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

[elektra]

Let's quote Hasegawa again:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war againstJapan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1,​

Oh, the book says the Soviet entry in the war, "might have led"? What does "might of" mean? That it was certain? That it was without a doubt? Might of means just that. The soviet entry alone, without th he bombs, might of ended the war 3 months later!

We do know what did happen, it is a simple fact of history. The bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. They surrendered not three month later, but shortly after the 2nd bomb was dropped.

Thank you again, for confirming the Soviet Union was a side show at best, extending the war in the pacific, not hastening its end.​

 

[HenryBHough]

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.

Crowd-funding to buy Unk a mirror is now open!

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Crowd-funding to buy Unk a mirror is now open!

Whatever you’re paying for these jokes, you’re getting ripped off.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, the book says the Soviet entry in the war, "might have led"? What does "might of" mean? That it was certain? That it was without a doubt? Might of means just that. The soviet entry alone, without the bombs, might of ended the war 3 months later!

We do know what did happen, it is a simple fact of history. The bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. They surrendered not three month later, but shortly after the 2nd bomb was dropped.

Thank you again, for confirming the Soviet Union was a side show at best, extending the war in the pacific, not hastening its end.

Now I know you have not read Hasegawa's book. You might have the book, but you clearly have not read it. No rational person could read his book and conclude that the Soviet Union "was a side show at best." The main purpose of his book is to show the opposite, and to show that most historians have missed or obscured the critical role that the Soviets played in Japan's surrender.

Let me just repeat a few facts that you keep ignoring or failing to explain:

* The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met. But, when they heard about the Soviet invasion, they immediately agreed to convene a meeting of the Big Six.

* During the crucial August 9 meeting of the Big Six with the emperor, when the emperor broke the deadlock and supported surrender, he did not say one word about the nuking of Hiroshima--not one word ((Kawamura, Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, p. 175).

* Foreign Minister Togo said after the war that Japan would have surrendered in a few months even without Soviet intervention and without the nuking of two cities.

* The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered in three to four months even without nukes or Soviet intervention.

* Time and time again, Truman aided the Japanese hardliners and hindered the efforts of the peace advocates by refusing to assure them about the emperor's fate and by refusing to advise them that the Soviets would enter the war if they didn't surrender. He could have done these things privately, through diplomatic channels, not to mention publicly. He did neither.

* Truman refused to explore any of Japan's peace feelers or to act on the information about Japan's peace feelers that he obtained from intercepts, even though he knew that the only real holdup was the status of the emperor.

* Even a pro-nuke hack like McGeorge Bundy agreed that nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima was wrong.

 

[elektra]

* Even a pro-nuke hack like McGeorge Bundy agreed that nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima was wrong.

Dam, you are going to run from every post you make, and simply continue with an arm's length list of bullshit points that don't make a hill of beans?

Well, let us start from the begining, from the opening of your OP, to show how very weak your position has always been.

McGeorge Bundy was a 25 year old lieutenant in the army that knew nothing of the Atomic bombs. It is kind of impossible for Bundy to be against something that did not exist as well as something he did not know about. Bundy's opinion is irrelevant.

But you did begin this OP on Bundy's opinion. That shows you have a very weak grasp of your side of the argument.

 

[elektra]

Let me just repeat a few facts that you keep ignoring or failing to explain:

Now you are just a piece of shit liar. You are the one that ignores posts. You can not simply ignore every point made, every fact established, and reply with your lousy cut/paste from the internet.

You are a lousy liar. Go back and do what you just claim I did not do. Show us that you can man up and not be a hypocrite and do what you demand of others. Go answer the unanswered posts. Go answer everything you ignored.

Hell, you ignored my response to your last post and just moved on with, literal, "talking points".

You made a claim you have a book, well, if you are going to provide quotes from that book, quoted the book not some charlatan "scholar".

Include the page numbers, if you can get them right! For many of your posts were made with the wrong page numbers.

 

[elektra]

* The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met.....

* Truman refused to explore any of Japan's peace feelers or to act on the information about Japan's peace feelers that he obtained from intercepts, even though he knew that the only real holdup was the status of the emperor.

While I wait for you response on all those other posts of mine, I will point out the obvious. I will use your comments and quotes, so you can not argue or ignore (right?).

When did the "aka Big Six and the Supreme War Council" meet and authorize the surrender of Japan that Truman was suppose to "explore".

When was that meeting, for as you just stated, nothing is decided unless the Big Six and the Supreme War Council meet and agree. So when was that meeting and could you post the transcript.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch, who had been thoroughly beaten in the ensuing fight, who was ready to surrender, and who was only asking for one reasonable condition as his terms for surrender. For every 1 punch Japan was landing, we were landing 20. For every one of our soldiers the Japanese were managing to kill, we were killing at least five or six of their soldiers, plus thousands of Japanese civilians with our aerial bombing and naval bombardment.

