Did the WWII atomic bombing save lives?

Original writing and research

It’s remarkable that, when we think of the history of humankind, we don’t think first of man’s contributions but the history of wars. Sad commentary for mankind, don’t you think?

Wikipedia:

The U.S. military had nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals manufactured in anticipation of potential casualties from the planned invasion of Japan. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.Because of the number available, combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard proposed warning Japan before dropping the first bomb. Truman wanted a surprise attack. General Marshall stated "one quarter of a million [casualties, meaning killed and wounded] would be the minimum".

——————

That’s pretty close to the numbers killed directly at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are Japanese lives worth less than Americans’?

What may have been a giant part of the decision was that the US did not want to suffer the military humiliation of having to share a divided Japan with the Russians invading from the East as had happened in Germany. The US has had an unfounded and morbid fear of “Communists” since there were Communists. Though it was useful to have them as allies in WWII.

The US had already set the moral tone for the war with the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo. In Tokyo, 130,000 civilian were burned to death in a single night.

——————

67 Japanese cities were firebombed, killing 350,000 civilians. The cities of Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki would already have been firebombed, too, but were preserved only to observe what effects the A-bombs caused. Both Germany and Japan also had nuclear weapons programmes. After the war, Japan was disarmed by a United States occupation and rendered a largely pacifist nation with only a minimal Self-Defense Force permitted. Today, Japan has forgotten the lessons of where war leads us.

——————

In the US Civil War, the mayor of Atlanta pleaded with General Sh.erman to save the city. And Sherman essentially said to the mayor just before he torched it and burned it down: "War is cruel. War is cruelty."

——————

Does this sound familiar? “The entire population of Japan is a proper military target ... There are no civilians in Japan.” opined by a senior Air Force “intelligence” officer.

In a 1986 keynote address before the World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem, “The Final Solution to the Human Problem,” Carl Sagan argued that Hitler “haunts our century… [as] he has shattered our confidence that civilized societies can impose limits on human destructiveness.” In their mutually reinforcing preparations to annihilate one another, erase the past, and foreclose the possibility of future generations, he concluded, “the superpowers have dutifully embraced this legacy… Adolf Hitler lives on.”

The same opinion is being used today for ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians, Palestinians and others. As a species, we’re still cavemen trying to wipe out other cavemen, instilling fear in our fellows.

Mahmous Darwish, poet laureate of Palestine, wrote about Hiroshima after his 1982 visit there, in Memory of Forgetfulness:

“If you are religious, then remember that this bomb is Man’s challenge to God. It’s worded quite simply: We have the power to destroy everything that You have created. If you’re not religious, then look at this this way. This world of ours is four billion, six hundred million years old. It could end in an afternoon.” [Italics in original.]

Darwish commemorates Hiroshima Day—6 August—in 1982, drawing parallels between the two warzones, Beirut and Hiroshima, and the experience of being in a city undergoing near-apocalyptic destruction.

Darwish situates the violence Beirut was undergoing within a broader historical framework, as opposed to depicting it as an isolated incident. By ‘remembering’ Hiroshima, despite the ‘American attempt to make it forget its name’, he identifies the use of the atomic bomb as a starting point for new forms of industrialised warfare, for imaginations of the end of the world, politicising its memory.

Nuclear weapons in the Middle East have been studied predominantly through fears of horizontal proliferation. These fears tend to be rooted in nuclear Orientalism, the sense that nuclear weapons are particularly dangerous in the hands of states in the Global South, deemed uniquely irresponsible, irrational or ideological.

1948 is chosen as it marks the first Arab-Israeli war and the ensuing Palestinian Nakba, resulting in major political transformations. Although there was major international resistance to nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel was driven to have the Bomb.

Israel built a plutonium reactor near Dimona in the Negev Desert during the 1950s-1960s with French technical assistance, heavy water from Norway and uranium diverted from South Africa. Israel had the Bomb by 1966. Golda Meir and Nixon reached a secret agreement over its existence in 1969.

This was exposed in 1986 by whistleblower and Christian convert Mordechai Vanunu in the UK  He was lured from Britain to Italy where he was drugged and abducted by Mossad for return to Israel.

He spent 18 years in prison including 11 in solitary confinement. Ever since he has been threatened with parole violation and reincarceration for speaking to foreigners. American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has referred to him as "the preeminent hero of the nuclear era". Israel considers him a traitor.

It is estimated Israel has 80-90 nuclear warheads. The US plans to invest $1.5 trillion to “modernise” its nukes in the coming decades.

