Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Turn on the History channel. We didn't have to A Bomb Japan.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 07:45 PM
Original message
Turn on the History channel. We didn't have to A Bomb Japan.

Japan and the emporer had already asked Stalin to intervene to surrender. Truman and the gov't knew about it but kept it secret. He used the bomb only to intimidate russia and stalin.

Once again, our gov't lied to us and as a bonus killed a couple of hundred thousand japanese.

I'm so proud of my gov't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cappurr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes....that is true
Truman was suspicious of the Russians and didn't want them getting a foothold in Japan.

There was no need to drop those bombs. Most certainly, no need to drop the second one, even if you could argue the first was necessary to keep Russia in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
200. just because it's called the 'history' chanel
doesn't mean you should use that as a source for history. i didn't see the show but if the posters syampsis is correct, that's not the whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
207. not just the Russians
The Russians were planning on invading Japan (more Japanese died in Siberia, prisoners and civilians from Manchuria and Korea, after the war than died in the atomic blasts).The Soviets, Chinese and everyone else did not want to negotiate an armistice with the Japanese. But the Japanese were not planninmg on surrendering---they wanted a negotiated cease fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yaoi_Huntress_Earth Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. *sigh*
And Russia was actually on our side in this war, too.
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Another oversimplification of history
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 08:07 PM by Hardhead
Japan did indeed ask for Stalin's help in negotiating a cease-fire. Stalin left them twisting in the wind as he built up his forces along the border of Manchuria for a surprise attack. It became abundantly clear to the Japanese that they would get absolutely no help from the Soviets.

Our government was aware of the Japanese overtures, but was intent on total surrender, not conditional surrender. Particularly, the hawks in the Truman administration wanted to dethrone the emperor and make Japan a democracy. This became a sticking point in negotiations which led a group of powerful Japanese generals to try to overthrow the government. They surrounded the royal household, confiscated taped copies of Hirohito's surrender announcement, and almost succeeded in toppling the government. For some insight into the whole situation, I recommend "Behind Japan's Surrender: The Secret Struggle That Ended an Empire" by Lester Brooks. Fascinating book.

Further, based on the casualty rates in the Pacific campaign, particularly Okinawa, it was estimated that America could expect something on the order of 1 million casualties in an invasion of the Japanese islands.

I can't condone the use of the bomb, but I'm damned thankful the decision wasn't mine to make.

Don't get your history from TV; it sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. all our military leaders in theater thought it wasn't necessary as well
so it's not just the teeVee...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
67. I have been trying to reform my self for a long time now. Please.........
Don't ask for such a regressive thing. TeeVee does suck; it sucks the brains out of peoples heads directly. That is the reason why the GOP worships it like it was a god and cannot think for them selves.

http://www.plim.org/SkullBones.htm
(snip)
William Taft (initiated into Skull and Bones in 1878) was elected president of the U.S. in 1909 and President Harding appointed him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921, which he served until his death in 1930.

Henry L. Stimson (initiated into the Skull and Bones 1888) was appointed to seven high government positions by seven presidents. His first appointment was Secretary of War by President Taft. His last appointment was Secretary of War under President Roosevelt and Truman. Mr. Millegan states at his web site: He was ultimately responsible for the internment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII and oversaw the Manhattan Project, Americas atomic bomb program. Stimson also took credit for swaying Truman into dropping the bomb on Japan.

In the JFK administration Skull and Bones members played an important role in dictating policy. According to the paper entitled George Bush, Skull & Bones and the New World Order by Paul Goldstein & Jeffrey Steinberg, it states that Kennedy had personally asked Robert A. Lovett, a partner in the Wall Street investment firm of Brown Brothers, to join his Cabinet. Robert A. Lovett did not want to become a part of JFKs administration. Instead, he recommended a number of Bonesmen into the critical posts. McGeorge Bundy was appointed Kennedys National Security Adviser. Averell Harriman was made Under Secretary of State for Asian Affairs, a position that placed him in charge of many of the most critical decisions along with the disaster in Vietnam. William Bundy remained in a senior post at CIA (see website http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/whitepaper.htm ).
These men and others in JFKs administration had more control over foreign policy than JFK did as president. There was a network of secret societies besides Skull and Bones, such as Council of Foreign Affairs (CFR) that also dictated policy.

Two quotes in the book Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs confirms this. Special Advisor to JFK John K. Galbraith said: Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had say, but foreign policy was still with the Council of Foreign Relation people (p. 127). The Former Ambassador to Saigon, Frederick F. Nolting said: The axis of Lodge (CFR) and Harriman (CFR) was too strong for President Kennedy to thwart or overcome (p. 130). These are just a few instances of the CFRs influence in the world of U.S. politics. This should be proof to the skeptic that there are secret organizations that dictate polices of the country without the consent of the American people.
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. No Way an invasion of Japan would have happened....
they were beaten already.

In fact, if a President HAD ordered the invasion of Japan, that President would have deserved to be impeached and removed from office for needlessly having sent to their deaths 1 million Americans (their number).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. The war wasn't over
Until Japan surrendered. They were still fielding millions of troops and the military wanted to fight to the last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. they werre a defeated nation with one condition
which we finally accepted when we ran out of nukes.

all military leaders in theater at the time agree that nuking a defeated nation was unecessary, so don't bother with your revisionist history of how it saved lives, please.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Until they surrendered
They weren't defeated. You can say it a million times, but it doesn't make it true. They were still negotiating. We didn't wish to do so. We wanted it ended quick on OUR terms.

They started the war on their terms. They had no reason to expect to end it that way as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. they were a defeated nation trying to surrender with 1 condition...
when we finally accepted, the war ended after being prolonged and costing even more lives against the recommendations of the military leaders in theater at the time who recommended we accept their offer in order to save lives months before we used it.

no terrorist has been able to match our murder, destruction and terrorism in a single blow since.

the terrorist in our own gov is what most of the world are frightened of and justifyably so considering our past and how many continue to bury ther heads in the sand to this very day.

some will NEVER recognize our own sins no matter how obvious or horrific the scale.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Iraq is a sin, Japan was not
Japan continued to negotiate long after the point where a sane nation would have surrendered. The Japanese military continued to make preparations to fight to the death in Japan. Meanwhile, while the military prepared for war, the government tried to negotiate a favorable peace.

That was rejected. The blame falls squarely on the militaristic and psychotic Japanese leadership that failed to surrender.

As for sins, ours are amateurish compared to the imperial Japanese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. we are behaving JUST LIKE the imperial japanese today
so would you support someone nuking NYC and LA even after we had been defeated militarily and were looking to surrender?

I betcha OBL would. not nice company to keep.

think about it...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Not anywhere near
Read up on the Japanese atrocities during WWII and get back to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #48
95. you should read up n the GREATER EAST ASIA CO PROSPERITY SPHERE
very simular propaganda... they even used the term 'ILLEGAL COMBATANTS' when in china.

we baked hundreds of afghans in trailers, with reports of mass graves and torture, shooting first and asking questions later.

the longer this goes on the WORSE the atrocities we will commit...

remember VIETNAM? more than 2 million killed, so don't think we aren't capable.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #95
106. All human beings are capable
The Japanese excelled. Comfort women, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, millions dead, hundreds of thousands tortured.

Iraq is nothing like that. I opposed the invasion, but let's be real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #106
110. look at our record since we NUKED two cities filled with innocent civilian
PNAC is only just getting started in the ME.

the things we are doing right now there is very simular to what the japanese were doing then. as things got worse for the japanese the worse they became... same thing will happen with us and we got history to demonstrate it.

we all talk about the massacre of nanking - though the numbers are disputed - but look at what we did to vietnam.

so do our cities deserve to be nuked?

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. LOL
Nice change of topic.

We didn't nuke any innocent cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #112
115. you can LAUGH at terrorism on a massive scale?
and you like to hang at the DU? strange...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #115
118. It wasn't terrorism
And I don't laugh at that, I was laughing at your alleged arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #118
121. nuking a defeated, trying to surender prostrate nations cities filled with
innocent civilians... TWICE is not TERRORISM according to you - though all the military leaders in theater at that time disagree with you - but you agree that 911 was?

sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

you see, we TAUGHT the world about terrorism by targeting civilians in their cities. why should we be shocked when they use our own tactics against us?

that is why america is so frightened because we know what WE are capable of and know one day our enimies will inflict what we have and continue to do around the world on us.

think about it...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #121
125. So many incorrect statements in such a small space
Defeated -- Nope. They hadn't lost and were still fighting.

Trying to surrender -- Nope. They were trying to negotiate. You don't have to try to surrender, like Nike says, just do it.

Prostrate -- Not at all. They were only prostrate to the emperor, not us.

Terrorism -- Nope, an act of war. War was declared in a response to a Japanese sneak attack. Japan had not surrenedered, so war continued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #125
128. i can not help the blind to see, but i can see for my self
and present the facts at that time so others who can see will.

NEWS FLASH: It wasn't a 'sneak attack' we not only KNEW they were comming - hard to miss such an armada sailing across the pacific after we had broke their codes - we had proded them into attacking - pretty clever, eh?

all the military leaders in theater at that time disagree with you yet you still defend the TERRORISM.

i can tell you have NEVER suffered.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #128
131. Wow, the anti-FDR attack on DU?
Who would have thought it?

No, at the time of Pearl, we only knew SOME Japanese codes and YES, it was a surprise attack and undeclared.

But given some of the Japanese behavior during the war, that was minor compared to what they later did.

You can tell I've never suffered? What bullshit. You don't know anything about me except that I am glad we won WWII and glad that Truman was smart enough to end the war the way he did because history proves him right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #131
139. just pointing out the FACTS you can spin it however you want
but being an apologist for the elite i am not suprised that anything negative that is revealed about our leaders would be taken as an attack by you. but i got news for you and your cartoon world view... we are not all good and our enemy all bad.

secondly we KNEW and it has been revealed beyond debate by our OWN recently declasified documents that you can look up and read.

the japanese had sent a letter to their embassy in DC that was late - couple hours - being delivered to washington due to translation that had notified us that they had broken off diplomatic relations with us. not to mention that we KNEW they were comming and it was what we whished.

notice they attacked a military base though...

no matter what they did during the war does not justify us sinking to their level and many would argue even WORSE.

it was TERRORISM plain and simple wether you refuse to see it or not.

to be honest it is OFFENSIVE to me that we allow someone who condones TERRORISM to post on this board since i think it may put this entore board in jepordy considering the state of world affairs now.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #139
149. Actually you can throw LEGIT attacks at leaders all you want
But this long-standing anti-FDR BS is unwarranted.

No, we are not all good. Terrible things happen in war. However, we HAD NO CHOICE. Japan began the war and then refused to end it.

I have read the documents, we didn't know they would attack.

Oh wow, they sneak attacked a military base. I guess that's OK. Ask the folks in Nanking about that.

We didn't sink to their level, we used a weapon that ended the war.

Well, it's offensive to me that your posts have such a naive approach. Fighting a war against an enemy bent on world domination is not terror. Losing it would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #149
158. it is funny how some equate FACTS with attacks...
what 'long-standing anti-FDR BS' are you talking about?

they went to war with us becuase we commited an act of war against them.
we provoked them into attacking us according to our plan.
we knew they were comming.
they delivered diplomatic documents on that day breaking off relations with us.

these things are all true. that doesn't mean i am defending the imperial japanesee though some blind nationalistic folk will see it that way doesn't matter those are the facts.

i actually think FDR was very shrewed and wise to bring his nation to confront the japanese empire the way he did, briliant in fact.

and i am certainly glad that we won as my familly FAUGHT in that war and i am an american yet i will not condone acts of terrrism by my country or any other.

your blind nationalism reminds me of the blind nationalism of the imperial japanese and our current NEO-CONS.

but your defense of TERRORISM is something that should not be tolerated and is extremely offensive considering current world affairs and i repeat that it is probably harmful for this board as well.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #158
161. Again more propaganda
We committed no acts of war against Japan. That is until after they started attacking us.

