Japanese A-bomb victim's paper cranes eyed for UNESCO heritage list

Go on Japan, keep portraying yourself as the victim....

Go on Japan, keep portraying yourself as the victim....

Of course Japan was a victim..

A victim of the biggest war crime in history..

Two atomic evaporated cities full of innocents..

@TokyoLivingToday  07:03 am JST

A victim of the biggest war crime in history..

Yeah no. The Nanjing Massacre claimed about the same amount of lives and Auschwitz claimed 5x as many.

Yuji continues to stress the importance of compassion and life 

The Nagasaki bombing was definitely not necessary. America is just as guilty as anyone else and blatantly showed a disregard for human life. We should not forget that.

Is there anything in Japan they aren’t going to try and get a heritage listing for?

No one would have died in either city nor the countless innocent civilians across Asia if Japan hadn’t launched an aggressive, Imperialist war.

There are only two groups of people who even know about this UNESCO heritage list:

1) The people who work for UNESCO heritage.

2) Japanese people.

Japan is the only country in the world to have had a super-bomb dropped on them. The US is the only country to drop them. That is nothing for the US to brag about. Few seem to know that the Japanese were ready to surrender but that they wanted to keep the emperor as their head. The US policy was unconditional surrender. General Douglas's first piece of business was to allow the emperor to be the head of Japan. Debate whether the bomb was necessary or not, but there is no argument that the use of the bomb was a wartime extreme. The hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were not collateral damage. It was a cruel incident.

Few seem to know that the Japanese were ready to surrender but that they wanted to keep the emperor as their head. The US policy was unconditional surrender. General Douglas's first piece of business was to allow the emperor to be the head of Japan. 

The US cannot be held responsible for proposals that did not reach them unless you have some evidence that they did.

The Nagasaki bombing was definitely not necessary. 

"Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Japanese_reaction

Why is it that you never hear Japan explaining to the kids through storybooks or in the schools what Japan did that lead up to that event? Yes, we all acknowledge that this horrible action happened and ended/evaporated the lives of many innocent people. But remember, Japan, America didn't just spin the globe and put a finger on a country (in this case Japan) and decide "We're bored! Let's blow some shoit up!" Teach them about the real history!

I say let’s put the whole country and it’s nationals as UNESCO and so we can finally be over with this charade.

Japan wants everything in Japan to be on that list. I'm surprised the recycling bin out in front of Lawson's hasn't been nominated yet. The lengths little countries go to to get noticed. I hope nobody breaks the news to them that 99% of everyone else doesn't know what the hell the UNESCO list is and wouldn't give a crap even if they found out...

Why is it that you never hear Japan explaining to the kids through storybooks or in the schools what Japan did that lead up to that event? 

Why should the children be guilted on something they didn't do? After all what is right or wrong depends on the winning side.

General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan said:

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."

To which former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls commented

And I think he's right. We, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

It would be more worthwhile debating the ethics of conflicts.

Two atomic evaporated cities full of innocents..

Hiroshima was a major manufacturing hub and Nagasaki was a major port, both cities were propping up Imperial Japan’s war effort. They were vital to the Japanese war effort and were justifiably destroyed.

The Nagasaki bombing was definitely not necessary. America is just as guilty as anyone else and blatantly showed a disregard for human life. We should not forget that.

It was completely necessary as it helped end the war quicker while minimizing the amount of dead Americans and Japanese. Estimates state that around 10 million Japanese and 1 million Americans would have died in the event of an invasion. Would you prefer that over the bombs?

Few seem to know that the Japanese were ready to surrender but that they wanted to keep the emperor as their head.

You’re conveniently leaving out that Japan also demanded to keep it’s military, that they conduct their own war crime trials on their own military, and no occupation. They had ridiculous terms and the US had every right to deny them.

No one would have died in either city nor the countless innocent civilians across Asia if Japan hadn’t launched an aggressive, Imperialist war.

Korea and China had suffered occupation and invasions for 40+ years by the time WWII got under way. Japan then turned its attention to the rest of the Pacific while it thought the rest of the world was occupied with the war in Europe. Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong fell to the Japanese, followed in the first half of 1942 by the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore, and Burma. Japanese troops also invaded neutral Thailand and forced it to join them. Several Aleutian islands were also invaded and occupied. Then Pearl Harbor was attacked, although no decoration of war had been made. Thousands of people were killed and horrible atrocities committed during these conquests. Then Karma came home and the Japanese are now cr

This article is about Japanese war victims, not other countries or imperial Japan.

Estimates state that around 10 million Japanese and 1 million Americans would have died in the event of an invasion. Would you prefer that over the bombs?

Estimates are just that. America had options. It wanted to test its new toys. The first bomb might be justified, the second, bigger and better one in Nagasaki; no.

Estimates are just that.

What do you think estimates are? Just random numbers pulled out of nowhere? Do you have proof the estimations are wrong or are you just making stuff up to prove your point? Even the lowest estimates conclude more people would have died from an invasion than the bombs

America had options

What options? Blockade the country and starve out the common folk? Continue firebombing the entirety of the country (which killed more than the nukes themselves)? Wait for the Soviet Union to invade from the north and pillage across the country? What options are better?

the second, bigger and better one in Nagasaki; no.

Why not? Japanese officials refused to surrender and didn’t think the US had another bomb.

US greatest war criminal eva!!!

