There are no foxholes in the ocean

[Rivers of Blood]

And people still wonder why we dropped the bombs?

 

[Palladin]

if the US had invaded Japan, we would have lost another 500,000 guys

 

[RedSoxandAKs]

Imagine the sound and smells being on one of those AA turrets...I still think one of the most frightening places to be in battle would deep in a ship.

 

[Billsail]

Thanks...I don't remember seeing that one before.

 

[Burgundy41]

if the US had invaded Japan, we would have lost another 500,000 guys

I remember reading some stuff that said that wasn't totally true, but I don't remember what it is. It basically claimed that was propaganda to justify the use of the bombs.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today

"The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, 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".

Here's one, I'm sure he's a Communist Kenyan or something though

All that being said, I'm not sure how US propaganda (that's what it is) justifies the use of the bombs. Imperialist Japan was not exactly a good empire, the rape of Nanking comes to mind, but the US essentially goaded them into war. Everything was done purposely to make Japan attack, and it's well documented by history. Some claim FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, there isn't much to back that up though.

 

[Texas Expat]

Nice video, watched it in its entirety. Ends justify the means.

 

[xtry51]

To discuss the dropping of the bombs now, given the huge volume of knowledge we have now versus the very limited knowledge on hand then is being disingenuous to how the decision was made or the reasons why.

There's a reason nukes have not been used since. It's because people did not understand the power or long term effects until after we used them. Wisdom is sadly mostly gained through mistakes.

 

[soloman02]

I remember reading some stuff that said that wasn't totally true, but I don't remember what it is. It basically claimed that was propaganda to justify the use of the bombs.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today

"The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, 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".

Here's one, I'm sure he's a Communist Kenyan or something though

I think that guy is smoking crack. He obviously forgets that the Japanese were extremely fanatical. They has no shortage of men lining up to be kamikaze pilots. He also forgets that due to their fanaticism, the Japanese military attempted a coup to continue fighting the war while the emperor was recording his surrender speech to the Japanese people. Also one must consider another aspect of this fanaticism: On Iwo Jima there were ~22,000 Japanese soldiers. Of that less than 250 were captured. The rest were killed or committed suicide. That is like a 99% death rate for Japanese soldiers. That's ****ing nuts!

This fanaticism is likely a result of this:

Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

The Japanese code of bushido—'the way of the warrior'—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect.[22]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[50]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.

Also, the estimates of casualties varied widely. Frankly, due to his level of genius, I give William Shockley's numbers the benefit of the doubt. Then again, maybe I am biased because without Shockley (co-inventor of the transistor), I wouldn't be typing this .

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties


Also there is a wiki article depicting the disagreement:

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

 

[Burgundy41]

I think that guy is smoking crack. He obviously forgets that the Japanese were extremely fanatical. They has no shortage of men lining up to be kamikaze pilots. He also forgets that due to their fanaticism, the Japanese military attempted a coup to continue fighting the war while the emperor was recording his surrender speech to the Japanese people. Also one must consider another aspect of this fanaticism: On Iwo Jima there were ~22,000 Japanese soldiers. Of that less than 250 were captured. The rest were killed or committed suicide. That is like a 99% death rate for Japanese soldiers. That's ****ing nuts!

This fanaticism is likely a result of this:



Also, the estimates of casualties varied widely. Frankly, due to his level of genius, I give William Shockley's numbers the benefit of the doubt. Then again, maybe I am biased because without Shockley (co-inventor of the transistor), I wouldn't be typing this .



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties


Also there is a wiki article depicting the disagreement:

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

It's not just him though, as you can see from the debate link you posted. There are plenty of historical sources to say that the usual line of "If we invaded we'd have lost a bajillion lives" doesn't hold up totally.

The fact that a 1945 propaganda film is being used to bolster that mindset is just...well...sad.

 

[71montess]

I remember reading some stuff that said that wasn't totally true, but I don't remember what it is. It basically claimed that was propaganda to justify the use of the bombs.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today

"The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, 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".

Here's one, I'm sure he's a Communist Kenyan or something though

All that being said, I'm not sure how US propaganda (that's what it is) justifies the use of the bombs. Imperialist Japan was not exactly a good empire, the rape of Nanking comes to mind, but the US essentially goaded them into war. Everything was done purposely to make Japan attack, and it's well documented by history. Some claim FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, there isn't much to back that up though.

In modern politics , a freekin liberal freekin Democrat.

 

[soloman02]

It's not just him though, as you can see from the debate link you posted. There are plenty of historical sources to say that the usual line of "If we invaded we'd have lost a bajillion lives" doesn't hold up totally.

The fact that a 1945 propaganda film is being used to bolster that mindset is just...well...sad.

