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

[elektra]

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

You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!

I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.

Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?

How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.

And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.

 

[elektra]

I got more in regards to Eisenhower, do not think I will rely on one or two books. I got much more on this one statement that you can not get right.

 

[elektra]

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..

From Bundy's and Stimson's book, Bundy who you use to establish this OP, Bundy who you state is a credible source, Bundy contradicts your google searched Eisenhower quote, which is not found on the page referenced. I guess charlatans need not be accurate.

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."

Given that Bundy opposed the atomic bombs as you stated, certainly had Eisenhower said what you claim, that statement would of been included along with Grew's?

 

[mikegriffith1]

You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!

I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.

Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?

You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.

Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.

The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:

Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​

How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.

HUH? My "credible source"?! I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.

If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.

And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.

You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.

 

[elektra]

You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!

I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.

Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?

You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.

Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.

The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:

Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​

How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.

HUH? My "credible source"?! I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.

If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.

And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.

You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.

Of course I am like a kid in the candy shop. You have failed to substantiate your OP, and as you try, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

Eisenhower was a great example. Glaring errors in the links you use. Why are there errors? Because the work is sloppy. The work is not scholarly as you claim.

Why did your credible source, bundy, not include Eisenhower's statement at potsdam? Because it did not exist. Eisenhower was never told of the top secret bomb.

Further, bundy contradicts Eisenhower's claim. You based this OP on what Bundy stated. You established, that Bundy is credible. Here is what Bundy wrote.

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."

 

[elektra]

The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:

Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “​

Eisenhower shared his own opinion? Where? Which magazine or newspaper published this opinion? Which radio broadcast or newsreel? Before the bomb was dropped?

Again, as you stated, public officials lie!

Thank you for providing this, now source the statement which will prove it was made before the bomb was dropped.

Bundy did not find the opinion while reading stimson's diary? Had he, it would be in the book he wrote.

So let us all see you find this opinion being expressed before the bomb was dropped.

​

 

[elektra]

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

Erroneous? Me? I baited you into making your comment so I could show you are wrong. Of course I am like a kid in a candy shop. It is really fun, being right, and showing someone that is "educated", that education does not make you smart. I own the books you are finding links to on the internet. Your links are cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context, or ignoring glaring errors as I am pointing out. My next step in this will be to go to Yale University Library where Stimson's diary is on microfiche. I could use your link which references the diary extensively. We could assume that Doug Long would of referenced the Eisenhower quote from Stimson's diary. But Doug Long does not. Why? Most likely because the meeting never happened.

Ike did not oppose nuking Japan in 1948 when he wrote Crusade in Europe. Your link, chooses to use a quote from a later book Eisenhower wrote in 1963, (getting the page number wrong, which hides the context in which the quote was made?) .

Revisionists will choose which book to use, based on their opinion.

In 1948 Eisenhower claims he learned of the bomb before it was tested, in 1963 Eisenhower claims he was told after it was tested?

Crusade in Europe, 1948

I had a long talk with Secretary Stimson, who told me that very shortly there would be a test in New Mexico of the Atomic bomb, which American scientists had finally succeeded in developing....

I expressed the hope that we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy because I disliked seeing the United States take the lead in introducing into war something as horrible and destructive as this new weapon was described to be.

..... In any even it was decided that unless Japan surrendered promptly in accordance with the demands communicated to the Japanese Government from Potsdam the plan for using the atomic bomb would be carried out.

Mandate for Change, 1963

But the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction,

We see here, that Eisenhower did not oppose dropping the bomb in 1948! That Eisenhower gives two versions of the same story! And I will end by stating Eisenhower lied about the meeting, that Stimson nevere divulged the Top Secret of the atom bomb to Eisenhower.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Of course I am like a kid in the candy shop. You have failed to substantiate your OP, and as you try, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

Eisenhower was a great example. Glaring errors in the links you use. Why are there errors? Because the work is sloppy. The work is not scholarly as you claim.

Why did your credible source, bundy, not include Eisenhower's statement at potsdam? Because it did not exist. Eisenhower was never told of the top secret bomb.

Further, bundy contradicts Eisenhower's claim. You based this OP on what Bundy stated. You established, that Bundy is credible. Here is what Bundy wrote.

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."

Uh, I never said that Bundy ever opposed using nukes! What on earth are you talking about? I've said repeatedly that Bundy was a defender of Trumna's nuke decision and that he was the main ghost writer for Stimson's infamous article that defended that decision.

Did you ever check pp. 312-313 of your copy of Ike's book? How about page 360?

I have the book, but it's packed away in a box in my garage. I have about 2,000 books and can't keep all of them in my bookcases.

