Today is the day of the Hiroshima a-bomb

[mogster]

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

After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Since then, nuclear weapons has never been used. Let's take the opportunity to remember the horror, hopefully strengthening our resolve that such weapons never will be used again.

[Parche]

1. As Long As No One Attacks Pearl Harbor

Wake Island, Guam...............:hi:

[Pyrzqxgl]

5. Not even Pearl Harbor! There is no moral reason to ever use them again.

[Parche]

11. I Still Know It Was The Right Thing To Do A Necessary Evil

:patriot: :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. That's why I support the Manson family.

Sharon Tate's kid would have been worse than Hitler.

Didn't you see that Polanski film? "Sharon Tate's Baby?"

[Parche]

24. NO

never seen it

People dont realize, when you study WWII Pacific like I have, you learn things that
most people dont know..........

:hi:

[SidneyCarton]

94. Yeah, because the other nations we partitioned with the Soviets turned out so well...

Korea, Vietnam ring a bell???

Just what we would have needed, a million dead to occupy Japan, and then a Japanese war some time between 1950-1980.

[defendandprotect]

200. What nonsense . . . Japan was ready to surrender . . .

And, America ARBITRARILY decided on a 47th parallel --

Vietnam? Vietnam was simply a nation fighting to end its history of colonization by France!

The United Nations was handling it ---

It is America which has had its hands in all these imperialistic pies ---

VN . . . oil, mining resources - drugs

[Seeking Serenity]

203. No, the Japanese were NOT ready to surrender.

Some of them merely wanted a peace deal, on wholly unacceptable terms.

[defendandprotect]

259. That's untrue; the Japanese were defeated and trying to surrender . . .

Truman put "unconditional" into the mix to avoid the surrender ---

as I recall this ---

Commanders saw no need for the bomb to be dropped on Japan ---

[Seeking Serenity]

273. Unconditional surrender had been our policy from day one; it was not a Truman invention.

n/t

[defendandprotect]

285. In the end, the surrender was not what Truman was calling for in toto --

Truman game-played with the terms ---

and Japan had been trying to surrender all along.

And ... what possible reason for a second bomb--?

[Seeking Serenity]

294. No, Japan had not been trying to surrender all along

They merely wanted a peace deal on unacceptable terms.

The second bomb was designed to tell the Japanese to stop stalling or there would be more to come (they didn't know our third bomb wasn't ready yet).

[defendandprotect]

300. And it was Truman who was rejecting the "terms" . . .ignoring the attempts to surrender ---

Re the second bomb ---

more delusional thinking ---

don't bother with any more thoughtless replies ---

[Seeking Serenity]

301. To thoughtless, mind-numbingly repetitive posts.

My pleasure.

[Thothmes]

315. The agreement among the allies since the Cairo conference

was complete and unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan.Why should Truman unilaterally accept terms less that FDR had agreed to.

[defendandprotect]

341. They accepted an "Emperor" . . . in the end ---

AFTER they had time to drop the bombs ---

and why two?

[Seeking Serenity]

342. MacArthur, who had this authority, accepted and encourages retention of the emperor as a figurehead

as one mean of controlling the populace.

[TheWraith]

323. Not even close. The Japanese "peace deal" was based on four terms.

No occupation of Japan.

No changes to the Japanese government.

All investigation and prosecution of Japanese war crimes would be handled by the Japanese government.

All demobilization of Japanese military forces to be handled by the Japanese government.

That's not a surrender by any stretch of the imagination, and the commanders who actually fought in the Pacific had a more pessimistic view than Truman did: they didn't expect the bombs to intimidate the Japanese, and recommended saving number three onwards for tactical use after the invasion had begun.

[Oregone]

27. Thats a joke, right?

[Parche]

29. No Joke

It was a necessary evil

I have studied WWII Pacific and come to that conclusion

I have always known that, and always will
no one will ever change my mind.

:hi:

[Oregone]

37. Can't we say the same about EVERY conflict?

Can't we always and forever justify the Means to an End by some loosely knitted knowledge of a hypothetical alternative reality that we are constructing. I mean, imagine if we had not massacred the men/women/children in Fallujah? Imagine what would of happened if we did not target the native American population centers, killing them off in masses, imagine if Hitler had allowed the Jews to flourish and multiply, and ultimately bring down his country?

Can't anyone ALWAYS claim a worse hypothetical alternative to justify their "necessary evils"? In fact, isn't this EXACTLY what people on the right perpetually do to justify their filth? Do we stand for nothing more?

Is it not any indication of the collective moral opinion on this action, that it has not been used since? If what you say, this sacred wonderful knowledge of WWII Pacific is true, and it is completely and immensely justified under this (and other similar scenarios), I wonder what has stopped others of similar minds from letting loose upon the middle east (with their shiny crystal balls in hand).

[Raskolnik]

41. But the alternatives to using the weapons were not nearly as theoretical as your examples

If atomic weapons had not been used, there were several alternative (including blockade, continued conventional strategic bombing, and invasion) that were on the table. One or them, or more likely a combination, *would* have been used had the bombs not been dropped.

[Oregone]

50. Of course they would have...

But we cannot know for sure their actual empirical effects.

When there is ambiguity in the alternatives, arguing the neccessity of an "evil" choice is without grounds.

We know for sure the horrors of the bomb, but we do not know the consequences of the alternatives (which could have been better or worse). Why would one argue for horror and "evil", when they only have a portion of the knowledge of all possible consequences? No one here is omniscient, including myself. Id be the last to advocate any method at this juncture in time. Id be the first to encourage everyone to continue to ask themselves the tough questions and merely think about it deeply.

[Parche]

65. Japan

Like i said, they were surrounded and they were being bombed heavy, by conventional bombs, and rockets from the 3rd fleet, and they still did not surrender
You advocate that the war continue until god knows when.........

That would have cost more lives on both sides, then actually were lost when both bombs were dropped

Tell me why they did not surrender after Okinawa was invaded, they knew they had lost........

[Oregone]

66. "That would have cost..."

Magic 8-Ball says...Try Again Later

[Parche]

43. You Do Not Know

People should never compare that with past date or present date situations, every scenario
is different.
I didnt say it was justified under similar scenarios, that is where some people try to justify
their views as they only know that the US dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan, not knowing the
whole history, and the reasons why.

I always use Commander Dick Okane as an example, he was a POW, and probably only had a few weeks
left to live, as the disease, and starvation was taking a toll.
There were thousands of POW's that were mistreated, and still in captivity, and would have never
been able to come home.

I met his son last year at Pearl Harbor, that and along with everything I have studied, is a good reason for the Atomic Bomb to be dropped at that time.

Saying that, it was a necessary evil, I do not wish that to happen again though, and hopefully we will never see it again

:hi: :patriot:

[Oregone]

55. NO ONE knows.

That is a fact. No one knows what the alternatives may of produced. Despite that lack of knowledge, you are still advocating a known "evil" as neccesary.

The Commander Dick Okane line kind of reads like nationalistic garbage (no offense meant by the way). You do not know (nor do I) how many sons or daughters were slaughtered in Japan so that you could meet his son. They were people too.

[Parche]

60. Yes We Do

Of course they were people too, but we were at war with them
that is different.

There were no alternatives, the war was going to continue, with the Atomic bomb, it ended

Its not Nationalistic garbage, the Japanese were notorious in their ways back then, and to save them, and everyone else by dropping the bomb, it is justified, i dont care what anyone says.

Would you have wanted the US to invade Japan with operations Coronet and Olympic? How many lives would have been lost then? On both sides...

How long could the US 3rd fleet sail outside of Japan without getting hit by kamikaze attacks?

The Japanese had months to surrender, they knew they had lost, but they are stubborn, and the
Army was in charge.

How long could China go with still being occupied by the Japanese?

Would the Uss Indianapolis been saved if the Japanese would have surrendered months before?
Or the lives of the Marines and Army on Okinawa?

Some people still dont realize we were really at war, and yes war is hell sometimes, and yes people die, it is better to make your enemy die then you.....

Japan was surrounded by Admiral Halsey and the 3rd fleet, and was being bombed every single day,
and they still did not surrender.......

[Oregone]

63. Look, clearly there is no way I can change your mind...

we just have to wait around for all these type of people, with this thinking, to eventually die off (10 years max).

When you know that there were NO alternatives, and you KNOW everything about this, well, that's a dangerous position. Any job offers from the Bush administration lately?

"to save them, and everyone else by dropping the bomb, it is justified, i dont care what anyone says"

On edit: Im thrilled I left this country behind, and people who think this way. I cannot be happier and more relaxed. In weeks I have not heard anything so closed minded and ridiculous uttered by anyone around me. Others should really try the same some time.

[Parche]

69. Dont Give me this dangerous position crap

No one is ever going to change my mind, and I wasnt even born yet

And that Bush comment is totally irrelevent...


Telling me that you think that dropping the bomb on Japan and anyone who thinks it was the right thing to do is close minded, leads me to believe that you have never studied that war, and really dont know what you are talking about, you just know that the US dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, and in your mind it was a bad thing to do, not knowing the reasons behind it.

But do tell me why the Japanese didnt surrender months before this, when they knew they were surrounded?

Or why you think that we should have invaded Japan proper, and have the war last another, maybe 2years, killing millions more people...on both sides?

Your argument is thin at best

[Oregone]

80. Saying "i dont care what anyone says" is close minded.

Close-mindedness is dangerous.

What precisely am I arguing, other than that we do not know for sure the consequences of alternatives which were not pursued? That is a fact.

[Parche]

89. alternatives

Yes they were pursued

And you never answered those questions

Why didnt Japan surrender months before?
Why did they wait so long?
and only after the 2bombs were dropped, did the Emperor finally realize and speak to the people
because the Army was never going to surrender.
You are the one that is close minded

And if they didnt surrender, how many more lives would have been lost, with our POW's, an invasion of Japan proper, and how about all the Japanese that were on several islands in the Pacific, that
had no food left and were also surrounded, how many of them were going to die if they had not surrendered? And you have to realize, they still occupied several big and small islands in the Pacific, that the US Navy bypassed, and left them to 'wither on the vine'

I will take the bomb, the necessary evil, have them surrender, and save millions of lives,over those killed on those 2days......everytime

[krispos42]

268. How would the Americans of 1946 felt...

if, in late 1946, when the main islands of Japan has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of GIs, fierce fighting had raged all over the country, as vicious hand-to-hand fighting occured in rugged mountains and the meat-grinders of urban centers..


If, on the 5th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, with Japan battered into submission only recently by conventional arms...


Truman went in front of the radio microphones and told the world "the United States had developed nuclear bombs of devestating power 16 months ago. Each one was capable of destroying a major city. We could have used them on Japan, vaporizing entire cities with a single plane and a single bomb. But instead I decided this weapon was too powerful to be used, and continued the invasion of Japan with conventional arms and conventional means."


I don't think Truman would have been triumphantly waving a "Dewey Defeats Truman" newspaper in 1948, assuming he wasn't impeached.

[nels25]

277. Invasion of Japan's Home Islands

were actually scheduled for much earlier.


Kyushu - November 1, 1945

Honshu - Early 1946

And we now know that the Soviets were reading some type of invasion of Japan's northern islands as soon as mid September 1945.

[defendandprotect]

205. That's still a poor reason for dropping this unprecedented weapon on civilians . . .

[SidneyCarton]

97. Sure, and we can parse each and every act taken in history because we weren't there

Our children may look back on our support of Obama as ultimately disastrous, but we don't know that, so we decide based on the way we feel, and what we know now. Truman did the same, demonizing him comfortably from 60 years of hindsight isn't brave, its pompous.

[defendandprotect]

207. That's not true; most of the advice to Truman was to NOT drop this weapon ---

and keep in mind it was dropped on civilians ---

It also led to a weapons race -- The Cold War -- and now Bush using smaller nukes all over the
place!

[Thothmes]

314. By whom.

[defendandprotect]

340. Commanders, including Ike --

[Supersedeas]

344. how is targeting civilians in order to obtain a political objective, not terrorism

[nels25]

276. No actually it is not a joke

President Roosevelt proclaimed a policy of unconditional surrender at the end of the Casablanca conference attended by Churchill also and represent aves of the Soviet Union they all agreed on this policy (much of the reason for it lay in how the germans perceived the end of WW1, and how they were in their eyes never truly defeated on the battle field).

This policy was popular with the public, Truman could not have gone against in any public way.

In the end he and his commanders did negotiate to a limited degree by making vagues but substantial promises to not remove or put on trial Emperor Hirohito.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

310. I'm completely series.

My alternative history is just as alternative as your alternative history.

[roody]

51. You still believe the lies your teachers told you?!

[Raskolnik]

53. To which lies are you referring?

[Zynx]

68. Japan's Imperial regime was vile. Do you know why we imposed sanctions?

It was because Japan was committing incredible atrocities in China.

[Parche]

71. what lies?

No teacher ever taught me WWII Pacific history

I have read and studied it for 33years now, and know more then a lot of historians.

[roody]

267. A number of teachers repeated this to us,

"We had to drop the bomb on Japan; it saved lives because it ended the war." This was in grade school.

[SidneyCarton]

98. The lies, no.

The things I have studied out in my mind, done actual research on, and found to be accurate, yes.

But then again those aren't lies if the facts back them up are they???

Do you believe every bit of ideological crap you ingest?

[Ripley]

73. Can't let this go unanswered

How on Earth can You believe that dropping a nuclear holocaust upon innocent people is ever the "right thing to do?"

Do You even know how many generations of victims those bombs caused?

