US attends Hiroshima bomb memorial for first time

[cory777]

Source: AFP

The United States on Friday attended for the first time a ceremony commemorating the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, 65 years after the Japanese city's destruction rang in the nuclear age.

The United States' World War II allies Britain and France, both declared nuclear powers, also sent their first diplomats to the ceremony in the western Japanese city in a sign of support for the goal of nuclear disarmament.

Japan, the only country that has ever been attacked with atomic bombs -- first on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, and three days later in Nagasaki -- has pushed for the abolition of the weapons of mass destruction ever since.

"The human race must not repeat the horror and misery caused by atomic bombs," said Prime Minister Naoto Kan in a speech.

Read more: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100806/twl-us-attends-hiroshima-bomb-memorial-f-2802f3e.html

---

Alternative Activist News http://activistnews.blogspot.com

[Bigmack]

1. A barbarous weapon... unnecessary...

Not my words, but the words of the US Military at the time.
Here's the views of the top Army and Naval and Air Force Officers at the site mentioned below.

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
" he 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.
n being the first to use it, we . . . 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." (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly: He said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
" MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . "(See p. 352, Chapter 28)

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . "(See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)


http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

[TheWraith]

4. The idea that the Japanese were willing to surrender is a myth.

Their "peace feelers" were based on four preconditions. That there be no occupation of Japanese territory; that they be solely responsible for investigating and punishing alleged war crimes; that they be solely responsible for overseeing demobilization of Japanese troops; and no change in their government. All of which were completely unacceptable, for obvious reasons.

[lynne]

6. Agreed. Had they been willing to surrender at all they would have done so after Hiroshima -

- and there would have been no reason to drop the bomb on Nagasaki. A horrific thing to have to do and I hope it never has to be done again.

[Bigmack]

25. The Japanese didn't even KNOW about Hiroshima...

hole cities were disappearing overnight in Japan. They had no internal communication. If Hiroshima was barbaric, Nagasaki would be a war crime.

[lynne]

31. Of course they knew. They had been warned in July via the Potsdam Declaration -

- of total destruction if they didn't surrender and they refused. When communication ceased from Hiroshima, the Japanese sent planes in to see what had occurred and found the destruction. By that time, Truman was making radio announcements to the American people advising them of the bombing of Hiroshima. Even Radio Tokyo was reporting the destruction of Hiroshima prior to the bombing of Nagasaki.

[Bigmack]

43. You mean this..?

"Eventually a Japanese staff officer was dispatched by plane to survey the city from overhead, and while he was still nearly 100 miles away from the city he began to report on a huge cloud of smoke that hung over it. The first confirmation of exactly what had happened came only sixteen hours later with the announcement of the bombing by the United States."

The Japanese had been losing cities for weeks. What was to differentiate this city from any other? New weapon? The old ones were pretty devastating.

The Japanese just knew the city was gone.

The Potsdam declaration stated that, if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction". Not all that specific... sounds like the usual wartime rhetoric.

How about giving them time to assess the damage and study the situation? They had peace feelers out for months.

Why the second bomb? To show we had lots of them (we didn't, of course) and weren't afraid to use them. All this to scare the Russians.

Look at what I posted about the views of the top military brass. The first bomb wasn't necessary, and the second sure as hell wasn't.

[lynne]

51. For the purpose of surrender, the type of bomb should not have made any difference -

- So what if they didn't know it was an atomic bomb? They DID know that it took out all of Hiroshima yet that didn't compel them to surrender.

Had they accepted the Potsdam Declaration there would have never been Hiroshima. As they were fully aware of the destruction visited on Hiroshima, had they surrendered after Hiroshima there would have never been a Nagasaki. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Bigmack]

57. Reading comprehension problem?...

Potsdam wasn't specific. It sounded like the threats we had been making all along. No mention of a new weapon.

If Hiroshima wasn't necessary - the blockade was working and the Japanese home islands had no defense from the conventional air raids (in fact, the Air Force was running out of targets) - Nagasaki sure as hell wasn't necessary.

Is that so difficult to understand?

[AtheistCrusader]

115. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of how an American

would rationalize their situation, if you were IN that situation yourself.

You paint Japan as a dead-tired fighter on the ropes, unable to move, harbors mined, skies dominated, and effectively done.

Pretty far from the truth. Remember Mt. Suribachi, the raising of the flag, a 'moment of victory'? That fight wasn't over. Two of the men in the iconic photograph didn't live out the week on that island. Just because you've gained the upper hand doesn't mean the fight is over.

Fast forward to the bombing of those two cities, with all our conventional dominance at that point, the destroyer that delivered the bombs to their staging point was sunk by the Japanese navy after delivery.

The fight was not over. Not by a damn sight. Dominance or no, men were fighting and dying every day even at that stage of the war, in the sky, on land, and in the sea.

[Bigmack]

117. Iwo was in February...

You write...."You paint Japan as a dead-tired fighter on the ropes, unable to move, harbors mined, skies dominated, and effectively done."

Wrong. I didn't paint them that way... the top US brass said so.

I'll repost..
Here's the views of the top Army and Naval and Air Force Officers at the site mentioned below.

Gen. Carl Spaatz...(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...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."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
" 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.
n being the first to use it, we . . . 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." (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly: He said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
" MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . "(See p. 352, Chapter 28)

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . "(See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)


http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicde

[Odin2005]

7. The Bomb also pretty much traumatized millitarism out of the Japanese psyche.

All but a few RW nationalists (the same nuts that insist on whale hunts) are emphatically anti-military and anti-war, and the nuking of 2 of their cities is the cause of that, I think.

[Bigmack]

26. The idea the the Japanese weren't willing to surrender..

is a myth.

Time for you to do some research. Start here: http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
On July 25, an intercepted message from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato in Moscow stated without reservation:
The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter.
In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
A top secret internal 1946 War Department study discovered in recent years found that:
The Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.

[county worker]

68. You so conveniently leave out the fact that this nation was in preparation for the invasion of

Japan.

Basically your posts are selective at best.

[Bigmack]

77. The nation.. and the people in the military..

were being told about the invasion as part of the wartime propaganda. The Japanese populace was being told the same thing by the other side.

The brass and top politicians knew the invasion just wasn't gonna happen.

If my posts are selective, they are at least factual and not opinion.

[county worker]

82. My dad was in Ft Riley Kansas training for the invasion in Aug 1945.

My mother went to see him there and I was conceived there. He had spent 4 years fighting in Europe.

I was born on May 14, 1946.

