Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why America Used Nuclear Weapons Again Japan

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

 

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.
 
The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.
 
By Washington's Blog / globalresearch.ca
 

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

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

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

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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

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

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed ….When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomband have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publiclyshortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said(pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

 

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update,Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

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.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

 

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defensein 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe.Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest thatTruman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/

 

In Summary:

1.  Japan was going to surrender.  The bombs were not necessary.

2. USA could have dropped the bomb on a military target, or a sparsely populated area, but chose to drop it on populated cities with no military value

3.  It was done to scare Russia.  It had nothing to do with ending WW2 or saving lives

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Well, sayyid Hassan in his last speech talked about something called العقيدة العسكرية

military aqeeda of israeli army.

I think here we see the military aqeeda of American army. It is consistent over time and even being depicted in movies .. the way to get to your enemies, specially the way of the villains because villains somehow have more lasting effect than the heroes 

Listen to him and how he wants Assad down. For most of Us Muslims, we want  it clean and to the point. We want Assad out? Kill him, he is out, no need for war, lets talk with other parties, right?

That's not how Americans operate

They invaded Afghanistan and destroyed it to scare Soviet , then to scare Iran

They invaded and occupied Iraq to scare Iran

They totally destroyed Syria to scare Iran

They are not calling for full attack on Iran because that's not their military belief...They do not go after a strong foe.. They make the strong foe feel intimidated and force them to give way seem of their privileges for saftey

It isn't even the islamic way of "get armed so enemy will be scared"

In islamic military belief, we ought to live in our islamic life style unintimditated by other super powers who see in our islamic life style a threat to their intesrtest in our lands and families

No , the american military belief is more aggressive and inherently coward 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Your post is too long to read, thanks for the summary at the end.

But, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Hiroshima had a large army force in it, and it was also an industrial center.  Nagasaki I think was just chosen because it was a "virgin" target.

I agree that I don't think the bomb was necessary to get Japan to capitulate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hello,

I think I am alive today because of the atomic bomb.  My Great Great Grand Dad was on a ship headed to Japan after having helped defeat the Nazi's.  The invasion of Japan was estimated to cost the lives of over 1 million allied personnel. 

And, the assertion that Japan had "already given up" is proven wrong in all the historical data.  Here is an example.

"Diary: Japan's Tojo fought surrender til end"

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Diary-Japan-s-Tojo-fought-surrender-till-end-3199766.php

"At the time (of the atomic bomb attacks) Japan had begun arming children, women and the elderly with bamboo spears to defend the homeland against ground invasion.

The bombs were dropped on August 6th and 9th.  Japan surrendered on August 15th.  I guess it was just a coincidence. :confused:

All the Best,

David

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, David66 said:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Diary-Japan-s-Tojo-fought-surrender-till-end-3199766.php

"At the time (of the atomic bomb attacks) Japan had begun arming children, women and the elderly with bamboo spears to defend the homeland against ground invasion.

The bombs were dropped on August 6th and 9th.  Japan surrendered on August 15th.  I guess it was just a coincidence. :confused:

All the Best,

David

 

 

Sheer nonsense.  The media portrayed the genocide of over innocent 300,000 civilians as a military victory, and most people have been programmed to believe that lie.  Just like the Iraq war and other military campaigns today.

Japan attacked a US military base.  Rather than hit back at their military, we instead chose to wipe out hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians using one of the most horrific weapons in the history of mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hello,

10 hours ago, Renaissance_Man said:

 

Sheer nonsense.  The media portrayed the genocide of over innocent 300,000 civilians as a military victory, and most people have been programmed to believe that lie.  Just like the Iraq war and other military campaigns today.

Tell this to the thousands of men and their families who's troop ships were re-routed on August 15th.

 

10 hours ago, Renaissance_Man said:

Japan attacked a US military base.  Rather than hit back at their military, we instead chose to wipe out hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians using one of the most horrific weapons in the history of mankind.

You obviously have little to no knowledge regarding World War II in the Pacific Theater.  Please, so as your post will not reflect total ignorance, at least learn the basics of this time in our history.

All the Best,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

@David66

 

America Dropped the Bomb to show the rest of world that he is the new world power now.... Listen to me otherwise I will do the same to you !!! 

