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

[elektra]

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.

Baseless is your ridiculous post.

We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties.

How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more.

500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Baseless is your ridiculous post.

We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties.

How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more.

500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.

More cultural ignorance. ^^^^^

 

[mikegriffith1]

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.

Baseless is your ridiculous post. We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties. How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more. 500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.

Well, this proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. Even most pro-Truman-nuking scholars admit that 500,000 was an invalid, baseless estimate.

And I note that, yet again, you ignored every point I made regarding the 500K estimate and simply repeated your talking point.

Do you have any response to the fact that even internal War Department memos dismissed the 500K estimate as a severe exaggeration? Or do you just not care?

Guide to Decision: Part III

Anyway, here is a petition that Manhattan Project scientist Dr. Leo Szilard wrote on July 3, 1945, and that was signed by 59 fellow scientists who were involved with nuclear research:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.​

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.
​

 

[HenryBHough]

Until recently it would be unthinkable that so many "Americans" (AINOS) are sad that Japan lost.

 

[Unkotare]

Until recently it would be unthinkable that so many "Americans" (AINOS) are sad that Japan lost.

Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?

 

[sealybobo]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

My friend has a saying about anyone who fucks with him.

Don’t fuck with him and then be applauded horrified or shocked at how he reacts.

Look at how a mother bear over reacts when she feels her cubs might be threatened.

 

[elektra]

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.

Baseless is your ridiculous post. We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties. How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more. 500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.

Well, this proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. Even most pro-Truman-nuking scholars admit that 500,000 was an invalid, baseless estimate.

And I note that, yet again, you ignored every point I made regarding the 500K estimate and simply repeated your talking point.

Do you have any response to the fact that even internal War Department memos dismissed the 500K estimate as a severe exaggeration? Or do you just not care?

Guide to Decision: Part III

Anyway, here is a petition that Manhattan Project scientist Dr. Leo Szilard wrote on July 3, 1945, and that was signed by 59 fellow scientists who were involved with nuclear research:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.​

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.
​

Over 900 died in three days, at the end of july/beginning of august. That is simply one attack by the Japanese. It is easy to extrapolate that many more than 500,000 would be casualties during an attack of mainland Japan. One attack, 900!

A talking point? Again, all you have is adjectives to attempt to validate your opinion.

 

[elektra]

150,000 causalities on okinawa, over 50,000 americans.

 

[elektra]

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.
​

​

Thank you again, your quote shows that these scientists thought we should use the atomic bombs if Japan refused to surrender.

 

[HenryBHough]

Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?

Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?

 

[Unkotare]

Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?

Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?

Quote someone saying what you have claimed they did.

 

[elektra]

Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?

Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?

Yes, they lament the fact that Japan had to surrender to the USA under our terms. They call it a moral outrage, that we forced the surrender. They make a tired argument as to why and how and what could of been. They ridicule anybody that points out Americans were killed. They do everything they can to support a Japan that no longer exists.

It is very unpatriotic of them to wish so badly that Japan won the war.

 

[elektra]

Disgusting, they have made the argument that the USA should of surrendered to Japan!!!!!

 

[Unkotare]

Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?

Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?

Yes, they lament the fact that Japan had to surrender to the USA under our terms. They call it a moral outrage, that we forced the surrender. They make a tired argument as to why and how and what could of been. They ridicule anybody that points out Americans were killed. They do everything they can to support a Japan that no longer exists.

It is very unpatriotic of them to wish so badly that Japan won the war.

The fact that you feel compelled to resort to such blatant childish and transparent dishonesty and misrepresentation indicates your realization that you cannot support your position in this discussion. At the very least you should have more self-respect than to act like this.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I stumbled across this fascinating article on how American and Japanese textbooks discuss Hiroshima. The article is titled “Re-visiting Hiroshima: The Role of US and Japanese History Textbooks in the Construction of National Memory,” and it was written by Dr. Keith Crawford, the head of educational research at Edge Hill College in England, and was published in the Asia Pacific Education Review in 2003 (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 108-117). Here is a telling excerpt from it:

There is evidence that voices in the US were raised against the decision to drop the bomb but none of this appears in the US texts.​

[Manhattan Project scientist] Szilard claims that the US Government was aware that “Japan was essentially defeated and that we could win the war in another six months” (Szilard, 1949, p. 14). Admiral Strauss (1962), special assistant to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, has argued that Japan was on the brink of defeat and that this was known in the USA and Japan. Shigenori Togo, Japan’s Foreign Minister, claimed that by June 1945 war production was fragmenting, food shortages were acute and that government ministers were telling him that Japan was defeated, he concludes that “It is certain that we would have surrendered ... even without the bomb” (Togo, 1956, p. 217).​

A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963). Norman Cousins, a consultant to General Douglas MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan, writes:​

“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb” (Cousins, 1947, p. 65).​

In July 1945, Paul Nitze, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, given the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan, wrote “While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb… Japan would capitulate by November 1945” (Nitze, 1945, pp. 36-37). . . .​

Joseph Grew, a US State Department expert on Japanese affairs at the time, has since claimed that “...it is quite clear that the civilian advisers to the Emperor were working towards surrender long before the Potsdam Proclamation ... for they knew that Japan as a defeated nation”(Grew, 1952, p. 1425). The US were able to intercept Japan’s communications system and among messages intercepted was one from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow urging him to inform the Russians that Japan wanted the war to end. However, at that time the USA knew two things that the Japanese government did not; first, that the bomb existed and had been successfully tested; second that the Soviet Union was about to enter the war against Japan.

Grew acknowledges that the Japanese military were fundamentally against unconditional surrender, but argues that had Truman said that this would not mean the removal of the Emperor “... the atomic bomb might never have had to be used...” (Grew, 1952, p. 1427). Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote “What prevented them [the Japanese] from suing for peace … was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender” (Ellis, 1945, p. 17). Japan’s Prime Minister Suzuki announced on 9th June 1945, “Should the Emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. ‘Unconditional surrender’, therefore, leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man” (Pacific War Research Society 1949, p. 69). Togo, noted, in July 12th 1945 that as long as America insisted on unconditional surrender, “.. our country has no alternative but to see it [the war] through in an all-out effort” (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, p. 873, pp. 875-876).

The U.S. government knew of the Emperor’s importance. Grew explained this to Truman on 28th May 1945. (pp. 112-113)​

 

[elektra]

A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963).​

You just stumbled across this. You are a, lousy liar. You have been searching high and low cause you have not the education to confirm your opinion.

Eisenhower, as pointed out, and confirmed by general Bradley and general MacArthur never knew about the bomb. You have ignored those posts. No comment at all from you. Which shows you have no understanding er standing of what happened and why.

Ready to surrender? But they did not until the bomb was dropped. Ready to surrender yet they kept killing Americans.

Ready to surrender? That is a lie. They were preparing for total war on the mainland of japan. 500,000 causalities, guaranteed.

 

[Unkotare]

A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963).​

You just stumbled across this. You are a, lousy liar. You have been searching high and low cause you have not the education to confirm your opinion.

Eisenhower, as pointed out, and confirmed by general Bradley and general MacArthur never knew about the bomb. You have ignored those posts. No comment at all from you. Which shows you have no understanding er standing of what happened and why.

Ready to surrender? But they did not until the bomb was dropped. Ready to surrender yet they kept killing Americans.

Ready to surrender? That is a lie. They were preparing for total war on the mainland of japan. 500,000 causalities, guaranteed.

The use of the word "guaranteed" shows your ignorance, illogic, and general weakness of mind. You seem to be getting more and more frustrated that you cannot support your position morally or historically.

 

[elektra]

[Manhattan Project scientist] Szilard claims that the US Government was aware that “Japan was essentially defeated and that we could win the war in another six months” (Szilard, 1949, p. 14). Admiral Strauss (1962),

Szilard claims? Inform us how one of the leading scientists of the Manhattan project found time to be part of the pacific war strategy? Where and how was szilard able to take time away from Los alamos to engulf himself in pacific strategy?

Again you lie and won't be able to show how one of the leading scientists of the Manhattan project could be in two separate places pursuing two very time consuming tasks at the same time.

 

[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.

I trust you regret that comment now, hey? What made you think I didn't own the book? Because I first cited a detailed article that Hasegawa wrote after he wrote his book?!

Your interpretation of what Hasegawa says is another example of your specious interpretations, and also your shifting of your position and moving the goal posts. So you say that Hasegawa says that Truman was "not at fault"?! Really?! Uh, then who ordered the nuke attacks?! I don't attack Hasegawa for not viewing Truman as a villain. I have said several times that Truman might have ordered the atomic attacks because of severe incompetence and ignorance.

Let's quote Hasegawa again:

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.​

Whether one believes Truman acted out of malice and vengeance or out of ignorance and incompetence, the fact remains that he should not have nuked Japan.

 

[elektra]

I trust you regret that comment now, hey? What made you think I didn't own the book? Because I first cited a detailed article that Hasegawa wrote after he wrote his book?.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. What makes me think you dont own the book. Your pure ignorance, of course.