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

[elektra]

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.

I was waiting for you to quote the book, directly. Do you have the book so you can quote it? Is this all you got google searches?

Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA.

If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan.

That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book Mandate for Change, and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan. Here are the front cover and pages 312-313:

 

[elektra]

Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book Mandate for Change, and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan. Here are the front cover and pages 312-313:

Crusade in Europe, 1948, written before your book, hence the events are clear and fresh in Eisenhower's mind. It is clear Eusenhower lied in your book. A very different version than the earlier book.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA.

If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan.

That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?

None of those points were at issue. You are once again trying to avoid admitting error by changing the subject. And, I notice that you once again avoided dealing with the quote I provided from Hasegawa's article, not to mention the rest of the article.

Let's put to rest your distortions about Hasegawa's book and his views:

 

[P@triot]

Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book Mandate for Change, and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan.

Well. Well. Well. Just as I expected...you have absolutely no point. Who gives a shit what Ike thought? At the end of the day, only an idiot thinks that Japan was justified in killing Americans over something as trivial as "sanctions" while simultaneously believing that Japan was some poor "victim" and America was "evil" for responding.

 

[elektra]

Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA.

If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan.

That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?

None of those points were at issue. You are once again trying to avoid admitting error by changing the subject. And, I notice that you once again avoided dealing with the quote I provided from Hasegawa's article, not to mention the rest of the article.

Let's put to rest your distortions about Hasegawa's book and his views:

Ha, ha, ha, ha! A whole book explaining how the Japanese were desperately trying to find peace before the Soviet Union entered the war! Then they end the book forgetting that they already made the case that the Japanese were trying to end the War. So how is it, before the Soviet Union entered the War Japan was trying to enter peace negotiations, or surrender as you previously stated, yet now you want us to believe that it was the Soviet Union entering the war that changed the Japanese mind?

The book can not have it both ways and you can not have it both ways, either.

The direction of Japanese diplomacy was trying to find a way to peace (surrender as you state it). For months prior to August! Yet that is all forgotten and it is stated they would not of done, what they had been trying to do for months, had it not been for the Soviet Union entering the war?
This book as well as you, prove you live in a world that requires smoke and mirrors and very short term memory to "BELIEVE".

 

[mikegriffith1]

Crusade in Europe, 1948, written before your book, hence the events are clear and fresh in Eisenhower's mind. It is clear Eisenhower lied in your book. A very different version than the earlier book.View attachment 280190

Once again you ignore counter-arguments and simply repeat your claims (but at least you're no longer claiming that Ike never said he expressed strong opposition to using nukes when he spoke with Stimson). What about the confirmatory accounts from Ike's son John, which support Ike's claim that he strongly objected to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? What about Ike's 1955 letter to William Pawley, in which he said he told Stimson that we should "avoid using the atomic bomb"? What about Omar Bradley's account, which confirms that Ike strongly objected to nuking Japan during his Stimson meeting? What about Ike's private comments to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, in which he insisted to Ambrose that he expressed strong opposition to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? You simply sweep aside all this evidence and repeat the sophomoric claim that Ike must have "lied" in his 1948 account.

If you had any training in historical research, you would know that just because an earlier account contains less information than a later account does not automatically mean that the later account is invalid. As I've pointed out before, when Ike gave his 1948 account, feelings were still very raw, and Stimson was still alive. So it is perfectly understandable that in 1948 Ike would withhold some of the sharper comments that he made to Stimson and Stimson's angry reaction. Yet, even in his 1948 account, Eisenhower said he told Stimson that he hoped we would not use the atomic bomb against an enemy because he "disliked" the idea of America being the first to use such a "horrible" weapon.

There is no "contradiction" between Ike's 1948 account and his 1963 account. The 1963 account simply provides more information. It does not conflict with the essential thrust of his 1948 account.

It is perfectly understandable that in 1963 Eisenhower felt more at liberty to give the complete account of his meeting with Stimson, and I again repeat that Ike's 1963 account is supported by his son John's accounts, by his 1955 letter to William Pawley, by his emphatic comments to Ambrose, and by General Bradley's account.

Why would Eisenhower have lied about this anyway? Why? What would he have had to gain by fully recounting comments that he knew most Americans would find surprising and troubling?

Finally, there is no doubt about what Eisenhower said in his November 1963 "Ike on Ike" interview with Newsweek: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

But since you refuse to accept this moral judgment, you resort to trashing a war hero and a beloved president like Dwight Eisenhower, and yet you call yourself a "patriot." It is militarists and Truman defenders like you who are "trashing our wonderful country." Truman spit on every core principle of Americanism when he ignored every Japanese peace feeler, refused to give assurances that would have greatly increased the chances of ending the war earlier, and then nuked two cities filled with hundreds of thousands of women and children. And this same Harry Truman proceeded to hand over China to Mao's Communists and to sentence over 30 million Chinese to death at the hands of Mao's henchmen.

