million American deaths prevented seems something of a mystery at first. He never approved a plan that would have involved such a mutual massacre and, beyond any reasonable doubt, he never would have. In psychological terms, however, such an estimate of potential American losses is not mysterious. The use of these figures by Truman and others can be explained by a subconscious compulsion to persuade themselves and the American public that, horrible as the atomic bombs were, their use was actually humane inasmuch as it saved a huge number of lives. The larger the estimate of deaths averted, the more self-evidently justified the action seemed. Exaggerating these figures avoided, in large part, the awkward alternative of having to rethink and explain a complex set of circumstances and considerations that influenced the decision to drop the bombs.



Epilogue
THIS analysis points strongly to the conclusion that the number of American lives saved as a result of the dropping of the two bombs was, with a high degree of probability, not more than 20,000 and was quite probably considerably less. This is not a judgment as to whether the decision to drop the bombs was a sound decision on other grounds. What it says is that the traditional rationale for the decision -- that half a million American lives might have been lost in an all-out invasion of Japan had the bombs not been used-simply does not hold up under careful examination, and that the action must be explained in some other way.

Truman and Stimson offered succinct and corroborating versions of the basic reason for the decision:

Truman: "Let there be no mistake about it. I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used. The top military advisers to the President recommended its use, and when I talked to Churchill he unhesitatingly told me he favored the use of the atomic bomb if it might aid to end the war. "
Stimson: "In 1941 and 1942 they were believed to be ahead of us, and it was vital that they should not be the first to bring atomic weapons into the field of battle. Furthermore, if we should be the first to develop the weapon, we should have a great new instrument for shortening the war and minimizing destruction. At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or by any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in the war.'

In the minds of most of the top military and civilian officials of the government, the decision made by Roosevelt in 1942 to develop the atomic bomb carried with it the implicit intent to use it as soon as it became available if it would shorten the war. There was no need to take into account other considerations. The question was not whether the bomb should be used, but how. Its legitimacy to gain a quick end of the war was taken for granted. That this was the most powerful single influence in the decision to use the bomb seems highly probable. Like all the new and more lethal weapons in history, the atomic bomb was , its own imperative.

That there were other influential considerations, however, there can be no question. The most powerful of these concerned immediate relations with the Soviet Union. After the successful test of the first bomb on July 16, while Truman, Churchill, and Stalin were meeting in Potsdam, it became evident to the American delegation that this new weapon -- as an actuality, not a scientific forecast -- had suddenly metamorphosed the strategic situation. From the Cairo Conference in November and December 1943, President Roosevelt and General Marshall, and later President Truman, had been eager to have the Soviets help the United States defeat Japan. As Truman and Marshall left for Potsdam, it was still one of their major purposes to gain a renewed commitment from Stalin that the Soviets would shortly declare war against the Japanese empire. However, after the full report of the effects of the atomic blast at Alamogordo reached Potsdam on July 21, estimating that the energy generated was the equivalent of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT or more, American officials realized that they had the means to end the war very quickly without help from the U.S.S.R. and before the Soviets could effectively stake a claim for the joint occupation of Japan, as they had done in Germany, and otherwise gain political and military advantages in East Asia that might go beyond the Yalta agreement. Harry Hopkins had reported on May 28 that Stalin expected to participate in the joint occupation and administration of Japan. A less appetizing prospect could hardly be imagined by Truman. In retrospect, it seems completely understandable that, if the bomb were to be employed at all, its most advantageous use would be as early as possible. Truman's concern is well illustrated by a brief instruction from him to General Marshall within hours after the United States had accepted Japan's conditional surrender on August 11. Truman ordered the War Department to move immediately to occupy a major Korean port and a major port on the Chinese coast, provided they could get there ahead of the Soviets.

The combination of the unquestioned legitimacy of the bomb as a military weapon and the double rationale for using it quickly -- its shock value to end the war abruptly and save whatever the number of lives, and its effectiveness in forestalling the Soviets from what might be large military gains and corresponding political demands in East Asia -- were almost surely strong influences on Truman when he made his decision in Potsdam. To fault him, in hindsight, for that decision would be to ignore the circumstances and atmosphere that surrounded the decision. The more appropriate question is:

Why were the circumstances and atmosphere not conducive to terminating the war without the onus being placed on the United States for the legitimization of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the world?
For nearly four decades, the belief that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs averted hundreds of thousands of American deaths -- far more than those bombs inflicted on the Japanese -- has been a part of accepted history. It was this judgment, more than any other factor, that seemed to give legitimacy to the American use of nuclear weapons. Discovering that this premise was false should help to stimulate a hard rethinking of other premises of U.S. nuclear weapons policies.

(c) 1985 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

>We did what we had to do to end the war and to save our
>soldiers' lives.

This claim is nothing more
than a tautology that was
once regurgitated by every
mainstream U.S. historian
from Portland, Maine to
Portland, Oregon. Fact is,
with all the declassified
info now accessable to the
public on this atrocity, I
don't believe any serious
historian regards this as-
sertion to be an accurate
one.

If a lie is told often enough,
it slowly evolves into a truism.

co-sign, my high school history teacher told me that and she was a good woman

one very important detail
that has been left out of
the history books regarding
this bullshit claim about how
the atomic bombings supposedly
"saved American lives": "Such a
justification was neither needed
nor used by President Truman in
the weeks immediately following
the obliteration of Hiroshima,
followed within days by the sur-
render of Japan, since the public
overwhelmingly approved of the
action."

Source: Rufus E Miles Jr., former
senior fellow of the Woodrow Wilson
School, Princeton University, and
former thirty-year career official
of the U.S. government.

People had sense enough to know that you end that war any way possible. The fact that American soldiers would be saved by this measure was a given. Any dingbat could see that.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

as Army Chief of Staff General
George Marshall thought that even
after using A-bombs on Japan the
invasion would still be necessary,
anyway, as opposed to the belief
that using atomic bombs on Japan
would make the mainland invasion
unnecessary (David Lilienthal, The
Journals of David E. Lilienthal,
Volume Two, pg. 198).

Truman at one point used the
figure "a half million lives,"
and Churchill "a million lives,"
but these were figures pulled out
of the air to calm troubled con-
sciences; even official project-
ions for the number of casualties
in an invasion did not go beyond
46,000.

__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

Which is precisely why
Admiral William D. Leahy,
the highest ranking mili-
tary official in the U.S.
at the time as chief of
staff to the president,
"The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surr-
ender.... The use of this
barbarous weapon was of no
material assistance in our
war against Japan."

as Japan STILL wanted to fight after those first two bombs were dropped.

But even then, all that shows is how much Japan was willing to fight on no matter what, and that they were not attempting to accept surrender.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>they were not
>attempting to accept surrender.

Just another lie of Olympic-size
proportions. The Japanese govern-
ment had been pursuing Soviet me-
diation to end the war in response
to the Emperor's request of June 22,
1945, a fact often overlooked today.
(Butow, pg. 118-120, 130).

Having broken the code Japan used for
transmitting messages, the U.S. was
able to follow Japan's efforts to end
the war as it intercepted the messages
between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's
Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages
were sent as the result of the June 22,
1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting.

>>they were not
>>attempting to accept surrender.
>
>Just another lie of Olympic-size
>proportions. The Japanese govern-
>ment had been pursuing Soviet me-
>diation to end the war in response
>to the Emperor's request of June 22,
>1945, a fact often overlooked today.
>(Butow, pg. 118-120, 130).

Yeah; if you think "surrender" equates to splitting up Asia between them and the Soviets, as the "Magic Summaries" detailed.

And if the Soviets actually believed that Japan was trying to surrender, why did they invade Manchuria right after Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki was bombed?

>Having broken the code Japan used for
>transmitting messages, the U.S. was
>able to follow Japan's efforts to end
>the war as it intercepted the messages
>between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's
>Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages
>were sent as the result of the June 22,
>1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting.

But Japan sent a formal message refusing the surrender on July 25, and told it's citizens to ignore the Potsdam Declaration. So obviously that "surrender" didn't work.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>Yeah; if you think "surrender" equates to splitting up Asia
>between them and the Soviets, as the "Magic Summaries"
>detailed.
>
>And if the Soviets actually believed that Japan was trying
>to surrender, why did they invade Manchuria right after
>Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki was bombed?

The Soviet Union did not
fully convey to Truman the
Japanese interest in surre-
nder--because the Soviets
wanted to enter the war and
secure a place at the barga-
ining table. (Keep in mind
that technically the Soviet
Union remained an ally of Japan
throughout World War II, and no
state of war existed between them.
The Soviets actually declared war
on Japan August 8th, two days after
the first atomic bomb was exploded.)

Source: Gar Alperovitz, author of Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, that appeared in the New York Times Op-ed page (August 3, 1989

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski were not based on military gains and they were definitely NOT to "save lives". It was a purely political move. Japan had already been decimated by the firebombings and was attempting to negotiate terms of surrender when those bombs were dropped.

Truman was catching heat from congress who wanted to know why the hell was two billion dollars put into this Manhattan Project if nothing was coming out of it. Plus they wanted to know the level of destruction of these bombs. They didn't need to drop the bombs at all. They just wanted to test 'em out and get the heat off of Trumans ass. They even set it up so that they had an excuse to drop two bombs.

Yes, the imperialist/fascist Japanese government deserved to catch some bad blows, but it wasn't them who caught it. It was their oppressed civilians who would pay the price for their overlords actions. Bombing those cities would be like Iraqis coming to this country and dropping atomic bombs on Compton and Oakland....oh wait, they don't have any WMD's to test.

Another FACT, the U.S. fire bombed 3 more targets after
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had being destroyed and
it happened during the surrender negotiations.

Your blind patriotism is deeply pitiful.

RealTalkInfinite

Before and after Hiroshima. They didn't surrender until Hirohito thought the next one after Nagasaki would hit Tokyo.

And keep in mind; the Soviets invaded Manchuria the day before Nagasaki. They just got hit at Hiroshima, the Soviets invaded them, and hundreds of thousands have been killed, yet they didn't surrender?

But yet it's "our" fault that those bombs were dropped. Right.

This wasn't some political move. You don't have over 100,000 Americans lose their lives in the Pacific to Japanese hands and then expect Americans to be killed going into Japan. The only negotiation is unconditional surrender.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>Before and after Hiroshima.

Again, Japan was already beaten badly. The Japanese's main army was in China, with Chinese and Russian forces moving on them, their navy was destroyed and Axis allies defeatd. The U.S. knew the Japanese defeat was inevitable and so did the Japanese. They would surrender if their emperor was guarenteed safety. But like you said, it had to be "unconditional surrender"......whatever. Truman knew the Japanese would fight to the end to protect their Emperor. After test #1 on Hiroshima, Truman again asked for "unconditional surrender" within 3 days, knowing that there would be no way for the Japanese government, based hundreds of miles away in Tokyo, to even know the extent of damage caused by this new bomb in the course of 3 days.

They didn't surrender until
>Hirohito thought the next one after Nagasaki would hit
>Tokyo.

They surrendered when he found out the extent of the damage. And you know what, after the unconditional surrender, Hirohito and his family were granted the complete immunity that they were asking for prior to Hiroshima.

I'll say this, military reasons, desire for atomic diplomacy (妬mpressing�the Soviets), racism, the need for a number of scientists to validate their work, fear of Congressional investigation for a two billion dollar expenditure, and the immeasurable momentum of the Manhattan Project itself, propelled the administration to use the bomb. If you think that this was purely about some noble effort to "save lives" and "end the war", you have not looked into the history of this AT ALL, and have only chosen to believe your highschool textbook. Just a tiny look into the archives will show you that politics weighed heavily in the decision as did racism.

RealTalkInfinite

>Again, Japan was already beaten badly. The Japanese's main
>army was in China, with Chinese and Russian forces moving on
>them, their navy was destroyed and Axis allies defeatd. The
>U.S. knew the Japanese defeat was inevitable and so did the
>Japanese. They would surrender if their emperor was
>guarenteed safety. But like you said, it had to be
>"unconditional surrender"......whatever. Truman knew the
>Japanese would fight to the end to protect their Emperor.
>After test #1 on Hiroshima, Truman again asked for
>"unconditional surrender" within 3 days, knowing that there
>would be no way for the Japanese government, based hundreds
>of miles away in Tokyo, to even know the extent of damage
>caused by this new bomb in the course of 3 days.
>They surrendered when he found out the extent of the damage.
>And you know what, after the unconditional surrender,
>Hirohito and his family were granted the complete immunity
>that they were asking for prior to Hiroshima.

Good revisionist history. They knew the extent of damage in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the military wanted to keep on fighting even after that. It was the Emperor himself who finally intervened and accepted the peace terms.

>I'll say this, military reasons, desire for atomic diplomacy
>(妬mpressing?the Soviets), racism, the need for
>a number of scientists to validate their work, fear of
>Congressional investigation for a two billion dollar
>expenditure, and the immeasurable momentum of the Manhattan
>Project itself, propelled the administration to use the
>bomb. If you think that this was purely about some noble
>effort to "save lives" and "end the war", you have not
>looked into the history of this AT ALL, and have only chosen
>to believe your highschool textbook. Just a tiny look into
>the archives will show you that politics weighed heavily in
>the decision as did racism.

*LOL* Racism? Those motherfuckers were responsible of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans....yet you want to stay Hiroshima was based on racism?

If it was simply about racism, there would have been more bombs dropped not only on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but on Tokyo, Kyoto and other places where there were plenty of more people and would have destroyed the country as well.

Even in the bloodiest war in history are yall trying to show compassion for the enemy. How absolutely pathetic.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

...information which you seem to reject, because the U.S. doesn't come out looking squeaky clean.

