435
DONATIONS
Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

IKE: "the Japanese were ready to surrender & it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"

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.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Faryn Balyncd (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:28 AM
Original message
IKE: "the Japanese were ready to surrender & it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"



Very interesting.


Today we "learn" from some on DU that nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki saved the lives of "2,000,000 Japanese" civilians, and that questioning, or remembering, our actions is "anti-US propaganda".


Amazing whose views would thus be condemned as "anti-US propaganda":






DWIGHT EISENHOWER, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63










ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"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."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.







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












:kick:










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   Very, Very Interesting  MannyGoldstein   Aug-06-09 10:34 AM   #1 
   FDR was going to drop it and Eleanor supported it.  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 10:42 AM   #9 
      Up Until Now, I Fully Believed Those Bombs Were Necessary  MannyGoldstein   Aug-06-09 11:22 AM   #36 
      I am very glad to read that as I also believed that until I read the history  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 12:03 PM   #70 
      That's bad logic...  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:20 PM   #227 
      I Think It's Reasonable to Respect The Opinion...  MannyGoldstein   Aug-06-09 07:21 PM   #228 
      But it is not just one expert/military leader of that time, it is many  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:26 PM   #233 
         No, they were not defeated militarily...  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:42 PM   #239 
            Well, I think you would have a very hard time convincing any serious person of that  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:51 PM   #245 
            Your Full of IT - all estimates were 20% Casualties  FreakinDJ   Aug-07-09 12:03 AM   #272 
            The big mistake was insisting on "unconditional surrender."  tclambert   Aug-07-09 07:13 AM   #296 
               Just a "few terms" like  Statistical   Aug-07-09 09:50 AM   #305 
                  I think Ike wanted to negotiate acceptable terms instead of  tclambert   Aug-07-09 06:01 PM   #326 
            +1  mopinko   Aug-06-09 09:04 PM   #259 
      You would change your mind based on something written after the fact?  imdjh   Aug-07-09 09:56 AM   #306 
      FDR also opposed bombing the death camps and told Morgenthau to shut up about it.  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 05:17 AM   #343 
   Considering how right he was on the military-industrial complex...  daedalus_dude   Aug-06-09 10:34 AM   #2 
   Too bad the hypocrite did everything he could to support the m-i-complex...  DutchLiberal   Aug-06-09 07:26 PM   #234 
   K & R  Jokerman   Aug-06-09 10:36 AM   #3 
   .  ShamelessHussy   Aug-07-09 10:28 PM   #334 
   so i guess if general patreaus tells us that obama is wrong and we need to escalate  vadawg   Aug-06-09 10:37 AM   #4 
   "wars cannot be won by destroying women and children"  redqueen   Aug-06-09 10:38 AM   #5 
   Genghis Khan and the Romans won many wars that way.  tclambert   Aug-07-09 05:50 PM   #325 
   But, they didn't. Not even after the first bomb. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 10:39 AM   #6 
   Anami was ADAMENT, NO Surrender  WeDidIt   Aug-06-09 10:40 AM   #8 
   Correctamundo. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 10:42 AM   #11 
   Still, the first one should have been dropped on...  yowzayowzayowza   Aug-06-09 10:52 AM   #18 
   We dropped one on a city and they didn't surrender.  AtheistCrusader   Aug-07-09 01:59 AM   #278 
      Interesting quote and glad you posted it.  Sherman A1   Aug-07-09 04:11 AM   #283 
      A warning leaflet tiz a far cry from an actual demonstration:  yowzayowzayowza   Aug-07-09 11:55 AM   #319 
   Yup...but apparently America has done everything wrong...  joeybee12   Aug-06-09 11:00 AM   #22 
   We would have as well. But rather then have the men fight...  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 01:44 PM   #98 
      Cowards?  Confusious   Aug-06-09 05:59 PM   #202 
      You have no sympathy for anyone in Japan?  uberllama42   Aug-07-09 04:04 AM   #282 
         Considering the higher death toll from conventional bombing...  AtheistCrusader   Aug-07-09 07:13 PM   #330 
      The Japanese did the same to millions in China....  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:22 PM   #229 
      Cowards? After Iwo Jima and Okinawa?  hack89   Aug-06-09 09:14 PM   #260 
      Exactly  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 04:58 AM   #286 
      War is an ugly thing.  AtheistCrusader   Aug-07-09 02:05 AM   #279 
      But! But! You are not considering the unimaginably profitable results...  clixtox   Aug-09-09 05:36 AM   #346 
      No conduct was more barbaric  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 04:53 AM   #285 
   And even after the second bomb there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender..  Statistical   Aug-06-09 11:03 AM   #26 
   And an attempted coup  nadinbrzezinski   Aug-06-09 11:41 AM   #57 
   Nope.  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:08 PM   #84 
      You are absolutely wrong.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:06 PM   #114 
      What part of "unconditional" do you not understand?  WeDidIt   Aug-06-09 02:38 PM   #133 
      Not true  Statistical   Aug-06-09 03:34 PM   #154 
      OK. For you education and reading pleasure:  bvar22   Aug-06-09 04:49 PM   #187 
         Where Did Gen. MacArthur Stand On This  DallasNE   Aug-06-09 11:32 PM   #268 
         I dunno if neo-Nazis are the most unbiased source  foo_bar   Aug-09-09 06:53 AM   #349 
         Thank You nt  jbnow   Aug-09-09 09:26 AM   #352 
      They made no overtures until  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 05:00 AM   #287 
      Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Hobarticus   Aug-07-09 07:12 AM   #295 
   The only reason they DIDN'T surrender after the first bomb was because  RaleighNCDUer   Aug-06-09 10:59 AM   #21 
   Total BS.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 11:09 AM   #28 
   actually, Japan did NOT surrender until their 1 condition was met  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:40 AM   #55 
      More like half of one condition was met.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 11:50 AM   #62 
         the institution of emperor had been largely ceremonial for centuries  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:55 AM   #65 
            We did negotiate with them.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 12:00 PM   #68 
   thx nt  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 11:30 AM   #46 
   That is incorrect - even after Nagasaki there was a faction that wanted to continue  grantcart   Aug-06-09 02:25 PM   #123 
      and even then there was a failed coup attempt to keep the emperor in isolation and continue the war.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 02:33 PM   #128 
      I say again,  RaleighNCDUer   Aug-06-09 03:06 PM   #146 
   YOU IDIOT! It took more than 3 days to get a diplomatic message to the USA from Japan back then.  slampoet   Aug-06-09 01:18 PM   # 
   If you read Prince or any other accurate history you would know that even after  grantcart   Aug-06-09 02:28 PM   #125 
   You should read a book.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 02:32 PM   #126 
   Too funny. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 02:35 PM   #130 
   Any recommendations boss? Why are you calling people Idiots? Are you in the right blog? nm  rhett o rick   Aug-06-09 06:17 PM   #207 
   And they didn't after the second bomb. They surrendered when we gave in, to prevent Russia  jobycom   Aug-06-09 02:15 PM   #118 
   Thanks for posting this, k&r  mix   Aug-06-09 10:40 AM   #7 
   53. How many lives would have been saved IF we accepted their 1 condition earlier?  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 10:42 AM   #10 
   When you start a war, you run the risk someone else will finish it. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 10:43 AM   #12 
   John Wayne?  Bonobo   Aug-06-09 11:05 AM   #27 
      No, veteran of many peace marches. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 11:34 AM   #50 
   The Chrysthanthemum throne remains the oldest hereditary monarchy, to this very day  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:11 AM   #29 
   It's not TERRORISM when we do it.  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 04:31 AM   #337 
   That "one condition" myth doesn't become true by virtue of repetition. n/t  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:39 PM   #93 
      How about the fact that the Chrysanthemum Throne still exists to this very day?  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 02:47 PM   #137 
         The myth isn't that the throne still exists, but that it was their "one condition" to surrender.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:52 PM   #139 
            It was their MAJOR condition and everyone knew it  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:01 PM   #143 
               The only people that think it was the MAJOR condition to Japan's surrender are people that get  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:24 PM   #150 
               I have lived and studied in Japan for 5 years  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:32 PM   #153 
                  Japan was not seeking surrender until AFTER the SECOND atomic bomb.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 03:36 PM   #156 
                  People don't understand the difference between "surrender" and "armistice"  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:42 PM   #160 
                  That simply doesn't agree with the historical record  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:51 PM   #166 
                  You continually refuse to see the difference between a negotiated armistice and a surrender  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 04:02 PM   #172 
                  I continually post facts, with links to their sources.  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 04:06 PM   #176 
                     Well, I, for one, know the difference between an "armistice" and a "surrender"  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 04:26 PM   #182 
                  Exactly Japan wanted to surrender under terms that were UNACCEPTABLE to the Allies  Statistical   Aug-06-09 04:06 PM   #175 
                     Unconditional Surrender were terms that were unheard of at that time  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 04:13 PM   #179 
                        Blah blah blah emperor.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 05:04 PM   #189 
                        Germany surrendered Unconditionally.  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:08 PM   #204 
                        yes, as the Nazis refused to surrender... yet, the Japanese Government did, with 1 condition  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:23 PM   #230 
                           The Nazis put out numerous "peace feelers" analogous to those put out by the Japanese  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:52 PM   #246 
                           Would we have accepted a German Surrender if  Thothmes   Aug-06-09 08:33 PM   #255 
                           Not a good analogy.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 08:39 PM   #256 
                           One of the unfortunate things about dropping the bombs is that this tragic  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 09:07 AM   #301 
                        What's so precious about Japan's monarchy, non-democratic institution?  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 08:54 AM   #299 
                  Um, so wait, there was no process to even begin surrender talks until between bombs?  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 04:40 AM   #338 
                  Good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that you are quite misinformed  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:40 PM   #158 
                  So you think they were necessary.  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:45 PM   #161 
                     You didn't answer my question, but I didn't expect you to.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:51 PM   #165 
                        My position is...  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:56 PM   #170 
                           You're dodging the question.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 04:03 PM   #173 
                           We completely dismantled the army and navy of japan  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:15 PM   #205 
                              I don't think it is accurate to say we completely dismantled anything as many are still in existence  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:41 PM   #238 
                                 Yes, so?  Confusious   Aug-07-09 11:03 AM   #315 
                  Would you have granted Germany an opportunity to surrender  Thothmes   Aug-06-09 08:31 PM   #254 
                  Would it have been better  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 05:56 AM   #289 