Indeed. I can't think of anything worse the US has done. Dropping atomic weapons on civilians..,,

Elvis is hereToday  08:34 am JST

Why should the children be guilted on something they didn't do?

Because somebody is going to deceitfully tell them their country was the victim of WW2 and should hold grudges accordingly. Go ahead and tell me that will never happen when we have commentators here that believe that.

Elvis is hereToday  08:56 am JST

US greatest war criminal eva!!!

Indeed. I can't think of anything worse the US has done. Dropping atomic weapons on civilians..,,

But not the worst in the world, as I showed you. Not even the worst between Japan and the US.

Indeed. I can't think of anything worse the US has done. Dropping atomic weapons on civilians..,,

Imperial Japan killed more civilians than the U.S. and more civilians would have died if the bombs didn’t force their surrender.

No country in the world has the right to use an atomic bomb on another country. And now many countries have thousands of atomic bombs. Let's not call them Nuclear Bombs. Atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They will destroy the world.

Another one? At this rate, might as well apply for the whole country and all its customs and traditions to the UNESCO Heritage list.

ya'll are children lol.

we can recognize atrocities of war without it becoming a contest of who is the worst offender. The atomic bombs were abhorrent AND so were Imperial Japan's actions against other countries. Both can be true simultaneously.

Is there anything in Japan they aren’t going to try and get a heritage listing for?

Indeed. Japan's obsession with being on the UNESCO list is a mixture of an inferiority complex and an air of grandeur, both at the same time.

Taiwan,this was just the opening act,the US had a total of 12 atomic bomb, ready to drop on Japanese,agreed up by Truman,Stalin and Churchill to drop on Japan

Taiwan,why was the atomic bomb not dropped on Germany, because the the US thought less of Japanese as a nationality

Can we all just get along? I hope I don't get censored for offending someone here.

Taiwan,why was the atomic bomb not dropped on Germany

The atomic bomb was first tested on July 16th 1945, Germany surrendered on May 7th 1945. Im not sure how you expected the Allies to drop the atomic bomb on Germany when it didn’t exist yet..

JB,you cannot make atomic overnight,they had working prototype

JB,you cannot make atomic overnight,they had working prototype

No, they didn’t hence the wording FIRST TESTED.

I hope Sadako Sasaki's relatives succeed in making her paper cranes on UNESCO's world heritage. We all need to be reminded of what war can do to people and countries. Most of us are sane but it always take a few insane persons to create havoc and inhuman sufferings to us all. Yet, do not say we, on either side, are not guilty. That's why history must be learned and the truth be talked so we do not allow those few mad persons to repeat the history. Many countries have tried to rewrite history that suits those in power, excluding the truth that their predecessor(s) have done in their own country or in occupied foreign countries. Luckily, most democratic countries like Japan people can help bring out the truth so the world can read and listen to.

JB,the Russian would of never gotten,the bomb if not for the Rosenberg,the Russian did not have a working implosion lens until the Rosenberg gave them one Google Rosenberg Implosion Lens

Minh,the victor always write history

JB,the Russian would of never gotten,the bomb if not for the Rosenberg,the Russian did not have a working implosion lens until the Rosenberg gave them one Google Rosenberg Implosion Lens

That has absolutely nothing to do with the first atomic bomb being tested AFTER Germany surrendered and your claim that the Allies had a working prototype…

EastmanToday 11:07 am JST

there is one and only country in the world used atomic weapons and killed many civilians.

this we should not never forget.

And we should never forget the context in which it was used, despite some people's attempts to gloss it over.

First, any two year,child, being Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian, or English is a victim. They have no say or even able to be pro or against war. So like Anne Frank I think it is a good idea for the UNESCO. About the A bomb, people need to read what happened in the bunke where the Japanese leaders met to decide their countries fate. The A bombs were used to convince one person, the Emperor. It had no impact on the army leaders, they were ready to turn the mainland into another Okinawa. It was only because of the intervention of the Emperor, the tie breaking vote, that Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. We had already by that time alluded to the fact that the Japanese people would determine his future. Over 60 million people died in that war. Every country Allied and Axis did some terrible things that we might think horrible in normal circumstances.

 Few seem to know that the Japanese were ready to surrender but that they wanted to keep the emperor as their head. The US policy was unconditional surrender.

I am sick of these BS bits about Japan willing to surrender, their ""terms"" were beyond rediculous!

The US insisting on unconditional surrender was absolutely ON POINT!!! And needed to happen, was the BEST outcome for Japan clearly!! Japan having killed between 20-30million in the Far East & SE Asia was in ZERO position to dictate ANYTHING!!

Two wrongs don't make a right. As soon as bomb two was dropped, the context shifted making all parties equally guilty . Some could argue Uncle Sam is more guilty because they weren't twisted up in some sort of holy war at the time

Please explain how the second bomb wasn’t justified. The US made it very clear that they would deploy another atomic bomb if Japan didn’t surrender and Nagasaki was a military target vital to the Japanese war effort

Everyone here is just whining about was crimes and atomic bombs. This article is about a bigger problem; UNESCO. Japan uses money and lobbying to get places and things Japanese classified as heritage. Factories that used Korean slave labor in Japan is now a UNESCO heritage. Now they are trying to make childish paper folding heritage because some idiots use it as a symbol of peace. Cranes are not peaceful. They maim and kill fish that could be eaten by Japanese people. Sometimes they collapse at construction sites and kill workers. This is ridiculous. The G-7 should work on dismantling UNESCO as it is a puppet organization for Japanese tourism and rewriting history favorably for war mongering Japan.