My dad told me about the invasion plans not who ever you think was lying to the country.

Your version of history suites your thinking but it isn't history!

[proteus_lives]

86. Both my grandfathers would have hit the dirt in an invasion of Japan.

It's common story.

The Bombs were the best direction to go.

[Bigmack]

101. Operation Downfall....

was a typical Pentagon plan... meticulous to a fault. They had been told to prepare a plan for invasion of Japan.

Today's military has a plan for the invasion of just about anywhere on earth. Contingency plans. We saw what happened in Grenada when the military didn't have tons of maps and plans ready. I have absolutely no doubt your father was training for that invasion. Most of the soldiers who fought in Europe were told they'd be in the invasion, too.

However....

The invasion just was NOT going to happen. Why invade and take huge casualties when Japan was ready for surrender? Why invade when the blockade was working and they would be starved out in a few weeks. The invasion was a Plan... that's all.

Read my earlier post on what the top military brass was actually thinking...

Here's the views of the top Army and Naval and Air Force Officers at the site mentioned below.

Gen. Carl Spaatz...(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...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."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
" 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.
n being the first to use it, we . . . 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." (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly: He said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
" MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . "(See p. 352, Chapter 28)

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . "(See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)


http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicde

[AtheistCrusader]

152. Does a fake plan include actually staging hardware, supplies and people

in preparation for the invasion? One of my relatives got the news of surrender as his troop transport was en route to stage for the invasion.

I don't buy Nixon's quote either. Not for a second. MacArthur later wanted to nuke North Korea flat. He pretty much lost his job over it.

The quote you selected from Henry Arnold doesn't demonstrate the bomb wasn't necessary. Just because Japan's position was 'hopeless' doesn't mean they were ready to surrender, or wouldn't resist an invasion.

All Japan had to do was unconditionally surrender. They were not willing to do so. So we made them.

[defendandprotect]

69. Exactly -- Every top US Military commander stated "use of bomb not necessary" --

literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.


Apologies for some alteration of what you actually posted --

Additionally, I'd like to remind us all of the fact that our military leaders were

still looking for new imperialist adventures -- Fletcher Prouty tells the story of them

having gotten together huge supplies and reading to take troops into .... VIETNAM!!

The troops refused to go --

Fletcher Prouty has enlightened us on "The Shadow Government" --

he was present during much of the negotiations at end of war --

and knew a great deal about the JFK assassination --

He actually worked for one of the Generals -- Edward G. Landsdale -- who played

a prominent role in the coup on JFK.

Prouty wrote a number of books -- many in my library.

Lots of info about him on the internet -

[defendandprotect]

66. It was a defeated nation, clearly stated by our own military leaders -- including IKE --

[proteus_lives]

8. Post-war CMA.

The whole Japan was ready to surrender myth is just that. A myth.

[Bigmack]

27. Not a myth...

Time for you to do some research. Start here: http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
On July 25, an intercepted message from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato in Moscow stated without reservation:
The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter.
In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
A top secret internal 1946 War Department study discovered in recent years found that:
The Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.

[proteus_lives]

88. And groups of officers wanted to launch coups in case of surrender.

Various groups wanted to negotiate to keep Taiwan and Korea.

Many didn't believe we had anymore bombs.

They were preparing for a suicidal defense of their home islands.

[boppers]

116. Do you understand the phrase "unconditional surrender"?

Japan kept coming back with conditions.

[tabasco]

22. Yes, conventional fire bombing was soooo much better.

None of your quotes can be accurately described as the position of the "US military."

The Japanese were not ready to surrender and any claims to the contrary are lies. The fanatics had seized control.

Hundreds of thousands of grunts would have died if the bomb was not dropped.

[Bigmack]

24. What... those guys aren't civilians, are they?...

They were all military. In fact, guys like LeMay and MacArthur were superhawks. The military had intel that showed the war was over. Can't you admit that?

Time for you to do some research. Start here: http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
On July 25, an intercepted message from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato in Moscow stated without reservation:
The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter.
In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
A top secret internal 1946 War Department study discovered in recent years found that:
The Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.

[slackmaster]

32. The Bomb is bad and should never be used again. Everyone gets it.

The annual second-guessing of our President's incredibly difficult decision serves no useful purpose, except to provide a little entertainment.

There was no good choice at the time. Every possible strategy led to death and destruction. To paraphrase the fictional General Turgidson:

Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got a quarter million people killed, and the other where you got a couple of million people killed.

[Bigmack]

46. That exactly the problem... NOBODY gets it....

Lots of people barely to the right of most of us are actually talking about "nuking" this or "nuking" that. Iran, for example.

If people see that the bombs on Japan were not necessary, and were part of some kind of postwar political maneuvering, perhaps - just perhaps - they will see that "nuking" places today have the same lack of military need.

Please don't quote a line from Buck Turgidson to back your argument. I quoted Ike, MacArthur, Arnold, LeMay, Leahy... They are real, and they said we shouldn't have done it.

Besides, Leahy said the blockade was working. No invasion needed. It was only a matter of time. But Truman didn't want to wait and have the Russians get the wrong idea about American power.

Second-guessing Presidential decision-making? Seems to me like we've been second-guessing the Bush fuck-ups for years..... and we were right. Is Truman somehow exempt from a historical examination of his actions?

[county worker]

67. A lot of selective editing I think.

If all that you post is true, why was my dad training for the invasion of Japan in Aug of 1945?

[Bigmack]

78. Because that's what the military does...

train. The top brass knew it wasn't going to happen, but what are you going to do with an army you can't exactly disband... yet... but you've got nothing for them to do right now.

You ever been in the military? An exhausted grunt is a grunt NOT getting into trouble.

[county worker]

83. I'm a Vietnam war veteran.

I would take my dad's account of the things going on then more than I would yours and I would take my experience in the Army over your bull shit any day.

[Bigmack]

98. BFD....

USMC... MOS 0331 Mike Co. 3rd Bn 7th Marines... in Country 13 months.

I've read a little since then, too. You might try the same.

[AsahinaKimi]

2. "For the sake

of future generations, we must continue to work together to realise a world without nuclear weapons," the US ambassador said in a statement.

I hope someday that will happen.

[defendandprotect]

3. Good news, but sad we did this in the first place . . .

Japan, the only country that has ever been attacked with atomic bombs

US -- only country that has actually dropped atomic bombs on another country --

and on civilians.

[proteus_lives]

9. Hiroshima was a legitimate target.

And it was sad that Japan started the war in the first place.

