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

[elektra]

Were Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Halsey, among many other senior American officers, "angry at Americans" because they said we should not have nuked Japan?

The first person you meniton at the beginning of this thread is McGeorge Bundy? You are a scholar? You write books? Revisionist books? You are oh so college educated, right? So why do you choose Bundy to begin your OP? Why do you not tell us that during World War II that Bundy had absolutely nothing to do with dropping the Atomic Bomb. Why do you not tell us that Bundy knew absolutely nothing about the existence of the bomb. How about explaining, how a Lt. in the army during world war II is relevant in this argument?

The simple answer is, you simply found an opinion expressed many years later that confirmed you mormon religious convictions, that this was immoral!

From the beginning of the OP, now you mention Eisenhower? But you began the thread with Bundy. So let us talk about Bundy and what he knew in that early august of 1945, which was absolutely NOTHING!!!!

Those who do not know, are quick to try to bury us with many cut/pastes, many people that we are suppose to research. Already, while ignoring everything the OP is based on the Griffter expects me to research a half dozen names that he throws out. No quotes, no links, no points of reference. Just the dictate, that they somehow sometime somewhere said what the big lousy jerk dictates we are to believe!!!!!!!!!

Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:

 

[elektra]

You gonna throw another hissy fit over religion now, bigot? Have you got anything left but screaming and stomping your little feet?

Urban Dictionary: Unkotare

As long as you can not stay on the topic of History, maybe you can explain this?

Go ahead, history teacher!

 

[elektra]

I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.

Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.

I deleted much here. How about backing up to your first post. I have addressed much in that. Stuff you keep ignoring? Why is that? Did you begin this thread on a Mormon religous premise while you were personally pissed at the USA? You called us immoral, you said any response would be embarrassing on our part. Why do you not reply to the post I made? Are you not man enough to admit you made a mistake or is that your character? The character of a troll who only created this thread to demean, flame, and troll?

If you are unwilling to address even the first lines of your OP, then you are a piece of shit! Seriously. I can move on if you willing to state what the hell you were thinking. It is obviously not directed at anybody in history? Did you simply not explain it correctly? You are too educated for that. Being called out is obviously embarrassing. It takes a man to admit being wrong.

 

[elektra]

I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.

Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.

You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.

Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.

And here it is, a reply that does not address my post which quoted the OP., which quoted the first post that started this thread.

So instead of debating and discussing what I point out as being false, as being lies, as being irrelevant or simply insults. Mr Griffter wishes for me to discuss something other than the opinions and misinformation that begins this OP?

No, asshole, you do not get to move on and ignore what you wrote! You do not get to move beyond. You wrote it, defend it or admit you are wrong.

 

[elektra]

I guess, it will be at least another day, ha, ha, ha, in which the griffter will answer to the comments he has made. The prick said it, the prick began the OP on these comments, why can not the prick address the comments!

I understand it is hard to admit that he intentionally insulted everybody. He argues otherwise, but it is there for everyone to see. The title and his opening statement.

Then he brings up McGeorge Bundy, a 26 year old lieutenant in the army during WW II? A person who never knew a bomb was being built. A person who was not involved in anyway with the strategy to end the war? Simply a person who may have expressed an opinion similar to the the griffter? I say may have because we have no link, no source to where this statement was made, which context it was made. But who cares? griffter continues to demean and slander those who made the tough decision, while elevating nobodies to positions of respect and knowledge if they may share the same misinformed opinion?

So two valid points the griffter will not address, instead he offers new points, that I must research and prove to be false. Never are we to expect what is demanded of us, to be done by the author.

Accusations, false premises, statements that are cherry picked, invalidated statements. Never does the griffter prove anything he contends, he simply answers questions, by asking more questions and dictating other problems he believes proves his point.

never will he debate anything he posted.

Let us see.

Bundy, no reply
Eisenhower, no reply.

I will make a list.

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.

You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

 

[Third Party]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.

You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.

You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.

Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?

 

[Unkotare]

...
As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....

You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.

 

[elektra]

...
As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....

You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.

Still no history? I changed the topic so you like a dog smelling shit has to come sniffing around?

And your excuse while flaming and trolling others is????

History teacher, I can see why schools suck, it is because of you.

 

[Third Party]

Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.

You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.

Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?

Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.

 

[mikegriffith1]

One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf

 

[elektra]

One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf

As I stated, you can not support or prove anything you say. You brought up Eisenhower and claimed he disagreed. Where is the quote and the source?

Now you offer your opinion in regards to grew and truman, where is the quote and the source?

As I have pointed out. You post lies, and when a particular lie is challenged, you simply more lies to obfuscate the previous lies.

I will bring this up at the old capital club, they hate the lies about WW II

 

[Third Party]

One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf

Nobody was under any obligation to see the Japanese viewpoint-all Americans saw were casualty reports and stories of atrocities. Some wanted more bombing.

 

[Unkotare]

...
As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....

You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.

Still no history? I changed the topic so you........

YOU changed the topic to your own weak bigotry and you want to blame someone else? Typical leftist who can't take personal responsibility.

 

[Unkotare]

You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.

Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?

Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.

Like your brain cells?

 

[Third Party]

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!

Your hopes have been dashed.

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.

Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?

Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.

Like your brain cells?

NO

 

[HenryBHough]

If Truman had had more nukes would he have had the balls to use them and ensure Japan ever again screwed around with America?

He WAS a Democrat so we can never be sure......though today he'd be ridiculed by the current-day Democrat Party as a fascist or worse.

 

[elektra]

YOU changed the topic to your own weak bigotry and you want to blame someone else? Typical leftist who can't take personal responsibility.

Shit face says what?

 

[elektra]

One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf

One problem with every post you make, is somebody else did the research so you actually do not know what you are talking about. You believe you do, but that is cause you are an idiot. In all seriousness, I am not insulting you, you really are an idiot. Anybody is who does not do the research themselves.

Thus far you have refused to answer my post on Bundy? Why is that? Simple, because the answer is Bundy was just a young officer in the Army, nothing more, when the bombs were dropped. Hence his comments later in life are irrelevant. But, without doing research, who knows, thus far everything I have researched, in regards to your posts, have proven false. So I suspect without doing anymore research than I have, that if I find Bundy's quote, it will be different than what you pretend it to be.

Here in this post, you have made the same mistake, you know nothing other than what someone else wrote who had an obvious agenda. I will address this in my next post for this one has been a little of a rant exposing your the failure of your OP.