Oppenheimer reportedly apologized, cried in 1964 meeting with A-bomb victim

Bit late buddy.

But he later met Shono, who toured eight countries on a "World Peace Study Mission" in 1964. 

And just one year later, he said the following in a CBS News interview when asked whether dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary. He was a very conflicted man.

“The war had started in ‘39. It’d seen the death of tens of millions. It’d seen brutality and degradation, which had no place in the middle of the 20th century. And the ending of the war by this means, certainly cruel, was not undertaken lightly. But I am not confident, as of today, that a better course was then open.”

The japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own.

Whether Oppenheimer apologised or not was his choice. Japan on the other hand has made little effort over the years to apologise for it's aggression.

Down vote it all you want, it is an irrefutable fact.

It’s good to know that at least one American had human feelings. I’d like to see the footage.

"It is surprising that there are records of him apologizing." said Noriyuki Kawano, director of the Center for Peace, Hiroshima University.

“Oppenheimer himself couldn’t make up his mind how he felt about making and helping to use the bomb, right to the end of his life,” according to Greg Mitchell, the author of the 2020 book “The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”

In October 1945, Oppenheimer told President Truman, “Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.” In November 1945, he told an audience in Philadelphia that the bomb was “by all the standards of the world we grew up in … an evil thing.” He gave television interviews starkly elucidating the risk of nuclear war. In 1949, as the head of an advisory committee for the newly formed Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), he delivered a report warning against developing a hydrogen bomb—a fusion weapon more powerful than the Trinity, Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs—that had been conceived by fellow Manhattan Project scientist Teller. “A super bomb might become a weapon of genocide,” Oppenheimer wrote. “A super bomb should never be produced.” In 1953, he gave a speech likening the nuclear-capable United States and Soviet Union to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.”

And then during a 1965 interview with CBS News, two years before his death, he responded as quoted in the post above when asked whether dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary:

“The war had started in ‘39. It’d seen the death of tens of millions. It’d seen brutality and degradation, which had no place in the middle of the 20th century. And the ending of the war by this means, certainly cruel, was not undertaken lightly. But I am not confident, as of today, that a better course was then open.”

It’s good to know that at least one American had human feelings. I’d like to see the footage.

I hate using “Whataboutisms” but when talking about human feelings in World War 2 the Japanese were at the top of not having them.

Japanese leadership never apologize for starting the war, they are conspirators in the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Meiy,it obviously you do not know American racial history at this time, Japanese were not though highly at this time

It’s good to know that at least one American had human feelings.

What a ridiculous statement.

Tab, American are very emotional people, only people that lack the ability to express emotional would write this

That Oppenheimer was conflicted showed he was human. His life after the war was not easy for him, or others that were similar. He was accused by the extreme right movement - of the era- as being a 'Communist', and suffered as a result. Shame that one of the brightest minds of any time was used by the government to create the bomb, then discarded afterwards. He was not a WASP, so it was easier for those in power to go after him. For a good movie on the era see "Trumbo"

He was accused by the extreme right movement - of the era- as being a 'Communist',

McCarthyism was by no means an “extreme right movement”. Both mainstream Republicans and Democrats were involved in the movement.

Those two A-bombs saved at least 5 million Japanese lives by forcing a surrender.

So it was a much lessor evil of two.

And I forgot to mention, the nukes prevented the division of Japan into North Japan and South Japan along the Fukushima line, for the Soviet Union too would have landed on Japan from Hokkaido front.

And so whether Oppenheimer cried or not doesn't explain why Japan isn't a signatory of the TPNW nor have any of the LDP prime ministers met with ICAN even after the organization were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. Kishida who is from Hiroshima hasn't even thought about TPNW nor meeting with ICAN, but continues to do his PR stunt by escorting foreign dignitaries around the Hiroshima site. Stop playing the victim card and if Japan were serious about stopping not only nuclear weapons but all wars which is the root cause then start playing a real leadership role. BTW, my mother and all schools in Japan were practicing with bamboo spears to prepare for the eventual land invasion of Japan. Think about that before blaming Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer was an undoubted genius - but a very evil man. He absolutely knew the death and suffering on an unimagined scale he was going to cause.

