The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Open Bolt]

Uh, well, he was one of our top generals and later became one of our most beloved presidents. He commanded all American and Allied forces in Europe. So one would think that his opinion on nuking Japan would carry considerable weight.

One would be wrong. The only person that Ike told, Stimson, called him an idiot and didn't bother to pass on his opinion to anyone else.

Considering that Ike only expressed his view after the final orders to drop the atomic bombs had been sent out to the military and Stimson had left Potsdam to return home, Ike would have been too late anyway. Stimson did not see Truman again until after Hiroshima had been bombed.

How about Douglas MacArthur? Do you care what he thought about nuking Japan? He opposed it too.

Wrong. He was not even consulted on the matter.

FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it.

Japan was always free to stop committing genocide if they wanted us to sell our goods to them.

 

[BS Filter]

There is an issue with your timeline. Here is the order of events:
August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions

Wrong. The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.

 

[gipper]

Nope. Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

Hiroshima held thousands of soldiers. Hiroshima held more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo.

Truman didn't ignore the Japanese peace feelers. It was Japan who killed off the peace feelers.

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud.

The Strategic Bombing Survey is a known fraud.

If that quote from Ike can be verified, it will indeed be one more piece of evidence showing that the US government feared high casualties from an invasion.

Japan's genocide of their Asian neighbors was indeed horrific.



No such ignorance. Note the ease with which I debunk all of your untrue claims.

Absurd. Stupid and proven wrong long ago. It’s as if you just finished 6th grade after reading the government’s text book on WWII.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.

That is incorrect. That was the order of events.

The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.

To be more specific, the condition was that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

 

[Open Bolt]

Absurd. Stupid and proven wrong long ago.

No. Facts and reality are neither stupid nor absurd. And they certainly have not been proven wrong.

It’s as if you just finished 6th grade after reading the government’s text book on WWII.

I can't help that you don't like the facts about Japan's surrender, but reality is true regardless.

 

[BS Filter]

That is incorrect. That was the order of events.



To be more specific, the condition was that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Wrong again. The emperor lost all power.
On Jan. 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito declared he was a mortal, not a divine being. The following year, Japan's U.S.-drafted postwar constitution took away sovereignty from the emperor and gave it to the Japanese people, keeping the monarch as a figurehead but without political power.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong again.

I'm not wrong at any point.

The order of events is:
August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions

And the condition that Japan asked for on August 10 was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

The emperor lost all power.
On Jan. 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito declared he was a mortal, not a divine being. The following year, Japan's U.S.-drafted postwar constitution took away sovereignty from the emperor and gave it to the Japanese people, keeping the monarch as a figurehead but without political power.

Yes. That much is correct.

 

[Open Bolt]

facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.

No such facts.

the immoral actions of FDR and Truman

No such immorality.

needless and cruel vaporizing

Spare us the melodrama. They were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender.

of over 200,000 civilians,

Only half that many.

most of them women and children,

Wrong.

ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese,

Wrong.

did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender,

Wrong.

nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people,

No more than 110,000 people.

most of them women and children.

Wrong.

Was Ike a "whiner" too?

Oh hell yes.

 

[Open Bolt]

Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China wasn't communist in 1941. Japan wasn't our ally in 1941. And we didn't really care that much about communism because Adolf Hitler was running roughshod across Europe. We had to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. even if it meant working with the U.S.S.R.

You're like the fuck'n idiot who claims Reagan was wrong for working with Osama Bin Laden even though they were our allies at the time and they were helping to defeat the U.S.S.R. - which was the biggest threat at that time.

You have a good point, but I wanted to point out that the US didn't actually work with Usama bin Ladn.

 

[Open Bolt]

So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?

Well first, we didn't bomb civilians. We attacked military targets.

But no. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was much worse than the atomic bombs.

Pearl Harbor was a war crime. And so was the Bataan Death March.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.

Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.

Japan was far from defenseless. And attacks on military targets are not murder.

 

[Open Bolt]

/—-/ We nuked Nagasaki to get the attention of both the Emperor and Uncle Joe Stalin.

While it is true that we hoped that Stalin would be intimidated by the atomic bombs, that isn't why we nuked Japan.

Japan would have been nuked on exactly the same schedule even if Stalin and the Soviet Union didn't exist.

 

[Mushroom]

Scholars acknowledge that casualty figures of 500,000 were entirely plausible.

And which the Shockley Report blew away.

It must be realized, that all of the casualty estimates were based on experiences fighting in Europe, mostly against the Germans in two wars. But they were completely wrong when estimating casualties against the Japanese.

For example, the Battle of Okinawa saw around 70,000 US casualties. And that was primarily among those who had been fighting the Japanese for years. Unlike the European conflict, the Marines had already accepted that against Japan, you would be expected to kill 5 of them for each American death, and that prisoners would be few. It was not unusual that in a battle fighting thousands of Japanese, they might take less than 2 dozen prisoner. Most would die rather than surrender.

And the Battle of Saipan drove that home even more. Where common civilians killed themselves by the thousands rather than allow themselves to be captured.

Shockley estimated from 1.4 to 4 million Allied casualties in an invasion, with up to 800,000 Allied deaths. And the deaths of between 5-10 million Japanese. A lot of his report was dedicated to showing why all of the battle estimates were so wrong, and that comparing the Japanese to any other group in estimating battle casualties would always fail. But then showing how his numbers took into account such battles as Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa.