Started a war with a sneak attack, invaded sovereign nations, committed numerous atrocities, killed millions, refused to surrender twice when they had no chance to win, yet they are victims.

Those that push for this useless UNESCO status and the memorial museums don't even mention the millions of foreigners killed by the Japanese military and government by starting a war of aggression. Yet they say their message is one of peace. They don't care if bombs are still dropped today as long as they're not nuclear bombs.

IMHO .... Dropping the second Nagasaki bomb just three days after the first Hiroshima bomb can not be justified. I feel that three days would not be enough time, especially given the communications and other issues at the time, to properly consider the situation

Again, I don’t see how it wasn’t justified. The US gave Japan 2 options: surrender and you won’t get bombed again, or don’t surrender and get bombed again. Japan chose not to surrender. You don’t get to put the war “on pause” just because you want to

Two wrongs don't make a right. As soon as bomb two was dropped, the context shifted making all parties equally guilty . Some could argue Uncle Sam is more guilty because they weren't twisted up in some sort of holy war at the time

A holy war increases the ridiculousness of Japan's war. And the 15 million dead in China would like a word about your both sidesing this.

No amount of Wiki will alter this.

Elvis is Here: “Estimates are just that. America had options. It wanted to test its new toys. The first bomb might be justified, the second, bigger and better one in Nagasaki; no”

This is just utter and complete nonsense, born of total historical ignorance and modern day prejudices and insecurities .

First off, if you knew ANYTHING about which you speak you’d have known that even AFTER the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki the War Cabinet was split on surrender. Hirohito then met with his full cabinet on August 9th 1945, and it TOO was divided.

Baron Hironuma met with Hirohito that night and argued that the emperor’s power should remain and not be reduced to figurehead as initially demanded. the Japanese responded that they “accepted the conditions of the Potsdam declaration under one condition, that “it did not prejudice the prerogatives of his majesty as a sovereign ruler.”

This would give the Emperor the power to prevent the US from demilitarizing and democratizing Japan.

The US response sidestepped the FATE of the Emperor, but made clear he would have no authority. When this US counter proposal reached the Japanese, the war cabinet was AGAIN split for over 3 days. It took Hirohito himself to personally break the deadlock and accept the terms. Then do you know what happened?

After word of the surrender message from the Emperor reached the cabinet ministers, junior officers launched a coup to try and ransack the palace and find the message before it could be sent to the Americans, killing two palace guards in the process. They burned the homes of prime minister Suzuki and baron Hironuma calling them pro American traitors.

It wasn’t until August 15th that the surrender terms were accepted, nearly a week after the second bomb was dropped.

So, no, this fiction that Japan was realistically ready to surrender prior to the second bombing is just that: a fairy tale. It took the Emperor himself to intercede DAYS after the bombing and essentially force the surrender.

Type less, read more.

Impossible to justify the atomic bombings or what imperial Japanese forces did.

They're actually completely justifiable. More people would have died from conventional bombing (as shown by the Tokyo firebombings)

More people would have died from an invasion (as verified by both the Japanese and American governments)

Please tell me what other course of action could have been taken to end the war with less loss of life than the atomic bombs.

As for the nonsense that there were other “options”, again, this is like debating with a child. Even the most cursory, elementary knowledge of that war would prevent this sort of silliness from spreading, but suffice it to say that ALL the other realistic “options” to ending that war would have resulted in MANY more casualties and suffering for ALL sides, Civilian, military, and U.S.

A traditional, “D day” style invasion would have cost many hundreds of thousands more lives as the Japanese were planning on enacting “Ketsu-go” (look it up), which would have made combatants of every man woman and child in Japan.

a blockade would have led to the prolonged starving deaths of hundreds of thousands more over the course of many months.

Its sad that one of the great tragedies in world history; the most destructive war mankind has ever known and it’s climax has become some sort of perverse modern geopolitical flashpoint for uneducated and underinformed individuals to spout ahistorical nonsense because they don’t like some country or people or nation state NOW, but that’s not how one should approach history as a thinking adult.

Nobody cares that USA nuked these women, children and men. Just folded paper makes it alright.

As for the nonsense that there were other “options”, again, this is like debating with a child

I wonder why people get so upset on this topic.

Nothing I've posted is too far from the centre of a balanced argument on the topic... and people react as if they have never heard it before

Could it be the truth is too hot to handle for the indoctrinated?

The US had more powerful bombs than Fat Boy and Little Man, Stalin who killed million say a few more, would not make a difference

Where Japan fate was sealed Google Potsdam Conference Atomic Bombings

@Elvis is here,

I think your quotes from Curtis LeMay and Robert McNamara were in reference to the Tokyo fire bombings. About 100,000 people are thought to have died over two days of bombing. I remember meeting an older Japanese man who experienced that as a child, and he expressed a kind of resentment towards the attention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki received while Tokyo received very little.

@What ol' Jack Burton always saysToday 03:02 pm JST

To say there was no other option than atomic annihilation isn't exactly true is it.

Probably not without surrendering large parts of the country to an eventual police state like North Korea. Probably far more casualties domestically in that state than you would have had from the atomic bombings even if there was no war like the Korean war between North and South.

