OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

And what about Dresden and the rest of the firebombings committed by the allies? Of the cabalistic 6 million Jews murdered, how many were murdered as a direct result of these bombings?

 

The bombs didn't make the Japanese surrender. Russia entering the war did that.

The Japanese were still holding out for better terms even after Nagasaki. There were extensive plans to evacuate all the big cities, surrender wasn't really even being discussed. You have to remember there were still well over a million Japanese in Asia who had never really even fought throughout the war.

When Russia entered the war the Japanese realized that the Russians could invade the Home Islands and turn them into a Russian province forever, just like they were already doing in Eastern Europe as far back as late 1944, at that point the upper echelons decided that American occupation was better than Russian.


The bomb was indeed dropped to impress Stalin rather than the Japanese. At a really terrible price, it did its job

 

As usual,seriously pointless rhetoric.
Let me break it down to you Barney-style:
We bombed Hiroshima,they refused to surrender.
We bombed Nagasaki:Then they agreed to surrender.
The end.Also all the atrocities in China stopped.

 

I noticed that so far, I have not read a post that points out what the US was already doing to Japan prior to the two nuclear bombs exploding.

Tokyo was mostly in ruins. America bombed many cities.

Now, this is a very interesting lesson. The following video presents all nuclear explosions since 1945 exploded so far.

Pay attention to where Hiroshima is as well as Nagasaki. Bear in mind that Tokyo is well north of both cities and far to the east. It won't show up since it did not get the A bomb used.

Due to more knowledge of the H bomb over the A bomb, some think of the A Bomb in the same frame as the H bomb.

The H bomb explosion is truly the bomb of all bombs. It does not really compare to the much smaller A bomb. As bad as the explosion over Hiroshima looks, if that had been an H bomb, far more would vanish.

Enjoy this video.

[video=youtube;xBpFZLFtkyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBpFZLFtkyI[/video]

 

Few to none. Dresden is a long way from Poland

Dresden was vengeance for Coventry. There should have been war crimes for it after the war but Victors Yadda yadda.

 

They were willing to surrender. Meaningless conditions is what they wanted

 

The allied bombing campaigns, historians on both sides agree caused massive deaths as the Germans were no longer able to use supply routes for the food and medicine they were supplying the Jews, throughout the entire war.

It was then, that the typhus epidemic exploded and it was then that food became scarce. The pictures that folks love to post proving the "holocaust" were all taken after the allied bombings.

Care to try again?

 

Besides you saying so, just how did you jump to that conclusion?

But for the heck of it, assume you are correct.

It sounds as if you think the Japanese were not very impressed by either A bomb.

Most just ignore the altitude the A bombs were set to detonate at. How many times will we drop other bombs set to explode so high above earth and then the bombs do so much damage?

Actually It is my impression that most of the two cities burned as opposed to being demolished by the blast.

But that part I have not actually checked out in detail. Fire consumes structures made of wood and later it may seem the bomb leveled them.

 

Well I guess they had to deal with unconditional.The End

 

Food and other contraband can aways pass through siege lines. Some can be grown. The German military was still organized and active outside of Berlin until the unconditional surrender.

Japan could have continued to fight without imported food indefinitely. Active military research and production was still ongoing when Japan surrendered.

 

Oh for cryin out loud.WHAT generals and what exactly did they say.
This is so juvenile of this board.

 

Citation needed.

 

You mean you don't know what - Unconditional Surrender - means. ?

 

Already posted

 

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.



Note: This article was first published on Washington’s Blog and GR in October 2012

Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives


Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

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.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

Moreover (pg. 512):

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”


Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

General George Marshall agreed:

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

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.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.


The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

New Scientist reported in 2005:

John Pilger points out:

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

 

Dresden was where Hitler was building his massive war machine.
You mean,you dint know that.

 

Well.... you could try reading the thread. Lol

 

Germany violated the armistice by invading the Sudentenland. France and the UK could have chosen to invade a still relatively weak Germany and disarm and partition it.

Why did they choose to allow the threat to grow? To instigate WW II?

 

1. Not enough food could have been grown or smuggled in to Berlin to sustain the million plus population in the city.

2. The Japanese were suffering critical shortages of every good by the time they surrendered. Had the Allies continued the blockade and targeted the Japanese transportation network, food production would have ground to a halt and millions of Japanese urbanized civilians would have starved before winter's end.

 

Thank you very much for watching the video.

A person may or may not agree with the video. But that video was very well researched.

 

This is the first that I have heard " joint chiefs" being accused of having that opinion. Any documentation to substantiate that?

By the way I am not sure but I understand that the " joint chiefs" position of the armed forces did not exist until there was a Department of Defense. The DOD to my knowledge did not exist until 1947 two years after the war and that us when the joint chiefs began. During WWII it was the Department if the Navy, the War Department, etc.

 

Generally Democrats will fight to their last tooth pick defending other Democrats. Right or wrong, they defend Democrats actions. It was with a smile on my face I found Democrats attacking Truman and claiming his generals offered previous advice to Truman. They said post the bombs they played no role in the A bombs at all.

As to the critique of the Video over the TV outlet that produced it, sheer bigotry.

 

A million American soldiers and god know how many Japaneses was the best guess at the time.

footnote to this very day the purple heart medals given out by our government was part of the stockpile the government lay in for the invasion of the Japan home islands.

 

The two " high tech" bombs is what saved the lives of millions of Japanese and at least half a million or more US military deaths plus 100 k or 200 k allied deaths.

We have no right to second guess the people who made the decision to use those weapons. They made their decision in their tine in their reality.

 

I believe that is accurate. At first the Joint Chiefs had actual battle command. But they changed that to a small body of military advisers to the President.

When you read the one liners by VG, you know no thought was put into the one liner.