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

[elektra]

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.

Back to this? post the intercepts?
Why would we have to intercept a peace feeler to the us? We are the ones at war with Japan so they would have to negotiate with us, to surrender or for peace. They never did that.

Trying to surrender to Russia, as soon as possible, go ahead, post that transcript. It does not exist, now you are simply back to being an emotional lousy liar.

 

[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:

"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)
.​

Can you answer your own questions, how many days should we have waited. If you can not answer the simple your OP is simply opinion with no basis in history.

Your OP is a poor attempt at portraying the USA as being wrong, and you are so poor at writing and articulating your point, you eventually discredit one of your opening quotes!

Bundy was not lying when you like what he said, but when he said what you did not like, he was lying?
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

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."

 

[Picaro]

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

 

[Picaro]

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.

They also avoid any mention of how Japanese soldiers report being amazed at how well they were treated by Marines after being captured,a far more common experience for Japanese prisoners than the usual scumbag reported to the contrary.

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.

Thank you for your efforts here; it's better than these hacks deserve.

 

[elektra]

I

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.

Now, the charlatans have decided to lie about history.

The Japanese only decided to surrender after two atomic bombs were dropped.

Notice, the entire post was an opinion, a narrative.

 

[Unkotare]

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.

 

[elektra]

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

Howard Zinn, the pied piper of the charlatans. Griffter1 and Unitard are so pathetic they do not even know their opinions are entirely formed from Zinn's propaganda.

 

[Picaro]

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.

hahaha says the clown car passenger who cites Zinn verbatim, and doesn't even know where his rubbish comes from.

 

[Unkotare]

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.

...who cites Zinn verbatim.....

Never have, never will. Stop lying.

 

[mikegriffith1]

lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously. It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.

LOL! You must be talking about some other thread in a parallel world. Apparently you are unaware that most scholars who have studied and published on the issue have concluded that nuking Japan was unnecessary. And your comment about "you commies" is especially humorous, and puzzling, given that Truman's handling of the end of the Pacific War resulted in the Communist takeover of China and North Korea. The Soviets, who were Communists, wanted to invade Manchuria and Japan's northern islands, and Truman let them do it.

I've never used any of Howard Zinn's stuff, but here's what Dr. J. Samuel Walker, a former Chief Historian of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said on the issue of nuking Japan:

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it. (Hiroshima Nagasaki Viewpoints: Atomic Bombing Decision - Doug Dillon)
​

I will deal with Elektra's Maddox-based arguments about Ike's statements regarding the bomb shortly. Apparently Elektra is unaware that many scholars have answered Maddox's misleading and rather nonsensical attempt to minimize/question Ike's statements.

 

[elektra]

will deal with Elektra's Maddox-based arguments about Ike's statements regarding the bomb shortly. Apparently Elektra is unaware that many scholars have answered Maddox's misleading and rather nonsensical attempt to minimize/question Ike's statements.​

​

You have not dealt with any of my posts, now you will start? Oh, you will dictate what I am to believe on faith!

You certainly run from the holes your opinion falls through.

Ignorance is certainly not knowing how you believe Zinn. How your opinion is Zinn.

 

[elektra]

Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.

 

[elektra]

The charlatans will use google as a deck of cards, taking the top card, playing it as if that card, that result, wins the hand.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.

Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made.

Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him. To give you some idea of how extreme he is on the issue, Maddox stridently applauds the censoring and cancellation of the modestly objective and carefully worded text of the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995, even though dozens of leading historians—including historians from Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Ohio State, Dartmouth, Georgetown, and Stanford—condemned the censoring and removal of the text.

When dealing with the fact that General Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Ike voiced objection to nuking Japan to Stimson and Truman, Maddox argues that that part of Bradley’s book was fabricated by Bradley’s co-author!

Perhaps sensing that his claim that Bradley’s confirming account was fabricated might seem doubtful, Maddox notes that Bradley wrote to Eisenhower and expressed support for the nuking of Japan. Maddox then argues that Bradley would not have done this if he had witnessed Ike objecting to Stimson and Truman about using the atomic bomb. This is silly. Bradley could have expressed his view to Ike precisely because he knew Ike disagreed and because he was trying to change his mind about it. Or, Bradley might not have even been trying to persuade Ike on this issue but just felt like expressing his opinion that Japan surrendered because of the nukes.

Maddox makes much of the fact that Eisenhower might have erred in his recollection that he was present when Stimson received the first or second cable on the a-bomb test because Ike first met with Stimson two days after the second cable arrived. Maddox pretends this is a huge problem with Ike’s account, while others might see the account as essentially correct and credible given that Ike was recalling events that happened 18 years earlier. And, Maddox is forced to admit that one of Stimson’s aides recorded that Stimson and Eisenhower did in fact discuss the atomic bomb when the two had lunch at Ike’s HQ on July 27, even though Stimson’s diary for that day says nothing about it, which should warn us about making arguments from silence.

Maddox argues that Eisenhower’s recollection of his July 20 conversation with Stimson “grew more vivid with the passage of time.” Really? And Maddox is supposed to be a historian? In his 1948 book Crusade in Europe, Ike said he told Stimson that he hoped we would never need to use such a weapon against an enemy because he did not want America to be the first to use such a “horrible and destructive” weapon. Ike’s account of this conversation in his 1963 book Mandate for Change contains more details but follows the identical thrust, i.e., that Ike was repulsed by the very idea of nuking Japan.