Reports in Israel mention that Palestinians believed that Jewish militias had—and were using—an atomic bomb in Safed in the north of Palestine in May 1948, long before Israel actually developed the Bomb in cooperation with apartheid South Africa as a source for the materials.

Mere rumours of nuclear weapons, it suggests, are enough to ‘deter’ the enemy. And in fact, this fantasy would later become the cornerstone of Israeli policy on its nuclear weapons, which are officially governed by the principle of amimut, which translates into opacity or ambiguity, i.e., that Israel does not confirm or deny having nuclear weapons.

However, Mossad carried out well-documented assassinations of Middle Eastern nuclear scientists.

Eric Morris: “Moreover, what does it mean to remember Hiroshima in a world where, while no atomic bomb has been dropped on Gaza, the tonnage of “conventional” explosives unleashed there is already equivalent to six Hiroshima bombings? As the nuclear abolitionist organization Nihon Hidankyo, composed of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, warned in the lead-up to being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024, the suffering of Gaza’s children all too eerily mirrors their own experiences in Hiroshima. It takes no great imagination to envision Hiroshima in the wreckage of Gaza or in the increasingly bombed-out cities of Ukraine.”

Daniel Ellsberg: In the rapid erosion of ethical restraints under the exigencies of an existential war, “liberal democracies… in fighting an evil enemy, picked up the methods of that enemy and made them into a private ethic that was indistinguishable really from Hitler’s ethic.”

Tt seems little short of a miracle that no atomic weapon has ever again been used. The Bomb may have brought the war to a rabid end. But Hiroshima remains only a symbol of peace, hope, and resilience, a testament to our professed commitment to “never again.” Seems like we have far to many “never agains” in our world, doesn’t it?

References inline, as well as:

Shmuel Bar, “Israeli Strategic Deterrence Doctrine and Practice.” Comparative Strategy 39 (4), 2020.

Yasmine El-Geressi, “The Long History of Suspicious Deaths of Egyptian Nuclear Scientists”, Majalla, 27 September 2019.

Beatrice Heuser, The Bomb: Nuclear Weapons in their Historical, Strategic and Ethical Context, 2000.

Rufus E. Miles, “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved”, Int Sec, 1985.

Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland. London: Quartet Book, 1989.

Don Peck, “The Long Tradition of Killing Middle Eastern Nuclear Scientists”, The Atlantic, 2012.

Eric Ross, “Hiroshima Remains an Open Wound in Our Imperiled World”, TomDispatch, 2025.

Hebatilla Taba, “Everyday nuclear histories and futures in the Middle East”, Camb Rev Int Aff, 2023.

10 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Did the WWII atomic bombing save lives?

Hyperbole designed to bait people into an argument or a debate. Nearly 100 years later, is this really a question that demands endless rehashing when there are countless issues happening right now with far greater relevance and consequences for humanity?

I believe I addressed to modern consequences as well. History always needs to be considered in the present so we don't make the same mistakes!

Of course, my post is intended to encourage debate. AN is a forum, remember, the Latin word for argument and debate?

30 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It’s remarkable that, when we think of the history of humankind, we don’t think first of man’s contributions but the history of wars.

To some degree it was the wars that brought the advancement of human civilization to this point in history.

33 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Sad commentary for mankind, don’t you think?

No, not at all. Though humans have advanced technologically, human nature hasn’t budged one bit. Though modern civilization has a way of suppressing and controlling humans true nature, we’re no less aggressive and no less apt to war than we were ten thousand years ago. The idea that somehow if we just simply drop our defenses, then they will come in peace totally contradicts human nature, pacifism is not only stupid, it’s guaranteed suicide. War is an unfortunate harsh reality, though an unmovable and necessary reality of human nature nonetheless. So with that, it’s not sad at all for mankind since it’s in our nature, that’s the reality of it and the sooner one understands this the quicker they’ll snap out of their sad delusion.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

The island of Japan was blockaded, and the military-controlled government would not surrender. The military wanted to fight to the end, and the people were starving. The bomb ended the war.

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

You should read the book "Combined Fleet Decoded." It discusses Japan's covert communications via Eruope, which ceased with the conclusion of the war in Europe.

1. Peace feelers vs. surrender: Some Japanese officials sought ways to end the war, but they generally hoped to secure terms that would preserve the imperial system and avoid occupation or war-crimes trials.

2. Divisions within Japan's leadership: The Japanese government and military were not unified. Some leaders favored negotiation, while others were prepared to continue fighting.