>Good revisionist history. They knew the extent of damage in
>both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the military wanted to keep
>on fighting even after that. It was the Emperor himself who
>finally intervened and accepted the peace terms.

Duh. There was a failed coup attempt by SOME military officials who would have rather all Japanese die than admit defeat. But the Emperors word was divine and final. The coup failed because the military officials who needed to be aligned with the coup for it to be successful, did not align.
The extent of damage to Hiroshima was not known until after Nagasaki had been destroyed.

>
>*LOL* Racism? Those motherfuckers were responsible of the
>deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans....yet you want
>to stay Hiroshima was based on racism?

The American lives lost were ALL military lives. None civilian.

I'll repeat;

"I'll say this, military reasons, desire for atomic diplomacy (Impressing the Soviets), racism, the need for a number of scientists to validate their work, fear of Congressional investigation for a two billion dollar expenditure, and the immeasurable momentum of the Manhattan Project itself, propelled the administration to use the bomb."


I retract that it was a heavy factor, but yes, racism factors in. The German people were not dehumanized by the U.S. propaganda machine. They clearly distinguished Hitler and his regime from the masses of German people. The Japanese on the other hand were delegated the status of "Slanty eyed yellow Jap savages" as a whole people. "Who gives a fuck about dem?!?!...ALL dem damn Japs are animals."(Your sentiments as well I see) History shows us what happens when caucasians see a group of people as sub-human. They make them guinea pigs for new levels of hatred and barbarism.

>
>If it was simply about racism, there would have been more
>bombs dropped not only on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but on
>Tokyo, Kyoto and other places where there were plenty of
>more people and would have destroyed the country as well.

Again, you fail to see how politics plays into this. The U.S. didn't know what the full effects of the bomb would be. They needed targets they had very little or no destruction from previuos bombings. The rest of Japan was fucked from being bombed(Tokyo included). Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been touched and they were large enough cities, so they were chosen for the tests. Kyoto was spared for its "historical value", but it was also on the list of possible targets.

>
>Even in the bloodiest war in history are yall trying to show
>compassion for the enemy. How absolutely pathetic.

Shinjimae baka shiro. The only thing pathetic is the way you think. You obviously have zero experience with any form battle where your life is on the line and have never seen someone die violently in front of your face, much like the administration whose balls you polish whenever possible. If you had, you would not wish that fate on someone who had done nothing to deserve it. Now don't you say they deserved it. If some Iraqis came to your house, liquified your families eyes, injected them with drugs so they wouldn't lose consciousness, slowly burned the flesh off their bodies, cut off their limbs, shot them all in the stomach, left them to die slowly and then went to every family in your little country town and did the same, you would say your family and the others didn't deserve that. Multiply that experience a hundred-fold and you got the effects of those bombs.
But I could be wrong. Maybe you have had experience with death and you actually enjoy it. Your pathetic sadism loves the fact that Native Americans are damn near extinct. It thinks slavery was actually good for Africans. The assassinations of the 60's Black leaders were justified.
But since nobody with any true experience with life & death would ever have 13,000+ posts on Okayplayer, I'll say you just a punk. Scared to do any real research beyond your foxnews nourished ideals, because you might actually learn a bit of truth. And that truth just might make you have to throw out everything you've been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing for all these years.
Now, i'm all for cats being passionate about they shit, but you really sound like you think Rupert Murdoch got scouts on OKP. Dog, they ain't here. Just admit that the bombings had very little to do with "saving lives" and ending an already ending war. Just admit there were other factors involved. It's not hard...it might even make you feel a little better.

RealTalkInfinite

>Duh. There was a failed coup attempt by SOME military
>officials who would have rather all Japanese die than admit
>defeat. But the Emperors word was divine and final. The coup
>failed because the military officials who needed to be
>aligned with the coup for it to be successful, did not
>align.
>The extent of damage to Hiroshima was not known until after
>Nagasaki had been destroyed.

But the fact still remains that the Emperor did not override the military's concerns until AFTER both bombs were detonated.

Did they know how many was killed? No. But they did know that the cities were in shambles? Yes. Did they know people were killed in large numbers? Yes.

>The American lives lost were ALL military lives. None
>civilian.

SO WHAT? Does that mean they are supposed to be expendible?

>I'll repeat;
>
>"I'll say this, military reasons, desire for atomic
>diplomacy (Impressing the Soviets), racism, the need for a
>number of scientists to validate their work, fear of
>Congressional investigation for a two billion dollar
>expenditure, and the immeasurable momentum of the Manhattan
>Project itself, propelled the administration to use the
>bomb."

It's still just as irrelevant as it was when you said it the first time.

>Again, you fail to see how politics plays into this. The
>U.S. didn't know what the full effects of the bomb would be.
>They needed targets they had very little or no destruction
>from previuos bombings. The rest of Japan was fucked from
>being bombed(Tokyo included). Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
>not been touched and they were large enough cities, so they
>were chosen for the tests. Kyoto was spared for its
>"historical value", but it was also on the list of possible
>targets.

They were worried about the bomb somehow becoming a dud, yes, but that doesn't mean that they didn't know the potential destruction the bomb was going to have. This wasn't a mere experiment, as if to say, "let's try it and see what happens".

>Shinjimae baka shiro. The only thing pathetic is the way you
>think. You obviously have zero experience with any form
>battle where your life is on the line and have never seen
>someone die violently in front of your face, much like the
>administration whose balls you polish whenever possible. If
>you had, you would not wish that fate on someone who had
>done nothing to deserve it.

You're right; I have no military experience, or any kind in which my life was on the line. But I think I'm honest in saying that if I were, the last life I would be concerned about is the life that's trying to end mine.

>Now don't you say they deserved
>it. If some Iraqis came to your house, liquified your
>families eyes, injected them with drugs so they wouldn't
>lose consciousness, slowly burned the flesh off their
>bodies, cut off their limbs, shot them all in the stomach,
>left them to die slowly and then went to every family in
>your little country town and did the same, you would say
>your family and the others didn't deserve that. Multiply
>that experience a hundred-fold and you got the effects of
>those bombs.

You're right. My family doesn't deserve that. Nor did other families in Japan.

But we aren't talking about who deserves what. We are talking about what was done in order to end the war and the steps taken in lieu to it by both parties. Cherry-picking who shouldn't have died is a waste of time, and it's ignoring the simple fact that more people - and particularly more Americans, which was, and should be, the main factor - would have died had we not dropped that bomb than if we had.

>But I could be wrong. Maybe you have had experience with
>death and you actually enjoy it. Your pathetic sadism loves
>the fact that Native Americans are damn near extinct. It
>thinks slavery was actually good for Africans. The
>assassinations of the 60's Black leaders were justified.
>But since nobody with any true experience with life & death
>would ever have 13,000+ posts on Okayplayer, I'll say you
>just a punk. Scared to do any real research beyond your
>foxnews nourished ideals, because you might actually learn a
>bit of truth. And that truth just might make you have to
>throw out everything you've been hoodwinked and bamboozled
>into believing for all these years.
>Now, i'm all for cats being passionate about they shit, but
>you really sound like you think Rupert Murdoch got scouts on
>OKP. Dog, they ain't here. Just admit that the bombings had
>very little to do with "saving lives" and ending an already
>ending war. Just admit there were other factors involved.
>It's not hard...it might even make you feel a little better.
What information could possibly that you or anyone else has that could possibly change my mind about this? You can bring in 3,000 pieces of material saying this or that, but the fact is that the basic argument is still the same: Japan refused to surrender, we hit Hiroshima, the Soviets invaded Manchuria, Japan STILL refused to surrender, we hit Nagasaki, and the emperor finally intervened and surrendered unconditionally.

Now, unless YOU can find something that challenges the BASIC facts of what led to the end of the war, then guess what? You're wasting your time. Because we were involved in the bloodiest war of all time, and our primary opponent FAILED to surrender...TWICE. And you can sit here and make these baseless assumptions and whine and complain because you can't counter that, but the PREMISE STILL STANDS, and there's nothing you can do about that.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

...Not only into military archives, but cultural ones as well.

>
>Did they know how many was killed? No. But they did know
>that the cities were in shambles? Yes. Did they know
>people were killed in large numbers? Yes.
>
>>The American lives lost were ALL military lives. None
>>civilian.
>
>SO WHAT? Does that mean they are supposed to be expendible?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities.

>
>You're right; I have no military experience, or any kind in
>which my life was on the line. But I think I'm honest in
>saying that if I were, the last life I would be concerned
>about is the life that's trying to end mine.

So the men, women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were trying to end the lives of Americans. Yeah...okay. And I know you don't think the U.S. was cornered when they dropped those bombs do you? Quite the opposite.

>
>You're right. My family doesn't deserve that. Nor did
>other families in Japan.

This is the point and why the original poster asked the question. Did the people of Hiro. and Naga. deserve that. Was that truly neccessary? No, they didn't and no, it wasn't.

>
>But we aren't talking about who deserves what. We are
>talking about what was done in order to end the war and the
>steps taken in lieu to it by both parties. Cherry-picking
>who shouldn't have died is a waste of time, and it's
>ignoring the simple fact that more people - and particularly
>more Americans, which was, and should be, the main factor -
>would have died had we not dropped that bomb than if we had.

Anata ga totemo chigau dayo. This is also the point. The war could have ended without further loss of American and Japanese lives without the use of the a-bombs. The main factor of any war by a nation claiming to represent "freedom and democracy", should be to win the war with the minimal amount of civilian casualities -or any at all for that matter- as possible.

>What information could possibly that you or anyone else has
>that could possibly change my mind about this? You can
>bring in 3,000 pieces of material saying this or that, but
>the fact is that the basic argument is still the same:
>Japan refused to surrender, we hit Hiroshima, the Soviets
>invaded Manchuria, Japan STILL refused to surrender, we hit
>Nagasaki, and the emperor finally intervened and surrendered
>unconditionally.

This just about sums it up...O'Reilly and 'em would be proud.

>
>Now, unless YOU can find something that challenges the BASIC
>facts of what led to the end of the war, then guess what?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1946)

"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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, 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."

All Truman had to do, was say, "Your Emperor would be fine." and the war would've been over, without Russia gettin' in the mix and without the bombs. He didn't because of the reasons i've already stated and a few didn't. And what SHOULD tell anyone -with an ounce of common sense- that it was never about getting "unconditional surrender", is the FACT that after the bombs, they granted the request for the Emperors retention anyway.

N/M

More things for you to disregard, cuz they conflict with your highschool belief system.

http://www.doug-long.com/grew.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/mccloy.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/bard.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/hstimson.htm

*July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

RealTalkInfinite

"I retract that it was a heavy factor, but yes, racism factors in. The German people were not dehumanized by the U.S. propaganda machine. They clearly distinguished Hitler and his regime from the masses of German people. The Japanese on the other hand were delegated the status of "Slanty eyed yellow Jap savages" as a whole people. "Who gives a fuck about dem?!?!...ALL dem damn Japs are animals."(Your sentiments as well I see) History shows us what happens when caucasians see a group of people as sub-human. They make them guinea pigs for new levels of hatred and barbarism."

you believe that the nationalism of the japanese did not lead them to believe that they were superior to the chinese or koreans? that the rape of nanking was purely military strategy and not an attempt to completely dehumanize the enemy?

Why didn't you comment on my main point, which was right above what you chose? I said racism is a factor, along with other factors, politcal AND military.

>
>you believe that the nationalism of the japanese did not
>lead them to believe that they were superior to the chinese
>or koreans? that the rape of nanking was purely military
>strategy and not an attempt to completely dehumanize the
>enemy?

And this has what to do with the U.S. decision to obiliterate 2 Japanese civilian cities?

RealTalkInfinite

>The only negotiation is unconditional
>surrender.

Nonsence.

Unconditional surrender meant
the Emperor had to abdicate
his position; he refused.
Hardly a reason for two atomic
bombs.

Besides, when all was said and
done, the U.S. allowed him to
retain his thrown.

and thus accepting a figurehead role.

It's amazing what levels you guys will go to try to condemn the U.S.

You guys claim to be anti-war, yet will excuse a means to end it simply because of a fake diety wants to save face. Get out of here with that bullshit.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>and thus accepting a figurehead role.

I just stated that in my pre-
ceeding post. Thus, there wasn't
any justification for the use of
the atom bomb in the first place.

>You guys claim to be anti-war, yet will excuse a means to
>end it simply because of a fake diety wants to save face.

Because the means that was used
to end the war was superflous &
unecessary.

>>and thus accepting a figurehead role.
>
>I just stated that in my pre-
>ceeding post. Thus, there wasn't
>any justification for the use of
>the atom bomb in the first place.

No, Japan wanted him to have soverign power. After the war, he was only a figurehead.

>>You guys claim to be anti-war, yet will excuse a means to
>>end it simply because of a fake diety wants to save face.
>
>Because the means that was used
>to end the war was superflous &
>unecessary.

So lemme get this straight...the way we ended the war was superfluous and unnecessary but keeping the war going in order for a fake god to save face isn't?

Right.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>No, Japan wanted him to have soverign power. After the war,
>he was only a figurehead.

It matters not simply
because the U.S. allowed
a war criminal to retain
his thrown.

>So lemme get this straight...the way we ended the war was
>superfluous and unnecessary but keeping the war going in
>order for a fake god to save face isn't?

There wasn't a need to
continue fighting a
defeated enemy. Refer
to Truman's top advisors
in my preceeding posts.

Do you read anything besides newsmax.com or the Drudge Report? I remember dhalgren replying to a post asking what area people on this board seem to have a limp grasp of, he said history. This is the perfect example. Historians, as HoChiGrimm stated, have access to documents that are now declassified stating that we did not NEED to drop the bomb to save American lives, it was done to show the Soviet Union what little secret we had been working on for some time.