 

[sparky]

you have absolutely no point.

Unsubstantiated contrarians lose debates this ^^^^^way

~S~

 

[elektra]

[
Once again you ignore counter-arguments and simply repeat your claims (but at least you're no longer claiming that Ike never said he expressed strong opposition to using nukes when he spoke with Stimson). What about the confirmatory accounts from Ike's son John, which support Ike's claim that he strongly objected to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? What about Ike's 1955 letter to William Pawley, in which he said he told Stimson that we should "avoid using the atomic bomb"? What about Omar Bradley's account, which confirms that Ike strongly objected to nuking Japan during his Stimson meeting? What about Ike's private comments to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, in which he insisted to Ambrose that he expressed strong opposition to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? You simply sweep aside all this evidence and repeat the sophomoric claim that Ike must have "lied" in his 1948 account.
.

Ike never spoke with Stimson in regards to nuclear bombs being used on Japan. There is no record of that in either man's diaries. The fact that Ike gives to completely different accounts of the same discussion proves Ike lied. Ike had his diary and notes to use, in order to get that event right. It is clear, Ike was never told about the bomb. It does not matter what Ike says 10, 20, or 30 years later. It does not matter what his son believes, 25 years later.

The facts are clear. The atomic bombs were kept top secret. Eisenhower was never told about the bombs.

We have MacArthur that confirms the atomic bombs were kept secret from even the generals.

Ike did not know.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that Ike gives to completely different accounts of the same discussion proves Ike lied......

Illogical conclusion.

 

[Unkotare]

...... It does not matter what Ike says 10, 20, or 30 years later. .......

As long as it suits your worship of all things fdr and democrat support for global communism? You can't even be taking yourself seriously anymore at this point.

 

[Doc7505]

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."​

​

McGeorge Bundy? This is how weak, how pathetic, mikegriffith's opinion is. So weak and flimsy is his ideas of morality that, mikegriffter must begin his OP using McGeorge Bundy as the basis of his opinion.

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

I will argue that Gomer Pyle knew more during WW II than Bundy!!!!!

What does it say about the OP, about it's author, that this is the basis of all they believe? What did Bundy say the day after the bomb was dropped?

Thank God the War is over

You really are a fool, nothing more.

We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. The use of the two bombs to stop the war was the right thing for the time. Your Monday morning quarterbacking 74yrs after the fact shows your lack of knowledge of the war.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

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."​

​

McGeorge Bundy? This is how weak, how pathetic, mikegriffith's opinion is. So weak and flimsy is his ideas of morality that, mikegriffter must begin his OP using McGeorge Bundy as the basis of his opinion.

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

I will argue that Gomer Pyle knew more during WW II than Bundy!!!!!

What does it say about the OP, about it's author, that this is the basis of all they believe? What did Bundy say the day after the bomb was dropped?

Thank God the War is over

You really are a fool, nothing more.

We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. .....lk

Speculation.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.

We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "The Japanese know they are licked for this generation" (p. 2).

So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.

Another item from the mountain of evidence on this point comes from
Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir. Taylor's comments give us some idea of how commonly it was known among top American officials that Japan was defeated by May 1945, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that we knew from decrypted Japanese cables that Japan wanted to make peace. Telford was a reserve colonel in Army Intelligence. In May 1945, he returned to the U.S. from Europe and was thinking about trying to get an assignment in the Pacific. He spoke with his superiors in Army Intelligence, especially Colonel Alfred McCormack, who was a good friend of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and the director of the Military Intelligence Service. Telford tells us what McCormack told him when he asked about the Pacific War:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (p. xi)​

 

[MaryL]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

And given the same hindsight, Japan shouldn't have invaded China killed an estimated...10 million innocent Chinese. Surely nuking japan to stop their evil was the lesser of two evils. Really, look at all the facts kiddo. I would recommend stop listening to your liberal professors or us random internet folks and read history, it speaks for itself. I double dog dare you.

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

And given the same hindsight, Japan shouldn't have like invaded China killed an estimated...10 million innocent Chinese. Surely nuking japan twice was the lesser of to evils. Really, look at all the facts kiddo. I would recommend stop listening to your liberal professors or us random internet folks and read history. I double dog dare you.

So, we dropped the atomic bombs on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of China? Is that really what you think?