 

[Mushroom]

Wrong. The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.

And Potsdam only demanded the surrender of their Armed Forces. The fate of the Emperor was never even hinted at in the Potsdam Declaration.

 

[Mushroom]

But no. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was much worse than the atomic bombs.

Pearl Harbor was a war crime. And so was the Bataan Death March.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.

Actually, I doubt that Pearl Harbor was a war crime. It is well known that the delay in the Japanese Embassy in decoding the 14 part message meant it was delivered late. But even if delivered an hour before the attack, it would have made no difference. All the pieces were put into play over a week before.

But Bataan? Unquestionably a war crime. Most of the Japanese behaviors during that war were war crimes. Systematic executions of all, POWs and civilians alike. An actual organized rape system, created by and endorsed by the military. Using humans for scientific experiments and biological warfare tests.

People talk of some of the worst German atrocities and think of Dr. Mengele. The Angel of Death of Auschwitz. Now imagine an entire Regiment of Dr. Mengele's.

That would be Unit 731. Estimates are generally around 400,000 killed by that unit in 10 years. Mostly in brutal experiments. And it was hardly alone, there were others. Unit 100, Unit 1855, Unit 8604, in total over 10,000 people doing war crimes. Ranging from purposefully infecting people with deadly pathogens to see how long they took to die, to putting them in freezing water, shooting them so that doctors can experiment in how to treat injuries, burning them to see how much of the body can be burned before they would die. They would starve prisoners to death or watch them die of thirst, to see how long it took depending on weather and level of health. Almost half a million Chinese died in those experiments.

And the Comfort Women. Forcing women (mostly from conquered territory) to serve as prostitutes in military run brothels.

There is no need to claim Pearl Harbor was a war crime, as there were millions of them that are clear and obvious war crimes. Ones that even make most of the actions of Germany look almost civil.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm not wrong at any point.

The order of events is:
August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions

And the condition that Japan asked for on August 10 was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.



Yes. That much is correct.

So now you admit you were wrong. You're also wrong about conditional surrender. After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused; thus, the second atomic bomb was dropped. Do your research.

 

[Mushroom]

After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused

Sorry, calling obvious bullshit on that.

Japan was given the terms the month before, at Potsdam. And never once were they ever "Unconditional Surrender" was the demand. Here we go, once again. The only part of Potsdam that demands surrender.

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

I get so sick and tired of having to repeat this ad nauseum. "Unconditional Surrender" was never a demand, only the unconditional surrender of their armed forces. Not of the Government, not of the Emperor, nobody else. Just their military. And the demands of Potsdam were not repeated, other than in President Truman's speech after Hiroshima, where is simply reminded them that they had the Potsdam Declaration in hand already, and the only way to stop future bombings was to agree to its terms.

We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.
It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

Where this fabrication that we demanded an "unconditional surrender of Japan" comes from, I have absolutely no idea. But it is completely wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

Actually, I doubt that Pearl Harbor was a war crime. It is well known that the delay in the Japanese Embassy in decoding the 14 part message meant it was delivered late. But even if delivered an hour before the attack, it would have made no difference. All the pieces were put into play over a week before.

Japan had a responsibility to deliver their war declaration before they opened hostilities. It was their duty to verify that war had been declared before they attacked.

But Bataan? Unquestionably a war crime. Most of the Japanese behaviors during that war were war crimes. Systematic executions of all, POWs and civilians alike. An actual organized rape system, created by and endorsed by the military. Using humans for scientific experiments and biological warfare tests.

People talk of some of the worst German atrocities and think of Dr. Mengele. The Angel of Death of Auschwitz. Now imagine an entire Regiment of Dr. Mengele's.

That would be Unit 731. Estimates are generally around 400,000 killed by that unit in 10 years. Mostly in brutal experiments. And it was hardly alone, there were others. Unit 100, Unit 1855, Unit 8604, in total over 10,000 people doing war crimes. Ranging from purposefully infecting people with deadly pathogens to see how long they took to die, to putting them in freezing water, shooting them so that doctors can experiment in how to treat injuries, burning them to see how much of the body can be burned before they would die. They would starve prisoners to death or watch them die of thirst, to see how long it took depending on weather and level of health. Almost half a million Chinese died in those experiments.

And the Comfort Women. Forcing women (mostly from conquered territory) to serve as prostitutes in military run brothels.

Agreed. Those were all atrocities.

 

[Open Bolt]

So now you admit you were wrong.

I'm not wrong. And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.

The timeline is as I said it was.

August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender

You're also wrong about conditional surrender.

No I'm not. Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused; thus, the second atomic bomb was dropped.

Here is a third thing that you are wrong about. We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation. That was long before Hiroshima.

Do your research.

I've done my research. That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm not wrong. And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.

The timeline is as I said it was.

August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender



No I'm not. Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.



Here is a third thing that you are wrong about. We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation. That was long before Hiroshima.



I've done my research. That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.

Japan surrounded "unconditionally". FACT.

Japan's Unconditional Surrender | HISTORY

 

[Cellblock2429]

While it is true that we hoped that Stalin would be intimidated by the atomic bombs, that isn't why we nuked Japan.

Japan would have been nuked on exactly the same schedule even if Stalin and the Soviet Union didn't exist.

/——-/ I’m saying there was more than one reason. The major one was of course to get Japan to surrender, but also to send vs a warning to Stalin.