NY Times: A Big Museum Opens, to Jeers as Well as Cheers (Enola Gay)

[La_Serpiente]

A Big Museum Opens, to Jeers as Well as Cheers

CHANTILLY, Va., Dec. 15 — The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum opened a vast, gleaming new building on the edge of Dulles International Airport here on Monday, filled with aircraft of every description, including the B-29 that carried the first atomic bomb dropped on Japan.

The opening was mobbed not only by tourists and aviation buffs but also by several dozen protesters, who said the bombing of Hiroshima should have been better described. A plaque in front of the B-29, the Enola Gay, describes it as "the most sophisticated propeller-driven bomber of World War II" and notes that it dropped the bomb, but tells little more.

"If you're going to display it at all, you have to display it with what it did to human beings," said Joseph Gerson, program coordinator of the American Friends Service Committee.

But Gen. John R. Dailey, director of the Air and Space Museum, said the purpose of his institution was to stimulate interest in technology and science. "The political aspects are more difficult to cover in three paragraphs," said General Dailey, a retired Marine pilot. The plaque has 14 lines of text, similar in length to the descriptions of other historic craft here.

more...

A Big Museum Opens, to Jeers as Well as Cheers

Free Registration Required

[bpilgrim]

1. massive TERRORISM from the skies

delivered at the push of a button.

ain't technology grand...

peace

[bowens43]

2. The omission of information concerning effects of the bomb

on the people of Hiroshima is part of a desensitization process to help reduce opposition to the administrations plans to create new nukes and to use them as standard battlefield weapons.

Not only should the information be provided, it should be the main focus of the display.


This is part of the madness that is bush

[alwynsw]

3. This project has been in the works since at least the early '90's

I would recommend "Duty : A Father, His Son, And The Man Who Won The War" by Bob Greene for anyone interested in the Hiroshima bombing. "Day of the Bomb" (I forget the author's name) is also a good one.

Different times. Different values. I'm not presumptuous enough to judge those involved with the production of "the Bomb" or those whose decision it was to drop it. I do know what my father, stepfather, and father-in-law had to say about it. Encapsulated comments, "It was a long and brutal war. It's was the best weapon we had to end it quickly. Glad we used it." Their authority as "experts" is unquestionable in my book. Pop was a USAAC bomber pilot. My father-in-law and stepfather were both on PT boats in the Pacific.

We have the pleasure of 20/20 hindsight. The folks involved in the bombing didn't.

(Here's where I get flamed. If so, my ahoulders are broad enough.) Before we scream too loudly, let's remember that the only nuclear weapons used in wartime were ordered to be dropped by a Democratic president. Whether we agree or not, the political fallout can be used against the party to this day. If we can point to FDR as a great president, those opposing us can reach back a shorter distance and point out Truman's decision on the bomb.

If only Szilard had thought ahead when he urged Einstein to take his bomb theory to FDR...

[Fitzovich]

4. Well put

Precisely, we weren't there and don't know the horrors that were being dealt with by everyone. Yes, the bomb was a terrible thing and Yes, we used it. Did it shorten the war, most likely. In doing so did it save lives, perhaps. I think Truman made the best decision based upon the information available at the time. That is really all that can be asked of anyone.

[bpilgrim]

6. the 2 myths that need to be put to rest...

- what can we know about that time... we know plenty
- it saved lives... it didn't

all military leaders in theater at the time thought it wasn't necessary and actually recommended that we accept japans 1 condition in order to save lives... just think how many would have been saved if we had accepted japans surrender in the spring or early summer of 45 as recommended by our military leaders in theater at the time...

we NUKED a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with innocent civillians, men, women and children, TWICE.

that is what we must come to terms with.

we wonder why we fear so much... well i believe it is because we KNOW what evil we are capable of and we are supposed to be the 'good guys' our worst nightmares get projected onto everybody else.

'hiroshima, the SECOND most horrid word in the american lexicon succedded only by NAGASAKI.' kurt vonnegut

peace

[Blue_Chill]

7. Why don't you tell the kind folks what that one condition was

and why one wouldn't want to accept it considering what japan was doing in China.

You see the problem is people didn't feel bad for the Japanese. They weren't the victims of anything but their own damn arrogance. They attacked the US, they murdered millions, they attempted to partner up with one of the worst mass murderers in history and take over the world. In that contexr I'm sorry but I don't regret the nuclear attack.

Look at Japan now and tell me it would be the same had we accepted their one condition. Sorry but WWII axis powers killed too many for no reason at all. You want the museum to mention the effects of the nuclear weapon on the Japanese? Then also mention what Japan was up to in China, so that you don't mistake Japan for a victim.

[bpilgrim]

10. Japan's 1 condition, that was FINALLY honored after we dropped 2 NUKES

was that the INSTITUTION of EMPEROR be recognized and maintained which it was and remains to this very day the longest uninteruppted reign in history.

and history has PROVEN that decision to be a wise one as we no longer have japanese planes flying into our 'stuff'

what you don't realize is that we NUKED civilians TWICE who were trying to surrender :puke:

to go by your logic you wont blame china, the ME, russia, or whoever NUKES us now for our behavior in IRAQ.

you see, we are NOW behaving just like imperial japan was when it was bringing PEACE and PROSPERITY to china, then... they even used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

think about it...

peace

[Blue_Chill]

14. It was not honored at all

The emperor was allowed to stay only in a role WE DEFINED. It was NOT a condition of a surrender it was allowed only for it's symbolic value to the Japanese people. To be honest with you I don't think this bastard should have been granted anything other then a steel and concrete box for his crimes.

I do realize we NUKED civilians twice. I and also know that had Japan not dcided to attack the US or join with the Axis powers in a attempt to conquer the planet those civilians would have been fine. You want to place blame? Blame the murderers who started the war not those that reacted to it.

[ArkDem]

25. Please stop using facts.

It's confusing.

[bpilgrim]

26. he is still the symbolic HEAD OF STATE of JAPAN... last i heard

a role that has reamined unbroken in japan for hundreds of years.

and yes his role was always mostly symbolic, even during wwII, throughout so i stand by my remarks.

just IMAGINE how hard that was to explain to the people who had more hatred in their hearts for japan back then as to why the head of the country that did all these well documented HORRIBLE things is to REMAIN on his throne.

well... after two NUKES and the russians at the gates we MET their 1 condition and spun it like we - and any other empire - ALWAYS do.

think about that for a little while...

and if you want to know more about our recent imperial past start reading chomsky.

:hi:

peace

[theboss]

37. Occupation was a bigger issue than the emperor

Japan was not going to accept an occupation of American troops. The bombs made that an inevitability.

