Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon

[bpilgrim]

succeed only by NAGASAKI" - Kurt Vonnegut

Yet, almost 50% of DU'ers think they were necessary...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4271977

I am truly surprised and saddened by this considering all that we now know and it fills me with great fear for our future.

what will it take before us humans realize NUCLEAR WEAPONS are a CRIME against HUMANITY to develop and use :shrug:



peace

[Comandante_Subzero]

1. None Dare Call It Treason

Most people regardless of their politics don't know the economic history of Fascism - that's the main reason why these holocausts are still considered legitimate.

Most Western financiers & big businessmen were firmly pro-Fascist & helped it in every way they could. See the histories of Chase Bank & Standard Oil for example. US firms stoked Japanese militarism & war with oil, rubber, & scrap metal for a decade before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

As with the "Cold" War, US & Brit big business profited building up the enemy & profited helping tear them down (See Sutton, WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & SOVIET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 1, the heavily documented - & long suppressed - story of how corporate America built the Soviet economy during the 1920s).

[getmeouttahere]

2. I agree completely....we have the capacity to reason...

and you would think that we would evolve in our thinking. But then, evolution is a dirty word to BushCo.

If you haven't already, check out "The Fog of War" where McNamara explains that even before Hiroshima we fire bombed 100,000 civilians in Tokyo, among other atrocities in Japanese cities.

[Leilani]

27. Quoting McNamara, are we?

The man who is responsible for the death of 58,000 Americans & who knows how many Vietnamese.

He should have been arrested as a war criminal.

[Flubadubya]

34. Whoah... that's quite an atrocious charge!

Since when did McNamara become the bête noire around DU?

[Leilani]

40. Is he now free of blame for the Vietnam war?

[Midnight Rambler]

193. Quite the opposite

"The Fog of War" is in a way very much him accepting the blame. What you're getting there is a tale of why Vietnam was so fucked up, straight from the horse's mouth.

[Taxloss]

3. For the record, I voted for a "demo" blast.

I'm a pacifist and I've read Hersey's books about Hiroshima. It should not have happened. The sooner we get rid of these weapons the better.

bpilgrim, I share your choice of favourite film. It is an extraordinarily powerful statement of how nuclear weapons are unsafe because they are placed in the control of human beings.

[MADem]

4. Well, it all depends on perspective

Selfishly, seeing as my father (and a number of uncles and assorted relatives as well) was poised to invade Japan at the tip of the blooming spear, and likely would have died in the ensuing battle had not the bombs been dropped, I have to say that unless someone could have invented a time machine and convinced Japan that stooping to conquer would result in them owning the auto market and making a fortune in electronics without having to support a full blown military, I prefer that they got it instead of me and mine...

I think once was more than enough, though. I'd rather we didn't have to do that sort of thing ever again on this earth.

[Deja Q]

5. The lives of a few to save many more.

Temporal morality is rarely benign.

Wihout the Bomb, how would WW II be resolved?

If the Bomb was not used or even created, WHAT would have happened?

Japanese victory? Unlike Americans of 2005, Japanese of 1944 were far more dedicated and loyal to their government rather than themselves.

Japanese self-annihilation? Because they'd all die for their emperor (the pied piper/lemming mindset) they'd commit self-genocide to die in a losing battle.

Stalemate?

What if Germany came close to perfecting the Bomb? Or another means? Japan WAS part of an axis and, more important, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. (which was why Japan was the target of the Bomb and not Germany. Racism has very little to do with it, unlike the thoughts of some... try "Retribution" instead.) And would it matter; of the Axis, only one country be used given the ferocity of the Bomb for the other two to collapse.

[Endangered Specie]

9. Deciding to sacrifice x lives to save y others is a job

best left to God or evolution.

and if youre going to use this moral relativity argument then we should have taken care to kill exactly as many Japanese civilians as American civilians. :sarcasm:

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. But let's also be honest - that's a decision we make every day

about many other things, not just war, and not just that one time.

We do it every day in our society - how we use police, the fact that we use vaccinations, our prison system, whether we spray for moaquitos, and on and on and on.

The decision of "let x people die so that y people might live" is a long time part of the human condition, and will be, I imagine, until humanity no longer exists.

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is The Unfortunate Case, Sir

"Action is shrouded by evil as fire by smoke."

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

[bpilgrim]

24. red-herring in this case, since japan was defeated and suing for peace

we could have saved MORE y lives by accepting their 1 condition sooner as recommended by all our military leaders in theater at that time.

peace

[ulysses]

25. they weren't suing for peace.

Sorry. You're overstating the case.

[The Magistrate]

30. The Civilian Government Was, Sir

The military was not, and therein lies the rub. An excellent case can be made it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria subsequent to the bombs that proved the decisive factor in altering the attitude of some of the military leadeship.

[ulysses]

33. but what power did the civilian government have to make peace

in Japan at the time? Or to do much of anything?

[The Magistrate]

47. Not Much, Sir

Views differ, certainly, but that is mine.

[ulysses]

67. we're in agreement.

[Massacure]

90. The civilian government was nearly overthrown after trying to surrender.

When the emperor recorded a surrender message, he was taken hostage and the military turned the palace upside down trying to find it before it could be sent out.

[manic expression]

174. That coup was done by the Palace Guards

they were the insane of the most fundamentalist. Their intentions did not show the sentiments of the Emperor or the Japanese people.

[Darranar]

94. So why bomb Nagasaki after the Soviet invasion? n/t

[bpilgrim]

38. they were suing for peace and our leaders KNEW it...

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

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

see also...
H I R O S H I M A : WHO'S WHO AND WHAT'D THEY DO?
http://www.doug-long.com/who.htm

new book out if anyone is interested...

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
By Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p17s01-bogn.html

peace

[ulysses]

42. I've read the quotes long since, bp.

I'm not quite buying the after-the-fact moral outrage from top brass who were just fine with conventional methods of killing civilians before Hiroshima.

[bpilgrim]

51. well, there is no denying the FACT that they were militarily defeated &

suing for peace, those are FACTS no matter who's opinion you accept.

there are no reasons to NUKE civilians, twice.

peace

[ulysses]

61. they were militarily defeated, yes,

but while certain elements of the government might have been seeking peace with the Allies, Japan at the time was under the tight control of militarists who were most emphatically not seeking peace.

there are no reasons to NUKE civilians, twice.

Neither are there reasons to firebomb them. Hundreds of times.

[bpilgrim]

72. and suing for peace

and we knew it...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

fyi: firebombs doesn't excuse nuking a defeated, suing for peace nation's cities, twice, does it? so why do you bring that up?

peace

[ulysses]

92. indeed they don't.

firebombs doesn't excuse nuking a defeated, suing for peace nation's cities, twice, does it? so why do you bring that up?

Because firebombing killed far more civilians over the course of the war than did nuclear weapons.

[The Magistrate]

26. It Is Not My Intention, Sir

To press any great argument on the details of this matter. We both know one another's views on it from previous discussion of it. Though we disagree, you have my respect and it is certainly my hope that that is mutual.

Be well, my friend!

[bpilgrim]

49. well, it is my intention to have a through discussion on this horror

considering todays date.

sorry. you choose not to respond to me on my points since i have great respect for your opinion.

peace

[Endangered Specie]

21. In that case, we should have dropped flu vaccine and "off" spray

on them instead of incendiaries and fission bombs. :sarcasm:

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. If you're going to respond, why not respond to what I said?

Makes life easier.

