Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor...

Oosik and goodgrief: WOW, so much bushit; so little space in which to respond.

Every time I read the comments made by you filthy warmongers, you are defending the murders of the citizens of the civilian cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never a surprise.

You completely ignore the eyewitness accounts of those citizens who survived the use of nuclear bombs against civilians, including http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/ and http://www.farfilm.com/web/title_tmc.htm and http://www.farfilm.com/web/title_wlbr.htm "Their testimony would only affirm that (a) there were bombings, and (b) they were absolutely horrific; neither of which is in dispute here." Actually, it is; otherwise you wouldn't constantly attempt to justify murdering over 200,000 civilians. You even ignore the eyewitness accounts of journalists George Weller [of the Chicago Daily News], and Wilfred Burchett. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm "The Hiroshima Cover-Up"

You also continue to ignore historians who are using information that was KNOWN AT THAT TIME by Truman and all the others. http://www.doug-long.com/ "H I R O S H I M A : WAS IT NECESSARY?" Instead, all that you warmongers do--having NO factual information with which to support any of your claims--is constantly state your mere opinions; mere beliefs; a personal theory; and even "a horrible point to ponder and merely a thought but I think the yellow race, once again , will push for world conquest." THE RETURN OF THE DREADED, FEARED--and completely racist and nonsensical--YELLOW PERIL!!!!!!!

So, yet again, murdering the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki DID NOT end the war. The Japanese government and military refused to surrender because of the Western demand that they surrender UNCONDITIONALLY; such a surrender was seen as a threat to the Emperor, worshipped as a god, the most important person with the highest status in all Japan. The Japanese surrendered only AFTER the status of the Emperor was in no danger.

Well, we will all hope, for the sake of everyone, that it will turn out for the better. I, on the other hand follow the money. At one time they did their fare share of conquering here and there; it's just the way they think and I don't think that's changed. The U.S. does the same today...we have money and population..hence expansion. Here's the same situation with China. Population and the bank account is growing, courtesy of the U.S. Expansion? Maybe not in our life time but I truly believe they will give it a go.

"Soon as they can get here, they'll come." - Maybe. I see it as possibly a race between their build-up and their realization that being an economic superpower is superior to being an active military one. They may have a repressive regime, but it is not a stupid one. Their country is basking in a whopping trade surplus and it doesn't take an Enstein to realize that a booming economy, unlike a middling or depressed one, is generally hurt by war. These guys can't survive just selling to their own people, and have become way too intertwined with the evil capitalists to sever the connections and still thrive. We can just hope that this realization wins out when the time comes.

But history is not with us on that: At the start of both world wars the European economies were inter-dependent as never before, and the same argument was being used. "No one would be stupid enough to start a war - it's economic suicide!"

It is often said that one of the lessons we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

Here's a horrible point to ponder and merely a thought but I think the yellow race, once again , will push for world conquest. Russia has long feared this and while, under the guise of friendship and communism and even during the cold war, has had at least 6 standing divisions on the Chinese border...why? Do they realize something no one else does? We buy a Chinese toy and about 55% of it goes into their Navy. Soon as they can get here, they'll come. They are relentless in growth and within their walls live some of the sneakiest bastards I've known. They'll shake your right hand and pick your pocket with the left. I don't trust 'em and never will. What do we do? We just keep on buying their junk. I'd like to stay alive for another 100 years just to say "I told you so". It may sound crazy but I've no life either.

I think goodgrief is dead on about the Russian issue. They still managed to grab a few islands due to their week or so as an enemy of the Rising Sun. And before that, they managed to grab a few B29's as a neutral power in the Pacific. They eventually cloned the Superfort to get their first strategic bomber, the TU-4.

