Untold History of the United States

[Ian]

I'm sorry, but let me put this in the politest way possible: You've posted (and argued) nothing but nonsense in this thread. If you tried to argue your case in front of competent and honest historians, they'd laugh you out of town.

Oh..well...if you say so, it must be true. Geez if only you would have enlightened me earlier oh great historical pubba. What a load of self congratulatory BS.

Actually, that's not a bad idea Sandi. There must be some universities around you. Reach out to the history department of one and offer to hold an open-forum discussion with one or a couple of their history professors on the subject; their students can come view it as they like. Let us know how that goes.

[klr]

I'm sorry, but let me put this in the politest way possible: You've posted (and argued) nothing but nonsense in this thread. If you tried to argue your case in front of competent and honest historians, they'd laugh you out of town.

Oh..well...if you say so, it must be true. Geez if only you would have enlightened me earlier oh great historical pubba. What a load of self congratulatory BS.

It's not our job to enlighten you - or anyone else's either, not unless they're being paid to do so. It's your own responsibility. That you hold a warped world-view that seemingly makes you incapable of researching and acknowledging facts that are unpalatable to you ... well, that's not our problem either.

[sandinista]

Sorry Hate-boy...

Oh nooooo, uhhh "hate boy" ooh my feelings they hurt! Are you 5? Sorry you lost, you lost big time. You'll get over believing your myths some day...well...probably not, but one can only hope. you know you lost, i can tell by your tone, and i know having your myths challenged turns you into a spiteful little defensive boy, and thats fine, to be expected. I get the same reaction when challenging peoples religious beliefs.

[Ian]

History's on my side, Sandi. You're the one presenting an alternative theory here, not me. I'd be more than happy to subscribe to it if you could prove it.

[sandinista]

I'm sorry, but let me put this in the politest way possible: You've posted (and argued) nothing but nonsense in this thread. If you tried to argue your case in front of competent and honest historians, they'd laugh you out of town.

Oh..well...if you say so, it must be true. Geez if only you would have enlightened me earlier oh great historical pubba. What a load of self congratulatory BS.

Actually, that's not a bad idea Sandi. There must be some universities around you. Reach out to the history department of one and offer to hold an open-forum discussion with one or a couple of their history professors on the subject; their students can come view it as they like. Let us know how that goes.

Already done, this is all old news, learned this in history and political science classes at university. It's only a few americans that still believe the BS you're trying to shovel.

[sandinista]

History's on my side, Sandi. You're the one presenting an alternative theory here, not me. I'd be more than happy to subscribe to it if you could prove it.

Actually, it's you that is presenting and alternative theory.

[Ian]

History's on my side, Sandi. You're the one presenting an alternative theory here, not me. I'd be more than happy to subscribe to it if you could prove it.

Actually, it's you that is presenting and alternative theory.

How do ya figure? Do I need to prove that Japan had actually surrendered prior to August 6th? Funny that nobody including the Japanese government knows anything about that, even after one bomb and after a Soviet invasion.

The facts of history are what they are. You're claiming that something else was happening behind the scenes, a deception about the true intent of the bombs and about Japan seeking to surrender when in fact they were mobilizing for an invasion. I'd be more than happy to subscribe to it if it could be proven. But don't go telling yourself that the facts of history back you up. You're the one challenging them here, not me.

[klr]

Sorry Hate-boy...

Oh nooooo, uhhh "hate boy" ooh my feelings they hurt! Are you 5? Sorry you lost, you lost big time. You'll get over believing your myths some day...well...probably not, but one can only hope. you know you lost, i can tell by your tone, and i know having your myths challenged turns you into a spiteful little defensive boy, and thats fine, to be expected. I get the same reaction when challenging peoples religious beliefs.

You're the one with the beliefs bordering on the religious: No substance to them.

Tell me, why is it that when I Google "japan surrender offer 1943", or the same for 1944, I find nothing at all to back up Pilger's claim? Is Google in cahoots with the US government perchance? Am I not searching properly? Please provide some credible links or other resources that would substantiate Pilger's remarkable claim. And yes, it is remarkable, because like all the other outlandish claims made here, would turn accepted history on its head if there were actual substance to it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thus we see how desperate people like sandi can be.

[sandinista]

[pErvinalia]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

[JimC]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

Off the top of my head - a rigorous naval blockade of the Japanese home islands, preventing any import of oil, coal or gas. Japan has limited domestic fossil fuel reserves. You could even allow food through the blockade. Now, would this have resulted in an eventual Japanese surrender with fewer casualties? I don't know. I am uncertain. The pro-bombing argument however is generally put forward with absolute certainty that there was literally no other option and when I see absolute certainty, I smell a rat.

And in the meantime, what would be happening to allied POWs, both in Japan and in the occupied territories? What would continue to happen to the chinese people?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

How?

[pErvinalia]

Followup points -

1. "allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast" - is there substantiation or corroboration taht the allied occupation authority "banned all mention?"

2. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion." -- yes, but you know HOW that air supremacy would have exerted pressure? By kill hundreds of thousands of people in cities all across Japan. That's how "air supremacy" "exerts pressure" -- by bombing and firebombing the fuck out of them. I don't think anyone is taking the position that we weren't fairly surely going to pound Japan into submission, but just because you don't drop atomic bombs doesn't mean you aren't going to be killing hundreds of thousands of people. And, of course, that says nothing about what Zilla pointed out - the hundreds of thousands of people, including civilians, the Japanese were lining up for the slaughter just as the atomic bombs dropped and who surely would have gone into the mass graves had the bombs not hastened the end of the war. That report that is cited did not say that the bombs did not shorten the war (in fact, the report estimated that by December the Japanese may have surrendered anyway, although that was based in part on what the Japanese told interrogators after the fact - they'd have good reason to claim they were nearing surrender...). But, the report does not state that fewer people would have died had the bombs not been dropped. http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

3. "In waging their bogus "war on terror",..." Yep, that's a give-away. "Bogus" war on terror. Yes, yes, the entire war is "bogus." LOL. There is no such thing as Al Qaeta, they never attacked the US, and there is no reason to be concerned about global terrorism, nuclear/bio/chem proliferation, and international terrorist organizations and rogue totalitarian states. All bogus.

4. I read through the article, and it really doesn't add anything to the discussion. We all know the atomic bomb drops sucked, and were horrific and we all wish they never had to be dropped at all. However, nothing in the article above indicates that the alternative would have been less bloody, or was even LIKELY to be less bloody.

The thing that no one seems to address is this part:
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

[JimC]

The fact that cynical politicians were seeing additional, realpolitik benefits (as they saw them) doesn't mean that those "side benefits" were the sole motivation, or that the use of the bombs did not achieve the goal of immediate, unconditional surrender, saving the lives of many, when compared to letting the war drag on, with more POW casualties (they were dying like flies in the camps) and a huge potential for Japanese and Allied servicemen in the inevitable invasion.