If the people that started that war don't like the ending, tough shit!!!

With out the use of nukes, the estimates of casualties are as high as 1million plus. For the Allies.

The Japanese losses would have been worse.

Yes the results were and are horrific. If it had to be done again we would do it to save lives. The victims of any kind of weapon run from invisible but deadly to beyond description.

The pictures showed mangled and burned bodies. The use of small explosives creates less of the same wounds but minus radiation.

Cry for the harmless victims of the wars not the participants. To perhaps understand better the Japanese, read fully about the Code of Bushido. A lot of the atrocities can be attributed to this Code. Stop trying to understand a non-Christian people by the use of Christian beliefs. The Japanese didn't understand the ways and beliefs of the Allies.

Stop tearing out your hair and weeping about our unspeakable horrors. After reading about the Code , you will see that if the had nuke they would freely used them. (Note-Add to the Code, the pushing of the war minded ruling generals)

Good bad or whatever, it happened a long time ago and is by at least my thinking over.

"With out the use of nukes, the estimates of casualties are as high as 1million plus. For the Allies."

Total bullshit. Everyone from Eisenhower to Douglas McArthur to Truman's Chief of Staff has said the bombing was unnecessary and the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender.

the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender.

The japanese would have fought to the death. Invasion would have cost many lives. They attacked us first, but I guess you dont care about that. Get on the right team guy...

"The japanese would have fought to the death. Invasion would have cost many lives. They attacked us first, but I guess you dont care about that. Get on the right team guy..."

That's not Eisenhower's opinion, or Douglas MacArthur's or Truman's Chief of Staff, but I supposed since you were there we should defer to your opinion.

Nullifidian,

Thanks for the posting.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Within the context of WW2 it seems ridiculous to liken the A-bomb attacks to terrorism. That would be historical revisionism.

"Thanks for the posting."

You're welcome. It's good to look at reality once in awhile.

I am sorry nulli but not true.

Millions of live were saved due to the bomb, in fact the second one was dropped because the Japanese didn't believe it was just one bomb that did so much damage.

It is humorous that 60 years after the fact people are trying to revise the actual facts of the historical situation.

The Japanese were retreating and destined to be defeated but the cost to continue to that end would have been at least another 2 years and millions of lives. To not acknowledge this is not really looking at history correctly.

The only reason the bombs were dropped was to scare the russians and to declare that We are Big Bad MoFos not to be messed with. It had absolutely Ziltch to do with saving lives. It was bullshit pure and simple.

Larry Mohr

"It had absolutely Ziltch to do with saving lives."

I've read at least a dozen Truman biographies, and not a one agrees with that position. HST was agonizing over the decision, and finally did it as an attempt to save the lives of American soldiers. Iwo Jima was still a fresh and bloody memory, and invasion of the island would have made Iwo look like a cakewalk.

"~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

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

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

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

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

www.huffingtonpost.com

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-05-06 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

You beat me to posting that little known quote, nulli. Niced job.

LarryM, having read your posts for several years now I realize you will never concede that your generalizations about HST are wrong. So let me simply suggest you take Danforth's advice and read some of the biographies of him. Even critical biographers acknowledge the agony he underwent before authorizing the dropping of the A-bombs.

Why then does Ike disagree with You Danforth and Moder8??

Larry Mohr

Ike didn't at the time. Nobody did. Only long after the fact did he suddenly start expressing that revisionist opinion. Surely you should know by now not to trust the statements of politicians after the fact.

"Why then does Ike disagree with You "

He has a right to his opinion. But he wasn't the guy who had to make the decision; Truman was. And Ike had the comfort of hindsight, as well as 15 years. Truman didn't have those luxuries.

Not true Moder8 as Nullifidians posts declare.

Larry Mohr

Nullifidians quote is from a 1963 interview from Newsweek. That is a little bit after the fact, wouldn't you say?

Focus people, focus.

Moder8 read His 12:00 post again please.

Larry Mohr

I did. The quotes Nulli refers to were written in a book long after the war was over. Again, no surprise that at a time when Ike had dived headfirst into politic and the nation was undergoing the paranoia of the Cold War that he would engage in a little historical revisionism.

