0
   

The atomic bomb on Japan world war 2/justified or/not justified?

 
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 06:01 pm
@xris,
xris;79650 wrote:
Oh no William you are very good at making rash statements and then vanishing without answering your critics.Look back at this whole thread and you have disappeared at ever crucial issue.You have to explain how you see japans and germany's horrific acts as mere reprisals or reacting to certain violence against them.I cant wait to hear your logic on this view, as its a new take on a subject i have seen debated a thousand times.


Xris, do not underestimate the intelligence of your opponent. I did not say, and please do not misrepresent what I say, please, "reacting to certain violence against them"; I did say they were retaliating after their ethnic purity and beliefs as a people were being threatened that would "destroy" them. NO ONE WANTS TO BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANOTHER.................NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They had neither the resouces nor the manpower to control anyone; yet they do have an enormous pride and honor that unites them as a people and still do as did the Germans at that time. It is common sense, for Japan to attack such a power as the United States could only come from an act of "desperation", IMO. One thing about the wisdom of the east, they saw this coming well before it actually arose and began to "arm" for it for they would not go down so easily. And they didn't.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now truer words were ever spoken. Xris, I am not saying the east are the know all and end all of what can be defined as "ultimate intelligence", but they do have there strong points; and patience, wisdom, and adaptation to suffering are among their strongest. Their patience and wisdom puts the rest of the world to shame, to speak nothing of their devotion and loyalty so representative in the people themselves, IMO.

Now we must ask the question, would a people armed which such traits choose to dominate the world? Hmmm? That is a good question. The answer to that is, I doubt it! For they would understand the futility of it and see there own destruction. Now I am speaking of Japan, exclusively, not China. That's a different bucket of worms, yet they do possess similar traits, if not identical. Do I see a nefarious agenda? As far as I can observe, NO. But I do see a people bent on survival using their indigenous traits to do so; something the rest of the world, I guarantee you, is just becoming aware of. Is that something to fear? That is a good guestion?

I have been to Japan and China (Well, Hong Kong, when it was under English rule) and Taiwan, and never in my life have I ever met a more cordial, polite, humble and likeable people. The west could learn a lot from these people for reasons I have mentioned.

Considereing Sun Tzu'a "Art of War" and the extreme wisdom therein, it would seem to me at any rate, an attack such as Japan made on Pearl Harbor was out of desperation for it goes against this wisdom. Though I know Sun Tzu was chinese, I assure you the Japanese are skillful in these arts as well. The following excerpt from Sun Tzu, is why I draw such conclusions as I have:

"...... one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful". Hmm? That could be interpreted as "beating one at their own game"?

But what can be rather alarming are these two excerpts:

"All war is based on deception!" alternatively meaning: "Never will those who wage war tire of deception".

Xris, I don't have those reasons that could have provoked Japan to do what they did and perhaps only the Japanese know for sure. I am not one to agree simply because it is "popular thought", sorry. But from what I have determined, I can only conclude what I believe, so far. Every war is fought on two fronts of control; one control of the armed conflict on the battlefield and two the control of the mind who fight on that battlefield. I firmly believe there is an element beyond what we know that is the root of all war and when that is known and eliminated, this world will have a chance at peace.

You call me rash-ionalistic. Perhaps there is some truth in that as I imagine your accusation is based on my offering "proof" or the "the truth". My friend you don't come across the truth that easily, but when I do, you'll be the first to know. My suggestion is to do all we can to make friends of these people without "hidden agendas" for I think they are very adept at "beating us at our own game".

Xris, I agree and understand your sentiment and anger, but as far as the truth, it will come out eventually. I guarantee it. But until then, I will offer the following adage; "loose lips, sink ships" and I think that is at the heart of the wisdom of the east for the battle for survival is not over. Perhaps it will be one day without a single casuality in which all can benefit. I guess we will just have to wait and see, Huh?

If Kj can offer any thoughts as to what were those provocations or deny any of what I have said, I will most welcome it.