We cut off trade with them as is OUR RIGHT. Because we didn't like what they were doing -- what with the conquering and rape and murder and all.

I don't have blind nationalism, I just don't tamper with history when it works out.

Your blind assault on historical fact and your revisionism are hilarious and sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #161
166. July 1941 President Roosevelt embargoed oil shipments to Japan
as we all know that is any industrialized nations life blood and they will fight to turn it back on considering who was running the show in japan at the time... the military.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #166
173. Embargoes are legal and are not acts of war
Japan had another choice, to rein in its military and the shipments would not have ceased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #115
148. "Strange" that you excuse Japan's "mass terrorism"
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 11:48 AM by Woodstock
Look up Japanese unprovoked terrorism on innocents in China and Korea, as well as other South Pacific nations. Look up Pearl Harbor. Look up Japanese kamikaze attacks on young 18 year old Americans who had never done a single thing to deserve being in the disease infested jungles watching other 18 year old Americans being blown to bits who prayed for an end to the war - which appeared would not happen without huge additional losses of innocent American and other lives, despite your twisting of facts. You know, the things you like to forget while trying to paint us as the bad guys.

Let's see some threads about the terrorism of the Japanese upon people of many nations. Or do you only bash Americans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #148
151. the topic of this thread is OUR terrorism
two wrongs don't make a right.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #151
154. We didn't have two wrongs
We had two bombs and they ended a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #154
162. your pithy comments are highly offensive considering the topic
but i hope they are not pulled so you may be revealed to others.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. None of my comments have been pulled
Unsurprisingly, some of yours have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #164
167. i am glad
and only one of mine was when i compared you logic to one of our neo-cons.

so be it since it is obvious and not necessary to be stated.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #148
189. Bomb Terrorists?
Look up Japanese unprovoked terrorism on innocents in China and Korea, as well as other South Pacific
nations. Look up Pearl Harbor. Look up Japanese kamikaze attacks on young 18 year old Americans who
had never done a single thing to deserve being in the disease infested jungles watching other 18 year
old Americans being blown to bits who prayed for an end to the war - which appeared would not happen
without huge additional losses of innocent American and other lives, despite your twisting of facts. You
know, the things you like to forget while trying to paint us as the bad guys.

Let's see some threads about the terrorism of the Japanese upon people of many nations. Or do you
only bash Americans?



The Japanese cherished their 18 year-olds as much as people in the U.S. cherished theirs.

Sorry, Woodstock, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. There is always going to be someone somewhere that is doing worse than we in the U.S. are doing. If we always look around to see who in the world is the worst-behaved, we can "justify" just about anything we do, no matter how immoral, no matter how horrific. All that baloney started way back when Adam pointed to Eve and said "the woman made me do it... she did it first." Well, Adam didn't get a pass on that one, and neither does anyone else. We don't have wrong, wronger, and wrongest here.

The Japanese did many, many terrible things. Frankly, there's not one thing that anyone in the U.S. could do about the Japanese. We can, however, have a say in what our country does either by voting or by letting our representatives hear from us. In addition, it in no way makes the Japanese look any better to honestly admit that we also did wrong... of a different sort, but still wrong.

A lot of people "justify" the U.S. invasion in Iraq by pointing to Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people as well as his invasions and crimes against Iraq's neighboring nations. That's pretty much how the U.S. got into this whole mess we are in now.

IMO, it doesn't matter what any other nation is doing. We in the U.S. have the responsibility to reflect, reason, and figure out what response (if any) this nation should make without regard to what any other nation is doing.

Yes, the Japanese were bad guys and yes, the Iraqis were bad guys (at least the leadership in both nations were bad!), but we are not only the most powerful nation in the world but we are supposed to be the most moral. Moral isn't judged by comparison to what everybody else is doing. You are either moral or you are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #110
176. necessary evil
It was a necessary evil
Japan was not going to surrender, their Army was in control
they were surrounded by the 3rd fleet and Admiral Halsey,
yet they were still fanatical and fighting
They were given the ultimatum by President Truman
He did the right thing.


Remember Wake Island
Truk Island
China
Makin Island
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangerhobbit Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
66. good post
Indeed. The Japanese bombed China with smallpox and anthrax viruses in 1937/38 and murdered more than 10 million people before they were through. It was the Japanese themselves who coined the term "total war". The Bushido Code allowed for no quarter given and none asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #66
96. we are only just getting started...
and we are following in their imperial footsteps.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #24
145. And bpilgrim will say it a million times - the same exact thing
over and over - quotes taken out of context and complete disregard for the big picture and annoying little things like facts.

I only WISH things had been as simple as he paints them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vitruvius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #19
87. We had other bombs on the way --
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 07:00 AM by Vitruvius
the third one would have been ready within two weeks, with a flood to follow. So we hadn't "run out of nukes" -- we had a brief pause.

B/t/w the aiming point for #3 was to have been the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. The Japanese military was told this by a P.O.W. who knew nothing, but -- under torture -- guessed correctly. The gov't -- including Hirohito -- believed it. I've always belived that chickenhawk Hirohito gave up because -- for the first time -- his OWN skin was at risk.

And today, we, the US, are the nation led by a chickenhawk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #87
104. we accepted their 1 condition, then the war ended
just think if we had accepted it in the spring of 45, as our military leaders in theater at the time recommended in order to SAVE LIVES.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. Yes, imagine
We might never have successfully transitioned Japan out of a militaristic nation into a democracy. Imagine the millions who might have died when we fought Japan again.

The nukes forced even the Japanese military to accept defeat.

Don't tamper with history that worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #111
116. if we had accepted their 1 condition in the spring of 45 how many lives
would have been saved as recommended by the military leaders in theater at that time.

think about it...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #116
132. I do and it's scary
Tampering with history that worked leads to disaster. Never second guess success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #116
208. Not true
there was not 'one condition'--they wanted a cease fire, not a surrender.
That would have led to yet another war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
210. that is absolute nonsense
The JAPANESE did not realize they were defeated. They made tenative approaches to Stalin about negotiating a cease fire, but even Stalin rebuffed them.
There were 2 scenarios--either the Japanese would try to negotiate and end to the war, which killed over 20 million in China alone, and get away with minimal effects on japan itself and would be in a position to avenge itself later.
Another would be Japan dragging out the negotitions while they prepared a better defense and then choose to fight it out.

It is important to remember that the Japanese leadership did not see themselves as beaten. They felt if they could mobilize all of japan to repel the invaders, they would be saved like they were in the 1200s from the Mongols.

Read more about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #210
220. Stalin did not rebuff them and the US was secretly listening to the.....
Negotiations with them. They were too confused about what they wanted so they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The thing that seem a little crazy to me is of another thing I heard about. They only had an enough material to produce the two bombs at the time; the next one was a few months away.

The Doves of Japan lobbied the emperor to make peace for their fear the next and third one dropped on the Emperor. More of a good story about it here http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
142. Oversimplification R Them
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 11:39 AM by Woodstock
The revisionists don't want to look further than quotes on misguided websites that back up their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quilp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. There were two bombs, one plutonium, the other uranium.
They just wanted to know which was the most "effective".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vitruvius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
199. Not really -- they'd developed two types of Bombs -- both were available,
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 04:51 PM by Vitruvius
and both were used. And the production facilities for both were up & running (isotope separation plants for the uranium bomb, breeders plus chemical separation facilities for the plutonium bomb). And the full output of both types of bomb would have been used until the war was won.

We kept those facilities running from then until now -- and ended up with over 50,000 bombs -- and no rational use for them -- even by the insane standards of the arms race. We ended up decommissioning the majority -- and have about 25,000 today. The material for the decommissioned 25,000 is what the primitives in the Bu$h administration intend to use for their "mini nukes".

B/T/W, the best argument I can think of FOR nuclear power (which is otherwise a dangerous and uneconomic technology given the present state of the art) is that it uses up fissile materials that could otherwise be processed to make bombs. What I'd really like to see is a class of nuclear reactors that burned bomb-grade material -- it's the one irreversible way to dispose of it.

It's not impossible -- as we run out of oil and other conventional energy sources --that we may yet end up fissioning the bombstuff to keep the energy-wasteful American standard of living going a little while longer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Which makes no sense at all
The US was involved in World War II to defend ourselves and to protect Democracy. We really didn't have any imperialistic agenda so intimidating Russia would make absolutely no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Are you totally ignorant of American history???
not that I'm trying to insult you, but man, where did you come up with that one??? What do you base your opinion on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. What I mean to say is that...
Our involvement in World War II was not about imperialism. The country was even reluctant to get involed with the war until we were attacked. I'm not saying that the US has not been imperialistic many times in the past, just not in this particular case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. The US, WWII And Imperialism
You realise that Nazi Germany was funded, in part, by American financiers, Right???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
54. Please elaborate n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quilp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. We have troops in dozens of countries. We've just invaded another.
Not that we have an "imperialist agenda" of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amber dog democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Since when
has the US NOT been imperialistic? From 1898 on when have we been anything but, with the exception of the Marshall Plan, and maybe the Korean
war? I would not ever rely on TV for history.

I think there are exceptions -
WWI , WWII
and times we have betrayed ourselves by devious acts or supporting the wrong side
Chile
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
the Contras
the Philipines
Panama
Cambodia
Iran 1953
Indonesia
El Salvador
Iraq

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Common Sense suggests Nuking Japan wasn't necessary...
Japan is an island nation. They were militarily surrounded and defeated.

All of their imperial acquisitions were rolled back in defeat with the "Island Hopping Campaign" that was the Pacific War strategy.

Another obstacle to ending the war sooner was the US insistence on "unconditional surrender". As it turned out, the "conditions" of surrender that Japan wanted were only that Japan be allowed to keep the Emperor in place. This happened, after they were nuked.

The argument that "nuking Japan was needed to end the war" just does not stand up to logic.

Japan was nuked to show the Russians how reckless the US could be. In essence, innocent Japanese men, women, and children were vaporized to send a political message to the "communists"....How sane is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amber dog democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. about as sane as
fire bombing Dresden in Feb 1945.

At the time the bombs were dropped on Japan, they were already defeated.
Navy gone, Merchant marine gone, and producttvity wiped out by waves of constant connventional bombing.

I am not proud of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Japan had an option
Total surrender. They chose to stall and try and negotiate good terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. they had one condition... we had the options
when we ran out of nukes we accepted japans 1 condition and the war ended.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Actually
They still wanted to negotiate. So who knows how many conditions they would have gone for in a protracted peace debate.

We had all the cards, they refused to accept that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. we NUKED a defeated nations cities, filled with innocent civilians. TWICE
then we accepted their 1 condition...

that is TERRORISM on a scale OBL can only DREAM about. lets work to make sure such TERRORISM is never unleashed again but at least speaking the TRUTH about the last time it was used.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. You have to surrender to be defeated
Japan was still at war. Hence your statement is incorrect. THEY chose to continue to negotiate, trying for a better deal. Truman chose to actively pursue the end rather than face either an invasion of a Soviet occupation of Japan. He chose correctly. History bears this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. they had one condition...
when we ran out of nukes, we accepted it and the war ended.

we had all the options at the end and we decided to inflict TERRORISM on them instead... our first SHOCK and AWE program for the world.

there is no defense for it accept the one that TERRORIST use...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Not terrorist at all
It was an act of war. A war, I might add, that Japan began and prosecuted in a horrific way that included torture, rape and mass murder on a scale rivaling only their allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #49
99. murdering hundreds of thousands innocent civilians is TERRORISM
and that we did it to a DEFEATED and prostrate nation trying to surrender is indefensible and will be part of our nations eternal shame just like slavery, the genocide of the native americans and vietnam.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #99
107. We aren't ashamed for dropping the bomb. Nor should we be.
We ended a war that the Japanese began. It's not our shame. Japan had a choice to end the war. While the politicians on their side tried to negotiate a favorable peace, their military prepared to defend the island and continued to fight the war.

