The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[whitehall]

All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.

Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?

Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.

No they did not ......

Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.

I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.

What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?

Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.

No they did not ......

Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.

I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.

What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.

He quit thinking a long time ago. Probably used a patch or something to gradually wean himself off the stuff.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?

Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.

No they did not ......

Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.

I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.

What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.

I have the Historical facts Japan offered a Ceasefire with return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China no occupation and no consequences for starting the war. And No I would IGNORE those terms too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I keep asking for a link to these supposed peace offerings and never get one. I can link to what the Japanese Government actually said you two can not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.

 

[Unkotare]

Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.

No, you're not.

 

[gipper]

After a couple bourbons, I thought I should dedicate this great tune to all the bloodthirsty warmongers who posted in this thread. You know who you are...can you enjoy great music that outs you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.

No, you're not.

I have an ACTUAL link to what the Japanese offered, you have hearsay and innuendo . Isn't it telling you can't produce a single link to ANY of the claimed peace offers.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.

 

[Unkotare]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.

Speculation

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.

Speculation

The speculation is yours you can NOT even link to a single supposed peace offer YOU claim the Japanese made.

 

[Markle]

Speculation

That is the only thing you've ever posted.

 

[Unkotare]

Speculation

That is the only thing you've ever posted.

?????

 

[Markle]

Speculation

That is the only thing you've ever posted.

?????

Speculation

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Speculation

That is the only thing you've ever posted.

?????

I repeat AGAIN, link to an official source that is at least one of the supposed peace offers Japan made before the Atomic bombs were dropped. You claim there were dozens of them LINK to one. And no a book is not proof nor is a newspaper article since NEITHER have actual Government sources from either Japan or the US or even the Soviets.

 

[Unkotare]

Five myths about the atomic bomb

.

 

[Unkotare]

A piece by Justin Libby in the Summer 1993 issue of World Affairs delineates the efforts at negotiating a surrender throughout 1945.

.

 

[Unkotare]

"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

The following information, a sequel to a memorandum dated 13 July ... has been received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden. ...

Jacobsson reports that between 10 and 13 July he had a series of conferences with Yoshimura, a Japanese official attached to the Bank for International Settlements, and Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank, and former financial attache in Berlin. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim to be acting in consultation with the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, former Japanese military attache in Bern, who now is believed to be chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim further that Kase and Okamoto have direct and secret means of communicating with the Japanese Chief of Staff. Yosbimura also claims that the peace group which he represents includes General Ushijiro Umezu, Army Chief of Staff;16 Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Minister of Navy; and Shigenori Togo, Foreign Minister.

Yoshimura and Kitamura appeared to Jacobsson no longer to question the principle of unconditional surrender, though at one point they asked whether unconditional military and naval surrender might not be sufficient. On his own initiative Jacobsson replied that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Allies but would be considered merely a quibble.17Both Japanese officials raised the question of maintaining Japanese territorial integrity, but they apparently did not mean to include Manchukuo, Korea or Formosa.

Throughout discussions with Jacobsson, the Japanese officials stressed only two points: (a) the preservation of the Emperor, and (b) the possibility of returning to the constitution promulgated in 1889. Kitamura prepared and presented to Jacobsson a memorandum asking him to sound out Mr. Dulles' opinion on the two points.

(Mr. Dulles feels that these two Japanese are insisting on the retention of the Emperor because they feel that he alone can take effective action with respect to surrender and that some hope of survival must be held out to him in order to gain his support for unconditional surrender.)

Later Yoshimura and Kitamura prepared a second memorandum in which they asked how, if Tokyo were ready to proceed, conversations could be arranged with Allied representatives and what form of authorization would be required."

.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not one of those link to an actual source. I repeat link to an actual legit source that can be verified and proven to exist.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I recently finished reading three books that question the need for and the morality of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Steven Walker's Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima, Paul Ham's Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, and Gar Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

One reason this is such a tough issue is that the Japanese of World War II, especially their leaders, are hardly sympathetic characters. One is strongly tempted to say, "Even if there were other ways to end the war without an invasion, the Japanese deserved what they got." Another factor is that we *did* give Japan's leaders assurances, in the Potsdam Declaration, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean endless occupation, nor the destruction of Japan as a nation, and that we would ensure that the Japanese people would be able to elect their own leaders.

I think one fact that has been established rather firmly is that by June 1945 the vast majority of our civilian and military leaders realized there was no need to invade Japan because Japan was already clearly defeated and devastated. So there were other options besides dropping the A-bomb and invading.

Another fact that seems pretty well documented is that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Truman's statements and posturing played into the hands of Japan's hardline military leaders and made it much harder for Japan's moderate civilian leaders to make the case for surrender.

I was surprised to read of the considerable, indeed overwhelming, evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the use of the A-bomb, that finally enabled the moderates to overcome the hardliners and to bring about Japan's surrender. I was not aware that the vast majority of historians who have studied the subject have recognized this fact.

Was Truman a war criminal? Sadly, I think the answer to that question is yes. He seemingly did all he could to ensure that Japan did *not* surrender before the atomic bomb was ready for use, and he ignored the repeated advice that if he would just notify the Japanese, privately or publicly, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean deposing the emperor, the Japanese likely would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. Even more disturbing, we now know that Truman knew from multiple sources, including decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables, that at least two weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, Japan's emperor was ready to end the war and that the only real sticking point was whether "unconditional surrender" included harming the emperor.