Necessary Evil? And You are showing a saluting flag smilie with a wave? Is this a joke to You? Is MAD a joke to You?

A response to Pearl Harbor did not have to include generational deformities upon innocent civilians not able to control their Kamikaze government any more than the 9/11 response which was to again destroy innocent citizens for generations because of their dictator's threat upon the Smirk's daddy.

Man, is there no humanity left in America?

[NutmegYankee]

88. They don't call it total war for nothing...

There are no innocent civilians in total war. The citizens of the nations build the weapons by which many others die.

War is Hell! We brought it to the swiftest end we could and doing so saved lives on both sides.

[Ripley]

104. So, you would agree with this scenario in the US?

The USA started the war on Iraq in March 2003; it was called Shock and Awe to disable their infrastructure. More direct than taking out a Navy base on an island far away from the mainland USA.

So now the "War is Hell!" viewed from the people of Iraq could be that the swiftest way to end this war would be to attack America. Perhaps they see it as "saving lives on both sides" if they fucking bombed the Pentagon and the bases that produce our weapons.

You are very wrong. There ARE innocent civilians in the world, in every country on this planet. And if you don't believe that, then American citizens are fair game for any other country to attack and kill and cause destabilization to our infrastructure and way of life, too.

Machismo Bully shit.
Feel good cuz I kicked ass.

America needs to grow up.

[NutmegYankee]

120. I don't have to agree with it, it is reality.

If an enemy could, they would hit the pentagon and our bases. They would hit the factories that make the weapons, and they would hit the cities to inflict mayhem and death on the civilians.

Total war is Reality. This is why we have a military - To protect our fellow citizens and loved ones!

[Ripley]

131. Wrong.

TOTAL WAR IS NOT REALITY. Only in the pee brains of little boys playing games and multi-national corporations who make a killing financially in the global stock markets.

How in the Hell is our Military protecting USA citizens by attacking Iraq?

Noticed you included "loved ones" in there. Which loved ones are protected in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[NutmegYankee]

139. You must not study history.

Don't try to change the subject to Iraq. I'm talking about a real war, like if the USA and the Soviet Union had gone to war, etc.

Why was Japan pounding the Chinese? Why was Germany pounding Britain? Why did Britain and the USA pound Germany? Why did Germany and Russia pound the hell out of each other and Poland? The only way to win was to completely destroy the ability of the other to wage war.

History is full of warfare destroying entire cultures, killing citizen and soldier alike. WWII just did it with fancier weapons.
Try reading a history book some time.

[Ripley]

175. Maybe your history books of killing leave out something.

Glorification of killing machines and killing people by better and better weapons is wrong. Most religions say killing is wrong. Most rational people want to live without violence and death and destruction rained down upon them by countries they have never seen. Most people want their governments to represent their needs and that DOES NOT INCLUDE KILLING OTHERS unless you believe we are all cro-magnon humans.

Tell me, tough guy Nutmeg, what is a REAL war? You mean the Vietnam war or the War on Iraq are not REAL wars?

You are correct about one thing: history is full of Empires destroying other cultures by violence. Why do you think this is heroic or admirable?

It is a sickness.

[NutmegYankee]

191. Once again:

I never said it was heroic or admirable, I just said it is reality. Millions upon millions of people have not wanted the violence, but it was thrust upon them nonetheless.

You think the sailors in the Arizona wanted to die that morning?
A family in London wanted to die from a weapon they never heard coming all the way from occupied Belgium?
A mother witness her son torn to pieces by a bomb in a German village when all he wanted was to play outside?

People may not want it, but it happens! I'm sure the Polish government was representing their needs in 1939, but that did not stop the Germans from crushing them and taking their land and making them a slave nation.

A nation maintains an army to prevent them from being attacked and slaughtered or enslaved. Even religious texts note that soldiers are still needed to defend your people from another hostile culture who wants to kill you or enslave you. It is human nature, like it or not.


As for a REAL war, a real war is one in which the USA has officially declared war on another nation. The last time Congress declared war was in 1941. That fact alone highlights a problem, and I'm sure we agree on that.

[Ripley]

197. War is thrust upon people by

1. Those who would profit by it.
2. Military folks who revel in the fight.
3. Dumb fucks who are brainwashed into thinking that killing other people and/or stealing their resources from them is admirable because "We Win."
4. Those who would profit by it.

Taking more than 50% of citizens taxes to pay for weapons of war is not "human nature" but a concerted effort by thieves to steal on a large scale via propaganda, despoiling of education, news and entertainment to the point of creating a docile electorate.

[NutmegYankee]

238. Ideology plays a role.

Perhaps one culture finds the other lesser than themselves.


I do note for fairness that not all 50% is spent on weapons of war. A chunk is on R&D (which can benefit everyone), another chunk is on people (civilian and military, since civilians employees of the DOD are paid from DFAS just like soldiers), and another chunk on maintenance of buildings (often not enough). The rest is new weapons and the maintenance of old weapons, which is a hefty cost itself.

[krispos42]

269. And yet,the surest way to prevent it from happening is to be fully prepared to do it

Total war, I'm referring to.

And even that isn't particularly sure.


The problem is that you can only be about a civilized as your enemy is and your situation is when engaged in total war.

[Parche]

142. You Cant Compare Iraq and WWII

They are completely different scenarios

[Ripley]

185. You mean War is like Sports?

I can't compare Little League with the Super Bowl?

Different scenarios. Children being directed by adults and adults being directed by corporations. Right.

You define WAR as a necessary thing whereas I do not.
You are convinced WAR is about righteousness whereas I do not.
You refuse to see the damage done in the wake of "freedom" while I tally it up and it results in huge deficits except for those invested in the MIC.

[Parche]

91. Right Thing To Do

Truman did warn them, and they still did not surrender?
They had months to surrender and never did, they got what had to be done
How many generations of victims did Japan cause, with Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, POW's, Truk Island, Phillipines, Nanking???

If I remember right, we WERE at war with Japan

And Like I said, I will take dropping the 2 bombs any day, compared to invading Japan proper, having the war last for at least 2more years, kamikaze attacks on our Navy, POW's dying of retribution, and or disease and malnutrition
Millions of lives were saved in the process..........

And you should never compare that with todays news...........there are no comparisons

It was a necessary evil, but had to be done
:patriot: :patriot: :hi:

[Ripley]

195. Atomic Bombs destroy more than conventional ones

In case you didn't know that.

Why do you think the USA has the ultimate RIGHT to use weapons of mass destruction whereas it is what? immoral? illegal? for other countries to use the same?

Look into a mirror, my friend. There is a thing called "remorse" and it can coincide with the "happiness" that WWII ended.

I will indeed compare our dropping a nuclear device on Japan with today's news. It is the arrogance of Americans that only "they" know what is best even if it kills people, their culture and their way of life.

Guess what, Parche? America is NOT the center of the Universe.

[Parche]

96. What Would You Have Done?

Keep Admiral Halsey and the 3rd fleet surrounding Japan, and have them keep bombing Japan, but with conventional weapons? For how long, maybe 12months? 2years?
How many US Sailors killed from Kamikaze attacks?
How many Navy pilots killed when their planes were shot down?
How many of our POW's would still be alive?
How many Japanese soldiers would die of starvation on several islands in the Pacific that they still occupied?
How many more Chinese and Koreans would die from Japanese retributions?
You just see the picture as "An atomic bomb was dropped, and that is a bad thing' when you dont know the reasons why...............

:hi: :patriot:

[Ripley]

226. Don't know, except this

I would not have dropped a nuclear bomb over a city of innocent people.

The reasons why are obvious. As much as military men like to proclaim they are strategists, they wanted revenge.

That's EMOTIONAL.

Your blind patriotism is a learned behavior. You see only American military personnel as valuable, not those in other countries. Whereas I see people used as pawns in all countries to fight over land and resources for the rich men for a pittance pay and a delusional Heroic title.

You are right about one thing. WWII vets had health care and a GI Bill when they came home from Germany or wherever. Since then Veterans have dealt with little help.. always compared to the WWII Generation of the Great! Suck it up Vietnam Vets! No mental health care and no honor. And today's vets, they are pushed into rotations with no end in sight.

Fodder.

[Parche]

302. Its Not Blind Patriotism

In regards to WWII Pacific,I have studied, read, and met alot of people over the past 33years
it is not blind patriotism, it is vast respect for what they did during that time.
I dont like phony patriotism

And they did the right thing

[nels25]

278. Innocent people??

whose government/military invaded China, Indochina, Burma, Philippines, Borneo, Singapore, Mariana Islands, etc.

Not to mention the bombings at Pearl Harbor.


Japan for better or worse launched a war against us.

What would you had have us to do??

By the summer of 1945 after the recent battles to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the large kamikaze attacks launched during the Okinawa campaign it had become quite clear that a land invasion of Japan's home islands was going to lead to death and blood shed on a horrific scale for all concerned.

Some intelligence that US commanders had begun receiving indicated that Japan had far more forces located in our 1st selected attack and landing area in Kyushu than had been first been believed.

More than a few commanders counseled Truman to use the atomic weapons he had in addition the two used were the only two in existence at that time. When more would have been ready is unknown but I have read statements that it would not have been until early 1946.

If Japan had not surrendered after the 2 atomic bombings the Allies would have been left with no recourse but to invade.

No matter how you cut the history, those bombings bad as they were, were justified.

[madinmaryland]

74. Parche, is that what Harry Truman's daily briefing told him to do?

:hide:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

:hi:

[Parche]

77. PFFFTTTT

:P:P:P:P:P:P

I think he was playing Bunco at the time, while drinking his boxed wine....

:hi:

[NutmegYankee]

78. 100% behind you Parche!

Right On!:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

199. It was never the right thing to do and IKE understood that, as many others did ---

[Raskolnik]

249. So what was the right thing to do in 1945?

[Radical Activist]

101. Sure. A targeted attack on a military base and over 200,000 innocent civilian deaths are the same.

Makes perfect sense.
:puke:

[SidneyCarton]

105. Peleiu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa...

How familiar are you with the Marines losses taking those Islands. It's not like the Japanese were just going to run away. Had we landed they would have fought for every inch, and likely would have engaged in mass suicide when defeat seemed imminent between Americans invading on Kyushu and Soviets landing on Hokkaido. We would be fighting over the deaths of 10 Million Japanese right now instead of 200,000.

[Radical Activist]

115. One of my relatives was shot taking one of those islands.

It doesn't make me feel that the death of civilians and the horrible birth defects that continue to this day are justified.
No, the stories about Japan never surrendering are exaggerated. We just wanted to make sure they surrendered to us and not the Russians. That's what dropping the bomb was about.

[SidneyCarton]

126. Had we known...

The is much we might have done differently. We knew the level of destruction we would wreak, and had an idea of death tolls, but these were not shocking, we had done similarly at Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, and Tokyo. In the sick calculus of war we saw this as more efficient than 1000 planes risking it. We did not know about the ongoing birth defects yet... Had we known, we would have never embraced nuclear power.

War ruins the victor and the vanquished, we disagree on the practice here, and I see that we will not likely soon agree. Did your relative make it home?

[Parche]

135. Wrong

Japan had months to surrender, they did not, that is not exaggerated, that is a fact

The only ground they could have surrendered to the Russians is the islands North of Japan
and parts of Korea and China, no Pacific Island would have been surrendered to Russia

:hi:

[SidneyCarton]

107. BTW, we killed more at Dresden using conventional weps.

[defendandprotect]

198. When has anyone attacked us? It's US attacking the world . . . wake up!

And Pearl Harbor was probably a LIHOP . . . !!!

[Seeking Serenity]

201. Thank you for smearing one of the greatest Democratic presidents we've ever had.

Well done.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

208. Love FDR . . . but it seems to be general knowledge that Pearl Harbor

was a LIHOP . . .

I'll accept any and all arguments against it ---

[Seeking Serenity]

211. I'm not aware of any "general knowledge"

I am aware of the conspiracy theorists.

Look out, there's a Rothschild behind you!

[Thothmes]

320. It is among Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

339. OK --- he didn't--!!!

[Thothmes]

319. Let me see if I understand your statement. You are saying that

President Roosevelt knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and decided to do nothing to prevent the loss of a majority of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

[anonymous171]

2. Aren't today's atomic bombs much more powerful?

[SteppingRazor]

4. The average modern nuclear warhead is about 70 times more powerful...

and remember that modern ICBMs feature multiple warheads. So, all told, your typical modern nuclear weapon has as many as ten warheads, each 70 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

[defendandprotect]

209. Yes. . . but they've also worked on making smaller nukes . . .

and some of that new stuff seems to have gotten tested in . . . Panama/? -

Gulf War I/? -- and tossed around in Afghanistan --

[Thothmes]

322. Yes

The bombs dropped on Japan were about 10 kilotons, if I remember correctly. The Soviets built them as large as 52 megatons. Think the largest the U.S. manufactured during the cold war was about 30 megatons.

[YOY]

3. and every time this year at DU...FLAMEWAR!

n.t.

[Parche]

72. Yeah

Teach people on what was necessary, and why it happened

[defendandprotect]

210. Explain to people why it was a cruel and brutal thing to do to civilians . . .

and hope that this year they listen --- !!!

[YOY]

280. But folks really don't want to listen...

Not fanning the flames. Just sayin'...

[Seeking Serenity]

295. Not gonna listen to historical revisionism

and Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking on events 63 years ago.

We did what we did and it saved American lives and Japan from a worse fate.