Japan was not defeated, but it should have surrendered sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #107
113. you aren't, obviously and neither are the uniformed and especially the
cold blodded politicos who ordered it then or their predesesors who wouldn't hesitate today. that doesn't mean it wasn't TERRORISM and that if you understand that that you would be revolted horrified and ashamed.

i know i am...

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #113
120. It was an act of war
Japan should have ended the war sooner. They didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #120
122. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #120
130. so you subscribe to TOTAL WAR? just like Richard Perle.
BTW: we were in the drivers seat and japan had only 1 condition to surrender, we choose to nuke them twice instead, then we accepted their 1 condition to our eternal shame.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #40
78. Still not true. It was Unconditional Surrender. Unconditional.
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 12:46 AM by draftcaroline
Why do you repeat like a broken record: "They had one condition, we ran out of nukes and accepted it." That's simply not true.

Once more. Here is the text of the Unconditional Surrender:

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewar...

The documents are there. "Unconditional surrender" is written repeatedly. No conditions. It concludes:

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to
rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to ef-
fectuate these terms of surrender."

Signed by Hirohito and everyone else. It's a historical fact. You can't change it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
98. it is true... the institution of EMPEROR remains to this very day.
that they recognized the institution of the Emperor is exactly what the Japanese were seeking.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #98
197. It was not their demand or condition. They made NONE.
It was not a condition. There were no conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
39. Total Capitulation Lead To World War II
As Germany strove to retake a place of power after being trampled by Europeans in the Treaty of Versailles.

So you think it was NECESSARY?

You are wrong, it's never necessary to make an adversary capitulate.

In fact, wisdom would provide one's adversary a way to save face during surrender.

This is how warfar was conducted through most of history.

It's interesting to note that Saddam learned the lesson... don't be around to be seen in defeat. forget siting at the table.

Why do you think they had to "topple" the statue in Iraq a couple of months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
153. "It's Never Necessary To Make An Adversary Capitulate"
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 11:56 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
Really...

Like all absolute statements it's absolutely wrong...


I am familiar with the axiom that in war you do not block all your enemy's escape routes so he has an exit and doesn't have to fight to the death....

Makes sense sometimes...

However I don't think we should have allowed the South to maintain slavery if it meant an earlier end to the Civil War and I don't think we should have allowed Hitler to maintain his death camps if it meant an earlier end to WW2..

Some enemies need to be defeated.... I subscribe to the just war theory of conducting war but I don't elimanate the need for total war when the situation demands it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudnclear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. Actually, nuking any nation is not necessary...
most wars are unnecessary...it's just what people want to do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Japan began the war
America was the nation that ended it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. that does not give us permission to commit TERRORISM with WMD
on a defeated, prostrate trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent civilians... TWICE, no less :puke:

though i am sure to some extremist it is perfectly reasonable.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. You are the one being an extremist
You wish to rewrite history that worked.

And, to be accurate, the Japanese were only prostrate to their emporer not us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. you defend the use of WMD to MURDER hundreds of thousands of civilians
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 10:04 PM by bpilgrim
and i am the extremist :crazy:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. I defend ending the war against a nation that hadn't surrendered
They tried to NEGOTIATE, but hadn't done as we demanded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
55.  and the way we "ended" it was to nuke women & children?!?
You are defending the indefensible!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #55
84. The nukes
Ended the war. Until that point, Japan hadn't surrendered and the Japanese military was preparing for an all-out defense of the island.

History proves Truman was correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #84
97. the BIG LIE
how do you explain not one military leader in theater at that time agreeing with you?

you are defending TERRORISM.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #97
108. The president
Is the ultimate military leader in all situations. HE is the commander in chief. Only he knows all of the information. Only he juggles the reality of people at home with threats abroad. Truman (and his secretary of State) agreed on the need to drop the bombs.

And you know what? It worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #108
117. commited an act of terrorism that will forever stain america
until we admit our wrong and work to eliminate WMD from the planet.

Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon succeded only by nagasaki - kurt vonnegut

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #117
135. You can't eliminate WMD
You can't eliminate knowledge, though we both would agree on doing it if possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDR2004 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #117
180. Visit the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima
and see our handiwork firsthand. It is hard to maintain an intellectual distance to the cold realities.

American policy so far has only created incentive for WMD proliferation.

FDR2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #180
183. On the way
Should I stop at Bataan, Nanking and Korea?

The bomb was horrible, but it paled in comparison to the acts of Imperial Japan. And, in the case of the bomb, it brought about the end of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. It was necessary.
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 09:01 PM by draftcaroline
Intercepted Japanese communications clearly show the mindset of the decision makers in Japan.
As late as August 1945 the unyielding Japanese leaders were trying to forge an alliance with the Russians and carve up Asia between them. Then the Russians invaded Manchuria (Japanese-held territory) and might have proceeded to attack Japan---imagine where that might have led. Plus an American invasion---whether or not fouled up by Russian involvement as in Germany---would have cost innumerable American lives. Read "Marching Orders" by Bruce Lee (you can get it on Amazon for $2 used; DU homepage has a link to Amazon). This book combs through the intercepts and discusses the decision to use the bomb.

While you're at it read these archived threads:

Should Truman have dropped the bomb? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

about that "should we have dropped the A-Bomb" discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hiroshima mayor lashes out at Bush on atomic bombing anniversary http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:17 PM
Original message
Bullshit
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 09:19 PM by Art_from_Ark
It was totally unnecessary-- even Dwight Eisenhower said so. Japan had made overtures to surrender as early as May 12, 1945 (after her Nazi allies surrendered), and again in July 1945, but they were turned down. The war in the Pacific was prolonged to allow the Soviet army time to get in place to seize Japanese islands and set the stage for permanent Japan-USSR friction (how convenient for the USSR to declare war on Japan the day after Hiroshima), and to give the US an excuse to test the bombs under conditions that no one would question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangerhobbit Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
58. dichotomy
"The war in the Pacific was prolonged to allow the Soviet army time to get in place to seize Japanese islands and set the stage for permanent Japan-USSR friction"

Praytell, how would this have benefitted America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Hey, caroline, do you make these things up as you type?

Japan was NOT trying to forge an 'aliance' with russia. They asked stalin to pass along an offer of surrender. And our gov't new it because we had broken their diplomatic codes and were reading their messages before they were delivered to their diplomats. In fact, we read this message before stalin did.

Is this more of your 'my country, right or wrong'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No, but we were right and Japan was wrong
They prolonged the war by not outright surrendering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. Nice personal attack
You show your wits -- all 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
77. More of my what?
If your reading of my posts leaves you thinking I espouse "My country right or wrong," you need to stop reading them and spare yourself the confusion.
As to Japan and Russia, the intercepts made it quite clear: the Japanese spoke of joining forces with the Russians in Asia. Not that you should go read that, if you have such trouble reading me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
140. Again, you are a voice of reason, draftcaroline
And again, the dedicated bunch of revisionists here will ignore you. Things like looking deeply at the whole story, taking things in context, facts, you know, little meaningless things like that just get in the way of their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #140
198. More like a statue of reason, Woodstock
Getting so crapped on around here! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Yep ....Sad isn't it ? ...Zinn wrote about this also
:-( We had a new war toy and we wanted to see what it would do .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
29. One thought is...
They should've thought about that before they bombed Pearl Harbor. I have a mixed feeling on the subject in one sense I feel sorry for all of those civilians who died because of the nukes in another sense I just wish terrorists and other countries would fucking leave us alone so that we don't need to use our military like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Procopius Donating Member (147 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
36. Were you with Truman at the time? Were you allive during WWII?
Dropping the bombs quickly ended the war. The Japanese deserved it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. military leaders in theater AT THE TIME said that they were NOT necessary
and hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilian men women and children DID NOT 'deserve it'

you sound as bad as OBL :puke:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Procopius Donating Member (147 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. They still deserved it. Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Procopius Donating Member (147 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. They deserved it. End of story.
Equating me with a terrorist is pretty low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #51
100. something OBL would say i am sure
about us.

nice company you are in :crazy:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #36
88. Then you would agree that the people in the World Trade Center...
deserved to be killed because of past US foreign policy? You're logic is breathtaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
196. Were you allive during WWII?"

Yes, I was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. all the military leaders in theater at the time disagree with you...
i guess they were 'liberal apologists' according to you as well :shrug:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Procopius Donating Member (147 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Why did MacArthur want to bomb China later in the Korean War?
Wasn't he a major player in the Pacific Theater?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. they were kicking our butt...
btw: that has nothing to do with us nuking japan.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
coda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #56
76. Here's a couple "shreds" .

BTW, running Ike into the ground is all for naught. It does zilch for your "case".


Thought I'd throw in Admiral Leahy for shits n giggles.



"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."

- Paul Nitze quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.


"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands would have been necessary."

- Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.


========
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

- GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR from William Manchesters, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


========


William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "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. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.



====
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I Was There, pg. 441.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #76
101. excellent post - great quotes
:toast:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #41
72. LOL! " I love the way liberal apologists alwaysgloss over that ..."

Then you'll love throwing the full weight of your historical ignorance against these "liberal apologists.




During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380



======


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHYChief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I Was There, pg. 441.




======


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

- GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR from William Manchesters, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


========


William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "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. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


========



In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
HPLeft Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
53. If you're watching the program that I saw on the history channel...
...then you might want to know that documentary has a very delibrate slant. Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times wrote a column a couple of months ago, based on recently released documents from the Imperial War College (I believe, going from memory here), that strongly suggested that the Japanese military was nowhere ready to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagaski. I don't have Kristof's column handy, but I think that even he was surprised by the implications of these recently released documents - since he used to be of the opinion that the dropping of the bomb was unnecessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. General LeMay: Good Leftist Apologist?
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 11:53 PM by Bridget Burke
"Air Force General Curtis LeMay had argued in July at Potsdam that the war would have ended in two weeks independently of whether the bomb was used or the Russians entered the war. 'The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.' Back in April he had maintained that the war would be ended in September without a U.S. invasion."

www.mind.net/rvuuf/pages/decision.htm

He'd overseen the firebombing of Japanese cities that killed more people than died in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. He thought that was probably sufficient, as did other military leaders cited in the referenced article--& elsewhere.

But you just consider him a pinko pacifist, I guess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangerhobbit Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #65
73. false premise
Your link purports a premise I don't buy into, that of the "innocent civilian" myth. The Japanese certainly never bought into it, nor did Stalin, nor does Osama bin Laden according to his own analects.

There is especially no such thing as an "innocent civilian" in a democracy. How can there be? Are our troops in Iraq "guilty" and the Democratic civilian congress that voted almost unanimously to send them there, "innocent civilians"? Are the people who voted them into office "innocent civilians"?

I am almost positive, given mankind's track record for the past 10,000 years, that had we not used the bomb on Japan as a demonstration of future deterrence, a far more ghastly scenario would almost certainly have followed sometime after WWII involving many more weapons. Dropping the bombs on Japan may be the only reason mankind still inhabits this planet. It was horrible, yes, but it was an object lesson no one could ignore. Such weapons haven't been used since....have they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #73
83. Not yet.
So, you've backed down from your original statement & agree with General LeMay (that flaming pacifist) that the bomb may not, after all, have been necessary to end the war. But, hey, it was a cool demonstration!

The current regime in this country is investigating nukes once again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. what makes them "innocent" is that they are "non-combatants"
They aren't attacking anyone, just on the receiving end. Were there any "innocent civilians" at Pearl Harbor?

Yes, no nukes have been dropped since 1945. Your theory about why they haven't been used again is in jeopardy with the current administration. Remember how they want to open the possiblitiy to first strike nuclear attack, baby-nuke bunker-busters and the like??

Dropping the A-bomb on Japan was just plain wrong and immoral. "Unconditional surrender" is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle to use against your own population to reinforce the validity of the evil you are partaking in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #89
222. Truman should have given them a demo in the bay first...
...it would have been the humane thing to do. Then if the Japanese military still said, "Kiss my ass," Truman could have said, "Sayonara" and dropped it on their city.

