The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan (It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives)

Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover (pg. 512):

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

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

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

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

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

***

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

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

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

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

Alfred McCormack – Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation – believed that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone:

The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

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

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

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

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

General George Marshall agreed:

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

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

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

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

As historian Doug Long notes:

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

Politicians Agreed

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

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

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

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

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

New Scientist reported in 2005:

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

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

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

John Pilger points out:

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

***

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

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • meh

    fuck amerika.

    • Canbeus

      We are luv.

      • GaryS

        Yes, they were American nukes of love, dropped with only the most tenderest and loving of intentions. We loved the Japs, so we gave them our nukes of love. After all, America would never do anything to harm innocents abroad. The Iraqis loved us, cheered us; stories of their bloody massacre have been grossly overstated. We’re the Good guys. We crush the Bad guys. They taught me that in school. They preach it on every NFL football game. We bring love bullets and love bombs, shower the people with love drones and occupy them loving with soldiers of love. Ever door kicked in was done so with love. Every wedding bombed was our little gift of love to their darling little ceremony. Blown up ambulances? LOVE! 80-year-old ladies shot in the face with sniper roudns? LOVE! Assassinated journalists? LOVE! We are a nation of love. Have brought out love to millions over the past decades, and soon that same love will be brought home to the American people. FINALLY! We here in the Homeland shall receive the same loving attentions that we have so cordially and freely bestowed upon the rest of the world. The Beatles sang it best: “Love, Love, Love. Love, Love, Love.”

        • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

          And ya know what’s even better Gary? The same loving folks that brought all that Love to the world for so long, the wonderful, Love-filled banking cartel, that now rules nearly every country on Earth, with Love of course, is finally ready to bestow a big, heaping, steaming pile of that same glorious Love upon all us happily ignorant mercuns.

          And remember Gary, those very same Beatles also said, “All You Need Is Love. Love is All You need, Love is All You need, Love is All You need”!

          • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

            You two should drop some acid,for the good old days.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jarkko.j.voutilainen Jarkko Juhani Jared Voutilaine

          What ever happened with the nukes, doesn’t wipe out the fact that americans helped to rebuild Japan and became friends with them as they did with Germany. This is not how most imperialist powers have done, especially the Islamic nations, after conquering another country or what the russians have done in the past. America is still the best example out there, even if they have been on the wrong course for a long time, the europeans or asians have never been on the right course as much as america was, they have nothing to be as proud of as americans have, but sadly, americans have more to lose and they have lost more because of corrupt D.C, yet, american spirit and friendship is far superior to most other nations out there no matter how much some liberals want to deny it.

          • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

            Finally,a voice of reason.I for one am glad we didn’t let communism or imperialism win the day.The world would be a serious,irreparable mess beyond salvation.

          • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

            Yes. It must be hard to accept Truth as authority when you’ve obediently chosen authority over truth all your Life.

            The world today is certainly a paradise of freedom, equality and plenty isn’t it?

          • Rich H

            What? What an aboslute load of bull.

        • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

          That was disturbing,get help for your twisted world view.

    • T. Montz

      You can see why people hate us because most of us are so brain washed by this system that we refuse to believe that our military would dare violate human rights. Those who have broken their hold dont know what to do and truly wonder what one person can do to change this. You try to wake up your friends and family but the system has a tight grip. Our tax money and hard work has funded these evil acts against our fellow man. But what goes around comes around, Im sure the planners are planning something big for us.

      • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

        People do,but our policy is humane.Have you seen John McCain walk around.That was humane
        according to the Japanese.Get captured by extremist Islam,they whack off your head.They’ve been doing that before America even existed.How about those German deathcamps.All of the inhumane acts they committed were their prisoner policies.Fail.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      Fuck you,go to hell or any where else.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      oh russia and china are bolshevik utopia? sell you a condo in potemkin village!

  • RayDuray

    Considering that Truman was not made aware of the Manhattan Project prior to being sworn in as President, I find him a rather naive person who would have been ultimately incapable of the final decision on whether or not to drop the bomb. It seems quite clear in my mind that this article is very seriously lacking in an investigation into just who it was that goaded Truman to make his fateful decision. Among those that I believe encouraged the use of the weapons on civilian targets were General Leslie Groves, Manhattan lead manager Robert Oppenheimer and Sec. of State Simpson among others. These might include OSS Chief Bill Donovan, FDR confidant Harry Hopkins and perhaps others including some like Alfred Lee Loomis mentioned in Jennet Conant’s “Tuxedo Park”. The secret involvement of Wall Street financiers and lawyers conniving to keep the Soviet Union at bay and to up the chances of U.S. corporate world dominance surely much be considered as a very dark and sinister possible motivation for American elites to do such grotesque damage to civilians in Japan.

    • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

      Apposite thinking Mr. Duray. I quite agree.

      You may find this of interest since it helps validate your conclusions.

      • RayDuray

        Broken Link. Perhaps you could re-transmit it? Thanks.

        • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

          Sorry. Try this; http://www.whale.to/b/mullins8.html

          and: http://rense.com/general67/Makowbringinghiroshima.htm

          Although these originate from “rense.com”, which tends to be a very difficult site to tolerate (I guess if you read their “disclaimer”, it becomes more understandable). Nonetheless, there is useful information, along with much that is useless and inflammatory, to be found.

          In these times, it seems that it’s occasionally necessary to dig in somewhat unsavory places to find the artifacts of truth.

          • Khadija Umayyad

            Rense.com is hilarious. Good stuff sometimes, but frankly I love the crazy stuff more. Jeff Rense’s hair alone makes me want to laugh.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bradley.slavik Bradley Slavik

      No, Oppenheimer was definitely not in favor of using the Bombs. Truman saw him later and was quite irritated by his statement about having “blood on his (Oppenheimer’s) hands”

      • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

        “The scientists who had built the atomic bomb were gleeful when they received
        the news of its success at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the book, Robert
        Oppenheimer, Dark Prince, by Jack Rummel, 1992, we find, p.96, “Back in the
        United States the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was greeted with a mixture of
        relief, pride, joy, shock and sadness. Otto Frisch remembers the shouts of joy,
        ‘Hiroshima has been destroyed!’ ‘Many of my friends were rushing to the
        telephone to book tables at the La Fonda Hotel in Santa Fe in order to
        celebrate. Oppenheimer walked around “like a prizefighter, clasping his hands
        together above his head as he came to the podium”.”

        You might want to read the following essay; http://www.whale.to/b/mullins8.html. It may be possible that Oppenheimer was consumed by guilt after the fact, but at the time of the destruction of Hiroshima he was evidently elated.

    • T. Montz

      American elites = Global elites

      • Khadija Umayyad

        Yeah, pretty much.

  • ForestSilverwood

    I dono about the Japanese giving up before the atomic bomb. They are a proud people.

    Though, it’s very hard to argue with this article. It has proper citations and everything. Every news article should have proper citations.

    • mary

      ForestSilverwood, you would to well to look up a little history. The Japanese gov’t was trying to surrender for six months before the bomb. Truman would not respond. The barbarians were waiting for their Little Boy to be born. Instead of having an opinion, why don’t you do some research and speak from facts???

      • Gil

        Barbarians there was nothing noble or civilised about the Japanese Imperialism of before and during the WW2 period.

    • Khadija Umayyad

      Given it was a pointless war the USA could have easily avoided or just quit – does it matter? Why did the USA need to conquer Japan?

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      look….the british fire bombed dresden to get back at germany for bombing london with v-2 rockets.battan death march was not cricket. we a-bombed japan to get back at them for pearl harbor………….I now drive a camry and a kawasaki ninja 1000………..forgive and forget.

  • Time is running short

    Except for perhaps
    the economic and military options open to the United States in the years since
    its leadership decided to conclude ‘the good war’ with two big bangs, there
    seems to have been little change governing the thinking of those who call the
    shots, so to speak. No serious person
    believes that Iran, even
    with nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to the United States or Israel – which already has at least
    200 nuclear weapons of its own as well as the delivery systems to actually use
    them.

    If the first use of nuclear weapons was “to browbeat
    the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”, their next use against Iran will be
    for pretty much the same purpose. Make
    no mistake about it, whether Iran’s
    nuclear facilities are attacked with conventional or tactical nuclear weapons
    the release of radioactivity from such an attack will be the third time the United States
    has used ‘nuclear weapons’ against those whom its leaders tell their people are
    our ‘enemies’.

    This time, instead of our ABILITY to use them, which no one can seriously
    doubt, the purpose will be to demonstrate our WILLINGNESS to use nuclear
    weapons – to the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians (of course) and anyone else
    considering challenging U.S.
    global dominance. If the Russians didn’t buckle in the years
    following WWII when they had nothing to defend themselves against these weapons
    but a bunch of old battle-worn tanks, there is little reason to expect they
    will fold now when they have enough of them to destroy the United States at
    least once over. ‘Star Wars’ / ‘missile
    defense’ is not even ‘an experiment’. It
    is little more than an expensive prop to back a high-stakes bluff.

    The Russians and Chinese know this.
    (Parking ‘missile defense’
    installations on their borders may change the odds a little – but not
    much.) Our only hope this bluff might
    work is for our ‘leaders’ (sic) to pretend they do not know missile defense is
    a bluff. So who are our ‘leaders’? Who would be crazy enough, psychopathic
    enough to attempt such a madcap gamble?
    Why none other than the people who brought you the continuing Great
    Recession which started in 2008, the people willing to hold hostage the global
    economy, to plunge the ‘useless eaters’ of the world into austerity (i.e. those
    who don’t make the toys with which they can play their diplomatic ‘Great Games’
    or the ‘toxic waste’ they ‘financially engineer’ using ‘thin air’ as the only
    resource input).

    Ladies and Gentlemen: I give you
    Wall Street, its banks and their clones around the world!

    P.S. ‘Washington’ – I know you know this! Why didn’t you say it?

    • regimechange7

      You, friend, understand.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      That’s precisely why we developed a 30,000lb. b-buster.Thank God N,Koreas bombs haven’t worked……………………yet.It’s not for lack of trying.You seem to want to trust untrustable psychopaths.
      Would you have them over for dinner? Good luck with that.

      • newyork1974

        No nuclear-armed country has ever used atomic weapons, except for the United States. All have used them as a deterrent against attack by a more powerful adversary, except for the United States. The United States used them against a country which US officials knew did not have atomic weapons, and has continually threatened to use them against one non-nuclear country after another. We remember calls to “nuke Hanoi” (which had done nothing to the United States), “nuke Iran,” etc., etc. That is not just a call from a segment of the US public. It is official US policy to “take nothing off the table,” in other words, leave open the threat to “nuke” enemy after enemy, real or imagined.

        The “bunker busters” are madness. Already, the use of “depleted uranium” weapons (40% depleted) have caused widespread cancer in the areas where the US has used them, especially affecting children. The half-life of those “depleted uranium” weapons is 4 billion years, the age of the sun. It would be bad enough if it were four years — think of the number of children dying from leukemia. It would be insane if it were 4 thousand years — more than recorded history. It would be unimaginable if it were 4 million years. But it is 4 billion years.