That's it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Keep in mind: The US is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons of mass destruction n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. And...? nt

[defendandprotect]

212. That has all the sensitivity of a Cheney, "So . . . . . . . . ?" ---

[Dreamer Tatum]

265. Saying that we are the only nation to use nukes

sort of conveniently forgets that for a few years, no one else even had them.

[defendandprotect]

338. And has anyone used them since they do have them . . . ? No.

But, America has --- Bush ran new tests --- and they've worked their asses off to produce

new "smaller" nukes --- which they've been using. Mostly unacknowledged.

Who tore up the disarmament treaty? Bush.


The world is shocked by American brutality --- which we seem to consider an advantage.

[anonymous171]

7. I'm going to start off the flame war. The civilians were factory workers

and factories are the primary targets in total warfare.


:hide:

[cobalt1999]

10. Bombing civilians was standard practice both in Japan and Germany

In fact, more peopled died in conventional fire bombing than in the two atomic bombings.

Dead is dead regardless of what type of weapon kills them.

All the fire bombings from Dresden to Tokyo to Hiroshima had to be horrible for a lot of people.

[defendandprotect]

215. And America was responsible for Dresden . . . and Tokyo ---

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. None of us are qualified to make a true judgment

The thing people forget is that by 1945, warring nations had become somewhat desensitized to deaths, military or
otherwise. Had the bomb been available right after Pearl Harbor, for example, I would bet that it wouldn't have
been dropped. By 1945, there were so many examples of masses of people dying in war that people in power probably didn't
consider it as carefully as they otherwise would.

I also believe that if the war in the Pacific had gone Japan's way, much of the west coast would have been firebombed
without much thought on their part.

[defendandprotect]

217. I don't think you understand the bomb as the power grab it was . . .

it put us on the road to our prised "Superpowerdom" -- !!!

[TahitiNut]

31. I'm afraid the taboo against "civilian" targets is, in fact, an anachronism.

Even during the American Civil War, the pragmatics of all-out warfare as demonstrated by Sherman's "March To The Sea" and a plethora of (often fabian) attacks by both sides on 'civilian' settlements have necessitated such tactics. "Civilians" engage in feeding, clothing, equipping, and funding their military and, in any form of government resembling a republic, are the motivating force underlying the continuance of hostilities. "Civilian" is also a label applied to a person BEFORE they become a part of the military force.

The notion that war is somehow "better" when civilians aren't killed is an obscenely corrupt notion that leads one to believe that war can be something other than Hell. It cannot be. For the United States, which proclaims "civilian leadership" of the military, it's the ultimate cop-out of demagogues and tyrants from all of human history that the peasants can be conscripted or coerced into the military and be used as a cannon fodder barrier behind which the "leadership" can be safe from the horrors that their own arrogance and appetites have fomented.

If we were to accept the inevitability that EVERYONE was "at war" and a 'legitimate' target when our nation (IN OUR NAME) were waging war against anyone, then perhaps we wouldn't need a draft to bring the reality of 'community' into the face of every citizen and motivate participation in our own self-governance.

I regard the habit of blaming "them" and claiming "King's X" as a HUGE cover for the slothful and cowardly ... those who've adopted the "Let George Do It" posture regarding our government for over 35 years.

No... I don't exempt myself from the condemnation I voice, either.

[defendandprotect]

213. ....and the women and children were "collateral damage" . . . ?

[anonymous171]

219. Because women don't work in factories.

:sarcasm: I'm not saying that it was a morally acceptable choice (nothing in war ever is) I'm just saying that targetting civilians was a common practice during WWII.

[defendandprotect]

227. Hardly . . . !!!

As far as I'm aware it was done, of course --- but not proudly, openly ---

This is why people say correctly that all war is a war on women ---

These civilians were actually TARGETS . . . not even "collateral damage" . . .

but to try to suggest that it was in any way a military target because of a factory

is hiding from the truth ---

[LynnTheDem]

9. The majority of Americans now believe nuking Japan was the wrong thing to do.

It was also done on a pack of lies, which survive to this day (such as the infamous myth "dropping nukes on Japan saved insert-number-here American lives!)

It was a war crime.

It was unnecessary.

It was drastically the wrong thing to do.

And we've been doing the wrong thing ever since.

[bicentennial_baby]

12. There's a great book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"

by Gar Alperowitz.

http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

[defendandprotect]

220. "US military command was of the opinion that the invasion of Japan was NOT going to be necesary" --

My Father was drafted out of Harvard Graduate school. He scored very highly on IQ tests and was given a very sensitive job in the Ultra Code breaking project. He reported to a Lt General in the US army and was classified as an Army Intelligence officer. The story he told me before this book was ever published is identical to the general outlines of the story as related here by Alperovitz. He has always said that the Japanese were clearly looking to end the war a couple of months before the bomb was dropped. He also said that the general US military command was of the opinion that the Invasion of Japan was not going to be necessary Regardless of the presence of the Atom bomb or not. He cannot speak to what might or might not have been going on in Washington DC but he himself read the decrypts of Japanese messages being sent to intermediaries whom were charged with approaching the Americans with the intent to discontinue the war. He has said that the general consensus of the upper echelons of the military was that the bomb was used to intimidate the Russians who were behaving quite menacingly rather than to save American lives which might be lost in an invasion. He also said that he was always surprised that "nobody wrote a book about it". He was unaware of Alperovitz's work until I found it while in college.

"The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"
Posted by bicentennial_baby
by Gar Alperowitz.

http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/06797...


This is a pick-up from ONE of the interesting reviews of the book ---

[cobalt1999]

13. So was Dresden and firebombing Tokyo a war crime too?

The fact it was done with an atomic bomb vs. conventional fire bomb has nothing to do with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Pretty much, yeah.

:shrug:

[cobalt1999]

114. At least you are consistent.

I can respect the opinion that attacking civilian targets is a war crime.

What I can't understand is how some people claim bombing a civilian target with conventional bombs is okay but an atomic bomb is a "war crime".

Either way the civilians are dead. In the case of Japan in WWII, more died in conventional fire bombings than the atomic bombs.

[defendandprotect]

228. And who says anything like that . . . ???

[SidneyCarton]

123. You have a point here.

Curtis LeMay, who oversaw the bombing of Dresden fully expected to be tried for war crimes if we lost the war.

[bullwinkle428]

218. LeMay oversaw the bombing once he was transferred to the Pacific Theater -

"LeMay referred to his nighttime incendiary attacks as "fire jobs." The Japanese nicknamed him "Demon LeMay". Downed B-29 aircrews were frequently tortured and executed when captured by both Japanese civilians and military. Also, the remaining Allied prisoners of war in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals and torture after an air raid. LeMay was quite aware of the Japanese opinion of him — he once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes, especially in view of Japanese executions of uniformed American flight crews during the 1942 Doolittle raid. He argued that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life."

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

[defendandprotect]

230. Le May was truly nuts ---

[SidneyCarton]

264. Yes, he was a lunatic in a world gone mad, which makes him sane.

You cannot comprehend his madness, or the madness of the times in which it reigned. For that, more blessed are you, may you never come to that kind of enlightenment. LeMay was mad, Halsey was mad, Patton was mad, we were fortunate to have such madmen at this time. In comparison Chamberlain was quite sane, sanity under such circumstances got him nowhere.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

313. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination....

that if the Japanese had firebombed L.A. and S.F. that we would have captured and tried those responsible for war crimes.

[closeupready]

40. If the attack on Coventry was a war crime, then I guess the attack on Dresden was, too.

But when war is unleashed, there's not telling where it will go.

[defendandprotect]

222. I think many agree that the FIRES created in Dresden and Tokyo are crimes ---

at least against humanity . . .

Yes . . of course the fact that the atomic bomb was used has something to do with it ---

it set a new PRECEDENT of brutality and violence ---

Something which has put us on the path to where we are now --- where weapons rule --

and human life is "collateral damage."

[TahitiNut]

14. The overwhelming majority of Americans now alive weren't even born by then.

:shrug:

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Thank you

And they could have no idea of what the circumstances were at that moment.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Dropping the bomb induced surrender, which did save American lives by fiat

And had the bomb NOT been dropped, but Japan were blockaded instead, more Japanese would have died trying to induce surrender that way.

[nels25]

28. Not to mention

the absolute slaughter that would have transpired if the Allies would have had to invade Japan.

[LynnTheDem]

76. And there's another of those never-dying myths.

[Raskolnik]

86. Lynn, I notice that you are fond of making statements like that, but you don't

actually support it with any actual reasoning.

Why do you believe that post to be a "myth?"

For the record, I don't believe a full-scale invasion of the home islands was a certainty if the atomic bombs had not been used. I think it was also possible we would have simply blockaded the home islands and continued conventional bombing for some months until surrender was achieved (at a likely cost of millions of Japanese lives).

[LynnTheDem]

92. The myths of Hiroshima

A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper’s magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/05/opinion/oe-bird5

Truman and his advisors knew that the Japanese were already defeated and on the verge of surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped;

"Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and China's Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. In mid-April (1945) the US Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting."

A Secret Memorandum
It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

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

Hiroshima -- The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/strange_myth/article.html

Remembering Hiroshima: The Right Wing and Revisionism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/6/1176/28991/82/563330

[Raskolnik]

100. Lynn, I'm sorry, but I'm more interested in your words than you just cutting and pasting

the results of a Google search.

This is pretty well-trod territory, and there is a firm historical consensus that there were elements within the Japanese government that did make overtures seeking a negotiated peace, but those elements had absolutely no authority to actually negotiate on behalf of Japan. Aside from the fact that we made clear to Japan that we would only accept unconditional surrender (just as we had done with Germany), expecting the U.S. to halt the war because a couple of Japanese officials with no authority to negotiate on behalf of Japan and absolutely no authority over Japan's armed forces is rather far-fetched.

[LynnTheDem]

121. Facts are facts, and one day most Americans will know what most the world

knew long ago; the "million lives saved" was total made-up bullshit (and was since admitted to by the lying SOB who made it up); Japan had already been tying to surrender; the actual estimate made by the US military was "25,000 casualties" if an invasion was required, although the majority of the top military brass (and government officials) did not believe an invasion would be necessary.

And fact is, the surrender the US accepted from Japan was exactly the surrender Japan had been offering before they were victims of the US war crimes.

[Raskolnik]

130. Lynn, your prodigious cutting & pasting notwithstanding, that is simply untrue

And fact is, the surrender the US accepted from Japan was exactly the surrender Japan had been offering before they were victims of the US war crimes.

There were lower-level elements that made overtures for a negotiated peace. Those elements had neither the authority to negotiate on behalf of Japan, nor the authority to implement any negotiated peace. Even after the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, it took an aborted military coup to finally convince the Japanese armed forces to surrender. There is no credible historian that I've seen that thinks the Japanese military would have accepted unconditional surrender prior to the use of atomic weapons.

Germany also had lower-level government officials making peace (and some rather upper-level officials as well)--do you think we were also wrong for not ending the war against Germany upon those overtures?

[nels25]

281. Lynn may I suggest that you read

the last 150 or so pages of what most historians consider the best written history about Pacific War from the Japanese perspective.

"The Rising Sun" by John Toland.

This history takes you from the rise of militarism in Japan all the way through the end of the war.

And it includes the meetings held to convince both the emperor and the Imperial Army leaders to surrender.

Also did you know that a military coup to stop Emperor Hirohito's recording ordering the Japanese people to accept surrender was conducted by junior Imperial Officers (it was put down).

After you read this book I think you will have a hard time arguing that Japan's military and especially the Imperial Army wanted to surrender.

[endthewar]

290. Invading Japan would have been an absolute bloodbath

Their military was adopting increasingly bold suicide styles of attacks that might have paled in comparison to just dropping two nuclear bombs.

[Parche]

127. Wrong

Japan had months to surrender, why didnt they surrender in March?
They knew they were surrounded


Operations Coronet, and Olympic were being readied, the complete invasion of Japan


Killed with an invasion of Japan, and or the war lasting 1more years, double this for 2years

20,000 us POW's lost do to disease, malnutrition, retribution 20,000
20,000 Japanese soldiers on several islands die of starvation 20,000
100 US Sailors die every day from kamikaze attacks 100X 356 35,600
100,000 Chinese and Koreans die of retribution 100,000
1000 US Marines and Army killed every day 1500x356 356,000
4000 Japanese army killed every day 4000X356 1,424,000
5000 Japanese civilians killed every day 5000X356 1,780,000


Total 3,735,600

I guess you were right, a million lives were not saved, it was almost 4million lives, and that is just the first year, and is a low estimate

:hi: :patriot:

[NutmegYankee]

169. You know what amazes me?

How some people here think Japan was just ready to surrender after the vicious fighting they had displayed on the islands we took, and after another nation, whose culture does not prefer death to surrender, had just fought to the bitter end with much loss of civilian and military lives. Germany had to be crushed clean to it's capital. And yet these people think the Japanese just wanted to surrender.

Keep up the "Ramage's Rampage":thumbsup:

[nels25]

279. Lynn: Why does the left always insist

on rewriting history??

[nels25]

274. Not True at all

Operations Neptune and Coronet were already in planning.

Operation Coronet was the land invasion of the island Kyushu to be launched on November 1, 1945.

Operation Neptune was to be a follow up invasion on the Honshu plains not all that far from Tokyo in the early winter of 1946 after Kyushu had been taken.

In addition we now know that the Russians were intending to invade Japanese northern islands in some force as early as mid September 1945.

There is overwhelming evidence that land invasions of the home islands of Japan would have taken place and that the Japanese were preparing for them and intended to exact a horrific price in blood and material from the invaders.