Good to at least know he may have had at least some pangs of a conscience. Perhaps he was genuinely remorseful toward his life's end?

This is very suspicious, since in a US TV interview in the following year, in 1965, he says very clearly that the bomb “was the best course open” to end the war and other comments in favor of its use.

In this other case, the “footage” is of a few words by an interpreter who recounts something we can’t see or hear. Big deal. The Japanese media, which is making a big deal of this story, could at least show or refer to the contradicting 1965 publicly available interview. But as in all things on the atomic bomb in Japan, there’s only one side to the story, and a seriously flawed one at that.

See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdtLxlttrHg

Whether Oppenheimer apologised or not was his choice. Japan on the other hand has made little effort over the years to apologise for it's aggression.

True, and the millions of people who were given life as a result of the bombs hastening the end of the war give their thanks

TobleroneToday  07:36

The japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own.

Japan did some research on it. Nothing was ever started nor developed.

Millions would have died without the atomic bomb. One way or the other the war was going to end, and this was by far the fastest.

Also, remember, if you don't want to get bombed, don't start a war! The "we're victims" mentality of a lot of Japanese is as disgusting as it gets. There are many other war veterans and victims carrying their burden with greater dignity.

The apology came during an interaction between Oppenheimer and others including the late Naomi Shono, an A-bomb survivor from Hiroshima who was also a theoretical scientist, the late Yoko Teichler said in the 2015 footage in Japanese. Teichler was an interpreter at the meeting.

Oppenheimer was an American Prometheus, developed the A-bomb alongside other physicists like Einstein in a race against a Nazi program led by their former colleague Heisenberg, and a principled socialist and civil rights activist ahead of his time and persecuted for his beliefs in McCarthyite America. Similar to the ignorant red-baiting in vogue in the American politics of today.

That he reflected deeply on the eventual use of this tech is no surprise.

Japan did some research on it. Nothing was ever started nor developed.

Lets not pretend it was because of any moral reservations on it though

Zibala ..."given life as a result of the bombs "

Uncommentable.

Just because he apologised and cried doesn’t mean he was entirely wrong or completely regrets everything he did ?

Whether the bomb saved lives or not, I'll take Oppenheimer's word for it - it was an evil thing. If you stand in favor of the bomb there is no problem. But surely you realize that the bomb IS a step towards the hydrogen bombs we have today. While championing the bomb, it's best not to forget the terror it was (good or bad) and is. It's nothing to celebrate that the only country in the world that has used a super-bomb was the US. Whatever good it did, the bomb itself was a horror that shouldn't be diminished or pooh-poohed.

Sadly thes obsessed scientists rarely think of the consequences of some of their inventions until they have already opened Pandora's Box!

Zibala ..."given life as a result of the bombs "

I mean he’s right. If more people would have died from an invasion or blockade then there are people alive today who wouldn’t have been otherwise.

Oppenheimer was a highly intelligent man with a conscience unlike the dry-eyed political animals whose decisions are even now causing death and destruction to hundreds of thousands and even millions of innocent people.

Sadly thes obsessed scientists rarely think of the consequences of some of their inventions until they have already opened Pandora's Box.

Many of them had relatived fighting and have already lost a few family members in the war. I'm pretty sure they were thinking about any means that can beat Japan and stop the madness.

I've read widely on the bomb.

Japan was on it's knees, the US bomber command had no more targets..., the fascist military and enabling Govt. had young people training with sharpened bamboo spears , public mood turning against the war, public exhaustion etc., food shortages, displacement of hundreds of thousands people to avoid bombing.

I dont know whether the bomb saved lives .

I doubt it.

I also doubt it would have been used against a white target like Berlin.

It happened.

"Embracing Defeat " is a good account of Japan post surrender and under MacArthur.

This is not surprising that this has surfaced. It is well known that Oppenheimer who was very gung-ho with the Manhattan Project in order to fight the Germans, even to the extent of quashing objections from other scientists on gthe program, changed his personal views on the A-bomb after he saw the effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After WWII ended the US nuclear weapons program was in full gear in the face of the Russians and Oppenheimer himself was booted out.

I've read widely on the bomb.