Your response has nothing to do with my post except using some of the same words, totally out context, and with complete and obvious disregard for my post, and with total and obvious in-your-faceness that says "I don't need to read your post".

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

146. Not quite

It is true, in the sense that there are many, many actions and/or remedies for some problem or illness that will have unintended negative consequences for others.

But to select a target of tens of thousands of people and wipe them out instantly is different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Don't get hurt where Triage will have to be practiced

okay....

[manic expression]

10. Get a clue

Russia had already offered and agreed to invade Japan. We could've let them do it.

We could have put Japan on virtual siege, there would be no way it could survive by itself.

The civilian government of Japan was offering acceptable peace that we refused to take.

The invasion fatality estimates were grossly incorrect, so that the brass-hatted idiots could use their toys.

Germany was already defeated by the time we tested the first bomb.

Pearl Harbor does not justify the unnecessary massacre of untold numbers of innocents.

I don't even know why I have to say this....

[Retired AF Dem]

165. Where did you get your information about incorrect

fatality estimates?. If we avg 10,000 killed for each small island invaded during the island hopping campaign just how many do you think would of been killed invading the mainland? The bombs stopped the insanity. It is about time the Japenese people and their Govt admit they brought on the bombs, nobody else. I shed no tears, at the time they showed no mercy to anyone they invaded and they had the favor returned.

[manic expression]

175. The bombs stopped the insanity?

Are you insane? Look at the pictures!

The generals made the fatality estimates much higher to influence the civilian leadership to do what they wanted.

Why didn't we just lay siege to Japan, cutting them off from the resources they would need (remind you of something?)?

The bombs created more insanity than the entire Pacific War combined.

Do not try to justify an injustice with another injustice.

We could've attacked military targets, we chose to murder innocents.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

144. In the other war theater

Germany had already surrendered.

Who knows why who did what when at this time 60 years later?

There was a document in which Truman referred to the bomb as "the gadget."

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Commie hippie liberal peacenik!

Why don't you move to Iraq, if you love Saddam and hate freedom so much!

Anyway, needed to get that off my chest. I was one who, until recently, felt that the bomb dropping was necessary to avoid much greater amounts of death; though I never thought it was "good" that we dropped the bomb, or that it is a viable choice any more.

I was even angry when I visited Hiroshima last year and went through the museum, and there was nothing in there about Japanese atrocities and THEY'RE attacks. Only stuff saying that the US was totally wrong to drop the bomb, that it wasn't necessary. Part of that is Japanese arrogance - since they still refuse to apologize for their actions - which still offends me.

But with all the stuff that's come out in the last couple weeks, I've changed my position. Now I realize the Hiroshima museum is partly correct - the bombs weren't necessary.

Like the bombing of Dresden, it was nothing but unncessary punishment, of a very immature level, for crimes their countries committed.

Had you taken that poll a month ago, I would have said that, yes, the Hiroshima bomb, while ugly and unfortunate, saved far more lives than it cost.

Now I don't think so.

[Comandante_Subzero]

11. Whitewash

When has the US apologized for any of its crimes against humanity? No, in fact we are infallible.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. We are? COOL!

Certainly we act like it, don't we?

[Junkdrawer]

7. Yep. Getting to where I hardly recognize the place anymore...

perhaps it's time to move along...

[Endangered Specie]

8. In war, there really is no good guy.

Theres the bad guy, and either another bad guy or, at best, an ok guy. (for the most part, the guy who wins is the good guy).

Firebombing/Nuclear bombing civilian cities is something you'd think only the Nazi's or people like them would do.

I'm somewhat amazed that 'justifications' of genocide exist in progressive circles, I mean, we care about Iraqi civilians too dont we? Why not just blow them to hell and not care?

[foo_bar]

12. the original quote

"I had to add, though, that I knew a single word that proved our democratic government was capable of committing obscene, gleefully rabid and racist, yahooistic murders of unarmed men, women, and children, murders wholly devoid of military common sense. I said the word. It was a foreign word. That word was Nagasaki."

- Kurt Vonnegut (Jr.), Timequake

[newscott]

13. I've been contemplating the bombings given all the recent

news coveragae and the passing of another milestone anniversary.

It truly shocks me that we have unleashed such brutal destruction.

We have harnessed the greatest technology in the world for this purpose.

I for one am ashamed.

Filled with awe at the destructive power, and deep shame for the human race.

This isn't about being American, it's all of humanity.

We have come to this.

[Cleita]

14. Scary isn't it?

Particularly offensive is the reasoning to justify what happened. We should have admitted that the bombings were a grave mistake a long time ago and never to be repeated by any civilized nation again. I think I understand now how a sociopath like Bush could be President, how our military could be manipulated into believing torture is okay in certain circumstances, and that we have a right to invade any country we want to get revenge for a wrong done to us, even if that nation had nothing to do with it. With this kind of reasoning and lack of compassion, I'm afraid we are doomed.

[Spinzonner]

18. Why do those who condemn the use of the bombs

not equally and with as much vigor condemn the firebombing bombings of Tokyo that produced as much death and destruction ?

Why is the condemnation reserved for the acts that were just vastly more efficient in delivery and death ?

I'm not sure I can see the moral divide clearly.

And, since using the bombs on a population made clear the consequences of their use, one must contemplate what kind of a world there would have been post-war if they had not been used. Withholding their use would not have kept the Russians from getting the bomb but the mindset of leaders and populations might have been much different and the Cold War might have become a hot one with devastating results.

[The Magistrate]

20. It Is Indeed, Sir

A more complex question than some seem to take it for.

Certainly as a question of morality, persons of good heart and sound intellect may well find themselves taking opposite views. Even on the more narrowly factual questions of the history of the thing, great disagreement remains possible, since of course the paths that were not taken can only be the subject of speculation, and not certainties.

[jonnyblitz]

32. i don't see where it is EVER moral to nuke civilian populations.

nothing too complicated about that. geesh

[ulysses]

36. it isn't.

Neither is it moral to firebomb them with conventional weapons.

[Rabrrrrrr]

That person said nothing about the morality of nuking.

[The Magistrate]

44. As A Practical Fact, Sir

In a state of total war, it is difficult to affect the government of any state without causing tremendous harm to the population that makes up the body of that state. It is one reason states ought to be much more careful than they are about entering into war, and it is an occassion for distress that doing so is often done without the real consent of the population, for they will be conscripted as targets in its course, inevitably, if the enemy chosen possesses any power to do so.

The member above, though, made a further interesting point worth some consideration. These devices had indeed a shocking effect on the globe, and it is difficult from our present vantage to credit the uncertainties prevalent before their use of what the actual effects would be. There really is little doubt the Soviets would have continued on to develope their own nuclear capabilities, and some reason to suspect a general conflagration might have broken out in which the unfamiliar devices saw much more wide-spread use. It seems very likely that, absent the nuclear balance of terror between the Soviets and the U.S., general war would have developed in the earlier stages of the Cold War we are familiar with. It can most sensibly be argued that the existance of nuclear weapons, and awareness of what they could do, prevented this.

[Greyhound]

57. Since all wars are crimes, morality is the antithesis of war.Therefore,

there is no moral high ground in war. It may be that a given war is unavoidable, but the only action possible is to end it as quickly as possible.
Ask yourself if the Japanese had the bomb and means of delivery, would they have hesitated to use it? Would they have stopped at two? :kick:

[mom cat]

156. Exactly. The truth is that today's neocons live in fear that someone

else will be as immorally brutal to America as America has been to others. As bad as 9-11 was, it was nothing compared to the brutality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As long as Americans continue to support this kind of horrific destruction of life, the world will continue to hate us...not just American policy, but Americans as people.