So now you're saying the Eisenhower Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving and defending Ike's legacy, is lying about what he said about nuking Japan? Really?

On the fact that Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first trying to explore peace by assuring the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, and on the fact that Stimson's infamous 1947 pro-nuking-Japan article in Harper's Magazine was not really his work, I would refer you to Dr. Sean Malloy's book Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan (Cornell University Press, 2008). In chapter 8, Malloy discusses the authorship and editing of the Harper's Magazine article.

Regarding the use of websites as sources, I've never said that this is necessarily invalid. What I have said is that when one only uses websites and has not done any other research, this is when problems can occur. There is a ton of material in printed books and articles that is simply not yet available on the internet.

Finally, do you know why Tojo was replaced by the moderate Koiso after the fall of Saipan and why Koiso was replaced by the equally moderate Admiral Suzuki four months before Hiroshima? These things happened because Japan was not a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by one man, unlike Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. Japan was a constitutional monarchy with a legislative assembly (the Diet). Elections for Diet members were held during the war. Japan also had an independent judiciary that prevented the vast majority of unjust legal actions that some over-zealous government officials tried to impose on certain dissenters and critics, as is documented in Israeli historian Ben Shillony's book Politics and Culture in Wartime Japan (Clarendon Press, 1991), in Meron Medzini's Under the Shadow of the Rising Sun: Japan and the Jews during the Holocaust Era (Academic Studies Press, 2016), and in Samuel Yamashita's Daily Life in Wartime Japan, 1940-1945 (University of Kansas Press, 2017).

Many readers will be astounded to learn of the degree and frequency of political opposition and criticism that was tolerated in wartime Japan. They will also be surprised to learn that much more often than not Japan's legal system protected citizens against unjust actions by the government. Japan was certainly not as free and open as America and England were during the war, but open criticism/opposition and the rule of law existed in Japan to a degree that was unheard of in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

 

[elektra]

So now you're saying the Eisenhower Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving and defending Ike's legacy, is lying about what he said about nuking Japan? Really?

You have a real comprehension problem. First, Bundy, you really were not very clear in use of Bundy and now that you have called him a scandalous liar, I have to call your character into question for using him at all.

Your comprehension problem. The Eisenhower Foundation? When have I ever mentioned the Eisenhower Foundation. What I did do, is quote Eisenhower from the books he wrote. I included pictures so that you would not be able to get even a little bit confused. But here you are, trying to obfuscate what I presented to you, which is what Eisenhower wrote.

It is clear Eisenhower changed his story from 1948 to 1963. I know it is hard for you to be confronted with facts but facts is what I gave you. It is clear you did not read my post, at least you did not comprehend what you read. Go back and read what I wrote and read what I included, that which Eisenhower wrote.

I got more on Eisenhower, I will add another day. It is stuff I already posted in your thread. You might of missed it or not comprehended the significance.

Eisenhower wrote more than one book, Eisenhower described the same incident it two very different ways. One must be true, the other must be a lie. Eisenhower did keep a diary, so it is not simply a matter of how he remembered something.

 

[elektra]

On the fact that Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first trying to explore peace by assuring the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, and on the fact that Stimson's infamous 1947 pro-nuking-Japan article in Harper's Magazine was not really his work

Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first exploring peace by assuring the emperor? Conjecture on anyone's part. Stimson wrote extensively, and not once did he state that the bomb must wait until we lessened our demands of unconditional surrender.

Yes, Stimson said the declaration should include the possibility of a monarchy. But, no declaration was going to be declared until the end of the Potsdam conference. We issued our ultimatum on July 26th without a mention of the Emperor, either way. The Japanese soundly refused to surrender. The bombs were dropped. That is history. Would they have surrendered had we began weakening our demands? Doubtful, chances are the war would of been prolonged, Americans would of continued to die.

It certainly was the shock of the bombs that caused Japan to surrender. Had we made a demand that the Emperor must go, would the Emperor still of surrendered. The answer is yes. It is clear when one reads of the emperor.

Of course, you have argued that it was the Russians entering the war that caused the Japanese to surrender, and if that is true, then why were the Japanese worried about what we thought of the Emperor?

That is a great question. If it was simply Russia entering the war that caused Japan to surrender, what difference does it make what we stated or did not state?

 

[elektra]

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

Yes, Hiroshima Quotes.

Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson. Two versions that contradict each other. One must be a lie. Which book to believe? We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not. So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period. Also the page number for the quote is wrong?

MacArthur, quoted from William Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Manchester? A proven liar, who lied about valor on Okinawa. Stolen Valor, that is what Manchester is guilty of, at the least. An author who is best left to collect dust, simply for lying about his own military record. And boy did he lie. What a prick!