[bpilgrim]

40. not to the japanese

the japanese were PROGRAMMED to defend the EMPEROR to the last...

and ANYONE who knows the japanese, especially those who faught them KNOW they ment it.

it is the ONLY way the occupation could succeed as a matter of fact just look at iraq, afghanistan, or even more illustrative VIETNAM.

the human spirit can be very resistant to force when they feel it is necessary and only COMPROMISE can save us then.



peace

[Blue_Chill]

91. Then they weren't innocent were they?

If they as you say would defend the mass murderer in charge they were not innocent.

[stopthegop]

19. you're either mistaken or dishonest..

the Japanese were not trying to surrender...live with it..

[bpilgrim]

28. simply more informed

here give it a try here...

"THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB"
GAR ALPEROVITZ AND THE H-NET DEBATE
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

ANYONE can learn :hi:

peace

[TSElliott]

34. Don't bother arguing, he only has one article to back up

his claim and on the same site there is another article that disputes it. I have argued this with him in the past and listed numerous facts but he always says that's not fact it's made up.

[bpilgrim]

39. accusations and no links

typical and yet i get accussed enven though i linked to a LIBRARY of information convienently organized for easy scholary examination.

i have plenty of links to plenty of sources that back up any claims i make here but i didn't think i would have to providing a link proving the the symbolic institution of emperor in japan remains to this very day.

if you ever wanna deal with specifics i would be happy to reply in kind.

peace

[san antonio]

56. Not worth the effort...

He cares more about blaming a Democratic president and the United States than he does to place the blame on a nation that gave the thumbs up to Hitler.

[bpilgrim]

62. it was for you

not much of an effort ...

:hi:

peace

[san antonio]

77. ;)

More like being bored at work.

[bpilgrim]

81. =)

likewise... catching my breath before i dive back in ;-)

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

5. i've read those books

and i don't blame the men who carried out their orders but it certainly is worth noting the devestating consequences of our actions and the real reasons behind them.

I would also recommend the 'good' war by
"The Good War": An Oral History of World War II
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565843436/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-5558876-4766541?v=glance&s=books

bringing politics into it more than 60 years after the fact is a cop-out.

We now know that those HORRIFIC instruments of mass death and TERROR were not necessary, and spare me the 20/20 charge as ALL military leaders in theater at that time felt the same way.

during these days of MINI NUKES and our PNAC IMPERIAL STRATEGY it is VITAL that we examine this topic honestly and openly if we are to survive.

I also recommend Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival (Extract)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00011.htm

time is running out...

peace

[sistersofmercy]

9. I'm with you bpilgrim

peace

[bpilgrim]

12. we are with the majority

most folks are PEACE LOVING and could never even dream of the horrific deeds done in their name and is why the GOV has to lie.

we all can do our part by pass'n the word ;->

EACH 1 TEACH 1 - old african proverb

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Not the majority in the U.S.

Sure, some of the world might have fallen for the Japanese victim campaign, but a lot of nations know it isn't true. Ask the Chinese (1.3 billion or so) if the Japanese were victims of WWII or horrible murdering butchers who only surrendered after being nuked.

[bpilgrim]

41. a population full of propaganda isn't usually a reliable source...

but i can say at least here on the PROGRESSIVE DU we are the majority ;->

thank gore he 'invented' the internet :bounce:

peace

[san antonio]

57. Defending the allies of Hitler?

Since when did the majority of DU start to defend a nation that worked hand in hand with Hitler to take over the world by blaming a Democratic president for killing civilians in an attempt to stop it?

[bpilgrim]

61. a popular strawman

if you read my post since i have been on this board you will never find me defending fascist, then or now.

i simply choose to deal with the facts and ignore old propaganda that until recently i thought was forgotten in the dustbin of history.

isn't 60 years afterwards long enough to deal with REALITY vs MYTHS especially in these times of miniNUKES?

:hi:

peace

[san antonio]

65. You can't pick and chose..

You can't defend the Japanese government structure and ignore the fact that they were allies with Hitler. They wanted to name their conditions and keep a leader that ALLIED HIS NATION WITH HITLER.

This isn't doing business with the greatest evil in history, it's aiding him by attacking his enemies.

[bpilgrim]

72. yes i can...

and besides i am NOT defending the 'japanese government structure'!

so let's get past that...

second: we are chosing to talk about...

our actions
on August 6th, 1945
when we NUKED a defeated, trying to surrender, nation's cities filled with innocent civilians, men, women, children, old folks, animals, water, land, air, time...

and i say that history has proven our LIE wrong and that the NUKES were NOT neccessary to 'SAVE LIVES' as often is held up as the moral justification of our hideous act that day...

then we did it all over again 3 days later...



and so it goes...

peace

[san antonio]

75. "Trying" to surrender?

"defeated" = no more fighting, put the guns down, the war is over. None of that applied to their army.

"trying to surrender" - You keep throwing this BS phrase out to make their position somehow politicaly correct. A nation that is trying to surrender doesn't continue to fight. How does an army continuing to fight get translated into "trying to surrender".

[Silverhair]

71. Simple. It starts with hating America. Since the Axis were America's

enemy, then they must have been good guys. That why you see so many of them rushing to defend Saddam and other dictators around the world - as long as the dictator is anti-American.

[bpilgrim]

78. it is unbecoming a dem to repeat the childish spin of the VRWC, imho

and if you can find any post i have made here defending a dictators crimes i'll give $100 - that i certainly ain't got - to the charity of your choice.

in the meantime lets keep the level of debate above that of schoolyard, thanks

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Don't even count on that

I think here at PROGRESSIVE DU, many or most take a dim view of fascists who try and take over the world.

You ought to try it.

[bpilgrim]

66. Do You Support Nuking a Defeated, Trying to Surrender Nations Cities...

TWICE?

Yes
No
only if we did it

betcha i know how most progressives, especially evil DU'ers would vote ;->

peace

[san antonio]

69. Quit with the trying to surrender

TRYING to surrender is trying to drop your guns and forgetting you have a gun strap on. TRYING to surrender is getting your white flag caught in your back page. TRYING to surrender is trying to kneel down on the ground and stop shooting.

Telling the other side what the conditions after the war would be and continuing to fight is defiance and a continuation of the war.

[bpilgrim]

74. why? is that FACT too inconvenient?

i'm sure it is...

the poor sod on the field can lay his arms down anytime he wants to... doesn't mean the war is over untill the bosses say it's over.

one sides boss was ready to surrender... our boss wasn't ready, yet... and so the fighting continued.

peace

[san antonio]

76. Facts?

Their 'boss' was still telling them to fight. How does that constitute trying to surrender? If the 'bosses' were trying to surrender why did they continue to fight?

[Silverhair]

85. No. The bosses on neither side was ready to surrender.

The bosses on Japan's side said, "Keep fighting until we get the conditions we want." They could have said, at any time, "OK, We quit." They didn't say that.