Chester Nimitz noted that, from a military standpoint. From a political standpoint Japan was determined to fight until the end, despite being politically committed to that course of action.

Edited June 12Jun 12 by Mr Awesome

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The US had already set the moral tone for the war with the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo. In Tokyo, 130,000 civilian were burned to death in a single night.

Germany conducted the first bombing of civilians during WW2. The British firebombed Hamburg, creating a firestorm, while the United States bombed Hamburg by day with conventional bombs. Also, Japan bombed civilians China.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Did the WWII atomic bombing save lives?

Original writing and research

It’s remarkable that, when we think of the history of humankind, we don’t think first of man’s contributions but the history of wars. Sad commentary for mankind, don’t you think?

Wikipedia:

The U.S. military had nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals manufactured in anticipation of potential casualties from the planned invasion of Japan. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.Because of the number available, combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard proposed warning Japan before dropping the first bomb. Truman wanted a surprise attack. General Marshall stated "one quarter of a million [casualties, meaning killed and wounded] would be the minimum".

——————

That’s pretty close to the numbers killed directly at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are Japanese lives worth less than Americans’?

What may have been a giant part of the decision was that the US did not want to suffer the military humiliation of having to share a divided Japan with the Russians invading from the East as had happened in Germany. The US has had an unfounded and morbid fear of “Communists” since there were Communists. Though it was useful to have them as allies in WWII.

The US had already set the moral tone for the war with the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo. In Tokyo, 130,000 civilian were burned to death in a single night.

——————

67 Japanese cities were firebombed, killing 350,000 civilians. The cities of Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki would already have been firebombed, too, but were preserved only to observe what effects the A-bombs caused. Both Germany and Japan also had nuclear weapons programmes. After the war, Japan was disarmed by a United States occupation and rendered a largely pacifist nation with only a minimal Self-Defense Force permitted. Today, Japan has forgotten the lessons of where war leads us.

——————

In the US Civil War, the mayor of Atlanta pleaded with General Sh.erman to save the city. And Sherman essentially said to the mayor just before he torched it and burned it down: "War is cruel. War is cruelty."

——————

Does this sound familiar? “The entire population of Japan is a proper military target ... There are no civilians in Japan.” opined by a senior Air Force “intelligence” officer.

In a 1986 keynote address before the World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem, “The Final Solution to the Human Problem,” Carl Sagan argued that Hitler “haunts our century… [as] he has shattered our confidence that civilized societies can impose limits on human destructiveness.” In their mutually reinforcing preparations to annihilate one another, erase the past, and foreclose the possibility of future generations, he concluded, “the superpowers have dutifully embraced this legacy… Adolf Hitler lives on.”

The same opinion is being used today for ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians, Palestinians and others. As a species, we’re still cavemen trying to wipe out other cavemen, instilling fear in our fellows.

Mahmous Darwish, poet laureate of Palestine, wrote about Hiroshima after his 1982 visit there, in Memory of Forgetfulness:

“If you are religious, then remember that this bomb is Man’s challenge to God. It’s worded quite simply: We have the power to destroy everything that You have created. If you’re not religious, then look at this this way. This world of ours is four billion, six hundred million years old. It could end in an afternoon.” [Italics in original.]

Darwish commemorates Hiroshima Day—6 August—in 1982, drawing parallels between the two warzones, Beirut and Hiroshima, and the experience of being in a city undergoing near-apocalyptic destruction.

Darwish situates the violence Beirut was undergoing within a broader historical framework, as opposed to depicting it as an isolated incident. By ‘remembering’ Hiroshima, despite the ‘American attempt to make it forget its name’, he identifies the use of the atomic bomb as a starting point for new forms of industrialised warfare, for imaginations of the end of the world, politicising its memory.

Nuclear weapons in the Middle East have been studied predominantly through fears of horizontal proliferation. These fears tend to be rooted in nuclear Orientalism, the sense that nuclear weapons are particularly dangerous in the hands of states in the Global South, deemed uniquely irresponsible, irrational or ideological.

1948 is chosen as it marks the first Arab-Israeli war and the ensuing Palestinian Nakba, resulting in major political transformations. Although there was major international resistance to nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel was driven to have the Bomb.

Israel built a plutonium reactor near Dimona in the Negev Desert during the 1950s-1960s with French technical assistance, heavy water from Norway and uranium diverted from South Africa. Israel had the Bomb by 1966. Golda Meir and Nixon reached a secret agreement over its existence in 1969.