We didn't NEED to do anything.

But we did. And it kept more American soldiers from dying. So as far as I'm concerned, that's the only thing that matters.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

don't pretend to be God's own country if you're just a bunch of lazy mofos.

We didn't need to equals it was completely unneccessary for the aforementioned reason you gave--saving American lives. That is simply a bit of propaganda to make us feel better. Yet you want to buy into it because us stupid leftists actually read material other than the internet, you know history books (and not high school history books, mind you), and know the truth of the matter.

Don't attempt to switch up the operation of the argument you initially made. The post asked should we apologize, and you said no, because it was done to save American lies. People came up with evidence to completely discredit that line of reasoning, so you change the subject to, "Yeah well, it happened and that's all I'm concerned about." For a second there I actually was impressed with the manipulation of my words to get to this new point.

The fact remains that Japan had refused surrender, which meant either the bomb or a full-scale invasion of Japan and continued battles in other places (Even after the war was over, there were still several holdouts. Sound familiar?) which would have meant American lives would have been needlessly lost had not the bomb been dropped.

Therefore, I did not "switch up the operation of the argument" or whatever you're talking about. The argument still stands, and is no doubt true. The saving of American lives was all I'm worried about. Fuck the Japanese, at least in regards to that war. It was not Truman's or any other American's responsibility to minimize Japanese lives at the expense of American ones.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>The fact remains that Japan had refused surrender, which
>meant either the bomb or a full-scale invasion of Japan and
>continued battles in other places

There is one small, yet extremely sig-
nificant detail you've ommitted: the
REASON for Japan's refusal to surrender.
The Japanese believed their emporer to
be a god -- LITERALLY. As a result of
this belief, they were unwilling to
accept a U.S. imposed "unconditional"
surrender.

Those who claim that Japan did not want
to seek an end to the war are liars and
deceivers of the worst kind. The Japanese
government had been pursuing Soviet media-
tion to end the war in response to the Em-
peror's request of June 22, 1945, a fact
often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120,
130). The terms proposed by Japan were the
retention of the emperor to his thrown.

On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson
and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson
to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's
memo to the President advised, "I personally
think that if in saying this we should add
that we do not exclude aconstitutional mon-
archy under her present dynasty, it would
substantially add to the chances of accept-
ance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand
stated that the reformed Japanese government
"may include a constitutional monarchy under
the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State,
Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894).

>There is one small, yet extremely sig-
>nificant detail you've ommitted: the
>REASON for Japan's refusal to surrender.
>The Japanese believed their emporer to
>be a god -- LITERALLY. As a result of
>this belief, they were unwilling to
>accept a U.S. imposed "unconditional"
>surrender.

WHO CARES? That doesn't make any difference. They want to keep killing people simply because a fake god wants to save face?

>Those who claim that Japan did not want
>to seek an end to the war are liars and
>deceivers of the worst kind. The Japanese
>government had been pursuing Soviet media-
>tion to end the war in response to the Em-
>peror's request of June 22, 1945, a fact
>often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120,
>130). The terms proposed by Japan were the
>retention of the emperor to his thrown.

Is that why the Soviets invaded Manchuria the day before Nagasaki..because they thought the Japanese were trying to surrender?

>On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson
>and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson
>to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's
>memo to the President advised, "I personally
>think that if in saying this we should add
>that we do not exclude aconstitutional mon-
>archy under her present dynasty, it would
>substantially add to the chances of accept-
>ance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand
>stated that the reformed Japanese government
>"may include a constitutional monarchy under
>the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State,
>Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894).

This isn't a free agent negotiation in the NFL. You don't get to negotiate your own terms of surrender and how you're going to lose. The option they were given was real simple: surrender or be obliterated. And they chose obliteration. Period.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>WHO CARES? That doesn't make any difference. They want to
>keep killing people simply because a fake god wants to save
>face?

It may not make a difference
to you but it did to high-
ranking officials at the time.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with
Truman and his military advisors,
Assistant Secretary of War John
McCloy argued that Japan should be
permitted to retain the Emperor and
should be given a warning of the at-
omic bomb in order to bring an earlier
and less deadly surrender (Walter Millis,
ed., The Forrestal Diaries, pg. 70-71;
Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Dec-
ision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 134-136).

Besides, after all was said and done, the
U.S. allowed the fake god to remain in
power. Thus, your arguement that the bomb
was necessary falls short of it's mark.

>It may not make a difference
>to you but it did to high-
>ranking officials at the time.
>In a June 18, 1945 meeting with
>Truman and his military advisors,
>Assistant Secretary of War John
>McCloy argued that Japan should be
>permitted to retain the Emperor and
>should be given a warning of the at-
>omic bomb in order to bring an earlier
>and less deadly surrender (Walter Millis,
>ed., The Forrestal Diaries, pg. 70-71;
>Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Dec-
>ision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 134-136).

And if they had, they would have let them know what was in the cards. If that bomb had been a dud or been dropped in the wrong spot (as it was in Nagasaki) it could have been seen as a bluff.

>Besides, after all was said and done, the
>U.S. allowed the fake god to remain in
>power. Thus, your arguement that the bomb
>was necessary falls short of it's mark.

Only as a figurehead, not as a soverign leader. He had to answer to the Allied Supreme Commander.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .

>And if they had, they would have let them know what was in
>the cards. If that bomb had been a dud or been dropped in
>the wrong spot (as it was in Nagasaki) it could have been
>seen as a bluff.

Hahahahahaha!!! Man, you
are a real card. "A dud..."
LOL!

It sounds like our leaders did not see that japan wanted to surrender the war, but NOT want to surrender their culture.

japan stated they wanted to end the war as soon as possible. we ignored that when we heard their refusal to abdicate their personal god and cultural leader.

sounds like a lot of live's could have been saved on both sides if we looked at the enemy's culture.

i wonder if we're making a similar mistake with islam. if we understood islam better, we probably could reduce the unified hate from muslims.
we could isolate the extremists from the rest of the muslim world. right now, it feels like we are slowly unifying the muslim world in opposition to america.

it's weird that we have so much armaments, but we have so very few translators.

pax

----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

concerning japanese surrender, you may have a miniscule point if it weren't for he fact that the bombs were dropped before the US had even received a response from the Japanese regarding surrender. Furthermore, as if Hiroshima was not bad enough, Truman waited less than 3 days to obliterate Nagasaki as well. This was nowhere near enough time for the Japanese to investigate and assess the damage done in Hiroshima and thus make a sound decision in light of new developments. No, US policy regarding the bomb had nothing to do with a Japanese surrender.

>No, US policy regarding the bomb had nothing
>to do with a Japanese surrender.

A well-understood and documented
point that Expertise refuses to
accept.

.

I thought the Puritans were enlightened. Unfortunately, you're just as brutal as every Nazi regime.

Congrats.

you see, expertise, america never should do anything in its own interest. remember, liberals are all about self sacrifice. instead, america should have started a massive land battle like in vietnam which would have killed IN TOTAL more people (not just japanese and americans) than an atom bomb. rather than obtain a decisive victory in the pacific, we americans should have fought long and hard, lowering ourselves to the military level of the japanese instead of using the bomb which was a GIANT military advantage.

what cracks me up about these liberals is they argue idealism. they say we should have not dropped the bombs in japan. what is the alternative then to winning the war in the pacific. they have no real solution. its all double talk. these same people argue against a ground war in vietnam because our soldiers were dieing by the thousands.

I refuse to discuss this
subject matter with you
simply because of your
fixation with partisanship.

Try to provide a little
more scholarship and a
little less labeling of
everyone and liberals,
communists, and post
modernists.

>I refuse to discuss this
>subject matter with you
>simply because of your
>fixation with partisanship.

that is life in the US, if you dont like it move to communist china and have your first born slaughtered. atleast there isnt any partisanship.
>
>Try to provide a little
>more scholarship and a
>little less labeling of
>everyone and liberals,
>communists, and post
>modernists.

googling every fucking discussion you come across isnt providing scholarship. the US was either right or wrong for dropping the bomb. i say right beause it was the quickest way to end the war and to show the world the US was the real deal.

I wasn't.

"And show that U.S. was the real deal"? Agreed.

Did 300,000 Japanese civilians need to die? No.

Could the U.S. have won without any more loss of life on both sides? Yes.


RealTalkInfinite

>that is life in the US,

That is your abject perception of life
in the U.S. because you've been conditioned to
believe it to be so.

Get out in the real world, youngblood,
life sn't so cut and dry as partisanship.

And again, your knowledge about this subject
matter is too limited for me to discuss it
with you.

Try again next year.

>>that is life in the US,
>
>That is your abject perception of life
>in the U.S. because you've been conditioned to
>believe it to be so.
>
>Get out in the real world, youngblood,
>life sn't so cut and dry as partisanship.

actually it is. look at our system of govt. has oyur own idealism blinded you that badly?
>
>And again, your knowledge about this subject
>matter is too limited for me to discuss it
>with you.
>
>Try again next year.

hah! your just mad because i disagree with you! you've exhausted all your ideas in your debate with expertise (which he destroyed every agruement you made) and now you are too tired to start a convo with me. tell me why i am wrong about the US dropping the bomb. you cant even start with a simple explanation because you assume i dont know what im talking about. listen, im not gonna waste an hour on this msg board giving a history lesson if no one is going to even read what i write.

You've learned to justify and be internally proud of the mass murder of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent CIVILIANS!!! You are fucked because from the Allies point of view, the whole reason for the war was to put an end to the ongoing slaughter of human life. I don't believe this to be the reason for the war, but the American and Ally justification is on humanitarian grounds. So for 300,000 CIVILIANS to die at the hands of a so-called humanitarian force is one of the greatest shames of any empire in all of history!

>You've learned to justify and be internally proud of the
>mass murder of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent CIVILIANS!!!
>You are fucked because from the Allies point of view, the
>whole reason for the war was to put an end to the ongoing
>slaughter of human life. I don't believe this to be the
>reason for the war, but the American and Ally justification
>is on humanitarian grounds. So for 300,000 CIVILIANS to die
>at the hands of a so-called humanitarian force is one of the
>greatest shames of any empire in all of history!

it was shame but what was the alternative? some believe it was pointless to drop the bomb because Japan was on the verge of surrendering, however they refused to surrender when we asked them to twice.

why do you say "we"?

>>You've learned to justify and be internally proud of the
>>mass murder of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent CIVILIANS!!!
>>You are fucked because from the Allies point of view, the
>>whole reason for the war was to put an end to the ongoing
>>slaughter of human life. I don't believe this to be the
>>reason for the war, but the American and Ally justification
>>is on humanitarian grounds. So for 300,000 CIVILIANS to die
>>at the hands of a so-called humanitarian force is one of the
>>greatest shames of any empire in all of history!
>
>it was shame but what was the alternative? some believe it
>was pointless to drop the bomb because Japan was on the
>verge of surrendering, however they refused to surrender
>when we asked them to twice.

That's absurd, stop justifying the homocide of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND CIVILIANS!! CIVILIANS, I tell you -THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND of them!! As far as the old we asked them to surrender twice goes, anyone who knows the history knows that even that is a load of absolute shit! The US demanded surrender and then dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima without out allowing the Japanese any time to respond. Then, within less than 3 days, before the Japanese officials could go assess the situation in Hiroshima and decide whether or not surrender was a viable option, the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. On August 6th Hiroshima's civilian population was slaughtered like disposable meat, by August 9th Nagasaki fell victim to the same fate. Worst of all, even conservative historians said that there was no longer any threat left from the Japanese, even before the first bomb was dropped. Its funny how you will blindly hail the slaughter of others when it is in defense of your own feeble patriotism.

What you forget is that the US justification for entering the war, whether true or not, was definitely on humanitarian grounds. Thus, on humanitarian grounds the last thing you want is the blood of 300,000 civilians on your hands and countless other miserable lives born into the radioactive waste the American left behind. Not even the Nazis were claiming that the slaughter of millions of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc was on humanitarian grounds. Shame on you, you apologist for crimes against humanity!

better safe than sorry...gotta look out for US citizens first and foremost.

any of this with you:
sophomoric observations
based upon opinion rather
than scholarship and
academic research.

Further, your rebuttals are
lazily thought-out.

F-

>any of this with you:
>sophomoric observations
>based upon opinion rather
>than scholarship and
>academic research.
>
>Further, your rebuttals are
>lazily thought-out.
>
>F-

HA! you crack me up. there is nothing to apologize for. they attacked us, they wouldnt surrender, we bombed them twice and then they surrendered. despite what could have happened or what should hav happened, the nuke dropping did happen. stop acting so self rightous. if you were president at the time you would have run away like a little girl.

>>any of this with you:
>>sophomoric observations
>>based upon opinion rather
>>than scholarship and
>>academic research.
>>
>>Further, your rebuttals are
>>lazily thought-out.
>>
>>F-
>
>HA! you crack me up. there is nothing to apologize for. they
>attacked us, they wouldnt surrender, we bombed them twice
>and then they surrendered. despite what could have happened
>or what should hav happened, the nuke dropping did happen.
>stop acting so self rightous. if you were president at the
>time you would have run away like a little girl.

your two main arguements: the soviets didnt want the japs to surrender as stated:

"The Soviet Union did not
fully convey to Truman the
Japanese interest in surre-
nder--because the Soviets
wanted to enter the war and
secure a place at the barga-
ining table. "

Also, you argue that the japs wanted to surrender but wouldnt because they believed their emperor to be god.

If anything, the soviets should apologize to the japs for not being straight with truman about a possible surrender. maybe if they had been straight truman would have rethought his plan. also, in your second arguement you blame the japanese for not surrendering yet you still believe the united states should apologize for dropping the bomb. this makes no sense.

genocidal pig, maybe the jews should have surrendered too. I mean, those gas chambers sure were hot...

uh, that didnt make any sense.

