>>1597816

>Let me remain ignorant!
It's not like this isn't accepted knowledge at all.

>[T]he 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. . . .
>[I]n being the first to use it, we . . . 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.

>Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:
>It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.

- Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff

>The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

- Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr

>provides a second-hand word of mouth account without citation
From Nixon. Those are Nixon's words.

>I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.
- Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:

>"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."

con't

You understand Japanese suicide has been prevalent through it's history? I would like a proper response instead of a retarded one.

You literally said they nuked the japs to stop them from committing nation wide suicide. Are you serious in wanting to be taken seriously?

>ask for sources
>still no sources
Christ. I hope you're not in academia and if you are your fucking school should be ashamed of themselves.

>we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.
- Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated in a 1959 interview:

>very vivid in my mind. . . . I can recall as if it were yesterday, [Marshall's] insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question . . . the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision.
- In a 1985 letter recalling the views of Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy elaborated on an incident that was

>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. . . .
- In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
>Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

It prevented biological attacks on American civilians. Daily reminder that the Japanese Empire was horrible, and many of its war criminals were never prosecuted.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cherry_Blossoms_at_Night

I'd just like to jump in here. The estimated casualties (U.S.) for Operation Downfall were much greater than the combined total of deaths caused by the bombs. I don't really think that Japan surrendered just because of the bombs, but if the invasion had gone through it would have been terrible for both sides.

>statement, interviews, diary entries and word of mouth accounts
>not sources in 2016
>even verified multiple times and accepted to be true

Truly ignorant. I actually sourced each and every quote. A source is not a book, a source is just that, a source.

>A source text[1][2] is a text (sometimes oral) from which information or ideas are derived. In translation, a source text is the original text that is to be translated into another language.

>but if the invasion had gone through it would have been terrible for both sides.

The point is they lost, they were on their way out. How can you justify the use of that power when the enemy is all but done? Japan was in it's death throes, and then 300k civilians were killed. It's the context of how they were used, many officials agree it was a simple experiment of a new weapon yet to be actually used.

It had no place in military strategy past flexing muscles - which is fine, but the enemy was utterly destroyed already.

not on a similar scale to this though, and certainly not among civilians. for the most part suicide as a japanese institution was more focused within the upper classes.

not until world war 2 did you see japanese working classes killing themselves en masse. and towards the end of the war the japanese government started conscripting children as young as 14, most notably in the battle of okinawa (in which 150000 civilians died).

perhaps extinction was an exaggeration, but there is every indication that had the bombs not been dropped, the war would have carried on much longer and many more civilians would have died than did, either by their own hand or at the hands of their government.

obviously i don't think the american government factored this into their decision making, but they certainly had a vested interest in ending the war as soon as possible

>but they certainly had a vested interest in ending the war as soon as possible
I think you should read into WWII a bit. By the times the nukes were used Japan was barely fighting, the war was over. Germany was done.

Nothing you have said holds any meaning when all the officials around the dropping of the bomb agree it was an experiment in all but name.

Like, do you even bother reading up on history?

The japs were absolute mad cunts and were intent on fighting to the last man, woman and child- they were fucking handing out bayonets to every household. Even after the second bomb was dropped some officers were planning on a coup when word got out Tojo was planning to surrender

>do you even bother reading up on history?
xD

Literally every single one of those things is very prevalent in times of war throughout our history. The use of nuclear weapons in this situation is new and disgusting.

Japan was barely fighting because they were preparing for the Americans and Soviets to pour down, don't kid yourself

I'm sure everyone itt knows this, but the fire bombing campaigns killed more than the nukes. If it weren't for the nukes, the fire bombing campaigns would have continued until either the Soviet Union or USA launched an invasion of the island. Pointing out that Japan was "on its way out" is pretty pointless seeing how committed their leadership was to fighting on. I don't see any other way the war could have ended.

So you don't, good to know.

Japan *wasn't* on its way out, just showcases your ignorance, they were running propaganda campaigns 24/7 how they would rather kill themselves than surrender to the foreigners and shit like that, they were fucking set for a defensive war and the news coming from Germany only hardened their resolve; it took the bombs to disabuse them of that notion, and even after Hiroshima they still refused to surrender

You did worse so therefore the nukes are justifiable?

How is that reasonings? You also understand the fire bombings just add to America's 'evil'? They mainly targeted civilian areas, not military.

>Where earlier raids targeted aircraft factories and military facilities, the Tokyo firebombing was aimed largely at civilians, in places including Tokyo’s downtown area known as shitamachi, where people lived in traditional wood and paper homes at densities sometimes exceeding 100,000 people per square mile.

> is pretty pointless seeing how committed their leadership was to fighting on.
With what though, they had nothing. You can say that all you want, they were adamant in fighting on. They were done, they had sticks, they had no weapons.