This was exposed in 1986 by whistleblower and Christian convert Mordechai Vanunu in the UK  He was lured from Britain to Italy where he was drugged and abducted by Mossad for return to Israel.

He spent 18 years in prison including 11 in solitary confinement. Ever since he has been threatened with parole violation and reincarceration for speaking to foreigners. American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has referred to him as "the preeminent hero of the nuclear era". Israel considers him a traitor.

It is estimated Israel has 80-90 nuclear warheads. The US plans to invest $1.5 trillion to “modernise” its nukes in the coming decades.

Reports in Israel mention that Palestinians believed that Jewish militias had—and were using—an atomic bomb in Safed in the north of Palestine in May 1948, long before Israel actually developed the Bomb in cooperation with apartheid South Africa as a source for the materials.

Mere rumours of nuclear weapons, it suggests, are enough to ‘deter’ the enemy. And in fact, this fantasy would later become the cornerstone of Israeli policy on its nuclear weapons, which are officially governed by the principle of amimut, which translates into opacity or ambiguity, i.e., that Israel does not confirm or deny having nuclear weapons.

However, Mossad carried out well-documented assassinations of Middle Eastern nuclear scientists.

Eric Morris: “Moreover, what does it mean to remember Hiroshima in a world where, while no atomic bomb has been dropped on Gaza, the tonnage of “conventional” explosives unleashed there is already equivalent to six Hiroshima bombings? As the nuclear abolitionist organization Nihon Hidankyo, composed of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, warned in the lead-up to being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024, the suffering of Gaza’s children all too eerily mirrors their own experiences in Hiroshima. It takes no great imagination to envision Hiroshima in the wreckage of Gaza or in the increasingly bombed-out cities of Ukraine.”

Daniel Ellsberg: In the rapid erosion of ethical restraints under the exigencies of an existential war, “liberal democracies… in fighting an evil enemy, picked up the methods of that enemy and made them into a private ethic that was indistinguishable really from Hitler’s ethic.”

Tt seems little short of a miracle that no atomic weapon has ever again been used. The Bomb may have brought the war to a rabid end. But Hiroshima remains only a symbol of peace, hope, and resilience, a testament to our professed commitment to “never again.” Seems like we have far to many “never agains” in our world, doesn’t it?

References inline, as well as:

Shmuel Bar, “Israeli Strategic Deterrence Doctrine and Practice.” Comparative Strategy 39 (4), 2020.

Yasmine El-Geressi, “The Long History of Suspicious Deaths of Egyptian Nuclear Scientists”, Majalla, 27 September 2019.

Beatrice Heuser, The Bomb: Nuclear Weapons in their Historical, Strategic and Ethical Context, 2000.

Rufus E. Miles, “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved”, Int Sec, 1985.

Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland. London: Quartet Book, 1989.

Don Peck, “The Long Tradition of Killing Middle Eastern Nuclear Scientists”, The Atlantic, 2012.

Eric Ross, “Hiroshima Remains an Open Wound in Our Imperiled World”, TomDispatch, 2025.

Hebatilla Taba, “Everyday nuclear histories and futures in the Middle East”, Camb Rev Int Aff, 2023.

Sorry, what was the question?

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Sorry, what was the question?

He jumped from discussing the WWII atomic bombing to the Middle East then to the Jews. He seems to have little understanding of WWII and appears to get his history lessons from biased sites.

2 minutes ago, Mr Awesome said:

He jumped from discussing the WWII atomic bombing to the Middle East then to the Jews. He seems to have little understanding of WWII and appears to get his history lessons from biased sites.

Agree, either he has an astounding education in history or is relying on AI for his opinions posted as facts.

39 minutes ago, Mr Awesome said:

The island of Japan was blockaded, and the military-controlled government would not surrender. The military wanted to fight to the end, and the people were starving. The bomb ended the war.

That is absolutely correct. Everything else is an attempt to re write history. Before the bomb fell, the Japonese were not ready to surrender. It was not up to the Japonese to surrender. It was up to the Emperor to surrender. What he did after the bomb fell, not before.

Yes the dropping of the two bombs saved lives, but also took many lives,

The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death for their country and Emperor,

Lets just hope it never happens again ,see Trump🤡 is going to increase the

amount of Nuclear weapons the U S A has , and that means others will most

likely follow suit , how many times over do they want to destroy the whole World .

The Doomsday Clock is currently set at 85 seconds to midnight, that's because

we have two crazy people in charge with the most weapons,

regards Worgeordie

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Did the WWII atomic bombing save lives?