Yes, the Japanese committed terrible war crimes, but that does not absolve Truman for his act of genocide against Hiroshima. Achieving victory by resorting to the same tactics as your enemy does not make you morally superior. The eye for an eye school of foreign policy only escalates bloodshed in the end. Look at Israel's endless vendetta against the suicide bombers.
Pearl Harbor meant our military retaliation was justified defensively, but I do not believe our use of nukes was. If a nation seeks to take the road less traveled and govern with humility, it must commit acts of war only after exhausting all other options. In the case of Hiroshima, Truman had the options.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #73
90. "...no such thing as an "innocent civilian" in a democracy."
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 07:49 AM by Isome
I've always said that and people look at me like I'm crazy. Our republic is a participartory democracy; just as ignorance of the law does not make you innocent of committing a crime, neither does ignorance of your government's actions at home or abroad make you immune from the ire of those whose lives are affected by those actions, nor innocent from blame for those actions.

However, apropos to this topic is that Japan wasn't a democracy, ergo their civilians were innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. Not exactly
They worked in the factories that made weapons. They built ships and maintained ships of war. And, of course, they supported the government that was committing war crimes all across the Pacific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #91
119. so then you think 911 wasn't a crime?
and that since japan wasn't a democracy then and people had no choice but to work for their daily bread that we then murdered innocent civilians?

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #91
126. Then you're perfectly muddled.
They didn't vote for their leadership, nor was it mandated by the laws of the country that their leadership's intentions be made known to the public for approval or rejection. As a result, they were at the mercy of the Mekado.

However, by your reasoning, if the Japanese noncombatant civilians were deserving of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our noncombatant civilians in the WTC towers & the Pentagon were deserving of the attacks on 9.11.01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #126
136. You might have missed this
But WWII was a declared war on all sides and fought as a total war by all sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #136
141. news flash: OBL has been at war with us for years...
and we with him, supposedly

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #141
150. News flash -- he's not a nation and can't declare war
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #150
169. oh, so only nations are allowed to attack civilians?
if you are not a nation than it is illegal.

interesting.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #169
184. Only nations can declare war
We can't all just go around declaring war on other nations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #136
147. You're confused.
That has nothing to do with whether civilians deserve what happens to them because of their government's actions. Dig deeper.

And, while your at it, you should try to remember that the avatar you've chosen is of a man who was a pacifist. Your muddled responses cheapen his legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #147
156. My avatar
Would have fought Japan or Nazi Germany in a heartbeat. They were monstrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #156
160. That, is a bald-faced lie.
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 12:04 PM by Isome
And, though it is further off topic, for you to say so borders on the blasphemous with regards to his pacifism. Truly, muddle is a fitting screen name for one who agrees so heartily with the use of the atomic bomb on civilians in Japan, yet doesn't see the logical thread strung from your argument of their lack of innocence (for "supporting" their government) to our fellow Americans lack of innocence on 9.11.01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #160
163. I don't just beg to differ, I know
Hitler had another final solution in mind -- for my people. We fought him by the thousands and would have been destroyed had we not done so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #163
170. that is your problem... you think you have ALL the truth
and that is what leads to wars and TERRORISM.

something you could learn from MLK and others if you dared to listen.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #170
174. I don't have all the truth, no one does
I listened to MLK a lot actually. He advocates peace, but not stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #174
203. And he wouldn't be cheering or condoning the a-bomb...
...as you are doing now. He also wouldn't blame the civilians for it, as you are doing now.

Pity that you listened to MLK, but weren't affected by his deep spirituality. You should try listening some more; I have tapes of all his speeches, including "Letters from a Birmingham Jail". It would go a long way towards clearing up the muddle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #203
204. Respectfully
I love Dr. King but he chose passive resistance because it was the best tactic to achieve civil rights for his people by pricking the conscience of the white elites...

I doubt Dr. King would have counseled the Jews of Nazi Germany to use passive resistance against Hitler as Gandhi did....


Dr. King would have supported the just war theory which is part and parcel of Christian theology....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #204
224. Nowhere was there mention of Jews resisting Nazis
With all due respect, condoning the use of the a-bomb in Japan, given the documented back & forth regarding surrender, and the innocence of the civilians who died because of the bomb are the issues at hand. The nonviolent stance on civil rights is not germane, though his pacifism is. He was against Vietnam and he railed against war in general.

Yes muddle, you remain very definitely... muddled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #224
225. This is sad
Trying to second guess something that happened almost 60 years ago. That also means Dr. King would have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and could see how it all worked out.

Since it did work out and end up saving lives and building a peace-loving democracy where none had been before, I have faith he would support it.

This is not warmongering, this ENDED a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #225
250. Don't be ignorant!
It doesn't matter when it happened, when one version of events is found out not to be wholly accurate, it's not second-guessing, it's making the new revelations a part of the whole historical picture.

It used to be said that Columbus discovered America, we found out more than 60 years later that he didn't discover it, as much as he stumbled on it while lost. Forget the fact that using the word "discovered" negates the presence of Native Americans.

...second guessing history... what a muddled way of thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #250
251. Totally different events
Of course, Columbus didn't discover America. He did do so for the West, but the Native Americans already knew they were here.

But the argument in THIS thread is that we should not have dropped the nukes. But all events after those bombings have led us to the point where Japan has totally turned around its nation. Change one piece of that history and it ALL changes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #251
254. so... you are saying that the japanese were evil to the core and had to be
NUKED into peaceful people?

i understand that you apparently are ignorant of the racism implicit in your words and conclusions but i think it is proper to point them out when you say them so you may come to recognize them in the future.

you see a whole race of people from the narrow and racist perspective of old wartime propaganda and it can be mighty offense to folks who have a greater perspective on history then you apparantly do.

i hope you plan to attend university or at least your neighborhood library as you continue to age... on second thought, at least you hang out here, i am sure you are learning a great deal. :toast:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #251
256. You're being ignorant again.
They're two different events yet neither of them is seen the same since new, previously unknown or previously hidden facts came to light and put them in a different perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #203
209. No muddle here on this point
The Axis was the greatest evil ever visited on the world. I have complete faith Dr. King would have seen that and worked actively to end their dominion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Isome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #209
252. more muddle, muddle, muddle...
Have you, uhhhh, read any good books about Japan & Democracy lately? No? I didn't think so. If you had, you'd know that Japan's government is at best described as dysfunctional and corrupt. The Democracy we selflessly forced on them with the use of the a-bomb just hasn't stuck all that well. Apparently, you were trying to bolster your supportive stance of bombing noncombatant civilians by claiming to know things that you clearly did not.

Do read up on it though, then feel free to come back and retract your blasphemy that MLK would be happy a "democracy" emerged from the a-bomb's toxic rubble in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #53
81. The Japanese were not going to surrender.
In fact they were preparing the civillian population for a U.S. invasion where every man woman and child would fight U.S. soldiers to the death. "One million lives for the emperor" was a song that was being sung by the Japanese at the time.

There is a book about the bombing called "Thank God for the Atom Bomb (and other essays)" by Paul Fussell. You will not find a more exhaustive display of critical thinking outside of such a body of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
60. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. that's completely irrelevant to the statement
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 11:46 PM by DS1
Instead of the typical 'say that to a Marine' response, direct their attention to Dresden.

Btw, I'd love to hear how Jimi Hendrix supported the Army...

-Semper Fi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangerhobbit Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. good point!
You make an excellent point here. You can get David Irving's book on the Dresden fire bombing as a free download from his web site. I read it last year. Its fascinating.

Why doesn't left-wing America decry the three million German civilians who died directly or indirectly as a result of our bombing? Not a peep of protest over that. No race-card opportunities you see.

Jimi was the most famous veteran ever of the 101st Airborne Division. I served in its Ranger Company in Vietnam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. yeah, he went in 61
and was out by 62, hmm, kicked out?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangerhobbit Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. acid pads doooooood
"and was out by 62, hmm, kicked out?"

Close. Flipped out. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #68
75. Here they go again, bringing in the damn accountants, can't some.........
one make a quick buck with out a lot of fuss

Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php
basic stats for US imperialism
by cecil Sunday November 24, 2002 Sunt 04:18 PM

a reference guide for activists.
Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism
Contents:
1list of interventions for regime change
2list of air warfare campaigns
3list of client states
4list of states held by debt-leverage imperialism
5list of foreign base hosts
6list of murder toll

(snip)
(snip)
6. Chronological list of US murder toll:
The murder toll has been achieved by either direct violence (e.g. the
firebombing and nuking of Japan or the firebombing of Dresden) or indirect/proxy
low intensity conflict (e.g. Rwanda in the 90s or Nicaragua in the 80s). (I
have not here accounted for the deaths attributable to SAP.) Some extremely
conservative estimates
Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M
West Africans (1776-1865): 4M
Philippines (1898-1904): 600K
Germany (1945): 200K
Japan (1945): 900K
China (1945-60): 200K
Greece (1947-49): 100K
Korea (1951-53): 2M
Guatemala (1954-2002): 300K
Vietnam (1960-75): 2M
Laos (1965-73): 500K
Cambodia (1969-75): 1M
Indonesia (1965): 500K
Colombia (1966-2002): 500K
Oman (1970): 10K
Bangladesh (1971): 2M
Uganda (1971-1979): 200K
Chile (1973-1990): 20K
East Timor (1975): 200K
Angola (1975-2002): 1.5M
Argentina (1976-1979): 30K
Afghanistan (1978-2002): 1M
El Salvador (1980-95): 100K
Nicaragua (1980-90): 100K
Mozambique (1981-1988): 1M
Turkey (1984-2002): 50K
Rwanda (1990-1996): 1M
Iraq (1991-2002): 1M
Somalia (1991-1994): 300K
Yugoslavia (1991-2002): 300K
Liberia (1992-2002): 150K
Burundi (1993-1999): 200K
Sudan (1998): 100K
Congo (1998-2002): 3M
We should also take note that the United States bears more than superficial
responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust: e.g., the turning away of Jewish, Romani,
and other refugees; funding the concentration camp system; underwriting the
Third Reichs military; delay in opening a western front; policies of
appeasement before the war; siding with the fascists during the Spanish Civil
War; turning down Stalins offer to attack Germany jointly in 1938; providing
theoretical inspiration for lebensraum, final solutions, anti-communism,
anti-Semitism, etc; rebuilding Germany after the war with the fascist
infrastructure still intact; saving war criminals; general ideological support;
and so forth.
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #68
155. And not a cry for the atrocities committed by Japan
in China, for example.

Pearl Harbor they dismiss as nothing, but surely what Japan did in China, and the atrocites that ended with the end of the war (which came about as a result of the bombs, in addition to saving American lives - but then again, American lives are to be dismissed by them.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomReload Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. Marines
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 12:02 AM by FreedomReload
I am sure those tough macho soldiers can handle a verbal assault if they could survive actual combat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cloud Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #60
71. From what I learned in school
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 2 major industrial centers and shipyards. They were military targets.

Also I have been tought that dropping the bomb saved many Japanese and American lives in the long run. If America had stormed the beaches of Japan it would have been a bloodbath. Remember the japanese considered it an honor to die in battle. They are not afraid. It would have made Normandy look like nothing.

Also they trained civillians in combat. It would be so much worse than Iraq.

But the good thing is the Japanese people don't hold grudges. It is just the kind of people they are. Their military leaders had tremendous respect for the enemy. It shows now as Japan is one of America's biggest trading partners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #71
82. Nagasaki was alternate target, Kokura being the primary one.


I also had been taught that dropping the bomb saved many Japanese and American lives in the long run.

But my school books didn't carry any of the comments by many in the military who believed it wasn't neccessary.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #71
85. Grudges
Actually, it's more important to the Japanese that Americans and British people don't hold grudges. Considering the brutality of the Japanese empire, it is amazing that we helped lift up Japan after the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #60
133. It wasn't exactly "this" goddamn government, FreedomReload
It was a Democratic administration. It happened almost 60 years ago when there was no Internet, no television. Most of the players are dead and cannot defend their actions now.

