It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Of course, Pearl Harbor happened first

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:02 PM
For every action there is a reaction, sometimes that reaction is greater in consequence than the action that precipitated it. For instance, what came first Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima? Of course the USA was wrong to level 2 cities in Japan when the obvious signs of surrender were already in place, but hey, let's not forget what caused the reaction; that little thing called Pearl Harbor, that and the fact they had a new toy to use and were just looking for an excuse to use it.

There hasn't been another one dropped since has there? So, perhaps the world learned a very important lesson in what NOT to do when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. At least that they should be considered the very last resort, now if only we could find a way to just get rid of the 2000 nuclear warheads (no idea if this is accurate) that are scattered throughout the planet.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:09 PM
a reply to: forthelove

Japan would never have surrendered if the bombs hadn't been dropped!
If the U.S. had invaded the Japanese mainlands, the japanese would have
fought until the last man,woman and child.
Humanity has already proven through out history that we don't always learn
from past mistakes.
edit on 10-5-2016 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:15 PM
a reply to: forthelove

There are some that say our government knew the Japanese were coming and didn't tell our troops, who were somewhat security lax as it was on a weekend.

Regardless, of course pearl Harbor came first. Why even title a thread that way as if it is a new discovery?

I am not sure that all we did, in reaction was necessary. I am hoping our government wasn't fully clear on the total damage it would cause.

edit on 10-5-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: reldra

What really happens is when people get lulled into a false sense
of security and safety that is when all hell breaks loose.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:20 PM

originally posted by: forthelove
For every action there is a reaction, sometimes that reaction is greater in consequence than the action that precipitated it. For instance, what came first Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima? Of course the USA was wrong to level 2 cities in Japan when the obvious signs of surrender were already in place, but hey, let's not forget what caused the reaction; that little thing called Pearl Harbor, that and the fact they had a new toy to use and were just looking for an excuse to use it.

There hasn't been another one dropped since has there? So, perhaps the world learned a very important lesson in what NOT to do when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. At least that they should be considered the very last resort, now if only we could find a way to just get rid of the 2000 nuclear warheads (no idea if this is accurate) that are scattered throughout the planet.

Ignorance is bliss.
The very reason nobody blasts them off is that there is enough for mutually assured destruction. With only a few in existence they become only calculated risks far more likely to be used.

More people died from fire bombings than the two nukes, but their implications were more devastating. It meant one could be easily set off over entire naval fleets, or armies. It is hard to fire bomb a flotilla or deployed troops. The Japanese knew they were done, there was no defense or point in trying, which in the end saved millions of lives from an invasion that would have happened if the nukes were never used.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:37 PM
a reply to: mamabeth

I saw an interview with a man who was a joy when war broke out in Okinawa .HE stated that the Japanese soldiers would kill okinawans for speaking their native language. He also stated the American soldiers showed the Okinawa people more compassion than the Japanese did.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:50 PM
Suppressed history, the bombs were never EVER necessary for Japan's surrender, because Japan was trying to surrender peacefully since January of 1945 with nearly identical terms as they were forced to accept in the end anyways, wit the exception of their emperor.

Japan Seeks Peace

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

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.

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

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.

Peace Overtures

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

Those who only know the "official story" to historical events, are usually missing more than half of the truth.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Hmmmm that was interesting. Thanks for sharing .

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:08 PM
The times were different, and we tend to judge based on our perspective. At the time the Allies really didn't know what they had. Indeed, all the work had been done in secret. When Harry Truman succeeded to the presidency upon Roosevelt's death, he did not know about "The Bomb." It was that closely held.

As has been mentioned, the Allies firebombed many German cities. The fire bombing of Dresden cost about 100,000 civilian lives, the same number killed at Hiroshima. So the Allies made some calculations. It takes a thousand airplanes X amount of time to drop ten thousand bombs and wreck a city, or it takes one airplane and one bomb to do the same thing. Out of those thousand airplanes you are going to lose a third of them and kill several thousand airmen, or, in the case of the new bomb, you likely won't lose anyone, or, if you do, you lose one airplane and a dozen crew members.

So which is better? Bear in mind they didn't know much about radiation at the time. They just knew they could build a bomb that was very powerful. And the Allies told Japan about it. They said, "We have a powerful new weapon, and if you don't quit, we're going to use it on your homeland. Of course, the Japanese are not very good quitters and they viewed it as propaganda. The Allies also made another calculation, based on what they had experienced island hopping across the Pacific. Every time they invaded an island, the Japanese fought back and fought back hard. The Allies lost a whole hell of a lot of men doing that, and they figured they would lose 1 Million men if they invaded Japan proper.

