It's well known that after dropping atomic weapons on Japan the United States and its Allies were able to force the empire of Japan to surrender. I wonder though if it was truly the right decision. We had so many other weapons in our arsenal at the time and the Japanesse were on their last leg. An amphibious assault on the main islands would have created tremendous casualties for us. So why not blockade the islands or continue to carpet bomb their industry until there was nothing left. Of coarse it's easy for me to question his decision over sixty years later. But vaporizing an entire city and its citizens seems like one of darkest decisions thats tarnished our nations reputation for some time. What do you think?
"Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station."
General George Armstrong Custer
- Doctor_Nick
- MHII
- location: United States
- joined: Mar 03, 2010
- posts: 111
To point out just how absurd this propaganda lie that Japan was unwilling to surrender under reasonable conditions here is a summary of a 40 page Japanese proposal shortly before the Yalta Conference
Source: Roosevelt Ignored MArthur Report On Nip Proposals, By Walter Trohan, Chicago Tribune, August 19th, 1945
-
Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
-
Surrender of all arms and munitions.
-
Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
-
Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
-
Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
-
Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
-
Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
I would A, Like to see the article. B, would like to see who offered those terms for Japanese Surrender and C, like to point out Roosevelt was not Truman. Japan was perfectly willing to fight on, many Japanese citizens still wanted to fight even after the realization of the power of the Atomic bombs, Japan was in fact so willing to keep fighting they were arming children of both sexes as young as 13 and military training replaced physical education in most school's curriculum's. Furthermore the Japanese government openly distributed weapons to the civilian population and ordered they be used in defense of the home islands. Secondly MacArthur is more likely the one to have ignored Japanese surrender proposals the man hated the Japanese and his tenure as the occupational governor of Japan is marred by utter hatred and abuse of the Japanese population who he blamed for his disgrace of having to abandon the Philippians. Thirdly and most importantly is the question of what would be done with Japanese territory during a surrender, had Roosevelt accepted Japanese surrender BEFORE Yalta its likely Stalin would have made demands for control of Japanese Territory in the Far East and Further would have pressed the issue with an ailing Roosevelt who was in no real position to be negotiating at Yalta anyway. Finally even if it is true that Japan offered terms there's nothing in the terms you listed about ceasing hostilities with Great Britain, France, the Commonwealth or China, further as I mentioned before Roosevelt was growing more ill day by day and just like the ridiculous concessions he made to Stalin at Yalta may have ignored the surrender offer due to his illness rather than anything else.
Free version
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
If you want to pay for a official version from the Chicago Tribune:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/475703002.html?dids=475703002:475703002&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug%2019,%201945&author=WALTER%20TROHAN&pub=Chicago%20Daily%20Tribune%20%281872-1963%29&edition=&startpage=1&desc=BARE%20PEACE%20BID%20U.%20S.%20REBUFFED%207%20MONTHS%20AGO
And yes there was certainly a huge portion of the Japanese military that still wanted to fight. That faction still wanted to fight even after both bombs were dropped on Japan. Thus dropping the bombs had little to no effect on the faction that didn't want to surrender (and the surrender itself didn't even convince some of them considering there was still fighting after the war)
It might also be a good idea to point out the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report of the Pacific War
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html
I'll just point out this one paragraph:
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.
MacArthur delivered the proposal.
As for the Yalta arguments, the proposal apparently wasn't even discussed at Yalta (for whatever reason)
Hostilities argument: I think the ending of all hostilities was so obvious that Walter Trohan didn't think it was worth mentioning
And kudos to you for actually knowing about Roosevelt's condition, which is seldom ever mentioned. Truman would have been briefed about the proposals when he became President even if FDR ignored them. He would also have been briefed about the Japanese attempt to get the USSR to act as a peace process mediator (although that would obviously fail no matter what)
The real reason the atomic bombs were dropped was because Truman wanted WW2 over faster (with Unconditional Surrender as the only option) to minimize the amount of land the USSR would take from the Japanese.
Also
"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed."
-Foreign Minister Togo, July 12th 1945 (as reported by US War Department)
Source:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/31.pdf
Section: Follow up message on Japanese Peace Move, page 2
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
I've also heard that the reasons for using the atomic bomb had two other hidden agenda's. First after testing the weapon they wanted to see what it would actually do in a combat situation. Second it was a display of military might against the Soviets who would become the second superpower after the war. The second reason didn't seem to make any difference because the soviets developed the bomb in 1949 I believe.
"Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station."
General George Armstrong Custer
- Doctor_Nick
- MHII
- location: United States
- joined: Mar 03, 2010
- posts: 111
Good points
Here's a interesting What if: What if the Soviets only thought the atomic bomb was feasible after it was used on the Japanese, and therefore would not have stolen the technology if it was never used?
Interesting thought, but its pure speculation
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
then russia would have had nukes in 51 instead of 49.
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
then russia would have had nukes in 51 instead of 49.
LOL!
"Friendly Fire isn't" Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them. All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers
- TJelas
- location: Unknown
- joined: Feb 07, 2010
- posts: 210
- Banned
Carl said
"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed."
