Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Japan was training women to fight with wooden rifles, they would have fought to the death, to extinction.
Japan was training women to fight with wooden rifles, they would have fought to the death, to extinction.
Don't be stupid. Women, children, and the elderly would not have taken to the streets en mass to fight with armed US soldiers. That's just ridiculous. The people of Japan were starving, exhausted, and long since sick of the war. If you have to swallow silly exaggerrations to believe your simplistic view then you don't really believe it much yourself.
What about the civilians who jumped to thier death on Saipan rather than face captivity with the Americans?
How is saving millions of lives a mistake?
Dropping A-bombs SAVED lives. That is a complete myth. Truman and his follow progressives promoted the lie that 500k American soldiers and untold numbers of Japanese would die if we had invaded the mainland...sadly many Americans believe this lie. They promoted this lie after receiving much criticism for incinerating women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, the US Army predicted 46k American casualties prior to the bombings.
Read the following if you want truth about the a-bombs...the bombings were all about state power and it was hoped, would impress the stinking Soviets and the murdering scumbag Stalin (who we allied with!!!!...CRAZY) and the rest of the world that America's power was unstoppable.
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary to End World War II?
The first use of an atomic bomb in warfare took place on August 6, 1945. The weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the U.S. bomber Enola Gay, instantaneously destroying four square miles in the middle of the population center. The blast killed 66,000 men, women, and children, and injured an additional 69,000. A full 67 percent of Hiroshimas buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed.
The next (and only other) atomic bomb to be dropped in warfare was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later. That blast killed 39,000 civilians and injured another 25,000; 40 percent of the city was destroyed or unrepairable. The Japanese government surrendered to the U.S. government on August 10, 1945.
Since the last good war, a debate has ensued over the moral legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons, particularly against civilians. The critics hold that it is a crime to incinerate civilians en masse; defenders commonly claim that the bombing was necessary to bring the war to a close, thereby saving countless American lives.
Most of those who make this claim do so in earnest. The problem is that this defense is both historically false, and taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.
But a discussion of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot proceed without an overview of the imperialist motives for Japanese military aggression, which reflected the age-old drive for power through military intimidation and conquest. The Japanese desired a series of conquests, to constitute the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This involved, most importantly, penetration into Korea, Manchuria, China, French Indochina, Malaya, and Burma.
What was clearly not their goal was a prolonged conflict with the United States or any of the other Allied Powers. After establishing their Asian imperium and a defensive perimeter, the Japanese expected to reach a negotiated peace.
It should be clear that the attack on the American military base at Pearl Harbor was not a part of the long-term planning of the Japanese government. Indeed, conservatives and isolationists have long held the view that the Roosevelt administration provoked the Japanese into their aggressive stance as a back door to war in Europe.
Consider the facts leading up to the attack: Roosevelt had made a commitment to Churchill that the United States would enter into the Asian conflict if the British were attacked; the United States was shipping munitions to both Russia and Great Britain; Roosevelt had placed an embargo on oil and metals against Japan; and in the most egregious example, had sent the unofficial Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese in China in 1941. All were violations of U.S. neutrality and acts of belligerency.
Vocal critics on the Old Rightsuch as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnesheld that the Roosevelt administration was aware of the attack in advance, both from decoded transmissions and intelligence reports. The weight of history has ironed out the appearance of radicalism from the latter contention. Whatever the truth of the Pearl Harbor affair, an extended war with the United States was not a desire of the Japanese.
Japanese Objectives
Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fightthey did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthurs headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelts successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.
Clearly, then, the bomb did not have to be dropped to save the lives of American soldiers. The war in the Pacific could have ended prior to the European conflict. One suspects that the conflagrations extension beyond the confines of necessity had more to do with the politics of war than military strategy. The fact that consultation with Stalin played a key role in the decision tends to implicate both what historian William L. Neumann pointed to as the historic ambitions of Russia in Asia and the expansionist element in Stalinist Communism.
The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.
Even if the Japanese had showed no signs of surrender and had remained obstinate in belligerency, the notion that the most human carnage possible must be inflicted on the civilians of an enemy government to force a surrender and minimize the losses of ones own troops is perverse. Consider the consequences of adopting a policy of total war. Logically, if you expect an enemy to pursue this strategy, you will do everything in your power to do the same before the enemy has the opportunity to annihilate you.
