Hiroshima: the Crime that keeps on paying

Then we should drop a nuke for every war. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the american lives that we would have saved. Right?

 

Did I say that? I attacked a false narrative that Japan was going to surrender whether we invaded their mainland or dropped the bombs. The narrative can not be supported by anyone that has any knowledge of Japan during WWII.

You also need to remember that the consequences of dropping a nuke during WWII was much less then during the Korean War and beyond. During WWII, nukes were in their infancy. They could only be delivered by propeller driven long range bombers. Which during WWII was still limited in range. Additionally, only Russia and the USA had nukes, and they were still pretending to be allies. By Korea, the same was true, but Russia was not our ally, and there were US bases within range of Russian strike range. By Vietnam, ICBM's were pointed at both the US and Russia. From that point on, a use of a nuke would be retaliated by a nuke being used on either US or Russian soil. Not a chance either country is willing to take. Hopefully that answers your query.

 

Quite a bold statement here and not really accurate. No matter where one stands on this topic, there are quite a few historians who specialize in the history of WW II and who support the narrative that Japan was defeated and the bombs were unnecessary (Martin J. Sherwin, G. Alperovitz, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, etc.). Both narratives have their supporters in the academic community.

 

I have pointed out repeatedly that the greatest military minds were in almost universal agreement that Japan was ready to surrender and that we did not need to drop the bomb. I think they knew a little about WW2 Japan.

 

Correct. Eliminating nukes does not eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Conventional firebombing was more destructive than the nukes.

 

Nothing worse then historians with an agenda, but at least Hasegawa admits he is a revisionist. Have you ever read Sherwin's biography on Oppenheimer? It is obvious that he is not a fan of nukes. He thought Oppenheimer was a genius, but that the US used that genius for nefarious ambitions. Claiming that dropping nukes on Japan was not necessary is part of that narrative.

 

That's funny. They didn't ask me.

Question: What were they waiting on? The battle for Okinawa ended on June 22, 1945. The first nuke was dropped on August 6, 1945. The second on August 9, 1945. On July 26, 1945 the US issued the Potsdam Declaration calling for the unconditional surrender of Japan. What was Japan response? That they intended to fight to the bitter end. Supposedly the "Big Six" was in secret negotiations with Russia to mediate a surrender. Now, you see that date of the second bomb, that is a red letter day in Japanese history for another reason. That was the day that Russia declared war on Japan.

So, let's see what we have. Japan had fought for 81 days before giving up Okinawa. Just over a month later, the US told them to unconditionally surrender. They responded that they would fight to the bitter end. Supposedly they were in Secret (kind of a key word there) negotiations with Russia. Russia a few days later declared war on Japan. Guess they were negotiating in bad faith. To claim that the US did not need to invade Japan or to drop the nukes requires two things. One Japan's willingness to surrender, and the US having knowledge that they were willing to surrender. While you might buy the story that the Big Six negotiating with the country that was about to declare war against them, but you can not show any reason that the US should have known anything more then they would fight to the bitter end. Surely, Russia was not going to contact the US. Japan's surrender would have kind of ruined their plans. What did Russia gain from the Soviet-Japanese war? North Korea, Inner Mongolia, Manchukuo. Karafuto and the Chishima Islands. So, I guess you can blame the Soviet Union for the bombs if you want. But the US was looking at the situation as it was being presented. It took them 81 days to clear an island that was less then 250 square miles. The US lost 50,000, and the Japanese lost 110,000. Imagine what it would take to take mainland Japan. Weighing that cost against the cost of using one or two nukes on Japan. Really is a no brainer. But then liberals have never understood the nature of war. You can argue that Japan made a huge mistake, but you can't blame the US for that,

 

Do you honestly believe you know more about this than Nimitz, Lemay, Eisenhower and virtually every other Us military leader? Really?

 

No, the generals and admirals 1.) didn't want to be out of a job and no more glories to be had and 2.) didn't know of the negotiations.

Japan had a massive homeland defense plan the military had been preparing for extensively. Huge stockpiles of weapons. Factories moved into the mountains. Every civilian armed. While the civilian government wanted to surrender the military did not. In fact, it took the Emperor announcing surrender on the radio because the military leadership was likely to do a coup to prevent surrender.

"About to surrender" and "surrendered" are not even close to the same.

The reason so many liberals claim the US military should have kept fighting is because most really don't like soldiers so really don't care how many Americans were killed nor how many Japanese were killed - even if tens of millions.

We know this because they specifically and only rant about the atomic bombs, when actually firebombings raids had killed more in a single night and more than once. But they don't care about that. They also are hypocritical because of how if you change the topic they will be claiming Truman was a great president. In short, it is about hating the military at its core - and hating their grandparents and great grandparents, claiming they are smarter.

 

Except all the military leaders who supported it. Still, why would commanders want war to end? Its like hoping your employer goes out of business.

