The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

The book is bias as well. If you were to googlethe author you would see many articles of other historians accusing him of being a revisionist historian, especially by historian Robert Maddox. So all in all we have a leftist, anti-war and anti-state website citing a book from a historian who is being accused by other historians as a revisionist. Yet you see no bias. We had no idea that an atomic bomb could even cause such cancer. Had we known we wouldn't have sent soldiers in to participate in the clean up proving that the effects of radiation were not due to blatant U.S. disregard for human life, but do to our limited knowledge on the effects of such a weapon. On surrender: We didn't ignore their pleas for surrender, my source states this about the Japanese reaction to the Potsdam surrender terms "The initial response of the Japanese Government to the Declaration was mokusatsu, which has the literal meaning "to kill with silence." Your source says "On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."The next day, Japanese newspapers reported that the Declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped by leaflet into Japan, had been rejected. In an attempt to manage public perception, Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated: I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." 1. Your source outright claims that 4 of the 6 military leaders of Japan wanted to reject the Potsdam declaration 2. Your source states that the PM of Japan said, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). WE WILL DO NOTHING BUT PRESS ON TO THE BITTER END TO BRING ABOUT A SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE WAR." 3. That statement from the Prime Minister of Japan himself was what the U.S. heard last of the Potsdam declaration as your own source claims, "The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which fairly accurately described the range of reactions within the government.[73] But Suzuki's statement, particularly its final sentence, leaves LITTLE ROOM FOR MISINTERPRETATION AND WAS TAKEN AS A REJECTION BY THE PRESS, BOTH IN Japan and ABROAD" 4. The Big Six publically stated they were going to fight till the bitter end, as you just stated how on earth did the U.S. know what went on when they were "privatley making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union" 5. Another quote from your source, "For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history. Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war.". 6. Another. "In keeping with the custom of a new government declaring its purposes, following the May meetings the Army staff produced a document, "The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War," which stated that the Japanese people would fight to extinction rather than surrender. This policy was adopted by the Big Six on June 6. (Tōgō opposed it, while the other five supported it.) 7. Your timeline is filled with errors. It's true we were intercepting their messages for quiet some time and we knew they wanted peace. That's why we presented the Potsdam weeks before the bombings. If you looked over it it contained good surrender terms. We offered them a chance to surrender after we knew they wanted peace and they blatantly rejected it, they didn't respond to it at all. So all in all, Japan wanted Peace U.S. offers Potsdam declaration, offers peace with reasonable conditions Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration U.S. nukes Japan effectively ending the war. Conclusion, there were no "pleas to surrender" and therefore the military of Japan was mobilizing for an invasion that was the result of their blatant ignorance to the very leniant demands of the Potsdam Declaration. Anti-Americanism, yes but you are asking for the impossible. They had resentment towards us after we cut off trade with them after we found out they invaded China and massacred millions in mainland Asia. There was going to be resent towards the U.S. no matter what we did. Japans own actions determined who they had resentment towards, not ours. All in all, there is no pleasing a tyrannical, imperialist and unjust nation committing millions of murders. The Germans and the Nazi's had resentment towards the Red Army when they took Berlin. That was not a mere quote. That was the stated goal of the USSR after the government was established in 1919. That was still the stated goal when Joseph Stalin came to power but that's as far as I know it lasted, but even still beyond that I find it very hard to believe that the Soviet Union went through sweeping changes in basic ideology over the transition from reign from Stalin to Khrushchev. Keep in mind it was under Stalin that started the nuclear weapons program and developed the atomic bomb The Korea War, Vietnam War, Russo Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, and the other various civil wars in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia, instigated by the Cold War which were the most costly of our modern day conflicts, were over conflicting political ideologies, not nuclear weapons. The only conflict that has been even suggested of being about nuclear weapons or rather WMD's was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is still debated. Had the majority of U.S. military and political leaders opposed the atomic bombings and thought an invasion was not needed as an alternative Operation Downfall would never have gotten off of the drawing board http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Please read this. http://www.essortment.com... Many of my points came from your sources. In conclusion it is obvious that judging by Japan's aggressive actions regarding surrender combined with their obvious rejection of decent surrender terms, the U.S. had every reason to believe Japan would fight off an invasion force. Seeing as Japan declared as many as 28 million where in a civilian self defense force the U.S. had every right to believe an invasion was going to be costly especially to the Japanese. In order to prevent a costly land invasion which many experts at the time claimed would take millions of lives, a number to high to even dare take a chance on, the U.S. had no other choice but to drop the nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians in order to save perhaps, millions of Japanese as well as American lives. The USSR's very goals of world conquest would have undoubtedly caused a Cold War and with many countries developing the atomic bomb during WW2, a nuclear arms race was inevitable between the two opposing superpowers, regardless of U.S. actions against Japan.