Those against the atomic bomb dropping essentially say that either:

1 - America should have either leave Japan its army and emperor (essentially allowing war criminals to walk free).

2 - America should have sacrificed somewhere around 50k to 100k of their own (nevermind ten times more Japanese) lives in order to win the war.

How about a big fat NO? America had the means to stop the war on its own terms with minimal loss of own lives. That the Japanese leaders didn't care about their own people is Japan's problem to deal with. Instead, they're worshipped at Yasukuni as quasi-heroes.

I wonder why people get so upset on this topic.

Nothing I've posted is too far from the centre of a balanced argument on the topic... and people react as if they have never heard it before

Could it be the truth is too hot to handle for the indoctrinated?

Please explain what other option the US could have taken that would have resulted in less deaths. This comments section is full of people condemning the bombings but I haven’t seen one single alternative presented. The anti-American rooted anti-intellectual historical revisionism in this thread is astounding. I swear you people would claim the sky is red if America made an official statement declaring it blue

To say there was no other option than atomic annihilation isn't exactly true is it.

Okay then give me another option. What would be a better alternative? Please back up your claim

The US cannot be held responsible for proposals that did not reach them unless you have some evidence that they did.

Read "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936 - 1945". Japan clearly signaled the US that surrender was imminent. The fear the US had of having to fight on the Japanese mainland was gone. Still, I guess just to have an opportunity to test the bombs, we dropped them. It is nothing to brag about that the US is still the only country to use super bombs on a foreign country.

r

Japan clearly signaled the US that surrender was imminent

This simply isn’t true. Even AFTER the second bomb the Japanese government was split on whether or not to surrender, with the Emperor himself finally ending the deadlock. Togo himself even admitted that the bombs are what convinced the Emperor to eventually agree to surrender. I’d also like to remind you about the military coup that attempted to stop the surrender from taking place at all, AFTER the second bomb. The idea that Japan was “on the verge of surrender” is just straight up historical revisionism

Please explain what other option the US could have taken...

This comments section is full of people condemning the bombings but I haven’t seen one single alternative presented. 

A good old fashioned siege.

Dropping atomic weapons twice on civilians is not what gentlemen do.

A good old fashioned siege.

Both American and Japanese officials estimated that in the event of a siege there would be between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese deaths. Estimates place the death toll of the bombs at 200,000. You’re saying that you’d rather see MILLIONS more people die?

Dropping atomic weapons twice on civilians is not what gentlemen do.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major manufacturing cities that were largely untouched by conventional bombing. They. Weren’t. Civilian. Targets. They were military targets vital to the Japanese war effort. The US even dropped leaflets telling the citizens to leave and that they would be bombed, it was the Japanese government who strong armed the populace into staying. The Japanese government has the blood of those people on their hands for not only not surrendering, but refusing to allow citizens to flee the city

Mr Bone has all the answers. You asked for an alternative and you respond with out even a thank you! Oh dear. Not what gentle folk do.

Mr Bone has all the answers. You asked for an alternative and you respond with out even a thank you! Oh dear. Not what gentle folk do.

I accept your concession

I accept your concession

If that makes you happy.

A good old fashioned siege.

Total blockading is also a warcrime by today's standards. Probably would have killed more than the bombings through lack of medicine and malnutrition. And it would have left a North Korea style police state over perhaps all of Japan today.

Probably

perhaps

Indeed. But better then igniting the power of the sun above a city. Twice.

Indeed. But better then igniting the power of the sun above a city. Twice.

Starvation is one of the most painful ways to die.

Starvation is one of the most painful ways to die.

But not a guaranteed out come. Unlike the horrors a nuke or two can do.

But not a guaranteed out come.

It is though. You’re the one who offered the alternative scenario of a siege. A siege is literally defined as “a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.” How do you expect people not to starve to death when you’ve cut off all supplies?

A siege is literally defined

Semantics. Like I say... starvation is not a guaranteed outcome.

Plenty fish in the sea, rain falls, seeds grow... let people stew in their own juice... anything but nuclear weapons; if you want the moral high.

But a nuclear bomb or two is all you got? I find it hard to believe anyone thinks that the only option on the table were two bombs. A blatant disregard for human life and just as bad as the aggressors.

Like I say... starvation is not a guaranteed outcome.

Experts predicted deaths by starvation would exceed seven million were Japan to somehow muster the will and resources to wage war through 1946. That’s 37x the amount that died in the bombs. You’re saying you’d rather see 37x more people die in a much more painful way? Is that what you’re saying?

Plenty fish in the sea

How do you expect commercial fisherman to fish when the island is surrounded and being actively blockaded by the US navy?

But a nuclear bomb or two is all you got? I find it hard to believe anyone thinks that the only option on the table were two bombs. A blatant disregard for human life and just as bad as the aggressors.

There were other options but every single one would have resulted in a greater loss of life.

predicted

indeed

There were other options but every single one would have resulted in a greater loss of life.

Really? How do you know? I predict four more nukes would have topped that claim. Probably.

TaiwanIsNotChinaJune 28  08:13 am JST

Few seem to know that the Japanese were ready to surrender but that they wanted to keep the emperor as their head. The US policy was unconditional surrender. General Douglas's first piece of business was to allow the emperor to be the head of Japan. 

The US cannot be held responsible for proposals that did not reach them unless you have some evidence that they did.

You can read it in Truman's dairy that he dismissed the surrender, and said wait until they see what's in store for the. He wrote it at Potsdam when received word that the Trinity test was a success.

