Sorry for the delay.
hey Taz,
Taz writes:
I'm sorry, but your view on the situation is very immature.
Taz writes:
Japanese boys were trained to appear innocent and then go for American crotches.
Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an atomic bomb.
hey Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
. . . your level of debate thus far has exclusively consisted of mockery . . .
Rahvin writes:
. . . did you leave your brain at home today?
Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an accident-prone nuclear power plant.
It seems participants are claiming that it is only with 60+ years hindsight that I am NOW saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and criminal. Check out the quotes from that time, below.
quote:
Dwight Eisenhower
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
ADMIRAL William Leahy
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- ADMIRAL William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
HERBERT HOOVER
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
JOHN McCLOY, Assistant Sec. of War
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500
ALBERT EINSTEIN (local smart guy)
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(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."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
and more from:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Ok, in this thread, it appears to be mostly me against . . . the world. I would like a few British participants to weigh in as the British are America's not-so-distant cousins and usually co-imperialists (Mod?, Strag?, Britanica?). Most/all of you in this thread repeated hegemonic-american-talking-points, so I am not gonna waste time and energy replying to duplicated assertions individually. However, if one of you think I missed something, or glossed over something, I am sure you will tap me on the shoulder (or worse, you are pro-atom-bomb, right?).
These are my two MAIN arguments. If you reply, please include these two items in your replies (not merely previous hegemonic talking points):
1. The RUSH to drop the first bomb, then the RUSH to drop the second bomb was criminal. Japan WAS beaten and not a threat to the US. america could have "suffered" a few more days or weeks for successful negotiations of VERY SIMILAR eventual surrender terms. Or waited a few extra days after dropping the FIRST bomb so Japan could FULLY (F U L L Y) address Hiroshima's damage (that some of you believe that just a few days was sufficient for a beaten country and the shock of a new doomsday weapon sufficient is absurd). Or simply waited a few EXTRA days after the Russians declared war, . . . all to allow defenseless Japanese woman and children to live. Perhaps 500,000+ people died (no one knows exactly how many by radiation sickness), and they were overwhelmingly civilians. How can any one say a few days, or a few weeks delay, for the chance of 500,000+ people to live is TOO LONG? Especially when it would have cost america relatively nothing to wait? I am surprised by the blood-thirst so far exhibited in this thread. Even for americans.
quote:
What could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, children?
In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the US victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."
Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier), Togo sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."
The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. American officials knew also that the Japanese resistance to unconditional surrender was because they had one condition enormously important to them: the retention of the Emperor as symbolic leader. Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its Emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war.
There is also evidence that domestic politics played an important role in the decision. In his book, Freedom From Fear: The United States, 1929-1945 (Oxford, 1999), David Kennedy quotes Secretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam conference, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the US" if the unconditional surrender principle would be abandoned. The President would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy reports that "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson," all of whom were willing to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war.
Yet Truman would not relent, and the Potsdam conference agreed to insist on "unconditional surrender." This ensured that the bombs would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It seems that the United States government was determined to drop those bombs.
Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council
2. The reason for rushing to drop the bombs was NOT about preventing an invasion and the casualties resulting. (Some of you listed a possible million US casualties from an invasion. These numbers were certainly exaggerated since the end of WWII to allow americans to sleep easier—as if americans have consciences). No, the real reason for dropping the bomb was all about the Russians.
quote:
Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official
estimates.
In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in
American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint
War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated
June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to
accurate: 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500
missing.
http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
quote:
There has been endless discussion about how many American lives would be lost in an invasion of Japan. Truman said half a million. Churchill said a million. These figures were pulled out of the air. Historian Barton Bernstein’s research could not find any projection for invasion casualties higher than 46,000.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote:
Gar Alperovitz, whose research on that question is unmatched (The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Knopf, 1995), concluded, based on the papers of Truman, his chief adviser James Byrnes, and others, that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Byrnes advised Truman that the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war." The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.
Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council
quote:
President Truman’s secret diaries were not revealed until 1978. In them Truman referred to one of the messages intercepted by American Intelligence as the telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. And, after Stalin confirmed that the Red Army would march against Japan, Truman wrote: Fini Japs when that comes about. It seems he did not want the Japs to be fini through Russian intervention but through American bombs. This explains the obvious rush to use the bomb in August, days before the Russians were scheduled to enter the war, and months before any planned invasion of Japan.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote:
General Leslie Groves was less cryptic: There was never, from about two
weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my
part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on
that basis.
During the same time period, President Truman noted that Secretary of
War Henry Stimson was at least as much concerned with the role of the
atomic bomb in the shaping of history as in its capacity to shorten the
war. What sort of shaping Stimson had in mind might be discerned from
his Sept. 11, 1945 comment to the president: I consider the problem of
our satisfactory relations with Russia as not merely connected but as
virtually dominated by the problem of the atomic bomb.
Stimson called the bomb a diplomatic weapon, and duly explained that
American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the
Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.
The psychological effect [of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] on Stalin was
twofold, proposes historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. The Americans had not
only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it
was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that
doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians.
Rahvin writes:
Show me that the casualties from an invasion were projected to be lower than the projected casualties of war.
Rahvin writes:
Given the projected [invasion] numbers at the time of decision . . .
Some of you in this thread asserted the mythical number: one million casualties. Pity that I have not so far found my very detailed article about the exaggerated casualty numbers. I still suspect it is from Zinn's book. But I did find a few sites that relates the TRUE numbers. Here is from Howard Zinn (
Howard Zinn - Wikipedia) . . .
quote:
There has been endless discussion about how many American lives would be lost in an invasion of Japan. Truman said half a million. Churchill said a million. These figures were pulled out of the air. Historian Barton Bernstein’s research could not find any projection for invasion casualties higher than 46,000.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote:
Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official
estimates.
In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in
American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint
War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated
June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to
accurate: 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500
missing.
http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
Rahvin writes:
Recognizing that something is inevitable and not necessarily a crime is rather different than supporting it.
But that is not what you previously wrote. Your goal-posts have been moved previously from:
Rahvin writes:
And while targeting civilians to simply cause death would certainly be a war crime, it is ACCEPTABLE IN WAR . . . that civilians will be killed when the military significant assets they work in or live near are targeted.
You go on to write:
Rahvin writes:
Destroying a major shipping harbor and weapons manufacturing center is a major military target and is fully legitimate.
and
Rahvin writes:
the nuclear weapons targeted military and construction facilities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Comical assertions. Show me that in the FINAL DAYS of the war, with American ships fully BLOCKADING the ENTIRE island nation, that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were a MAJOR SHIPPING harbor (LOL) or a weapons/construction manufacturing center. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes:
The casualties actually inflicted were unanticipated even by the American military . . .
Well, no kidding. When Bush Jr. and Chaney invaded Iraq, they told america's military and public to anticipate being greeted by american flags for their "liberators", a short Iraqi war of a few months, and a total military cost of under 10 dollars and change. Believing highly biased american military war projections is both comical and sad.
Rahvin writes:
Why did they do it [drop the bombS] in the first place?
Rahvin writes:
The reason, quite simply, is the threat of an invasion of Japan.
Utterly wrong. America wanted to show the world, particularly the russians, that america had numerous big weapons. Re-read the quotes above.
Rahvin writes:
Remember the american military had suffered heavy losses while "island hopping".
At the end of the war, the Japanese were beat, they had no energy resources or military hardware. That you tried using the invasion of Normandy as a comparable event is comical.
Rahvin writes:
WWII had already involved mass-bombings.
You are using the same bad argument as others on this thread: since Hitler or Churchill committed war crimes, then everyone else can commit war crimes? Really?
Rahvin writes:
As for dropping two, we didn't want to give impression that we only had a single weapon.
As I stated before, America could have dropped the FIRST bomb over the water, or at least in the nearby harbor to significantly reduce casualties. THEN, A second bomb could then have been followed up to SUPPOSEDLY show Japan and the world we had unlimited weapons. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Yeah, some Japanese STILL preferred to fight till death, I get it. No matter how many times we firebombed Tokyo with incendiaries (see below) or even dropped a million atom bombs, some Japanese crazies would STILL choose to fight on. Should america murder defenseless woman and children because of some crazy people? If a soldier has his foot on the neck of a defenseless infant, and the infant's family refuses/is unable to declare surrender, would it be ok for the soldier to step on the infant's neck and crack it?
quote:
One month after the Dresden bombing, on March 10, 1945, three hundred B-29’s flew over Tokyo at low altitude, with cylinders of napalm and 500-pound clusters of magnesium incendiaries. It was after midnight. Over one million people had evacuated Tokyo, but six million remained. Fire swept with incredible speed through the flimsy dwellings of the poor. The atmosphere became superheated to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. People jumped into the river for protection and were boiled alive. The estimates were of 85,000 to 100,000 dead. They died of oxygen deficiency, carbon monoxide poisoning, radiant heat, direct flames, flying debris, or were trampled to death (Masuo Kato,The Lost War: A Japanese Reporter’s Inside Story).
That spring there were more such raids on Kobe, Nagoya, Osaka, and in late May another huge bombing of what remained of Tokyo.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
Rahvin writes:
There's talk of surrender, but no surrender had been offered. Until there's a surrender, the war keeps going, end of story.
"end of story"? And yet the Korean war has stopped hostilities without surrender. When you state things peremptorily you appear comical.
Japan knew they were beaten. They knew after the first 6 months of fighting that if the americans didn't quickly surrender to profitable Japanese terms, america's nearly-infinite resources would eventually turn the tide for america. That is why late in the war the Japanese were asking russia to mediate a surrender for some possible positive surrender terms (before the bombs were dropped). America intercepted these messages. America knew that Japan knew they were beaten. America held ALL the cards. Japan could not attack american targets. A drunken monkey could have negotiated a very SIMILAR outcome of acceptable terms of surrender with Japan withOUT extending hostilities, IF americans cared about human life . . .
Rahvin writes:
as for the actual casualties caused by the US of two nuclear weapons, they turned out to be higher than anyone anticipated.
Wow, I'm shocked, shocked to hear that dropping an ATOMIC BOMB on a city of mostly civilians could possibly cause high casualties! Who could have known dropping atom bombs on cities was a risky and dangerous activity?
Rahvin writes:
The Japanese constructed mass bomb shelters in case of a bombing attack. These shelters were concrete and would have protected the population from harm.
More comical assertions. America firebombed Tokyo, repeatedly. The casualties were high because most structures were wooden which aided in the fire-storming. I doubt that Negasaki or Hiroshima had credible concrete shelters that would have withstood an ATOMIC BOMB blast or the radiation aftermath. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes:
Japan did not want to accept terms of surrender set down by the americans, which was the entire issue.
Yes, Japan did not originally want to accept VERY similar terms of surrender as theirs set down by americans. That is why they were contacting the russians to hopefully mediate very slightly better terms of surrender.
Rahvin writes:
Three full days lapsed between the first and second nuclear weapons-ample time for a declaration of surrender, which was not offered.
Ample time?, says you. The nation's communication systems were completely broken, all MAJOR cities were smoldering from repeated airstrikes, there wasn't a radio-operator within miles who wasn't torched, and there was internal japanese fighting themselves for leadership. Japan was a mess. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about. (BTW, I love it that after the first bomb, you assert that the japanese had ample time to surrender, yet somehow the americans did not have the equally leisure time to investigate the "unanticipated" high casualty rate of the first bomb. IF they cared so highly about human life)
Rahvin writes:
When you're at war, and you don't surrender, it's expected that the enemy will continue to attack!
More comical assertions. Japan was a completely broken nation before america dropped the bombs. How many times and ways can this be stated? Do you really believe a starving woman with a pitchfork is a credible threat to the US military fleet? Until an american invasion, just how were the japanese going to attack american military? Be specific.
Rahvin writes:
You don't waste a weapon by detonating it over water.
How proud you must be. Are you related to war criminal Madeline Albright:
Madeline Albright writes:
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Rahvin writes:
But in the absence of a surrender or negotiations, the military had two choices.
Sheesh, how limited you are. What about a very short delay? America knew Russia would declare war imminently, and the japanese would surrender quickly after. One day after Russia declared war, america detonated the second bomb. For the sake of another 100,00 civilian lives, I think a few more days delay would have been sane/moral. But america didn't want russia elbowing into our party, so we dropped the second bomb quickly. It was fully clear that the terms of negotiations were NEARLY acceptable to both sides, and in the meantime, the japanese could not attack the usa.
Rahvin writes:
Japan's ability to make war on the us and its allies were significantly degraded by the August of their surrender, yes.
Wrong, they were COMPLETELY degraded. Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military people WHO WERE THERE, above. Then re-re-read them again.
Rahvin writes:
That's the whole point of war, to force certain concessions through surrender to force of arms.
Wrong, when it includes war crimes, such as the unnecessary targeting of civilians, war is called terrorism.
Rahvin writes:
The civilian deaths were the result of massive overkill, not deliberate targeting.
So you seem to concede that civilians were MASSIVELY OVERKILLED? "Overkill" meaning a disproportionate number of civilians over military personnel? In other words, a war crime of targeting civilians. At the very least, the second bomb was criminal, because america had previous knowledge of the OVERKILLING destructive capabilities of the first bomb.
Rahvin writes:
it would seem that your definition requires that all acts of war are war crimes.
Ok, Crashfrog, nice strawman. Where did I write that attacking only military targets is a war crime. Be specific.
Rahvin writes:
Given that hostilities were going to continue, there were TWO options, invasion or nuclear weapon.
Comical assertion. Hostilities from a starving woman with a pitchfork? Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military above. There were many options at the time before the first bomb was dropped. Just a few common-sensical/moral ideas (some repeated from the american military above):
a. negotiate VERY similar terms of surrender
b. use the first bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit in the harbor
c. investigate the horrible first bomb's effects BEFORE dropping the second to reduce casualties
d. use the second bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit
e. Delay a few dayS/weeks AFTER russia joining the war to prompt a Japanese surrender
f. Having blockaded the islands, america could have slowly starved the inhabitants to prompt surrender (Given the choice, I'll take my chances with starvation rather than a direct ATOM BOMB BLAST to the face)
g. ?
1. Considering that other options WERE AVAILABLE, the RUSH (like the rush to invade Iraq based on lies before an ignorant and blood-lusting public could catch on) to drop both bombs on Japan was CRIMINAL.
2. The show of american strength toward Russia and the quickness to keep Russia out of the war's outcome was the paramount reason for dropping the bombs. Human life (american or Japanese) was hardly a consideration.
Edited by dronester, : typo: replaced "second bomb" with "first bomb"
™ Version 4.2
(1)