Japan was on it's knees, the US bomber command had no more targets..., the fascist military and enabling Govt. had young people training with sharpened bamboo spears , public mood turning against the war, public exhaustion etc., food shortages, displacement of hundreds of thousands people to avoid bombing.

I dont know whether the bomb saved lives .

I doubt it.

I also doubt it would have been used against a white target like Berlin.

It happened.

"Embracing Defeat " is a good account of Japan post surrender and under MacArthur.

Japan had been preparing for an invasion (Katsugo) and there was no indication they were ready to surrender. Estimates put the 16th Area Army (the group responsible for the defense of Kyushu) at 900,00 men by the time of the wars end.

The strategy for Operation Ketsugo was delineated in an Imperial Japanese Army directive of 8 April 1945. The Japanese determined that the strategic center of gravity for the operation was the will of the American people to continue to support the Allied goal of “unconditional surrender” in the face of massive casualties. The Japanese assessed that the critical U.S. weakness was the ability to sustain such extremely high casualties. Thus, the primary objective of Ketsugo was not to hold territory or destroy equipment, but to kill as many Americans as possible regardless of the cost to the Japanese. The objective was to break the will of the American people to sustain such high casualties so that the war could be ended with a negotiated settlement that did not lead to foreign occupation of Japan. It is also apparent from Japanese plans that they intended to throw everything they had (at least in terms of aircraft and naval vessels) into the defense of Kyushu with the intent to kill as many Americans as possible at the beachhead. 

In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.

You need to read up on history more if you “doubt” the bombs killed more people than an invasion would

It was not necessary to drop them on populated areas. They could easily have invited the Japanese to view a demonstration in a remote area and threatened them that their cities would be next if they did not surrender.

It was not necessary to drop them on populated areas. They could easily have invited the Japanese to view a demonstration in a remote area and threatened them that their cities would be next if they did not surrender.

They didn’t surrender after seeing the effects of the first bomb on Hiroshima, what makes you think they would have surrendered after a demonstration?

It was not necessary to drop them on populated areas. They could easily have invited the Japanese to view a demonstration in a remote area and threatened them that their cities would be next if they did not surrender.

It was necessary--it was war.

Start a war, be prepared to be finished.

He had nothing to apologize for. The Germans and the Japanese were nothing trying to build the same bomb. While awful, he probably saved more Japanese and Americans and Russians if the war had continued, compared to the casualties of a full scale invasion coming down from Hokkaido by the Russians which would have divided Japan, and from the south by the Americans. More people died in the Tokyo air raids. I won’t sit here, looking back in hindsight, and judge these men. What would you do if you could end the war in 7 days? Continue for months on? Watch even more die? Are you happy for the men who fought for you to die? He may apologize but I think he saved way more lives. The Russians lost 8.7 million soldiers. American dead 400,000 thousand. How many more would have died if Russian and America launched a full scale invasion. But I respect the man for apologizing as he understands the impact it had. I guess Japan, Germany at Al learnt something sadly today’s dictators want to repeat the same mistakes.

OK Bone...I'll do what you do.

Sources please.

900,000 on Kyushu...doubtful.

I noted the fascist military and enabling Govt.

Neither cared for Japanese deaths.

I bet I've read more widely on about every issue we debate here.

A function of being older and wiser maybe.

Start a war, be prepared to be finished.

The US in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Start a war, be prepared to be finished.

Israel in Palestine. Zionism is finished, too.

OK Bone...I'll do what you do.

Sources please.

900,000 on Kyushu...doubtful.

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-057/h-057-1.html

”The specific plan for the defense of Kyushu was Ketsugo No. 6 (there were other Ketsugo plans for potential landings in other locations, but No. 6 was given the highest priority). The defense of Kyushu was the responsibility of the 16th Area Army, made up of three armies with a total of 15 divisions, seven independent mixed brigades and independent tank brigades, and two coastal defense divisions. By the time of the Japanese surrender, this force had reached a strength of over 900,000 men.”

I bet I've read more widely on about every issue we debate here.

Maybe you should actually start paying attention to what you read then because like always you’re wrong again

I also doubt it would have been used against a white target like Berlin.

Many of the scientists and techs working on the Manhattan Project were angry and some wept, when Germany surrendered before the atom bomb could be dropped on it.