And if you wanna now this, then go into history and find out why the WW2 happened it was due to the fact the The British and The French made Germany pay for the war.  And if you go back and think why the WW1 happened it was the fact a new nation rose up and challenged the status Quo... It was British and French colonies at that time who were controlling majority of the world. 

 

It was British and French who caused the world wars due to their greed for controlling other nations and their resources.  

Edited by AvengerAfterRepentance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

@David66 #OnlyAmericanLivesMatter

Salam Chaotic Muslim,

I didn't like this because I think it's good or that I think that way. I don't think that only American lives matter! I think that all lives matter, regardless of nationality!!!

I liked it because it's sad but true that some Americans do think that only American lives matter. :( They don't care about the lives of the Japanese babies, children, women, and men; they just care about their own. :( It's sad but true, though I wish it weren't true.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
15 hours ago, David66 said:

Hello,I think I am alive today because of the atomic bomb. 

Salam David66,

Very egocentric, hmm? Tell me, how many children and generations in Japan are not alive today because of the atomic bomb, America's new death toy? How many children's eyes melted while they were burning to death in Japan? How many children saw their parents die in front of their own eyes in Japan? Don't you even care one tiny bitty speck for them??? Or do you just call them insulting names, names that I won't even say because they're so dehumanizing. I'm going to throw up now. :(

Quote

My Great Great Grand Dad was on a ship headed to Japan after having helped defeat the Nazi's.  The invasion of Japan was estimated to cost the lives of over 1 million allied personnel. 

Tell me, would you have liked hordes of Japanese soldiers invading the USA? If no, then why in the world bring hordes of American soldiers to invade Japan??? The USA could have protected herself just fine via defense without going on the bloody offense trail.

Quote

 

And, the assertion that Japan had "already given up" is proven wrong in all the historical data.  Here is an example.

"Diary: Japan's Tojo fought surrender til end"

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Diary-Japan-s-Tojo-fought-surrender-till-end-3199766.php

 

Wars have been fought and won before without completely genociding 2 cities, so genociding  2 cities filled with babies and children to justify ending the war is not cool. It's actually a pathetic attempt to justify killing babies and children.

The atomic bomb is an instrument of satan, from the pit of hell. It has no place in a country that claims to be "one nation under God."

Quote

"At the time (of the atomic bomb attacks) Japan had begun arming children, women and the elderly with bamboo spears to defend the homeland against ground invasion.

Oh please. If the USA had been invaded by Japan, you don't think Americans would arm their children, women, and the elderly with whatever they could? How is armed civilians a justification for genociding them???

Have you ever even watched the testimony of a survivor of the nukes?

Here's one, and if it doesn't break your heart, I question why.

i want to post another video documenting the burns on a Mom but I can't because of the nudity. However, her burns are horrible, and it's not her fault that she was 'in the wrong place at the wrong time." She was in her own country!!!

It wasn't a coincidence. It was the deaths of thousands of babies, children, and Moms, and Grandmothers. Imagine if you will if Japan had dropped atomic bombs on NYC and LA, killing American babies, children, and Moms, as well as Grandmas. It would not be surprising if the USA had surrendered. Would that have made the Japanese heroes, for killing thousands of American babies and children and women and elderly? I don't think so.

People justify murder all the time, and congratulations for justifying the horrendous murders of babies, children, women, and the elderly who happen to live in a country not yours.
 

Quote

 

All the Best,

David

 

All the best, except for those Japanese kids America killed in their own country, right?

May God have mercy on you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

There is no such thing as collateral damage. If non-combatants are killed by weapons of war, it is murder. There is no  possibility of justification, only apology and repentance.

The industrialization of war has caused humans to lose their morality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
30 minutes ago, notme said:

There is no such thing as collateral damage. If non-combatants are killed by weapons of war, it is murder. There is no  possibility of justification, only apology and repentance.

Salam Notme,

100% agreed, and of course women and children would arm themselves if adult male soldiers from another country were invading their country. Most American women and children would arm themselves if foreign soldiers invaded us.

Only pacifists (like me) wouldn't, and I'm an exception to the norm due to Jesus' commands to love enemies. (Most American Christians ignore that command.)

However, armed women and children is not a good excuse at all for burning them alive, which is what the nukes did to thousands in Japan. :( 

Quote

The industrialization of war has caused humans to lose their morality. 

