“Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?” by Robert Freeman

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

by Robert Freeman

Few issues in American history – perhaps only slavery itself – are as charged as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Was it necessary? Merely posing the question provokes indignation, even rage. Witness the hysterical shouting down of the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit that simply dared discuss the question fifty years after the act. Today, another eleven years on, Americans still have trouble coming to terms with the truth about the bombs.

But anger is not argument. Hysteria is not history. The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse.

Yet the question will not die, nor should it: was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a military necessity? Was the decision justified by the imperative of saving lives or were there other motives involved?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. “Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.

After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan’s cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka.

This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, “The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.” Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.

As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, “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.” Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Civilian authorities, especially Truman himself, would later try to revise history by claiming that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers.

But there is simply no factual basis for this in any record of the time. On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, “Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.” The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

But if dropping the bombs was not driven by military needs, why, then, were they used? The answer can be discerned in the U.S. attitude toward the Russians, the way the War ended in Europe, and the situation in Asia.

U.S. leaders had long hated the communist Russian government. In 1919, the U.S. had led an invasion of Russia – the infamous “White Counter Revolution” – to try to reverse the red Bolshevik Revolution that had put the communists into power in 1917. The invasion failed, and the U.S. did not extend diplomatic recognition to Russia until 1932.

Then, during the Great Depression, when the U.S. economy collapsed, the Russian economy boomed, growing almost 50

In addition, to defeat Germany, the Russian army had marched to Berlin through eastern Europe. It occupied and controlled 150,000 square miles of territory in what is today Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin demanded to keep this newly occupied territory. Russia, Stalin rightly claimed, had been repeatedly invaded by western Europeans, from Napoleon to the Germans in World War I and now by Hitler. Russia lost more than 20,000,000 lives in World War II, and Stalin wanted a buffer against future invasions.

At this point, in February 1945, the U.S. did not know whether the bomb would work or not. But it unquestionably needed Russia’s help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. These military realities were not lost on Roosevelt: with no army to displace Stalin’s in Europe and needing Stalin’s support, Roosevelt conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. This is where timing becomes critically important. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. May 8 plus 90 days is August 8. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible.

This issue of territory in east Asia was especially important because before the war against Japan, China had been embroiled in a civil war of its own. It was the U.S.-favored nationalists under General Chiang Kai Shek against the communists under Mao Ze Dong. If communist Russia were allowed to gain territory in east Asia, it would throw its considerable military might behind Mao, almost certainly handing the communists a victory once the World War was ended and the civil war was resumed.

Once the bomb was proven to work on July 15, 1945, events took on a furious urgency. There was simply no time to work through negotiations with the Japanese. Every day of delay meant more land given up to Russia and, therefore, a greater likelihood of communist victory in the Chinese civil war. All of Asia might go communist. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U.S. to have won the War against the fascists only to hand it to its other arch enemy, the communists. The U.S. needed to end the War not in months, or even weeks, but in days.

So, on August 6, 1945, two days before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. There was no risk to U.S. forces then waiting for a Japanese response to the demand for surrender. The earliest planned invasion of the island was still three months away, and the U.S. controlled the timing of all military engagements in the Pacific.

But the Russian matter loomed and drove the decision on timing. So, only three days later, the U.S. dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, eight days after the first bomb was dropped.

Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb’s use: “The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all.” Except that it drastically speeded the War’s end to deprive the Russians of territory in east Asia.

The story of military necessity, quickly and clumsily pasted together after the War’s end, simply does not hold up against the overwhelming military realities of the time. On the other hand, the use of the bomb to contain Russian expansion and to make the Russians, in Truman’s revealing phrase, “more manageable,” comports completely with all known facts and especially with U.S. motivations and interests.

Which story should we accept, the one that doesn’t hold together but that has been sanctified as national dogma? Or the one that does hold together but offends our self concept? How we answer says everything about our maturity and our capacity for intellectual honesty.

It is sometimes hard for a people to reconcile its history with its own national mythologies – the mythologies of eternal innocence and Providentially anointed righteousness. It is all the more difficult when a country is embroiled in yet another war, and the power of such myths are needed again to gird the people’s commitment against the more sobering force of facts.

But the purpose of history is not to sustain myths. It is, rather, to debunk them so that future generations may act with greater awareness to avoid the tragedies of the past. It may take another six or even sixty decades, but eventually the truth of the bomb’s use will be written not in mythology but in history. Hopefully, as a result, the world will be a safer place.

Robert Freeman writes on economics, history, and education. He can be reached at robertfreeman10@yahoo.com.

