Killing women and children, with God on our side

[Said1]

Classic revisionist history. It's amazing that we should believe this statement.

Yeah. The second nuc was just for good luck.

 

[theHawk]

Yeah. The second nuc was just for good luck.

AH HAHA

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Agreed. This story is based solely on one man's discription so i'll hold judgement. It doesnt seem to be an intentional destruction of civilian property though. I doubt the marines shot the woman and children on purpose. No normal human being could. Which leads me to believe that they didnt shoot the woman and children. So again ill hold my judgement till i hear more.

Perhapsa these particular Marines aren't normal people.

The fighting in the phillipines showed that Japan was ready to die down to every last man. The Kamikaze attacks on Aircraft carriers also proved that we were dealing with an extreme fanatical enemy, willing to die for their beliefs (sound familiar). While i'll agree that impressing the Soviets was an added benefit, the bombs needed to be dropped in order to FORCE Japan to surrender. They still refused surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. It took 2 for them to realize it was over.

There was only 3 days between the first and 2nd bombs. It took us here in modern day American over 24 hours to convince ourselves the levees had breached in N.O.

The dropping of the bomb was done soley to impress the Soviets. We did it in a manner which would cause the maximum loss of civilian life in order to bend political wills. THis is the definition of terrorism. Terrorism does not justify terrorism. When the Israelis bomb a Palestinian apartment complex and kill women and children, this does not justify a Palestinian blowing himself up in an Israeli shopping center. both acts are atrocities.

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.


~~~HERBERT HOOVER

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.


~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.


~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.


~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)

On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.


~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.


~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)

In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.


~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN

Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."

Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.

Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted:

"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'".

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620.


~~~LEO SZILARD
(The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made - 1933)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh big head of concrete, you are so wise....

There is a difference between murder and going to war.

1. The Constitution states that no person shall be denied the right to property, freedom or life without due process of law. Abortion is murder --- but of course, lefties will contort themselves into a pretzel trying to argue their way out of that one.

Hello! The process by which the Supreme Court determine fetuses were not persons under the law was ........ guess what? DUE PROCESS.

The Right is trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, not the Left. So it is the LEFT not the RIGHT that believes in the murder of children. Pick your words wisely. The war in Iraq was authorized by the US Senate.... again, you seemed to have missed that point.

Did the US Senate authorize the Marines to butcher women and children?

2. If you stood by and let the Nazis arrest and jail thousands of innocent Jews knowing full well what their fate was, you are guilty of murder by an act of omission rather than an act of commission. Saddam was operating rape rooms, torturing and gassing people, the mass graves bear silent witness to the scale of the murder in Iraq.

Then you are a MURDERER for standing by and doing nothing while the communist North Korean government massacres its own people. How does it feel to be a MURDERER?

3. Iraq was involved in WMD programs, was preparing to reinitiate its WMD programs after the UN sanctions were lifted.

You mean all we had to do was continue sanctions? Seems like a relatively non-violent approach to use.

Some Iraqi generals... to this day... insist that Saddam had WMDs up until the time of the invasion. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.Stepping into Iraq was within our power, we went through the UN first, they chose not to do a damn thing. Unlike Saddam, who invaded Kuwait in 1991 without anyone's permission.

What do you mean? We told Iraq we didn't care if they invaded Kuwait. We lied to them because President Bush wanted to go to war.

"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

So you're saying the U.S. got permission from someone to massacre women and children? Who exactly? The ghost of Stalin?

Regardless of what Kofi Anan says, there was no "illegality" about the war in Iraq.

Uhh, yeah there was. Read the UN Charter, we're signatories on it.

who is the murderer now?

The U.S. military. We've taken over Saddam's job. Plus all the people fighting in this Civil War which we are incapable of controlling.

Similarly, the UN didn't want to do a damn thing about the situation in the Balkans, Clinton went ahead and committed troops, but somehow that's different?

It is? How is it different? I can't see much a of a difference, on a fundamental level.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As far as .J.O and the courts are concerned O.J. is innocent, my nor your opinion means shit. Nice try though. Did your parents take acid in the late 60's?

As far as the rest of your bullshit is concerned though just be honest with us, you believe all military personnell to be mentally unstable butchers, don't you? Yes, you do because you are a coward and do not have the balls to fight for anything but rather take advantage of the things that result from those who fought for freedom. You dirtbag do not deserve to breathe American air. I guess my prayers to God that you had drown in the cesspool formerly known as New Orleans went unanswered.

