[ SECRET POST #3181 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3181 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The Japanese had already surrendered as well...

[(Anonymous)]

No they hadn't, don't be so fucking ignorant.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:
Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …
In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

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.

They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.
President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

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.

[(Anonymous)]

hissss facts hissss

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Am I the only one who thinks both things can be true at once?

Just because America wanted an excuse and took advantage of the situation, doesn't mean Japan had officially surrendered; the excuse was there. The fact that Japan hadn't officially surrendered, doesn't make nuking Japan morally right, since the country was already on its last legs.

[(Anonymous)]

No. They so, so hadn't. They were so far from surrendering that even shortly before the bombs, when they knew they were going to be invaded in some way, they were preparing for an all-out defense. They had absolutely no intention of surrendering any time soon if it hadn't been for the bombs.

[(Anonymous)]

They keep teaching American kids that the atomic bombs were actually good lol

[iggy]

In my twelve years of American primary schooling, I was never taught this. This isn't to say that American history isn't whitewashed, but the a bomb was never taught to us as anything but shitty.

[tabaqui]

Yeah, no, sorry. American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[(Anonymous)]

The surrender was tied to conditions that were disregarded by the US and as such, Japan was not willing to surrender. And since one of the conditions was "no occupation of Japan", they did prepare to defend against the upcoming invasion. So we're both right, yet both wrong.

[tabaqui]

Surrendering under conditions they couldn't agree to is something America would never have done, if they'd ever been invaded. To expect another country to do it is ludicrous. We demanded something that we *knew* they couldn't agree to. Made the decision much easier, i'm sure.

[(Anonymous)]

No. In fact, the whole reason for the bombs is that the Japanese still refused to surrender even when they really, really, really should have given their position.

[tabaqui]

They hadn't surrendered, but they *had* considered it, but the US demands were too much for them, because they allowed no part of what Japan wanted. A 'totally capitulate to everything we say' kind of surrender, which the Emperor couldn't agree to because his military wouldn't.

But Japan was trying to end the war when we bombed them, and Russian, in particular, knew it, and was blocking them.

[(Anonymous)]

No, see, the black and white fact is that them lowly japs were just Too Proud and therefore throwing nuclear bombs at families to send a message to the USSR "save American lives" is totally justifiable.

[tabaqui]

HA, yeah. Bombing the shit out of thousands upon thousands of civilians with the justification of 'saving American lives' is, basically, the American way.

Just for reference, you might be interested......

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[(Anonymous)]

When you're at war with another country of course it's acceptable to prefer that their citizens die instead of yours. How is this in any way controversial?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah…um…considering doesn't really matter, though.

Throughout WWI, ALL of the powers "considered" ending the war at various points. They didn't until 1918. Instead, they just sent millions more innocents to die.

So "considering" counts for jack shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.

The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.

Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess:

"I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a nigger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America."

[tabaqui]

Yikes.

[(Anonymous)]

Watch yt Americans ignore that letter :)

[(Anonymous)]

"Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement." -- War is inherently political. Do you not understand that the USA was at war with Japan. In a conflict INSTIGATED BY Japan.

The USA had been extensively bombing Japanese cities throughout the entirety of the war. The casualties were highest not in Hiroshima, not in Nagasaki, but in Tokyo, which was bombed with conventional weaponry.

The fact that Truman was racist doesn't mean much here. The Japanese were also pretty fucking racist. Have you seen the way they treated the Chinese? Whatever we did to the Japanese (and it was horrific, no doubt) the Japanese certainly matched in things like Unit 731.

[(Anonymous)]

Isn't Truman the one who also went on to integrate the military?

[tabaqui]

Yeah, no, sorry. They considered, they *tried*, they were *working* on it. We knew it. We decided to kill them, anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

ELEMENTS of the Japanese government did so.

But there was no consensus at the time.

Throughout long conflicts, governments will often think about suing for peace or surrendering. But that hardly means that if the conflict continues because an agreement couldn't be reached that it's somehow "wrong' to continue fighting.

Germany certainly tried to sue for peace with the Allies during WWI but the talks fell apart because no one was getting what they wanted. That hardly meant that Germany was beaten or that the Allies "decided to kill them anyway" -- Germany certainly decided to keep on fighting the war and there were still MASSIVE casualties afterward.

[(Anonymous)]

(da)
I think the considering and knowing part is less relevant than the fact not one, but two bombs were dropped while knowing most victims would be civilians.