OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

Who has not presented evidence of anything is you nor do you respond to evidence other's present. Instead, you quote some military leaders, foremost the one who most wanted war with everyone, including atomic weapons.

In short,your messages are just more of your messages of hating everything about the United States and is the attitude of many white liberals. Anyway, you are on record has those the military who advocated a first nuclear strike against China, bombing Cuba, and going to war against Russia, plus in war totally leveling every city of the other country specifically targeting civilian targets and cities.

Thus it seems clear why you condemn the dropping of atom bombs. It ended a war you think should not have been ended. Instead, to have killed millions and millions of Japanese in more of your hero LeMay's firebombing. At least you and Hillary Clinton in your messages appear to agree about that. War, everywhere, perpetual wars, with the goal of killing as many millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people as possible.

 

Such anger. Everything is personal with you. Sometimes the greatest country in the world, the US, is wrong. And we were wrong this time.

 

Worthless. The letter was not from the Emperor or the governing council or the military. It was just lower rankers conveying messages to the ego maniac MacArthur. In the context of actual events (which I documented), "high level officials" was nobody in terms of decision power.

 

Then why do they say what they do knowing the Japanese were not about to surrender? Did they lie when they said the Japanese were going to surrender or did they not know they were not about to surrender?

- - - Updated - - -

You have yet to remotely make that case.

 

Tough luck, you didn't get a perpetual world war and you didn't get your world war 3. Angry as it makes you, your LeMay was not allowed to firebomb 10 million more Japanese. You did not get the invasion and bombing of Cuba you and he wanted. You did not get North Vietnamese cities all leveled. You did not get world war 3 with Russia that you and your LeMay wanted, and you didn't get atomic bombs dropped on China that you and LeMay think should have happened.

If Hillary Clinton wins, you'll get plenty of wars and death. But by your messages and the generals and admirals whose opinions you agree with there will never be enough war for you,

Hating American is for many the white snarky liberal thing to do from the attitude of spoiled brats who never grew up. As before, in this election the men who fought WWII are openly hated by the Democratic Party and most their talking heads. So from the opinions of your message maybe a million of them killed would have been a good thing and better if it had been 4 million in your analysis.

 

It was not a large city, but when the entire country, including the military, is a war-ravaged mess, it would be a huge task. And the fact remains, if somebody issues dire warnings to someone they are at war with, that warning carries absolutely no meaning. If ISIS warns NYC tomorrow that everybody better get out of the city or face their wrath, do we honestly expect NYC to evacuate?

 

As Jill Stein pointed out, Hillary Clinton represents the "warmongers" - the political class.

“"I am currently trending on both Twitter and Facebook. Why? Because Americans want more than warmongers and fools," Stein tweeted. "Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy." AP, Who's Jill Stein? Googlers are asking, and the answer is: Clinton's new problem, Alexander Panetta, 7/13/16.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/who-s-j...the-answer-is-clinton-s-new-problem-1.2985936

Clinton is just the latest candidate "Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy."

 

War is immoral because it always results in the killing of innocents. Moral people recognize this and take no pleasure in killing. However, when it is either US or THEM....You make sure THEY suffer the highest consequences. Otherwise YOU will.

 

and did the people with the emperor who offered these terms have the full backing of the military? Or did they have to meet in secret to avoid getting killed?

Come to think of it. Less than 100 years before the war didnt the japanese have a tradition of keeping puppet emperors.

 

Wall Street would book . The working stiffs would flee if NY was not the first city to be struck after such a warning.

 

Early on senior Japanese officers who opposed the war in China were assassinated by militant junior officers.

 

And apparently, the boss of those generals and admirals disagreed with them.

I suspect there were a lot of families of soldiers that would have died if we had to battle in Japan as they did in the tiny islands- it would have been even messier.

 

Do not forget there was a Japanese military attempt to seized the emperor and the recording disk that contain his surrender statement at the last moment.

 

Including my father to be and those bombs gave him over forty years of added life and also allowed me to be conceived.

 

Correct. They even stormed the palace to capture him and the recording. As I recall when they failed they attacked the radio station to stop the broadcast.

 

I am amazed at the response.

I frankly expected no more than 20-30 comments.

Almost 500 is amazing to me.

I believe the argument that wins is the one pro the A bombs dropping.

We know one thing for certain.

It ended the war.

We also know this

Troops did not have to invade Japan
Unknown numbers of American troops would have been killed
Unknown number of Japanese on the Islands would have died in an invasion

I believe Truman went up as a president rating due to how he ended WW2.

A problem for him is how Korea turned out.

 

The reason we were light on the war crimes trials was because we wanted Japan to become our friend after the war.

Hardly a war crime to bomb military targets at the height of the most brutal war in human history.

If he is right, it was a rather catastrophic blunder on Japan's part to sit around and refuse to surrender while we nuked them a couple times.

This Leahy clown said all sorts of goofy things didn't he.