               Along with keeping occupied territories, no occupation of Japan, no democracy, no war crime trials..  Statistical   Aug-06-09 03:52 PM   #167 
   Hind-sight is always 20/20  FreakinDJ   Aug-06-09 10:44 AM   #13 
   Eisenhower's advise to Stimson was hindsight?  Faryn Balyncd   Aug-06-09 10:47 AM   #14 
   None of our military leaders in theater at that time thought it was necessary  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 10:49 AM   #15 
   but the DU history experts know it better of course....  daedalus_dude   Aug-06-09 11:14 AM   #30 
   Maybe so, please see my response below.  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 11:27 AM   #41 
   Revisionist Historians  Moochy   Aug-06-09 11:40 AM   #56 
   Than a bunch of out-of-context quotes lacking any analysis of the options available in 1945?  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:43 PM   #97 
   A couple of thoughts:  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 11:21 AM   #34 
   Please read the links provided... they show the actuall climate at the time  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:37 AM   #52 
      But the military men don't say when a war is over--tht's the politicians.  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 11:47 AM   #59 
      true, but their opinions matter  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:51 AM   #63 
         We only accepted a very very very water down version of their condition  Statistical   Aug-06-09 11:58 AM   #67 
         The institution of emperor had been cerimonial for centruries, Japan had a multi party system  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 12:09 PM   #72 
            Well the wording of our response must have created some concern.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 12:27 PM   #79 
         I think they only got to keep the emperor AFTER they surrendered, at the urging of  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 12:07 PM   #71 
            That is simply not true, do you think any general could make such a huge political decision alone?  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 12:10 PM   #73 
               Not any General who wasn't MacArthur. Let's just say that Doug had no perception of hi limitations!  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 12:17 PM   #76 
      Not true.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 11:55 AM   #64 
         They were a defeated nation that wanted to negotiate peace, yet we still nuked them, TWICE  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 12:02 PM   #69 
            Japan was insisting on 4 conditions not one.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 12:11 PM   #74 
            Hussy ain't getting it.  Drunken Irishman   Aug-06-09 10:38 PM   #265 
            The terrorism on a scale never seen before is the terrorism the Japanese  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 09:31 AM   #302 
   You'll note the Navy connection  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 11:57 AM   #66 
   Not just the navy, read the links please  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 12:36 PM   #83 
   I understand  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 01:13 PM   #85 
      We accepted their 1 condition - and the Chrysanthemum Throne remains to this very day as testimint  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 01:40 PM   #94 
         We did not "accept" it  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 02:02 PM   #110 
         damn how many times do you have to hear it?  backwoodsbob   Aug-06-09 07:25 PM   #232 
         Why enter into a historical discussion when you refuse to accept historical fact?  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 09:41 AM   #303 
   Correct. Navy & Army didn't want to let the Army Air Corps win it. nt  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 02:38 PM   #132 
   You can add General MacArthur to those in the High Command...  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:18 PM   #87 
   Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-06-09 01:57 PM   # 
      Quelle surprise! The man who advocated strategic high-altitude bombing as the future of all war  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:49 PM   #163 
         your conclusions are bizarre.  provis99   Aug-06-09 06:53 PM   #216 
            No, the atomic bomb did not fit LeMay's doctrine of strategic bombing.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:50 PM   #244 
   delete  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:19 PM   #88 
   More Doug Long quote-mining in place of actual historical analysis. n/t  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:42 PM   #95 
   I guess even the words of our military leaders in theater at that time do not matter to some  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 01:54 PM   #104 
      That's not accurate. The issue is that out-of-context quote mining is a poor  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:02 PM   #112 
      Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-06-09 02:12 PM   #116 
      Yet you repeatedly just post links to two websites.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:24 PM   #122 
      That's quite the source you've got there...  SidDithers   Aug-06-09 04:49 PM   #188 
         I agree, I wish I could delete it...  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 05:12 PM   #190 
            Perhaps you should consider reading the sources from which you cut & paste?  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 05:18 PM   #198 
      + 1 nt  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:28 PM   #235 
      Who Ike?  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:23 PM   #209 
   Surprise, surprise!!! The Navy & Army didn't want the Army Air Corps to end the war in the Pacific.  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 02:36 PM   #131 
   No only that, but the Air Corps brass itself didn't exactly appreciate not getting  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:42 PM   #134 
   And Ordnance wasn't even told about the bomb!!!  Captain Hilts   Aug-06-09 03:00 PM   #142 
      Thank goodness, or they'd have dropped every single bomb they had trying to  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:26 PM   #151 
   Surprise! You care more about inter-college rivalry than the morality of the act  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 04:45 AM   #339 
   The Navy wanted to starve the Japanese, the Air Force wanted to fry them  hack89   Aug-07-09 09:48 AM   #304 
   The purpose of the bombs was to send the Soviet Union a powerful message. IMHO. nm  rhett o rick   Aug-06-09 10:50 AM   #16 
   Interesting.  reflection   Aug-06-09 10:56 AM   #20 
   BING BING BING, we have a winner folks!  Hugabear   Aug-06-09 11:02 AM   #23 
   Why not drop them somewhere that's not a city full of people, if the purpose is a message?  redqueen   Aug-06-09 11:03 AM   #25 
   That was one of the arguments against dropping the bomb on civilians.  county worker   Aug-06-09 11:32 AM   #48 
   Destructive power of such weapons is ultimately measured in lives  anigbrowl   Aug-06-09 01:27 PM   #91 
   Good question. I believe there were actually two main reasons for dropping the bombs.  rhett o rick   Aug-06-09 04:01 PM   #171 
   It was to send the WORLD a msg of TERROR - That we would use it no matter your weak postition  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:19 AM   #32 
   Only message they got was "We need some of those" nt  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 11:26 AM   #40 
      No, that's not really accurate.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:59 PM   #141 
         But they got some didn't they? And they probably stole it from us. nt  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 03:53 PM   #169 
            Actually they got a lot of help from one of our scientists because he was afraid that us having the  rhett o rick   Aug-06-09 06:16 PM   #206 
   Very glad to learn this about Ike! Didn't know it. Thanks for this post.  Peace Patriot   Aug-06-09 10:50 AM   #17 
   In the original draft, it was "Military Industrial Congressional Complex",  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:42 PM   #96 
   but, but ..... TEH TREWPZ !!11  daedalus_dude   Aug-06-09 10:55 AM   #19 
   Ike, what the fuck did *he* know?  yodermon   Aug-06-09 11:03 AM   #24 
   Well, for one, he was on the other side of the globe, and wasn't privy to much, if any,  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:51 PM   #102 
   Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:15 AM   #31 
   *  Echo In Light   Aug-06-09 11:26 AM   #39 
   Feaver & Gelpi showed that military leaders are more casualty averse than the general public.  Faryn Balyncd   Aug-06-09 11:21 AM   #33 
   I'll accept the facts summarized in the article "The Invasion That Didn’t Happen".  jody   Aug-06-09 11:21 AM   #35 
   Heroes? I would leave that judgement to God..if you believe in one. nt  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 11:29 AM   #43 
   Believe as you please as will I. n/t  jody   Aug-06-09 11:34 AM   #49 
   Are they heroes for killing hundreds of thousands? How bout for nearly ending the world?  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 04:47 AM   #340 
      They're heroes for possibly saving my fathers life and my own if the war continued long enough. n/t  jody   Aug-09-09 06:53 PM   #353 
   We dropped them to save American lives. Japs were not part of the equation.  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 11:23 AM   #37 
   Forever controversial  The Traveler   Aug-06-09 11:24 AM   #38 
   It's war  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 12:24 PM   #78 
   Good post. nt  jobycom   Aug-06-09 11:27 AM   #42 
   Ike was right about a lot of things - no more nuke bombs!  ensho   Aug-06-09 11:29 AM   #44 
   Then how come during his presidency our stockpile miltiplied by about 400X?  ThomWV   Aug-06-09 11:38 AM   #53 
      Perhaps that's why he said what he did, when he left. (nt)  redqueen   Aug-06-09 12:19 PM   #77 
   Every year at this time we engage in this time wasting discussion.  county worker   Aug-06-09 11:29 AM   #45 
   I believe it very fortunate that this discussion happens at least once a year  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:32 AM   #47 
   Learning what? We all have our opinions and there is no teaching going on here IMHO.  county worker   Aug-06-09 11:38 AM   #54 
   I have seen many post here giving thanks for the info, and there are many who just lurk/read  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 11:46 AM   #58 
   The unknowns  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 12:31 PM   #82 
   I do not accept the idea that Japan wanted to surrender earlier.  county worker   Aug-06-09 03:42 PM   #159 
      here you go... Operation Super Sunrise? Japanese-United States Peace Feelers in Switzerland, 1945  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 05:14 PM   #192 
         Wait...you think that *supports* your position? n/t  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 05:48 PM   #200 
            That the Japanese were interested in ending the war before we nuked them? Yes.  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:10 PM   #222 
               Oh, they were interested in ending the war since Pearl Harbor.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:46 PM   #240 
                  good day, sir  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 07:53 PM   #247 
                     Obviously, that distinction between armistice and surrender causes you a bit of trouble.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:58 PM   #249 
                        Hear. Hear.  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 10:01 AM   #308 
   Many are learning.  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:50 PM   #101 
      The younger you are the farther from reality you are.  county worker   Aug-06-09 03:48 PM   #162 
         I'm not that young.  bvar22   Aug-06-09 05:15 PM   #194 
         That's why I always use quotes from the military leaders who were in theater at the time  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 05:16 PM   #196 
            Yeah, your sources are impeccable.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 05:19 PM   #199 
   Sadly, so many are still misinformed...  Hobarticus   Aug-07-09 07:18 AM   #297 
   Oh the irony of "some will never learn".  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 09:56 AM   #307 
   Perhaps we need to go through this again?  wroberts189   Aug-06-09 11:36 AM   #51 
   When we forget our own history, we tend to repeat the same horror.  kgnu_fan   Aug-06-09 11:49 AM   #61 
   Not necessarily  Posteritatis   Aug-06-09 02:03 PM   #113 
   It's who we are. And if you think it is a waste of time, why did you respond? nm  rhett o rick   Aug-06-09 03:50 PM   #164 
   Anyone who thinks the death of hundreds of thousands and the near destruction of human race  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 04:58 AM   #341 
   It was a racist attack. End of story nt  ecstatic   Aug-06-09 11:48 AM   #60 
   Now that is utter nonsense.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:48 PM   #100 
   That is absolute bullshit and you know it  snailly   Aug-07-09 12:01 AM   #271 
   Read Beschloss, The Conquerors n/t  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 05:18 AM   #344 
   If racism is a concern please direct me to posts you've started to condemn  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 10:15 AM   #312 
   Don't know where Ike got his information, but that's the first time I've  old mark   Aug-06-09 12:12 PM   #75 