The well documented history of Japan’s disgusting war crimes, openly promoted by its leaders and perpetrated upon millions of innocents literally everywhere they went throughout Asia, makes any idea that the US was wrong to end the war quickly- something that Japan was unable and unwilling to do, ridiculous. Of course Oppenheimer had regrets about the lives his research affected, but don’t kid yourself that any Japanese leader would have behaved differently to the Americans at the time.

This is the truth about the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Admiral William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff: “The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

Major General Curtis LeMay: “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet: “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan”

General Dwight Eisenhower: “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

BellflowerToday 03:25 pm JST

This is the truth about the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Admiral William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff: “The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

Major General Curtis LeMay: “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet: “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan”

General Dwight Eisenhower: “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

People whose career was limited by the use of the weapon did not agree. Shocking.

US historian Gar Alperovitz:

American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

GuruMickToday 10:05 am JST

I dont know whether the bomb saved lives .

I doubt it.

Then you don't have to doubt that it saved Japan from Soviet occupation.

US historian Gar Alperovitz:

It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender.

BellflowerToday 03:55 pm JST

US historian Gar Alperovitz:

It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender.

Now did he say it was only the Soviet Union, or was it also the bomb, the blockade, and the aid to China? Also the Soviet Union would have looked might useless without US boats.

BellflowerToday 03:55 pm JST

US historian Gar Alperovitz:

It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender.

Also Nagasaki was three days later.

America wanted to drop the bomb on China too (1950s) . I don't think things have changed one bit.

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/02/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-1/

Pukey2Today 04:14 pm JST

America wanted to drop the bomb on China too (1950s) . I don't think things have changed one bit.

Irrelevant. Everyone with the bomb thinks of ways to use it.

t was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender.

No. The Japanese knew long before Hiroshima that the Soviets would enter the war. A million Soviet troops had massed on Manchuria's borders waiting for the order the attack, and the Japanese border guards regularly peered at them through binoculars. They had been there from about 2 months earlier after they were mobilized after Hitler's to liberate Japan's territories.

Japan's supreme war council and emperor focussed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during their immediate pre-surrender negotiations, not Russia.

America wanted to drop the bomb on China too (1950s) 

Why didn't it?

I suppose the bomb , now in its history context, is a player in right/left ideology in western {really US } thought.

OK the US used a bomb...and destroyed hundred's of thousands of lives

Would'nt the perpetrator create a whole ideology to justify this ?

Lots of posters parroting the right wing story.

More complicated than that

Thats why historians are so important.

Lots of research...

the right wing story

lol ok

taiwan:

Irrelevant. Everyone with the bomb thinks of ways to use it.

It is relevant. India (1998) and China (1964) are the only two nuclear powers with a no first use policy. Some have it as a form of defence (why else do you think USA dares not attack tiny North Korea and Iran while it has attacked, invaded and destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?).

And then there are those who have it to threaten others.

Bourne is lying lol.

In order to convince Truman, who didn't want to carry out an invasion due to the damage caused by the Battle of Okinawa, MacArthur submitted documents that significantly underestimated the damage, but it was revised as it was too low.

Even so, the estimated damage was about 220,000.

Where did they get a figure of over 1 million casualties?

Moreover, this was a damage estimate by the US military, and no estimate was made of how many Japanese civilians would be killed or injured.

In other words, it's quite possible that the damage suffered by Japanese civilians was less than the people who died in the atomic bombing.

GuruMickToday  10:05 am JST

I also doubt it would have been used against a white target like Berlin.

really? And how would you come to that conclusion? The Allie’s policy was Germany first as Churchill also wanted to end the war in Europe and it was supposed to be used on Germany. Especially since everyone knew Germany had its own nuclear program. The Russians were also begging for a second front before the Allie’s were ready because they took, the most casualties and did most of the fighting. So I have now doubt it would have been used on Germany. Especially since Russia had lost 20+ million people. It just so happened that Germany surrendered. Churchill negotiated with Roosevelt that Germany must be defeated first before the Allie’s turned to Japan. And Russia said they would support that.