        Untrustable psychopaths? Mr. Wilson, I think you should look closer to home.

    • Johnny Brainetree

      We are going to get ours one day. What goes around comes around. Read about it in Revelation 18, the destruction of earth’s most wealthy civilization, which is utterly burnt with fire in the space of only one hour. Only nuclear destruction could accomplish such a feat in an hour. The merchants of the earth will mourn, for in one hour “is so great riches come to naught.”

      • Neil Bayemo

        Actually, the Bible is talking about Saudi Arabia. A nation who all of the world got drunk with and slept with (the Harlot, Saudi oil, etc). I don’t know what’s in store for America, but even the Quran says their Anti-Christian war mongering leader will destroy mecca in an instant. Recently, the leader of ISIS mentioned several times that he will obliterate Mecca because of idol worship (as is expected by the Muslim messiah, despite the fact that Mecca is a “holy” site).

        Islam and Christianity both agree that Rev 18 is about Mecca which sits on 7 hills, not Rome and not America.

    • regimechange7

      Much rhetoric,,, Few facts.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      Gen Patton knew the Bolsheviks should have been pushed out of eastern europe at the end of ww2……wanted to take berlin out from under stalin, was told no by ike. he was assassinated by OSS/NKVD for not going along with the allies stupid, misguided plans

      Rothschilds, Warburgs, Morgans, and the rest of the international bank cabal has made trillions off of the cold war. war on terror is the new red herring. morons don’t care….its super bowl time.
      FDR, Eisenhower,Churchill, Morganthau, Marshall, Donovon et al all in their own way gave aid and comfort to the commie stalin. Joe McCarthy was vindicated by the vernona intercepts.(more commies traitors than even he imagined in us govt) Hopkins, White, Hiss all helped stalin screw over commie lover FDR at Yalta. operation keelhaul resulted from their handy work. rosenbergs and oppenheimer gave commies a-bomb secrets.

      American political hacks and moronic statesmen of both parties are retards………just look at hillary and kerry-nothing has changed. Democrats seem to be closet Bolsheviks at heart.

      read Target Patton by Robert K Wilcox 2008

  • wunsacon

    George, thank you for collecting so many quotes from prominent military leaders speaking out contemporaneously against the decision to drop the bomb. I find this pretty convincing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chernobyl-Children-Fukushima-Children/100002359176176 Chernobyl Children Fukushima C

    FRANCK REPORT 1945 -> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were avoidable:
    “Much more favorable conditions for the eventual achievement of such an
    agreement could be created if nuclear bombs were first revealed to the
    world by a demonstration in an appropriately selected uninhabited area.”
    signed by SEABORG (discovered Plutonium) SZILARD (conceived nuclear
    chain reaction) http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/franck.html

  • Canbeus

    Thank you for that well documented
    explanation and concise conclusion. As we continue to look deeper
    into the reasons for many of histories actions and actors, we tend to
    find more conspiracy and agendas

    then one would think possible.

  • angryspittle

    This is news? i was teaching history 40 years ago and telling my students that it was used to show the Russians what we had and was kind of a declaration of cold war.

    • meh

      youre right, its not really what can called be called news in the sense that it is a breaking story, but it does bear repeating often, because theres still a lot of people who dont know about this, and for them, it certainly is news, and the BS version of history is still peddled ad nauseam without shame..

      maybe if you want to go around splitting hairs and trying to BIGNOTE yourself, you could do it on some of the more “MAINSTREAM NEWS” sites that are perpetuating lies.. and explain to them where theyre getting it wrong,

      but besides all that, this site is called washingtons BLOG.. not
      new york times.. theres is absolutely no requirement that every article
      posted here be “NEWS”

    • wunsacon

      It’s news to the majority of people.

    • Barbara

      My dad fought in WWII. He never mentioned how the bombings were the start of the cold war. None of my history and government teachers did either. I went to fairly conservative schools.
      Truman has the bombing victims blood on his hands
      The fact that the military did not want the bombs is very telling.

  • Rehmat

    The nuclear bombs were used against Japan and why not against Germany? Harry Truman was dead against using atomic bomb over Europe as it would have tens of thousands of White folks.
    The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the ultimate terror markers set down by Washington and its British ally – not just to the Soviet Union, but to the entire world. The holocaust of civilians was an essential and deliberate calculus of the terror threat that these powers have retained ever since. Admittedly, other states were to later acquire the weapons of mass destruction. But the threat of nuclear annihilation in the world remains a peculiarly American prerogative. No other state has ever used such weapons, and no other state has a nuclear arsenal comparable to America.

    America’s bullying tactics have not changed since then. Recently, Barack Obama gave a speech at the White House to war veterans, saying: “We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific… We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea – nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. We’re leading on behalf of freedom.”
    These are not the words and reasoning of a president. They are the words and reasoning of a psychopathic power.

    http://rehmat1.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/

    • lanceman

      The Germans surrendered 2 months before the bomb was even tested.

      • Khadija Umayyad

        The Germans would have surrendered much earlier if not for the experience of both World Wars that taught them Anglo-America was bent on exterminating the German race. Which is where Hitler got the idea.

    • Leo

      Correct assessment, especially your sentence “The threat of nuclear annihilation in the world remains a peculiarly
      American prerogative. No other state has ever used such weapons, and no
      other state has a nuclear arsenal comparable to America.”

      Indeed, to this day the American administration has never ruled out even a preemptive nuclear strike.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      Racist.Why not just drop one or two over north Africa? Oh wait,we saved them too.

      • Khadija Umayyad

        Yeah, we sure ‘saved’ Africa. God, it’s like Singapore over there.
        A twit and a twat.

    • Simon Gunson

      Actually USA did threaten to use nukes against Germany via the German legation in Lisbon. This fact was cited in conversations secretly recorded at farm Hall when Heisenberg noted that one of Goering’s aids von Brauttisch was sent to gain Heisenberg’s opinion whether the Americans were capable of developing the atomic bomb so soon?
      In late March 1944 the previously top secret B-29 was given a highly publicised tour of the UK to make sure hitler got the message. The aircraft in question was YB-41-36963 “Hobo Queen”

      I think you actually ignore the fact that America was not the bully which started WW2 and in fact sat on it’s hands doing nothing from 1939 until the end of 1941 when it was attacked.

  • Brian Donnelly

    My entire thinking changed on this subject when I discovered that Japan had an ongoing atomic weapon program itself. In fact, their prime research facility was located in what is now North Korea. I think if you want to understand why the atomic bomb was dropped and why the Korean war developed the way it did, if you’re cognizant of the Japanese atomic weapon program – well things become clearer.

    • http://twitter.com/nuclearcom Steve Schulin

      Hi Brian – I’ve seen a 1946 front page story from Atlanta Constitution about this, but nothing else. [Ref: Did you know that Japan successfully tested an a-bomb on Aug 12, 1945? – http://news.nuclear.com/index.php/n-weapons/did-you-know-that-japan

    • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

      Please provide your sources. I would be interested in learning more. Would you?

      I know there may have been some rudimentary research being done by the Japanese but it never progressed beyond the laboratory and the war would have been over, without the use of atomic weapons, long before they could have achieved a weapon of their own.

      I have read some accounts claiming that the emperor stopped the research and forbade its resumption. The same has been said of Germany. I can’t be certain of the veracity of the claim but I have read accounts stating that even Hitler wanted nothing to do with it.

      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium12.htm

  • roberthurst157

    Yes, a business decision by civilian leaders, not a military decision. It’s one minor problem with civilian control of the military. Sounds like a great plan, unless our civilian leaders are more bloodthirsty and immoral than our military leaders.

    One aspect of the story that still flies under the radar: a number of American POWs were incinerated in the Nagasaki blast. We knew they were there.

    • mary

      I have to disagree. The problem isn’t civilian control of the military. The problems, as our forebears knew very well is a large, centralized gov’t with too much power.

      • wunsacon

        >> The problems, as our forebears knew very well is a large, centralized gov’t with too much power.

        No, regrettably, that’s not the problem either. It’s worse than that. Your “forebears” were a bloodthirsty lot, too. The problem is the way many people who want to lead, control, acquire, etc. are wired. And those who aren’t so greedy (or capable) are easily fooled. We all are who we are.

        • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

          hey that cumbag Carl Icahn is still going after companies at age 88………no 8 billion dollars is not enough for this clown…….got to have more, don’t care who I destroy to get it. started it all off by sucking 900 million of equity out of Trans World Airlines (TWA) 65,000 employees thrown out on street. way to go carl you money-changing creep.

      • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

        Actually we have no “government” in this country. Nor do most of the “advanced nations”.

        What we and they do have is a cesspool of greedy, minor psychopaths, completely owned and controlled by a privately held, for-profit international banking cartel; an even darker and ranker cesspool of really major psychopaths.

        And these bankers, who also own and control our “Federal Reserve”, which is not federal and has no reserves, though quite unlike most of us normal folks, are civilians nonetheless; of a sort. Pathological.

        And that, mary, is the real problem; a privatised monetary system, owned and operated by a psychopathic, wannabe “Master Race”, which really took control of america in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act and is about to finally take full, totalitarian control of Earth.

        Welcome to the third world planet.

        • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

          as long as the Rothschilds make interest off your car note……its all good! now move along and watch the stupidbowl useful idiot.

    • Gil

      So? Contrary to what you have believed in “Rambo 2″ there’s no expectation you’ll get saved if you’re taken prisoner by the enemy much less a bombing raid will stopped because it will take out friendly prisoners.

  • GIl

    It is should be well known that the Japanese were so desperate to continue to fight to the very end that they were training children to face an invading army with wooden spears. There’s no indication whatsoever they intended to surrender without the atomic bombs. Likewise Hiroshima are Nagasaki were quite clearly valid military targets. Apparently, people here forget the Postham Declaration: surrender now or face destruction. The Japanese leaders made the choice to have the atomic bombs dropped on them. Only when did the Japanese rulers know the U.S. military now had a new weapon in which the Japanese could not retaliate only then did they finally make the smart move to surrender.

    However, ultimately, since both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities is proof that the hatred against the atomic bomb is unfounded. It’s not much more deadly than conventional bombings. After all, where the same hatred for, say, napalm?

    • mary

      utter baloney. they had been trying to surrender for months through diplomatic channels. The policy of demanding unconditional surrender was the cause of the Japanese and German “determination” to fight to the bitter end. Use a little perspective, for goodness sake.

      • Gil

        Revisionist B.S.! Who’s “they”? Surrender by definition is unconditional. Put down your arms and cease hostilities. Even a Libertarian gets it:

        http://www.johntreed.com/rulesofengagement.html

        • wrothbard

          Utter tripe! Surrender is by no means unconditional. That’s why people use terms like ‘unconditional surrender’ when a demand for or offer of an unconditional surrender is issued.