Whatever. Ike's quotes are just some of many from people who were there.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. we shall destoy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Patsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

While Americans and Japanese alike expected the war to end only after a bloody invasion of Japan, the U. S. government was readying a secret weapon that would dramatically affect the war's outcome-. the atomic bomb. In the spring and summer of 1945, American leaders had to decide whether to use this new weapon against Japanese cities. According to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, however, "the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb ... was never even an issue." Upon becoming President in April 1945, Harry Truman inherited an expensive bomb project that had always aimed at producing a military weapon. Truman saw the bomb as a way to end the war and save lives by avoiding a costly invasion of Japan. He wanted, he said, to prevent casualties on the scale of "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

In 1940 American intelligence experts cracked the Japanese diplomatic code. This operation, codenamed "Magic," allowed the deciphering of messages between Tokyo and the Japanese Embassy in Moscow and gave the United States knowledge of the Japanese peace initiative in the spring of 1945. The intercepted messages showed that Japan was seeking Russian mediation to end the war, but also showed that it rejected "unconditional surrender" and hope for significant Allied concessions. American military intelligence was also deciphering Japanese military communications. These intercepts, codenamed "Ultra," revealed in the summer of 1945 that the Japanese had achieved an alarming buildup of forces in southern Japan--precisely in the areas American forces were scheduled to invade late in the year. Thus, despite the peace initiative,
Japan was preparing to fight to the bitter end.

"I grew up in Japan and know without a doubt that this was the actual case, they would have fought to the bitter end."

Yeah, well none of the American commanders in the field such as Eisenhower and MacArthur thought so.

SELECTING THE TARGET
While plans for the invasion of Japan were going ahead, preparations were also being made for the military deployment of the atomic bomb. Target recommendations were made by the Target Committee controlled by General Groves and his Manhattan Project staff. Among its primary concerns was showing off the bomb's power to the maximum effect and making the greatest impression possible on the Japanese with the goal of shocking Japan into surrender. To ensure an accurate drop, the Committee insisted that the bombings occur in daylight and clear weather. They also decided that the targets would be a city undamaged by conventional bombing and had geographical layouts that would maximize damage from the bomb's blast wave. By the end of May 1945, the Committee selected, in order of priority, Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura and Niigata. The Army Air Forces were ordered not to firebomb these cities.

Yeah, well none of the American commanders in the field such as Eisenhower and MacArthur thought so.

I can't quite get there nulli, it appears to me that this is just historical after fact slanting.

Many of the decision-makers knowledgeable about the bomb did not consider it drastically different from conventional strategic bombing, which had already killed hundreds of thousands of civilians throughout the world. Nor was there any guarantee that the bomb would automatically end the war. When Oppenheimer suggested on May 31 that several atomic attacks be carried out on the same day to shock the Japanese, Groves opposed the idea on the grounds that "the effect would not be sufficiently distinct from our regular air force [bombing] program." At that time, the firebombing of Japan had already devastated many cities. The explosive power of the first atomic bombs was also estimated at only 1/10th to 1/2 of what it turned out to be, and no one had a clear impression of the heat and radiation effects.

The question of whether to drop the first atomic bomb on Japan without warning was left to another group, the Interim Committee on post-war atomic policy. On May 31, 1945, Secretary Stimson chaired a meeting of this group, which included Truman's personal representative, James F. Byrnes, and the committee's scientific advisers, headed by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. The committee members briefly discussed warning the Japanese to evacuate the target, or arranging a demonstration of the bomb for delegates from Japan. However, they rejected those ideas because they reasoned that the Japanese, if warned, might try to shoot down the bomber or move prisoners of war into the target area, and because the demonstration bomb might fail to explode. Others who know about the atomic bomb were also thinking of ways to demonstrate it. For example, Manhattan Project physicist Edward Teller proposed exploding the first bomb high over Tokyo Bay at night, without any warning, to shock the Japanese leaders. But prior to the first test, the scientists had generally underestimated the power of the bomb, and it was not clear that any non-lethal demonstration would sufficiently impress the Japanese.

American planning for an invasion of Japan continued in spring of 1945. The Manhattan Project was so secret that most military planners were unaware of it, and the effects of the new weapon on the Japanese were uncertain. Under the leadership of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, the War Department continued to assume that an invasion would be necessary to force Japan to surrender. Not everyone in the U.S. military agreed. Some Navy officers believed that the blockade could force Japan to quit the war, while many in the Army Air Forces thought firebombing could force surrender by itself or in conjunction with the blockade. Both groups pointed to the terrible casualties of the Okinawa campaign--48,000 American dead and wounded-- in arguing against an invasion. General Marshall and his staff also feared heavy losses but argued that, as with Germany, only the occupation of the enemy's territory and capital would end the war.