I stand by my opinion that as bad as it was the atomic bombings brought the war to a close sooner than it would otherwise and with less loss of life on all sides than any other action would have.

[nels25]

282. Note*** I meant Operations Olympic and Coronet

[defendandprotect]

231. Not true . . . JAPAN HAD BEEN TRYING TO SURRENDER . . .

[Raskolnik]

245. No, JAPAN WASN"T

Some lower-level Japanese officials were sending out feelers for a treaty (which is far different than a surrender) but they lacked the authority to negotiate on behalf of Japan or the power over the armed forced to implement a surrender.

Would you have been willing to let the Japanese government remain in power and Japan to retain the conquered territories it still held in 1945 to bring about an end to the war?

[defendandprotect]

260. As the military make clear . . . Japan was defeated . . . it was Truman

who was delaying with "unconditional" surrender ---

Commanders saw no need to drop the bomb on Japan ---

None of them thought Japan was anything but defeated ---

And -- why drop two bombs even if your argument had any basis?

[Raskolnik]

20. What was the preferable option in 1945?

If using the weapons was "drastically the wrong thing to do," then what was the right thing to do in 1945? What option do you believe would have resulted in less suffering/death/destruction?

(edit spelling)

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. A blockade would have been less horrific

But would have taken longer and would have cost more Japanese lives.

People forget Japan's will to wage war when they critique history.

[Raskolnik]

25. I don't know that starving millions of people to death over the course of several months

is objectively less horrific, but I will concede that we are dealing in territory that is not entirely objective.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. We'd have 60-years-later-quarterbacking either way nt

[closeupready]

42. I think so, too.

n/t

[Oregone]

30. Then by all means, define such "will to wage war"

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Maybe you could read one of the hundreds of books written about the Pacific War

Just on the off chance you think I'm taking a wild guess about Japan's willingness to fight.

Is water wet in your world?

[Oregone]

39. Ive asked for your 'opinion', not book recommendations

Oh, BTW, Ive read some fine literature...Some written by citizens and some by soldiers, in addition to common historical accounts.

Japan was a country--an empire. Japan was inhabited by people (just like you and me). They were starving, eating snails if they could find them in the mud, being robbed by the also-starving military, and sick of the whole fucking thing. They were just people.

There is a marked contrast between countries and the people that live there. Or should I judge you by the actions of George Bush, the crimes he has committed, and his inability to cease and desist from bringing pain upon the world?

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. Their soldiers were just people, too

And their fierceness and sense of duty to country is a matter of longstanding public record. This is a stupid argument - Bush said we'd be greeted in Iraq with roses, and he was wrong. Am I supposed to believe that the Japanese would have thrown roses, too?

[Oregone]

61. Of course they would not have

But even the Japanese soldier was not a mindless drone, you know. I cannot recall the name (something about food and war), but there was a novel I read written by a Japanese general years before the bombings about how fatigued and hungry his men were and how low their moral was (while in China). It was generally viewed as an anti-war novel at the time and not regarded very positively by the government.

I think the people talking about how war crazy these people were is just a step people take to dehumanize them and make themselves feel better for believing in the bomb. Its much the same as people talking about how crazy and insane these Muslim people are that we must go to war with. Its a fine step into anti-intellectualism that allows one to suspend empathy for people, and jump off a great cliff of belief in this "necessary evil" garbage.

I honestly do not pretend to know any answers. I'm just appalled at the number who seem to know all the answer regarding this.

[Dreamer Tatum]

81. The prevailing opinion seems to be that it was a difficult matter

Japan drew first blood, and fought viciously at every turn. To eliminate their threat, something unpleasant had to be done. It would have been awful no matter what, and would have necessarily involved civilians. Not at all good.

[crimsonblue]

85. The available options were these:

1. Complete Blockade of Japan
2. Carpet-bombing of all of Japan
3. Sherman march through all of Japan (much like Iwo Jima and Okinawa).
4. Nuclear bomb

A blockade wouldn't work. We tried that early on with outlying islands, and we were forced to beach and overtake the islands.

Take a look at some photos some time of the carpet-bombing of Tokyo. That city looks just as damaged as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We would have lost thousands of planes during the bombing runs, and we would have turned Japan into one giant brush fire.

A land based approach would have cost us over 1 million casualties at mininum. The Japanese people are extremely proud, and at the time fought til the death, even when they knew it was futile (see- Iwo Jima.. We had vastly more resources, but the Japanese fought there until they literally ran out of bullets).

We warned the Japanese before we nuked them. We warned them to surrender, or else the full mite of the United States would come down hard on them. We targeted cities large enough that the pain would be felt, would be listened to, but we did not choose the largest cities in Japan. After the first bomb, when the Japanese still refused to surrender, we had no choice but to force their hand.

Do I think Truman slept well at night after he made those fateful decisions? No. Nobody wants to indescriminantly kill tens of thousands of civilians, but in the time of War, it is better to kill your enemy than to die yourself. A land based strategy would have been so horrifying bloody, the sheer number of expected deaths on the American side could have critically weakened the US. Don't forget that we were starting to get apprehensive about Stalin and the Soviets...

This was a horrible decision, but given the circumstances, it was the least bad.

[Raskolnik]

48. But the experience of Okinawa demonstrated that Japanese civilians

did not as a rule surrender en masse, even when starving. I don't believe that a full-scale of Japan would have been a mirror image of Okinawa, but *all* prior experience in the pacific indicated that it would produce hundreds of thousands of casualties, if more probably millions.

[Dreamer Tatum]

52. Oh, no...the Japanese citizens were preparing a giant feast for us!

...just like the Iraqis!

:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

146. "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to

end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

-J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

And that is the frustrating part; the majority of experts agree...but too many Americans (and far too many DUers) still believe the myths, lies, and utter bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

232. JAPAN HAD BEEN TRYING TO SURRENDER . . . commanders saw NO need to drop bomb ---

[Raskolnik]

327. "It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed"

Yet you refuse to address what those alternatives were, and whether they would have come at a greater cost than the use of the bombs. That, in my opinion, is either very intellectually lazy or very intellectually dishonest.

[nels25]

26. Don't believe it!

Show or cite your data please.

You can argue all you want about it, but most respected historians agree that a land invasion of Japan's home islands would have led to a slaughter many times worse than the atomic bombings did.

Of course if a large portion of those being killed are US servicemen than that would be allowable would it not??:sarcasm:

It was war and the decision had to be made, and history by and large considers the decision Truman made to be the correct one in the context of the time and circumstances he made it.

[sudopod]

34. Not all questions have a "right" answer.

Some are just less wrong than others. Personally, I don't know what I would have done in Truman's shoes.

[SidneyCarton]

109. A wise answer, and probably the only "right" one in this entire thread.

[devilgrrl]

46. You got that right!

:thumbsup:

[Raskolnik]

49. Really?

What do you think would have been a preferable option in 1945?

[devilgrrl]

54. I wasn't alive in 1945 and the bomb was unnecessary - so suck it up!

Say, if it was so effective why haven't we nuked Iraq yet?

[Raskolnik]

56. I'm sorry, but you must not have read my post.

I asked you what preferable alternative to the use of nuclear weapons was in 1945.

If you agree with the previous poster that the use of the weapons was clearly wrong, it should not be difficult to explain what action should have been taken instead.

[devilgrrl]

59. The war was won already. No use necessary. We just wanted to see what it would do.

Prove me wrong.

:popcorn:

[Raskolnik]

62. The eventual outcome was certainly apparent, but how we reached it was yet to be determined.

There can be no serious argument that we knew we were going to win the war in August of 1945, but the question of how to *end* the war was not fixed. The Japanese were in a hopeless position, but nothing in their conduct leading up to the end of the war indicated a hopeless position was cause for the Japanese to cease fighting. And as a practical matter, if the war was won already, why were the Japanese continuing to fight?

So what should we have done to end the war? I'll give you some options to get the ball rolling (if you can think of any others, I'm certainly interested in hearing them):

We could have blockaded Japan and starved them into surrender. We could have continued conventional strategic bombing. We could have invaded the home islands. We could have declared victory, left the Japanese government in place and let them retain the conquered territory they still held, and sailed home.

So what would you have had the U.S. do in 1945?

(edit clarity)

[devilgrrl]

67. Is that all you're going to do is keep asking that fucking question?

Not much that we can do about it now huh?

In retrospect it was unnecessary.

:hi:

Don't answer me. Just leave me the fuck alone okay.

[Raskolnik]

70. If all you're going to do is post an unsupported fucking statement as fact

when it's pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about, I think it's pretty fair to ask the fucking question I did.

But, if you aren't interested in actually defending or even thinking through your statment, I should probably leave you the fuck alone.

Take care.

(edit typo)

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

79. If you think I've made factual error, please point it out.

Otherwise, I would suggest that you don't make sweeping statements that you have neither the interest nor the ability to support.

[devilgrrl]

83. But what should we have done instead... blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa

:eyes:

[Raskolnik]

87. The fact that you consider that question to be irrelevant speaks volumes

about the thought you've put into this issue.

[devilgrrl]

95. That you defend the use of nuclear weapons speaks volumes about you.

I bet you'd sell your mother.

[Raskolnik]

106. I've made clear in this thread that I believe the use of atomic weapons was a horrible act,

but unfortunately it was the least horrible option available to the U.S. at the time. You have refused to address that point, and instead chosen to stamp your feet and strenuously avoid supporting your position with anything resembling an argument.

[Raskolnik]

108. self-delete / dupe

[Parche]

172. You Never Answer The Question

That means you dont know..............


There had to be an alternative to dropping the bomb, if that was the case, what was the alternative?

[defendandprotect]

233. The Japanese had been trying to surrender . . .

[Parche]

171. He Just Did

:hi:

[Parche]

137. Know Your Facts

The bomb was a necessary evil..........

[defendandprotect]

214. This is certainly a decision which ultimately helped to put the TORTURERS in power . .. .

[LynnTheDem]

229. But torture is a "necessary evil"...

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

234. ....sigh ...

isn't it sad ---

[LynnTheDem]

250. Frightening.

Very sad, and very frightening.

[Raskolnik]

255. Indeed.

[KamaAina]

21. The date over here was actually August 5

thanks to the International Date Line.

Guess whose birthday was August 5?? :hi: :nuke:

[sudopod]

36. Neil Armstrong. :D nt

[KamaAina]

57. Yes, but he's older than Hiroshima

so The Bomb was dropped on his (15th) birthday, rather than him being born on Hiroshima Day. :P

[Raskolnik]

22. A horrible act, but unfortunately the least horrible act available at the time.

Had the war not ended as it did in August, there would have been a continued blockade which would have starved Japan into submission, continued conventional strategic bombing which would have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives at least, an invasion which would have been horrific for the invaders and invaded alike, or most likely a combination of all three.

[TahitiNut]

35. Choosing a single "horrible act" from the totality of horror that IS war ....

... is like swimming in a cesspool and thinking only the deep end is 'bad.' The sophomoric intellectualism that seemingly seeks to make war "better" ('if it were not for') and more acceptable is, imho, fundamentally corrupt.

[Raskolnik]

38. But the fact remains that choices have to be made.

And when none of those choices are anything resembling "good," the lease horrible choice is preferable.

I can't really tell from your post--do you think the decision to use the weapons was correct given the alternatives?

[closeupready]

45. I do. And I am on record here as being anti-nukes - both as missiles and civilian energy source.

I hope they are never ever used again.

[TahitiNut]

58. I'm thankful it wasn't MY decision to make. How does someone make "Sophie's Choice"??

The reason such Monday morning quarterbacking is apparently most popular with folks who've never had to live in a combat zone seems to be almost solely sophomoric self-aggrandizement. I tend to doubt the human mind is capable of really comprehending 'ethical' and 'war' together.

If you were in Viet Nam and saw a laughing child running toward your guard post with a package that had every appearance of being a satchel charge with the potential of blowing you up along with the guys alongside you, could you shoot that child in the head?

Anyone could answer that question with any validity is a smarter person than I, and I did a tour of duty in Nam in the Army in 1969.

One of my uncles was stationed at Hickam Field on December 7, 1941. He came under attack.

My father served in the Pacific as a Navy SeaBee after I was born in 1943.

I was engaged-to-be-engaged with a Japanese woman from Hiroshima, only 2-3 years in the U.S. when I met her, whose family lived there.

How DOES one make the total horror of war less horrible? Why????

[SidneyCarton]

113. Exactly.

War is to be avoided at all costs because once battle is engaged, morality goes out the window fast.

WWII was technically a "good war" and yet...

We slaughetered thousands of German, Italian and Japanese civilians.
We committed atrocities (not to the degree of our enemies, but we still did)
We looted our enemies
And our boys came home haunted and scarred from the horror of war.

If we must fight, we must be willing to be as brutal and decisive as possible (At least that is what Clausewitz thought), but we should avoid it if at all possible, for the cost is far higher than mere dollars and cents, in war we hurl our nation's future at the enemy, a future that always returns diminished.

[TahitiNut]

128. Clausewitz' logic is inescapable, no matter how much the deluded attempt to create a fiction ...

... of "limited war." The very phrase is itself an obscenity, imho.

When we pretend to infiltrate the utter insanity of war with reason and civility what we're REALLY doing is eroding reason and civility itself by accepting insanity. When you peer into the abyss the abyss peers into you. (Nietzsche had it right. Funny how so many can't comprehend that.)

[SidneyCarton]

262. If I could frame those words...

I'd put them on a wall. There is no limited war, only prolonged delusion. One would think that Vietnam would have taught us that, but we remain enticed by this fatal fiction.