I mean you cannot argue the nukes were an experiment, these are the words of the officials themselves who surround the dropping of the nukes. Who spoke against them at the time.

>The point is they lost, they were on their way out.
Do you know that the only "surrender" agreement that they put forward was one where they got to keep a bunch of captured territory, and the US had to fuck off and leave them alone?
They had no plans to stop fighting unless they got what they wanted.

>Japan *wasn't* on its way out, just showcases your ignorance

Kek, they are not my words bud, but you know. The 5 star generals of the time, the admirals of the time. The people who were actually fighting the war at the highest level. You are arguing your own subjective opinion, which is retarded. I am expressing the opinion of the generals of the time.

>They had no plans to stop fighting unless they got what they wanted.
That is how war goes, yes.

They offered the allies a "surrender" agreement where they got to keep nearly all of their territories, including Manchuria and Korea, and when the US told them only unconditional surrender would be accepted they told them to fuck off.

It was either the nukes or a full on invasion

>That is how war goes, yes.
No, most people are wise enough to surrender when the only other option is complete destruction.
See: The various nations that were too weak to fend off the German military.

You're deliberately ignoring my point. Let me make it clearer.

No nukes = more dead

Can you give a better alternative? What do you think the Americans should have done?

You can try to justify it all you want. This is exactly the point of this thread.

You're an idiot, like, a proper idiot. Dropped on your head or something, you are still arguing subjectivity. You cannot accept the fact that even the admirals, generals and even later presidents agree that Japan was done, ready for surrender and the nukes were dropped for the sake of it, to see what they could do.

Ignorance truly is bliss. ALl you can say is "you're wrong", when "I" am not saying anything but simply parroting the opinions of peoples whose weight is much heavier than that of Mr. user of the internet.

the japanese were barely fighting because they were preparing to defend kyushu against a massive land invasion from the americans. there's some really interesting (but sad) stuff written about operation ketsu-go, what would have been the response against operation downfall. the plans involved 10000 planes earmarked for kamikaze attacks and the use of 28 million reserves (read: conscripted men and women with ages ranging from 15-60) to defend the island while the emperor and his guard waited it out in a bunker. the plans were drawn up to fight off an invasion force double the size of what american forces had planned to commit, which suggests to me that the japanese really didn't want to surrender unless they absolutely had to.

the opinions of american officials is of course valid, but when balanced with what the japanese were preparing to do in defence of the realm (which of course we couldn't have known about until after) to my mind the use of nuclear force was preferable to what could have happened

I think it's you that's the retard.

They were ready to surrender on

THEIR
OWN
TERMS

and not on America's. That's what you're not getting. That the eventual surrender and the surrender they're talking about
ARE
COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT
THINGS

>You're deliberately ignoring my point. Let me make it clearer.
>No nukes = more dead

Your point is wrong.

>t. Most of the generals/admirals and presidents of the time

Again, THIS IS NOT MY POINT. I AM EXPRESSING THE OPINIONS OF GENERALS AND ADMIRALS WHO ACTUALLY DIRECTED THE WAR.

You simply cannot refute it, unless you think your opinion matters as much as that of say, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Leahy (at the time chief of staff).

That is what you don't get, I unlike you am not arguing anything subjective of my own. You actually think your opinion matters, quite funny.

Are you saying everyone should do the same thing?

the end of that sentence should have read 'to my mind justified the bombs. certainly the use of nuclear force was preferable to what could have happened'

sorry, it's late

>which of course we couldn't have known about until after
Most of these comments I listed were made many years after the use of the bombs.

>which suggests to me that the japanese really didn't want to surrender unless they absolutely had to.
Have you actually read/watched anything by the survivors of the nukes? It's explicitly expressed that the Japanese PEOPLE, not military PEOPLE knew the war was over and they couldn't win it. I mean read this account.

>we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.

That was over 10 years after the dropping of the bombs.

>and 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.
>and 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.

This has literally nothing to do with the dropping of the bombs. The fact you think it does is pretty funny. There is actually nothing more i can say to you, you are saying they didn't want to surrender, I am saying the generals, presidents and admirals of the time say they were. Of course you are correct, user. Why did I ever doubt you?

I swear I've never seen a dumb faggot such as you
IF
THEY
WANTED
TO
SURRENDER
WHY
DID
THEY
REFUSE
TO?
Kill yourself ASAP to save your poor parents the shame of having a mongoloid of a son

Men back then were low test because they lacked our diet high in meat infused with hormones.