          • Gil

            Your confusing surrender with a truce. Both sides seeking a truce is when both sides aren’t going to win but stuck in a stalemate. The Japanese were well into losing so they were no position to call a truce but surrender. Your notion like others that the Japanese leaders were quietly negotiating a surrender has not one scrap of evidence and only exists in revisionist apologist literature. Doubly so considering this was the first time Japan was about to lose a war. Instead they were expecting and preparing for an invasion by the Allies.

          • wrothbard

            Was Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Grant unconditional? No.
            In fact, unconditional surrender was a demand made to several southern generals, but they were specifically demanded to surrender unconditionally.

  • http://www.simplesearch.com/ California Architect

    Overall, dropping the bombs helped keep the Soviet Union at bay. Considering that Russia lost a war to Japan in 1905, revenge and a land grab seemed likely. Although the 1905 war predated the communist revolution, at least it shows that the Soviet Union in 1945 had motives other than to help its ally, the US.
    On the other hand, Japan was so stubborn that they didn’t surrender after Hiroshima. It took another bomb. So, the alternative of using only conventional forces to get stubborn Japan to surrender seems like it would have taken too long and cost too many American lives. (I know the article says otherwise.)
    Most likely, as are many big events in history, both of these were factors that influenced Truman. One does not have to come at the expense of the other. Ending the war quickly to save American lives, and keeping the Soviets at bay were the deciding factors.

    • Fred

      The deciding factor was to see what happens when you drop a nuclear bomb on a city.

    • Gil

      Tens of million of lives were lost in WW2 and only 200,000 were from atomic attack. Hence the dropping atomic bombs pales into comparison with conventional firebombing.

  • barrylando

    Must read…on why the U.S. used the Bomb on Japan!

  • anmpr1

    Was the A-bomb any worse than what the allies did at Dresden? I didn’t think so.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bradley.slavik Bradley Slavik

      Think it through. Are you positing that the Germans were seriously mulling over the idea of surrendering at the time of Dresden?

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

        But there was no military reason to destroy Dresden, it was just mass murder of German civilians.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LY6BBJVEDPQMNRLYL4NSGBY7Q4 JumpStart

          Yeah and I have noticed how concerned the Germans were when they were murdering Jewish citizens.

          • anmpr1

            The Jewish thing is mostly war propaganda. There was no systematic genocide of Jews. Or at least there are good grounds for questioning such a proposition. But to even raise the question is to be ridiculed, or worse if one lives in Europe. Ever wonder why it is against the law to question it in much of Europe? If it were true, there would be no need for laws against this sort of revisionism. But the victors make the rules.

            Dresden was simply English anger. The military aspect of the target was questionable, and those killed were certainly mostly non-combatants. But that’s war, for you. If we’d have done the same thing to Hanoi, that war’s outcome would have been different. Whether it would have been ‘moral’ in the sense of the just war, I’ll leave others do decide.

          • Rich H

            The Jewish “thing” was “propoganda.” Now I need some links for that.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NAYMHQDKEQUPYQJKHZ2QZLB5DY kapt_kan

            My personal opinion is that the Nazis murdered around 4 million Jews — and that is the figure that was taught to me in school in the 1950s — but after somebody pointed out that they (and their erstwhile Soviet partners) murdered FIVE million Roman Catholic Poles, that figure magically changed to “6 million” Jewish dead.
            Even ONE person killed because of his ethnicity is a damned crime, but the propaganda war over numbers should be understood.
            Now here’s a challenge: try to find actual demographic PROOF of the 6 million figure and several things will happen:
            a) You will be immediately labelled a “Holocaust denier”
            b) You will be immediately labelled an “anti-Semite”
            c) You will be sent on a wild goose chase to various sources which simply REPEAT that number without giving access to any verifiable records which would prove its accuracy, and,
            d) If you live in Canada and most European nations you will be prosecuted for “hate crimes”.
            Meanwhile, the “Holocaust Industry” (so-named by others before me) denies, ignores, or belittles the massacre of 1.8 million Christian Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.
            The Israelis and their propagandists don’t like people to question any of the above because it is used to excuse their own bigotry and crimes against humanity in Palestine.
            So Rich and Richard, take up the challenge I gave you. It’s a very educational experience, believe me.

          • Rich H

            Much of what you say is true, but noting what the Turks did to the Armenians has nothing to do with the subject. Perhaps you think the murder of 4 million Jews doesn’t make a Holocaust. I don’t know the official figures any more than anyone else. I’ll accept the 6 to 7 million figure as scholars (who’ve done the research) have come to that conculsion.
            Perhaps the denial of eye witness reports, photographs and extraordinarily extensive records kept by the Nazis mean nothing to you.
            However, the one person I know, an old Jewish woman who lived alone in a tiny apartment in NY with a serial number tatooed on her wrist – is enough for me to know it was real.
            If you choose not believe in the Holocaust I guess that’s your perogative.

          • Khadija Umayyad

            Rich, the main objection is that it was not a “genocide” or a deliberate extermination, and certainly not as portrayed in popular media. People the Nazis took as prisoners (people thought likely to join the resistance, mainly) were starved later in the war due to the lack of available foodstuffs in Germany (thanks to the Americans and Brits). This is, of course, a problem the Nazis are also somewhat responsible for getting involved in the War but it’s certainly not a war they started or chose; they were one party – and not nearly the most important party – in deciding how WW2 turned out.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            there is not one single document/letter/written order that hitler said to kill jews. if you find one post it here.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            er……pretty racist of you. there were 13 million total killed. you only count yours because you could give two hoots about the goy. well pal, I don;t give a damm about you. from age 12-15 I was a caddy at an all jewish golf/country club in muttontown, ny (woodcrest club) that was enough for me. biggest bunch of racists bar none.( even tried to stiff us in our pay when they could-and we were only 12 years old-what a sick bunch of motherf**kers)

          • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

            You’re right KK,3 4 5 or 6 million,i think you’re missing the sad point.Genocide is unacceptable at any rate.Sad commentary in your thinking.Was there an acceptable
            number of dead that would’ve satisfied you?

          • Khadija Umayyad

            ‘Genocide’ is a made up term to cover a point of political theology.
            Murder is unacceptable. Murder is committed against individuals, by individuals. Sometimes it’s called ‘war’. Think about it.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            mao killed 80 million and all we ever do is hear about the little guy with the mustache. jews invented bolshevik communism, over 100 million have been killed……..now thats a holocaust!

          • Khadija Umayyad

            The word ‘Holocaust’ is stupid to begin with – ‘sacrifice to the gods’…what?
            Anyway, the whole ’6 million jews’ and ‘gas chambers’ story is not supported by any serious historian, it’s mainly a memetic and newspaper-dumbass thing that gets printed and reprinted forever.

            I am sure the NaziSozis killed lots of people, both by design (deliberate murder) and out of desperation (a lack of food for Germans means fuck POWs) but the way people talk about Nazis as though they were THE ULTIMATE EVIL EVAAAAR is moronic and clearly derived from a magical-thinking mythic narrative and not real history.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            dont forget to add the 5-6 million christian ukrainian kulaks murdered in the 1930′s by those commie bolshevik intellectuals who gave us uncle joe stalin. commies have killed more people than hitler could ever dream off. its ok for the israeli to kill palestinians because they are ubermench.

          • Khadija Umayyad

            There is basically no evidence for gas chambers. It doesn’t even make sense – you shoot people, why would you gas them? That’s a logistical nightmare. Starvation and concentration camps, yes; and that DID happen. Whether it was systematically directed at Jewish populations or if those were just the ones who the Nazis rounded up because they felt threatened – I don’t know.

            Nazis were bastards, but people really need to stop believing the WW1-level of bullshit mythology about them.

          • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

            Please provide your references. I’d like to learn more.

          • Ninny Mouse

            Jeepers,Elvis,you are about as funny as a Smitty on a hearse.

          • Khadija Umayyad

            The Americans were also in the war to impose their political ideology, and not for the Jews anyway, so the whole ‘HOLLAHKOST’ thing is moot.

          • a name

            so what was the London Blitz then? i wonder why the English were angry

          • Sam

            Yeah and I have noticed how concerned the Americans were when they were torturing and murdering innocent Muslims.

          • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

            Lorili is quite right.

            That wasn’t the average german citizen JumpStart. That was their “leaders”.

            Following your logic, we should be prepared for the air forces of a multitude of nations to firebomb manhatten since americans have shown equal concern about murdering iraqi citizens; and afghan, and chilean, and native americans, and filipinos, and guatemalans, and vietnamese, and nicaraguan, and cambodian, and, and, and…

          • Khadija Umayyad

            You mean because they were harassed and harried by the 3 largest empires in the world and had millions of POWs and resistance soldiers?
            Hmm, maybe the Fucking USA should mind its own business?
            Do you know anything about Anglo-American post-war genocides in WW1 and WW2? No, because you’re a wanker bent on rationalizing your baseless political-historical views for identarian comfort reasons. Eat two dicks and fuck yourself in the morning, cunt.

          • John

            Start with yourself twat :)

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            yes just read about the morganthau plan…….that guy is a war criminal! and to think they shot pvt eddie solvik for running out of the hertgen forrest death factory. would love to read a true book about ww2.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            Yeah and I noticed how concerned Jews were when godless bolshevik “intellectual jews” were murdering millions of christian russians and ukrainians in 1917 and 1932.

        • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

          pay back for bombing London.

    • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

      Yes. Absolutely. Not just for what it did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but for what it brought forth into the world.

      How much success do you think you would have utterly destroying every structure and killing every living thing on the planet, many times over, with some B52′s and a bunch of incendiary weapons?

      You’re right. You didn’t think. Try doing so! At least occasionally. Please.

      • anmpr1

        Richard: Last time I checked, no one with any credible credentials ever said or argued that every structure on the planet could be “utterly destroyed,” and all life vanquished by nuclear bombs. Back in the 50s and 60s that was a popular idea one often encountered, and one that was bandied about by the media, pacifists, and certain sci-fi writers (movies such as “On the Beach”, where the culprit was supposed to be fallout). But no one who thought it through believed it was ever possible. Your idea that men could ever do it “many times over” is an even more fanciful notion.

        By the way, nuclear weapons are in part really just another form of incendiary weapon, although the idea behind their use is different from the Dresden and Tokyo conventional bombing sorties, inasmuch as a lot of the damage from a nuclear attack would be due to the shock-wave radiating outward after the fireball dissipates. But given the proper precautions, it would be very survivable as long as one was not in the immediate blast vicinity.

        Actually, an argument could be made for MAD. It is surprising that since the proliferation of nukes, they have not been used as far as we know. Can’t say that about conventional weapons.

        And thanks for the hint about thinking. I’ll try. At least occasionally.

        • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

          The point is that a single large yield nuclear weapon can do the damage, and much more when radiation is considered, that was done by the firestorms of dresden.

          An argument can be made for just about anything. That doesn’t make it valid.

          I find your casual dismissal of the potential destructive capabilities of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons very disturbing. Even frightening.

          You’re entitled to your opinion and I hold your right to disagree as dearly as my own. And so we shall agree to disagree.

