Nagasaki: Two Recent News Articles

[warning]

  This will be my last contribution to the thread, since, as I said, people make up their minds on this one, and that's it---no body of evidence, no account of eyewitness history, no anything---will ever change their minds otherwise.  I'm not a psychic, but even I am perceptive enough to recognize an exercise in futility when I see one.

The combined immediate combat deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were approximately 200,000; add to that another 100,000 deaths over the next 60 years in long-term effects, and you still have 300,000

That is what I consider a war crime of genocidal proportions.

Well, if we're taking large numbers of casualties as evidence of "war crimes", then just about every Marine and Navy commander in the Pacific should have been executed.  The combined American and Japanese death toll for Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu, and Saipan totalled 137,400, for four tiny little islands....and that's not counting 5,000 civilian suicides which the American invasion of Saipan instigated.  I guess we should have just let the Japanese have it---that would have prevented all those deaths.

Iwo Jima and Okinawa were even worse---288,500 for two chunks of real estate totalling less than 470 square miles.  (That's almost equal to the a-bomb totals we discussed above.)  Curtis LeMay should have been executed for the Tokyo firebombing, which killed 80- to 100,000 Japanese, and Dwight Eisenhower should have executed for the Normandy invasion, which caused 80,000 deaths on both sides.  Instead, we made him president.

All military estimates at the time placed the American casualty lists at a million or more, not counting the number of Japanese casualties, which could be expected to be two to three times more. 

Of the total war, yes. Soldiers are in battle. Civilians are not.

And as I have explained before, Japanese civilians were actively engaged in manufacturing war material, as well as being trained to kill American troops as they came ashore.  Simply because a person does not wear a uniform does not render them an immidiate non-combatant.  I suggest the following link (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm), which contains information such as this:

"Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions. At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour."

I guess that would have been a "war crime", too, huh? 

You're saying that if a Japanese soldier charges an American Marine with a rifle and bayonet, yelling "Long live the Emperor!", the Marine has the right to kill the soldier---but if a Japanese civilian charges the same Marine with a bamboo spear yelling "Long live the Emperor!", if the Marine kills the civilian, that's a war crime?

If the Marine is killed by being impaled by either the bayonet or the spear, he's still just as dead.  And I'd wager that he would regard either one as a combatant. 

Is it more moral to kill 100 people with a rifle, or 20,000 people with rocks and slingshots?  Does the choice of weapon make a difference?

Yes it does, as nuclear bombs kill innocent people who are unarmed.

See above.

Wolseley ex-military man? do you know the difference between hand to hand combat, naval combat etc... & atomic weapons?  Big difference. You lose.

What are the rules of engagement when fighting with atomic weapons? Anybody know? Iranians would like to know.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

wolseley, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not need to be bombed. You're taken in by anti-Japanese propaganda. There is evidence that the Japanese considered surrendering at least a month before Hiroshima was bombed with the atom bomb. Just before Roosevelt went to Yalta, General MacArthur was given a 40-page memorandum by the Japanese, which stated that they wanted to surrender. Instead of taking it to Yalta, Roosevelt let it be, and it reposed in the files of the high command till after the atom bombs had been dropped. The surrender of Japan that happened a few days after the bombing of Nagasaki was the basically the same as the 40-page memorandum. The Japanese were not exactly stupid and pigheaded then, even if they were cruel. Don't be so smug as to think you know the whole history of World War II, as there is a much darker side to it (international financiers, Operation Keelhaul, etc., Pearl Harbor itself not being warned despite the knowledge of the President and the insiders about it going to be attacked).

An excerpt on a book concerning Japan in World War II:

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Another excerpt from an article:

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
• Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

And another nail in the coffin, exposing the absurdity that millions of American lives had been saved:

This was a preposterous statement [that millions of American lives were saved]. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Finally, the Catholic voice of the time, Pope Pius XII:

Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that "every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man." The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: "This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history."
So we see that it is nothing about "revisionism", etc., but simply stating the truth. And the truth is that Pope Pius XII condemned the use of the atom bomb, especially on heavily populated civilian cities.