Shut up, foxnesn.

cant take the heat? then stay outta the kitchen!

Dis clown...

>actually it is. look at our system of govt. has oyur own
>idealism blinded you that badly?

Has your dependency upon
petty partisan politics
blinded you? For once,
youngblood, think outside
the box.

>exhausted all your ideas in your debate with expertise
>(which he destroyed every agruement you made) and now you
>are too tired to start a convo with me.

Dude, listen real closely, I'm
hardly mad at you, stop flattering
yourself. Ok? You suck.... LOL!

And I'll state it again, you haven't
brought anything new to the table --
nothing. That's the reason why I'm not
going to discuss this issue with you.

Maybe you think I've "exhausted" all
my ideas and sources. Maybe you think
you've got some tenuous, libertarian,
rhetorical trick up your sleeve that's
supposed to convince everyone on this
board that you've actually researched
this issue. I DON'T CARE.

I've already shared a plethora of valid
sources with members of this board that
are much more qualified on this issue
than you are. They include,

- Author Gar Alperovitz

- Historians Barton Bernstein
Gar Alperovitz.

- Rufus E Miles Jr, former thirty-
year career official of the U.S.
government.

- Under Secretary of State Joseph
Grew Admiral William Leahy, the
Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt
and then to President Truman,
Army Chief of Staff General

- George Marshall. Sec. of War Henry Stimson

- And finally, Dwight Eisenhower who
said of the atomic bombings of Japan,
"it wasn't necessary to hit them with
that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek,
11/11/63, pg. 108).

Now tell me, pee wee, after all this, I'm
supposed to waste my time with you???

FUCK OUTTA HERE. *smiles*

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) *set up by Truman*

"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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, 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."

N/M

This post can drop now.

RealTalkInfinite

>The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) *set up by
>Truman*
>
>"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 certainly prior to
>31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November
>1945, 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."
>
>N/M
>
>This post can drop now.
>
>RealTalkInfinite

'probably would have surrendered' doesnt cut it. the fact is, they did not surrender. and notice this survey is dated 1946, AFTER the actual bombing. hindsight is 20/20

the japs didnt surrender. how hard is this to understand? you cant even think logically you are so hopped up on google searches. your problem is you think you are an expert on this topic because you googled it and your mad because i can question your weak arguements without doing ANY research at all. ROFL!!!

see posts 100 and 101 to see your weak arguements destroyed with no effort.

>this topic because you googled it and your mad because i can
>question your weak arguements without doing ANY research at
>all. ROFL!!!

Yeah, I'm mad.

Ah, har, har! Yeah, that's the ticket.

For good old foxy it has nothing to do with getting to the root of the problem or understanding the empirical evidence before him. For him it is a classic case of ideological blindness. He couldn't care less what evidence there is to prove anything. If he was a young Nationalist Socialist, he would, with the same degree of shamelessness, be denying the holocaust. Marx himself once stated that ideas are like chains far stronger than iron and steel. People who can't get past their beloved ideas, no matter how rediculous those ideas are, will never have the ability to see outside their confined conceptual box. Foxy's only mission is to exhibit that he is a patriot and that he supports the people that dwell on his fictitious landmass more than the people who dwell on another fictitious landmass many miles away.

He gives me the
impression that
he's the type of
person that stares
at an orange juice
can just because it
says concentrate.

haha! call me a moron then tell me to shut up and then say you're not mad! hAHA! honestly!

LOL!

you're the one who has to get the last word in, calling names and what not! hah!

.

anymore.....so what they do.....channel most their funds into technolgy and business markets so they have that locked down....oh the irony...gotta love it


"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb

***The OKMuhajideen***

government....I say them....


"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb

***The OKMuhajideen***

if you don't believe in the american ideals then it makes sense that you wouldn't claim the u.s. government as your own.


but when someone blows up your house b/c they are calling you american, you can't really use that defense. similarly with hiroshima. we ignorantly called all of hiroshima "the enemy", and eradicated all those innocents. but with hiroshima, those people had even less power than we do to change their government


assume you still have faith in american ideals: if we, the citizens don't agree with something the government does, it's in our power to change it. if we are not fighting for change, then we are agreeing, implicitly.

"if you ain't part of the solution, you part of the problem".

the people of hiroshima couldn't really change things for themselves. which makes what we did all the more awful.

but for me, an american, i still feel that the government represents me. at least to some extent. people hate american's and i'm in that mix. so i guess that's why i say "we"


...i dunno, tho.



pax

----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

you're on point...

"The camel never sees its own hump but that of its brothers is
always before its eyes"- N.African proverb

***The OKMuhajideen***

sentencing thousands of INNOCENT people to lifetimes of pain, cancer, stillborn babies, soft bones + other cruel after-effects...

i don't wanna know if it was wrong or right, cos in my book, armies should strive to minimise civilian casualties if they want me on their side.

i would like to know if anybody thinks that was an honourable thing to do.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director at Los Alamos. After learning of the carnage wrought upon Japan, he began to harbor second thoughts and he resigned in October 1945. In March of the following year, Oppenheimer told Truman:

"Mr. President, I have blood on my hands."

Truman¹s reply?

"It'll come out in the wash."

Later, the president told an aide, "Don't bring that fellow around again."

If you look closely, Truman and Cheney have that same demented glint in their eyes, and the same lop-sided grin, like some deranged hairless wildebeest. If we dissect them, I am sure we will find common genetic material. Cheney is, after all, the result of generations of experimentation to perfect the Living Bastard.

why didn't they bomb a military base or something

a civilian city? it's obviously unacceptable conduct

that was the only way

GOD HELP THE MIAMI DOLPHINS

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, Sandbox194, wonderl33t, xenophobia

surrender simply because
they were already suing
for peace.

1


----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

that we dropped another on nagasaki, that was apparently more powerful. the U.S. is the first only country to have used a nuclear weapon against another nation....in the history of the world. that's crazy. we won't be the last though, unfortunately.

the Bataan Death March? Hell, they barely even acknowledge the Rape of Nanking for the most part - and many, even some high-ranking Japanese officials, deny it even happened, let alone don't regret it. You're not concerned about that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

The Japanese have a sunny, happy history that dates back to the genocide of the Eta, which precluded the ARRIVAL of Proto-Japanese to Japan.

... they were probably forced to do it by Americans.

:)

this whole post was a frustrating read. i got a lot of respect for pinkopanther, hochigrimm and the rest who have built an airtight, well-documented, concise, logical argument. it amazes me that some folk still just don't get it though. i mean, there ARE conservatives who can admit when they're beaten, see other points of view, etc.. these conservative cats at OKP though, damn. they're just not seeing it. it's kind of sad.

y'all did a great job. i don't think much more needs to be said, but i did just want to point out fox's rather liberal use of the word "jap." my japanese uncles fought on the american side in the war, and that racist, dehumanizing shit is not cool, espcecially in fucking 2004.

oh and to the two previous posters talking about the rape of nanking and the oppression of the Eta-- of course those were terrible tragedies. but does that then justify nuking 300,000 japanese civilians? i don't see where those fit into this discussion.

just a few thoughts.

His presence in this post was most definitely appreciated.
And thanx for sharing your personal story.

I honestly didn't think I said anything new but I am glad that I was able to get the right impression across. Actually, I'd credit HoChi with holding the whole debate together. Thank you for the kind words...

And I, for one, am disgusted
when people use the term "jap".

It just shows you how much
descency a person lacks.

you lack decency for calling me a moron, yuck yuck and herb.

"Moron", "herb", & "homo"
are not as they accurately
describe what you are.

Now run along, Sweetchuck.

LOL! :)

There is a hierarchy of oppression in our species: everyone has fucked everyone else at one point or time – and if they haven't yet, they will.

The Japanese committed atrocities that would make Rasputin piss his pants. We bombed the horsheit out of them – civilian centers that could have been otherwise taken using conventional warfae. But the posters here are absolutely correct:

1) Plain old vengeance for Pearl Harbor

2) Racism – because we could have just as easily shown our flaming atomic cock to Berlin, but then, we didn't know how it would effect the rest of Europe, and frankly; those little yellow monkeys had it coming, didn't they? Standing upright and all...

3) We wanted to scare the Russians.

So no, it's not justification, but let's not turn the fucking Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere into a bunch of torched puppies, shall we? Our ancestors bombed the shit out of them, but kindly stuck around to rebuild... and of course, re-mold the country into the happiest remix of Kansas City anyone could ask for. But the Japanese never re-built Nanking. Or Hong Kong. Or Shanghai. And they are kind of gun-shy about discussing it in polite company. And they get really REALLY nervous when China blithely mentions that they could crush their tiny island nation into a small, recyclable object if necessary. Karma's funny that way.

>this whole post was a frustrating read. i got a lot of
>respect for pinkopanther, hochigrimm and the rest who have
>built an airtight, well-documented, concise, logical
>argument. it amazes me that some folk still just don't get
>it though. i mean, there ARE conservatives who can admit
>when they're beaten, see other points of view, etc.. these
>conservative cats at OKP though, damn. they're just not
>seeing it. it's kind of sad.

the soviets are partially to blame for hiroshima. if they told the US that japan had plans to surrender it could have changed truman's mind.

the japanese people are also to blame. they initiated the pacific battle by bombing pearl harbor. they also refused to surrender because the emperor (who is considered god to them) wouldnt have it. when you are asked to surrender twice and you dont, expect the worse. according to general marshall a land battle could have cost between 250,000 and 1,000,000 US lives. the information distributed AFTER the fact is irrelevant. going on the information given, the united states did the right thing. now, if there was some conspiracy to rid the world of japan then i agree there should be an apology.

This was a war. The absolutely bloodiest War to date in human history. And to be honest, the Japanese would have had no qualms at all about bombing California into the Pacific Ocean. It was a show of strength, in this case chosen because the enemy was not white, living in a relatively isolated environment, and had fought savagely. It wasn't logistically necessary. No one can argue that Japan could hold out much longer. The Emperor was holding out for the 'Ultimate Battle' - the same logic which lost the Battle of Midway, I might add. By denying them that, and using a mindless automaton to raze their cities, the US didn't just DEFEAT Japan - they CRUSHED them. Showed them their 'warrior spirit' amounted to a handful of uranium. COMPLETELY altered their history and culture.

Do I think it was the MORAL decision? Not at all. I don't even know if it was the pragmatic decision in the short term. It set off a meaaaaan Cold War for the next few decades, and cost our nation untold bilions in weapon development. And to be real, even in the context of war, it could be construed as overkill.

What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands. But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an irritating inconsistency... I mean, Imperial Japan believed in applied eugenics, institutional rape, and divine monarchy. If that were a European country, there'd be no question why there's been no apology - they deserved having the Sun dropped on them.

No one apologized for 9/11. No one apologized for Nanking. No one apologized for the African Holocaust. Why should anyone apologize for Hiroshima?

what does an apology get you anyway? that and a quarter i can buy a cup of coffee.

a·pol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-j)
n. pl. a·pol·o·gies

*An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

You can get coffee for a QUARTER?!

.... dude. That's a hookup no matter HOW you slice it.

!

people apply their expected standards so inconsistently it's a joke.

>What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are
>all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of
>policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our
>government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for
>so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands.
>But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened
>as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and
>you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an
>irritating inconsistency... I mean, Imperial Japan believed
>in applied eugenics, institutional rape, and divine
>monarchy. If that were a European country, there'd be no
>question why there's been no apology - they deserved having
>the Sun dropped on them.
>
>No one apologized for 9/11. No one apologized for Nanking.
>No one apologized for the African Holocaust. Why should
>anyone apologize for Hiroshima?

>This was a war. The absolutely bloodiest War to date in
>human history. And to be honest, the Japanese would have had
>no qualms at all about bombing California into the Pacific
>Ocean.

Yup, they were actually drawing up plans to bomb San Fran with the plague or some other nasty bioweapon shit they were toying with - they just didn't have the capability to reach that far by the time the war ended.

> The Emperor was holding out for the
>'Ultimate Battle' - the same logic which lost the Battle of
>Midway, I might add. By denying them that, and using a
>mindless automaton to raze their cities, the US didn't just
>DEFEAT Japan - they CRUSHED them. Showed them their 'warrior
>spirit' amounted to a handful of uranium. COMPLETELY altered
>their history and culture.

Stephenson, dude. Damn, what is that exact quote again? I paraphrased it again... damn, gotta go thumb through 400+ pages of Snow Crash to find the exact words for that joint.

>What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are
>all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of
>policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our
>government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for
>so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands.
>But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened
>as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and
>you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an
>irritating inconsistency... I mean, Imperial Japan believed
>in applied eugenics, institutional rape, and divine
>monarchy. If that were a European country, there'd be no
>question why there's been no apology - they deserved having
>the Sun dropped on them.

Excellent point. I hadn't even thought of that angle, but yeah that is a great point. Folks should at least be consistent with that shit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

>>This was a war. The absolutely bloodiest War to date in
>>human history. And to be honest, the Japanese would have had
>>no qualms at all about bombing California into the Pacific
>>Ocean.
>
>Yup, they were actually drawing up plans to bomb San Fran
>with the plague or some other nasty bioweapon shit they were
>toying with - they just didn't have the capability to reach
>that far by the time the war ended.