Please follow and like us:

41 thoughts on ““Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?” by Robert Freeman”

  1. I hate to be educated by such a manner, but it was Robert McNamara’s documentary, “The Fog of War” (2003) which led me to conclude the same as this article. Not that I was for the bombs beforehand, but the information there added reason based on circumstances to my belief.
    FDR had established detente with the Russians. He sought peace when at all possible, and war only when it was not. Years later, it was a cold war weary JFK who concluded, albeit reluctantly, that it must be economic competition rather military conflict for us to best prevail over the Soviets. Accordingly, a plan had officially though privately been established to withdrawal our “military advisers” from Vietnam by 1966 – all of them, meaning no footprint of ours on the ground any longer. Like FDR, JFK was ready to concede ground to the Soviets for the greater good. Global prestige was also a factor – winning the hearts and minds the world over as a free and humane people. JFK even had a whole bunch of wheat sent to the Soviets for their hungry, per his last press conference, November 14, 1963.
    Truman on the other hand, would prove to be our first neoconservative in high office, with the purely political, atomic bombings, followed by the unnecessary war in Korea. He was the George W. Bush of his time, and the American public didn’t get it wrong then with their 28% approval rating of him. Of course, after decades of dumbing down America with a bone-headed, criminally inhumane, cold war, followed by post 9-11, kick ass wars, Truman is now seen as heroic. We’ve all seen the blowback since – militarily, economically, in our reputation, and more.
    In other words, I have nothing positive to say – now go pop another Prozac.

  2. Thanks for posting this. I’ve been making these exact same points for years, and as recently as a week ago I’ve had debates on forums where even professed liberals argued that none of this was true. The same propaganda persists, that we would’ve lost (the figure varies but is always huge) anywhere from a half million to a million men, that Russia had nothing to do with the decision to drop the bombs, that both cities were powerful military centers, that the Japs were capable of repelling an invasion with air and naval forces, even that the bombs were no big deal because we’d already killed more civilians in fire-bombing.
    But then, when I worked for NPR, I was picked to do an interview with pilot Tibbets, who rarely gave interviews, and I refused. I didn’t want to be in the same room as the guy. Another reporter was picked, and came back spinning in 7th heaven that she got the interview. Tibbets, unsuprisingly, maintained that he saved 100’s of 1000’s of lives by snuffing hundreds of 1000’s of lives, he called all the Japanese “Samurai’s that were totally fanatical and would’ve fought and died to the last man, woman and child.”
    I guess if you were the one that ended so many lives so quickly, you HAVE to rationalize it somehow or you’ll drink yourself into oblivion and end up blowing your brains out.

    1. Dano- You’re making stuff up.

      You’re attacking a false target- an old, old version of the Bomb Story.

      They used to say that it was done to end the war, to save a million lives, end of story. That is a very old,old story.
      You are attacking a straw man here.
      No one ever said that Russia had nothing to do with it. Not anytime recently.
      No one has claimed any time recently that the two cities were crucial militarily.
      No one has been claiming that they were ready to defend the islands with their full military.

      Yes, It has been argued that the conventional firebombings were killing as many people.

      If Japan (or Germany) had surrendered after the first firebombings, people would have said those were a good idea. They didn’t , so now we say that those were a terrible idea. The fault is really with the German and Japanese leadership, for not surrendering.

      Yes, people still say as many as 700,000 could have died in an invasion, which is probably exaggerated but the fact is NOBODY KNOWS and NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW. It might have been as few as 25,000, or 50,000. Would you have volunteered for the invasion force, Dano?

      Those Japanese did not die in vain- their suffering spared the whole world from all-out warfare ever since.

      Views like yours are very, very, naive. Give liberalism a bad name.

  3. Oh yeah, back to WWII. Had our fire bombings been more specific to our targets of Japan’s military, there would have been less collateral damage at a cost of more American lives. We should have been willing to accept this.

    1. Justin- At that point we weren’t going to accept more U.S. casualties. It was punitive, punishment, to Japan for severe misbehavior. Eye for an eye. If the stupid Emperor and the stupider Generals and Diet had surrendered, none of it would have happened. Blood’s on their hands…THIS REVISIONIST BULLSHIT MUST STOP.

      The truth is very complicated. My grandfather knew Truman. I’ve researched this to death. THIS REVISIONIST BULLSHIT MUST STOP.

      No, it wasn’t a military necessity. Everyone needs to stop w/the naivite.

      My dad was on Guam preparing for the invasion. Yeah, he shoulda been killed, because the Japanese had comported themselves in such a civilized manner throughout the contest. THIS REVISIONIST BULLSHIT MUST STOP.

