Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[regent]

Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.

 

[Unkotare]

Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.

One of the most poorly thought-out posts seen here in some time. ^^

 

[JoeB131]

You found something faster with Google, while I have read and own the book? Your idea about being faster is your fantasy.

Do I deny the quote is there, as stated from your link, its not a matter of denial, its a matter of fact that your link is garbage and that quote is not on page 380, as your link states, I quoted the link you gave, with the reference to the incorrect page.

Whoever created the page is a lousy scholar, there is no check for accuracy, most likely whoever cut/paste the quote together did not read the book. First and foremost, page 380 of Mandate for Change talks of the TVA, not Stimson and the bomb.

Hey, I know this might come as a shock to you, but different editions of the books might have different page numbers. Ike really did say the things about the bombing that he said.

Point is, a lot of military men thought the bombing was unnessary.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army

• Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
  
  
  The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)
  
  

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.

You see, I don't buy that. The Japanese HAD put out feelers that they wanted to talk peace to the Soviets (before they entered the war) to the Swiss.

The use of the bomb had a lot more to do with trying to end the war on terms that didn't include partitioning Japan and China with the Soviets.

 

[Camp]

Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.

You see, I don't buy that. The Japanese HAD put out feelers that they wanted to talk peace to the Soviets (before they entered the war) to the Swiss.

The use of the bomb had a lot more to do with trying to end the war on terms that didn't include partitioning Japan and China with the Soviets.

Here is a good read on what JoeB is talking about. It is review of "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html

 

[gipper]

To All The Above:

Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.

Have you failed to learn war is the health of the state?

You want links....here they are. I dare you to read them.
Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
More Articles on Pearl Harbor

Read these books PLEASE:
Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books

The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".

Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.

Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here. Sorry you missed my prior posts.

And I posted links because another poster asked for them.

These links lead to articles from many experts. You would be wise to read them.

In my experience, those who use Google, like its a deck of cards, are simply playing go fish.
I thought of what you said while I was away, that most likely you quoted or was more specific. Still, so many people simply think a Google search that gives them results is somehow proof or confirmation of their particular ideology.

Yes, you posted the links cause someone asked for them, yet you proceeded the links with the comment;
"To All The Above: Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State."

Here is a pic of most the books that are relevant to the topic at hand. Have you read, "The Rape of Nanking", certainly tells much of the character of the enemy we faced. Seems I forgot to include my stuff about Burma, where the Japanese tortured and maimed teenager's genitals and such, until the young teenage died, I am talking 13 year old boys and girls. Pretty gruesome enemy we faced.

How about that stuff about Stimson, or the Secretary of State at the time.

But I kind of like the books, Hirohito or The Rising Sun. Quotes directly from the highest ranking Japanese officials, very relevant. How about the Battle for Okinawa, another good source, or how about Gunther's book.

Did you notice the open book, its old, 1928 is when it was written, I should confirm that, it may be a bit newer, I say stuff written before the War is very insightful.

Still, all that stuff on or from Stimson, he was the expert on Asia.

John Gunther's book is useful as well.

So, to me, links mean next to nothing, mostly they are of other people's opinion.

Japan, did we really have to nuke Japan?
No, not at all.
Unconditional Surrender? What did that mean, leaving the Japanese in Control of the areas of China they controlled? Leaving the Japanese in Control of Vietnam, Burma? All of Indochina?

Read, The Rising Sun or Hirohito, and one realizes Japan was not ever, surrendering. But as it happened in History, they did Surrender, the most difficult part of the Emperor Surrendering was the Emperor had to fight against the Army, the Emperor literally had to do much in secret, as to not to be murdered those within the Emperor's government who would not ever allow Surrender.

It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed that the Emperor fought against the Japanese military command, and surrendered, risking his life and others, in doing so.

Japan was never united in Surrender, conditionally or unconditionally. Overtures to Communist Russia, far short of a surrender.

Quote your best source, I will easily counter, more than one book, first though, direct quotes from the Japanese who were in charge, in command. Who better to speak, than the Japanese.

View attachment 35866

Your library is extremely limited.

 

[regent]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

 

[gipper]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?

 

[HenryBHough]

Rooseveldt's depression was about over. Truman simply recognized that the war was no longer necessary to the economy so he ended it.

Of course pragmatists need no longer apply for Democat party membership so it's all moot.

 

[regent]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.

 

[gipper]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.

I do not believe that is accurate. By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring. Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.

It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives. The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too. Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers??? The war was over. The US won and most of Japan was in ruins. All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children. Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition. No greater war crime has ever been committed.

 

[Camp]

Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.

 

[gipper]

And to think Dirty Harry justified in mass murder of civilians who wanted the war over, because the Japanese government would not surrender, is to not think.

 

[gipper]

Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.

And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.

 

[regent]

Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.

And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.

You keep assuming Japan was defeated and ready to surrender. The problem was the Japanese did not know that it was defeated and ready to surrender. Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life. They were not afraid to die and to die for the emperor was more important than living. That concept was difficult for Americans to understand. We believed they would see clearly that they were beaten and surrender, and they did not. Until the emperor suggested they surrender it was up in the air. So what made the emperor suggest surrender, the fire bombing the fact that they seemed defeated, nope none of those.

 

[Camp]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.

I do not believe that is accurate. By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring. Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.

It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives. The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too. Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers??? The war was over. The US won and most of Japan was in ruins. All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children. Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition. No greater war crime has ever been committed.

Lots of imagination and opinions based on faulty data. The Japanese had troops spread out all over Asia that were being recalled to fight off an invasion. We learned during the battle at Okinawa that they employed a tactic of disassembling aircraft and hiding them in the countryside. Many of the 1500 Kamikazes from Formosa that fought at Okinawa were these hidden aircraft. The Japanese had another 7000 of these aircraft in reserve in preparation for the invasion. In addition they had a fleet of 5000 suicide boats prepared.
What this theory of not attacking Okinawa when we did would have done was give Japan time to refurbish, retrain, reinforce and prepare for the coming invasion. There is no evidence or indication that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. The only feasible alternative would have been the continued use of fire bombing of cities and inflicting even more casualties than the atomic bombs caused. If Japan knew we were out of bombs and were unable to strike another city they would not have surrendered.
The Japanese surrendered because the Emperor believed another atomic bomb was on the way and it was going to be aimed at him.

 

[Unkotare]

Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....

Nope.

 

[Unkotare]

Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life...

So are Americans and everyone else.

 

[JoeB131]

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.

Well, no, it wasn't. The bombing just weren't having that much of an effect, as the Japanese had moved their industries underground.

What made the difference was the Soviet Entry into the War. Remember, Japan wanted to retain Manchuria and Korea as part of a peace deal. The Soviets quickly made short work of their army in Manchuria, and was threatening Hokkaido.

 

[gipper]

Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.

And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.

You keep assuming Japan was defeated and ready to surrender. The problem was the Japanese did not know that it was defeated and ready to surrender. Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life. They were not afraid to die and to die for the emperor was more important than living. That concept was difficult for Americans to understand. We believed they would see clearly that they were beaten and surrender, and they did not. Until the emperor suggested they surrender it was up in the air. So what made the emperor suggest surrender, the fire bombing the fact that they seemed defeated, nope none of those.

The Japanese military code of refusing to surrender, does not justify Truman's war crime. Killing civilians on a vast scale is unjustifiable and clearly immoral.