62 YEARS AGO TODAY

[Bluedharma]

what is wrong with what I said? Really, how long do you try for peace and what methods do you use?
As Ike said, Japan was defeated in the sense that they were no longer an offensive threat., they were retreating not advancing.

Bill,

To answer you, there really isn't much wrong with what you said and Japan was beaten in every way.
However, it was known that the Soviets were looking at that region and wanted to expand control over it.
This was looked upon as a threat to the interests of the United States.
By attempting to end the war sooner rather than later, the United States hoped to reduce the amount of control the Soviet had in that region.
That was a major reason (thought not often discussed) for trying to end the war early.

There was also a great deal of hurt and anger in the United States regarding the bombing of Pearl.
There were many who wanted revenge. War was supposed to be declared, not pushed on a nation in a surprise attack as Japan did.
Many hardliners did not want to negotiate with Japan.

This issue continues to be debated by many experts to this very day. Both sides have merit.
The United States could have dropped a yet unproven design of atomic bomb in the harbor to show its destructive power.
But if this example had failed, then Japan may have held out for longer.
That would have enabled the Soviet to do more destruction and get a larger Post War Claim.

Regards,

[mike furline]

The Japanese had from Dec 7, 1941 thru Aug 5, 1945 to negotiate peace with the US. They chose not to.
How much more time did they need?


Regards,
Mike

[EDowning]

Mike Furline wrote:

The Japanese had from Dec 7, 1941 thru Aug 5, 1945 to negotiate peace with the US. They chose not to.
How much more time did they need?

I'm just glad the U.N. wasn't around then. We would be on U.N. Resolution 23,876 by now, and threatening Japan with "serious sanctions" or kicking them off of the security council.

Last edited by EDowning on Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[PatM]

And this from the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... PRF37F.DTL

My dad was in Japan with the 41st infantry division, two months after the bomb went off. He never voiced an opinion either way, but was glad to come home.

[JDK]

Another point that's been overlooked which is very relevant is that the western leaders agreed on requiring 'unconditional surrender' from the Axis countries in 1943 at Casablanca. Therefore, while peace negotiations with Japan might have been underway, there were no conditions that could be accepted by the Allies that would not negate their earlier internal agreement. By definition, negotiations would have been for conditions. It was Allied (American) largesse (generosity, pragmatism, or what you will) that re-instated the Emperor, and rebuilt Japan, not conditions set at the surrender of Japan.

Again, some interesting points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_conference

Deaths at Hiroshima: 70,000 + 60,000 in the following months.

Nagasaki: 74,000

Hamburg firestorms, 1943: 50,000 (Largest destructive raid in history to that date.)

Dresden, 1945: est 35,000 to 135,000. Gobbells est: 300,000

It is difficult to get around Bomber Harris' quotation of Germany having 'sewn the wind and reaping the whirlwind'. Little or no quarter in terms of attack on civil or military targets was shown by Germany or Japan. While there is no excuse for descending to the behaviour of your enemies, there's little justification for restricting action prior to the swift, effective end to the war. The requirement for unconditional surrender may have had a counter-effect, with results seen in the postwar spheres of influence, likewise the shock effect of the atomic bombs were difficult to get round; as a contrast to the similarly effective firestorm bombing of aerial armadas. Certainly emphatic.

Regards,

[mike furline]

Mike Furline wrote:

The Japanese had from Dec 7, 1941 thru Aug 5, 1945 to negotiate peace with the US. They chose not to.
How much more time did they need?

I'm just glad the U.N. wasn't around then. We would be on U.N. Resolution 23,876 by now, and threating Japan with "serious sanctions" or kicking them of the security council.

threatening

out of OR off

[EDowning]

thanks, got in a hurry.

[mjanovec]

To bring up a couple of points that haven't been discussed (as far as I can tell). First of all, I think Truman didn't really have much of a choice. How could he justify he death of another American to his own countrymen if he had the weapon that could potentially end the war? If thousands more Americans had died and it later became known that Truman had the bomb and withheld using it, there would have been hell for him to pay. Politically, I believe it would have destroyed his presidency to have such a revelation come out. And as callous as it seems, politics were probably a consideration in the final decision.

Secondly, as awful as the bomb was, I think it has subsequently saved many more lives because the human race has now seen the type of devastation the bomb can bring against humanity. It was an awful lesson, but one we probably needed to learn. Seeing pictures or newsreel footage of the bomb exploding in the desert or on some tiny uninhabited Pacific island doesn't bring the full magnitude of the what the bomb is capable of when used against humans. Seeing pictures of the aftermath on humans and cities, however, truly hits home the devastation that can be caused. My theory is that the human race needed to see the bomb used at least once in anger before deciding to never use it again.

However, I also believe that the bombing of Nagasaki was probably a little hasty. I think a little more time should have been given to allow the Japanese to surrender before dropping another bomb. Or other bombs should have been dropped on less populated areas to demonstrate that we had more of these up our sleeves. However, this is only MY opinion. I reserve the right to change it at any given time.