Come on. It's all there in his own handwriting. Educate yourself.

You’re saying you’d rather see 37x more people die in a much more painful way? Is that what you’re saying?

You should write fiction.

With all these "predictions" in favour of, it seems the USA really wanted to test their weapons.

There was never any intention to execute a mainland invasion after the Okinawa invasion. The Japanese were defeated. Truman made up the million casualty number during a speech years after the war when he was still being criticized for using nuclear weapons.

Remember, five out of the six 5-star officers at the time said it was unnecessary, that Japan was defeated and the US only needed to wait offshore. Everyone, including Truman in his own handwriting at Potsdam, said the Japanese would surrender unconditionally when Russia entered the war.

And they did that day.

And the final terms of surrender were exactly the same as the terms the Japanese offered before.

You can live in a bubble of high school history textbooks, or use the incredible wealth of information now available online from first-hand accounts at the time.

You probably never read in your book about the massive demonstrations in Washington DC by the families of service people killed and wounded at Iwo Jima when the news of the assault was released. People were outraged, knowing full well that the island was isolated and blockaded and they could simply go around it.

There was serious talk of court martial of the naval and marine commanders. There was no strategic or useful purpose for the island. After the invasion, the War Department made the narrative that the airfield was of strategic importance for fighter escort of B-29's to mainland Japan. It was a lie.

Only two missions were ever flown because it was impossible for the fighter pilots to withstand the altitude (P-51's were not pressurized like the B-29's) and they did not have the range.

Remember, five out of the six 5-star officers at the time said it was unnecessary, that Japan was defeated and the US only needed to wait offshore.

Kind of like a siege.

The bombs were unnecessary.

You can read it in Truman's dairy that he dismissed the surrender, and said wait until they see what's in store for the. He wrote it at Potsdam when received word that the Trinity test was a success.

Come on. It's all there in his own handwriting. Educate yourself.

Here is my uneducated take: the peace feelers through a third party mention nothing about China and Korea. Given that they were still occupied up until the Soviet Union's entry into the war, one can easily assume that Japan was hoping to hold on to something in some sort of negotiations, if they occurred. Considering the bombs were dropped only 19 days later, that does not leave a lot of time or information to reverse course.

There was never any intention to execute a mainland invasion after the Okinawa invasion. The Japanese were defeated.

Then why did they plan so much for an invasion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

MacArthur was in favor of going ahead up until the end.

Truman made up the million casualty number during a speech years after the war when he was still being criticized for using nuclear weapons,

It would have cost a lot, that is for sure.

Remember, five out of the six 5-star officers at the time said it was unnecessary, that Japan was defeated and the US only needed to wait offshore. Everyone, including Truman in his own handwriting at Potsdam, said the Japanese would surrender unconditionally when Russia entered the war.

Which would have been a clear recipe for Japan as you know it not to exist.

Here is my uneducated take

You just invalidated what I was about to read. You should never let your emotions get in the way.

one can easily assume

I think the gravity of the situation makes our assumptions irrelevant.

Then why did they plan so much for an invasion?

They had to do something as well as be prepared

Fact is Japan was defeated. No navy, no airforce, a fractured military mostly stationed over seas. There was no need to crack a walnut with an industrial sized blow torch, or in other words nuke Japan.

Elvis is hereToday 12:41 pm JST

Here is my uneducated take

You just invalidated what I was about to read. You should never let your emotions get in the way.

What emotions? Wasn't even you I was replying to.

They had to do something as well as be prepared

So they were bored?

Fact is Japan was defeated. No navy, no airforce, a fractured military mostly stationed over seas. There was no need to crack a walnut with an industrial sized blow torch, or in other words nuke Japan.

Fact is, dropping the bombs was the least deadly option.

Fact is, dropping the bombs was the least deadly option.

That is something that cannot be proved so hardly a fact. There most definitely was other options that could have been explored first, especially regarding Nagasaki

Fact is USA behaved just as bad as those they were trying to better by dropping two nuclear bombs on a civilian population

@Elvis is hereToday 01:56 pm JST

The 15 million dead in China would like a word with your both sidesing.

The 15 million dead in China would like a word with your both sidesing.

They might agree that two nuclear bombs was not the only way and there could be have been other options to end the war. They might be sickened by the shear atrocity of it all. As the other casualties of the horrid conflict. What you think?

I wouldn't say my opinion is "both sidesing" too. Just not an opinion you have given much though to it seems. But that is actually beside the point.

They might agree that two nuclear bombs was not the only way and there could be have been other options to end the war. They might be sickened by the shear atrocity of it all. As the other casualties of the horrid conflict. What you think?

I think they would be angry you are equating the death of 100x the atomic bombs as "just as bad".

I think they would be angry you are equating the death of 100x the atomic bombs as "just as bad".

I think you are grasping at straws. What do you think the casualties think?