   Ike made his comments in 1963 opinions had changed after the fact.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 01:19 PM   #89 
      Well,  bvar22   Aug-06-09 01:53 PM   #103 
      Look at the history of island invasions leading up to Japan- Iwo Jima  old mark   Aug-06-09 05:12 PM   #191 
         Nice post, old mark.  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 06:22 AM   #290 
            The father of a good friend in high school was on a troop ship,  old mark   Aug-07-09 06:31 AM   #291 
               I remember the plot.  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 06:47 AM   #294 
   And then there was MacArthur.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Aug-06-09 12:30 PM   #80 
   Speaks to exit strategy  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 01:21 PM   #90 
   Yeah I am sure the 100 million + Chinese and Koreans living in virtual slavery would have loved that  Statistical   Aug-06-09 02:02 PM   #111 
      Not by then  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 02:16 PM   #119 
         Look at a map.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 02:51 PM   #138 
            Well, we were in China too  zipplewrath   Aug-06-09 04:34 PM   #185 
   Thanks for posting those. (nt)  redqueen   Aug-06-09 01:57 PM   #107 
   No surprise there. MacArthur was anti-communist and pro-fascist.  Jim Sagle   Aug-06-09 08:40 PM   #257 
   Funny cause IKE benefited from the dropping and he knew it  Johonny   Aug-06-09 12:31 PM   #81 
   MacArthur, Eisenhower, LeMay, Halsey...  HiFructosePronSyrup   Aug-06-09 01:15 PM   #86 
      lol  Johonny   Aug-06-09 07:05 PM   #221 
   Quote-mining is not a substitute for actually knowing what was happening in 1945  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:37 PM   #92 
   It is much more than just quotes...  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 01:44 PM   #99 
      I'm quite familiar with Doug Long's "scholarhip" on this issue, and it amounts to little more  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 01:54 PM   #105 
         It is not just him...  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 02:15 PM   #117 
            delete  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 02:23 PM   #121 
            Delete  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 02:27 PM   #124 
            Okay, I'll 86 mine as well.  eyepaddle   Aug-06-09 02:55 PM   #140 
               Thank You  ShamelessHussy   Aug-06-09 03:08 PM   #147 
   How about a dose of reality on this matter?  indypaul   Aug-06-09 01:55 PM   #106 
   Never heard of this before. Thank you for posting it.  bertman   Aug-06-09 01:57 PM   #108 
   I wish we had hit a military target ... once  JPZenger   Aug-06-09 01:59 PM   #109 
   FDR demanded no such thing. The Potsdam declaration did (and it was limited to military).  Statistical   Aug-06-09 02:16 PM   #120 
   You are wrong - FDR Speech at Casablanca 1943  JPZenger   Aug-06-09 03:13 PM   #149 
      And that vauge statement was codified by the Allies in Potsdam.  Statistical   Aug-06-09 03:32 PM   #152 
   I hate to tell you this  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:48 PM   #213 
   If you're at all serious about understanding this subject...  caraher   Aug-06-09 02:09 PM   #115 
   so much to learn about our history  kgnu_fan   Aug-06-09 02:35 PM   #129 
   conventional wisdom isn't always wrong.  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:49 PM   #214 
      I agree, but it must be examined  caraher   Aug-06-09 06:59 PM   #220 
   They said it after the fact for good PR.  proteus_lives   Aug-06-09 02:32 PM   #127 
   the key card was one that had nothing to do with the bomb  caraher   Aug-06-09 03:02 PM   #144 
      Hirohito's decision to surrender 6 days later  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:41 PM   #211 
   We can all debate surrender  Politicalboi   Aug-06-09 02:42 PM   #135 
   "Some" are idiots. n/t  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 02:44 PM   #136 
   "Japan was just unlucky for being an island"  kiva   Aug-06-09 05:15 PM   #193 
   FDR had no prior knowledge  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 06:33 AM   #292 
   Wow....  Stand and Fight   Aug-06-09 03:02 PM   #145 
   The A bomb was a crime against humanity.  newinnm   Aug-06-09 03:09 PM   #148 
   How do you think the U.S. should have ended the war?  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:35 PM   #155 
   and so should the Japanese and Germans  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:19 PM   #208 
   As should be FDR. The vast destruction  Thothmes   Aug-06-09 08:48 PM   #258 
   Whether they were ready to surrender or not, they had lost their offensive capability.  rug   Aug-06-09 03:40 PM   #157 
   So...what should we have done in August of 1945? n/t  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 03:52 PM   #168 
   I answered this in the other thread you're in.  rug   Aug-06-09 04:09 PM   #177 
   We should have told them we wouldn't hang the Emperor  caraher   Aug-06-09 04:20 PM   #181 
   "there's a good chance they would have simply given up"  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 04:32 PM   #184 
   That's a bit of a non-sequitur  caraher   Aug-06-09 05:15 PM   #195 
      Asking you to support your own statement is a non sequitur?  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 05:54 PM   #201 
         You didn't simply ask me to support my statement  caraher   Aug-06-09 06:54 PM   #217 
   "there's a good chance they would have simply given up"  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:52 PM   #215 
   Continued to make war on the Empire of Japan until they  Thothmes   Aug-06-09 09:22 PM   #262 
   Yeah and a lot of territory was under Japanese control territory like China where...  Statistical   Aug-06-09 04:10 PM   #178 
      And Bush kept saying he liberated 50,000,000 people.  rug   Aug-06-09 04:14 PM   #180 
   I'm with Ike.  shadowknows69   Aug-06-09 04:03 PM   #174 
   So instead of using the bombs, we should have ended the war using "conventional" means.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 04:31 PM   #183 
      What did I just say? I agree with Ike. Therein lies your answer.  shadowknows69   Aug-06-09 05:17 PM   #197 
         Well, Ike thought we should have won the war using "conventional" methods.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 05:59 PM   #203 
            I'm typing this so I'm pretty sure I don't stutter in text.  shadowknows69   Aug-06-09 06:39 PM   #210 
               Nope, you didn't stutter.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 06:57 PM   #219 
                  Four billion?  shadowknows69   Aug-06-09 07:14 PM   #223 
                     If you think being unpleasant is somehow necesary, I'd ask you to reconsider.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:47 PM   #241 
                        You're right that was unecessary of me.  shadowknows69   Aug-06-09 08:18 PM   #252 
                           No worries.  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 08:30 PM   #253 
                              Au contaire. Your posts have been quite the model of clarity and light,  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 11:27 AM   #317 
   The decision to drop the bomb is probably one of the most contested in American history.  Arkana   Aug-06-09 04:35 PM   #186 
   I guess we should have just continued the conventional firebombing campaign.  tabasco   Aug-06-09 06:48 PM   #212 
   My grandfather was.  Confusious   Aug-06-09 06:54 PM   #218 
   That's right  proteus_lives   Aug-06-09 07:16 PM   #225 
   I appreciate the arguments pro-bombing  caraher   Aug-06-09 07:15 PM   #224 
   Who cares?  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:17 PM   #226 
   If some nation did it today, we would call it a war crime, even genocide...  DutchLiberal   Aug-06-09 07:24 PM   #231 
   Are you joking?  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:34 PM   #236 
      Then let's have them all prosecuted! I'm not against that.  DutchLiberal   Aug-06-09 07:37 PM   #237 
         No, it's very directly related...  MellowDem   Aug-06-09 07:48 PM   #242 
         And your just a war crimes apologist who wants to rationalize it all away.  DutchLiberal   Aug-06-09 07:49 PM   #243 
            How do you think the U.S. should have ended the war with Japan?  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 07:57 PM   #248 
               I'm not getting into this subject-changing non-discussion again.  DutchLiberal   Aug-06-09 07:59 PM   #250 
                  Because it demonstrates that, as horrible an option as the bombs were,  Raskolnik   Aug-06-09 08:01 PM   #251 
                     The 'what if'-scenario is simply not relevant to this discussion.  DutchLiberal   Aug-07-09 06:58 PM   #329 
                        Nonsense. If you don't examine an act in its context, you cannot intelligently examine it.  Raskolnik   Aug-07-09 07:41 PM   #333 
                           The alternative, or the context, is not an excuse for a war crime.  DutchLiberal   Aug-08-09 06:59 PM   #336 
         The estimate is  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 06:40 AM   #293 
   If One American was saved, then it was worth it  Parche   Aug-06-09 09:20 PM   #261 
   So why then subsequently start bogus war upon bogus war? n/t  ControlledDemolition   Aug-06-09 09:51 PM   #264 
      that was NOT a bogus war  Parche   Aug-07-09 06:57 PM   #328 
         When you look at who financed Hitler in the first place...  ControlledDemolition   Aug-07-09 11:52 PM   #335 
   Fire bombing civilians was more humane & civilized  Kaleva   Aug-06-09 09:26 PM   #263 
   It had little to do with Japan  frogcycle   Aug-06-09 11:01 PM   #266 
   Absolutely so.  italian_progressive   Aug-07-09 05:27 AM   #288 
   And what about the firebombing of Germany and Japan in the closing months of WWII?  DainBramaged   Aug-06-09 11:21 PM   #267 
   Ike might have come to agree with you:  Faryn Balyncd   Aug-07-09 12:03 AM   #273 
   It would never have been dropped on a "Caucasian/European" country..  BrklynLiberal   Aug-06-09 11:33 PM   #269 
   Plans were in the works to drop it on Germany and Americans certainly  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 10:47 AM   #313 
   I remember seeing a documentary on World War II regarding this sordid episode  Grinchie   Aug-06-09 11:46 PM   #270 
   Not so sure. We dropped one bomb on them and waited three days for them to surrender.  ChimpersMcSmirkers   Aug-07-09 12:05 AM   #274 
   A biography of Ike I read agrees with S.H.  thread-bear   Aug-07-09 12:16 AM   #275 
   Ugh.  ingac70   Aug-07-09 01:07 AM   #276 
   I have always  Libertas1776   Aug-07-09 01:19 AM   #277 
   Well said. Excellent post. Your comment that an important factor to consider  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 10:59 AM   #314 
   We just wanted to see what the effect would be on a city full of civilian targets.  Rex   Aug-07-09 02:07 AM   #280 
   The War Department's own study: The atomic bombs were unnecessary  johan helge   Aug-07-09 03:40 AM   #281 
   Written in 1946....hindsight RAWKS!!!  Hobarticus   Aug-07-09 07:21 AM   #298 
   There was resistance within  Enthusiast   Aug-07-09 04:44 AM   #284 
   These bombs were a war crime, plain and simple, just as we are committing war crimes today in  bread_and_roses   Aug-07-09 09:05 AM   #300 
   War sucks, total war is worse..  Pavulon   Aug-07-09 10:03 AM   #310 
   "lives saved" is speculation, and the issue is deliberate slaughter of non-combatants  bread_and_roses   Aug-07-09 12:34 PM   #320 
   I am sick of all these "war sucks, war is evil, get over it" people. Fallacy of irrelevant premise  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 05:07 AM   #342 
   My issue is not the real tragedy of civilians lives lost but the fact that the bombings  snagglepuss   Aug-07-09 11:12 AM   #316 
   thank you for this  annm4peace   Aug-07-09 10:02 AM   #309 
   K&R  jeff30997   Aug-07-09 10:04 AM   #311 
   I'm surprised this is even still being discussed in this way.  caseymoz   Aug-07-09 11:37 AM   #318 
   Wow, a Republican implying a Democrat as wrong. Where have I heard that before???  Festivito   Aug-07-09 02:53 PM   #321 
   When Eisenhower met with Sec. of War Stimson in Germany in 1945, he was not a Republican......  Faryn Balyncd   Aug-07-09 03:11 PM   #322 
      In 1963, 11 days before JFK dies, likable Ike was a Republican.  Festivito   Aug-07-09 05:49 PM   #324 
         Do you think he would be one today?  Faryn Balyncd   Aug-07-09 06:11 PM   #327 
            It wouldn't be talked about.  Festivito   Aug-09-09 09:03 AM   #351 
   This issue will be debated for centuries!  LongTomH   Aug-07-09 03:24 PM   #323 
   MacArthur was running the Pacific War and "Ike" really wasn't in the loop..  ddeclue   Aug-07-09 07:15 PM   #331 
   this topic is rehashed too much what also needs to be talked about is japanese war crimes  citizen snips   Aug-07-09 07:24 PM   #332 
   The topic is whether people continue to actually endorse war crimes committed by us as necessary  Leopolds Ghost   Aug-09-09 05:23 AM   #345 
   Firebombing killed more Japanese than the Atomic Bombs  thelordofhell   Aug-09-09 05:42 AM   #347 
   K&R  tomm2thumbs   Aug-09-09 06:05 AM   #348 
   It Was A Sad Chapter In World History But HST Didn't Have The Benefit Of Hindsight  DemocratSinceBirth   Aug-09-09 07:24 AM   #350 
   sad nt  kgnu_fan   Aug-09-09 07:09 PM   #354 
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Very, Very Interesting
Thank you for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. FDR was going to drop it and Eleanor supported it.
Leo Slizard had an appointment on April 12th to speak to Eleanor about doing, first, a demonstration of the bomb to the Japanese.