[defendandprotect]

44. Civilians are NEVER a legitimate target -- and Japan was ready to surrender . . ..

which is what military leaders pointed out -- including IKE who was

AGAINST using these weapons -- for moral reasons -- and he was right.

[proteus_lives]

85. No they weren't.

That's a myth. Leaders were against the bomb after war because it was fashionable.

Hiroshima contained legitimate military and industrial targets.

[defendandprotect]

139. The Commanders -- including IKE -- were asked their opinion BEFORE the bombs were dropped ...

Ike and essentially all of the other military leaders were against it --

and for many reasons -- moral -- and because Japan was finished and this wasn't

necessary --


Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

And... you also notice the cya aspect in the leaflets dropped by "nuke 'em Le May" -- !!

So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

[JustAnotherGen]

60. Agreed on Japan should never

have brought us into WW II in the first place. :-( But by doing so and in that matter? It opened up Germany & Italy (they had to in order to stand with their ally) to declare war on us on December 11th - and bring us into the European theater.

[totodeinhere]

33. The only reason we were the only ones to use it at that time was because we were the only ones that

had it. Do you believe for even one moment that either the Nazis or the Japanese militarists would not have used the bomb first if they could have? Look, it was an all out war and after the Potsdam Declaration was made, there was no doubt that the allies would only accept unconditional surrender. It was unclear at that time whether that meant that the Japanese Imperial House could be preserved, but that was the only ambiguity.

[defendandprotect]

45. We may have actually used German-made atomic weapons . . .!!

Only the third one may have been American-made -

One tested and two dropped on Japan --


The only reason we were the only ones to use it at that time was because we were the only ones that had it. Do you believe for even one moment that either the Nazis or the Japanese militarists would not have used the bomb first if they could have? Look, it was an all out war and after the Potsdam Declaration was made, there was no doubt that the allies would only accept unconditional surrender. It was unclear at that time whether that meant that the Japanese Imperial House could be preserved, but that was the only ambiguity.


Evidently, the Nazis may have been waiting to accumulate more bombs and a delivery system.

Truman -- after demanding "unconditional surrender" actually accepted "conditional surrender" -- !!

As they say, "the victors write the history" -- but other information does finally get thru and

there's a lot of it around on the internet and in libraries.

[totodeinhere]

48. You must be referring to Rainer Karlsch's book.

But the consensus among the vast majority of historians is that the Nazis had no nuclear capability.

[defendandprotect]

65. No -- It's "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" by Jim Marrs . . .

and he isn't alone in his thinking --

Again -- the victors write the history --

do you actually think that they'd ever suggest that US picked up these weapons

from Germany???!!

[MilesColtrane]

91. So the Nazis had too much humanitarian compassion to use...

"Little Boy" on London?

You are way out there, cowboy.

[defendandprotect]

125. Only YOU are suggesting that -- if you read my post, the thinking is they

were waiting for a delivery system and more bombs --

and don't know if there is any evidence that they ever tested one of the

bombs -- so they might not have completely understood the destructive power

of just one?

Then, again, we dropped two -- but tested one first!

[totodeinhere]

94. I am writing this off as another crazy conspiracy theory.

It's lunacy like this that gives progressives a bad name and hands talking points to the right wing on a silver platter.

[defendandprotect]

126. ... because this is, as we all know, "conspiracy-free-America" . . . !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

87. Oh, god, you're too much.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

127. Well, you've convinced me --

Nazis had nothing we wanted --

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bigmack]

58. So if the fucking Nazis and the Japanese War Party...

.. the guys who sponsored the Rape of Nanking... would have done it, that means we were right in using it first.

Do you see any moral problem with that idea?

[totodeinhere]

79. No, not at all. Better we do it than they do. n/t

[Bigmack]

81. WTF... better WE be the barbarians? Again... WTF? nt

[totodeinhere]

92. Harry Truman was not a barbarian.

He was one of our greatest Democratic presidents and most historians agree with that assessment. He did what he thought he needed to do to save American lives and end a war that we did not start. It is easy for someone now to sit up in their ivory tower and judge him by today's standards. But that was a different time and we were in an all out war. Yes, war sucks but that's the way it was.

[Bigmack]

97. Hey... don't argue with me...

argue with Adm. Leahy... Truman's chief of staff.. he called it "barbarous".

Every president does some really bad shit... Roosevelt interned the Japanese-Americans. If you think ANY president is perfect, you need to hit the books again. In this case, a really nice man, who was a great president, did a barbaric thing.

Argue with the brass quoted below...

Here's the views of the top Army and Naval and Air Force Officers at the site mentioned below.

Gen. Carl Spaatz...(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...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."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
" he 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.
n being the first to use it, we . . . 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." (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly: He said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
" MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . "(See p. 352, Chapter 28)

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . "(See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)


http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec....

[christx30]

106. Better that

the war is brought to an end with the Allies as victors than the people that bombed Pearl Harbor and set up concentration camps that killed over 6 million people. Better we crush the Japanese and force the total surrender. Do you think the world would have been better had Japan been able to use nukes to knock out our fleets? Or Germany being able to stop the Russians from getting to Berlin using those weapons? The Allies did the absolute right thing in this case.

[Bigmack]

111. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?....

The Japanese were defeated. The Allies were victors.... without the bomb. The surrender gave them what they wanted... to keep the Emperor, so it wasn't total. The US had talked about unconditional surrender.

What the hell does "... Japan been able to use nukes...." mean. They didn't have nukes... or a Navy... or an Air Force.. by that time. WTF.

[defendandprotect]

128. If you're imitating murders and rapists, you are still murders and rapists -- !!

[OrderedChaos]

5. I have been to Peace Park

two different times. It is a very sobering experience. Standing in front of the bombed out Prefecture building (the skeletal dome) in person made it hit home. We killed over 100k people in a short period of time, not once, but twice. Don't forget, Nagasaki was also bombed. The initial blast, the fires and the radiation from the bombs were short term, as well as long term killers. That is nothing at all to be proud of.
The Park itself is beautiful. Lots of trees and grass, as well as monuments and statues to various organizations and people. School kids all over Japan make thousands of colorful origami swans (they represent peace) to place at the monuments. People tie fortunes and prayers to tree branches. It truly is a "Peace Park". I am glad that the US, UK and France finally sent representatives to the ceremony.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Yeah, and Japan slaughtered between 10 and 11 million Chinese civilians.

Keep that in perspective, when you weigh it against a swift end to the war, at the cost of 180k Japanese civilians, in two cities that we risked the product of the most expensive arms production effort known to man, to warn them to evacuate the cities, because they would be "utterly destroyed in the coming days".

