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

[gipper]

I take it you haven't read the rest of the thread. The peace faction, which included the emperor, his aides, and several senior military officials, was trying to bring about a surrender months before Hiroshima, and some Japanese officials began to initiate peace feelers with American officials through third parties in April, three months before Hirosima. I detailed some of these approaches in a previous reply. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in The Rising Sun, by Lester Brooks in Behind Japan’s Surrender, and by Gar Alperovitz in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.

More bullshit. Peace feelers?

The Supreme Council never authorized anybody to negotiate peace. You stated nothing happened in Japan without the Supreme Council first authorizing any action. Have you forgotten this?

John Toland? I thinks you should read the book before you think that John Toland will help you here. It clearly spells out in The Rising Sun that the Japanese were not going to surrender and the the Japanese seeking peace were far from being authorized to seek peace.

John Tolands book will show that Dulles was authorized to negotiate peace but the Japanese who approached did not have an official agreement and were acting as renegades.

No serious peace offer was ever made by the Japanese, anything and everything was vague. But go ahead and cite something specific, instead of offering you poor paraphrasing of something you found with google.

A closed mind is a terrible thing to witness.

Why do you admire Dirty Harry Truman? He clearly was a fool.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Cherry picking, cherry picking, call it what you wish. We all see that you do nothing but pick up rotten fruit from the ground.

I did not quote the conclusion but I did quote from the conclusion, you say?

You are truly a fool. Your posts are literally unfocused and rambling. They do not address one singular aspect of the Pacific War. They contain bits and pieces of many different things. Trying to get you to focus on one aspect has been impossible.

I guess that is my fault, I should of.asked you to focus on one aspect before running off in ten different directions.

How am I to address an entire book in one post? Of course I picked parts that prove points that you will not be able to answer. Of course I do not address entire chapters in one post.

Cherry picking? I am far from done as to quoting the book to prove how wrong you are. Yes, you are scatterbraines. Me, I am targeting your obvious failures that destroys your opinion which is based on propaganda.

You are not to be taken seriously. You have quoted nothing from Hasegawa's book that I haven't been able to answer, not to mention that you've quoted very little from his book. It is comical that you keep pretending that Hasegawa supports your position in any substantial way. Are you not aware that the Truman apologists whose works you are using have all bitterly attacked Hasegawa's book?

I have emphasized four key points throughout this thread, and Hasegawa supports every one of them, namely:

* Truman did not need to nuke Japan.
* Nuking Japan did not save American lives.
* Truman had alternatives to nuking that he failed to pursue.
* The Soviet invasion, not the nukes, caused Japan to surrender.

Let's quote Hasegawa again, just in case you suffer another memory lapse:

Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​

Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable. (pp. 299-300)​

And:

Therefore, even without the atomic bombs, the war most likely would have ended shortly after Soviet entry into the war--before November 1. (p. 296)​

 

[gipper]

Cherry picking, cherry picking, call it what you wish. We all see that you do nothing but pick up rotten fruit from the ground.

I did not quote the conclusion but I did quote from the conclusion, you say?

You are truly a fool. Your posts are literally unfocused and rambling. They do not address one singular aspect of the Pacific War. They contain bits and pieces of many different things. Trying to get you to focus on one aspect has been impossible.

I guess that is my fault, I should of.asked you to focus on one aspect before running off in ten different directions.

How am I to address an entire book in one post? Of course I picked parts that prove points that you will not be able to answer. Of course I do not address entire chapters in one post.

Cherry picking? I am far from done as to quoting the book to prove how wrong you are. Yes, you are scatterbraines. Me, I am targeting your obvious failures that destroys your opinion which is based on propaganda.

You are not to be taken seriously. You have quoted nothing from Hasegawa's book that I haven't been able to answer, not to mention that you've quoted very little from his book. It is comical that you keep pretending that Hasegawa supports your position in any substantial way. Are you not aware that the Truman apologists whose works you are using have all bitterly attacked Hasegawa's book?

I have emphasized four key points throughout this thread, and Hasegawa supports every one of them, namely:

* Truman did not need to nuke Japan.
* Nuking Japan did not save American lives.
* Truman had alternatives to nuking that he failed to pursue.
* The Soviet invasion, not the nukes, caused Japan to surrender.