[bpilgrim]

22. there are many big differences between the two, not to mention todays date

and since germany and japan were defeated with japan suing for peace calls into question why our political leaders felt mass, indiscriminate murder was still necessary, other than to SHOCK-n-AWE the world that has only served to rush in the cold war, the nuclear arms race, and the justification of their use and we've been living on the brink ever since.



but since you bring it up, i am also strongly against the carpet bombing of cities, too :hi:

peace

[jonnyblitz]

31. oh jesus fucking christ , if we were celebrating the anniversary

of "the firebombing of Tokyo" perhaps we would be condemning THAT with vigor too. do we have to list every fucking evil thing our country has down in every thread we post when the topic is about our actions in one situation?? I CODEMN IT ALL EQUALLY but the TOPIC is NAGASKI/HIROSHIMA.THAT is what the annivesary is. DUH!!!

[Cleita]

37. I personally am against all bombing that is not of

military facilities. Bombing areas where there are large civilian populations like Hiroshima or Dresden in Germany is nothing more than mass murder IMHO.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. Efficient?? You call bombs that had effects on people not even born yet

efficient?? Clearly you are trying to say that the bombs were some kind of mercy as opposed to regular fire bombing. BULL SHIT. People were dying of radiation poisoning years and years later.

[Rabrrrrrr]

68. Id' say they were pretty fucking efficient

tens of thousand dead instantly, a city left in ruins, and it continued to kill for years afterward.

Seems pretty fuckin' efficient to me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

71. The OP referred to it as though it were some kind of merciful thing

for the Japanese to be "killed instantly". And THAT is complete crap.

[Rabrrrrrr]

75. No he didn't. Not at all.

You are completely misrepresenting what he said.

he asked the question why are we more concerned with the more efficient killing device, but now showing any concern for the FAR MORE DEVASTATING (my emphasis) fire bombing of a hell of a lot of other cities.

He was pointing out an important truth - it's easy to be horrified by an A-Bomb, but we must not also forget that, even though the A-Bomb is a HIGHLY EFFICIENT KILLER, it really is no different - morally, ethically, or in effect - from the slower, less efficient method of firebombing, carpet bombing, and etc., if those latter methods end up with just as much death and destruction.

One needs to keep one's emotions in check when talkin' 'bout stuff.

"OP referred to it as though it were some kind of merciful thing" my ass.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. It was an error in comprehension

Which I apologized for.

[Spinzonner]

76. I fail to see where you could reasonably interpret some kind of

advocacy or approval of 'efficiency' from my post.

I used it in the context of comparing the consequences of the firebombings versus the nuclear bombs and pointed out that the levels of death and destruction were comparable but that the moral condemnation seemed to be reserved for the use of the nuclear bombs.

I think perhaps you're seeking to achieve some high ground by misrepresenting the arguments of others. Or perhaps you just can't or won't read carefully.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

87. But they weren't comparable. At all.

The consequences of the firebombs ended with the people it killed. The consequences of the nuclear bombs did not.

But I did misread, and I apologize for that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

107. Not comparable?!

Pfagh.

Here -

Total civilian casualties in Japan, as a result of 9 months of air attack, including those from the atomic bombs, were approximately 806,000. Of these, approximately 330,000 were fatalities. These casualties probably exceeded Japan's combat casualties which the Japanese estimate as having totaled approximately 780,000 during the entire war. The principal cause of civilian death or injury was burns. Of the total casualties approximately 185,000 were suffered in the initial attack on Tokyo of 9 March 1945. Casualties in many extremely destructive attacks were comparatively low. Yokahoma, a city of 900,000 population, was 47 percent destroyed in a single attack lasting less than an hour. The fatalities suffered were less than 5,000.
(that is page 20)

Note that the 185,000 from Tokyo firebombing exceeds the total deaths experienced in Hiroshima including the deaths from the next year, which was about 140,000. And about 100,000 in Nagasaki.


And this, talking about the damage from just the Tokyo firebombing, not the other 60 cities firebombed:

Four hundred and seventy thousand barrels of oil and oil products, 221,000 tons of foodstuffs and 2 billion square yards of textiles were destroyed by air attacks.

These are all in the US's own words:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

So, yeah, the firebombing IS comparable.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

130. Right, that's 240,000 deaths, NOT including those who died of

radiation poisoning in the YEARS that followed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Your source says that there were 330,000 fatalities including the atomic bombs. Do the math.

What horrifies people is that at least half the civilian casualties in the total war occured in a few minutes. And on top of that, was it even necessary?

Not only that, but the fatalities just continued to rise as more and more people died of leukemia. People died slowly and painfully.

[JanMichael]

101. And how about Dresden? That was as bad if not worse.

Multiple days of Fire, multiple days of Death, all near the end of the war and on a civilian population.

Over 100,000 dead, the claims vary but it was a massacre.

[Bucky]

106. The death toll from Dresden was 25k. Holocaust deniers invented bigger #s

25,000 is a horrible massacre and (after the fact) Churchill sought to distance himself from the decision to take out the rail center at Dresden as a way of slowing down German mobility to end the war sooner. The actual numbers are an atrocity, but an honest debate about history must stick to hard facts, lest we drift into propaganda.

[JanMichael]

114. An English writer threw out a 25-40k number recently.

Others put the number much higher. Needless to say there are no "hard facts" as to the death toll other than "Bad" to the extent of an atrocity.

[rman]

151. there's no moral divide

it's just that this discussion is about the dropping of the A-bomb on Horishima and Nagasaki, not about the many other attrocities of war.
The fact that other attrocities are not discussed here now, does not mean that people don't also condemn those.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Are we not 2 minutes to Midnight?

:scared:





:hi: bpilgrim! Early this morning I uploaded all my new lizard pics, pending your approval. ;)

[charlie]

23. Relax

It's 7 minutes. 5 extra minutes to find some clean underwear and put it on.

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/current_time.htm

[not systems]

29. I agree.

Using the bomb was the low point for humanity and 50%
of "progressives" endorsing it is sign that hate and war
are from having run their course in the US.

It is sad.

Especially sad is people doing it because Truman was a
"great" Democrat.

[DerekG]

147. BINGO(!)--you get the prize

I suspected that a significant portion of the 50 percent supported those terrorist actions because "Give 'em Hell" Harry was at the helm(liberals, of course, don't have the animus to be warmongers). Alas, Truman, the father of the national security state, is deified by an unsettling number of progressives.

Actually, the aforementioned label was apropos: Truman brought hell to a lot of people.

[Walt Starr]

35. I'm surprised so few think they were necessary

Surprised and saddened.

[manic expression]

41. What's sad is that

THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY.

[Walt Starr]

43. Your assessment of the issue summed up in a single word...

BULLSHIT!!!

[manic expression]

48. I think that response defines your beliefs

quite well.

Pretty mature argument, I might add. :eyes:

[Walt Starr]

50. We've already gone round and round about this.

It WAS absolutely necessary. Nobody with any authority to do so was suing for peace. There was a new cabinet who attempted to make peace, but they and everybody else knew damn well the military would fight on. The Japanese military held all of the power.

