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

[elektra]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Lets see here: yeah, it took 2 nukes to convince the Japanese military they were washed up. And more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo. Its too bad for the Japanese. It sucks, most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years? How humane would that have been? Explain that to us.

"most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?"

right.


because THOSE were the only 2 choices.

There was absolutely no way that we could have nuked 2 of their military bases, installations or armies....

nope.

couldn't be done.

impossible.

we HAD TO nuke 2 cities of old people and children.

and obviously nuking 2 cities shortened the war.
where-as if we had nuked 2 armies the ghosts of the dead soldiers would have killed even MORE of our troops.


(sarcasm)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.

 

[Picaro]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

Japan still had millions of troops under arms on the mainland as well. and then there was demonstrations for the enlightenment of Mao and Stalin, both of whom needed to know that their mass wave attacks were not something we were going to fear and have to be pushed around by the scum.

 

[mikegriffith1]

However, the atomic bomb, as Japanese records show, had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, as has been pointed out already, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.

Nice, given you had to post something completely different, it is apparant, everything else you posted was a lie. You can not address it, you can not link to the source of quotes. You can not link and quote studies you claim exist. And now you post more bullshit.

It is obvious you are charlatan that parrots what you can cut/paste from the internet. So be it.

You claimed that the bombing was extreme, immoral, that the japanese needed weeks to contemplate what happened, and now here, you claim dropping two atomic bombs on japan was nothing, that it did not even garner a response?

The bombs meant absolutely nothing to the Japanese? So why do you claim they needed time to study, investigate, send scientists? How is the bombing immoral, if the japanese did not care, at all?

More questions derived from the ridiculous parroting of the charlatan griffter.

Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima. I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, especially given the fact that they were greatly consumed with processing and dealing with the Soviet invasion, which began in the wee hours of 9 August. You see contradiction where there is none. None of these points excludes the others. It's just that your analysis is overly simplistic and ignores crucial facts that you can't explain.

No, the atomic bomb did not have a major impact on the hardliners' decision to accept surrender, as Japanese records show. They were willing to sacrifice many more cities to being wiped by either conventional or nuclear bombs. But the Soviet invasion raised the unacceptable prospect of Soviet occupation.

Truman and his inner circle ignorantly assumed, or perhaps knowingly adopted the lie, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender. They took this position to excuse their war crime of nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima. Truman and his militarists had been briefed enough on the workings of the Japanese government to know that three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, even making the erroneous assumption that Hiroshima pushed them toward surrender.

Truman did not know that Hiroshima did not even cause the Supreme War Council to convene a meeting of any kind, much less an emergency meeting (but the Soviet invasion did).

When you analyze this issue, you can't just assume Truman's perceptions were valid. He was so misinformed about the Japanese government that he believed the government propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was one of the militarists. How anyone could have thought such a thing is hard to fathom, since militarists had tried to overthrow the government and had killed and/or tried to kill some of Hirohito's cabinet members and advisers in 1936, just nine years earlier.

 

[elektra]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.

Wrong, your post proves nothing. Was that deal made? Who approved the deal? Certainly it had to come from higher up than the minister, so where is the document that proves this was approved by the emperor? Where is the proof that this is approved by the military.

There is zero mention of any kind of surrender in the document you refer to. That document has nothing to do with a surrender.

Japan was not at war with russia, how can they negotiate with Russia?

Sorry, a cable to russia, from someone not in command of the war, is hardly meaningful to the USA.

Seems like the Japanese were trying to do anything but surrender.

Either way your post, your cable, the link never mentions surrender, yet you insert that word where it is not.

Again, you are very much, wrong.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nobody knew for sure that America only had the two nukes that were used to end World War II.

Where Truman went wrong was in delivering a long oration when all he should have said was:

"NEXT??"​

 

[elektra]

Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima. I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshimar.

Yes, you are a charlatan that parrots someone else's work. You ignore many posts and that is because you can not answer the hard questions let alone the easy questions.

Let me try something very simple, this will be your chance to prove you know the subject.

How much time did the japanese need if three days was not enough?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Yes, and the Japanese told the Nationalists the same thing many times as they tried to get the Nationalists to agree to a negotiated peace. Japan's only main condition for peace with the Nationalists was recognition, or at least acceptance, of Manchukuo, which the Nationalists had never really controlled anyway, as even the League of Nations acknowledged in the Lytton Commission report. But Chiang Kaishek was under great pressure from FDR-Truman and from the Soviets not to make a peace deal with Japan.

 

[elektra]

[
. I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, especially given the fact that they were greatly consumed with processing and dealing with the Soviet invasion, which began in the wee hours of 9 August. You see contradiction where there is none.

And after the council met, after the Soviets announced they were at war with Japan. Japan did not surrender? Japan fought the soviets another 8 to 20 days (depending on what one reads).

Yet, after a 2nd atomic bomb completely destroys another city that japanese do surrender.

See how that works. 2 bombs one surrender.

The japanese were prepared for the Soviet invasion. That was not a surprise. The defence was already in place. The only thing that forced the Japanese into a council meeting was a city completely disappearing with one bomb.

Your idea that the Japanese would not convey a meeting to discuss a weapon never before seen, that destroys whole cities is a complete lie. Conjecture?

That is exactly the same as saying, if Godzilla attacked Japan the japanese would do nothing. Do nothing unless Russia declared war and attacked china? China not Japan!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.

Wrong, your post proves nothing. Was that deal made? Who approved the deal? Certainly it had to come from higher up than the minister, so where is the document that proves this was approved by the emperor? Where is the proof that this is approved by the military.

There is zero mention of any kind of surrender in the document you refer to. That document has nothing to do with a surrender.

Japan was not at war with russia, how can they negotiate with Russia?