[defendandprotect]

235. This was a choice to move toward more violence -- Japan was seeking to surrender ---

[Swamp Rat]

44. k&r

:(

[crimsonblue]

64. As horrible as these weapons were, they were completely necessary...

A land invasion of Japan would have caused over 1 million American deaths, and the Japanese were determined to fight until to the last man standing. We would have had to have a Sherman-esq march throw Japan, and the country would have been decimated even more than it was.

[LynnTheDem]

82. Do you know who made up that "million lives saved" lie?

The lie that far too many Americans still quote.

I tell ya, American myths have the longest lifespan of anything going.

[crimsonblue]

99. Truman was advised that there could be 1 million casualties

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm


but don't let those little things called facts get you down.

[LynnTheDem]

116. No he was not.

As you say, don't let those little things called facts get ya down.

"25,000 casualties" if an invasion was needed.

Yet the Japanese had already been trying to surrender.

"...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."
-Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors

[Raskolnik]

125. What is your source for "25,000" casualties?

Because that is simply a ridiculous number. The Allies suffered roughly 50k casualties taking Okinawa (along with probably more than 200k Japanese dead).

[LynnTheDem]

138. Go to the National Security Archives.

There you can read the secret memos Truman had received of the Japanese attempts to surrender from 1943 onwards; you can read the dissenting opinions -govt officials to top military brass- who opposed nuking Japan. You can read the military estimates of casualties (25,000, with 3-5% deaths) if an invasion was necessary (which Truman was told was not).

Read the report from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, which stated:

"air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

There's so much facts available, yet the myths continue to flourish. The myth of "spitting on Vietnam soldiers" continues to be taken as fact today, too. Anything to keep war looking like a "good" and "necessary" thing.

[crimsonblue]

150. It is a myth that the japanese would have surrendered.

The peace-wing may have wanted it, but the controlling military sector was not going to surrender. In fact, the Military had veto power over any cabinet decision, as Having a Military Representative resign from the Cabinet (without him, the cabinet could not hold).

[LynnTheDem]

157. In fact, the Japanese tried to surrender from 1943 onwards.

70% of Americans believed Iraq did 911.

They were all proved wrong, too. And yet, 35% still refuse to accept it.

[Seeking Serenity]

162. No, they did not try to "surrender." They wanted a peace deal.

The two words are not synonymous.

They wanted a deal whereby the status quo would be preserved, i.e., the emperor remained as he was, the existing government remained in power, their territorial acquisitions would remain intact.

Any other "peace feelers" were made by people who were not in any position of authority.

[crimsonblue]

164. Plus, they wanted to retain their War making powers...

which the Allied Forces deemed unacceptable.

[Parche]

165. 1943?

That was the year that the war was a stalemate

If that was the case, then they had 2years to surrender?

That is ridiculous statement

They did not try to surrender in 1943

[LynnTheDem]

305. Yes, 1943.

For all your "research", it would appear you've not actually bothered to go to the NSA and read any of the recently declassified documents.

[Raskolnik]

326. Lynn, do you understand the difference between the concepts of "surrender" and "armistice"

because I'm not at all convinced by your posts that you do.

Vague references to the NSA archive notwithstanding, there is absolutely NO credible historian that would tell you that Japan was considering a surrender in 1943. NOT ONE.

[Raskolnik]

152. But who estimated 25,000 casualties? Even you have to admit that the number

is absurdly low given the previous experience in the Pacific.

[LynnTheDem]

306. The military brass.

The NSA is your friend. The recently declassified documents are enlightening.

Give it a try, ya know ya wanna.

[Raskolnik]

328. You didn't answer the question. You are the one seeking to portray the 25k number as realistic

but you can't even point to its source. The estimate of 25k is simply absurd. If can't even acknowledge that, you're not living in the real world.

[Parche]

173. More Then A Million

And it is not a myth

it is fact

That is on both sides, and that is a low number

[Raskolnik]

90. I think the 1 million U.S. deaths estimate is probably high, but Japanese deaths would almost

certainly have been in the millions had we chosen to invade.

[LynnTheDem]

93. Just a wee bit high.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/05/opinion/oe-bird5

It was a made-up bullshit number.

[crimsonblue]

102. Hmmm... an opinion piece or an official government transcript....

which to believe.... I think I'll take the official transcript

[LynnTheDem]

112. The govt official who made up the lie, admitt4ed to making up the lie.

But too many Americans still insist on believing the lie.

Amazing.

No wonder America is such a total mess.

[crimsonblue]

132. Nope, you're wrong.

This report was part of a symposium put on in 1998 by the University of Kansas. In fact, the author of this report, D. M. Giangreco, was awarded the Society for Military History's 1998 Moncado Prize for this article.

I'd hardly say that is admittance of a lie. But nice try.

[LynnTheDem]

140. McGeorge Bundy

He made up a bullshit number. After the war crimes.

He admitted to making up the number.

But you go ahead and believe his made-up number, if it makes you feel better.

[Seeking Serenity]

144. All right, let's accept, for the sake of the discussion, that 1 million casualties

is an over-inflated number. Let's also accept that the 25,000 casualty figure is correct.

Do you really think that a Democratic president asking the American people to accept the death or wounding of 25,000 American husbands, sons, fathers, brothers in an invasion so we don't have to use this terrible weapon we've just put together that would cost 100,000 Japanese civilian lives was really a saleable argument?

No, it wouldn't have been.

Monday-morning-quaterbacking, 63 years after the fact, is so easy sitting behind a computer in relative peace and security.

The bombs wer dropped and the war ended with the Japanese militarists done, once and for all.

Accept it.

[crimsonblue]

148. 25000 deaths is laughably ignorant...

Once a full scale invasion started, it would have made D-Day look like the Boston Massacre.

[LynnTheDem]

149. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and

to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
-J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Some day the general American public will catch up to the experts. But damn it's fucking frustrating in the meantime.

[crimsonblue]

151. Well, my history tells otherwise...

and I have fucking researched. I spent a semester in Japan studying abroad, and I researched up on WW2 there. So, I'd say my armchair Qbing is a bit more valid than yours.

[LynnTheDem]

155. Research again; fact is, Japan tried to surrender from 1943. Fact is,

Japan wanted to keep their Emperor; fact is, Truman bombed the fuck out of civilians and then accepted the same Japan surrender. Fact is, Truman was told by the vast majority of US military brass that nuking Japan was not necessary.

Those facts are all readily available.

And they are facts.

It's time to let the lies & myths die.

[crimsonblue]

161. Nope. Nope. and Nope.

Japan wanted to "surrender" but keep their power structure, ability to wage wars, and their sovereignty intact. We could accept nothing short of Complete Unconditional Surrender. And no, we did not accept the same surrender. After the japanese gave an unconditional surrender, US troops moved in. A year after the bombs, there were over 20,000 troops in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't know why you hate the US for winning WW2, but maybe you should go back on your meds or something.

Last of all, most advisers were in favor of the bomb. Ike played historical revisionism with his "I opposed the bomb" bullshit. He never voiced significant opposition directly to the President (if you ain't telling the Prez, then it doesn't fucking matter).

But I agree that it is time to let the myths and lies die, and that is why you should go the fuck away.

[LynnTheDem]

166. "most advisers were in favor of the bomb." Fact: 6 out of 7 5-star generals opposed

nuking Japan.

And they weren't alone in their opposition.

Admiral William Halsey,commander of the US Third Fleet

AF General C. LeMay

Fleet Admiral Leahy

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower

Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations

And the majority of US historians also agree; nuking Japan was totally unnecessary.


And no, dear, I won't "go the fuck away". I was told to "go the fuck away" when I said Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. When 70% of America thought -wrongly- otherwise. And I didn't "go the fuck away" then.

I won't "go the fuck away" now, either.

Have a nice day! :)

[Raskolnik]

174. Lynn, you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

When you talk about various people that opposed the use of the bombs, you cannot divorce that sentiment from the fact that they opposed the use of those bombs because they thought that the war should be brought to an end in some other way.

Unless and until you address whether those alternatives were preferable to the use of the bombs, your factoids are devoid of any context and worse than useless for this discussion.

[Thothmes]

186. Which of these officers

Briefed Truman before the dropping of those weapons on Japan. Almost all of those sources statements on the subject are ex post facto.

[nels25]

304. Total Crap!!!

First the naval commanders (especially Halsey) believed they alone could win the war with a combination of blockade, submarine warfare and carrier bombing.

Lemay carried out the A-bombing but he also believed air power alone might bring Japan to it's knees.

Your grasp of history is showing how dismal it is.

MacArthur was shown evidence that Japanese forces in his landing area to be conducted on November 1, 1945 were much larger than he had expected and he still forcefully argued for a land invasion of Japan. The A-bombing took away some of his bid for glory.

Eisenhower was in no position at the time to render a decision he was wrapping up the aftermath in Germany.

The only historians who argue that the bomb was not needed are biased left wing historians who have a track record of regarding any and all actions taken by the US for the last 50 or more years are questionable.

I will take John Toland's or Gordon Pranges exhaustively researched histories on Japan and WW2 over a left wing hack any day of the week.

You can also have a nice day.

Lefties of a certain stripe should stop trying to rewrite history.

[MullenBank]

345. Enemy

My dad was in Australia, awaiting invasion orders. He came home alive; he got to get married and breed. But the war never left him; he'd slaughtered Nipponese in droves in the Pacific and I think it made him, ultimately, the kind of guy who is always a little sad and happy simultaneously. He never, ever spoke of the Pacific campaign-- I learned about his war experience from service records and his brother at my Dad's funeral.

This country is not evil. And it was not an evil act to kill your enemy and spare your own troops. They should've surrendered totally. No terms. Just give up.

[Parche]

167. You Are One Of The Most Uninformed DU'rs

Either that or you make up your own so called facts....

Sometimes civlians die in war, that is never a good thing, but it does happen.


They NEVER tried to surrender in 1943.........where do you get your information from
Hiroshima FOX news?

lies and myths? these that you tried to spread today are incredible.....

[Seeking Serenity]

159. The scholars are hardly of one mind on this issue.

http://hnn.us/articles/52502.html

McGeorge Bundy may have claimed he pulled the "million lives saved" by Japan's early surrender estimate out of the air, but Bundy was not the source of at least five similar estimates.

http://hnn.us/articles/13989.html

[crimsonblue]

147. Considering that Bundy defended his 1946 position paper

with a 1988 essay, to say he admitted to making it up is a boldfaced lie.

[SidneyCarton]

117. Sure, they would have met us with candies and flowers on the beach,

Much like they had at:

Guadalcanal,
Tarawa,
Peleiu,
Iwo Jima,
Okinawa,

etc... etc...

They would have fought to the last. It would have cost us dear, and cost them worse. But live in your fantasies, they must be comforting, if somewhat disjointed from reality.

[Parche]

176. Too Low Of A Number

You know how large Japan is

How many Tarawa's, Iwo Jima's, Peleliu's, and Okinawas are enough to fill the entire Country of Japan


It would have been 3million at least, with all of the Japanese civilians that were being trained to fight.......

[defendandprotect]

236. No -- Japan had been trying to surrender -- commander saw NO need for the bomb -- !!

[Parche]

84. It Never Ceases To Amaze Me

Yes, atomic weapons should never be used, and yes it was a necessary evil
But dont realize we were at war with Japan
They were not going to surrender
They had months to surrender but never did
Our people and POW's were dying every day
Japan was surrounded, and being bombed with conventional bombs and rockets (3rd fleet)
How long did they want this war to last? another 2 years? 3?
how many more lives on both sides would have been lost, not only with an invasion of Japan proper, but kamikaze attacks, malnutrition and disease with our POW's, our ships being sunk by crashing
Japanese planes?

[crimsonblue]

110. Don't forget a typhoon that was stirring up

that would have delayed any ground invasion until December, in addition to destroying most planes on Okinawa.

[Radical Activist]

111. Japan was ready to surrender.

But just not under the conditions we wanted.
These are the lies Americans tell ourselves so we can still believe we're a good nation.

[Raskolnik]

118. Would you have let Japan keep its leadership intact

and keep the conquered territory it still held?

Japan was not "ready to surrender" under anything resembling acceptable terms.

[crimsonblue]

136. I'll addd that the Japanese fortified southern Japan with

over 200,000 troops. this warning was relayed to McArtur's command headquarters and DC on July 29, 1945.

[SidneyCarton]

119. Good nation? no.

But all nations have sins. This is far from our worst.

[crimsonblue]

156. Exactly, bombing a hostile enemy is nothing compared to

the systematic slaughtering of millions of Native Americans that the US did in the 1800s.

[SidneyCarton]

263. Precisely.

We have a multitude of skeletons in our closet. Throwing us into a paroxysm of grief over Hiroshima does nothing to exorcise the true demons that haunt our national soul.

[Parche]

129. I Laugh

Unconditional surrender means just that, they were beaten, they HAD to surrender to our terms
or risk being bombed into oblivion......

:hi: :patriot:

[LynnTheDem]

124. No, it was not a "necessary eviul"; Yes they had in fact tried to surrender

seveal times, and Truman well knew it; Yes they did try to surrender; in fact, our war crime nuking of Japan killed many of our own POWs...

Please God some day wake Americans up to the real facts!

[Parche]

133. POWs

I dont know a single POW that was killed by the A-bombs,
They were being held at Ofune, and other places not hit by the A-bomb

Truman warned them, and they did NOT surrender

Why did they not surrender early 1945?

They were NOT going to surrender, they had to be 'woken' up

These are the real facts

[LynnTheDem]

257. "I dont know a single POW that was killed by the A-bombs,"

Well, gee. Guess you're just "uninformed" then.

