Untold History of the United States

[Jason]

Nah. The US was actually a fairly nice nation before WWII. They never went on any adventures or did anything unexpected.

[sandinista]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I don't think you should make claims that equally describe yourself and others. You believe what you want to believe, and facts will never convince you otherwise. I mean, for you to say that is, perhaps the most laughable thing you've ever written. Ians definition of "facts"...what I believe are the "facts" anything that counters that equals "not facts", fucking laughable. I would say that goes to show what intellectual level you are operating on but I have known for a long time what intellectual (using that term lightly) level you operate on. Resorting to personal attacks? Ian? wow shocker.

[Ian]

Okay... for a person to believe that the bombs were completely unnecessary and only done to scare the Soviets, one would have to ignore all sorts of historical facts. And for that to be the case, one would have to be predisposed to find fault with any US actions, no matter what they were. And that would indicate that said person is operating on a really pathetic intellectual level. Profound bias.

But I accuse you of having a blinding level of bias... therefore I must have one as well, right?

I have no trouble at all with the facts of history. Japan was not preparing to surrender; they were, in fact, mobilizing the entire population to repel an invasion. The invasion would've cost far, far more than the bombs did. And why was an invasion still imminent if Japan was so militarily crushed? Consider how many millions of people were still living under Japanese occupation, not to mention how many hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war there were in August 1945, many of whom in poor and worsening condition. None of those "facts" (quotes for your benefit) are in dispute. A-bombs were BY FAR the better option.

If you want to believe they were used to intimidate the Soviets, go right ahead. But that factor amounts to nothing more than a bonus, if it was a factor in Truman's decision-making at all.

[Jason]

Wouldn't it have been possible, theoretically, to blockade Japan until they surrendered? Maintaining the air and sea superiority you had would not have been a problem. You could have engaged in a strategic bombing campaign that would cripple their industrial centres while minimizing civilian casualties, dropped propaganda pamphlets over densely populated areas with 'care packages' of food and medical supplies encouraging the Japanese people to surrender, and perhaps the empire would have collapsed from within inside of a year.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wouldn't it have been possible, theoretically, to blockade Japan until they surrendered? Maintaining the air and sea superiority you had would not have been a problem. You could have engaged in a strategic bombing campaign that would cripple their industrial centres while minimizing civilian casualties, dropped propaganda pamphlets over densely populated areas with 'care packages' of food and medical supplies encouraging the Japanese people to surrender, and perhaps the empire would have collapsed from within inside of a year.

We had trouble keeping a single city supplied by air a few years later, Berlin. The military would have taken dropped supplies, they were already hoarding a year's worth of food.

[Ian]

Wouldn't it have been possible, theoretically, to blockade Japan until they surrendered? Maintaining the air and sea superiority you had would not have been a problem. You could have engaged in a strategic bombing campaign that would cripple their industrial centres while minimizing civilian casualties, dropped propaganda pamphlets over densely populated areas with 'care packages' of food and medical supplies encouraging the Japanese people to surrender, and perhaps the empire would have collapsed from within inside of a year.

Their shipping traffic was already blockaded. Hell, even traffic between Japan's home islands was all but nonexistent by that point.
Leaflets were dropped many many times; it was a crime for Japanese citizens to be caught looking at them.
Air campaigns against their "industrial centres" was done... except that most industry had been decentralized well before 1945; there were few major factories operating, but many small plants producing parts to be assembled elsewhere.
Most nations would have indeed surrendered well before then. Japan was not doing so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Next up on the bombing schedule was the elimination of lines of communication. No railroads, no coastal shipping, highway traffic only at night and only where bridges could be temporarily repaired. That's when mass starvation would have hit the cites. Babies and old folks die first, those healthy enough to travel strike out into the country side looking for food. It's rather like a zombie apocalypse.

[sandinista]

Okay... for a person to believe that the bombs were completely unnecessary and only done to scare the Soviets, one would have to ignore all sorts of historical facts.

Thats such bullshit. You can write that all you want, I could write the same thing. To think the dropping of the atomic bombs were "necessary" is to not only ignore all sorts of historical facts but is heinous. For you to believe that dropping the bombs were "legitimate" or "righteous" is to not find any fault in US actions, again, either necessary or an unintended consequence. All part of the american myth. To stop believing the myths are very difficult and for that reason, I understand the problems you have with it. Must be difficult for you. Speaking of profound bias, man, it drips from your every post.

But I accuse you of having a blinding level of bias... therefore I must have one as well, right?

Whether you accuse me or not, your bias is obvious, although it's more of a religious type of belief, a belief in the american myth.

I have no trouble at all with the facts of history.

That's funny, because either do I. I have no problems with the facts of history, although, like has been pointed out before on a number of occasions, history is not science. "Facts" are not so tangible. The winners and rulers write the history. You obviously see history through your biased american lens. In that there is no doubt. You drank the kool aid and loved it.

And why was an invasion still imminent if Japan was so militarily crushed?

So now your saying that at the time of the bombs Japans military was NOT crushed? Really? Their air force and navy were world beaters at the time? Wow. Interesting.