American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

First of all there was serious attempt at negotiating a surrender through Moscow. They sent emissaries but nothing was taken seriously or ever panned out

Secondly, the retention of the emperor or wasn’t the only sticking point getting in the way of a surrender and was only one of The three conditions the Japanese demanded in order to convince them to surrender. The other two being that Japan would conduct its own war crime tribunals without foreign influence and that there would be no foreign occupation of Japan.

First of all there was serious attempt at negotiating a surrender through Moscow.

there was no serious attempt at negotiating*

Even so, the estimated damage was about 220,000.

Where did they get a figure of over 1 million casualties?

Moreover, this was a damage estimate by the US military, and no estimate was made of how many Japanese civilians would be killed or injured.

In other words, it's quite possible that the damage suffered by Japanese civilians was less than the people who died in the atomic bombing.

My source is literally from the U.S. Navy and historical evidence submitted by the war department.

In other words, it's quite possible that the damage suffered by Japanese civilians was less than the people who died in the atomic bombing.

Such a wildly ahistorical take. More people died in the firebombings of Tokyo than died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You’re trying to tell me that the mobilization of pretty much all men and women in Japan along with MORE firebombings and an extended naval blockade would result in less deaths than just Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Pukey2June 21 06:11 pm JST

taiwan:

Irrelevant. Everyone with the bomb thinks of ways to use it.

It is relevant. India (1998) and China (1964) are the only two nuclear powers with a no first use policy.

They don't face hybrid war from the likes of Iran that will necessitate a response due to a terrorist bomb.

And then there are those who have it to threaten others.

Yes, like Russia.

Operation Downfall was divided into Operation Olympic, which was planned for November 1945, and Operation Coronet, which was planned for spring 1946. On June 18, 1945, Truman convened wartime leaders such as Leahy, Marshall, King, and Secretary of War Henry Stimson at the White House for a strategy conference to discuss Operation Olympic, and at the conference, estimates of American casualties were also discussed. 

Those who supported Operation Downfall chose as optimistic indicators as possible to ease Truman's concerns. Based on the results of the Battle of Okinawa, Leahy estimated that 35% of the approximately 680,000 to 760,000 troops deployed in Operation Olympic would be killed or wounded. Some argued that this figure would be lower given MacArthur's results on Luzon, but many of the members who attended the meeting had the impression that Leahy's estimate, that 35% of the deployed troops, or more than 250,000 people, would be killed or wounded in Operation Olympic alone, and Truman often cited this estimate of 250,000.

This is a historical fact, and where is the historical evidence presented by the US Navy and the Department of the War? lol

Also, the damage from the Great Tokyo Air Raid was approximately 100,000 people, and this figure includes many deaths from fires, etc. The death toll from one atomic bomb was approximately 140,000 in Hiroshima, a regional city, and approximately 74,000 in Nagasaki.

If it had been dropped on the capitals of Tokyo or Osaka, it would have resulted in more than 1 million deaths.

In the first place, women and children had already been evacuated.

If the capital, Tokyo, were to be dropped, the war would have almost ended there.

Based on the results of the Battle of Okinawa, Leahy estimated that 35% of the approximately 680,000 to 760,000 troops deployed in Operation Olympic would be killed or wounded. Some argued that this figure would be lower given MacArthur's results on Luzon, but many of the members who attended the meeting had the impression that Leahy's estimate, that 35% of the deployed troops, or more than 250,000 people, would be killed or wounded in Operation Olympic alone, and Truman often cited this estimate of 250,000.

You do realize that operation Downfall and Operation Olympic are two separate things, right? Operation Olympic, which you’re referencing, was only targeting the southern third of Kyushu.

“Set to begin in November 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area”

In your own quote the estimates put casualties of US troops at 250,000 in an operation based solely around the southern third of Kyushu. Extrapolating that number out across the entirety of the assault on Japan (downfall) it completely tracks that U.S. casualties would be in the millions.

Also, the damage from the Great Tokyo Air Raid was approximately 100,000 people, and this figure includes many deaths from fires, etc. The death toll from one atomic bomb was approximately 140,000 in Hiroshima, a regional city, and approximately 74,000 in Nagasaki.

