was Japan "nuked" before or after they have surrendered?

[Chief Rebel Angel]

i have heard all kinds of things.. so please someone assist me...

[Moskitto]

I think the second one was dropped after they began looking for peace but they hadn't actually surrendered.

[revolutionary spirit]

i think the first was dropped 10th[small boy,atom bomb] of august,and the 2nd[big boy,hydrogen bomb] on the 10th after the first one they were looking for peace through the USSR i think

[Anonymous]

God it must have bin horrible! thousands of lives gon in seconds... And radioactivness for years to come...

how many people did each bomb kill? does anyone know?

and do you think there could have bin another way or do you agree it was an efective measure to spare american lives?

[revolutionary spirit]

i think the firgures were something like 50,000 died in hiroshima and like 70,000 in Nagaski but loads more died in the aftermarth

[Fidel Castro Ruz]

Ohhhh...if USSR bombed USA...
:( unfortunately we hadn't

[revolutionary spirit]

lol

[El Commandante]

El_Che, America tacticians said that judging from how determined the Japanese were when fighting them in Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Siapan up to One million people on both sides would be killed if the battle lasted only a year. But estimates think it could have lasted up to two so that may have been up to four million casualties. So maybe one bomb was necessary but the second was definately too much, I personally think it was more a way to prove a point to the USSR.

[revolutionary spirit]

yeah the first bomb was an atom bomb,but the 2nd was a hydrogen one so i think they took the chane to see the effects of a hydrogen bomb.

[Moskitto]

the first bomb killed more

Hiroshima was 155,000 including radiation deaths with 1 years.

Not sure about Nagasaki but Nagasaki is a smaller city so less people would have died.

[revolutionary spirit]

nagaski might of been smaller but doesn't many less die cause the city could of been over crowded with refugges.Like Dresden was smaller than berlin but more people died there from the bombing because it was overloaded with refugees trying to get away from the soviets.

[Moskitto]

did I mention the Guiness Book of Records says that the death toll of Hiroshima was bigger.

[AgustoSandino]

I wonder why you would have to ask this question on the forum, rather than simply looking it up in a book or on a website. But since so much bullshit has filtered its way through as responses I should clear things up. First of all, both bombs were nuclear, none were hydrogen, they simply used different fissionable materials, the one on hiroshima used uranium, the one on nagasaki used plutonioum. Secondly, both bombs were dropped before japan surrendered, I have no idea where you would've heard otherwise. The first bomb was dropped on Aug 6th 1945, then a three day respite was given to see if the Japanese would surrender, they didn't. The second bomb was then dropped on august 9th. The japanese the surrendered three days later on the 12th.

[gooddoctor]

bloody know-it-all

[revolutionary spirit]

yeah let's kill him

[gooddoctor]

the dropping of the a-bombs was the single most barbaric act in human history, in spite of the ins and outs.

[vox]

Though Agusto prefers to puke propaganda at this forum, I'll trust an actual historian. I'll trust Zinn.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bom...mbs_August.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bombs_August.html)

vox

[AgustoSandino]

Ah vox, good to have you back. Well first off let me criticize the roundabout way your article handles the issue. Seems everything is tied to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from Korea to Vietnam to the Gulf war. ofcourse this is part of the grand scheme American scheme.
Secondly I'd like to ask how my statements could be misconstrued as propaganda. Math is the most objective of sciences, and so you have dates, the 6th for the first bomb, the 9th for the second, and the 12th for the surrender. Do the math, did Japan surrender before we dropped the bombs? Let me save you the arithmetic struggle- no.
The US had asked for an unconditional surrender, Japan refused. In August of 1945 the US was mobilizing for an invasion of Japan, troops from Europe were given word to prepare to move to the pacific. How does the fault lie with the US and its president when it is his duty to defend American lives?
Again Vox, I will end this by saying I find it humorous that you would call my statement "propaganda", when I only refered to dates which are available everywhere and which your boy Zinn agrees with. Then you feed us propaganda. Once again nice try vox.

[vox]

Agusto, do you deny what Zinn presents as fact? I don't see you doing it. Talk about a roundabout way of arguing something! Hee! You did read it, right? Then you know about this:

"Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier), Togo sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

"The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. American officials knew also that the Japanese resistance to unconditional surrender was because they had one condition enormously important to them: the retention of the Emperor as symbolic leader. Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its Emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war."