William
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 09:13 pm
@William,
William;79592 wrote:
xris, so were they
No they weren't. Not by a long shot.

---------- Post added 07-26-2009 at 11:17 PM ----------

William;79677 wrote:
They had neither the resouces nor the manpower to control anyone; yet they do have an enormous pride and honor that unites them as a people and still do as did the Germans at that time.
They were united because they'd been fed a bunch of rhetoric about fear and survival. Read a bit of Hobbes and you'll see how easy it is to control people by instilling fear in them.

William;79677 wrote:
It is common sense, for Japan to attack such a power as the United States could only come from an act of "desperation", IMO.
Japan attacked the United States so that they could run pell mell through the Pacific and have uninterrupted dominion over the Philippines and the South Pacific. The US Navy was weak in 1941, which is exactly why Japan attacked when they did -- they calculated (wrongly) that the US would never be able to remilitarize their Navy in time to be a factor in Japan's hostilities in the Pacific.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 09:46 pm
@Aedes,
Not to mention that they missed our carriers, which were on maneuvers when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 10:03 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Proof that it wasn't a war of survival for Germany: Hitler declared war on the USA a day or two after Pearl Harbor. He was inviting US involvement on a western front in Europe, or at the minimum inviting military aid to Stalin (of which the US provided a LOT through the lend-lease program) and to England. He aimed one more gun at himself.

And considering the US never lifted a finger against Japan's barbaric mainland wars in Asia, one can hardly portray the US as a mortal threat against Japan. The USSR did fight against Japan in the late 1930s, and Japan decided to attack the US, a relative noncombatant, rather than fight against its actual adversary in Stalin. Of course the US and Japan were not exactly on chummy terms by the time of the attack, but the US was fairly pusilanimous about taking on Japan -- and Japan knew it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 10:18 pm
@Aedes,
Correct my faded memory, but as I recall the US had recently ended petroleum sales to Japan, which further strained relations.

But there's one thing I never really understood: why would Japan waste resources fighting the US when they could have fought the USSR, thereby forcing the Russians into a two front war? Did the Japanese assume that, given our economic crisis, we would be easy to handle in the Pacific?
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 10:39 pm
@Alan McDougall,
The Japanese got their ass handed to them at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol in 1939 (led by none other than Zhukov). The Soviets had several entire armies (and some of their best and most experienced troops) deployed on the borders of Mongolia and Manchuria. Even after they were getting utterly obliterated by the German invasion (as many as 3 million troops captured and many more millions killed in the first 6 months of Barbarossa), Stalin kept his troops in the east.

It was thanks only to their master spy Sorge that Stalin learned of the imminent attack of Japan on the US in Dec 1941 -- and thus he redeployed those troops to the defense of Moscow -- one of the major reasons they were able to turn the tide of the war in that battle.

Hitler has been criticized for not encouraging Japan to attack the USSR; who knows if he would have had the diplomatic leverage to pull something like that off. But I think Hitler grossly underestimated the strength of the USSR and never thought it would be anything other than a little blitz like his other campaigns had been.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 04:57 am
@Aedes,
William once again you make certain claims or air your views without one ounce of truth in them.This distortion of the truth is worrying ,i wonder what drives you to make statements, hoping no one will question them.
Coming from a generation whose parents and work colleagues suffered terrible by their aggression ,your defence of their action is really making me feel angry.
William
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:38 am
@xris,
xris;79738 wrote:
William once again you make certain claims or air your views without one ounce of truth in them.This distortion of the truth is worrying ,i wonder what drives you to make statements, hoping no one will question them.
Coming from a generation whose parents and work colleagues suffered terrible by their aggression ,your defence of their action is really making me feel angry.


I understand you anger and where it comes from. i am not "claiming" anything just trying to find reason, that is all. Perhaps my next post will help clarify it a bit more.

William

---------- Post added 07-27-2009 at 07:17 AM ----------

Aedes;79697 wrote:
No they weren't. Not by a long shot.



