The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

Discussion in 'History' started by mikegriffith1, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    Yes, Hiroshima Quotes.

    Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson. Two versions that contradict each other. One must be a lie. Which book to believe? We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not. So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period. Also the page number for the quote is wrong?

    MacArthur, quoted from William Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Manchester? A proven liar, who lied about valor on Okinawa. Stolen Valor, that is what Manchester is guilty of, at the least. An author who is best left to collect dust, simply for lying about his own military record. And boy did he lie. What a prick!

    Hoover? I do see a pattern, I am not about to go out and by a Hoover book to make a point about this terrible list of errors and proven liars.

    Leahy, that appears correct although I will have to cross reference Leahy to Stimson/Truman and whoever else may be important.

    The rest, I may address at my leisure. There is much written by those who were part of the decision. Truman and Stimson, for the most part. The Interim Committee. And more. But without addressing everything, there is a disturbing pattern of cherry picking sources, making errors while sourcing the quotes, even taking the quotes out of context. Books are a better source than the cherry picked scholarly papers scattered across the internet.

    Using google as a source is a terrible way to debate history.
     
  2. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    And Indo-China? The Philippines? Korea? I will leave out Manchuria. But, feel free to enlighten us.
     
  3. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    Yet, they did not surrender, and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.

    Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.
     
  4. mikegriffith1
    Offline

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,762
    Thanks Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +6,133
    I’ll get around to responding to some of the recent replies very soon, but for now I wanna talk about an amazing discovery I just made.

    Much to my astonishment, Dr. Michael Sherry, in his famous and classic book The Rise of American Air Power (Yale University Press, 1987), condemns Truman for nuking Japan without first trying to determine if the Japanese would surrender if he assured them that the emperor would not be deposed. Given that Dr. Sherry’s famous book has been endorsed by such heavyweights as Stephen Ambrose and Russell Weigley, when I began to read the book a few days ago, I just assumed that Sherry would defend—indeed, staunchly defend—Truman’s decision to nuke Japan. So I was astounded to find that Sherry does the opposite. Not only that, but Dr. Sherry also condemns the conventional bombing of Japanese cities. Here is part of what Dr. Sherry says about Ike and the nuking of Japan:

    Eisenhower provided a striking example of how doubt arose outside of normal channels. When he heard about the atomic bomb is unclear, but apparently at the time of Potsdam he learned that an atomic bomb was a weapon in hand. He immediately objected to its use. According to the various accounts of his talk with Stimson, he objected on the grounds that Japan “was already defeated,” that the United States “should avoid shocking world opinion” by using the bomb, and that it might prevent a nuclear arms race if other nations remained “ignorant of the fact that the problem of nuclear fission had been solved”. . . .​

    And here is part of Dr. Sherry’s eloquent condemnation of Truman’s decision to nuke without trying negotiation:

    Since precisely this issue of the emperor’s fate held up surrender even after Hiroshima and Russia’s entry into the war, until Byrnes and Truman offered firmer assurances, their decision at Potsdam has been widely and rightly condemned as the most tragic blunder in American surrender policy, even by insiders who otherwise supported the bomb’s use. There can be no certainty would have accepted in July what it submitted to in August, but the chance was there, and as Ralph Bard had argued earlier, the risks of pursuing it were small. Moreover, the moral risks in the opposite direction, in pursuing an atomic solution before attempting to break the diplomatic impasse, were large. Michael Walzer has explained them persuasively:​

    “If killing millions (or many thousands) of men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary—in order not to kill those people—to settle for something less. . . . If people have a right not to be forced to fight, they also have a right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded. Beyond that point, there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments about military necessity, no cost-accounting in human lives. To press the war further than that is to re-commit the crime of aggression. In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime.”​

    Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​

    Whatever lame, dishonest attempts some might make to paint the Japanese as a formidable foe in August 1945 because they managed to shoot down a plane and sink a ship that month, there can be no denying that Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible. Truman did not even try to negotiate privately, through third parties, to explore the peace opening that he knew from intercepts was there to be explored.

    Truman not only refused to hold any kind of negotiations with the Japanese, but he refused to advise them that he would not depose the emperor if they surrendered. He also refused to alert the Japanese that Russia would soon be entering the Pacific War against them. These two crucial pieces of information would have been of enormous value to the Japanese moderates and would have deprived the hardliners of their two main--and really their only--arguments against surrender.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    Eisenhower never knew we had an Atomic bomb. Eisenhower was not involved in any way with the war against Japan. Eisenhower was consumed by Germany.

    Eisenhower told two very different stories of the same incident in two books. Can Eisnohower know we have an Atomic bomb yet be ignorant of the fact that nuclear fission is now a reality, the problem solved?

