The Atomic Bomb Didn't End the War
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Damocles and the other apologists should be along any minute to deny the truth...
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Yawn
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
General Eisenhower opposed it, "Japan was already defeated. Dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
The Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Nimitz agreed: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in their defeat."
Admiral Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, concurred: the atomic attacks were "of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already ready to surrender."
By the spring of 1945 Japan was faltering. Germany had surrendered in May and since April US aircraft had roamed almost at will over Japan. Heavy bombing raids using dozens of B-29s were met with token resistance, and the firebombing of Tokyo had not been seriously opposed. A sea blockade had decimated imports.
During this time Japan put out peace feelers: on 25 July Japan tried to get envoys to Russia, carrying Imperial letters which read, in part: "His Majesty, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the US insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on for the honor and existence of the Motherland"
These feelers were rebuffed by the US demand for unconditional surrender.
But this was unacceptable to Japan, for it could mean that Hirohito –seen as semi-divine – could be put on trial.
In mid-1945 The Washington Post kept asking why Truman was demanding unconditional surrender while granting that a condition could swiftly end hostilities.
In July, Time wondered whether the answer was some "deep secret" while the United States News confirmed, days after Hiroshima, that "competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb."
And, of course, post-Nagasaki, the US did grant the condition that the Emperor be left alone.
So if America could agree to this in August, why not in July or even June?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/phil-strongman-hiroshima-is-a-war-crime-that-haunts-my-family-67-years-on-8008821.html
The Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Nimitz agreed: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in their defeat."
Admiral Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, concurred: the atomic attacks were "of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already ready to surrender."
By the spring of 1945 Japan was faltering. Germany had surrendered in May and since April US aircraft had roamed almost at will over Japan. Heavy bombing raids using dozens of B-29s were met with token resistance, and the firebombing of Tokyo had not been seriously opposed. A sea blockade had decimated imports.
During this time Japan put out peace feelers: on 25 July Japan tried to get envoys to Russia, carrying Imperial letters which read, in part: "His Majesty, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the US insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on for the honor and existence of the Motherland"
These feelers were rebuffed by the US demand for unconditional surrender.
But this was unacceptable to Japan, for it could mean that Hirohito –seen as semi-divine – could be put on trial.
In mid-1945 The Washington Post kept asking why Truman was demanding unconditional surrender while granting that a condition could swiftly end hostilities.
In July, Time wondered whether the answer was some "deep secret" while the United States News confirmed, days after Hiroshima, that "competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb."
And, of course, post-Nagasaki, the US did grant the condition that the Emperor be left alone.
So if America could agree to this in August, why not in July or even June?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/phil-strongman-hiroshima-is-a-war-crime-that-haunts-my-family-67-years-on-8008821.html