Thank you, Paul. I guess that settles it, huh? Sorry! Considering the entire context of my post, really, you are going to have to better than that. As far as your "fear" statement, I guess you could say "we put the fear of god, into them" as if it was god who dropped those bombs? You know, I actually believe there are those who believe that. In liew of the insurrmountable odds of Japan winning from such an aggressive maneuver is to me, just non-sensical. No matter how I effort to understand Japan's act as an act of up-provoked aggression I can't make it add up. Unless someone can unequivically "prove" that, my opinion remains unchanged. The only thing that makes sense is the fear they as a people felt that led to that act. Now one can assume "their leaders" were "power hungry"; that to me in view of those odds, would indicate a stupidity on their part. "Not by a long shot" as you put it!

The rest of the world will never know the depths of loyalty and honor that is that of the eastern mind. There is a synergy of thought that is not understandable for those who are not as ethnically pure as the Japanese were and are that evokes their "honor" as a unit indicated by their willingness to die in support of that which bonds them together. Such can be equated to what Dumas exclaimed in the motto of the "Three Musketeers"; one for all and all for one. It is this very philosophy I aspire to as being the paradigm that will put this world on the "right track". Of course for that to happen would be the elimination of the prejudicial power, that runs rampant in this world.

As far as the aggressor, it would have to come from a malicious intent that would indicate a "selfish prejudice", and I just do not see that in the eastern mind. All of their "disciplines" are defensive only.

So, Paul you can proclaim all you wish to the contrary. In lieu of what I have just said, you have failed to convince me other wise.

Now having said all that, let me say this. It could be due to their so limited space and the numbers of their people, would indicate a foundation that would inspire agressive tendencies to "expand" their "possession" of land. Now IMO that does open up an area that we can discuss that has merit. it would also address those aggressive tendencies of many other countries as well who do the same. It's all about survival; a subject I have been addressing since day one as to the extraordinary lengths man will go to to survive. Even this post goes to the very heart of all I have espoused.

I have done my best not to assign blame and have only attempted to communicate from a neutral position of peace. But there are those who are relentless in stirring the waters of discontent in an effort to point fingers defering culpability, solving nothing but perpetuate that discontent when I have clearly outlined "a bridge over those waters" and the tools needed to build it. From that statement alone it can all be concluded those who perpetually stir those waters are those who created the discontent in the first place, though unwittingly it can be assumed to be, but it is "logical". I manifest "unwittingly" because if it were on purpose, would indicate a maliciousness that can only be defined as "evil" itself.

I am in no way defending the Japanese, but trying to understand why in hopes to eliminate another war. I can only hope you understand that.

William
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 06:11 am
@William,
William william..you have inferred the German desire for purity of race and the Japanese scrutiny is in someway responsible for their protective brutal attacks on their neighbours.They have felt threatened threatened by who??You are only to ready to condemn the allies for their response but then claim your even handedness is for peace sake.
I have no desire fort history to repeat itself but saying the Germans and Japanese had reasons to kill rape and murder is making my skin crawl.
William
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 06:51 am
@xris,
xris;79747 wrote:
William william..you have inferred the German desire for purity of race and the Japanese scrutiny is in someway responsible for their protective brutal attacks on their neighbours.They have felt threatened threatened by who??You are only to ready to condemn the allies for their response but then claim your even handedness is for peace sake.
I have no desire fort history to repeat itself but saying the Germans and Japanese had reasons to kill rape and murder is making my skin crawl.


Xris you have twisted and distorted and misinterpreted all that I have said to appease your own anger and disgust which is understandable, as I have said and do agree as to why it is there and where it comes from. From your response, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, you chose not to hear me. That is your preogative. All I can say is YOU deal with it as best you can. That is all I CAN say.

