64 Years ago, Yesterday... (Warning some graphic material)

page: 17
53
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Oatmeal
 


Thanks. Like I said in that u2u I sent you I know the stuff you were saying is history and facts. I just took certain thngs the wrong way. As far as those pictures you posted, I've been incombat and seen war first hand, and I think you said you have too. I dont like seeing pics like that, brings back bad and traumatic memories. I know those pics where from years ago, but war is just as violent and brutal now. I mean I have killed people, even though they were "enemies" shooting at me its still horrible and I'm wracked with guilt.. I cant get it outta my head and hate thinking about it.


Peace



[edit on 16-8-2009 by jeasahtheseer]




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Thank You, and I see where you are coming from...




Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima. Hirohito then answered : "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."[25]


I think The Emperor summarizes the bombings perfectly.




平和



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

• July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

• July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".


It should be noted that these exchanges did not indicate that Japan was interested in surrendering exactly.

Ending the war can mean a ceasefire instead of a surrender.

Also, there was no indication that Japan wanted the Soviets to transmit any immanent message to the US. These talks could well have been planning for an end to the war after our troops had been demoralized in a bloody invasion of Japan.

I'd say in hindsight that Japan didn't intend to wait for the invasion, and that while Japan did hope to convince the Russians to pressure us into giving terms that were more like a ceasefire than a surrender, Japan was going to take whatever they could get and surrender on any terms.

However, that's me speaking in hindsight.

For the people who were analyzing the intercepts in the middle of the war, there was nothing concrete enough to say that Japan was definitely trying to surrender.





Originally posted by silo13

July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).


Context in this one is particularly important.

Japan's ambassador to Russia had just insisted (again, as he had been insisting this for nearly a month) that the only thing Japan could hope to gain in the way of surrender terms was a guarantee for the Emperor.

That paragraph was from when Japan's foreign minister wired back in reply, characterizing surrender "just with a guarantee for the Emperor" as unconditional surrender.

So his rejection of unconditional surrender here was a rejection of "surrender just with a guarantee for the Emperor".

On the other hand, I think he sent that out before reviewing the Potsdam Proclamation. So it is possible that he'd have had a different view of "the Potsdam Proclamation plus a guarantee for the Emperor".

But regardless, it was still not enough to give US intelligence analysts a clear idea that Japan was about to give a surrender offer that was either timely (i.e. before invasion) or on acceptable terms.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Oralloy

Originally posted by Jezus
Most historians agree that Japan was already trying to surrender...


All historians agree that Japan did not send any surrender requests until after both A-bombs had been dropped.


All historians?


This is more accurate.

Most historians agree that Japan did not send any (unconditional) surrender requests until after both A-bombs had been dropped.


No, that is less accurate.

All historians agree that the A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9, and that Japan sent their first request for a conditional surrender on August 10 and their first request for an unconditional surrender on August 14.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Those bombs were not dropped not to end the war, not to save lives, not to save the Americans from invading Japan.

Those bombs were dropped to prove to Russia the USA was not to be taken lightly, to justify 2 plus billions of dollars spent on making the bombs and so USA could be the *first* in the world to use atomic weapons.


That is incorrect. The reason for the bombs was to make Japan surrender.





Originally posted by silo13
Did you bother taking a look at the list of the people who opposed it?


About the only one who opposed it as unnecessary during the war was Ike (and he never convinced anyone he knew what he was talking about).




Originally posted by silo13

Top U.S. military leaders recognized Japan’s growing desperation, prompting several to later insist that the use of atomic bombs was not needed to secure victory. Those who believed that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was morally repugnant and/or militarily unnecessary included:

Admiral William Leahy,

General Dwight Eisenhower,

General Douglas MacArthur,

General Curtis LeMay,

General Henry Arnold,

Brigadier General Bonner Fellers,

Admiral Ernest King,

General Carl Spaatz,

Admiral Chester Nimitz, and

Admiral William “Bull” Halsey.


It should be noted that aside from Ike, all these people came upon their anti-A-bomb views in hindsight, long after the war was over.

LeMay, Nimitz, and Spaatz actually reacted to Nagasaki by pressing Washington to have the next A-bomb dropped on Tokyo, because they thought it would be more likely to shock Japan into surrendering.