Truman called her to the White House in June '45 to discuss the bomb. The press was told they were discussing Democratic party politics.

She always said, "I always worried about that second bomb." Yet, after a trip to Japan in the mid 1950s wrote Truman that the visit convinced more than ever of the necessity of doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
36. Up Until Now, I Fully Believed Those Bombs Were Necessary
But Ike was absolutely brilliant, an astonishing military tactician. Now I'm not sure what to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
70. I am very glad to read that as I also believed that until I read the history
and especially the opinions of our military leaders in theater at the time... it was truly an eye opener, so I always try to pass the word now so as to hopefully prevent another political horror.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem (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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
227. That's bad logic...
One man's opinion (and that's what it is) changes your mind? Ike may have been a military tactician, but that has nothing to do with the decision of whether to drop the bombs or not. It was mainly political, something to get the Japanese to quickly surrender. Of course, I suppose a long, slow blockade to starve the Japanese out could have "saved face" like it did on all those little Pacific Islands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #227
228. I Think It's Reasonable to Respect The Opinion...
of somebody that has proven to be so brilliant in the area. It has not changed my opinion 180 degrees - but I'm sure not so sure anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #227
233. But it is not just one expert/military leader of that time, it is many
not to mention that there is no denying that Japan was defeated militarily, that is a well known fact, so why would you nuke them, twice?

