Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Japan Was Already Beaten and Starving When We Dropped Nukes

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by Michael Timothy Griffith, Jan 29, 2022.

  1. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    They weren't going to waste any bombs on a patch of desert, so the Supreme War Council elected to receive.
     
  2. Michael Timothy Griffith

    Michael Timothy Griffith Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2022
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    2
    You A-bomb defenders/Truman apologists are fighting a war that was lost at least two decades ago. After the 1995 Smithsonian Enola Gay controversy, there is no excuse for anyone who claims to be well read on Japan's surrender to continue to repeat the government myth on the subject. In 1995, the government myth crashed head-on with scholarly reality, and the leaders of the veterans groups, who presumed to speak for all veterans, discovered that they could muster very few genuine scholars on Japan's surrender who would support their defense of the myth.

    I suggest you read the 1998 book Hiroshima's Shadow: Writings on the Denial of History and the Smithsonian Controversy, edited by Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz. The book consists of chapters written by scholars from all over the world, including six Nobel Prize recipients, who tackle the denial of history practiced by some elements in our society. The book methodically debunks every major myth that has been put forward to justify the nuking of Japan, and it does so by reviewing the 1995 Smithsonian Enola Gay controversy. Here are some of the myths that it refutes:

    * Japan would not have surrendered if we had not nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Released Japanese records, and other sources, make it undeniably clear that it was the Soviet invasion that led to Japan's surrender, not the atomic bombings. Anyone who says otherwise is either dissembling or has not read the documentation.)

    * Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan.

    * The Japanese peace feelers were meaningless efforts done by low-level officials who acted without government approval. (At least two of the peace feelers were supported by senior figures in the government.)

    * Hiroshima was a valid "military target." (It was nothing of the kind.)

    * Japan's senior military leaders were committed to fighting to the last man. (Actually, even most of the senior militarists did not want this but wanted to wait until the army had inflicted Okinawa-like casualties on the American forces when they invaded the home islands.)

    * We dropped leaflets over Hiroshima warning of the impending nuclear attack. (Not a shred of evidence supports this claim.)

    Here is more information about the book:

    Hiroshima's Shadow—The Pamphleteer's Press (pamphleteerspress.com)
     
  3. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    693
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Not that you will, but I'd suggest you read "Truman and the Hiroshima Cult," which roundly shows the lie of your thesis. So, Mikey, you can disparage and call all the names that you want, but you are full of it.

    Magic does not lie.
     
    A-58 likes this.
  4. the_diego

    the_diego Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    72
    Gee, I wish Truman lived till 1995 so that he can finally see that he made a mistake. But back in 1945, he would have decided for the nuke, as with most normal thinking people.
     
  5. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,850
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Location:
    God's Country
    Regardless of the BS you're spreading your points are blatantly false to even a cursory look at the situation.

    1.)* Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan.
    While no one can know the true toll if the invasion had gone off, a hundred thousand dead is not an unreasonable estimate for the costs of invading Japan itself. If you take Okinawa as an example; there were 77,00 Japanese soldiers and 9,000 Japanese naval personnel at Okinawa (86,000), there were in excess of 2 million Japanese Armky troops in the home islands. The US suffered 20,195 KIA/DOW deaths and tens of thousands of wounded. 150,000 Okinawan civilians died. 100,000 combat deaths would seem to be on the lower end of what could be expected.

    2.)* Hiroshima was a valid "military target." (It was nothing of the kind.)
    20,000 Japanese soldiers died in the bombing, so how is it not a military target? That does not consider that it was a major port, supply source and manufacturing site.

    3.)* Japan's senior military leaders were committed to fighting to the last man. (Actually, even most of the senior militarists did not want this but wanted to wait until the army had inflicted Okinawa-like casualties on the American forces when they invaded the home islands.)
    So, saving 20,000+ American lives is not sufficient cause to drop the bomb? I'd have dropped it if it saved one. In what world are Okinawa like casualties, the costliest battle in the Pacific War, not a significant factor?

    4.)* We dropped leaflets over Hiroshima warning of the impending nuclear attack. (Not a shred of evidence supports this claim.)
    A strawman argument. We had dropped leaflets all across Japan warning of the fire bombings, to include Hiroshima. We did not drop a leaflet specifying we were going to drop an atomic bomb. Two reasons, the citizens we were trying to influence would not have known what it was, and the Interim Committee thought it ill-advised in case the bomb didn't detonate.
     
    Otto, LRusso216, GRW and 2 others like this.
  6. Biak

    Biak Adjutant Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,562
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    The Smithsonian controversy was created by the new director Martin Harwit who :

    "decided to exhibit the Enola Gay at the annex, with an accompanying message about the dangers of strategic bombing and escalation."
    This proposal, however, was met with some opposition in the Research Advisory Committee’s meeting on October 1988. Committee member Admiral Noel Gayler believed that any exhibition of the Enola Gay would imply “that we are celebrating the first and so far the only use of nuclear weapons against human beings.” Heeding this warning, the committee tabled the discussion and decided to first test the waters with a sixteen-month series of talks, panels, and exhibits on “Strategic Bombings in World War II.”

    Much like the revisionist trying to prove how advanced they are compared to the Common Public, they were afraid the exhibit was too Glorifying of War for us illiterates. Heaven forbid someone might take offense.


    Controversy over the Enola Gay Exhibition

    I saw the Enola Gay in 2011 and if they would have allowed I would have given Her the biggest damned hug I could. The odds of my uncle making it home after 27 months in the SWPA greatly improved.
     