Operation Iraqi Freedom.....n/m, first thing that popped into my head when I read this was pre-emptive Bush. *shrugs*

>> The Emperor was holding out for the
>>'Ultimate Battle' - the same logic which lost the Battle of
>>Midway, I might add. By denying them that, and using a
>>mindless automaton to raze their cities, the US didn't just
>>DEFEAT Japan - they CRUSHED them. Showed them their 'warrior
>>spirit' amounted to a handful of uranium. COMPLETELY altered
>>their history and culture.
>
>Stephenson, dude. Damn, what is that exact quote again? I
>paraphrased it again... damn, gotta go thumb through 400+
>pages of Snow Crash to find the exact words for that joint.
>
>>What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are
>>all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of
>>policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our
>>government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for
>>so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands.
>>But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened
>>as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and
>>you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an
>>irritating inconsistency... I mean, Imperial Japan believed
>>in applied eugenics, institutional rape, and divine
>>monarchy. If that were a European country, there'd be no
>>question why there's been no apology - they deserved having
>>the Sun dropped on them.
>
>Excellent point. I hadn't even thought of that angle, but
>yeah that is a great point. Folks should at least be
>consistent with that shit.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly
>devastating"
>
>- Mike Tyson

>Operation Iraqi Freedom.....n/m, first thing that popped
>into my head when I read this was pre-emptive Bush.
>*shrugs*

which would preclude it from being pre-emptive. And Japan actually had active biological weapons programs in operation, which they field tested on the Chinese (another nasty little fact nobody seems to notice or care about cuz it didn't leave a mushroom cloud). There's really no comparison to be made to Bush & Iraq here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

I was only drawing a comparison between the idea of attacking (not a shot from a six shooter mind you, but an atomic bomb) in order to thwart a possible attack from one's enemy--Japan: implied it was necessary because Japan would have done such and such, Bush: Saddam would have attacked us if he had such and such. I realized it wasn't an air-tight thesis when I made the comment.

but I understand the point you're making.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

...for me, the point is, did those lives NEED to be blown to the astral? No, they did not. It's not about what Japan had did or would have done. Japan never posed as some "beacon of light".
The war could've been over, Japan defeated without anymore loss of life on both sides, if the U.S. was truly the 'humanitarian' that it claimed/claims to be. These other cats want to ignore the overwhelming evidence that there was politics involved in the decision. They want to hold on to this American care bearism that says that the bombings were some noble effort to "save lives" and end and already ending war. Bullshit.

As i said in above posts; military reasons, desire for atomic diplomacy (Impressing the Soviets), racism, the need for scientists to validate their work, and fear of Congressional heat for a two billion dollar project, is why the administration chose to use the bombs.

Peace

RealTalkInfinite

stuff? They validated their work at the Trinity test site in New Mexico, they didn't need Hiroshima & Nagasaki to validate their work. Check post # 40 - they were far from the Dr. Strangelove mad scientist mold.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

...just wanted their hard work to be put to use. Who has ever gotten props for successful tests? It's the creation and successful application of the bomb that "ended the war" and "saved lives" that gets/got them the validation.

n/m

RealTalkInfinite

>...just wanted their hard work to be put to use.

No they didn't. Like I said, check post #40 - Oppenhiemer was the director of the Manhattan project, he's the one who got most of the credit & publicity as "father of the atomic bomb", and he was horrified by its use on Japan. So was Hans Bethe and others, who later became advocates against development of the H-bomb & the arms race with the Soviet Union.

Most of the scientists on the Manhattan project were ideologically motivated to develop the bomb before the Nazis did, it had nothing to do with what you are talking about.

>Who has
>ever gotten props for successful tests?

Um, most Nobel Prize winners?

>It's the creation
>and successful application of the bomb that "ended the war"
>and "saved lives" that gets/got them the validation.

Is that why Oppenhiemer was stripped of his security clearance after the war? Some validation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

n/m

RealTalkInfinite

i obviously cant speak for people on this board. and i don't think i agree with 9/11.

but..

i think al-quaeda wants to kill american's b/c we are american's. to them we are slovenly ignorant hipocrites. all of us.

but i reeeeaaaallly don't think that our military leaders considered all those people in hiroshima/nagasaki as our enemy.



i think we were, and are smarter than that...i don't think that al-queada's broad generalizations of americans are true


pax out

----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

>But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened
>as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and
>you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an
>irritating inconsistency...

Well, then let me be the first to
state that I agree with you to a
very large extent, as I believe
your points are well thought-out.

I don't think there's a doubt in
anyone's mind that the Japanese
government's behavior was deplorable,
particularly it's brutal treatment
of Korean and Chinese people -- and
yes, it's cowardly descision to bomb
Pearl Harbor.

As far as I'm concerned, Hirohito should've
been severely punished for his crimes against
humanity. However, this was not to be the
case. When all was said and done, the U.S.
allowed this butcher to retain a "figurehead"
position within the Japanese government in
order to "maintain stability."

Moreover, those Japanese war criminals put on
trial in 1947 and 1948 were the first of 20,000
civilian and military former leaders who had
either killed prisoners or had participated in
the vague crime of instigating the war. While
many would endure prison sentences of varying
lengths, most of the 20,000 men were released
when the Americans ended their occupation in
1952.

And of those 20K prisoners, I bet a good number found administrative jobs under the new Japanese regime. Read up on how the US ensured 'freedom and democracy' in Japan by stifling the Japanese Communist party. I mean, yeah, heck, we used Nazi scientists to help jumpstart our rocket programs, y'know? But that's a whole 'nother thread...

Like I said, I can't balance the morality of it. It's too big, and let's face it – WW2 was an intenese period constructed of intense situations. And I'm not sure what 'apologies' mean in that context...

if I knew all it took was to say "no one apologize for _____ and ____" then I would have just said that and spared myself from all that other bullshit.
__________________________
My politics and sports blog .

It's kind of an obvious response. Everyone wants a hug and a backrub to mend the atrocities of human history... and yet, strangely, we keep having the atrocities. Some things you have to live with, sans therapy. That's life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My style is impetuous; my power is discombobulatingly devastating"

- Mike Tyson

you can't say they're equivalent

he wasn't saying they're equivalent - he's saying nobody apologizes for anything, so why is Hiroshima any different?

----------------------------------------------
"Oh, you're from Denver? John Elway sucks."

- my brother's first words to my boy from Denver

The death toll of Chinese people during the Japanese occupation is just staggering. They don't call it the "Chinese Holocaust" for nothing

It's a lie, and the MAGIC Summaries showed that. The Japanese were trying to set up an alliance with the Soviets to split up Asia. They had no intentions of surrendering to the U.S. until the Emperor intervened and accepted surrender terms after Nagasaki. Hence, all of that other mess is a waste of time.
__________________________
My politics and sports blog .

I've never heard about this pact you're talking about. I mean, yes, if conventional warfare had dragged on to capture the Japanese Islands, then I could imagine Hirohito pushing for a treaty like you're talking abuot, but after Midway, they could barely field a flotilla, meaning they couldn't move supplies. The Kamikaze approach to combat was proof of desperation: they knew the war was over. They just couldn't admit it without their Grand Final Battle ( ie, the Yamamoto, built as the largest battleship in history... but incapable of fending off the 'flying gnats' of the US Air Corps).

So I don't know. Stalin and Hirohito seems like a reach. Y'know, if that's what the OSS was talking, then yeah, it might mean throwing down the atomic gauntlet. But that was sort of the point in the first place: to rub the Soviets' noses in our military superiority.

http://www.geocities.com/vmken/End_WWII_page_2.html

"Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR. According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans."
__________________________
My politics and sports blog .

After we broke Enigma, though, there was all sorts of wild bullshit flying around. AS for Japan's capabilities, let's face it: we'd completely routed them and cut off their supply train, going in AND out of their homelands. Attrition aside, they'd have folded ina few months: they didn't have the oil to fly their planes much longer, and were worse off than the British in terms of workable building materials. Their troops were running out of ammo abroad, and even if they'd hoarded; they couldn't have pulled off what the Magic Summaries were filling us up with. They were kaput, Ex. So while I understand what you're saying; like I said, I disagree with the logistical assessment.

>"Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before
>the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about
>behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet
>Union. The Magic Summaries... revealed that
>throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders
>were adamantly determined that they would never surrender
>unconditionally to the British and the Americans."

I'm actually glad you mention the
Magic intercepts because they just
confirm what I've stated numerous
times in my preceeding posts: 1)
Japan refused "UNCONDITIONAL" sur-
render, which meant the abdication
of the emperor from his thrown and 2)
that Japan was suing for peace with
the Soviets.

In his book "The Decision to Use the
Atomic Bomb", GAR ALPEROVITZ observes
that Navy Capt. Ellis M. Zacharias's
July 21 broadcast to Japan of an offer
to surrender on the basis of the Atlan-
tic Charter. This offer was met with,
according to MAGIC intercepts, quite
favorably by Japanese officials--Foreign
Minister Togo cabled Ambassador Soto in
Moscow that "there is no objection to the
restoration of peace on the basis of the
Atlantic Charter". Privately, however, the
Japanese were confused as to whether this
was an official offer--Zacharias was an
"official spokesman" for the U.S. government--
and further confused still after the issuance
of the rather different Potsdam Declaration.
The Atlantic Charter, of course, specifically
guaranteed the right of choosing their own form
of government to all peoples--that is to say,
it would have allowed Japan to choose to keep
its imperial system after the war (pp. 390-402).

This just proves that Truman officials could've
and were exploring the options to the bombs and
that the U.S. considering the possibilty of a
conditional surrender.

thank you all for the contributions...opinions, knowledge, discussion, everything.

this was alot more exhaustive than i could've expected. it's awesome to see it all evolve.



pax out

----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

It's real simple: the revisionists are wrong. Pinko, Ho, and the rest...wrong.

Japan had no intentions of surrendering before Nagasaki, at least unconditionally. They still thought they had a chance to win, and that's why they tried to hold out.

But the fact is that they still had approx 2 million soldiers on hand if an invasion broke out, they still had some remnants of an Navy, and Allied forces would have fought civilian militias as well. We're talking about possibly hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed on both sides that could have been killed if we conducted a ground invasion. Saying "we didn't have to" after the fact is tantamount to armchair quarterbacking.

Does nuking 300,000 people equalizes Japanese atrocities, and vice versa? No. But starting this war and the hopes of ending that war with no more American lives being taken than absolutely having to does.
__________________________
My politics and sports blog .

But otherwise, yeah - Hirohito was holding out for the better deal, where Japan could save face. Who doesn't?

>It's real simple: the revisionists are wrong. Pinko, Ho,
>and the rest...wrong.

If I offered left-wing
sources, you'd be accussing
me of citing "Marxist prop-
aganda" or "Postmodern tripe".
Instead, I provide you with
testomonies from Under Secre-
tary of State Joseph Grew Ad-
miral William Leahy, the Chief
of Staff to President Roosevelt
and then to President Truman,
Army Chief of Staff General
George Marshall. Sec. of War
Henry Stimson; and finally,
Dwight Eisenhower who argued
the bombs were unecessary,
and I'm labeled a "revisionist".

Could you conservatives come
up with something better, than
to label everyone you disagree
with?

>Japan had no intentions of surrendering before Nagasaki, at
>least unconditionally.

I already stated they refused
unconditional surrender. But
why did they refuse uncondit-
ional surrender? Because "the
absence of any assurance rega-
rding the Emperor's fate became
Japan's chief objection to the
Potsdam Proclamation" (Pacific
War Research Society, The Day
Man Lost, pg. 212-214).

Now, one could argue that the
Japanese should not have been
able to dictate the terms of
their surrender and I would
agree with that. HOWEVER, the
refusal by Japan to acknowledge
the Potsdam Proclamation does
not in any way, shape, or form
justify the use of nuclear
weapons against two civilian
populations.

Besides, onn July 2, 1945, Sec.
of War Henry Stimson and Truman
discussed a proposal by Stimson
to call for Japan to surrender.
Stimson's memo to the President
advised, "I personally think
that if in saying this we should
add that we do not exclude a con-
stitutional monarchy under her
present dynasty, it would subst-
antially add to the chances of
acceptance". Stimson's proposed
surrender demand stated that the
reformed Japanese government "may
include a constitutional monarchy
under the present dynasty" (U.S.
Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg.
889-894).

Even Truman's advisors such as
Joseph Grew and Henry Stimson ar-
gued that the surrender terms sh-
ould be modified in order to bring
a quick end to the war. According
to Admiral William D. Leahy, the
highest ranking military official
in the U.S. at the time as chief
of staff to the president, "The
Japanese were already defeated and
ready to surrender.... The use of
this barbarous weapon was of no ma-
terial assistance in our war against
Japan."

Al this basically means that top
officials in the Truman Admin-
istration -- including Truman him-
self -- KNEW 1) that Japan was de-
feated and 2) that there were feas-
ible alternatives to nuclear con-
fligration.

what were the feasible alternatives?

The following is a list of
alternatives proposed by
Rufus E Miles Jr., a former
senior fellow of the Woodrow
Wilson School, Princeton Uni-
versity, and a former thirty-
year career official of the U.S.
government.

Strategy Number One: A Negotiated Peace

Japan's deteriorating military capacity capacity convinced Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew that the Japanese would be open to a negotiated peace which included the allow retention of the Japanese Emperor. Grew sought to persuade Truman of his views on May 28, three weeks after V-E Day.

The Grew strategy, which had envisioned a successful American diplomatic effort to end the war by an offer and acceptance of a "conditional surrender" (the same condition that became the accepted basis for surrender in August) by the end of July, was subsequently considered by several people to have had more than an outside possibility of success. Among those who thought so in retrospect, in addition to Grew himself, were Hanson Baldwin, military analyst for The New York Times, and Robert J.C. Butow, author of Japan's Decision to Surrender. Especially significant was the view expressed by Secretary of War Stimson, as stated in his autobiography, co-authored with McGeorge Bundy. "It is possible," said Bundy, "in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war. . . .