Let's quote Hasegawa again, just in case you suffer another memory lapse:

Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​

Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable. (pp. 299-300)​

And:

Therefore, even without the atomic bombs, the war most likely would have ended shortly after Soviet entry into the war--before November 1. (p. 296)​

Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary, to say nothing of the terrible immortality. It’s just a bridge too far.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary, to say nothing of the terrible immortality. It’s just a bridge too far.

And what is sad and ironic is that many of those Americans are conservatives--they just seem to have a mental/emotional block when it comes to this issue. They will excoriate FDR and Truman on a host of other issues, and rightfully so, but they can't seem to bring themselves to condemn FDR for his treasonous and/or horrendous handling of WW II nor to condemn Truman for his treasonous and/or horrible handling of the end of the Pacific War and its aftermath.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

That was a 550 ft home run.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter..

 

[mikegriffith1]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.

That was a 550 ft home run.

Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.

The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's A-bomb attack on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians when he knew most of Japan's leaders wanted to surrender is absurd.

That was a 550 ft home run.

Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.

The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.

And the Jap attack on Manila, Guam, China, Bali....what was that?

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender is absurd.

That was a 550 ft home run.

Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.

The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.

Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none. Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And the Jap attack on Manila, Guam, China, Bali....what was that?

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . Gosh, really? After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response? And "China"?! You must be kidding. Go back and read this thread.

And, of course, you still ignore the clear evidence that FDR *wanted* Japan to attack. We know this from Stimson's diary and from the McCollum Memo, among other sources.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.

That was a 550 ft home run.

Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.

The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.

How old are you? I got a lot of my info from my father, who was actually there for yrs.He knew a lot. I read history books, real books.

There seems to be a heck of a lot of arm chair quarterbacks and Monday Morning 20/20 rear hindsighters on this thread.

So this thread is not for me. Thanks for your responses.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none.

There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there? And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?

Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.

There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?

What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?

 

[P@triot]

LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.

Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.

 

[P@triot]

Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none. Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.

 

[P@triot]

And who starts a fight:

The one who drops bombs to brutally murder thousands of people at Pearl Harbor. That is who starts a fight, dumb ass.

 

[P@triot]

And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?

Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.

Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.

 

[P@triot]

You are not to be taken seriously.

Says the immature asshat trolling from his mom's basement.

Snowflake, the only tragedy with Japan is that we didn't drop a third nuclear bomb on their evil ass. They came looking for a fight and they found it. They deserved a LOT worse than they got.

Now stop your immature nonsense and move along so the adults can have a conversation.

 

[mikegriffith1]

LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.

Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.

I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were filled mostly with women, children, and seniors, especially given the fact that Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready to surrender, if only he would guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed, and that Japanese officials had been sending out peace feelers for weeks.

Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan? What do you think any nation would do if three other nations froze its assets, making it virtually impossible for it to make purchases on the international market, cut off 90% of its oil supply, cut off most of its supply of vital raw materials, moved a major naval base thousands of miles closer to it, and also stationed bombers within 700 miles of its territory and within 600 miles of some of its military installations--and then rejected every reasonable peace offer that the nation made to get those hostile acts revoked? Hey?

And are you ever going to address the evidence that FDR *wanted* Japan to attack and that in one White House meeting he even talked about maneuvering Japan into firing the first shot?

 

[P@triot]

LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.

Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.

I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Yeah. No shit. That is exactly what I said.

 

[P@triot]

Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan?

Any rational leader would do nothing. They would just go about their business and make trade agreements with nations willing to work with them.

Only a fuck'n tyrant (and idiot) believes that a nation refusing to engage in trade with them justifies a surprise bombing.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You are not to be taken seriously.

Says the immature asshat trolling from his mom's basement.
, the only tragedy with Japan is that we didn't drop a third nuclear bomb on their evil ass. They came looking for a fight and they found it. They deserved a LOT worse than they got.

Now stop your immature nonsense and move along so the adults can have a conversation.

Your jingoistic ignorance is matched only by your rudeness. You are no "patriot." Your heroes FDR and Truman handed over hundreds of millions of people to Communism, preserved one of the most murderous regimes in modern history, and enabled another historically murderous regime to come to power.

Determined to preserve and aid the Soviet Union, FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan, refused all of Japan's peace offers, and saved the Soviet Union. Then, his lackluster VP took Stalin's advice and refused to modify the surrender terms because he was determined to drop at least two nukes, and then he proceeded to hand over China to the Maoist Communists and thereby sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to death.

If that's your version of "patriotism," Eisenhower and a whole bunch of other senior military officers weren't patriotic.