MacArthur said during the war that bombing wouldn't make Japan surrender and we'd still have to invade.

All Leahy had to say about the A-bombs during the war was "I'm an explosives expert and I say these things will never work".



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
This is more accurate.

Japan: Okay, this is over lets talk about it...
US: Surrender Unconditionally!
Japan: wait wait...Unconditionally?
BOMB 1
Japan: WTF?! We surrender lets talk! Hello? Hello?
BOMB 2
Japan: We Surrender Unconditionally...



More accurate yet:

US: Surrender -- here are the terms
Japan: We ignore your list of terms with contempt
BOMB 1
US: Surrender or we'll keep dropping A-bombs
Japan: -silence, crickets chirping-
Russia declares war and BOMB 2, within hours of each other
Japan: ok, we surrender, but please guarantee that you won't remove the Emperor
US: We will have the power to remove the Emperor whenever we feel like it
Japan: ok, we accept your terms



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

Truman ordered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki despite the fact that he and his top advisors were aware that the Japanese had abandoned hope for military victory and were seeking an end to the war.


But unfortunately they were not aware that Japan was willing to end the war "on acceptable terms".





Originally posted by silo13
OSS official Allen Dulles briefed Stimson on Japanese peace feelers at Potsdam. Dulles wrote in The Secret Surrender: “On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo--they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and the constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.”


Actually what Dulles learned was that the person who was claiming to be representing the Japanese government in a peace feeler was actually acting without any authorization from the Japanese government.

Dulles was told to continue contacts with the guy, in case talking to them led to an actual contact with the Japanese government.

Once the Japanese government got wind of it, they cut off the contact immediately.





Originally posted by silo13

Truman also decided to issue the Potsdam Proclamation without Stalin’s signature, despite Stalin’s eagerness to sign and Truman’s understanding that Soviet entry into the war would deeply demoralize Japan and end Japan’s misguided hopes of securing better surrender terms through Soviet intercession. [48]


Letting Stalin sign would have resulted in Stalin forcing the generous surrender terms in the Potsdam Proclamation to be modified into extremely harsh surrender terms that would include doing unpleasant things to Japan's Emperor.

Stalin didn't want generous surrender terms to induce a Japanese surrender. He wanted to conquer Hokkaido.

It is true that letting Stalin sign would likely have brought to an end Japan's quest to seek Soviet mediation. But I'm unsure if the net effect would be a Japanese surrender however.

It could well have made Japan decide to hold out for a bloody invasion to try to demoralize us into giving more generous terms -- as the Japanese Army was already insisting on right up to the point when the Emperor ordered the surrender.





Originally posted by silo13
So, knowing the Japanese were looking for peace.
Knowing they would have surrender if they know the Soviets were going to join in the war.
Knowing the Soviets would sign the Potsdam Proclamation - but not allowing the signature (so not to be seen by the Japanese) Truman removed every possibility of a peaceful surrender.


Truman didn't know that Japan would be likely to surrender if the Soviets declared war.

All the contacts with the Soviets were vague enough that it appeared entirely possible that Japan wanted a ceasefire instead of surrender (and maybe even only after we were demoralized by a bloody invasion of Japan).



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I never said Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally but the fact of the matter is that they were trying to surrender and end the war.

The bombs didn't need to be dropped to end the war.
Invasion didn't need to take place to end the war.


Originally posted by Oatmeal
Also from same source:



Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima. It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures. A May 5 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace. Sent to Berlin by the German ambassador.




You quoted and highlighted something here you didn't comprehend...

dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.

It is kind of convoluted but the quote is saying that the intercepted message removed any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to push for peace...

There is absolutely no doubt that the Japanese wanted peace and would have surrendered without invasion or nuclear bombs.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
I never said Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally but the fact of the matter is that they were trying to surrender and end the war.


Well, they would have had to accept the Potsdam terms in order to end the war. Surrendering on other terms wouldn't have stopped the war.

However, Japan's attempts to surrender were a little vague at the time the bombs were dropped. The first indication the US got that Japan was seriously interested in surrender came after we had already dropped both A-bombs.




Originally posted by Jezus
The bombs didn't need to be dropped to end the war.
Invasion didn't need to take place to end the war.


