The Hiroshima Myth - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 06:36 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,185
                     
Arrow The Hiroshima Myth

The Hiroshima Myth

by John V. Denson
by John V. Denson


window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.locati on.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;
DIGG THIS


Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for The New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace."

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Herohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Herohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"

The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimpson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimpson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.

Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb."

Alperovitz makes it very clear that the main person Truman was listening to while he ignored all of this civilian and military advice, was James Byrnes, the man who virtually controlled Truman at the beginning of his administration. Brynes was one of the most experienced political figures in Washington, having served for over thirty years in both the House and the Senate. He had also served as a United States Supreme Court Judge, and at the request of President Roosevelt, he resigned that position and accepted the role in the Roosevelt administration of managing the domestic economy. Byrnes went to the Yalta Conference with Roosevelt and then was given the responsibility to get Congress and the American people to accept the agreements made at Yalta.

When Truman became a senator in 1935, Brynes immediately became his friend and mentor and remained close to Truman until Truman became president. Truman never forgot this and immediately called on Brynes to be his number-two man in the new administration. Brynes had expected to be named the vice presidential candidate to replace Wallace and had been disappointed when Truman had been named, yet he and Truman remained very close. Byrnes had also been very close to Roosevelt, while Truman was kept in the dark by Roosevelt most of the time he served as vice president. Truman asked Brynes immediately, in April, to become his Secretary of State but they delayed the official appointment until July 3, 1945, so as not to offend the incumbent. Brynes had also accepted a position on the interim committee which had control over the policy regarding the atom bomb, and therefore, in April, 1945 became Truman’s main foreign policy advisor, and especially the advisor on the use of the atomic bomb. It was Brynes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know, at the conference, if the atomic bomb was successfully tested. While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America, which Brynes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.

Truman secretly gave the orders on July 25, 1945 that the bombs would be dropped in August while he was to be in route back to America. On July 26, he issued the Potsdam Proclamation, or ultimatum, to Japan to surrender, leaving in place the unconditional surrender policy, thereby causing both Truman and Brynes to believe that the terms would not be accepted by Japan.

The conclusion drawn unmistakably from the evidence presented, is that Brynes is the man who convinced Truman to keep the unconditional surrender policy and not accept Japan’s surrender so that the bombs could actually be dropped thereby demonstrating to the Russians that America had a new forceful leader in place, a "new sheriff in Dodge" who, unlike Roosevelt, was going to be tough with the Russians on foreign policy and that the Russians needed to "back off" during what would become known as the "Cold War." A secondary reason was that Congress would now be told about why they had made the secret appropriation to a Manhattan Project and the huge expenditure would be justified by showing that not only did the bombs work but that they would bring the war to an end, make the Russians back off and enable America to become the most powerful military force in the world.

If the surrender by the Japanese had been accepted between May and the end of July of 1945 and the Emperor had been left in place, as in fact he was after the bombing, this would have kept Russia out of the war. Russia agreed at Yalta to come into the Japanese war three months after Germany surrendered. In fact, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945 and Russia announced on August 8, (exactly three months thereafter) that it was abandoning its neutrality policy with Japan and entering the war. Russia’s entry into the war for six days allowed them to gain tremendous power and influence in China, Korea, and other key areas of Asia. The Japanese were deathly afraid of Communism and if the Potsdam Proclamation had indicated that America would accept the conditional surrender allowing the Emperor to remain in place and informed the Japanese that Russia would enter the war if they did not surrender, then this would surely have assured a quick Japanese surrender.

The second question that Alperovitz answers in the last half of the book is how and why the Hiroshima myth was created. The story of the myth begins with the person of James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University, who was a prominent scientist, having initially made his mark as a chemist working on poison gas during World War I. During World War II, he was chairman of the National Defense Research Committee from the summer of 1941 until the end of the war and he was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project. Conant became concerned about his future academic career, as well as his positions in private industry, because various people began to speak out concerning why the bombs were dropped. On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publically 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." Albert Einstein, one of the world’s foremost scientists, who was also an important person connected with the development of the atomic bomb, responded and his words were headlined in The New York Times "Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb." The story reported that Einstein stated that "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.

