Nagasaki - what was really targetted and why?

[Monna]

Neither of the atom bombs over Japan were necessary for ending the war. And they were not the reason for Japan's capitulation. It was the advancing soviet army that scared them, and with that in mind they capitulated to the US because they reasoned they'd get a better deal. (there is no 'peace treaty' with Russia yet! and there remain issues on the occupation/ownership of Kruil islands north of Hokkaido.)
The cynic asks: "but what was the USA going to do with these weapons; how were they going to show the world the aweful power they now possessed, if they didn't use them?"

 

[Albion]

Neither of the atom bombs over Japan were necessary for ending the war. And they were not the reason for Japan's capitulation. It was the advancing soviet army that scared them, and with that in mind they capitulated to the US because they reasoned they'd get a better deal.

If that were so, why did the Japanese government not surrender following Hiroshima and came close to not surrendering even after Nagasaki?

Anyway, the well-known preparations for a fight to the death by every subject of the Emperor--some aspects of which have already been mentioned on this thread--also refute the Soviet advance theory.

 

[RDKirk]

If that were so, why did the Japanese government not surrender following Hiroshima and came close to not surrendering even after Nagasaki?

Anyway, the well-known preparations for a fight to the death by every subject of the Emperor--some aspects of which have already been mentioned on this thread--also refute the Soviet advance theory.

Yes, nobody in that time and place who had actually fought the Japanese had any doubt that they would fight to the death.

 

[Albion]

As has already been touched upon, the preparations, instructions, and rationale had already been disseminated to the people by their government.

 

[jamesbond007]

They got a free shot at a Catholic community and took it.

... is the god of the world and prince of the air.

 

[jamesbond007]

Nobody in that time and place who had actually fought the Japanese had any doubt that they would fight to the death.

No question the Japanese military*, but not the citizens. This thread is not to relive any military strategy, but to understand the second target. Many stories like it in WW II and other wars. Why do churches get bombed when people are targeted?

* - One of the most moving and compelling reasons why the Japanese military was like that is explained in a dramatic and moving way in Masaki Kobayashi's Harakiri (Seppuku in Japanese) film. People wanted me to see it for years, but had put it off until last year. My mistake. Kobayashi was a war resister. One thing I could not understand was the mind of the war resister, i.e. someone willing to risk everything and go to prison for telling their country what they believe. Did you have any friends like that? I ended up reading a book called No-No Boy about a Japanese-American war resister. It takes as much courage to stand up to your government in times of war due to what you believe than fight; It's a different fight and it continues afterward.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Evidence implies that the obvious second military target in Japan was ignored (which was in clear weather), and the replacement target Nagasaki (in much worse weather) had only one major military target - the mitsubishi ship yards.

But the bomb did not strike even close to the shipyard ...it was several KM north, the epicentre was the Cathedral. Nagasaki was the actually the thriving and growing centre of japanese Christianity and nicknamed "little Rome" because of it.

And those deciding the targetting were part of the so called "brotherhood of death" - a masonic society, determined to wipe out christianity.

It may be just a conspiracy theory, but it is particularly nasty.
And there never was a logic behind Nagasaki as a military target - which would have been way down any list of military target options.
You judge....

The Secret of Nagasaki

Considering the fact that the entire Japanese population was under a spell of death before surrender. And training for that. And that the US Navy’s postwar plan for Japan was genocide. Which of course was rejected. I’d say if it was done just to target civilians in hopes of crushing the nations spirt. None of it matters. The Japanese were exteme even by Nazi standards. No point to conspiracy theories when dealing with that kind of evil.

 

[RDKirk]

No question the Japanese military*, but not the citizens.

Again, the experience of the battle for Okinawa was instructive.

 

[gideon123]

Military logic can seem very cruel, but war is very cruel. I do not think there is any doubt that the Japanese would have defended their homeland 'down to the last man'. The toll in American lives - for a US invasion of the Japanese mainland - would have been huge. But also ... the toll in the lives of ordinary Japanese civilians would have been huge. Even if conventional war had been used, the cost in Japanese civilian lives would have been enormous.

Also, if the Japanese had obtained the A-bomb first, dont you think they would have dropped it on America? Maybe Honolulu, maybe Los Angeles. Of course they would have. War is war, war is very cruel.

Nagasaki was the backup target. The results of the bombing were analyzed for military purposes. True. The weapon itself is a broad-scale weapon. It is not a higjly-specific weapon. If you drop an A-bomb on a city, say goodbye to that city. The "ground zero" does not matter.

I do not believe the military planners were at fault in any way. They were obeying orders. There was a war going on. The decision to use the A-bombs went all the way up the chain to the President Of The United States. The buck stopped there.

I am not minimizing the horrible effects of those weapons. Go and read the letters written by the Mayor Of Hiroshima. Everybody should. But Christians should not be repeating gossip and conspiracy theories.

Blessings!

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

You wrote:

preparations for a fight to the death by every subject of the Emperor

You see, I always see statements like that as being a matter of which side you're on. Seems to me that there were an awful lot of American and allied soldiers who were also prepared to fight to the death being subjects of their respective governments. Most every soldier in every nation is prepared to fight to the death. Even trained for it. For me, the Japanese soldier and the American soldier are neither much different. It's just a matter of who they were fighting for and what they were fighting for.

Now I fully agree, that the Japanese government took the initiative at Pearl Harbor in escalating the war, but let's not blame the poor soldier for merely doing what his nation expected him to do. Certainly not any more than we blame the American soldiers in Vietnam for going over there and attacking and killing Vietnam so that France could maintain its colonialism.