The thing is, if one argues that the bombs were "immoral" and "war crimes" then one has to argue that ALL allied bombing was "immoral" "war crimes." We killed more civilians firebombing Japanese cities than we did with the nukes. Therefore if you follow through with the "immoral" line of reasoning, firebombing with massive numbers of B29's was worse.

What needs to be kept in mind is that there is no such thing a "morals" in war. There never has been and there never will be. War itself is immoral. Yet it still happens over and over.

The leaders of the US valued US soldiers lives more than that of a cities worth of Japanese civilians. Furthermore, if Japan didn't surrender we had quite a few more nukes ready in the wings to be used again and again on the Japanese if the invasion was to commence.

On Marshall's orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.[36]

Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."[37] An air burst 1,800–2,000 ft (550–610 m) above the ground had been chosen for the (Hiroshima) bomb to achieve maximum blast effects, and to minimize residual radiation on the ground as it was hoped that American troops would soon occupy the city

 

[jefftk]

if the US had invaded Japan, we would have lost another 500,000 guys

We had to bomb them because so many more lives would have been lost if we had invaded. So the story goes, I guess. Why is it always taken for granted that the only other option was invasion? Just seems like a false dichotomy to me.

 

[soloman02]

We had to bomb them because so many more lives would have been lost if we had invaded. So the story goes, I guess. Why is it always taken for granted that the only other option was invasion? Just seems like a false dichotomy to me.

There were secret diplomatic communications made by the US with the Japanese to surrender. The Japanese refused to accept our terms until we dropped those nukes. They likewise would have also refused to accept them during an invasion. We had already begun starving them since by the time we dropped the bombs, we had blocked all importation into the country. Were we supposed to just keep firebombing them and starving out the whole population until they surrendered? How long would that take? Months? Years? Never?

 

[agile_1]

All that being said, I'm not sure how US propaganda (that's what it is) justifies the use of the bombs. Imperialist Japan was not exactly a good empire, the rape of Nanking comes to mind, but the US essentially goaded them into war. Everything was done purposely to make Japan attack, and it's well documented by history. Some claim FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, there isn't much to back that up though.

How do you MAKE a carrier task force sail to and bomb and strafe island airfields and docked vessels? Maybe they were goaded, but they decided to attack. Then there was the little matter of several years of war that followed that the attack on Pearl harbor. No. Imperialist Japan was definitely NOT a "good" empire.

 

[GPP]

It's been said here before, but those guys had balls the size of volkswagons. Propaganda film?

 

[mg42doc]

The Japanese almost didn't surrender, there was an attempted coup.


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

 

[cekim]

Regarding the revisionist bullshit - As Soviet subjects used to say, "history is become increasingly difficult to predict."

 

[drgrant]

I remember reading some stuff that said that wasn't totally true, but I don't remember what it is. It basically claimed that was propaganda to justify the use of the bombs.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today

Yes, quoting an article (actually, calling it an article is too polite, it's just garbage) written by a moonbat that's a couple of clicks away from noam chomsky to make your point... real convincing. It's about as deft as the guys around here dropping prisonplanet tinfoiler crap every 5 minutes.

-Mike

 

[Gammon]

For those who doubt that we should have dropped the bombs, there is a book to read. It is called "The Rape of Nanking". This book details the atrocities committed by the occupying Japanese forces. After reading this book I began to wonder why we didn't drop more bombs on the "homeland" and then remembered that we only had two.

 

[PatMcD]

Ahhh.......yes, the yearly NES "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan" debate.
I almost forgot about this one.



It's good to see revisionist history is alive and well.

 

[vellnueve]

Meh, the one big firebombing raid on Tokyo 09-10 Mar 1945 killed more people and destroyed more real estate than either of the bombs.

 

[murf4321]

few things.

A) Read "Unbroken"
B) Why do people ignore that we carpet bombed the shit out of a bunch of other cities killing far more people? If we didn't nuke them, we would have carpet bombed them.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

given their fanatical defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, is it hard to believe there would have been massive casulties on the home island? Think of the casualties to a foreign army if we were invaded.

 

[Nectaris]

I'm almost done reading With The Old Breed. It gives you an idea of how tough the battles were just to gain a few hundred yards from the Japanese.

I remember hearing about earlier offerings of peace by the Japanese in the war but at the time their offers meant them keeping all the land seized not to mention all the slave labor they had created.

 

[Cap]

 

[NeverMiss]

That was pretty cool. Got to love the 40's background music!

My Grandfather was on the San Jacinto. I remember him telling me that if they had to go in and attack Japan's mainland, they would have been toast.