Another point to ponder: How much did the Cold War change the fates of the fallen axis powers? After WWI the draconian provisions of the Versailles Treaty all but ensured renewed conflict (even British PM Lloyd George predicted it), but after WWII the U.S. and others, bent over backwards to help the vanquished foes, e.g., the Marshall Plan. Was it a realization of the errors of Versailles, or the facts that (a) everyone feared an impoverished, dysfunctional Europe was ripe for communism, and (b) Japan was an incredibly good strategic location close to the western USSR? Probably a bit of both. Nothing here relevant to the photo, other than the brief TU-4 bit, but I basically have no life, so what the hell?

I had hoped for a comment from fib but he's probably earning money yelling at Bush....but... In my opinion Truman probably considered Japanese civilian death toll by means of conventional invasion and resolved it would be greater than the bomb. Allied casualties had to be considered also. The oil embargo caused the Japanese to break international law with the bombing of Pearl. Throughout the war, in the Pacific, I don't think the Japanese looked upon too many laws to win. Don't know how much of the other allied countries knew about the bomb so Truman had to make a decision. Another point to ponder...Don't think Truman wanted to barter with the Russians once again , as in Berlin, about occupation forces and who was to get what. I think he wanted sole control of the occupation. All things considered, and I truly believe ALL things were considered, he made the correct decision.

"...the objective was to win the war with the fewest of casualties" - I assume you mean casualties on YOUR side. This seems, incredibly, to be overlooked these days, perhaps because all the sporting analogies we use in describing war. But it would be more accurate to say that in sports you play for a win, in war you play for a shutout: The goal is victory with zero friendly casualties. Obviously almost unattainable, but you come as close as you can within the limits of international law (Oh, no! Not that dead horse again!). This is not to say that reducing enemy casualties is not a noble goal. It just isn't one of the top two (win, no losses).

So the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily sound on both a strategic and tactical level. Strategically, it was hoped they would bring the war to an end without an invasion of the homeland, saving thousands of allied lives and many more Japanese, based on the increasingly deadly conquest of the islands on the way. Even those civilians not fighting would likely be encouraged to commit suicide as in Okinawa. If thousands jumped the cliffs there, think of the toll on the mainland: The Okinawans were treated brutally by the Japanese forces.

On a tactical level, the Japanese had curtailed intercepts of small bomber formations to husband their fuel for the invasion defense. Hence nuclear flights were safe from intercept, although flak was still a threat. And remember: There WAS the conventional option - the U.S. firebombing of Japanese cities was horribly deadly in its own right. So the only difference here is that the U.S. minimized its losses - sound military judgement.

Every time I read your comments, fib, it sounds like you are defending the Japanese. They used every means necessary to win the war and, as history shows, had no reservation when it came to the death of civilians. Truman thought long and hard about the 'bomb' but the objective was to win the war with the fewest of casualties. This has been the plan since war began. Why wouldn't Truman reciprocate in the same manner as the Japanese? Those same civilians that died were going to kill the Allies; why not them first?

FIB: Magazine articles are often sparse of documentation, largely due to space constraints. The book was far more thorough. And yes, as I already wrote, it DOES sound like fiction, but isn't.

Book details:

The Last Mission: The Secret History of Word War II's Final Battle

Authors: Jim Smith and Malcolm McConnell

Hardcover: 368 pages (Also now available in paperback)

Publisher: Broadway; 1st edition (August 13, 2002)

ISBN-10: 0767907787

ISBN-13: 978-0767907781

Documentary available at A&E's website:

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71239

Please explain your belief that I forget eyewitness accounts of the bombings. If it is merely because I have not mentioned them, I fail to see that logic. Their testimony would only affirm that (a) there were bombings, and (b) they were absolutely horrific; neither of which is in dispute here. My comment to WhatEver about first hand accounts was just that - a comment to WhatEver, remarking on a book that we both have read.

Oosik and WhatEver: Very interesting magazine article, especially the fact that there is no supporting documentation. Indeed, the article is written like a fiction story.