[apsuman]

38. What was the one condition? I need details n/t

[Silverhair]

45. The dispute was about the role of the Emperor of Japan.

In theory, at the time, all of the Japanese gov't served the Emperor who was considered to be a God on Earth. Their demand to keep the Emperor was a demand to keep their entire gov't intact. They were willing to continue to fight for that. The accepted defeat after the two A-bombs. We said that we would allow the emperor to live, but that he had to take orders from us. That meant unconditional surrender of their gov't.

bpilgrim is so anxious to depict America as evil that he overlooks that critical difference, and lots of other things too.

[bpilgrim]

52. it was about maintaining the institution of emperor as the symbolic

head of state.

a role it has performed for centuries and continues to do to this very day.

and i am NOT trying to depict america as 'evil' by describing a paticular action in our history. that is a judgment you place upon it.

peace

[san antonio]

63. If it was truly a symbolic position...

...and they were truly begging to surrender, why did they keep fighting? Surrender = put the guns down and give up. Telling the other side how things are going to go down is continuing with the same 'symbolic head' that gave his blessing to Hitler and bombed Pearl Harbor.

[demsrule4life]

8. Using the bomb on Japan was the right thing to do

destroying Japan and Germany was the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to make people realize that war is so horrible that they would never support their countries in ever being the aggreser again. It must of work, Japan and Germany has been at peace for 60 years now.

[bpilgrim]

11. no military leader in theater at that time agrees with you

using that 20/20 hindsight based on old wartime propaganda does not make a convincing case.

we NUKED a defeated, defenseless trying to surrender nation's cities filled with innocent civilians, men, women and children... TWICE.

that is TERRORISM on a MASSIVE scale never before seen on the planet.

peace

[demsrule4life]

13. I would have to say the millions of defenseless

Chinese killed by Japan was the biggest terrorist act in history.

[bpilgrim]

42. what about the millions of vietnamese?

we can start a body count, though i suspect we would probably WIN that, too...

not to mention their sins can never wash away our OWN.

think about it...

peace

[Blue_Chill]

15. So you don't think the little thing with the...

...axis trying to pretty much take over the world was the biggest act of terror? You consider the deaths in two nuclear strikes to be greater then the >>>MILLIONS<<< killed as a result of the axis powers needless war.

Amazing.

[bpilgrim]

46. THEIR sins don't wash away our OWN

period.

though to some it apparently does. relative morality :shrug:

remember the japanese were colonizing aisa and therefore in competition with US who they learned well from.

peace

[Blue_Chill]

49. Their sins started a war

And no matter how much you may want to lay the blame at the feet of the United States of Ameerica you can not change the fact that JAPAN attacked us and murdered millions. Was the price they paid too high for the sins they committed? Maybe, but it's a fate they brought onto themselves.

[bpilgrim]

53. i thought we were the ones that imposed the oil embargo?

and though they may have thrown the first military blow in responce to our strangle hold they only targeted our military bases...

too, bad we can't make the same claim to 'end it'

peace

[san antonio]

67. Now you are condemning us for sanctions against the allies of Hitler?

So now you are claiming that we started the war with Japan by enforcing economic sanctions on the allies of Hitler? Dude, your self hatred is pretty amazing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Darn FDR

How dare he object to the Japanese conquest of Asia. He should have kept supplying them so they could complete the project.

I am stunned.

[Blue_Chill]

83. So the US was wrong to refuse trade with a mass murderer??!!

Amazing the level people will go to play the blame game!

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. The military leader who mattered and had ALL the info

Was the Commander In Chief. The buck stopped there.

[bpilgrim]

47. what's his excuse, then?

as it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the japanese wanted to surrender and our military leaders had no military objective.

why did we do it?

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. One of your classic expressions

"Wanted to surrender."

No one WANTS to surrender. They either do, under the conditions set down by the winner of the conflict, or they do not.

I WANTED a visit from Tyra Banks last night. Alas that, like the concept of the Japanese WANTING to surrender, is a fantasy.

The Japanese wanted a better deal. In the meantime, they were still at war.

[MadHound]

16. So, demsrule, I guess you agree with the concept

Of somebody nuking the shit out of the US eh? I mean after all, here we are pre-emptively starting hegomonic wars for oil and empire, somebody must teach us a lesson, and according to your theory, the only way to learn that lesson is to have the bejesus nuked out of us.:eyes:

Look, our nuking Japan, not once but twice, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a xenophobic act designed to intimidate Russia, not to end the war or save lives. Japan was ready to surrender, with only one condition. And that condition we provided, we retained the emperor in all of his figurehead glory. But little known was another condition we also provided. We agreed with the Japanese to not prosecute their scientists for war crimes in exchange for the data they gathered from their human experimentation and vivesection. So much for justice and morality.

[Blue_Chill]

17. Yes Madhound Iraq is equal to the millions killed in WWII

keep thinking that, I'm sure you must be right.

:eyes:

[MadHound]

21. Well, let's see BC,

With well over a half million Iraqis killed due to the embargo and our thrice weekly bombing of Iraq during the Clinton years and after, add in the tens of thousands of casulties during and after the war, well we're getting close to a million there.

You seem to think my point is ridiculous, but that is exactly what I was trying to press home. Nuking someone to "teach them a lesson" is ridiculous, and never works out in the long run.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. The embargo was Saddam's fault, not the U.S. or UN

He chose to continually violate the stipulations of the peace agreement. The agreement that came about after his invasion of yet another neighboring nation and attack on a third.

We didn't just nuke Japan to teach them a lesson. We nuked them to force them to surrender. They did. Even their military, willing in many cases to die to the last man, saw the futility of continued fighting AFTER we nuked two Japanese cities.

[Blue_Chill]

23. Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Japan gets nuked after killing millions and starting a war, it's the US's fault.

Iraq gets an embargo slapped on it after it violates UN sanctions over and over again, and it's the US's fault.

Anyone else notice a trend?

[Imajika]

51. Blue_Chill

"Anyone else notice a trend?"

Everyday. Sadly, this is quite a common point of view here on DU.

Didn't you know that anything bad that occurs anywhere in the world is, at its root, America's fault?

This is the reason why the GOP was so successfully able to brand the left the "Blame America first crowd". It is very easy for them when there are so many people on our side continually finding fault with America and her allies over virtually everything and anything, yet endlessly making excuses for everyone else.

"Japan gets nuked after killing millions and starting a war, it's the US's fault."

I am sorry for all the innocent people whom died throughout the world during WWII - but Japan, and by extension it citizenry, started a war with the United States and they deserve the total defeat which befell them.

"Iraq gets an embargo slapped on it after it violates UN sanctions over and over again, and it's the US's fault."

Yes, it is quite amusing. But no matter how the US reacted to Iraq's violation of the UN resolutions these people would still have blamed America. Had America opposed the sanctions and refused to enforce them, many of these same folks would have been screaming about how America was letting a tryant get away with murder because the US wanted cheap oil.