It took a nuclear detonation on Hiroshima, followed by the Soviets entering the war gainst Japan, followed by a second nuclear detonation on Nagasaki, followed by a defeated emperor going against the will of the military and announcing on a public nationwide radio broadcast (at the risk of his own life as a military coups detat was in the offing) before the military finally saw the writing on the wall and a majority gave up while others were put down by their brethren in the military or committed ritual suicide.

It was perhaps the most necessary single series of attacks in the entire Pacific theater of the war and probably saved well over a million JAPANESE lives as well as definitely over 100,000 American military lives.

[bpilgrim]

53. no military leader in theater AT THAT TIME agree with you...

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

peace

[Walt Starr]

55. Not one member of the TOP military advisers at the time AGREE WITH YOU!

Sorry, theater commanders are notoriously glory seekers.

Where is the glory in blowing off two bombs to end the war with no glorious invasion and final hand to hand showdown with the enemy?

Also, field commanders NEVER have all of the facts. The cammanders in theater at the time had no clue of the military coups in the offing in Japan, nor did they know the FACT that the military planned to fight to the last man regardless of any peace agreement reached by the new cabinet.

[manic expression]

65. If they planned to

"fight to the last man", why did they give up after their civilians were killed?

That coups was by the Palace Guards, the insane of the insane. They did not represent Japanese policy or aims at all.

[bpilgrim]

66. not TURE ------ ----- ----- > QUOTES

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

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

peace

[Walt Starr]

128. Stimson as the #1 military advisor. McCloy was #2. Marshall was #3

ALL said drop the bomb.

[bpilgrim]

141. they why was Stimson drawing up plans for conditional surrender?

that looked remarkably similar to japans :shrug:

see new book...

"Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

review...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p17s01-bogn.html

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[Walt Starr]

159. You "book" is propaganda written from the Japanese viewpoint

Sorry, it's crap. Not a reliable source as Japan to this day will not even teach their children about PEarl Harbor and instead blame the war on American militarism

Your "source" is no more reliable than Rush Limbaugh as a "source"

[bpilgrim]

163. NONSENSE - it is written by an american university professor

and you haven't even read it so how would you know, even if it was?

you obviously don't know what you are talking about, yet that doesn't appear to slow you down one bit comparing Limbaugh to a respected professor and author, please.

fyi: I am looking at a Japanese Jr HS text book that very plainly talks about PH with pictures, too.

peace

[Walt Starr]

160. You "book" is propaganda written from the Japanese viewpoint

Sorry, it's crap. Not a reliable source as Japan to this day will not even teach their children about PEarl Harbor and instead blame the war on American militarism

Your "source" is no more reliable than Rush Limbaugh as a "source"

[MADem]

85. A lot of folks coming down about that difficult choice

...do not have the perspective of living through it, or having a parent who came home to procreate (!) live through it, and talk about it round the dinner table. It's grampa or great gramps who fought that war for most of our population now; the once many and now few who knew it first or secondhand are dwindling every day--and no one asks those guys unless they show up at some momentous military memorial ceremony.

The thing is, if one's gramps or old pa was in the USMC, USN, and the first, and even second or third wave of infantry slated to invade Japan, and one was born after 1945, the odds are real, real good that those folks would not even be here to decry the violence, because the projected casualty rates for the Japan invasion made Iwo and Normandy look like a prance in the park--it was something like eight of ten in the first wave could expect to bite the bullet. I hope some folks will take the time to find out if their direct ancestors were sitting on a ship, puking their guts out with seasickness and fear, off the coast of Japan when those bombs went off, while writing those last "I know I am gonna die" letters home, that say all the usual "I love you, do not worry, I had a good life" kind of stuff.

Hey, war sucks, we should just stop doing it, that would be grand...but it is only human if one has to pick between us and them, US wins. Least that is how I see it...

[neverforget]

74. Is there anything else you can type other than that?

Is this how you discuss points of contention by repeating the same thing over and over? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I pointed you to a site that had the declassified "Magic" military and diplomatic intercepts of what the Japanese were thinking and all you can respond to that is this tired talking point? Yes the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender but you seem to think that giving the Japanese what they wanted which was a limited occupation, the continuation of the old order(militiaism), Japanese war criminals being prosecuted by the Japanese, Japanese withdrawal from the occupied lands back to the Homeland and the Emperor having veto power over the limited occupation as being okay. Do you think after fighting the Japanese for 4 years in a vicious war that the American people would have stood for that? Does that sound like a surrender?

[bpilgrim]

79. when countering myths it is very appropriate, imho

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the (retention of the) dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the (Japanese) Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the (Pacific) war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

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

do you think it a coincidence that the oldest hereditary monarchy remains to this very day after everything they were guilty of?

think about it...

peace

[neverforget]

82. So are those radio intercepts myths? This is what we knew at the time

which is something you can't seem to accept. So you think that we should have accepted a Japan that had power over the Occupation and we shouldn't have remade their government to one that is peaceful towards its neighbors?

[bpilgrim]

84. we should have negotiated, to save lives

isn't that what most people use to even justify using them in the first place, SAVING LIVES?

thats what we should have done and the oldest hereditary monarchy remains as a witness to this very day to this wisdom of CONDITIONAL surrender.

peace

[neverforget]

104. Yes on our terms: NO POWER FOR THE EMPEROR!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[bpilgrim]

109. the Japanese Emperor has always been a figure head, especially during WWII

for most of Japan's history, real power has been in the hands of the court nobility, the shoguns, the military, or, more recently, prime ministers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

how many times must i point this out to you?

peace

[manic expression]

62. This continues to ring hollow

It was not necessary whatsoever. The emperor held all the power. When we accepted Japan's terms of surrender, it included the same condition that was being offered before the attacks...oops.

It did not take a nuclear detonation in Hiroshima OR Nagasaki. There were many other options on the table, but the US refused to allow peace and wanted to show Russia its new toys. Pretty sick reason, right? Russia didn't really enter the war against Japan, but agreed to invade it. 140,000 people were slaughtered, when there were other means of achieving acceptable (and the same) terms of surrender.

After all that death, we still accepted the one term that they offered before.

Those estimates are so wrong it is unbelievable. They were inflated to persuade the civilian leadership to murder Japanese people. Also, we could've let Russia invade Japan alone, as they agreed to. Or, we could've imposed a siege on Japan. ANYTHING instead of wrongly murdering so many innocents.

The fallacy of your logic is astounding.

[Walt Starr]

127. What day did Japan open communications with the Allies for the first time?

They did so though their ambassadors in Sweden and Switzerland on August 10, 1945. This was the day AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

There could have been NO ATTEMPTS to surrender prior to opening communications with the Allies.

The bombings were 100% necessary. Revisioist attempts to paint America as some evil empire over the bombngs are so many rantings of madmen.

[manic expression]

131. So, how, exactly

did that powerless cabinet offer surrender before the bombings (you said this, too)? In this way, there could be an attempt to reach the Japanese, but none was made. Think about that.

[Walt Starr]

132. Radio transmissions.

Nothing official was offered. Only transmissions via radio. And secret transmissions (we had cracked their code) contradicted the public transmissions of the Japanese cabinet.

The Potsdam Declaration by the Big Three on July 26, 1945, broadcast to Japan in its own language and released over the landscape by American bombers, pledged "prompt and utter destruction" unless Japan forever renounced militarism and the militarists, gave up its war criminals, withdrew from its overseas conquests since 1895, conceded human rights-and surrendered unconditionally. There was no reference to the throne but only a commitment to the introduction "of a peacefully inclined and responsible government" based on the free self determination of the Japanese people.

The Japanese response was, "mokusatsu" or "contemptuous silence".