See, the 'Curtis Lemay Bombing Leaflet'. We warned them. We had three weapons. One we detonated in the desert, on our own soil. We risked those two remaining weapons to warn them. And indeed, the warning was taken seriously, as about 25% of the city's population had evacuated.

War is hell.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Look at this chart, and just think about it, next time you visit that 'peace park'.

Don't forget the civilians slaughtered by the Japanese Empire in French IndoChina, India, and the East Indies. All in the millions, and with an error margin of +- millions. We don't even know for sure how many civilians were killed by Japan. We'll never know.

4% to 58%. My god, we were horrific monsters, weren't we?

[neverforget]

36. I've posted that before and I never get a response from the revisionists.

The Japanese military, who actually ran the country, did not want to surrender. They wanted to fight to the death. Literally. But somehow we're the monsters for ending the war that they started.

[Bigmack]

59. I'm no revisionist..

but if you take a look at the US right now, you might get an inkling of what craziness took over in Japan before the war.

I'd like us to actually learn from the mistakes that led up to that war.

We have two wars of choice going on right now, much of the country is slavering for war with Iran, some whackjobs want war with Pakistan. Shit, this country is war crazy!

Look at what we spend on war.

I'm not excusing the pre-war Japanese, just pointing out how easy it is for the militarists to lead a country to destruction.

The people... well, the people just don't count.

[defendandprotect]

62. Sad, but completely true -- excellent comments -- MIC is all -- screw nature/people --

[neverforget]

122. I agree with you 100% with your points about today.

[lynne]

38. That chart is a real eye-opener -

- do you have a URL for it? Thanks!

[AtheistCrusader]

40. It's off Wikipedia.

If you right-click on a picture on any website, and select "properties", you'll see the URL that points to its source.

[lynne]

50. Thx for the tip! eom

[defendandprotect]

47. Because one nation behaves "monsterously" doesn't preclude another nation doing the same!

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Right, like endangering the war effort to warn civilians to leave the area.

Again, a risk that paid off, as about 1/4 of the civilian population of about 22 Japanese cities fled.

We bombed Yokohama with incendiaries, just like Tokyo. A city of 1 million people. In 4 hours we utterly destroyed about 47% of the city. Civilian deaths? About 5,000.

Just under half of a million-person city, annihilated, and we only killed 5,000 civilians. In war like this, civilians will always be caught in the crossfire. Yes, that happens, and it's terrible, and we went to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths. We incurred increased risk to the success of missions, and the survival of our troops to avoid civilian deaths.

The axis on the other hand, intentionally targeted civilians. Not just Japan either. It was systemic across the axis, throughout the war.

No, I believe the Allies, as a whole, conducted themselves very honorably in that war. Yes, civilians died, and there were even isolated atrocities here and there. But overall, there is NO moral equivalency between the combatants.

[defendandprotect]

63. These were civilian communites -- even by then, no front lines --

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Civilian communities housing military garrisons, and producing war material.

DGZ for Hiroshima is about 300m from the NE corner of the roof of East Asia Tin Works.

I'll give you one guess what they made there, and no, it's not fluffy bunny toys.


Japan enjoyed an immensely efficient distributed manufacturing process. Something that the High Explosives raids over Germany wouldn't work against. If we had dropped HE on Yokohama, large factory buildings would be destroyed, but their manufacturing capability would remain significantly intact, and the civilian death toll would have been immense. Incendiary raid gets all the smaller, sub-250 person manufacturing sites, all of them. AND humans can escape the fires. The Japanese were making freeway-wide fire breaks by that point in the war. Useless as actual fire breaks, but worked great for humans to escape the fires on foot.

Again, comparing motive and method, the Allies were quite humane. Insofar as one can be humane in war.

[Bigmack]

80. Not a military target....

"By July 1945, only a fraction of the planned strategic bombing force had been deployed yet there were few targets left worth the effort."

It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The military targets could have been hit by conventional bombs, but the US didn't want to mess up the experiment. The city had never been on the list of primary targets.

The harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized. We didn't bomb - even with conventional weapons - the islands we had "hopped" in the Pacific unless they presented a threat.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." So destroying war-making factories wasn't high on the list of reasons for hitting Hiroshima with a weapon of mass destruction.

Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

[AtheistCrusader]

107. The bombing survey is good, but contains errors.

East Asia Tin Works was destroyed. You can read about the plight of one of the surviors in the rubble in John Hersey's, 'Hiroshima'.

Again, we warned them several times, at great risk to the war effort. And again, the Japanese took the warnings quite seriously, and took what countermeasures they felt were appropriate, including evacation of 'unnecessary' civilians.

[Bigmack]

110. What were they going to ship out to help ....

the Japanese war effort? No trains, no roads not covered by US air, no boats. The tin works was nearly a mile from Ground Zero.

Read Hersey years ago. It sorta argues for my point of view, don't you think?

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Actually, if you recall that book the trains were working fine.

One of the people followed in the book arrived by train that morning from another city.

On the distance to ground zero, I would have to look it up, my memory indicates it was much closer, but I could be mistaken. In either case, it was destroyed, as intended.


The book is certainly offered as an anti-war piece, and I agree with the premise that war is generally an evil thing. However, that book contains quite a bit of evidence that suggests not only the validity of the target, but also the attitutes of the Japanese people, both their willingness to continue fighting, and their perception of how the war was going for them (badly at the time).

It is an excellent book. Short, but very illustrative of the horrors of war, and why we fight.

[defendandprotect]

129. Thank you -- couldn't be clearer that it wasn't necessary . . .

Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

[uppityperson]

76. Someday I wish to see it. Thanks for posting about it. I'm glad reps went to the ceremony also.

[proteus_lives]

10. I hope the powerful lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never forgotten.

[TomCADem]

11. Kudos To The Obama Administration For This Change In Policy...

...Watch the right wing corporate media spin this as an apology for winning WWII.

[demoleft]

14. US ambassador attends 65th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing

Source: telegraph

Washington's decision to send ambassador John Roos to the 65th anniversary of the bombing was seen by many as potentially paving the way for President Barack Obama to visit Hiroshima - which would be unprecedented for a sitting US leader.

Along with the US, Britain and France also made their first official appearance at the memorial, as well as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Altogether, 74 nations were represented.

China, which sent a low-ranking official in 2008, was not participating. Officials said it did not give a reason.

...

"For the sake of future generations, we must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons," he said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/7929584/US-ambassador-attends-65th-anniversary-of-Hiroshima-bombing.html

---

good.