SHOCK-N-AWE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem (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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #233
239. No, they were not defeated militarily...
They controlled their home island after all. They were defeated in the air, on the sea, and that's about it. They were still alive and kicking in Manchuria. In all honesty, Ike could have been pissed that "conventional" means were not used. No glory for the Army. Same with the admirals. It ended the war a little earlier than they wanted it ended in my opinion. Indeed, atomic weaponry was a threat to the very make up of the armed forces for which they served. What would be the purpose of having huge navies in the future when you have atomic weapons?

And, it's quite telling that the admiral was so SHOCKED that the US killed civilians, which is just utterly laughable. So death from atomic bombs is bad for civilians, but death from starvation by blockade or from firebombing are A-OK?

The utter hypocrisy of the idea that the atomic bombs were SO BAD but all the conventional weapons we used (which killed FAR MORE civilians) were just fine is what makes me think these guys all of their ulterior motives for being peaceniks when it comes to the Bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #239
245. Well, I think you would have a very hard time convincing any serious person of that
Remember these folks were defeated, interested in negotiating terms for surrender, and this is the opinion of the military leaders in theater at the time, and with hindsight it is PLAINLY obvious.

AND these bombs are waaaaaaaaaaay worse than traditional bombs, yes... they keep killing long after the initial detonation, even reaching up into the womb and across generations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (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 Donate to DU! Fri Aug-07-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #245
272. Your Full of IT - all estimates were 20% Casualties
That is why the bomb was dropped plain and simple and the above quotes and taken out of cronological order

In other words the poster's and your assesment is PURE BULLSHIT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (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-07-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #245
296. The big mistake was insisting on "unconditional surrender."
The Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender with just a few terms, one of which was guaranteeing the safety of the Emperor. Our politicians absolutely refused. That stubbornness cost time and lives. And we ended up giving Japan pretty generous terms. The Bomb was only necessary to make the surrender unconditional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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-07-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #296
305. Just a "few terms" like
* no occupation of Japan
* Japan keeps all non European territory
* no disarming the Japanese military
* no war crime trials

Yeah I am sure the Taliban would "surrender" tomorrow if we would:
* Make them rightful rulers of Afghanistan
* Allow them to keep all influenced territory in pakistan
* remove all restrictions on weapons imports
* sign an agreement we will never place troops in Afghanistan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (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-07-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #305
326. I think Ike wanted to negotiate acceptable terms instead of
dropping the A-bombs, or invading the Japanese home islands. Three options instead of two. If you take negotiating off the list, as Truman did, then dropping the bombs makes more sense than an all-out invasion.