This guaranteed, Hiroshima would be bombed.

[manic expression]

161. And yet we refused to return it

interesting.... No attempt whatsoever.

What was stopping us from laying siege to Japan, choking it from any oil, rendering it useless? Why were we so intent on murder?

[Walt Starr]

168. Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 answered them

Their response was "contemptuous silence".

Anything short of unconditional surrender was unacceptable. The Japanese did surrender uconditionally.

I must say, the views expressed on DU with regards to Hiroshima causes me to rethink some of my current positions. I cannot believe anybody who would question the necessity of Hiroshima has anything but the worst intentions for our nation.

[manic expression]

173. No...

the answer was offering either dishonor or "complete destruction", something that would be taken as an invasion, not mass slaughter.

We still could have laid siege on Japan. Thanks for ignoring that question.

Furthermore, it is not justified to murder 140,000 innocents, AT ALL. Your ignorant statements like: "even children were going to fight to the death!" and similar filth is wrong. They did not fight to the last man, because they did surrender, and there were quite a many men left in Japan.

I MUST say, that anyone who thinks Hiroshima was necessary has some very sick ideas. I only have the best intentions for JUSTICE, it seems you have the worst intentions for humankind.

[Walt Starr]

178. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

You, sir, and I have nothing more to say to one another.

Ever.

[manic expression]

180. Fine, however,

merely repeating fallacy doesn't make you any less wrong.

[Spinzonner]

45. Well, I think you need to define 'necessary' in this context

None of it was 'necessary'.

War usually isn't 'necessary' - depending upon whose side you're on.

The choices made in war - despite so-called 'military necessity' - aren't alway so clear-cut. It's often a question of us-or-them and lesser-of-evils.

My objection to many aspects of the arguments is that so many are inclined to take the moral high ground when they weren't there and didn't have to take responsibility for the consequences of their 'choices'.

[Walt Starr]

52. Everything we did after December 7, 1941 was absolutely necessary

PErhaps the single most necessaary two events were the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Right, they are black and we were white. We were absolutely morally right

Because that's how things are in the real world, either completely black or completely white.
:sarcasm:

[Walt Starr]

58. Not black or white, it amounted to SURVIVE OR DIE

There were two potential outcomes after December 7, 1941.

1) We are compltely victorious.

2) The United States of America ceases to exist as a nation and is engulfed by the global fascism.

[bpilgrim]

113. guess who also makes those same arguments...

IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000337.htm

:puke:

peace

[not systems]

59. Including internment and the bomb...just lovely...

two great crimes that you embrace.

[Walt Starr]

60. I mbrace both

We also interred Italian and German Americans.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. Wow, you support internment.

Why don't we go ahead and put all Iraqis in internment camps? Or even better, just all brown people? The current leaders feel about Iraq the way you feel about WWII. We've all heard the "survive or die" argument from them. And a good chunk of the American people would back that proposal.

[not systems]

69. By your logic the US is a valid target for WMD attacks...

by Iraqi or proxies.

The mind set of total war is wrong.

To embrace it as justified creates a moral hole where
all actions can be justified.

Wrong is wrong.

I don't believe that American Italians or Germans were interned in
any great numbers perhaps you can provide the names of
some of camps they were interned in.

Thanks.

[The Magistrate]

70. There Is A Difference, Mr. Starr

Resident aliens from Germany and Italy were interned; citizens of German or Italian extraction were not interned on no other ground than their ethnicity. U.S. citizens of Japanese ethnicity were interned on no other cause then that, and that was a great wrong, done for no real reason than racial hate.

[Walt Starr]

125. Agreed to that point

and compensation was made.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spinzonner]

64. Well, I think it's more morally ambiguous than that

To my ears, that has an air of being pre-ordained and that our hands, exclusively, were guided by some super-morality that only we had access to.

I can't buy into the arrogance of that.

But neither do I think can we go back and, with 20/20 hindsight, draw fine lines of who was right and who was wrong in the midst of a moral obscenity of the war. Those makign the decisions didn't have the perfect knowledge of history or know what the ultimate and multiple consequences of the choices would be but yet had the responsibility for making them.

[Walt Starr]

129. Morality had nothing to do with it. Survival had eerything to do with it.

That's total war.

[bpilgrim]

133. survival had NOTHING to do with it only MASSIVE DEATH & DESTRUCTION

they were DEFEATED and were no longer a serious threat to us.

do you deny this fact?

peace

[Walt Starr]

134. You're GOD DAMNED RIGHT I DENY IT, IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT!

They were NOT suing for peace. That is a BLATANT FALSEHOOD. They did not open up communications with the allies until August 10, 1945, the day AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

They made radio communications. Intercepted military radio communications that were encrypted contradicted the communications of the civilians. They were BOGUS and were only intended to buy time to end up with surrender under THEIR conditions. No war crimes trials. No giving up of territories they seized in their aggression. No occupation.

IT was bullshit and attempting to spread this revisionist CRAP indicates to me that several members of DU have no clue whatsoever about this.

[bpilgrim]

135. they were defeated and no longer a serious threat - how can you deny that?

and they were suing for peace and we know it, the record and the folks who were there speak for themselves.

the major sticking point was the ceremonial yet important institution of emperor which we finally relented on and the war ended.

think how many lives would have been saved if we accepted earlier...

peace

[Walt Starr]

136. They WERE NOT SUING FOR PEACE

There were NO official communcations.

They HAD TO BE DEFEATED. Utterly and irrevocably. They wanted surrender on THEIR terms, and that was unacceptable in total war.

[bpilgrim]

138. then why do we have so much evidence and testimony to the contrary?

they had one condition that we finally relented to in the end and the longest hereditary monarchy stands as witness to this very day to that fact of conditional surrender contrary to your claims.

peace

[Walt Starr]

158. You cannot sue for peace without opening up communications

which did not occur until after Nagasaki was bombed.

You can make overtures to see reactions, but that is NOT suing for peace.

[bpilgrim]

164. NONSENSE: Russia was an ally and in communication with the Japanese

well before the bombings and we knew it.

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

peace

[Walt Starr]

166. Russia and Japan were not at war at that time

Communications ceased once Russia declared war.

:eyes:

Your contoritions of fact become more transparent the more you pose them.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the MORAL, ETHICAL, and CORRECT things to do.

[bpilgrim]

169. They were our ALLY and we KNEW what they were negotiating for peace

not to mentioned DEFEATED and no longer a serious military threat to us which history clearly bears out.

in that historic light they were simply TERRORISM on it's most HORRIFIC scale.

that you believe NUKING civilian populations is "the MORAL, ETHICAL, and CORRECT things to do" even in defeat while trying to negotiate peace you have adopted a standard equivalent to the barbarians which will kill us all if the majority adopts it and considering the recent poll here on DU I am afraid that we won't learn the horrible lesson of nuclear warfare until it's too late for us all.

to learn more about that horrific and fateful decision please see this well respected and well documented web site...
http://www.doug-long.com

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[Walt Starr]

179. THEY DID NOT OPEN UP COMMUNICATIONS UNTIL AUGUST 10, 1945!

And that, sir, is the last I shall ever say to you on any subject.

[Lannes]

39. Im all for pointing out American war crimes

We should also point out it wasnt a one sided affair in WW2.The rape of Nan King,the Battaan death march among others.We all had a hand in the terrible things that happened during the war.

It isnt just about nuclear weapons,its about how we treat each other.

Edit: Not to mention what happened in the European theater.