Carl, I know about the Emperor's desire to surrender, what you're forgetting is that the Emperor was segregated from power by the military Hierarchy. Tojo had him placed under essentially "House Arrest" in the Imperial Palace in Tokyo after the Emperor sent that message. There is absolutely no way there could have been negotiations. I saw a whole history channel special on this. A number of Colonels, a few Generals and a few mid rank officers even tried to break the emperor out of the Palace so he could negotiate but the plan to get him out was interrupted not once but three times but U.S. Bombing raids on Tokyo. By the time there was an opportunity to do it Tojo had strengthened the guard on the place "For the Emperor's protection" and the plan became a futile effort.
And you're right Truman was briefed about the emperors request to surrender but number of secret overtures to the foreign ministry, by that time run by Tojo, yielded no response.
While on paper at the time its true the Emperor was supposed to be the head of state and government Tojo took control when he thought the emperor was trying to give up, Tojo had the power by then and he didn't want to give up. Its almost like if the King of England had wanted to surrender to the Germans, that's too bad because Churchill wants to keep fighting and he's the PM.
The important thing is that you have good sound reasons based on facts to support what you believe in
I believe in the theory that the Japanese situation would eventually collapse on itself by the end of 1945
You believe it wouldn't
And since your reasoning is based on facts, I respect your position and how no desire to argue
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Carl said
And since your reasoning is based on facts, I respect your position and how no desire to argue
Carl, I think I might love you now. XD
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
With a quote like that, i gotta say, no.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Carl said
Good points
Here's a interesting What if: What if the Soviets only thought the atomic bomb was feasible after it was used on the Japanese, and therefore would not have stolen the technology if it was never used?
Interesting thought, but its pure speculation
BS would have been stolen anyway, ever heard of the Manhattan Project? There were dozens if not hundreds of Soviet spies planted in this project. Once the Soviets saw Operation Trinity where the Atom bomb was tested in New Mexico they would have stolen it either way, so nice straw man argument. Also the Japanese would have never surrendered, Hirohito would have been killed by his General had he ever consented to anything like that, there twisted warrior code that condoned cutting off unarmed soldiers head, or making diseased dysentery American or British GI's bury there still alive comrades on the death march to Bataan. Honestly you make it sound like they deserved anything short of unconditional surrender, I would have condoned fire bombing the whole Japanese Isles.
You make it sound like the Allies were dealing with civilized people... no we were not, we were dealing with any enemy who was teaching the school kids how to kill an American GI who approached them with chocolates. Your ignorance amazes me really, this is not the first time I have seen a completely and utterly baseless remark such as your Israel comments among others, you in general only have straw men argument. Pick up a book I dare you to read some memoirs of the death March to Bataan, go out and buy 'Readers Digest WW2 Collection' honestly it covers all sides of the war. Including the guy who was the first to lead the planes off the carriers that sank the ships in Hawaii, there he describes vividly that many soldiers were only taught how to take off and not land back on a carrier deck. He also goes on to explain that pilots were not given enough fuel to come back, and were instructed that once the ammo ran out to smack into command deck to kill the officers inside the American ships.
Is this just propaganda put out by the Zionists that control the world? There was no holocaust on 200,000 people died, or the argument where Zionists helped with the holocaust so they could have Israel? Lol honestly I can't take you seriously sorry.
P.S. with your above quoted comment I have lost all respect for you completely. Your references are all pretty bad and easily disproven, especially the one you sent on the Israili immigration thing, I mean do you know how easily disproven such a document is? Stop listening to David Duke, end of story. You lose.
Make This Pledge:
War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Ignorance is strength.
AlfredBNJ said
BS would have been stolen anyway, ever heard of the Manhattan Project? There were dozens if not hundreds of Soviet spies planted in this project. Once the Soviets saw Operation Trinity where the Atom bomb was tested in New Mexico they would have stolen it either way, so nice straw man argument.
I said it was speculation rather than fact. Nor did I state I believed that the Soviets wouldn't have stolen it in that case (I think they would have). It however is a interesting thought given that the bomb the Soviets built was identical to the one used on Nagasaki (down to the wiring mistakes). It however would require Stalin to be skeptical about the feasibility of the bomb, which I don't think he was (given how he wasn't surprised when Truman told him about it, which shows he believed the reports about the Trinity test)
And for the rest of it, for someone who hates strawman arguments you sure use them a lot
I got my opinion about Japanese surrender straight from US military sources such as the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report of the Pacific War. Reading books about Japanese brutality (which I have read) isn't going to change my mind. If its reasonable for people like Nimitz to believe the Japanese situation would collapse, it should be for anyone
And the mere fact you automatically assume I think that Zionists run the world or that the holocaust never happened is downright insulting
Try actually reading a book about the holocaust written by a Ultra Orthodox Jew (or if you are Jewish ask one). You might find out why they (and I) hate Zionists so much. And if you believe that KKK people or Neo-Nazis wrote those books, that just shows your ignorance
And even if that was the case (which its not), its just simple logic that a state that only brings hatred towards Jews is not something that Jews need.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Carl said
And the mere fact you automatically assume I think that Zionists run the world or that the holocaust never happened is downright insulting
For the record you didn't deny listening to David Duke, Alex Jones, or believing that the holocaust didn't happen.