So they thought these new bombs were worth a try. But the Secretary of War at the time was a student of Japanese culture. So when plans were drawn up he implored the planners to leave Kyoto off the target list because there are so many ancient shrines there. That was a primary reason Hiroshima was chosen. It was the second choice.

The Japanese also knew all about the possibility of the atomic bomb. When Hiroshima went off several Japanese scientists knew exactly what had happened. There was a story of several of them in Tokyo seeing a lone B-29 fly over the city. It scared them crapless as they sought shelter as fast as possible. They thought Tokyo was going to be on the receiving end. They communicated their concerns up the line, and the next weekend was Nagasaki. That sealed the deal because the Japanese then knew exactly what they were facing.

The generals at the time also did not know about the bomb. After Hiroshima General Curtis LeMay cabled Washington wondering if we "had any more of those things" which he was quite willing to use. We did not, and he didn't have to because the Japanese capitulated so soon after. But still, the generals just thought we had a "big bomb." "Nukes" was not in their vocabulary at all.

Nowadays people are shocked that we "did such a thing," but that's a 2016 perspective, not the one of 1945. The policy of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction, has actually worked over the last 70 years. And that was formulated by non other than Hugh Everett, the guy who championed the "Many Worlds Theory" in physics. His fellow physicists treated him so badly over his theory, which, btw, is mathematically sound, that he quit physics altogether and went to work for the government, where he was the man primarily behind MAD as an official policy.

I'm not sure such a policy works in the face of ISIS and similar fanatics, but it held for a couple of generations at least.

I took a course on the history of the atomic bomb many years ago. For further reading you might try Brighter than a Thousand Suns; a personal history of the atomic scientists and The Making of the Atomic Bomb, both fascinating works on what happened back then.
edit on 5/10/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:16 PM
a reply to: schuyler

The bombs were more of a warning to the Soviets since they were island hopping from the North, and the Americans did not want a half n half divide like what happened to Germany. Many of the generals and administration officials were fully aware of Japans desire to surrender because we had already cracked their communications and intercepted everything they were discussing, including surrender.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:21 PM
I personally do not think there is any excuse good enough to justify dropping atomic bombs on innocent men, women, and children who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Those bombs didn't just effect those who were there when they were dropped but also the generations that came after as well.

This is not me justifying what the Japanese did either, before anyone says that. They are just as guilty as those who dropped those bombs. It was a disgusting thing those Japanese did just as it was a disgusting thing that America did in retaliation.

Pearl Harbor was a dark day in world history, but I'd say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were even darker.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: forthelove

There's been plenty of them dropped both before and after that actually. Just not on any people.

To clear up a couple other points. Japan attacked us in what they thought was a sneak attack. But truth is it wasn't exactly as sneaky as they thought. We had been warned and even intercepted intel from them that it would happen and certain key figures chose to ignore those warnings and instead use it as a reason to go to war. So it didn't have to go down the way it did at all.

Another thing to consider in our Reaction as you put it is was it justified. Even if we pretend that there was no way of knowing of the attack at pearl harbor early and even going so far as to say we might be justified in using such a weapon to begin with, does that justify the fact that we targeted two civilian cities?? These weren't military targets like what was hit at pearl harbor. These were two cities filled with innocent civilians.

So while they haven't yet been used again I'm not sure if that means we won't see something similar in the future. Clearly as bad as it was it certainly didn't stop us or anyone else from making more of them or refining their design. So if it didn't deter anyone away from them anyway, maybe it wasn't worth it at all. Maybe it just showed the world that there is no limit to human destruction and brutality.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

yeah, I mean wasn't like we warned them that we were going to drop atom bombs on them.....

Shortly before the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the United Stated showered the Japanese cities of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and 33 other potential targets with over 5 million leaflets warning civilians of the impending attack. In Japanese, the back of the pictured leaflet read:

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

An American-controlled radio station on Saipan was broadcasting a similar message to the Japanese people every 15 minutes. Five days after the fliers were distributed, Hiroshima was destroyed by the “Little Boy” atomic device. Following the first attack, the U.S. air force dropped even more leaflets:

America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

Three days after Hiroshima, the “Fat Man” bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

The distribution of these leaflets, along with the radio broadcasts, does put a dent in the argument that America was unconcerned about the potential civilian deaths as a result of an atomic attack, but the debate over the bombs’ necessity in ending the war will never be truly resolved. Also interestingly, one of the original potential bomb sites was the Japanese Emperor’s Palace, but it was scratched from the list due to its cultural significance.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: Lysergic

I have read about that as well. I can understand not heeding the first warning, but the second?? Surely many people in one city lost many friends and relatives in the other. So why the hesitation??? Im not necessarily against the fact that the bomb was dropped, just saying it was not necessary for a Japanese surrender.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: Lysergic

It doesn't matter, we still dropped them. There's no excuse for doing such a thing. I'm pretty sure those innocent people who died had nothing to do with the actions of the Japanese government.