[K-W]

46. There is a streak of historical ignorance

amongst people who were radicalized by Bush. Its one thing to see the madness going on around you, its another to shed your indoctrination and understanding of America and to find the truth.

[jzodda]

73. Kurt Vonnegut the nuclear expert lol

Sure just because Kurt Vonnegut says it, it must be so.

O and what do we all know now that we did not know then? Same situtation today and I would drop the bomb without a 2nd thought. It possibly saved millions of lives in the long run. Also that was 60 years ago. I am sure you were not there, and I know I was not there. Its amazing all these people who come along decades later and love to 2nd guess the people making the tough decisions in a time of crisis.

And in any event we have been in many wars since 1945 and last I checked the last nuclear bomb used was back then and yet you act like its some common occurance.

[bpilgrim]

78. no, a great american writer and human being who experienced wwII up close

and we are fortunate to have benefited from his great works on the subject and is certainly more than able to comment as is any other human being that cares.

obviously you only know our decades old and tired propaganda so please read here to learn more about what we now know.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[newscott]

88. Amen, if it helps, his brother Bernard was a brilliant scientist.

[Perky]

77. It was unfortunately the right thing to do.

Some of you folks really need to open a history book as many as you can.

Japan had shown an absolute resolve to fight on an on until the last man was was standing. Iwa Jima showed us that. The alternative to this devestating quick fix would have been another two years of war at the very least and house to house fighting in Tokyo, Kyoto, and every other large indindrial city inthe country. Youy think its bad in Bagdhad?. I am sure the numbers are out there somewhere but lets assume 250,000 were killed in the two blasts. We would have lost 1,000,000 plus had we invaded the island...They would have lost 10 or 20 million if not 50 MIllion.


The aftermath would have left county completely decimated and I would argue a puppet state of China. If you look at Japan and how its fared since august,1945 you would have to agree that ultimate they are better off even with the bombs.


No it is nothing to be proud of. by no means. It was an effective way to end the war.

I wish we would have renouced their use immediate afterwards,but se le guerre.

[not systems]

81. "absolute resolve to fight" is a lie that people have been telling...

for 50 years to justify one of the great crimes of history.

It is a lie that works and so it is easy to see why it is used.

Like every grandma on Japan had a sharp bamboo point just ready
to stick into GI Joe's heart.

Right.

That is a posthumous justification.

[Perky]

96. yeah okay

So how long would it have taken for Japan to reach a decision to surrender and how many would have died waiting for that decision to be made?

Perhaps a demonstration explosion in the Sea of Japan would have been effecive. Stillthe alternative of a year or more in pithed battele would have done even morehar than good. Would you have preferred to have let the Soviet to invade from the north?

[not systems]

142. There would be an extensive record of ultimatums and calls for...

surrender.

Including specific details of what would happen if
the Abomb was dropped communicated to Japan if the
US had done even the most basic steps to avoid the
atrocity that happened.

But there isn't because the bomb was dropped not to
make the defeated Japan surrender but as a show of
power to the world and the USSR specifically.

I think Japan would have surrendered to the US to avoid
the USSR from entering the war against them.

[Lecky]

83. I agree

As for your last question:

"what will it take before us humans realize NUCLEAR WEAPONS are a CRIME against HUMANITY to develop and use"

God forbid the USA ever have an "American Hiroshima", maybe then some attitudes would change.

[Spinzonner]

86. Does that also make them a Crime Against Humanity to HAVE ?

Arguably, possession of such weapons - since their introduction - has dissuaded mankind from engaging in world-wide wars such as it had before them.

And yes, it surely hasn't dissuaded man from wars completely, but sometimes you just have to settle for the attainable, even if it is the lesser of evils.

[bpilgrim]

89. america has been fighting around the globe ever since, hello...

and now it is our foreign policy to strike first with nukes in this world war, where have you been :shrug:

the only thing those nukes did was trigger the greatest arms race in history and has had us all on the edge of the apocalypse ever since.

and yes possession of these apocalyptic terror weapons IS a crime against humanity, imho.

peace

[Spinzonner]

93. Well, it's our 'avowed' policy to do so

That may or may not be the real policy. It does have somewhat of a deterrent effect to state it so.

There were many arms races before, and each was the greatest relative to the ones before it. Seems inevitable, doesn't it ?

And being on the edge of APocalypse may have kept us from enagging in wars that would have been terrible even by the measure of past world wars.

Perhaps you have the implementable solution as to how we will reform mankind and eliminate wars. If so, please reveal it to us.

Until you, or anyone else, manages to do so, some of us may be willing to settle for a situation that keeps the mayhem short of the insanities of the past, even if it does involve the possesion of the tools of an apocalypse.

[bpilgrim]

95. when we won't even accept "the insanities of the past" we never will

starting wars, building more nukes and threating the world with them is definitely not the solution.

that so many folks think it is explains quite a lot about the state of our current affairs i'd say.

maybe we need to change that mind-set, eh :shrug:

peace

[Spinzonner]

100. Well, we're waiting to hear how you will do that

Note that it's generally not sufficient to change only your own mindset, it's generally necessary to change that of others, especially those who generally don't agree with or trust you.

This is because humans have shown an aversion to suicide, biological or political, either at their own hands or through capitulation to others.

So, until you lead us on the path to the promised land of eternal peace, many of us will be willing to settle for the insane status quo and be satisfied with the incremental improvements that seem currently achievable in the real world.

[bpilgrim]

103. EACH 1, TEACH 1

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[Spinzonner]

105. Yes, I thought so

platitudes over reality

Never-the-less, keep up your efforts - it can't hurt.

[bpilgrim]

111. you put your faith in NUKES, i put mine in humanity

till the very end, it IS our ONLY hope.

peace

[Perky]

99. Pardon me but that is a stupid argument

In the last twenty years we have taken temendous steps back for the brink of Nuclear Amrmageddon. ANd while we have have not diaavowed a first strike capability altogether. I would remind you that the reason for that ratinal is gone and we are not seriously disposed in that regard as ecienceed by the middle east and afghanistan and the continues existence of the 38th parallel.

[bpilgrim]

102. huh?

i am just stating the FACTS.

peace

[Lecky]

148. Interesting

Do you think that possessing nukes is going to dissuade mankind from engaging in any future world-wide wars? You put a lot of faith in those with power and nuke access. Enjoy that false sense of security, it only takes one crazy asshole to start the fireworks show.

To answer your original question "does that make them a crime against humanity to have?":

Since nukes do exist and it doesn't appear like they are going away anytime soon, then yes I would rather be in possession of them than be in the group of the have-nots. Do they make me feel safer? No! If it were up to me all nukes would be universally destroyed...but that will never happen. Its inevitable, the Nuclear proliferation insanity will continue to flourish throughout the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. The rationale for Babi Yar and Hiroshima are much the same.

The Germans believed the Jews and Communists were relentless, fanatical, enemies. When Russian Partisans blew up German headquarters in Kiev the remaining Jews in Kiev were rounded up, along with POWs, Communists, and Gypsys. They were taken to the ravine of Babi Yar and murdered as an "example" to end the resistance.

The Japanese were viewed in much the same way. Relentless, fanatical, enemies. Hiroshima was used as an "example" to end resistance.

In both cases "a war was on", "there are always civilian casualties in war", "it was a necessary evil", both were designed to "save soldiers' lives".

The same can be said about:

Sand Creek
Wounded Knee
Nanking
My Lai
Lublin
The bombing of London, Rotterdam, Shanghai, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hanoi.

