Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by kellymcdonald Hiroshima and Nagasaki by kellymcdonald
The atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan were conducted by the United States during the final stages of World War II in 1945. These two events represent the only use of nuclear weapons in war to date.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Don't bother arguing with the guy below me, he is a pussy who will block you if you point out a flaw in his logic.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Edited Aug 3, 2015
(by the way, I like pussy - they're very nice, maybe Pootis9999 the silly troll is still a virgin who has never enjoyed one. In any case, I note that Pootis9999 has got almost no art in his galleries and appears to have only joined dA to troll and spout his racist propaganda)



It was not necessary in the slightest, and over the past few decades internationally historians have come to accept this fact even as the lies continue in the USA claiming otherwise. The silly "fight to the very end" stuff is nothing more racist, anti-Japanese crap, trying to excuse the use of a horror weapon against civilian population centres with the overt intention of mass murdering civilians.

1) 62 Japanese cities were destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one or two more. Japan had no fuel, almost no ability to manufacture weapons or ammunition, nor to transport supplies to Japan. Almost no tanks left and Japan remained totally unable to defend from air attack. Famine and disease threatened most of the population. Millions of Japanese civilians were homeless. Japan’s air forces had been ruined, the navy wrecked.

2) For 11 months before the bombing of Hiroshima, Shigemitsu had been offering the Japanese government's official surrender to the USA.

3) Three other official surrender offers had been made, the first was immediately after Potsdam.

4) All of the Japanese government offers of surrender had only one condition; protection of the emperor. In the end, this condition is proven as having been accepted because the emperor was protected regardless of what portrayal was given to the public in the USA news media by the USA government officials. The public version of the surrender lacks one very important feature; there is no Seal of the Emperor, it is therefore not the real version of the surrender, and another "non-public" official surrender document must exist.

5) Far too much evidence has since come out that refutes the claims of "necessity".

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.


General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike




Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.


Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Japanese government had already offered surrender, and that the dropping of the atomic bombs was absolutely unnecessary.
www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/1…
Reply
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Since OnlyTheGhosts Is to much of a pussy to take an argument, I will just post a reply here:

What? I was just using your logic of Wikipedia being an unreliable source

Other sources

www.cracked.com/article/18360_…

sussle.org/t/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_i…

militaryhistorynow.com/tag/the…

Oh, and blocking doesn't mean you win, it just means you are to much of a pussy to admit you were wrong and can't handle anyone that opposes your argument.
P.S: Its kind of hypocritical calling someone a racist twat while having the Confederete flag on your profile. Its like having a Nazi flag on your profile while calling someone a genocidal monster.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Student Writer
It was an unfortunate necessity.
Reply
:iconsanniebannie4:
sanniebannie4 Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
*throws rock at America*  Alfred, you jerk! Look what you did to poor Kiku. ):<
Reply
:icondelneko:
Delneko Featured By Owner May 14, 2015
This makes me feel so much *clutches chest* Can people stope leaving their boxes of feels around? I keep tripping over them.

Also, am I the only one that sees a ghostly face next to Japan's right elbow? It's smiling and it's kinda creeping me out...
Reply
:iconjacknelson01:
JackNelson01 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2015   General Artist
I am from Britain, I know a lot about military history. I always felt sorry the Japanese having two of their cities getting destroyed like, America killed civilians not soldiers. And that to me is cowardice not victory.
Reply
:iconi-phillip:
I-Phillip Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2015
Despite the atrocity of the act, in America's defense they did a warning campaign where they dropped hundreds of thousands of evacuation notices on the cities, the civilians were not permitted to leave by their government. This is in no justification for the horrible act, but there were atrocities committed by both sides.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Student Writer
The Japanese killed ten million people in the Second World War.
Reply
:iconi-phillip:
I-Phillip Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015
"The Japanese millitary", you meant.  These were innocent people just going about their day.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015  Student Writer
So were those at Nanking. And at Pearl Harbour. And in Singapore. That didn't stop the Japanese army.
Never trick yourself into beleiving that the difference between soldiers and civilians is just a forced wartime politeness at the best of times.
Reply
:iconjacknelson01:
JackNelson01 Featured By Owner Edited Mar 31, 2015   General Artist
True, mind you know did it was from Britain During the Boar War that it was our country that first used 'Concentration Camp' Before the Nazi's gave it a whole new meaning.
Reply
:iconsampea:
sampea Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2014
:'(
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2014  Student Writer
An unfortunate necessity.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2015
Not it wasn't.