Make This Pledge:
War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Ignorance is strength.
AlfredBNJ said
Carl said
And the mere fact you automatically assume I think that Zionists run the world or that the holocaust never happened is downright insulting
For the record you didn't deny listening to David Duke, Alex Jones, or believing that the holocaust didn't happen.
I didn't think I had to. I don't listen to David Duke, Alex Jones, or believe that the holocaust never happened
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Then what is with using sources that David Duke use and Alex Jones have actually cited live. This immigration thing was actually a live segment on his show I believe. If I were you I wouldn't use the same references that a man who says that the government put fluoride in our water to control our minds and that the government will be putting microchips in everyone to control the way they think. You may come off a little crazy ;)
Also no where were straw-men arguments used in my first post, if so I would like you to point out where, because I do in fact dislike these kind of arguments and would to take out these types of arguments or touch up on them.
Make This Pledge:
War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Ignorance is strength.
Carl said
AlfredBNJ said
BS would have been stolen anyway, ever heard of the Manhattan Project? There were dozens if not hundreds of Soviet spies planted in this project. Once the Soviets saw Operation Trinity where the Atom bomb was tested in New Mexico they would have stolen it either way, so nice straw man argument.
I said it was speculation rather than fact. Nor did I state I believed that the Soviets wouldn't have stolen it in that case (I think they would have). It however is a interesting thought given that the bomb the Soviets built was identical to the one used on Nagasaki (down to the wiring mistakes). It however would require Stalin to be skeptical about the feasibility of the bomb, which I don't think he was (given how he wasn't surprised when Truman told him about it, which shows he believed the reports about the Trinity test)
And for the rest of it, for someone who hates strawman arguments you sure use them a lot
I got my opinion about Japanese surrender straight from US military sources such as the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report of the Pacific War. Reading books about Japanese brutality (which I have read) isn't going to change my mind. If its reasonable for people like Nimitz to believe the Japanese situation would collapse, it should be for anyone
And the mere fact you automatically assume I think that Zionists run the world or that the holocaust never happened is downright insulting
Try actually reading a book about the holocaust written by a Ultra Orthodox Jew (or if you are Jewish ask one). You might find out why they (and I) hate Zionists so much. And if you believe that KKK people or Neo-Nazis wrote those books, that just shows your ignorance
And even if that was the case (which its not), its just simple logic that a state that only brings hatred towards Jews is not something that Jews need.
You might not know that much about history or you don't know whats behind the facade of history by knowing the inner workings or are blinded by hatred or dislike or whatever but if it wasn't for the jewish state jewish people around the world wouldn't have the same freedoms that they have now they would have to fear becomeing second class citizens in there countries. they would have to fear there countries people and governments turning on them and cause restriction of rights and or death to many jews like what has happened in previous times in history not only the holocaust. It's a myth that the jewish state causes more antisemitism in the world if anything it calms it from going overboard because if anyone harms jews around the world the jewish state will be there to defend them. Antisemitism is not a new phenomenon it has existed from way back in history it's in many pages of history. Why should he read a holocaust book written by a orthodox jew whats that have anything to do with anything. Many religious people are zionist it's actually interesting in america alot of religious jews are some of the biggest zionists you will meet. Oh and if your referring to Neturei Karta as religious jews who don't like the jewish state there outcast from most of the jewish population in the U.S.A.. It is not the jewish state that brings hatred towards the jews its the hatred towards the jews that brings hatred towards the jewish state it's the chicken and the egg.
- Bigmak5
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 77
I once again say, no.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Before the British Empire decided they wanted a Jewish puppet State in Israel and started funding aliyahs, Muslims never hated Jews like they do today. Jews were treated like second class citizens (as were the Christians) in the Ottoman Empire, but they were never persecuted like the Muslim world does today.
As for the western world: The modern western world is no longer hostile to Jews. Very few people even remember why their ancestors hated Jews so much (for example almost noone remembers that people use to hate Jews for the rise of Bolshevism [and yes I know Jews should never have been blamed for that]). The small section of the western world that hates Jews nowadays usually does so because of Israel (which isn't fair)
If another country were to start persecuting Jews, the western world countries could provide a haven for Jewish refugees. And if we remember the 1930s western countries like the US or UK did in fact offer to help facilitate Jewish immigration. Its not the US or UKs fault that the Zionists turned that help down in favor of a 25 year long evacuation plan of all Jews in Germany/Poland/Romania to Palestine
And quite frankly a country that requires mandatory military service to protect themselves from outside threats is not a safe haven or a appropriate place to raise children.
I was referring to the Chareidim, and yes I know they are extremely unpopular. That doesn't mean that the history they preserved is invalid.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
