Japan Was Already Beaten and Starving When We Dropped Nukes

How far was Stalin from Berlin and continues attacking to destroy the Grossdeutschland? Why end and leave the sucker alive?

 

I mentioned the landmark 1998 book Shadows of Hiroshima: Writings on the Denial of History and the Smithsonian Controversy. Here are some chapters in the book that I especialy recommend:

--- “Hiroshima and Modern Memory,” written by Martin Sherwin, who earned his history degrees from Dartmouth and UCLA, who taught history at Tufts University, and who was one of the foremost experts on Japan’s surrender. Among other things, Sherwin documents the following:

* There is substantial evidence that Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb actually prolonged the war. Notes Sherwin,

“A considerable body of evidence suggests that the decision to use the bomb, which involved to reject another recommended initiative, delayed the end of the war.

“The point that is relevant here is that many more American soldiers and Japanese of all types might have had the opportunity to grow old if Truman had accepted [Assistant Secretary of State] Grew’s advice, the perspicacity of which became even clearer on July 13 when an intercepted message from Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to Ambassador Naotake Sato noted that ‘unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.’” (p. 229)

* The few people in Truman’s circle of advisers/aides/cabinet members who were Japan experts or who had substantial knowledge about Japan all warned Truman that not even the most progressive moderates among Japan’s civilian leaders would accept a surrender that did not provide some kind of assurance of the emperor’s safety and standing. But Truman chose to listen to the likes of James Byrnes, who knew nothing about Japan (pp. 228-230).

--- “Did the Bomb End the War?” written by Murray Sayle, one of the foremost Japan experts of the modern era. Sayle discusses the final meetings of the cabinet and of the “Big Six,” noting that the record makes it clear that the Soviet invasion was the key factor that led to Japan’s surrender (“Big Six” is another term for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, aka the Supreme War Council). Some of Sayle’s other notable observations:

* “As early as twelve weeks before Hiroshima, the Big Six had agreed to seek peace” (p. 41).

* Emperor Hirohito himself emerged as the leader of the peace faction (the group of moderates who wanted to end the war on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed or harmed after surrender) (pp. 30-32).

* The emperor and his top advisor, Koichi Kido, began to talk about the need to surrender in March 1943, after the fall of Guadalcanal (p. 31).

* The physical destruction caused by the atomic bomb was far less than the destruction caused by conventional bombing in at least a dozen other cities. Since the military presence in Hiroshima was small, the military damage done by the A-bomb was “insignificant” (p. 39).

--- “A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved,” written by Barton Bernstein, who earned his doctorate in history from Harvard, who is a professor emeritus of history at Stanford University, and who is another one of the leading experts on Japan’s surrender. Bernstein proves from internal Truman administration/War Department records that the vast majority of authorities who produced estimates of fatalities of an invasion of Japan put the most likely figures at far below 100,000. He also shows that even General Marshall internally—and sharply—rejected the few estimates that projected more than 250,000 casualties (dead and wounded).

 

Things Narcissists Say And How To Deal With Them


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwio56m-sID2AhU3TGwGHR8BCroQuAJ6BAgIEAU&url=https://www.facebook.com/drgrande/videos/things-narcissists-say-and-how-to-deal-with-them/995251640982217/&usg=AOvVaw390MQGtWBY0v6R-PX4mqd7

This is not to point the finger at anyone in particular...But this reminds me of a few posters in the past...

 

Jeez-o-flip. Mikey is back with more obfuscation, lies and distortions. What's the matter, Mikey, are you scared of the entire story so that why you cut out anything that is real?
You see, Mikey, you just keep throwing out pieces parts and quotes form zip heads who had no part in the decision process, and the rest of us, with a handle on the actual events and documentation just kind of look at you and say, "just who is this sh-thead and why hasn't he a real life?"
So, we look at your Conspiracy Promotion web pages and simply say 'ah ha. anther fool from the CT department."

 

Hmmmm.. As I see it there were two time tables. How the A bomb was ready to go and when the Red Army would attack. The Russians would crush first the Germans, and at Yalta Feb 1945 promises to join the Pacific warfare in three months after Victory in Europe. So By then I see it is not so clear when the Red Army joins the battle. Now they managed to start operations at the same time but simply a longer lasting nazi resistance would have delayed the Soviet offensive.

 

Japan would have been spared this if a certain Ju 390 had been ready in time with the Nazi A-bomb.
I know an expert from New Zealand who has sensational findings on this.
Perhaps MTG should have a word with him: They seem to complement each other almost perfectly
when it comes to, errrr...let´s say, unorthodox source analysis.

 

Nazis had calculated a A-bomb would demand the size of a nuclear power plant. So no nazi bomb, I think

 

I thought that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor....TOGA TOGA TOGA!!!!

 

Sorry, this isn't 1948. The point, again, is that it was the Soviet invasion that persuaded the militarists to immediately call a meeting of the Supreme War Council, and that they saw no need for a meeting in response to Hiroshima. Furthermore, at the 9 August imperial conference that produced the surrender decision, the atomic bomb was only mentioned in passing in a series of questions posed by Baron Hiranuma, the president of the Privy Council, whereas concern about the Soviet invasion was discussed twice. By the way, in response to Hiranuma's question about the A-bomb, General Umezu, one of the militarists, said the A-bomb could be beaten with anti-aircraft fire! Other than that answer to Hiranuma's question, the militarists said nothing about the A-bomb but they did express concern about the Soviet invasion.

You clearly have not read the gold standard book on Japan's surrender: Robert Butow's classic Japan's Decision to Surrender, recognized as the most authoritative and thorough book on the subject ever written.

You are decades behind the information curve. You haven't bothered to read Hiroshima's Shadow yet, have you?

You have no clue what you are talking about. You *still* have not read any scholarly book that debunks the traditional story, have you? Otherwise, you would know that your claim is erroneous.

This is clown material. This is like arguing with a Flat Earther about satellite photos.

LOL. The "high number of military deaths" at Hiroshima??? Not on this planet. Unless you have a novel definition of "high number."

Only in your mind.

First of all, you don't know what both sides of the argument have said because you've only read one side. So, surprise, your wrong again. Many Truman apologists have claimed that special leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima on 3 August warning them to evacuate, but there is zero evidence of any such leaflets.

It's not what you don't know that is the most embarrassing: it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.