American leaders who were in a position to know the facts did not believe, either at the time or later, that the atomic bombings were needed to end the war.

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Shortly after "V-J Day," the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place."

Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.



In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."



Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.


A leading voice of American Protestantism, Christian Century, strongly condemned the bombings. An editorial entitled "America's Atomic Atrocity" in the issue of August 29, 1945, told readers:

The atomic bomb was used at a time when Japan's navy was sunk, her air force virtually destroyed, her homeland surrounded, her supplies cut off, and our forces poised for the final stroke ... Our leaders seem not to have weighed the moral considerations involved. No sooner was the bomb ready than it was rushed to the front and dropped on two helpless cities ... The atomic bomb can fairly be said to have struck Christianity itself ... The churches of America must dissociate themselves and their faith from this inhuman and reckless act of the American Government.

Commonweal, took a similar view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the magazine editorialized, "are names for American guilt and shame."


Leo Szilard, a Hungarian-born scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued against its use. "Japan was essentially defeated," he said, and "it would be wrong to attack its cities with atomic bombs as if atomic bombs were simply another military weapon." In a 1960 magazine article, Szilard wrote: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2015  Student Writer
The Japanese Emperor was for the most part a figurehead, all real power in the hands of the Military, who as fanatical devotees of the Bushido Code, would never surrender.
Furthermore you treat it as completely unprovoked, when if fact Imperial Japan committed at least as many atrocities in the war as their Nazi allies.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Edited Mar 8, 2015
You're simply parading the same old cliche, the same old wartime propaganda. Like the crap in Hollywood movies.

It also appears that you very rudely didn't really read what I stated in my previous comment. You skipped over all those little inconvenient truths about the dropping of the bombs being unnecessary and actually a war crime, and went right to trying to "excuse" the atrocities with repetition of wartime propaganda and an argument of false moral equivalence. Sorry, just because one side is evil, doesn't make the other side less evil. If one man does terrible things, that doesn't mean the other man who does terrible things is any better, nor does it "excuse" the evils committed by either.

I suggest you become more enlightened, and learn more history and culture instead of repeating those old racist lies and bullcrap. You know nothing "real" about Japan, nor about Germany. You simply repeated that ancient wartime demonisation, the old cliche crap, the old lies used during wartime - then continued after the war to excuse the evil horrors carried out by the victors.

You could - for example - read the McCollum Memo which outlined a plan for instigating war with Japan.
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI…

The memo proves that the government leaders of the USA in the late 1930s desired to lure Japan into an attack; it wasn't declassified and made public until 1994. It took 50 years for the truth about Pearl Harbor to be revealed.

One of the hardest things in life is to realise that you've been lied to, indoctrinated, brainwashed by propaganda, and be willing to go beyond it, get past the "official lies" of whatever you were taught to believe, and discover for yourself what the truth is.

The truth will distress you. It's a painful experience to awaken to how much bullshit you've accepted without knowing it. I've been there, I used to believe the same crap as you do now. It took years to get past that crap. It made me angry when I discovered how much I'd been lied to.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

Alfred McCormack – Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation – believed that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone:

The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of  atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed.  For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2015  Student Writer
The Japs had it coming. Cliche or not it's the truth of things.

I read what you stated. It's just that it was all nonsense. The horrors committed by the Nips don't justify the attacks. The fact they were the least costly course of action does.

If you truly believe that crimes committed by the Nazi bastards and their Nip allies didn't happen you're the biggest dumbass on the Earth.

McCollum never had contact with President Roosevelt. And besides that it wouldn't have been such a bad idea, as the Americans were well aware of the horrors being committed by the Nips in China and Southeast Asia.