"OPERATION DOWNFALL" - THE INVASION PLAN
On June 18, 1945, President Truman gave preliminary approval to the invasion plans presented by General Marshall. "Operation Downfall" would have two parts. On or about November 1, 1945, 767,000 Marines and Army troops would begin landing on the beaches of the southern island of Kyushu in "Operation Olympic. " The invasion fleet would be larger than that of the landings in Normandy in June 1944. The objective of this operation would be to occupy the southern half of Kyushu and use it as an air base and staging area for a second invasion. If the Japanese did not then surrender, "Operation Coronet"--the landings on the main island of Honshu--would begin on or about March 1, 1946. A huge force of 28 divisions, twice the size of "Olympic," would eventually come ashore on beaches near Tokyo. Some strategists assumed that it could take until the end of 1946 to occupy the capital and enough of Honshu to force Japan to surrender. Gen. George C. Marshall (1880-1959) played a critical role in expanding the small, poorly armed U.S. Army of 1939 into the massive, effective force of 1942-1945. During the war he was Chief of Staff of the Army, a key strategist in Allied plans on all fronts, and an important adviser to Roosevelt and Truman on the Manhattan Project. After his retirement from the Army, he became Secretary of State in 1947. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for the Marshall Plan, which helped to revive the economies of Western Europe.

INVASION OF JAPAN--AT WHAT COST?
Estimates of the number of American casualties--dead, wounded, and missing--that the planned invasion of Japan would have cost varied greatly. In a June 18, 1945, meeting, General Marshall told President Truman that the first 30 days of the invasion of Kyushu could result in 31,000 casualties. But Admiral Leahy pointed out that the huge invasion force could sustain losses proportional to those on Okinawa, making the operation much more costly. Had the Kyushu invasion failed to force Japan to surrender, the United States planned to invade the main island of Honshu, with the goal of capturing Tokyo. Losses would have escalated. After the war, Truman often said that the invasion of Japan could have cost half a million or a million American casualties. The origin of these figures is uncertain, but Truman knew that Japan had some two million troops defending the home islands. He believed, along with the many Americans who would have had to invade Japan, that such a campaign might have become, in his words from June 18, 1945, "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other." Added to the American losses would have been several times as many Japanese casualties--military and civilian. The Allies and Asian countries occupied by Japan would also have lost many additional lives. For Truman, even the lowest of the casualty estimates was unacceptable. To prevent an invasion and to save as many lives as possible, he chose to use the atomic bomb.

HINDSIGHT: WAS AN INVASION INEVITABLE WITHOUT THE BOMB?
President Truman believed that an invasion of Japan would be necessary if the atomic bomb did not work. In hindsight, however, some have questioned whether an invasion was inevitable. Based on information available after the war, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946 that, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to I November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." The U.S. naval blockade was strangling Japan, which depended totally on imported fuel, while conventional bombing was destroying its infrastructure. However, other postwar observers, including Secretary Stimson, doubted that Japan's rulers would have accepted unconditional surrender if the home islands had not been invaded or if the atomic bomb had not been dropped. In any case, many American lives would have been lost by November 1, 1945, and after that date, the invasion of Kyushu would have been in full swing.

THE POTSDAM CONFERENCE AND THE BOMB
In mid-July 1945, as Manhattan Project scientists prepared for the world's first nuclear explosion, Allied leaders were assembling outside Berlin for the Potsdam Conference. The conference was called to discuss the peace settlement in Europe and to issue a surrender ultimatum to Japan. President Truman had delayed the conference so that it would take place at the time the bomb was to be tested. At Potsdam he gave final verbal approval for dropping the atomic bomb if Japan rejected the ultimatum.

"FINI JAPS WHEN THAT COMES ABOUT"
During the Potsdam Conference, Stalin promised to declare war by August 15, Truman wrote in his diary on July 17, "Fini Japs when that comes about." But a day later he wrote, "Believe Japs will fold up before Russian comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland." Stalin and Truman also discussed Tokyo's new diplomatic approaches to Moscow in July, which indicated Emperor Hirohito's search for a compromise peace that might allow Japan to retain some of its overseas territories. But since Stalin wanted to enter the Pacific war, he did not play up the new messages. Truman and Secretary of State Byrnes already knew about these Japanese initiatives from American intelligence reports, but found nothing new and so dismissed them.