Hoover? I do see a pattern, I am not about to go out and by a Hoover book to make a point about this terrible list of errors and proven liars.

Leahy, that appears correct although I will have to cross reference Leahy to Stimson/Truman and whoever else may be important.

The rest, I may address at my leisure. There is much written by those who were part of the decision. Truman and Stimson, for the most part. The Interim Committee. And more. But without addressing everything, there is a disturbing pattern of cherry picking sources, making errors while sourcing the quotes, even taking the quotes out of context. Books are a better source than the cherry picked scholarly papers scattered across the internet.

Using google as a source is a terrible way to debate history.

 

[elektra]

* Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.

And Indo-China? The Philippines? Korea? I will leave out Manchuria. But, feel free to enlighten us.

 

[elektra]

Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
* By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.

Yet, they did not surrender, and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I’ll get around to responding to some of the recent replies very soon, but for now I wanna talk about an amazing discovery I just made.

Much to my astonishment, Dr. Michael Sherry, in his famous and classic book The Rise of American Air Power (Yale University Press, 1987), condemns Truman for nuking Japan without first trying to determine if the Japanese would surrender if he assured them that the emperor would not be deposed. Given that Dr. Sherry’s famous book has been endorsed by such heavyweights as Stephen Ambrose and Russell Weigley, when I began to read the book a few days ago, I just assumed that Sherry would defend—indeed, staunchly defend—Truman’s decision to nuke Japan. So I was astounded to find that Sherry does the opposite. Not only that, but Dr. Sherry also condemns the conventional bombing of Japanese cities. Here is part of what Dr. Sherry says about Ike and the nuking of Japan:

Eisenhower provided a striking example of how doubt arose outside of normal channels. When he heard about the atomic bomb is unclear, but apparently at the time of Potsdam he learned that an atomic bomb was a weapon in hand. He immediately objected to its use. According to the various accounts of his talk with Stimson, he objected on the grounds that Japan “was already defeated,” that the United States “should avoid shocking world opinion” by using the bomb, and that it might prevent a nuclear arms race if other nations remained “ignorant of the fact that the problem of nuclear fission had been solved”. . . .​

And here is part of Dr. Sherry’s eloquent condemnation of Truman’s decision to nuke without trying negotiation:

Since precisely this issue of the emperor’s fate held up surrender even after Hiroshima and Russia’s entry into the war, until Byrnes and Truman offered firmer assurances, their decision at Potsdam has been widely and rightly condemned as the most tragic blunder in American surrender policy, even by insiders who otherwise supported the bomb’s use. There can be no certainty would have accepted in July what it submitted to in August, but the chance was there, and as Ralph Bard had argued earlier, the risks of pursuing it were small. Moreover, the moral risks in the opposite direction, in pursuing an atomic solution before attempting to break the diplomatic impasse, were large. Michael Walzer has explained them persuasively:​

“If killing millions (or many thousands) of men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary—in order not to kill those people—to settle for something less. . . . If people have a right not to be forced to fight, they also have a right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded. Beyond that point, there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments about military necessity, no cost-accounting in human lives. To press the war further than that is to re-commit the crime of aggression. In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime.”​

Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​

Whatever lame, dishonest attempts some might make to paint the Japanese as a formidable foe in August 1945 because they managed to shoot down a plane and sink a ship that month, there can be no denying that Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible. Truman did not even try to negotiate privately, through third parties, to explore the peace opening that he knew from intercepts was there to be explored.

Truman not only refused to hold any kind of negotiations with the Japanese, but he refused to advise them that he would not depose the emperor if they surrendered. He also refused to alert the Japanese that Russia would soon be entering the Pacific War against them. These two crucial pieces of information would have been of enormous value to the Japanese moderates and would have deprived the hardliners of their two main--and really their only--arguments against surrender.

 

[elektra]

Eisenhower provided a striking example of how doubt arose outside of normal channels. When he heard about the atomic bomb is unclear, but apparently at the time of Potsdam he learned that an atomic bomb was a weapon in hand. He immediately objected to its use. According to the various accounts of his talk with Stimson, he objected on the grounds that Japan “was already defeated,” that the United States “should avoid shocking world opinion” by using the bomb, and that it might prevent a nuclear arms race if other nations remained “ignorant of the fact that the problem of nuclear fission had been solved”. . . .​

Eisenhower never knew we had an Atomic bomb. Eisenhower was not involved in any way with the war against Japan. Eisenhower was consumed by Germany.