Also:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.


He that hath ears, let him hear.

[wolseley]

As I said, you can believe whatever you like, as you will anyway.  To listen to some views today, we should have simply surrendered on December 8th and given Hidekei Tojo the keys to the White House.

As my very last, final, parting post,  I'll leave you with this little snippet from Curt LeMay:  "I'll tell you what war is about: it's about killing people, and when you've killed enough of them, they stop fighting."

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

As I said, you can believe whatever you like, as you will anyway.  To listen to some views today, we should have simply surrendered on December 8th and given Hidekei Tojo the keys to the White House.

As my very last, final, parting post,  I'll leave you with this little snippet from Curt LeMay:  "I'll tell you what war is about: it's about killing people, and when you've killed enough of them, they stop fighting."

If you're implying that about me (surrendering "on December 8th" and giving "Tojo the keys to the White House"), you're quite wrong. But as I see you have no rebuttal to the fact that MacArthur received from the Japanese a 40-page memorandum for terms of surrender. The Japanese weren't so stupid as to keep on fighting, the top leaders at least; they wanted to end the war, because, using your quote from LeMay, they wanted to "stop fighting" and surrender; I gave sources from just after the war, and you seem to ignore them. The fact is, Roosevelt wanted to continue the war, to help Soviet Russia; why do you think Stalin was given the Kurile Islands? These facts one cannot ignore. Roosevelt was a traitor to the US government, being so friendly with Stalin.

One cannot ignore the secret history of World War II, without being perplexed at the various grave immoral acts that occurred throughout the war, such as Zionists supporting Hitler or that Roosevelt goaded Japan into launching an attack on Pearl Harbor and lying to the American people, calling it a "surprise attack" (it was a day of infamy, for Roosevelt and the US government officials complicit with hiding the info about the Japanese attack on the harbor).

One cannot also ignore the voice of the Pope of the time, Pope Pius XII, without good reason. And to be honest, I haven't seen one good reason for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One last thing: I don't believe whatever I like. I believe in the truth, and I find that the truth of the matter (backed by solid evidence, including General MacArthur's confirmation and the silence of the White House) is this: Japan wanted to surrender, especially before Roosevelt went to the Yalta Conference. Instead, Roosevelt prolonged the war, to give Russia time to declare war against Japan and gain a foothold in the Pacific area.

One needs to tell the truth in order to be truly Christian and patriotic.

[wolseley]

There are so many outlandish inaccuracies in these posts that I'm not even going to bother trying to refute them.

This is one of the primary reasons that more than a dozen of us dropped out of my master's program----we would have been required to teach mythology as history, and we refused to do it.

Whatever.  I'm done here.  There are times when all you can do is throw up your hands and walk away.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

There are so many outlandish inaccuracies in these posts that I'm not even going to bother trying to refute them.

This is one of the primary reasons that more than a dozen of us dropped out of my master's program----we would have been required to teach mythology as history, and we refused to do it.

Whatever.  I'm done here.  There are times when all you can do is throw up your hands and walk away.

It seems to me that you're the one teaching mythology as history. It really looks as if you've bought line and sinker the official history of World War II, which isn't the real history. And this isn't mythology at all, whether you believe it or not. There were real conspiracies that brought about World War II, prolonged it, etc. One thing I do not believe in is mythology, and I don't teach mythology as history. Perhaps you should check out Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, among other things; if you think the author is anti-Roosevelt, think again. But he tells the truth that Roosevelt knew all about the plans of the Japanese because they had already broken the Japanese code.