Eventually you just realize that a certain relatively small percentage of those on the left detest America's capitalist system, wealth and history so much, that they will find a reason to castigate, accuse or otherwise blame America for all that is bad or evil in the world no matter what the US says or does.

It took me awhile to get that, but over time it just becomes obvious.

Imajika

[bpilgrim]

55. that is childish vrwc crap... 'blame america firsters'

from another perspective and broad brush folks might say you and your ilk NEVER accept any of our sins no matter how obvious nor horrific.

what yall fail to see is that you condone the very same behavior you condem with nukes of the imperial japanese when it was bringing 'PEACE, PROSPERITY and SECURITY' to their region when you excuse our AGGRESSIVE actions in IRAQ or elsewhere.

yall wear your nationalism on your sleves for all to see... thankfully, since maybe this time we can avoide even worse devestation in the future :shrug:

the WHOLE WORLD is watching.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. The way to avoid the devastation

Is to NOT have Japan try to take over the world with their Axis buddies.

[Blue_Chill]

86. Never accept any sins? That's nonsense.

I find fault in much that the US has done. Vietnam, dictators installed and supported during the cold war, etc etc. However I do not let self loathing taint reality. Japan in it's mindless war brought hell on it's people, their fault period.

[bpilgrim]

107. broad brush ain't it...

i don't like it either.

"Japan in it's mindless war brought hell on it's people, their fault period."

i am sure UBL says the same thing...

peace

[Blue_Chill]

110. If UBL said that

Then he was right.

[MadHound]

79. God I wish that I could have a lobotomy

So as to have such a simplistic world view as you do Imajika.

It is time to face facts, America HAS committed atrocities throughout it's history. Or have you forgotten. Let me recount a few of the highlights for you: Slavery, a xenophobic purge of the Native Americans, The Spanish American War PtI(remember the Maine?), Spanish American War Pt. 2(how many Phillipinos were massacered?), Vietnam, our heavy handed meddling in South and Central American, and ooo ooo, a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq based on concocted lies by an incompetent president. Do you deny any of this? Or am I still blaming America first?

Get a clue, we as a country have the blood of millions of innocents on our collective hands, and unfortunetly it is still being spilled. People like you who stand behind our country right or wrong are aiding and abetting this slaughter of innocents. At least those on the left have enough intelligence, compassion and courage to point out when our country is going down the wrong path, and try to correct it. What do you do, cheer the US on it's bloody way! Some sense of justice there, lots of compassion too:eyes:

Just because the reality of US history doesn't please you doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Why do you think that we are one of the most despised countries in the world? Because the sins of our fathers and our fathers fathers, along with our own, are finally catching up to us. The veil has been removed, and the US stands revealed in all of it's bloody glory. And all you want to do is stick your fingers in your ears going LA LA LA, I can't hear you. Sheesh, people like you really make me wonder about the future of our country.

I am proud to be an American, but that sense of pride does not blind me to the wrongs we have comitted and continue to commit. Instead of being blindly patriotic, think of me as the designated driver getting the keys out of the hands of a drunk who stupidly wants to drive. Should I let that drunk go? No, I have a moral imperative to stop him. Just as I have a moral imperative to correct my country when it wanders astray.

[Blue_Chill]

87. who is saying America can do no wrong?

No one, the topic here however is WWII and the FACT Japan tried to make a deal when they were not in position to do so. They shouldn't have started the war and absent that they shouldn't have been so damn arrogant to think nations would take kindly to a mass murderer trying to work out a sweet heart deal.

The deaths of Japanese people are the fault of the Japanese goverment that launched a war of world conquest and mass murder. How you blame the US for the results of a war Japan started is amazing.

[bpilgrim]

96. i prefer a pill

jk ;->

well said :toast:

peace

[MadHound]

27. We nuked Japan to have a show of force for the Russians

As far as nuking Japan to get them to surrender, they had already offered a surrender, with one condition, a condition that we granted anyway.

What violations of the peace agreement did Saddam violate? He disarmed after the first Gulf War, he discontinued his nuke program, he had no WMDs, so what agreement did he violate? And even if he did violate an agreement, does this warrant thrice a week bombing by the US? Do you really condone that kind of indiscriminate killing? Do you really believe that it is a good thing to kill innocent in a show of force?

Judging by your posts, apparently the answer to these questions is yes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. What about the no-fly zones, the trading in oil, etc.

He violated all of that. He repeatedly attacked coalition air forces.

And, yes those actions did cause him to be attacked. That's what happens when you attack other nations. People fight back.

As for the wonderful, peaceful Japanese who never hurt a fly, THEY are the ones who refused surrender under the terms offered. THEY are the ones who prolonged the war.

[MadHound]

31. I think you had better squee-gee that third eye there

Your perception is getting a bit cloudy.

We were the ones who initiated the no fly zones. We were also the ones who continued the hostilities after Gulf War I was over, by bombing the bejesus out of innocent Iraqis. And as you said, people fight back, which is just what Saddam did, by trying to attack coalition air forces. Granted he had limited(and shortly there after no) access to planes, so what resistance he could put up was small and futile. Yet we just kept right on bombing the shit out of innocent Iraqis, thrice a week, almost like clockwork.

As for the oil for food program, well that wasn't instituted until 1998, mainly at the behest(and the profit) of American oil companies. If you are talking about black market oil sales before then, well I'm sure that Dick Cheney and Haliburton could give you more details, but my one question on this is how the hell else was such a resource deprived country supposed to go about making a buck?

And Muddle my friend, you have it all backwards. The Japanese offered up a surrender, with one condition. Now if this one condition was so reprehinsble before we nuked Japan, why did we accept that same condition after we nuked them(along with several others)?

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Your view of history is .... unique

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5418975.htm

As for Japan, it had no right to negotiate. It still had troops in the field raping and killing. It was still at war. It tried to negotiate a better deal (through back channels because even the Japanese were afraid their own military wouldn't agree) and didn't get anywhere. Why? Because we demanded AND RECEIVED unconditional surrender.

[MadHound]

36. I prefer to think of it as well informed and unhindered

By the dual blinders of jingoism and blind nationalism.

Your link there is simply a self serving puff piece designed to soothe the masses. The author's grasp of the reality of the Iraqi situation. For instance he convienently forgets that until aprox sixty years ago, Kuwait WAS a provience of Iraq.

And you are conviently forgetting that Japan's surrender at the end of WWII WASN'T unconditional. The Japanese recieved two considerations(one more than they asked for). The first one they received from the US was to retain Emperor Hirohito in his position as a figurehead emperor. The second was to not try the major players in Japans human experimentation programs for war crimes in exchange for turning all of the data and notes from those experiments over to the US. Any kid who watches the History Channel knows this, why don't you?

[demsrule4life]

43. And the basic question is

If Japan had not tried to take over most of asia, killed millions then turned and attacked us would they have neen nuked? Of course the answer is no. Japan has nobody to blame but themselves.