Hiroshima was a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the military headquarters in charge of defending the southern half of Japan.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with huge weapons factories.

The interim committee was not in charge of such issues. They were created to consider post-war nuclear policy.

The committee in charge of how to use the bomb was called the targeting committee.

It is a fact that the US did drop leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki warning them that they were on the short list of imminent bombing targets.

That is true. But we still dropped leaflets that made the residents believe that the cities were about to be destroyed by a mass napalm raid, just as many other Japanese cities had recently been destroyed.

The fact that we did not tell them the nature of the A-bombs does not mean we didn't warn the residents of impending doom if they did not flee.

 

There was no decision, political or otherwise. Deciding whether or not to use the A-bombs would have been as goofy as holding a meeting to decide whether or not our soldiers should carry guns.

No they weren't.

LeMay was so enthused by the bombs that after Nagasaki he joined with Admiral Nimitz, General Twining, and General Spaatz in pressing the US government to have the third A-bomb dropped on Tokyo to see if that would better grab the Emperor's attention.

 

We agreed not to put anyone of the Imperial family on trial. Many of their commanders had some linkage to the ancient Imperial family nor could we prove they did not.

 

This guy made a lot out of Stewart's admittedly retarded idea that warning them would help, but really the core question is what was necessary for victory, and the answer is no, the atomic bombs were not necessary.

While this guy made a lot out of the macho rhetoric of the Japanese, the historical facts are not quite with him. Sure, when they fought they fought to the death, but that's assuming the war is still going. The code of Bushido says you take death before surrender, but it does not state you continue to wage war after your master surrenders. Though the master is supposed to commit suicide after defeat. Anyway, the fact of the matter is that we could have had the Japanese surrender much earlier had we accepted something short of unconditional surrender, which we did ironically did accept in the end.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

So no, a land invasion was not avoided with the atomic bombs, but an even greater increase in Soviet influence might have been avoided, though again we would have been even better off had we accepted earlier efforts at conditional surrender. Our own spitefulness cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

We did allow a conditional surrender. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

Japan still refused to surrender until AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped.

Japan was only willing to surrender with a guarantee for the Emperor AFTER both A-bombs had already been dropped.

You are quite mistaken about the nature of the guarantee that Japan asked for. Japan asked us to guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power.

We most certainly did NOT let them have that. We rejected their request outright.

 

Hindsight is easy. But let's remember that it's hindsight.

The US government didn't have the luxury of hindsight during the war when no one knew just what it would take to make Japan surrender.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the best intelligence is very much available to us 70 years later. Everything has been long since declassified.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately no one had the benefit of that hindsight when the bombs were being dropped.

 

What? We were on the way to invade. Had the bombs not done the trick, an invasion was next.

The Japanese idea of surrender did not come close to what Truman had in mind. The winner names the terms.

Still, The Emperor was allowed his position. General MacArthur for all intents was the new president of Japan.

Think not of how many Japanese died, but how few died. Some cities lives lost were way more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I think what impressed the Emperor is one bomb. I mean how "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in" is that as teens once said. (note, it may look like cussin but the word is the female dog ended with in.)

Were any of us the Emperor, those two bombs would keep us up all night long worried sick that 100 bombs might bring 100 of those essentially vanished cities. The emperor could not have any idea how many more we had to drop.

I sought help on this topic and got plenty of help. Again, the votes for the A bombs carries on this topic.

 

Japan did not surrender until AFTER both A-bombs had already been dropped.

Genocide is an attempt to extinguish a race or culture.

The A-bombs were attempts to make Japan surrender.

No, the reason why we drop bombs on countries that we are at war with is because we are trying to win the war.

- - - Updated - - -

You're making things up again, just like that nonsense about generals risking treason charges for expressing an opinion.

Also ridiculous to overlook the fact that their conclusions were made in hindsight. These were not the conclusions of people in the middle of the war when no one had any idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.

 

They should have done so then, instead of waiting around doing nothing while we nuked them twice.

No facts there. In May of 1945 Japan was still devoted to winning the war at all costs.

Japan did not request to surrender conventionally until AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped.

Their request, that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power, was not granted. Truman rejected it outright.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan's conditional surrender request did not come until AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped.

We did not give them the condition they requested. Truman outright rejected it.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan did not ask for a conditional surrender until AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped.

Two conditions?

We did not give them what they wanted. We outright rejected their request.

No, the reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is because we are trying to make them surrender to us.

- - - Updated - - -

Just the opposite. We outright rejected their request.

Only AFTER both A-bombs had already been dropped.

No, the reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is because we want them to surrender to us.

- - - Updated - - -

So now you are quoting lies from Holocaust denial websites?

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, me neither.

- - - Updated - - -

The events that are claimed in the quote that you are responding to never happened. And the quote is from a Holocaust denial website.

- - - Updated - - -

We had been dropping leaflets on cities before then destroying those cities all summer long. The Japanese people knew very well that the leaflets were for real.