Another little tidbit the biased left wing media forgot to mention

[Drich]

It's easy to get all worked up like Drich is. At the same time, the cumulative effect of that bias makes it easy to not notice and easier to dismiss. The liberal bias is subtle but it is definitely there. If you make a big deal out of it though it seems like over reaction.

In this case, though, the issue isn't media bias as a stand-alone.  Drich intimated that only under-the-radar type news outlets covered the story, that liberal media wasn't interested.

Since this is patently false (I'm given to understand that the New York Times is somewhere left of centre) it isn't so much that Drich is getting worked up over liberal bias as it is that he's getting worked up over an instance of bias that does not exist.  This may very well be because Drich is a lunatic.

Boru

False dichotomy:
Aside from the fact you have made claims without ANY citations to back your argument. I have provided a link and a synopsis of two of your sources that show the stories published did not include the elements of the OP you are pretending to be included.

Apples to apples sport, maybe try comparing the two before you take your next victory lap.

[The Grand Nudger]

3.  At Yalta, Stalin had agreed to attack Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered.  That date was August 8th, 1945.  Do you think it was a coincidence that the first bomb was dropped on August 6th?

I'm not sure what I'm being asked.  Are you asking me whether or not we wanted to end it quickly, end it before the soviets could, end it in a way that would send a message to the soviets?  Yes to all three.  

The soviets long claimed that the bombs had been pointless...a message to the Soviet Union (though we had been encouraged to use them -by- Stalin himself).  Had we let them invade they would complain about the half a million plus soviets we allowed to bleed out in the assault (further adding to the tally of human waste already incurred) by holding back on them with the most powerful weapon the world had ever seen, which they certainly knew that we possessed.  

There was no choice, in context, the bombs would be deployed.  Anything and everything would be done to end the war quickly.  The japanese were not planning to surrender in the fashion that we are clearly imagining.  They were going to fight to the death for a better position at the inevitable table.  There would be no unconditional surrender (a policy not designed for them any more than the bombs were). They would surrender conditionally, by means of resistance of the sort we had encountered at iwo jima...only far, far more intense had we reached the mainland.  This was an unacceptable alternative to the use of the bombs, as american decision-makers then saw it.

We ended up accepting a conditional anyway, just without the carnage of the invasion. Those two factors I listed lead, primarily and compelling, to the bombs being dropped. Yes, the anti-soviet interests within our government hitched a ride. It would have been ludicrous for them to pass up on the opportunity it presented. That's not -why- they were dropped. Had there -been- no soviets in the world we still would have dropped those bombs.

[Pat Mustard]

A handful of junior officers tried a coup.  A regiment of soldiers followed the orders of their officers without really knowing why... as is usually the case.   It was crushed by loyal elements.  The insurrectionists killed themselves.  It was hardly "the military" trying to stop the surrender.  

It was far more about the Russians than it was about the Japs.

It was the Ministry of War and the Imperial Guard, no? Toland as well documents the intransigence of quite a few generals.

I agree that it was more about the Russians, both to secure the islands from them quicker and to send a message to them, but the bombs were certainly cheaper in lives than either an outright invasion or continued submarine blockade.

By the time of the coup, the hawk generals and ministers had acceded to the inevitable, and given assent to negotiating surrender.

[Faith No More]

I don't care what context you put it in. Using throwing rocks as an analogy for world conquest, this, this and this is disingenuous bullshit.

[Minimalist]

A handful of junior officers tried a coup.  A regiment of soldiers followed the orders of their officers without really knowing why... as is usually the case.   It was crushed by loyal elements.  The insurrectionists killed themselves.  It was hardly "the military" trying to stop the surrender.  

It was far more about the Russians than it was about the Japs.

It was the Ministry of War and the Imperial Guard, no? Toland as well documents the intransigence of quite a few generals.

I agree that it was more about the Russians, both to secure the islands from them quicker and to send a message to them, but the bombs were certainly cheaper in lives than either an outright invasion or continued submarine blockade.

It was the generals, specifically general Shizuichi Tanaka which ended the coup led by several majors and captains. 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/08...-AOODV6ZjM

General Mori was killed by the conspirators. 

Toland's opinion was that IIRC the Japanese were relying on Russian assistance to such a degree that when Stalin, who was punctual to the day in keeping his promise to Roosevelt, attacked the Manchurian army they would have surrendered.  They were already talking about it.  Sure there was an inbred fanaticism that they had gone a long way to fostering but in fact the leaders knew it was over and, as happened historically, when the Emperor spoke the army obeyed.  But Truman was not Roosevelt.  He had not built up any sort of understanding of Stalin during the war years and was far more concerned with the post-war phase rather than just ending the fighting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seriously?  You're comparing the PTO to Israel's policy of bombing civilians?  Japan in 1941 was a expanding, powerful empire.  Its policy of conquest in Asia was an existential threat.  Israel, on the other hand, are performing actions that are all out of proportion to what the Palestinians are doing.

The only way you could seriously compare the two would be if the Japanese had snuck into Hawaii and sprayed 'Roosevelt is a Homo' on a palm tree and then run away, at which point the US immediately began dropping bombs on preschools.

Boru

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

At the time the atomic bombs were considered to be big fire bombs. Earlier firebombing of Tokyo had killed 116,000 people in one night. (The government of Japan moved war industries into private homes to decentralize it.) "Fallout" wasn't understood at the time and we had no test data as to what a bomb would do to animals, or cities for that matter. 

Retrofitting Cold War horror stories in 1945 is asinine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

3.  At Yalta, Stalin had agreed to attack Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered.  That date was August 8th, 1945.  Do you think it was a coincidence that the first bomb was dropped on August 6th?

When Truman left Potsdam he wrote to Bess and said, "I have achieved the one thing I came to Germany to do, that is to get a promise from Stalin that they would join the Pacific War." Truman wanted to do EVERYTHING he could to end the killing. The Chinese had been losing million of people the Japanese for years, we wanted to stop that.

[Minimalist]

Potsdam ended Aug. 2, 1945.  Russian plans would have been well-advanced by then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Potsdam ended Aug. 2, 1945.  Russian plans would have been well-advanced by then.

FM Vazilevsky told the Great Stalin he could fling a few divisions onto Hokkaido by the 22nd. Dzugashvili  canceled that on the 21st. That's five days after the announcement of the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.