Comments on: Left Justified: 65th anniversary of Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombings

By: Red Rover

Red Rover — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:29:39 +0000

The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today
by John Pilger
6 Aug 2008

In an article for the Guardian on the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, John Pilger describes the ‘progression of lies’ from the dust of that detonated city, to the wars of today – and the threatened attack on Iran.
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=499

By: MikeT

MikeT — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:13:09 +0000

Truman and the rest of the administration might have remembered Saipan, where Hirohoto sent out an imperial order to the civilians to commit suicide in the event of an Allied victory. Or maybe they remembered the recent battle of Okinawa, where the highest number of Allied casualties had occurred and the 1,400 or so kamikaze attacks. I guess the German officer wasn’t exactly correct about the willingness to surrender.

If the Japanese had wished to avoid Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they should have surrendered earlier. It was not Truman’s responsibility–it was the Japanese leadership. Rational people recognize this.

Will we use nuclear weapons again? Yes, if we must. Would we bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again despite snippets of information (and disinformation) regarding their possible willingness to surrender (a willingness remarkably lacking in the recent battle of Okinawa)? Yes. Japanese insistence on avoiding unconditional surrender and continuing their existing form of government meant that we would likely be at war again in a generation or two.

Thank goodness Truman chose as he did.

By: Red Rover

Red Rover — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:45:35 +0000

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.

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

****************************************

Consider the following statement, taken from a recent review of the relevant literature in the respected academic Journal Diplomatic History: “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 advisers knew it. . . . It is certain that the hoary claim that the bomb prevented one-half million American combat deaths is unsupportable.” The writer is hardly a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Giving Harry Hell
Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird
The Nation, May 10, 1963
256(18):640-1

*****************************************

The United States spied on its World War II allies, breaking their codes and intercepting their secret diplomatic communiques, newly declassified documents show.
[...]
The documents also show that the United States had information suggesting that top members of the Japanese Army were willing to surrender more than three months before the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 48 years ago.

“Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard,” a German diplomat reported to Berlin after talking with a ranking Japanese naval officer on May 5, 1945, three days before Germany itself surrendered.

United States intelligence analysts underscored this information as they passed it up the chain of command, the records show.

U.S. Spied on Its World War II Allies
By TIM WEINER,
The New York Times, August 11, 1993
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/11/world/us-spied-on-its-world-war-ii-allies.html

By: steven

steven — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:06:36 +0000

I think you wrote a fairly neutral account of justification, but historically speaking I think you miss the point. People don’t wave the bloody flag of pearl harbor…the coming invasion of Japan (operation downfall) most likely would’ve cost millions of American soldier, japanese soldier and Japanese civilian deaths, the vast majority of those being Japanese civilian. Moreover the casualties on the small islands of okinawa and Iwo jima in the couple months leading up to the bombs had death estimates of at the very least 200000 a large portion of which were once again civilians. at the very most unflattering level the u.s. saw this as a taste of what was to come and did it because their armies were being ripped to shreds for every inch of Japanese soil. The deaths by continuation would have dwarfed the bombs’ damage and whether by sheer interest, historical knowledge or personal account I cannot push aside the glaring truth of why they did it and though you may never feel “ok” with it, one must almost feel relief that they did in hindsight. The only point I wanted to make here is If your going to weigh the justification thing, then try not to sensationalize or half bake it.