It's fine to debate the "woulda, coulda, shouldas" and have strong feelings but for Pete's sake there is no reason to get so emotionally riled up at people who disagree with you in a "what if" discussion like this.

It's too late to un-drop the Bomb. Nobody in their right mind would consider using a nuclear weapon now. There is no way anyone can credibly claim they don't know what the effects of a nuclear weapon would be.

Development of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Somebody was going to figure it out sooner or later, and in spite of what may have been a terrible mistake in using it on Japan I'm glad the USA has to bear that burden. Having the Soviets or the Nazis develop it first would probably have not been any better in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
64. one month after Hiroshima
if you want to know what one of the first U.S. war correspondents had to say, I transcribed part of an article at the link below.

I've luckily become the proud owner of several ex-library bound copies of the NYTimes from 1943, 44, and 45. It's really incredible to sort of step back into that time and see what was reported, advertised, what books were promoted...

anyway, this is also interesting because of the seeming lack of knowledge, or cover up of the same, of the effects of dropping the bomb over the long term.

Reading these papers also helps me to get a better perspective on the present...many things seem so obvious when we view them in hindsight, while at the time, with the uncertainty of unproved choices and unknown consequences, things were not so simply chosen or understood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hooligan Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
79. I visited Nagasaki last summer...
...it's a beautiful city. While I was there, I spent a day at the "hypocenter" and the atomic bomb museum. It was a very moving and sobering experience, even though I wasn't alive at the time. Knowing that my government had committed this crime against humanity made me feel ashamed. The firsthand accounts by citizens who lived through it were heartbreaking. I met a man on the city tram who had lost family to the bomb. He expressed no ill will towards America or me personally. If anyone here gets the opportunity, I highly recomend a visit to the city and the museum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #79
86. Isn't that nice of him
Now visit China and Korea or go visit Pearl Harbor or talk to the families of American vets killed in the Bataan Death March. See how THOSE folks feel toward the butchers of Imperial Japan.

Japan had refused surrender under the terms offered. The delay and the results were their fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #86
103. yes it was!
japan had one condition... that we finally accepted after NUKING a defeated nations cities filled with innocent men, women and children, that were trying to surrender... TWICE.

some folks will NEVER admit to any of our crimes no matter how OBVIOUS nor HORRIFIC in scope.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #103
109. Some folks make self defense a crime
Japan had REFUSED surrender under the terms offered. Their choice, not ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #109
123. what a complete joke
we were flying over japan with impunity. our terms were total war with unconditional surrender. they had only one condition which we finally accepted.

japan could not hit us at all then. that was not self defense that was TERRORISM on a MASSIVE SCALE.

so according to you 911 wasn't terrorism since they are at war with us, eh? they are just 'defending themselves' :puke:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #123
137. Our terms were our choice
Starting the war and then not ending it were both THEIR choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #137
146. the BOMBS were not necessary AND amounted to TERRORISM on a massive scale
you may choose to accept that they were but i have history on my side and hopefully we can put an end to your type of thinking before it destroys us all.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #146
157. History
Is on my side and President Truman's side. You can't argue with success. Or most folks don't try any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #157
171. more pithy comments supporting the BIG LIE does not make history
it only reveals you to be incapable of reason even when presented with facts.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. Reason
Clearly, we disagree on what that means. In my case it means that Truman was clearly right because history has shown that to be true. You believe you are right, but have no evidence that it would have worked out well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hooligan Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #86
221. What is the point
of justifying one atrocity with another? It doesn't make the bomb blast any less damaging. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not commit the acts you refer to. They did not start the war, nor did they refuse to surrender. They were just living their lives. You can justify it all you want from a strategic standpoint, but it does not negate the fact that innocent men, women, and children were executed on a massive scale by the US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
80. I have no problem with the bombing of Hiroshima
Japan still held huge slices of China including all of Manchuria. I could see why any president would want the war over now, rather than settling in for a siege for a few months.

On Nagasaki, I would have wished that Truman had waited more than three days to let the Japanese government access the damage and make a decision.

However, I don't think Truman owed the Japanese anything. They fought horrifically and there government needed to surrender unconditionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #80
92. They didn't surrender unconditionally.
They got to keep their Emperor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #80
93. Atomic bombs are Racist at their core
The other sides were practicing the same type of behavior but tit for tat only turns one into the lizard-animal one could claim they are not.

It amazes me how one rationalizes their paranoia into a good reason to kill other populations wholesale. Mostly it seems this is a "hands off" mental illness that many societies fail to deal with or understand.

:nuke: :nuke:

http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/gaskill2/bomb.html
When the Earth Caught Fire

At the end of WWII American citizens expressed the contradictory emotions of excitement and dread: excitment for the end of the war, and dread for having had to open up the nuclear age to do so. Recent scholarship also shows this mix of emotion in the scientists and politicians who made the decision. My research in the popular press of Time and Newsweek brings to light the fact that these same feelings appear in the American public. Simplistic views of joy and celebration existed, but closer examination of the popular press of the time reveals that authors, often in the same articles, also expressed impending anxiety and fear. The two emotions--joy and fear--coexisted. A one-sided interpretation and understanding of the American response to the dropping of the atomic bomb is therefore both inacurate and unfounded. Yes, Americans were happy for the end of the war, but they were also afraid that next time they would suffer the consequences of the birth of atomic weaponry. It is my contention therefore that the very basis for the American national sense of victory and excitment gave birth to the fear that next time they would mourn devestated cities left reeling from the very nuclear power Americans themselves created.

On 7 December 1941, Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor. The next day America declared war on Japan and entered WWII--tying the world together in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed "a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our public, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity."(1) A noble cause, but a cause which culminated in two distinct controversial actions four years later. WWII changed the way the world viewed war--especially with regard to noncombatants. Historian Barton J. Bernstein portrays the emerging internal struggle among the White House military advisors and cabinet members, pitting the old dying pre-WWII ethic of warfare which targeted only the soldiers against a new ethic where race, nationality, and treaty preference made people in general the enemy--uniformed or not.(2) The moral implications of such a paradigmatic shift troubled American political and military dedcision makers. They struggled, finally acted, and used atomic weapons to speed the end of the war. Ironically, however, the same action that granted the people of the United States what they coveted most--the end of the war and the soldiers coming home--created a paradoxically structured world where peace and potential annihilation tenuously existed hand in hand.

War by 1945 was no longer a Napoleonic chess match where strategy and movement of troops won. Instead it proved a Darwinian battle of technological evolution. In early October of 1939, the process which would culminate in the organization of the famed Manhattan Project began. Through a set of meetings, various interviews, and established committees sanctioned by Roosevelt, physicists found themselves searching for the answers to as of yet unknown atomic questions. The United States already believed itself years behind the Germans in an attempt to create atomic weapons through uranium, and later plutonium, fission. Thus, argues Stanley Goldberg, researchers such as Vannevar Bush, K. T. Compton, and Lyman Briggs deliberately pulled the U.S. government into the atomic age utilizing the fear of the very weaponry they would, in fact, create.(3) Whether this is true or not remains suspect. Nevertheless, it must be understood that this group of researchers played an important role in the evolution of atomic thought. It is in this light that we must look at their contribution --irrespective of the motives behind it. Goldberg, citing notes and letters sent and recieved by those researchers involved, establishes the evolutionary track of the inventive process. Thoughts of a bomb of "unprecedented power might be produced" (emphasis added) surfaced as early as May 1941. Merely six months later, projections implied that "a fission bomb of superlatively destructive power will result" with prototypes possibly ready as early as 1944.(4) It took a little longer, the first test held in the summer of 1945 putting all speculation about plausibility to rest in the ashes of a 200 foot tower.

The ethics and morals of using the atomic bomb, however, remained controversial. Proposals for a display of power for a Japanese audience and/or limited tactical/military use remained the two most viable options next to dropping it on a populated city. Because it is always impossible to know exactly what anyone was thinking, the facts are somewhat sketchy. But, as Bernstein discusses, the scientists in the research group initially pushed for a technical display of power to play on Japanese fear until Oppenheimer and others informed higher-ups that a technical demonstration alone would not necessarily be sufficient to bring an end to the war.(5) Thoughts evolved. Using weapons in the scheduled 1 November 1945 invasion of mainland Japan became the new push, but not necessarily out of the ethical concern for civilian life. Admiral Richard Connoly, who was stationed in the Phillippines (and whose responsibility it was to provide naval support for this scheduled) "wanted to put one on either side of each landing, before the troops landed." The researchers assumed the target to be purely tactical: military sites, industrial areas, troop placements--not cities.(6)


George C Marshall and Henry L. Stimson, Army Chief of Staff and Secretary of War respectively, likewise pushed for a use limited merely to military "objectives such as a large naval installation." The thought of using such a weapon on civilian areas was contrary to the long established war ethic founded in "Christian doctrine and in international law." In short, it made them uncomfortable. Stimson, therefore, in a conversation with Truman in late May of 1945, assured the President that the weapons would be used so as to spare civilian lives in the name of "fair play and humanitarianism." The true depth of this sentiment was short lived. The daily fire bombing of Japanese cities to the point where the new weapon may not have "a fair background to show its strength" testifies to this. What is more, two days after their discussion Stimson "stipulated that noncombatants would be acceptable targets." Aiming at a "vital war plant. . . closely surrounded by workers' houses" was not merely justifiable but desirable. This idea would proceed unchallenged until implementation less than two months later.(7)
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. Bombs are not racist
And neither was dropping these bombs on the Japanese, who had refused to surrender as was demanded of them. Had they done so, no bombs would have been dropped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #94
105. the ones who order them to be dropped were TERRORIST on a GRAND SCALE
and there is NO denying the RACISM against the japanese was wide spread at that time.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #105
114. Yes, racism was active on both sides
But bombs cannot be racist and we DEFENDED ourselves against the Japanese. Since they had not surrendered, the war continued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #114
124. you advocate TOTAL WAR after everything we now know is exactly why
i fear for our TOTAL DESTRUCTION one day, cept it will also take the rest of the world with it.

you remind me of the imperial japanese military leaders at that time and the ones who are now running the 'show' here at home.

mankind can not survive another world war but i fear we can not avoided if folks like you are at the helm which apparently they are.

don't forget that japan was doing what we and the west had been doing in asia and what we continue to do today around the world.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #124
138. WWII was total war on ALL sides
Japan, Germany and Italy were intent on world domination.

Just because they have been defeated doesn't mean that they won't rise again or others like China will not try the same.

I fear for the world when people refuse to recognize that there is a time to negotiate and a time to fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #138
143. oh... and that makes everything all right?
gotcha. you sound just like the imperial japanese military of their day AND the NEO-CONS of today.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #143
152. Actually it does
We were fighting for world survival. The Japanese were fighting for world domination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #152
172. BULLSHIT
it only adds up in your CARTOON world view of history.

i gotta run for now, but i want to thank you once again for giving me the opprotunity to raise awareness again on this important issue.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #172
177. Nanking, Bataan, Comfort Women were not a cartoon
You think history is nice and neat and you can just change one piece so it can be the way you want it. But each change modifies the result.

As it is, Truman's actions -- ALL of his actions -- led us to this day where Japan is a peace-loving democracy and an ally of the U.S.

Don't argue with success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #172
211. Not a cartoon--it was asia's worst war ever
The Japanese war in China, Indochina, Indonesia, the Phillipines and more killed over 30 million people. China lost over 20 million. Indonesia lost more than 2 million. In 1945, the Japanese tried to confiscate most of the rice in Vietnam and 2 million vietnamese died.
Hundreds of thousands of allied prisoners of war and asian civilians died working as slave laborers all over the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. On the Malay railroad, 1,000 men died per mile of track layed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #211
214. got any links
30 million is a new number for me...

i know russia lost 20 + 30 from asia that gives the total number killed in the war that i have read about.

but that is besides the point...

we are talking about our desicion to nuke a defeated trying to surrender nations cities filled with inoccent civilians TWICE.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #143
179. The core fallacy is because something or someone is different it ........
is less or not worthy of consideration which is a view contrary to the rise of most civilizations. The weakness displayed by partisan politicians and nationalistic movements demonstrate this rule as it has danced around the globe through the centuries always in an attempt to secure goods, services and space from others and eliminate the people and groups that are different than them.

