Was the use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII justified?

[unmerged(3700)]

Well, the reason the U.S. under FDR started embargoes against Japan is 1. Like I said, FDR was much more interventionist than say, Warren G. Harding who didn't give two pennies for the Chinese or the Japanese. And 2. The events in Europe and with Italy had shown Roosevelt that aggression had to be stopped, and certainly not supported by United States resources.

Either way, it is a moot point, any nation has the right to refuse to trade with other nations.

1. The Japanese, as I've shown were pushing for something ludicrous in their talks with the USSR, preservation of nothing less than the imperial system of government. This would be like Hitler saying he'd make peace if he could stay in power as a dictator, it didn't happen.

2. Hirohito DID have a lot of power, in fact when he finally demanded Japan make peace, it happened. He just never used his power because he was trained not to do so. The Japanese militarists understood the Atomic Bomb and how destructive it was, they downplayed it to the public however, and successfully. Hirohito was well aware of the bomb's power and after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima his pushes for peace became even more vigorous. Undoubtedly the Russian entrance also had a huge effect. You have to wonder if the Russians entered the war earlier (they had originally said they were entering later that year) because of the A-Bomb and a fear that it would bring Japan to it's knees before Russia could grab up Japanese spoils.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Wido
Everything. I explain: the USA knew the Japanese diplomatic code: the text of those telegrams was translated and read also by the President Truman. Their text (from American archives) is here as told by Meiji-Tenno: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/togo-sato-index.html.

The editor's note in your link gives a somewhat ambiguous answer about Truman's knowledge of the contents at the time of the meeting w/ Stalin.

The constitution was pretty clear: the Tenno had the power to do almost everything he wanted (see: Meiji Constitution, expecially articles XI-XII-XIII), but the praxis prevented a direct involvement of the Emperor. But, I repeat, if he had really wanted, he had the power to stop those actions.

And, AFAIK, the current Queen of England has great de jure powers as well, which by tradition are never used.

Again, I ask you to take a look at the political events during the annexation of Manchuria and the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Hirohito was opposed to army policy, but was powerless to stop them.

BTW, what is "praxis?" I am unfamiliar with that word.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Well, the reason the U.S. under FDR started embargoes against Japan is 1. Like I said, FDR was much more interventionist than say, Warren G. Harding who didn't give two pennies for the Chinese or the Japanese. And 2. The events in Europe and with Italy had shown Roosevelt that aggression had to be stopped, and certainly not supported by United States resources.

Either way, it is a moot point, any nation has the right to refuse to trade with other nations.

Yes, they have the right, but they also have responsibility for their actions... many wars have been started over economic embargoes, including arab-israeli wars. I believe that many have argued that cutting a nation off economically is paramount to a declaration of war. Yes, a soveriegn nation has the right to embargo, just as it has the right to declair war... but both have consiquences, and I wouldn't be hasty in condemning the oposite side for retaliating. However, I do agree that Japan was in it for more than economic reasons, as the US probably would have cancelled all restrictions had they left China.

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark

1. The Japanese, as I've shown were pushing for something ludicrous in their talks with the USSR, preservation of nothing less than the imperial system of government. This would be like Hitler saying he'd make peace if he could stay in power as a dictator, it didn't happen.

As has been shown? Did i miss something? Please show again.

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark

2. Hirohito DID have a lot of power, in fact when he finally demanded Japan make peace, it happened. He just never used his power because he was trained not to do so. The Japanese militarists understood the Atomic Bomb and how destructive it was, they downplayed it to the public however, and successfully. Hirohito was well aware of the bomb's power and after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima his pushes for peace became even more vigorous. Undoubtedly the Russian entrance also had a huge effect. You have to wonder if the Russians entered the war earlier (they had originally said they were entering later that year) because of the A-Bomb and a fear that it would bring Japan to it's knees before Russia could grab up Japanese spoils.

Yes, Hirohito had alot of power, therefore had the US agreed to the peace terms he might have been able to convince/force his nation to accept peace.

 

[unmerged(4486)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi

BTW, what is "praxis?" I am unfamiliar with that word.