But you decide not to talk about it, after dismissing it out of hand. That's your normal pattern. No surprises here.

Then, of course, you call Zinn's piece propaganda, though you've shown nothing like that at all. Typical of the weak-minded.

In your post you suggested that anyone who had "heard otherwise" about the Japanese surrending were misguided. However, you did not talk about the overtures of surrender that had been previously made but ignored by the US. This is certainly propaganda. You wish to only tell the side of the story that supports you, facts be damned.

Now then, just where is the propaganda in Zinn's piece? Don't worry, Agusto, I don't really expect an answer from you.

vox

[Moskitto]

First of all, both bombs were nuclear, none were hydrogen.

I thought that was the case because I remember on annother forum in a similar discussion someone said the one at Hiroshima was uranium and Nagasaki was kobalt. And I was sure today when I was browsing through a history text book and it said "The USA tested it's first hydrogen bomb in 1949" or something like that.

[vox]

Moskitto,

What is known as a hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb. Both atomic devices unleashed on the citizenry of Japan were fission bombs.

vox

[AgustoSandino]

hey vox, I did the math for you before, but I think you need to do it yourself.

August 6th, first bomb

August 9th second bomb

August 12th Japans surrenders unconditionally


I don't deny that japan wanted peace, but it is obvious they wanted peace on their terms. Believe it or not that was unnacceptable. If the fault lies with anyone it is with the Japanese government that felt that the retention of their emperor, a custom that the Americans preserved anyway, was more important than their populace.

As to previous surrender overtures made by the japanese. There were a few that were made through the soviets, in which the Japanese stipulated their desire to retain Manchuria and Korea, again unnacceptable.

Finally let me copy my first post here:

I wonder why you would have to ask this question on the forum, rather than simply looking it up in a book or on a website. But since so much bullshit has filtered its way through as responses I should clear things up. First of all, both bombs were nuclear, none were hydrogen, they simply used different fissionable materials, the one on hiroshima used uranium, the one on nagasaki used plutonioum. Secondly, both bombs were dropped before japan surrendered, I have no idea where you would've heard otherwise. The first bomb was dropped on Aug 6th 1945, then a three day respite was given to see if the Japanese would surrender, they didn't. The second bomb was then dropped on august 9th. The japanese the surrendered three days later on the 12th


Now point out to me where the propaganda is. Did I not point out the truth, that the US did not bomb japan after they surrendered.

[vox]

Agusto, you're starting to become a joke, did you know that? You asked me to point out the poropaganda in your post, right? I already did it. Since I'm now convinced you don't read what I write before you say I'm wrong, I'll paste it here:

"In your post you suggested that anyone who had "heard otherwise" about the Japanese surrending were misguided. However, you did not talk about the overtures of surrender that had been previously made but ignored by the US. This is certainly propaganda. You wish to only tell the side of the story that supports you, facts be damned."


And I'll paste my previous question to you as well:

"Now then, just where is the propaganda in Zinn's piece? Don't worry, Agusto, I don't really expect an answer from you."

Seems like I'm still right and you're still wrong, Agusto. I didn't expect an answer from you, and I didn't get one. Now, point out the propaganda in Zinn's piece or simply admit that you hurl words around without any meaning, and certainly no intention of backing up what you say.

It's happened once too often, Agusto. Where's your answer? Do you have one?

Do you?

vox

[AgustoSandino]

Vox,
One question...Did the US bomb Japan after the Japanese surrendered?

P.S. Again, point out my 'propaganda', because I simply relayed the facts.

[vox]

Agusto,

You accused Zinn of propaganda. I've answered your question already. You, of course, have every right to dismiss it, though you've not said anything about it. Your troll status is growing. Still, why do you refuse to back up your claim?

Could it be that you didn't think anyone would challenge you? Of course not, given your history here. Is it that you CANNOT back up your specious claim? I think that's the case. I don't think you can show any propaganda in Zinn's piece, and I think that's why you refuse to answer my challenge.

You can't do it, Agusto. Admit defeat.

vox

[Jurhael]

"One question...Did the US bomb Japan after the Japanese surrendered?"

Japan was TRYING to surrender months before the bombings actually occured.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

"By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial
machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself."