I doubt you'd be justifying any other country doing such a thing to America.

And yes, America has done some pretty dispicable things abroad, war crimes included.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:11 PM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It doesn't matter, we still dropped them. There's no excuse for doing such a thing. I'm pretty sure those innocent people who died had nothing to do with the actions of the Japanese government.

We killed more civilians firebombing Tokyo and other cities.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:19 PM
prepeare to be depressed once you see how many bombs have been detonated......

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:19 PM
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Perspective man. This was the last war where basically nearly anything goes. Chemicals and bio agents were banned after WW1, but they still saw limited use, especially by the Japanese against the Chinese. Oh you should know of the horrors unit 731 unleashed upon the Chinese. Even the NAZIS would cringe at some of the things they did. Very little honor there for a people who cherished honor.

How fitting that they never saw justice in a trial by the West, but the Soviets had their revenge:

Instead of being tried for war crimes, the researchers involved in Unit 731 were given immunity by the U.S. in exchange for their data on human experimentation.[10] Some were arrested by Soviet forces and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949. Americans did not try the researchers so that the information and experience gained in bio-weapons could be co-opted into the U.S. biological warfare program.[11] On 6 May 1947, Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, wrote to Washington that "additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as 'War Crimes' evidence."[10] Victim accounts were then largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda.[12]

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: Lysergic

Good propaganda in the aftermath of Hiroshima. The US did not have any more bombs. They had used up the fissionable material in the first Nevada test and the two cities. Not that they couldn't make more, but at the time, they simply did not have it.

Now, to other posters, as I stated, they did not really understand radiation effects at the time. Yes, the bombs made "subsequent generations suffer," but they didn't know that. Secondly, civilian lives in warfare are not sacrosanct. We (the Allies) destroyed HUNDREDS of cities throughout Europe in WW II. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in Europe due to Allied bombings, far more than in Japan. Neither Germany nor Japan cared one white about civilian lives. Germany even used a travel guidebook to bomb England, picking on cities like Bath because they were a tourist attraction. The Japanese swath through Indonesia and Korea is full of civilian casualties and atrocities.

The thing that bugs me is this idea that an atomic weapon is "bad" just because it is a nuke. So what about a 1,000 pound bomb filled with TNT? Is that not equally bad? If you say, 'Well, a thousand pound bomb does not do as much damage as a nuke,' I agree! But a thousand of them do. What is the difference between 100,000 dead in Dresden versus 100,000 dead in Hiroshima? Would you rather be instantly incinerated by an atomic blast or burned to death in a firestorm? Neither is a good thing, but I'll tell you I would prefer the former. To make a distinction is what is folly.

Yes, the Americans may have had their eye on the Russians advancing on Japan, but the fact is Truman was a very simple man. He could see the calculations: A MILLION American servicemen or a couple of Japanese cities? Do the math. He was not a nuanced kind of guy. He didn't ask all the academic generals if it was okay. It was not BECAUSE of the Russians that the weapons were used. He used them because he thought the circumstances warranted it.

Personally, I wish they would have picked a small island off the coast of Japan, given the populace a month to get off, and bombed that as an example, then said, "This is what is going to happen to you." That would have saved about 160,000 civilian lives (Nagasaki killed about 60,000.) But they didn't do that, and I wasn't there to make a pitch. Plus, if those bombs has NOT been used, I very likely wouldn't be here to talk about it either. Funny how that works out sometimes.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:15 PM
The poor Japanese. Forces by US sanctions into a war they did not want, then deliberately nuked and firebombed into the nineteenth century -- all because some white folks didn't like economic competition from uppity 'Asiatics'.

Some history Americans are never taught.

Off topic: what FDR did to the Japanese is pretty much what Trump wants to do to the Chinese. Where will the next Pearl Harbour be, I wonder?

edit on 10/5/16 by Astyanax because: of a bad link.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in