Strategy Number Two: Intensified Bombing and Blockade Until November 1, 1945

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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to I November 1945, 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.

In the light of General Marshall's and Admiral King's assessments of the extremely weak condition of Japan during the last months of the war, and in view of the conclusions of the Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan would in all probability have surrendered before November 1, 1945, and considering the shock to Japan of the Soviet declaration of war on August 8, this second scenario seems, in retrospect, to have been the more probable one in the event the atomic bombs had not been available or had deliberately not been used.

i think you posted this earlier so i dont want to repeat anything that has already been said so ber with me.

>The following is a list of
>alternatives proposed by
>Rufus E Miles Jr., a former
>senior fellow of the Woodrow
>Wilson School, Princeton Uni-
>versity, and a former thirty-
>year career official of the U.S.
>government.
>
>Strategy Number One: A Negotiated Peace
>
>Japan's deteriorating military capacity capacity convinced
>Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew that the Japanese
>would be open to a negotiated peace which included the allow
>retention of the Japanese Emperor. Grew sought to persuade
>Truman of his views on May 28, three weeks after V-E Day.
>
>The Grew strategy, which had envisioned a successful
>American diplomatic effort to end the war by an offer and
>acceptance of a "conditional surrender" (the same condition
>that became the accepted basis for surrender in August) by
>the end of July, was subsequently considered by several
>people to have had more than an outside possibility of
>success. Among those who thought so in retrospect, in
>addition to Grew himself, were Hanson Baldwin, military
>analyst for The New York Times, and Robert J.C. Butow,
>author of Japan's Decision to Surrender. Especially
>significant was the view expressed by Secretary of War
>Stimson, as stated in his autobiography, co-authored with
>McGeorge Bundy. "It is possible," said Bundy, "in the light
>of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier
>exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor
>would have produced an earlier ending to the war. . . .
>
japan didnt surrender though when askd twice. in the heat of the war, it wouldnt make sense to give japan time to regroup and maybe use a terrible weapon like the a-bomb on the united states. you have to act quick and pound your enemy, in this case the jap aggressor who started the whole thing, into submission with minimul loss of your troops.

>Strategy Number Two: Intensified Bombing and Blockade Until
>November 1, 1945
>
>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 certainly prior to
>31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to I November
>1945, 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.
>
>In the light of General Marshall's and Admiral King's
>assessments of the extremely weak condition of Japan during
>the last months of the war, and in view of the conclusions
>of the Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan would in all
>probability have surrendered before November 1, 1945, and
>considering the shock to Japan of the Soviet declaration of
>war on August 8, this second scenario seems, in retrospect,
>to have been the more probable one in the event the atomic
>bombs had not been available or had deliberately not been
>used.

but it was unknown how many japanese people would die from an intesified bombing because it was unknown when the would surrender. japan could have held out much longer without surrendering. then what? a ground invasion? no way, its not worth losing 250,00 to a million US troops like general marshall estimated. and notice the words the survey uses. such phrases as "in all probability" and "in retrospect." this is all hindsight. its easy to be an armchair quarterback on this. dropping the bomb though was succesful. it ended the war without losing another american life and it ended japanese tyranny in asia.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>japan didnt surrender though when askd twice. in the heat of
>the war, it wouldnt make sense to give japan time to regroup
>and maybe use a terrible weapon like the a-bomb on the
>united states. you have to act quick and pound your enemy,
>in this case the jap aggressor who started the whole thing,
>into submission with minimul loss of your troops.

In the opinion of aformentioned
Truman officials and military
brass, it would've been impossible
for Japan to regroup to the extent
you're referring to.

Here's what we know:

- After the fall of the Mariana Islands, including Saipan,
to the U.S. in July of 1944, the impending defeat of
Japan became increasingly apparent to many Allied
and Japanese leaders.

- The Marianas had been a key area within Japan's defense
perimeter; now Japan would be within range of bombing
runs from Pacific Ocean locations that were superior to
the China bases that had been used for bombing missions
(Akira Iriye, Power and Culture: The Japanese-American
War, 1941-1945, pg. 174; Michael Sherry, The Rise of Am-
erican Air Power, pg. 176).

- From November 1944 onward, Japan was the subject of nu-
merous large-scale B-29 non-nuclear bombing raids (Robert
Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 41). When Air Force
chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was
going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis
LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then
they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb
(Sherry, pg. 300 & 410(143n)).

- While Japan was being bombarded from the sky, a Naval blockade
was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials
and its ability to produce war materials (Barton Bernstein, ed., The
Atomic Bomb, pg. 54). Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to
President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the
beginning of September, Japan was almost completely defeated
through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William
Leahy, I Was There, pg. 259).

After the bombing, Admiral
William D. Leary, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
called the atomic bomb "a ba-
rbarous weapon," also noting
that: "The Japanese were alr-
eady defeated and ready to
surrender."

>but it was unknown how many japanese people would die from
>an intesified bombing because it was unknown when the would
>surrender.

That's not what top military
officials believed. Based on
intercepted messages,the Japan-
ese were more than willing to
surrender so long as the emperor
retain his thrown. A conditional
surrender was even put forth by
Truman's advisors such as Joseph
Grew and Henry Stimson, who argued
that the surrender terms should be
modified in order to bring a quick
end to the war.

Moreover, an avalanche of archival
documents released or discovered
over the past decade -- including
Truman's 'lost' diary and a series
of revealing letters to his wife,
Bess -- as Gar Alperovitz and Kai
Bird point out in the 10 May 1993
issue of "The Nation" of New York,
'leaves no doubt that Truman knew
the war would end "a year sooner
now" and without an invasion'.

the a-bomb was the straw that broke the camel's back. they needed the surrender and they got it. war is hell but japan should have surrendered months before the bomb was dropped.

>That's not what top military
>officials believed. Based on
>intercepted messages,the Japan-
>ese were more than willing to
>surrender so long as the emperor
>retain his thrown. A conditional
>surrender was even put forth by
>Truman's advisors such as Joseph
>Grew and Henry Stimson, who argued
>that the surrender terms should be
>modified in order to bring a quick
>end to the war.

war is hell. throw the emperor off a high perch and save 300,000 lives. you dont modify your surrender policy once it has been made because it makes you look weak.
>
>Moreover, an avalanche of archival
>documents released or discovered
>over the past decade -- including
>Truman's 'lost' diary and a series
>of revealing letters to his wife,
>Bess -- as Gar Alperovitz and Kai
>Bird point out in the 10 May 1993
>issue of "The Nation" of New York,
>'leaves no doubt that Truman knew
>the war would end "a year sooner
>now" and without an invasion'.

well it should have ended sooner but again the japs are proud people and i dont blame them either. they owned asia kicking everyone's ass until then.

>war is hell. throw the emperor off a high perch and save
>300,000 lives. you dont modify your surrender policy once it
>has been made because it makes you look weak.

Likewise, you don't use
weapons of mass destr-
uction against entire civ-
ilian populations, partic-
ularly when other options
are at your disposal.

Truman stated that the
A-bomb was not to be
used against civilians
and he lied.

In the end, Hirohito was
not tried for war crimes
and was instead allowed
to maintain a figurhead
position (as Expertise
correctly pointed out).

japan should have surrendered long before the a-bomb was an issue. you dont let your enemy, regardless of how bad off they are, have time to regroup. you just dont play around like that. you goal is to achieve ultimate victory and dropping the bomb achived that. i dont think an apology is warrented. regret maybe, but certainly not an apology.

>japan should have surrendered long before the a-bomb was an
>issue.

I absolutely agree.

you goal is to achieve ultimate victory and
>dropping the bomb achived that.

And it's understood that it
could've been achieved without
the use of nuclear weapons
against an entire civilian
population.

in hindsight, there is a possibility that it may have been achieved. but, it was just as likely japan would not have surrendered despite intesified bombing. the U.S. wasnt going to change its surrender policy, so that option it out, and sending in ground troops was a no go because of the estimates. certainly, in hindsight, looking back at what could have been, some would say we should no have dropped the bomb, while others would say that at the time any outcome was possible, EXCEPT that it was known dropping the A-Bomb would certainly end the war. that was the only REAL solution at the time. 100 percent, no ifs ands or buts.

>in hindsight, there is a possibility that it may have been
>achieved.

And that is a possibilty
that should've and could've
been explored. It could've
saved a lot of human lives
from becoming irradiated.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/enola/content/gar.htm

Especially important has been the 1979 discovery of President Truman's "lost" diary. This and other documents suggest that the president fully understood that the "jolt" of the expected early August Russian declaration of war would so shock Japan that the fighting would end: After Stalin confirmed Russia would soon declare war against Japan, for instance, President Truman privately noted in his diary: "Fini Japs when that comes about." And writing to his wife the next day, he observed that with the Soviet declaration "we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed!"

i just wanna say that i never thought in a million years this post would get platinum, or be above 60 posts...im just surprised by that fact alone (its so many freaking posts i didn't even read them...too daunting of a task)

-

Best debate on this board in weeks..

I think a couple of posts reflect my sentiments…

“concerning japanese surrender, you may have a miniscule point if it weren't for he fact that the bombs were dropped before the US had even received a response from the Japanese regarding surrender. Furthermore, as if Hiroshima was not bad enough, Truman waited less than 3 days to obliterate Nagasaki as well. This was nowhere near enough time for the Japanese to investigate and assess the damage done in Hiroshima and thus make a sound decision in light of new developments. No, US policy regarding the bomb had nothing to do with a Japanese surrender.”


Pinko

I think that might be the crux of the argument suggesting that the decision to use nuclear bombs was unwarranted. No one can honestly say that Japan’s surrender would have had much of an impact on the agenda of the US when we didn’t allow them to respond before dropping a nuclear bomb on a two different civilian populations in less than three days.



“What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands. But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an irritating inconsistency..”

dhalgren718

Very good point & contrary to recent behavior, the US is hardly a solo entity regarding the many atrocities committed in world history. If innocent Japanese citizens didn’t deserve Hiroshima or Nagasaki, innocent US citizens didn’t deserve 9-11 and innocent Iraqi citizens didn’t deserve the results of a post 9-11 pre-emptive strike.

Regarding consistency, I also think we have to include Pinko’s point illustrating the reasons for the US fighting in WWII. If in fact the US went to war to stop the slaughter of innocent human life, it would be extremely incongruous to drop bombs on a innocent civilian population unless of course a distinction can be made separating the people who are worthy of salvation versus those who are worthy of nuclear annihilation. A time of war can’t be the justification for such an action since we’d have to regrettably award Hitler the same consideration as he too was “at war”. Now, I’m not accusing you of this but often times people like to “redefine” terms to create distinctions & justify analogous behaviors. Consistency can be quite a quandary.

the 3-day lag. for four years the japanese are able to run their army smoothly, coordinate naval attacks, communicate with nazi germany, but they are unable to assess the amount of damage of a nuclear bomb? while all the hospitals in the area were filled to capacity? if they had one person of military rank near hiroshima, they would have known. i'm not saying that the they would have had time to formulate a treaty for surrender, but they knew what happened.

...from Tokyo? It's far. They knew something happened because the U.S. told them. But there's no way they could know the extent of damage in 3 days.

Peace

But it's not something that was clearly, undisputably wrong. Yeah, perhaps negotiations would've yielded something, particularly if the Emperor had been allowed to remain in power. But that might've just led to Japan rebuilding their military might, not unlike Germany between the two World Wars. The war needed to be ended, and Japan, though desperate, would not have given up until the very bitter end, imo. And a conventional invasion and bombing campaign would've ultimately yielded more loss of life on both sides, this I believe even more strongly. The A-Bomb was a horrible thing to unleash on the world, but so was the firebombing of Dresden, so was the rape of Nanking, so was the Bataan death march, and the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The bottom line is, this was a war where civilians were legit targets too, that was the de facto rule.

Plenty of awful stuff went down in that war and in the years leading up to it, formal apologies are not forthcoming, nor should they be, necessarily. Is killing people that way worse than firebombing them? Is it worse than starving them to death with a blockade?

And the Holocaust is on an entirely different level, I worry about Delete Me bringing it up like that, being as how he's German.

>But it's not something that was clearly, undisputably wrong.
>Yeah, perhaps negotiations would've yielded something,
>particularly if the Emperor had been allowed to remain in
>power.

Hirohito retained a figurhead
position within the government,
instead of being tried for war
crimes. Moreover, most of the
20,000 Japanese tried for war
crimes were never punished.

This proves that the U.S., Britain,
and the Soviet Union could've cared
less about Chinese and Korean victims
of Japanese fascism.

>But that might've just led to Japan rebuilding their
>military might, not unlike Germany between the two World
>Wars.

Speculation about the future
does not warrant the use of
nucleur conflagration.

>The war needed to be ended, and Japan, though
>desperate, would not have given up until the very bitter
>end, imo.

Your opinion is inconsistent
with the facts. By highlight-
ing articles and editorials
from 1945, researchers Mohan
and Tree showed that Japan
was close to surrendering.
Papers such as the Times,
Christian Century and News-
week reported that the Jap-
anese were in a bleak situ-
ation and clarification of
the surrender terms was all
that was needed to ensure a
Japanese surrender (149).
Even Truman's advisors such
as Joseph Grew and Henry St-
imson argued that the surre-
nder terms should be modifi-
ed in order to bring a quick
end to the war.

>And a conventional invasion and bombing campaign
>would've ultimately yielded more loss of life on both sides,
>this I believe even more strongly.

Growing evidence indicates that
an invasion may have been unec-
cesary considering there were
other option that could've been
explored.

Japan's deteriorating military
capacity capacity convinced Act-
ing Secretary of State Joseph
Grew that the Japanese would be
open to a negotiated peace which
included the allow retention of
the Japanese Emperor. Grew sought
to persuade Truman of his views
on May 28, three weeks after V-E
Day.