Probably the person closest to Truman, from the military standpoint, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, and there was much talk that he also deplored the use of the bomb and had strongly advised Truman not to use it, but advised rather to revise the unconditional surrender policy so that the Japanese could surrender and keep the Emperor. Leahy’s views were later reported by Hanson Baldwin in an interview that Leahy "thought the business of recognizing the continuation of the Emperor was a detail which should have been solved easily." Leahy’s secretary, Dorothy Ringquist, reported that Leahy told her on the day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, "Dorothy, we will regret this day. The United States will suffer, for war is not to be waged on women and children." Another important naval voice, 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 Byrnes.

James Conant came to the conclusion that some important person in the administration must go public to show that the dropping of the bombs was a military necessity, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, so he approached Harvey Bundy and his son, McGeorge Bundy. It was agreed by them that the most important person to create this myth was Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. It was decided that Stimson would write a long article to be widely circulated in a prominent national magazine. This article was revised repeatedly by McGeorge Bundy and Conant before it was published in Harper’s magazine in February of 1947. The long article became the subject of a front-page article and editorial in The New York Times and in the editorial it was stated "There can be no doubt that the president and Mr. Stimson are right when they mention that the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender." Later, in 1959, President Truman specifically endorsed this conclusion, including the idea that it saved the lives of a million American soldiers. This myth has been renewed annually by the news media and various political leaders ever since.

It is very pertinent that, in the memoirs of Henry Stimson entitled On Active Service in Peace and War, he states, "Unfortunately, I have lived long enough to know that history is often not what actually happened but what is recorded as such."

To bring this matter more into focus from the human tragedy standpoint, I recommend the reading of a book entitled Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 6, September 30, 1945, by Michiko Hachiya. He was a survivor of Hiroshima and kept a daily diary about the women, children and old men that he treated on a daily basis in the hospital. The doctor was badly injured himself but recovered enough to help others and his account of the personal tragedies of innocent civilians who were either badly burned or died as a result of the bombing puts the moral issue into a clear perspective for all of us to consider.

Now that we live in the nuclear age and there are enough nuclear weapons spread around the world to destroy civilization, we need to face the fact that America is the only country to have used this awful weapon and that it was unnecessary to have done so. If Americans would come to recognize the truth, rather than the myth, it might cause such a moral revolt that we would take the lead throughout the world in realizing that wars in the future may well become nuclear, and therefore all wars must be avoided at almost any cost. Hopefully, our knowledge of science has not outrun our ability to exercise prudent and humane moral and political judgment to the extent that we are destined for extermination.


August 2, 2006
John V. Denson [send him mail] is the editor of two books, The Costs of War and Reassessing the Presidency. In the latter work, he has chapters especially relevant for today, on how Lincoln and FDR lied us into war.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
Warrior is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 06:39 PM
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,028
                     
What nice piece of propoganda. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Tammy Bruce RightSideOfTheRainbow

Liberals: Hard on the unborn, soft on terrorists

Man-made climate change is a LIE

COUNTDOWN!
SelesFan70 is offline  
post #3 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Enjoying married life.
 
Wigglytuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: lolcat
Posts: 19,642
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
What nice piece of propoganda. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
you get blood thirstier by the day.

"racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenyan president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox"
Wigglytuff is offline  
post #4 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Enjoying married life.
 
Wigglytuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: lolcat
Posts: 19,642
                     
unlike most americans, i have actually been to hiroshima and kyoto. i think 90% who would support something so needless and vile fall into 2 groups. people who are vile and just plain like bloodshed in all its forms (see post #2) and people who just plain dont know. maybe they dont know what it did, maybe they dont know that it could have been avoided, or that the us. gov didnt want to us the bomb on germany, or that many of those in charge knew how evil it was and refused to do that kind of evil to kyoto to as they said in their worlds "to save their souls".

nor do i know how many fit into group one vs. group two. i think either way it veils a failure of not just america but the world to consider humanity. to consider women and child. to see people who are from a different place as "human"

having been to hiroshima and seeing such vivid images of it, it is clear that no one who knows even some of what happened and still think it was a good idea is justified.

"racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenyan president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox"
Wigglytuff is offline  
post #5 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,664
                     
Quote:
From the article
Quote:
Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands.


Uh HELLO-the bombs DID cause Japan to surrender unconditionally. It's the saving lives part that's in dispute.

Quote:
posted by Jiggly Puff -with my comments in bold.

unlike most americans, i have actually been to hiroshima and kyoto. This American has been there-I lived in Japan from 1988 to 89 i think 90% who would support something so needless and vile fall into 2 groups. people who are vile and just plain like bloodshed in all its forms (see post #2) and people who just plain dont know. Don't know what? maybe they dont know what it did I know what it did-it ended the war. It also killed less people than the firebombs that rained down on Tokyo and Dresden. It killed less people than would have starved to death had we NOT dropped the bomb and waited weeks or months for Japan to surrender, maybe they dont know that it could have been avoided, It could have been avoided had Japan heeded the call to surrender unconditionally.or that the us. gov didnt want to us the bomb on germany, I sort of actually agree with you here. There was a racist element in that regard-but it's also true that these were two different kinds of fronts. We were fighting the Germans on land, where any bomb that was as yet untested might also hurt us or the Russians. As an isolated island Japan was better suited to testing the bomb. might or that many of those in charge knew how evil it was and refused to do that kind of evil to kyoto to as they said in their worlds "to save their souls".

nor do i know how many fit into group one vs. group two. i think either way it veils a failure of not just america but the world to consider humanity. to consider women and child. to see people who are from a different place as "human" 100% with you here JP. While I think it was the right thing to do it does show how horrible we can be to each other. On the other hand sometimes humans have two choices to make-one is bad-the other worse. I'd argue that waiting for Japan to surrender would have been worse.

having been to hiroshima and seeing such vivid images of it, it is clear that no one who knows even some of what happened and still think it was a good idea is justified.
Anyhow-while I don't say it was 100"justified", there were good reasons for dropping the atomic bomb.

Ending the war quickly saved lives. The book claims Truman knew Japan would surrender IF the Emperor got this and that. What part of "unconditional surrender" didn't they get? I could just as easily argue Hirohito was responsible for dragging out a hopeless situation while his people starved.

What kind of scenario would have played out had the bomb not beens dropped? Japan unconditionally surrendered after Hiroshima and nagasaki, but what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb?

Some possibilities:

A. Japan conditionally surrenders-the military group led by Tojo continues-possibly no democracy in Japan. There's a lot of unstability in that scanario.

B. Japan surrenders after weeks and weeks of bombing. People continue to starve-not only in Japan but also in Korea and other areas under Japanese occupation. This kills more people than the two atomic bombs put together.

C. The nightmare scenario of land invasion of Japan. Even more deaths. The book failed to take into account how the invasion of Okinawa influenced the decision to drop the bombs rather than invade.

Finally, there's this to consider. By dropping the atomic bombs in 1945 the United States demonstarted just how awful they were. We can hope (fingers crossed) that it demonstrated how terrible a war could be if BOTH sides were dropping bombs on each other. Had Hiroshima not happened it's possible the US and Russia would have had a real nuclear war rather than a cold war.

Until those arguments are addressed there's still a good case IMO for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Rollo is offline  
post #6 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Senior Member
 
égalité's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,129
                     
Japan was already on the brink of surrendering when we dropped the bombs. The idea that this saved American lives is nationalistic nonsense.

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is offline  
post #7 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 09:03 PM
pav
Senior Member
 
pav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: new zealand
Posts: 9,642
                     
I think this can be boiled down to one question,out of the two countries in question,who threw the first punch?