William
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:52 am
@William,
William;79743 wrote:
In lieu of the insurrmountable odds of Japan winning from such an aggressive maneuver is to me, just non-sensical. No matter how I effort to understand Japan's act as an act of up-provoked aggression I can't make it add up.
It was what it was. At the start of WWII Japan had probably the strongest navy in the world, they had a brutally aggressive regime that had been at war against China and Russia since the 30s, and had embarrassed Russia in naval battles. What did they really have to fear except for running out of resources -- which is exactly why they were expansionist. And this, by the way, was one of Hitler's main fears after Germany's experience under the blockade from 1914-1918, and which is why he prioritized campaigns through the Ukraine and the Caucasus, and why he turned Poland and Belarus into the slave-run granary of the Wermacht.

William;79743 wrote:
Unless someone can unequivically "prove" that, my opinion remains unchanged. The only thing that makes sense is the fear they as a people felt that led to that act.
They were manipulated by military oligarchs. True in Italy, true in Germany, true in Japan.

William;79743 wrote:
Now one can assume "their leaders" were "power hungry"; that to me in view of those odds, would indicate a stupidity on their part.
A quote for you from Hermann Goering, whom if you don't know was the Reichsmarshall under Hitler, the highest official to officially order the "final solution", and sentenced to death at Nuremberg, where he provided this quote.

Hermann Goering, 1946 wrote:
Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:55 am
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:
by Hermann Goering, 1946
Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

and it still works today...
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 10:42 am
@William,
William;79751 wrote:
Xris you have twisted and distorted and misinterpreted all that I have said to appease your own anger and disgust which is understandable, as I have said and do agree as to why it is there and where it comes from. From your response, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, you chose not to hear me. That is your preogative. All I can say is YOU deal with it as best you can. That is all I CAN say.

William
Will what have i not heard or what have i misunderstood from your comments.Not agreeing with your views does not make me a lover of wars or not understand that we should avoid it at all costs.History may make us all responsible for unrest or anger but when countries react with total aggression we have no option but to defend ourselves.Its not perfect but we are not perfect humans.I have yet to meet a conscientious objector who could give an alternative to war that i admired.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 08:42 pm
@richrf,
richrf wrote:
The one major argument against using the weapon was that the Japanese were actually suing for peace during the period before the dropping of the bomb. One provision that they requested was that the Emperor be left in his office. One that had great meaning to the Japanese. The U.S. refused and insisted on complete surrender. Interestingly, after the bombs were dropped, the U.S. agreed to this provision and the Emperor was saved. This particular sequence of events makes many historians think that the U.S. was not interested in a peace before they used the bombs.

Rich


First, the surrender offer you refer to came after both A-bombs had been dropped. Japan did not sue for peace before Nagasaki.

Second, the provision you refer to was not merely that Hirohito remain in his office. They asked that we guarantee his unlimited dictatorial sovereignty as Japan's living deity.

Third, the US did not ever at any time agree to the provision. We forced Japan to agree to surrender terms that made Hirohito subordinate to MacArthur.

Those people who you refer to in your last sentence are not historians. They are anti-American propagandists who pretend to be historians in order to give their lies an aura of credibility.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 08:47 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Was President Truman's decision the correct one in deciding to bomb Japan with two atomic bombs in World War 2?


Based on the data he had at the time, yes.

Plus, while the A-bombs were not dropped as punishment for Japan's horrible war crimes, it turned out that they were the only real punishment that Japan ever received, so it worked out pretty well.



Alan McDougall wrote:
There has been so much controversy surrounding the use of the bomb. Many believe that using the atom bomb brought about a speedy end to the most destructive conflict in human history.

The case against using the atomic bomb goes something like this ,that Japan was on the verge of capitulation and it was therefore unnecessary, even inhumane, to use the bomb. Dwight D. Eisenhower even said, "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

During a 1975 interview, Tibbets himself said that he regretted killing so many people, but that he slept well at night because he knew that using the bomb saved American lives

The case for using the weapons is/was that Japanese resistance became even more intense in late 1944 and 1945. Thousands of American sailors lost their lives in Kamikaze - or suicidal - attacks. American warships were severely damaged and even sunk by the Kamikazes. Taking the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost almost 20,000 American lives.

