Pulitzer-winning scholar Sherwin, who challenged support for U.S. bombing of Japan, dead at 84

It's a rare man who will continue his search for truth in the face of popular opposition.

He was a true Academic, his work was about the truth of the nuclear age as introduced here in Japan unfortunately for political reasons.

zurcroniumToday  06:49 pm JST

He was a true Academic, his work was about the truth of the nuclear age as introduced here in Japan unfortunately for political reasons.

What does that mean?

The use of nukles against Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to test a new weapon in a build up civilian area. Among the most heinous of all the crimes committed in WW2.

On a few more minor cities if they'd not surrendered. Yes.

The only alternative that would have been remotely possible to civilian saturation bombing and the A-bombs would have been the bombing of the Imperial Palace.

Unfortunately, that possibility would have left Japan in the hands of worse alternatives in regard to surviving leaders.

Japan's going to war was a bad idea.

The US had 12 more bombs readied for Japan, if they did not surrender

The Russian would of never got the bomb, sooner without the help of the Rosenberg,they lack the key component an Implosion Lens, without out it ,they would of not been able too detonate a nuke, Google Rosenberg Implosion Lens

The use of nukles against Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to test a new weapon in a build up civilian area.

This topic crops up from year to year. What was the reason for dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? To test the the weapon, to stop the Soviets advancing into Japan, to save the lives of American soldiers who would otherwise have been pushed into direct conflict, or simply to end the war. There is an element of truth to all those reasons - we don't require a single cause to explain something. What I do know is that many Japanese were somewhat thankful for the end of the war - an end to madness. And we also know the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of that madness.

With the current Taiwan problem likely to affect all of us, but principally the people of Taiwan, maybe best to remember the madness and that ancient advice - don't send your children to war.

YrralOct. 10  10:42 pm JST

The US had 12 more bombs readied for Japan, if they did not surrender

False. You should read Truman's hand written diary. He said something different.

Japan offered surrender terms through Russia before the Malta conference. Those same terms were precisely the final terms of surrender. Stalin wanted to the war to continue to gain at least partial control of Japan. Russia agreed to declare war on Japan on August 9th.

Again, read the diary.

...to save the lives of American soldiers who would otherwise have been pushed into direct conflict.

There was no intent to invade the mainland after the Okinawa experience, contrary to "plans" made to do it. Japan was beaten. The US could have simply waited offshore. No supplies were going in or out of Japan.

The only alternative that would have been remotely possible to civilian saturation bombing and the A-bombs would have been the bombing of the Imperial Palace.

No, Truman was done with that. He said he couldn't stomach killing more women and children. Again, read his diary.

Five of the six US 5-star officers said that there was no need to use the nuclear devices and were against killing civilians They knew Japan was beaten. That was the morality of the era displayed by rational military leaders. Curtis Lemay being the monstrous exception to that morality who bragged about the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but he was not a 5-star officer.

There is a very interesting and detailed interview with Mr. Sherman for anyone not allergic to facts at:

https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/martin-j-sherwins-interview

The use of these monstrous weapons on innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a purpose unrelated and morally bereft to the lie of 'justification' stated is not at all surprising if one has bothered to read even a little of real American history, or really, the history of the concentration of White (and Euro) psychopathy in the 'New World' from almost the very moment of Colon's first landing on Hispaniola. And one of the factors least pointed out in the discussion of these particular atrocities is the RACISM which would have underlain the decisions made, enhanced their palatability to the still-birthed consciences involved. And at the forefront of it all, justifying it all for the weak of mind, was the pathological and twisted remnant of the Roman Empire, the 'christians' and those who parasitize them.

And, of all of the monsters involved, certainly the worst was Edward Teller. But that is another story...

The use of nukles against Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to test a new weapon in a build up civilian area. Among the most heinous of all the crimes committed in WW2.

Not a crime at all. It achieved the desired result, by ending WW2 and enfding all the crimes and atrocities that the Japanese were carrying out, the most heinous being Unit 731. Thank goodness the USA developed nuclear fusion before Japan did, Japan would not have hesitated to use it. (As I occasionally say to people "if you can't handle it, don't dish it out").

Of course he had no intention of being part of any Invasion Force…just an ArmChair General

Most Americans justify themselves by thinking the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the war quickly. There's some truth in it.

The Japanese people at the time were all prepared to fight the war to the last person albeit confronted with the hard reality that total destruction of cities by B-29s continued every day.

Toward the end of the war incendiary bombs were used to burn and ruin everything -- people, the infrastructure and all. Even so, people's high spirit to keep fighting was not crushed. The general public, not alone soldiers, had been brainwashed to believe dedication of one's life to the state was sublime mores and acts. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were propagated  by word of mouth that "special bombs" were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the war, people used to say Japan lost the war only physically, resource-wise, but not mentally

Strange, US textbooks say the Japanese would never have surrendered, but they did surrender.

Even MacArthur said that the US should have simply allowed Japan to surrender as they offered months before, since the terms were exactly the same as the final terms of the surrender.

Even MacArthur said that the US should have simply allowed Japan to surrender as they offered months before, since the terms were exactly the same as the final terms of the surrender.

When did MacArthur ever say that?

The Russian would of never got the bomb, sooner without the help of the Rosenberg,

USA wouldn't have had the resources to research and build nukes if they opened a second front rather than sit around the UK, screwing UK soldiers for 3 years while the Soviet Union stood alone.

The final decision on where to drop the first nuclear bomb was made on 29th May 1945 by US top brass including General Groves, head of the Manhattan project.

Secretary of war at the time Mr Stimson however, told his wife coming home that evening, that Kyoto, the city of their honeymoon 40 years prior would disappear.

She was the great granddaughter of one of the founding fathers Roger Sherman, and she had the guts and cool intelligence to say NO! 

Not her Kyoto, so the target became Hiroshima since next morning, Stimson went all the way to President Truman to stop the madness.

Thank you Mrs Stimson.