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

[eagle1462010]

The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death

Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.

The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.

History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered. We were still at War.

Too damned bad Tojo...........

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death

False. Many senior military officers favored surrender, as did many regular soldiers. One of the moderates who played a crucial role in bringing about a surrender was Admiral Suzuki.

Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.

This is the kind of juvenile and absurd barbarism that comes from bigotry. It is also the kind of un-American cruelty that one must espouse to defend Truman's decision to use nukes.

History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered. We were still at War.

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that by no later than July we knew from intercepts and other sources that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready and willing to surrender on acceptable terms and that the only issue was the emperor's status in an "unconditional surrender"? You guys just keep ignoring this fact.

Too damned bad Tojo...........

Uh, FYI, Tojo had long since been replaced as prime minister by the time we nuked Hiroshima. Tojo was forced to resign over a year earlier, in July 1944, after the fall of Saipan. Do you know who replaced him? One of the leading moderates and advocates of surrender: General Koiso. And do you know who replaced General Koiso four months before Hiroshima? Another leading moderate and surrender advocate: Admiral Suzuki. Do you see a pattern here?

Truman, whether through ignorance and incompetence and/or hatred and malice, did all he could to help the Japanese hardliners thwart all the moderates' surrender efforts. The hardliners' trump card was the argument that the U.S. would depose the emperor if Japan surrendered, since this was implied in the Potsdam Declaration and in other U.S. statements. The first draft of the Potsdam Declaration contained a clarification that said the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman removed it.

The other card that the hardliners played was that the Soviets would remain neutral until the neutrality/non-aggression pact ended in April 1946, especially since the Soviets had not signed the Potsdam Declaration. The hardliners knew that a Soviet invasion would necessitate a speedy surrender to avoid Soviet occupation.

If Truman had given the Japanese any indication that the Soviet Union would attack them in the near future, this would have caused even most hardliners to support surrender. If the Soviets had signed the Potsdam Declaration, this likewise would have caused most hardliners to support surrender. Do you know why the Soviets did not sign the Potsdam Declaration? Because Truman would not let them. He wanted the Japanese to think that the Soviets were still neutral. Truman's deception greatly aided the hardliners and helped them to stall surrender.

 

[elektra]

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
.

Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.

If my uneducated self can find these facts then you can as well. Given your many degrees and college studies, it would appear you are a purposeful lying charlatan.

Defenseless, nope, not at all. The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.

Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering.

But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".

 

[Unkotare]

The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death

Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.

The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.

History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered. We were still at War.

Too damned bad Tojo...........

Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific

Thank you Captain Obvious. But this is a discussion about whether or not it could have ended differently.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk? The Java Sea.

August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.

Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.

Defenseless, nope, not at all.

Is this nonsense how you justify Truman's barbarism in your own mind? Go read the USSBS's report on Japan's prostrate condition as of July 1944. As I've pointed out, by June 1945, the odds of an American bomber or fighter getting shot down over Japan were 3 in 1,000, or 0.003%.

Technically speaking, one can say that the Japanese were not completely defenseless against air attack, but when they were only able to shoot down 0.003% of our planes, one can certainly say that they were "virtually defenseless."

The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.

If we had thought there was any chance that the Enola Gay and its two sister planes would come under attack, we would have sent fighters to escort them once they neared Hiroshima. The fact that we did not bother to do this speaks volumes.

Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering.

More ahistorical and disingenuous comedy. Japan had ceased offensive operations in the Pacific many months before Hiroshima. The only Americans who were killed after Okinawa were those who were engaged in offensive operations. No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.

But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".

Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey? Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. Admiral Leahy would have done the same thing. So would Admiral Nimitz. So would General Feller. So would General Clarke. So would many other good and decent senior American military officers.

It is sick and sad to see anyone seek to excuse Truman's cruelty and barbarism by wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to be "patriots." Well, your warped definition of "patriotism" defends a man who not only nuked two cities when he knew Japan was willing to surrender on acceptable terms, but who also handed over China to Mao's Communists and thus sentenced over 30 million Chinese to death.

George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.

You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.

 

[Markle]

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

QED!

A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?

How could it have been ended sooner? With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER? Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan. All that would have done is put a temporary halt to hostilities only to be started again at a future date. Precisely as what happened in WW-I with Germany.

 

[elektra]

Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk? The Java Sea.

But you said that Japan was defenseless, beat, trying desperately to surrender, yet they attack? Your opinion that Japan was defenseless is pure bullshit. 84 men dead.

Trying to surrender while killing our soldiers? That is a really great way to show you are striving for peace.

 

[elektra]

Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk? The Java Sea.

August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.

Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.

I guess, as a "D" student of history at numerous colleges, you would not know the terms of the surrender, would you.

The flights began on the 17th? The B-52 got shot down on the 18th? Who cares, either way you are either an idiot or a liar. An idiot who had no idea that the Japanese were not defenseless or a charlatan liar.

Which is it?

Why would we fly air reconnaissance over a country that surrendered to us? Maybe to locate the prison camps? Maybe to photograph the Japanese airplanes? Maybe to plan our route into Tokyo for our occupation of the conquered?

The unconditional surrender included unconditional flights over Japan! It was agreed to! In the surrender! It was not a bomber per se, it was a damned reconnaissance flight.