A-bombs were BY FAR the better option.

Doesn't matter how many times you write that or tell yourself that, won't make it true. Sorry.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[tattuchu]

Wait, are people here actually defending the use of two atomic bombs which obliterated two entire cities, erasing them from the face of the earth along with all their civilian inhabitants? Jesus fucking Christ!

[JimC]

There is another way to look at the dropping of the bombs. It's not a justification, or a moral argument, but a form of retrospective pragmatism...

Consider a world where no bombs had been dropped (and the war ended by conventional means, undoubtedly at a cost of many more lives on both sides), but both the west and the soviets had continued a post-war build up of nuclear weapons.

No one would have seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, views of which shocked and horrified most people who ever saw them. Their example was a huge warning sign, even for hardened military types, that nuclear strikes on cities was a truly horrible thing. Without that example, one could imagine cold war hostilities more readily flaring into hot nuclear war, but this time involving dozens if not hundreds of cities...

Speculative, I know...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wait, are people here actually defending the use of two atomic bombs which obliterated two entire cities, erasing them from the face of the earth along with all their civilian inhabitants? Jesus fucking Christ!

Welcome to the real world, Tat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One of the bombs was dropped almost directly over 5,000 Japanese troops lined up for muster. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. The fact that they hadn't been bombed yet makes some people believe they were not militarized. To find even one city that size in Japan without a military garrison would have been impossible.

[Ian]

Okay... for a person to believe that the bombs were completely unnecessary and only done to scare the Soviets, one would have to ignore all sorts of historical facts.

Thats such bullshit. You can write that all you want, I could write the same thing. To think the dropping of the atomic bombs were "necessary" is to not only ignore all sorts of historical facts but is heinous. For you to believe that dropping the bombs were "legitimate" or "righteous" is to not find any fault in US actions, again, either necessary or an unintended consequence. All part of the american myth. To stop believing the myths are very difficult and for that reason, I understand the problems you have with it. Must be difficult for you. Speaking of profound bias, man, it drips from your every post.

But I accuse you of having a blinding level of bias... therefore I must have one as well, right?

Whether you accuse me or not, your bias is obvious, although it's more of a religious type of belief, a belief in the american myth.

Nope. I have no trouble at all saying the US has had shameful moments in its history. Want an example? I think US involvement in Vietnam was collosal blunder, allowed by the negligence and hubris of some and the criminal recklessness by others. If you want others, no problem, I can make a list. But I do not, do not for a single minute, include the a-bombs on that list, especially the first one. They were thoroughly necessary. Not good, not honorable, not glorious, but necessary. Hell, even if they only shortened the war by a month or two (and the final US invasion wasn't going to happen until early 1946...), they cost less in human life than would've been lost due to other factors during that time.

And why was an invasion still imminent if Japan was so militarily crushed?

So now your saying that at the time of the bombs Japans military was NOT crushed? Really? Their air force and navy were world beaters at the time? Wow. Interesting.

No, genius. They were crushed. And you'd know I knew that if you bothered to post other parts of my response instead of selectively editing it. Good job.

Japan's army was incapable of offensive action against the US by summer 1945. Their maritime traffic was virtually wiped out by the Navy, and their skies were pretty much ruled by the US Air Force. And... thye still had many millions of people under their occupation, and many hundreds of thousands (at least) of prisoners held by the IJA. Those factors alone make the a-bombs worth it.

A-bombs were BY FAR the better option.

Doesn't matter how many times you write that or tell yourself that, won't make it true. Sorry.

Keep telling yourself what you want to believe. You're never going to be right. I think that deep down you know it, but I've been know to put to much faith in other people.

I defy you to dispute a single one of these facts as myth:
1) Millions of people were still living under IJA occupation.
2) Hundreds of thousands of prisoners were still being held by Japan, many in very poor condition
3) Japan was mobilizing their population to prepare for invasion
4) The invasions (Operations Olympic and Coronet) would have cost a horrific amount of human life.

Even if you don't dispute them, what is your rationale for ignoring them? If your goal is to prove that Truman was bent solely on vengeance, then I suppose you could ignore all that stuff and say he was just interested in scaring Joe Stalin. That's might be (might be) the most cynical, psychotic thing I've ever heard, but okay. Except that Truman had already mentioned the Manhattan Project to Stalin at Potsdam...

[Coito ergo sum]

Wait, are people here actually defending the use of two atomic bombs which obliterated two entire cities, erasing them from the face of the earth along with all their civilian inhabitants? Jesus fucking Christ!

What would you have done instead? Invaded Honshu with a million US soldiers, continued firebombing all of Japanese infrastructure, and smoked out the 2,000,000 defending Japanese soldiers from caves and buildings with flamethrowers?

[tattuchu]

Wait, are people here actually defending the use of two atomic bombs which obliterated two entire cities, erasing them from the face of the earth along with all their civilian inhabitants? Jesus fucking Christ!

Welcome to the real world, Tat.

Not the sort of world I care to live in.