Amen, this is sadly so true, and it also horrifies me how it has caused many American Christians (not Christian Americans; there's a big difference) to ignore Jesus' command to do to others as you would have them do to you (Luke 6:31).

The Golden Rule, in my opinion, should be considered by the military of the USA. Why? Because nations, like people, reap what they sow.

However, the military does not follow Jesus Christ's commands, obviously, and that hurts the USA's well-being, in my opinion. I 100% believe that God can protect the USA much better than nukes can, but He expects repentance from sin and the USA in as a nation is not repenting of sin.

Jesus  mentioned something that in my opinion shows that people will self-destruct (via nukes and other advanced weapons of war) unless God intervenes:

If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." - Matthew 24:22 (NIV)

People are great at destroying the earth and God's creatures (including fellow humans) sad to say, and really, only God can protect the earth from humans destroying everything with their advanced weapons of death.

Peace and God bless you

 

 

 

Edited by Christianlady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, David66 said:

Hello,

Tell this to the thousands of men and their families who's troop ships were re-routed on August 15th.

 

You obviously have little to no knowledge regarding World War II in the Pacific Theater.  Please, so as your post will not reflect total ignorance, at least learn the basics of this time in our history.

All the Best,

David

Salam again David,

I'm sorry for being so harsh with you. I just was overcome, because I have seen the testimonies of people who endured hell on earth in Japan, and it does break my heart.

I think God would have protected your great... grandfather without the USA using nukes. Why? Because God doesn't need human-made weapons of mass destruction to protect people.

God creates life and God destroys life. However, God didn't make people to kill other people. The first person who killed another person (Cain who killed his brother Abel) was cursed. Why? Because the blood of his brother cried out to God.

We are all brothers and sisters in humanity, no matter our nationality. We are all created by the same Creator, no matter our diversity. Again, we are not created to kill each other. Our purpose is to glorify God and be good stewards of the earth, not destroy God's creation.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This has been common knowledge to people of reason for a long time. But some folks have too much emotional investment in the idea that their country can do no wrong - "not caring what the facts are", and thus will remain deaf, dumb, and blind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ Hello,

My great great Grand Dad would disagree with you.  But, what would he know.  He only lived through the Battle of the Bulge and helped defeat the Nazis.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-operation-downfall/

"American fears about casualty levels were sent soaring in July by intercepts of Japanese military cables.  The new intlligence revealed a massive build-up of Japanese forces in southern Kyushu.  Historian Edward Drea describes the situation "It was as if the very invasion beaches were magnets drawin the Japanese forces to those places where the Americans would have to land and fight their way ashore.  It was clear in those messages that the Japanese intended to fight to the bitter end.""

Look up the actions of Imperial Japan, the Nanking Massacre, 40,000 - 300,000 civilians murdered, Unit 731, thousands killed during medical experiments, and the list goes on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Image result for map of japanese expansion ww2

The area under Imperial Japanese control around the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Ask the Koreans how they feel about the Japanese, ask a Filipino, ask the Chinese, ask an Indonesian.

Imperial Japan was a ruthless, aggressive nation attacking all it's neighbors and subjugating the citizens of those nations.  Then, it made a fatal mistake.  Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

The leaders of Imperial Japan are responsible for the loss of life. 

And, I am not sure why such things would be insinuated, but, my Great Great Grandfathers life had value as well.  Just like the thousands of servicemen and women staging in the Pacific to bring Imperial Japans tyranny to an end.

All the Best,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
16 hours ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

Americans are sick.

Some are, but most such as myself aren't. 

1 hour ago, David66 said:

^ Hello,

My great great Grand Dad would disagree with you.  But, what would he know.  He only lived through the Battle of the Bulge and helped defeat the Nazis.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-operation-downfall/

"American fears about casualty levels were sent soaring in July by intercepts of Japanese military cables.  The new intlligence revealed a massive build-up of Japanese forces in southern Kyushu.  Historian Edward Drea describes the situation "It was as if the very invasion beaches were magnets drawin the Japanese forces to those places where the Americans would have to land and fight their way ashore.  It was clear in those messages that the Japanese intended to fight to the bitter end.""

