https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/09/atomic-bombings-were-needless-ww-iis-top-us-brass/
An excerpt:
Those who attack this mythology are often reflexively dismissed as unpatriotic, ill-informed or both. However, the most compelling witnesses against the conventional wisdom were patriots with a unique grasp on the state of affairs in August 1945 — America’s senior military leaders of World War II.
Let’s first hear what they had to say, and then examine key facts that led them to their little-publicized convictions:
-
General Dwight Eisenhower on learning of the planned bombings: “I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and voiced to [Secretary of War Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’.”
-
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s Chief of Staff: “The use of this barbarous weapon… 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.”
-
Major General Curtis LeMay, 21st Bomber Command: “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.”
-
General Hap Arnold, US Army Air Forces: “The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.” “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
-
Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy: “The Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and the Swiss…In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb.”
-
Brigadier General Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer who prepared summaries of intercepted cables for Truman: “When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it…we used [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Many other high-level military officers concurred.”
-
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Pacific Fleet commander: “The use of 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.”
Putting out feelers through third-party diplomatic channels, the Japanese were seeking to end the war weeks before the atomic bombings on August 6 and 9, 1945. Japan’s navy and air forces were decimated, and its homeland subjected to a sea blockade and allied bombing carried out against little resistance.
. . . We like to think of our system as one in which the supremacy of civilian leaders acts as a rational, moderating force on military decisions. The needless atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — against the wishes of World War II’s most revered military leaders — tells us otherwise.
Embrace of Sinister Principle
Sadly, the destructive effects of the Hiroshima myth aren’t confined to Americans’ understanding of events in August 1945. “There are hints and notes of the Hiroshima myth that persist all through modern times,” State Department whistleblower and author Peter Van Buren said on “The Scott Horton Show”.
The Hiroshima myth fosters a depraved indifference to civilian casualties associated with U.S. actions abroad, whether it is women and children slaughtered in a drone strike in Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands dead in an unwarranted invasion of Iraq, or a baby who dies for lack of imported medicine in US-sanctioned Iran.
Ultimately, to embrace the Hiroshima myth is to embrace a truly sinister principle: That, in the correct circumstances, it is right for governments to intentionally harm innocent civilians. Whether the harm is inflicted by bombs or sanctions, it is a philosophy that mirrors the morality of al Qaeda.
I’ve read every firsthand account of fighting in the pacific I could find. All of them state pretty plainly that 99% of the Japanese wanted to die in combat, this is reinforced by all Japanese first hand accounts at the time. What research led you to conclude this was not the case? The Japanese were preparing the mainland for an extended defensive slog
Where did you get that 99% number? More than 1% of Japanese soldiers surrendered prior to the bombings. They were tired, starved, wanted to see their families and didn't buy into honor killing themselves. And, yes, there were plenty of evil SoBs within the Japanese army (Rape of Nanking, Bataan, Dutch Nurses, etc..) who felt dying was better than submitting. But 99%? That sounds pretty high.
Fact is, the Japanese government - with the encouragement of the Emperor who knew they could not win - were already making overtures for surrender before the bombs fell. Yes, there were still a few highly-publicized, brainwashed Nippon soldiers and citizens who were willing to die for the Emperor rather than submit to the Allies. The newspapers in Japan were pushing that shaming narrative for public consumption. We all know newspapers wouldn't push false narratives to influence people, right? Most of the "Every Japanese would die rather than surrender" was pure propaganda. On both sides.
I did research why our country purposely bombed civilians in WWII. Some of it was retaliatory, but much of it was sinister and psychopathic in scope. The very quotes above from OP were part of it. FWIW, my research originally stemmed from my father's regret of the Dresden bombings. I don't see the justification for purposely killing civilians to end a war. But your take on it may vary.