What did we get for fighting in Vietnam?

 

[GotZoom]

Spidey...

It is very difficult for me to even give your rants any consideration when I have the image of your LSU "TigerDroppings" Message Board profile.

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/users/prof.asp?u=2219

The first thing you list under interests is: fucking my fiance.

What a lucky girl.

Such class.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yea your such an expert on war and death I bet? Like you have had to face an aggressor in the eyes and kill him to save your own. No I think you are one of those people who has never stand up to a bully or put your life in jeopardy to save another. I also bet you support abortion in the United States and the only death you have seen is the death of your soul.

You kidding? I ran into an infant just the other day that was about to kill me, but I killed it first.


You are full of so much vile hatred its almost funny.


I find it odd how you hold up a cross but support the murder of women and children.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spidey...

It is very difficult for me to even give your rants any consideration when I have the image of your LSU "TigerDroppings" Message Board profile.

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/users/prof.asp?u=2219

The first thing you list under interests is: fucking my fiance.

What a lucky girl.

Such class.

Well I went ahead an changed it just for you, don't you feel special?

I know I feel special, that you would actually google my handle! You must love me soooo much.


You should think about joing Tigerdroppings. Its a far more lively board than this one, and I think the libs are starting to outnumber the cons by now. We need some fair and balancedness. Seriously, sign up.

 

[GotZoom]

Well I went ahead an changed it just for you, don't you feel special?

I know I feel special, that you would actually google my handle! You must love me soooo much.


You should think about joing Tigerdroppings. Its a far more lively board than this one, and I think the libs are starting to outnumber the cons by now. We need some fair and balancedness. Seriously, sign up.

Very interesting that you changed it because a total stranger called you on it and not for the fact that it is incredibly disrespectful to your fiance.

Just shows the kind of person you are.

 

[Avatar4321]

Very interesting that you changed it because a total stranger called you on it and not for the fact that it is incredibly disrespectful to your fiance.

Just shows the kind of person you are.

Havent you heard? Civility is dead.

 

[GotZoom]

Havent you heard? Civility is dead.

At least at LSU.

 

[theHawk]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/3781490.html


No wonder they love us so much, we massacre women and children. Shooting children - with God on our side. Is executing entire families just "part of war"? And if so, and you rightie warmongers think war is so great, why don't you execute some families? What better way to promote justice and freedom than killing a bunch of women and children just because they live in the wrong neighborhood? It is quintessentially American. Its good to see we're carrying on tradition, from the trail of tears, to the burning of atlanta, to the slaugtering of Japanese civilians, to the killing of Vienamese farmers and women and children, and now, blowing away entire families at close range. Isn't it great God is on our side?

If the U.S. supported such actions as you claim, why would they relieve the ones in command? When the rules are blantantly thrown aside and individuals break military law, why are you so quick to attack the entire military and all those that support the military in general. This is really mindblowing logic on your part. What runs through your mind when a police officer goes above the law and murders someone while on duty? Do you run around yelling at people who believe in a society made of law and order and enforced by police are all advocating the murder that the one officer commited? With your line of thought, we should never engage in war because of the few bad things that will eventually happen. Maybe we should never arrest anyone either, because we know that at some time an innocent person will be wrongly arrested.

I nor anyone else who supports the war ever has to defend the actions of a few individuals. And you Sir, no matter how hard you try, are not going to make us feel guilty for what a few dumbasses in uniform do. If you so hate yourself and your own country so much, you are free to move out of it and into one of the many U.S. hating countries out there. I'm sure they'll welcome you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Very interesting that you changed it because a total stranger called you on it and not for the fact that it is incredibly disrespectful to your fiance.

Just shows the kind of person you are.

How would you know if she was disrespected by it, considering you don't even know her?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

With your line of thought, we should never engage in war because of the few bad things that will eventually happen.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. When we have the choice to engage in war or not to engage in war, we should choose not to. Brilliant.

If you so hate yourself and your own country so much, you are free to move out of it and into one of the many U.S. hating countries out there.

If you love molesting children so much, you are free to move to a country where that's acceptable.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. When we have the choice to engage in war or not to engage in war, we should choose not to. Brilliant.