At that point, basic decency and humanity should have kicked in and we should have explored every peaceful option to achieve a negotiated surrender. We know from old and newly discovered Imperial Japanese internal records and other materials that by late June the Japanese peace faction, which included the emperor and his staff, was willing to accept any condition except the deposing of the emperor.

 

[elektra]

In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch.

Pathetic, once again you ignore the discussion you begin. Once again you can not reply to simple questions. This time, the book you have introduced to us, shows how another one of your points is wrong. Instead of answering, you ignore your glaring error. Why is it that you accuse me of not answering your posts when it is actually you that runs from every response to your posts. Is it because we have shown you to wrong or an outright liar?

 

[elektra]

In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch,

In August of 1945 Japan was nothing like a man, provoked or not. In August of 1945 Japan was what they were in 1941, a Nation that started a war.

What a stupid argument you try to make. Japan was a nation with an Army of millions of men in August of 1945. Your stupid analogy is, extremely stupid and not relevant in any way to the Nation of Japan.

 

[mikegriffith1]

While I wait for you response on all those other posts of mine, I will point out the obvious. I will use your comments and quotes, so you can not argue or ignore (right?).

When did the "aka Big Six and the Supreme War Council" meet and authorize the surrender of Japan that Truman was suppose to "explore".

When was that meeting, for as you just stated, nothing is decided unless the Big Six and the Supreme War Council meet and agree. So when was that meeting and could you post the transcript.

I am seriously wondering if you are a high school student.

First off, the Big Six and the Supreme War Council were the same group. "Big Six" is just a common nickname for the Supreme War Council, which in turn is a shortened version of the council's full name: Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. Do you understand what "aka" means?

Second, your question about the "authorized" peace offer that Truman was "supposed to explore" is disingenuous and avoids the point that most of Japan's high-ranking government officials favored surrender weeks before Hiroshima but could not yet overcome the hardliners' opposition and thus could not bring about a situation where the emperor could break a surrender-decision deadlock.

The Big Six could not even meet unless *all* the members agreed to meet. Do you understand this point? So no surrender debate could come before the emperor unless the Big Six first met to discuss the matter. Is this clear now? I've explained this several times, and Hasegawa discusses it too, but you seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp/acknowledge this fact.

And why were the peace advocates unable to overcome the hardliners? Because the hardliners kept falling back on their main argument: that surrender would lead to the emperor's removal. Truman could have broken the hardliners' backs if he had just given Japan assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, but he repeatedly refused to do so, even after Grew briefed him on May on the critical importance of doing this.

Only after the Soviets invaded did the hardliners agree to convene the Big Six, and only then could the peace advocates arrange for a meeting where the emperor could break a surrender-debate deadlock. The transcripts are in several books. The best is in Kawamura's book.

By the way, the only time I have cited the wrong page numbers was when I used Doug Long's quote from Eisenhower's 1963 book, which gave the same page number for the quote as that given by the Congressional Record, which turned out to be incorrect.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Pathetic, once again you ignore the discussion you begin. Once again you can not reply to simple questions. This time, the book you have introduced to us, shows how another one of your points is wrong.

If you're talking about Hasegawa's book, Hasegawa agrees with about 85% of my position, whereas he agrees with maybe 10% of your position. You can't seriously have read Hasegawa's book and believe that it supports your position more than mine.

And you know that Hasegawa's book has been superseded by Kawamura's book right? You know this, right? Kawamura uncovered previously unavailable Japanese documents bearing on the surrender. In Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, she gives an almost hour-by-hour account of the events leading up to the first crucial meeting between the emperor and the Big Six on August 9, a meeting that only occurred because the hardliners agreed to first convene the Big Six after they were shocked by the news of the Soviet invasion (whereas they had refused to agree to a meeting after they heard about Hiroshima). Kawamura then continues by detailing, with the aid of new material, the August 9 imperial conference, the events that led to the second and final imperial conference, and its aftermath (the coup attempt).

Instead of answering, you ignore your glaring error. Why is it that you accuse me of not answering your posts when it is actually you that runs from every response to your posts. Is it because we have shown you to wrong or an outright liar?

You misread and misrepresent evidence, and then you declare that you've proven me wrong. Your arguments about Eisenhower's comments on nuking Japan are a good case in point. I have caught you in numerous basic errors that show you have done little serious research on Japan's surrender.