AN ULTIMATUM TO JAPAN
On July 26, 1945, the three largest Allied powers at war in the Pacific, the United States, Britain, and China, issued the Potsdam Declaration, which demanded that the Japanese Empire surrender immediately or face "prompt and utter destruction." Because of potential Allied and domestic opposition to anything less than "unconditional surrender," the declaration contained no reference to retaining Emperor Hirohito on the throne. Nor, for reasons of military secrecy, did it contain any direct reference to the atomic bomb or Soviet entry into the war. The declaration did not change the position of the Japanese government. The military's reaction was especially unfavorable. On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki announced that his government would ignore ("mokatsu") the Declaration. As a result, the United States used the atomic bomb.

THE OFFICIAL ORDER TO DROP THE BOMB
During the Spring and summer of 1945, Truman had verbally confirmed proposals presented to him by Stimson and Byrnes to use the bomb. According to General Groves, Truman's decision "was one of noninterference--basically a decision not to upset existing plans." Lt. Gen. Carl Spaatz, the commander of the newly created U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific, requested a written order authorizing the use of the bomb. After long-distance communications with Stimson, who was with Truman in Potsdam Gen. Thomas Handy, the Acting Army Chief of Staff in Washington, issued the order to Spaatz on July 25. President Truman could have reversed the order had Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Source: The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II by the Curators of the National Air and Space Museum.

That looks like a cut and paste orgy.

It reminds Me of a GZLives postathons.

Larry Mohr

Stop spamming my thread, Moneywar.

Yes nulli it does, but I thought it a good read and worthy. Sorry for parsing it in so many sections.


I have been to the museum many times and the destruction was so grand all at once it is easy to see how the benefit of its use could be distorted.

The real issue should be how we should be talking out our differences and not willing to take human life to gain economic and mineral gain rights.

It is apparent we have not advanced enough as a human race to be enlightened enough to understand the values of life over ego.

If they were ready to surrender why did we bomb them twice?

Null, can you at least concede that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved some American lives by forcing the Japs to surrender sooner then they would have without dropping them?

Null, can you at least concede that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved some American lives by forcing the Japs to surrender sooner then they would have without dropping them? -- Rob

I'm curious about where you're going with this, Rob. Would you argue that the Holocaust was justified if there was evidence that it saved German lives?

Would you argue that the Holocaust was justified if there was evidence that it saved German lives?

Posted by Phoenix at 2008-05-06 11:37 AM | Reply


Did the Jews declare war on Germany?

Perspective isn't your forte is it?

Not only did dropping THE BOMB save American and Japanese lives at the time. But it likely saved the world. Without such a real world example of the terrible power these weapons deliver I believe it is likely that they would have been used during the Cold War. At that time with proliferation I believe the world could have very likely been destroyed. This is just my personal theory.

When you take the long view sometimes even horrible things turn out to have positive outcomes.

Did the Jews declare war on Germany?

Perspective isn't your forte is it? -- Chair

In the post I responded to, Rob mentioned only a swap of American for Japanese lives -- he didn't frame any justification in terms of who started the war.

"Yeah, well none of the American commanders in the field such as Eisenhower and MacArthur thought so." Nullifidian

Eisenhower had been in Europe and thus knew little about the intracacies of the war in the Pacific. He was basically just expressing his antipathy to largescale slaughter. MacArthur was just pissed that he wasn't included in the decision making process. Note, he was a very big advocate of using nukes during the Korean conflict.

The issue with the Japanese being willing to surrender was that their requirements included leaving the emperor and the military in power. That no foreign forces would be allowed on Japanese soil. And that the Japanese military would administer the postwar reconstruction.

The issue of invading Japan must be seen from the perspective of the times. The U.S. had just gone through a very bloody invasion of Okinawa and everything pointed to Japan being a hugely more bloody invasion. The mindset of the Japanese people at the time _was_ that Japan must be defended at all costs. And our intelligence services had much info that Japan had prepared extensively to repel the invasion. All pointing to huge U.S. military losses of personnel. So, the tradeoff was, lots of Japanese dead, or lots of Japanese and Americans dead.

In the post I responded to, Rob mentioned only a swap of American for Japanese lives -- he didn't frame any justification in terms of who started the war.


Posted by Phoenix at 2008-05-06 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag

As if anyone needs to frame the obviousness of America v Japan in regards to WORLD WAR 2.

Here's the relevant information: Japan started the war, we ended it.

Do you have the link to the Japanese surrender?

The japanese were supposedly close to developing the bomb as well.

Given the destruction caused by conventional attacks on German and Japanese cities, its hard to get overwrought about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, my old man would have possibly been a casualty in an invasion of Japan, so I'm less than unbiased.

The japanese were supposedly close to developing the bomb as well.

