I used to consider myself a progressive. After reading the comments from most (not all) supposedly educated progressive liberals, I don't much feel like being part of a group that totally disrespects the sacrifices made by Americans during WWII (both overseas, and here at home).

Maybe bringing back the draft would make progressives have some empathy towards those who serve.

If Japan was so ready to surrender (as the revisionists claim) why didn't they surrender after the first bomb?

Obama really needs to go to Thermopile and offer his thanks for those who saved Western Civ

What the liberals fail to mention is the alternative. They like to sell the story that Japan was on the verge of surrender which is simply another fabrication on the same level as the often repeated "I did not have sex" or "I was never alone with that woman".
Across the Pacific the Japanese on island after island had fought to the death or committed suicide by the thousands ro prevent capture. There is no reason to believe they were preparing to surrender.

If they were prepared to surrender why did they not surrender after the first bomb?

There's also collective amnesia in the liberal communities regarding the alternative. While we hear of well founded estimates that the invasion of Japan could bring 1 million American casualties.

Stalin , who probably knew more about the US nuclear program than Roosevelt or Truman thanks to his multiple inside sources had entered into an agreement with the US to join in the fight against Japan . Pause for a moment and consider the implications of that ...... Japan overrun by the Soviets as they had done with so many nations in Europe or a divided Japan half under US control for a few years and half under Russian control for 40 years with millions or tens of millions shipped off to the Gulags to join so many from Europe..... to live a life that was worse than death until starvation, disease, abuse, or execution brought a thankful end.

We see Obama off on another apology trip while he still has no ISIS strategy and ISIS continues to grow larger and to win the hearts and minds of millions more. We see Obama welcoming illegals with piles of cash while our war veterans die in the streets as his VA denies care as if it is a game.

Eight years ago Americans were promised better relations with other nations, fewer wars, a more secure peace, resolution of the Iran nuclear threat and a manageable North Korea . Instead we have a President apologizing for those who ended the worst world war man has known while he sets the stage for a cataclysmic confrontation between militant radical Islamic forces armed with nuclear weapons (and controlling territory from central Africa to the Chinese border) and the nation he took an oath to defend.

I really couldn't care less if Barack visits Hiroshima on his round the world 'So long, see ya later' tour. It makes me feel good that this will be the last year he will be spending my tax money for his field trips. Will he be playing golf on this trip?

Just let it be known that 'IF' he apologises he is not speaking for me and likely not speaking for many "baby boomers" who would probably not be here if it weren't for president Harry Truman and his heroic order to use what we had to end the war quickly before we had to invade the Japanese home islands.

Laying a wreath at the Hiroshima A Bomb Memorial is the right thing to do, echoing the April 5, 2009 Prague speech that deserved President Obama the Peace Prize the Nobel Committee awarded him that same year.

On behalf of the only state that tested two types of the A bomb in vivo, the President will eventually give meaning to the cryptic oath engraved on that monument. ”Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil.”

But, to the Commander-in-Chief, I would like to suggest another journey to a place associated with war and sacrifice to the nation. On the occasion of his upcoming visit to Japan, he ought to pay his respect to the war dead whose names are enshrined at Yasukuni.

He ought to return Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’ laying of a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery during his April 2015 visit to Washington. He ought to do this on behalf of American armed services and the people they protect, as a token of respect and friendship to an ally.

As for apologies. . . Japan is an ancient, wise nation. An adult one. If apologies were offered, they ought to encompass all the years the US spent ensnaring Japan between a rock and a hard place.

When one takes stock of what it all has come to. . . it is not towards Japan only that a successor to Franklin D. Roosevelt could do the right thing.

"...we shall not repeat the evil.”"
Sorry, you lost me with this one. Dropping the bomb was not evil. It was done to end the war. Would it not have been evil to invade Japan at the cost of millions of more lives?

". . . we shall not repeat the evil." I am not going to help you there. May President Obama's prayer help you reach satori. I suggest you memorize your own two lines and keep repeating that "dropping the bomb was not evil" as a mantra until you reach your own enlightenment. Hint: General Curtis E. LeMay opined that, had the US lost, he would have hang for the bombings of Japanese urban centers he had planned and so successfully implemented.

Of course you are assuming Downfall would have cost 1 million lives.....that is the subject of intense debate among historians.

Revisionist liberal historians who don't acknowledge reality from the safety of their tenured armchairs.

Should ask their opinion when they are in the landing craft about to assault Kagoshima.

I tend to agree they (revisionists) are underestimating the numbers but we can't just pretend that the documentary evidence doesn't exist. If a million was the estimate you would expect to see it show up in the documents. You don't. You don;t see that number until after the war with Stimson's article. But I tend to agree revisionists underestimate as much as traditionalists over estimate.

The numbers are irrelevant. In war you use your weapons to destroy the enemy so they don't kill you.

There is no moral difference between one 1 ton bomb and a 1 million ton bomb.

They were civilians, pregnant mothers, babies, cute school girls. They were your brothers and sisters in mankind. They were not the dehumanized threatening Huns our propaganda described. And seventy years after the facts, you are telling me they were numbers???!!

No, they were our enemies who killed us.

There was a large number of enemies.

Of course I am telling you that.

As for apologies: Japan carried on a genocidal war in Korea and China. Unlike Germany, the Japanese have not gone beyond pro forma expressions of regret. They need to have a public conversation about it (as the Germans have) and we need to start to see their text books and school lessons reflect the historical record not a rationalization of Japanese aggression,

You need have your snout ground in your own wastes, arrogant AQ that you are.

2 kinds of people were killed at Hiroshima that rarely are spoken of: American POWs and Koreans. American don't like to talk about American POWs being killed by the blast for obvious reasons and yeah they knew American POWs were being held in the Hiroshima jail. Japanese don't like to talk about Koreans who were killed by the blast because they would have to explain how they got there (hint: slave labor).