Sorry, a cable to russia, from someone not in command of the war, is hardly meaningful to the USA.

Seems like the Japanese were trying to do anything but surrender.

Either way your post, your cable, the link never mentions surrender, yet you insert that word where it is not.

Again, you are very much, wrong.

And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.

And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō, Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.

Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement? Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?

Togo was detailing the terms for a surrender that he hoped would be brokered by the Soviets. In China, the Japanese repeatedly tried to get the Nationalists to agree to a negotiated peace. The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937 and only asked that the Nationalists recognize, or at least accept, Manchukuo, the Japanese state in Manchuria, which the Nationalists had never controlled anyway.

Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?

 

[elektra]

And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

A minor point?
The fact that this message does not mention surrender, is a minor point?
The fact that, at the time of this communication Japan was not at war with Russia is a minor?
The fact that the "message" is vague, not stating what territories? That is a minor point?
The fact that Togo, was not in a position of power, is that a minor point?

How about you, quit playing games, what was Truman suppose to do? With a vague cable or message to russia from japan? Truman was suppose to maybe put a bullet in his own head? What should of Truman done?

And remember, this was simply Togo. Speaking to the Russians, who were not at war with Japan?

 

[elektra]

Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement? Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?

Togo was the biggest peace advocate? Before or after Pearl Harpor? Before or after Nanking? What was Togo's position on the japanese attack of the USS Panay in 1937?

Togo, had no power within the Japanese government, had Togo been an influential or powerful man, he would not of had to retire during WW II. Is that not correct!!!!!! Of course it is!!!!

Nobody listened to Togo within the Japanese government.

So we are suppose to do what, when Togo contacts the Soviet Union?

 

[elektra]

Togo was detailing the terms for a surrender that he hoped would be brokered by the Soviets. I

Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?

Togo was negotiating surrender with the soviets who you specifically stated were not at war with Japan?

Togo never ever once, mentioned surrender? But you as a charlatan lying parrot of others work, insert the word surrender, where it has never existed.

Can I admit I am wrong, sure.

Can you go back and answer the dozens of posts that I made, that point out you are wrong? Can you address those posts, in which I tackle each of the points of the OP. Where I prove you OP is a false premise? Can you address those posts.

Have you ever separated your Mormon religion from this OP you made? I do not think so. But right now, you have the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this, you know more than me, by addressing each of my posts.

Will you, no, of course not, you are the one that can not admit you have no answers. And the reason you have no answers is because all you site and link to is not your work, it belongs to someone else, so you are at a loss to explain it.

 

[elektra]

.......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.

 

[elektra]

Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima...... I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima,

You have made posts since I have addressed this, you have ignored this, why? Is it because you once again can not provide an explanation to the things you have posted!

This is the danger of being charlatan that simply parrots somebody else's work. When confronted with a question on the content of what you simply copy/paste. You have no answer.

So how many days would of been adequate. This is the second time I ask. How many days would of been adequate for the japanese to contemplate the complete loss of a city. And remember, you claim that the Soviets merely confirming what the Japanese knew would happen, the declaration of war, resulted in an immediate response. Tell us then, how the complete destruction of one city resulted in no thought, no meeting, no action of the Japanese, and that we should of waited, how long?

Soviets say we are at war with Japan, response in hours?
The loss of Hiroshima, the meeting immediately after you claim had nothing to do with a devastating loss. So how long after do you figure the japanese at least say, "wow, that sucked?" 3 days is not enough, so how long?

You can not answer for nobody you parrot answered that question.

 

[elektra]

. Truman and his militarists had been briefed enough on the workings of the Japanese government to know that three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, even making the erroneous assumption that Hiroshima pushed them toward surrender.

But the Japanese could formulate a response in hours, to the soviet announcement that it was at war with Japan? And as you stated, the Soviets entering the war was much more detrimental, than simply losing a complete city to a bomb that the world has never ever seen? So how do they formulate a response to an act you claim was worst, than dropping a bomb.

Following your logic, they needed much more time to respond to the Russian threat?

And if they needed much more time to respond to Hiroshima, if they really could not decide after one bomb, then if is very obvious, a second bomb was needed!

You just made the case for the second bomb.

 

[elektra]

I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima,

Three days was too much time. We should of dropped a second bomb the day after, and then we should of dropped the third bomb on the third day.

You have made the point, that the Japanese were not going to surrender with simply one bomb. It took two in three days. Point made.

Truman failed by not dropping the second bomb right after the first, and then dropping the third right after the second.

You are right, we should of used every bomb that first day, with no warning, and no chance at surrender.

As it was, or were, we dropped leaflets on Nagasaki warning the people to run for their lives, and they did. a 100 thousand saved.

But you are right, without the second bomb in three days, Japan would of stalled forever, never surrendering.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

A minor point?
The fact that this message does not mention surrender, is a minor point?
The fact that, at the time of this communication Japan was not at war with Russia is a minor?
The fact that the "message" is vague, not stating what territories? That is a minor point?
The fact that Togo, was not in a position of power, is that a minor point?

How about you, quit playing games, what was Truman suppose to do? With a vague cable or message to russia from japan? Truman was suppose to maybe put a bullet in his own head? What should of Truman done?

And remember, this was simply Togo. Speaking to the Russians, who were not at war with Japan?

A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.

That Japan was not at war with "Russia" is not even a relevant point to this discussion. They were reaching out to the Soviets for a negotiated peace because they were already defeated by the US and knew that with the rest of the Axis defeated they couldn't fight the Americans and the Soviets.

It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not a position of power? Seems like a weak argument but go ahead and make it if you like.

And yes, the point that Japan explicitly stated they would give up territory that they conquered is a minor point, but since you incorrectly stated that they never agreed to do so it's a point nonetheless. One that you were wrong about.