howard is right, the "motive" to "save lives" was invented after the nuclear bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima. mcgeorge bundy, who wrote an autobiography of henry stimson, the secretary of war and head of the manhatten project, (1945 nuclear program) all but admitted this late in life. they listed several reasons for dropping nukes on japan, none of which was "saving american lives".
@sadaist ~ a nice little soundbite ignoring justification or responsibility for killing millions of people for nothing. good to see you've bought into the war propaganda machine.
@sadaist ~ i see, you think the murder of 100,000 children is justified as revenge. so with that logic, iraq has every right to nuke a couple of our cities?
Its no myth that dropping the bomb saved lives. He states the japanese were about to surrender. And offers no evidence of this. That is nonsense. The greatest rebuttal to that comment is the fact we had to drop two bombs. He is just a liberal who approaches topics from a liberal viewpoint. Not one of fact or truth. Of course we would not sacrifice US kids. We did not start the war nor did we enslave the pacific rim.We could not leave the political structure in place that started the war.
@GIspecialty Please do some real research. Quit buying into the neo con public school history text books! So you think since we didn't start the war, that makes it ok to drop atomic bombs. I must disagree. Have some mercy. We had a block aid set up along the Japanese coast,keeping them from receiving food,medical supplies,etc...That is what he meant by the Japanese were on their way to surrendering. Bottom line,we dropped the bomb to end the war faster.
@velvetdenault07 Spare me the modern day liberal slant on history. You cannot judge what happened in war 65 years ago. As for research, I have done plenty for the past 40 years. Japan was not going to surrender and the fact that we had to drop 2 bombs is a pretty good indicator of that. The cost in American lives would have been tremendous as well as Jap civilians. Of course we dropped it to end the war. You need to research the Japanese preparations for an invasion.
@GIspecialty They didn't know about the first bomb until after the second had dropped. The simple fact is that they could have demonstrated the weapon on one of the many islands they were fighting for. Instead, Truman decided that terror was the appropriate action and targeted civilians before creating the middle east problems we have now by creating Israel in the middle of millions of people who hate Jews. Truman was a cunt. Oh.. how hypocritical thou art America.
@jacksawild Once again, to demonstrate the bomb would have only cost more American air crews lives. The japs would have had every aircraft they had ramming American bombers. And they new about the first bomb. What do you think they were, stupid? And many countrys created the middle east after the war. The arabs initially did not hate the Jews. But the Jews came and took alot away from them. I agree with the arabs that they got shafted on the deal. As for Truman being a cunt. U are full of shit.
@GIspecialty Yeah you're right because the Pacific theatre wasn't thousands of miles away from your country.. oh wait.. it was. The Japanese were not a threat to America. Your argument sucks.
@jacksawild Distance was not the issue you moron. Every soldier knew that if we left without unconditional surrender that their kids would have to fight the next war with japan. Same as Germany. learn some history you idiot. Or ask your mommy to take you to a library.U are atypical anti US weedhead. No common sense just pop culture liberalism. I do not know which is more dangerous. the radical muslims or ignorance like yours.
@GIspecialty Which next war? Why unconditional surrender. You are making baseless claims. I wrote my dissertation on this subject. Would you like to compare ignorance levels with me? Try reading history critically, instead of mindlessly repeating the propaganda which no serious academic takes seriously, these days. You are a relic from the cold war. America's motivations in the East have revealed themselves over the last sixty years. It should be obvious to a three year old.
@jacksawild To leave the military/industrial complex, which ran japan, in place was the last thing to do. Your mindset is not critical. Its liberal. Try remembering that people back then were not stupid. Its not propoganda. As for serious academics, you mean liberal academics. Relics from the cold war kept this country safe. To not believe that means you have discounted 60 years of history to revisionist ideals.Motivations in the east? What kind of conspiracy horseshit are you pushing now?
@GIspecialty Occupy Japan and leave Russia to create eastern-european buffer zone bringing the world to the brink of destruction several times. How did that work out for you guys? Just because you think 'liberal' is an insult does not mean it is and just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a bleeding heart blah blah blah... Japan wanted Asia but there is no way in hell they could have kept it, America wanted an Eastern base: thus they murdered civilians to acquire it. Pure colonialism.
@jacksawild We occupied japan, gave women the vote and put them on the road to economic recovery. And we left.Also the Marshall plan did europe a great service. So whom have we occupied and stayed as russia did with eastern europe?No one. Your argument is ridiculous and petty. Typical liberal. The murdered civilians , I assume, were the japanese people. Yes, it is called war and it is nasty. I will not repeat myself again to try and further your education. You are tainted with liberal ignorance.