"It had been trying for months, if not for years, to
surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these
overtures."


"Stimson, like other high U.S. officials, did not really care
in principle whether or not the emperor was retained. The term "unconditional surrender" was always a propaganda measure; wars are always ended with some kind of conditions. To some extent
the insistence was a domestic consideration -- not wanting to appear to "appease" the Japanese. More important, however, it reflected a desire that the Japanese not surrender before the
bomb could be used. One of the few people who had been aware of the Manhattan Project from the beginning, Stimson had come to think of it as his bomb, "my secret", as he called it in his
diary.{9} On June 6, he told President Truman he was "fearful" that before the A-bombs were ready to be delivered, the Air Force
would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon "would not have a fair background to show its strength".{10} In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that "no effort was made, and none was
seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".



"Finally, we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary of war that:

Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought 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,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions."


Was Japan bombed after they surrendered? I'd say yes.

Oh, Blum is a "crackpot". Oh of course he is.

And anyone with an alternate view point to "the bombing was necessary" is just spreading propaganda and being brainwashed by Marxist stuff. *pfft*








(Edited by Jurhael at 3:00 am on Nov. 8, 2001)

[Anonymous]

Quote from augostos
But since so much bullshit has filtered its way through as responses I should clear things up.

Well please enlighten us! you know i find my self coming here only to have the betifit of listening to your superior intelect and reason.


(Edited by El_Che at 3:01 am on Nov. 8, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

"One question...Did the US bomb Japan after the Japanese surrendered?"

I still haven't received an answer to this question.

Furthermore Zinn is perpetrating blatant rhetorical tricks. Throughout his text, in which he is trying to prove that the US bombed japan after surrender, which we know is not true, Zinn resorts to false analogies, bringing up Korea, Vietnam and even the Gulf War. These digressions are useless from a logical perspective, but not from a rhetorical one, they serve to elicit emotion, the connotation that Zinn's audience has for the three conflicts is one that plays into his hand. This allows Zinn to 'prove' the US' malevolence.

Now, nowhere was any value judgement put forth on my behalf, the question of this thread was "was japan 'nuked' before or after they have[sic] surrendered?" The answer is clearly no.

Finally the "bullshit" I was referring to was the first obvious mistake made by the 'poster'. Since he was on the Internet one can assume he could easily look up the date. The second mistake was the belief that one bomb used hydrogen as its fissionable material.

[vox]

Agusto, are you suggesting that showing a history of aggression is simply a rhetorical trick? I think you are.

The piece was obviously not strictly about the terror unleashed on Japan, but it contained the facts that your post lacked. Surely you don't expect Zinn to write canned answers just for you?

Still, he showed that your assertion was not correct, whcih assertion I've talked about previously. Dates were never in question with me, Agusto, that's your false construct.

Zinn proved US malevolence not through some false connection, but through apparent pattern. It's obviously over your head, but that's okay.

A value judgment is inherent in the very real facts you wish to present. You presented limited facts, Agusto. You ignored the rest of the history. Doing such a thing is dishonest at best, and you should know that. I doubt that you do.

One more question, Agusto. Why did it take repeated demands?

Anyway, get used to them.

vox

[AgustoSandino]

vox, what 'assertion' of mine was disproven? It seems rather silly that you feel class conflict and socialist theory can change dates. While you have chosen to ignore MY question, and that of the thread, the fact remains: The US bombed Japan before the Japanese surrendered.

Furthermore, despite any peace overtures which were made in the months prior to the war, the actions of the Japanese show otherwise. Only a month earlier they had forced the US armed forces into a casualty-laden battle at Okinawa.

Finally I do suggest that showing a 'history of aggression' is a rhetorical trick. Especially if such 'history' as you call it, are ripe examples of the logical fallacies of false analogies, when unsimilar conflicts are compared as is the case with WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War; and when they are examples of the grievous fallacy of exclusion. Zinn chooses to present these conflicts as war's of American aggression. Well I'd agree with Zinn if he were even handed in his account and admited that, if indeed these were wars or American aggression, they were aggressive to an institution, Soviet sponsored communism, Japanese Fascism, and Iraqi expansionism which are incompatible to humanity. Of course these weren't wars of American aggression (that argument could only be made for Vietnam, and even here one can retort that Vietnam did derive much of its support from the USSR) they were actions taken by the US in response to Soviet aggression.
It seems, and this applies to other threads, that you've attempted to serve yourself a logical 'free lunch' (if we can borrow an economic term in which one gets with out giving). You criticize Soviet Communism and its spawns, but you criticize the US for preventing its spread. Ofcourse any rational person can see beyond that. I think we discussed this in another thread about Chomsky. There Reaganlives and I argued that while we do not feel that American actions were immoral, they must be judged in the context of history, and seen as what they were, responses to soviet aggression. Now you can either condemn Soviet aggression or American defensive actions, but I find it hypocritical to condemn both.