Look up the actions of Imperial Japan, the Nanking Massacre, 40,000 - 300,000 civilians murdered, Unit 731, thousands killed during medical experiments, and the list goes on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Image result for map of japanese expansion ww2

The area under Imperial Japanese control around the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Ask the Koreans how they feel about the Japanese, ask a Filipino, ask the Chinese, ask an Indonesian.

Imperial Japan was a ruthless, aggressive nation attacking all it's neighbors and subjugating the citizens of those nations.  Then, it made a fatal mistake.  Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

The leaders of Imperial Japan are responsible for the loss of life. 

And, I am not sure why such things would be insinuated, but, my Great Great Grandfathers life had value as well.  Just like the thousands of servicemen and women staging in the Pacific to bring Imperial Japans tyranny to an end.

All the Best,

David

David,  I understand a little where you are coming from, while it may have seemed  "perfectly justifiable" at the time in 1945. I think most people today doubt that it was truly justified and wonder if the atomic bombs were truly worth saving the lives of the service men and women, including my great grandfather. At least, I don't think it was worth lives of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who never once touched a gun or bullet. 

There could have been a way to defeat Imperial Japan without the usage of the atomic bombs but the Truman adminstration knew the American people were weary of war and wanted to end it quickly, so the atom bombs were chosen and the rest is history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
1 hour ago, David66 said:

Hello,

If you are the aggressor, whether it be a fist fight or an act of war, you loose your right to dictate how "it" will end.

All the Best,

David

PS: I am glad to hear your Great Grandfather survived the war.

Thanks, but he got cancer from breathing in fumes from the flares and various other chemicals in the air of Iwo Jima, so I'd say the war eventually killed him. He was a Marine, probably saw things that no man should ever see either. 

I wasn't saying that Japan had a "right" to end it, I agree with you, the Japanese never had that right but I was saying that were we right to end the war like that?

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Some are, but most such as myself aren't. 

David,  I understand a little where you are coming from, while it may have seemed  "perfectly justifiable" at the time in 1945. I think most people today doubt that it was truly justified and wonder if the atomic bombs were truly worth saving the lives of the service men and women, including my great grandfather. At least, I don't think it was worth lives of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who never once touched a gun or bullet. 

There could have been a way to defeat Imperial Japan without the usage of the atomic bombs but the Truman adminstration knew the American people were weary of war and wanted to end it quickly, so the atom bombs were chosen and the rest is history. 

Yeah sorry I don't mean all, but many of the soldiers are.

Edited by Ali al-Abdullah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

Yeah sorry I don't mean all, but many of the soldiers are.

Maybe some of the soldiers are, but it's mainly the politicians we need to worry about. The soldiers are just ignorant kids with no other job prospects, hired to do a dirty job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
28 minutes ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

I agree, definitely the politicians are worse, but they still agree to it

Yes, sort of. They are only marginally better than daesh soldiers. They are poor, hopeless, ignorant, and brainwashed. I'll agree, it's their own fault, but it's sad that they don't know any better. 

I used to be in the US army a very long time ago before I became Muslim. It's full of both good and evil people, or at least it was back then. Among the good people you will find some optimists who think they can change the world for the better, but they don't stay long. Most of the good people in the military come from a poor background and see military service as their only way to gain job training and work their way out of poverty. 

But yes, there are way too many evil people in the military. Their crimes are covered up instead of prosecuted, so they get away with it again and again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

Yes, sort of. They are only marginally better than daesh soldiers. They are poor, hopeless, ignorant, and brainwashed. I'll agree, it's their own fault, but it's sad that they don't know any better. 

I used to be in the US army a very long time ago before I became Muslim. It's full of both good and evil people, or at least it was back then. Among the good people you will find some optimists who think they can change the world for the better, but they don't stay long. Most of the good people in the military come from a poor background and see military service as their only way to gain job training and work their way out of poverty. 

But yes, there are way too many evil people in the military. Their crimes are covered up instead of prosecuted, so they get away with it again and again. 

I agree. Wow you were actually in the army? I didn't know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
29 minutes ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

I agree. Wow you were actually in the army? I didn't know that. 

I came from a large family and had no money or work skills. It was one of the ways I paid for my university studies. They have to do their job whether they agree with the politicians or not or they will go to prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, notme said:

Yes, sort of. They are only marginally better than daesh soldiers. They are poor, hopeless, ignorant, and brainwashed. I'll agree, it's their own fault, but it's sad that they don't know any better. 