Given the destruction caused by conventional attacks on German and Japanese cities, its hard to get overwrought about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, my old man would have possibly been a casualty in an invasion of Japan, so I'm less than unbiased.

I think we should 'Nuke A Gook' each and every Friday Afternoon for the next 1000 years!

-John 'Insane' McCain!

Very succinct FYI...kudos.

You have to keep in mind a few things:
Modern Democrats like dead US soldiers. In fact as the orgy of smugness and glee after Katrina shows us, they are happy when ever Americans die in general.
You see to the Left Americans are bad people. And killing those bad people is a good thing.

Witness also the party a Dem secretary threw at my office when the Iraq death toll reached 2000. She had a "2000 dead, Mission Accomplished" banner and gave out cake. No one can honestly dispute she wasn't happy they died. She is pretty typical of Democrats today.
Once again, soldiers are bad (to the Left that can't discriminate between a wolf and a sheep dog; because discrimination is bad). Therefore, dead soldiers are a good thing.


So, the bombs are bad for two reasons
(1) America is bad America dropped the bombs. Therefore, dropping the bombs was bad.
(2) it saved Americans lives, specifically soldiers lives. Once again, AmeriKKKans are bad. Saving bad AmeriKKKans is bad.

Now just remember you can't question their patriotism, and they are morally superior to everyone else.

...anybody else see the irony with some people posting here that we would should have just invaded and lost thousands pon thousands of americans, but flip the coin to today and those same poster may just get up in arms over the 5000 troops that have died in Iraq. Not meaning to bring the Iraq war debate in here, just thought I'd point that out.

The Japanese wanted a truce to save face.

My Dad fought in the South Pacific and ended up on Okinawa. After flushing the Japs out the caves they began training exercises for his unit was, by the Order of Battle, to one of the first to hit the beaches of Japan. In his life the only Democrat he ever praised was Truman - not for his policies but for dropping those bombs.

God Bless Harry S. Truman for I might never been born.

That would have been a tragedy.

Good point, SPIDER.

I'm just glad we bombed those chinks.
Sincerely,
US History Student, Minor Geography

If we did not drop those bombs we would have had to invade the Japanese mainland. The Japs were prepared to fight to the death for their homeland down to every man, woman, and child. The losses to our own military was estimated to possibly be close to one million. It was worth it to drop those bombs. Thousands of lives were saved by doing so.

Japan should have surrendered (from the war THEY started) when we gave them the chance. Blame the Japanese military and politicians for the loss of lives -- not the United States.

"anybody else see the irony with some people posting here that we would should have just invaded "

Who said that? The point is that an invasion wasn't necessary. MacArthur didn't think it was necessary nor did other players at the time.

"Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

The only reason the bombs were dropped was to scare the russians and to declare that We are Big Bad MoFos not to be messed with. It had absolutely Ziltch to do with saving lives. It was bullshit pure and simple.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


I agree completely that usin those bombs was bullshit, but war itself is bullshit!

Where does one draw the line?

It's ok for the Japanese to kill millions of Chinese civilians and Americans, but it's not ok to use the bomb.

I'm confused with your thought process.

I think both are wrong.

Distorting history after the fact is not worthy of how many actual live dropping those bombs saved. The real issue was was it the right thing to do, and by any real historical measure in terms of human life it was clearly the right thing to do. By far less life was lost due to the bombs and ended the war far far sooner.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-05-06 02:14 AM



Hot DAMN , MONEYWAR ! Good job!

Total bullshit. Everyone from Eisenhower to Douglas McArthur to Truman's Chief of Staff has said the bombing was unnecessary and the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender.

Posted by nullifidian

Did you just make that up today?

You are clueless about the culture they had at that time.

"If we did not drop those bombs we would have had to invade the Japanese mainland. "

Bullshit. Eisenhower didn't think so. MacArthur didn't think so. Maybe CalifChris knows something those guys didn't.

"In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

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

"Here's the relevant information: Japan started the war, we ended it."

Posted by 101Chairborne

Do you know what compelled the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and declare war on the United States?

No one can watch the Japanese training videos of civilians with bamboo spears a white sheets (which they were told would protect them from nuke attacks) and think that Japan was ready for surrender or would not have fought to the last man.

No one can understand how US POWs were treated by the Japanese, mostly because the Japanese thought they had dishonored themselves by surrendering, and think that Japan would have accepted an easy logical surrender and would not have fought to the last man, woman, and child.

Nobody knows the exact reason, unless the Japs that lived through the ass kicking we gave them decided to publish one.