If you love molesting children so much, you are free to move to a country where that's acceptable.

IE--America has nothing worth fighting for.

 

[GotZoom]

How would you know if she was disrespected by it, considering you don't even know her?

You know. You are right.

I apologize for the assumption.

You are just the kind of guy who would have a fiance who likes to see ...fucking my fiance...on her "man's: (used very loosely) profile.

 

[jimnyc]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/3781490.html


No wonder they love us so much, we massacre women and children. Shooting children - with God on our side. Is executing entire families just "part of war"? And if so, and you rightie warmongers think war is so great, why don't you execute some families? What better way to promote justice and freedom than killing a bunch of women and children just because they live in the wrong neighborhood? It is quintessentially American. Its good to see we're carrying on tradition, from the trail of tears, to the burning of atlanta, to the slaugtering of Japanese civilians, to the killing of Vienamese farmers and women and children, and now, blowing away entire families at close range. Isn't it great God is on our side?

Holy crap on a stick! What's with the "we"? It was 3 Marines charged, out of how many? And yes, they will be tried and punished if guilty. I highly doubt this makes it fair to make it sound as if our military supports/condones the murdering of innocents.

This is a perfect example of a lib digging for stories that draw negative light and then use it to stereotype everyone in the armed forces, conservatives and Americans in general.

I don't buy it. Our guys and gals are over there risking their lives. They are probably a little trigger happy at times after watching their fellow soldiers killed by roadside bombs. This is war, and in wars there will be casualties. It's better to be more of them than any Americans.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Holy crap on a stick! What's with the "we"? It was 3 Marines charged, out of how many? And yes, they will be tried and punished if guilty. I highly doubt this makes it fair to make it sound as if our military supports/condones the murdering of innocents.

This is a perfect example of a lib digging for stories that draw negative light and then use it to stereotype everyone in the armed forces, conservatives and Americans in general.

I know. It's a total slap in the face to the men and women rising their lives for people like him. He has zero gratitude for what they do.

 

[insein]

Perhapsa these particular Marines aren't normal people.




There was only 3 days between the first and 2nd bombs. It took us here in modern day American over 24 hours to convince ourselves the levees had breached in N.O.

The dropping of the bomb was done soley to impress the Soviets. We did it in a manner which would cause the maximum loss of civilian life in order to bend political wills. THis is the definition of terrorism. Terrorism does not justify terrorism. When the Israelis bomb a Palestinian apartment complex and kill women and children, this does not justify a Palestinian blowing himself up in an Israeli shopping center. both acts are atrocities.

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.


~~~HERBERT HOOVER

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.


~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.


~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.


~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)

On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.


~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.


~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)

In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.


~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN

Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."

Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.

Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted:

"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'".

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620.


~~~LEO SZILARD
(The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made - 1933)

I'm actually impressed. A troll did some homework for a change. Psychoblues, pay attention. You could learn something from spidey. Rants get further if you have some kind of evidence.

Here's some opposing points of view on the matter.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses. The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor—many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.

Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war."

Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

Some also think that this was a better way to limit civilian casualties as many more were dieing due to convential bombings over more sustained periods of time to prepare for invasion.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports.

When a country's population is supportive of a government thats bent on fighting to the last man, you have to break their will and make them turn on their leaders. (Loosely related to the same strategy the terrorists are using to weaken the will of the Left in America).

These are Japanese historians speaking for the use of the bomb as a way to end the bloodshed. In fact they were correct. After 6 years of gruesome fighting that cost the lives of 2.6 million japanese, the war ended in just 3 days as opposed to taking 6 more years.

 

[nosarcasm]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/3781490.html


No wonder they love us so much, we massacre women and children. Shooting children - with God on our side. Is executing entire families just "part of war"? And if so, and you rightie warmongers think war is so great, why don't you execute some families? What better way to promote justice and freedom than killing a bunch of women and children just because they live in the wrong neighborhood? It is quintessentially American. Its good to see we're carrying on tradition, from the trail of tears, to the burning of atlanta, to the slaugtering of Japanese civilians, to the killing of Vienamese farmers and women and children, and now, blowing away entire families at close range. Isn't it great God is on our side?

war is about making your enemy submit, you have to kill as many of them till they give up. People have tried to ignore that, the Us government does not even do it. It worked for Japan and my home country Germany,