[MadHound]

44. Well two can play that game

If the Allies, after WWI had been a little more forgiving to their former enemies, and a little more generous to their friends, then WWII wouldn't have happened at all. So therefore, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the coming of WWII.

And we can play that game all day. It still doesn't erase the fact that we had an enemy who was prone, begging for surrender, and yet we unleashed a doomsday weapon on an innocent populace, not once but twice. Once might be excusable, twice is simply xenophobic bloodlust.

I urge you to remember Ghandi's saying that if we all live by the rule of an eye for an eye, then soon the whole world will be blind.

[Silverhair]

48. Bullc**p. They weren't "begging" to surrender.

Surrender is easy. All you have to do is say, "I surrender". Doesn't require negotiation at all. No begging needed.

They wanted a negotiated end to the war that left their gov't intact. That means they were willing to stay in the fight for terms that they wanted. We wouldn't go for that.

[Blue_Chill]

50. Exactly

Surrender is very simple indeed, you put down your weapons and stop resisting. If they didn't like what that meant they shouldn't have started a war.

[MadHound]

54. Go do some research! Go read your history

And I don't mean that bleached white papulum that they feed the masses here. Japan was tendering surrender offers as early as the fall of 1944. And their one(repeat one) condition was to leave their figurehead emperor in place, as a figurehead. Not their entire government, just their figurehead.

Guess what, after we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents we left Hirohito in place. He died still holding onto that figurehead spot in 1989. And as a bonus we threw in amnesty for the major players of Japan's human experimentation program. Of course we took their data and notes as compensation.

No, we dropped the bomb twice onto innocents to impress the Russians with our might, to find out what happens when you drop the bomb on a live target(this is why both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to remain unscathed throughout US bombing runs, a clean slate was needed in order to properly judge the results), and to take out our xenophobic fury and revenge on a population composed mostly of women, children and old folks.

[san antonio]

60. Begging to surrender....

...doesn't mean telling the people you are surrending to how things are going to happen. Begging to surrender is putting your damn guns down and your hands in the air. Neither of which are things the Japanese were doing.

[Silverhair]

68. I have read history. I stand by what I said.

It is impossible to convince you because you begin with a hatred of this country and accept only sources that reinforce that hatred. I prefer reputable sources, not conspiracy theory, hate America sources.

[MadHound]

84. EXCUSE ME!

Look bub, just because I do my research going back to the fucking SOURCES of those milktoast books you call history, draw reasonable conclusions that noted history scholars agree with, talk to eyewitnesses, read firsthand accounts, you are saying that I hate this country?

You don't even know me, you don't even know what I've done in service of this country! How dare you come across as some right wing asshole accusing me of hating this country. Just because my well researched, well documented position doesn't agree with you! Who the fuck are you to say that I hate my country!

Look, you can sit there all smug with your whitebread whitewashed history books and wallow in denial all you want. But don't go accusing me of hating my country when I get to the truth of the matter. Those in denial do just as much damage as those who work against our country, maybe you should go buy a clue.

[Blue_Chill]

88. Did Japan start the war? Yes or No?

Did Japan refuse a unconditional surrender? Yes or no?

k thanks.

[MadHound]

92. It is all so black and white for you isn't it.

What a shame.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Alas, some things ARE black and white

Rationalizing the actions of the Axis and blaming America for both causing the war and ending it certainly fall into that category.

[bpilgrim]

58. they had 1 condition

and contrary to the apparantly popular - in some circles - barbarous belief that UNCONDITIONAL surrender was the norm in warfare amongst states during history not to mention with a whole different region of the world that we had little experience with.

once their 1 condition was met, they surrendered.

peace

[Silverhair]

80. No, we put in a counter condition. The Emperor takes orders

from us. Big difference. That means he ain't really the Emperor no more. We even demanded that he quit the claim to be the Sun-God Incarnate on Earth. And he did, because we were the boss. Total surrender.

[Blue_Chill]

89. Exactly we did NOT accept their conditions.

They did after the bombs what the arrogant sons of bitches should have done before.

[bpilgrim]

95. and we NUKED them till they met our demands, so there...

sounds like something UBL might say.

listen to yourselves, please.

peace

[Blue_Chill]

99. You make it sound like we bullied some poor helpless nation

You forget they killed millions and attacked us to begin with. Big difference between that and a terrorist. They were in no position to make demands and they learned a hard lesson.

[bpilgrim]

101. no... i am talking about our TERRORISM against a defeated nation

not our current aggression against iraq to secure our oil demands.

they had only 1 condition to surrender which we finally accepted after we ran out of nukes and the russians had enter.

peace

[Silverhair]

103. No. They accepted our demand.

They accepted that the Emperor take orders from us. That was effective unconditional surrender. But in your rabid hatred of American you blame us for starting the war, and for demanding unconditional surrender, and you continue to avoid recgonizing that we did not accept their condition. We demanded, and got, that the Emperor obey us. Big difference.

Your hatred for America is really quite blatant.

[bpilgrim]

106. chill with the personal, vrwc attacks...

please.

i certainly don't 'hate' america... if i did i wouldn't take such an interest in our history or would i have worn the uniform.

but i am not BLINDED by NATIONALISM like the IMPERIAL JAPANESE were to not notice our crimes and deep in my soul understand that if we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past i must first learn what they were.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-Thomas Paine

peace

[Blue_Chill]

24. So the half a million that died because Saddam let them die

while misusing the oil for food money you are going to blame on the US? Ridiculous.

BTW - You mention it never works in the long run......Look at Japan today and tell me how you figure that it hasn't worked in the long run. It's because Japan paid a large price for it's crimes that they embraced peace.

[MadHound]

29. Actually you're wrong about the misuse of oil for food money

Besides, the oil for food program was in place only since '98. Before that was simply a full embargo, and that is when the majority of innocent deaths occured. Here, why don't you read and educate yourself.
<http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/60/iraqForDummies.htm>
Also why don't you try to explain away why the Clinton administration kept on bombing the hell out of innocent women and children throughout his administration? What was Saddam doing to provoke that? Or did the Iraqis just deserve it, like you seem to think the innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did.

And you posted earlier a question about people noticing a trend. Well I do, but it isn's from me and it is a rather xenophobic and racist one. Gee, I wonder why.

[Blue_Chill]

32. So then you are telling me that Saddam acted in the best interest

of his people? Because in order for the deaths that occured at the time of the embargos to be our fault he would have had to. I do not accept that a man who sat in palaces enjoying every one of lifes pleasure did everything or in fact ANYTHING to stop his people's suffering. He is the cause of the embargo in the first place.

Also the Clinton admin did not randomly bomb innocent people. They did bomb chemical plants which is why the WMD's are no where to be found today. Pilots also blow any type of ground to air defense that paints them or they see as a threat. BTW the no fly zones were put in place in part to keep Saddam, you know that great guy you find blameless, from killing his own people.