Coz guess what?

At least 11 American POWs were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima.

[crimsonblue]

134. The Japanese would have continued the War even after "surrender"

if the Kokutai was dissolved. The Japanese were demanding 3 other additional conditions for surrender prior to the bombings: leave disarmament and demobilization to Imperial General Headquarters, no occupation and delegation to Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals.

[LynnTheDem]

141. WOW!!! You're one of those mind-reader types that can predict the future, even when

men such as MacArthur, Eisenhower, Carter, etc said the exact opposite!

[crimsonblue]

143. No, I just relied on statements the Emperor made to Koichu Kido...

Damn, you're wrong again.. That must be frustrating.

[nels25]

316. Carter??????

If he had graduated from Annapolis (which I believe he had not when the war ended) he never saw any action and he sure as hell would not have been asked to render an opinion to Truman (new ensigns are generally not granted access to or searched out to give advice to the CIC).

Also did you know that Carter worked for Rickover in developing nuke power for Submarine use??

If nothing else in your posts convince me that you have either a light grasp or a biased grasp of history this one sure does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

309. "They were not going to surrender"

I think if you really believed that you would have had the knee jerk post about Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, and Guam. It's about revenge to you.

You do a disservice to the troops.

[virginia mountainman]

103. Would you be happier knowing...

That millions of Allied troops where killed, while effecting the near eradication the Japanese people?

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese are a Martial race, they DON'T surrender, they where even arming their housewives and children with pikes, and spears...to meet the invaders... Would you rather see a nation's population, machine gunned, as they charge Allied troops with wooden weapons?

Because that is what would have happened....The Japanese where not about to give up, and they, are, IMHO, and in the opinion of most military men, where, the most tenacious defenders the world has ever seen.

The war in the Pacific was a war without quarter. Much different than the war in Europe

It was a war to the death of the nations involved, the Atomic Bombings changed that, and its use hasallowed the Japanese to exist today.

And I am glad for it, it allowed my grandfather, who was in the South Pacific, during the war, to come home, in one piece.

The day, a single aircraft, flew unopposed, and dropped a single bomb...that killed THOUSANDS of people...Finaly made them realize, that the war, was no longer a war, but the beginning of an extermanation...like you would a rats nest,

They decided that the whole island committing Bushido, was not the best option.

[SidneyCarton]

122. Seppuku, not Bushido.

But you are absolutely correct. This is what we still fail to understand after all these years. The bomb was awful, the alternatives were worse.

[LynnTheDem]

145. "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and ...

...to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

- J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[crimsonblue]

153. Considering that the military itself hasn't even decided yet,

I'd say that there is no fucking consensus. There is still very much conjecture about this.

[defendandprotect]

237. Japan was trying to surrender - commanders saw NO need for dropping bomb --!!

[Raskolnik]

154. You have yet to address the costs of those alternatives.

I agree that the bombs weren't "necessary," in that we could have blockaded the islands and continued conventional strategic bombing until Japan surrendered. Do you think that was preferable?

That's the problem with just relying on cut&paste to make your arguments for you, Lynn. You remove things from their context, you ignore the implications of the statements, and you treat a Google search like a substitute for an actual analysis of the facts.

[crimsonblue]

158. The alternative was invasion

Look up Operation Olympic. We were poised to beach in December 1945. The Japanese fortified Kyushu with over 200,000 troops, all of whom were ordered to fight to the death. Look at Iwa Jima. We had to fight them until they literally ran out of bullets. Even after the first bomb, there was considerable pressure to continue fighting. It was in the span of the three days between bombs that the Russians launched major offensives. The Japanese thought that the first bomb may be it, and it took the second bomb to reinforce that we had more and were prepared to use them if necessary.

[Parche]

170. What Alternatives?

war for another 1-2years, at a cost of over 1-3million lives?

[brentspeak]

160. One thing is for sure: there was absolutely no justification for the bombing of Nagasaki

Following Hiroshima, the Japanese were trying to communicate to the allies their wish to surrender. The allies didn't bother to make a real effort to talk to Japan.

[crimsonblue]

163. There was valid reasons to bomb Nagasaki.

1. The Hiroshima bomb was Uranium, and it was believed by US authorities that the Japanese would think it would take over 6 years to make another one (since it used up all the Uranium we had and it took us 6 years to make that bomb).

2. We had to show that we had the might to dictate an unconditional surrender, which was the only acceptable outcome.

3. The Japanese tried from the next day to downplay the bombing of Hiroshima by attributing it to a massive bombing campaign or natural catastrophe. (much like the downplaying by the Iraqi Foreign Minister)

4. The military sector did NOT want to surrender.

5. The Emperor told Koichu Kido to prepare the army to defend the Imperial Regalia "at all costs."

6. The Japanese refused to surrender if the kokatui (sp?) were dissolved, and in fact the Emperor told the Army that the War would continue in that instance.

To say that there was consensus wishes of surrender following Hiroshima is nothing other than historical revisionism.

[brentspeak]

177. Did I say that there was a Japanese "concensus" to surrender following Hiroshima?

No, I didn't. That's just a made-up point to argue on your part.

Here's what contemporary members of the U.S. military had to say on the subject. I would be interested if you would accuse them of "historical revisionism":

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of (the atomic bombs) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

(both quotes from sourced from http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm)

[crimsonblue]

179. ok, you didn't use "consensus"

but you used everything but that word.

[brentspeak]

182. What about Admirals Nimitz and Leahy?

Did they use everything but the word "consensus"?

[Seeking Serenity]

181. From a military logic standpoint, they were defeated.

Heck, from a military logic standpoint, they were defeated after we took the Marianas.

That doesn't mean that they were willing to surrender unconditionally.

The two things are not synonymous.

[Thothmes]

187. What are the dates of these sage pronouncements.

[defendandprotect]

239. IKE was against it --- saw no need --- "and hated to see America do it" --- !!!

[Thothmes]

271. Again the question is when did Ike make these statements

[orleans]

168. it is so sad. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. Ironically, we justify such horrors and consider ourselves civilized.

Not to mention that we also consider ourselves, laughably, the epitome of evolution.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Raskolnik]

180. What do you think the U.S. should have done?

If you do not think the bombs were justified, what action should the U.S. have taken?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

183. The war was over. They dropped the bombs to frighten the USSR.

They served no military purpose. All that needed to be done was to stand off and let the military government destroy itself.

Japan was broke, defenseless, without access to raw materials and facing possible revolution.

The bombs were a political not military act.

[Raskolnik]

188. By "stand off" I assume you mean blockade the islands and wait for surrender

If that's the case, I believe you have to acknowledge that several hundred thousand (if not millions) of civilians would almost certainly starve to death over the course of several months (at a minimum) before surrender would be likely at all.

I'm not sure upon what you base your statement that Japan was facing possible revolution. There was *no* popular anti-war movement to speak of in Japan, and, if anything, I believe had the Emperor attempted to surrender in early '45, there would likely have been a military coup to prolong the war. There was an attempted coup after Nagasaki because a significant faction within the military leadership didn't want to surrender, for jeebus sake!

[IndianaJones]

189. hey, don't bring no history to this party. nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

192. No. I don't "know" that millions would have starved.

Neither do you. The fact was, that part of the militarist's justification for not surrendering was that they feared a communist revolution.

The coup attempt was fomented and led by a small group of junior officers and rather quickly crushed by the military.

And, even had they somehow succeeded in overthrowing what amounted to an already existent military government, what then? They would have still been in the same boat of being unable to carry on the war or governing.

[IndianaJones]

193. the bombing was the best course of the available options. nt.

[Raskolnik]

196. I've seen a lot of well-researched estimates about the probable rates of starvation

and they all range in the hundreds of thousands in the low end and into the millions on the high end, depending on how long the blockade was maintained. Of course we don't know with certainty the exact number that would have been starved to death if we had our military stand off and wait for surrender, but we can apply reasonable analysis to Japan's food stocks available in August '45 and calculate the probable disease and starvation rate.

You misunderstand my point re: the post-Nagasaki coup attempt. You stated that the Japanese government was facing the possibility of revolution if they continued the war. I pointed out that there was no anti-war movement, popular or military, to speak of. The only factions that did exist that was in any position to take power were actually the hard-liners that did not wish to surrender at any cost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

204. The hardliners were already in power and they saw the futility of further war.

There was no need for "unconditional surrender". MacArthur (and Truman) didn't even get what they had previously demanded which was the overthrow of the emperor, who didn't stand trial for engineering the very war that cost so many lives.

The small faction of "hardliners" were in no position to take "power" because there was no power to take. It would be akin to seizing a gun with no ammunition.

The war was over and the surrender was a formality handing over the running of a devastated country to the Americans.

The dropping of the bombs on civilians was a war crime with no purpose other than to scare the Russians (who didn't fall for it) and satisfy a bloodthirsty American population who demanded an "end" to a war that had already ended.

[Raskolnik]

216. How long do think it would have taken for Japan to surrender?

This isn't a question of whether or not Japan was going to be defeated eventually--they had been effectively defeated in every strategic sense for months, but they continued to fight at horrendous cost. If the U.S. had pursued your strategy of standing off and blockading the home islands until Japan surrendered, how long do you think it would have taken? How many lives do you think that would have claimed?

[Seeking Serenity]

221. Raskolnik, I'd hang this up, as I am going to do.

This has just turned into a "America is to blame no matter what it did" session.

If we dropped the bombs, America is bad.

If we blockaded, leading to mass starvation, America is wrong.

If we invaded the home islands, leading to thousands of American and Japanese dead, America is wrong.

If we had done nothing, America is wrong (for turning its backs on the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, American POWs, etc.)

You can see where this is going.

(edited to fix typo)

[Dreamer Tatum]

266. It's like the dunking booth at a church carnival

Every year it gets hauled out at the same time, the same people congregate around it, the same things happen, and then it gets put away until next year.

Still...imagine what we Americans must have done to provoke those people, who NEVER hassled ANYONE, EVER, and had NO history of ANY SORT of aggression, to sail across the Pacific and attack Pearl Harbor. God, what terrible people we were, and are. :eyes:

[Seeking Serenity]

275. I know, those poor Japanese militarists.

All they wanted to do was live in peace and harmony and brotherhood with all humankind, but we used our vast and incalculable evil powers to force them against their will to invade China, annex Manchuria, invade Korea, the Phillipines, etc. They didn't want to subject those people to horrible atrocities, but they were clearly being led by forces they couldn't control.

And then somehow, with our evil powers, we made their naval forces sail across the Pacific and attack Pearl Harbor. They didn't want to do that, but they couldn't stop themselves. America the Evil had taken over their bodies and they were powerless to stop it.

And, of course, America used its evil powers to put it into the mind of the Japanese soldiers to fight to the last man at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They didn't want to do that; they just wanted to go home and meditate on peaceful things. Our evil powers forced them to keep fighting even though they were thoroughly defeated.

We must be the most evil and wicked people to have ever lived in the history of the Earth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

223. They were already prepared to surrender.

They had sent out peace feelers before the bomb was dropped. All they really wanted was a stable government with the emperor still on the throne. Which is exactly what happened after the surrender.

They could no longer fight. They had nothing left to fight with. The people, already in power, who were calling for the civilian population to fight with bamboo spears etc, were pissing in the wind and blustering to hold out for what they got any way.

They couldn't govern because they had nothing to govern with. They could have marched the remnants of the army around Japan for awhile until it dropped but that's hardly governing. And, they knew it. That's why they surrendered.

You say that they were willing to let millions of civilians die of starvation, but were unwilling to let them die of nuclear bombs. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

[Raskolnik]

243. No, they weren't.

They had sent out peace feelers before the bomb was dropped.

The officials that sent out peace feelers did not have the authority to negotiate a surrender, nor the authority over the armed forces to implement a surrender. We didn't entertain negotiations for a peace treaty (which is what they were looking for, by the way, and is much different than a surrender) with low-level Japanese officials for many of the same reasons the Allies didn't entertain negotiations with lower-level Nazis in Europe.

They could no longer fight.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers that died fighting after Japanese defeat was certain.

You say that they were willing to let millions of civilians die of starvation, but were unwilling to let them die of nuclear bombs. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

If you are trying to apply 21st century logic to Imperial Japanese thinking at the end of the war, you are not going to get very far. I agree that is didn't make any sense. Just as it didn't make any sense whatsoever for the Japanese to continue fighting into 1945, it didn't make sense for the Japanese to fight like they did on Iwo Jima or Okinawa, and just like it didn't make sense for Japan to do a lot of shit it did during the war. But there it is.

[nels25]

311. You are in fact correct

I believe had the Emperor attempted to surrender in early '45, there would likely have been a military coup to prolong the war.

After the emperor had gotten an agreement for Japan to surrender he made a recording to be played to the public at noon (August 15 I believe) announcing this to his nation and to ask them to accept the unacceptable.

A number of junior Imperial Army officers tried to stage a coup in the early morning hours of that day, they moved on the Imperial Palace and on a radio station (I believe) they searched for but could not find the emperors recording.

Senior Imperial Army officers put down the attempted coup but their is significant evidence that quite a few had sympathy for the younger officers, but since it was the emperors wish to end the war they served the Emperor rather than support a coup.

[defendandprotect]

240. Right . . . it was a power play -- advertising our new SUPERPOWER status . . .

Also created the Cold War --- and nuke arms races --- flaming Pentagon budgets ---

and MIC ----

[Raskolnik]

248. To some extent, it did serve that purpose.

But if you think it "created the Cold War" you just don't know what you're talking about.

