After reading this NYT article on the Nagasaki bombing, U.S. was truly pathetic

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
@The Dankster about to come in here blaming the German war debt and the Treaty of Versailles soon :dead:

Congrats, you're now the first person on The Coli that I've ever put on ignore. Goodbye.



Not a single person has managed to explain why all of these prominent American military, political, and intelligence figures opposed the bombing.

All you've managed to come up with is the lie that claims, "Oh, I'm sure they supported the bombing at first and only opposed it afterwards!" Even though you have no evidence whatsoever for that.

Until you can rebuke these quotes, the fact that your only argument against them is to lie about them proves how damaging they are to your revisionist, pro-America, atrocity-justifying case.


"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... 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." - Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

"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." - Norman Cousins, consultant to General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Southwest Pacific Area

"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, in charge of psychological warfare on General MacArthur's staff

"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 war...The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life...
We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." - Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz, Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower reflecting on the event 18 years later

"...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..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe

"[When he heard] 'the Potsdam declaration in July, demand 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." - Biographer William Manchester describing the reaction of General Douglas MacArthur to the Potsdam declaration

"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." - former president Herbert Hoover two months before the bomb was dropped

"...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....The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover reflecting after the bomb was dropped

"...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." - Joseph Grew, former Ambassador to Japan and Under Secretary of State when the bomb was dropped

"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." - John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War when the bomb was dropped

"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." He continued, "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." - Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

"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..." - Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment...It was a mistake to ever drop it...[the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it...It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. - Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

"I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it." - Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief of U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations (King believed that a naval blockade would force Japan into surrender without any invasion or bombs ever being necessary.)

"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....
it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

"Arnold's view was that it [the dropping of the atomic bomb] was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it." - Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, deputy to Hap Arnold

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Major General Curtis E. LeMay, Commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command

"if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." - General Carl Spaatz, in charge of U.S. Army Air Force Operations in the Pacific when the bomb was dropped

"Both men...felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used." - former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman, describing the opinions of General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, Commander of the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, and General Frederick L. Anderson, Deputy Commanding General at USASTAF

Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped. - General Claire Chennault, Army Air Forces Commander in China

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."
"The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"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, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence when the bomb was dropped

"[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia." - Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section

"we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for Truman

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... 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." - Paul Nitze, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Group

"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." - Paul Nitze, reporting the Survey's conclusions. Nitze would later become U.S. Secretary of the Navy

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.... 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.... The hoary claim that the bomb prevented 500,000 American combat deaths is unsupportable." - J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, publishing in the academic journal Diplomatic History

“First, intelligence and other advice to President Truman, in significant part based on intercepted and secretly decoded Japanese cable traffic, indicated that from at least May 1945 on, Japan wished to end the war and seemed likely to do so if assurances were given that the emperor would not be eliminated. Second, similar advice to the president suggested that the shock of Soviet entry into the war (expected in early August) would likely tip the balance, almost certainly if combined with assurances conce rning the emperor. Third, Truman was advised by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, Admiral Leahy, the acting Secretary of State Joseph E. Grew, and others to let Japan know that the emperor would not be eliminated; contrary to the claims of some historians, Truman made clear that he had no serious objection to offering such assurances.” - historians Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, writing in the Christian Science Monitor

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." - Albert Einstein as quoted in the New York Times, 1946



:ohhh::dwillhuh::whoo:

Read that shyt. Military commanders across the table knew that Japan was READY TO SURRENDER and that the bombs WERE NOT NECESSARY. It was a political fukking decision made to test out the power of the bombs and intimidate Russia, and to ensure that we took control of Japan's surrender and not Russia.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
306,246
Reputation
-34,287
Daps
616,586
Reppin
The Deep State
Congrats, you're now the first person on The Coli that I've ever put on ignore. Goodbye.



Not a single person has managed to explain why all of these prominent American military, political, and intelligence figures opposed the bombing.

All you've managed to come up with is the lie that claims, "Oh, I'm sure they supported the bombing at first and only opposed it afterwards!" Even though you have no evidence whatsoever for that.