          • Gil

            I remember reading where the author noted to the tune of:

            “So what if there’s enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone several times over? There’s also enough conventional bombs to kill everyone. There’s enough guns, knives, rocks, etc”

            The conventional bombings of WW1 and WW2 left the landscape desolate for some time. In fact in WW1 the battlefield could so become barren that when heavy rains came down the land became so dangerously muddy that men and work animals could quite literally drown.

          • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

            OK Gil. You and anmpr1 are absolutely right. Nukes are peachy-keen!

            To save the american economy and make sure that MAD, the most sane and pragmatic of policies, is completely successful, we should expand the production of nuclear weapons and sell them to every nation on Earth!

            That way we can boost our economy and be absolutely sure that nobody will ever use nukes again! Not that it matters anyway because nukes are really no worse than any other conventional munitions.

            And now I’m done with this pointless debate. Apparently simply agreeing to disagree is not acceptable and only “victory” or “defeating the opponent” will do. Therefore, you “win”.

            Happy now or must I sing a document verifying my “unconditional surrender”?

          • Gil

            No, you prefer to put as though war was fun and friendly before nuclear weapons. Or that wholesale destruction of towns and cities was impossible before atomic bombs when in fact it has occurred for thousands of years. In other words, the atomic bombs didn’t much change the body count.

          • Khadija Umayyad

            1) Radiophobia is absurd, the chances are that radiation are a fairly minimal danger. If you get enough RADS to worry about you will most likely be burned to death (or nearly) by sheer energy output anyway.

            2) Nuclear weapons are actually extremely inefficient, because they are massively overpowered at the epicenter and most of the energy is wasted on non-target areas in a bloom around the weapon.

            3) Nuclear weapons are not remotely as practically destructive as the trillions of tons of conventional explosives, which are also cheaper and more versatile.

            Don’t believe anything hippies, liberals or the French say. Even the anti-war hippies are anti-war for all the wrong reasons.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Hallforde/100000730047945 Eric Hallforde

          Heat wave,
          Shockwave then fireball dumbass :(

          • anmpr1

            The fireball incinerates anything within its radius, and then the shockwave continues to damage above-ground structures long after the fireball has dissipated. AS W-P explains: [blast energy] causes vaporization of surrounding material resulting in its rapid expansion. Kinetic energy created by this expansion contributes to the formation of a shockwave.

            In actuality, they are effects from the same cause. But what I was writing about, and what you disingenuously mischaracterize, or maybe don’t understand in your attempt to be clever, is that the shock wave persists outward long after the fireball is gone. And this shockwave produces damage far away from ground zero. Dumbass.

      • tachyonzero

        Casuality figures are over estimated by the Nazi in order to pullout from the Geneva Convention.

    • Khadija Umayyad

      No, it’s not, it’s not nearly as bad; but in all cases everyone on the airplanes, in the command, all the guys who signed on, etc. should have been taken into the desert, shot and buried in an unmarked grave like the subhumans they are.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      was it any different than what the US mllitary brass did to the regular us army at the Hertgen Forrest?

  • doug_w

    There were plans to drop one on Berlin, but Germany surrendered before the first test bomb was successfully detonated in New Mexico.

  • Mike

    I wonder how much radioactive fallout the US population (especially in New Mexico) were exposed to during the Manhattan Project?

    While not as devastating as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I would bet the radioactive contamination released in New Mexico from the years of atmospheric testing has had a negative impact to the US population.

  • T. Montz

    Wow, “scientist like to play with their toys” so hit with my recent thoughts on all these recent wars, Iraq I (when Iraqis surrendered before a fight, some new technology was used) and currently Afganistan (rumors of it being a lab for scientific research using new technology and medicine). Also Voltaire did a report on Gauntanamo Bay and how there is extensive medical experiments going on there). Our military has become as bad as Nazi Germany funded by our hard work and money, and major media being run by these same people. I pray for mass awakening, we can not be complicit with such evil. Sad part their machine is so well implemented that you cannot wake up hardly anyone. I commend this blog for speaking truth in these dangerous times.

  • jimbo987

    they were the only 2 Christian cities in Japan.sacrifice is wat it was.

  • jimbo987

    there was no need to bomb em they would of surrendered

  • Deuce

    I’ve heard accounts of the Manhattan project scientists being given 4 choices around using the bomb:
    1) Don’t use it
    2) Drop it
    3) Tell Japan about it and offer them a chance to surrender
    4) Demonstrate it over the Pacific then give Japan a chance to surrender

    Everyone involved who later commented on this has claimed that they voted for ’4′, because it would give Japan a chance to see the reality of the bomb and make the best choice in the interest of sparing innocent lives. Obviously option 4 was not chosen and many took the guilt of it to their death.

    As an interesting side note, I went to high school with a kid by the name of Ken Oppenheimer. Not hard to guess who his great grandfather was. Even back when I believed the public school version of events, it didn’t seem to mesh with the subdued demeanor this kid and his family still carried 3-4 generations later. He certainly wasn’t the image of the great grandson of the man who ‘brought a swift end to the world’s worst war’, but rather always seemed troubled beyond his years. I later came to understand the dejected look this kid seemed to always wear. Think about if your grandfather led one of the greatest achievements in the modern era, then someone stole it and used it to commit the worst massacre in the history of mankind. And then you had to walk around with the same name. That was pretty much the look. And it spoke volumes about the ugly realities this story exposes, which I don’t doubt for a second.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      Yes,ending the worlds worst war was the worst that could happen,not the 50,000,000 people that died
      because Germany & Japan wanted to rule the world.That was just fine with appeasers like you.
      You are sickening.

      • Khadija Umayyad

        The idea that a central european shitty socialist country (Germany) could ‘rule the world’, especially invade a gigantic and (would-have-been, if it avoided the war) massively populated, super-wealthy capitalist country is moronic.
        You’re not only sickening, you’re a fucking idiot who believes blatant fairy tales.

      • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

        er……rule the world……….more like the international cabal of money-chainging bankers wanted to make billions on the divide and conquer game.fast forward to the resulting cold war and you move on to trillions. think rothschild or warberg!

    • morons-the-lot-of-you

      Oppenheimer is a more common name than you might think. Are you sure you didn’t just make up this factionalized psycho analysis of your high school peer to assuage some other personal foible you might have like being a closet homosexual?

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      maybe they were sad because the grandfather was a stinking commie bolshevik traitor…….to bad he wasn’t sitting on the lap of rosenberg when they threw the switch on “old sparky”!

  • T. Montz

    The global elite are very much into numerology. I know it sound like hocus pocus but just research their secret societies, Thelema, and the numbers 33, 9 11, 777, 93, 7 11. Ring any bells. The atomic bombs were supposedly dropped near the 32 or 33 lines because of this. This stuff has occurred since the start of America. Just research all the important and odd events to occur on 9 11. And they will mix these numbers in all sorts of combinations so that the common folk don’t recognize a pattern. Also research 911 mega ritual. There is a book by S. K. Bain (The Most Dangerous Book in the World) that explains this in detail and how the elite continually mock our ignorance in the media. This guy should know he worked amongst these elite.Time for all to wake up to the reality that we are in far more serious trouble since the world is being run by psychopaths. No telling what they have planned for future events.

    • http://www.aaronsocio.com/ Aaron Socio

      They are going to pay.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

    As if the US government has ever been concerned with saving lives.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      murder incorporated! FDR and Wild Bill Donovon head of the OSS during ww2 had Gen Patton assassinated because he knew they were kissing stalin’s ass.

  • Walt D.

    The underlying theme here is that there was something more barbaric about dropping an atomic bomb as opposed to using conventional methods. This is not true. The fire bombing of Dresden killed more people. The fire bombing of Tokyo, had it been escalated would have killed more people. How many people were killed in the battle of Stalingrad? How many civilians? Nearly 400,000 died at the battle of the Somme. How many people died at the battle of Gettysberg? War is hell. The best way to avoid these attrocities is to not go to war in the first place.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      50,000,000 died overall.We didn’t start it,by God we finished it!

      • Chris

        The US did defeat Japan but here’s some perspective for you; WWII was between Russia and Germany. Japan was a sideshow in importance.

        Germany used ~85% of its military resources against Russia.

        Germany lost 75%-90% of its men fighting against Russia.

        Head spinning yet?

        • Rhotel1

          My late Dad and a lot of others participated in this sideshow. My late neighbor was Infantryman who was overrun by Japanese on Makin Island and acquired two Purple Hearts before being sent home. You really really need to read a lot more real history!

          • darkestglam

            You were fighting not on your territory, you were invaders.

      • Khadija Umayyad

        The US did start it, as much as England and Germany did. ‘Economic” sanctions and providing arms to an enemy across a war-front ARE ACTS OF WAR. Roosevelt STARTED the war with Japan and Germany, Japan and Germany just had the respect for international law to FORMALIZE what Americans started.

        Germany and Japan could have avoided war, too; as could have England, or Poland. None of them tried, because all governments are criminal thugs who most likely deserve to be hung.

        • Demetrius Excilius

          Khidija, maybe you forgot about WWI. Economic sanctions were imposed on Germany due to and after their participation and escalation of WWI. When it was realized Germany couldn’t repay it’s debt (duh) Western bankers pulled their funding. It did in turn create economic hardship which was horrid but Hitler DID start WWII along with Italy, Japan and other, less well known countries. His perceived persecution of Germany by the West (see Mein Kampf – if you have access to it) led him to believe that he was the chosen leader to get back at the west for Germany’s troubles. Germany and its propaganda machine LIED to it’s people for years after starting the war.

          It may not have been “right” for the western countries to perform the economic acts they did, but it certainly was not right for Hitler to enter Poland, kill it and keep on destroying country after country and performing genocide against Jews, Blacks, the handicapped, Russians, etc.

          • gayvonshitskin

            oh stfu you nigger-loving, marxist piece of shit. khidija just explained how the US and its allies provoked hitler into starting the war, and how none of these governments were inherently good, but you drone on about the poor wittle kikes, niggers and your other ugly, beloved minorities. i don’t give a shit about 6 million dead jews in the holohoax. jews were gassed my ass, and even if they were, what good have they done for the West since being saved? twerking, cRap music, black muslim presidents, MTV pop culture?

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            er……..russia invaded eastern poland 7 days after germany did………..didn’t see churchill declaring war on russia. russia killed 25,000 polish military officers and tried to blame germany, came clean in the 1990′s and made offical apology.
            hitler hated the bolshevik commies, unlike commie lover FDR, he wanted to kick them out once and for all. even Patton said we went to war against the wrong people……….that and other things he thought got him assassinated by the oss/nkvd. FDR and his commie staff handed eastern europe to uncle joe stalin on a silver platter. forced others back to russia during operation keelhaul…..millions murdered by FDR’s pal good old joe.Patton’s 3rd army could have pushed stalin out of eastern europe and back to russian border. we should have given hitler lend/lease to kill off all the bolsheviks in russia once and for all……and tossed in a few a-bombs in the end into moscow for good measure. stalin was the bigger problem, hitler could have been contained or gotton rid of like saddam hussein. stalin played all these dopes, except gen patton.

      • Dan Jarrett

        its still going on.