 

Then name all the ones that supported it. You are like Trump....you know more about war than the generals. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

You are simply making the case to drop a nuclear weapon in every war

 

A sticking point on surrender discussions had to do with war crimes and the Japanese Imperial family. Japan wanted terms of 1.) no war crimes trials, 2.) the Emperor remains in power and 3.) no occupation.

We would only agree not to hold any member of the Imperial family to war trial charges and technically allow the Emperor to remain a figurehead - and some of the Imperial family had engaged in horrific war crimes including against Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners.

For obvious reasons, the Japanese military had every reason to oppose this deal, since it put their heads on the block - and even if not stripped of all authority of any kind in an occupation.

What the atomic bomb said was that the Emperor and his family would have to go into hiding because Tokyo would be next soon. In addition, we had tricked Japan into thinking we have over 100 more atomic bombs with more under assembly.

The Japanese military commanders (army) had absolutely no reason to surrender whatsoever. If so, what was it?

 

General Lemay was quoted FREQUENTLY as saying the war was over. He initially said it would have been over in two weeks but later said it was probably less. But you know more than him

- - - Updated - - -

By the way we agreed to no such thing. The surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. We CHOSE not to prosecute the Emperor and his family

 

Our "greatest military minds" also assured that we were winning in Vietnam too, didn't they? Year after year after year, thousands of casualties after thousands of casualties after thousands of casualties. We have been "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade. Been defeating AQ for nearly 2 decades. Been defeating ISIS for 6+ years. And yes, generals said Japan was almost completely defeated too - other than still had million troops, tens of millions of armed civilians, squadrons of kamikazi planes in the mountains and a few billion bullets, mortars and artillery shells. Almost completely defeated.

If some generals had their way, we'd probably still be winning against Japan in WWII. If we had taken their advice we would also be at war with Russia and China then and to this day now too. Perpetual, ever expanding war. A LOT OF FAME, MONEY AND POSITION TO BE GAINED IN WAR. Out of a job in peacetime.

 

So don't listen to the generals and just drop a nuke whenever war is declared....Brilliant! LOL

 

General Lemay killed over 500,000 Japanese fire bombing Japanese cities, wrongly claiming this would cause Japan to surrender. The atomic bombs did not kill half as many civilians as LeMay had.

In the Cuban missile crisis, he tried to convince Kennedy to drop nuclear bombs on Cuba. Fortunately he failed. It much later learned that there were 20 Soviet missiles with nuclear tipped warheads already in Cuba - 50 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan - and that the commander of the Soviet missiles had standing orders to launch on American cities if Cuba was attacked. Lemay wanted a nuclear war and had he got his way 100,000,000 Americans would have been killed within a day and then nuclear war.

Who you claimed a military genius AGAIN advocated for the USA to start a mass nuclear WWIII against Russia over the Berlin blockade - Your General LeMay wanting to drop 133 nuclear bombs on Russia's 70 largest cities claiming Russia would just surrender. Again, he failed to start WIII and kill hundreds of millions of civilians like the sociopath he was.

Then in Vietnam, he wanted to mass carpet bomb civilians in all North Vietnamese cities - also denied. Finally, for his constant advocating for nuclear WWIII and the mass destruction of civilians and entire cities, he was pushed out of the military. In all the history of known warfare, NO ONE more favored mass killing civilians by the millions, tens of millions and hundred of millions of civilians than LeMay.

His opposition - supposedly - the atomic bombs is because they ended the war. He could not longer drop bombs on anyone - and this frustrated the hell out of him. I mean, they wouldn't let him drop even ONE hydrogen bomb or Cuba or Russia - or even just totally carpet firebomb every N. Vietnam city with conventional carpet bombing. I mean, they wouldn't let him kill everyone in even one city. THE MAN WAS A HOMICIDAL MANIAC!

THAT is YOUR military expert. The greatest wannabe mass murderer ever - that fortunately had never yet existed.

Ever see the movie Dr. Stangelove - How I Came to Love the Bomb? The character "Col. Jack Ripper" is who General LeMay literally wanted to be. Feverishly wanting to drop mass numbers of hydrogen bombs and firebombs on anyone they'd let him. His history is a primary reason NO military commander has independent launch or nuclear weapons usage - NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

You are kidding....right? He was joined by every other military leader except one. If they are all maniacs then we need to abolish the military

 

read and learn

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

 

Try reading it again:

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved."

All their talk about Japan was surrendering is BS since they were not directly in the loop on that anyway. That has been our civilian government and the Japanese government - civilian and military. Japanese records are very clear the Japanese military had no intentions of every surrendering. The extreme action of Japan OUTLAWING having a military was considered the ONLY way to stop the Japanese military of an intensely militarized society for staging a coup and instantly imprisoning the Emperor and attacking our occupying forces - which would have been slaughtered if that had occurred.