The Grew strategy, which had env-
isioned a successful American dip-
lomatic effort to end the war by
an offer and acceptance of a "con-
ditional surrender" (the same con-
dition that became the accepted ba-
sis for surrender in August) by the
end of July, was subsequently consi-
dered by several people to have had
more than an outside possibility of
success. Among those who thought so
in retrospect, in addition to Grew
himself, were Hanson Baldwin, milit-
ary analyst for The New York Times,
and Robert J.C. Butow, author of Ja-
pan's Decision to Surrender. Especi-
ally significant was the view expre-
ssed by Secretary of War Stimson, as
stated in his autobiography, co-auth-
ored with McGeorge Bundy. "It is pos-
sible," said Bundy, "in the light of
the final surrender, that a clearer
and earlier exposition of American
willingness to retain the Emperor wo-
uld have produced an earlier ending
to the war. . . ."

>The bottom
>line is, this was a war where civilians were legit targets
>too, that was the de facto rule.

At the beginning of World War II,
the bombing of civilians was reg-
arded as a barbaric act. As the
war continued, however, all sides
abandoned previous restraints. But
international law has always disti-
nguished between civilians and comb-
atants. Legal context to the decision,
from a variety of international treaties
and the 1996 World Court opinion.

>And the Holocaust is on an entirely different level,

Of course it is... It was committed
by the enemy and not us.

>>But it's not something that was clearly, undisputably wrong.
>>Yeah, perhaps negotiations would've yielded something,
>>particularly if the Emperor had been allowed to remain in
>>power.
>
>Hirohito retained a figurhead
>position within the government,
>instead of being tried for war
>crimes. Moreover, most of the
>20,000 Japanese tried for war
>crimes were never punished.
>
>This proves that the U.S., Britain,
>and the Soviet Union could've cared
>less about Chinese and Korean victims
>of Japanese fascism.
It's never really about the victims. And Japan could've negotiated better terms before the A-Bomb, giving them more autonomy, the right to maintain a standing army, etc. The emperor retained merely as a figurehead is different from that. The use of the A-Bombs showed that the only choices they had were surrender or annihilation.
>
>>But that might've just led to Japan rebuilding their
>>military might, not unlike Germany between the two World
>>Wars.
>
>Speculation about the future
>does not warrant the use of
>nucleur conflagration.
Well in this case, yes it does. You needed something to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally, which you claim could've been achieved solely through negotiation with minor concessions. I think that's facile and revisionist history. And a quote from Eisenhower or Newsweek doesn't really change that, since it was the people in command in the Pacific theater, and the Japanese military command, who really knew what was up at the time, they were the only players who really mattered. If you had some internal documents from the Japanese high command, your argument would have some potency.
>
>>The war needed to be ended, and Japan, though
>>desperate, would not have given up until the very bitter
>>end, imo.
>
>Your opinion is inconsistent
>with the facts. By highlight-
>ing articles and editorials
>from 1945, researchers Mohan
>and Tree showed that Japan
>was close to surrendering.
Articles and editorials= facts now?
>Papers such as the Times,
>Christian Century and News-
>week reported that the Jap-
>anese were in a bleak situ-
>ation and clarification of
>the surrender terms was all
>that was needed to ensure a
>Japanese surrender (149).
Well if the Christian Science Monitor says it, that's good enough for me.
>Even Truman's advisors such
>as Joseph Grew and Henry St-
>imson argued that the surre-
>nder terms should be modifi-
>ed in order to bring a quick
>end to the war.
Yeah, and I'm sure he had plenty of advisors arguing the other way too. The President has so many advisors, there's always going to be disagreement over which course of action to take.
>
>>And a conventional invasion and bombing campaign
>>would've ultimately yielded more loss of life on both sides,
>>this I believe even more strongly.
>
>Growing evidence indicates that
>an invasion may have been unec-
>cesary considering there were
>other option that could've been
>explored.
>
>Japan's deteriorating military
>capacity capacity convinced Act-
>ing Secretary of State Joseph
>Grew that the Japanese would be
>open to a negotiated peace which
>included the allow retention of
>the Japanese Emperor. Grew sought
>to persuade Truman of his views
>on May 28, three weeks after V-E
>Day.
>
>The Grew strategy, which had env-
>isioned a successful American dip-
>lomatic effort to end the war by
>an offer and acceptance of a "con-
>ditional surrender" (the same con-
>dition that became the accepted ba-
>sis for surrender in August) by the
>end of July, was subsequently consi-
>dered by several people to have had
>more than an outside possibility of
>success.
Wow, that sounds very definitive.
Among those who thought so
>in retrospect, in addition to Grew
>himself, were Hanson Baldwin, milit-
>ary analyst for The New York Times,
>and Robert J.C. Butow, author of Ja-
>pan's Decision to Surrender. Especi-
>ally significant was the view expre-
>ssed by Secretary of War Stimson, as
>stated in his autobiography, co-auth-
>ored with McGeorge Bundy. "It is pos-
>sible," said Bundy, "in the light of
>the final surrender, that a clearer
>and earlier exposition of American
>willingness to retain the Emperor wo-
>uld have produced an earlier ending
>to the war. . . ."
I know you're not quoting McGeorge Bundy on the most efficacious way to end a war and force a surrender, are you?
>
>>The bottom
>>line is, this was a war where civilians were legit targets
>>too, that was the de facto rule.
>
>At the beginning of World War II,
>the bombing of civilians was reg-
>arded as a barbaric act. As the
>war continued, however, all sides
>abandoned previous restraints. But
>international law has always disti-
>nguished between civilians and comb-
>atants. Legal context to the decision,
>from a variety of international treaties
>and the 1996 World Court opinion.
I'm not talking about on the books international law, that's why I said de facto.
>
>>And the Holocaust is on an entirely different level,
>
>Of course it is... It was committed
>by the enemy and not us.
Trick please. As bad as the internment camps were, they didn't have any gas chambers. And as bad as the a-bomb was, is it really more horrific than killing people through firebombing, or starving them to death with a blockade? If you really think the only difference between the Holocaust and Hiroshima is nationalist perspective, you've got some serious growing up to do. And since you're already in your 30s, you should pick up the pace.

you've got some
>serious growing up to do. And since you're already in your
>30s, you should pick up the pace.

LOL!

>It's never really about the victims. And Japan could've
>negotiated better terms before the A-Bomb, giving them more
>autonomy, the right to maintain a standing army, etc. The
>emperor retained merely as a figurehead is different from
>that. The use of the A-Bombs showed that the only choices
>they had were surrender or annihilation.

The absence of any assurance
regarding the Emperor's fate
became Japan's chief objection
to the Potsdam Proclamation
(Pacific War Research Society,
The Day Man Lost, pg. 212-214).
This is the primary reason Japan
would not accept an unconditional
surrender -- hardly a reason to
use nuclear weapons against
civilian populations.

>Well in this case, yes it does. You needed something to
>convince Japan to surrender unconditionally, which you claim
>could've been achieved solely through negotiation with minor
>concessions. I think that's facile and revisionist history.

So officials such William Leahy
and Joseph Grew are "revisionists"?

Admiral William Leahy, the Chief
of Staff to President Roosevelt
and then to President Truman, wrote,
"By the beginning of September, Japan
was almost completely defeated through
a practically complete sea and air blo-
ckade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg.
259).

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew
had explained this to President Truman
in person on May 28, 1945. Grew had been
U.S. Ambassador to Japan for 10 years
prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and
was regarded as the most knowledgeable on
Japan of any U.S. government official
(Leahy, pg. 274).

Don't discredit Eisenhower, he was a
general, so I would surmise he'd have
some knowledge on the matter.

>If you had some internal
>documents from the Japanese high command, your argument
>would have some potency.

Japanese telegrams intercepted by
American codebreakers indicate
that Japan was suing for peace.

Two more days after American air
raids followed. On July 11 Tokyo
revealed that Emperor Hirohito himself
was behind an Extremely Urgent and
Strictly Secret message, deciphered
by the Americans as MAGIC intercept
No. H-1961505 "Since we are secretly
giving consideration to termination
of war . . . you are . . . to sound
out the extent to which it is possi-
ble to make use of Russia with regard
to ending the war as well."

The U.S. Navy codebreakers deciphered
further instructions on July 12 urging the
ambassador to inform Molotov immediately
of "the Imperial will concerning the end of
the war," using these precise terms: "His
Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact
that the present war daily brings greater evil
and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the be-
lligerent powers, desires from his heart that it
may be quickly terminated."

According to David Irving (1995), Wash-
ington decided to squelch every sign
that Japan was trying to quit. When the
International News Service wired on July 7,
1945 that three influential newspaper pub-
lishers captured in Okinawa had confirmed
that Japan would surrender immediately
provided that the United States put in only
a token occupation force, the State Depart-
ment forbade publication of the news.

Tokyo's urgent telegrams, attempting to sur-
render, continued for the next two weeks. The
American government many years ago released
these intercepts, buried among half a million
others, to the National Archives in Washington,
DC.

>I know you're not quoting McGeorge Bundy on the most
>efficacious way to end a war and force a surrender, are you?

Hold up. You're telling me your
focusing one source rather than
all of the others I provided.

>Trick please.

Coming from Johnny,
I'll just ignore this.
LOL!

As bad as the internment camps were, they
>didn't have any gas chambers.

I didn't mention a word about
internment camps. My assertion
is when atrocities occur too
close to home, the U.S. does-
n't want to address them; it's
always the "other guy".

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind."

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese.

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

Source: The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.

despite all this, japan did not surrender despite the possibility of annihilation. japan thought the US was bluffing. too bad for them they should have not bombed pearl harbor.

>despite all this, japan did not surrender despite the
>possibility of annihilation. japan thought the US was
>bluffing. too bad for them they should have not bombed pearl
>harbor.

Nah, Japan didn't think
the U.S. was bluffing,
they realized Truman
was dead serious about
the A-bomb. However, the
concept of losing the
emperor was a totally
foreign concept to their
culture.

In the end, the U.S. allowed
a war criminal to retain a
figurehead position within
the Japanese government.
So much for justice.

>>despite all this, japan did not surrender despite the
>>possibility of annihilation. japan thought the US was
>>bluffing. too bad for them they should have not bombed pearl
>>harbor.
>
>Nah, Japan didn't think
>the U.S. was bluffing,
>they realized Truman
>was dead serious about
>the A-bomb. However, the
>concept of losing the
>emperor was a totally
>foreign concept to their
>culture.
>
>In the end, the U.S. allowed
>a war criminal to retain a
>figurehead position within
>the Japanese government.
>So much for justice.


i have to end this discussion here. i really have nothing to say to that. war never brings justice. in this case, war was an effect, not a cause. does killing 300,000 people in one sweeping moment demand an apology? i dont think so. but if you do think so, then there are a lot of things in this world that people need to start apologizing for and apologizing solves nothing because all is history. you can't take it back.

he wasn't thinking about the effects his removal would have on society. he was looking out for his own ass. and the return to the meiji empire from the shogunate had only been 100 odd years earlier, so it's not like the culture would have ground to a halt.

>he wasn't thinking about the effects his removal would have
>on society. he was looking out for his own ass.

Now tell me, what does this
have too with the price of
tea in China? Tell me.

Anyone with a modicum of
intelligence know that
Hirohito was a ruthless
snake and an opportnist,
so in all likelihood, he
probably was "looking out
for his own ass."

So again, tell me how this
justifies the use of urnanium
and plutonium bombs against
old women and babies?

1 big thing yall are overlooking... dropping the atomic bomb was the 1st move in the cold war. the u.s. knew the USSR would also be completing its nuke program. the fact of the matter is that the soviets were due to enter the war in the pacific 60 days after the end of the war in europe which was june 6th or 8th or something. 60 days later would have been august 8th. the u.s. dropped the bomb on august 5th or 6th. it was so Japan surrendered to the U.S. and the U.S. alone. The U.S. would be dictators of the treaty...eisenhower would write the japanese diet and japan became a psedo-colony of the U.S.\

Discousre over

is not the same as surrendering unconditionally (or surrendering with the only condition being the keeping of the emperor as a figurehead). Just because they're looking to negotiate to end the war, doesn't mean they'd be willing to do so on acceptable terms. You have some U.S. military and political figures who think they would've surrendered fairly easily, and you've got some signs from the Japanes of looking for a way out, but nothing conclusive. Ultimately, you've got a lot of hearsay and conjecture. And the fact that they were making their most plaintive overtures to Moscow is not necessarily a good sign, much as I hate to ever agree with Expertise, it could well be that the Japanese were trying to link themselves up with the other great Asian power, in order to gain a more advantageous position, and hang on to countries that they had taken over.

One of your sources said the Japanese would agree to surrender as long as the U.S. put in only a "token occupation force", and I highly doubt that Japan would've allowed all the constitutional/economic reforms that took place under the occupation to happen, in your alternate scenario.

I picked on McGeorge Bundy, because he was one of the chief architects of the disaster that was Vietnam, so I think it's ironic that you cite him as an authority on when a country is about to surrender.

Now as far as it being an atrocity, yes it was one, on a large scale. I'm not denying that. But in terms of total deaths, it's only slightly more than the firebombing of Tokyo, and the firebombing of Dresden. It is a terrible weapon that the U.S. unleashed that day, but tell me, is a death from radiation necessarily worse than a death from firebombing? Is it worse than starving to death because of a blockade? You keep dodging these questions. Plenty of other terrible stuff happened in that war, and while the justification for using the A-Bomb isn't air-tight, in retrospect, I don't see how a "formal apology" solves anything. Is Dresden due for one then? Is Tokyo? Is Nanking?