[MadHound]

35. Please BC do two things

1. Stop putting words in my mouth
2. Go do some research before you speak about matters that apparently you don't understand beyond what the "fair and balanced" media spoon feeds you.

No Saddam didn't act always in best interests of his people, few dictators do. However without an embargo and our bombing there wouldn't have been 500,000 innocent deaths. And Saddam didn't instigate the embargo, nor the bombings, we did, at the behest of big oil(did you even read my link?).

And if the US was only bombing chemical plants and gun emplacements(which by the by were allowed under the US-Iraqi agreement at the end of GWI), how come so many(in fact vast majority) of the victims were women and children? Don't tell me those horrible Iraqis were housing them at these facilities.

Just because an action is instigated by a Democrat doesn't automatically make it right, or have you also forgotten the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Such partisan blinders will only set you up for a big fall.

[Blue_Chill]

90. Ah yes Saddam was the victim of US oil

OK whatever, I can't argue with that logic.

I mean how do you debate when a person refuses to find fault in a murder and prefers to blame the people that react to his acts of agression. I refuse to accept that everything is the US's fault when leaders of the countries in question were the problem.

[Silverhair]

64. Some facts about the end of the Japanese part of WWII

The field commanders of WWII were not against the bomb. They didn't even know about the bomb. It was a super guarded secret, although Stalin seems to have know about it in advance. Truman didn't even know about it until FDR died. So the statement that the field commanders of the time were against it is just so much hooey.


Japan was not "trying" to surrender. You don't "try" to surrender. You surrender. It is very simple. You say, "I surrender". What the Japanese gov't WAS doing was saying, "We will continue fighting unless you give in on these points."

The point they wanted was to keep the emperor in his position. That was a phrase that carried the meaning of keeping all of the gov't of Japan in place. We allowed the emperor to live, but only if he took orders from us. That mean unconditional surrender of the gov't. BIG DIFFERENCE. Of course certain posters here refuse to see that difference.

Far greater fatalities were incurred in the fire bombings of various cities. Both Hiroshima and Nakasaki were on the list, with all the other yet unfirebombed, to be torched. So their populations would have still died, even without the nukes. Over 100,000 were killed in one fire raid on Tokyo itself. The destruction of the remaining cities would have killed several times the total that the nukes did.

The invasion of the mainland was scheduled for November 1945. The Japanese had already deduced where we would have to invade and were fortifing the area. Since they fought determinedly, and since they would have been defending the homeland itself, the battles would have been literally to the last person. Even civilians, including women and children, were being given bamboo spears and were expected to fight. We would have had to killed everyone.

By November we would have had nine A-bombs available.

Regarding the forgivness of war crimes as a condition of surrender. It is impossible to prove a negative, so I can't prove that we didn't. The burden of proof is upon those who maintain it. I have never seen this in any reputable history. It smells like conspiracy theory stuff to me. One certain poster here seems to begin from the premise that America is the most evil nation ever, and accepts only arguements and sites that agree with that notion. I would like to see a REPUTABLE sources for that allegation. No CT sources please.

Consider this alternate history for a moment. Truman decides the A-bomb is just too terrible to use. The war continues. Japanese fatalities are in the millions and USA fatalaties are over 100,000. Every city and town in Japan is firebombed. We force them to surrender with a bayonet at the throat of the Emperor. 60 years pass and the same posters that hate us for using the bomb are hating us for not using a tool that could have shocked the Japanese into surrender.

[bpilgrim]

94. more info...

"The field commanders of WWII were not against the bomb. They didn't even know about the bomb. It was a super guarded secret, although Stalin seems to have know about it in advance. Truman didn't even know about it until FDR died. So the statement that the field commanders of the time were against it is just so much hooey."

MILITARY VIEWS

• The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved. (See p. 322, Chapter 26)

• In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.


, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers (in charge of psychological warfare on MacArthur's wartime staff and subsequently MacArthur's military secretary in Tokyo) stated:

Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." (See p. 352, Chapter 28)

• Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, 1945 chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section, subsequently recalled in a military history interview: "he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia. . . ." (See p. 359, Chapter 28)

• Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated in a 1959 interview:

we brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (See p. 359, Chapter 28)

• In a 1985 letter recalling the views of Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy elaborated on an incident that was

very vivid in my mind. . . . I can recall as if it were yesterday, insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question . . . the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision. (See p. 364, Chapter 28)

• In a separate memorandum written the same year McCloy recalled: "General Marshall was right when he said you must not ask me to declare that a surprise nuclear attack on Japan is a military necessity. It is not a military problem." (See p. 364, Chapter 28)

• In addition:

- On May 29, 1945 Marshall joined with Secretaries Stimson and Forrestal in approving Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew's proposal that the unconditional surrender language be clarified (but, with Stimson, proposed a brief delay). (See pp. 53-54, Chapter 4)

- On June 9, 1945, along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall recommended that a statement clarifying the surrender terms be issued on the fall of Okinawa (June 21). (See pp. 55-57, Chapter 4)

- On July 16, 1945 at Potsdam--again along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs --Marshall urged the British Chiefs of Staff to ask Churchill to approach Truman about clarifying the terms. (See pp. 245-246, Chapter 19)

- On July 18, 1945, Marshall led the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in directly urging the president to include language in the Potsdam Proclamation allowing Japan to choose its own form of government. (See pp. 299-300, Chapter 23)

• In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

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. . . . (See p. 4, Introduction)

• Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm



"Japan was not "trying" to surrender. You don't "try" to surrender. You surrender. It is very simple. You say, "I surrender". What the Japanese gov't WAS doing was saying, "We will continue fighting unless you give in on these points." "


they wanted to negotiate terms of surrender which is the norm cept maybe to barbarians.


"The point they wanted was to keep the emperor in his position. That was a phrase that carried the meaning of keeping all of the gov't of Japan in place. We allowed the emperor to live, but only if he took orders from us. That mean unconditional surrender of the gov't. BIG DIFFERENCE. Of course certain posters here refuse to see that difference."

the symbolic institution of emperor remains to this very day... what else can i say?


"Far greater fatalities were incurred in the fire bombings of various cities. Both Hiroshima and Nakasaki were on the list, with all the other yet unfirebombed, to be torched. So their populations would have still died, even without the nukes. Over 100,000 were killed in one fire raid on Tokyo itself. The destruction of the remaining cities would have killed several times the total that the nukes did."

remember a NUKE is a weapon that keeps on giving and at last count by the city of hiroshima the death caused by that single bomb is well over 200k

not that i see what that has to do with the necesity of using it.