      • 1autumn

        “It” is NOT finished!! Still going on, same PTB at work! When does “it” stop?

    • newyork1974

      35,000 died in Dresden. US officials exaggerated the numbers, boosting them to 80,000 to minimize the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings — one of the more convoluted episodes of Cold War propaganda. But 35,000 was horrible enough. As to whether there was any point to the bombing, you could check out Kurt Vonnegut’s book Slaughterhouse Five. He was a US POW in Dresden at the time, and naturally studied the bombing afterward. He saw absolutely no point

      • Simon Gunson

        Newyork1974 you mention bombing Dresden however you overlook that as early as july 1944 USA threatened to nuke dresden unless the nazis desisted developing nuclear weapons themselves. It was no accident that dresden was chosen since that was home to the Reichsforschungsrat plasma physics laboratory of professor Max Steenbeck who helped develop a particle accelerator for the purpose of transmuting Thorium into weapons grade Uranium 233. Much modern handwringing and soul searching about the terrible bombing of dresden overlooks the fact that this city hosted a vital component of the nazi atomic bomb project.

      • Jonnymack

        Actually it was the Nazis who exaggerated the dead so as to show the barbarity of the ”terror fliers”of the Allies. There was no point in bombing Warsaw or Rotterdam,London and Coventry either. Nor was there any point to Auschwitz. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan deliberately provoked a war they had every intention of winning. These two nations are directly responsible for a six year cataclysm humanity barely survived . And the German people at the time committed the most monstrous crime in all of history– The Holocaust and they have the unmitigated gall to call themselves victims. I’m sick and tired of this moral relevance bs. Had either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan had the bomb they wouldn’t have hesitated to use.

        • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

          er……most monstrous crime in history? the millions of ukrainian kulaks that godless bolshevik stalin killed in the 1930′s would beg to differ. the 80 million that mao murdered would beg to differ. the millions of def pow’s and german civilians killed/murdered/starved in the” revenge” holocaust known as the morganthau plan would beg to differ. millions of people killed as a result of FDR’s Operation Keelhaul would beg to differ. truth be told their have been many holocausts throughout history…….how come we only hear about one 24/7, and in that one we only hear about 6 million, not the 13 million in total, or for that matter the 60 million killed throughout the world during ww2? the truth has a certain ring to it…..why don’t you start telling it!

          • 1autumn

            Bravo, been making the same point for decades…for naught.

    • Jonnymack

      Ah, you might want to check your facts on the Somme(July 1,1916). The total for Britain on that day was about 60,000 . Roughly half that number killed and the other wounded, captured or missing in action.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.plummer Joe Plummer

    Good List. For those who have a copy of “Tragedy and Hope” handy, here is another reference:

    862, paragraph 2, “Some people, like General Groves, wanted it to be used to justify the $2 billion they had spent. A large group sided with him because the Democratic leaders in Congress had authorized these expenditures outside proper congressional procedures and had cooperated in keeping them from almost all members of both houses by concealing them under misleading appropriation headings. Majority Leader John W. McCormack (later Speaker) once told me, half joking, that if the bomb had not worked he expected to face penal charges….Jack Madigan said: ‘If the project succeeds, there won’t be any investigation. If it doesn’t, they won’t investigate anything else.’ Moreover, some air-force officers were eager to protect the relative position of their service in the postwar demobilization and drastic reduction of financial appropriations by using a successful A-bomb drop as an argument that Japan had been defeated by air power rather than by naval or ground forces.”

    Paragraph 3: “…Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War Alfred McCormack, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation, felt that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone: ‘The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary. But General Norstad declared at Washington that this blockading action was a cowardly proceeding unworthy of the Air Force. It was therefore discontinued.’”

    … So, just in case you missed it, winning the war without causing unnecessary civilian suffering, that’s cowardly. However, incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and causing unimaginable suffering among countless more…I guess that’s the ‘brave’ thing to do.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      hey they got their jollies off fire bombing dresden……….no military value. morganthau plan got its pound of flesh. yet these same people called hitler a monster?

  • apivetta

    Any way you cut it, Truman targeted civilians, as did FDR in his “conventional” firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. You may argue these two helmsmen of the Benevolent Hegemon did so only to advance the Greater Good, but every terrorist makes the claim. The Islamic extremists or U.S. or Israeli intelligence agencies (take your pick) who carried out the 9/11 attacks surely made it.

    • Simon Gunson

      Apivetta in 1943 Hamburg was the centre of Nazi efforts to develop a thermal centrifuge (later named the Zippe centrifuge) which was thirty times more efficient at enriching Uranium 235 than anything the Americans had at Oak Ridge Tennassee. Dresden was also home to a nazi particle physics laboratory developing a “photo-chemistry” approach to harvesting uranium for an Atom bomb.
      The reality is that you can misleadingly cast these bombings in a negative context quite simply by ignoring the real context of WW2.

      • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

        what was the real context……giving eastern europe over to the godless bolshevik commies. thats what that useful idiot eisenhower ended up doing. Patton was only one who saw what was really going on. FDR, churchill, eisenhower were like the 3 stooges in their dealings with uncle joe stalin.

  • Gregory Taylor

    There was no need for Gen Sherman to burn down Columbia and Atlanta but he was ordered to do so. We live in a warmongering country run by a bunch of crocked bankers and it will stay this way until the sheeple wake up and throw the bums out and return the Constitution as the rule of law.

    • Wilson

      Who issued the specific orders, then? I agree with the rest of your post.

    • Khadija Umayyad

      The Constitution was a scam from the start, buddy.
      And just because Charles Manson tells you to kill someone doesn’t absolve you from the crime. Fucking Conservatards and their military-socialism.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      get rid of the federal reserve……..oh wait kennedy wanted to and got a bullet in the head for his trouble.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NAYMHQDKEQUPYQJKHZ2QZLB5DY kapt_kan

    The USAAF firebombed about 100 Japanese cities before the atomic bomb attacks. The A-bomb was faster and required only one small plane to deliver. The war of terror against the innocent civilians of Japan had begun well before the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It was a race war and the propaganda films and newsreels of the time leave no doubt about it. The internment of Canadian and American citizens of Japanese descent — and the theft of their property — also tells a story.
    So much for anyone being “the good guys” in WW2.

    • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

      It was a sad war of survival.

      • Darrel Martin

        I do not think you have looked very closely at the manipulations of Franklin Delano van Rosenvelt.
        Ancestry

        http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Bush_Mossad11.htm

        Gore Vidal outlines how fdr manipulated us into WWII in the historical novel “The Golden Age”. It verifies based on declassified documents that he knew that Pearl Harbor was coming but sacrificed those Americans so he could justify getting us into a war he said he would avoid.He lied!

      • Khadija Umayyad

        BULLSHIT. It was a political war, fought for political reasons, that could have been avoided by virtually all the parties involved IF THEY HAD WANTED TO. Czechloslovakia probably could have stopped Germany if the English hadn’t ratified the seizing of the Sudetanland as ‘legal’.
        Until you understand that governments are useless gangs you are little more than a useful idiot for the Theocracy of Murderers in DC; and I don’t care whether a Republicrat or a Democon runs that shitstorm.

        • Simon Gunson

          So your prescription in 1939 when Nazi germany invaqded Poland was for the British and French to do what?
          ….nothing?
          In March 1940 Nazi Germany tried to purchase Heavy water from norway and were politely refused. In April 1940 the nazis invaded Norway and the heaviest fighting and last resistance in norway was to protect the heavy water plant at Vermork. Do you call that a political act?
          I would say it was very obvious already by 1939 that Hitler was never going to stop or negotiate. He wanted to enslave the world for the Nazi cause. Self defence is not political.

          • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

            7 days after germany invaded poland to get back the sudetanland that was taken away in ww1, russia invaded eastern poland……….funny british and french did not declare war on them?

          • Simon Gunson

            So what do you think was in the realm of the possible in 1939?
            There was already an undeclared state of war between the Anglo French and Russia before Poland’s invasion.
            The French had a very left wing pro-Soviet Government and apopulation tired of war from the last one. The british likewise had been through coal miner strikes in the 1920s which brought the country close to the brink of a marxist revolution. It was not politically possible for Anglo French governments to take any serious steps against Russia.
            In fact it was so unpalatable that in their support of Finland against the Russian invasion of 1939 the British had to secretly de-enlist pilots from the RAF and re-enroll them in a mercenary force of pilots flying Hurricane fighters and Blenheim bombers for the Finns. The French and British alsosupplied artillery and ammunition to Finland by rail via Narvik.
            Furthermore in 1939 in response to the invasion of Poland britain and france proposed a joint long range bombing mission against russian oil fields in the Soviet Caucus region around Astrakhan launched from Syria. The mission was never launched because of Turkish opposition to overflights.

    • Khadija Umayyad

      There were no good guys in WW2.

      • Noelle Calmeon

        So true Khadija, so true. Just people with the lust for power and the ability to tell a good lie to fuck up everyone and the rest of the generation.

      • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

        General George Patton was a good guy. my uncle was a captain in Pattons 4th Armour Division “Patton’s Butchers” was what the German Wehrmacht called them. bada** motherf**kers. german high command feared patton.uncle said 40 years ago that Patton was bumped off by oss head wild bill donovon……….2008 book Target Patton by Robert K Wilcox just confirms it. FDR and his commie administration handed over eastern europe to good old joe on a silver platter. fdr gave churchill a blank check to go along with the plan….he took it. democraps evil scumb**s!

  • Seen

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

    Yet, this is the broadest and simplest that this is taught particular through much of early education through High School.
    1). Churchill admitted that the decision to use the nuclear weapons was determined at the start of development among the allies including the USSR in World War II. It was only a matter of who would build it first and be used against whom. This was the allied agreement, which people pointing to the US being the sole country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict fail to take into consideration that being had USSR built first rather than reverse engineering of the US’s bomb would have used it as well as Great Britain and the Allies.
    2). The bombs were dropped to:
    A). It had the capacity to destroy enemy cities at will, and it could mass produce such weaponry.
    B). Cement the US’s world hegemony in a manner that at the time was unmatched initially by any other power.
    (The more nations that possess nuclear weapons alters the geopolitical discourse, and this is contrary to popular belief remains balance of power geopolitics). This is why in effect the Monroe Doctrine was expanded across the globe at the increasing and increased vulnerability to the US’s geographical underbelly.

    Additionally, wars tend to favor more sound economic systems in addition to those who can cause the most damage to another’s infrastructure.

  • rickj2

    Lauren Van Horn, Chief of Staff of British forces within a POW camp in the Malay peninsula disagreed in his book THE PRISONER AND THE BOMB. His point was that the Japanese had plans to kill all of their 85,000 plus prisoners in S. E. Asia, and then fight on in the jungles. However, one day the Japanese just surrendered to their prisoners. The reason as Van Horn put it – THE BOMB.

    By the way, Eisenhower had nothing to do with the Pacific. He was Supreme Commander in the European and Mediterranean theaters only.