No - but it was the propaganda that was used to keep Truman from being hung like the Nazis at Nuremberg especially considering that 90% of the death were civilians.
Curtis Lemay summed it up concisely:
“If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.”

Bingo!

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Mere rumours of nuclear weapons, it suggests, are enough to ‘deter’ the enemy.

And that's the gist of it all. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and saved countless lives (the Japanese were willing to fight to the end before that). And ever since then the mere threat of nuclear weapons makes adversaries reconsider attacks. That's a great thing when it comes to developed free democratic societies like the US and Europe, but a threat to the rest of the world when totalitarian regimes hold it.

Imagine a world where Iran has nuclear weapons: on a whim the supreme leader decides he wants to obliterate Israel and sends a barrage of missiles with nuclear warheads - a few of them would be shot down, but it's enough for a few to hit and destroy all of central Israel, and take out most of the West Bank and maybe Gaza with it.

So the bottom line is: a few totalitarian regimes like Russia and North Korea already have nuclear weapons - others like Iran must not be allowed to develop them. (and Iran specifically would no-doubt use it if they got it)

12 minutes ago, connda said:

Curtis Lemay summed it up concisely:
“If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.”

Both sides committed atrocities and murdered civilians. Interestingly modern Japan is incredibly pacifist and peaceful precisely because as a country they've been through hell and seen the consequences of an all out war. You see this reflected in Japanese media like anime: war is always described as horrific, as opposed to other societies (Iran, North Korea, Palestinians, etc) that glorify (holy) war.

And that's what many westerners who have never been through war don't understand: you cannot make peace with societies who glorify war.

The atomic bomb paradox remains one of WWII's greatest controversies. The U.S. demanded unconditional surrender, while Japan's main condition was preserving Emperor Hirohito. Ironically, after dropping the bombs to compel surrender, the U.S. allowed Hirohito to remain on the throne anyway. Critics argue earlier diplomatic flexibility might have saved countless civilian lives, while defenders contend that any concession would have signaled weakness and prolonged the war against a fanatical Japanese military.

4 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

Germany conducted the first bombing of civilians during WW2. The British firebombed Hamburg, creating a firestorm, while the United States bombed Hamburg by day with conventional bombs. Also, Japan bombed civilians China.

Ah, I see. That makes it right and sets the moral tone, right?

4 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Agree, either he has an astounding education in history or is relying on AI for his opinions posted as facts.

Actually, from books I'm reading. A question in another post sent me down the rabbithole. Sorry you don't see the connection on the atomic level.

2 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

And that's the gist of it all. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and saved countless lives (the Japanese were willing to fight to the end before that). And ever since then the mere threat of nuclear weapons makes adversaries reconsider attacks. That's a great thing when it comes to developed free democratic societies like the US and Europe, but a threat to the rest of the world when totalitarian regimes hold it.

Imagine a world where Iran has nuclear weapons: on a whim the supreme leader decides he wants to obliterate Israel and sends a barrage of missiles with nuclear warheads - a few of them would be shot down, but it's enough for a few to hit and destroy all of central Israel, and take out most of the West Bank and maybe Gaza with it.

So the bottom line is: a few totalitarian regimes like Russia and North Korea already have nuclear weapons - others like Iran must not be allowed to develop them. (and Iran specifically would no-doubt use it if they got it)

Imagine Israel decides it's had enough monkeying around and launches a nuke at Iran. Absolutely NO different scenario from Iran having the Bomb. NOBODY should have the bomb!

2 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Both sides committed atrocities and murdered civilians. Interestingly modern Japan is incredibly pacifist and peaceful precisely because as a country they've been through hell and seen the consequences of an all out war. You see this reflected in Japanese media like anime: war is always described as horrific, as opposed to other societies (Iran, North Korea, Palestinians, etc) that glorify (holy) war.

And that's what many westerners who have never been through war don't understand: you cannot make peace with societies who glorify war.

Agree. But few Japanese are still alive who witnessed WWII. (Sorry, can't help myself!) It's exactly like Israelis forgetting the Holocaust except as an abstract concept.

Many Japanese pols want to rearm and the US arms companies will be happy to oblige.

It's actually called "moral rearmament" speak of Orwell!

It's a bogus question.

No such thing as nuclear weapons.

💥 💯0% 💥

12 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

NOBODY should have the bomb!

everybody should have it, let's just get it over with. sick of all this messing around and posturing, at least it will be quick

2 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

It's a bogus question.

No such thing as nuclear weapons.