"The human race must not repeat the horror and misery caused by atomic bombs," Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said in a speech after 1,000 white doves were released in a symbolic gesture for peace.

"Japan, as the only nation to have been attacked by the war-time atomic bombs, has a moral responsibility to lead the efforts toward realisation of a world without nuclear weapons," he said.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100805-us-attend-biggest-ever-hiroshima-memorial-japan-britain-france-nagasaki-world-war-ii

[trusty elf]

15. I'm sure the right wing idiots will be foaming at the mouth about this.

[bananas]

16. U.S., U.N. attending Hiroshima memorial boosts nuke-free world hopes

Source: Kyodo News

Representatives from a record 74 countries including the United States, a first-time participant, and the U.N. chief attended a ceremony Friday in Hiroshima to mark the 65th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city in World War II, symbolizing a growing international move toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos became the first U.S. representative to attend the Peace Memorial Ceremony in the western Japanese city, while U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon became the first U.N. chief to do so. Representatives of nuclear nations Britain and France also attended for the first time.

Roos' attendance at the memorial was initially received favorably but eventually left many local atomic bomb survivors disappointed as he kept tight-lipped during his stay in Hiroshima, declining to voice any specific words for the victims or talking with them.

Roos issued a comment through a press release put out by the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo after the memorial, saying, ''For the sake of future generations, we must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons,'' but some of the survivors who expected an apology from the United States were let down as the release also said Roos attended the ceremony ''to express respect for all the victims of World War II.''

<snip>

Read more: http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=516067

[old mark]

17. ...as long as Mr. Roos includes the many thousands that the Japanese murdered,

starved and tortured to death throughout China, Indo-China, Burma, Korea and the South pacific which they refuse to even acknowledge.

Then we should talk.

mark

[RandomThoughts]

18. There are only victims in wars.

On both sides, weather citizens or soldiers.

[old mark]

19. The Japanese deliberately starved many thousands of POWs to death because

it was not convenient to feed them.

Please spare me the "victims" bullshit.
I suggest you read some history before you attempt to judge it.

mark

[RandomThoughts]

119. I was not making any judgement.

Only commenting on how war hurts everyone.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Funny, there seems to be some disparity in the nature of the victims between the axis and the allies

It's almost like allied civilians were targeted intentionally or something.

[RandomThoughts]

120. I think weather a person hurts a civilian or a soldier

or is someone that is hurt in a war, they are all victims of the tragedies that lead to war.


I think of the person hurting someone else as a victim of war also.

[-..__...]

20. Are they going to send a delegation to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th...

and return the favor?

[CBGLuthier]

21. Can you tell the difference between a military base and a city full of civilians?

I think it is funnier than shit that every year at this time everyone debates this event as if the debate will change one fucking thing. So fucking hilarious.

The atomic bomb droppings may be debatable but there is no doubt that our fire-bombing of Tokyo was a truly great war crime. The kind of war crime that gets losers hung and victors promoted and praised.

[-..__...]

23. In time of war...

there is no difference.

If the murdering bastards hadn't attacked us first... there wouldn't have been any "truly great war crime" perpetuated against them.

[EFerrari]

52. Try reading the Geneva Conventions sometime.

They are clear and written in mostly small words.

[-..__...]

64. Apparently it was never translated and published in Japanese.

At least by Japans actions in the Pacific, China, SE Asia, etc it would seem so.

[EFerrari]

72. They were signed in 1949. n/t

[-..__...]

75. The 4th Convention was agreed upon in 1949...

the preceding 3 were written much earlier... one of which governed the treatment of prisoners of war.

Yeah... the Japanese Empire really honored and complied with those provisions.

[Ignis]

84. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Unbelievable. :puke:

[defendandprotect]

130. And if we hadn't cut off their oil supply . . . and for want of a nail a house was lost . . . ???

Unfortunately, we've long pretended there are front lines -- there aren't any longer --

and haven't been for a long time --

But civilians were not seen as the enemy -- any more than civilians in Iraq should be the

enemy - or in Afghanistan -- or in Russia -- or Japan --

It is leaders who do the planning for wars and perpetual wars and who have imperialistic

desires - not the public.

[slackmaster]

28. It has always been my hope that the results of the two A-bombs used on Japan...

...will serve to prevent any use of nuclear weapons in the future.

However, I fear that some radical non-government group, perhaps religious fanatics, will get hold of one and use it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky,

that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds who has come to annihilate everyone

. Even without your taking part all those arrayed in the opposing ranks will be slain!"

(Gita vs. 11.32





"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that one way or another."


Oppenheimer

[slackmaster]

30. The Manhattan Project is one of my favorite historical events

I have personally met several people who worked on it.

Our nation's politics and international relations for all of the early part of my life were dominated by the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation. Thinking about it taught me to appreciate fragile life.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. My Dad worked on the 63 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

I'm from a real nuclear family.

The bomb should never be used again and total world nuclear disarmament is a must
for all nations and this world.

As long as we rationalize nuclear weapons as “necessary” in order to save American lives, then nuclear weapons will never be gotten rid of.
-- Bernard Lown

* The sheer folly of trying to defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to anyone capable of rational thought. Nuclear capability must be reduced to zero, globally, permanently. There is no other option.
-- Queen Noor of Jordan

" This idea of weapons of mass extermination is utterly horrible and is something which no one with one spark of humanity can tolerate.
-- Bertrand Russell

* Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would he an unprecedented human catastrophe.
-- Carl Sagan

In the age when the atom has been split, the moon encircled, diseases conquered, is disarmament so difficult a matter that it must remain a distant dream?
-- Philip Noel-Baker

Extending social and economic development throughout the world and eliminating nuclear weapons from military arsenals are two fundamental prerequisites to replacing the culture of war with a culture of peace, and building true security for all the world's people.
-- Douglas Roche




I think the US rep at the memorial was a good step forward

[slackmaster]

39. I sat next to Herbert York on a flight from San Diego to San Jose in 1997

We had a wonderful conversation. I got my Bachelor's degree from a UC campus of which he was one of the founders.

[Ichingcarpenter]

71. No Wonder Aliens don't want to make contact with humans

after reading some the gung ho posters on this thread. LOL

Herbert York worked on the UN non proliferation treaty I think.
Interesting guy you were lucky to have spent time with him before his death.


This world needs to get rid of the war culture, war business and war machine
otherwise humanity will not evolve.

Though I hated the second "The Day the Earth Stood Still' I did like this quote.

Klaatu:Your problem is not technology. The problem is you. You lack the will to change.