      I’m sure everyone here would have been more comfortable in a world where the SOVIETS or the CHINESE had dropped the bomb first. THIS REVISIONIST BULLSHIT MUST STOP.

      1. I disagree with the premise that hindsight is revisionism, at least in this case. Like McNamara said in his documentary, we try to learn from our mistakes by questioning our actions, because us Americans are far from perfect, and we are responsible for much. The atomic bombs and the overkill, fire bombings cannot possibly escape controversy. We killed about a million, Japanese civilians. As McNamara said, “I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan?”
        “Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional (in the minds of some people) to the objectives we were trying to achieve.”
        “What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time, and today, has not really grappled with what are, I’ll call it, “the rules of war.” Was there a rule then that said you shouldn’t bomb, shouldn’t kill, shouldn’t burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?
        LeMay said, “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”
        We could have, Mott, and should have won the war more honorably. And the problem with a lack of hindsight is that it doesn’t thwart us from mistakes made in the present. No revisionism required.

        1. You’re very articulate, Justin.

          You’re also very wrong.You say that “revisionism is not hindsight”. “Re- Vision: to look at again.” Get real. It is the very definition of hindsight.

          “we should have won the war more honorably”. The Japanese shouldn’t have gone on a murderous rampage through Asia that killed untold millions. (between 6 and 30 million). Not very honorable of them, eh Justin? When people behave like this, others are under no moral obligation to them, whatsoever. Paybacks are are a motherfucker.

          Let’s separate the Firebombings from the Atomic Bombings. Two totally different things.

          I actually AGREE with you P.C. 20/20 Hindsight Revisionists, anti-U.S., anti-West apologists on the Firebombings. The Firebombings were, stupid, unnecessary, and should not have been done, in hindsight.

          However, it is important to remember that the Firebombings were done to force total surrender. Force surrender through the terrorizing of the civilian population. Surrender= the saving of lives, to our military. How many? Oh, none according to you revisionists.

          How come you revisionists never talk about the Firebombings of Germany? Same thing- done to force surrender, through terror, also punitive, retribution. Very bad, even rather evil, hindsight. Unnecessary.

          I’ll tell you why- because you whiny ultra-liberal revisionists LOVE YOU SOME JAPS but insist that “all Germans- all civilians- were guilty”, through more Jewish Revisionism.

          Freeman is a Jew and they love anything that’s anti-Whitey, in general.

          The Atom Bombs were dropped for complex reasons- not out of military neccesity- THAT SHOULDN’T be the argument.


          God help us all if Truman had not dropped it when he did. The Russians, Chinese, or some other country, would have by now- with WAY,WAY worse consequences for the world.

          It was meant to be the first- and last times that they were used.Forever. It’s worked so far, eh? No more World Wars since then- thanks to Truman.

          Before you reply, Justin- I’m a leftist Democrat, not a knee-jerk America defender. I am also a Japanophile- don’t hate the Japanese.

          Also, I’m not an anti-Semi- just harbor no illusions about them, (in you are Jew)

        2. I’ll tell you why- because you whiny ultra-liberal revisionists LOVE YOU SOME JAPS but insist that “all Germans- all civilians- were guilty”, through more Jewish Revisionism.

          To be fair, Mott, some lefties have OCCASIONALLY denounced the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg.

          But otherwise, I completely agree. Lefties don’t show nearly as much sympathy for German civilians as they do for the Japanese, even though Japan’s behavior was no better than Nazi Germany’s.

          The reasons for this are:

          1) In the leftist worldview, white = irredeemably evil and worthy of death (yes, I know, a bit of an exaggeration, but my point still stands), non-white = eternally noble and only evil when whitey makes them evil.

          2) Unlike the Japanese, Germans chose the wrong victims. They targeted a group whose co-ethnics abroad happened to dominate the media and film industry of the next rising superpower.

          And Germany has been relentlessly hounded ever since.

          But yes, I agree, this revisionist bullshit does have to stop. It shows a lack of confidence and faith in your own country/people. And it’s only Western countries that go through all this revisionist crap.

          As much as I normally disagree with him, Abagond was right when he insisted that the West has lost faith in itself, and is no longer self-confident.

          Well, I say this type of revisionism reflects this lack of self-confidence, and demonstrates self-loathing/weakness.

        3. @BAG- Yeah, rarely, they do throw in the Dresden stuff, but usually just leave that to the Far-Right types. Hypocrisy.