Oh boo damn hoo. Big bad government lied. Eleven millions people under German rule didn't die. They just disappeared into the atmosphere.
-_- Get some sense you halfwit.
Reply
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Since OnlyTheGhosts Is to much of a pussy to take an argument, I will just post a reply here:

What? I was just using your logic of Wikipedia being an unreliable source

Other sources

www.cracked.com/article/18360_…

sussle.org/t/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_i…

militaryhistorynow.com/tag/the…

Oh, and blocking doesn't mean you win, it just means you are to much of a pussy to admit you were wrong and can't handle anyone that opposes your argument.
P.S: Its kind of hypocritical calling someone a racist twat while having the Confederete flag on your profile. Its like having a Nazi flag on your profile while calling someone a genocidal monster.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Edited Mar 8, 2015
The "Japs"? How racist you sound. You definitely are stuck in the past somewhere in a propagandised mindset. Perhaps you never paid much attention to the history of the era, when empires and colonialism was normal. The whole over-dramatised bullshit story that "Japs were bad because they had imperial ambitions" ignores that EVERY major nation was doing the exact same thing, because that's how the whole world worked. It was okay for Westerners to be colonial and imperialistic - apparently it still is, judging by the actions of Europe and the USA as they continue to bomb brown people and steal resources at the point of the gun - yet, at the same time, you criticise an Asian nation for acting the same way. Hypocrisy ever bite you in the arse much, or do you never open your eyes to recognise it?

I never said a damn fucking thing about the Japanese 'not' committing any atrocities, that's just YOUR bullcrap as you try to justify a hypocritical defence of Allied atrocities. A lot of those Allied atrocities were buried, censored, hidden for decades along with the actual deathtolls experienced by all sides. Propaganda has ruled the mainstream media and ruled the textbooks that you and I grew up with. In school, much of what we are taught is a big pile of lies. About everything.

The truth has been coming out though. The Allies carried out some horrors that many still want to be dismissed and ignored. Both during the war and immediately afterward. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was no "surprise attack", and that's been exposed as the truth for decades. The Japanese military attacked a MILITARY target and military personnel, killing thousands - the American government leadership responded with the horrific firebombing of CIVILIANS in Tokyo. Later firebombings of 63 Japanese cities also targeted civilian population centres, the American claims that the bombings targeted factories were proven false many years after the war. 30 German cities were also firebombed, again, this was deliberate targeting of civilians. In 1945 Eisenhower used the Morgenthau Plan to set up 200 POW camps along the where the US Army starved to death millions of  German POWs. The USA ignored the Geneva convention by spurious pretence and legal word games. U.S. Army warehouses had 13.5 million Red Cross food parcels taken from the ICRC, which were never distributed. and that Red Cross food parcels were confiscated by SHAEF, and the War Department banned them from being given to the men in the camps. In Japan, in the prefecture of Kanagawa, 10 000 Japanese women were raped by American soldiers every month during the early military occupation of Japan. Mass rapes happened in Germany too, but the Allied authorities turned a blind eye to the situation.

Your strange refutal of the McCollum Memo is very peculiar, lacking in logic. Whoever said that McCollum needed to directly meet a president? It was an official document, and what was outlined (if you bothered to read it) demonstrates the planning for instigating a war with Japan, also providing the reasoning and motivation. Have you read it, or did you yet again rely on Wikipedai-the-Encyclopedia-for-trolls-and-idiots? Perhaps you got your irrational dismissive statements from a forum such as rightwing apologist's blog.

You respond with insults, not brains, therefore the half-wit is YOU.

Fuck off idiot. You're blocked because  1) you're a racist twit, 2) you're a braindead idiot.


Reply
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Edited Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Of course the military wanted to surrender, that's why there were two attempts to continue the war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%AB…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsue_i…

Gee, I can totally see how they wanted to surrender.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Edited Aug 2, 2015

Sounds to me like you've NEVER done any research, and wikipedia isn't credible on anything controversial LMAO. It's written and edited by the following; rent-a-trolls, spammers, idiots with an agenda, morons who just want to argue, outright liars, scammers, lobbyists, and worse.
www.urbandictionary.com/define…

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

Alfred McCormack – Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation – believed that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone:

The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of  atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed.  For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.


Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconvocaloidcreepypastas:
Even though I'm a Korean,  I feel terrible for the innocent Japanese people who have died in the bombing, but it was the only way to end the war quickly.  If they invaded by land, millions of American lives would have been lost and more civilians would have been killed.  Not only the Japanese victims should be mourned, the ones who have been killed, beaten, or tortured in the prison camps of the Imperial Japanese Military and the Nazi Party should all be mourned.  Every civilian, resistance fighter, and militiaman shall be mourned, not just our soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots.  Semper Fidelis.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2015
Really, it wasn't. Please read more history than only whatever nonsense is paraded after the event to excuse an atrocity.

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

The Japanese government leadership had been trying to negotiate surrender for at least 11 months before those bombs were dropped. The USA government leaders IGNORED them, as they wanted to use these horror weapons to intimidate the USSR.