Professor Barnhardt:Then help us change.

Klaatu:I cannot change your nature. You treat the world as you treat each other.

Professor Barnhardt:But every civilization reaches a crisis point eventually.

Klaatu:Most of them don't make it.

Professor Barnhardt:Yours did. How?

Klaatu:Our sun was dying. We had to evolve in order to survive.

Professor Barnhardt:So it was only when your world was threated with destruction that you became what you are now.

Klaatu:Yes.

[proteus_lives]

90. That's assuming they're peaceful.

Which is pretty big if.

[defendandprotect]

132. Our own military has told us they are no threat --

but the right wing persists in trying to suggest they are a threat --

Where is the threat?

Btw, there is a video made after the UFO flap in DC in the early 1950's . . .

where one of the Generals reports that they are intelligently guided -- but

no threat to us. Needless to say, that kind of rational approach much have

driven the right wing hawks like "nuke 'em Le May" nuts ----


There's an interesting book by Lt. Col. Philip Corso called "The Day After Roswell" --

in fact, I think you can pretty much find most of the info from the book on line in

Corso interviews/websites. But the initial printing of the book contained a foreword

by Sen. Strom Thurmond wherein he related that he was aware that Roswell did actually

happen -- and that there were alien bodies. Without any proof, he also suggests they

should be viewed as violent.


In fact, the only violence we've seen surrounding the UFO's, is US violence in shooting

missiles at them -- and trying to shoot them down!

[defendandprotect]

131. We're now truly living the horror of "We had to burn the village to save it!" . . .

especially if the idea that nuclear weapons are "necessary" to save lives isn't

more strongly challenged by citizens!

Nuclear weapons -- and nuclear power plants -- are an example of that --

War is an example of that --

The destruction of nature by BP in the Gulf is an example of that --

and before that the ExxonMobil spill --

We turned a corner now from which I think there is no returning --


Certainly, neither can we expect that nuclear bombs helped nature --

some think they are connected to Global Warming --

but in the simplest ways this is becoming true -- I watch now as my town

and town after town are cutting down limbs from huge old trees on any public

street where cars travel because of the dangers from the increasingly strong

thunderstorms, lightning, winds --


I'm sure you're proud to be connected to that fight against the bomb --

I've always liked that in the movie "The Way We Were" they show Katie working to

"Ban the bomb" -- it was a saner approach to life than what came after it!






:)

[Romulox]

34. Japan was the aggressor in WWII, not a victim.

The Japanese are in the thrall of revisionist history. It's scary.

[Bigmack]

49. All this "aggressor" stuff is bullshit...

The Pacific war was about Empire. We controlled the Western Pacific, and the Japanese wanted it... or what they considered their fair share. They needed raw materials, and when we cut them off, they attacked.

Let's not dress this up as the usual US self-delusion that we just wanted to bring peace and freedom to the East.

The concept of good guys and bad guys is a little too simplistic for a war about Empire.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Explain 10-16 million dead Chinese civilians.

Many of whom were dead before we even entered the war.

Looking at the war in the Pacific as being entirely between Japan and the United States is somewhat myopic.

When you're done with China, explain the millions in Manchuria, and India, and the East Indies, etc, etc.

[Bigmack]

61. Explain the dead Vietnamese civilians..

explain the dead civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or the Philipino dead in the Insurrection. Or at Wounded Knee.

War sucks... and I don't mean that in a flippant way. It really sucks.

[Romulox]

96. Um, the US was the aggressor in all the cases you cite.

You aren't much of a scholar. :hi:

[Bigmack]

102. Exactly my point. If we start throwing the term...

"aggressor" around, we have to realize that term is a boomerang.

Oh... Masters in History, which I taught for 30 years. Your condescension is noted, tho.

[Romulox]

105. That's not a very good point. History matters.

"Oh... Masters in History, which I taught for 30 years."

I think your thinking might have become ossified, then.

[defendandprotect]

133. The victors write the history ---

and we still greatly suffer from the "propaganda of white male history" --

The history of our government suggests "conquest" -- "murder" -- "deception" --

"false flag events" -- use of religion to co-option and overtake other nations.

On and on --

PLUS we've long had a lock on inventions of the most brutal weapons --

Who's flying drones over Pakistan right now killing civilians???

[AtheistCrusader]

108. It is appropriate that we own the incidents in which we were the aggressor.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't? That the term just.. doesn't matter?

Yes it SHOULD boomerang back in our faces. As well we deserve.

[Posteritatis]

118. Sounds to me like a good reason to start throwing the term around

It winds up in places where the use of the term is accurate? I'm all for that, whether the United States is being described as such in one case or another or whether Japan is.

Of course, if you're pulling out that silly "look at how Asia and the Pacific were dressing! Of course Japan would do that!" dreck in the classroom then I kind of pity your students.

[Bigmack]

123. Did I say that?... About Asia/Pacific?...

Seems to me like I said "We controlled the Western Pacific, and the Japanese wanted it... or what they considered their fair share. They needed raw materials, and when we cut them off, they attacked."

Seems to me I pointed out that Empires in contention go to war.

"look at how Asia and the Pacific were dressing! Of course Japan would do that!"

WTF?

[AtheistCrusader]

153. We did not control China. We did not control french indo-china. We did not control India.

We did not control the East Indies.

All lost millions of women and children at the hands of the Japanese. Nobody forced Japan's hand. They own their aggression all by themselves.

Edit: and the barbarous nature in which they conducted the war.

[county worker]

70. You'll never get a professorship in history.

"Let's not dress this up" Words like that lend no credibility to your post!



Why did Japan decide to leave the Washington Treaty System and create the puppet state of Manchukuo (1932)?
Why did Japan decide to leave the Washington Treaty System and create the puppet state of Manchukuo (1932)? What effect did this decision have on Japan’s relations with the West?
2 months ago
Report Abuse
by ♦♦♦ Liebestod ♦♦♦
Member since:
February 15, 2008
Total points:
18527 (Level 6)
Badge Image:

Contributing In:
Air Travel
History
Aircraft
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, limited the naval armaments of its five signatories: the United States of America, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan, the French Third Republic, and the Kingdom of Italy. As you are aware, it was an attempt to prevent a naval arms race that began after World War I.