Im not sure why you’re trying to specify only one air raid when my comment specifically said firebombings which were estimated to have killed 300,000–330,000 Japanese civilians.

the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow

An effort that Moscow ignored. At that point, the Japanese were still demanding to retain their Chinese and Korean colonies, keeping the emperor and not allowing occupation of the country. The Americans and their allies would have had to be totally insane to even consider those conditions given the state of the war.

The US should not have negotiated with the Japanese for the same reasons they should not have negotiated with Hitler.

the expected early August Russian declaration of war,

So the Japanese knew ahead of time that the Soviets were entering the war. If that was supposedly the real reason for Japan's surrender decision - and not the a-bombings -- then why didn't they surrender back when they found that out -- instead of waiting for after the Nagasaki bombing? Lots of lives would have been saved, mostly in Asia.

I suppose the bomb , now in its history context, is a player in right/left ideology in western {really US } thought.

No, more like those who know and appreciate the historical events that actually happened and those who have concocted a modern revisionist view where emotion and ideology are placed above the facts.

So the Japanese knew ahead of time that the Soviets were entering the war. If that was supposedly the real reason for Japan's surrender decision - and not the a-bombings -- then why didn't they surrender back when they found that out -- instead of waiting for after the Nagasaki bombing? Lots of lives would have been saved, mostly in Asia.

Good point. The “Soviet invasion forcing surrender” historical revision is just pure cope. Upon hearing the news of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria Japanese Army Chief of Staff Yoshijiro Umezu essentially said a potential invasion of the Soviets in no way invalidates the defensive plan of Ketsu Go in which he still reposed confidence.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japans-surrender-military-coup-1945

Bone cuts and pastes, without acknowledgement {plagiarism ?} a US Defence statement written post fact after the bombing of Hiroshima.

OK.

Not really an historically objective source in my opinion.

So, wrong again bone.

Bone cuts and pastes, without acknowledgement {plagiarism ?} a US Defence statement written post fact after the bombing of Hiroshima.

Not really an historically objective source in my opinion.

So, wrong again bone.

It’s always easy to see when I know you’ve lost an argument as you always resort to “That isn’t a trustworthy source!”

How isn’t it objective? Those are literally the estimated casualty numbers as reported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s casualty projections at the time. Here I’ll give you a direct quote from the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"it might cost us half a million American lives and many times that number wounded."

Since you’re such an avid reader I’m sure you know I got my information from Giangreco, D. M. (2009). Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947. Naval Institute Press. This book provides an in-depth examination of the planning and the estimated human cost of Operation Downfall, based on military estimates and historical analysis.

Bone cuts and pastes, without acknowledgement {plagiarism ?}

First of all plagiarism doesn’t apply to internet posts. Second of all I’ve literally posted a source to everything I’ve posted in this comments section so o have no idea what you’re going on about

At least he apologized for creating the weapon that evaporated two cities full of innocents...

The worst war crime in history.

What great evil he did to the world..

TokyoLiving: "The worst war crime in history."

By what measure? Japan kills millions upon millions more, often bayonetting pregnant women they had raped repeatedly at "comfort stations", and they were innocents as well. I agree it was a heinous crime, dropping the bombs, but to say it's the worst thing ever in war is very debatable. And even worse still, while Oppenheimer, who didn't actually drop the bombs and was conflicted about them to begin with, cried and apologized, many Japanese deny the wrongdoings of the IJA entirely. THAT is far more heinous, sorry.

And finally, lest we forget, no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Many of the members who attended the meeting were under the impression that Leahy's estimate that 35% of the troops deployed, or about 250,000 people, would be killed or wounded in Operation Olympic alone, and Truman often cited this estimate of 250,000. However, it should be noted that this is actually an estimate for Operation Downfall as a whole.

Scholars who are critical of the atomic bombings tend to underestimate the damage estimates for Operation Downfall, and Stanford University historian Burton Bernstein estimates that the number of American casualties in the operation on the Japanese mainland was between 20,000 and 46,000.

In any case, they did not expect millions of casualties in Operation Downfall, and they did not take into account the operations following Operation Olympic, which occupied Kyushu, and Operation Coronet, which occupied the Kanto Plain. They only expected that there would be 250,000 casualties up to that point.

What about after Operation Downfall? Any specific documents or meetings?

In other words, your estimate of millions is unfounded.