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

[elektra]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

 

[Unkotare]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

Yes, people like fdr who had nothing but contempt for life - soldier or civilian, American or other - and who spat upon the Constitution. Scum indeed, just like their apologists today are.What can we call them? Call them what they were and are: democrats.

 

[elektra]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

 

[Unkotare]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

Yes, people like fdr who had nothing but contempt for life - soldier or civilian, American or other - and who spat upon the Constitution. Scum indeed, just like their apologists today are.What can we call them? Call them what they were and are: democrats.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.

You mean "scum" like General and President Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, Admiral Nimitz, Ambassador Grew, Ralph Bard, General Clarke, General MacArthur, etc., etc.?

Not one American soldier would have died in the Pacific in August if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and what he knew about them from intercepts.

Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the American way and is not what America is about. Handing over hundreds of millions of people to Communist tyranny is not the American way either. The American way is to fight honorably and to pursue every option for peace before resorting to force. The American way is to hit military targets, if you must use force, not bomb virtually defenseless cities filled mostly with seniors, women, and children.

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy. Richard Frank is the other major Truman/nuke apologist. In the article below, Hasegawa dismantles Frank's arguments and along the way shows how Frank misuses sources and ignore statements that don't fit his narrative. It's a very long article, but it has to be--it's very thorough. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.

The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

 

[elektra]

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy

Oh my god! I have that book too! Go ahead and try quoting from your copy then I will use my copy to show everyone you are wrong, again.

Everybook you have mentioned, you can not quote from nor can you refute my posts that show you are wrong.

so go ahead, I have that book, let us begin!!!

 

[Unkotare]

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy

Oh my god! I have that book too! Go ahead and try quoting from your copy then I will use my copy to show everyone you are wrong, again.

Everybook you have mentioned, you can not quote from nor can you refute my posts that show you are wrong.

so go ahead, I have that book, let us begin!!!View attachment 279920

Still thinks he's a 'scholar' because he bought a book! Dilettante of the year award!

The "look at my socks in the shitter!" part is a classy touch. Much more credible than the exact same content from a website.

 

[elektra]

Where is the reply? None, you see, the democrats would burn all the books. Do the Democrats here use books? Nope, they use google which simply is, propaganda.

If one is to use a book, they are made fun of, they are not engaged. I am to be demeaned, insulted, flamed. And for what, for daring to use a book that the OP says is relevant.

Yes, the Democrats would burn all the books and have us dictated to by, Google.

 

[Unkotare]

Where is the reply? None, you see, the democrats would burn all the books. Do the Democrats here use books? Nope, they use google which simply is, propaganda.

If one is to use a book, they are made fun of, they are not engaged. I am to be demeaned, insulted, flamed. And for what, for daring to use a book that the OP says is relevant.

Yes, the Democrats would burn all the books and have us dictated to by, Google.

And yet you seem to worship the worst democrat of them all.

 

[elektra]

I guess when confronted with the book, the debate ends. No quotes from the book? The OP does not own the book or has read the book. Yet claims are made?

 

[elektra]

We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP, mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP, mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.

Talk about "cherry picking"! I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​

Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:

* In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:

On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 354)​

* Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:

The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .

Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pp. 356-357)​

Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.​

This was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:

- Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.

- Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.

- Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.

- Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.

- Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.

- Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.

- Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).

The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”

 

[elektra]

We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP, mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.

Talk about "cherry picking"! I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​

Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:

* In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:

On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 354)​

* Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:

The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .

Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pp. 356-357)​

Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.​

This was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:

- Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.

- Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.

- Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.

- Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.

- Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.

- Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.

- Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).

The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”

And as I said, the griffter1 would not quote the book that he just recommended!!!!!!! What kind of charalatan would introduce a book into a discussion that they have obviously not read!!! Quote the book with page numbers, how about, you brought the book into this, now discuss the book!!!

No worry, give me a few minutes and I will quote the book with page numbers. You will sadly see that you are wrong again.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP, mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.

Talk about "cherry picking"! I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​

Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:

* In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:

On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p. 354)​

* Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:

The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .

Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pp. 356-357)​

Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.​

This was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:

- Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.

- Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.

- Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.

- Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.

- Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.

- Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.

- Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).

The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”

And as I said, the griffter1 would not quote the book that he just recommended!!!!!!! What kind of charalatan would introduce a book into a discussion that they have obviously not read!!! Quote the book with page numbers, how about, you brought the book into this, now discuss the book!!!

No worry, give me a few minutes and I will quote the book with page numbers. You will sadly see that you are wrong again.

Ha! Yeah, okay! I notice you simply ignored the quote from Hasegawa's article. Why is that? Because he says the very opposite of what you claim he believes?

The article presents the same case made in the book regarding the role that the Soviet invasion and the nukes played in Japan's surrender, only in a condensed form.

The pattern with you is this: You make some invalid claim. I refute the claim. You ignore the refutation and pretend you've won the argument.

 

[P@triot]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.

OMG...shut the fuck already. Japan was part of the Axis of Evil that killed many American's unprovoked. We should have dropped nukes on the entire fucking island. Literally.

Plus...it was 100 years ago. Let it go already. Stop looking for a reason to be outraged and find a fuck'n hobby, you tool.

 

[Unkotare]

......mikegriffter1 does not own the book .......

If this 'scholar' ever got a hold of a library card, he'd really be proud of himself!!!!!!

 

[elektra]

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.............. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.

The book proves no such thing. The book certainly dictates that. But it is pure speculation that is not proved in the book.

First and foremost, the Atomic bombs were dropped. One can ask, "would Japan had surrendered had the Atomic bombs not been dropped, only with the Soviets entering the war"? I can than state, Japan would not of surrendered. They would of continued to fortify the mainland, withdrawing all their troops to the final defense of Japan.

Yes, you have an article, a google link, a google result. How about actually discussing the book, once you get it in your hands.

 

[Unkotare]

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled Racing the Enemy.............. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.

The book proves no such thing. The book certainly dictates that. But it is pure speculation that is not proved in the book.

First and foremost, the Atomic bombs were dropped. One can ask, "would Japan had surrendered had the Atomic bombs not been dropped, only with the Soviets entering the war"? I can than state, Japan would not of surrendered. They would of continued to fortify the mainland, withdrawing all their troops to the final defense of Japan.

Yes, you have an article, a google link, a google result. How about actually discussing the book, once you get it in your hands.

Information doesn't exist until you take a pic of a book next to your feet in the shitter!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.

OMG... Japan was part of the Axis of Evil that killed many American's unprovoked. We should have dropped nukes on the entire island. Literally.

Plus...it was 100 years ago. Let it go already. Stop looking for a reason to be outraged and find a hobby, you tool.

"Unprovoked"? FDR was strangling Japan with increasingly harsh sanctions. Japan made a sincere effort to reach a compromise with FDR, including an offer to withdraw from southern Indochina, which was FDR's pretext for the oil embargo. Every time Japan offered another concession, FDR would add more conditions. The Japanese realized that FDR was determined to force Japan to fight.

Since you claim to be a "patriot," you might be interested to know that Japan was staunchly anti-communist and pro-free enterprise and pro-private property. Japan moved into Manchuria to check Soviet and Chinese Communist influence there and to create a buffer zone between Japan and Communism.

Japan plainly told FDR that it was ready to ditch its pact with Germany in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions, but FDR said no. Also, isn't it interesting that FDR wanted the Japanese to guarantee that they would not attack the Soviet Union?!

Japan had been our ally in WW I. Japan was the most westernized nation in Asia and also had the best economy because it was based on free enterprise and a fierce respect for private property.

Look at the results of FDR's refusal to reach a peace deal with Japan: The Communists took over China and North Korea, and the Soviet Union imposed tyranny on Eastern Europe.

 

[P@triot]

"Unprovoked"? FDR was strangling Japan with increasingly harsh sanctions.

Wait. Wait. Wait. It is your position that Americans deserve to die and Japan is justified in using deadly force because a U.S. president used.....sanctions?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!?