Japan left this treaty (terms of the treaty were modified by the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936) because it felt that it was not fair to them. All along, Japan really wanted to smash the restrictiveness of the Washington Treaty system because they came to view it as an Anglo-Saxon "iron ring" preventing Japan from expanding overseas. For most Japanese, they had submitted once again to the US and Britain, white powers that had earlier tried to curb its WW1 Asian continental expansion.Drawing the inference that the West no longer acknowledged Japan as a first-rate power because of Anglo-American insistence that Japan adopt an inferior ratio in capital ships, opponents of the treaty came to feel a sense of alienation.

This also wasn't helped by the views of Admiral Kato Kanji, the leading opponent of the Washington Naval treaty. He began to pressure Emperor Hirohito to enlarge the geographic sphere of national defense. Kato argued that "the safety of the empire's homeland required confronting American naval forces deployed in the western Pacific" rather than in waters closer to home as specified in the 1923 policy. Hirohito approved kato's report, delivered to him on November 27, 1929 but clung to the arguments of Kato's opponents, the "treaty faction" admirals. They too wanted a big navy and believed in the doctrine of winning a war by fighting a decisive naval battle; but they insisted that the difference in national power between Japan and the USA be ruled out, for the time being, anything but a passive defense of the empire. They believed that the disparity in tonnage was too disadvatageous to Japan's naval forces, as stated below:

Tonnage limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty:

Country / Capital ships / Aircraft carriers

British Empire 525,000 tons (533,000 tonnes) 135,000 tons (137,000 tonnes)

United States 525,000 tons (533,000 tonnes) 135,000 tons (137,000 tonnes)

Japan 315,000 tons (320,000 tonnes) 81,000 tons (82,000 tonnes)

France 175,000 tons (178,000 tonnes) 60,000 tons (61,000 tonnes)

Italy 175,000 tons (178,000 tonnes) 60,000 tons (61,000 tonnes)

So with this ratio value was unpopular with much of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with the increasingly active and important ultranationalist groups, the value the Japanese Government accepted was the cause of much suspicion and accusation among Japanese between politicians, which Japan thought was becoming too divisive, which made them decide to leave the Treaty.

Manchukuo was a puppet state in Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia. After the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, Japanese militarists moved forward to separate the region from Chinese control and to create a Japanese-aligned puppet state. SO TO CREATE AN AIR OF LEGITIMACY, the last Emperor of China, Pu-Yi, was invited to come with his followers and act as the head of state for Manchuria.

The Japanese initially installed Puyi as Head of State in 1932, and two years later he was declared Emperor of Manchukuo. Manchukuo thus became the Great Manchurian Empire. Puyi was nothing more than a figurehead and real authority rested in the hands of the Japanese military officials. An imperial palace was specially built for the emperor. All of the Manchu ministers served as front-men for their Japanese vice-ministers, who made all decisions.

In this manner, Japan formally detached Manchukuo from China in the course of the 1930s. With Japanese investment and rich natural resources, the area became an industrial powerhouse.
Source(s):
"Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert P.

[CJvR]

99. The whining over the WT & LT

Those treaties were the only reason Japan even came close to matching the British and US naval power. If the Japanese regime had an ounce of sanity they would have clung desperatly to those agreements.

[Romulox]

73. This is similar to holocaust denial; the Japanese committed genocide on the Asian mainland.

"The concept of good guys and bad guys is a little too simplistic for a war about Empire."

Yes...what's the point in keeping track of who committed genocide on whom? How immature! :silly:

[defendandprotect]

134. Wait . . . US government is the first to commit genocide vs the native American . . .

and we're still in the same gene pool!!

And it was done with the push of Papal Bulls re both native Americans and

Africans enslaved here -- "enslave them or murder them!" --

Our entire history is filled with violence and overtaking of other nations!!

But in this case . . . we were completely innocent???

[neverforget]

147. So does our past excuse Japan's WW2 aggression and barbarism?

[defendandprotect]

151. Neither their past nor our past is excusable . . . NONE OF IT --!!

[Jefferson23]

35. Obama did the right thing here, and he'll likely have idiots be critical of him for doing so.

This is a BFD and places him up above any other U.S. president for doing so. He said it was appropriate to recognize this anniversary and he is correct because we need to not only honor the dead but also be a voice validating the horrific consequences of such an event.


Excellent decision Obama! And please note that Obama is NOT justifying the use of the bomb with this historic shift of attention to the
victims.

[CJvR]

42. Horror & misery?

Considering the horror and misery the Japanese inflicted on Asia the A-bombs were pretty mild in that department.

[Bigmack]

55. And the Germans? How about the Vietnamese?...

Shit, we buy Japanese cars by the million. German cars, too. We buy running shoes and oil from Vietnam. Anybody see a pattern here?

We gotta start looking at war as it really is... competition for resources for our economies. We hate "those bastards" - whoever they are - for a few years, and then we make allies of them and trade with them and the corporations make more money.

Us little guys are just pawns, to be whipped into a wartime frenzy by propaganda, suffer the real consequences of the war, and then become good consumers after the war.

The Japanese murdered millions of Chinese, the Germans murdered millions of Jews, the Russians murdered millions of Russians. If we had any real conscience, we wouldn't trade with anybody who has done genocide. Oh... wait a minute.... what about what happened to those Native Americans?

Never mind.

Let's just go on with the tension/war/postwar alliance system we have now. It works so well.

[CJvR]

95. The US was a small player

In regards to genociding american natives the US was a small player, the Spanish combined with smallpox did most of the dirty work in that regard.

[Bigmack]

103. We were a small country...

so I guess "small genocide" would be appropriate. But our hearts were in the game tho, huh?

[defendandprotect]

135. That's a lot of "up is down" history you've got there . . .

Try Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the US" - in every library!

[Posteritatis]

113. While true, it's horror and misery nonetheless

I consider the atomic bombings an act of mercy compared to what Japan - and invading Allied armies - would have gotten, but that doesn't mean they still didn't suck pretty hard.

[Bigmack]

53. Nuke 'em all...

.. our answer for everything. Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us well.

Fucking idiots.

[proteus_lives]

89. How immature.

Cussing because you're wrong.

You think people like nuclear weapons because we think their use in WWII was necessary?

How childish you are.

[Bigmack]

104. Fuck no....

people (not me) like nukes because they lack the intelligence to use anything other than brute force to resolve problems, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate in brute force.

Sorry.. I learned how to cuss while I was killing people for America.

[proteus_lives]

124. Sorry but force was necessary to end WWII.

So you never heard curse-words before entering the Armed Forces? Interesting.

[Bigmack]

141. I'm talking about using nuclear weapons...

and you say "force was necessary to end WWII".

Wow..

That's profound.

Force was necessary... nuclear weapons weren't.

That's the point.

Edit... Yeah, the Jesuits swore a lot, but not with the color and sweep and variety used in the Corps.

[proteus_lives]

143. "Force was necessary... nuclear weapons weren't."

That's were we disagree. Nuclear weapons were to necessary to bring the war against Japan to the least bloody end.

Facts are facts.

[Bigmack]

144. Jesus... Did you actually read my post...

with the quotes from the top military brass? I'll try yet again.

Facts sure as hell are facts, and the fact is the military brass knew the war was over and did not want to use the bomb.

You must be some kind of brilliant tactician... somehow smarter than Ike, Leahy, MacArthur, LeMay, Arnold, and the others.

Here's the views of the top Army and Naval and Air Force Officers (find the originals at the site mentioned below.)

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
" he 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.
n being the first to use it, we . . . 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." (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly: He said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
" MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . "(See p. 352, Chapter 28)

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . "(See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)


http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec....

[proteus_lives]

146. Post-war CMA.

I never claimed to be a brilliant tactician. You on the other hand, seem to know with your collection of other people's thoughts.

[Bigmack]

149. No tactician... but I taught this stuff for 30 years...

to High School seniors. I used to have the kids debate, and the "No, we should not have used the bomb" kids won every time. The kids on the "Yes, we should have" side always bitched that all the good evidence was on the side of the "No"s. No fair! They both had access to everything I've seen here on DU, and a lot more besides. (Upwardly mobile, college bound, grade-grubbing overachievers could dig even before the Web)

Ike had been against the use of the bomb since he learned about it...."Eisenhower had clear views on what became one of the most controversial decisions that a President has ever made, authorizing the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He expressed his ideas in July 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, a meeting between President Harry S. Truman, Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. After news of the test in the New Mexico desert of the first atomic bomb reached U.S. officials at the beginning of the conference, Eisenhower told Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that the bomb was unnecessary, as Japan was on the verge of surrender. Eisenhower also feared that the first use of atomic weapons in combat would tarnish the image of the United States at the very moment that its prestige was at an all-time high" http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/eisenhower/essays/biography/print

You dismiss those quotes as postwar CYA, so you're saying those Admirals and Generals, and a future President were lying about how they felt?

You're saying that Curtis LeMay, who advocated attacking the Soviets with large numbers of nuclear weapons, somehow had a postwar soft spot for Japan, and was covering his ass a month after the Bomb? After his famous quote... "We're bombing them back to the Stone Age."

You're saying Hap Arnold, whose planes bombed 167 cities and killed 300,000 people, suddenly felt remorse? "When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion." Arnold, quoted by Eaker.

How about: The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year, without invasion and without the atomic bomb.

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, 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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#taaatjhi page 26

Oh.. wait... that report was made in July of 1946, so it's just more CYA... to you anyway.

We used those weapons for some other reason than to end the war. I don't believe in karma or any of that kind of shit, but if we keep defending our use of those weapons against modern cities for no military gain, I believe History will bite us on the ass. This country is going to lose it's Empire someday, and the world will not be kind.

There are people here... on DU... suggesting we "nuke" Iran. May god (or whatever) have mercy on us.

[defendandprotect]

136. Joint Chiefs, save for JFK, probably would have nuked Cuba -- and/or Russia . . .

Remember "nuke 'em Le May" ... ????

And Operation Northwoods?

Chernobyl -- Three Mile Island --

and alleged terrorists flying over the nuclear power plant in New York!

We have 106 nuclear power plants now and Obama is financing a new round of them

in giving $36 BILLION in loan guarantees to the industry!!

As I understand it from what I've read it takes 6 months to properly shut down

a nuclear reactor.

[MilesColtrane]

93. Thought I'd post this, as I had never seen the exact warning before.

Wording of the leaflets dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945:

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend.

In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods.

We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people.

The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.

”

[AtheistCrusader]

109. That is the 'LeMay bombing leaflet'

And the Japanese took it quite seriously. They did evacuate non-essential civilians, bolstered air defenses, built wide fire breaks, which actually served as evacuation routes, and several other countermeasures.

They knew their situation, and they knew we were in it to win it. All it took was a few short sentences over the radio from an emperor only a tiny percentage of the Japanese people had ever even heard the voice of, and it was over.

[defendandprotect]

137. Interesting cover . . .

Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

And here's the reason -- the way it was going to be viewed since it was an attack on civilians ...

So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

[MilesColtrane]

140. Bilderbergers! Fake Moon Landings! Nazi A Bombs! BOO!

I've had my fill of you.

[defendandprotect]

142. I understand . . . there is only "conspiracy-free-America" . . . !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



And certainly there was never a "nuke 'em Gen. Curtis Le May" -- or

Joint Chiefs who all signed off on "Operation Northwoods" -- !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


And here's some tin foil for you --


&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

154. And the Japanese took the warning seriously. Up to 25% of the population of the warned cities.

They kept only what they needed to keep war production going.

(and those that felt fleeing was dishonorable)

[LanternWaste]

100. I think it's both fitting and apt the U.S. have a delegation attending the ceremonies.

I think it's both fitting and apt the U.S. have a delegation attending the ceremonies.

Not that it speaks to my position on the war, the bomb, victims v. aggressors, or any other irrelevancies to the here and the now.

"The human race must not repeat the horror and misery caused by atomic bombs". I can't disagree with that-- though I'm sure many others will.

[underpants]

112. Good for us

[citizen snips]

121. Did the japanese ever attend a memorial for the Nanjing genocide?

http://www.gendercide.org/case_nanking.html

[defendandprotect]

138. Let's hope this US gesture begins to set a new wave of creating peace in the world . . .!!

Less violence -- more understanding --

[Judi Lynn]

145. Absolutely hoping it isn't an empty gesture. Hope we can believe it was honorable. n/t

[defendandprotect]

150. After 65 years of delay, I think the sincerity has to be proven . . .!!

[cheneyschernobyl]

148. I'll feel better about all this when...

Japan formally/officially apologizes for the millions of people they killed throughout Asia/South Pacific. Their government is over-dosing on denial, and have done so for over 65 years.

I've been stationed in South Korea (the only nation I've been to in Asia that suffered heavily), and to this day there are a lot of hard feelings against Japan. Not only for their actions from 1925-1945 (approximately), but their refusal to even apologize for their horrible deeds.

It's a good thing that our/Allied diplomats attended, but Japan needs to realize/accept/understand the horrors they committed. Until then, this matter will continue to harbor deep harsh feelings.

Feel free to flame away; although my intentions were not to offend/upset anyone.