Hiroshima: What would you have done?

[bpilgrim]

Poll question: Hiroshima: What would you have done?

before you vote consider that EVERY military leader in theater at the time agreed with decision and as A MATTER OF FACT, suggested we accept japans 1 condition to surrender (which we did in the end) in order to SAVE LIVES!!!

Imagine no Iwo Jima let alone, Nagasaki & Hiroshima :cry:

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

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. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

...

There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. (THE DECISION, p. 358 n.) Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported 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. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 4.)

* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (THE DECISION, p. 356.) (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION (pp. 352-358).)


more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

see also...
Hiroshima: What would you have done?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1539275,00.html

psst... pass the word!

peace

[wurzel]

1. The A-bomb was a war crime. Palestinians do commit terrorist acts. But

the problem is how much sympathy do you really have for the victims?

[bpilgrim]

3. don't ask

for whom the bell tolls...

peace

[niallmac]

10. Cooking men women and children non combatants is hard for me to deal

with. I have no real idea what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb but I am certainly impressed with the comments of Nimitz and Ike. They were fairly close to the situation yes? I find it hard to believe some OTHER way could not have been found other than dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or rounding up all the Japanese on the mainland and encarcerating them and confiscating their land...especially that last bit. Someone correct me if I am wrong but the U.S. confiscated their property am I right or wrong?
I understand the argument about shortening the war. Someone said if we tried a demo detonation... what if it didn't work? Well, hold another demo. I also believe that at this point in the war with all the killing and misery that had gone on to that point, that the decision to drop the bomb absolutely had a few drops of plain old fashioned racism and revenge in the blend. We have come a long way from the days of our founding fathers.

[zanne]

71. I agree, niallmac

When I was in high school in the late 60's, "Hiroshima" by John Hersey was required reading. After reading that book, you just can't condone what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic bombs that were used couldn't "target" military installments--these bombs literally targeted the entire city of Hiroshima, then Nagasaki a few days later.

[Bucky]

113. The problem with the demo option was, they only had two bombs

Plus don't be fooled into thinking that the bomb ended the war. Fear of Russian occupation is what got the Japanese to surrender. They'd taken far worse punishment at Tokyo and had not stopped fighting. A demo that might have called into question our willingness to use the bomb would have been a waste of time and precious materials.

[Bucky]

112. Hiroshima & Nagasaki did have military production facilities.

The bombing was arguably immoral, but certainly not illegal according to the universallly accepted laws of war. They were legitimate targets and the bombing destroyed the targets. Keep in mind also that the total loss of life at both sites accounted for the same number of fatalities as occurred in just one night in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and was less than one third the total number of civilians killed one the ground by the army after the Battle of Nanking.

The decision was terrible, but probably unavoidable. What really ended the war, by the way, was not the a-bombs, but the Russians entering the war. That's what scared the militarists into surrendering. Despite several efforts to secure an unconditional surrender, the Japanese were still playing games in the quiet negotiations, trying to avoid being occupied. Japan defeated but unconquered would have eventually reemerged as a military threat. After losing hundreds of thousands of lives in the fight, you don't just end it when you can fully win it.

[Ian David]

2. Okay, who voted "other" and didn't elaborate? n/t

[dweller]

5. hmm

perhaps they did?

dp

[dweller]

4. Demo

but my vote doesn't register on DU polls.
sorry.

dp

[ck4829]

6. Demonstration

[Fescue4u]

33. Hiroshima was quite a Demonstration, yet

yet not enough.

Why would wasting 50% of the worlds nuclear stockpile be more effective?

[Ian David]

7. I would have dropped it on some harmless, peaceful natives somewhere

Just so the Japanese would see we REALLY mean business.

"If we did this to the pygmies of the Kalahari FOR NO REASON, just imagine what we'll do to YOU."

I'm kidding.

I would have opted for a demonstration on a relatively un-populated part of Japan.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

8. I voted for "demo"

The Japanese committed horrendous war crimes themselves, slaughtering Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Filipino civilians by the hundreds of thousands, performing medical experiments on them and generally treating the populations they invaded like untermenschen. They called the Chinese sub-humans, whose life or death was not a matter for concern. One only has to read "The Rape Of Nanking" by Iris Chang, which tells only a small part of the accumulation of Japanese attrocities, to start feeling a little less sympathy for the ultimate fate of the Imperial Rising Sun during World War II. But two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with the poster above that the A bomb was a war crime. If we are supposed to be a civilized people, we shouldn't commit war crimes on civilians ourselves. We should avoid needless killing as much for our own well-being as for that of the people against whom we wage war. We should have at least tried to convince them of the destructive power of the bomb before using it on civilians. I think perhaps by showing how many people we could kill in one violent incident, we were trying to convince the Soviets of our new power, as much as the Japanese.

[wli]

9. the US fascists didn't care about Auschwitz and didn't care about nukes

The US right wing were fascist Nazis then as they are now. They repatriated Jews to Germany, knew Auschwitz et al were happening and didn't care, engaged in business dealings with the Nazis outright, and "rescued" numerous Nazi war criminals for use in their own corrupt militaries.

The US right wing were Nazis then, and are still such now.

ON EDIT: added "US" to concluding remarks.

[wrlwnd]

27. FDR and Truman were Fascists?? n/t

[wli]

30. I would say that they themselves were not

As usual, the POTUS is a figurehead. There are others calling the shots in various sub-areas.

[libhill]

37. They're are others calling the shots

period. Even Bill Clinton once remarked that "there is a government behind the government, over which I have no control." I have read that Winston Churchill made a similar remark around the time of the Yalta Conference. And these are people who would be in a position to know. And don't forget Ike's famous warning about the "Military Industrial Complex".

[Bucky]

114. What a terribly uninformed thing to say.

You can pull a few ugly facts out of context to exercise your sense of scorn or you can contribute to an honest debate. You can't do both.

[TankLV]

11. Same damn thing - I don't go for revisionist history.

"Poor Japanese."

"Innocent Japan."

Bullcrap!