A general says "I think they were going to surrender soon" is nothing. These generals had been endlessly making promises they could not deliver on in the Japanese theater. Kept claiming they could just mop up the Japanese - and it wasn't happening. Claimed carpet bombing would force Japan to surrender, and it hadn't. MORE MONEY - by far - had been spent on firebombing Japan and the aircraft to do it than the Manhattan Projection, was killing Japanese by the hundreds of thousands with the generals constantly claiming Japan would surrender - and Japan never did.

In fact, records show that Japan was bringing back over a million troops from China, was prepared to fight with over 3 million troops, mostly battle hardened, had exact fight-to-the-last-Japanese homeland defense plans and had held back massive amounts of military equipment including aircraft for Kamikazi attacks against our landing ships in the mountains. Unless we could get the Emperor to immediately surrender the wishes of the Emperor was going to become irrelevant to a military coup. NO ONE believes or has EVER claimed we could have easily won a ground war in Japan - but rather just claim "I think Japan was getting ready to surrender."

ISIS and AQ is getting ready to surrender too. So was North Vietnam. And Korea.

Wars are generals profession. Winning wars makes presidents and members of Congress. Look at our political history. Sure, they had reason to not want the war to suddenly end by scientists, but rather winning battles. That's what generals are for.

Name the number of generals who were never won a war who became a president? We started with a president who had. The thought that science, not a general or admiral, ended the war with Japan - and in a few day? Intolerable. Where is the glory and profit in that?

FInd me a legitimate source who says we easily could have defeated Japan on mainland Japan if they had not surrendered? There are exactly NONE.

 

Why did Japan not surrender prior to 6 August 1945?
Why did Japan announce its surrender on 15 August 1945?

- - - Updated - - -

Far more Japanese will killed, and property destroyed, by B29s dropping incendiaries than nuclear weapons.

 

Again if we can not trust our generals then they should be dismissed and we drop nukes in any war. Think of all the American lives that would be saved. Right?

 

You'd launch an ICBM against targets in Iraq and Afghanistan? ICBMs are strategic weapons. Which targets in Afghanistan and Iraq qualify as "strategic?"

 

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify then half of Afghanistan and Iraq would qualify

- - - Updated - - -

Face it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most important military targets for this weapon. It was a demonstration. By your logic we could have the same demonstration in the ME

 

No. But I understand the realities of the time. Do you know why FDR created the OSS? It was because the Military controlled all the intelligence gathering. Yet, each branch of service had it own intelligence apparatus. When Naval intelligence gathered information that needed to be dealt with, they would hold onto it until they had a navy solution to resolve the issue. Same with the Army. FDR wanted the OSS to be a clearing house for all intel gathered and then FDR would choose who dealt with the issue. But the military did not trust the OSS or it's leader Col. (Wild) Bill Donovan. So, creation of the OSS did little to change the mindset of military.

So, when asked about what they thought of nukes being dropped on Japan, each had their misgivings. Eisenhower was mostly concerned of the US public image. But Nimitz and Lemay had a different reasoning. They had been planning Operation Downfall. That was the invasion of Japan. It was to be the largest amphibious operation ever executed. It would dwarf the Normandy Invasion by nearly 400,000 troops. Assets were already being moved to Okinawa as a staging area, and was scheduled to step off in early to mid November. It was estimated that it would take two years fully secure the Island. So, what did they lose by the nukes being dropped? More then a years worth of planning, and you might say a better place in the annals of history. (If you don't think that they saw that as a big thing, then you do not know military leaders the way that I do.) Surprisingly, there is a name missing from your list. It is the man that would have been leading Operation Downfall. That name is Douglas MacArthur. The reason his name was left out was that he was not asked, or even briefed on the situation. Strange, isn't it. The fact is that MacArthur had pissed off the President by denouncing the Potsdam Declaration. He felt that the Japanese would have accepted a conditional surrender that would have left their Emperor in control. Which is a condition that the US and it's allies accepted a week after the dropping of the second nuke, and the war declaration by Russia.

So, to recap. The original revisionist history that I responded to was that neither the dropping of the Nukes or the invasion of Japan was necessary. The only one that actually believed that was MacArthur, but that was only before the issuance of the Potsdam Declaration. Eisenhower, Nimitz and Lemay favored invasion to dropping the nukes. Eisenhower because of a negative public perception, and Nimitz and Lemay because more then a years worth of planning was down the drain. None of which supports the original revisionist historical statement.

Now, are we all up to speed?

 

You make a lot of claims but present no evidence. Do I really need to list all the quotes of the greatest military minds of the time on their feelings about dropping the bomb. The fact is dropping the bomb had little to do with Japan. It was a show for Russia. We could have dropped it in the nevada desert and it would have had the same effect for them. Same with japan. But Truman was left out of the loop until FDR died and then he wanted to show he was in charge. It was completely unecessary according to the greatest military minds of the day (maybe ever). I will take their opinions over yours anyday.

Is that clear?