  7. the_diego

    the_diego Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    72
    I take exception to the qualification "military target." During a total war, there's hardly any "non-military" target to speak of. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with Niigata and Kokura) were cities, with mainly civilians living there. In strategic bombing, one really targets cities; to demoralize the civilian population, and pressure their Government to re-direct the course of the war (either win now or surrender.) Well, those four cities were spared the fire bombing that happened to other Japanese cities only because they were on a "special list."
     
  8. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    "* Hiroshima was a valid "military target." (It was nothing of the kind.)"

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the governmental and military centers of their respective prefects. Nagasaki Arsenal produced the special torpedoes that were used in the raid on Pearl Harbor.

    CTers tend to be very gullible and not too bright.
     
    George Patton likes this.
  9. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,196
    I recall having read that the Japanese civilians were taught to attack the US soldiers with sharpened poles etc so perhaps instead of killing all attacking Japanese soldiers and civilians the A bombs saved a lot of Japanese people in the end ??
     
  10. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Japanese school girls were given wooden awls and instructed to stab the tall gaijin in the scrotum. One such incident and school girls are an endangered species. Older folks did get "training" on bamboo spears and the like. "Don't forget to charge the tanks and machine guns!"
     
    Kai-Petri likes this.
  11. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,113
    Likes Received:
    2,481
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I won't atrempt to refute Griffith's ideas point by point as Bob Price has done, but I agree with much of what he has written. The estimates of total casualties as the result of invading the home islands is staggering. Much has been written and said about the costs of the invasion. Giangreco's Hell to Pay is a good accounting of the buildup to the use if the bomb. Using archival records, his documenting of the Japanese mindset is unparalled. He cites Army communications, Hirohito's rescripts, and other sources to support his conclusions. I found his appendices supportive and extremely valuable. I'm not an expert by any means, but all of my reading leads to my belief that the use of the bomb was not only necessary, but also a life saver
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2022
    Slipdigit, USMCPrice and Kai-Petri like this.
  12. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Giangreco is high on my list.
     
  13. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,113
    Likes Received:
    2,481
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I corrected his name. Brain cramp.
     
  14. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    If we remember that Anami Korechika wasn't convinced after the first bomb, and was reluctantly converted when his second in command reported the destruction of Nagasaki, then we see that a "demonstration" wouldn't be much good. The senior policy-makers wouldn't go, the juniors that were sent wouldn't convince their bosses.
     
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, Mikey, you and your ilk are dissembling, as your are vainly attempting to prove only one side - the Soviet invasion led to a Japanese surrender. This is not an either/or answer, but all the above...
    Even with the bombings and Soviet invasion, the Militarists wanted to fight on, hence the 3-3 split in the Council...Or have you and your ilk forgotten that part.

    Most probably that would be the correct number of US deaths if the invasion had gone forward, of which there is plenty of evidence for this number.

    The peace feelers were meaningless, because no senior figure OFFICIALLY supported it! What the senior figures said behind closed doors, with the lights out, shades drawn, to a confidant is meaningless(or said in self-serving post-war memiors too).

    Already dealt with these so-called "Nobel prize winners who cannot read a map in a previous post.
    Nor do they explain the high number of military deaths in the Hiroshima bombing...Why is that? Do they have some sort of bias for dissembling Hiroshima deaths.

    You do realize this completely subverts your second argument concerning the number of US deaths.

    This is what is called "Own goal."

    We dropped leaflets warning Japanese cities would be bombed during the fire bombing campaign. They warned the Japanese cities would be bombed and for the civilians to evacuate Japanese cities. This is often confused by both sides of the argument.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2022
    Kai-Petri likes this.
  16. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Giangreco, should be required reading for those who can read.
     
  17. Otto

    Otto Spambot Nemesis Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,722
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    We certainly have a live one here in Mike T. Griffith.

    For a good time, take a look at his website:
    https://miketgriffith.com
    It is fittingly called the REAL ISSUES HOME PAGE :)

    Some very interesting topic there:
    THE ASSASSINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN: THE CONSPIRACY AND THE COVER-UP (spoiler: it wasn't John Booth, it was a conspiracy)
    The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Conspiracy and Cover-Up (spoiler: it wasn't Sirhan Sirhan, it was a conspiracy)
    JFK Assassination Web Page (spoiler: it wasn't Lee Oswald, it was a conspiracy)
    Pearl Harbor - Evidence of Foreknowledge (spoiler: the US knew the Japanese attack was imminent, and it was a conspiracy)
    Twelve Signs that the LDS Church is the True Church (spoiler: the LDS is the one true church of Jesus Christ)

    Oh, and on a page where he has an article entitled True Conservativsm (typo is his, not mine), he simultaneously has an article entitled Keep Ukraine Free where he advocated for war with Russia over the Ukraine.

    Generally, I tend to avoid judging an argument by the source, since an argument must be judged on its own merits. In this case the poor quality of the argument and the source very much align.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Isn't the whole "Ukraine" thing a vast conspiracy...
     
  19. Otto

    Otto Spambot Nemesis Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,722
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    He doesn't state Ukraine is a conspiracy.

    I'm highlighting the fact that even politically his logic is mashed. He somehow holds the ideas "True Conservatism" simultaneously with a the neocon staple of forever wars.

    Arguing with him isn't worth the time. Rather that rebutting his argument, go ahead and do anything else: organize your pantry, re-tie your shoes, etc.
     
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    It was a joke...Everything else to him is some big conspiracy...But, OMG! OMG! The Ukraine is the gospel truth.

    What a tool Mikey is.
     
    GRW, Kai-Petri and Otto like this.

Share This Page