 

[Burgundy41]

Yes, quoting an article (actually, calling it an article is too polite, it's just garbage) written by a moonbat that's a couple of clicks away from noam chomsky to make your point... real convincing. It's about as deft as the guys around here dropping prisonplanet tinfoiler crap every 5 minutes.

-Mike

Thanks for doing what I already said someone would do, so you're just following an obvious script. Again, it ain't just him it's pretty widespread. Feel free to ignore the quotes in there from people at the time that prove it right because you don't like the source though. It's so damn lazy nowadays that everyone just goes "Oh source is liberal/conservative, nothing in it can be true" because it's a cop out because you can't counter what it says the vast majority of the time.

God damn am I tired of that nonsense.

""I was against (use of the atomic bomb) on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a post-war interview.

Oh no, the liberal commie Eisenhower!111!

For those who doubt that we should have dropped the bombs, there is a book to read. It is called "The Rape of Nanking". This book details the atrocities committed by the occupying Japanese forces. After reading this book I began to wonder why we didn't drop more bombs on the "homeland" and then remembered that we only had two.

While horrible, had ****-all to do with us AND if atomic bombs should be dropped on countries that commit stuff like that, the US would've been nuked to oblivion long ago. So it's hypocritical at best.

People also don't seem to understand what revisionist history is. It's not the truth, it's things being changed from the truth and the reasons the US dropped the bomb were faulty in the first place so it can't be revisonist to change it.

Also, yes it's a propaganda film by definition.

In modern politics , a freekin liberal freekin Democrat.

Excuse me, speak English please.

 

[drgrant]

Thanks for doing what I already said someone would do, so you're just following an obvious script. Again, it ain't just him it's pretty widespread. Feel free to ignore the quotes in there from people at the time that prove it right because you don't like the source though.

There is no script, I just don't trust shit written by commies, because there is nearly always an ulterior motive and a twisting of facts to suit an agenda. **** them and their "america sucks" bullshit. I'm sick of reading it. There's probably plenty of credible stuff on how the US could have avoided war with Japan, but citing garbage like that doesn't help your argument.

""I was against (use of the atomic bomb) on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a post-war interview.

Oh no, the liberal commie Eisenhower!111!

That might have been his opinion, but do you really think that decision was taken lightly? The effort to build these devices was not like one american hell bent on "nuking the japs". Not to mention, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure a lot of people felt differently about it after the war was over. People tend to look at things differently in the moment vs after action.

War sucks. Getting into arguments about how one side killed the other is ****ing stupid. Once you cross that threshold one side or the other usually has to go full retard in order to get the war to stop- particularly against the japanese we had no choice. To defeat them we were going to pay for it one way or another. Did you see the way those guys fought? Did you see the heinous shit they did in china? We as a nation made a decision (and that, you could potentially have a debate about whether it was responsible or not) to put an end to all of that shit, and the only way to issue a correction was to throatpunch them into oblivion. The nukes just made it a lot less costly to do so.

-Mike

 

[Burgundy41]

There is no script, I just don't trust shit written by commies, because there is nearly always an ulterior motive and a twisting of facts to suit an agenda. **** them and their "america sucks" bullshit. I'm sick of reading it. There's probably plenty of credible stuff on how the US could have avoided war with Japan, but citing garbage like that doesn't help your argument.

Considering I said you'd call him a commie, yes you are following a script and to the letter. You're tired of people going after the truth when for 60+ years it's been "We had to drop the bombs" and it's been uncontested? I don't get that at all. It helps my argument fine when it's backed up by facts, your issue with the source doesn't mean a thing to me. You won't listen to it if it disagrees with your set bias, so I personally don't care what you think.

That might have been his opinion, but do you really think that decision was taken lightly? The effort to build these devices was not like one american hell bent on "nuking the japs". Not to mention, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure a lot of people felt differently about it after the war was over. People tend to look at things differently in the moment vs after action.

War sucks. Getting into arguments about how one side killed the other is ****ing stupid. Once you cross that threshold one side or the other usually has to go full retard in order to get the war to stop- particularly against the japanese we had no choice. To defeat them we were going to pay for it one way or another. Did you see the way those guys fought? Did you see the heinous shit they did in china? We as a nation made a decision (and that, you could potentially have a debate about whether it was responsible or not) to put an end to all of that shit, and the only way to issue a correction was to throatpunch them into oblivion. The nukes just made it a lot less costly to do so.

-Mike

Nope, it wasn't taken lightly but if they went through with it when it wasn't 110% necessary then it's a problem. Again, we provoked them into the war and while the things they did in China were heinous, the US has done and had done similarly heinous shit for 200 years.

 

[ggboy]

And I thought the "Manhatton Project" was initially proposed for use against Nazi Germany.
GGboy
Interseting thought , Eh?