Perhaps they were bent on Imperialism and we stood in their way? Perhaps because we froze their assets? Perhaps we laughed at their squinty eyes?

Tell me, what justification will you give them for attacking us at Pearl Harbor and declaring war on us?

Do you know what compelled the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and declare war on the United States?
Their desire for a pan-Asian empire and a need for oil to supply that expansion and racial purification.
The US's refusal to sell them that oil.
And the fact that Pearl Harbor was part of a combined operation (including Hong Kong and Singapore) that was aimed at taking control of most of the Asian oil reserves and routes to Mid-East oil.
So, the Pacific war was really a war for oil.
IIRC.

But I am sure you have some reason why it was all the fault of AmeriKKA.

Nuclear weapons have saved more lives in the 20th Century than any other tool of war, and probably medecine as well.

Not just the lives of Allied and Japanese who would have died in the invasion of Japan, but in preventing a nearly inevitable 3rd World War with the Soviets over possession of western Europe, war with China over Taiwan and South Korea, and untold other conflicts which would have flowed out of these.

These conflicts did not happen solely because the huge advantage in conventional forces China and Russia possessed in their respective theaters was offset by a huge US nuclear arsenal and a demonstrated willingness to use it.

Now, whether suitcase nukes will be a big problem for the bad in the future remains to be seen, but there can be no informed doubt of the boon nuclear weapons were to World Peace in the 20th Century.

When is the last time you saw a horrible photograph of the war in Iraq?


Maybe we'll have to wait 50 years...

Again, MacArthur, being the egotist that he was, has to be taken with huge amounts of scepticism. His major, probably only, problem with the bombing was that he was not consulted. That he was so insistent on using nukes in Korea, even after he saw what they caused, lends him no credence on their use in Japan.

Ike was once presented with a situation. A week before D-Day, given a choice
between invading Europe and battling to Berlin or dropping a bomb, 100 or more times more powerful than any we had, on Berlin and ending the war in one week, which would he choose. True to his views on war, he chose the bomb.

What must be kept in mind, foremost, was that at that time, aside from the scientists who worked on developing it, no one really knew what damage an a-bomb could do. The military thought of it as just a really huge bomb. Truman had no reason to doubt them.

Re the "peace terms" proposed by the Japanese, Germany, after Hitler's death, offered similar terms to the allies. They were refused. No reason for us to deal any differently with the Japanese, especially after what we went through during the war against them.

Modern Democrats like dead US soldiers.

Funny, its the Republicans who send them off to die for no good reason, then call them wimps if they suffer from it. Reagan in Beirut (a trade to seal the Iranian weapons deal, a good reason if you like treason). Bush1 Kuwait (to cover up his telling Saddam America was cool with Iraq invading Kuwait ) and Bush2 , (those pesky but invisible WMD). Clinton (D)won TWO wars and lost less than 20 soldiers in combat. Bush can't get through a month, 5 years after declaring victory, with KIA half that low.

As for comparing WW2 and Iraq, let's keep in mind FDR
1/Didn't get elected promising to do something about Japan
2/Didn't fabricate pearl harbor
3/Won the war.

As for "celebrating" the 2000 deaths, it was more likely a way of reminding anybody who supported Dubya what a stupid thing they had done.

"Again, MacArthur, being the egotist that he was, has to be taken with huge amounts of scepticism"

Perhaps, but I think I'll just stick to the documented comments of the major players like Eisenhower and MacArthur rather than take some blogger's word for it.

and think that Japan would have accepted an easy logical surrender and would not have fought to the last man, woman, and child.

And yet, they did, didn't they? All because the Emperor told them to, though he never really surrendered.

The other option nobody has mentioned was maintaining the quarantine and starving Japan into submission. Russia's entry into the war put the kibosh on that though.

EvilDave, you were doing pretty well in the analysis until that last petty little statement. So my only response to you is "Fuck Off!"

By the end of World War II, the IJN had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots, and the IJA had lost 1,387.

The number of ships sunk is a matter of debate. According to a wartime Japanese propaganda announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, suicide attacks accounted for up to 80 percent of the U.S. losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific. In a 2004 book, World War II, the historians Wilmott, Cross & Messenger stated that more than 70 U.S. vessels were "sunk or damaged beyond repair" by kamikazes.


This was the enemy of the US and the suicidal enemy just didn't have enough airplanes. Imagine this enemy again you on the ground. The US wanted the war to end. A naval blockade of Japan, although a strangling hold on the country, most likely would not have resulted in surrender.

More likely, the Japanese would have used every available resource remaining on the island, including theirselves, to kill their enemy.

Not unlike the nuts in the middle east, this would have been a nation willing to die.

It is ironic that the countries that started the war were defeated and rebuilt by the US. Perhaps my history knowledge is faulty, but wasn't it the US that wanted these countries to remain intact and not divided up as spoils of war?

I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, that without US intervention, Germany, Italy, and Japan would not exist today as countries. Other countries devasted by the war wanted revenge and the Axis powers
existance erased.

That looks like a cut and paste orgy...

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-05-06 02:15 AM

...that just eviserated your revisionist history.

Also worth noting:

1. MacArthur hated Marshall with a passion, and was furious that he wasn't consulted on the decision to drop the bomb;

2. Of course the Strategic Bombing Survey was going to say the Japan would have surrendered because of the Air Force, just as the Navy was going to say that the Blockade would have compelled surrender, and the Army said that 2 Million troops would have compelled surrender.

3. As noted by several posters, if Japan was trully ready to surrender, all they had to do was either accept the Potsdam Declaration or surrender after Hiroshima. They did neither.

Good job, $$war.

"No one can watch the Japanese training videos of civilians with bamboo spears a white sheets (which they were told would protect them from nuke attacks) and think that Japan was ready for surrender or would not have fought to the last man."


Eisenhower thought differently, but who needs him when we have "Evildave" to set us straight.

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

- Dwight Eisenhower,

Perhaps, but I think I'll just stick to the documented comments of the major players like Eisenhower and MacArthur rather than take some blogger's word for it.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-05-06 03:48 PM | Reply


What does Mac's position on Nuking Korea do to your thinking in regards his reluctance on nuking Japan?

Where are your quotes from August 6th, 1945? Clearly somebody wanted them nuked Bill.

The US wanted the war to end. A naval blockade of Japan, although a strangling hold on the country, most likely would not have resulted in surrender.

Japan would have surrendered w/o the bombs being dropped.

The use of the atomic weaponry was more a case of being a display of raw power rather than a strategic neccessity.

In a sense perhaps they were neccessary in that the world needed to see what man's hand had wrought in prder to properly appreciate the new era that had been ushered in.

An argument can be made that w/o the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a another display of power may have taken place possibly one using the later developed and more powerful He Bombs.

There was definitely never any need for both cities to be bombed.

That was overkill.

That was wrong.

Be Well.

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

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

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

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

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

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

Be Well.

What everyone, who says the Japanese would have surrendered, inherently refers to is that we could have eventually negotiated acceptable terms with the Japanese. Two issues, however, are not mentioned. One is that the negotiations would have been carried out, on the Japanese side, by the military. The only kind of terms we would have accepted would exclude the military from power. That was also the only condition they were unwilling to accept. Secondly, note the word "eventually". However, the war had not stopped. Thousands were being killed by the Japanese in China and Southeast Asia. Every day. And the Japanese would definitely have used the time to rearm as best they could, further their preparations for invasion, and furthered their belief they couldn't be successfully invaded and we were negotiating because we believed that also.

I have not yet seen anyone show that any of this wasn't true. All of seen is what amounts to a lot of wishful thinking. None sound like they incorporate pragmaticism.

".that just eviserated your revisionist history."

It didn't do anything of the sort. The quotes from the major players speak for themselves. The revisionists are the ones that claim an invasion was necessary, and they do it for one obvious reason. To rationalize mass murder against civilian targets.

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

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

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

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

Be Well.

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

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur

Be Well.

"Perhaps, but I think I'll just stick to the documented comments of the major players like Eisenhower and MacArthur rather than take some blogger's word for it." Nulli

Except that it's not my word, it's the view of very many historians who have studied the situation. There's another sire on the net which is devoted to WWII, and very much more material than I'm stating is given (and argued). None of this is new.

Has Ike's headquarters been in the Pacific Theater as opposed to Germany I wonder what his thinking would have been?

Spud, a lot of people have argued that Japan would have surrendered, if only eventually. The problem is, what precedent do they have for that statement? Also, what happens to the people who were dying every day as the war continued?

Also, note how everyone talks about how horrible the a-bomb was and how much damage it did. BUT they do it years after the event. At the time, except for a few scientists, noone had an idea of the a-bombs power. And, to fairly evaluate the decision, it must be viewed from the information knownat the time. Otherwise, it's hindsight.

"Except that it's not my word, it's the view of very many historians who have studied the situation. "


You have your historians, I have mine, as well as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy, Paul Nitze, cabinet secretaries, etc.