Here's a little known fact: More people died during the fighting for Okinawa than in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. 24,000 Americans, 110,000 Japanese, and 150,000 Okinawans (out of about 450,000), for a total of 284,000. 80,000 died in the bombing of Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki, though some estimate delayed casualties bring the totals up to 140,000 and 74,000 (total 214,000). That still falls short of the death toll from the invasion of Okinawa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Thu Aug-06-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #239
259. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (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-07-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #36
306. You would change your mind based on something written after the fact?
Where are the objections in writing before this took place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (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 Sun Aug-09-09 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
343. FDR also opposed bombing the death camps and told Morgenthau to shut up about it.
Stopped being photographed with Morgenthau because he was upset that Morgenthau was getting brave men and women killed by raising a stink about the Holocaust and making fellow Dems criticise him for "too many Jews" influencing postwar policy in an attempt to get "their own issues" addressed.

(Michael Beschloss, The Conquerors)

The man was far from perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daedalus_dude (327 posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Considering how right he was on the military-industrial complex...
...I'll take his word for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal (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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
234. Too bad the hypocrite did everything he could to support the m-i-complex...
...while he was in office, with his 'containment'-policy and the coup d'états in Iran and Guatemala.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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-07-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
334. .
K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. so i guess if general patreaus tells us that obama is wrong and we need to escalate
in Iraq, invade Iran etc etc then you are okay with that, or do you just think that its the generals who agree with your point of view that we should listen to over the elected president...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. "wars cannot be won by destroying women and children"
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 10:45 AM by redqueen
"I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Many would say the opposite is true... that those bombs did just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (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-07-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
325. Genghis Khan and the Romans won many wars that way.
And ask the Mohicans how well it worked in America. Oh, wait, you can't, because we exterminated them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. But, they didn't. Not even after the first bomb. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Anami was ADAMENT, NO Surrender
Hirohito was the one who decided to surrender, and that only after two atomic bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Correctamundo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Still, the first one should have been dropped on...
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 11:03 AM by yowzayowzayowza
an uninhabited area to demonstrate the capability to the population and a longer interval before the second one to digest the enormity of the device. Don't think it would have convinced 'em, but we'd be in a better moral position.

eta: By that time in the war the military targeting was not particularly consequential.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader (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-07-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
278. We dropped one on a city and they didn't surrender.
So I don't know how dropping one in an uninhabited area would help... Plus we dropped leaflets warning this, among other cities, were about to be "destroyed". They didn't know exactly how, but this is after the firebombing of parts of Tokyo, with conventional weapons, with a higher loss of civilian life than Hiroshima. We had the means to erase cities without using the atomic bomb, it was just a lot harder.

War sucks. The only way to 'win', is not to play.


In 1959, the man who led the raid on Pearl Harbor, Mitsuo Fuchida, met Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, which dropped 'Little Boy' on Hiroshima. Fuchida had this to say:

"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude of that time, how fanatic they were. They'd die for the Emperor. Every man, woman and child would have resisted the invasion with sticks and stones, if necessary. Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan?"

I would also like to point out, the japanese navy, crippled as it was, managed to sink the USS Indianapolis, the ship that delivered the bomb components to a forward airbase for final assembly, and deployment. 2/3rds of the crew died, awaiting rescue that wasn't coming, because the ship's mission was top secret. Granted, it was one of the last Allied ships sunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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-07-09 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #278
283. Interesting quote and glad you posted it.
I really wish we had not chosen to drop the bombs, but had I been in Truman's shoes at the time and with his information, I think I would have made the same decision. I respect Ike's thoughts, but it was not his choice to make and ending the war as soon as possible was the goal. One would point out that had the Japanese not chosen to start up the war in the first place, Truman would not have been making the decision on the use of atomic weapons.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (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-07-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #278
319. A warning leaflet tiz a far cry from an actual demonstration:
propaganda paper versus blowing the top offa Mt Fuji in a single blow for all to see. As I said, I don't think it would have convinced 'em, jus given us better moral standing for being the first to use such a device. Having lived in Japan I'm sure the second attack would still have been req'd to drive the situation home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (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 Donate to DU! Thu Aug-06-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. Yup...but apparently America has done everything wrong...
...this drives me nuts. The bombs were horrific, but he Japanese were willing to fight to their last man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
98. We would have as well. But rather then have the men fight...


We were COWARDS ...We decided to wipe out whole cities and we did it twice. Babies, children, women, farm animals , pets etc ..and yes men as well ..old and young. Military or not.

Not to mention the radiation that would sicken them all for generations.

Barbaric.


Home of the brave and free my ass.

I do not hate my country .. I try to make it better.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #98
202. Cowards?
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 06:02 PM by Confusious
did any of your family members serve? Mine did. My grandfather snuck into japanese harbors and planted explosives on ships. cowards? you couldn't hold a candle for my grandfather.

The Japanese at the time were far worse. Rape of nanking. bataan death march. I have no sympathy for them.

You want to make this country better? know your history. Stop spewing out your ass.

War isn't about an even fight. its about making the other asshole die for his country.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberllama42 (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-07-09 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #202
282. You have no sympathy for anyone in Japan?
Are you saying all those kids deserved to die in the bombings or the aftermath because of atrocities committed by their country's soldiers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader (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-07-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #282
330. Considering the higher death toll from conventional bombing...
Ultimately, the atomic bombs saved Japanese lives too.

The bombs weren't even terribly unusual. What was unusual, and fair to rail about, was the policy of total war, which led to things like the firestorm incendiary raids on Tokyo and Dresden. Neither had the aftereffects of cancer from radiation, but the total deathtoll was MUCH higher.


It sucks, and yes, I have sympathy for the civilian casualties, but the Atomic Bombs themselves weren't the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem (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 Thu Aug-06-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #98
229. The Japanese did the same to millions in China....
It was a total war. There is no moral equivalency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 (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 Thu Aug-06-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #98
260. Cowards? After Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
don't think so. It was a stark acceptance of how bloody an invasion would be that made the atomic bombs necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Fri Aug-07-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #260
286. Exactly
After Iwo Jima and Okinawa we knew what we were up against if we invaded the home islands. Every single Japanese soldier had to be physically removed from a cave or crevice usually after he killed several of our men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader (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-07-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #98
279. War is an ugly thing.
The US has participated in some terrible things, in the name of winning wars. Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, not being the highest death toll on our hands.

But consider the enemy of the day, who killed over 10 MILLION of our Chinese allies. Not Chinese soldiers, they only had 1.2 million dead soldiers. That was 10 million CIVILIANS.


Everything is so pathetically sad, you know. During the MAXIMUM EFFORT bombing campaign over Europe, we shared airfields with the Russians, and they bore the brunt of turning the German Tide. We were friends. So much time, lost, between two people who should have been allies and friends, over political ideology. Same problem in China. We were friends. Fought alongside each other. Then came the 'cold war'... So sad. So many decades, wasted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clixtox Donating Member (786 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 Sun Aug-09-09 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #279
346. But! But! You are not considering the unimaginably profitable results...


of having enemies to terrify the sheeple.