An invasion of Japan was planned for early 1946. American casualties were projected at 500,000. The projections for Japanese casualties - military and civilian - ran into the millions. Based on what they had seen at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, our war planners knew that Japanese resistance would be fanatical. As a preparation measure, 500,000 purple hearts were ordered.

Three-and-a-half years of war had cost America 400,000 lives. How many more were we prepared to lose? Did President Harry Truman made the only choice he could? Use the bomb.

That they didn't surrender after the first Atomic Bomb shows the dedication of the Japanese to their religion (in which their leader was a deity), do you think that Japan were about to give up and surrender?


Looking at it in hindsight, it seems clear that Japan was ready to give up. However, this was not readily apparent to Truman at the time the bombs were dropped.

Seems Ike saw it clearly. But no one else saw it.



Alan McDougall wrote:
Was this a crime against humanity an immoral act of enormous proportions or can we justify in the light of history?

Peace


Not a crime against humanity. Civilians were not the target.

Possibly (probably, even) a war crime.

More than justifiable, considering the position Truman was in and the information he had available to him.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 08:58 pm
@richrf,
richrf wrote:
As was subsequently reveal through historical documents, Japan was already suing for peace before the bombs were dropped via Russian emissaries. The only condition was that the Emperor was to be allowed to say in place, which the U.S. denied, insisting on unconditional surrender. After the bombs were dropped, this condition was permitted.


"Suing for peace" would involve presenting some sort of proposal to end the war.

Japan did not present any such proposal in their contacts with the Soviets. Therefore they were not suing for peace.

Further, while Japan did not at the time reveal their thinking, we do now know what it was (the benefits of hindsight), and Japan wanted far more than "just a guarantee for the Emperor".

They wanted there to be no occupation of Japan.

They wanted Japanese soldiers to simply pack up and go home instead of surrendering and being disarmed.

They wanted Japan to be in charge of any trials over Japanese war crimes.

In short, what Japan wanted was to end the war in a draw (much like the Korean War later ended) instead of actually surrendering.


And no, even when (later, AFTER the A-bombs) Japan did try to surrender just with a condition for the Emperor, we did not ever grant that condition.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:10 pm
@William,
William wrote:
As far as I can gather from the below links, Japan was defeated proir to the bombings.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary?
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Information from Answers.com
Debating the American Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

From the above articles, I conclude "NO".

William



Your first link is to a Holocaust denial site that attempts to exaggerate the effects of allied bombing and minimize the scale of the Holocaust in an effort to pretend that the Nazis were really no worse than anyone else in WWII. If you recall the infamous Neo-Nazi David Irving, he is one of their more prominent authors.

Second link is dead (GeoCities is kaput). Third link looks like a wikipedia-style article. I didn't review it, but it might be OK.

Your last link seems to rely on a lot of long-discredited anti-American propagandists as sources, and is likely to be nearly as inaccurate at the first link.

That said, it is reasonable to conclude "no" in hindsight. But just remember that Truman didn't have the advantage of hindsight when the bombs were actually being dropped. At the time, he had no idea what it might take to make Japan surrender.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:32 pm
@Philosopher Jay,
Philosopher Jay wrote:
Hi William,

I have to agree that Truman's ego was the factor behind the Atomic Bomb. Remember that the Soviets had basically won the war in Europe against the Nazis.


Preposterous. It was a group effort, and required the US, UK, and USSR working together.

Without any one of those three, it would have been much more difficult to defeat the Nazis.



Philosopher Jay wrote:
The Soviets were preparing to enter the war against Japan. Roosevelt had won the war against Japan.


If Roosevelt had won, why didn't Japan surrender to him?



Philosopher Jay wrote:
The only thing that Truman wanted was the glory of delivering the final blow against Japan and making sure the Soviets did not take a share in the glory.


No, what Truman wanted was for Japan to surrender. At the time they were still refusing to do so.