According to www.dictionary.com

Practical application or exercise of a branch of learning.
Habitual or established practice; custom.

1. Use; practice; especially, exercise or discipline for a specific purpose or object. ``The praxis and theory of music.'' --Wood.

2. An example or form of exercise, or a collection of such examples, for practice.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Originally posted by Wido
Governs usually don't use public broadcasts, but diplomacy (that, untill a pact is signed, is always secret). When the govern of Badoglio in Italy started negotiation with the Allies, it didn't make a public statement, and the same was done by Hungary (that, by the way, had started secret negotiations already in summer 1943). I don't know much about the surrender of Finland, Romania and Bulgaria, but, expecially for the 2 Balkan states, I don't think they proclaimed their will to surrender before the armistice was signed.

Quick aside - Finland, Romania and Bulgaria were not at war with the western Allies, only the Soviet Union. Only Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Japan declared war on the Allies. Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria were Stalin's to do with as he pleased. Only Finland was allowed to survive as an independent entity, and yes, they negotiated secretly with the Soviets to get out of the war.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Either way, it is a moot point, any nation has the right to refuse to trade with other nations.

But then that nation cannot blame the embargoed country if it attacks it. Moreover an embargo may be considered an act of aggression: the international law isn't clear, but some people think it is an act of aggression per se, like the Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg (author of the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact) who told it during the discussion of that pact in 1928.

by BismarckThe Japanese, as I've shown were pushing for something ludicrous in their talks with the USSR, preservation of nothing less than the imperial system of government.

This is the ludicrous misinterpretation given by that chapter of a book of the US Army (of course a "very impartial source": you labeled the Strategic Bombing Survey as not impartial, even though it was based on the data collected by 1,000 men of the US Armed Forces and even though its conclusions were the same of people like MacArthur, Leahy, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey, Hoover, etc.; but we should think that your source is impartial). In the telegrams (that you haven't read, of course) it's never told that the imperial system of goverment had to be kept, but the far less defined "form of govern". Moreover, the simple fact that on 25 July 1945 (the day before the Potsdam dictat), the minister of Foreign Affairs Togo wrote the following quotation explains quite well that the words "form of govern" were about the monarchy, not the control of the Armed Forces on the govern:

For instance, on the 19th [21st] Captain Zacharias --although a member of the United States Office of War Information he broadcasts to Japan as a spokesman for the United States Government--disclosed the substance of surrender terms, saying that Japan had two choices to make. One was to submit to a dictated peace after the complete destruction of Japan; the other, to accept unconditional surrender and receive benefits under the Atlantic Charter. This is considered simple propaganda strategy. Although it is not definitely stated, this is to a certain degree understood to be a means of encouraging surrender. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender. Should the United States and Great Britain remain insistent on formality, there is no solution to this situation other than for us to hold out until complete collapse because of this one point alone. On the other hand, since it is possible that the Governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States may exercise caution and suspect our dispatch of a special envoy may be a peace plot, we have repeatedly advised that what is described above is not a mere "peace feeler" but is in obedience to the Imperial command.

As you can see, not only Japan was seeking for peace honestly, not only it was made under the command of the Emperor, but Japan was also accepting the American offers of a peace based on the Atlantic Charter (that, by the way, openly states the demilitarization of countries).

by BismarckThe Japanese militarists understood the Atomic Bomb and how destructive it was, they downplayed it to the public however, and successfully. Hirohito was well aware of the bomb's power and after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima his pushes for peace became even more vigorous.

Hirohito wanted peace, but he didn't push on his govern simply because nobody replyed to Japanese peace offers. If Japanese diplomats had made peace, he would have obliged all the member of the govern to accept it, also without the A-bombs.
And about the militarists, you couldn't been farther from the truth: even after Hiroshima die-hard militarists like gen. Anami didn't change their mind. Only the Emperor forced them to accept peace, and, of course, since he wanted peace also before the A-bombs, there isn't the slightest proof that Hiroito wouldn't have used his power also if Konoe had accomplished his mission.

Undoubtedly the Russian entrance also had a huge effect. You have to wonder if the Russians entered the war earlier (they had originally said they were entering later that year) because of the A-Bomb and a fear that it would bring Japan to it's knees before Russia could grab up Japanese spoils.

You are not explaining why Truman didn't wait the Russian attack. Since, as you tell, it had a huge impact (but not on the militarists), why don't wait it and let the Emperor use it as an excuse to force the extremists to accept peace?
I'd like to know if you know when the Russians had promised to attack. From your post it seems they were going to wait for months...

Moreover, since the USA had planned the landing on 1st Nov. 1945, why was Truman so in a hurry to drop the bombs in August? This is a good question, whose reply has probably nothing to do with the surrender of Japan.
And, another good question: even if we assume that Hiroshima was truly useful (I don't think it, of course ), why Nagasaki? It was nuked when the council of the Japanese govern and the Emperor had already started, and it hadn't the slightest effect on the decisions made in that meeting.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by czolgosz
Quick aside - Finland, Romania and Bulgaria were not at war with the western Allies, only the Soviet Union. Only Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Japan declared war on the Allies. Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria were Stalin's to do with as he pleased. Only Finland was allowed to survive as an independent entity, and yes, they negotiated secretly with the Soviets to get out of the war.

Both Romania and Bulgaria declared war on the USA.
Romania on 13th Dec. 1941 (by the way, it was bombed many times by the USAAF). For Bulgaria, I've found it declared war late in the 1941, not the date.
Moreover I don't understand the meaning of your post: I was only telling that every nation used secret diplmacy for a matter like that, regardless to the enemy with whom they were negotiating (USA or USSR or whoever).

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Originally posted by Wido
Both Romania and Bulgaria declared war on the USA.
Romania on 13th Dec. 1941 (by the way, it was bombed many times by the USAAF). For Bulgaria, I've found it declared war late in the 1941, not the date.
Moreover I don't understand the meaning of your post: I was only telling that every nation used secret diplmacy for a matter like that, regardless to the enemy with whom they were negotiating (USA or USSR or whoever).

Not contradicting anything - didn't know that about Bulgaria, should have known that about Romania (of course I knew about the Ploesti bombing runs).

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by czolgosz
Not contradicting anything - didn't know that about Bulgaria, should have known that about Romania (of course I knew about the Ploesti bombing runs).

Actually, Bulgaria didn't declare war on the USSR.........................................

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
The editor's note in your link gives a somewhat ambiguous answer about Truman's knowledge of the contents at the time of the meeting w/ Stalin.

But he certainly knew them before the A-bombs. Moreover, those telegrams were read by other members of the Govern. It's impossible Truman didn't know their content. Instead he considered them a positive proof of Japanese weakness: "Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in.
I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." (from Truman's diary, 18 July 1945).

And, AFAIK, the current Queen of England has great de jure powers as well, which by tradition are never used.

Exactly like in Japan and Italy. But, if necessary, both the sovereings had the right to use them. It was uncommon, but it's pretty clear that the situation of Italy in summer 1943 and of Japan in summer 1945 was far from being common.

Again, I ask you to take a look at the political events during the annexation of Manchuria and the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Hirohito was opposed to army policy, but was powerless to stop them.

It's probably because he didn't think it was such a situation to ask his personal intervent. He wasn't powerless: simply he wasn't accostumed to use his power. Moreover, what are the proofs of Hirohito's opposition to that policy? I know it's very difficult to know his personal views, because of the lack of reliable sources.

BTW, what is "praxis?" I am unfamiliar with that word.

I'm sorry, I used that word because it's like its Italian version (prassi). As kindly posted by StJaba, it means "habitual or established practice, custom". According to the Japanese custom (at least after the death of Mutsuhito), the Emperor didn't use his power, but he had it if he had wanted to use it.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Actually, Bulgaria didn't declare war on the USSR.........................................

Yes, you are right, it was USSR that declared war on Bulgaria on 5 Sept. 1944. Bulgaria surrendered on 8 Sept. and then declared war on Germany

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by czolgosz
Not contradicting anything - didn't know that about Bulgaria, should have known that about Romania (of course I knew about the Ploesti bombing runs).

Yes, untill I've searched some info now, I didn't know it too. But my source should be good (I hope): http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/war2.html.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Originally posted by Wido
Yes, untill I've searched some info now, I didn't know it too. But my source should be good (I hope): http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/war2.html.

Good stuff, and it explains why Bulgarians aren't usually mentioned in campaign OOBs.

As to the Finns, however, they made pains to let the British and Americans know that they were not at war with them. They also refused to send troops beyond the pre-war Finnish borders, AKAIK.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

Again, everything I've read about the Japanese peace feelers says they were made on the condition that the imperial system of government be maintained.

Read my link czol, obviously you did not.. That "report by the U.S. Army" actually comes out AGAINST the atomic bomb, despite the fact that the Japs were demanding the sustenance of their imperial system of government.

All that America was keeping from Japan at the outset was metal and fuel. The only reason Japan needed these was to conquer, I'm sorry that you think the U.S. should have been supporting Japanese conquests in the Pacific. If you think that the correct response to an embargo is war. Well, then I can say the correct response to a declaration of war is a nuclear attack on Japanese cities. Do you consider that out of proportion with the original Japanese attack? I consider unprovoked attacks out of proportion with the original embargo.

And again, several of the points made in my linked source, which say: Peace cannot be made without preservation of the imperial system, are in fact the decodings of Japanese peace feelers.

Truman agreed that he had no problem with the Japanese keeping their Emperor. That being the case, if the Japanese had simply said, all we want to keep is the Emperor, Truman would have made peace. Since that's not what they said, he did not.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Again, everything I've read about the Japanese peace feelers says they were made on the condition that the imperial system of government be maintained.

Read my link czol, obviously you did not.. That "report by the U.S. Army" actually comes out AGAINST the atomic bomb, despite the fact that the Japs were demanding the sustenance of their imperial system of government.

All that America was keeping from Japan at the outset was metal and fuel. The only reason Japan needed these was to conquer, I'm sorry that you think the U.S. should have been supporting Japanese conquests in the Pacific. If you think that the correct response to an embargo is war. Well, then I can say the correct response to a declaration of war is a nuclear attack on Japanese cities. Do you consider that out of proportion with the original Japanese attack? I consider unprovoked attacks out of proportion with the original embargo.

And again, several of the points made in my linked source, which say: Peace cannot be made without preservation of the imperial system, are in fact the decodings of Japanese peace feelers.

Truman agreed that he had no problem with the Japanese keeping their Emperor. That being the case, if the Japanese had simply said, all we want to keep is the Emperor, Truman would have made peace. Since that's not what they said, he did not.

Once again, I never said that the Japanese war on either China or the U.S. was justified, or that the United States was wrong to embargo Japan. I have no problem with any American action in the Pacific (that I know about) until Hiroshima. I was simply pointing out that the reason the Japanese went to war in the first place was primarily economic, and alleviating those economic concerns would prevent future wars. And it did.

And the resources weren't needed "only to conquer". After the Meiji restoration, Japan was going through a severe economic crisis. They had a population explosion due to the influx of western medicine, and had no natural resources. They were even having trouble feeding their people, as Japan has minimal arable land. These problems predated the Great Depression, which of course made things much worse.

Attempts to grow their economy the normal way, through trade, met with difficulty, as the entire Pacific Rim had been divided up into "spheres of influence", and the majority of the natural resources were finding their way back to Europe or the United States. The only nation really willing to trade was the U.S., and as isolationism and economic depression hit the U.S., less and less was coming from there.

Naturally, moderate influences became weaker as the economic situation got worse, and the Left didn't have much power in Japan. The Right, however, had a long history of power in Japan, and could appeal to Japan's martial tradition of self-reliance and self-sacrifice. The militarists decided to take what they felt was "rightfully theirs", by force if necessary.

This had some obvious logical flaws, that I'm sure you see right away - the resources gained by one campaign were immediately swallowed up to feed another. In the end, being aggressive didn't help them at all, of course.

But that's purely academic, I'm bound to admit. The main qualm I have with the use of the bomb is that it was used before any options (other than invasion) were considered. And it was used primarily as a check on Soviet power in the region, not simply to end the war. My own take on the Bomb is that it should be a weapon of absolute last resort, after all diplomatic options are exhausted, not because it's more convenient.

Of course, I have the benefit of 58 years of hindsight. I'm sure in 1945 things looked much different.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Read my link czol, obviously you did not.. That "report by the U.S. Army" actually comes out AGAINST the atomic bomb, despite the fact that the Japs were demanding the sustenance of their imperial system of government.

Ehm, czol? Is it a typo?
Nevertheless, I've read that text suggested by you, and it's not against the A-bomb! It's pretty neutral, but still gives some importance to the A-bombs.

All that America was keeping from Japan at the outset was metal and fuel. The only reason Japan needed these was to conquer, I'm sorry that you think the U.S. should have been supporting Japanese conquests in the Pacific. If you think that the correct response to an embargo is war. Well, then I can say the correct response to a declaration of war is a nuclear attack on Japanese cities. Do you consider that out of proportion with the original Japanese attack? I consider unprovoked attacks out of proportion with the original embargo.

Japan needed metal and oil only to conquer!?!?!? Your simplicism is incredible. About my thought (if yours was a typo; if instead you wanted to talk to czol, no problem, the following part wouldn't be importat. ): you are completely wrong: as I told, the USA embargoed Japan for their interest, and it wasn't wrong for them. I tell only that, if you want to strangle the economy of a country, you should not complain if that country attacks you. That's all. It's obvious that the USA didn't have to support Japan!

And again, several of the points made in my linked source, which say: Peace cannot be made without preservation of the imperial system, are in fact the decodings of Japanese peace feelers.

Those are words of the author (who gives his very own interpretation of Japanese offers), not quotations from those decodings.

Truman agreed that he had no problem with the Japanese keeping their Emperor. That being the case, if the Japanese had simply said, all we want to keep is the Emperor, Truman would have made peace. Since that's not what they said, he did not.

The only problem is that he didn't tell that he wanted to let the Emperor in his place. Many members of the Govern, of the Armed Forces and even Churchill urged him to clarify the surrender formula publicly, but he didn't.
And you cannot blame the Japanese: their telegrams were secret, they didn't need to be clear. The Allied proclaims, instead, were public, but they didn't talk about the Emperor. And were also a bit in contrast: on one day, they told they would accept a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter, and less than a week later they made the Potsdam proclaim that was far arsher.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

If the Japanese leaders really care about their people they could have made peace, and they could have done it at any time before or after the Potsdam declaration.

Check out Gar Alperovitz's book, look through the index then find the pages on Konoye, some where it gives a direct quote of the "imperial system" thing, that's the print source I have on it, haven't looked up exact page yet.

The United States embargo, enacted in September 1940, in response to Japan's seizure of Vichy North Indochina, banned steel, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline.

If Japan had stopped their military conquests they wouldn't be in such dire straits, and plus the U.S. would open trade again. It is obvious the U.S. trade in steel, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline was almost entirely used to support Japanese defense industries and Japanese military buildup. I'm sure small quantities were used to perhaps build automobiles but nonetheless these resources primary use was military.

In response to this embargo, what did Japan do? It seized Southern Indochina and in response to that the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets and began to put a firm choke hold on all forms of material being sent to Japan that could be used to make war.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
If the Japanese leaders really care about their people they could have made peace, and they could have done it at any time before or after the Potsdam declaration.

As usual, you forget that the Allies asked unconditional surrender: Japanese politicians had to take care also of the sovereignity of their nation and, most important, of the Emperor. And their people would have preferred to die rather than to see the end of the Empire.

Check out Gar Alperovitz's book, look through the index then find the pages on Konoye, some where it gives a direct quote of the "imperial system" thing, that's the print source I have on it, haven't looked up exact page yet.

I cannot check it because I haven't it. But I know Alperovitz's book, and I'm suprised that a A-bomb supporter like you quotes it. There are 2 chances: or Alperovitz doesn't give your own meaning to the words "imperial system" (by the way, those words are not in those intercepted telegrams, I hope you'll find the time to read them one day), and so your argument isn't important; or he gives your own interpretation, and so you should explain why Alperovitz is one of the strongest opposer of the necessity of the A-bombs.