And countless other atrocities.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Junkdrawer]

98. The scientists who worked on the bomb were more opposed to its use than DU

Imagine that!

150 Chicago Scientists who worked on the bomb were polled in 1945.

Here's the poll:

(1) Use the weapon in the manner that is from the military point of view most effective in bringing about prompt Japanese surrender at minimum human cost to our armed forces.

(2) Give a military demonstration in Japan, to be followed by renewed opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

(3) Given an experimental demonstration in this country, with representatives of Japan present; followed by a new opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapons is employed.

(4) Withhold military use of the weapons, but make public experimental demonstration of their effectiveness.

(5) Maintain as secret as possible all development of our new weapons, and refrain from using them in this war.

The results were:

_____No. of Votes:__% of Total Votes:
(1)..........23.................15
(2)..........69.................46
(3)..........39.................26
(4)..........16.................11
(5)...........3..................2

............150................100

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/ManhattanProject/Poll.shtml

[Parche]

108. Horrid words

Next to Pearl Harbor Dec 7 1941
Wake Island
Bataan
Truk

[Perky]

110. Perhaps Mr Bayh is correct.

Democrats, left-leaning bleeding-heart peacenik democrats, who would rather genuflect at the altar of peace at all cost, then ecer succumb to the occasional necesssity of self-defense are severely damaging the ability of the party to win elections.

Look no one here is trying to justify or glory in war. War isneithe fun, glorious or inevitable, but the strain of commentary in this particular discussion would suggest a pacisfism bordering on a lunacy.

War is hell. But sometimes you must intervene for the greater good. Sometime when you get kicked in the balls you have to fight back. Not for ths sake of winning not even for personal honor,,, but because someone has to stop a bully.

To suggest even for a moment that it would have been better to withdraw from the Pacific or sit down and chat with the Japanese is foolishness.

I suppose that we never should have stared the lend lease program with the UK? I suppose we should have sat on our hands as the six million were gassed. I supposed we should have allowed slavery to continue?

I have a suggestion for those who choose to stick their head in the sand why don't you go green or join Pat Buchanan's call for Isolationism. But get the Hell out of this party! You do not understand that your visionary crap only serves to keep the neo-cons in power.

[bpilgrim]

112. NO military leader in theater at that time agreed with SHOCK-n-AWE

and they were certainly not "left-leaning bleeding-heart peacenik democrats, who would rahter genuflect at the altar od peace at all cost, then ecver succumb to the occasional necesssity of self-defense"

but perception is everything, eh
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

[Perky]

116. ANd what if Doug Long is actually wrong?

You keep throwing quoutes out there but how about evidence to support the quote?

[bpilgrim]

118. it's not just him, there are many historians referenced on his site

and actual quotes from our military and political leaders of that time.

i don't know what more proof i could provide... maybe YOU should do some research and get back to us :hi;

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

peace

[Perky]

120. Well given that I majored in History and given

That my Dad got his PhD for Harvard in History and has taugh History at a college Level for four decades. Given that I have read a wide assortment of historians on the subjectm I guess make my opinions worthless. Look all I am saying is that taking one person's quotes and his quotes of other historians does not make anyone one learned on the subject of Japanese understanding in May-August 1945. It certainly does not begine to fully export military leadership;s intentions at the time either. I am quite sure that Mr. Long has a myopic unbalanced method of anaylyzing history and I am just suggesting that it would be far better to read for one self rather than getting some one els's cliffnotes version of history.

Have you read any compaartivbe histories of the period for your self...By Scholars? Have you read Truman?

[bpilgrim]

123. the most up-to-date info on the debate is there...

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
By Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
The Belknap Press of Harvard University

review...
What Truman was thinking when he decided to drop the bomb
Hiroshima may not have brought Japan to surrender
By Jonathan Rosenberg
from the August 02, 2005 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p17s01-bogn.html

i have read a great deal on japan and lived there for a few years as well not to mention reading about wwII from all sides, not just ours.

and IMHO, they were not necessary as is clearly spelled out when just looking at the evidence from OUR SIDE let alone japans.

i am trying to generate interest in this topic by posting the executive overview, borne out by links to respected sources - this ain't FAUX NEWS ya know ;-> in the hopes that more people will look into the latest information and come to their own conclusions.

in these dangerous times with our nukes and first strike on the table we need to do some real quick evolving or we ain't gonna make it much further as a species let alone a 'civilization'

anyways... i'm serious, check out the latest info and let us know what you think afterward. we've already had a few folks post on their own conversions of opinion after getting up to date.

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[Perky]

124. Yeah okay

I was not aware that the facts were in a constant state of flux and that this new up to date info is going to resolve things once and for all. Sorry it sounds like revisionism with an agenda.

[bpilgrim]

126. as a historian you should be aware of the incomplete record of many things

especially when dealing with CONTEMPORARY state-secrets.

sounds-like is not a standard most historians usually go by...

fyi

peace

[Junkdrawer]

140. One man's revisionism is another's de-propagandizing...

The History Channel just had a documentary with such "light weights" as J. K. Galbraith supporting the view bpilgrim presents. Somehow, I think you're going to have to go a ways to make us all feel stupid questioning the 1945 US Government official line.

[charlie]

115. Take your Archie Bunkerisms

and form your own goddamned party. And take the pacific, isolationist be-nice-to-Republicans DLC yokels you love with you.

[Perky]

117. umm sorry.....we were here first.

heehee

[charlie]

119. What, wooing Republicans

and kicking Democrats? No, playing kissyface with Republicans is an aberration. Truman would've smacked the shit out of hippie peaceniks like you.

[Perky]

121. Amen n/t

[Perky]

122. Charlie You lost me.

Ummm First you call me Archie Bunker then you call me a hippie Peacenik????

[charlie]

145. Not hard to do, apparently

Ask somebody about "irony".

[wrlwnd]

185. Truman was a DEMOCRAT

sad I have to point that out

[DistressedAmerican]

137. Plain And Simply I Agree STRONGLY. Nomination!!!

Wish I could give it more than one. Please people this is a thoughtful post. I am giving it my support and ask you do the same!

Te maddness must end...

[bpilgrim]

139. thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important subject

te madness MUST end :toast:

peace

[ClayZ]

149. I was born near Hanford Nuclear Res in 1950 (Richland Wa.)

My best friend was born in Hiroshima in 1944. My parents helped build the bomb (I don't think they knew what they were doing) She, my friend, survived it. We are quite a pair. She is my neighbor and I met her because our sons were best friends in Jr. High. That was 15 years ago.

Her family still lives in Hiroshima. Her mother told her stories of riding around on her bicycle for days after the bomb hit, trying to help people. My friend is still traumatized. She can not take hot weather or stress or loud sounds. This time of year (the anniversary) she is always a mess. She is one of the kindest most gracious people I have ever met.

My parents both have cancer and my brother died of Leukemia. Hanford
/Richland was not a good place to live, although it seemed like it was.

My mother has a certificate from the Government thanking her for her work on the A-Bomb. She does not seem very proud of it!

It is a small WORLD.

When will we ever learn?



Beat the Swords to Plowshares!