    Various accounts of the talk with Stimson? The only various accounts come from Eisenhower contradicting himself. Are you trying to obfuscate the truth, hence you are liar. Or are stumbling through other's work?

    Defeated and Surrender are not the same. One can be defeated, and still kill another 1,000 American Military personal, as Japan did from July 30th to their surrender. The war is not over until one side loses or both sides quit. Japan never quit, until she surrendered.

    Stimson kept the bomb a Top Secret as it was. Truman never learned that there was an Atomic Bomb project while he was Vice President. Why would Stimson let the secret out, by telling a General in Europe? Stimson had not told the Pacific General, MacArthur, and that is documented. So how does Eisenhower rise further up "the need to know", which authorized the divulging of Top Secrets.

    Either was, in 1948 Eisenhower had no idea that a bomb existed, as he wrote.
    in 1963 Eisenhower discovers a bomb existed, as he wrote?

    Eisenhower only proves that the revisionists only have lies, you and they, are charlatans.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  6. Unkotare
    Offline

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    83,244
    Thanks Received:
    6,243
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +21,742
    LOL

    Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. mikegriffith1
    Offline

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,762
    Thanks Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +6,133
    You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender. You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender." They were trying to surrender. And we knew they were trying to surrender. But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor.

    The moderates desperately needed our help to overcome the hardliners, but Truman did nothing but help the hardliners over and over again. It was as if he wanted to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender until he could nuke them and until the Soviets were ready to invade.

    LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?! That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.

    The word "offensive operation" in a military context refers to multiple forces launching a coordinated attack with an objective of seizing territory and/or destroying substantial numbers of enemy personnel and equipment (ships, tanks, planes, etc.).

    Uh, yeah, that's the point. They were only fighting because we were still attacking them. They were powerless to attack us in any kind of an offensive operation. Most of their ships were stuck in harbor for lack of fuel (and fear of getting sunk). Their air force rarely sortied out in even halfway substantial numbers due to a lack of fuel, and their airplane production was almost zero due to a lack of raw materials. That's why our losses in air raids were less than 1%.

    Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    Most? 1 out of 4?

    As long as you are vague there is no discussion.

    Use names. I will.

    You are very dismissive of the Japanese killing Americans. How can you hate us, so much. The Indianapolis was not attacking the sub that sank it? And if Japan was sincere, why would they continue attacking, as in not simply defending. Daily POW's died, from torture and beatings, that is how you define trying to surrender.

    How about we use books you have linked to or referenced.

    Technically, you are pretty emotional, responding with your vague opinion based on other peoples work. I on the other hand, respond with multiple sources I own.

    Everything quoted from Eisenhower is from a book written many years late. Hiroshima: Quotes Mr Long references stimson's diary, Long being your source. But when it comes to a conversation between Stimson and Eisenhower Long uses the 2nd contradictory book Eisenhower wrote, why? Why not quote Eisenhower's diary? Your source could only find what he wanted to hear in a book that is unsourced. The quote is not referenced other than coming from a book Eisenhower wrote yet there is a diary for both men?
    20190911_220011.jpg 20190911_220041.jpg
     
  9. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    Will Griffith answer in regards to Eisenhower's conflicting statement?
     
  10. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    You are going to ignore all the facts of the end of the war and pretend it was only one ship that was sunk after Okinawa? Certainly that is not a defensive operation? As you describe it, far from Japan? Far from Japan yet close enough to die at the hands of the Japanese, what a funny way to surrender.

    So what about all the other people who died?

    How about the 15 beheaded, what about the 15 americans beheaded after Japan surrendered? Is that comical as well, ASSHOLE!

    Trying to surrender? Hell, they surrendered and still killed Americans. How many Americans should of died, while we negotiated with the Japanese? Who was suppose to bring the cookies and milk? Should we have been on our knees, begging, the Japanese to surrender? They killed our boys, after they surrendered? They were killing our men, while you claim they were defenseless. They killed and the killed, they never stopped killing.

    It took Atomic bombs to convince the Emperor to Surrender. What the Emperor did after the Atomic bomb he could of done before, but he was always safe. He always had hope, that somehow Japan would win, negotiate peace, and never surrender.

    But you go ahead and try to post your bullshit crap. I will point out the errors in your links, I will point out the lies of Eisenhower. I will point out when the people you link to, who did all the work for you, I will point out how they are wrong.

    Thus far, there is not one of my posts you have been able to refute. You keep making emotional arguments, you keep posting opinion, or you link to somewhere on the internet where you kind find anything that fits your opinion, especially if you are an unpatriotic american hater here to trash our fine history. But my posts, where I show I have the books you reference, and I quote from those books, and show them to be wrong, you have no reply to any of that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page