Critics of the bombing have made a strong moral case against the action. This is why the defenders of the bombing use strongly moralistic terms themselves. One of the results is possibly the most bizarre and obviously wrong.
Most veterans and defenders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claim that whatever the reasons for the bombing and its support, racism was not among them. This is simply not true. The U.S. War Department and related agencies that specialized in producing hate propaganda and lies developed specifically racialist attacks on the Japanese.
Propaganda films, shown to theaters across the country, whipped Americans into war hysteria with films attacking the Japanese with their grinning yellow faces. American movie audiences were encouraged to cheer as they watched images of the upstart yellow dwarfs meeting their timely ends. The government played on and encouraged prejudice and specifically racial animosity against the Japanese. To be fair, the Japanese heldand still holdsimilar views of Americans, views not discouraged by their government.
The most revealing aspect of this latter point is not that racism was involved in drumming up the war spirit, but rather that the truth of the matter has been so thoroughly obscured.
Oddly enough, many apologists are conservatives, who should be the first to recognize that the essence of government is its monopoly on violence. This is a paramount consideration in their analysis of the role of the government in domestic affairs. Consistency demands that conservatives begin to apply their principles across the boardto foreign policy as well as domestic policy. The alternative is the road we now travel, and it leads to total war and the total state.The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
funny how the war ended after the second one was dropped.
What about the civilians who jumped to thier death on Saipan rather than face captivity with the Americans?
Those civilians had been led to believe that they would face horrible, humiliating suffering and death if captured (propaganda that was repeated elsewhere during the war). Nonetheless, 90% of the civilian population of Saipan did survive the war.
Dropping A-bombs SAVED lives. That is a complete myth. Truman and his follow progressives promoted the lie that 500k American soldiers and untold numbers of Japanese would die if we had invaded the mainland...sadly many Americans believe this lie. They promoted this lie after receiving much criticism for incinerating women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, the US Army predicted 46k American casualties prior to the bombings.
Read the following if you want truth about the a-bombs...the bombings were all about state power and it was hoped, would impress the stinking Soviets and the murdering scumbag Stalin (who we allied with!!!!...CRAZY) and the rest of the world that America's power was unstoppable.
funny how the war ended after the second one was dropped.
Funny how you said the bombings saved millions of lives, but now change the subject.
You are right...murdering women and children in cold blood did end the war...but then the Japanese wanted to surrender before they got incinerated by the stinking pro-war statist Truman.
What about the civilians who jumped to thier death on Saipan rather than face captivity with the Americans?
Those civilians had been led to believe that they would face horrible, humiliating suffering and death if captured (propaganda that was repeated elsewhere during the war). Nonetheless, 90% of the civilian population of Saipan did survive the war.
But almost 100% of the Japanese Civilians died, either during the fighting or by suicide at the end of it.
This other civilians dont matter if my point was to use this as an example of the mentaility of the Japanese population at the time. Dont you think the same propaganda would have been used in the face of an imminent US invasion of the Home Islands?
funny how the war ended after the second one was dropped.
Funny how you said the bombings saved millions of lives, but now change the subject.
You are right...murdering women and children in cold blood did end the war...but then the Japanese wanted to surrender before they got incinerated by the stinking pro-war statist Truman.
Thier military wanted a 4 part conditional surrender. No war crimes trials held by outsiders, No occupation of Japan, No military disamament and yes, nothing affecting the emperor. The Allies would not accept the first 3, regardless of finally "accepting" part 4.
Japan was training women to fight with wooden rifles, they would have fought to the death, to extinction.
Don't be stupid. Women, children, and the elderly would not have taken to the streets en mass to fight with armed US soldiers. That's just ridiculous. The people of Japan were starving, exhausted, and long since sick of the war. If you have to swallow silly exaggerrations to believe your simplistic view then you don't really believe it much yourself.
Japan was training women to fight with wooden rifles, they would have fought to the death, to extinction.
Don't be stupid. Women, children, and the elderly would not have taken to the streets en mass to fight with armed US soldiers. That's just ridiculous. The people of Japan were starving, exhausted, and long since sick of the war. If you have to swallow silly exaggerrations to believe your simplistic view then you don't really believe it much yourself.
Well, if you are going to lie, there's really no point.
Funny how you said the bombings saved millions of lives, but now change the subject.