[defendandprotect]

261. Russia was our ally up until that moment . . .

[Raskolnik]

298. You can't seriously be arguing that our use of atomic weapons against Japan caused the Cold War

I do not believe you are that ignorant of history.

[defendandprotect]

330. Did you think it helped our relations with Russia --- ???

Of course, this was a power play --- on our way to SUPERPOWERDOM . ..

For one thing, it helped bring on the MIC which we supposedly desperately needed

to keep the economy going ---

Could we have done that without an arms race --- ???

Without an enemy ---

Think about it . . .

America was not going to be that crazy about an overarmed standing army ---

there had to be an ENEMY ---

[Seeking Serenity]

299. If you think that Stalin was going to continue to be our ally but for our using the bombs,

then that is the most delusional thing I've heard today.

[IndianaJones]

184. a necessary act and I'm thankful our leaders made the decision. nt.

[LynnTheDem]

202. I'll be thankful when the vast majority of Americans realize it never was

"a necessary act".

General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War II:

“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, attempting to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. . . .”

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


Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy:

“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."

General Henry “Hap” Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces during World War II:

“It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”

Truman's "saving lives" is rather like bush's ever-changing "rationales" for invading Iraq;

August 9, 1945: "this new weapon will result in saving thousands of American lives."

December 15, 1945: "It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities . . ."

Late 1946: "A year less of war will mean life for three hundred thousand - maybe half a million - of America's finest youth."

October 1948: "In the long run we could save a quarter of a million young Americans from being killed, and would save an equal number of Japanese young men from being killed."

April 6, 1949: "I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved."

November 1949: estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan to be "half a million casualties."

January 12, 1953: Truman raises the estimate to "a minimum one quarter of a million" and maybe "as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy."

Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: "the dropping of the bombs . . . saved millions of lives."

But of course the president knows better than the US military, the JCS, the experts. Just like George W. bUsh knows best. THANK GAWD!!1!

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Ralph A. Bard,Undersecretary of the Navy, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet all opposed the war crime of atom-bombing Japan.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

I agree with them.


So do most US historians, now.

[Seeking Serenity]

206. And what makes them right, and the Truman Administration wrong?

And please think in August 1945 terms, not today's.

[defendandprotect]

241. Well, for one McCloy . . . wasn't that his name . . . a "neo con" with

connections who had Truman's ear --- and LeMay?

Do you think that Le May was sane?

Truman's nature to act tough ---

[Raskolnik]

247. Ah yes, there was a lot of "neo con" influence on Truman

You've been studying your history, obviously.

[defendandprotect]

256. Did you think that I mean he was a PNAC "neo-con" . . . ??

McCloy obviously was against dropping the bomb on Japan . . .

if that's what you meant ---

However, he may have been discouraged by this early reaction ---

Then McCloy dropped an even bigger bombshell:


"I had raised the question whether we oughtn't to tell them that we had the bomb and that we would drop the bomb. Well, as soon as I mentioned the word 'bomb' -- the atomic bomb -- even in that select circle... it was sort of a shock. You didn't mention the bomb out loud... Well, there was a sort of a back at that." (Herbert Feis Papers, container 79, Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed interviews, Library of Congress).

but, basically, my understanding of McCloy was that he was a right-winger and a racist ---

Supported Japanese internment ---

In December, 1941, Stimson put McCloy in charge of dealing with what he called the "West Coast security problem". This had been brought to Stimson's attention by Congressman Leland M. Ford of Los Angeles who had called for "all Japanese, whether citizens or not, be placed in inland concentration camps". McCloy held a meeting with J. Edgar Hoover and Attorney General Francis Biddle on 1st February, 1942 about this issue. Biddle argued that the Justice Department would have nothing to do with any interference with citizens, "whether they are Japanese or not". McCloy replied, "the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me."

McCloy also got support from Earl Warren, the Attorney General of the State of California. He argued that all Japanese-Americans should be interned. However, Henry L. Stimson, like Francis Biddle, had his doubts about the wisdom of taking this action. However, on 19th February, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the construction of relocation camps for Japanese Americans being moved from their homes.


and most of the known history if anyone wants to read on . . .



McCloy was notably supportive of the Third Reich at least until 1939 and was photographed sitting with Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Long history of involvement . . .

Appoints Gehlen --
Freed many Nazis ---
McCloy became embroiled in the infamous case of Klaus Barbie, the man who had been Gestapo chief in Lyon during the war.


In March 1950, McCloy was given the task of appointing a new head of the West German Secret Service. After discussing the matter with Frank Wisner of the CIA, McCloy decided on Reinhard Gehlen, the Nazi war criminal. This resulted in protests from the Soviet Union government who wanted to try Gehlen for war crimes.

During the Second World War Gehlen served Adolf Hitler as head of military intelligence for the Eastern Front. It was in this post he had created a right-wing group made up of anti-Soviet Ukrainians and other Slavic nationalists into small armies and guerrilla units to fight the Soviets. The group carried out some of the most extreme atrocities that took place during the war. Gehlen was also responsible for a brutal interrogation program of Soviet prisoners of war.

On May 22, 1945, Major General Gehlen surrendered to the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) in Bavaria. In August he was interrogated by Office of Strategic Services (OSS) officers headed by Frank Wisner. According to one source, Gehlen was able to identify several OSS officers who were secret members of the American Communist Party.

It was decided to use Gehlen to collect intelligence on the Soviet Union from a network of anti-communist informants in Eastern Europe. This group became known as the Gehlen Organization. In 1949 Gehlen signed a contract with the CIA, reportedly for a sum of $5 million a year, which allowed him to expand his activities into political, economic, and technological espionage.

Gehlen recruited large numbers of former members of the SS and the Gestapo. This included Franz Six, who had led Einsatzguppen mobile killing squads on the Eastern Front. The Gehlen Organization was also used to help Nazi war criminals escape to South America. This included Klaus Barbie who was smuggled out of Germany in March, 1951 and given a new life in Bolivia. It has been alleged that in some cases the CIA helped Gehlen to get these men to safety.


Others that McCloy decided to free included Friedrich Flick, one of the main financial supporters of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). During the Second World War Flick became extremely wealthy by using 48,000 slave labourers from SS concentration camps in his various industrial enterprises. It is estimated that 80 per cent of these workers died as a result of the way they were treated during the war. His property was restored to him and like Krupp became one of the richest men in Germany.

McCloy's decision was very controversial. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote to McCloy to ask: "Why are we freeing so many Nazis? The Washington Post published a Herb Block cartoon depicting a smiling McCloy opening Krupp's cell door, while in the background Joseph Stalin is shown taking a photograph of the event. Telford Taylor, who took part in the prosecution of the Nazi war criminals wrote: "Wittingly or not, Mr. McCloy has dealt a blow to the principles of international law and concepts of humanity for which we fought the war."


And, here the involvement with oil industry/Murchison which would move into oil/Mafia connections --
and basically the people who moved the coup on JFK/US government ---


It was Eisenhower who first introduced McCloy to Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison. Soon afterwards, Chase Manhattan Bank began providing the men with low-interest loans. In 1954 McCloy worked with Richardson, Murchison and Robert R. Young in order to take control of the New York Central Railroad Company. The activities of these men caused a great deal of concern and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) eventually held hearings about what was described as "highly improper" behaviour. The takeover was a disaster and Young committed suicide and New York Central eventually went bankrupt.

In 1950 Dwight D. Eisenhower had purchased a small farm for $24,000. According to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson (The Case Against Congress), several oil millionaires, including W. Alton Jones, B. B. Byers and George E. Allen, began acquiring neighbouring land for Eisenhower. Jonathan Kwitny (Endless Enemies) has argued that over the next few years Eisenhower's land became worth over $1 million: "Most of the difference represented the gifts of Texas oil executives connected to Rockefeller oil interests. The oilmen acquired surrounding land for Eisenhower under dummy names, filled it with livestock and big, modern barns, paid for extensive renovations to the Eisenhower house, and even wrote out checks to pay the hired help."

And -- just as an aside -- while we have IKE informing us to beware -- there was great deal he
didn't tell us --- like the many betrayals of his instructions by the intelligence/Pentagon
community --- and, unfortunately, IKE seems to have compromised his own ability to deal with
all of this.

Warren Commission . .
McCloy also told his wife he was having difficulty with the lone-gunman theory. He also informed her that he thought Oswald was having a relationship with the intelligence services before the assassination. McCloy commented that he thought it was “pretty suspicious” that Oswald had found it so easy to obtain an exit visa from the Soviet Union for his Russian wife, Marina Oswald. McCloy told his wife that he had heard “a very realistic rumor” that Oswald was not a genuine defector and that he was sent to the Soviet Union by the CIA.

At a meeting with J. Lee Rankin on 22nd January, 1964, McCloy was told that according to the Texas attorney general, Oswald had been an undercover agent of the FBI since September 1962. According to Rankin, his agent number was 179 and was being paid $200 a month.

McCloy initially dismissed the idea of the magic bullet but he was persuaded to change his mind. So much so, when Richard Russell, Thomas Hale Boggs and John Sherman Cooper said that they had “strong doubts” about the lone gunman theory, McCloy took the side of Gerald R. Ford and Allen Dulles. In fact, McCloy played the main role in persuading the three men to sign the Warren Commission report that they did not believe in.

While he doesn't have all the information, he has enough to understand the lies of all of this
and that we have a coup on the government --- I am aware that others did try to get information
out; I am not aware that he tried.



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

Further, McCloy also alleged to Morgenthau that Roosevelt refused to approve the Auschwitz rail bombing because he would then be accused of also killing Auschwitz prisoners. As they were about to be gassed en masse anyway, this allegation by McCloy is highly suspect and self-serving. In the early 1970s, McCloy claimed that he himself "could no more order a bombing attack on Auschwitz than order a raid on Berlin." <4>However, while in the field with General Jacob L. Devers, advancing eastward through Germany in early 1945, a "suggestion" from McCloy resulted in Devers' Army bypassing and sparing the historic Romantic Road town of Rothenberg o.d. Tauber. For his action, McCloy was later made an honorary citizen of the town.<5> These and other pro-German actions by McCloy resulted in significant protests much later, when McCloy was announcing the Volkswagen Scholarship at Harvard University in 1983.

his refusal as Assistant Secretary of War to endorse USAAF bombing raids on the rail approaches to Auschwitz concentration camp that would have saved countless Nazi Holocaust victims.


He was a legal counselor to the major German chemical combine I. G. Farben, and was the Assistant Secretary of War from 1941 to 1945, during which he was noted for opposing the nuclear bombing of Japan. <2> McCloy was notably supportive of the Third Reich at least until 1939 and was photographed sitting with Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.


Bombing death camps --

McCoy received several requests to take military action against the death camps. He always sent the following letter: "The War Department is of the opinion that the suggested air operation is impracticable. It could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations and would in any case be of such very doubtful efficacy that it would not amount to a practical project."

This was untrue. Long-range American bombers stationed in Italy had been flying over Auschwitz and the neighbouring I. G. Farben petrochemical plant since April, 1944. The American Air Force were also bombing Germany's synthetic-fuels plants to regions very close to the death camps. In fact, in August 1944, the Monowitz camp, part of the Auschwitz complex, was bombed by accident.

Benjamin Akzin, one of McCloy's aides, disagreed with McCloy's decision. He pointed out that if the transport links and the death camps were bombed, it would force the Germans to spend considerable time and resources to reconstruct the gas chambers. Akzin added that it was not only an important military target but a "matter of principle".


In 1947 McCloy was appointed president of the World Bank. However, in 1949 he replaced Lucius Clay, as High Commissioner for Germany. Soon after taking office McCloy became embroiled in the infamous case of Klaus Barbie, the man who had been Gestapo chief in Lyon during the war.

On 7th June 1943, Barbie had captured René Hardy, a member of the French Resistance who had successfully carried out several acts of sabotage against the Germans. Barbie eventually obtained enough information to arrest three of the most important leaders of the French Resistance, Jean Moulin, Pierre Brossolette and Charles Delestraint. Moulin and Brossolette both died while being tortured and Delestraint was sent to Dachau where he was killed near the end of the war.

As Allied troops approached Lyons in September 1944, Barbie destroyed Gestapo records and killed hundreds of Frenchmen who had first-hand knowledge of his brutal interrogation methods. This included twenty double-agents who had been supplying his with information about the French Resistance.

Barbie fled back to Nazi Germany where he had been recruited by the US Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC). Barbie impressed his American handlers by infiltrating the Bavarian branch of the Communist Party. According to the CIC Barbie's "value as an informant infinitely outweighs any use he may have in prison."

René Hardy was tried for treason in 1950. Both the prosecution and the defence teams wanted Barbie to testify. At this time McCloy was concerned about the growth of communism in Bavaria and valued the role played by Barbie in this struggle. Therefore he decided to reject the requests being made by the French authorities to hand over Barbie. During the trial, Hardy's defence lawyer exposed what was happening by announcing in court that it was "scandalous that the U.S. military authorities in Germany were protecting Barbie from extradition for security reasons."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccloyJ.htm

[nels25]

321. Leftist Historians you mean

[defendandprotect]

331. Yeah . . . amazing how those lefties keep wanting to tell the truth . ..

and, of course, it would be almost impossible to recognize the propaganda of white male

history!!!

[flvegan]

190. Ahh, the August 6 flamewar.

Pretty good this year. Thanks, all!

[bicentennial_baby]

194. Right? It's like Christmas!!

Tradition....ahhhh.