In a war of course our lives are more valuable than theirs.
narcisolon 5 months ago
I just have one thing to say: "Mokusatsu"
Trucker494 7 months ago
howard is right, the "motive" to "save lives" was invented after the nuclear bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima. mcgeorge bundy, who wrote an autobiography of henry stimson, the secretary of war and head of the manhatten project, (1945 nuclear program) all but admitted this late in life. they listed several reasons for dropping nukes on japan, none of which was "saving american lives".
tomitstube 10 months ago
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - Gen. George Patton
sadaist 10 months ago
@sadaist ~ a nice little soundbite ignoring justification or responsibility for killing millions of people for nothing. good to see you've bought into the war propaganda machine.
tomitstube 10 months ago
@tomitstube If I remember correctly (and I do) the Japs started the damn thing and we finished it.
sadaist 10 months ago
@sadaist ~ i see, you think the murder of 100,000 children is justified as revenge. so with that logic, iraq has every right to nuke a couple of our cities?
tomitstube 10 months ago
@sadaist The Americans started the revolutionary war. Should the UK nuke them now?
jacksawild 8 months ago
@sadaist Nice quote from "blood 'n guts Patton". The man loved to talk about death and destruction. Typical Yankee worthless soldier.
jacksawild 7 months ago
Its no myth that dropping the bomb saved lives. He states the japanese were about to surrender. And offers no evidence of this. That is nonsense. The greatest rebuttal to that comment is the fact we had to drop two bombs. He is just a liberal who approaches topics from a liberal viewpoint. Not one of fact or truth. Of course we would not sacrifice US kids. We did not start the war nor did we enslave the pacific rim.We could not leave the political structure in place that started the war.
GIspecialty 1 year ago
@GIspecialty Please do some real research. Quit buying into the neo con public school history text books! So you think since we didn't start the war, that makes it ok to drop atomic bombs. I must disagree. Have some mercy. We had a block aid set up along the Japanese coast,keeping them from receiving food,medical supplies,etc...That is what he meant by the Japanese were on their way to surrendering. Bottom line,we dropped the bomb to end the war faster.
velvetdenault07 11 months ago
@velvetdenault07 Spare me the modern day liberal slant on history. You cannot judge what happened in war 65 years ago. As for research, I have done plenty for the past 40 years. Japan was not going to surrender and the fact that we had to drop 2 bombs is a pretty good indicator of that. The cost in American lives would have been tremendous as well as Jap civilians. Of course we dropped it to end the war. You need to research the Japanese preparations for an invasion.
GIspecialty 11 months ago
@GIspecialty They didn't know about the first bomb until after the second had dropped. The simple fact is that they could have demonstrated the weapon on one of the many islands they were fighting for. Instead, Truman decided that terror was the appropriate action and targeted civilians before creating the middle east problems we have now by creating Israel in the middle of millions of people who hate Jews. Truman was a cunt. Oh.. how hypocritical thou art America.
jacksawild 8 months ago
@jacksawild Once again, to demonstrate the bomb would have only cost more American air crews lives. The japs would have had every aircraft they had ramming American bombers. And they new about the first bomb. What do you think they were, stupid? And many countrys created the middle east after the war. The arabs initially did not hate the Jews. But the Jews came and took alot away from them. I agree with the arabs that they got shafted on the deal. As for Truman being a cunt. U are full of shit.
GIspecialty 8 months ago
@GIspecialty Yeah you're right because the Pacific theatre wasn't thousands of miles away from your country.. oh wait.. it was. The Japanese were not a threat to America. Your argument sucks.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild Distance was not the issue you moron. Every soldier knew that if we left without unconditional surrender that their kids would have to fight the next war with japan. Same as Germany. learn some history you idiot. Or ask your mommy to take you to a library.U are atypical anti US weedhead. No common sense just pop culture liberalism. I do not know which is more dangerous. the radical muslims or ignorance like yours.
GIspecialty 7 months ago
@GIspecialty Which next war? Why unconditional surrender. You are making baseless claims. I wrote my dissertation on this subject. Would you like to compare ignorance levels with me? Try reading history critically, instead of mindlessly repeating the propaganda which no serious academic takes seriously, these days. You are a relic from the cold war. America's motivations in the East have revealed themselves over the last sixty years. It should be obvious to a three year old.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild To leave the military/industrial complex, which ran japan, in place was the last thing to do. Your mindset is not critical. Its liberal. Try remembering that people back then were not stupid. Its not propoganda. As for serious academics, you mean liberal academics. Relics from the cold war kept this country safe. To not believe that means you have discounted 60 years of history to revisionist ideals.Motivations in the east? What kind of conspiracy horseshit are you pushing now?
GIspecialty 7 months ago
@GIspecialty Occupy Japan and leave Russia to create eastern-european buffer zone bringing the world to the brink of destruction several times. How did that work out for you guys? Just because you think 'liberal' is an insult does not mean it is and just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a bleeding heart blah blah blah... Japan wanted Asia but there is no way in hell they could have kept it, America wanted an Eastern base: thus they murdered civilians to acquire it. Pure colonialism.
jacksawild 7 months ago
@jacksawild We occupied japan, gave women the vote and put them on the road to economic recovery. And we left.Also the Marshall plan did europe a great service. So whom have we occupied and stayed as russia did with eastern europe?No one. Your argument is ridiculous and petty. Typical liberal. The murdered civilians , I assume, were the japanese people. Yes, it is called war and it is nasty. I will not repeat myself again to try and further your education. You are tainted with liberal ignorance.
GIspecialty 7 months ago
good work.
ImhotepRamses 1 year ago
It all depends on your value of life.
All life has equal value, but is not valued as such when that life differs by cuture or ideals.
deadman12078 1 year ago
Great question!!!
"would you be willing to kill 100,000 american children to end the war sooner, and save more lives"?
no one would say yes... the fact is, we're hypocryts who cant put ourselfs in other peoples shoes.........
Howie262 1 year ago