Tell it to the Chinese, Koreans, and Philipinos, just to name a few!

They fucking raped and pillaged almost the entire world, not to mention their war atrocities.

My how well the current Nazi's have learned from them.

[MisterP]

13. not everyone is gung-ho for collective guilt

[TankLV]

96. But you all sure are for imagined innocence!

Revisionist history is alive and well here - but it's still a lie.

[manic expression]

16. You cannot justify an injustice with another injustice

Look what happened at My Lai and Fallujah! That means Vietnamese and Iraqis should drop an A-Bomb on a major US City! :sarcasm:

[nofurylike]

25. please read the information. you'll see the revisionism was the other

way around. they revised the facts to try to justify those crimes against humanity.

the original post's links will show you that, IF you will please read them.


peace

[TankLV]

97. I did, THEY are the revisionist history.

And you are right - NOTHING justifies JAPAN's crimes against humanity!

[Walt Starr]

12. Without any doubt and unequivocably, precisely the same thing as was done

and I would have slept easily afterwards, too. Actually, I'd probably sleep better than I had in about four years.

[manic expression]

18. You'd sleep easily after murdering so many

that is sick.

How? Why?

[Walt Starr]

20. I would know that the war was ended

and that the killing would stop.

Damn straight I'd sleep easy.

[manic expression]

21. The killing would stop...

after the massacre of 110,000 civilians? 340,000 people would die from radiation in 1950, so the killing would actually continue.
(http://www.pomperaug.com/socstud/stumuseum/web/msrbomb2.htm)

There is nothing good about an end to a war if it is accomplished by the complete liquidation of 2 large cities, along with their entire populations. Actually, there is everything wrong with it.

[Walt Starr]

23. The Japanese were the enemy, their deaths do not matter.

That is the nature of war.

Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the reality.

If incinerating every city on every Japanese island is what it would have taken, that's what I would have done.

[manic expression]

26. Words cannot describe....

but I'll try.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The Japanese Civilians are PEOPLE. They are innocent, and they should not be treated any differently. Even if they were the enemy, it is plain wrong to callously kill them. Not only do you mistake innocents for enemies, you mistake the nature of war for the nature of slaughter.

That's not war...that's genocide. There's quite a difference.

The REALITY is that those people should not have felt one bit of the immense and ineffable pain we WRONGLY inflicted upon them. The REALITY is that what we did is wrong, and what you have proposed is BEYOND wrong.

Well, the US invaded Iraq, so I think it would be great if you could point out the location of your house so Iraqis could massacre you and your family (after raping the women, of course). Thanks. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

WERE THESE PEOPLE THE ENEMY? DOES THEIR PAIN NOT MATTER?


WHAT ABOUT THIS "ENEMY"???


:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Walt Starr]

50. Hiroshima was a center of military industry

Sorry, but we bombed civilians in factories throughout the war. The headquarters of the military for that region was in Hiroshima. It was a 100% legitimate target.

We killed more civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima.

You will never convince me that bombing Hiroshima was anything other than the morally, legally, and rigteously correct thing to do, NEVER!

Historical revisionism of the facts surrounding that morally correct act piss me off, though.

[manic expression]

80. And those 70,000 innocents

don't matter? We immolated the ENTIRE CITY! Just because there is a military headquarters there doesn't give anyone the right to destroy the ENTIRE CITY!

People of Virginia! Your entire state will be slaughtered momentarily, this is due to the CIA Headquarters in your state! Thank you! :sarcasm: :puke:

"You will never convince me that bombing Hiroshima was anything other than the morally, legally, and rigteously correct thing to do, NEVER!"

But WHY???? That is something you CANNOT answer fully, because it WAS ONE OF THE MOST immoral, illegal and unjustified actions in WWII, in HISTORY.

The firebombings of Tokyo were unnecessary and just as wrong. If you say any different, refer to my next paragraph.

You have some sick ideas...I think you should reconsider your "liberal" label, and perhaps frequent a more like-minded forum (no prizes for guessing which one I mean).

[Walt Starr]

85. They don't matter a whit

Sorry, that's war.

civilians worked in the factories we bombed in Germany. Didn't stop us from bombing the factories.

Civilians lived next to the factories we bombed in Germany and they died, too.

That didn't stop the bombing either.

The civilians did not matter. It was all out war.

[bpilgrim]

88. they were defeated and suing for peace...

* 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:

(T)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. . . .

(I)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. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[Walt Starr]

121. No, they weren't.

The new civilian cabinet sued for peace but could never have enforced such a peace on the Japanese military.

[Parche]

153. Sueing for peace

Truman gave them the ultimatum
Unconditional surrender or you will face destruction
the likes the world has never seen.
They did not surrender at that time
So the bombs were used, and were necessary


Admiral Halsey is my favorite of all, he didnt
think that we should have dropped them either
That is his opinion, I dont fault him for it
or want to change his opinion.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

125. Ahh, now you resort to personal attacks

Obviously, I have won this debate.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[manic expression]

148. Oh, and by the way...

my only "personal attack" wasn't all that serious. Read my second reply, and try to object to that instead of your pathetic whining.

And, obviously, you always lost this debate, and always will.

(on edit): and if you can't figure it out, my second reply is #147.

[Parche]

157. debate

This is a debate, not an attack on other DU members

[manic expression]

158. I am not attacking,

but I am confronting someone on their base opinions. What is wrong with that?

[TankLV]

99. Sure didn't stop the Germans and Japanese from doing it!

But THEY like to ignore those "inconvenient" facts.

[manic expression]

147. Take 2...

No, it's not war, it's slaughter; there's quite a difference.

Factories are valid targets, they directly contribute to the military.

Civilians living next to the legitimate targets were killed by MISTAKE. NOT ON PURPOSE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Their lives were lost because the reasonable attacks on valid targets.

CIVILIANS DO MATTER. War is different from genocide, and that is what you are condoning.

Absolutely disgusting....

[Parche]

151. Hey Walt

I agree with you 150%

People dont realize that by using the 2 bombs
they actually saved lives, on both sides

They dont realize what the Japanese did to POW's
during the war, by stopping that, if I had
10 A-Bombs I would have dropped them on every
Japanese city, to stop their aggression and
sadistic behavior.

[tuckessee]

28. The Japanese had their enemies.

And just like you they had a litany of justifications for their atrocities.

Their wars are subject to the same "nature of war" that you speak about - the "reality" that allows and excuses heinous crimes because it occurs during an officially sanctioned carnage fest.

If incinerating every city on every Japanese island is what it would have taken, that's what I would have done.

The Imperial Japanese were some cruel, violent bastards but even they never advocated or attempted outright genocide.
You've got them trumped in the psychopathic blood lust department for sure.

[ovidsen]

40. Sometimes it takes evil to stop evil.

And the Japanese Empire was pretty damn evil.

"The Imperial Japanese were some cruel, violent bastards but even they never advocated or attempted outright genocide."

Try telling that to survivors of Korea or Nanking.

The Imperial Japanese got exactly what they deserved. Even the Japanese people realized that their former leaders were sadistic war-mongers. Japan still doesn't have an army.

I would have endorsed nuking Berlin, if Germany hadn't already surrendered. Whats a couple hundred thousand deaths compared to 6 million?

[Walt Starr]

47. That's not genocide

Unless every body in Japan lived in cities.

:eyes:

[Parche]

152. Genocide

Nanking China was genocide

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. How is that stance any different than the current U.S. position on Iraq?

In both cases, you are laying the blame for what some are doing at the feet of civilians.

[Walt Starr]

44. Excuse me, when did the Iraqis bomb Pearl Harbor? n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Ok, Afghanistan then?

[Walt Starr]

48. Whendid the Taliban bomb anything? n./t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. You're dodging the point purposely.

You rightfully are angry at the Bush administration for not caring about those on the other side that have lost their lives as a result of our actions. But then you turn around and say that you would kill every Japanese civilian and it wouldn't matter because "they are the enemy".

[Walt Starr]

51. No, I'm not. Youre comparing apples to kangaroos. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. How? How is killing civilians different in one case than in the other?

In both cases they had no control over what was done.

[Walt Starr]

55. #1, Civilians are killed in ALL wars. There is one way to end that -

End war for all times. That's the reality.

#2 The war against Japan and the wars we are currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are completely different animals. In World War II, our survival as a nation depended upon our victory in the conflict, not so in any war since.

#3 I fully support the actions in Afghanistan, and yes civilians will die. This is a fact of war. Don't like it? End war forever. That's the only way you will keep civilians from being killed.

#4 Civilians are killed when military targets are bombed. This is a fact of war. You cannot bomb any military target without the possibility of killing civilians and in most cases there is no way around killing citizens when a military target is bombed.

#5 Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets. The civilian deaths in those bombings were absolutely no different from civilian deaths when we bombed ball bearing factories in Hamburg.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. This wasn't a few civilians caught in the crosshairs of war.

Civilians GREATLY outnumbered soldiers in Hiroshima. They were far and away the majority.

[Walt Starr]

69. What do you figure was the civilian to soldier ratio in a ball bearing

factory in Hamburg?

More civilians died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima.

Your arguments have no merit. You are basing your thoughts on emotions, not logic.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

92. Why does the fact that they killed more people in another bombing excuse

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not only that, if you consider that people were still dying of radiation ten years later, Hiroshima's casulties increase significantly.

On Edit: Also, the US's indiscriminate bombing of Tokyo is debated by some. But I don't bring it up here because at the time when the bombs were dropped, the US military leaders did not think it was necessary.

In fact, in the 1946 Strategic Bombing survey, it is stated:

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

[Walt Starr]

131. It proves that civilian casualties when targeting a legitimate military

target are acceptable.

The only difference between what we did with hundreds of planes and one plane is efficiency.

[Parche]

154. Enemy

The Japanese were our enemy then, it was a declared war

Iraq is an undeclared war, or illegal invasion as I call it
Iraq is not our enemy

[bpilgrim]

54. sounds like the SAME thing UBL would say

what a horrible, cartoon you live in.

peace

[Walt Starr]

58. Don't like the realities of war?

End war for all time because that is the ONLY WAY you will ever change it.

The United States did not ask to get into a war with Japan. Japan attacked us. We finished it.

[bpilgrim]

61. that tired cartoon PROPAGANDA is clearly affecting your judgment on this

issue.

i will go with the opinion of our military leaders in theater at the time that it was NOT necessary.

peace

[Walt Starr]

67. I will go with the opinion of the TOP military advisers that it WAS

Sorry, but ALL of the TOP military advisers said use it.

Military leaders in theater, especially generals, are notoriously glory seekers. There is no glory in swiftly ending a conflict with two fell swoops.

The only PROPAGANDA being spewed around here is the revisionist history being passed off as fact.

[bpilgrim]

75. the facts are japan was defeated and suing for peace

nuking a defeated nation's civilian population centers, TWICE, is TERRORISM on the most horrific scale the world has ever seen.

i will go with the opinion of the military leaders actually in theater vs the political desk jockeys in determining their fighting capability.

you wanna keep the BS propaganda alive after all these years, go right ahead, i will do my very small part to help present the facts that our gov has tried to keep hidden from us for decades in the hope that it may help change our attitudes about nukes actually saving lives before it's too late.

peace

[Walt Starr]

76. The facts are, there were two factions in Japan at the time

Those suing for peace did so without the power to do so.

The military was the second faction, and they were not going along with those in the cabinet suing for peace.

[bpilgrim]

81. they had 1 condition, that we finally agreed to, then it ended

of course, even then a tiny fanatical element in the military - that was running everything - wanted to fight on but they were overwhelmed by more sensible minds.

nuking women and children wins NOTHING.

peace

[Walt Starr]

86. But those suing for peace with that one condition could not back it up

The military did not and would not agree to it and the military had the fucking guns.

What you advocate is we pull a Chamberlain, go for the Peace of Paper while the Japanese military thumbed their noses at the civilians making peace and continued killing Americans.

The argument that they had sued for peace is bogus and historical revisionism.

[bpilgrim]

90. our military leaders backed it up...

and what was, in the end, agreed to, despite the radical minority in the military, and thats good enough for me.

what you speak of is old wwII propaganda that history bears out as false.

or do you think we never use propaganda, too?

peace

[Walt Starr]

122. But the Japanese military WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED IT!!!!!

Damn.

:banghead: You're wrong and I'm through talking to a brick wall.

Historical revisionism such as you present is ridiculous and is also a big part of the reason that Democrats are seen as weak on National Defense.

[bpilgrim]

130. they did accept, though, as history records, once their 1 condition w/met

and the imperial throne remains to this very day a witness to that fact.

fyi: repeating rw kool-aid will get you no-where, especially here.

peace

[Walt Starr]

133. Tojo was not prepared to accept it and it was only accepted AFTER

two nuclear detonations, the Russians entering the war, and the Emperor finally taking it upon himself to go on national radio to declare their surrender.

So your argument is bogus on its face.

[TankLV]

103. And the apologists conveniently igonore the FACT that the

Japanese and Germans were extremely close to developing THEIR OWN BOMB and were eagerly seeking to use it - no "wringing of hands" on the "morality" of it anywhere in their war criminal brains.

It's sooo easy to ignore facts.

[TankLV]

102. Yeah - suing for peace so much that they didn't surrender after the FIRST

bomb was dropped!

And that also rules out the argument for a "safe demonstration project", doesn't it!

THEY DIDN'T SURRENDER AFTER THE FIRST BOMB WAS DROPPED.

THEY DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY SURRENDER AFTER THE SECOND BOMB WAS DROPPED.

THEY WERE WILLING TO FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD.

Those are the facts.

[libhill]

38. I agree

I've never understood how the airmen of those two missions managed to not go insane. I'd have probably killed myself, or spent the rest of my life in a mental institution.

[bpilgrim]

53. so you would not have opted to SAVE LIVES? and ignored all your militarily

leaders advice, why?

peace

[Walt Starr]

62. No, I would have followed the advise of the TOP TWO military advisers

Secretary of War Stimson and General Marshall both advised dropping the bomb.

The TOP military advisers of the time advised to drop the bomb.

[jonnyblitz]

68. that is fucking sick..

:puke:

[Walt Starr]

72. No, sick would have been invading Japan.

Which is what MacArthur and Nimitz wanted. Invasion would have meant glory for the generals and admirals.

[manic expression]

110. That's crap...

we didn't have to invade Japan at all. They were offering peace.

Secondly, Russia had already agreed to invade Japan, so we didn't have to.

Again, your wrong ideas are also woefully misled.

[Walt Starr]

124. WRONG, a new cabinet was offering peace with NO AUTHORITY

The military held all authority in Japan at the time and WOULD NOIT HAVE ACCEPTED ANY SURRENDER AT THE TIME!!!

[manic expression]

142. Then accept the peace

and see what happened after that. Also, you do know that the Emperor was treated like a God in Japan, right? His word would go pretty far.

[Skypilot 18]

14. the way things were back then

The Germans as well as the Japanese, if they had the bomb would have had no problem using it on us. The bomb is the mother of all WMDs. Once Pandora's box is opened it can never be closed. I consider the race to develop the bomb as the race to see who could get the key to Pandora's box sooner. We needed to get to the key sooner than the enemy. But once opened it would soon be a threat everywhere.

That said, I am more worried than ever with Bushitler having access to the trigger.

[TankLV]

106. BINGO! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Pssst - friendly suggestion - don't muddy up the water with inconvient facts - it gets in the way of an imaginary righteous argument.

US = bad; Japanes = innocent victums.

[rasputin1952]

15. 20/20 Hindsight is one thing, but in the context of the times, I would

have done the same thing, and bombed Japan w/the nukes.

I base this on the fact that Tokyo, and other cities were turned into ash, but the leadership of Japan still spoke openly of fighting to the death. There was no real reason to believe they would not have met Allies on the beaches and a bloodbath would have ensued, possibly reaching many more casualties.

From a theoretical point of view, if I were going in on a landing craft, about to hit Main Japanese beaches, knowing that the Japanese were proven to fight to the death in the past; and then found out that a bomb had been developed, (but not used), that could have spared me the horror of seeing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of deaths on those beaches, and perhaps millions more in the relatively near future, I would be one pissed off SOB!

Sure, it is difficult now to comprehend what was done, and justify it. But one thing is for sure, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war; and most likely with less casualties than would be necessary if the japanese High Command kept to their notion of fighting to the end w/any implement at hand.

[The Magistrate]

17. Exactly What Was Done, Mr. Pilgrim

We are never going to see eye to eye on this one, my friend.

Be well, Sir!

[nofurylike]

29. exactly what was done, sssssssssir? a quarter of a million humans were

slaughtered in a human guinea pig *!demonstration!* to the soviet bloc that 'our' country not only had such a horrific weapon, but would use it - not to save lives, as the revisionist propaganda has it, but in any way it would serve u.s. empire-building.

JAPAN HAD ALREADY AGREED TO THE SAME TERMS OF SURRENDER THE US STILL LATER ACCEPTED.

can you grasp that, sssssssir?


no need reply. i am off now.


peace

[The Magistrate]

31. Your Grasp Of The History Involved, Ma'am

Does not seem to me adequate. Study of the Pacific War, from its actual onset in 1931, has left me convinced the thing was necessary.

[nofurylike]

34. do not call me ma'am. now, you do need more study, if you wish to

really understand.
i recognize that you will not do it. i have seen that. but it is, in fact, your knowledge of the history that is inadequate.

goodnight.


peace

[bpilgrim]

57. I would have opted to accept my military leaders advice to SAVE LIVES

instead of SHOCK-n-AWE that started a global arms race.

be well my friend.

peace



peace

[Walt Starr]

74. That's what Truman did.

He followed the advise of Stimson, Marshall, and McCloy. These were his TOP military advisers.

[bpilgrim]

79. the military leaders in theater advised accepting japans 1 condition

to SAVE LIVES, which we did do in the end, after wasting so many :cry:

peace

[Walt Starr]

87. The people who made that one condition didn't have the guns

the Japanese military did and they were not giving up.

Please stop revising history to suit your agenda!

[moondust]

19. No need for 2 bombs.

That's sadistic.

Highly questionable need for 1.

Demo could not have been misconstrued.


Likely the U.S. thirst for revenge decided the course of events.

[libhill]

39. And that wasn't the end -

I understand that there was one last conventional fire bombing of a Japanese island, even after both a-bombs had been dropped. The Air Force called it "the Grand Finale".

[TankLV]

107. Bomb #1 didn't convince them to surrender.

Bomb #2 still didn't convince them to immediately surrender - only more threats did the trick.

THE JAPANESE WERE NOT ABOUT TO SURRENDER "UNCONDITIONALLYL" IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED!

The bombs were necessary, unfortunately.

War is hell. I thank god every day that WE and our ALLIES (the rest of the entire world save for these three miserable countries) won that conflict - every waking moment.

[Bucky]

120. True. But neither did Bomb #2. Fear of Russian occupation ended the war

The emotional debate about the morality of the bomb has clouded our recollection of how the war ended. After America dropped the bombs, Russia entered the war and plowed thru Japan's KMT army in Manchura in a matter of days. Realizing they would be facing a Russian invasion within a few months and a bisectioning a la Germany, the militarists surrendered to the Americans. Imagine how the Cold War would have looked with there being a "North Japan" and you get a sense of what Truman was trying to avoid in ending the war ASAP.

It's also worth noting that Truman and Byrnes were also getting concerned that the American public would start to develop a war weariness after four years. They may or may not have been right about that, but drawing out the war into 1946 was pretty risky toward the national morale.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. A-Bombing Japan, twice, was the appropriate response...

Truman made the right decision.

[nofurylike]

24. thank you for this thread, bpilgrim. and for the links. devastating....

mind-blowing


from the Guardian piece, which i hesitate to quote as all of this info you provide is must-read, imho:

-snip-
There was overwhelming technological momentum: a titanic effort had been made to create a weapon for which the allies saw themselves as competing with their foes.

After Hiroshima, General Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project, was almost the only man to succumb to triumphalism. He said: "We have spent $2bn on the greatest scientific gamble in history - we won." Having devoted such resources to the bomb, an extraordinary initiative would have been needed from Truman to arrest its employment.
-snip-


peace

[bpilgrim]

65. thank you for participating and pass'n the word

:toast:

peace

[Fescue4u]

32. Bomb them till they stop killing Americans

Bomb Hiroshima. Twice damnit.

It would be immoral not to use every tool at our disposal to end the suffering.

[nofurylike]

36. such as accepting the terms of surrender tendered BEFORE the bombs,

versus accepting the very same terms AFTER?

that would have been more moral, yes.


peace

[Fescue4u]

105. There was no valid reason to accept

anything less than unconditional surrender.

If Japan had did this on August 1st, they would have not been nuked.

[TankLV]

108. Again - that is BULLSHIT!

[Oak2004]

35. I've always thought this debate itself was misguided

The problem with this debate (and similar debates on other controversial issues of history) is that the debate is always conducted by humans not living in the time being debated and who have much more knowledge than was available to the decision makers at the time in question. After all, if all of the parties involved had all of the knowledge that is now available to us, Japan would have accepted the Allies' revised ultimatum issued in July of '45 ("unconventional surrender" of all military forces, not the Emperor) and the question would be moot.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the US military and political leaders at the time saw the bomb as a decisive weapon. No one (with the arguable exception of General Graves, who was an adviser, not a decision maker) fully understood that the atomic bomb was anything other than a one bomb/one plane version of the 1000 bomber city destroying incendiary raids that had been going on for years. Statements made later that justify the bombings as the way to avoid a much bloodier invasion are post hoc rationalizations that simply aren't supported by the historical record.

It took the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for America's political leadership, and the world, to fully grasp that the atomic bomb was a fundamentally different weapon. Had America's leaders understood this, the internal debate over the use of the bomb would almost certainly have been protracted, with serious consideration as to whether its use was ethical. A different decision might have been reached. On the other hand, armed with the foreknowledge that it would end the war, the US might have launched a simultaneous three city nuclear attack (the US had three bombs ready), targeting Tokyo as well as secondary cities, acting without pause or warning, and embracing the weapon with gusto. We'll never know. Such speculation is not good history and is too unrealistic to make a good exercise in ethics.

As to options to end the war other than with nuclear weapons -- the US leadership thought it would need to end the war some other way even with nuclear weapons (see above). Invasion would probably have been as horrible as the modern-day defenders of the bomb portray it, and the record shows that the military was beginning to have second thoughts about an invasion. Military planners were exploring the option of encircling and starving Japan into submission. This tactic, if it were successful, would have also cost a million or more lives, though the body count would have been overwhelmingly Japanese. But it is uncertain that encirclement and blockade would have been feasible. At the time the Japanese military had roughly two million soldiers in China and elsewhere, and still controlled vast areas of mainland Asia.

The United States at the time knew that there was a peace faction within the Japanese cabinet. It was doubtful, to Allied intelligence analysts and to America's leaders, that this faction would be able to obtain Japan's surrender. Past civilian leaders who appeared to threaten the military's agenda had been killed. Indeed, the military came very close to deposing Emperor Hirohito in a coup after he had decided in favor of surrender. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the bombings gave an urgency to the peace faction's effort to end the war, but little evidence that the bombings were as decisive in bringing about the government's surrender as atomic bomb defenders argue today. Even with the benefit of hindsight it isn't possible to make a strong case either way as to whether Japan would have surrendered without the bomb and without invasion.

As to whether the US had another agenda in dropping the bomb: there is little evidence to indicate that the United States dropped the bomb primarily to keep the Soviets out of Japan (Soviet involvement in Japan was a concern of Washington. It was seen as a good thing if the bomb (or anything else, for that matter) could give the Soviets pause for thought. But the discussion on whether and how to use the bomb focused on using the bomb to stop Japan, not the USSR). Nor does the record show that it was used because the military needed to test it on a civilian population (yes, they did study weapons effects, as the military does with new weapons, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the civilian leaders who made the decision had any such motive). The need to justify to Congress the cost of the Manhattan Project was probably a powerful nudge toward use (the record shows decision makers, politicians all, were concerned about how to justify the bomb's development cost), but this doesn't make sense as a primary motive. Simpler explanations are better, and, quite simply, the US was in a war, had a weapon, and used it.

So, would I have chosen to drop the bomb were I a decision maker at the time? Since I would have had the same limited understanding of the situation that they had, I probably would have come to the same conclusion. Most anyone who says otherwise about themselves doesn't understand the pressures and limitations of the times. Was the decision to use the bomb the "right" decision (understanding that any decision made would most likely result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons)? It's unknowable.

[libhill]

45. One thing is certain

the war solved nothing. We changed sides, the Japanese and Germans became our friends, the Chinese and Russians became our enemies. The only people who gained were the war profiteers.

[Jack_DeLeon]

137. 60 years of "relative" peace is something...

yes there is still fighting, but nothing like what we had at the first half of this century.

[libhill]

140. When you total the cost in blood

of Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War, I'm not so sure -

[bpilgrim]

56. no military leader in theater AT THAT TIME agree with you...

you start off saying this debate is 'misguided' because we weren't there even though I quoted from the MILITARY leaders who were there. :crazy:

then you try to say they didn't really comprehend what devastating effects it would have even though we tested it and had the greatest scientific minds working on it who know EXACTLY what it would do... to quote J. Robert Oppenheimer who was quoting from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." after witnessing the trinity test.

this debate MUST go on to but to bed, finally the myth that NUKES save lives before we destroy our world.

"Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon succeed only by NAGASAKI" - Kurt Vonnegut

peace

[Walt Starr]

64. The TOP military advisers said drop the bomb!

Stimson, Marshall, and McCloy ALL advised Truman to drop the bomb.

[Raiden]

41. I don't think I could have brought myself to use nukes

Japan had accepted our terms already

[Freedomfried]

42. Should of dropped it right on the Emperors Palace

The Japanese thought the Emperor was God.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. They were crimes against humanity.

All too easily rationalized as "necessary".

[jonnyblitz]

70. exactly, pure fucking evil. nt

[Junkdrawer]

63. 150 Chicago Scientists who worked on the bomb were polled in 1945...

Their choices were:

(1) Use the weapon in the manner that is from the military point of view most effective in bringing about prompt Japanese surrender at minimum human cost to our armed forces.

(2) Give a military demonstration in Japan, to be followed by renewed opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

(3) Given an experimental demonstration in this country, with representatives of Japan present; followed by a new opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapons is employed.

(4) Withhold military use of the weapons, but make public experimental demonstration of their effectiveness.

(5) Maintain as secret as possible all development of our new weapons, and refrain from using them in this war.

The results were:

_____No. of Votes:__% of Total Votes:
(1)..........23.................15
(2)..........69.................46
(3)..........39.................26
(4)..........16.................11
(5)...........3..................2

............150................100


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/ManhattanProject/Poll.shtml

[Walt Starr]

66. A "demonstration" was militarily unfeasible. n/t

[wuushew]

77. How so?

No scenic over-views overlooking Tokyo Bay?

[Walt Starr]

123. I would have done nothig to alter the war

and it would have wasted valuable assets that could have been used against valuable legitimate military targest such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Junkdrawer]

126. "legitimate military targest such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki."...

*shakes head, throws up hands, and walks away*

[rasputin1952]

73. One again....besides other facts of the war, if the Firestorm over Tokyo,

that cost more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, did not convince the Japanese leadership to surrender, and thereby end the war...only a decisive invasion of the Japanese Homeland with a massive loss of life was in the cards. No one knew how many people would have died, but the carnage would have been added to the 55 million that were all ready wiped off the planet.

I am not attempting to justify the morality of the bombings, I am merely of the thought that war is immoral in the first place anyway. To drop nuclear weapons at that time, and under the circumstances, actually pre-empted the Fire Bombings that were slated for those cities, and many more lives might have been lost under those circumstances....:(

[Boreas]

78. Red Army Invasion of Manchuria

I wasn't aware of the magnitude of the Red Army's involvement in the final weeks of the war in Asia. (The Red army won the war, by the way. Something not quite spelled out in our history books.) Was the bomb a message to Stalin as well? It's blast still echos in many human arenas. Nothing exceeds like humans excessive pursuit of weapons. Nothing can stand up to us on this planet, and that's the way we like it. We are natural born killers, sorry if anybody didn't know that. Genocide is in our genes, that's why it won't go away. I'd like to see a poll asking under what conditions nuclear weapons should be used again.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=WWII%20Final%20Soviet%20Push

[bpilgrim]

82. EVERY military leader in theater at the time DISAGREED with decision

what a huge mistake in my OP... can any mod help me out here and fix that opening sentence for me, please, if possible.

tia :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

83. "THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB" - THE H-NET DEBATE

for an up-to-date, scholarly analysis of the decision please visit this site...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

In these times with the neoCONs at the helm I believe it is critically important to understand how politics and not military necessity played a role in our decision to nuke and indiscriminately kill a defeated and suing for peace nation's cities, civilian population centers, filled with men, women & children, young and old, friend & foe alike, TWICE.

it fills me with dread that even today, after 60 years, even on DU, that so many people still reflexively repeat the old propaganda that NUKES 'save lives'.

but don't take my word for it, read what our military leaders in theater at the time had to say about it saving lives...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

more...
HIROSHIMA: WAS IT NECESSARY?
http://www.doug-long.com

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

84. Was bombing Hiroshima really needed? New research suggests it wasn't.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/12289078.htm

GAR ALPEROVITZ KNIGHT RIDDER/TRIBUNE

Sixty years ago, on Aug. 6 and 9, atomic bombs destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans think the bombings forced Japan to surrender. Further, most believe that they were necessary as the only way to end World War II without a costly invasion.

But new research findings suggest both judgments are wrong.

A just-published Harvard University Press volume by Professor Tsuyoshi Hasegawa of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the most comprehensive study yet undertaken of Japanese documentary sources. The highly praised study argues that the atomic bomb played only a secondary role in Japan's decision to surrender. By far the most important factor, Hasegawa finds, was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing.

Japanese military leaders had long been willing to sacrifice civilians and cities to American conventional bombing. What they really feared, Hasegawa points out, was the Red Army, a force that would directly challenge what was left of Japan's dwindling military capacity both on the home islands and in Manchuria. The traditional myth that the atomic bomb ended the war, he writes, "cannot be supported by historical facts."

A similar conclusion has been reached in a recent publication by another eminent Japanese scholar, Professor Herbert Bix, author of a biography of Hirohito that won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 2000.

more...
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/12289078.htm

discuss here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4258993&mesg_id=4258993

peace

[Bucky]

118. Very informative. Very intriguing. But reality in Tokyo is meaningless.

The morals debate is not whether the Japanese were ready to surrender, but whether Truman was able to detect Japanese willingness to surrender. That's a whole different kettle of fish. The perception Truman was aware of is that Japan would only surrender if they could avoid being occupied after the war. That would be a totally unacceptable condition.

[fortyfeetunder]

89. We set a precedent -- will we regret later?

when some jerk tries to nuke the US under the premise of
"we did it to Japan"....saying we set a precedent?

[bpilgrim]

91. i believe the whole world will and has ever since

but it is also that evil that we see in our own hearts that makes us so easily FRIGHTENED because we no that even US, the 'good guys', would do it even against a defeated nation civilians who were suing for peace.

it doesn't get more evil than that and that scares the hell into us.

peace

[hayu_lol]

101. No one seems to mention the killing of a teacher and students in

Bly Oregon during the war. They were blown up by those teen-aged girl assemblers in Japan, launched via balloons, and directed at the US mainland...against any target at all.

Japan was suing for peace? They were not unconditionally surrendering.

To base a knee-jerk response on NEW info just now available 50 years after the facts of the bombings doesnt do much.

You also have to realize that Japan, up to now, has done their best to put the best light possible on their actions in the other Asian countries. They still are attempting to evade getting the facts of THEIR war with almost everyone to their young students.

Unconditional surrender were the terms. Japan never discussed Unconditional surrender. Truman was right--at that time. Ask all the fathers, brothers, nephews, and sons who were able to return home.

[Junkdrawer]

117. Why was unconditional surrender so important ?

I seem to remember we gave them the one term they wanted - keeping their emperor? :shrug:

[neverforget]

141. The condition the Japanese wanted was to keep the Emperor but

with power over the Occupation. What they got was not what they wanted. They got to keep their Emperor but only as a figurehead. It's misleading to say that we agreed to their one condition when their one condition actually had many other conditions attached to it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/sfeature/sf_forum_0503.html

The answer requires first an appreciation of what were the real prospects for diplomacy and how they were perceived by Japanese and American leaders. The Japanese government retained two minimal war aims: preservation both (1) of the Imperial Institution and (2) of the old order in Japan in which the militarists were dominant. They were not just seeking a guarantee of the imperial institution with a figurehead emperor as is often argued. The U.S. war aim of "unconditional surrender" was not merely a hollow wartime slogan. By 1945, it formed an essential element in an overall vision for an enduring peace. "Unconditional surrender" meant the U.S. would secure the legal authority to conduct a complete renovation of Japan to eradicate the old order and assure that Japan never again launched a war of aggression.

Given these minimal war aims on both sides, diplomacy could not work because there was no common ground for compromise between the continuation and the extinction of the old order in Japan. As the program noted, even after the atomic bombs and Soviet entry, the Japanese cabinet deadlocked, with the hard liners still holding out for terms including no occupation -- and no occupation means no occupation reforms. As the program further highlighted, as late as the first Japanese peace offer of August 10, 1945, they were still demanding that the U.S. grant real, substantive power to the emperor so that he could veto occupation reforms and defeat the American aim of eradicating the old order in Japan. While critics speak broadly about backing away from or even dropping "unconditional surrender" they have not, to the best of my knowledge, set forth precisely how this could be accomplished and still allow the U.S. to conduct the occupation and the ensuing reforms that produced the peaceful Japan that has exited since 1945. Thus, insisting on "unconditional surrender" was not merely a matter of pride or some perverted American version of "face"; it was the key to the enduring peace.

[bpilgrim]

149. the Japanese Emperor has always been a figure head, especially during WWII

most folks don't know japanese history though, but i seem to recall point that FACT out to you just the other day, though.

do you need the links again?

peace

[MrSlayer]

93. Bombs away!

What had to be done was done. It's really pointless to bellyache over it 60 years later.

[bpilgrim]

94. what an apt user name

fyi: understanding history is NEVER 'pointless'

peace

[MrSlayer]

100. Nothing wrong with studying it.

I'm just saying all this crying about it is pointless. You can't change it, it is what it is.

[McCamy Taylor]

95. I would have bombed military targets, not civilans.

[TankLV]

111. We did. They were all intermingled. Couldn't avoid hitting civilians.

I would have preferred that the war didn't start by Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, either.

But if fishes were wishes...

[Bucky]

115. You need to explain that comment a little better.

But if fishes were wishes...

So what if fishes were wishes? How does the rest of that statement go? Are you saying you go in for revisionist biology?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

104. I've read articles that Eisenhower threatened to use bomb in Korea if the

communist did not engage in serious cease-fire negotiations immediately to end loss of American lives. It is also a known fact that a demo would not have been effective since the Japanese military command discounted the Hiroshima blast as a one-off and did not move to immediately surrender. The Japanese were partially right since the U. S. only had a very limited number(2 or 3)of bombs ready to deliver. It was not an unconditional surrender since the emperor remained in place, albeit only ceremonially, and was not tried for war crimes.I've never heard anything about Harry S Truman second guessing his decision. Eisenhower has enough to explain about his own blunder in not pressing the Germans in late '44, an action that could have ended the war in Europe far earlier with considerably fewer deaths.

[Lannes]

109. After watching "the fog of war"

I had some doubts about whether we should have done it.I didnt before but I do now but I still havent made up my mind.

[paulk]

116. I don't think it's possible to put yourself in the shoes of Truman

or any of the military or political leaders of the day, including the Japanese.

It happened, it's history.

[Generic Other]

119. How many times do the Japanese have to surrender?

I have never met a Japanese citizen who didn't take responsibility for their government's actions during WWII. That includes acknowledging that America was justified in any actions it chose to take to end the war.

Our might and our belief in the rightness of our actions have largely never been an issue. Our humanity, however, is another matter.

The people of Japan were forced to confront their collective guilt in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. And they did. They surrendered their pride, their arrogance, their visions of power. But the bomb's lessons on Japan are not the lessons Americans ever learned.

[idlisambar]

127. not really, Japan retained it visions of power

It is only that the means shifted from military and economic to purely economic. The latter strategy proved much more successful.

[Walt Starr]

128. Interesting

I never met a Japanese citizen willing to accept responsibility for the actions of their government in the war.

They aren't even taught about Pearl Harbor in their schools and blame the war on American militarism!

[neverforget]

129. I think the lesson the world learned was to never use those terrible

weapons ever again.

[bpilgrim]

132. they sure are building plenty of em... and our current foreign policy

has them on the table for first strike opportunities, not to mention our dirty bombs aka D.U.

fyi

peace

[Generic Other]

138. This day is always a grim reminder

If the memory of their deaths can serve to prevent it from ever happening again, their terrible suffering will not have been in vain.

[darkism]

134. Just dropping in...

...to say that this thread is appalling. I had to remind myself that I wasn't in Free Republic, what with people spewing such venomous, freeper-like hatred and condoning the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. There is always, always another way besides bloodshed.

I'll remember to keep some of you out of my thoughts when I visit Hiroshima next year. Of course, I'll have to hang my head in shame the whole time, knowing that I'm from the nation that perpetrated some of the most ghastly horrors of the 20th century on that very site.

It's a wonder they ever forgave us.

[boddhi]

135. alright, I'm coming down on the side of "take conditional surrender"

1) I've read this through, and many say this wouldn't have worked, but we don't know that - we could have given the civilian government a chance - a week - to begin a cessation of hostilities - IMHO

2) Some seem to be convinced that the decision was absolutely "right". I don't personally believe there was a "right" decision. This is the problem with war: the participants are forced into decisions and situations which have no "right" answers.

3) To me, the same logic that is used to justify the killing of civilians to save lives also justifies torturing people to save lives (were the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not tortured?) as in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere

4) The same logic that justifies Hiroshima and Nagasaki would mean that we should nuke the mountains of Afghanistan to get bin Laden - consider the reduced death toll if we had not gone into Iraq - and bin Laden attacked us

5) The same logic also justifies suicide bombers in Iraq against targets that contain any semblance of American military: to many Iraqis, we invaded Iraq, the military leaders of Iraq all agree that an effective weapon that they have in their arsenal is suicide bombers, so they use their most effective weapon - regardless of how horrific it is - to put an end to what they see as continuing aggression sooner. And not just in another theater of war, but in their own country.

Walt, if you're going to "apples and kangaroo" me, please explain why you would say #5 is apples and kangaroos.

[Baclava]

136. War is war

A 60 year guilt trip over whether civilian lives are worth more than those fighting? Pathetic.

If you're thinking about casualties, think about the
Battle of Okinawa

Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.

[bpilgrim]

139. then obviously, you would vote for accepting their 1 condition

to SAVE LIVES, as all military leaders in theater advised.

i agree with you :hi:

peace

[Baclava]

143. I blame the aliens for all wars

If they wouldn't have put this damn "super-soldier" gene in us,
we would be a much happier species. Now we'll just have to go
'out there' and kick their ass too. That'll teach 'em to mess with the killer apes.

[ulysses]

144. honestly? I don't know.

In terms of misery and suffering caused, I don't see a lot of moral difference between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Dresden, Hamburg, or the cities of Japan that were similarly firebombed. Or Warsaw, or London, or Nanking, or...

Killing is killing.

On the other hand, I think race and revenge probably played a factor, which is also abhorrent. Would we have nuked Berlin to avoid D-Day, or had Overlord not been a success? We can't know, but it's harder to imagine.

I don't think that this is a black-and-white question.

[Zhade]

145. Thank you for trying to share truth and sanity today.

Unfortunately, far too many are still of the belief that the nationalistic myth that "we HAD to do it" is actually true.

[neverforget]

150. We were reading the Japanese Diplomatic dispatches at the time

and they don't back you up: they were not suing for peace. The following link has the declssified dispatches about what the Japanese were trying to accomplish with their one condition which was actually 6.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/

Here is the link to the Japanese discussion of surrender with conditions on August 9, 1945. Suing for peace? Hardly. The cabinet was split between the war party and the peace party. Only the Emperor could break the deadlock.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/62.pdf

[bpilgrim]

155. all of our military leaders in theater at the time, disagree with you ...

your link shows they were negotiating terms for peace & everyone knew not only that they were defeated but also what their main condition was, which we finally accepted in the end.

we should have accepted it sooner, imagine how many lives could have been saved.

peace

[Drewskie]

156. Had to

An attempted land invasion of Japan would have led to staggering US losses. Not unlike the hypothetical German invasion of England, something that never happened of course as the Germans knew what that would entail. No, the nukes were the right way to go.

Also, Japan or Germany would have nuked us in a heartbeat had they the capability...

[Moderator]

159. Locking....

This thread has run its course
and has become inflammatory.