I used to be in the US army a very long time ago before I became Muslim. It's full of both good and evil people, or at least it was back then. Among the good people you will find some optimists who think they can change the world for the better, but they don't stay long. Most of the good people in the military come from a poor background and see military service as their only way to gain job training and work their way out of poverty. 

But yes, there are way too many evil people in the military. Their crimes are covered up instead of prosecuted, so they get away with it again and again. 

You must be referring to the enlisted side of the military.  I know the officer side is very different.  It is very prestigious to be an officer, and I know many from my school's ROTC that could've gotten great jobs as civilian engineers in many different fields, but are staying in the military beyond their initial commitments. 

What was your MOS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
8 minutes ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

Did you go to Afghanistan or Iraq?

No, I served at an intermediate staging area in Europe, not in a war zone. I did have contact with lots of enlisted people who were deploying to and coming home from Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia.  It was between the Iraq wars, in the mid-90s. 

7 minutes ago, coldcow said:

What was your MOS?

55B, ammunitions. It's basically a specialized supply clerk. About as prestigious as infantry or truck drivers. I counted bullets. 

Edited by notme
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, notme said:

I came from a large family and had no money or work skills. It was one of the ways I paid for my university studies. They have to do their job whether they agree with the politicians or not or they will go to prison.


Salam Notme,

My Papaw came from a poor family too. He served in the Navy. He disagrees with me concerning the USA's past decision to nuke 2 cities filled with babies, children, and women.  I understand why though.

Soldiers are not supposed to question the government's orders; they're just supposed to obey them. That mentality being drilled into soldiers helps some (not all) to not question past decisions of the government.  

However, one of the things that's so awesome about the USA is freedom of speech and freedom of people to disagree with the government without fear of being killed by the government for their disagreements.

The USA is diverse, with people who agree with bombing the lives out of babies, children and women in another country, and people who disagree with killing them. Hopefully, the USA will never use nukes again, or any nation.

I do understand the horrible hypocrisy of the USA not wanting any other nation to use nukes when the USA did twice. However, I hope people in other nations realize that many Americans hate the decision and don't support it.

That's why when I first came to Shiachat, I insisted so much that Iran should not build nukes. Why? Because they are evil. Nukes are evil. They don't target just soldiers; they rip into little pieces babies on their Mommas' laps too. Don't do it. Don't follow the USA's example by using or even building an instrument of hell, a tool of Satan that has no place in the hands of people who trust in God. Please. :(

Peace and God bless you

 

Edited by Christianlady
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2016 at 9:25 AM, David66 said:

Hello,

Tell this to the thousands of men and their families who's troop ships were re-routed on August 15th.

 

You obviously have little to no knowledge regarding World War II in the Pacific Theater.  Please, so as your post will not reflect total ignorance, at least learn the basics of this time in our history.

All the Best,

David

Do you?

Ever hear about the McCollum Memo? Of-course not, it's something the US history books deliberately avoid mentioning so as to avoid embarrassing questions about how and why America entered into the war. 

 

Quote

 

The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

 

 

This memo, which proves that the government of the United States desired to lure Japan into an attack, was declassified in 1994. It took fifty years for the truth about Pearl Harbor to be revealed.

What is the truth you may ask? Read Robert Stinnett's book, Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, the very first book to ever mention this declassified memo which provides compelling evidence that FDR deliberately provoked Japan to attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor so that America could enter the war on the allied side. Stinnett, a distinguished World War II navy veteran who researched his subject for over sixteen years, provides the following evidence:-