The reason the atomic bombs were dropped were part of a cruel geopolitical struggle with the Soviet Union. At Yalta, before the US knew it would even work; Roosevelt extracted a promise from Stalin that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan. The bomb did work when tested at Los Alamos. The Russians entered the war and were rapidly moving through Manchuria. However, remember the US wanted them to help BEFORE they tested it. The last thing they wanted was to have the Soviet Union reach Japanese territory and have occupation rights. The bombs accomplished two things 1. Kept the Soviet Union out of Japan and 2. Show the Soviet Union we had it and would not hesitate to use it. Also keep the Russians out of the peace talks. Not the only reasons but definitely a major consideration

William BuseToday 09:36 am JST

The reason the atomic bombs were dropped were part of a cruel geopolitical struggle with the Soviet Union. At Yalta, before the US knew it would even work; Roosevelt extracted a promise from Stalin that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan. The bomb did work when tested at Los Alamos. The Russians entered the war and were rapidly moving through Manchuria. However, remember the US wanted them to help BEFORE they tested it. The last thing they wanted was to have the Soviet Union reach Japanese territory and have occupation rights. The bombs accomplished two things 1. Kept the Soviet Union out of Japan and 2. Show the Soviet Union we had it and would not hesitate to use it. Also keep the Russians out of the peace talks. Not the only reasons but definitely a major consideration

All correct but you are missing one thing: given the Soviet Union and later Russia's penchant for permanent theft or turning countries into police states, it proved to be an extremely wise decision.

There was never any intention to execute a mainland invasion after the Okinawa invasion. The Japanese were defeated. Truman made up the million casualty number during a speech years after the war when he was still being criticized for using nuclear weapons.

Remember, five out of the six 5-star officers at the time said it was unnecessary, that Japan was defeated and the US only needed to wait offshore. Everyone, including Truman in his own handwriting at Potsdam, said the Japanese would surrender unconditionally when Russia entered the war.

And they did that day.

And the final terms of surrender were exactly the same as the terms the Japanese offered before.

This.

As Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated:

"….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."

Truman's own diaries show that he prolonged hostilities until the nukes were ready. We also know that he lied to the US public when he stated that Hiroshima was a "military target".

Prior to nuking Hiroshima, the U.S. military had already obliterated over 60 Japanese cities with napalm and white phosphorous. This conclusively proves that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little value other than as an opportunity for the US military to conduct nuke testing on human subjects.

In this connection, Paul Tibbets is on record as stating that Hiroshima was set aside as a "virgin" test city. Additionally, the primary targets at Hiroshima were residential in nature with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilian. In fact, Honkawa Elementary school was mere meters from the epicenter of the Hiroshima nuke strike.

Truman's own diaries show that he prolonged hostilities until the nukes were ready. We also know that he lied to the US public when he stated that Hiroshima was a "military target".

A conditional surrender offer is not an unconditional surrender offer, nor was it made to the right person directly. Also isn't it funny how 20,000 soldiers died at a non-military target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

A conditional surrender offer is not an unconditional surrender offer, nor was it made to the right person directly.

And the final terms of surrender were exactly the same as the terms the Japanese offered before.

Also isn't it funny how 20,000 soldiers died at a non-military target.

Hiroshima's primary target was non-military as your link indicates. Honkawa elementary school being just meters from the nuke strike. 126,000 civilians were murdered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkawa_Elementary_School_Peace_Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Nagasaki was even more of an egregious and cowardly war crime with 80,000 civilians murdered and about 150 military casualties. Absolutely disgusting behaviour by the American government.

Nuking H&N saved no one as the Japanese had already sued for peace. Additionally, no land invasion would have taken place as Russian entry ended the war.

Additionally, the U.S. military nuke strike on Hiroshima killed 3000 American civilians. Unquestionably a war crime.

http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200712090010.html

A Canadian victim of Hiroshima recounts his exploitation as a subject of Truman's Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission:

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/a-canadian-in-hiroshima

Truman's ABCC organisation studied Hiroshima victims without providing any treatment or substantive medical care. Japanese were treated like lab rats for experimentation by the American government. As the ABCC wikipedia page states:

"The ABCC did not actually treat the survivors they studied, they just studied them over periods of time."

We also know Truman lied when he stated:

"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

In fact, the primary targets at Hiroshima were residential in nature with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilian. In fact, Honkawa Elementary school was mere meters from the epicentre of the Hiroshima nuke strike. 

Harry S Truman's approval of the decision to mass murder Hiroshima and Nagasaki's women and children was perhaps not surprising given his bizarre religious delusions and feeble-minded racism. According to Harry Truman:

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a N[unprintable racist slur] or a China[unprintable racist slur]. THE LORD made a white man from dust, a N[unprintable racist slur] from mud, and then threw what was left and it came down a China[unprintable racist slur]. He does hate Chinese and J[unprintable racist slur]. So do I....We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction PROPHESIED in the Euphrates Valley Era, after NOAH and his FABULOUS Ark....This weapon is to be used against Japan...."

utorsaToday 04:15 pm JST

A conditional surrender offer is not an unconditional surrender offer, nor was it made to the right person directly.

And the final terms of surrender were exactly the same as the terms the Japanese offered before.

I have seen nothing that indicates that Japan offered specific terms, just a vague claim that it had "no intention of annexing or taking possession of the area which we have been occupying as a result of the war". Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

Also isn't it funny how 20,000 soldiers died at a non-military target.

Hiroshima's primary target was non-military as your link indicates. Honkawa elementary school being just meters from the nuke strike. 126,000 civilians were murdered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkawa_Elementary_School_Peace_Museum

Some school is going to be the closest school.

I will just say that Truman quite clearly directed that soldiers and sailors were the targets. Bombing was not exactly a precise business, either, in those days.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour by the American government.