Until you can rebuke these quotes, the fact that your only argument against them is to lie about them proves how damaging they are to your revisionist, pro-America, atrocity-justifying case.
Must be great to tune out any dissent to bullshyt you've attached yourself too just to make yourself feel better about the things the US did to win the war. :pachaha:

All of those people opposed it...yet everyone still did it :heh:

Do you not realize how silly you sound right now?

There was hesitation.

And?

Your OWN "evidence" shows this! Of course using new weapons is going to cause some disdain and hesitation. Thats what they ALL do. :dead:

Japan was not ready to give up. They kept filibustering and it cost them.
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,151
Reputation
-4,700
Daps
35,649
Reppin
NULL
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Truman just ordering the instant death 74,000 innocent people for ZERO fukking reason :snoop: There was no strategic reason to do it, Japan was already in the process of surrendering. Truman didn't even acknowledge the bombing it was so irrelevant to them, they did because they had a bomb ready to use and wanted to essentially just "put it to use" :damn:

If Truman didn't order the nuclear bomb's deployment, the US would have had to invade Japan with ground forces, which would have cost more American lives. Truman ultimately made the right and only decision in his country's interest. The object of war is to win, not to spare your opponent's lives. Japan was offered a chance to surrender and they declined.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
101,046
Reputation
13,406
Daps
295,630
Reppin
NULL
bomb was awful, but i still dont regret dropping it :yeshrug:

these dudes should have admitted their emperor wasnt a god :mjlol: you know whos fukkin fault this was? the japanese government
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
101,046
Reputation
13,406
Daps
295,630
Reppin
NULL
Read the fukking quotes. It wasn't just me who doesn't think the bomb saved American lives, it was General Eisenhour, General MacArthur, and pretty much everyone who mattered through the whole structure except the politicians who did it. And even then, former president Hoover AND former president Roosevelt never would have done that shyt.






Wait a second....you're talking about being scared of "Russia invading the USA" scenarios, and you're calling me too thick-headed for politics?

:russ:

When has Russia EVER threatened to invade the USA? When has Russia EVER had the capacity to bring their troops across the fukking ocean and invade a nation whose territory they could never, ever, ever have the slightest chance of controlling? When had Russia EVER tried to bully anyone other than the countries in their vicinity?

:francis:

Think about why Russia signed that deal with Germany and Japan in the first place. They never wanted control of the whole world, and they knew they could never get it. They wanted total power over everything within their own sphere of influence. And by bombing Germany and Japan into the ground, we fed right into their hands and gave them MORE power than they had ever had, not less.

Keep on talking like us killing 200,000 people in Japan is the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed 46 years later.

:mjlol:
:heh: listen, chief. we shoulda dropped that bomb to prevent one more american kid with his whole life ahead of him, lyin on some japanese beach with his guts in his hands
 

Misanthrope

None of the above '16
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
1,223
Reputation
250
Daps
3,123
All you've managed to come up with is the lie that claims, "Oh, I'm sure they supported the bombing at first and only opposed it afterwards!" Even though you have no evidence whatsoever for that.

Until you can rebuke these quotes, the fact that your only argument against them is to lie about them proves how damaging they are to your revisionist, pro-America, atrocity-justifying case.

As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.
Curtis LeMay from The World at War: the Landmark Oral History from the Classic TV Series, p. 574[/quote]

Commenting on the use of the atomic bomb, then-U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon."

History professor Robert James Maddox wrote:

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'

Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'

There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. […] I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.
Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945[5]

In September 1945, nuclear physicist Karl T. Compton, who himself took part in the Manhattan Project, visited MacArthur's headquarters in Tokyo, and following his visit wrote a defensive article, in which he summarized his conclusions as follows:

If the atomic bomb had not been used, evidence like that I have cited points to the practical certainty that there would have been many more months of death and destruction on an enormous scale.

"It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime." - Emperor Hirohito, 1975

btw, did you just copy-paste all of Hiroshima: Quotes to make your initial point? Who's Doug Long?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
If Truman didn't order the nuclear bomb's deployment, the US would have had to invade Japan with ground forces, which would have cost more American lives. Truman ultimately made the right and only decision in his country's interest. The object of war is to win, not to spare your opponent's lives. Japan was offered a chance to surrender and they declined.

