6
6
0
From "Scoop"
Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary
August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.
The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans in 1945 accepted the propaganda that the bombings were necessary to shorten the war and prevent the loss of a million US soldiers during the allegedly planned November 1945 invasion.
Of course, the reason that the United States wasn’t sanctioned like Germany was for the Jewish holocaust was that America was the victor and the occupier and thus it was in charge of making and enforcing the rules in the New World Order.
The United States military ambushed the equally defenseless Nagasaki City three days later with the second atomic bomb to ever be used against a civilian population (that no longer had any military value to Japan). “Fat Man”, the plutonium bomb named after Winston Churchill, was detonated before the Japanese leadership fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.
<<>>
My high school history teachers all seemed to be ex-jocks who weren’t athletically talented enough to make it to the majors. The main chance for them to continue playing games for pay was to join the teaching profession and coach high school athletics. American history was of secondary importance in many small town high schools but it hardly made the list of interests for coaches, who reluctantly accepted the job; and so my classmates and I “learned” our lessons from some very uninspired, very bored and/or very uninformed teachers who would rather have been on the playing field.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- A view seldom seen.
Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary
August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.
The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans in 1945 accepted the propaganda that the bombings were necessary to shorten the war and prevent the loss of a million US soldiers during the allegedly planned November 1945 invasion.
Of course, the reason that the United States wasn’t sanctioned like Germany was for the Jewish holocaust was that America was the victor and the occupier and thus it was in charge of making and enforcing the rules in the New World Order.
The United States military ambushed the equally defenseless Nagasaki City three days later with the second atomic bomb to ever be used against a civilian population (that no longer had any military value to Japan). “Fat Man”, the plutonium bomb named after Winston Churchill, was detonated before the Japanese leadership fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.
<<>>
My high school history teachers all seemed to be ex-jocks who weren’t athletically talented enough to make it to the majors. The main chance for them to continue playing games for pay was to join the teaching profession and coach high school athletics. American history was of secondary importance in many small town high schools but it hardly made the list of interests for coaches, who reluctantly accepted the job; and so my classmates and I “learned” our lessons from some very uninspired, very bored and/or very uninformed teachers who would rather have been on the playing field.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- A view seldom seen.
Posted in these groups: 
WWII World War Two
Nuclear
WWII World War Two Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
0
0
0
Forgive me for "double-dipping" on this discussion thread, but I just came across an interesting commentary by Bill Whittle regarding this subject. I hope that you can see it at this link
http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/from-the-archives-jon-stewarts-stupid-nuclear-commentary-1808/
I looked and couldn't find it freely available on YouTube...
http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/from-the-archives-jon-stewarts-stupid-nuclear-commentary-1808/
I looked and couldn't find it freely available on YouTube...
Retiring John Stewart's Nuclear Stupidity | PJTV
As comedian Jon Stewart retires from his longtime Comedy Central gig, we salute him... his stupidity. Check out this Bill Whittle video from the archive...
(0)
(0)
SPC William Clark
I believe so. I think that a land war would have cost way more lives and caused more destruction. And I mean lives of Japanese civilians and civilian sites. Was some of it was President Truman showing off. But we did tell them. We did warn them. And even after Hiroshima, Hirohito was too proud.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SPC William Clark - We didn't tell them. The leaflet droppings were for normal bombings.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
PO3 Donald Murphy - How would you explain a nuclear device and it's horror to a people determined to die for their emperor? Keep in mind that you can't respond from the vantage point of hindsight. No one outside a handful of people understood the concept.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
CPT Jack Durish - My comment was twofold: first to correct that we did drop leaflets but not for the atom bomb raids. The leaflets were dropped for regular bomb raids. And second, to counter the widely held myth that we could have demonstrated the A-bomb to the Japanese and based on what they saw, they would immediately surrender. What plays into that theory is the fact that the Japanese were aware of what the atom bomb was. They were working a similar concept in their chem units' labs. More of a cobalt jacket, poisoning angle. Not really a "people killer" but a crippler. The general who toured Hiroshima remarked to the Emperor that "it was an atomic device. We know this. We are pursuing the same concept."
The problem is that the Japanese track record of lying to the allies ("we'll make Manilla an open city") is well known. So the allies were not going to trust the Japanese as far as they could throw them. An island nation cannot live without a Navy. Especially when everything that island uses is stolen from other nations (rubber, oil, etc). So having no Navy since December 1944, the fact that the Japanese chose to soldier on, was all the impetus needed to carry on with the invasion of Japan which would have involved a month of prelim bombing. Considering 300000+ dead in Tokyo from one night, things weren't looking too good for the Japanese as a race.
The problem is that the Japanese track record of lying to the allies ("we'll make Manilla an open city") is well known. So the allies were not going to trust the Japanese as far as they could throw them. An island nation cannot live without a Navy. Especially when everything that island uses is stolen from other nations (rubber, oil, etc). So having no Navy since December 1944, the fact that the Japanese chose to soldier on, was all the impetus needed to carry on with the invasion of Japan which would have involved a month of prelim bombing. Considering 300000+ dead in Tokyo from one night, things weren't looking too good for the Japanese as a race.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Hiroshima - Yes... Nagasaki - No... Especially with only a 3 day separation between the two with no indication of a retaliation. I think anyone can make a logical argument for Hiroshima, and I remember this debate quite a few times in my career, but (to me) the destruction of Nagasaki was more of a "You don't think I can do this again? Dude, hold my beer..." type of move that really served no purpose other than to take more lives than necessary by kicking a man (country) when he's down... With the shock of the sudden destruction of THE CITY of Hiroshima, with only ONE PLANE and ONE BOMB, the FIRST TIME EVER, the human nature within me really can't believe they had the will to fight after that... And even if they were, and they didn't need another city destroyed as a "just in case" measure without knowing that they would... Now, that being said... USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SMSgt Tony Barnes - To be fair tho, Japan had a tendency to go back on their word/outright lie. Manilla being declared an "open city" is but one prime example, resulting in the deaths of close to 200000 allied citizens. So for the Americans/Allies to adopt a "we don't trust you as far as we can throw you" attitude was politically and militarily correct. With the death of her Navy in 1944, Japan - as an island nation - ceased to exist. She had no way to get oil from her conquests and was close to 90% blockaded by the USN and being bombed daily/nightly by the USAAC. So the fact that Japan *AT THAT POINT* had not thrown in the towel tells you that "a demonstration" or "a warning" wouldn't do any better.
All books say Japan was stunned at Hiroshima but all books also say that no attempts were made to contact the Allies. So all things considered, Japan wasn't going to surrender over one nuked city.
All books say Japan was stunned at Hiroshima but all books also say that no attempts were made to contact the Allies. So all things considered, Japan wasn't going to surrender over one nuked city.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
PO3 Donald Murphy - Correct. Tojo's military cabal, driven by their perverted version of Bushido, was dead set (pardon the pun) on national suicide. They had no qualms with having every man, woman and child dying to satisfy their notion of upholding Japan's honor. They even conspired the kill the Emperor when they found out he was considering surrender.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Skip Kirkwood - PO; Swing that around to "At the time they were mostly deemed more necessary than not by those in charge of actually making the decisions to drop them and dropping them saved the largest number of lives - both American and Japanese." and we are in agreement.
[A total blockade of Japan - which the American and allied navies were quite capable of effecting - would have resulted in mass starvation and rioting that might have killed over 50% of the Japanese people.]
[A total blockade of Japan - which the American and allied navies were quite capable of effecting - would have resulted in mass starvation and rioting that might have killed over 50% of the Japanese people.]
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google