"Inaccuracies"? How? Did Pope Pius XII condemn the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or not? Did General MacArthur admit that he was given a 40-page memorandum from the Japanese leaders, saying that they wanted to surrender or not? Was not Roosevelt very supportive of Stalin's regime? Did not he give up Eastern Europe to the Soviets? All you've been doing is just giving accusations. If you think it is hopeless, try me.

The real purpose of World War II, notwithstanding all our soldiers' sacrifices, was to get people to accept another League of Nations, in the form of the United Nations, and ultimately bring forth the One-World government, ruled by international finance, both Jews and Gentiles alike; thank God people are still fighting it, even if a minority.

BTW, it seems that I'm irking you. Previously, before this post, you said that it would be the last time you post in this thread. What was that made you change your mind? Perhaps you'll change your mind again and post again?
 
If so, then instead of telling me I'm ignorant and believe anything I like, why don't you SHOW ME how I'm ignorant?

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

While I will not defend the use of the atom bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I feel they were totally immoral and bordering on a genocidal condition,there are some other things I think can be mentioned here.The Rape of Nanking is one,the slaughtering of civilians as the Japanese Army was withdrawing from Manila,the firebombing of Tokyo and if I remember right,60 plus other Japanese targets ( the total casualties were never know,it is believed that Tokyo suffered 100,000 dead,crews at the back end of the flights dropping the incenderies were made sick by the smell rising up from the city )etc.Nothing moral there on either side wouldn't you say?If the Japanese were so ready to surrender,why did they flatly reject the Potsdam Declaration,which would have saved those 2 cities?And can't you go thru one thread without dragging Zionism and One World Order conspiracy theories into it?And for every book that says Roosevelt sold us out,or sold Eastern Europe out ( whats the matter,I guess you don't believe the fact about the Soviets having as many as 3 to 4 times as many combat troops as the Allies in the Eastern Sector waiting for a fight ) there are 3 that will tell you that he didn't.And why don't you tell us why Stalin was given those islands.And also about the Russian neutrality pact of 1941 - 1946 with Japan.

I noticed in all your talk, you have not rebutted the fact of the 40-page memorandum of the Japanese leaders, asking to surrender.

As for the 3 books that say Roosevelt didn't sell us out to Russia, humbug to those books. They absolutely don't tell you that Soviet Russia was given almost 2/3 arms, weapons, etc. by the US, and which Stalin admitted; they also won't tell you what secret agreements were made between Churchill (who absolutely disagreed with Roosevelt being so friendly to Stalin), Stalin, and Roosevelt himself. They also don't tell you what Russia gained by its sudden entrance into the Pacific war: Communist control of China, North Korea, Manchuria, and other Far Eastern regions. The Russian neutrality pact with Japan was just a breather, till the war in Europe closed; the pact ended in 1945, not 1946. These are not theories; these are facts.

[Ancilla_Indigna]

Woseley:
Are you suggesting that we decided to make a bomb and after it was finished then decide how we were to use it?  Isn't the 'how' it can and shall be used something that comes before money is even given to build a bomb?

My reason for posting the two articles was because I wanted to hear what people had to say about it.  I wanted to learn more about what really happened, but also because I can't help but have a very uneasy feeling about the first article.  I do not see that the man commemorated for dropping the bomb's nonchallant attitude is something that is of any virtue.  It seems to be quick sick, that he doesn't think about the souls of those people, regardless.  I tend to distrust people that have little or even absolutely no compassion on victims of war.  Mind you, this has nothing to do with recognize that there are some just causes for war, one can not justify 'just cause' without justice... and real justice is oriented to God, and is not without the compassion for souls.  These were people that were unprepared for such an attack, mostly civilians.  In other words, the callousness of the man's attitude towards the attack is another issue besides the issue of whether or not the attack itself was legitimate.  As for the later issue, I'm not sure that I will ever have all the facts to judge this, even from the books I happen to own on this war.  

My own thinking is that much of what has been said here is true, on both sides of the fence (fact-wise) from what I've read, but it's not yet the full picture (which we may never have).