How do you explain that the US Strategic Bombing Survey came to the opposite conclusion? How do you explain that the chief historian of the US Atomic Bombing Commission came to the opposite conclusion?

How do you explain that even one of the guys on your own side of the argument is posting articles showing that the Russian entry ended the war, and that destruction of cities has historically never led to the end of wars, especially in this very case?

Japan had no air forces, no naval forces, no way to project its power, and was about to face invasion from Russia. There was absolutely no need to lose 1 more American soldier if we didn't want to. Japan had NOTHING to threaten America with.

The bomb isn't what won the war. The Russian entry into the war did. You still haven't provided the slightest evidence to contradict that.



:heh: listen, chief. we shoulda dropped that bomb to prevent one more american kid with his whole life ahead of him, lyin on some japanese beach with his guts in his hands

No Americans had to die on the Japanese beach.



As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference.

The numbers are disputed (I go with 100,000 for Tokyo, 140,000 for Hiroshima, and 60,000 for Nagasaki), but I agree, Tokyo was just as inhumane. Pretty much the only differences were that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were even more useless as military targets (so unnecessary that Truman purposely left them until last so they'd be untouched when they tried the nukes on them), and the nuclear bombs not only killed people present, but created horrific effects for the next generation.

But yes, I agree that the mass assault on citizens in Tokyo was also an atrocity. This article was about the atomic bomb though.


A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.
Curtis LeMay from The World at War: the Landmark Oral History from the Classic TV Series, p. 574

But there's no evidence that the atomic bomb ended the war, or was even intended to. Wars don't end from cities being destroyed - if they did, then the Japanese would have surrendered sooner. You've already admitted yourself that we were able to destroy cities just as effectively even before we used the atomic bomb. If they didn't surrender when Tokyo was firebombed or Hiroshima was atomic bombed, why would they surrender when a much less important city was atomic bombed with fewer casualties than either of those?



Commenting on the use of the atomic bomb, then-U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon."

Next to Truman, Stimson is the one most responsible for choosing to drop the bomb without any warning and one who was pushing to do it for months despite being advised against it by several military personnel (including Eisenhower and Bard, both on the record). Of course he's going to make it sound like a non-atrocity.



History professor Robert James Maddox wrote:

And in this thread we've already mentioned a dozen historians who dispute his account...including two official ones hired by the US government, the US Strategic Bombing Survey report and the chief historian for the US Atomic Energy Commission.



There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. […] I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.
Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945[5]

A million American lives? Quarter of a million British? There weren't even a quarter that many casualties in the entire Pacific war! This is Churchill spinning propaganda. Claims that an invasion would have cost anything like that many lives have been roundly debunked - they were propaganda meant to justify the bomb's use, nothing more.

And, as we've said over and over, an invasion was never necessary at all.



In September 1945, nuclear physicist Karl T. Compton, who himself took part in the Manhattan Project, visited MacArthur's headquarters in Tokyo, and following his visit wrote a defensive article, in which he summarized his conclusions as follows:

If the atomic bomb had not been used, evidence like that I have cited points to the practical certainty that there would have been many more months of death and destruction on an enormous scale.

That's one guy self-justifying, while 65 other Manhattan Project scientists signed a petition BEFORE the drop urging that it not be used because it was unnecessary.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
yes, we would have. this is a lie :heh:

I guess all of the following are a bunch of liars then. I truncated the quotes to show the specific parts where they say that the bombs were NOT necessary to end the war, nor was invasion.