Philosopher Jay wrote:
Here is a pretty good description of the situation in July, 1945, in Japan, when the Japanese were planning to surrender and only praying/hoping/begging for a negotiated surrender.

From JapanFocus

Quote:
Into the month of July, the leaders of the imperial armed forces clung to the idea that as Allied lines of supply and communication lengthened, their own forces would do better on the homeland battlefields. But by this time Japan had virtually no oil, its cities were in ruins and its navy and naval air capability virtually non-existent. It is unclear at what point Hirohito abandoned the illusion that his armed forces remained capable of delivering at least one devastating blow to the enemy so that his diplomats could negotiate a surrender on face saving terms. But six months of intensive U.S. terror bombing of the Japanese civilian population had forced him, the Court group, and the government to take into account not only their huge losses of men and materials, but also food shortages and the growing war-weariness of the Japanese people. How could they lead and preserve their system of rule after peace returned?

That question weighed on their minds when the Potsdam Declaration arrived (July 27-28), calling on them to surrender unconditionally or face immediate destruction. Yet they rejected the four-power ultimatum, feeling as former prime minister and navy "moderate," Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa, said to his secretary on July 28, "There is no need to rush."

Domestic political considerations drove Japan's decision-makers. Ultimately, what mattered most was where each of them, and the institutions they represented, stood as a result of an unconditional surrender.

Hirohito, counting on the success of the Foreign Ministry's peace overtures to Moscow, resisted facing reality and never acted resolutely. But many months after their surrender, Hirohito, Kido, and Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori placed all blame on the military and claimed that they had been forced to reject the Potsdam terms because they feared precipitating a military coup d'etat which would have threatened their lives and brought about a worse situation than the one they confronted. They were clearly dissembling. What they had really feared was the destruction of their entire framework for rule.

After the Suzuki government rejected Potsdam, Hirohito waited to hear from Stalin, worried about defending the tokens of his legitimacy -- the three "imperial regalia" -- and lost the chance to end the war before the Soviets entered it. But some cabinet ministers and members of a cabinet advisory committee, composed largely of the leaders of big business, revisited the Potsdam Declaration, arguing that it had been a mistake to postpone acceptance of its terms. Prime Minister Suzuki, however, ignored their advice because the emperor and the army were not on board. By July, sixty-four Japanese cities had been largely or partially destroyed by conventional bombs and millions of pounds of incendiaries. There was little left to be destroyed: the crisis abroad and at home had merged.


U.S. terror bombing of the Japanese civilian population????

Nonsense.



Philosopher Jay wrote:
If he had not insisted on an unconditional surrender for his own glory, and granted a pardon to Hirohito, Truman could have ended the war weeks earlier.


Unconditional Surrender is something that came from the Roosevelt Administration.

And Truman did abandon it. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.

And Japan wanted far more than just a pardon for Hirohito. Had Truman granted such a pardon, it would not have caused Japan to surrender.



Philosopher Jay wrote:
It is ironic that Truman later elected not to persecute the war criminal Emperor Hirohito, while thinking nothing of turning tens of thousands of poor innocent Japanese children into marshmallows. Hopefully in the future Truman will be put on trial for his war crimes and be remembered along with Hitler and Hirohito for his cruelty and savagery.


Truman did nothing even remotely like the horrors that Hitler perpetrated.

Nor did he do anything remotely like the horrors that WWII Japan perpetrated.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 10:04 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:
...The case for using the weapons is/was that Japanese resistance became even more intense in late 1944 and 1945. Thousands of American sailors lost their lives in Kamikaze - or suicidal - attacks. American warships were severely damaged and even sunk by the Kamikazes. Taking the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost almost 20,000 American lives. ...


I know Monday Morning quarterbacking is easy, but.....

We really needed to save those two bombs for Mecca and Medina. Japan was already totally defeated and their entire means of bringing harm to places beyond their own shores was at the bottom of the ocean. Seventy five of their major cities were in ashes and rubble.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 04:09:08