While I was stationed in Japan I visited the Okinawa Peace Park Shrine, as have literally thousands of other U.S. servicemen. The shrine includes a memorial to the bombing victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Paying my respects to the dead on all sides of the war didn't cause a wormhole to open up in the fabric of space-time. Hordes of locusts didn't suddenly plague the Midwest. Zombies didn't attack Kansas City. The sun didn't expand into a red giant and consume the inner planets.

None of these things will happen when an American president visits Hiroshima. Time to rejoin the reality based world, folks.

There is a difference between what you do as an individual and what a head of state does as representative of a country.

If the subject of WWII comes up, perhaps the President can ask the Japanese about Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor, Manila, Nanking, Bataan, Korea and every place the butchers of the rising sun set foot.

As I left work today, I noticed that the sky had not fallen.

War is horrible for all involved. Of course there were nukes, fire bombings, myriad of other tragedies inflicted upon the Japanese, but the Japanese murdered, raped, mutilated, cannibalized, and even experimented on human beings. What a terrible war it was.

In 1942 the JCS recommended to FDR the US attack directly across the channel at the earliest opportunity. FDR opted to commit to "the soft underbelly of Europe" at the behest of Churchill thereby lengthening the war almost one more year. The bombs would not have been ready if FDR had listened to his generals and this discussion likely would not be taking place.

FDR committed to Torch invasion of No Africa---not sure he had much choice at that point. The bulk of troops at that point were being provided by the British as was the bulk of the navy to transport them. A cross channel invasion at that point would have been a majority British affair. Also air power was inadequate at that point. England simply had more leverage at that point. And there was the fiasco at Dieppe to further dissuade the USA from an early cross channel invasion. And FDR had hoped an invasion of No Africa would bring the Vichy French back into the war and possibly at least get her modern fleet. Finally Torch proved the USA army and navy leadership and ranks were in NO WAY ready for the main event of an invasion of Northern France.

...Or the invasion in 1943 might have failed, the end of the war in Europe been delayed, and the bombs dropped on Germany in August 1945.

Possibly but we'll never know though I don't think the JCS was cavalier in their recommendation.

Let us put it this way: 2 weeks into D Day, Eisenhower was on the beaches with his son David. His son looked at the long long lines of backed up transport, trucks, tanks, the crowded even choked beaches and said to his father "You would never be able to get away with that if you did not have air superiority" Eisenhower senior looked at him and replied "We would not even be standing here on this beach if I did not have air superiority." We could not say that about 1942 or even 1943. In those years the Luftwaffe was still strong and the USAF weak in comparision.

Airpower WAS critical but a lot was siphoned off for the Africa campaign. The JCS did not make their recommendation from a position of ignorance.

They were wrong and Torch and later Italy proved the USA was not yet prepared for the main event. FDR was right to be cautious (although he did promise Molotov a cross channel invasion in 1942---that was an error and the Soviets did not let him forget it) --if USA and UK launched an invasion in 42 and it turned out to be like Dieppe (which it would have) the pressure to shift to a Pac First Strategy would have been difficult to stop.

The cross channel invasion was desired for '43 which is why it was brought up before invading N. Africa. I understand your position but in '43 we were in N. Africa which could just as well crossed the channel. I'm not sure how good a strategist you are but I'm going to maintain my faith in the JCS of the time.

I am basing my opinion on the historical record that is all. I mentioned for example the case of Dieppe---causalities were about 70%!! Both Atkins and Ambrose to mention 2 historians agree the USA army and navy were not ready for an undertaking like Overlord in 42 or even 43. The USA and UK had not yet learned to work together (they barley could even in 44!) in 42 or 43 and coordination and cooperation would be critical to the success of any cross channel invasion; The USA amry and navy had also not yet learned to work together either ---just look at the Torch landings--very serious problems between the 2 services. The USA leadership was still under cooked. For example, as Atkins points out had there been a cross channel invasion in 42 or 43 it would NOT have been led by Eisenhower. The Supreme commander probably would have been a Brit (probably Alan Brooke) and the American commander would almost certainly Marshall's favorite Fredendall--someone exposed as an inadequate during the No Africa campaign .....conversely commanders like Eisenhower, Bradly and Patton were proven success in No Africa and had prominent roles in the invasion of France.. Fredendall was just one of many officers during that campaign proven to be inadequate in Africa and sacked. Having said all that the North Africa campaign went on way too long. I agree with Atkins the USA was not sufficiently aggressive in Africa (a complaint of Marshall's as well) and it dragged on far too long.

That's nice. Lemme see. Historians? Generals? Maybe I should stick with the historians ;-]

Yep, the reports of the generals are enlightening.

In 1985, President Reagan traveled to West Germany, a close ally, and paid a visit to a military cemetery in Bitburg. In 2016, President Obama will travel to Japan, a close ally, and visit the Hiroshima Memorial. Shut up, Obama haters.

Amen.
Unquestionably, WW II has been over for a very long time.

No one has said there will be an apology, so why the hand-wringing?

Get over it. in 1985, Reagan honored German War Dead by visiting military cemetery in Bitburg. Grow up Obama haters.

It is really interesting that all my completely True facts made to "Civilization" and "Patriot461" Are reported and deleted. Am I getting too close to home dudes?

As opposed to false facts

point taken.

Will Obama apologize for defeating Japan?
Should be interesting to see.

Said the blind man

Why would he do that? I am interested in your response.

The U.S.A. saved countless lives by dropping the bomb(s)!....on ALL sides!

....historical genius

Liberals have no concept of how to win a war. Like France, all they understand is surrender.