Empires need intimidating forces to squash dissent and maintain unrestrained exploitation.

Unneeded, poorly functioning, ridiculously expensive, weapons systems to fight imaginary foes.

Ain't it grand!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Fri Aug-07-09 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #98
285. No conduct was more barbaric
than that of the Japanese during WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. And even after the second bomb there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender..
Japan wasn't going to surrender in any meaningful way.

Japan idea of surrender was it remained an imperial power, it kept all non European conquered lands, and it kept its military intact.

some "surrender".

It would be like the Taliban "surrendering" and in return we make them the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, remove any restrictions on weapon imports, and "allow" them to keep any territory they occupy in Pakistan (sorry Pakistan, they want to "surrender").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Thu Aug-06-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
57. And an attempted coup
those last four days of the war are fit for a LaCarre novel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
84. Nope.
The Japanese High Command had made surrender overtures to the US BEFORE Hiroshima.
They asked for only one condition, that The Emperor remained as the leader of Japan.
The US declined, and demanded unconditional surrender, but oddly, granted the one condition AFTER the two Atomic Bombings.

So what was actually gained by the Atomic Bombings?
Nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #84
114. You are absolutely wrong.
The "Japanese high command" absolutely, postively did NOT make "surrender overtures" before Hiroshima. The "surrender overtures" to which you refer were actually put out there by low-level state officials that had no power over the Japanese armed forces. Futher, the "surrender overtures" were actually feelers to discuss a negotiated armistice, not a surrender. There is a large, large difference between the two, as the folks in occupied Korea and mainland China would attest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #84
133. What part of "unconditional" do you not understand?
There was NO OTHER acceptable outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #84
154. Not true
Japan made overtures AFTER the SECOND atomic bomb about a surrender w/ protection for Emperor.

Even then Japan council wasn't unified (it was split 3-3) until the Emperor.

Please provide a single historical quote, transmissions, document, newspaper article, anything that indicates Japan was willing to surrender prior to the atomic bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #154
187. OK. For you education and reading pleasure:

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
* Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
* Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
* Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
* Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
* Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader <1968>, pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.


You can find many, many documented references to Japan's attempts to surrender BEFORE Hiroshima.
Just use Google.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DallasNE (506 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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #187
268. Where Did Gen. MacArthur Stand On This
My guess is that he was pushing it. How ironic then that Truman would have supported MacArthur here only to have to fire him later over Korea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar (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 Sun Aug-09-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #187
349. I dunno if neo-Nazis are the most unbiased source
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 06:56 AM by foo_bar
Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader <1968>, pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958): (unsourced)

by Mark Weber <...>

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader <1968>, pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

By Mark Weber
August 2009

In fact, the often cruel and arrogant policies of Israel, and the often arrogant attitudes of what is called the “Israel Lobby,” the Jewish lobby, or the organized Jewish community, are not an aberration, but rather are deeply rooted in Jewish religious writings and in centuries of Jewish tradition. <...>

Time and again in history, Jews have wielded great power to further group interests that are separate from, and often contrary to, those of the non-Jewish populations among whom they live. This creates an inherently unjust and unstable situation that all too often has ended tragically in violent conflict between Jews and non-Jews.

http://www.ihr.org/judaism0709.html

see: http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/ihr/ihr-faq-04.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Sun Aug-09-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #187
352. Thank You nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Fri Aug-07-09 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #84
287. They made no overtures until
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 05:01 AM by Enthusiast
after the second bomb. And even then they tried to get favorable conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus (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-07-09 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #84
295. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Naturally, no link, and for good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. The only reason they DIDN'T surrender after the first bomb was because
they didn't know what hit them. They thought it was another massive firebombing.

If the first bomb had been dropped 10 miles offshore of Tokyo, where the emperor himself could have seen it, they would probably have surrendered that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Total BS.
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 11:14 AM by Statistical
The blast served all communication lines instantly that doesn't happen in firebombing. People would be crying out on phone calls, sounds of explosions, calls dropping off one by one, etc. Instead it instantly "stopped". Hiroshima was a communication relay center. At the time of the bombing all phone calls (mostly used by military) stopped, telegraphs stopped printing mid word, all radio and air defense stations went off line, all power lines going through the city to other cities instantly went cold. The imperial command was instantly aware something "unusual". The effects of the weapon disrupted radio traffic through the affected area something no conventional weapon does. Stations on either side of the city could only communicate by sending it via a relay. Radio messages through the city "disapeared".

They dispatched a recon pilot within an hour. He reported back that the city was gone, not bombed, not business as usuual but something completely new.

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly one hundred miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, immediately began to organize relief measures.

The US also advised Japan about the weapon and threatened a second attack without unconditional surrender.
US bombers dropped propaganda leaflets advising Japanese citizens of the awesome power of this new super weapon and that resistance was impossible.

Japan didn't surrender because hardliners in Japan couldn't accept the idea of a non imperial Japan.
Even after the second bomb they didn't want to surrender.
Even after the Emperor decided to surrender they attempted a military coup to keep the war going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
55. actually, Japan did NOT surrender until their 1 condition was met
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #55
62. More like half of one condition was met.
Japan initially had 4 points of opposition but eventually narrows that down to 1, the emperor to remain in power.

The US/Allies responded with this:

From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

So while the Allies conceded on completely removing the Emperor from power it was made clear to Japan that
1) the emperor would have no real power (being completely subject to the Supreme Commander of Allies)
2) the Allies would force a Democratic form of govt on the Japanese.

So one could say the US met Japan half way on one of the four points of contention. I however would say the Japanese got the point in little more than name only.

Of course Japan didn't agree to this for 4 days after the SECOND atomic bomb and at that time (due to tortured testimony on a B-2 pilot) they believed the US had almost 100 atomic bombs.
Also Russia had entered the war AND the US was running 1000 bomber runs PER DAY (equal in explosive power to 1 atomic bomb every 2 days).
Despite all that it took nearly 5 days for Japan to accept this condition.

After that there was a failed military coup to prevent the surrender.

So the idea that Japan had morphed into this non-imperialist, peace loving nation who was desperately trying to surrender as fast as possible is simply a fabrication.
Two atomic bombs, threat of 100 more, Russia entering the war, and the most intense convention bombing campaign of the war and it still took 5 days and an failed coup before Japan surrendered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. the institution of emperor had been largely ceremonial for centuries
and their main condition was accepted, wisely or the Japanese would not have surrendered. everyone knew that was the main sticking point with the Japanese, too bad we didn't negotiate with them earlier... think of how many lives would have been saved.

But we had to SHOCK-N-AWE the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. We did negotiate with them.
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 12:08 PM by Statistical
They wanted to keep control keep conquered territory, keep the military intact, and be subject to no restrictions on the form of government (i.e no Democracy).

Japan response to the Potsdam Declaration:
I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war. - Prime Minister Suzuki

Even after the first bomb and Russia entering the war the war council was split on accepting ANY surrender.

The second atomic bomb changed the negotiations but even then it wasn't just "one condition".
These "twin shocks"—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet entry—had immediate profound effects on Prime Minister Suzuki and Foreign Minister Tōgō Shigenori, who concurred that the government must end the war at once. However, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack. They did start preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Anami, to stop anyone attempting to make peace. Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us." The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the Emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, but they needed a guarantee of the Emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances. In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the Americans). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle her own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.<75>

They only dropped the other two points after both atomic bombs and the advise of the Emperor.

