LA Times faults TRUMAN, not Japan, for atom bomb
Goebbels in charge at LA Times because they are telling the “Big Lie”
The premise Japan was on the verge of surrender is ridiculous, in fact, the Japanese had fought ferociously at every island, every base and in every conflict with the US up to that point and had made the point clear through those conflicts, they not only did not intend to surrender they intended to fight to the last man.
Two war cabinet votes without a surrender decision by the Japanese, just DAYS before the bomb drop, exist as proof this idea is nothing but the creation of Liberals who want to shame America, blame her, destroy her.
That’s the truth of it, how else could they blame the only nation on Earth to ever win a life or death struggle of a war against capable enemies – and then rebuild, stabilize and help create wonderful countries where civil rights exist — out of those same enemies.
The LA Times used the President’s visit to Hiroshima as a news hook to publish this trash. It’s a big lie, Truman was a good man who saved the lives of millions of Japanese with that decision and who also went on to win the peace for those countries.
Shame on the LA Times for letting their editorial board sink to such lows. By the way, even their readers didn’t agree, no wonder,
Here it is straight from the LA Times:
As far as presidents making history goes, this is a big deal: President Obama paid a visit to Hiroshima, Japan, on Friday, marking the first time a sitting commander in chief traveled to one of the two cities incinerated by American atomic weapons at the end of World War II. Whether that conflict would have ended without the eternally controversial decision by the U.S. to use its deadliest weapon against Japan was the subject taken up by filmmaker Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick on The Times’ op-ed page this week.
Their verdict: Japan was ready to surrender, bomb or no bomb, and President Truman’s decision to destroy the two cities with nukes was more about showing off American power than bringing the war to a close. They write:
The atomic bombings, terrible and inhumane as they were, played little role in Japanese leaders’ calculations to quickly surrender. After all, the U.S. had firebombed more than 100 Japanese cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just two more cities destroyed; whether the attack required one bomb or thousands didn’t much matter. As Gen. Torashirō Kawabe, the deputy chief of staff, later told U.S. interrogators, the depth of devastation wrought in Hiroshima and Nagasaki became known only “in a gradual manner.” But “in comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a great shock.”
When Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki was asked on Aug. 10 why Japan needed to surrender so quickly, he explained, “the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Karafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States.” Japanese leaders also feared the spread of Soviet-inspired communist uprisings and knew the Soviets would not look kindly upon their paramount concerns — protecting the emperor himself and preserving the emperor system.
Truman understood the stakes. He knew the Soviet invasion would end the war. He knew assuring Japan about the emperor might also lead to surrender. But he decided to use the atomic bombs anyway.
» Click here to read more.
Letter writers side with Truman. Since President Obama announced earlier this month that he would be visiting Hiroshima, for the most part readers — some of whom were in uniform in 1945 and credit the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with preventing their deaths — have said the United States has nothing to apologize for. Readers whose letters on the topic have been published this week (here and here) echo that sentiment.