At the time they seemed to be the "least bad" of all the bad options available for ending the war however.




Originally posted by Jezus
dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.

It is kind of convoluted but the quote is saying that the intercepted message removed any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to push for peace...

There is absolutely no doubt that the Japanese wanted peace and would have surrendered without invasion or nuclear bombs.


The quote in question is a little misleading.

If the description of the cable is accurate, then the cable did not accurately describe the views of Japan's government or their army, and the US would have known that it did not accurately describe the views of Japan's government or army.

That would point to an easy answer to why the US government did not act on it: They knew it was bogus.

However, I'm not too sure that the cable is being accurately described. The claim that Japan had been trying for months or even years to surrender is completely false. That raises some question as to whether the rest is wrong as well.

Japan didn't start trying to surrender until July 1945, and they didn't actually manage to convey to the US that they wanted to surrender until August 10.

I've seen this May 5 cable raised on a number of boards in the past month -- I'll have to go see if I can look it up.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Oralloy]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oralloy
I've seen this May 5 cable raised on a number of boards in the past month -- I'll have to go see if I can look it up.


Got it.


"Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard," a German diplomat reported to Berlin after talking with a ranking Japanese naval officer on May 5, 1945, three days before Germany itself surrendered.


www.nytimes.com...

When you combine "large sections of the Japanese armed forces" with the fact that he was talking to a naval officer, it is clear that the true point of the memo is that the Japanese Navy was demoralized and ready to surrender.

That wasn't news. We had sunk the entire Japanese Navy.

However, the memo doesn't say anything about the views of the bulk of the Japanese Army, which was waiting to repel our invasion of Japan, and it doesn't say anything about the views of the government of Japan.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
One thing I find interesting, the elephant in the front room so to speak, that so many just pass on by?

When the planes carrying those bombs, clearly American bombers, flew into Japanese airspace, why was there no resistance?


But in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement.


That’s why.

They were done. No more planes, no more ships, NO MORE OIL. They were finished and they knew it.

And as is stated later on in this post, when going in for raids the bombers were having trouble even finding targets at this point in the war. There was virtually nothing left to bomb.


When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but garbage can targets. By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.


sousource

There is account after account after witness after government document and they all just keep piling up into a huge bonfire of evidence that not suggests, but proves, Truman KNEW Japan was finished. She could not go on, she could not defend herself, she had no more resources, an a population starving on it’s knees.

But people, so ready to discount the truth put a match to the evidence, watch the fire burn and wave away the smoke saying, ‘What? Surrender? They would have fought on for years.’ And then come up with some mythical body count of saved lives* that has no more evidence or proof than the smoke and mirrors they try to use to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs on women and children.


This final warning and expression of surrender terms to Japan was in any case a charade. The day before it was issued, Harry Truman had al- ready approved the order to release a 15 kiloton atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima.



we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary of war that: "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought 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, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."



After the Enola Gay released its cargo on Hiroshima, common sense common decency wouldn't apply here would have dictated a pause long enough to allow Japanese officials to travel to the city, confirm the extent of the destruction, and respond before the U.S. dropped a second bomb.

At 11 o'clock in the morning of August 9, Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki addressed the Japanese Cabinet: Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war.

Moments later, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki. Some hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died in the two attacks; many more suffered terrible injury and permanent genetic damage. After the war, His Majesty the Emperor still sat on his throne, and the gentlemen who ran the United States had absolutely no problem with this. They never had.



These are facts ladies and gentleman, not smoke and mirrors, but facts.

And I reiterate.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to end an already existing war, but begin a new war, the Cold War with the Soviets.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
One thing I find interesting, the elephant in the front room so to speak, that so many just pass on by?



They flew the same route and time as japanese mail planes did every day...



Truman KNEW Japan was finished. She could not go on, she could not defend herself, she had no more resources, an a population starving on it’s knees.


But willing to still fight to the death every man women and child even if this was true....

The bombs might have killed 200k, but more importantly it broke their will.



[edit on 23-8-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to end an already existing war, but begin a new war, the Cold War with the Soviets.



Russia was broken too, they lost 10 of millions to starvation and had no real war mechine left.....Patton wanted to keep rolling to Moscow with an unstoppable army at that point in time and American leaders said no....