"The invasion of the mainland was scheduled for November 1945. The Japanese had already deduced where we would have to invade and were fortifing the area. Since they fought determinedly, and since they would have been defending the homeland itself, the battles would have been literally to the last person. Even civilians, including women and children, were being given bamboo spears and were expected to fight. We would have had to killed everyone."


most folks fight for their homeland, when attacked wether they started the war or not, but true they were indoctrinated since young to bear arms against the 'invaders'


"By November we would have had nine A-bombs available."


so... we didn't need them or an invasion once we finally accepted japans one condition


"Regarding the forgivness of war crimes as a condition of surrender. It is impossible to prove a negative, so I can't prove that we didn't. The burden of proof is upon those who maintain it. I have never seen this in any reputable history. It smells like conspiracy theory stuff to me. One certain poster here seems to begin from the premise that America is the most evil nation ever, and accepts only arguements and sites that agree with that notion. I would like to see a REPUTABLE sources for that allegation. No CT sources please."


it is a fact you can read about Unit 731 it here...
http://www.aiipowmia.com/731/731caveat.html

also take note that no business folks were tried who financed the war machine and that many japanese who served during the war served afterwards to block the rise of communism.


"Consider this alternate history for a moment. Truman decides the A-bomb is just too terrible to use. The war continues. Japanese fatalities are in the millions and USA fatalaties are over 100,000. Every city and town in Japan is firebombed. We force them to surrender with a bayonet at the throat of the Emperor. 60 years pass and the same posters that hate us for using the bomb are hating us for not using a tool that could have shocked the Japanese into surrender."

consider this...

we reword our surrender terms to allow japan to maintain the symbolic institution of emperor in the spring or early summer of 45 and the war ends in earlier...

think of how many lives could have been saved...

Ernie Pyle

The American campaign against the Japanese on Okinawa still raged when a war correspondent new to the Pacific theater stepped ashore on Ie Shima, a small island just west of Okinawa. Traveling with a group of infantrymen, the reporter was killed by a sniper's machine-gun bullets. Saddened by their loss, the soldiers paid tribute to their fallen friend with a simple plaque reading: "At this spot, the 77th Infantry Division lost a Buddy, Ernie Pyle, 18 April 1945."

more...
http://www.indianahistory.org/heritage/pyle.html


think about it...

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Wow, hindsight. I'm not impressed

So what you are saying is that none of the field commanders knew about it despite your claims otherwise.

All of the comments you reference were, "subsequently stated." That, my friend, is Monday morning quarterbacking in the extreme.

Truman didn't have that luxury.

You then proceed to call Americans "barbarians" because we didn't let Japan "negotiate terms of surrender." We were the barbarians? We didn't rape Nanking. We didn't turn rape into an industry in Korea. We didn't try to conquer the world. We didn't make killing innocents enough of an industry to be competitive with the Axis buddies in Germany.

Japan did those things. THEY were the barbarians. And, when push came to shove, they still didn't surrender until AFTER they had been nuked.

As for the nukes continuing to kill, I suppose Truman was suppose to see into the future and know that?

Next, you proceed to just rationalize the Japanese plan to basically fight to the death in Japan. Sure, they would have done so. Nuking them prevented large scale death for both sides.

Lastly, you try to construct a fantasy world where we didn't drop the bomb and somehow Japan became just as peace-loving and their rabid military rolled over and cooperated. How do you suppose that would have happened?

[bpilgrim]

98. May 29, 1945 - June 9, 1945 - July 16, 1945 - July 18, 1945

On May 29, 1945 Marshall joined with Secretaries Stimson and Forrestal in approving Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew's proposal that the unconditional surrender language be clarified (but, with Stimson, proposed a brief delay). (See pp. 53-54, Chapter 4)

- On June 9, 1945, along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall recommended that a statement clarifying the surrender terms be issued on the fall of Okinawa (June 21). (See pp. 55-57, Chapter 4)

- On July 16, 1945 at Potsdam--again along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs --Marshall urged the British Chiefs of Staff to ask Churchill to approach Truman about clarifying the terms. (See pp. 245-246, Chapter 19)

- On July 18, 1945, Marshall led the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in directly urging the president to include language in the Potsdam Proclamation allowing Japan to choose its own form of government. (See pp. 299-300, Chapter 23)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

that is NOT hindsight...

fyi: their sins don't wash away OURs

also truman was brefied about the a-bomb by scientist...

Truman also says it was later 'When Vannevar Bush, head of the Office of  Scientific Research and Development came to the White House, that I was given a scientist’s version of the atomic bomb. "(Check appointments and date when Bush came to White house) (Also Check Leahy’s book and version)."

Original at: http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/large/folder1/bma7-1.htm

as far as 'rationalizing' why people fight wars especially fiercly when it's on their home soil needs no explanation i think.

and finally, once japan's one condition was met they surrendered as armies thorughout their history and ours - the 'west' - have done at one time or another... why is that so hard to believe?

it is long past time for our country to come to terms with our actions before we destroy the whole speciese.

peace

[Silverhair]

100. Rebuttal:

The decision to use the bomb was not a uniform decision. It was indeed hotly debated. You picked the ones that were against the decision and have tried to say that ALL the field commanders were against it, then you list theatre commanders instead of field commanders. Do you know the difference? Obviously, some in the military were also in favor of it's use, or it would not have been used. It wasn't Truman's idea by himself.
So you statement that all field commanders were against is shown to be false.


You claim that we were wrong and barbaric to demand Unconditional Surrender. Considering the nature of the German, Italian, and Japanese governments and their actions during the war, I can only say that we have a most profound disagreement. Would you have allowed Hitler to remain in power? We didn't want Tojo in power either, and to get him out we had to have Unconditional Surrender.
You call us barbaric for that demand. Your hatred for America is showing.

Yes, the Emperor is still a position, but not the same that it was during the war. He had to relinquish his claim to being a God. And he had to take orders from us, until we has instituted a democratic gov't. The manner of their demand before their actual surrender would have kept the old arrangement of Emperor & his gov't. You somehow seem to be blind to that as I have explained the difference many times. You ignore it each time.

I will not dispute you figure of 200K total dead from the bombing as I don't have accurate information on that. Instead, I maintain that the coming invasion, plus the continuing fire bombing of Japanese cities would have cause a far greater number of fatalities. You agree with me that the fighting would have been desperate. It would have meant killing all Japanese, civilians too, while the fighting continued.

The invasion WAS scheduled for November. It would have happened. The casualties would have been immense.

I bought a book from Military Book Club, "Factories of Death" about ten years ago. So I already knew about what happened, and about the USA cover up. However, a cover up after the fact, however dispicable, does not prove the existance of a secret deal before the surrender. You have not proven your case. All that you have is a conspiracy theory, and I have made my disdain for CTs well known from other posts.

Repeating the critical point. We did not accept Japan's condition. We insisted that the Emperor take orders from us. Only AFTER they accepted that, did the war end. Accepting that was effective unconditional surrender.