  • FDJJ

    I am of the firm belief that dropping the atomic bombs saved lives in 3 ways.
    1.) Negated the need for an invasion of the home islands
    2.)Russia may have used it’s numerically superior forces to continue grabbing land for the Soviet Union
    3.)Hiroshima & Nagasaki were sacrificed so that humanity could see what the end results of global total war are. There hasn’t been one since.
    Please remember that life was very cheap during WWII and each day presented incredibly difficult decisions from a lowly private to the leader of a nation. All nations were guilty of atrocities but this was humanitie’s darkest hour, mass murder was accepted as a reasonable way to win the war by ALL sides. Be grateful that we live in a far more stable world today, give thanks to those who sacrificed the better years of their lives to give us the world we have today.

  • http://twitter.com/Thingumbobesq Thingumbob

    Truman was a stooge for City of London geopoliticians wanting to set up a US Soviet grand game destablization, hence Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech and Bertrand Russelll’s call for bombing Russia before they developed their own nuclear capability.

  • darkcloud

    Hindsight is always 20/20 and of all the baby boomers born to returning U.S. military personnel I ask; What would the world be like if your parent was one of the ones who died at the end of the war, even if it only went a few days more. The event happened the world changed now let’s move on.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      ask that to the 16,000 americans killed at the battle of the bulge…..if patton had been allow to fill in the falaise gap, instead of eisenhower stopping him so monty could be made to look good, patton would have captured over 300,000 german solders. these solders got away and 3 months later showed up at the battle of the bulge. eisenhower was a political little puke with no battle experience………peter principle deluxe. that was just one of many times that the allied command intentionally stopped patton when he was on a tear killing germans. my uncle was there with him as a captain in the 4th armour division-”pattons butchers” called that by the german wermacht……….only general the germans ever feared.

  • Novista

    Gil, you do dit the profile, I hope they pay you well. I doubt the read the article as your scipt was already at hand.

  • Ivan_K

    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”.

    His fears are validated! The A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had NO discernible effect on the Japanese decision-making:

    http://belfercenter.ksg.decenturl.com/the-winning-weapon-rethinking

    [Stimson's] foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb”. 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.”

    But did it serve that purpose: browbeating the Soviets? The Soviets had a spy ring in Los Alamos, and within four years after Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Russians made their first successful nuclear bomb explosion. Rather than intimidate the Soviets, it spurred them into vigorous action and initiated the nuclear arms race that is still with us.

    In the end, the nuclear bombing was a failure from every each way you may see it.

  • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

    That’s bunk.They didn’t surrender after the first one.Where do you come up with the notion they would’ve
    surrendered with no bomb at all? They were already in the fight to the last man standing mode.
    Armchair quarterbacking is easy.Making an enormous decision to end what appeared to be a neverending war, is something altogether different.As for Iran,it’s nice to know ‘time is running out’ is all over this.Thank God Iran has no proxies to do its dirty work.Good thing Irans policy on Israel is genocide,that should help Israel sleep a little better at night.As for the trustworthyness of Iran,well that’s a settled issue.The saddest thing is,there are people that believe your foolishness.By the way,Israel has never used there nuclear arsenal.

  • http://twitter.com/stephenmstrplmb stephen wilson

    Another point,the USSR was not a good ‘ally’ option.That worked real well for eastern Europe & the 40 year cold war.

  • Used2Bconservative

    “Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were
    unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they
    regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were
    essentially noncombat populations.”
    Another factor in Truman’s choice to murder innocent women and children? He was a freemason. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had significant Catholic populations. No doubt making them more attractive targets to impress the Soviets. Kill 2 birds with one stone.
    What an evil government.

  • Belden Erhart

    Military industrial complex was worried their ‘blood into gold’ goose would of gone away. How many $ TRILLIONS have been ‘extorted’ from the taxpayer to ‘protect’ from ‘commies’, ‘islamofacists etc or ‘boogeyman’ de jour? Look at the present situation. US annual/total budget deficit DUE to ‘OUT of CONTROL’ military spending while CUTTING taxes for the 1%. There will be a ‘false flag’ operation
    (‘Northwoods’) attributed to Iran to ENSURE the EXTORTION continues. Paid for by ‘privatizing’ Social Security Trust Funds. Soon the military industrial complex will turn on the American people as the ‘Turnip out of Blood’ with a DHS/FEMA controlled ‘police state’. The 100s of millions of personal weapons the ‘ONLY’ reason it’s not here now…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jose-Garcia/100004065678404 Jose Garcia

    Who is behind every single genocide? The jews are. Even if we believe the jewish lie of the holocau$t is would have been a jew behind it as Hitler (and the nazi elite) were jews. Wars, crisis, terrorism, mafias, etc come from the jewish criminal network.

    Let’s get rid of the jewish criminal network and improve the world.

    • purplemothman

      Hitlers personal bodyguard, Otto Skorzeny, stated that Hitler explicitly forbade his scientists to work on an atom bomb, as he felt it to be be far too harmful to people and the plane.

      Jewish scientists and politicians had no such concerns though, and here we are. If Germany had won, there would be no atomic weapons in the world today.

      Hitler was not Jewish, that erroneous saying is just disinfo to mess with people’s minds. However, he did have 150,000 Jews in his forces, even as commander in the SS, along with a non-segregated multiracial army that contained black people, Tibetans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and several different faiths, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu. He was not a racist himself, though he segregated those who were racist from German society, as they were anathema to National Socialist ideals that encouraged all countries and peoples to adopt similar principles as Germany. Communism is essentially Jewish, as Rabbi Steven Wise stated, and Jewish Communists, who numbered 6.5 million in Germany had resorted to terrorism in Bavaria, where tens of thousands had been killed by them along the lines of the Bolshevik ‘red’ revolution.

      Dangerous Communist activists, as well as criminals, no matter what their race, were all held in camps. Many non-hostile Jews were also residents in work skill camps, studying for the time when they would be transferred to Palestine to start a new life there, with suitable skills for their economic survival. According to official International Red Cross figures, a total of 271,305 people died in the camps, non through gassing of any kind (as confirmed by American experts who visited all camps and examined many bodies), but through non-intentional starvation (after the ‘allies’ bombed all road and rail supply routes to the camps and German towns and cities), through typhus, and occasionally at each other’s hands, as Communist enforcers would sometimes kill other inmates to force them to become Communists, and there were of course official judicial executions very occasionally, and even an SS camp commander was executed for having shot a Jew outside the official judicial process. A total of about 70,000 Jews died in the camps from all causes according to Russian figures, taken from camp documents they studied. Jewish world population before the war was 15 million, and after the war it was 15,300,000, an increase of 300,000, as documented by Jewish censors themselves. Only 3.5 million Jews lived in German occupied territory in WWII, and 2 million of them went to live in Russia before heavy hostilities broke out. Around a quarter million Jews in occupied France lived there throughout the war, and were never transferred to any camps.

      I agree with the rest of what you say though; they should ban the Jewish religion worldwide as a criminal terrorist cult, and they should withdraw legitimate status from the state of Eretz Israel. Then they then should transfer all Israelis to Birobidzan, a state the size of Switzerland especially created for their safety in Russia, by Stalin in 1934.

  • purplemothman

    Jewish scientist Leo Szilard invented the atomic bomb in 1933, and patented it in England in 1934. Every single type of atomic bomb ever invented since then has also been invented by Jews, using the resources of the Gentiles in the US and and England to pay for all the work.

    The Jewish spies then made sure Stalin had it, and then Israel. The whole purpose of the weapon is to unleash them during the Samson Option, to eliminate as many gentiles as possible in one grand slam. As soon as Israel feels ‘existentially threatened’, for instance after Iran is attacked, when Iran starts to fight back, Israel will use that as an excuse to launch off thermonuclear weapons at cities in every country in the world outside Israel.
    And to think that the UK and US and NATO countries all support Israel, when Israel declares that the preferred target of choice of the Israeli air force are the cities of Europe, and bear in mind the ravings of Geller recently, who is demanding that Israel bombs all of Europe, and yet still she receives great praise from within Israel.
    Can anyone see something insane about all these western leaders supporting Israel, whilst the leadership of those countries is principally Jewish, and whilst it is the very people conned into supporting Israel by their traitorous leaders who will be bombed into dust by them. Needless to say, non of the Jewish NATO leaders will be bombed themselves, as they will be busy preparing for the 10,000 year Pax Judaica ahead of them, in a world in which any gentiles remaining alive will be literally slaves, as the Torah and Talmud edicts demand, until such a time as all gentiles will be totally exterminated as also demanded by the Jewish scriptures, so that only Jews remain to inhabit the Earth, and no members of any other race. That is because in Judaic scriptures, all gentiles are considered non-living, irredeemably satanic, pure evil beings that hate and oppose the Jews eternally, so the gentiles must be sent to hell for ever under the Angel Duma, when the Jewish Messiah comes.

  • greg

    my father’s cousin was involved in all those battles in ’45, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, he was army infantry, he saw a lot of slaughter that year, i couldn’t even imagine. they were preparing for the invasion of tokyo at that time, 1,000,000 casualties expected, i’m glad that man and all those guys didn’t have to fight that battle, i’m glad jack came back home and i got to hear the voice and the experiences of that man, he died in 2000, r.i.p., jack, i know our gov’t is effed up now, i know about 9/11 illuminati, i know roosevelt could’ve warned about pearl harbor, it’s what our generation has inherited, as a disabled american, what do i do? i know about the coming supernatural deception

  • elisabeth angel

    stephen wilson wrote:

    50,000,000 died overall.We didn’t start it,by God we finished it!

    and–

    Yes,ending the worlds worst war was the worst that could happen,not the 50,000,000 people that died
    because Germany & Japan wanted to rule the world.That was just fine with appeasers like you.
    You are sickening.
    —————-

    Actually, FDR pushed like hell for Britain to start WWII, which they did (Britain and France declared war on Germany, not vice versa), then got the US into the fray by the back door through the Pearl Harbor trap. The alleged “good guys” were responsible for the 50,000,000 deaths.

    As for Germany and France wanting to rule the world, that is pure propaganda. Take a look at a map sometime and notice the size of those two countries in relation to the whole world. The victors write the history; do you think they would admit to committing the greatest mass murder in history?

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      Gen George Patton was going to come home and tell the whole, real story. OSS Chief William Wild Bill Donovon, with approval, put a hit out on him and he was assassinated on what was supposed to be his last day in germany. read the book Target Patton by Robert Wilcox…….didn’t hear about it, came out in 2008 and was blacklisted by MSM types like the NY Slimes and The Washington Compost. FDR was an evil doer who loved uncle joe stalin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eileen-Kuch/1255873681 Eileen Kuch

    This decision by President Harry S. Truman is the most evil decision he has ever made. He already had responses from military and political leaders to his request for their opinions on the worst atrocity in human history: the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August, respectively. And, worst of all, Truman KNEW that this most barbaric act was totally unnecessary and unjustified.

    The result of all this is this: There are now thousands of both atomic AND hydrogen bombs in the world, much more than needed to destroy ALL life on this planet. What a barbaric, evil legacy Truman left us all.