"You have some U.S. military and political figures who think they would've surrendered fairly easily, and you've got some signs from the Japanes of looking for a way out, but nothing conclusive. Ultimately, you've got a lot of hearsay and conjecture."

i've read this whole thread, and grimm has come up with a LOT more than just "hearsay and conjecture." maybe in the dictionary definition, literal sense it is, but in REALISTIC terms the evidence grimm is putting out here is from informed, credible sources and lots of them.

is it POSSIBLE that japan would have not surrendered if the a-bombs were not dropped? perhaps, but can ALL these quotes from government officials, japanese officials and historians be written off just like that? read through this entire thread again. i'm not seeing how cats can disagree with the fact that there were other, non-atomic, options available. and i don't even mean firebombing and starvation (and jdomino is right-- those are just as brutal and tragic)-- i mean diplomacy. negotiate an end to the war. the quotes supplied by grimm here clearly show that the japanese wanted to end the war.

in terms of the idea of a "formal apology," i don't think it's really worth arguing about. this thread mutated into talking about whether dropping the two bombs was right or wrong, not about whether the US should formally apologize, and i for one see the former as a much more interesting discussion anyway. jdomino is right on this one too-- if the US apologized, pretty much every country involved in the war would have to apologize for something else. i mean, i'm for that i guess, but i doubt it'll ever happen.

>Just because they're looking
>to negotiate to end the war, doesn't mean they'd be willing
>to do so on acceptable terms. You have some U.S. military
>and political figures who think they would've surrendered
>fairly easily, and you've got some signs from the Japanes of
>looking for a way out, but nothing conclusive. Ultimately,
>you've got a lot of hearsay and conjecture. And the fact
>that they were making their most plaintive overtures to
>Moscow is not necessarily a good sign, much as I hate to
>ever agree with Expertise, it could well be that the
>Japanese were trying to link themselves up with the other
>great Asian power, in order to gain a more advantageous
>position, and hang on to countries that they had taken over.

Intecepted messages from Japanese
high command are not hearsay and
conjecture. You have really got
to be kidding me.

And I agree that a Soviet alliance
is nothing to write home about, but
honestly, I'd accept that before I
would nuke babies and old women.

>One of your sources said the Japanese would agree to
>surrender as long as the U.S. put in only a "token
>occupation force", and I highly doubt that Japan would've
>allowed all the constitutional/economic reforms that took
>place under the occupation to happen, in your alternate
>scenario.

Now who is conjecturing? What
evidence do you have that sug-
gests otherwise? There is con-
clusive and irrefutable evidence
which indicates Japan's was eager
to get the hell out of the war.
Just ask the Swedes and Soviets.

>But in terms of total
>deaths, it's only slightly more than the firebombing of
>Tokyo, and the firebombing of Dresden.

Comparing the severity of one
atrocity to the other is not
the best way to analyze this.
You're also forgetting one
very important point, as bad
as the Tokyo bombings were,
Japan was not suing for peace
at that time. It's appauling
when your enemy waves a white
flag and you bomb the hell out
of innocent civilians.

But they weren't coming directly to us "suing for peace". To me, "suing for peace" means coming directly to your enemy and asking what it'll take to end the war. They were trying to do it through the USSR, which I think we can both agree, was not necessarily a good thing. To you, it's still an option worth exploring, but to me, by that point in the war, you try to end it without the need for an invasion, and without giving your enemy a chance to regroup while you negotiate. If Japan really had been putting messages out to the U.S. directly for peace at practically any price, I would be appalled. Instead, I'm uneasy, but unconvinced that it was the absolute wrong thing to do.

people to begin rethinking
what they've been taught
and to carefully examine
this issue with new eyes.

Comments on this board like
"f*ck em" indicate to me
that some of us have lost
our humanity.

he used to be the only OkayConservative capable of holding a rational debate, now he's maybe the biggest partisan hack of all. He's practicing to replace Rush when he gets busted again.

...

Those who feel for the dead and diseased of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and who take into account what a terrible force came into play with the use of this evil creation, seem to agree that mass killing of civilians is not just.

To all those who seem to feel that it is just, brush your shoulders off the next time something like 9/11 happens.

Understand that the strategy of bringing up atrocities committed by the other side is beside the point. If you feel that the terrorization and murder of civilians on one side is bad, you can't meaningfully argue that it was OK on yours.

Was the bombing strategically effective? The only way to argue against this would be to construct a theory of how repercussions from this event hurt America in the long run. That doesn't seem impossible to me.

Understand that if you are arguing with those who were against the bombings, they are not denying that it was in some sense strategically effective. They are arguing that it was morally wrong. Go ahead and spin yourself into contradiction by arguing against the place of morals in war... then explain why the average person who agrees with the bombings has different feelings about the Final Solution.

The question is, do you see the moral wrong perpetrated by the United States. Assuming you do, you should see the value in the US making an apology. If you do not see the mass murder of civilians as a MORAL wrong, then I'd love to see what you teach your children about the difference between good and bad.

Glossary:
"did what we had to do" = argument from strategy
"didn't need to do it" = argument from morality

....n/m...processing...


----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

Yes, the subject line could be another post about views on just war, but it was my intention to draw the line in the sand in this post just so it could be extra clear where the defenders of this atrocity stand.

i'm no historian, but the use of nuclear weapons is generally going to promote a nuclear arms race...which could be very very bad.

we would have to be super sure we wouldn't get any reprisals of equal destruction...i think all those missile crises and tension would say that we weren't so sure.


----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"many angels, fell to the dust, leavin me to trust, only in oooo"
-common

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"you can't write without using 'like'...what are you? some type of valley girl?"
-wordsworth

excellent point

You stated your
point with such
compassion and
eloquence.

I hope people
think about this.

should the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 apologize fore what they did?

What's your point?

but i would like chike to answer

It seems silly to expect that Osama bin Laden would apologize for 9/11, right? And yet we all know that the slaughter of that day was immoral and thus, if we look at it only with consideration of those who perpetrated the act (or I guess the living organizers), it would be morally proper for them to have the feelings of regret that lead to a genuine apology. Now if it were a country that had done this, it would be expected that some kind of reparations would be made, right?

Let's come back to the main topic: are some sort of reparations to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki something we can expect? Again, no. But we then come back to the point that the morally proper attitude would consist of the regret that produces an apology.

Given Japan's relative self-sufficiency, it seems unlikely that the Japanese would cry over no reparations... but they might think it pretty friendly of the States to apologize. It would seem (truthfully or not) to indicate a country that sees the wrongs of its past and retains hope and faith in its ability to work toward a more peaceful world. Not to feed the paternalist self-image of your country, but I think the whole "leadership of the world" thing would gain an appearance of moral force through such an event.

But there I go wandering into questions of strategy... what an apology by the States would mean to me is a proper admission of guilt... see a previous quote in this thread about "blood on hands". That kind of honesty about the wrongness of mass slaughter of civilians would seem, oh forget "would seem", it IS right.

Let me know if there's a flaw in my reasoning.

but japan attacked the US, so it is the US that should seek reparations. but obviously Japan wasnt going to give reparations so war was declared.

I'm not sure what the death count at Pearl Harbour was, but the correct conclusion would be that they both owe reparations to each other (though it's pretty clear the U.S. would owe more).

Since neither would actually think about doing that, it's better that they just do some verbal kiss-and-make-up. Like what you make kids who hurt each other do. Childish but moral.

>I'm not sure what the death count at Pearl Harbour was, but
>the correct conclusion would be that they both owe
>reparations to each other (though it's pretty clear the U.S.
>would owe more).
>
>Since neither would actually think about doing that, it's
>better that they just do some verbal kiss-and-make-up. Like
>what you make kids who hurt each other do. Childish but
>moral.

apologies dont get you anywhere. instead, destroy your enemy so that he can never harm you again. morality flew out the window when japanese planes bombed pearl harbor.

>apologies dont get you anywhere. instead, destroy your enemy
>so that he can never harm you again. morality flew out the
>window when japanese planes bombed pearl harbor.

Hopefully everyone who read my original reply can see that there is no reason to argue with these statements because you have already won. Each of the 3 sentences you wrote here is based on strategy (motivated, of course, by a spirit of bloodthirsty vengeance... much like the little kid who hits back because, when his friend hit him, "morality flew out the window"). No one can successfully argue that "destroying your enemy so that she can never harm you again" is strategically wrong.

However, by admitting that morality grew wings and exited the building, you're also admitting the rightness of the people you have argued against once a difference between right and wrong is considered as a factor.

Obviously I side with the camp who thinks there is such a difference.

>>apologies dont get you anywhere. instead, destroy your enemy
>>so that he can never harm you again. morality flew out the
>>window when japanese planes bombed pearl harbor.
>
>Hopefully everyone who read my original reply can see that
>there is no reason to argue with these statements because
>you have already won. Each of the 3 sentences you wrote
>here is based on strategy (motivated, of course, by a spirit
>of bloodthirsty vengeance... much like the little kid who
>hits back because, when his friend hit him, "morality flew
>out the window"). No one can successfully argue that
>"destroying your enemy so that she can never harm you again"
>is strategically wrong.
>
>However, by admitting that morality grew wings and exited
>the building, you're also admitting the rightness of the
>people you have argued against once a difference between
>right and wrong is considered as a factor.
>
>Obviously I side with the camp who thinks there is such a
>difference.


strategy, when running a country, is more important than morality. america did not attack japan. america was defending itself therefore i am not admiting the rightness of japan.

Actually, rather than the "rightness of japan", what you're not admitting is the right to life of the citizens of a country that goes on the offensive against the States. The "rightness of Japan" is a lot less at stake in this debate.

america has the MORAL obligation to defend itself, japan did not have the moral obligaiton to bomb pearl harbor.

but you lose all credibility when you try to claim (if, in fact, you are trying to claim this) that the mass murder of civilians is a just way for a country to defend oneself. You really think that if I threaten your life, you are not morally at fault for killing my mother and infant son?

If so, you must have problems with the U.S. justice system cuz they are just waaaaaaaay too hard on folks by your standards.

there is no need to apolgize for acting in self defense. remember, japn had no surrendered and the only way to ensure they would no longer harm us was to break them mentally,physically and spiritually. no need ot apologize for this. you are coming from an idealist standpoint.

in saying that your mother and infant son don't need to die because of my aggression. Absolutely none.

well, we arent talking about person to person aggression. we are talking about nation to nation.

My mother and infant son are fair game because your country was attacked by mine? Silly old me... I figure that, as senseless as it is to be vengeful by hurting someone's loved ones, it clearly makes even less sense to hurt my loved ones because of what the government - who they may or may not support - decides to do on an international scale.

You don't feel like logic is lacking here?

>My mother and infant son are fair game because your country
>was attacked by mine?

yes

But if someone from Iraq takes out your whole fam, I'll still feel sorry for them. Even if they were fair game in your book.

not a city full of innocent civilians

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/18arizona/18charts1.htm

japan bombing pearl harbor is more understandable than our actions in hiroshima/nagasaki

----------------------------------
yanamsamean?

"they say the end is near, it's important that we close...to the most, High. Regardless of what happens, on him, let's rely"
-common

"A-E-I-O-U...and sometimes Y"

"i'm super nice, top-notch and it ain't no question. i should run for president in the next election"
-planet asia

"watch from the sky box and the bleachers...yo let me wave so people at the top of the arenas wit binoculars see us"
-wordsworth

"my dream is big and in it, my team is rich"
-jay-z

"for every mission that seems impossible, spit the gospel, to remind me what God can do, when it's not logical"
-common

>japan bombing pearl harbor is more understandable than our
>actions in hiroshima/nagasaki

Yeah... now if Japan were to apologize for that act of aggression that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it's definitely far less low on the moral scale.

so that distinction doesn't really fly.

>japan bombing pearl harbor is more understandable than our
>actions in hiroshima/nagasaki

Wow, you Hiroshima naysayers are losing your damn minds.

----------------------------------------------
"Oh, you're from Denver? John Elway sucks."

- my brother's first words to my boy from Denver

RealTalkInfinite

yes.

just people should be able to condemn atrocities whenever they occur, whoever perpetrates them - and doing so doesn't mean that you negate the strategic effectiveness of the decisions or that you feign ignorance as to why choices like these are made in war, but basic human compassion should come into play somewhere, and I just don't hear it in the voices of Expertise and his kinfolk.

the relentless pursuit of perfection

listening to:
1. http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/scissor-sisters/scissor-sisters.shtml
2. http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/fiery-furnaces/blueberry-boat.shtml
3. http://www.allhiphop.com/reviews/?ID=371
4. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/al_green_the_gospel_according_to_al_green/

reading:
1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802150837/002-1954366-4218455?v=glance

http://theonion.com/history/index.php?issue=4032

Mass murder of innocent human beings, whether deemed strategically "neccessary" in times of war or not, ought to give pause to anyone. basic human compassion and empathy dictate that you would be moved at the thought of hundreds of thousands of husbands, mothers, daughters, fathers, brothers, sons, babies, cousins, aunts.. being vaporized. People who just react so flippantly to these things are really lacking in the most basic vestiges of human compassion.

It's not surprising though.. there are always those who are willing to justify murder of the 'other' without a second thought, particularly in times of war. After all, self preservation is the most important over-arching value, right?

the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki

people talking that 'we were at war' are either


1) uninformed

or

2) despicable

Stalinist purges? Nazi holocaust? etc. etc. etc.??? I don't see the point of ranking atrocities in terms of terribleness.

Additionally, "terrorism" refers to a specific kind of violence. The military attack by one nation against the people of another would qualify, if anything, as a "war crime."

all of them, in fact

imo, the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki *was* an atrocity without justification- no need for the 'extra' ish in my previous post