[bpilgrim]

104. no links again...

i say that EVERY MILITARY LEADER in theater at the time didn't think it was necessary.

i also provide evidence of MILITARY LEADERS who wanted to ACCEPT japans 1 condition in order to save lives.

i also provide links...

so i don't exactly understanding what you are trying to parse here but i think i have made myself clear with the links i've provided many times.

and yes we behaved like BARBARIANS by not only demanding unconditional surrender but by DESTROYING a whole city in a FLASH that was not only defeated and defensless militarily but was also trying to surrender.

the emperor has been the SYMBOLIC head of the nation of japan for centuries ask anyone who knows japanese history, i know there are a few here on DU.

you can google the numbers of hiroshima dead... just make sure the source is hiroshima city.

i think i have pointed to enough evidence to demonstrate to any reasonable person that the bombs were NOT necessary, i have even provided quotes from military leaders who were THERE and who agree with that position so you can save all your speculation about how many lives were saved from an avoided invasion that was never gonna be.

as far as their unconditional surrender i point to the longest unbroken throne in human history that remains to this very day.

how do you explain the emperor getting 'let of the hook' then if he was such a murderous tyrant?

imagine us making a deal with UBL to remain in power in afghanistan to grasp the magnitude of that decision.

i am sure it wasn't something we did willingly...

peace

[Silverhair]

109. Every? Have you looked up the defination of that word?

Well, I guess Gen Douglas MacAuthur wasn't a Pacific theater commander was he? He thought the nuking of Japan was a great idea. Of course, he didn't know about it in advance, but by his other actions one can easily deduce what he thought. Remember that he wanted to use nukes in Korea. But I guess he doesn't count as you throw away any evidence that goes against your theme.

They weren't trying to surrender, they were still fighting to save their gov't. Only when they agreed that we would give the Emperor orders, did they surrender. You continue to ignore that difference, because it destroys your arguement.

From past arguements on this topic with you I know that you will have the last word. So I will be dropping out of this thread. My objective has been achieved. I have not converted you - that is impossible as your hatred of America is too deep - but I have stated the facts for any objective reader.

You blame America for Japan attacking China and later America.

[bpilgrim]

115. again NO links and your WRONG

# On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . (See p. 352, Chapter 28)

# The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . . (See p. 350, Chapter 28)

# Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:

I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. (See pp. 350-351, Chapter 28)

# Saturday Review of Literature editor Norman Cousins also later reported that MacArthur told him he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb, and that "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." (See p. 351, Chapter 28)

# In an article reprinted in 1947 by Reader's Digest, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers (in charge of psychological warfare on MacArthur's wartime staff and subsequently MacArthur's military secretary in Tokyo) stated:

Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." (See p. 352, Chapter 28)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

peace

[Silverhair]

117. OK, I will conceed error on MacAuthur.

I was extrapolating his attitude from his well known desire to use nukes in Korea.

So are you saying that Truman made the decision to use the bomb with 100% of his staff, officers, and adviser telling him not to. That is illogical and not the way those kind of decision are made. I'm not going to bother looking for links because it is well known that the decision was hotly debated. Debate means there were people on each side.

Truman made the decision, and within days after dropping the bomb they accepted our demand that the Emperor must take orders from us.

[bpilgrim]

118. MILITARY VIEWS

* The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved. (See p. 322, Chapter 26)

* In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

"they accepted our demand that the Emperor must take orders from us."

and we decided to reward his horrible actions by allowing him to remain on the throne with our first order...

do you realize how silly that sounds?

i appreciate rehashing these arguments over and over again as it allows more folks to become more familiar with our history on a very important matter, the survival of all of us.

we MUST come to terms with how HORRIBLE these weapons are AND that we must NEVER let our politicians use these EVIL weapons for political purposes EVER AGAIN.

good night

peace

[neverforget]

102. At the time of the bombings, Japan was transferring troops to Kyushu.

Kyushu was the first island slated for invasion. What the Americans found after they occupied the island was that the Japanese had fortified the invasion beaches to make Tarawa or Omaha Beach lool like a cakewalk. Their plans, should we have invaded, included mass Kamikaze attacks on the invasion fleet using plans, boats and submarines. Also, the civilian population was being trained for suicide attacks against the Americans on the land. An invasion would have been wholesale slaughter on a scale not seen before. The casualties would have been massive. The Japanese were going to fight to the death.

The Japanese started the war. We ended it on our terms. They could have surrendered at any time but chose to fight it out. They paid the consequences for it.

My dad saw the carnage on Okinawa and took part in the occupation of Japan with 11th Airborne Division. He has always said that Truman saved his life and the lives of countless Americans and Japanese by dropping those bombs. If you ever talk to a WWII vet, they will tell you about how vicious the war in the Pacific was. The Japanese took no quarter and neither did we. It was worse than the war in Europe. If you doubt me, read "With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" by E.B. Sledge.

[bpilgrim]

105. then why did they suddenly stop?

if they had no regard for their own lives?

what were they told they were fighting for all this time?

the emperor.

and they believed it.

when we told them he would not be harmed and the institution allowed to continue, they surrendered as they had been trying to for months.

think about how many more lives could have been saved if we had accepted their one condition earlier... say the spring or early summer of 45.

peace

[neverforget]

108. The Emperor told the military to surrender. However, that happened

ONLY after the bombs had been dropped. Even then, the military wanted to fight it out for the honor of Bushido. They almost succeeded in a military coup. If that had happened the war would have continued. The Japanese military was beaten but the Japanese miltary leaders didn't know it yet.

[bpilgrim]

114. the emperor was a figure head and did NOT run the gov nor the military

everyone who knows japan knows that no one could surrender even the politicos as long as the emperor was in jeperdy.

once his position was secured they surrendered, and yes there were still some diehards from the military who didn't want to surrender but to fight to the bitter end as they were trained to do.

after the emperors postion was secured everyone else knew there was nothing left to fight for and surrendered.

peace

[Silverhair]

116. They surrendered AFTER we demanded that the Emperor

take orders from us. That's a difference that you seem to refuse to even admit exists. It gave us free reign to do whatever we wanted to with Japan. They threw themselves on our mercy because once we had occupation troops in place, there was nothing but our own will that held us back from removing the Emperor. So in accepting our demand, they were unconditionally surrendering.

I wonder something. Do you think we were wrong for demanding Unconditional Surrender from Germany?

BTW - All of the Allied powers had previously agreed upon Unconditional Surrender as the only acceptable terms. That includes the Soviets too. They didn't get into the Pacific war until late because they were understandable quite busy with the Germans.

[Silverhair]

111. They finally accepted our demand.

That the Emperor take orders from us. Of course that is a difference that you ignore.

[neverforget]

113. Not to mention the barbarity of the war up to then.

[Don Claybrook]

112. Delete

Wrong thread.

Carry on.