These movements, that more often than not, willing and even to the point of inherently knowing that avoiding the other groups is necessary in keeping conflict from happening will at some point still come in contact with them. These movements that having to deal with the needs of the community that they encompass are at the beckon of its need to expand makes even violent conflict inevitable at some point.

Greed or natural ascension cannot make others the same as you or me. We are different and when we can understand that and go about embracing each others differences as an asset rather than a liability then we might have a chance to live in peace

As to muddle in the road; I might not debate if Atomic Bombs are racist to him and the views he holds, rather I would debate if the people who used them were knowingly or unknowingly racist in their views towards other people and have decided that a quick fix is the best thing to do, expediency if you will, because another weakness, what some would call impatience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #138
144. I have an acquaintence in Japan who can pass for German
When he was in the US for the holidays a few years ago he told me he enjoys passing himself off as German just to see what the Japanese have to say.

He frequently gets comments from elderly veterans like "We almost did it!", with a nudge and a wink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #80
102. you have no problem NUKING a defensless city filled with innocent people
and folks wonder why folks hate us... some of us sound far more crazed then the terrorist.

wonder what yall will say when it happens to us? we deserved it? :puke:

did we deserve 911?

think about it... please

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #102
168. the people were advised to leave, many did
others were stupid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #168
227. got a link?
i doubt it

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
127. Did anyone else watch "Living with Tigers" on Discovery instead?
It was fascinating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
129. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #129
134. by exposing thier fallacies i hope we can prevent a future horror
muddle serves a useful purpose in allowing us to do just that.

this debate doesn't happen enough but now it is needed more than ever.

hopefully by muddle continuing to kick this thread even more will be inticed to look into it and discover how dangerous a world we actually live in and become commited to doing away with such horrid weapons in the future.

:hi:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #134
165. You can't eliminate WMD
It's another fantasy of yours like our blame in WWII.

I am more than happy to kick this thread to show just how nutty the extreme left of our party can be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #134
181. I'm Not Going To Get Back In This Briar Patch...
However when you start a war you can never fortell the consequences...

That's why I tell my kids not to talk trash to people or use "fighting words" because you can never fortell the consequences...

A good buddy of mine when I was growing up talked shit to a burned out ex cop who probably had lots of demons... The ex cop shot him dead ... My friend was only seventeen years old...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #129
159. Japan is our friend
The direct result of all we did both during the war and after.

How many nations in history would have taken a nation some horrible and rather than destroy them, help rebuild?

Actually, I didn't want to nuke Japan. Had they surrendered as we demanded, it wouldn't have been necessary. But they didn't and their military wasn't ready to do so until the nukes.

I am not proud of the nukes nor am I ashamed. They simply are a fact. We didn't begin the war, we fought the war and we ended the war.

You can curse me all you want, but history has proven that Truman was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilertommy Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #159
178. A Bombs
The masochistic self-hatred of country exhibited by Pilgrim is an example of why Liberalism is held in such low esteem by many in this country.

When you lack the will and gumption to hate an enemy like the Japanese and apologize for defeating them you deserve such low repute.

I suggest those here read "Downfall" by Franks for a good telling of how the war ended. Also read "Thank God for The Atomic Bomb" by Paul Fussel, an egghead prof at Penn who was an infantryman who'd fought the Germans and who was slated to go fight the Japanese when the war ended. He is convinced he was a dead man and that the Bomb saved his life.

Muddle knows what he's talking about, if you're interested in historical facts that is. If you're interested in screwball theories and self-hatred then no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TSElliott Donating Member (513 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #178
182. I would not say self hatred...
Japan has spent the last 50+ years re-writing history and now everyone believes it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #178
235. What a wonderful Hannity-esque spin you give the debate...
You write "When you lack the will and gumption to hate an enemy..."

I feel sorry for you.

Really. When you consider the ability to hate as a positive personality trait, you are someone I don't want to be in close proximity to. You would make a great Nazi.

How do I say it... Oh yeah:

Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trial: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
185. Let's confine ourselves to the facts, and the relevant time period.
This thread, like so many lately, is, at least to me, quite disturbing.

That there can be a difference of opinion is not a problem. What strikes me as problematic is the sense that one can make an assertion, here without any facts, repeat it endlessly, and believe that one has made a valid point. That these posters inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks is truly objectionable.

I would propose that the proper inquiry here is whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him at that time. Please note that I do not believe that is appropriate or helpful to consider the ex post facto opinions of others who waited to speak until later, or who may have had a separate agenda at some later point in time.

In order to consider President Trumans decision it would also be helpful to remember that he did not make this decision in the late Twentieth Century, with instant internet, television, or even radio communications.

To me the relevant factors in his decision making process are:
1. President Truman was the President of the United States, not any other country.
2. We were engaged in a war against Japan.
3. Japan started the war, and Japan was a tenacious enemy with a history of brutality.
4. President Trumans primary goal was to end that war and save as many American lives as possible.

If we limit ourselves to what facts President Truman had at that time, and his necessary goal as President of this country, perhaps this discussion may be more meaningful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #185
188. To let the perspective of one view, overide the views of others is
called a Veto or absolute authority which in any case does not absolve that authority of responsibility. The victor of a war often writes the laws to their favor. Because someone has choice does not make it moral or just, it only makes it a choice.

Intimidation of others through making an example of a much weakened opponent is a inherent value displayed many vertebrates that travel in groups. This value has become very arcane in todays world of machines and computers. Yet some still hold denial up to the very end of their life because it proves profitable to them personally or intellectually

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/wokusch9.html

China Upstages US at Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference
by Heather Wokusch
September 15, 2003

China was the undisputed star of last week's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) conference in Vienna, leaving Uncle Sam hiding in the wings.

The US has always been somewhat impatient with international non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium, in the past six years the States has conducted 19 nuclear tests, dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable.

But the Bush administration has upped the nuclear ante considerably. It plans another sub-critical nuclear test for 2004, and has authorized the nation's weapons labs to resume full-on nuclear testing with as little as six-months' notice.

And that's bad news for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The UN-sponsored organization was set up in 1996 to ban nuclear-test explosions and to establish a corresponding global monitoring system. But there's a catch - the treaty can't go into effect until all 44 of the nuclear-capable countries that joined in 1996 have ratified it, a prospect looking increasingly unlikely as holdouts point to US intransigence as justification for their own burgeoning nuclear weapons programs.

Take Iran, which as one of the original signatories, permitted five monitoring stations to be built on its soil. In January 2002, soon after the US began withholding funds from the CTBT's on-site inspection program, Iran began withholding monitoring data from the international community, thus rendering its stations useless
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. I am sorry, but
I missed your point.

I would appreciate it if you would or could state how you disagree with my post.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #190
192. The relevance is not if they dropped them (for they did), rather if he..
made the correct choice in doing such, which is subjective at any rate. The point the thread seems to be debating was it necessary and relevant to the situation or was it more bravado from his chain of command giving him poor views of his choices.

In this sentence you state
I would propose that the proper inquiry here is whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him at that time.

Following into group think of the people that surrounded him, he seems to have failed to seek out different sources of information into such a monumental decision, one that has changed the whole world. It is a view that revolves around the psychology of someone roaming about a room with loaded gun pointing it at any person that they disagree with.

If people don't like the way other people are dealing with this, maybe they should put the loaded gun down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #185
194. all informed military leaders in theater then said they were NOT necessary
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 03:31 PM by bpilgrim
and they recommended that we accept japans 1 condition to save lives.

ironic that that is now used to justify it...

if you would like a good scholarly place to go to investigate the subject further please go here...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

It is clear that Japan was a defeated, trying to surrender nation when we NUKED them... TWICE.

that my friend is terrorism and their is no justification, imho.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. Pilgrim,
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 03:45 PM by timbo
thank your for your suggestion.

And, I understand that you have made this singular point a number of times.

So that I may become better informed, perhaps you would be kind enough to refer me to some scholarly work produced by trained historians and which has been reviewed for accuracy by other trained historians in which it is stated that "all informed military leaders in theater" determined that nuclear weapons were not necessary. I assume that you mean by your often repeated statement that necessary means to force the surrender of Japan.

You have ofthen used the word "defeated". Are you assuming that the state of being defeated is the same as having surrendered? I, for one, am not sure that these words are the same.

Thank you.

edit: corrected spelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #195
201. the link i have provided contains the most up-to-date info on the subject
writen by a historian that addresses these points in deatail...

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

i am using defeated in the sense that they no longer posed a military threat to us since there military was destroyed, they could not even defend their own skies by that time.

here are some excerpts...

(B) A full-scale review of the modern literature concerning the central issues was published in DIPLOMATIC HISTORY in early 1990. Here is its conclusion:

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTERNATIVES TO THE BOMB EXISTED AND THAT TRUMAN AND HIS ADVISERS KNEW IT.

The writer is not a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, Chief Historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Again, one may challenge Walker's reading of the literature as of that date, but the notion that to argue the bomb was not needed and that this was understood at the time is somehow outrageous--as some of the postings angrily suggest--is simply not in keeping with the conclusions of many, many studies.


...

The issue of what U.S. military leaders felt and advised occupies four chapters of THE DECISION. A fundamental claim of those who reject views like those cited above is that the use of the atomic bomb was a matter of military necessity. President Truman himself repeatedly stated that he made the atomic bomb decision because his military advisers told him it was absolutely essential to do so.

If so, one would expect to find evidence of this--both at the time and after-the-fact.

(A) The rather stark truth, however, is that with one very "iffy" exception virtually all the important high-level World War II military leaders who had access to the relevant top secret information are on record as stating that the use of the atomic bomb was not a matter of military necessity. Indeed, many repeatedly, forcefully and consistently stated positions which in today's parlance would be termed strongly "revisionist."

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #201
202. Very detailed and shows a lot that 58 year old campaign
They were using to lie about the reasons and what it really was going on. I remember reading some of that garbage propaganda 35 years ago in elementary school. Thanks for the post bpilgrim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #201
205. A few more questions ...
Thank you for your response, however, I have a few more points.

1. Is there a citation to "Diplomatic History"; it appears that there may be more than one journal so titled. Without the opportunity to review the refrenced materials it is difficult for me to determine the value of the opinion stated. Indeed, while not spending an inordinate amount of time, I have thus far been unable to determine the credentials of the primary historians you have cited.

It appears to me that my previously posted question remains unanswered, that is, whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him at that time.

2. I should admit to a certain prejudice. I tend to take the ex post facto assertions of an admiral that a naval solution would have achieved an appropriate end result with a grain of salt. Similarly, I am reticent to wholly believe the similar assertions of air efficacy from an aviator or infantry efficacy from an infantry general.

I do recall that an important part of our constitutional form of government is that the control of the military should and must remain in civilian hands. The historial basis of this constitutional imperative is without question; may I assume that you do not disagree with this.

3. In this post, you mention that there were alternatives to the bomb. Please let me know
a. what these alternatives were;
b. the methodology you have employed to determine that these alternatives would have achieved the desired result, the surrender of the Japanese;
c. the number of lives you assert would have been saved, both American and Japanese, should these alternatives had been employed; and
d. the methodology you have employed to determine these numbers.
By you, I am including both you and the historians (I am assuming that they are indeed historians) you have relied upon.

4. I appreciate that you state that you are ". . .using defeated in the sense that they no longer posed a military threat to us since there military was destroyed, they could not even defend their own skies by that time."

Since you apparently believe that the war with Japan ended at some point earlier than surrender, please tell me at what point you, were you the President, would have felt comfortable sending American troops into Japan as part of an occupation force.

