Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[boedicca]

The answer is yes. James Taylor wasn't old enough to be sent in to sing "You've Gotta Friend" to Emperor Hirohito.

 

[Syriusly]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

 

[Camp]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

How dare you approach this topic in a balanced and objective fashion!

 

[ThirdTerm]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relatively small provincial cities and the sacrifices made by civilians in these cities saved the nation from an American invasion which would have killed up to 1 million civilians on the ground. The Soviet troops were also on the verge of invading Japan from the north and without the atomic bombs, Japan could have been split in two and the Soviet Union could have occupied the northern half of Japan. Soviet Russia would have created a puppet state called North Japan to impose Communist rule and Japan would not have been as prosperous as it is now, reduced to an insignificant Asian country like South Korea. Moreover, Imperial Japan was responsible for killing as many Chinese civilians as those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan is in no position to complain about the dropping of the atomic bombs as atrocities were committed by both sides during the war.

 

[gipper]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

 

[Syriusly]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

How dare you approach this topic an a balanced and objective fashion!

Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so appalled by dropping the atomic Bombs have never even heard of the Tokyo fire bombings?

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

I thought I was pretty clear about what my point was.

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

 

[gipper]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?

 

[gipper]

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

How dare you approach this topic an a balanced and objective fashion!

Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so appalled by dropping the atomic Bombs have never even heard of the Tokyo fire bombings?

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

I thought I was pretty clear about what my point was.

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

Killing civilians on a vast scale can't be justified now or then.
How do we learn from history if we can't analyze and make conclusions on actions taken? Because decades have passed we can't condemn...I think not.

 

[Camp]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?

Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.

 

[elektra]

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.

Prove it.

I state I own 1400 books, sucks for you, right, people who actually know more than you. I own the books you and the like of you indirectly quote from using google.

Care to tell me of a quote in which I do not OWN THE BOOK!

Go ahead, google search, quote, selectively pick your "search parameters", I will go to the original source which I most likely own, take a pic, and quote the whole page or as much as it takes to capture the relevant.

I see you had to ignore and not address the facts I have presented. Instead you attack me.

I may go back and read your posts, it takes a little more time to be right, versus a quick google search. I have not forgot that there is post you addressed to me with maybe something in it, I just got tied up in the quick and easy, discrediting the Eisenhower and MacArthur post.

So, feel free to challenge my, "Library", with whatever your limited knowledge can think to type into your Google search bar.

 

[elektra]

Hey, Owl, Josef Stalin is hiding under your bed right now!

The reality is the bombs were probably not that big of a deal.

Let's look at the sequence of events.

Japan knows it's defeated, they start putting out feelers about a surrender. The sticking point is that the US won't commit to retaining Hirohito as tenyo (Emperor)

Then we drop the bombs, but we had been bombing Japan for months at that point, and conventional bombs were killing far more people.

When the USSR entered the war, it changed a bunch of things.

1) Stalin wasn't going to mediate between Japan and the Allies.
2) The Red Army was quickly rolling up the Japanese Army on the mainland.
3) If the war dragged on, Japan would be partitioned like Germany and Austria were.

That's why Japan surrendered. The game changer was not another weapon, but the fact that the balance of power across the theatre had drastically turned against them.

"The game changer was not another weapon,........"

Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.

So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.

 

[elektra]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

 

[Camp]

Hey, Owl, Josef Stalin is hiding under your bed right now!

The reality is the bombs were probably not that big of a deal.

Let's look at the sequence of events.

Japan knows it's defeated, they start putting out feelers about a surrender. The sticking point is that the US won't commit to retaining Hirohito as tenyo (Emperor)

Then we drop the bombs, but we had been bombing Japan for months at that point, and conventional bombs were killing far more people.

When the USSR entered the war, it changed a bunch of things.

1) Stalin wasn't going to mediate between Japan and the Allies.
2) The Red Army was quickly rolling up the Japanese Army on the mainland.
3) If the war dragged on, Japan would be partitioned like Germany and Austria were.

That's why Japan surrendered. The game changer was not another weapon, but the fact that the balance of power across the theatre had drastically turned against them.

"The game changer was not another weapon,........"

Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.

So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.

Surely with historian heavyweights like Lew Rockwell and James Perloff in his library he can answer these questions.

 

[gipper]

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?

Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.

So?

 

[JoeB131]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

 

[JoeB131]

Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.

So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.

When are you going to return to taking your medications? Your doctor and I are concerned.

 

[Camp]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?

Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.

So?

Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.

 

[gipper]

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

You need to research conditions in Japan. Do not check your limited library. Try Google.
Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?

 

[gipper]

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?

Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.

So?

Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.

Again you resort to justifying mass murder of civilians.
Truman never used that explanation so it is you reaching.

 

[elektra]

Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.

So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.

When are you going to return to taking your medications? Your doctor and I are concerned.

Poor Baby, you give up on your "fast" Google searches?

I do not blame you, many weak minded resort to insults, its simply that you have not the intellect to support those idiotic ideas, others planted in your weak mind.

Eisenhower supported the dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Eisenhower goes as far as to reference Stimson's book, which I took the time to photograph and post, this contradicted your statement and calls into question the ".com" you linked to.

After a couple simple posts, JoeB131 is so dumbfounded, the response of JoeB131's is simply flames and trolls.

MacArthur, Did you ever link to anything MacArthur stated? MacArthur literally stated Japan's Homeland must be attacked. Was that July or June, go ahead and Google.

You also mentioned Leahy? Yes, Leahy stated that the A-Bomb would be a dud, would not explode. Care to tackle Leahy, who you, joeb131 referenced?

I see many loose ends of Joeb131, and after a couple quotes and pics of the books I own, joeb131 decided the only argument left, is to hurl insults.

Thank you so much for another opportunity, to state the facts, everyone agreed that Japan's Homeland must be attacked and destroyed, to secure a surrender.