Japan was very clear that Japan would never give up its imperial status (disarm military, submission to foreign courts, give up territory) prior to the Atomic bomb. The situation was less unified after the second bomb but it was still divided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #21
46. thx nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Thu Aug-06-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
123. That is incorrect - even after Nagasaki there was a faction that wanted to continue
Only the action of the Emperor ended the resistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #123
128. and even then there was a failed coup attempt to keep the emperor in isolation and continue the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #123
146. I say again,
If the first bomb had been dropped 10 miles offshore of Tokyo, where the emperor himself could have seen it, they would probably have surrendered that day.

That faction did not witness the bomb.

I contend that if the emperor had actually seen the blast, when his top generals kept pressing to continue he'd have said "Did you SEE that fucking thing? Hello!! It's OVER!"

Hearing about a city being destroyed is one thing. Seeing the power of a single atomic bomb is an entirely different thing. At his insistence, they would have surrendered immediately.

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slampoet (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 Thu Aug-06-09 01:18 PM
Original message
YOU IDIOT! It took more than 3 days to get a diplomatic message to the USA from Japan back then.
We PLANNED to give them ten days to reply but the US Military decided to bomb early because weather was going to be bad in ten days.

Essentially the war effort stopped the Japanese from being given the chance to surrender.


Learn some history. Please read a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Donate to DU! Thu Aug-06-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
125. If you read Prince or any other accurate history you would know that even after
Nagasaki there were vast elements of the Japanese Military leadership that were still committed to continuing the war and only stopped when the Emperor stepped in.

It didn't take 10 days for the Emperor to announce after Nagasaki and he could have after Hiroshima.


But to your ridiculous point that it took 3 days to contact the US, this is also nonsense. The US was monitoring radio broadcasts and there were none announcing a surrender and the Japanese still had telegraph contact with neutral countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
126. You should read a book.
Japan hadn't even agreed to surrender until 3 days after the second atomic bomb was detonated. Even with the second bomb detonating while negotiations were going on it still didn't lead to a unanimous decision (3 on war council wanted to surrender w/ protection for emperor, 3 wanted to keep military power + no war crimes + no occupation + protect emperor).

Detailed reports of the unprecedented scale of the destruction at Hiroshima were received in Tokyo , but two days passed before the government met to consider the changed situation. At 04:00 on August 9, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had broken the Neutrality Pact, declared war on Japan and launched an invasion of Manchuria.

These "twin shocks"—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet entry—had immediate profound effects on Prime Minister Suzuki and Foreign Minister Tōgō Shigenori, who concurred that the government must end the war at once. However, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack. They did start preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Anami, to stop anyone attempting to make peace. Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."

The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the Emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, but they needed a guarantee of the Emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances.

In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the Americans). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle her own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.

The full cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, and spent most of the day debating surrender. As the Big Six had done, the cabinet split, with neither Tōgō's position nor Anami's attracting a majority. Anami told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American B-29 pilot had told his interrogators that the Americans possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days". The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture.

The cabinet meeting adjourned at 17:30 with no consensus. A second meeting lasting from 18:00 to 22:00 also ended with no consensus. Following this second meeting, Suzuki and Tōgō met with the Emperor, and Suzuki proposed an impromptu Imperial conference, which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10. Suzuki presented Anami's four-condition proposal as the consensus position of the Supreme Council. The other members of the Supreme Council spoke, as did Baron Hiranuma Kiichirō, the president of the Privy Council, who outlined Japan's inability to defend itself and also described the country's domestic problems, such as the shortage of food. The cabinet debated, but again no consensus emerged. Finally, around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki then addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide between the two positions.


Only then did the Emperor intervene stating "I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister."


There was no need for Japan to get a diplomatic message to the US.
Even after the atomic bomb we continued our traditional bombing campaign.
Regular bombers dropped 7x as much explosive yield as the 2 atomic bombs combined.

Do you know what stopped the bombing campaign?
The emperor announced the surrender to his own people. We were intercepting and monitoring all the traffic. We also had broken Japan "purple code" some 6 months prior so we intercepted and decoded all internal diplomatic traffic.

When the Emperor surrender announcement was detected by Allied command all bombing runs were canceled in anticipation of offical diplomatic message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
130. Too funny. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
207. Any recommendations boss? Why are you calling people Idiots? Are you in the right blog? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
118. And they didn't after the second bomb. They surrendered when we gave in, to prevent Russia
from conquering Japan instead. They made their conditions clear, and after two nuclear bombs they stuck to their conditions, and we surrendered.

The bomb was a message to the world, not just to Japan. That's why we dropped it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. Thanks for posting this, k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. 53. How many lives would have been saved IF we accepted their 1 condition earlier?


I'm haunted by that # whenever thinking about this terrible issue...

no Okinawa (March through June 1945)

http://www.ww2f.com/honor-service-valor/31553-ernie-pyl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

no Iwo Jima (February 19–March 26, 1945)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

Thank you for posting that important link to the historical debate :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. When you start a war, you run the risk someone else will finish it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
27. John Wayne?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #27
50. No, veteran of many peace marches. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
29. The Chrysthanthemum throne remains the oldest hereditary monarchy, to this very day

In the end, the U.S. powers that be, finally negotiated a surrender, and accepted Japans major condition which turned out to be a very wise move... too bad we had decided to use TERRORISM as a way of dominating the world, and the only way to prove it to the world, was to show we had what it took to use it no matter how weak your position.

And we have led with terrorism to this very day, folks bring up Nanking as if that justifies our much greater, in scale, reach, and time, atrocities, without batting an eye over Fallujah, etc.

and so it goes...
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (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 Sun Aug-09-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
337. It's not TERRORISM when we do it.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 04:36 AM by Leopolds Ghost
And besides, Americans are used to Kindergarten logic these days, since liberal arts curriculae (logic, debate, history, comparative culture, philosophy of rhetoric) are underfunded. "They did it first!"

Consider this: We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of their symbolic connection to Pearl Harbor. After all that time, that's what motivated leaders, not Nanking, or Bataan, or Iwo Jima... their own "loss of face" at Pearl Harbor.

The accounts I find most interesting are Michael Beschloss' "The Conquerors" about anti-semitism in the Truman white house and how it led to the start of the Cold War; and the documentar "Fog of War" with Richard McNamara, half of which is about his experience in WWII and how his boss inaugurated the practice of firebombing civilian areas after the Nazis did it first. It was considered a war crime until we made it OK. Does that make what the Japanese did any less evil? No. And vice versa. Will killing a million people bring back ten million others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik (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 Thu Aug-06-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
93. That "one condition" myth doesn't become true by virtue of repetition. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #93
137. How about the fact that the Chrysanthemum Throne still exists to this very day?
And also it can not be denied that they were DEFEATED and looking to negotiate peace/surrender.

And that all of our military leaders in theater at that time thought it was not necessary.

Do you think it is necessary to NUKE a defeated nation's civilian population, twice, when they are looking to negotiate terms for surrender?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik (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 Thu Aug-06-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. The myth isn't that the throne still exists, but that it was their "one condition" to surrender.
It wasn't. Japan was not trying to surrender. One faction of the government (that had absolutely no control over the armed forces) was interested in discussing armistice. Do you understand the difference?

If all that was important was "peace" with Japan, we could have had that the day after Pearl Harbor if we'd wanted it. All it took is allowing Japan to retain its conquered territories, keep its military, and retain its government. What's so bad about that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy (726 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 Thu Aug-06-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #139
143. It was their MAJOR condition and everyone knew it
And you didn't bother to answer my question... do YOU think it was right to NUKE, a defeated nation's civilian population when they are seeking terms for peace and surrender, TWICE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik (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 Thu Aug-06-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #143
150. The only people that think it was the MAJOR condition to Japan's surrender are people that get