As for the value of first person accounts, you warmongers keep "forgetting" the eyewitness accounts of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who survived, as well as the writings of two Western journalists-- George Weller and Wilfred Burchett--who traveled [Weller to Nagasaki; Burchett to Hiroshima] to the two civilian cities a month after they were destroyed by nuclear weapons.

The best book on the atomic bombings to come out in years is

"Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (2005).

Also, documentarian Steven Okazaki has filmed at least two movies--"The Mushroom Club" (2005) and "White Light/Black Rain" (2007)--that contain even more eyewitness accounts.

WhatEver - Thanks! That's the one: I remember the author being one of the airmen. It made a great read, I thought. First person accounts bring in stuff missed in the "Big Picture", like the Boomerang's near miss with another B29 coming up on the target. What a way to die on the last mission of the war!

FIB: I'll be home early next week and will have the book information then. I tried to find it online, but the picky search engine wanted a book title. I did, however, find the text of a magazine article on the matter that condenses the gist of the book into a few pages. Like the book, it concerns both the Japanese and American activities (and briefly mentions the blackout - it was defensive, not bomb damage) over the last few days of the war. The book goes into a lot more detail, but this is a pretty good overview:

Air & Space/Smithsonian, August/September 1995

Online link: http://www.warbirdforum.com/lastraid.htm

The book may have also been from the Smithsonian Press, maybe the same guy wrote the full version as well. At any rate, we'll know next week. Unless it shows up on TV again, I won't know the docummentary title, but it seemed to have been drawn from the book, so would be of little import once the book is known.

ramsey: You are confusing me with the Chickenhawk-in-Chief and his cadre of war criminals/profiteers. You might need to force your eyelids to open every now and then.

The nuclear bombs used to murder the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki quite obviously DID NOT save lives.

Deal with it.

Oosik: What you "suspect" does not matter. There is a very large number of fiction stories, novels, TV shows, and movies which include references to actual events to make the story seem real as you watch, read, or listen to the fiction.

So, questions come to mind: What is the title of the book you mention? What is the title of the documentary? When was the book published? When was the documentary made?

"Only then would we learn just how horrible these things were." Wrong, yet again. Among the large number of things that were ALREADY known at that time, was the knowledge of the damage and harm caused by nuclear weapons. Yet another item already known at that time was the vast importance of, and high regard for, the Emperor by the people of Japan.

I'm sure that the citizens--those murdered and those who "survived", and their families--of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are pleased and grateful everytime they are told that vaporizing the unarmed civilians who lived in those cities was actually a very fine and wonderful thing for all concerned.

KeithRichards: "interesting that FIB also means a lie." Far more fascinating is the FACT that when you Republifascists attack me and/or a URL that leads to addition information, !* Surprise *! you NEVER make any effort to PROVE your empty claims.

It seems that you would know by now that I care nothing about opinions or beliefs, all that count are the FACTS.

So, PROVE YOUR EMPTY CLAIM.

FIB, Maybe I should have stated that you are twisting the facts to fit your version of history. Look at the cost in lives for Allied troops to take back the Philippines and all the other SE Asian Islands. The Bomb saved lives, even if it left a horrible legacy.

"Our life is made by the death of others"...Leonardo Da Vinchi (sp)

I read a book that I believe a documentary was made of regarding the coup attempt - I don't recall that they were planning to snuff him, though. Interesting side note: A B29 raid caused a power outage (I can't remember if it was a defensive blackout, or if they hit the Honda generator) which caused havoc for the coup planners. It was a wild night at the palace - the emperor had recorded the surrender, and some aide was madly trying to hide the wax records in the darkness. Stranger-than-fiction stuff.

I suspect the death toll from an invasion would have been astronomic - evidence points that way, but fortunately we'll never know, and the debate will be raging long after we're gone.

I have a personal theory related to this, as far as I know completely unsupported by any evidence: Future nuclear deaths. I believe that once the damned things were made, it was only a matter of time before someone used one. Only then would we learn just how horrible these things were. Given their almost exponential growth in the early years, if the Bomb was not dropped for another five years or so, say in the Korean War (where MacArthur once said, "Give me a handful of {nuclear} bombs and I'll take care of the China industrial bases"), the catastrophe would have been immensely worse. Not to denigrate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they would look like minor incidents compared to a megaton-yield nuke popping over Shanghai.

We're still not out of the woods, and never will be: It's too late to close Pandora's Box. But I suspect there would be a higher nuclear death toll by now were it not for the Enola Gay and Bock's Car.

interesting that FIB also means a lie.

ramsey: Do you warmongers even refuse to read what YOU write? "FIB is rewriting history to fit his facts." You say that as if FACTS are of no importance. For example, the Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: The status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation because nothing was said about the Emperor; believed to be a god, he was above even the civilian government. The government and the military of Japan agreed to surrender only after the Emperor broke the tradition that the Emperor does not make government policy, and asked his people to surrender. Having been assured that the Emperor would now be safe, his request was granted.

As for "rewriting" history, past events never change, but the information that we discover about them does change. For example, the discovery of documents which had been Top Secret since 1945. Because we continue to learn, we continue to revise our understandings. Otherwise, we'd still think the world was flat.

As for your question, because you base it on a false premise there is no answer, not even made up answers.

Having problems with this site and cannot read your complete comment ramsey. I read on wikipedia that Japan wanted Russia to intervene in treaty with US and United Kingdom to retain some of the land they'd taken in battle and grant others independence. Article 9 of their constitution prohibits their even being able to make war. Emperor's troops overthrew coup to stop a surrender. I read nothing of that which he states.

FIB is rewriting history to fit his facts. My question to him stands, made up scenario or not.

The Potsdam Declaration only called for the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces and in truth laid out that Japan's civilian government would remain unchanged.

Russia declared war on Japan two days after Hiroshima. They knew at that time that Japan had lost the war. Japan surrendered nine days after the initial bomb, although the groundwork for surrender was already being laid in place on the day Nagasaki was bombed.

Really! Why then, was there an executed plot to kill the Emperor by his own Generals? Japan also wanted to maintain a standing army and an air force. Look it up. The same civilians that were bombed had been in training, with bamboo pitchforks, to push of the Allies first wave of attack...there's old movies of this. You side-stepped ramsey's answer; you could have made one up.

ramsey: Since your scenario is based on a false premise, there is no answer. It was already known at that time that there were several optiions available, not just one.

The main concern of the Japanese govenment was the fact that the Emperor was the most powerful person in Japan; indeed, he was believed to be a god. During negotiations, the Japanese Government wanted only one condition to surrender: To safegaurd the status of the Emperor.

The Emperor was so important to the Japanses Government--making that one condition, and that concern ignored--the government refused to surrennder: They refused to surrender after Hiroshima; they refused to surrender after Nagasaki; they refused to surrender after Russia declared war on Japan. That is how important the Emperor was to the Japanese; they saw "unconditional surrender" as a threat to the Emperor. When the Emperor was advised to declare surrender--a very delicate matter in view of the long held tradition that the Emperor did not make government policy--he did call for surrender. After this, the Japanese govenment and the military agreed to surrender, knowing that the Emperor was now safe.

All that those IDIOTS on the Allied side had to do was to grant the condition regarding the status of the Emperor, KNOWING full well that the Emperor was held in high regard. Again, information that was well known at that time, not mere hindsight.

So what we have is a moral dilemma. We knew the Japanese were killing soldiers and non-combatants, including women and children. We knew that they would continue to do so until they were stopped and the only way to stop them was by the ultimate force.

Scenario: A man has killed several of your neighbors and is now coming after your family. The only way to stop him is to pull the trigger that will kill not only him but his wife and child.

So I ask you as a moral and just person, would you pull that trigger?