[ngGale]

150. Had cousins in Oak Ridge, Tenn. ...

same problem. The father worked in the plant, he died early on from cancer. When Clinton was in office he exposed the secret, they had put radiation into the water supply to see what happened to pregnant women. Until that point, one cousin had moved all over the country but the government always found her. Her senior class had discussed how and why they were contacted, from time to time. By the time we found out the truth, all of them had died with cancer except the one girl. She is coming for a visit and we can finally put the pieces together, after all these years. Arggg! :mad:

[ClayZ]

154. I still get letters asking me about my health.

My parents have signed on for some sort of compensation. They have filled out countless papers and still have not seen a dime. They are almost 80 and have very poor heath. My father just had his esophagus removed and is tube feeding.

My friend translated letters from an American prison guard at a Japanese detention center, to one of the detainees and letters back from him. They secretly became friends through the fence at the prison on some island ouside Japan.

She translated for these two for the entire 35 years she has lived in this country. She got to meet the Japanese man several years ago when he came to visit his "guard" here in our town near Seattle. All their families finally got to meet each other.

Reconciliation takes many forms.

[bpilgrim]

155. thank you both for sharing these personal stories

very moving, they gave me goose bumps :toast:

peace

[G_j]

167. ClayZ, my parents both worked at Hanford also

before I was born in '51.
Both died years later of lung cancer.

[ClayZ]

181. Howdy Neighbor.

Did you live in Richland. Our High School Mascot was and still is, the A-Bomb, how crazy is that?

I read yeaterday where some plant just burried its waste in the town Dump! What have they done!

[G_j]

186. they moved to Schenectady NY before

I was born, so I never actually lived in the Hanford vicinity.
They both worked for GE at the time. Were your parents connected to General Electric also?

My mother had a patent on an early reactor safety system, I still have it somewhere.

Although I do a fair amount of internet research, I really haven't had the heart to research Hanford and cancer. :-(

[ClayZ]

188. Yes My Dad Built Reactors all over the world For GE!

Funny there has been a big Development Boom in the Tri-Cities for the last 5 years. Thousands of new homes, apartments and strip malls as well as major Corporations. My folks kept watching and saying, "Someone knows something we don't know." Not much industry there but the plants.

Well after watching the "Energy Bill" pass, I think we can assume there are plans in the works for lots more NUCLEAR plants in this country.]

ARGH!

PS my folks smoked too, but quit 30 years ago. Mom had 4 separate unrelated cancers including Lymphoma (blood) and Dad was just diagnosed last year with esophagus cancer. She has been in remission for 15 years.

I have been rigid with fear going through his surgery this year! He is actually doing quite well now and intends to have reconstructive surgery in the fall. They attempted to stretch his stomach up to what was left of his esophagus in the spring, but he got an infection and had to have it undone. HORROR!

I blame my brothers lukemia on Hanford too. BEWARE everyone...

[G_j]

190. truly scary

my heart goes out to your father and your family. Good thoughts for you all!

It seems our parents may have possibly worked with each other at some point.

Perhaps this will be an incentive for me to look further into something I have avoided thinking about for a while.

[ClayZ]

192. Maybe so, huh? I bet they crossed paths.

Let's see, we were in Spain (fun!), Alabama, New York... and then I left home! I only worked at the plant for a couple weeks as a temp secretary for my Dad. What a joke! As you can see typing is not my forte'. It is (or was 35 years ago) like the TWILIGHT ZONE out there! I have never seen file cabinets so HUGE!

[ClayZ]

183. Sorry about your folks, too!

There is a program that Clinton started to compensate survivors of people who died of Cancer from there. Did you know that? I think it is through Center for Disease Control!

My Mom also has a claim in because her dad died young while woking there.

"Downwinders" they call us.

I have not lived there for many years, but family still does. I was heartened to see a PEACE March there last time I visited.

[G_j]

187. I know enough to know

that plutonium (which they were exposed to at Hanford) can lodge in the lungs, resulting in lung cancer decades later. Both parents died of lung cancer, however they were smokers also. I'm guessing it would probably be hard to prove. Perhaps I should look into it further.

[ClayZ]

189. Plus the Iodine they released into the atmosphere.

I was enutro then. My brother was 3 years old. SHAMEFUL! It is still in the dust, I think!

I am a flute maker. My science background mostly includes Helmholtz and his Theory of Resonators and how that relates to our mud flutes.... heh heh heh!

I know a man from Hanford who has a Doctorate Nuclear Physics and a Doctorate in Philosophy. I called him a Paradox!

[ClayZ]

194. There is a list of "acceptable Cancers"

I would assume lung cancer was one of them. I wish I had worn a gas mask the whole time I lived there.

The way the Gulf War stuff carries down through generations is scary too.

What have we done? I hope the world will wise us soon. Maybe more of us have to rise up for it to wise up!

[G_j]

195. and i can only be thankful

that I don't live in a country awash with depleted uranium dust.
But as you pointed out earlier, our new "energy policy" is designed to put nuclear power on the fast track again.

I also heard that the US is planning on making more of the most deadly form of plutonium (because they are running low).
Then there are the new generations of mini-nukes on the table.
..

it's hard to know what to say..

[rman]

152. If dropping the bomb was such a good idea,

because it "saved the lives of many thousands" - then why has no A-bomb been dropped on civilian targets since, to cut short a war and save many lives?

Would dropping one on Hanoi not only have shortened the Vietnam war, but also enabled a decisive victory for the US? Would it not have saved many lives? Were the North-Vietnamese not at least as stubborn as the Japanese - given that they pretty much won that war?

One reason why the bomb has not been used since is that it was only in hindsight that the full effect of radiation was known. In hindsight the bomb was much more horrific then imagined. After the fact it was considered to atrocious to be used again.
This is why it is so effective as a deterrent; it doesn't even have to be used in order to be effective - we know that now.

So, had the full extent of the effects been known in advance, would it have been used in the first place? Or for that matter, would it have been necessary to use it?

[bpilgrim]

157. the scientist knew how dangerous radiation was even then

no one would have survived very long if they didn't.

but now that the rest of us know, it hasn't stopped them from making DIRTY BOMBS (D.U.) :cry:

peace

[rman]

170. But scientist don't decide on using it.

Politicians do, same guys who give the order to make such things.
Please don't blame scientists while ignoring the role of politicians and society.

peace

[bpilgrim]

172. and they informed the folks calling the shots

i am not blaming the scientist i am just pointing out that the people in power knew what they were doing.

only weTHEpeople were kept in the dark & still are.

peace

[Junkdrawer]

162. September 23, 1949 n/t

[rman]

171. test of the first Russian a-bomb

what's your point?

[Junkdrawer]

176. We only used the bomb when we had a monopoly...

Once both sides had the bomb, things quickly escalated to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and use of the bomb became "unthinkable"...until now.

[rman]

177. point taken. nt

[HysteryDiagnosis]

153. Amurka will realize it when she no longer has them, and other

nations do.

[julialnyc]

182. I watched "The Bomb" on the history channel last night

It was a good look into the history of dropping the bomb.


Now almost all the people who were involved (from the scientists to politicians say we should not have dropped it).

We had a chance to negotiate, but we wanted the emperor to step down. Then we dropped the bomb. They had so much control over the radio waves that unless you lived right around there no one knew about it. Finally when they admitted defeat we accepteed....... and let the emperor stay in power (meaning we could have made the same agreement before dropping bombs).


Many people they interviewed said that they thought it was much more of an experiment to see what it would do (this new weapon in their arsenal) and largely to send a huge message to Stalin.




It was a good account of the chronology on how it happened.

[wrlwnd]

184. Too bad we don't all think alike

Wouldn't it be great if we did?

[bpilgrim]

191. too bad we don't know our own history...

wouldn't it be better if we did?

peace