>your point is wrong
Between 130 000 and 250 000 people were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Projected US casualties from operation downfall range from about 125 000 to 800 000. Some estimates put Japanese casualties in the millions, but it's hard to find a reliable estimate. I think it's fair to assume that Japanese casualties would be many more times that of the US, looking at Okinawa and the pacific theatre in general. This is all from wikipedia, if you want to check my figures.

as far as i can tell, there is no public information on the plans for operation ketsugo before the 1990s, so it's possible that the higher ups in the american military wouldn't have known about it until far more recently than your quotes. in any case, those are from the point of view of the american military, not the japanese military, who were still very much prepared to continue fighting.

>Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more important than hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives. And the people concurred, in silence, without protest. To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology

that's a quote from a paper by James Jones, who is a professor of history at the university of florida. i'll see if i can dig it out

>reading about Unit 731
>some patients were put in centrifuges and spun until death
WTF LMAO

>This is all from wikipedia, if you want to check my figures.
Oh, into the treash it goes.

Here I was arguing the views of the admirals and generals who say they could have won the war without the use of the bombs. Of course you are right, wiki scholar.

Where does it say they wanted to surrender? Literally saying the opposite, just that they were not capable of actually fighting, since you know, their whole population was starving and literally had no shoes.

>“We had no shoes. How could we win the war?”

>And the people concurred, in silence, without protest
You know this is simply wrong? As expressed by actual survivors of the nukes? That's actual propaganda, especially this part - To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology.

They had plans to defend themselves against an invasion, and? They had no ways to properly defend themselves, do you actually believe the entirety of the Japanese nation would seppuku if they had been invaded, are you literally retarded?

>Are you saying everyone should do the same thing?
I'm saying that committing suicide and forcing your civilian population to endure an incredibly bloody invasion is generally a bad thing, yes. The emperor of Japan had to step in because his bloodthirsty military officials STILL didn't want to surrender after being nuked twice. For them, it was either victory or death. They thought that they might as well take everyone else down with them in the process.

'survivors of the nukes' is the key part of that sentence there. and i didn't write it, but jones does support his claims.

and obviously i don't think every last japanese man woman and child would have slit their bellies the second an american man set foot in miyazaki, but there is evidence to suggest that was still a massive number of japanese soldiers and citizens who were prepared to take death in battle over dishonor. there have also been numerous cases of the japanese military making civilians commit suicide in order to avoid shaming their ancestors.

i'm going to go to bed now, but i'll keep an eye out for this thread in the morning. in spite of the name-calling, i have enjoyed this discussion

The wiki page cites its sources, including "admirals and generals". You're either trolling or being willfully ignorant. In either case, it's sad.

>in spite of the name-calling, i have enjoyed this discussion
w/e, cya. Me too, desu.

We shall agree to disagree.

You are still operating under the assumption that a starving populace with little to no military assets and no capability to create military assets are capable of actually defending themselves against an invasion by forces who just won a major world war.

You are missing the part where many, many officials refer to the nukes as experiments.

Sure some japs would have killed themselves to avoid surrender, that's simply Japanese people, you cannot nuke them because they are like that, is hara-kiri literally your reasonings for dropping the nukes?

Yep, they are still assumptions though. How many died in Nanking?

Jap's only fault is not killing enough chinks.

Oh for god's sake.
This is what was sent to them, is their answer. That was on July 27th, On August 6th the bomb was dropped. They were warned, they refused to bow down

Kek. Just stop posting.

Nanking neva happen.

>nips have mass torture experimentation programs
>America should take the blame
Lmao jap

America is explicitly to blame for pardoning them of all their war crimes, yes.

Pic related, a member of unit 731 - free and clear.

Nukes were pretty bad, but not worse than the literal firebomb genocide the US inflicted on the Japanese cities from 1942 to 1945 because they had attacked one military base

The generals who opposed the nukes were hypocrites to even care anymore after the mass firebombing horror had occured for years

>The generals who opposed the nukes were hypocrites to even care anymore after the mass firebombing horror had occured for years

You are saying this without the use of context.

Firebombing CAN be justified as they WON the war, or at least defeated Japan, they destroyed their ability to war, they destroyed their factories. Yes it went overboard when they bombed civilians.

The Nukes though? It's agreed by many of the top's of the US military that at the time the nukes were used Japan had been essentially neutered, yes they would have kept fighting but their capabilities to war were next to nill. It was en experiment to see how the nukes would fare.

>MacArthur
>opposing the nukes

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

the genocidal maniac wanted to use more nukes.

:^)

>Japerture Science
>We do what we must, because we can

How about you read up on why he was sacked?

How about that image directly states advocating the use of nuclear weapons was directly outside his ability.

How about you read the nixon accounts of MacArthur and his feelings, which I post earlier. I will actually post it again.

>MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.

How does dissenting against the US govt and it's policies and getting fired because of it do anything but argue in my favor?

Before you get it twisted. I am not against the nuke, I am against nuking Japan at the state which they did.

Much like MacArthur.