"Again, MacArthur, being the egotist that he was...

He wasn't too brave either. Hence his nickname, Dugout Doug.

His decision to change the strategy for defending the Philippines, denying General Wainwright the opportunity to secure food supplies and ammunition, and then slipping away while honorable men fought on Bataan does not speak well of his military acumen or courage.

The same damage was visited upon Dresden using incendiaries, and they had little to do with the war except to house POWs. So one bomb or a thousand it really doesn't matter. In a war all are vulnerable.

If the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender, why didn't they? And why didn't they surrender after the first one?

Just curious. How long does it take to pick up a phone, call the American ambassador, and say, "we surrender--call the President and tell him it's over."

It took me about 20 seconds to type it. How long--a minute or so?

Just askin'. If I'm ready to do something, and it's important, I don't sit around waiting for another bomb to fall on my head.

Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur

* * * *

On the other hand, if the General's advice had been followed in the Korean War, we would have used nuclear weapons against China.

So let's be thankful that Truman was deciding things, and not the "American Caesar".

"You have your historians, I have mine, as well as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy, Paul Nitze, cabinet secretaries, etc." Nulli

And I have all the knowledgeable people who agreed with the decision to drop the bomb. The ultimate authority was Truman and he decided that dropping the bomb was the right thing to do. So the argument "from authority" gets you nowhere. The question isn't what various people _said_, it's what they offer to back their statements. Again, refute what I said re the Japanese and their views on surrendering. On the Japanese military and their position and views. Offer your view on the many deaths which were occurring and would have occurred during negotiations. Show what the various people said in 1945, not a decade or more later.

Those whos decision to drop the Bomb have used that (RED HERRING), that over a Million people would be lost if there was an invasion. Isn't it amazing the greatest heros of the second World War, General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, an Admiral Leahy (CHIEF OF STAFF for Truman) felt differently that the bomb was not necessary, that the Japanese was prepared to surrender, all the wanted at the end was for the Emperor not to Killed or banished.

Truman like Bush of today chose not to listen to his Top Ranked officers but I'm sure that he found some that agreed with him, today we would call that General Shopping, something President Bush will be remembered for in History.

"Porn for the DR right." - NULL

That's an awfully low blow, don't you think? What's next, abortion photos and "porn for the DR left?"

We could show countless photos of Pearl Harbor. Or of any number of atrocities inflicted during any war.

Many died - on both sides - in World War II. We can play 'what if' games all day. I'm glad we won by totally demoralizing the enemy. Are you?

"that (RED HERRING), that over a Million people would be lost if there was an invasion." Celisary

Damn, at least get the argument right. The estimates ranged from 50,000 to around a million. Lots of indecision. The one thing agreed on was that very many American soldiers would die. So what, in your opinion, is the number of those who would have died in such an invasion? Btw, I note that you made no comment on the very many people dying in China and Southeast Asia with each passing day of the war. Estimates there range from 10,000 per day to 10,000 per week.

"That's an awfully low blow, don't you think? What's next, abortion photos and "porn for the DR left?"

Yes, it is. It's in the same category as someone posting pictures of dead American solidiers in Iraq and calling it "porn for the DR Left." Which has been done. What goes around comes around.

History has obviously vindicated Truman, and proven Leahy wrong. How many American lives did dropping the bomb save? A million? A hundred thousand? How many Japanese--three million? One million? What difference does it make?

It ended the war. Never understood how it mattered to me whether a person dies in a blink of an atomic flash, or whether he dies slowly of starvation from a US-NAVY-induced blockade, or whether he dies from asphysfixiation in the Tokyo firebombing, or whether he dies in combat defending him homeland against gaijin invaders. Dead is dead, and millions more Japanese and Americans are alive today because of the atom bomb.

Not to mention, the bombs managed to keep the peace in Europe during the Cold War. All those things surely must count for something, except among hysterical lefties.

Hmmmm. I wonder how many people on this board might not have even been born, had the Army and Marines been ordered to commence Olympic?

"History has obviously vindicated Truman, and proven Leahy wrong. "

You can make that assertion a 100 times for a 100 years, as McCain might put it, if you want. Doesn't prove it's true.

There was no need to invade Japan or drop the bomb. They had no oil--that is what started the war. A simple blockade would have done the job and saved millions of lives. By the time the bomb was dropped, Japan could have easily been isolated--they had no offense left except their Home Island army, and if there was nothing for them to eat--the war is over.