OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

Nonsense dealing with Japan at the end of WW2 is not the same as fighting in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Footnote the generals or at least one general wish to use atom bombings in Korea and Truman ended up firing him as a result.

The military does not made decisions on the used of nuclear weapons under our system of government and having our civilian leadership do so had turn out fairly well so far.

 

How do people know that WWII Japan was not briefing American generals on the inner workings of Japan's high council???

Well aside from the fact that there were no records of such briefings happening, a little bit of common sense would do the trick.

- - - Updated - - -

The generals recommended going ahead with invasion. Why are YOU against the advice of military experts?

- - - Updated - - -

Aside from Ike telling that to a single person (and then neither one telling another soul), they said no such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Aside from Ike expressing his views to a single person, you cannot show a single military leader offering wartime opposition to the use of the A-bombs.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didn't the Japanese government see that they had no choice after Hiroshima?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it was the Japanese experts at the state department who knew the most.

- - - Updated - - -

The Japanese experts at the State Department knew far more.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didn't Hiroshima serve that purpose?

You are misrepresenting everything. You are taking comments that people said only long after the end of the war and pretending that it was advice that they gave during the war.

- - - Updated - - -

The Japanese experts at the state department had more information on the subject.

Aside from Ike's private conversation with Stimson, no military leader said the war was over until Japan actually offered to surrender on August 14.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how when Japan actually decided to surrender after Nagasaki, they were able to do so within hours.

There were no surrender talks. When the A-bombs were dropped, Japan was still refusing to surrender.

As for who would have been hurt by a pointless delay, how about the countless people who were dying every day as the war dragged on?

- - - Updated - - -

How odd. How then did those zeros manage to chase Bockscar away from their primary target at Kokura Arsenal?

And what about the thousands of kamikaze zeros waiting to pounce on our invasion force if we invaded in the south?

 

Lots of opinions...very low on facts. I gave the direct quotes of the greatest military minds of the time. And they said the bomb was unecessary. I think I will go with them over your opinions

 

The only reason I can see for the Generals to be anti A bomb was the fall out and the radioactivity problems.

But not over blowing up buildings or killing the natives of Japan.

 

No military leaders quoted except Eisenhower who was against the war. Thanks

 

You mean the ones who errantly thought Japan would surrender only if another hundred or two thousand civillians starved to death of course. Or, did you mean the one who said the only reason to drop the bomb was to make scientists happy?

Of course we have your opinion and those of the generals who had no idea Japan was not about to surrender anytime soon as per what we now know from records.

 

No. They were so enthused about Nagasaki that they sent word to Washington asking to drop the next one on Tokyo to see if it would better grab the Emperor's attention.

It seems likely that their advice would have been followed too, had the US dropped the next A-bomb. But then Japan surrendered and the war was over.

- - - Updated - - -

The largest reasonable death estimates are 140,000 for Hiroshima and 80,000 for Nagasaki. And those are high estimates.

 

I don't recall any quote mentioning allowing 200 thousand civilians to starve. I guess you just made that up. How sad

- - - Updated - - -

I see more claims without evidence.....which frankly is worthless

 

He believed the bomb didn't make Japan surrender but the Emporer says that's why surrendered so, guess Ike was wrong on that one.

 

Nope. Everything I said was 100% factual.

You can't show a single quote from any of them that contradicts a single thing that I've said.

- - - Updated - - -

And who only voiced his opposition to a single person, after which neither one told a soul for the rest of the war.

 

Or the emperor was lying

- - - Updated - - -

The quotes I posted were 100 percent factual and contradict all your claims

- - - Updated - - -

So I was off by 5 thousand? Or were you? Lol

 

After the war (note, after) some military leaders concluded that Japan had been about to surrender even without the A-bombs.

These post-war conclusions are being misrepresented as wartime opposition.

Ike apparently felt that way during the war. But he confided this in only one person, who then didn't repeat it.

 

I am waiting for you to produce the quote that a general said Japan would only surrender if two hundred thousand people starved first. Actually you said more than one. Don't avoid it....where is it?

- - - Updated - - -

Please present a quote showing two generals who supported the bomb before Hiroshima.