It generally is neither the soldier's nor the populace's responsibility for most of the wars fought over the face of the globe. It's pretty much plain and simply political power and might of one government over another. Of course, in order to maintain our killing force's moral we have to explain it in a 'we're better than them' strategy.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

You wrote:


You see, I always see statements like that as being a matter of which side you're on. Seems to me that there were an awful lot of American and allied soldiers who were also prepared to fight to the death being subjects of their respective governments. Most every soldier in every nation is prepared to fight to the death. Even trained for it.

To begin with, Ted, the point was about every last resident, not just the men in the military. I felt that this point was made clear in the earlier post. In addition, there is no comparison between the instructions given to the American people by our government and those given to the Japanese. Somewhere in an earlier post, it was mentioned that women were told to get a sharp stick and stab the first enemy soldier they might come into contact with . I assure you that this was just one little example. That is how far the Imperial Japanese government had committed itself to defending the home islands--prior to the dropping of the Atom bombs, that is.

 

[JackRT]

It is my understanding that, even after the Emperor ordered the government to surrender, there were high ranking military officers that wanted to defy him and carry on fighting. I think we should be incredibly thankful that an actual invasion of Japan was never necessary.

 

[Albion]

It is my understanding that, even after the Emperor ordered the government to surrender, there were high ranking military officers that wanted to defy him and carry one fighting.

Absolutely. Even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed--and, by the way, the Japanese did not know that we didn't have a dozen more bombs of this magnitude set to drop on other of their cities within days--the Emperor's cabinet was divided on whether to surrender or not.

 

[roman2819]

The percentage of Christians in Japan has always been socially insignificant. Moreover, Christians were socially disadvantaged as well.

Back in the 80s, I knew an elderly Japanese Christian woman who had been a young girl in Osaka during WWII. Her father had actually been a Christian missionary in Manchuria who spent the war in a Japanese prison camp. She said that when US bombers struck Osaka, she didn't know how to feel about it--whether she wanted the Allies to defeat the Japanese or not, because she was afraid of both the bombers and the Japanese government.

She also reported that the Japanese were preparing for a land invasion by teaching young girls like her to make bamboo knives so as to lure American soldiers close, stab them, and them stab themselves.

thanks for sharing how the dilemma theJapanese citizen felt.

 

[RDKirk]

To begin with, Ted, the point was about every last resident, not just the men in the military. I felt that this point was made clear in the earlier post. In addition, there is no comparison between the instructions given to the American people by our government and those given to the Japanese. Somewhere in an earlier post, it was mentioned that women were told to get a sharp stick and stab the first enemy soldier they might come into contact with . I assure you that this was just one little example. That is how far the Imperial Japanese government had committed itself to defending the home islands--prior to the dropping of the Atom bombs, that is.

In addition, the US military did not have anything like the obligation to commit suicide. Would we risk death? Of course, that's what war is. Would a soldier volunteer for a mission from which survival was a slim possibility? Yes, if the benefit of success was great enough. Would a commander order men into situations in which death was highly likely? Yes--if the benefit of success was great enough. But require suicide as a simple matter of the battle? No.

 

[Albion]

In addition, the US military did not have anything like the obligation to commit suicide. Would we risk death? Of course, that's what war is. Would a soldier volunteer for a mission from which survival was a slim possibility? Yes, if the benefit of success was great enough. Would a commander order men into situations in which death was highly likely? Yes--if the benefit of success was great enough. But require suicide as a simple matter of the battle? No.

That's certainly a point worth making.

 

[Mountainmike]

This thread has somewhat drifted to the question of how necessary bombing was.

Interesting though that may be, It wasn't the purpose of the thread:

which was to put clear doubt on why Nagasaki was chosen over many of greater military significance and even what was the real target in Nagasaki?

Begging The question as to whether militant Masonic atheists with power over planning deliberately targeted the growing and powerful centre of Christianity in Japan called " little Rome" . If it istrue they accepted wiping out POW camps as just " collateral damage"

Such is the morally bankrupt philosophy of relativism and atheism .

If true it was heinous.

 

[Quort]

In most warfare conducted by this country before the firebombing of Dresden it was assumed that one does not target civilians. Occasional civilian casualties were an unintended consequence. Nuclear weapons did target civilian populations. That was a shift, started at Dresden, continued at Nagasaki. It was evil.

Actually the U.S. started this policy during the War Between the States. 'Total War' they like to call it. They used it on their own people, the Southern people of the U.S. They would later use it on the American Indian.

Quort

 

[Albion]

This thread has somewhat drifted to the question of how necessary bombing was.

Interesting though that may be, It wasn't the purpose of the thread:

which was to put clear doubt on why Nagasaki was chosen over many of greater military significance and even what was the real target in Nagasaki?

Begging The question as to whether militant Masonic atheists with power over planning deliberately targeted the growing and powerful centre of Christianity in Japan called " little Rome" . If it istrue they accepted wiping out POW camps as just " collateral damage"

Such is the morally bankrupt philosophy of relativism and atheism .

If true it was heinous.

You are correct about the drift in the discussion that has occurred, but at least it is centered on a matter of historic fact. That video which started us off with its various conspiracy theories is so lacking in credibility that this may explain the drift that has taken place.

 

[LightLoveHope]

People often overlook incendiary killed more people than the nuclear bombs.
The nuclear bomb was a threat, that you could not argue against.

The death toll through suicide fighting was ridiculous. Though the japanese had lost the war, they were prepared as a total society from the children up to fight to the death.

It was this insanity and how the soldiers held out on the islands to the death, that made the war ludicrous. It was no longer a question of defeat, but getting them to agree they would die, without honour or sense, unless they surrendered.

So any conspiracy theory over targets etc is pointless, because the big picture was unless you surrender, the end.