BepaZvonareva Don't read my reps anymore, very relaxing Lydia Ko , Felicity Jones, Emilia Clarke, Rachel Khoo.
pav is offline  
post #8 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 09:06 PM
Senior Member
 
égalité's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,129
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by pav
I think this can be boiled down to one question,out of the two countries in question,who threw the first punch?
Japan, and then the United States responded to a punch by hitting Japan(ese civilians) in the face with a sledgehammer. A radioactive sledgehammer, no less.

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is offline  
post #9 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 8,071
                     
Two subjects with neverending arguments, religion, and war.

---Jê|êñ@ ÐøKí©---
~ Monica Seles || Patty Schnyder || Anna Kournikova || Tatiana Golovin || Jelena Jankovic || Elena Baltacha || Anne Keothavong ~
Welcome back to the TOP 100 Jelena!
Always in our hearts.... Arantxa Sanchez Vicario!.... 110 titles.... no1 in singles and doubles.... a true legend!
Philip is offline  
post #10 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Enjoying married life.
 
Wigglytuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: lolcat
Posts: 19,642
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darklingv20
Japan was already on the brink of surrendering when we dropped the bombs. The idea that this saved American lives is nationalistic nonsense.
exactly,

not to mentionable that to do something that evil to mostly women children, lets not forget, when they were already on the brink of surrender not once but twice.

yeah the japanese where trying to surrender in such way that they would save face, who would not, but to respond with a tool of genocide not once but 2 is just plain evil. and all accounts show the us. knew it was evil and would not be justifiable, so why people at like its anything else is beyond me.

"racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenyan president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox"
Wigglytuff is offline  
post #11 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 11:07 PM
Enjoying married life.
 
Wigglytuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: lolcat
Posts: 19,642
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo

Uh HELLO-the bombs DID cause Japan to surrender unconditionally. It's the saving lives part that's in dispute.



Anyhow-while I don't say it was 100"justified", there were good reasons for dropping the atomic bomb.

Ending the war quickly saved lives. The book claims Truman knew Japan would surrender IF the Emperor got this and that. What part of "unconditional surrender" didn't they get? I could just as easily argue Hirohito was responsible for dragging out a hopeless situation while his people starved.

What kind of scenario would have played out had the bomb not beens dropped? Japan unconditionally surrendered after Hiroshima and nagasaki, but what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb?

Some possibilities:

A. Japan conditionally surrenders-the military group led by Tojo continues-possibly no democracy in Japan. There's a lot of unstability in that scanario.

B. Japan surrenders after weeks and weeks of bombing. People continue to starve-not only in Japan but also in Korea and other areas under Japanese occupation. This kills more people than the two atomic bombs put together.

C. The nightmare scenario of land invasion of Japan. Even more deaths. The book failed to take into account how the invasion of Okinawa influenced the decision to drop the bombs rather than invade.

Finally, there's this to consider. By dropping the atomic bombs in 1945 the United States demonstarted just how awful they were. We can hope (fingers crossed) that it demonstrated how terrible a war could be if BOTH sides were dropping bombs on each other. Had Hiroshima not happened it's possible the US and Russia would have had a real nuclear war rather than a cold war.

Until those arguments are addressed there's still a good case IMO for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
have you ever been to hiroshima or nagasaki?

like i said before, people who justify this often do so because they just dont know.

there are somethings that regardless the "reason" are just unjustifiable, particularly when done to women and children. this is clearly one of them.

"racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenyan president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox"
Wigglytuff is offline  
post #12 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Guest
 
*JR*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the Peace Train
Posts: 34,247
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior
The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu....

2006 LewRockwell.com
IC that like Lakeway, you're now buying into the out of context bullshit that Lew Rockwell puts out. The one sentence I quoted isn't the half of it: the Japanese also considered the Emperor a living God. (It was forbidden for them to even see the Emperor's face).

The Japanese would have surrendered as stated if Hirohito could have kept that status, which would have made him a rallying point for the revival of jingoism. It would have been like (if the Nazi's had a figurehead officially above Hitler) to leave that person on such a hypothetical "throne" in Germany after the war.