[vox]

Once again Agusto lies.

I'm getting sick of this, Agusto. Stop lying or shut your mouth.

Here's another example:

Agusto writes, "It seems rather silly that you feel class conflict and socialist theory can change dates."

I wrote, in the post just before his, "Dates were never in question with me, Agusto, that's your false construct."

Agusto needs to lie. He's that weak.

Agusto, you never claim Zinn to be wrong. You put history in parantheses, but you know that you can't argue the facts.

Comrades, read the Zinn peice that I linked:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bom...mbs_August.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bombs_August.html)

and then read what Agusto has to say.

Agusto is ridiculous at this stage.

In fact, he supports what Zinn is against, totalitarianism, that is, any means to win. Agusto may say he supports democracy, but I say his philosphical stances show him to be a liar.

Agusto supports capitalist expansionism and military might. This much is clear. He derides a professor of history for knowing history without doing anything to disprove him. Agusto is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It's apparent that he doesn't know about the history of the Iraq war. Who is April Glaspie, Agusto?

And what about Yugoslavia, where the US war of aggression (remember Rambouillet, which agreement we were happy with after killing people) cost tens of thousands of lives?

This is what Agusto represents, and I know I've spoken about these things before.

He lies, and we're expected to forget he lies.

He presents half-truths as wisdom. I do not accept that.

vox

[AgustoSandino]

Vox, if "Dates were never in question with" you, then why did you challenge my claim in the first place. I will copy my first post below.

"I wonder why you would have to ask this question on the forum, rather than simply looking it up in a book or on a website. But since so much bullshit has filtered its way through as responses I should clear things up. First of all, both bombs were nuclear, none were hydrogen, they simply used different fissionable materials, the one on hiroshima used uranium, the one on nagasaki used plutonioum. Secondly, both bombs were dropped before japan surrendered, I have no idea where you would've heard otherwise. The first bomb was dropped on Aug 6th 1945, then a three day respite was given to see if the Japanese would surrender, they didn't. The second bomb was then dropped on august 9th. The japanese the surrendered three days later on the 12th."

Now please do me the favor of pointing out my 'propaganda' and my distortion of history. You say that dates where not the question with you, then what can you possibly contest in my post, because if you didn't notice, dates are very much the question posed in this thread.

[Anonymous]

hmm let me see if you can understand what im about to say. im going to say it very slowly and feel free to read it over a few times till in sinks in ok?

the question is not were they nuked after they tecnicly surrendured but rather WAS IT REALLY NECESSARY to kill thousands of people and obliterate two cites or was it just a show of force for soviet eyes to contemplate? in my opinion it was not necessary to nuke japan and certainly not necessary to nuke it twice.

[Moskitto]

Why does every topic have to turn into capitalism against socialism? This is about whever Japan was bombed before or after they surrendered.

Some sources say they were, some say they weren't. A British government report 1956 said that the Japanese were actually seeking peace. American records generally say they didn't.

In either case, the power that a nuclear weapon has as a deterant is powerful. For over 50 years it has kept the world out of a major conflict. Such a threat could have been used eg. Phone the Japanese Emperor, Tell him to look out of his window at 3 pm, drop the bomb and tell him if he doesn't surrender Japan's next then there would be far less need for everyne to moan about it.

[vox]

Agusto, I've answered you question twice. Can you read?

vox

[Guest]

actually moskitto, all sources say that japan was bombed before they surrendered, as was pointed out before dates can't be changed, that is of course unless you're Pravda.
And El Che I think if you look at the title of this thread you will see that the question IS about japan being bombed before or after they surrendered.

[vox]

It's amusing how "guests" always seem to show up to support Agusto, huh? Has anyone been keeping track of the IP numbers (nice feature, by the way, Malte)?