Eisenhower’s 1963 account contains two additional details: that Ike told Stimson that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Stimson got upset when Ike expressed his misgivings about nuking Japan. It is perfectly understandable that Ike would have withheld such information in 1948, when feelings were still raw and when the principals were all alive: he did not want to rock the boat nor embarrass anyone. And it is equally understandable that 18 years later, Ike would have felt more at liberty to give the full account of the meeting. But Maddox, ignoring this reasonable consideration, simply assumes that Eisenhower invented the additional details in his 1963 book.

Maddox minimizes the indisputable fact that in Eisehhower’s 1963 interview with Newsweek, he said we did not need to nuke Japan because Japan was already defeated.

In reply to Maddox and other Truman defenders, Professor Gar Alperovitz has said the following:

There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. [THE DECISION, p. 358 n.] Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

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. . . . [THE DECISION, p. 4.]​

* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." [THE DECISION, p. 356.] (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION [pp. 352-358].)

(B) It is sometimes urged that there is no record of any of the military men directly advising President Truman not to use the atomic bomb--and that this must mean that they felt its use was justified at the time. However, this is speculation. The fact is there is also no record of military leaders advising President Truman to use the bomb:

We simply have little solid information one way or the other on what was said by top military leaders on the key question at the time: There are very few direct contemporaneous records on this subject. And there is certainly no formal recommendation that the atomic bomb be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On the other hand, what little contemporaneous evidence we do have strongly suggests that before the atomic bomb was used at least two of the four members of the Joint Chiefs did not believe that military considerations required the destruction of Japanese cities without advance warning. Here, for instance, is how General George C. Marshall put it in a discussion more than two months before Hiroshima was destroyed (McCloy memo, May 29, 1945):

... he thought these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. [THE DECISION, p. 53.]​

The President's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy--the man who presided over meetings of the Joint Chiefs--noted in his diary of June 18, 1945 (seven weeks prior to the bombing of Hiroshima):

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. [THE DECISION, p. 324.]​

(Leahy also stated subsequently something which should be obvious--namely that the Chief of Staff regularly made his views known to the President. His well-documented comments in a meeting with the President urging assurances for the Emperor this same day--June 18--are only one indication of this. Although we have no records of their private conversations, we know that the two men met to discuss matters of state every morning at 9:45 a.m. [THE DECISION, pp. 324-6.])

There is also substantial, but less direct evidence (including some which seems to have come from President Truman himself) that General Arnold argued explicitly that the atomic bomb was not needed [THE DECISION, pp. 322-4; 335-7]--and as noted above, that Arnold instructed his deputy Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker that although he did not wish to press the point, he did not believe the bomb was needed. As also noted above, in his memoirs Arnold stated that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." [THE DECISION, p. 334.] (In this connection, as we shall discuss in Part III, it is commonly forgotten that by the time Hiroshima was bombed orders had already been given to alter targeting priorities so as to down-play city bombing. Although there were some difficulties in the field, the new priorities were on the verge of being moved into implementation as the war ended. [THE DECISION, p. 342-3.]) (Decision: Part I)




​

 

[elektra]

Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.

Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made.

Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him.

You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.

You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.

This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.

I shake my head at your stupidity.

It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.

 

[Picaro]

Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.

Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made.

Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him.

You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.

You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.

This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.

I shake my head at your stupidity.

It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.

It's easy to spot bullshit artists; they completely ignore answering questions, and fall back on cutting and pasting long posts, trying to bury the bulshit and hoping it overwhelms the audience into thinking they must know something or the posts wouldn't be so long n stuff. lol what a crock.

 

[HenryBHough]

Remember, if Obama had been president at the time he'd have given Japan both of America's nukes as a gesture of good will. Oh, and cash to fund the fuel for bombers to deliver them - to The U.S.

 

[elektra]

[

(B) It is sometimes urged that there is no record of any of the military men directly advising President Truman not to use the atomic bomb--and that this must mean that they felt its use was justified at the time. However, this is speculation. The fact is there is also no record of military leaders advising President Truman to use the bomb:

We simply have little solid information one way or the other on what was said by top military leaders on the key question at the time: There are very few direct contemporaneous records on this subject. And there is certainly no formal recommendation that the atomic bomb be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
​

Yes, that is very true, there is no record of military men, the generals, advising the president. You know why, BECAUSE IT WAS TOP SECRET

Sadly, for the Japanese, they lost the war. With the lost of a brutal war comes a brutal ending. They got hit with the most powerful bomb in the world. ​

 

[elektra]

he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. [THE DECISION, p. 53.]​

​

We did warn them, the Potsdam declaration was given and heard, by the Japanese. Complete utter destruction was the warning.

Further over a 100,000 people fled the cities. It was not a secret, that the cities were being bombed.

You post a sloppy cherry picked quote here and there leaving out, that this was the ending of the war, that the Japanese knew they were at war, that the Japanese knew the cities were being destroyed.

Yes, the Japanese were warned and knew that they could very much die, in a city.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Our men were still dying...........We were still at War............Japan should have surrendered earlier..........or never started the War to begin with.

None of this matters...........as this thread tries to frag the decision to use the weapons back then. We weren't there.....our Fathers were waiting to invade and waiting to die...........What were they saying .....our fathers..........fuck the Japanese.......they have been killing my friends and fellow Americans............

They agreed to the bombs..........they told me so..............And it ended the War..........Mission Accomplished.