You said Japan was defenseless? Long before the surrender! You are at best a "D" student of history. Although I would say you fail on the topic of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Japanese aces Saburo Sakai and Sadamu Komachi are in Japan, with thee best Japanese Zeros.

 

[elektra]

You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.

I am no patriot? But I said you were unpatriotic, first! Can you not come up with your own insults or like your poor parroting of other's revisionists works, you are now going to steal from me?

 

[elektra]

Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey? Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed.

Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.

Being beat, being beaten as you say, is not the same as surrendering. Being beat does not mean the Japanese were going to surrender or that the Japanese had quit fighting.

The sinking of the USS Indianapolis with the deaths of 900 sailors proves that fact (July30th, 1945).

Go ahead and quote Eisenhower.

 

[elektra]

No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.

Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador? But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.

As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.

I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.

Everything you stated, proves we did not develop the bombs fast enough and that we should of tested the first bomb on a Japanese city.

Then the war would of ended, earlier.

 

[elektra]

:
....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:

...... 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.

How many days should we of waited?
McGeorge Bundy, was a 25 year old Lieutenant in the army, having absolutely nothing to do with the Atomic bomb, let alone knowing about this Top Secret Atomic bomb. So what does his non-quoted, non-linked, paraphrased opinion matter?

No internet? Yea, you live, breath, and think only through a Google search, hence you can not fathom the reliability of having a nice radio to communicate with.

Yes, if the Japanese were able to use Skype, three days would not of been immoral?

 

[Unkotare]

No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.

Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador? But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.

As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.

I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.

Everything you stated, proves we did not develop the bombs fast enough and that we should of tested the first bomb on a Japanese city.

Then the war would of ended, earlier.

Disingenuous halfwit.

 

[elektra]

George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.

You are a bigger moron than words can describe. Thank you for this comment.

George Washington attacked the British on Christmas night, after they got drunk and were still asleep. George Washington would of nuked them if he could. Certainly, he used every advantage that those times provided, would George Washington have acted differently in 1945?

This certainly proves you have lost your OP, you have lost your mind, and have always been a failing student in the study of History. Claiming to know what our founders would do in these circumstances? Weak indeed.

 

[elektra]

And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.

Fine, we will use Bundy, I will quote what Bundy wrote, and seeings how you based your OP on Bundy, what Bundy wrote is clearly fact! This again, proves you a failed student of history.

On Active Service in Peace and War, page 613
"At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in war."

Nobody opposed using the bomb to force the Japanese to surrender. According to your source, McGeorge Bundy.

There is much more, from your source of McGeorge Bundy. We have established, that you consider Bundy, infallible, hence I will use the source you based your OP on. Eisenhower next? Grew?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.

What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.

Hiroshima: Quotes

Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador?

Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense. I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties. I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, the only concern, was his status in a surrender.

But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.

This is a dishonest dodge. Of course the Japanese government was not completely unified on surrender! Our government wasn't unified on surrender either! There were numerous senior military and civilian officials who were arguing strongly that we should assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, that we should warn the Japanese that we had the atomic bomb, and that we should advise the Japanese that Russia would enter the Pacific War in the near future. I've pointed this out dozens of times!

In Japan, there were hardliners in the military who kept thwarting surrender efforts because they were able to argue that the emperor would be deposed in a surrender! That was why it was so critical for Truman to stipulate that this would not happen!

You've simply shifted the goalposts by dozens of yards to try to avoid dealing with facts that refute your position.

As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.

LOL! You even twist well-known, undisputed history. The Japanese surrender offer insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be deposed, even though the Soviets had invaded and we had nuked two cities.

We did not reject that condition. Truman wanted to convey our acceptance of that condition but to do so in language that would not seem to be a concession on our part. The Byrnes Note, which was our reply to the Japanese surrender offer, implied that the emperor would remain in place but that he would act under our authority. Most of Japan's leaders read the note as indicating that the emperor would not be deposed, although most--not all, but most--of the hardliners took advantage of the lack of a clear statement to this effect and argued that the note gave no guarantee about the emperor. Plus, the Japanese were getting back-channel indications that we would not depose the emperor.

And, of course, there is also the fact that we did not depose the emperor when we occupied Japan. In fact, the emperor proved to be a great ally and help in getting the Japanese to accept occupation and the transition to democracy.

I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.

No, what it proves is that your attitude toward the Japanese is not only hateful and bigoted but that it borders on being sadistic. Your barbaric and vicious posturing is thoroughly un-American.

Americanism does not mean you butcher hundreds of thousands of women and children when you know you can achieve an acceptable surrender without killing any more people. Americanism does not mean you side with a murderous tyranny that was twice as bad as Nazi Germany and then hand over Eastern Europe to that tyranny and hand over China to an even worse tyranny. Americanism does not mean you spurn peace offers from an anti-communist, capitalist nation and deliberately provoke that nation to attack you so you can get your country to enter a war on the side of the Soviet Union.

 

[Unkotare]

George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.

You are a bigger moron than words can describe. Thank you for this comment.

George Washington attacked the British on Christmas night, after they got drunk and were still asleep. ......

British soldiers.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

QED!

A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?

How could it have been ended sooner? With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER? Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan. ....

Incorrect

 

[Markle]

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

QED!

A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?

How could it have been ended sooner? With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER? Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan. ....

Incorrect