Again, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #205
212. ...
> Thank you for your response, however, I have a few more points.
>
> 1. Is there a citation to "Diplomatic History"; it appears that there may be
> more than one journal so titled. Without the opportunity to review the
> refrenced materials it is difficult for me to determine the value of the
> opinion stated. Indeed, while not spending an inordinate amount of time, I
> have thus far been unable to determine the credentials of the primary
> historians you have cited.

GAR ALPEROVITZ
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/alperovitz

>
> It appears to me that my previously posted question remains unanswered, that
> is, whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious
> decision based on the information available to him at that time.

I included the conclusion of a recent study in the prior post that felt it was unnessary.

Plus I added a link to further research into the matter with even more up-to-date studies that came to the same conclusion, not to mention that all military leaders in theater at the time thought it wasn't necessary.

>
> 2. I should admit to a certain prejudice. I tend to take the ex post facto
> assertions of an admiral that a naval solution would have achieved an
> appropriate end result with a grain of salt. Similarly, I am reticent to
> wholly believe the similar assertions of air efficacy from an aviator or
> infantry efficacy from an infantry general.

Well if you can't trust your own generals who can you trust?

>
> I do recall that an important part of our constitutional form of government is
> that the control of the military should and must remain in civilian hands. The
> historial basis of this constitutional imperative is without question; may I
> assume that you do not disagree with this.

I agree, but he said that he dropped it because his military advisers told him it was necessary to end the war. That was simply untrue from a military stand point according to them.

>
> 3. In this post, you mention that there were alternatives to the bomb. Please
> let me know
> a. what these alternatives were;
> b. the methodology you have employed to determine that these alternatives
> would have achieved the desired result, the surrender of the Japanese;
> c. the number of lives you assert would have been saved, both American and
> Japanese, should these alternatives had been employed; and
> d. the methodology you have employed to determine these numbers.
> By you, I am including both you and the historians (I am assuming that they
> are indeed historians) you have relied upon.

I would have simply accepted their one condition to surrender in the spring of 45 as the military leaders advised to save lives.

History shows that once we accepted their one condition the occupation was not a problem.

>
> 4. I appreciate that you state that you are ". . .using defeated in the sense
> that they no longer posed a military threat to us since there military was
> destroyed, they could not even defend their own skies by that time."
>
> Since you apparently believe that the war with Japan ended at some point
> earlier than surrender,

No I am not saying that, I am simply saying that they were DEFEATED militarily by the spring of 45.

> please tell me at what point you, were you the
> President, would have felt comfortable sending American troops into Japan as
> part of an occupation force.

In the spring of 45 after agreeing to their one condition and they signing the surrender documents.

>
> Again, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #212
215. I give up.
Not to you, or the position you so strongly hold, but rather to this discussion. And, please note, I have not stated a position on this issue. My sole purpose here was an attempt to focus the discussion into a narrow, but historically important issue, that is: whether President Truman made a morally and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him at that time.

I have politely asked questions, you have chosen to avoid them. That is your perogative.

I am no longer interested in your responses, if any, and if posted, I shall disregard them. I shall assume that your position, without regard to how strongly you may hold your belief, has little merit.

To recap, I asked, is there a citation to Diplomatic History. You have declined to answer.

I have indicated that I would appreciate the background of any historians you rely upon. You provided the C.V. of one, and no names of any others.

I have asked you to provide material on what President Truman had to rely upon at the time he made the decision. You have failed to answer that other than by stating that a Dr. Alperovitz and unnamed and unknown others believe that based upon some undisclosed information generated at some unknown time that the decision to employ atomic weapons was unnecessary. Please recall that I specifically asked for citations to to some scholarly work produced by trained historians and which has been reviewed for accuracy by other trained historians.

Your flippant response ("Well if you can't trust your own generals who can you trust?") to my candid admission that I do not necessarily wholly accept the assertion, for example, of an admiral that a naval solution will achieve a certain end, without more, deserves no serious response. Quite frankly, I am surprised that anyone would say that. Personally I can think of a few instances from the time of the Viet Nam War to the present when blind faith and trust in our generals was unwarranted.

Once again you assert: "but he said that he dropped it because his military advisers told him it was necessary to end the war. That was simply untrue from a military stand point according to them." Since I have politely requested scholarly materials on this issue, and you have pointedly declined to answer, I shall assume that none exist. One final point, a fair reading of your quoted assertion would lead one to assume that you believe that not ONE military source supported the use of atomic weapons. I remain unconvinced that that is true.

I am pleased and gratified that you accept our constitutional mandate for civilian control of the military. This position is perhaps inconsistent with "well, if you can't trust your own generals who can you trust?"

Based on your assertion that there were alternatives (plural) to the use of atomic weapons, I asked for specific answers to specific questions. You replied that you would have accepted the Japanese condition and that "history shows that once we accepted their one condition the occupation was not a problem." Needless to say, I have some difficulty with your assertion. History does not show this; we don't know what would have happened in a hypothetical situation. Your beliefs, no matter how strongly held, do not constitute history.

Again, please note that I have not stated any position on this matter. My sole goal was to attempt to raise the level of discourse. I have failed. I have no further desire to engage in this discussion with you.

Good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #215
228. read up on the subject, you will have more to contribute afterwards
> Not to you, or the position you so strongly hold, but rather to this
> discussion. And, please note, I have not stated a position on this issue. My
> sole purpose here was an attempt to focus the discussion into a narrow, but
> historically important issue, that is: whether President Truman made a morally
> and politically efficacious decision based on the information available to him
> at that time.

Yet you have indicated indirectly your position.

>
> I have politely asked questions, you have chosen to avoid them. That is your
> perogative.

What are you kidding me? Did you read my replys?

>
> I am no longer interested in your responses, if any, and if posted, I shall
> disregard them. I shall assume that your position, without regard to how
> strongly you may hold your belief, has little merit.

Cop out. I provided links to the most up to date scholary research on the subject with the relevant excerpts.

>
> To recap, I asked, is there a citation to Diplomatic History. You have
> declined to answer.

What?

>
> I have indicated that I would appreciate the background of any historians you
> rely upon. You provided the C.V. of one, and no names of any others.
>

You think I am your personal research assistant? I gave you the relevant information... Look it up yourself, sheesh.

> I have asked you to provide material on what President Truman had to rely upon
> at the time he made the decision. You have failed to answer that other than by
> stating that a Dr. Alperovitz and unnamed and unknown others believe that
> based upon some undisclosed information generated at some unknown time that
> the decision to employ atomic weapons was unnecessary.

Bullshit. I cited a book that was written and a study in the early 90 with the most up-to-date info available on the subject. And linked to my source.

If you want more detailed info please feel free to by the books.

> Please recall that I
> specifically asked for citations to to some scholarly work produced by trained
> historians and which has been reviewed for accuracy by other trained
> historians.

The first link I provided is the latest - the very latest - debate going on by historians - trained historians - regarding this issue AND it is very detailed and scholary.

>
> Your flippant response ("Well if you can't trust your own generals who can you
> trust?") to my candid admission that I do not necessarily wholly accept the
> assertion, for example, of an admiral that a naval solution will achieve a
> certain end, without more, deserves no serious response. Quite frankly, I am
> surprised that anyone would say that. Personally I can think of a few
> instances from the time of the Viet Nam War to the present when blind faith
> and trust in our generals was unwarranted.

You said you couldn't trust ANY of your generals from all branches of service when they are all saying the same thing. So... Who can you trust then?

>
> Once again you assert: "but he said that he dropped it because his military
> advisers told him it was necessary to end the war. That was simply untrue from
> a military stand point according to them." Since I have politely requested
> scholarly materials on this issue, and you have pointedly declined to answer,
> I shall assume that none exist. One final point, a fair reading of your quoted
> assertion would lead one to assume that you believe that not ONE military
> source supported the use of atomic weapons. I remain unconvinced that that is
> true.

What?! I excerpted and linked to the sources. Did you even read it?



>
> I am pleased and gratified that you accept our constitutional mandate for
> civilian control of the military. This position is perhaps inconsistent with
> "well, if you can't trust your own generals who can you trust?"


What?!

I would trust my top military leaders when they advise me on military matters as a rule UNLESS they gave me reason not to, then I would dismiss them.

>
> Based on your assertion that there were alternatives (plural) to the use of
> atomic weapons, I asked for specific answers to specific questions. You
> replied that you would have accepted the Japanese condition and that "history
> shows that once we accepted their one condition the occupation was not a
> problem." Needless to say, I have some difficulty with your assertion. History
> does not show this; we don't know what would have happened in a hypothetical
> situation. Your beliefs, no matter how strongly held, do not constitute
> history.

Whatever, we are dealing with hypotheticals and I gave my answer now you are going to attack it as being a hypo :crazy:


>
> Again, please note that I have not stated any position on this matter.

lol

> My sole
> goal was to attempt to raise the level of discourse. I have failed. I have no
> further desire to engage in this discussion with you.

Well it might take you a while to research this topic more - try reading the links I provided - and then you might be able to contribute more.

>
> Good night.

night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #212
216. Again not exactly true
History shows that after EVERYTHING happened, including the two bombings, Japan was willing to surrender and act like it belonged in the community of nations. You can't ignore the impact that the bombing had on their later behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #216
218. Thank you muddle of the road.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #218
232. for what? he provides no sources only the oft repeated propaganda
of the time... yet that apparantly is good enough for you though you don't have any time for someone who has provided legit sources to back up their own claims.

and you claim that you haven't revealed where you stand on the issue.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #216
229. you can't ignore the fact that japan has an emperor to this very day
once that was agreed to, japan surrendered.

(remember how many wanted his head on a pike,)

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #229
230. Japan surrendered after being nuked twice
It's a fact. Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #230
231. and having their 1 condition met
that is a fact as well, look to japan today... they still maintain the institution of emperor.

the bombs were not necessary, as all the military leaders in theater at the time agreed and their opinion has more weight with me then your biased one does considering that they were a defeated nation at the time.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #231
233. How do you know they weren't necessary?
The only history we have includes those bombs. You speak like it's fact, but it's only supposition.

I speak of facts. EVERYTHING Truman did, worked -- including the bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #233
234. they were defeated militarily, they were trying to surrender, all military
leaders in theater at the time said it wasn't necessary and they surrendered only after the 1 condition was met.

in a nut shell

the only thing the bombs did was prove that we behave just like TERRORIST when at war with a nation by targeting the civilian population on a MASSIVE SCALE even when they are trying to surrender AND started the greatest arms race the world has ever known and has left damocles hanging by a thread over all of hummanity. not to mention the permanite stain left on our history.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #234
236. Again you ignore history
And put forth theories only.

Japan accepted surrender AFTER being nuked. How do you know that the nukes weren't the final straw that allowed the military to accept they were a defeated nation? How do you know that THEY were not the deciding factor?

In short, you don't. All you are doing is continuing the Japanese propaganda campaign that has turned the oppressors (Japan) into victims. The people of Asia and the Pacific region know differently. Thankfully, so do Americans still.

While Japan tried lamely to negotiate, their armies still killed throughout Asia and the Pacific. If they had been willing to surrender they would have done so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #236
240. i have quoted people from that history, provided sources and links yet
you claim i ignore history.

You ask how do i know that the nukes didn't force them to surrender? well there is the evidence that they still were ready to fight even if we had fifty more ready to use. though when they were assured their emperor wouldn't be touched they surrenderred and it has stood the test of time with their institution of emperor remaining to this very day.

you claim i use japanese propaganda when i merly state facts. just because those facts don't make us out to be the cartoon charecter you invision us to be of the good guys in the white hats in this paticular instince doesn't mean it isn't true it just demonstrates your nationalistic bias that doesn't allow you to see the truth.

the fact of the matter is that they were not necessary and in fact constituded terrorism by using WMD to target innocent civilians TWICE, that they were a defeated nation militarily AND trying to surrender only makes it's use more crimminal.

that you still try to justify this terrorist act after all we now know is simply an example of the danger of blind nationalism and doesn't bode well for the future.

the only thing i can think of is for you to try to imagine how you would feel if someone nuked one of our cities after we were defeated militarily and we were trying to surrender.

peace

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #240
241. We WERE the guys with the white hats
We didn't do everything perfect, but we halted world dominion by a bunch of mass murdering, torturing, raping, destroying fascists.