It was entirely necessary to obtain an uncondtional surrender from Japan so that we reduced the status of the Emperor to that of a human being. (And Rollo's point that the shock of the bomb's destructive power may well have prevented a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR later is quite correct).

If the Japanese didn't want 2B the template on which the bomb was demonstrated, they needn't have launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 because FDR was *OMG* punishing their agression and atrocities in China (like the 1937 Rape of Nanjing) with economic sanctions.

Another reason for the policy of Unconditional Surrender was probably the American outrage @ said sneak attack... launched while a Japanese delegation was in Washington to supposedly negotiate a way out of the impasse.
*JR* is offline  
post #13 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 6th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
controlfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 5,858
                     
Forget Hiroshima, that POST was an atomic bomb! Isn't there supposed to be a 1000-character limit or something!?!?!
controlfreak is offline  
post #14 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 6th, 2006, 01:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,353
                     
Japan would have surrended even if the bombs would not have dropped but only after a good fight. You think they would have surrended just like that? I doubt it and even if they did by the time this would have happened the northern part of Japan would have been occupied by the Soviets just like with Korea. So we would have a Japanese Kim Il Sung. The nukes were tragic but necessary to ensure a swift surrender and save millions of American and japanese lives. Look at Berlin when it got captured. Millions of people died on both sides. Americans did not want to go throught hayt again and so used the bomb. Today Japan is prosperous and free.
Lord Nelson is offline  
post #15 of 46 (permalink) Old Aug 6th, 2006, 02:02 AM
#GloballyEli
 
Elisse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wishing I was there...
Posts: 16,290
                     
Firstly I just want to start by saying I am totally against war and against the use of nuclear weapons in any situation but I have another point of view to mention on this subject.....

My grandfather was a prisoner of war held in Japan. He was forced into joining the army on his 17th birthday...the day after, whilst aboard a ship, it was bombed by the Japanese and while jumping into the sea he broke two bones in his spine. The Japanese army collected the British solders including my Grandfather from the sea and took them as prisoners - he was held as a prisoner for the entire length of the war - he was forced to take part in building the notorious Burma-Thailand railway, they were forced to work deep underground in the mines and was held at various prisoner of war camps throughout the war. (Remember at this time most of them were just teenagers of 17 and 18) They were given hardly any food and what they were given was usually rotten and full of maggots - most of them had to eat toothpaste to survive. They had no mediations and suffered terrible brutality and crulty from the guards at the camp.

My grandfather used to tell me...on the days leading up to the bomb being dropped in Hiroshima, the guards were acted strange, they knew something was going to happen but they didn't know what...the day before the bomb, they shut all the prisoners including my grandfather in an underground mine and were preparing to kill them all in the following days - then the bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and things changed - the guards ran away and the prisoners were left.

My grandfather was one of the lucky ones to get home alive - he weighed about 4-5 stone due to malnutrition, his spine was still damaged, he had breathing problems due to the dust they used to inhale in the mines, he managed to survive many tropical illnesses due to the kindness of two local villagers who helped him.

He is now in his 90's, he still can speak Japanese and has no hatred for the people who held him in the camps. It is very rare for him to tell of the horrendous things he saw in those days....over the years he has only told me a little of what happened to him and his friends...the rest he keeps to himself and even today he gets nightmares - he saw such terrible acts of violence against his friends and fellow prisoners...he still gets very upset to talk about it. He still has medical problems from his days in the camps including severe breathing problems from the time in the mines.


It was a terrible thing that happened in Hiroshima and as I said before I hate war and the idea of nuclear being used for any reason - but there was also many other terrible things going on at that time too, many of which are never mentioned.

There is always two sides to every story.



http://www.awm.gov.au/alliesinadvers...p00761_011.jpg

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/JapPoW.Jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/195000...powsbbc150.jpg

(Sadly these are some of the only photos I can find online - and they dont illustrate the things that were going on in the camps)
Elisse is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome