As I already explained, if the goal was to end the war as quickly as possible, the Japanese offer of surrender would have been accepted prior to dropping the bombs.

It seems rather that the aim was to end it as brutally as possible, to scare the Russians.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

No formal surrender offer had been made let alone one satisfactory to the allies

The only real condition Japan placed on their numerous offers of surrender was that the emperor be allowed to remain, which he was, after the bombs were needlessly dropped.

For at least the final year of the war, and perhaps even since Midway, the Japanese were asking to discuss terms of surrender. The US refused to respond to these requests.

Complaining they weren't "formal offers" or vaguely that the terms weren't "satisfactory to the allies" is the lamest reason for mass murder I've ever heard.

What was it that was so horrible about the terms that it justifies nuking a couple of cities?

You know all this, apparently, and yet you claim that what motivated US policy was to "shorten the war as quicly as possible and not to waste any more allied lives unecessarily", and yet it pursued a policy guaranteed to drag the war out as long as possible and to waste as many allied and Japanese lives as possible, by refusing to even discuss terms of surrender.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

Symbiote, where did you find that Japan was offering surrender? It doesn't fit with what I had read on the subject, although it was a while ago.

Try this, I've read it and I find it quite satisfactory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Potsdam sets the terms, Japan doesn't accept them, bombing and nukes, Japan surrenders. That's the history I remember...

Fine...if you want to play symantics, THE GERMAN PEOPLE. If you want to be even more specific, there was Heinrich, Rolf, Gunter, Joseph, Werner, Hermann, Deiter, and many millions more that for sake of brevity I will not mention here. Collectively, they were known as "the enemy".



I should not have to be your fact checker, the information is out ther eif you look, but:
Does this help?
Here
And if you don't believe me yet...how 'bout the FBI...is that reputable enough for you? See page 27 for starters (Isn't that freedom of information act a great thing?)

I'm sorry...what were you saying?

Right, there is. Look it up if you wish.

No, it is a realistic way to discuss such issues. Horrific indeed, I would not dispute that. Racist...not likely. Seems to be little difference in how we valued German life and Japanese life. Considering our willingness to carpet bomb and firebomb German cities and char broil hundreds of thousands of civilians, I have a hard time buying the argument that the use of the A-Bomb was racist. I surmise that had we been facing the same situation in Germany, we would have dropped it in a heartbeat.

__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

Really? The Japanese sure had a funny way of showing that they desired to surrender following Midway. Let's see...:
Midway: June 1942
Japanese offensive continues in New Guinea: July 1942
Japan attacks in the Solomons killing 1000+ allied soldiers: August 1942
Japanese attack US at Guadalcanal: August 1942
USS Wasp sunk by Japanese Sub: September 1942
Battle of Santa Cruz: October 1942
New Georgia: July 1943
Bougainville: July 1943
Japanese Offensive at Leyte Gulf: October 1944
Iwo Jima: February 1945
Okinawa: April 1945
...Among many others.

The Potsdam Ultimatum

This ultimatum was ignored by Japan. It could not have been spelled out any more clearly. Japan was given the opportunity to surrender by the allied forces, yet they refused to aknowledge it.

__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

The ultimatum was hardly ignored by Japan, it was heavily debated, and the only real objection to unconditional surrender was the sacrifice of their emperor, who they revered as a god.

Imagine America was in the wrong in a war, tried to invade China to steal their resources for example, China won the war, and demanded as a condition of victory, that they might ban christianity.

To take away a peoples' religion is unacceptable, even when defeat is obvious, moral / spiritual convictions often outweigh practical ones, and the Americans should have known this.

So yes, it is true, the Japanese rejected unconditional surrender, as would any religious nation, but it is also true they often and repeatedly tried to negotiate terms of surrender prior to the dropping of the A-bomb, their only primary demand being retention of the emperor. If America had agreed to that, the Japs would have surrendered months or even years prior to the dropping of the bomb.

Of course, as an increasingly totalitarian society since Wilson/Roosevelt's wars, public mention of Japanese overtures of surrender was prohibited until after the war ended.

Instead they pursued a policy of pointless atomic assault on Japanese civilians, which is in my view, unforgivable. It achieved absolutely nothing, killed enormous numbers of people pointlessly, and was perhaps the worst atrocity committed in the 20th century, made especially abhorrent because it was committed against a people who were already prepared to surrender.

It seems completely absurd to me to criticise a Bin Laden when he has a few thousand people killed to achieve political goals, and then heap praise on western politicians when they have a few hundred thousand killed for similar reasons. At least the Nazis had the excuse that they were under the spell of racist ideology, at least the Soviets that socialism had made them poor, that they needed to work slaves to death to maintain their industrial machine. What excuse is there for nuking civilians in a prosperous western civilisation, and achieving nothing from it?

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

Symbiote, try the link I posted above. Even after Hiroshima, Japan was debating surrender with only the emperor vs. surrender with additional demands.

Your propensity for revisionist history astounds me. Even after being provided facts showing that Japan was still reinforcing its troops in Kyoshu and elsewhere AFTER the A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, you still hold to your fallacious belief that japan was ready and willing to roll over and play dead. Un####ingbelievable!!

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

It was willing to discuss terms of surrender, it wasn't ready to "roll over and play dead" in the face of an enemy who refused to even discuss terms.

Oh and history needs to be revised, because the wartime powers prevented journalists from publishing the truth when it was most relevant.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

Germany surrendered unconditionally why not Japan?

The Emperor needed to be shocked into surrender for his generals would have never done so without the shock of the atom bomb.

Still, maybe a demonstration of the power of the bomb would have been enough.

when it comes to revisionist history the Japanese are the worst sinners

__________________
http://winstonricolo.blogspot.com/

winston,

Still, maybe a demonstration of the power of the bomb would have been enough.


Our military leaders gave serious consideration to this idea.

They were shortstopped when the questions were raised, "What if the demonstration proved to be a dud? Wouldn't that merely increase japanese resistance?"

Hiroshima was only atomic explosion #13, and the scientific debate and doubt was quite serious.

Truman had to base his decision on what he saw, not what documents were uncovered long AFTER the war was over. From all external observations, the Japanese had no intentions of surrendering. You know, looking at Tuesday's winning lottery numbers Wednesday AM, I'd have made a different pick, too.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

13 atomic test and they still had doubts?

If one would have been a dud, there were plenty more to follow.

The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan could have been part of the demonstration and duds were they not

__________________
http://winstonricolo.blogspot.com/

IIRC, the prior A-Bombs were all tower detonations in fixed rigs. Adding portability to the A-bomb and the successful detonation of one was still questionable. Plus, we only had a very limited supply of U235. It doesn't grow on trees, you know.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)