 

It has been estimated that had the war continued just a few months longer, 10 million Japanese civilians would have starved to death.

Asian civilians were dying at a rate of 250,000 to 400,000 per month under the tender mercies of Japanese occupation.

I am unaware of the rate at which US POWs were dying.

 

Might be waiting a long time but no matter to me as I never said anybody said that but, we all know that fifty thousand Japanese were starving to death a month plus twenty thousand allied people and soldiers were being killed.

But your generals knew better and were willing for that to happen right even though it was not their decision to make nor were they privy to the information to make it with which is why they held no part in making it.

- - - Updated - - -

He doesn't care, just as long as the HQ of the southern regional military remains intact as well as the rail yards and ports to ship military supplies and troops in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Hell with US POWs and Allied troops.

 

Nothing that you've quoted contradicts a single thing that I've said.

Not only were you off by 5000, you suggested that the number was even higher with that plus symbol.

In reality 220,000 was the highest reasonable estimate. That means real number is likely lower.

 

There was a conference involving Japan's wartime leaders in 1945 and Hirohito could cast a tie-breaking vote to surrender after Hiroshima, thus silencing military hardliners in the War Cabinet, who insisted on the continuation of the war. Back then, the representatives of the Army and Navy held Cabinet positions and military people had too much influence on politics, which was mainly why Imperial Japan lost its way. The Emperor could hardly say no to what they were doing even when they were acting like suicidal maniacs or Japanese equivalents of the Brownshirts.

 

Better;

Britannica

""virtually all of America’s political and military leadership, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct.""

 

For what possible reason and, prove that with something reputable please. And while you are at it, prove that all your Generals were not lying as well.

 

What you cited is basically an interpretation of the telegrams I read, with some added context. It is unclear to me that "terms acceptable to Japan" means what you had previously stated, but it does seem that the mindset was a matter of getting the best deal that they can and they thought 3rd party mediation was essential to that end. Once the Soviets broke neutrality, that was obviously no longer an option. But I had not previously known that we tried to talk to them and they refused. If that's the case, I think I'd have to concede the overall argument in terms of offering negotiation prior to bombings. Maybe it could have gone differently if the Soviets had been willing to broker peace, but they didn't and that's not America's fault.

All that said, I'm still not sure if nukes were really the key to the surrender. We had inflicted much more damage to them by conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion changed the game dramatically and coincides more closely with the surrender. Then again, had we let it play out more, the Soviets might have gained more, and the use of atomic weapons probably allowed the military to save face by claiming they lost because of technological inferiority. And saving face seems to be fairly important in their ethos.

Probably none of those things, at least not a blanket pardon for all war criminals, but I might have been open to sparing the emperor and it seems like that was the primary thing that was non-negotiable.

 

Dude that is a statement from an article that has zero references. It is simply his opinion with no facts to back it. That is your evidence? That's sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Just presenting possibilities. He had every reason to say what he was told. He was trying to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion since again you present no evidence as usual

 

Nope. Couldn't do it publicly. Could do it after you pretend to investigate and find the sucker innocent but not prior or as a blanket discharge from culpability of war crimes. It would be tantamount to spending millions of lives to stop Nazi Germany then on the eve of victory saying Hitler was off the hook and not to be tried as a war criminal and, would be in charge of the new Germany once they surrendered.

If Truman did that I can tell you that only one of them would be leader of a nation afterwards and, it would probably be the Asian guy.

 

Estimated by who...forget it....that would require evidence

 

Not really as the author is peer reviewed, is an historian who's specialty is Truman and is printed by the esteemed Britannica. If you find something wrong you are free to correct the worlds leading reference publication and would probably get a reward of some kind or at the very least a complete set.

How would saying anything help him avoid war crimes trials? Who was he told by? Please, be sure to provide quotes to prove your point or at least something peer reviewed and published as this is a bit wacky.

How on earth would the Emperor avoid a war crime trial by saying he b roke the Big Six's deadlock because the bomb was dropped?

Yes, remember that when you post things like;

"" He had every reason to say what he was told. He was trying to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes""

Pick one. Was it fifty thousand a month or two hundred fifty? Either way if one doesn't drop the bomb it would cost lives.