          Why? The Germans, even more than the Japs, have gone on to be the most liberal, most Anti-War of all societies. Yeah, the Japs killed maybe 30 million in horrible fashion, but killed no Jews, so, they are NOBLE, INDIGINEOUS WARRIOR PEOPLE, with a “CODE OF HONOR”, bla, bla.

          Is Le May admitting to being a war criminal? Hell no! Who does not doubt that (suspend disbelief here) had the Japs and/or Gerrys won and OCCUPIED (not possible!) the U.S., they, gasp, yes, would have strung up F.D.R. even as a “war criminal”. (this is why the U.S. will never join the World Court, for any dummies out there).

          Truman was a Neo Con? Sez you, Justin. Korea a WAR OF CHOICE? Nay, not like all that followed.

          @Dano- Tibbets is mass murderer? Fuck you. The guy helped stop mass-scale warfare on earth, by doing something 99% of us couldn’t stomach.

          McNamara is your fave war criminal? Why would a Ultra-Lib like you listen to him? Because he had a change of heart?

          Germans, all of them, are just plain evil to this day, I guess, and so deserved being incinerated alive by the hundreds of thousands? They were “all complicit.” Yeah, right.

          It just PISSES me off that the Revision Police concentrate on two things: 1) the A Bombing of the Japs and, 2) the “horrific” Internment of the Japs.

          Guess who’s behind both campaigns? It’s not even the Japanese!

          Unlike the Germans the Japs to this day don’t apologize for anything, don’t even acknowlege jack shit.

          It drives me crazy that these A-Bomb revisionist know ALL the details- what Le May said, what McNamara said 40 years later (after being guilty as sin of being one of the biggest offenders EVER of questionable, borderline criminality in a WAR OF CHOICE). Barf bag, please!

          The details you don’t know are the reasons why we dropped the bomb- oh, but you do know about the Russians. Yeah, I know it was a lousy reason to drop them, seeing as we knew that they would have one themselves in a few years. We shoulda just let them drop the first one, Justin! Then, we could have taken the “High Road”. You’re high…

          Our modern ideas about not killing civilians are very recent ideas, only developing in the late 1960s and 70s.

          Judging historical actions by modern standards…the gift of young, idealistic college students.

        4. Unlike the Germans the Japs to this day don’t apologize for anything, don’t even acknowlege jack shit.

          And that, I think, is precisely the reason why few people try to guilt trip the Japanese or why Western lefty turds are so enamored with them.

          People don’t try to guilt trip the Japanese, because they know they’ll have no audience. They know that the Japanese won’t put up with guilt trips or any revisionist shit. Why? Because the Japanese are nationalistic and proud of their country.

          Compare them to the Germans, who have bent over backward kissing Jewish ass, and have repeatedly flagellated themselves over the holocaust.

          Despite the fact that they have more than atoned for the Nazi holocaust, and despite the fact that they have done far more than the Japanese when it comes to acknowledging and making up for past crimes, they continue to be relentlessly demonized.

          Holocaust movies continue to be made to this day. Or at least movies with references to the Nazi holocaust.

          Why? Because the Germans allow themselves to be demonized. They ask for it by flagellating themselves like a bunch of wimps.

          Weakness is provocative, and earns you contempt.

          The Japanese and Turks are proud nationalists to this day, and have never allowed themselves to be guilt tripped or demoralized by Western style revisionism.

          Germans, on the other hand, are self-loathing apologizers who continue to be demonized, while they continue to lose their country to foreigners.

          White people everywhere need to internalize the saying “no good deed goes unpunished.” As Wade pointed out, whites who try to do good will be attacked for not being paragons of virtue, while unapologetic nationalistic countries like Japan or Turkey get away scot free.

          Better to be an asshole than to be a sucker.

        5. Of course, the Jewish Question also factors in here, but I don’t feel like getting into a whole discussion about the JQ.

        6. Western revisionism in general is pathetic. I just can’t think of any non-Western country where self-loathing, hindsight revisionism dominates so much of the discussion.

          I can’t think of any non-Western country that attacks its very own legitimacy the way we do.

          This self-hatred NEEDS TO STOP.

        7. BAG- One wonders (in What-If? History Mode), what would be the P.C.left’s reaction, and the Jew-Know-Whos, had we dropped the bombs on the Germans, under similar circumstances, and not the Japanese.

          They would all be saying, probably, that the evil Germans got the payback they deserved for the You-Know-What. Because, as everyone knows, evil Greman civilians are not to be pitied, noble Japs are.

          There would be none of this pussified hand-wringing bed-wetting over our use of the Bomb.

          Actually, though, the U.S> decided pretty early that the bomb would not be used on Germany, or in Europe, period. Did not want to establish a precedent in Europe. There was also a desire not to use it on people who resembled Americans as much as they did.

        8. Jew-Know-Whos

          Hehe, a Jewish Voldemort?

          They would all be saying, probably, that the evil Germans got the payback they deserved for the You-Know-What. Because, as everyone knows, evil Greman civilians are not to be pitied, noble Japs are.


          Remember, people, in the eyes of the left:

          White people = uniquely evil and deserving of anything bad that happens to them, because it is some kind of karmic payback for all of the horrible things they’ve done.

          Non-white people (including the Japanese) = Eternally noble, soulful, caring, and are always victims whenever anything bad happens to them.

          (and in the case when it’s non-whites abusing non-whites, we all know that those non-whites are not really abusing them. They’re just being forced against their will to commit evil acts by the wicked white man)

          All non-white people are good.
          The Japanese are non-white.
          Therefore, they’re good.

          Memorize that syllogism, and it will all make sense whenever you read what lefties write, including stuff about the atomic bomb.

        9. what would be the P.C.left’s reaction, and the Jew-Know-Whos, had we dropped the bombs on the Germans, under similar circumstances, and not the Japanese.

          They would have said they had it coming, and completely deserved it.

          No surprise, considering how Jewified the American left is.

        10. Well, to clarify, you can’t blame all of this mindset on Jewish lefties.

          As Wade pointed out, the U.S. was intent on psychologically crippling Germany so that it could never rise and challenge them again.

          I’m sure that plays a role.

        11. BAG- Wadester was correct about Germany. They have been permanently neutered. Why? We didn’t need them as long as we had nukes and bases there.

          Japan was only de-fanged, and de-clawed. No mystery why these two countries are so liberal and anti-military to this day. We made sure of it. (we tried a similar thing with Weimar- but failed horribly)

          We let the Japanese keep their balls, and their pride. Why? We need them to be our possible deterrent to Comunism in Asia. We can deliver fire-ready nuke weapons to Japan, if neccessary, in only 2-3 days, and we let China know this.

      2. Sorry Mott, life does not always permit me to respond right away. I’m also responding to your post below, but there isn’t a respond option there.
        I’ll concede on the revisionism = hindsight thing. I was thinking of revisionism as rewriting history. It’s not.
        I disagree that we should have lowered ourselves to the Japs level. We weren’t paying back all the civilians who had nothing to do with it.
        I think it strange that you think that the firebombings were a mistake but the atomic bombings weren’t. The fire bombings incapacitated the Japanese. The atomic bombings didn’t effect the outcome of the war, that the Japs were defeated. I’m pro firebomb, just not the way it was done by such a high elevation.
        This post of Robert’s isn’t about Germany, it’s about Japan and our actions concluding the war with them.
        It’s scary and chilling to me that you acknowledge that the atomic bombings were of no military value and yet you fiercely defend our decision to drop them. It’s your view that isn’t necessary. You assume another country would’ve dropped them, I guess what, on us or England? Well, other countries than us have dropped them, testing them in remote areas like we did.
        Truman was, personally, a hot head and insecure. People like him shouldn’t be President.

        1. Justin- Truman a hothead? That would be McArthur- Truman fired him for wanting to nuke North Korea. Truman was very sane and rational, and so was his decision to drop the Bombs.

          Up next: I’ll Justin why we dropped the Bombs- ’cause he doesn’t know.

          Here’s a partial clue: Testing nukes isn’t the same as using them for real, like he states.

  4. The way I see it is they attacked us. They didn’t follow the Geneva convention and let us know they had declared war until after they killed our soldiers at Pearl Harbor. Dropping the bombs put a end to the war and saved a lot of soldiers lives. The Japanese would have fought to the death. I personally don’t have a problem with the Japanese and as far as I am concerned I personally wouldn’t have cared if we would have dropped 10 of those bombs and killed 10 million. The war ended because of the bomb and that is all I need to know. I have no problem living with it and it is a part of our history and I am proud of it.

    1. Oh, I’m sure you are.
      It sounds like you didn’t read this David, but I give you credit for looking at the title.

  5. Rob, this article is a bit misleading. Anglo-American hostility to the USSR didn’t start until about 1948, with the Cold War beginning and Stalin turning increasingly anti-Jew/Zionist. During the 30s, FDR was a softie on the USSR and hated the Third Reich. Its a leftist myth that the U.S. hated the Soviets between 1917 and 1948.

    1. Not true nephew Joe. The diaries of Truman and his cabinet reveal how Truman went from relief for Stalin’s plan to invade the Japanese in mid August to dread. In July of 1945 Truman made the switch from seeing Stalin as an ally to seeing him as a competitor against the US interests. Truman started the cold war in July of 1945 when he decided to intimidate the Soviets through the use of the atomic bombs. The secret nature leading up to August 8 resulted in a loss of positive relations between the two countries.

      1. Gonna agree with you, Justin. You are right. The reasons why WE (Truman) dropped them bombs are many. Message to Moscow- in the Top Three.

    2. Right. The U.S. did not hate the Soviets during this period. Not sure if it’s just leftists behind the lie.

  6. There is no doubt that we would have still won the war against Japan ,and
    they would have surrendered without the use of nuclear weapons. But whatever the real reason for using these weapons whether it was to save more American lives as Truman as stated or to prevent Russia from occupying part of East Asia as argued by Mr. Freeman or both, we have to take into consideration the context in which the weapon was used. Millions of people were killed even before the weapons were used with a total of between 62 to 78 million people at the conclusion of the war, and our perception of Japan during that time was not what it is today as a civil , decent and democratic society. Japan was viewed negatively as country which not only invaded her neighbors but attacked us and allied with our enemy at that time, Germany and was capable of behaving as uncivil as nation could be. .
    Japan’s refusal to surrender even after the first nuclear weapon was dropped lend credence to Truman’s contention at time that if nuclear weapons had not been used then the war would be longer and more American lives would have been lost. Many who argue against us using nukes against that country are looking at the war through the lense of how they see Japan today not of how she behaved prior to and during World War 11 and of how many lives were lost prior to the nuclear bombing of Japan .
    They should.

    1. Devon is right on the money here.

      Revisionists don’t go back and put themselves in other’s shoes, people in the past, in context. They try to imagine what they, as oh-so-enlightened 21st century pacifists, would have done to stop all bad things from happening.

      Racism, sexism, and warfare, all would not exist if Super-Revision Man was beamed back into earlier time periods.

      1. Racism, sexism, and warfare, all would not exist if Super-Revision Man was beamed back into earlier time periods.

        LOL, that is indeed the impression I get from these types.

        To paraphrase leftist luminary MLK, “a man’s true character should not be assessed by how he stands during times of comfort and convenience, but how he responds when confronted with conflict and controversy.”

        This quote applies to these revisionist types.

        Behind their comfortable 21st century suburban armchairs, it’s easy for them to pass moral judgment on benighted previous generations.

        Or to quote Ask a Korean, how can one say that their morality would trump their survival instinct when their survival instinct has never been tested?

        How differently would they have behaved if they were with Cortez and his conquistadores, white settlers on the Western frontier, or the Crusaders?

        (if they had been marching throughout the desert, nearly dying of thirst, and fighting tough Muslim armies, they would have been in a vicious mood when they had reached Jerusalem, too)

        This one blogger nailed it.


        You can never say that you would never commit murder if you’ve never had the opportunity or the motive. You can only hope to never be in that spot…Evil is defined by the need to survive. It is defined by a powerful biological imperative to sustain the existence of one’s self at any cost. If you take away all of our big cities, our many comforts, our technology and our social stability, then you will see the true nature of man’s capacity for evil. A desperate man will do desperate things and not one of us is exempt of it.

  7. I wonder what WWII would’ve looked like if the USSR and Germany kept their Non-Aggression Pact. Between 1939-1941, Germany and USSR were basically allies. Soviets shipped raw materials to Germany and Gerrmany helped with machine tools. The NKVD and Gestapo collaoborated in rooting out trouble makers. And you can sense a real sense of comradeship when you look at old photos of German and Soviet troops shaking hands in occupied Poland. Stalin actually considered joining the Axis powers! That would’ve made FDR and Churchill, both kike pawns, shit in their pants.

  8. Justin- Thanks for responding.

    Glad you concede on revisionism.

    Lowering ourselves to their level? You mean by the Firebombings? (that you say you’re in favor of) Or, that we should have went on bloodthirsty rampage thru Asia, killng millions and treating prisoners worse than animals, etc.

    Or, do you mean lower ourselves by the dropping of the Bombs?

    Keep in mind, Justin, I’ve never gone over the actual reasons the Bomb was dropped. I never said it was “of no military value”- that’s not true at all! I said it was “not a military necessity” for defeating Japan. Big difference!

    You say my view “isn’t neccessary” (gee, Thanks!) Really?
    You haven’t even heard me go over the REAL reasons why we dropped the Bombs!

    I don’t “assume” that some other country would have dropped some Nukes by now if we hadn’t in 1945. I know it.

    When has mankind EVER made a weapon that it hasn’t actually used? Answer: Never. (a neutron bomb doesn’t count- too similar)

    I do think you are a sharp guy- so don’t take what I say as condescending.

    Do you really think that other countries “dropping” bombs by testing them in remote areas is the same thing as actually USING them like we did? There is NO comparison.

    That’s naive, to the extreme.

    I guess I’ll have to go over the actual resons we dropped the Bombs next. I was hoping someone would help me out and spare me a typing cramp!

    1. It just seems like you’re indignant over me or others not agreeing with you. I take issue with what you know; it’s not necessarily what you know, and relativism belongs not in history.
      You have a bias toward dropping the bomb, so excuse me if I don’t take your word for it as proper and just. I’m not impressed by us doing it for political reasons, by your crystal ball that tells you our adversaries would’ve dropped them on us or our allies, and certainly not by your admission that they were not a “military necessity” in defeating them.
      The purpose of the firebombing was to take out our enemy. Well, we did so with overkill. We didn’t go for specific locations of Japan’s military, we just blanketed the whole city with bombs, city after city. It was indiscriminate bombing of a vast, populated area. Unlike the atomic bombs, the firebombs didn’t have to be this way.
      Truman had an infamous temper. It wasn’t reserved for just MacArthur. And where he lacked Roosevelt’s intellectual sophistication, Truman supplemented with his emotions. This insecurity expressed itself through a lack of international diplomacy. So rather than, say, try to talk some sense into the Soviet Foreign Minister, he just told him to go to hell. Classic Truman. Forget a meeting of the minds – when the honeymoon was over with international leaders, it was just my way or the highway. I’m Harry Truman. Tough. Not highbrow like FDR.
      I’m sure we could show off our references for our views, but I doubt that we’d convince the other of much.

      1. OK, Jewstin. I mean Justin.

        I really thought we were having an enlightening exchange, actually. I was actually NOT “getting indignant because you’re not agreeing with me.” That would be you. I was really trying to be nice.

        I’m not angry at all- I just can’t believe you don’t know the real reasons for the A Bombs (and the Firebombings). You still haven’t asked me what those reasons are, so that proves to me that you don’t care.

        You just keep making erroneous statements.
        The Firebombings were not a symptom of “Truman being a hothead”.
        They were done under Roosevelt.

        Roosevelt was also, famously, not an intellectual. Very smart, savvy, people-smart. Not a real intellectual. Just read his speeches, writings. He’s not a high-brow, really- he just came from that background, and cultivated that air about himself.

        If you don’t think that Roosevelt could be a hard ass, you didn’t study him enough.

        The purpose of the Firebombings wasn’t to “take out the enemy”

        Industrial neighborhoods and some military sites were targeted, but the main purpose was to terrorize, specifically to shock the Emperor, into surrendering. The Firebombings were done in Tokyo in an area all around the Imperial Palace, so he could see the destruction.

        I was going to inform you of the reasons for both the Firebombings and the A-Bombs, but I have decided that you are in unsufferable little prick. I don’t feel like arguing with a 25 year old.

        Fuck you, Jewstin.

        1. Justin is basically an ex-Jew, so anti-Semitic remarks won’t work well with him. He’s a Jewish convert to Christianity, so most Jews think he’s a scumbag traitor. I imagine he probably likes Jews less than you do, Mott.