It seems, however, that threads have a life all their own, and the question of dates isn't an issue. The question is whether the United States of Atrocities knowingly murdered civilians without having to do so to end the war.

And, really, that's the question that counts.

vox

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Guest on 7:50 pm on Nov. 8, 2001
actually moskitto, all sources say that japan was bombed before they surrendered, as was pointed out before dates can't be changed, that is of course unless you're Pravda.
And El Che I think if you look at the title of this thread you will see that the question IS about japan being bombed before or after they surrendered.


So how did I find a history book which recorded Japan as surrendering 2 days before Nagasaki was dropped and the British newspaper uncovered evidence to show that the Japanese were seeking peace in 1956? Clearly your assertion that ALL sources is wrong because I have listed 2 which disagree with your assertion therefore my statement that SOME is correct.

And this has nothing to do with Pravda.

[reagan lives]

Agusto spake:
"Furthermore Zinn is perpetrating blatant rhetorical tricks. Throughout his text, in which he is trying to prove that the US bombed japan after surrender, which we know is not true, Zinn resorts to false analogies, bringing up Korea, Vietnam and even the Gulf War. These digressions are useless from a logical perspective, but not from a rhetorical one, they serve to elicit emotion, the connotation that Zinn's audience has for the three conflicts is one that plays into his hand. This allows Zinn to 'prove' the US' malevolence."

To which vox replied:
"Zinn proved US malevolence not through some false connection, but through apparent pattern. It's obviously over your head, but that's okay."

Zinn "proves" US malevolence by citing events that happened AFTER the event in question?? vox, are you stupid, crazy, logically selective, or all of the above??

"And what about Yugoslavia, where the US war of aggression (remember Rambouillet, which agreement we were happy with after killing people) cost tens of thousands of lives?"
I'm going to have to call you on this one, vox. It was Milosevic that stalled out the Rambouillet negotiations. A deal was hammered out, the Albanians signed, the Serbs refused. And how exactly does a NATO action to stop ethnic cleansing constitute a "US war of agression," especially considering that the US military was dragged into it kicking and screaming?? Are you crazy or stupid, vox? I do appreciate, however, your Zinn impression...using unrelated events to try and elicit emotional responses from your audience. Keep it up, fool.

A bomb was dropped on Japan. Japan did not surrender. Another bomb was dropped on Japan. Japan surrendered. This is fact, not propaganda. We can sit here and speculate over the counterfactual ifs and whens, but that's really, really, really pointless. You can say that Japan would have surrendered even if we had not dropped the bomb, and I can say that you can't prove that; I can say that a prolonged conflict would have produced more casualties, and you can say that I can't prove THAT.

As for that Zinn crap you linked to twice, it's a piece of propaganda that any socialist would be proud of. You want proof? I'll even skip the opening bullshit about the English Patient, as if that work of fiction has anything to do with anything whatsoever.
"The bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country."
Zinn never even attempts to substantiate this. His entire schpiel is based on the assumption that this is some sort of self-evident truth. Propaganda.
"I was invited to speak at the Chautauqua Institute in New York state. I chose Hiroshima as my subject, it being the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of the bomb. There were 2,000 people in that huge amphitheater and as I explained why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities, perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender, the audience was silent. Well, not quite. A number of people shouted angrily at me from their seats."
Ah, the potrayal of the author as avatar of objective truth in the face of the majority. A time-honored trick. Even if this little anectdote is true and not exaggerated, he still allows 2,000 people in Chautaqua speak for an entire nation. Propaganda.
"To question Hiroshima is to explode a precious myth...to see it as a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty...What means could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, children?"
How is this NOT propaganda??

Do you realize how ridiculous you've become, vox?

[Anonymous]

And El Che I think if you look at the title of this thread you will see that the question IS about japan being bombed before or after they surrendered.

augostos lets not play silly games because i am not interrested, the title is irrelevant what is relevante is that the bombing was not necessary that is the fucral issue of this discution. Issue that you have failed to make a credible case on prefering to play games refering the well known fact that the war had not ended as if that alone is enof to justify 2 nuclear atacks without further considerations. Considerations like: WAS IT (fucking) NECESSARY? I DONT (fucking) THINK SO!!