Eisenhower told two very different stories of the same incident in two books. Can Eisnohower know we have an Atomic bomb yet be ignorant of the fact that nuclear fission is now a reality, the problem solved?

Various accounts of the talk with Stimson? The only various accounts come from Eisenhower contradicting himself. Are you trying to obfuscate the truth, hence you are liar. Or are stumbling through other's work?

Defeated and Surrender are not the same. One can be defeated, and still kill another 1,000 American Military personal, as Japan did from July 30th to their surrender. The war is not over until one side loses or both sides quit. Japan never quit, until she surrendered.

Stimson kept the bomb a Top Secret as it was. Truman never learned that there was an Atomic Bomb project while he was Vice President. Why would Stimson let the secret out, by telling a General in Europe? Stimson had not told the Pacific General, MacArthur, and that is documented. So how does Eisenhower rise further up "the need to know", which authorized the divulging of Top Secrets.

Either was, in 1948 Eisenhower had no idea that a bomb existed, as he wrote.
in 1963 Eisenhower discovers a bomb existed, as he wrote?

Eisenhower only proves that the revisionists only have lies, you and they, are charlatans.

 

[Unkotare]

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yet, they did not surrender,

You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender. You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender." They were trying to surrender. And we knew they were trying to surrender. But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor.

The moderates desperately needed our help to overcome the hardliners, but Truman did nothing but help the hardliners over and over again. It was as if he wanted to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender until he could nuke them and until the Soviets were ready to invade.

and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?! That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.

The word "offensive operation" in a military context refers to multiple forces launching a coordinated attack with an objective of seizing territory and/or destroying substantial numbers of enemy personnel and equipment (ships, tanks, planes, etc.).

Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.

Uh, yeah, that's the point. They were only fighting because we were still attacking them. They were powerless to attack us in any kind of an offensive operation. Most of their ships were stuck in harbor for lack of fuel (and fear of getting sunk). Their air force rarely sortied out in even halfway substantial numbers due to a lack of fuel, and their airplane production was almost zero due to a lack of raw materials. That's why our losses in air raids were less than 1%.

Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.

 

[elektra]

You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender.

Most? 1 out of 4?

As long as you are vague there is no discussion.

Use names. I will.

You are very dismissive of the Japanese killing Americans. How can you hate us, so much. The Indianapolis was not attacking the sub that sank it? And if Japan was sincere, why would they continue attacking, as in not simply defending. Daily POW's died, from torture and beatings, that is how you define trying to surrender.

How about we use books you have linked to or referenced.

Technically, you are pretty emotional, responding with your vague opinion based on other peoples work. I on the other hand, respond with multiple sources I own.

Everything quoted from Eisenhower is from a book written many years late. Hiroshima: Quotes Mr Long references stimson's diary, Long being your source. But when it comes to a conversation between Stimson and Eisenhower Long uses the 2nd contradictory book Eisenhower wrote, why? Why not quote Eisenhower's diary? Your source could only find what he wanted to hear in a book that is unsourced. The quote is not referenced other than coming from a book Eisenhower wrote yet there is a diary for both men?

 

[elektra]

Will Griffith answer in regards to Eisenhower's conflicting statement?

 

[elektra]

LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?! That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.

You are going to ignore all the facts of the end of the war and pretend it was only one ship that was sunk after Okinawa? Certainly that is not a defensive operation? As you describe it, far from Japan? Far from Japan yet close enough to die at the hands of the Japanese, what a funny way to surrender.

So what about all the other people who died?

How about the 15 beheaded, what about the 15 americans beheaded after Japan surrendered? Is that comical as well, ASSHOLE!

Trying to surrender? Hell, they surrendered and still killed Americans. How many Americans should of died, while we negotiated with the Japanese? Who was suppose to bring the cookies and milk? Should we have been on our knees, begging, the Japanese to surrender? They killed our boys, after they surrendered? They were killing our men, while you claim they were defenseless. They killed and the killed, they never stopped killing.

It took Atomic bombs to convince the Emperor to Surrender. What the Emperor did after the Atomic bomb he could of done before, but he was always safe. He always had hope, that somehow Japan would win, negotiate peace, and never surrender.

But you go ahead and try to post your bullshit crap. I will point out the errors in your links, I will point out the lies of Eisenhower. I will point out when the people you link to, who did all the work for you, I will point out how they are wrong.

Thus far, there is not one of my posts you have been able to refute. You keep making emotional arguments, you keep posting opinion, or you link to somewhere on the internet where you kind find anything that fits your opinion, especially if you are an unpatriotic american hater here to trash our fine history. But my posts, where I show I have the books you reference, and I quote from those books, and show them to be wrong, you have no reply to any of that.