The CODOH Revisionist Forum

That's the excuse given for dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, both civilian sites.
Considering that the final terms of surrender were the same as before the bombs were dropped I suggest that using the A-bombs did nothing to save Allied lives and were war crimes on a massive scale.

- Hannover

I agree too. Obviously this is a controversial topic, but I think that the bomb *wasn't* to save lives, but rather as a form of propaganda directed at the Soviets to force a better deal at the bargaining table, while the maps were in the process of being redrawn.
Bear in mind that after the Soviet forces declared a surprise war on Japan despite their agreement to a ceasefire until 1946 (Stalin agreed at the Yalta conference that he would invade Japan 'two or three months after the fall of Germany), and invaded Sakhalin, it was estimated that it they would invade Hokkaido (Japan's northern island) within just two weeks, while a U.S. invasion onto Japanese soil would be delayed for months.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
Accepting the Japanese surrender to the U.S. (which was already being discussed) was the only way to avert a potentially Soviet Japan, and was the sensible choice in a military sense.

Interestingly, the people most responsible *didn't* believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary in a strategic sense. They saw it as a political decision, rather than a military one: http://www.sott.net/article/296044-The-Soviet-Union-was-the-ultimate-target-of-the-nuclear-attack-on-Japan-during-WWII

The decision to drop the A-bombs rested with US president Harry Truman as he was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ruman.html

The head of US armed forces in the Pacific Douglas MacArthur stated that the use of the atomic bombs was not necessary as the Japanese had stated they were already willing to surrender. The head of US armed forces in Europe Dwight Eisenhower also let it be known that it was not necessary to use this weapon. The claim that it was used to save American lives is a lie -
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/2/1/1913

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible crime. Wars are always horrible and there is nothing exciting or glorious about them, ever, and this case shows the hypocrisy of humanity, how a diabolical massacre has been declared as "justified" by many people only because it has been committed by the "winning side".

James Perloff reviews the book Atomic Bomb Secrets by David J Dionisi. Some interesting facts are revealed :
1. The claim that the atomic bombings were meant as a show of force to deter Stalin's plans of communist expansion are false as both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations had shipped both blueprints and materials for making atomic weapons to the Soviet Union.
2. Nagasaki had the largest Christian population in Japan and the atomic bomb was detonated directly over Urakami cathedral.
3. Freemasonry was banned in Japan in the 1930s. Roosevelt and Truman were both high ranking masons - was this a payback ?
https://jamesperloff.com/2016/09/09/boo ... b-secrets/

Was Hiroshima Necessary ? is an article by Mark Weber. The author came to the conclusion that it was not. This opinion piece originally appeared in the Journal of Historical Review in May/June 1997.
https://codoh.com/library/document/2673/

A review of 2 books on the subject - Racing For The Bomb : General Leslie Groves The Indispensable Man by Robert Norris and The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz. From the article - "In March 1945 MacArthur sent Lt Gen George Kenney the head of his air forces to Washington to brief the Joint Chiefs on the situation in the Pacific. In a long talk with Chief of Staff Gen George Marshall on March 16 Kenney argued that Japan had lost its air power, its navy and merchant marine and that there was no longer any necessity to wait for an end to the war in Europe or for the Russians to enter the Pacific war before moving toward a surrender" and "It was quite evident from a study of the context of the messages that the Japanese realised further resistance was futile and were willing to grant any concessions to halt the war providing the Emperor remained as the spiritual head of the country Kenney wrote".
The US war against Japan started with the lie of the "unprovoked" attack at Pearl Harbor - http://www.cwporter.com/japanwas.htm - and ended with a lie that the atomic bombs were necessary to end the conflict.
https://larouchepub.com/other/2002/revi ... shima.html

Youtuber Shaun put out a video a few years ago on the dropping of the atomic bombs. He's mainly a lefty Youtuber who usually puts out videos that in my opinion, are not that good, to put it mildly. Although this video seems pretty interesting nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go

He of course has his own lefty spin on things, which you should take into consideration when watching it.

Pacifist wrote:The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible crime. Wars are always horrible and there is nothing exciting or glorious about them, ever, and this case shows the hypocrisy of humanity, how a diabolical massacre has been declared as "justified" by many people only because it has been committed by the "winning side".

When WW2 is debated "German Crimes" are commonly brought up. Asking how they stand to 'Allied Crimes' like mass civilian bombings including the atomic bombs, they quickly reply that this was 'necessary' or 'military action'. That internment and reprisals can be considered 'necessary' as well has them puzzled for a moment... The reply than is that German/Axis crimes were 'unique' in a way and that the Allies fought 'for democracy' and 'humanity'. One gets the reason why the Allied say would lie and embellish the narrative of 'Axis Crimes' pretty quickly. They need a categorically distinct feature in this to justify Allied Crimes. Reflecting on this one gets a bit puzzled how dumb this all is.

I also recall the reply that 'their side won', which is getting childish. Apparently alignment is made towards 'the victors' as to try to be on the 'stronger side', which gets a pass or assigned 'good qualities'. Must be somehow a humane feature wherein people tend to side they deem stronger. But in the end this is all skewing the few on things as well as judgement.

As I recall it, Japan was ready to surrender. From the American perspective there is of course some ambition to 'test the new weapon' and show the world what they can do. The American populace is also made 'partners in crime' that way, agreeing then to any justification including accusations against the enemy. With Americans I also noticed that they'd support violence against 'enemies of America', even if they are thousands of miles away and are no credible threat to the US at all. They indulge in 'bombing those countries to the stone age', it is something I haven't noticed with other nations at all. They tend to have a more sober look at things.

Hektor wrote:

Pacifist wrote:The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible crime. Wars are always horrible and there is nothing exciting or glorious about them, ever, and this case shows the hypocrisy of humanity, how a diabolical massacre has been declared as "justified" by many people only because it has been committed by the "winning side".

When WW2 is debated "German Crimes" are commonly brought up. Asking how they stand to 'Allied Crimes' like mass civilian bombings including the atomic bombs, they quickly reply that this was 'necessary' or 'military action'. That internment and reprisals can be considered 'necessary' as well has them puzzled for a moment... The reply than is that German/Axis crimes were 'unique' in a way and that the Allies fought 'for democracy' and 'humanity'. One gets the reason why the Allied say would lie and embellish the narrative of 'Axis Crimes' pretty quickly. They need a categorically distinct feature in this to justify Allied Crimes. Reflecting on this one gets a bit puzzled how dumb this all is.

That's true. Fabricating a moral high ground for their own side is what Allied propagandists always do. That's the ultimate carte blanche because there exists no such thing as a war crime against a monster...









When some U.S. citizens protested against the atomization of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman just replied: "When you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast."









After Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been nuked by the U.S. army, the Zionists feared that the enormity of that mass slaughter of civilians could overshadow their own propaganda lie of six million slaughtered Jews and their leader (the New York rabbi who had launched the Zionist campaign of Holohoax atrocity propaganda in November 1942) stated that anti-Semitism was an atomic bomb which had just killed 6 million Jews, he claimed.