Second guessing history is always a difficult proposition. It's hard to put ourselves in the shoes of those who made the decisions...and see the world through their eyes. We have so much hindsight that it's nearly impossible to have the same perspective that they had.

[visaliaaviation]

Gentlemen,

There have been some very interesting and thought provoking statements of late. Possible political/military reasons for bomb deployment beyond Japan itself could very well have been ultimately the driving force. However, and no matter what conditions were actually behind it, the political people obviously felt no shame in "spinning" a homoginized version for the benefit of the masses. That we are still digesting that spin , is to me, quite evident.
thanks

[mike furline]

thanks, got in a hurry.

Couldn't resist. It was all in fun.

Regards,

[Chris Brame]

I'm just thankful that it ended with those two bombs, and that it didn't proceed to the level of having many tactical (an untried concept) nuclear weapons being used to soften up the landing zones and major cities ahead of an invasion - imagine having most of the troops we sent in suffering radiation poisoning, let alone the civilian deaths...

[HELLDIVERS]

MADE IN AMERICA- TESTED IN JAPAN

[Bill Greenwood]

Manjovec had thoughtful comments. How long could Truman delay the Bomb while negotiating? I just saw figures in the paper of American deaths in Iraq, about 3650, of which about 600 or 1/6 were non combat. It shows that there is a lot of exposure to danger just being in a war setting, though Iraq may be worse than the S. Pacific. It seems that a determined peace effort could have gone on for a coupel of months and that might have been enough to judge any real progress. A Pres can be a hero in winning a war, FDR/Truman, but he can also be hero in winning peace, ie JFK in the Cuban Missle Crisis. Thank God we did not have some nut in office then, and even the Russians showed some judgement.

[mustangdriver]

I am a little tired of people writting stuff like what that guy did in the link posted to the San Fran paper. Everyone says how much consideration was given to the people that had nothing to do with war. How much consideration was given to the millions of Chinese children that the Japanese killed. The Japanese in WWII were evil at it's worst. Same with the Germans. They had the combination of technology and hatred to murder millions of people. We made them stop, and now years later people that are free because of what the U.S. did have the balls to question it? Remember that we are having this very discussion because of those B-29 crews and the many other vets that served along side of it.

[Bluedharma]

What is very interesting is that Truman did not wish to bomb women and children.
Truman’s real interest was to save American Lives and end the war.
There is still some debate if the Harper's mag numbers are correct in lives that may be lost in invasion, but If it saved 1,000 lives, so be it.
If it were to save 10, then so be it.
Truman most likely would have ordered the bomb dropped.
But he would have dropped it only for military targets, not psychological reasons.

There were 3 things known before the 1st bomb was tested in NM.
1.) The Russians were going to join the War in a few months.
2.) We may have this special bomb to use.
3.) We had broken the Japanese code and knew that they didn't know. The Japanese were defeated. It was only a matter of time.

Japan knew if the Russians were to join the war, they would have lost. That was why they were talking to Russia about negotiating a conditional surrender.

Truman was placing his bets on the Soviets joining in so that American lives would be spared. All we had to do is have a little patience.
We could also change unconditional to conditional surrender (which we did anyway with the emperor… and just called it unconditional)

But once the bomb in NM was tested, it was James F. Byrnes (Secretary of State) at the time that pushed for dropping the bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Byrnes

The evidence now suggests that it was Byrnes alone of all of Truman's civilian and military advisors, who urged the use of the atomic bomb on Japanese cities at the end of World War II.
(Davidson, James The Art of Historical Detection )
Byrnes not only believed it would speed the surrender of Japan, but that it might also give the
Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans, thus helping to secure a stronger peace.

After a little talk with Truman, the bomb was ordered to be dropped.
Truman wanted to warn the Japanese that a bomb would be dropped, but that decision was already decided by Byrnes (not to.)

This Byrnes guy was all politics. And this is the scary part.
He manipulated much of the decision to drop the bomb. After the 2nd bomb dropped, Truman said no more. But yet Byrnes continued to advise him (onward to the cold-war years) until Truman got wise to him.

So it appears that saving American lives was the primary goal, but really it was about stopping Soviet expansion in the area and enforcing Byrnes ideals, not Truman’s.
Truman was a great man, but he did not have the political experience that Byrnes had, nor did he have the political leverage.

It is scary that one individual “Byrnes” could control so much.
It is also scary that options were available, but because we didn’t want to wait for the Soviets, or negotiate a conditional surrender, we decided to drop this thing.
Perhaps this should have been looked at more carefully.

No one protested after the drop. 80% approved of dropping the bomb. And every soldier, including my grandfather who did not have to die in the invasion was ok with it.

We all know that dropping the bomb is scary and terrible.
But what we are afraid to deal with each day is the moral consequences of doing so.

Most of this can be seen in the film. "Hiroshima - Why the Bomb Was Dropped (1995) BY Peter Jennings"
A very interesting film about the wars end.

If I am wrong, please let me know. I am not questioning, only attempting to learn more of what happened and why.

Best Regards,

Bluedharma