:hi:

[flvegan]

225. You know, DU 3.0 should have a flamewar scheduling addition.

Skinner puts a sticky at the top of each potential forum stating which day is the monthly gay rights/abortion/pit bull/overweight people/Cindy Sheehan etc flamewar. Organized chaos.

[MicaelS]

224. My opinion has always been

That if the bomb had been available 6 months sooner, or the war had gone on 6 months longer then Berlin and another German city would have been the first cities targeted. All the guilt-ridden hand wringing and second guessing simply would have never happened because the attitude would have been that the dirty fascists got what they deserved.

Furthermore, all those Jewish scientists who worked on Manhattan only developed their scruples when it became apparent that Germany was no longer the target. So I hold little sympathy for them, or their attitudes for any guilt they feel or express about the use of the bombs on Japan.

[defendandprotect]

242. I think you're missing some of the RACIST aspects of this attack ---

Asians had been demonized ---

European whites would not have been used in this way ---

Re the scientists . . . I think they were all idiots --

but Einstein wanted it stopped when he realized Germany didn't have the bomb ---

and others never joined -- evidently having more innate human wisdom ---

some only regretted it as they saw what they had unleasched --


Brings to mind the old saying . . .

When you educate a fool all you get is an educated fool ---

[Raskolnik]

246. That is absolute hogwash. Look at what we did to Dresden and Hamburg

and then tell me we treated "European whites" with kid gloves compared to the Japanese during the war. Had the bomb been ready before Germany's surrender, there was every intention of using it against them.

[defendandprotect]

251. Did we drop a nuclear bomb on them . . . ????

[Raskolnik]

253. Germany surrendered unconditionally in May 1945. The atomic bombs were tested in July 1945.

It probably would have been bad form to drop it on Berlin in August, don't you think?

[IndianaJones]

254. ssshhhh...history. nt.

[defendandprotect]

258. As I was pointing out a fire storm is still not an atomic bomb . . .

you seem to have missed that point ---

and I am well aware when the bomb was invented and dropped ---

while you seem to have a need to ignore the difference between the effects of

a fire bombing and an atomic weapon ---

[krispos42]

270. The differences in effects were not that much

I'll give you that the atomic bombs had more lingering effects than the conventional ones, though.

[defendandprotect]

332. You couldn't even argue that NAPALM wasn't more damaging than ...

these fires -- in the sense of generational destruction ---

and that was also true of the atomic bomb --

It's also true of Depleted Uranium ---

We are the destroyers ---


We were also given nuclear power plants in a pretense that atomic power isn't that

dangerous ---

[roamer65]

244. Hopefully the world never sees the dropping of the third bomb.

While we cannot change history on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have the power to stop the dropping of the third bomb. We need complete, worldwide nuclear disarmament now!

[defendandprotect]

252. Unfortunately, patriarchy has a huge need to dominate . . . and the bomb is power . . .

You can see the neo-con chestbeating over our being a 'SUPERPOWER' . . . !!!

And they're after the highest hill -- militarizing the skies --- !!!

I don't see that we have any power to stop anything at the moment ---

We're being totally ignored ---

[ET Awful]

272. As I suspected, the same carnage lovers post the same responses to this subject in support of

murdering thousands and thousands of people in some false "it saved" lives argument when the military leaders at the time such as Eisenhower advised against it believing that Japan was already defeated.

They ignore the historical fact that the only thing preventing Japan from surrendering prior to the massacre of thousands by the most atrocious weapon known to man was later granted to Japan anyway, the institution of "Emperor".

A little REAL history goes a long way, it's just that a few here (as evidenced in the thread above and in last years thread on the same topic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1525359 ) would rather ignore facts and engage in the same old RA RA rhetoric that it was necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of people to save lives.

Note the love of nuclear weapons in last years thread vis a vis the over use of the "nuke" animated gif.

I'll just quote General Eisenhower:

"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..."

[IndianaJones]

283. thank goodness George Marshall was in charge of the military and endorsed the idea...

although he believed it was a political decision and not a military one. Turned out to be a good decision by Truman.

[ET Awful]

284. Mmmmhmmm.

Thank goodness??????

Bathe in blood much?

I guess being the Supreme Allied Commander didn't mean much eh?

[IndianaJones]

286. it means Marshall groomed him for that command and Roosevelt...

couldn't sleep at night if Marshall wasn't in the country.

[Seeking Serenity]

296. Ike was supreme allied commander in Europe, not Asia.

But of course you knew that.

[Dreamer Tatum]

287. The key word there being 'General'

A little REAL history?

A general's opinion about what was going on inside a country on the opposite side of the world from his theater now constitutes REAL history?

I hate to break this to you, but REAL history means "what actually happened."

Iwo Jima had some of the fiercest fighting of the war, and it didn't even occur until March 1945. It was nearly a Pyrrhic victory. Based on that piece of information, that late in the war, with that many American soldiers killed, the Japanese were supposed to be considered defeated?

Please.

[ET Awful]

289. I'm not going to sit here and have the same old annual discussion with people

who endorse the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians (and their descendants).

The facts are there for anyone to see. . . anyone who isn't blinded by their jingoistic, nationalistic rose-colored glasses that is.

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

[Dreamer Tatum]

291. Whatever.

See you and your hand-wringing condescension next year around this time.

[ET Awful]

292. Hand wringing?

Pffffft.

No hand wringing here, just pointing out flaws in the lack of logic of anyone who thinks using a nuclear weapon is ever justified.

[IndianaJones]

293. its called faux outrage...vogue here at times. nt.

[defendandprotect]

333. Yes . .. it's sad to see that the belief in power/violence/bombs holds sway yet among some here--

and how COMPLETELY they have to ignore what is being said to them of the truth of the

situation --- !!!

They learned to "love the bomb" -- and they're holding on to that ---

[endthewar]

288. The low level firebombing was more devastating than the atomic bombs

contrary to what most people might think. The importance of the atom bomb wasn't that it caused casualties in numbers that couldn't otherwise be caused. It was the fact that such a high level of destruction was now relatively cheap and easy to achieve. The low level firebombing was actually more damaging to Japan (watch the military channel and history channel sometime to see the devastation it caused). It quickly overwhelmed their firefighting capabilities and literally engulfed entire cities in flames.

Economic sanctions, not preemptive military strikes, are the best way to fight back against nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons make destruction cheap, so just take away some of their money to neutralize the cost advantage of using nuclear weapons instead of lots of conventional weapons.

[defendandprotect]

334. There is nothing "cheap" about nuclear weapons when you understand

what they have done to America --- and the world ---

The arms race has bankrupted us all --- financially and morally -- as thru the Cold War

we lost a people's government as our intelligence agencies and corrupt officials tried

to control the nations under their influence -- and ultimately to corruptly control

Americans.

Nor are you considering the generational damage done to Japan via atomic weapons---!!!

Same is true of Napalm used in Vietnam . . . and Depleted Uranium all over Iraq --

in the first round after Gulf War I's end more than 500,000 children died.



AND . . the same is true of the farce of nuclear power plants built to make Americans

feel nuclear cozy --- even if you only consider the WASTE.

[tannybogus]

297. The Japanese would not have surrendered.

There would have been terrible consequences either way. Curtis Lemay was already firebombing the hell out of Japan. They were burning down the country a bombload at a time. Look at how the Japanese fought at Tarawa and Iwo Jima. They fought to the bitter end. Think of how much harder they would have fought if it was their own homeland they were defending. The atomic bombs were terrible and unknown. Even after their destruction, it wasn't a foregone conclusion they would give up. The Emperor himself had to step in and use his power to stop it. There were no good choices. There may have been attempts at peace, but the country would not have been easy to defuse.

As for the bombs, nobody really knew what they had. The scientists who worked on them weren't sure when the first test was done that they weren't going to start a conflagration that would burn up the Earth. They handled plutonium with their bare hands. When testing in Chicago, they had someone stand over the reactor area on a catwalk ready to dump material on it if they thought the experiment was going to get away from them.

The scientists were a brilliant and mixed lot. They all weren't Jewish, and they did have misgivings. Leo Szilard started the whole bloody thing by getting Einstein to write a letter ro Roosevelt. They were concerned that Germany would get a bomb before America would. When the allies went into Germany they had a special team ready to find whatever Germany had in their work on an atomic bomb. The Germans had Heisenberg, and it is still of some conjecture over whether he moved more slowly than he had to in order to delay the making of a bomb. However, before the bombing of Hiroshima, Szilard circulated a petition among the scientists who worked on the project asking the President not to use the bomb. The real son of a bitch was Teller. He helped build the hydrogen bomb. He could have cared who was killed or how many.

I read where people would notice Japanese tourists visiting Truman's grave. I always wonder what they were thinking. I know what I would expect them to think, but who knows?
(posted elsewhere)

[LynnTheDem]

303. "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat

was certain before the bomb fell..."

-Winston Churchill

But hey, what would he or General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe or Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy or General Henry “Hap” Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces or General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Ralph A. Bard,Undersecretary of the Navy, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet etc etc etc know about it.

[Seeking Serenity]

307. Her defeat was settled, from a military logic standpoint..

Her defeat was, for all intents and purposes, settled after we took the Marianas in 1944. But she didn't see and didn't accept that, such denial continuing until after August 9, 1945.

[LynnTheDem]

308. That is in fact incorrect.

One day, bother to read the declassified documents in the NA.

That is, if you actually want to correct your incorrect beliefs.

[Seeking Serenity]

318. What declassified documents are going to show, categorically, that

the government in Japan (and I don't mean lower eschelon, that is, non-decision making, officials) that the government was ready to surrender earlier than August 1945 on our terms but that Truman just blew them off because he wanted to use the bombs?

The burden of proof is on you. Provide the documents, and more than what some (not all) of the generals and admirals within the Pacific theatre and without had to say.

I want to see the document that you've read that states that the government in Japan was ready to surrender, not just seek a peace deal, on our terms earlier than August 1945.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

324. So you're saying there was no valid military reason for the bombing.

OK

[Raskolnik]

325. No, I don't believe that is what the poster is saying.

Just because Japan's eventual defeat was certain well before August 1945, that doesn't mean they stopped fighting.

Germany's defeat was also certain in early 1945, but they certainly didn't stop fighting either, and it took the battle of Berlin for Germany to finally surrender unconditionally.

[Seeking Serenity]

329. Correct interpretation.

Just because logic says you're defeated doesn't mean that emotion can't say, "Keep fighting."

Logically, the Japanese were "beaten" after we took the Marianas, because that was the key staging point for going deeper into their territory. A reasonable person would have said, "Oh, crap, we're done for. Let's quit."

Reason, however, did not take hold for the Japanese. They kept on fighting.

[Thothmes]

312. Which of these officer,s in their official positions

Advised President Truman against using the nuclear weapons on Japan?

[Raskolnik]

317. Once again, you completely remove a quote from its context and ignore its implications

Japan's fate was indeed certain as early as 1944, just as Germany's was certain after the summer of 1944. Both nations did not accept the reality of their certain defeat however, and chose to fight on at a horrible cost. We didn't entertain peace feelers from lower level Nazis in 1945 because they were effectively meaningless, and we did not entertain peace feelers from lower-level Imperial Japanese officials for the same reason.

You endlessly reference the "fact" that Japan was seeking to "surrender" prior to the use of the weapons, but never acknowledge the reality that the officials make peace feelers were not in fact seeking to surrender, but were seeking a negotiated peace, they lacked the authority to negotiate on behalf of Japan, and they lacked the ability implement any peace with the armed forces.

There is every indication that the only peace the war council the Japanese armed forces would have accepted in 1945 would have required the Imperial government to remain intact and Japan to retain most if not all of the conquered territories it still held. Do you think those terms were acceptable?

(and again, I'm really more interested in your reasoning than more of the same cut & paste)

[defendandprotect]

335. It would be impossible to suggest that Japan was not in every sense "defeated" ---

our commanders understood that --- everyone understood it ---

and Truman dragged his feet to provide for this atrocity ---

As for this . . .

The scientists who worked on them weren't sure when the first test was done that they weren't going to start a conflagration that would burn up the Earth.

The ignorance of patriarchy cannot be discounted in the violence of the world brought forth
by them.

After the bombing of the Bikini Islands with nuclear weapons, a Bikini resident -

a woman -- commented . . .

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things!"

How sadly true ---


Nor are we quite sure what role nuclear weapons may have played in Global Warming ---

and what right did these idiotic males have in any respect to take a risk that

might have proved atomic weapons would "burn up the earth" . . . ???

Arrogance and stupidity ---

[neverforget]

336. In all the battles in the Pacific, how many Japanese actually surrendered?

Very few. In the November 1943 invasion of Tarawa, an island about the size of the Pentagon, the Japanese lost nearly 5000 soldiers and laborers (Japanese and Koreans). Only 17 surrendered mostly because they were too wounded to fight. The US Marines lost 1000 killed and 2300 wounded in the 3 day battle.

The Invasion of Okinawa in April 1945, the Japanese lost 100,000 soldiers and another 100,000 civilians killed while only 7400 surrendered. The US lost 12,500 killed and about 40,000 wounded.

In this one conventional battle on a small island that was close to Japan, they had 200,000 killed. How many do you think would have died if we would have had to invade the Home Islands?

Yeah. The Japanese were ready to surrender. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

337. How many of our troops "surrendered" . . .

instructions like that come from the top down ---

[neverforget]

343. Do you know anything about these battles in the Pacific? Anything at all?

Americans that surrendered, if they weren't killed outright, were tortured, beaten, starved and denied medical treatment.

Nice way to dodge the premise.....