 

[elektra]

The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.

We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "The Japanese know they are licked for this generation" (p. 2).

So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.

Another item from the mountain of evidence on this point comes from
Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir. Taylor's comments give us some idea of how commonly it was known among top American officials that Japan was defeated by May 1945, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that we knew from decrypted Japanese cables that Japan wanted to make peace. Telford was a reserve colonel in Army Intelligence. In May 1945, he returned to the U.S. from Europe and was thinking about trying to get an assignment in the Pacific. He spoke with his superiors in Army Intelligence, especially Colonel Alfred McCormack, who was a good friend of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and the director of the Military Intelligence Service. Telford tells us what McCormack told him when he asked about the Pacific War:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (p. xi)​

Ho hum, ha, ha. That you must use adjectives to revise history says it all.

Defeated, beat, is not the same as, they quit fighting. Defeated was never an argument. They simply refused to stop fighting. Sadly in war, a defeated enemy was still able to kill thousands of americans.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. The use of the two bombs to stop the war was the right thing for the time. Your Monday morning quarterbacking 74yrs after the fact shows your lack of knowledge of the war.

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.

We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.

Kyushu, with its open plains and much larger area, would have provided much greater room for maneuver than did Okinawa. On Okinawa, geography forced us to fight in narrow corridors and small areas. Of course, another major reason for our high casualties on Okinawa, as in the Philippines, was that we were foolish enough to attack entrenched positions in those narrow and small areas, instead of just cutting them off, hemming them in, and letting them die on the vine.

No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.

It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan. Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it. And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action. That's why Conant and other Truman-nuke defenders pressured Stimson into signing his name to the famous (infamous) defense of Truman's decision that they wrote for the February 1947 edition of Harper's Magazine.

Finally, many people don't realize that many of the first critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives:

American Conservatives Are the Forgotten Critics of the Atomic Bombing of Japan | Barton J. Bernstein

 

[JoeB131]

By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.

We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "The Japanese know they are licked for this generation" (p. 2).

So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.

But here's what you don't seem to get. Yes, Japan was defeated by 1945.

Germany was defeated by 1918, but it didn't stop guys like Hitler from popping up a few years later and saying Germany was "Stabbed in the back" by its leaders. This is why the allies insisted on UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER this time.

The last thing they wanted was some Japanese leader coming back in 1945 and saying the guys who negotiated a surrender had stabbed Japan in the back.

But the point that I keep making to you, which you ignore, is that people really thought of the Atom Bomb as this world changing event in August `1945. They didn't. it was just another weapon. The thing that triggered Japan's surrender was the entry of the USSR opening up a whole new front they were unprepared to fight.

No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.

It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan. Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it. And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action. That's why Conant and other Truman-nuke defenders pressured Stimson into signing his name to the article that they wrote.

Finally, many people don't realize that many of the first critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives:

No, that doesn't surprise me a bit. The one thing we've learned about politics is that no matter what you do, the other side will criticize you for it.

Imagine if Truman hadn't used the nukes, went ahead with Operation Olympic, and America had incurred thousands of casualties, and the public found out we had this new cool weapons that could have leveled Japans cities in one shot. The conservatives would have crucified Truman for that.

The thing was, it was just another weapon at the time.

Later, when both the US and USSR had hundreds of even more powerful bombs on missiles and the world could end in 20 minutes, THEN we all started to regret bombing Japan.

I look at bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an ironic good. We saw what these things would do to human beings, and it was awful. Imagine if the USSR and US had built up huge arsenals and never used them on people...

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.

We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.

Kyushu, with its open plains and much larger area, would have provided much greater room for maneuver than did Okinawa. On Okinawa, geography forced us to fight in narrow corridors and small areas. Of course, another major reason for our high casualties on Okinawa, as in the Philippines, was that we were foolish enough to attack entrenched positions in those narrow and small areas, instead of just cutting them off, hemming them in, and letting them die on the vine.

I'm guessing you've never served in the armed forces, much less every been in a war. If anything, an invasion of Japan would have been worse than an invasion of the Philippines, because every last civilian would have been against you.

 

[elektra]

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.

You did not document, "Japan's prostrate condition". You made claims, you asserted, you dictated, but you have not offered one fact that proves your oplnion.

Me, and others have documented the will and ability of Japan to keep fighting. We have documented deaths of Americans, death by the Japanese. Deaths that occured after the surrender.

You make it clear, you dont give a dam about Americans dying. You brush aside facts and history so that you can take a seat with those that oppose the USA.

Japan was not prostate, you are a liar when you make that claim.