💥 💯0% 💥

so what was dropped on Hiroshima ? a large firecracker?

17 hours ago, novacova said:

To some degree it was the wars that brought the advancement of human civilization to this point in history.

No, not at all. Though humans have advanced technologically, human nature hasn’t budged one bit. Though modern civilization has a way of suppressing and controlling humans true nature, we’re no less aggressive and no less apt to war than we were ten thousand years ago. The idea that somehow if we just simply drop our defenses, then they will come in peace totally contradicts human nature, pacifism is not only stupid, it’s guaranteed suicide. War is an unfortunate harsh reality, though an unmovable and necessary reality of human nature nonetheless. So with that, it’s not sad at all for mankind since it’s in our nature, that’s the reality of it and the sooner one understands this the quicker they’ll snap out of their sad delusion.

absolutely bang on ! well said , a refreshing dose of reality, the lefties will not like it though , that makes it even better

The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It would have meant a massive loss of face. They were offering conditional withdrawal, but Manchuria was not included. The Asian countries which had suffered the brunt of Japanese occupation and exploitation would not accept anything other than unconditional surrender accompanied by complete withdrawal from the occupied areas. Allied POWs were used as slave labour and most died or suffered long lasting injury from the beatings and malnutrition the Japanese inflicted. The Japanese plan was to execute all of the allied POWs in the event of an invasion or surrender and they came very close to doing so had the allies not added the condition that all POWs were to be accounted for.

There was a near successful military coup once Hirohito eventually agreed to surrender. Had it not been for the atomic blasts, there would have been insufficient support for the surrender and a coup would have occurred had he tried.

The Japanese were ruthless during their occupation. I have heard the stories first hand from family members who lived under occupation. The live dissections and human experiments, the use of children as sex slaves, the slave labour, the constant brutality that included bayonetting babies to terrorize the population, or the shooting of Chinese civilians for target practice etc. The Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malays, and Indonesians quite rightly demanded unconditional surrender. Australia and New Zealand who had carried the burden of holding off the Japanese for years were not in the mood to allow the Japanese to walk away with no consequences. The Commonwealth soldiers who were captured in were violently mistreated, as were the US personnel who had endured the death marches of Bataan and elsewhere. Japan could have surrendered once the outer islands were lost, but it chose to fight on. Japan got what its leaders ordained.

There are people on the Aseannow forum who wouldnt have even been born if the Japanese had had their way. Hirohito should have been executed.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

so what was dropped on Hiroshima ? a large firecracker?

Just napalm. High octane napalm.

Nuclear, quantum, all bogus, like the ball earth psy op.

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It would have meant a massive loss of face. They were offering conditional withdrawal, but Manchuria was not included. The Asian countries which had suffered the brunt of Japanese occupation and exploitation would not accept anything other than unconditional surrender accompanied by complete withdrawal from the occupied areas. Allied POWs were used as slave labour and most died or suffered long lasting injury from the beatings and malnutrition the Japanese inflicted. The Japanese plan was to execute all of the allied POWs in the event of an invasion or surrender and they came very close to doing so had the allies not added the condition that all POWs were to be accounted for.

There was a near successful military coup once Hirohito eventually agreed to surrender. Had it not been for the atomic blasts, there would have been insufficient support for the surrender and a coup would have occurred had he tried.

The Japanese were ruthless during their occupation. I have heard the stories first hand from family members who lived under occupation. The live dissections and human experiments, the use of children as sex slaves, the slave labour, the constant brutality that included bayonetting babies to terrorize the population, or the shooting of Chinese civilians for target practice etc. The Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malays, and Indonesians quite rightly demanded unconditional surrender. Australia and New Zealand who had carried the burden of holding off the Japanese for years were not in the mood to allow the Japanese to walk away with no consequences. The Commonwealth soldiers who were captured in were violently mistreated, as were the US personnel who had endured the death marches of Bataan and elsewhere. Japan could have surrendered once the outer islands were lost, but it chose to fight on. Japan got what its leaders ordained.

The point you mention, "allow the Japanese to walk away with no consequences", sounds like dropping the Bomb was an act of revenge for the war.

2 hours ago, potless said:

There are people on the Aseannow forum who wouldnt have even been born if the Japanese had had their way. Hirohito should have been executed.

There was no monarchy in Thailand during the Japanese occupation. However, the Japanese didn't mess with our Royals, the symbol of our peoples, so why should we add that insult to any other race?!?

It's what the US did at Abu Ghraib, CIA black sites and Guantanamo.