But nothing compared to the 15 million slaughtered by Japan in China.

utorsaToday 04:27 pm JST

We also know Truman lied when he stated:

"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

Then why did he write down in his diary

"I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

Sounds like you have a lot of unreconciled issues with Japan's involvement in WW2.

But nothing compared to the 15 million slaughtered by Japan in China.

Nothing compared to America's global conquests that killed over 50-55 innocent million people.

I will just say that Truman quite clearly directed that soldiers and sailors were the targets. Bombing was not exactly a precise business, either, in those days.

False. The primary aiming target was the Aioi Bridge: a residential area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aioi_Bridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkawa_Elementary_School_Peace_Museum

Some school is going to be the closest school.

Yes, this is how war crimes are rationalized.

I have seen nothing that indicates that Japan offered specific terms, just a vague claim that it had "no intention of annexing or taking possession of the area which we have been occupying as a result of the war". Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

Sure. I place more importance on Secretary of State Joseph Grew's analysis than yours:

According to Under Secretary of State, Joseph Grew:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision....If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:

"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.*

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur,

"He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. 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."

>

Then why did he write down in his diary

"I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

Either he a was a liar, deceived by his advisors or delusional.

Sounds like you have a lot of unreconciled issues with Japan's involvement in WW2.

Ah yes, when all else fails resort to ad hominem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Nothing compared to America's global conquests that killed over 50-55 innocent million people.

Just keeping you safe, bud. Japan exists as you know it today because of Truman's actions.

Just keeping you safe, bud. Japan exists as you know it today because of Truman's actions.

Thanks for letting me peer into your thought process. Interesting to learn how people justify mass murdering women and children.

Estimates are just that. America had options. It wanted to test its new toys. The first bomb might be justified, the second, bigger and better one in Nagasaki; no.

Exactly. They wanted to save lives that’s why the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb on Vietnam. A 20 year war with many lives lost.

This is why the save lives argument doesn’t work.

It was an experiment. Get over it already.

quercetumJuly 1 07:05 pm JST

Estimates are just that. America had options. It wanted to test its new toys. The first bomb might be justified, the second, bigger and better one in Nagasaki; no.

Exactly. They wanted to save lives that’s why the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb on Vietnam.

What new nonsense is this?

A 20 year war with many lives lost.

Not going to litigate the Vietnam War here, but your lesson should be the US doesn't give up easily.

This is why the save lives argument doesn’t work.

Except it did. A North Korea style government in charge of Japan would have killed millions by starvation and torture by now.

It was an experiment. Get over it already.

It turned out to be 100x the right thing to do. Get over it already.

utorsaJuly 1 01:33 pm JST

Alright I got some time, so let's see what we have here.

As Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated:

"….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."

Sounds like one person's opinion. The guy in charge of the cable intercepts may have been angry that they weren't acted on to his satisfaction.

Truman's own diaries show that he prolonged hostilities until the nukes were ready. We also know that he lied to the US public when he stated that Hiroshima was a "military target".

We'll get into this in a bit.

Prior to nuking Hiroshima, the U.S. military had already obliterated over 60 Japanese cities with napalm and white phosphorous. This conclusively proves that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little value other than as an opportunity for the US military to conduct nuke testing on human subjects.

It proves nothing other than that napalm and white phosphorous would not have had the desired impact on the Japanese leadership.

In this connection, Paul Tibbets is on record as stating that Hiroshima was set aside as a "virgin" test city.

There are totally practical reasons why this was done: if you want to show the Japanese leadership the power of the bomb, you are not going to drop it somewhere where they will have any questions about what happened. As it was the leadership did not want to believe it was a single bomb.

utorsaJuly 1 05:09 pm JST

I have seen nothing that indicates that Japan offered specific terms, just a vague claim that it had "no intention of annexing or taking possession of the area which we have been occupying as a result of the war". Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

Sure. I place more importance on Secretary of State Joseph Grew's analysis than yours:

According to Under Secretary of State, Joseph Grew:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision....If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

All he is saying is the US should have encouraged Japan to surrender. That goes against your argument that Japan proposed to surrender.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:

"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.*

All he is saying here is that he was worried an unconditional surrender demand might make his life harder because he did not know about the bomb at the time. It would have been a reasonable thought process for someone without that knowledge.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur,

"He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. 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."

Sounds like again the opinions of one man and not the man that mattered, Truman. I do find it interesting, though, that the man that wanted to nuke China had this come to Jesus moment. I think the time of these quotes also would have mattered as someone would have had to have been familiar with the Soviet menace to make a full assessment.

utorsaJuly 1 05:09 pm JST

I will just say that Truman quite clearly directed that soldiers and sailors were the targets. Bombing was not exactly a precise business, either, in those days.

False. The primary aiming target was the Aioi Bridge: a residential area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aioi_Bridge

Nagasaki was even more of an egregious and cowardly war crime with 80,000 civilians murdered and about 150 military casualties.

I think DT stated it best:

Hiroshima was and remains the location of Kure Naval Shipyard and all the associated industries that support a major shipyard. It was a legitimate military target. The second atomic bomb, an implosion device called Fat Man, was dropped in the Urakami Valley. As a consequence, a major portion of Nagasaki was protected from the explosion. The Fat Man was dropped over the city’s industrial valley midway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works in the north. Yeah, no legitimate military targets there.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour by the American government.

But not as disgusting as Japan's.

Hiroshima was and remains the location of Kure Naval Shipyard and all the associated industries that support a major shipyard. It was a legitimate military target. 