That's pretty damn good. And it sure as hell wasn't a cartoon.

"Evidence" that they were still ready to fight. LOL. Were you there? Did you get into the minds of the Japanese military? What does it take to turn a murdering zealot into one who will willingly surrender?

Answer: No one knows.

What we do know is that the actions taken by Truman worked. To remove one of those actions is to invalidate the result. Like a house of cards it could all come tumbling down.

You have bought into the fantasy of Japanese peace. At the end of the war, they still fielded an army, still murdered and raped their way across Asia. The nukes ended that war. If the Japanese had wanted it ended sooner, they had the power to do so.

The institution of emperor is nothing like it used to be, due in large part to the actions of Americans during occupation. Again, more points for Truman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #241
242. not when we nuked a defeated nation trying to surender... TWICE
and they were colonizing asia... just like we were, hello, so don't pretend that we were comming to the aid of free nations to rescue them from tyranny, please. (though i am sure you will ignore that evidence as well, not to mention what we have done since, vietnam, south america, africa, ME)

your answer 'no one knows' is BS we have the historical record and the opinions of the men who were there - military men no less - and they all agree they were not necessary.

btw: the japanese surrendered when their one condition was met so that pretty much closes the case.

the institution of the emperor as figure head had existed for centuries as it does today.

you are a prime example who can NEVER admit to any american crime no matter how obvious nor horrific in scope.

sounds like you still have a LOT to learn from MLK. i wish you all the best you have certainly picked a good teacher to learn from.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #242
243. No matter how often you say it, Japan still hadn't surrendered
And no, we were not colonizing Asia. Ask the Chinese about the Japanese. We were helping the Chinese. The Japanese were conquering.

Again, it is easy to Monday morning quarterback, but a lot harder to second guess success. And face it, Truman's decisions were astoundingly successful. Japan went from militaristic fascist state to a strong, peace-loving democracy.

The institution of emperor, that you love to harp on, lacks the power it once had, thanks again to the U.S.

Your posts are a prime example of everything wrong with the extreme left. Nothing the U.S. can do or has ever done is acceptable to you. Thank God your version of the left didn't run things in WWII, or the Axis would have won. FDR was liberal and did many great things. But he wasn't stupid.

Neither, by the way, was Dr. King. He would have been proud of how we saved the world from the worst threat ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #243
244. they didn't surender till their 1 condition was met
the west for the most part was in asia exploiting its natural resources and japan wanted a piece of the action and tried to imitate it's masters - the west - that it had been studying since perry showed up in the late 1800's

they - the military who had taken over - felt they were strong enough to kick us - the west - out by force - or make it painful enough for us to renegotiate treaties with them instead f the indigionous peoples there - and they also felt they had no choice once the embargo began.

quite simply they were following our lead, hence the GREATER EAST ASIAN CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE, which is very simular to what we are now doing today in the ME but what we have been doing since the our nation began really - think about the indians - so save your good guy in the white hats theory for someone who only has our cartoon world view of history programmed into them.

the institution of the emperor hasn't had any real power for centuries, simply a figure head. the military used him as a symbol of national unity to rally the troops - sound familliar - he had no real power and any scholar of japanese history will tell you that.

your bullshit RW tacitic of trying to lable me as part of the 'extreme left' is simply a sign of someone who has lost the argument and is now reduced to strawmen to try to divert attention.

would you call the military leaders in theater at the time 'left wing extremist'? i didn't think so, so save your BS for the faux news network they don't work here.

you are typical of a nationalist who can not see any of our own crimes no matter how obvious nor horrific you simply parrot the tripe propaganda that has been spoon feed to us all since k through 12 grade

you reveal your self to be either very shallow or someone with a hidden agenda.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #244
245. More propaganda
Now it's not just America bad, it's the West. Of course, poor Japan had no blame at all. No blame for Nanking. No blame for Bataan. No blame for thousands of prisoners butchered. No blame for Comfort Women. No blame for invasion. No blame for conquest, murder and rape.

No choice since the embargo began? Of course they had a choice. Peace. Japan didn't choose it before attacking America and only chose it as a last resort at the end of the war.

Actually, what the Japanese did was only similar truly to what the Germans, their allies, did during WWII. Mass murder, rape, torture on a scale never before seen in human history.

Well, I have to hope your bullshit is extreme left because it seems to represent even few here. I don't want our party falling victim to beliefs such as you espouse. But I am far from right wing, which is why I am a lifelong Democrat.

As for Faux News, I don't watch, but you seem to reference it a lot. Do you like it?

I am not a typical anything. I a moderate African-American Democrat. Our numbers are growing. And trust me, you don't represent our beliefs one iota.

Personally, I just prefer not to rewrite history in some ridiculous fashion as you wish to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #245
253. you said it...
you like putting words in other folks mouths, twisting them then claiming rightously that they said it just like the lame stream media which faux serves as convienint shorthand for since they are so blatant that even many fools can tell the difference.

you are JUST LIKE THEM...

as far as wwII goes I am indeed grateful that 'we' defeated facism for the more i learn of it's horror the more i despise it.

yet when staring into the abyss i am forced to confront our own reflection and it is something i can not ignore if i hope to never see my worst fears rise again.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #253
255. Not at all
I am not like them, nor do I watch them. You sir, are the zealot, not me.

Well, we can at least agree WWII was horrible. Though where we disagree is the fact that it was caused by Japan, Germany and Italy and their heinous crimes against humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #255
257. fyi: we are talking about the a-bomb decision
not who started the war. though i did point out rosevelts 8 point plan to provoke japan to attack us AND how we knew they were steaming to attack us at PH AND that japan had prepared diplomatic dispatches to notify us that they were breaking off diplomatic relations with us - war - that was delayed a couple hours due to translation problems.

now does that say who is to blame? no, just simple facts that the propaganda usually leaves out for obvious reasons that you decrie here though it doesn't make these facts less true.

POD

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #257
258. It's all part and parcel to the same action
Japan started the war of conquest on its own and had no legitimate reason to do so. It was not provoked. You cite a memo, not a policy.

That same Japan that launched its unprovoked attack, also was equally unwilling to surrender.

They were the architechts of their own destruction. Not FDR and not Truman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #231
239. That, plus we ran out of bombs
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
186. The A Bomb
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared a lot of bombing during the war just so the effect of the bomb could be evaluated clearly without clouding up the results with the effects of the smaller bombs. Read anything Robert Jay Lifton has written about the bombs that were dropped on Japan... his writing is great. I think I read about the "isolation" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki somewhere else, though... maybe in John Hersey's Hiroshima. Anyhow, despite all the propaganda about how lives were saved because the Japanese would have kept on going until the last man died, there are lots of contradictory reports. Don't know how responsible Truman was personally, but like any president I imagine he was pressured by the military types and a lot of relevant information that he should have been given was "accidentally" forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timbo Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. A few questions
Edited on Mon Sep-15-03 02:03 PM by timbo
You assert that: "both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared a lot of bombing during the war just so the effect of the bomb could be evaluated clearly without clouding up the results with the effects of the smaller bombs."

Do you have any documented support for this assertion? It was my understanding that the atomic bombs were developed in 1945, although some research obviously preceded the development of the bomb. If the bomb was not developed until 1945, it might be difficult to "save" Hiroshima and Nagasaki for testing of a not-yet-invented weapon.

You assert: "despite all the propaganda about how lives were saved because the Japanese would have kept on going until the last man died, there are lots of contradictory reports."

What documented and contemporaneous reports were in existance that indicated a willingness of the Japanese to surrender. Please note the word contemporaneous.

Thank you.

edit, corrected punctuation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilertommy Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #187
191. Ending War
One must look at the other methods that could have brought about Japan's defeat and how many people were being killed every day and how many would have died while other plans were taking effect.

Many in the Navy were in favor of blockading Japan and disrupting internal Japanese transportation; in other words straving the Japanese to death. American carrier based aircraft were already well on their way towards destroying Japanese transport; sinking ferries and destroying bridges and railroads and making the roads too dangerous to travel. The friction of war meant that every day American sailors and airmen were being killed, not to mention the Japanese killed in these activities. And had the blockade continued many Japanese, perhaps millions, would have starved to death. The Bomb was better.

The Army favored invasion and planning was far along, unfortunately it was becoming apparent in August that the Japanese forces in Japan were far stronger and better situated than was thought earlier and many American planners were beginning to back away from invasion. That would have led to a blockading strategy.

In any case an invasion of Japan would have seen fighting of medievil ferocity. American troops, never inclined to give the Japanese quarter in the best of conditions, would have slain the Japanese in huge numbers, millions perhaps. Civilians would have been slain wholesale and the killing would have been accompanied by pillage and rape on a scale of that done by the Russians in Germany. American casualties would have been extremely high, thus driving the American troops on to more ruthless and merciless actions. War without mercy. It woulda been like the Mongols. The Bomb was better.

Don't forget that the Japanese still had a large army on the Asian mainland. An army which went about it's brutal business of rape, murder and exploitation of Chinese and other Asian peoples right up until the end.

Nope, the sooner the war ended the better no matter the means. Not just better for the Americans (and that's something we need not apologize for) but better for the Japanese too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
193. Good gravy
I am so sick of this topic!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
206. not true
Read "downfall' by Richard Frank.

The Japanese wanted a negotiated armistice--not a surrender. Even after two atomic bombs and the soviet declaration of war, 3 out of the six members of the cabinet wanted to continue the war. Hirohito, nominally the sovereign, rarely ever used his veto over cabinet decisions, but after the deadlock after Nagasaki finally intervened to end the war.

Contrary to popular belief it was not just assurances over the emporers status that prevented peace. The Japanese did not want to admit defeat. They wanted a negotiated armistice. With the Japanese state the way it was, that would have meant a new war in the future. Surrender, which the allies failed to demand of the Germans in 1918, was nessecary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #206
213. well all the military leaders in theater at the time disagree with you...
everyone knew that japan would fight to the bitter end to protect their emporer... just like christians would to protect the pope from foreigners bent on his destruction.

once we gave in to their one conditon they surrendered and the decision was a wise one which has stood the test of time.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #213
217. Only after we nuked them did they surrender
It is a significant point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #217
219. NOT, but good try, here read this if you need a little more info
http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
(snip)
No Surrender

Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

The Potsdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (Potsdam 2, pg. 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (JDTS, pg. 200-202).

Later that day the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (JDTS, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (FTAF, pg. 265-267).
(snip)

And then this little tidbit
(snip)
Truman reflected this feeling in a radio broadcast to the public on the night of Aug. 9, after an atomic bomb had been exploded upon Nagasaki: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare" (PPOTP, pg. 212). However, the vast majority of the people killed and injured by the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not fall into those categories.

From a purely emotional standpoint, the desire for revenge is understandable in a wartime situation. But from the standpoint of finding the least deadly way to bring the enemy's surrender and save the lives of one's own soldiers, emotionalism may divert leaders from considering diplomatic solutions by making military/punitive measures seem more attractive and necessary. This may have contributed to Truman's belief that Japan would not surrender without a large-scale invasion of her mainland and/or atomic bombings.
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
223. Heh
before I even clicked on the thread I knew exactly who would be defending it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #223
226. Since this is an old topic
That should be no suprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #226
237. very good Muddle
if I had a gold star I'd stick it on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #237
238. I have a gold star
Where's yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #238
246. I dont donate to sites
that may boot me for not towing the line.Not to be harsh on DU but the last time I was set to donate they banned a bunch of people I like and respect.And it could very well happen again.

Nice of you to try to use that though...about par for your course.

Here's a hint...donating doesn't make a person any more right or wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #246
247. You brought it up
I merely continued.

This is a free site. You can do as you choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #247
248. ahhhh
you misunderstood.I meant a gold star as in what a teacher would give you.Understandable confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #248
249. Fair enough
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC