"Ahmadinejad: Iran is determined to eradicate Zionism"

I'm a 47 year old UK citizen. Anyway, I'm familiar with the often repeated historical narrative and it represents only one part of the story. Much of this narrative is based upon unfounded claims, the main one being that the attack on Hiroshima, for example, was required to avoid one million US combat casualties in the event of an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

In fact the one million figure is based on US Secretary of State James Byrnes' claims at the time, but no serious attempt had ever been made to estimate the likely costs of invasion. In his essay, Howard Zinn writes that "the closest to such an attempt was a military estimate that an invasion of the southernmost island of Japan would cause 30,000 American dead and wounded"

(The Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press, 1997, p.351)

Many American's are unaware of the US Strategic Bombing Survey which interviewed 700 Japanese military and political officials after the war..It came to this conclusion:

"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."

On August 2, the Japanese foreign office sent a message to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow:

"There are only a few days left in which to make arrangements to end the war... As for the definite terms... it is our intention to make the Potsdam Three-Power Declaration [which called for unconditional surrender] the basis for the study regarding these terms."

Barton Bernstein, a Stanford historian, comments:

"The message, like earlier ones, was probably intercepted by American intelligence and decoded. It had no effect on American policy... They were unwilling to take risks in order to save Japanese lives."

After the war, American scholar Robert Butow went through the papers of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the records of the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, and the interrogation files of the US Army. He also interviewed many of the Japanese principals and came to this conclusion:

"Had the allies given the Prince (Prince Konoye, special emissary to Moscow, who was working on a Russian intercession for peace) a week of grace in which to obtain his Government's support for the acceptance of proposals, the war might have ended toward the latter part of July or the very beginning of the month of August, without the atomic bomb and without Soviet participation in the conflict."

The scientist Leo Szilard met with President Truman's main policy adviser, secretary of state Byrnes, in May 1945 and reported later: "Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war... Mr Byrnes' view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable."

American historian Howard Zinn commented:

"The end of dropping the bomb seems, from the evidence, to have been not winning the war, which was already assured, not saving lives, for it was highly probable no American invasion would be necessary, but the aggrandisement of American national power at the moment and in the postwar period... For the idea that any means - mass murder, the misuse of science, the corruption of professionalism - are acceptable to achieve the end of national power, the ultimate example of our time is Hiroshima."

US propaganda is such that American's are not told about the counter-arguments which, as I have shown, illustrate the claim that the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end the Second World War and to save American lives was a load of old baloney.

 

Do you have admissible evidence which can prove without controvention that Israel does in fact possess nuclear weapons? If so, please do so.

 

Howard Zinn was not a legitimate historian. He was a leftist ideologue. The world is better off without him.

 

umm.. are you kidding me? Everyone knows Israel has nukes.

But anyway, here you go. I pity your ignorance.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm

Iran should be the one whose upset - it doesnt have any yet!

 

You're not the only person who pities my ignorance. I pity my ignorance more than you do. So help me out here buddy.

Did you see the part of my post in which I asked you for "admissible evidence which can prove without controvention?" That is the same standard some people demand as proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Thanks for the citations. There are other sites which controvert the positions of those you mention. Thus, the standard of proof has not been satisfied.

Do you see how this works?

 

Hindsight is always 20/20. As for casuality estimates. Considering the american experience on Iwo Jima, where out of a total of 22,060 japanese on the that little tiny island 21,844 were killed and only 216 captured. Even tho America was guaranteed to win, they still lost 6800 dead and 19,000 wounded.

Something doesn't add up from your quotes.
They were fighting an all out war and had hard evidence that the japanese soldiers would fight to the bitter end and beyond, yet some idiot thought that the Americans could have invaded a japanese main island and "only suffer" 30,000 casualties. This is just not realilty.

Notwithstanding diplomatic machinations and "overtures" while all that was supposedly going on that would render dropping the bomb or having to invade wouldn't unnecessary, people were dying in the thousands every day. Civilians and soldiers. Whole cities were burning.

What's even more telling is that Hirohito didn't immediately offer unconditional surrender when the first one went off. His lack of response resulted in the second bomb. And lo and behold two days later, he decides to capitulate.

 

Jack, if something is happening outside of North America I don't believe it generally warrants American involvement.

 

Your argument doesn't touch on the central thesis. The real point is the counter argument, which is legitimate and supported by academics and historians, is hardly if ever discussed clearly because it doesn't fit with the "nuking Hiroshima was essential to end the war" official US narrative.

 

Nice...long...cut...and...paste. Now, (whew!) after all that, please just one question: if the Japanese Empire was sooooooooooo ready to end the war, why didn't they sue for peace as soon as the first atomic bomb was dropped...? Oops....

But, kick us in the teeth if you like. If it hadn't been for the United States of America, you Brits would be speaking perfect German today, nicht war?

 

Oh, paleeeeease...Do me a favour....Lol.

 

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes

 

Nicht so. First off, I already speak (imperfect) German. Being an European, I see the advantages of speaking more than one language, and intend learning to speak both French and Italian.

Secondly, the USA had nothing to do with averting the German invasion of the British Isles. The Battle of Britain, in which the US took no part, decided who enjoyed air supremacy over British shores, and any invasion fleet would have gone to the bottom without further ceremony. The Royal Navy was superior in numbers and firepower to the Kriegsmarine, and the highly effective Unterseebooten would have been considerably less usefull in the shallow waters surrounding the UK. In the event of air supremacy being won by the Luftwaffe, all that would have changed in favour of the Germans.

As for the dropping of the atomic weapons on Japan, the fact that the Japanese made repeated offers of conditional surrender, starting in early 1945, and recorded by none other than General MacArthur, refutes any argument of the necessity thereof.

The Chicago Tribune was refused permission to publish these facts for seven months, and it was not until after VJ-Day that they were allowed to do so.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

 

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing serious. Are you guys really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing serious? Are you actually arguing about something that happened...oh...80 years ago? (*)(*)(*)(*), let's argue about atrocities committed during WWI too!

Also to the Europeans here, you know who I'm talking about, don't act as if you would have been fine without the US, that's about as stupid of a thought as you can muster, and if you're so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed cultured, why are you participating in this farce of a conversation to begin with?

To those in the US: Yes, our help was absolutely required to win the war. That doesn't mean we are the only ones who did it, nor are we really even the majority. Most of our hostility was focused on the Pacific Theater, which was so ridiculously overpowering to the Japanese that they considered surrender as soon as their pilots were being killed faster than they could produce them.

Anyways, this entire conversation is moot anyways, it's 80 years old.

 

Are you under the impression that Ahmadinejad runs Iran?

 

His people seem to think so.

 

I'm amazed how much Israelis and Americans (*)(*)(*)(*) themselves when one nation states it wants to destroy Israel. haha, given the US has started all of our current wars and Israel is on the OFFENSIVE - who are they trying to fool.

 

Not really. Nearly half want him out. But you wouldnt know this - you watch too much Fox.

 

Maybe it's more that they find that it's easy to fool the average Fox News audience. I can't think of any better explanation.

 

LOL. Okay that answers my question as to your knowledge of Iran. It's cool. It's not like most Americans have much knowledge of anything outside their own country, so it's not like anyone could blame you.

Oh and btw, Persians definitely know better than to believe he runs the country or has any real power at all.

 

I took a Farsi class taught by a teacher from Iran, and most of the students were from Iran or a neighbor. She and most of the class would CONSTANTLY make fun of him and absolutely hated him and everything he stood for.

Trust me, most Persians (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate him.

 

You're chatting with Americans here. Think about it. Many of them think the Queen runs England... Same thing.

 

You understand he's the elected President of the country. I know Ayatollah and his cronies technically outrank him but he does hold some power as President.

 

haha you have no idea how true that statement is.

 

Only some Americans think fraudulent elections count. They are called Democrats.

 

Yeah sorry, but rhetoric doesnt amuse me. Although if I were to apply your statement in real life this would mean Slyhunter is an ardent Democrat. I think you will find he's actually pro-Republican however. So the funniest thing about your asinine comment is that, if it were true, you should say "Only some Americans think fraudulent elections count. They are called Republicans." Another funny note is the history around Bush 2's first election which was marred by serious speculation over its validity but that's another story.

My point is I dont appreciate (even though I see Dems and Reps as equally useless) dead(*)(*)(*)(*) jokes like that you made above. It just infuriates people and stifles debate. Its the kind of ploy used by those whose position has been lost in debate.