        2. I’m going to keep this short, because your etiquette is lapsing, just like your understanding of my views. I would recommend however, some badly, needed self-analysis.
          First, I don’t understand what Judaism has to do with all this, and I’m not really Jewish anyway, so to take offense falls flat. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Jew, sounds like you beg to differ though – good for you. ::applause:: 2nd, I’m not 25, or in my 20’s even. 3rd, call me a little prick if you want, but I take comfort in that my wife says mine is the biggest she’s ever seen. We’re talking kosher frank, jumbo style . So don’t challenge me to a dick-off with your Gentile gherken. Try looking at it and say “little prick” with a straight face as you restrain yourself from blushing, lil’ boy. 😉 Anthony Weiner ain’t got shit on me. No bun is big enough to disguise it. I could easily moonlight a porn career. I have custom made underwear. The point I’m trying to make is “a prick” will do. Careful with your adjectives there buddy. I am blessedly endowed, but you have earned the chip on your shoulder, from day one. Actually I’m not going to keep this post short (as you’re beginning to see), but elongated.
          I will now recap some quotes for you.
          “Would you have volunteered for the invasion force, Dano?” “Views like yours are very, very, naive. Give liberalism a bad name.” “THIS REVISIONIST BULLSHIT MUST STOP.” (24 X) “My grandfather knew Truman. I’ve researched this to death.” “Everyone needs to stop w/the naivite. My dad was on Guam preparing for the invasion.” “I’m sure everyone here would have been more comfortable in a world where the SOVIETS or the CHINESE had dropped the bomb first.” “Paybacks are a motherfucker.” “… you whiny ultra-liberal revisionists LOVE YOU SOME JAPS but insist that “all Germans- all civilians- were guilty”, through more Jewish Revisionism.” “Freeman is a Jew and they love anything that’s anti-Whitey, in general.” “Truman made THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION OF ALL TIME.” “I’m not an anti-Semi- just harbor no illusions about them, (in you are Jew)” “Japs killed maybe 30 million in horrible fashion, but killed no Jews, so, they are NOBLE, INDIGINEOUS WARRIOR PEOPLE, with a “CODE OF HONOR” … “Hell no!” “@Dano- Tibbets is mass murderer? Fuck you.” “McNamara is your fave war criminal?” “Germans, all of them, are just plain evil to this day, I guess, and so deserved being incinerated alive by the hundreds of thousands?” “It just PISSES me off that the Revision Police …” “It drives me crazy that these A-Bomb revisionist … -” “Barf bag, please!” “… the Jew-Know-Whos, …” “evil Greman civilians are not to be pitied, noble Japs are.” “There would be none of this pussified hand-wringing bed-wetting over our use of the Bomb.” “I do think you are a sharp guy (Justin)- so don’t take what I say as condescending.” “OK, Jewstin. I mean Justin.” “I was actually NOT “getting indignant because you’re not agreeing with me.” “That would be you. I was really trying to be nice. I’m not angry at all-” “Fuck you, Jewstin.” “Jewstin, you’re banned.”
          What do you call mott 69 in a 3 way with 2 Jewish chicks? A JAP sandwich. With mott as the turkey in the middle of course. Mmmm .. white meat!
          Dude, you are an off-the-chain drama Queen. You need a throne to sit on, you she-he .. sorry, but this site ain’t it. Your feathers get ruffled more easily than Cher in a 70’s outfit dancing on stage. You’re an emotional nutcase who badly needs some meds. Why do you think all your friends and neighbors like you take them? That’s what Americans do! Don’t be quick to grow bitter – you’re too old to become emasculated.
          Now that we have established who is more manly, maybe I could get around to responding to your WWII points, if you could just drop your bozo the clown routine for a moment. Calm down, man. If you can’t handle it in here, you certainly couldn’t handle it on a battlefield!

        3. @ Justin

          How do you imbed links into your writing?

          For example, your “jumbo style” writing contains a link when you click on it.

          How do you do that? I’m tired of always having to cut and paste links at the end of sentences, and it would be smoother for me to imbed them.

  9. weird .. maybe Robert can show you – he can send you an email, in that form this won’t happen .. Robert, you should have a preview option on here

    1. Ex-Jewstin- Thanks for “keeping it brief.”

      Thanks for claiming you are not a Jew and then admitting that you are.

      Thanks for calling me confused when I am told you are a “Jewish convert to Christianity”. Why doncha accept Mohammed and cover all the bases.

      – Oh, and you sure fuckin’ cuss a lot for a fuckin’ alleged Christian.

      Thanks for clarifying what a huge, narcissitic prick you are.

      Thanks for quoting every point of mine without responding to any of them. Really, Thanks!

      Thanks for criticizing my etiquette and then elevating the discussion to Weinerville. Unlike you, I don’t need to brag.

      Thanks for calling me too easily provoked by responding with a really stupid 3rd grade potty mouth rant.

      I’ll give you this- mr. Ex-Jew: you’re a much better comedian than a historian. More proof that you’re a Jew!

      The “turkey” joke was cute- Ask you’re wife and your sister if they are free again this week.

      The Cher joke was just- gay. Only Gays reference Cher. Does your wife know you are also an “ex-Straight”? Maybe Michelle Bachmann can help you.

      1. No one read all your WWII hate-filled propaganda and smiled. But you admitted I was funny. Which is filled with more wisdom, humor or hate? You deserved to not be taken seriously because you thought you could just bully those you disagreed with into submission. One of the fallacies with that is thinking others want you to like them. They don’t care. But keep on doing the Mott thing – derision, ad hominen blah blah, ridicule, mocking, troll commentary, vitriol, racism, and fucking all of the commentators wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers. At least you pay them well for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)