Posted on 05/29/2016 6:29:04 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Much of the historical perspective on the era holds that the Japanese were prepared to fight to their very last man, and that until the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been visited upon their homeland Japanese leaders had no intention of surrendering. But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the fateful use of the atomic bombs.
In her 1956 book, The Enemy at His Back, journalist Elizabeth Churchill Brown supplied overwhelming evidence to counter the inaccurate views about the close of the war. Beginning in 1949, she plunged into dozens of wartime memoirs and congressional hearings dealing with the conflict. The wife of noted Washington Star columnist Constantine Brown, Mrs. Brown had access to many of "the men who were no longer 'under wraps,'" as she noted. She wrote, "With this knowledge at hand, I quickly began to see why the war with Japan was unprecedented in all history. Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the conflict ended."
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Now that Obama has gone to Hiroshima, "conservative" dogma is now frozen: Dropping the bombs was heroic and noble.
“Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the conflict ended.”
How hard is it to surrender?
If they were so ready to surrender, why didn’t they do so after the first bomb?
total BS
We told them to surrender or we would drop the bomb. They didn't we dropped it.
they STILL didn't and we dropped another.
THEN they surrendered.
A person can surrender whenever they wish. No on can prevent you from unconditionally surrendering.
To save US military lives.
'nuff said.
And so we wouldn’t be speaking Japanese now.
Wow. You read the article in three minutes!
Wow. You read the article in two minutes!
...Dropping the Bomb: Why Did the U.S. Unleash Its Terrible Weapon?...
To some it’s cognitive dissonance. To others it would be an absolute no. To the vast majority, there was no choice.
For myself, it was most likely a necessity. My Dad was in a staging area in the Phippines in the first week of August, 1945 waiting for orders to ship out for the invasion of Japan.
Wow. You read the article in two minutes and 50 seconds!
Wow. You read the article in three minutes!
There is a huge difference in a cease fire being portrayed as surrender with military gains intact, and unconditional surrender.
Wow. You read the article in five minutes!
More like two seconds.
No need to go past the goofy “trying to surrender”
The Japanese were NEVER ready to surrender.
“Wow. You read the article in three minutes!”
And so? It’s familiar material if you’ve read it over the years.
What a pile of tripe.
There were also Germans that wanted to sue for peace, but they were not in command.
Remember studying how the Island hopping Marines found the Japanese defenders would fight to the last man? They were not defending their homeland. Invading the Japanese Islands would have been a bloodbath of US Military. And it took a second bomb to convince them to surrender.
We did not attack Japan first, we should have reduced Japan to a smoldering cinder in the Pacific.
Pacifists re-writing history, as usual.
As was my Dad, after having fought at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. If not for dropping of the two bombs, I might not be here today. That also applies to my two children and two grandchildren.
As was my grandfather who was in Europe waiting for a ship to take him to Japan-fortunately Japan surrendered or I might not be here to tell you about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.