You are right...murdering women and children in cold blood did end the war...but then the Japanese wanted to surrender before they got incinerated by the stinking pro-war statist Truman.
Thier military wanted a 4 part conditional surrender. No war crimes trials held by outsiders, No occupation of Japan, No military disamament and yes, nothing affecting the emperor. The Allies would not accept the first 3, regardless of finally "accepting" part 4.
So you admit that negotiations regarding surrender had been on-going prior to the use of the atomic bomb? This contradicts the popular "we had no choice!" argument.
Thier military wanted a 4 part conditional surrender. No war crimes trials held by outsiders, No occupation of Japan, No military disamament and yes, nothing affecting the emperor. The Allies would not accept the first 3, regardless of finally "accepting" part 4.
So you admit that negotiations regarding surrender had been on-going prior to the use of the atomic bomb? This contradicts the popular "we had no choice!" argument.
it was negotiations via the Soviets, who then invaded prior to surrender. Also we were demanding unconditonal surrender, just like we did to the germans, and they wanted unacceptable conditions.
There is nothing to admit here, because they werent going to accept the allied terms, and the allies were not going to accept the Japanese just giving up and not submitting to occupation.
There were never direct talks.
Those civilians had been led to believe that they would face horrible, humiliating suffering and death if captured (propaganda that was repeated elsewhere during the war). Nonetheless, 90% of the civilian population of Saipan did survive the war.
But almost 100% of the Japanese Civilians died, either during the fighting or by suicide at the end of it.
This other civilians dont matter if my point was to use this as an example of the mentaility of the Japanese population at the time. Dont you think the same propaganda would have been used in the face of an imminent US invasion of the Home Islands?
No, it would not have (of course). Provide a link to "almost 100% of the Japanese civilian died."
So you admit that negotiations regarding surrender had been on-going prior to the use of the atomic bomb? This contradicts the popular "we had no choice!" argument.
it was negotiations via the Soviets, who then invaded prior to surrender. Also we were demanding unconditonal surrender, just like we did to the germans, and they wanted unacceptable conditions.
There is nothing to admit here, because they werent going to accept the allied terms, and the allies were not going to accept the Japanese just giving up and not submitting to occupation.
There were never direct talks.
The fact that they were willing to negotiate is, nonetheless, established. This means there were other options than invasion or atomic bombing.
But almost 100% of the Japanese Civilians died, either during the fighting or by suicide at the end of it.
This other civilians dont matter if my point was to use this as an example of the mentaility of the Japanese population at the time. Dont you think the same propaganda would have been used in the face of an imminent US invasion of the Home Islands?
No, it would not have (of course). Provide a link to "almost 100% of the Japanese civilian died."
The 100% was the military garrison. The research on total civilian casualties of Japanese descent though shows that about 1000 were captured out of an estimated population of 25,000. Not 100%, but not good.
No, it would not have (of course). Provide a link to "almost 100% of the Japanese civilian died."
The 100% was the military garrison. The research on total civilian casualties of Japanese descent though shows that about 1000 were captured out of an estimated population of 25,000. Not 100%, but not good.
You forgot the link.
it was negotiations via the Soviets, who then invaded prior to surrender. Also we were demanding unconditonal surrender, just like we did to the germans, and they wanted unacceptable conditions.
There is nothing to admit here, because they werent going to accept the allied terms, and the allies were not going to accept the Japanese just giving up and not submitting to occupation.
There were never direct talks.
The fact that they were willing to negotiate is, nonetheless, established. This means there were other options than invasion or atomic bombing.
Yes blockade so they starve, or conventional bombing the crap out of them. Still results in large Japanese casualties. In the end people were going to die, and probably in numbers much higher than the resulting a-bomb casualties.
Or do you think a strongly worded note was going to get them to give up?
The fact that they were willing to negotiate is, nonetheless, established. This means there were other options than invasion or atomic bombing.
Yes blockade so they starve, or conventional bombing the crap out of them. Still results in large Japanese casualties. In the end people were going to die, and probably in numbers much higher than the resulting a-bomb casualties.
Or do you think a strongly worded note was going to get them to give up?
They were already starving. No one knows how long a negotiated end to the war might have taken. All we can know with certainty is what actually did happen. The rest is speculation. The point is that the oft-invoked "we had no choice!" or "the bomb saved X number of lives!" arguments are not valid.