False. The nuke strike targeted residential Hiroshima. Specifically, the Aioi Bridge area with nearby Honkawa Elementary School. Kure Naval Shipyard wasn't even close. Try google maps.

Sounds like one person's opinion. The guy in charge of the cable intercepts may have been angry that they weren't acted on to his satisfaction.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke was the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Harry Truman and his advisors. 

I place more importance on Brigadier General Carter Clarke conclusions than a random internet commenter.

I also place greater value on the six of the seven US WWII five star officers concluded that the nuking of hundreds of thousands of civilians was totally unnecessary.

Sounds like again the opinions of one man and not the man that mattered, Truman.

Truman was a racist and a delusional religious loon. According to Truman:

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a N[unprintable racist slur] or a China[unprintable racist slur]. THE LORD made a white man from dust, a N[unprintable racist slur] from mud, and then threw what was left and it came down a China[unprintable racist slur]. He does hate Chinese and J[unprintable racist slur]. So do I....We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction PROPHESIED in the Euphrates Valley Era, after NOAH and his FABULOUS Ark....This weapon is to be used against Japan...."

Your attempts to justify nuking civilians is unconvincing:

But not as disgusting as Japan's.

Meaningless whataboutism.

As we know, six of the seven US WWII five star officers concluded that the nuking of hundreds of thousands of civilians was totally unnecessary.

Fleet Admiral Leahy:

".....the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan......in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

-Fleet Admiral Leahy

The Fat Man was dropped over the city’s industrial valley midway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works in the north. Yeah, no legitimate military targets there.

Exactly. The Nagasaki nuke strike was targeted directly at a residential civilian area away from the military. This is conclusively proven by the death toll.

As the American hosted website of Wikipedia states, there were 80,000 civilians slaughtered. Approximately 150 soldiers were killed,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

As a 1947 editorial in the Chicago Tribune stated, President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."

The 31st President of The United States:  "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul" -

utorsaToday 09:12 am JST

False. The nuke strike targeted residential Hiroshima. Specifically, the Aioi Bridge area with nearby Honkawa Elementary School. Kure Naval Shipyard wasn't even close. Try google maps.

If this is all you have, then I have nothing more to say on this. I only have so many hours a day to spend on research to argue this one point.

The Fat Man was dropped over the city’s industrial valley midway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works in the north. Yeah, no legitimate military targets there.

Exactly. The Nagasaki nuke strike was targeted directly at a residential civilian area away from the military. This is conclusively proven by the death toll.

You do know DT was being sarcastic right? You have one bomb with a large destruction radius and you drop it in between. The military death toll is meaningless. They are factories being operated by civilians.

Truman was a racist and a delusional religious loon. According to Truman:

I'm sorry 1900 Missouri education doesn't meet with your approval.

Your attempts to justify nuking civilians is unconvincing:

You can thank Truman any time for Japan's independence.

But not as disgusting as Japan's.

Meaningless whataboutism.

Not quite. You can't seem to acknowledge the context that the US isn't the greatest war crime committing nation even in the Pacific Theater.

If this is all you have, then I have nothing more to say on this. I only have so many hours a day to spend on research to argue this one point.

Tell me you have no argument with out actually telling me.

They are factories being operated by civilians.

I'll let your words speak for themselves here.

Effective sea blockade had already destroyed production capacity. As Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous we weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade..... 

I'm sorry 1900 Missouri education doesn't meet with your approval.

Nothing to add here.

You can't seem to acknowledge the context that the US isn't the greatest war crime committing nation even in the Pacific Theater.

More meaningless whataboutism.

In the words of the 34th President of the United States: ".....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."

In terms of war American war crimes, Fleet Admiral Leahy put it best:

Fleet Admiral Leahy:

".....the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan......in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

You can't seem to acknowledge the context that the US isn't the greatest war crime committing nation even in the Pacific Theater.

More meaningless whataboutism.

Still waiting for that acknowledgment. You can just admit what you know to be the truth. You know the number of Chinese killed.

False. The nuke strike targeted residential Hiroshima. Specifically, the Aioi Bridge area with nearby Honkawa Elementary School. Kure Naval Shipyard wasn't even close. Try google maps.

If this is all you have, then I have nothing more to say on this. I only have so many hours a day to spend on research to argue this one point.

Still waiting for that acknowledgment. You can just admit what you know to be the truth. You know the number of civilians killed.

You can't seem to acknowledge the context that the US isn't the greatest war crime committing nation even in the Pacific Theater.

As The New York Herald Tribune editorialized shortly after the nuking of Hiroshima: “.....an American air crew had produced what must without doubt be the greatest simultaneous slaughter in the whole history of mankind."

As The New York Herald Tribune editorialized shortly after the nuking of Hiroshima: “.....an American air crew had produced what must without doubt be the greatest simultaneous slaughter in the whole history of mankind."

So we win the award for most kills per second. And I guess that means something to you?

The nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 2 of the most horrifically evil war crimes in human history. This was apparent to the American mainstream media as far back as 1945:

On Aug. 17, 1945, David Lawrence, the columnist and editor of US News, put it this way:

“Last week we destroyed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japanese cities with the new atomic bomb. …we shall not soon purge ourselves of the feeling of guilt. …we…did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children. … Surely we cannot be proud of what we have done. If we state our inner thoughts honestly, we are ashamed of it.”