So why say no when the Russians were easily beatable?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
One thing I find interesting, the elephant in the front room so to speak, that so many just pass on by?

When the planes carrying those bombs, clearly American bombers, flew into Japanese airspace, why was there no resistance?


There was resistance. The plane carrying the second A-bomb was chased off from Kokura Arsenal with anti-aircraft fire.




Originally posted by silo13
They were done. No more planes, no more ships, NO MORE OIL. They were finished and they knew it.


Japan had over a million soldiers waiting to fight to the death defending their beaches.

It surely would have been at least as bad as the invasion of Normandy.




Originally posted by silo13
There is account after account after witness after government document and they all just keep piling up into a huge bonfire of evidence that not suggests, but proves, Truman KNEW Japan was finished. She could not go on, she could not defend herself, she had no more resources, an a population starving on it’s knees.


The main thing Truman knew was that he had no surrender offers from Japan.

As long as Japan didn't surrender, the war was going to continue.




Originally posted by silo13
But people, so ready to discount the truth put a match to the evidence, watch the fire burn and wave away the smoke saying, ‘What? Surrender? They would have fought on for years.’ And then come up with some mythical body count of saved lives* that has no more evidence or proof than the smoke and mirrors they try to use to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs on women and children.


The military used to pre-order Purple Heart medals based on how many they thought they'd have to give out in a coming operation. They pre-ordered 500,000 medals for the invasion of Japan.

They didn't need to order any for either the Vietnam or Korean Wars, since the combined casualties from both wars was less than the number they'd ordered for the invasion of Japan.

It is true that there is a good case to be made, from hindsight, that Japan would have surrendered without the bombs or invasion.

But Truman didn't have the luxury of hindsight when the war was still ongoing and he wasn't seeing any surrender offers.




Originally posted by silo13
And I reiterate.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to end an already existing war, but begin a new war, the Cold War with the Soviets.


That is incorrect. The point of the A-bombs was to make Japan surrender.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
What I never understand is the most unprecidented time in history happened twice, yet the only rolling footage anyone has apparently seen of the mushroom cloud has only been 4 seconds of the Hiroshima cloud going up in the sky, and 3 seconds of the Nagasaki bomb just after the explosion.
Forgive me if im wrong but after all those tests in the desert prior to this you'd think the US would want better footage of actual nuclear bombings of 2 cities. There must be de-classified footage out there that noones seen before longer than just 4 seconds of the entire events.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
This thread is a travesty.

Talk about revisionist history!
The Japanese were not about to surrender. Their Government was hijacked by the Military and they didn't care if their people were being killed by the millions! They wanted above all else to stay in power no matter the cost in lives or what ever else happened to the people of Japan.

Dropping the Bomb actually saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

Revise that history!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
sure dont like these kinds of threads revisionist history indeed.

up to 1 million ameircans would have been killed with an invasion of the japanese mainland millions more of japanese it would have been a war of atrrition much like the pacfic campaigns were.

quite frankly say this to anyone one of the hundreds of marines and army personnel who did the fighting and dying just so some "person" can sit here and condemn them or the actions that led to those men comming home in one piece?

nah not going to have any of it what a load of horse puckey hey and guess what? it was a war?

dont want none ? dont start none pretty simple.

war is mean nasty and ugly thats why the call it a war,

and if you still have problems with that ww2 was faked and the nuclear bombs were faked by the cia for the nwo.

meh



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The end of the world will be built on assumptions and what ifs. It's this type of thinking that will end us all. We assume that Japan would never surrender even though multiple congressmen and U.S. generals contradicted this. Atomic weapons are disgusting and are a disgrace smudged upon the history of man.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
its not right

it really is not right


honestly if i lived in a past life during that time, i probably went to the capital the day after the bombs were dropped and lit myself on fire, because no populace deserves that.

my heart goes out to those people who were effected, im kinda surprised japan has destroyed us yet...

i never condone the behavior of military forces

killing each other solves nothing.

love is the only way



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89
Atomic weapons are disgusting and are a disgrace smudged upon the history of man.


Wrong again, they saved millions of lives and bought a end to WW2, despite what revisionists like to claim. Japan could have surrendered at any time, but they refused to until after both bombs were dropped - and the USA was gearing up to drop more.





new topics
 
53
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join