The United States embargo, enacted in September 1940, in response to Japan's seizure of Vichy North Indochina, banned steel, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline.
If Japan had stopped their military conquests they wouldn't be in such dire straits, and plus the U.S. would open trade again. It is obvious the U.S. trade in steel, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline was almost entirely used to support Japanese defense industries and Japanese military buildup. I'm sure small quantities were used to perhaps build automobiles but nonetheless these resources primary use was military.
In response to this embargo, what did Japan do? It seized Southern Indochina and in response to that the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets and began to put a firm choke hold on all forms of material being sent to Japan that could be used to make war.

The matter of Japanese policy in the 30's is quite off-topic (and your summary is biased: not a word about the causes of Japanese expansion, not a word about Japanese-American negotiations, nothing about the need of finding a market for Japanese goods after the protectionism caused by the crisis of 1929, not a word about the need of land for the Japanese fast-growing population after the closure of American borders and a superficial underestimation of the peace-time need of materials of a nation with 70 million inhabitants), unless you think that the A-bombs were justified by it.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

Alperovitz is one of the biggest opponents of the A-bomb yes, but his book is where I read a direct transcript of a telegram in which it was stated peace was only possible through preservation of the imperial system.

Even if my memory somehow is completely wrong, which I won't believe til I flip through my book and find that it is, I don't care.

Fact of the matter is, the Japanese were given a clear warning at Potsdam. They got nuked for refusing, I don't care if Potsdam was too harsh, imo nothing is too harsh for the Japanese. They systematically tortured, murdered, and enslaved allied PoWs, they attacked a nation that was at peace with them, they used biological weapons on civilian populations, they in short executed one of the most brutal, inhuman offensive campaigns of conquest in the history of man. All because they felt "shame" at not being as good as the west? Sorry, but I wouldn't have minded if Japan was nothing more than a heap of irradiated rocks at the end of WW2, the Japanese *deserved* the Atomic bomb, now, I'm not sure that the U.S. was entirely justified in using it politically and strategically, but morally I see it is a simple patent giving what you got, and the Japanese got theirs.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Alperovitz is one of the biggest opponents of the A-bomb yes, but his book is where I read a direct transcript of a telegram in which it was stated peace was only possible through preservation of the imperial system.

Even if my memory somehow is completely wrong, which I won't believe til I flip through my book and find that it is, I don't care.

Fact of the matter is, the Japanese were given a clear warning at Potsdam. They got nuked for refusing, I don't care if Potsdam was too harsh, imo nothing is too harsh for the Japanese. They systematically tortured, murdered, and enslaved allied PoWs, they attacked a nation that was at peace with them, they used biological weapons on civilian populations, they in short executed one of the most brutal, inhuman offensive campaigns of conquest in the history of man. All because they felt "shame" at not being as good as the west? Sorry, but I wouldn't have minded if Japan was nothing more than a heap of irradiated rocks at the end of WW2, the Japanese *deserved* the Atomic bomb, now, I'm not sure that the U.S. was entirely justified in using it politically and strategically, but morally I see it is a simple patent giving what you got, and the Japanese got theirs.

Fact of the matter?, try reading what the US said to Japan at Potsdam my ignorant poster. Its clear youve not read Gars Work, either btw.

Deserved the atomic bomb?, what all the people of Japan or only those guilty of a crime, or is simply being Japanese a crime that brooks execution for guilty and innocent alike. Did he US deserve the twin towers?, or did the germans deserve Dresden, did the Jews deserve the Shoah..

Just what moral system do you live bye?, moraly i am forced to eliminate your civilian population because your government, will not surrender in a manner i wish to present to my own civilian population, i can enfourc your surrender in a number of ways presented to me by the JCS, not all of which entail the use of force btw, yet i moraly chose to nuke not 1 but 2 cities to obtain the same conditions of peace proposed by the Japanese at Potsdam.

Moraly your bankrupt argument is pathetic.

HB