"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." - Paul Nitze, reporting the Survey's conclusions. Nitze would later become U.S. Secretary of the Navy

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.... 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.... The hoary claim that the bomb prevented 500,000 American combat deaths is unsupportable." - J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, publishing in the academic journal Diplomatic History

"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." - Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

"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." - Norman Cousins, consultant to General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Southwest Pacific Area

"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, in charge of psychological warfare on General MacArthur's staff

"The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life...
We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." - Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz, Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower reflecting on the event 18 years later

"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..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe

"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." - former president Herbert Hoover two months before the bomb was dropped

"...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....The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover reflecting after the bomb was dropped

"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." - John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War when the bomb was dropped

"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." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb." - Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion." - Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment...It was a mistake to ever drop it...[the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it...It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. - Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....
it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

"Arnold's view was that it [the dropping of the atomic bomb] was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it." - Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, deputy to Hap Arnold

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Major General Curtis E. LeMay, Commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command

"if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." - General Carl Spaatz, in charge of U.S. Army Air Force Operations in the Pacific when the bomb was dropped

"Both men...felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used." - former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman, describing the opinions of General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, Commander of the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, and General Frederick L. Anderson, Deputy Commanding General at USASTAF

Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped. - General Claire Chennault, Army Air Forces Commander in China

"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." - Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence when the bomb was dropped

"[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia." - Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section

"we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for Truman

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... 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." - Paul Nitze, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Group

“First, intelligence and other advice to President Truman, in significant part based on intercepted and secretly decoded Japanese cable traffic, indicated that from at least May 1945 on, Japan wished to end the war and seemed likely to do so if assurances were given that the emperor would not be eliminated. Second, similar advice to the president suggested that the shock of Soviet entry into the war (expected in early August) would likely tip the balance, almost certainly if combined with assurances conce rning the emperor. Third, Truman was advised by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, Admiral Leahy, the acting Secretary of State Joseph E. Grew, and others to let Japan know that the emperor would not be eliminated; contrary to the claims of some historians, Truman made clear that he had no serious objection to offering such assurances.” - historians Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, writing in the Christian Science Monitor
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
It's easy to pick apart a historian who is trying to build a case to fit his own version of events. Rather than quoting what people actually said, he'll make claims without quotes, quote tiny parts of sentences out-of-context, and use weasely words to avoid the main truths. For instance:


Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so.

False. Ralph Bard is on official record as having dissented from the decision of the Interim Committee to bomb Japan without warning. It is official record of the USA that he thought such an action was immoral.

General Dwight Eisenhower is on official record as having told SecWar Stimson that the bomb was both militarily unnecessary AND immoral. Of course, your historian is weaseling out because Eisenhower wasn't talking to Truman directly when he said it.

Hoover is on official record as telling Truman not to do it, but your historian weasels out again because Hoover isn't a "military adviser".

The others on the list either weren't military advisers, didn't know about the bomb until after it was deployed, or were never asked for their opinion by Truman. It is a matter of public record that Truman never asked ANY of his Pacific Fleet generals to speak into the question of whether the bomb should be dropped or not. NONE of them were part of the committee that made the decision or were allowed to speak to that committee.

Your historian just claimed "no persuasive evidence" that any of them opposed the bomb with giving ANY evidence that any of them supported the bomb being dropped after Japan had lost the war in summer 1945. He's just offering his opinion and asking you to believe it.



None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'

First off, how does a quote from Truman prove anything? Truman was pushing for the bomb the whole time.

And what does, "said up to the last that it wouldn't go off" prove about whether he thought it was a good idea or not? It sure doesn't sound like he's saying, "We need to drop that bomb!"

And how the fukk are the following passages "unrelated"? I'd love to see how your historian explains any of them in their "proper context":

"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."- Fleet Admiral William Leahy

"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." - Fleet Admiral William Leahy


Not to mention that's only one of the dozens that I quoted. Again, your historian is just asking you to believe him on face value.



Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward.

Responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare? So did he oppose it or support it? Another weaselly answer by your historian without the actual quotes.

And it sure sounds like MacArthur felt that the atomic bomb was of no material assistance in the war, just like I said. If the atomic bomb could save so many lives, why is MacArthur clearly disputing its efficacy even after Hiroshima? Russian entry into the war, not Hiroshima, led the Japanese to surrender. This statement about MacArthur actually SUPPORTS that the bomb was not the cause.



Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'

February? What the fukk does the military situation in February have to do with the military situation in August? In February HITLER wasn't even defeated yet, much less Japan. Another attempt by your historian to distort the the truth by offering a completely unrelated quote.
 
Top