Reply
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Reply
:iconpootis9999:
Pootis9999 Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2015  Student Writer
Now for a reminder that OnlyTheGhosts is an example of a pussy arguer.

Oh if OnlyTheGhosts is reading this, I only have to say that I hope you don't get in an argument IRL, because you can't block people IRL.
Reply
:iconpokesmosher365:
PokeSmosher365 Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Student General Artist
I wonder how Hetalia would depict this incident.
Reply
:iconkiniro-chan:
Kiniro-chan Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
It's sad but at the same time that bombing help Indonesia get their independence, proclaim it at 17 August 1945. Why did war even start? Why don't replace it with friendship to help in war? It's confusing.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2015  Student Writer
The war started because the Axis Powers ultra-racist policies gave them the feeling of superiority and entitlement to onquer any others they sought to.
Reply
:iconkiniro-chan:
Kiniro-chan Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Some additions, Japan was told to be even more cruel at colonizing Indonesia, more than Netherlands who colonize Indonesia for 350 years long.
Reply
:icongeekygirl43:
Geekygirl43 Featured By Owner May 16, 2013
Even thought I do feel that there could have been an alternative to the Atom bombs, one thing to know is that Japanese attitude in war is similar to Spartans, you either come back alive or die trying, so there was going to be no unconditional surrender. On top of that Truman saw it as the only way to end the war without sacrificing the lives of Americans.
Reply
:icononlytheghosts:
OnlyTheGhosts Featured By Owner Edited Mar 8, 2015
Truman was lying, and the Japanese government had been trying to negotiate surrender for over eleven months before Hiroshima was nuked.

What you allege about Japanese attitudes is racist crap. Like the wartime propaganda used to demonise any enemies, it's intended to portray the other side as being subhuman and crazy.
Reply
:iconmrmadmaniac:
MrMadManiac Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2013  Hobbyist
Such pain.
Such death.
I don't believe this was ever mentioned in the show, and I don't expect it to ever be.
I find it so implausible that fans ship Japan and the U.S. in spite of this. *mood killed*
Reply
:iconsans-coeur97:
sans-coeur97 Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Rape of Nanking... //shot//

I'm kinda glad Truman decided to do this... It would have been worse if it was a land invasion... I don't know... I hate war though
Reply
:iconlightingashley25:
LightingAshley25 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Fantastic art work i still believe we could have stop japan using a different way that didnt have to involve the atomic bombs...
Reply
:iconthegreatgermania:
thegreatgermania Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
((this is amazing))
Reply
:iconvampyremisa:
vampyremisa Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013  Hobbyist
we are sorry japan........
Reply
:iconsealandmintbunny:
sealandmintbunny Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
oh this is so well drewn!
it made me think of barefoot gen, and hetalia. (but that is because is is japan you drew.)
Reply
:icongodofwarlover:
godofwarlover Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012
"Now I Am Become Deaath, Destroyer Of Worlds."
Reply
:iconkwajchick:
kwajchick Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Oh my, this picture gave me so many feels. ;w;

I need to find more historical pictures like this! This is the true aspect of why I got into Hetalia!

You can seriously take out all of the yaoi, and I'd still be obsessed~ ewe
Reply
:iconserenedash:
SereneDash Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I love this <3 that awkward moment when your birthday is August 6th...
Reply
:iconstarlitxcrystal:
StarlitXCrystal Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
True dat. (My cousin's b'day is and she freaked out the first time she learned this in History. I was like, "Damn. Such bad luck ya' got there, cuz'.")
Reply
:iconserenedash:
SereneDash Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
My mom makes jokes on my bday every year and calls me Enola (like that plane used to drop the bomb).
Reply
:iconstarlitxcrystal:
StarlitXCrystal Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
*mentalfaceplam*
XD
Reply
:icon5qui99l3:
5Qui99L3 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Student Digital Artist
This is normally not like me, but this picture is so intense, it actually brought tears to my eyes. Great work, conveys the mood perfectly. The cruelty, the despair... Very well done.
Reply
:iconaphalfredfjones:
APHAlfredFJones Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
((aww poor japan ;( ))
Reply
:iconodhinabo:
odHINAbo Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
bellissimo...
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 10, 2012
Image Size
1.4 MB
Resolution
792×1195
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,023 (7 today)
Favourites
164 (who?)
Comments
50
Downloads
145
×