[ 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)]

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)]

Yeah, I've always found the "Japan was TOTALLY going to surrender" argument to be sketchy because the USSR declared war on Japan AFTER the bombing at Hiroshima. If Japan was so eager to surrender, you can bet that they would have announced it after Hiroshima and certainly to prevent the USSR from getting involved.

It's quite clear that there were ELEMENTS of the Japanese governance that definitely wanted to surrender. But the government as a whole wasn't in agreement to surrender by any means.

Leaving aside the USA, the Soviet Union's behavior makes no sense if Japan was on the cusp of surrendering prior to the atomic bombings.

[(Anonymous)]

let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:
To send a message to the Soviet Union
That’s it
It was strictly political

History.com notes:
By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reportedin 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 wasmeant to kick-start the Cold Warrather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT who said: "Just because America wanted an excuse [to impress Russia] 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 [and the bombs were for impressing Russia]."

None of what you just posted goes against the above?

What point are you trying to make?

[(Anonymous)]

Truman knew about Russia's Red expansion on Asia too. He wanted to The USSR declaring war to Japan doesn't mean that Japan "was still not ready to surrender".

The Japanese were viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people and scare them off Aisa, not because Japan could still do any more damage by not unconditionally surrendering.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm honestly confused now. Are you ESL? None of that goes against what I said.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

well, this is fun. taking fact from fs. and how is discussing on culture turn to wars?

[(Anonymous)]

Look, I know you seem to believe that because part of the Japanese government was looking for peace that this automatically means they were going to surrender but military action doesn't work that way. At all.

For one, the TERMS of the surrender matter a whole heck of a lot. If Nazi Germany says "hey, we'll surrender if you just leave us in power in Germany" the answer is still going to be FUCK NO because LIKE HELL we're going to leave the Nazis in charge of Germany.

For another, looking for peace doesn't necessarily mean that anything is going to come of it -- the WWI powers frequently "sought peace" with one another but that hardly meant they were almost beaten.

Plus, you seem to be forgetting that more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and that the long-term effects of radiation weren't known at the time.

Furthermore, if Japan was going to surrender than why are you claiming in your source that Japan only surrendered due to the Soviet Union getting involved?

If they were, indeed, planning on surrender, then your source is claiming otherwise by saying the Soviet Union was the instigating factor. So your point fails on multiple levels.