Quote

1. A naval intelligence officer named Arthur McCollum developed an eight-point plan to provoke Japanese hostilities. This plan reached Roosevelt who implemented all eight points.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese navy broke radio silence on multiple occasions prior to December 7, 1941.
3. More than 94% of all secret Japanese naval messages (including some with direct reference to the impending attack on Pearl Harbor) were successfully decoded by American intelligence units prior to December 7, 1941
4. Roosevelt implemented a change of naval command that placed proponents of the eight-point-provocation plan in key positions of power. However, the newly promoted commander of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Kimmel was consistently denied access to vital decoded translations of Japanese naval communications.
5. Naval Intelligence and the FBI successfully monitored the communication of Japanese intelligence agents in Hawaii for months. These communications, which included a bombing grid map of Pearl Harbor, revealed Japan's intent.
6. Much of the information successfully collected and analyzed by American Intelligence organizations prior to December 7, 1941 was reinforced by information from British and Dutch intelligence.
7. A sophisticated radio tracking system spanning from Alaska to Indonesia enabled America to track Japanese commercial and military shipping patterns. These patterns, including the movement of carrier groups and recall of worldwide merchant ships pointed to an obvious prelude to hostilities several months before December 7th.
8. Most of the critical U.S. Pacific Fleet components such as heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers were not in Pearl Harbor during the bombing. In fact the only ships that were sunk were WW I relics.
9. Much of the documented information was censored or withheld from the public for decades and continues to be to this day.
10. In early 1941 Roosevelt divided the U.S. Navy into an Atlantic and Pacific command and ordered fleet construction, which included one hundred aircraft carriers to be completed by 1943. This indicates that the losses at Pearl Harbor would not interfere with America's larger war aims and with war production that supported those aims.

Some government shills have tried to discredit Stinnett's book by alleging that "Stinnett omits to mention McCollum never had contact with Roosevelt, and Stinnett's claims to the contrary are false."

These opponents are put to shame when one realizes that the memo was submitted to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the scans of the original documents). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The fact of the matter is, the Roosevelt Administration conspired to secretly provoke the Japanese to attack the United States in order to bring the United States into the European war without generating public contempt over broken political promises. It also adds massive insult to injury that Roosevelt had issued a campaign promise that the United States would not become entangled in Europe's war under his watch.

Hope you liked my history lesson. For once, please pick up real history books written by skeptics, untainted by government hush money.

Edited by Praetorius
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 10:50 AM, Christianlady said:

That's why when I first came to Shiachat, I insisted so much that Iran should not build nukes. Why? Because they are evil. Nukes are evil. They don't target just soldiers; they rip into little pieces babies on their Mommas' laps too. Don't do it. Don't follow the USA's example by using or even building an instrument of hell, a tool of Satan that has no place in the hands of people who trust in God. Please. :(

Peace and God bless you

 

You've been on this forum for nearly 6+ years. Have you never been told that the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa that nuclear armaments are haraam? That the only reason for Iranians' nuclear enrichment program is for the development of infrastructure and power generation? Please, for the love of God, tell me that you've been told.

Edited by Praetorius
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hello,

6 hours ago, Praetorius said:

Do you?

Ever hear about the McCollum Memo? Of-course not, it's something the US history books deliberately avoid mentioning so as to avoid embarrassing questions about how and why America entered into the war. 

 

 

This memo, which proves that the government of the United States desired to lure Japan into an attack, was declassified in 1994. It took fifty years for the truth about Pearl Harbor to be revealed.

What is the truth you may ask? Read Robert Stinnett's book, Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, the very first book to ever mention this declassified memo which provides compelling evidence that FDR deliberately provoked Japan to attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor so that America could enter the war on the allied side. Stinnett, a distinguished World War II navy veteran who researched his subject for over sixteen years, provides the following evidence:-

Some government shills have tried to discredit Stinnett's book by alleging that "Stinnett omits to mention McCollum never had contact with Roosevelt, and Stinnett's claims to the contrary are false."

These opponents are put to shame when one realizes that the memo was submitted to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the scans of the original documents). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The fact of the matter is, the Roosevelt Administration conspired to secretly provoke the Japanese to attack the United States in order to bring the United States into the European war without generating public contempt over broken political promises. It also adds massive insult to injury that Roosevelt had issued a campaign promise that the United States would not become entangled in Europe's war under his watch.

Hope you liked my history lesson. For once, please pick up real history books written by skeptics, untainted by government hush money.

If you are going to cut and paste from Wikipedia you really should cite it as a source.  You simply copied the portions of the Wikipedia entry "McCullum memo" that supports your claim and then patted yourself on the back for giving a "history lesson."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

 

6 hours ago, Praetorius said:

Hope you liked my history lesson. For once, please pick up real history books written by skeptics, untainted by government hush money.

Are you familiar with the term "plagiarism?:"

All the Best,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...