  • charkee

    Some errors here. Bertrand Russell convinced Truman to use the bomb. Russell’s intention was to cow the world into accepting a one world government with Britain at the head. Later Russell unsuccessfully attempted to get Eisenhower to nuke Moscow. Unbeknownst to US intelligence the soviets were already ahead of the USA in the development of thermonuclear weapons.

  • douglas gray

    The common argument is that not using the bombs would have meant a land invasion of Japan, involving huge casualty figures for the U.S. military. I have not seen a definitive analysis of this view, and I tend to doubt that it would have been the case.
    I cannot believe that Harry Truman had the faintest idea of the horrors of atomic radiation.
    However, if we had never used the atomic bombs and discovered the horrors firsthand, then it is possible that Stalin would have been more inclined to use them once he had them. Perhaps the whole world had to see it just once.

  • Wild Bill

    The winner writes the history books!

  • AntiSemitic all the way!!!

    Illuminati

  • Michael F. Altfeld, Ph.D.

    I find it interesting that, of all your sources, none of them were either Japanese or very recent. The latest evidence on why the U.S. decided to use nuclear weapons supports strongly the hypothesis that, without their use, the Japanese would be constitutionally unable to surrender. For example, even after the first bomb was used, the Army Minister was unimpressed and Japan continued to prepare to resist an invasion. Second, the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Japan was one HECK of a “demonstration” of the bomb’s power, yet the Japanese did not come running to surrender.

    As to the military value of Hiroshima and
    Nagasaki; Hiroshima, apart from being a major logistics base for the
    Imperial forces, was also the location of the 2nd General Army
    (equivalent to a U.S. Army Group), which was responsible, among other
    things, for the defense of Kyushu (the location at which the invasion
    would have to come). Nagasaki was the location of a major steel and arms
    factory, as well as a torpedo factory for the IJN.

    With respect to the “horribleness” of these weapons and the terrible civilian casualties that ensued. First,
    a study done after the war showed that the same damage done by “Little
    Boy” could have been done by 200 B-29s carrying 1000 tons of bombs. This
    size raid would not have been considered overly large by the standards
    of the 20th Army Air Force since its raid on Tokyo the previous March
    9-10 had employed over 300 B-29s and over 1600 tons of bombs.

    Finally, as regards civilian fatalities,
    it might be interesting for you to know that there had been very few
    civilians in Japan since March 23, when an Imperial Decree inducted all
    able-bodied Japanese into the Japanese Army, under military discipline.
    Thus, nearly ALL of those Japanese killed by the bombings of Hiroshima
    and Nagasaki were, one way or another, legitimate combatants and,
    therefore, legitimate targets.

    Fourth, the vast majority of historians TODAY appear to believe that the nuclear bombings, along with the Soviet offensive in Manchuria, played the major role in Japan’s decision to surrender.

    For more on this see:

    1. The transcript of the PBS program “Victory in the Pacific” at

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/pacific-transcript/

    And,

    2. Michael Gordin, “Five Days in August.” This is an excellent book by a careful scholar which goes into extreme detail on the subject of how the decision to use nuclear weapons came about. It was just published last year and so is the most up to date regarding declassified documents.

  • Rhotel1

    Tell this to the families of the POWs who the Japanese planned to execute. If they were so ready to surrender, why did it take a second bomb and why was there an attempted military coup in between the bombings and the surrender. Sell your revisionist history elsewhere. I am sure that you are looking forward to being on PressTV.

  • Les Jamieson,Urantia

    Folks,one of the theories bouncing around is that the aftermath of the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,a spiritual inferno of transcendent aspirations arose and with it the greatest book ever written!
    Of course,I speak of the Urantia Book.

  • Luke Alexjoneski

    not true that Urantia is greatest book.Kevin Barrett’s autobiography or The Bible has it beaten.Larry Sinclair told me personally that Barack Obama was a Urantian reader back in the 80′s and I don’t feel that the birth certificate lacking Muslim sets any kind of example at all!

  • Khadija Umayyad

    This MP3 http://www.jrhummel.com/audio/Hummel_Hitler.mp3 by the libertarian JR Hummel provides a pretty apt description of the reality of WW2, instead of the bullshit.

  • Johnny Brainetree

    If they did not even need to use the bomb, it makes these leaders who did use it every bit as guilty before God of murder as Hitler and Stalin, and they will have to give account in the great day of Judgement. The quote above that no war is won by slaughtering women and children should have been considered by George Bush in the Iraq war. Little wonder though by a president who was so morally blind that he declared, “The Constitution’s just ____-damned piece of paper!”

  • wunsacon

    George,

    Coincidentally, before the firebombing of Dresden, supposedly here’s what the RAF told its pilots:
    “Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees
    pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not
    only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to
    house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one
    time well known for its china,
    Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class
    importance…. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where
    he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front… and
    incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.[33]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

    That last sentence is consistent with the proposition that the US-UK in their attacks on their official enemies were also trying to intimidate the Soviets.

    • purplemothman

      A propaganda film was made by the RAF after the bombing of Dresden, for the sheeple to view, offering a sanitized view of events, minimizing the casualties of the Germans who were holocausted there.

      In that propaganda film, falsifying events, the pilots were shown receiving orders not to bomb the market place in Dresden because all the refugees would be gathered in and around that place.

      In reality, the real truth was that before the real pilots had set off on the actual bombing raid, they had been specifically instructed to bomb the market place.

      Churchill elected to take Britain to war against Germany himself, without any real need at all, since British Admiralty intelligence had already revealed that Soviet Russia, and not Germany, was the real militant enemy, but Churchill was a sadistic alcoholic homosexual pederast, a Jewish 5th columnist, a man who was clinically depressed, suicidal much of the time, having recorded that if ever he was on a train station, it was always best if he remained standing behind a pillar in case he flung himself under a train, as it would all be over in just a moment he said.

      He is recorded as a man whose spirits were said only to lift during time of war, perhaps because only then he would see the gentiles suffering as he felt they should, on the sides of both allied and Axis power troops, and he himself, and no other, decided to take Britain to war against Germany in his insanity, only to leave a legacy of nuclear standoff between Russia and the west which has totally drained civilization ever since then.

      “How shall we light up 600,000?” he is recorded as having said gleefully before the attacks on Dresden, during which white phosphorous was dropped on women and children, who burned alive as they ran through the streets, their legs melting into the molten tar of the roads, with human fat running knee-deep in places. We have such insane men in power still today, and sadly, that is merely a reflection of the cowardice, callousness, callow-mindedness and insanity of the electorate themselves.

    • purplemothman

      A propaganda film was made by the RAF after the bombing of Dresden, for the sheeple to view, offering a sanitized view of events, minimizing the casualties of the Germans who were holocausted there.

      In that propaganda film, falsifying events, the pilots were shown receiving orders not to bomb the market place in Dresden because all the refugees would be gathered in and around that place.

      In reality, the real truth was that before the real pilots had set off on the actual bombing raid, they had been specifically instructed to bomb the market place.

      Churchill elected to take Britain to war against Germany himself, without any real need at all, since British Admiralty intelligence had already revealed that Soviet Russia, and not Germany, was the real militant enemy, but Churchill was a sadistic alcoholic homosexual pederast, a Jewish 5th columnist, a man who was clinically depressed, suicidal much of the time, having recorded that if ever he was on a train station, it was always best if he remained standing behind a pillar in case he flung himself under a train, as it would all be over in just a moment he said.

      He is recorded as a man whose spirits were said only to lift during time of war, perhaps because only then he would see the gentiles suffering as he felt they should, on the sides of both allied and Axis power troops, and he himself, and no other, decided to take Britain to war against Germany in his insanity, only to leave a legacy of nuclear standoff between Russia and the west which has totally drained civilization ever since then.

      “How shall we light up 600,000?” he is recorded as having said gleefully before the attacks on Dresden, during which white phosphorous was dropped on women and children, who burned alive as they ran through the streets, their legs melting into the molten tar of the roads, with human fat running knee-deep in places. We have such insane men in power still today, and sadly, that is merely a reflection of the cowardice, callousness, callow-mindedness and insanity of the electorate themselves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.landis Paul Landis

    JAPAN HAD AN A-BOMB, THE JAPANESE MILITARY HAD NO INTENTIONS TO SURRENDER. THEY EVEN ATTEMPTED TO OVER THROW THE EMPEROR.

    • purplemothman

      Can you offer the slightest indication of any substance to back that up, or were you just being sarcastic?

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      worse, Kasasaki was coming out with the Ninja!

  • Edward Ulysses Cate

    Being raised in Independence, Missouri, I still say that Truman, like most presidents, was a patsy. He didn’t want to sign off on the creation of Israel; he didn’t want to start the IMF; and considering his religious beliefs, surely didn’t want to murder thousands. The sociopathic puppeteers behind presidents are the real forces of evil, and without honest representation in the House of Representatives, we and the rest of the world will continue to be on the menu. After all, evil succeeds because good men do nothing.

  • Edward Ulysses Cate

    Being raised in Independence, Missouri, I still say that Truman, like most presidents, was a patsy. He didn’t want to sign off on the creation of Israel; he didn’t want to start the IMF; and considering his religious beliefs, surely didn’t want to murder thousands. The sociopathic puppeteers behind presidents are the real forces of evil, and without honest representation in the House of Representatives, we and the rest of the world will continue to be on the menu. After all, evil succeeds because good men do nothing.

  • leegee

    I don’t think anyone is using their brain – if the Japanese were already willing to surrender why was it necessary to drop TWO bombs with a reasonably long period of time between???? Everything I have read over the years since 1945 is contrary to all of the previous commentary above!!!!

  • The Doctor

    This is stupid. Yes, possibly the stubborn nation who would rather commit suicide then be caught MIGHT surrender. But really? Japan isn’t a country full of idiots, they wouldn’t give up easily. So America dropped an atomic bomb ensuring that Japan would surrender. If they didn’t, who knows? Maybe we wouldn’t be in America right now. Maybe we would be in the United States. Maybe we would be in Japmerica or Ameripan. Ever think about that dumb Washington’s Blog? Didn’t think so.

    • SHAFAR NULLIFIDIAN

      Did you ever learn to really “think’, instead of verbalizing your biases and prejudices.
      Yo remind me of thr tug boats in New York Harbor. They also toot the loudest when in the deepest fog.

  • john james

    yes the japanese might have surrendered even if the bomb was not dropped. But in the meantime all the american POW’s and all the occupied territories in the pacific would have been subjected to more Japanese atrocities. If dropping the bomb saved even one allied life then it was worth it. We didn’t start the war (they did with pearl harbour) but we sure were going to end it. Not to mention all the atrocities that the japanese committed in China etc..

    • 315_to_yuma

      As they say, nationalism is the elevation of geography over principles.

    • 2nd admendment vs evil govt

      no FDR started the war by cutting off their oil!

  • Monica Ayuga

    El caso es que no lo deberían haber hecho, fue una salvajada.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.oliiver James Oliver

    what they have just said is what I learnt in year 9 but with a lot of quotes.