You show yourself to be far out of the scholarly mainstream when you argue that at least 500,000 soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan. As has been documented in dozens of books, and as can be seen in declassified internal government memos, even the War Department knew that the 500K estimate was ridiculous and baseless.

Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.

 

[Synthaholic]

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



Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.

 

[Unkotare]

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



Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.

Do you think that you playing the apologist to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians will hurt trump?

 

[Synthaholic]

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



Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.

Do you think that you playing the apologist to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians will hurt trump?

Where did I do that, Short Bus?

 

[elektra]

You misread and misrepresent evidence, and then you declare that you've proven me wrong. Your arguments about Eisenhower's comments on nuking Japan are a good case in point. I have caught you in numerous basic errors that show you have done little serious research on Japan's surrender.

Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.

Eisenhower? My arguments? I only quoted what Eisenhower wrote. Eisenhower changed his story to fit the political times. You are the one who chooses a book that states what you want to believe. You can't even get the page numbers right! Now that in itself shows you as a charalatan. Eisenhower was not even a general of the pacific. That is how weak your argument is.

I have replied to every single comment you have made, even though you still refuse to respond in kind.

What I do not respond to is your ridiculous cut/pastes from Google that are a mile long, that you put no work or without into.

I try and tackle one topic but before you respond you reply with a laundry list inrelated as if that wins your argument.

You lost your OP a long time ago, at the least when you said Bundy was a hack, even though you thought he was credible enough to base your OP on his comment.

You lost all your points. You still have not said when the war council met to have that meeting about, "peace feelers". They make the decisions as you quoted, from your book, now show the meeting that had to occur.

 

[elektra]

The Big Six could not even meet unless *all* the members agreed to meet. Do you understand this point? So no surrender debate could come before the emperor unless the Big Six first met to discuss the matter. Is this clear now? I've explained this several times, and Hasegawa discusses it too, but you seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp/acknowledge this fact.

The fact that gets lost is you stated nothing is decided without the big 6. You have established that as fact.

Hence, there was never any agreement on surrender or peace.

You make the claim that the japanese were actively seeking to surrender. The big six never met to discuss peace or surrender. The big six never once tried to open negotiations with the USA. Yet you make the false claim that Truman misread the intentions of the Japanese?

Sorry, but you and your revisionist books fail to make your fiction into fact.

Truman ended the war as fast as possible, saving American lives. That simply pisses you off.

 

[elektra]

By the way, the only time I have cited the wrong page numbers was when I used Doug Long's quote from Eisenhower's 1963 book, which gave the same page number for the quote as that given by the Congressional Record, which turned out to be incorrect.

Wrong is wrong you did not have the education or knowledge to find and correct glaring errors.

I followed the Long's links. Long uses the diaries of Stimson. Derailed notes. The Eisenhower meeting is not in Stimson's diary? The Eisenhower meeting is not mentioned in Eisenhower's diary. There are two very different versions of the same meeting in 2 books. Why does Long pick the 2nd version? Why does Long not use the diary or first book. And why must Long use a quote from someone that was a 2nd in command in Europe, not associated with the pacific war or the bomb?

Your use of people far removed from the Pacific war shows you are without facts.

 

[elektra]

You show yourself to be far out of the scholarly mainstream when you argue that at least 500,000 soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan. As has been documented in dozens of books, and as can be seen in declassified internal government memos, even the War Department knew that the 500K estimate was ridiculous and baseless.

Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.

Ducked? Ha, ha, you are such a quack!. I will answer that in detail with examples of how you must ignore 99% of what is in this thread.

500,000 or more would be causalities. What have you offered as proof that I am wrong, or my source is wrong? Nothing, you have not referenced or quoted anything. If you think you can quote and reference, try to include a date, with page numbers. Some of the bombing surveys/estimates are thousands of pages. So go ahead, quote, just cause you dictate your opinion is right does not make it so.

You think you already quoted and linked, feel free to give us the link to your previous post.

 

[elektra]

Only after the Soviets invaded did the hardliners agree to convene the Big Six, and only then could the peace advocates arrange for a meeting where the emperor could break a surrender-debate deadlock. The transcripts are in several books. The best is in Kawamura's book.
.

You leave out, After the 1st Atomic Bomb was dropped the Big Six met.

Again you make the point that Truman had no actionable offer of peace from the Japanese. The Big Six never met and agreed to peace let alone surrender.

You have made that point which proves your idea that Truman did anything wrong is a false premise.

And speaking of cherry picking books, when will you quote the conclusion of Hasegawa's book.

I am far from even beginning to show how much you hide that is in the books you claim to have read.

I bet you are going to hate that you made the claim, that I have not read Hasegawa's.

That is another fact you will swallow while eating your big plate of crow.