  • aaron munoz

    waswas it not also known that the japanese had a date set to kill all american prisoners!? i think it was late august or something like that

    • SHAFAR NULLIFIDIAN

      How do you know this. Sounds like propganda to me!

  • John

    If the Japs were ready to surrender, why did it take TWO bombs to end the war?

  • Lech

    Col. Laurens van der Post, the South African author, was an intelligence officer in the British forces in WWII. He was captured by the Japanese and held prisoner in SE Asia. He developed informants among the Japanese and local civilian population during his captivity. In his biography about that period he writes that he became convinced that without the A-bombs the Japanese would have slaughtered every POW they held as they retreated to the homeland.

    Until I read van der Post’s account I was more or less an agnostic on the matter.

    Now I lean more towards approval.

    Opinion obviously differs.

  • African

    As much as I don’t agree with the testing of that bomb on Japanese soil, am glad it was carried out back then – thinking what a testing would be like today give me the chills…

  • ercillor

    After the war had ended — and even until this day — there arose many voices declaiming the inhumanity of our use of nuclear weapons upon the empire of Japan. War is inhuman; conventional weapons no less than nuclear ones. During the war, however, few if any of these latter day detractors had offered their objections.

    If you want to know the “Real Reasons” which compelled us to use such weapons you must ask those who were serving in the United States military at that time and who were slated to be amongst the soldiers and sailors who would have actually been compelled to invade the Japanese mainland. The Japanese war plan was to kill as many Americans as possible in order to force us to the bargaining table… Surrender was not one of their considerations. If one examines the toll of American lives which resulted from our conquest of such places as Iwo-Jima and Okinawa, as we drew closer to the mainland, and extrapolates those figures toward an actual invasion of the Japanese mainland one will quickly see that contemporary estimates of a million American casualties were certainly believable while the Japanese casualties would have considerably surmounted that figure. Even after the bombs were dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki Lt. General Tojo stated that: “We must not surrender. The Americans only have two of these bombs [their intelligence KNEW that] and it will require many months for them to build another.”

    After Japan’s surrender, and before the Japanese government had discovered that we had broken their codes, we were able to listen in to messages in real time because they continued to use the old diplomatic codes. Amongst these were messages being sent by Mr. Shigemitsu — Japan’s equivalent of our Secretary of State — which instructed Japanese embassies in such countries as Spain and Portugal to use their considerable funds in order to focus world attention upon America’s use of nuclear weapons. “We must do this,” said Mr. Shigemitsu, “in order to focus world attention away from Japan’s barbaric treatment of allied prisoners in Japanese prison camps.” Towards this end Japanese diplomatic officials were to pay European — and, later, even American — journalists to write the kind of accusatory columns as the one to which my comment is directed.
    There are many self-hating Americans in the world today… Perhaps that is why so many others have such little respect for us.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      “There are many self-hating Americans in the world today… Perhaps that is why so many others have such little respect for us.”

      Or maybe because your government is a hypocrit and two-faced. Support killers and tyrants in ‘friendly’ naitons but quick to condemn and use the media to do the same for those who aren’t ‘friends’.

  • ercillor

    After the war had ended — and even until this day — there arose many voices declaiming the inhumanity of our use of nuclear weapons upon the empire of Japan. War is inhuman; conventional weapons no less than nuclear ones. During the war, however, few if any of these latter day detractors had offered their objections.

    If you want to know the “Real Reasons” which compelled us to use such weapons you must ask those who were serving in the United States military at that time and who were slated to be amongst the soldiers and sailors who would have actually been compelled to invade the Japanese mainland. The Japanese war plan was to kill as many Americans as possible in order to force us to the bargaining table… Surrender was not one of their considerations. If one examines the toll of American lives which resulted from our conquest of such places as Iwo-Jima and Okinawa, as we drew closer to the mainland, and extrapolates those figures toward an actual invasion of the Japanese mainland one will quickly see that contemporary estimates of a million American casualties were certainly believable while the Japanese casualties would have considerably surmounted that figure. Even after the bombs were dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki Lt. General Tojo stated that: “We must not surrender. The Americans only have two of these bombs [their intelligence KNEW that] and it will require many months for them to build another.”

    After Japan’s surrender, and before the Japanese government had discovered that we had broken their codes, we were able to listen in to messages in real time because they continued to use the old diplomatic codes. Amongst these were messages being sent by Mr. Shigemitsu — Japan’s equivalent of our Secretary of State — which instructed Japanese embassies in such countries as Spain and Portugal to use their considerable funds in order to focus world attention upon America’s use of nuclear weapons. “We must do this,” said Mr. Shigemitsu, “in order to focus world attention away from Japan’s barbaric treatment of allied prisoners in Japanese prison camps.” Towards this end Japanese diplomatic officials were to pay European — and, later, even American — journalists to write the kind of accusatory columns as the one to which my comment is directed.
    There are many self-hating Americans in the world today… Perhaps that is why so many others have such little respect for us.

  • Dan Rio

    Japan would have NUKED AMERICA if America hadn’t struck first. The existence of Japan’s nuke program confirms that. They had also developed a massive submarine to contain an aircraft and the BOMB for an attack upon LOS ANGELES, where the B-29′s were made. The USA AVOIDED being nuked by JAPAN by only a few months since JAPAN had probably already successfully tested its nuke the day after ‘HIROSHIMA’ on an island to the East of the city of HUNGNAM, in now North Korea.

    • SHAFAR NULLIFIDIAN

      Your tin hat is crooked!

  • Don

    This has got to be the saddest thing I’ve read… all because the U.S. had a ‘toy’ they just had to test out to make a statement.

  • JimGrim

    Most likely specific people made the decision to drop the atom bombs on densly populated civilian centers and Truman accepted their urging and rationale. But who were these actual decision makers? I find the author of this article’s apparent lack of this knowledge, or perhaps reluctance to include this information very disappointing, yet typical of the severe editing of material before it is dispensed to the
    ever ignorant and uninformed American public.

  • daniel

    Thank you for awakening me.

  • Emily3360

    Weeks away from surrendering or months away from surrendering (as some would say) how many american servicemen would have been killed if we had not used the bomb? Japan had not stopped fighting.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      So the lives or Americans are more important than that of the women and children of another group.

  • azizmelt

    “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”

    -Curtis LeMay:

  • azizmelt

    “If I see that the Russians are amassing their planes for an attack, I’m going to knock the shit out of them before they take off the ground.”

    Curtis LeMay, Strategic Air Command.

  • Simon Gunson

    If you read the US Naval Intelligence report for June 15, 1945 entitled “German Technical Aid to Japan, a Survey” page 198, chapter 14, which is archived in the Combined Arms Research Library at Fort Leavenworth, KS, USA (file # 3-1695-00561-5885) , you will discover that in 1944 the germans transferred to Japan know how to manufacture a tactical “uranium atom smashing” nuclear weapon with a blast radius of 1,000 metres. Another similar US Naval intelligence report on German use of Atomic Weapons citing the so called Zinsser affidavit describes a a German navy (Kreigsmarine) laboaratory test blast on the Baltic coast in October 1944 of an atomic bomb with a blast radius of 1,000 metres which links the two devices.
    The 2005 book Hitlers Bombe by Rainer Karlsch alerts us to a small nuclear device developed by Schumann and Trinks in 1942 and this device is also mentioned in the Magic decrypt of a diplomatic signal from the Japanese embassy at Stockholm to Tokyo, sent in December 1944.
    The Nazi nuclear weapon used a technique today described as a third generation nuclear weapon, with plasma pinch ignition. It used two opposed conventional explosive hollow charges to smash together Lithium and Deuterium. This caused a fusion reaction releasing enough neutrons to induce a fission chain reaction in a sub critical Uranium target.
    The real reason why nuclear weapons were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that the Japanese refused to surrender and at the time of the US bombings Russia was preparing to attack both Manchuria and Korea. USA was well aware th Japanese had the atomic bomb and did not want the technology to fall into Soviet hands.
    Indeed Japan was also preparing thirteen Tachikawa Ki-77 stratospheric bombers to launch a high altitude bombing raid against US bases at Saipan with nuclear weapons in the closing days of WW2.
    The bombing of Hiroshima was not used to kick start the Cold War. That already began in Europe with secret surrender talks between the Nazis and USA in talks held at Lisbon in December 1944, Source: secretly recorded conversations of Maj General Dornberger disclosed in British evidence at Nuremberg trials. It was the secret surrender of Nazi Germany to the Western Allies, which the Soviets discovered which triggered the Cold War.

  • cettel

    Question to George Washington:

    Re:

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

    Isn’t that statement by Gar Alperovitz naive, and doesn’t it presume much that should not be assumed at all?

    What I mean is: “Impressing the Soviets” might not have been Truman’s concern or even in his mind at all. Maybe instead, he simply asked himself: “What will the post-war world look like if Japan becomes a satellite of Stalin’s USSR? Should I, as President, allow that to happen? I have a terrible means at my disposal to prevent it, but should I use it? If I do not, then won’t future historians blame me — and rightly — for Japan’s becoming an extension of Stalin’s control? Wouldn’t that be long-term a far worse outcome (especially for the Japanese people) than if I simply drop A-bombs until Japan surrenders to the U.S. I think I had better do that.”

    I’d like to know your answers to those questions. Your otherwise marvelous piece failed to touch upon these issues, which seem to me to get more to the heart of the matter. If you don’t agree that they get more to the heart of the matter, please explain why.

  • A Green Road

    Hiroshima And Nagasaki; Were Two Nuclear Bombs Dropped To Deliver A Message To The Soviets? via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/hiroshima-nagasaki-moral-or-amoral.html

  • 1autumn

    “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

    Thomas Jefferson
    Letter to Horatio G. Spafford
    [March 17, 1814]

  • 1autumn
  • Dr. A. Cannara

    A certain level of ignorance presented by our media is acceptable, but there’s a limit…

    “The Japanese were ready to surrender” — whether said by Ike or anyone else is an example of proffering public ignorance.

    Suggest seeing the PBS doc “The Last Raid”. It’s about a conventional bombing run, after the A-bombs, that by accident disrupted a plan by rogue Japanese officers to kidnap the Emperor and prevent him from making his public statement of surrender on radio to the nation.

    fortunately, the planes passing over Tokyo toward a refinery triggered a blackout, which made the kidnap plan go awry. But, the officers had already destroyed one of the disc recordings of the Emperor’s message, and were aiming to get the backup. Luckily they got neither the
    Emperor nor the last recording.

    There were indeed Japanese ready to surrender, and there were many in the armed forces ready to fight to honorable deaths.

    Anyone alive at the time would remember the fear of the unknown about what would happen next If we had to invade, millions would die. We knew that. They knew that, but were ready to sacrifice weven their children to beach defense. Anyone studied Okinawa before writing this naive piece?

    If so, you wouldn’t write this claptrap. Yes, we also wanted to show the Russians what we could do, but that wasn’t the driving purpose of our only 2 A-bombs.


    Dr. A. Cannara
    650 400 3071

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    If ifs & ands were pots & pans… So many pundits, so lew facts.

    Watch “The Last Raid” on PBS.

 

 

Twitter