about that "should we have dropped the A-Bomb" discussion.

[TheBigGuy]

I didn't really ready all 400 + posts, but Im familiar with the argument.

Yet, I guess the question for me really boils down to "so what if it was an atomic bomb"?

We could have had a massive air-raid and wiped out the city via a firestorm having a similar affect (except without the radiation). In fact we did do that in Japan, to Tokyo and other citys. We did the same in Germany, targeting and wiping out residential areas as well as industrial ones via carpet bombing.

So I really dont see what the big deal is about Hiroshima. It was just a more efficient way of doing what we where already doing...with one bomber and one bomb as opposed to fleets of them and tons of bombs.

[xJlM]

1. When weighed against the cost of Allied lives...

It was probably thought to be the best we could do at the time. Looking at it in hindsight, however, we can see what a Pandora's Box it opened. It probably would have been someone else, if not us, at any rate.

[TheBigGuy]

3. yeah. the science was there...

so the bomb would have been developed sooner or later.

[bpilgrim]

7. the military leaders in theater recommend that to SAVE LIVES

we should accept their 1 condition to surrender which would have ended the war sooner.

so i guess i am on the side of TO SAVE LIVES we should have went with their advice which history has proven to be a wise one.

peace

[xJlM]

19. I'm not a student of history

All I know is what my Dad told me. He lived through that time, and he never said anything about any secret Japanese surrender. I know that the kamikaze pilots were an act of desperation, but they were going on up until the end of the war.

[bpilgrim]

24. nor are most

especially the boots on deck.

but please check out the link i provided for more details that show how the informed military leaders of the time were to a man against the dropping of the bombs.

that should be enough to know that this is not some 'blame america first' tinfoil hat talking point it is a legit part of our history that is not well known as the japanese and german populations were not well educated of their nations crimes.

most nations behave like this if not restrained.

peace

[salin]

2. Lets rehash this again... and get all those flames going again because....

???

Not enough contention for contentions sake in GD these days?

All those unexplored new ideas that were being generated?

??

[bpilgrim]

8. there are MANY who don't know the whole story...

i think it is an excellent topic considering where we are all at today in this country. we are behaving just like the imperial japanese but have already demonstrated how ruthless we can be with such weapons yet we are talking about using them even preemptively today :puke:

i think it is a very worthy discussion long over due.
besides it usually only comes up once or twice a year.

peace
peace

[salin]

35. this is the second time in 24 hours

and seems to be part of a pattern of picking the nastiest fights and rehashing them rather than building new discussions.

[bpilgrim]

36. well it is the anniversary

and it is an important topic considering where we are today, no?

peace

[salin]

39. That is a very generous take

and may the conversation go to where you hope it might, rather than where I predict it will. One is productive. One continues a rather disturbing trend in GD re: in our face posturing over discourse. Let me be wrong. Would make my night.

[bpilgrim]

40. well i was speaking mainly of that 1 thread...

and there were plenty of juvenials there but hey, that's what we're here for ;-)

i wish we had a filter like /. got though :hi:

peace

[Uzybone]

144. your right

I dont log in here much but every fucking day there is a new argument about the atom bomb. Whats the purpose of rehashing the same arguement for days on end.

[bpilgrim]

146. a couple/few reasons...

it is august and therefore the aniversary AND the smithsonian is opening the new 'Enola Gay' display, not to mention the current behavior are administration is displaying and their new apparnt attitude regarding nukes.

how's thant :hi:

peace

[BurtWorm]

27. Here's one I haven't seen debated in DU: The Moral Uses of Mustard Gas

We can take our minds all the way back to World War I for that one!

:eyes:

[VoteClark]

4. 400+ Posts geez!

I didn't expect everyone and their dog to comment on that thread. To be honest, I kinda stopped with it because it is hard to carry on a converstation with 400 posts. It should automatically break into two or more threads. It takes for ever to read them all and I think everything that could be said has been said.

:kick:
J4Clark

[bpilgrim]

5. the Japanese were a defeated nation and DID NOT surrender until

their 1 condition was met.

most military leaders in theater at the time recommended that we accept their surrender to SAVE LIVES, but we didn't listen and NUKED two defenseless cities filled with the innocent not to mention prolong the war.

not to mention the effects of the bomb that keeps on giving loooong after it has been dentonated.

some of this has been lost on posters in that other thread.

peace

[TSElliott]

34. Which 1 condition?

If I recall surrender would include the Emperor to stay in power and that Japan would retain control of all the countries that they conquered through war the big ones being Manchuria and Korea.

On the part of two defenseless cities I would partly disagree,
Hiroshima served as a staging point from every war Japan has been involved in since 1884 while Nagasaki really served no purpose in my opinion and was not a legitimist target.

Here is a list of targets that were considered for the bomb drops:

~snip~
Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.

Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.

Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.

Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.

Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan.

Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted Kyoto to remain on the list because he believed it was a legitimate military target, and because its huge size made it a good gauge for the effects of an atomic blast.

Stimson overruled Groves, and Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.

Few details are available on how Nagasaki was picked, but the city contained two arms factories, a steel works and the massive Mitsubishi shipyards. One factory made some of the torpedoes used on Pearl Harbor.
~snip~
http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb16.html

for a history of Wartime Hiroshima
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97e/peace/e/03/omoide.htm

[bpilgrim]

37. the emporer remain a figure head

and the japanese were not allowed to retain ANY conquered lands in that war since most of them already belond to US or our allies, remember VIETNAM?

Mostly men women and children civilians died in Hiroshima, it was MOSTLY a city.

peace

[VoteClark]

Would you have done the same for Germany?

Curious as to why the US should allow the man that ordered the murder of millions should not be charged with crimes against huminty?

How about the other way around, the only way we stop is that they surrender the man that supported and helped start the war?

I am aware that the US did allow him to stay in power, however, I disagree with that.

Do you have actual documentation of the sent letter or document stating your claims that the Japanese were willing to surrender under this one condition to the US, or is this just something that somebody said 10 years later that you are getting this from?


:kick:
J4Clark

[bpilgrim]

69. you mean if they had a figure head combination king/god/pope instituation

yet they were willing to surrender to the rest of our terms, in a heart beat.

same as most rational people i suppose, just rember that a figure head does not call the shots just rubber stamps them.

the emperor is no more guilty than the pope was for the germans marching under the christian god.

and no this is not just something i heard on the internet, this is well sourced information that i have posted before in our discussions and will hapily do again.
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

:hi:

peace

[TSElliott]

73. What are you talking about?

Hirohito was not a figurehead he was the emperor what he dictated was carried out. He was not turned into a figurehead until after 1945 when he surrendered and admitted on the radio that he was not a god. Even when he announced this to the people he never used the word surrender he just announced that the war was over. For most Japanese this was the first time they had heard his voice.

And was he guilty of crimes yes not just against the allies but Koreans, Chinese, Okinowans, Philipinos and Japanese.

[bpilgrim]

76. i am talking about the FIGURE HEAD ROLE of the EMPEROR of JAPAN

since even before the MEIJI RESTORATION is what i am talking about yet i am not alone there are many books on the subject.

remember the puppet of manchuko? they were expert at it by then.

peace

[TSElliott]

88. I would suggest you read.

"Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Berbert Bix

[bpilgrim]

93. why? he was a figure head and had no practical control of the gov

just think about the king and queen of england, though the masses were taught to worship him as a god.

peace

[TSElliott]

118. Because the book proves that he was not just a figurehead.

and indeed held direct power in Japan. Not only that but if you are so familiar with the Meiji restoration you should know that after it Emperors held more power than ever before.

If he held no power why did he make the decision to surrender against the wishes of many of his cabinet including the Imperial Army and Navy? I would think that this decision would not be left to a puppet ruler.

[bpilgrim]

120. i am sure it does but that would stand against history

Despite the fact that the effective power of the emperors was limited or purely symbolic throughout most of Japan's history, all actual rulers, from the Fujiwara and Hojo regents to the Minamoto, Ashikaga and Tokugawa shoguns respected the emperor and were keen in having the imperial legitimization for their position as rulers of Japan.

With the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the Tokugawa shogunate was overthrown, and Emperor Meiji became the head of state. Under the new Meiji constitution, the Emperor held sovereign power, and his political and military power was theoretically close to absolute. In praxis, however, the real power first laid with the oligarchic genro and later with the generals and admirals.

In 1867/68, the Tokugawa era found an end in the Meiji Restoration. The emperor Meiji was moved from Kyoto to Tokyo which became the new capital; his imperial power was restored. The actual political power was transferred from the Tokugawa Bakufu into the hands of a small group of nobles and former samurai.


source...
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2135.html

same as it ever was... the major distinction here being the return to the station of diety which the military thourougly exploited in the 30-40s


the japanese surrendered only when their one condition was met. everyone knew that they - politico or military - would not until it was.

time for us to move on from our black and white, comic book world view of the rest of the world.

peace

[TSElliott]

128. If he was a figurehead...

then why was their one condition you always tout so important? Why did they let 2 cities burn in a nuclear blast so they could retain their puppet? I would think that if he were truly the puppet not the master then they would have made him the scapegoat. You don't realize it but your contradicting yourself I cannot think of any country that would hold out on surrender for someone who was obviously unimportant and served no role like you say Hirohito did.

[bpilgrim]

130. think about the king and queen of england

and add the pope.

he was the figure head of an INSTITUTION that has gone back for over a milenium.

peace

[TSElliott]

132. A better comparison would be...

the Dalai Lama who served as Tibet’s political and spiritual leader. At the time of WWII the State Religion of Shintoism was closely tied with the government and Hirohito represented both the religious and political leadership of Japan.

[bpilgrim]

133. doesn't change the fact that he was a FIGURE HEAD

sheesh, this is recorded history and well established FACT.

if you are willing to argue that then i will bow out. i am not interested in fantasy for this discussion.

peace

[TSElliott]

135. If you do not want

to educate yourself on the truth about Hirohito then please continue with the propaganda that the Japanese government has pushed for over 60 years. It's Amazing to me that people today still hold your beliefs I would have assumed that the release of the WWII diaries would have cleared this argument.

Here are some suggested readings.

http://www.nissan.ox.ac.uk/nops/nops30.pdf

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0904/japan.hirohito.html

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/hirohito.htm

[bpilgrim]

139. lol

i have read our view and theirs as well as others and the consensus is that he was a figure head. who would of thunk it, eh?

of course there is plenty of onesided propaganda that would like to change this fact but that is to be expected i supose especially from those who have only skimmed the surface.

any history teachers wanna chime in, i would apreciate at it.

was the emperor a figure head or not during and before wwII.

thanks in advance :hi:

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

140. The institution of the emperor

It wasn't about Hirohito the individual. Whatever you think of it, the concept of the divine emperor had become an integral component of Japanese culture, of that body of ideas which gave the Japanese citizen his sense of nationality, his enduring connection to all other Japanese. Take that away, there would have been psychological (and thus political) chaos.
Long before I read Bix's excellent work, I was convinced that Hirohito was no figurehead monarch. He was in it up to his eyeballs on horseback.
However, the punishment of one individual, in that unusual case, had to be sacrificed for the greater good of peace and stability. The people retained their adored monarch and with astonishing speed they transcended the sins of the past.
It's understandable that they don't wish to turn over the rock and examine his role too closely. I draw the line at revisionism which minimizes or denies the historical facts.

[bpilgrim]

141. lol

all that from some white boy who has probably spent a few months there if at all and miraculously came up with the same line/conclusion that the U.S. propaganda machine came up with.

i would love to hear what his proof is that refutes hundreds of historians and is most likely taught at our finest institutions on japanese or asian history.

any history professors - and i know we have a few here - feel free to jump in to corect me if i am wrong but i am fairly certain - as i am not a historian so will leave run for some new info i am not aware of but it would have to be substantial to wash away all the evidence i have read till now - that the japanese istitution of emperor was mostly served by a figure head with no controlling military nor political power.

peace

[TSElliott]

142. Anata wa Nihonjin desu ka?

I would like to know for it seems awful to address another person as some white boy. And if you are not Nihonjin how much time did you spend on Nippon, I want to know what the qualifications are to be able to speak for the people, I was born there attended school and visit regularly yet I do not speak for the people while you think you do.

Kita, mita, katta!

[bpilgrim]

145. gaijindesu

and i say it was wrong for US americans - the white folk in power - to NUKE a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with innocent men, women and children, TWICE, speaking as an american.

got it?

peace

[TSElliott]

148. Watashi wa gaijin desu!

Actually since were stateside I am the foreigner and your the native so technically Im the gaijin.

[bpilgrim]

150. honto

so are you trying to tell me you are japanese and you support the decision truman made even after reading all that we now know?

peace

[TSElliott]

155. Do I support Trumans decision?

No he was a fool, I think either a cease-fire should have been signed or the Allies should have done a mainland invasion. Their was no honor in what Truman did killing men and women without ever seeing their faces.

"It is said that if you kill someone it is fitting that you see his blood." -Daiun Harada Roshi

Truman saw no blood from the comfort of his White House!

[bpilgrim]

158. glad to hear it.

btw: informed american military leaders in theater at that time didn't think an invasion was necessary so i have to go with them on that one.

kampai :toast:

peace

[TSElliott]

157. Oh yeah forgot to add

I am Japanese 100% Nissan baby.

[bpilgrim]

159. hiroshiku onigaishimasu

haijimae mashita

i am a big fan of japan and especially ryoma sakamoto

:hi:

peace

[TSElliott]

160. Genki

I apologize I am not sure what you mean by hiroshiku, I am sure it's polite though so thank you. Have you been to Japan? I love it there if the economy were not so bad I would probably move back, America can be difficult some times. There is a really nice musuem for Sakamoto san in Urado. I am surprised most Americans really are not familiar with old Samuria. I usually hear about people who were inspired by the bushido Miyamoto Musashi.

[TSElliott]

66. Up to WWII Japan had never surrendered

or lost a war. Matter of fact the words retreat, surrender and defend had been banned from any military publications or training since the 1920's. The Japanese government was issuing manuals on how to fight invaders with farm equipment and basic weapons to all men, women and children, my parents were children then and they still have these little booklets. When the Allies took Okinawa of the 75,000 Japanese soldiers who were on the island only 2,000 surrendered the other 73,000 died in battle. Lieutenant General Ushijima Mitsuru who led the surrender committed suicide the following day so his family would retain face after the crime he committed against the state. Japan still controlled Korea and Manchuria with large military forces in both locations and you think that Japan was just holding out on surrender just so their Emperor could remain as a figurehead of the state. I would request that you back this statement up with something for me to read because I do not believe it.

[bpilgrim]

71. that is not true...

but i will post a link for you to learn more about what is publicly known about the end of wwII and our use of nukes.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[TSElliott]

74. What part is not true?

I would like for you to explain which part you believe me to be lying about.

[bpilgrim]

77. japan had never surrendered till that time...

there are some who would have us believe some mythic other than human charecter and society about japan but shoot we forced them to surrender without even having to fire a shoot which lead to the meiji restoration and defeated their LEGENDARY SAMURAI for starters.

peace

[TSElliott]

87. Forced them to surrender huh

Matthew Calbraith Perry negotiated a peace trade not surrender. If anything Matthew is partly responsible for what Japan later became because it's when he showed up with his 3 steam war ships and 4 sailing ships Japan recognized the power of industrialization.

And the Meiji Restoration was a civil affair.

[bpilgrim]

92. the gun boats forced them to submit, yes

and it was the wisdom of ryoma sakamoto who led japan down the path of the meiji restoration.

also the Conflicts of interests in Korea between China and Japan led to the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95. Japan defeated China, received Taiwan, but was forced by Russia, France and Germany to return other territories. The so called Triple Intervention caused the Japanese army and navy to intensify their rearmament.

the above demonstrates that the japanese did surrender in the past, sometimes without even a shot being fired, and were certainly not incableable of doing so.

the point though is were we right in nuking a defeated and trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent civilians, TWICE?

i don't think any reasonable person thinks so, especially today after learning the facts.

peace

[TSElliott]

121. Learning the Facts or...

making them up. I would have to say that you are more than qualified to teach history in Japan you fit right in with the other government revisionists who try to paint blame of Japan's previous crimes on others. My parents were alive in Japan at this time, my grandfather died on Okinawa, my grandmother willingly donated all of her jewelry and any metal that was located on her small farm to the government so they could build munitions with it. My parents willingly rationed their food so soldiers could eat. They admit that they helped contribute to Japan's war machine willingly and are partly responsible for the atrocities that were committed. They also say that if it was not for the Atomic bomb Japan would not have surrendered until after the Allies conquered them through a mainland invasion which would have cost millions of civilian lives. Okinawa was proof of this, 100,000 Okinawans died at the hands of the Japanese and Americans during this invasion.

[bpilgrim]

125. if they were willing to fight to the last man woman and child...

why did they SURRENDER?

you must have misted the NYT recent editorial that remind everyone how japan was willing to fight on even if we had ANOTHER 50 nukes and LAND INVASION.

and i have no doubt they would have as i think we would have if it came to that... but the QUESTION IS why did they stop.

no one has a RATIONAL ANSWER for that... though i have posted much material to bear my - and i am not alone - postion on this issue.

we accepted their 1 condition.

then it actually starts to make sense...

think about it...

peace

[TSElliott]

127. Never read the NY article.

However my parents still have the pamphlets given to them by their school on how to fight off the invader when they arrived. Including the many periodicals written by Buddhist monks urging the population to fight off the foreign soldiers.

The reason for surrender was clear; Japan was under the belief that an allied invasion of the mainland would be extremely costly in lives to the allies. It was their belief that due to the high casualties that would be taken the Allies would not ask for an unconditional surrender but a cease-fire this being there would be no winner or loser, thus Japan would save face and would retain Manchuko and Korea. Imagine their surprise when they wake up August 6th 1945 and find the Imperial Army and Navy headquarters totally decimated in the Nuclear Blast of Hiroshima. But even this did not bring about the surrender instead it pushed the Army to demand that Japan stay in the fight at seek revenge for Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki hits. It's at this point that Hirohito realizes that Japan will be destroyed and any thoughts of a cease-fire fade away like a warm breeze. Because there is no chance of a cease-fire Hirohito against the wishes of his cabinet and the Imperial Army calls for a surrender under the condition that his life is spared while those below him will be punished for the crimes of the state. 400 Military Commanders choose death through suicide then face the international courts where they were to be tried for their crimes.

[bpilgrim]

129. does tha mean we should have accepted their 1 condition earlier?

as all our military leaders had suggested at the time?

the emperor held no authority other than symbolic, are you willing to ignore over a milenium of history?

if you are then there is no point going any further is there?

peace

[TSElliott]

131. Please provide proof...

that Japan ever delivered any terms of surrender before August 6th 1945 to any of the Allied countries on the condition that the Emperor remains as a figurehead.

I have researched this subject for years and have read a lot of would have, should have, could have by historians and Allied military commanders who thought a mainland invasion would have brought surrender without the use of nuclear weapons. But I have never read any factual proof that Japan was on the verge of surrender, they were on the verge of losing the war but that was through decimation not surrender.

[bpilgrim]

134. here ya go...

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

and, btw, you must have been reading PROPAGANDA since most military leaders at that time believed an invasion was NOT necessary.

the above link references a very scholarly work on the most recent debate regarding our use of nukes on a defeated and trying to surrender nation, TWICE and is very organized and easy to access the information. i HIGHLY recommend it.

there is much information there regarding what our informed military leaders at the time thought and plenty of debunking of popular arguments used to try and defend the decision.

bone up :hi:

peace

[TSElliott]

137. Thank s for the Link.

Because it had this great info :p
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
~snip

Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

The Potsdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

~snip

On the following day, August 14, Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda were still arguing that there was a chance for victory (John Toland, The Rising Sun, pg. 936). But then that same day, the Cabinet unanimously agreed to surrender (Toland, pg. 939). Where none of the previous events had succeeded in bringing the Japanese military leaders to surrender, surrender came at Emperor Hirohito's request: "It is my desire that you, my Ministers of State, accede to my wishes and forthwith accept the Allied reply" (Butow, pg. 207-208).

~snip

Surrender was so repugnant to Anami that he committed hara-kiri the day after he signed the surrender document (Butow, pg. 219-220). Where fear and reason had failed, religious devotion to the Emperor enabled the military leaders to overcome their samurai resistance to surrender.

[bpilgrim]

138. japan was a defeated nation, trying to surrender when we nuked the them

TWICE, period.

the main sticking point was what to do about the emperor and most folks who had any understanding of japan understood that.

from

* The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower<5>, Admiral William D. Leahy<6>, War Secretary Henry L. Stimson<7>, Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew<8> and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy<9>--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945. It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.

http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm

the POINT of the whole debate is that those horrid weapons were UNNECESSARY to end the war.

peace

[TSElliott]

143. You provided that link.

As your proof that Japan was going to surrender as long as their one condition was met and that they tried to surrender before the bomb was dropped. I was not able to find anything that proved what you stated on the link, what I found was a contradiction to your statement and posted it for you.

What you posted in return was a list of names who "thought it highly probable" that Japan would surrender before November. This is would have, could have, should have in my opinion not fact not proof that Japan wanted to surrender or even trying to surrender.

[bpilgrim]

147. the military leaders in theater all agreed it wasn't necessary AND

we broke the japanese codes a long time before the summer of 45 even before the war actually...

google magic and wwII if you can't for some reasone find it in the link i provided :hi:

peace

[TSElliott]

153. Well there are three sides to every story.

Your side, my side and the truth. Unfortunately neither of us will be convinced on this.

Do I think the Atomic bomb was a brutally devastating device that should have never been used? YES.

Do I believe that the US only used it as a show of power to other countries? YES.

Would Japan have surrendered without the use of it? YES (but only after a terrible mainland invasion by the allies which would have cost the lives of millions of Japanese Citizens.)

Was the Emperor involved and partly responsible for the tragic killings of innocent Korean, Chinese, Okinowans, Japanese and Allied POW’s? Without a doubt and there should not have been a question on whether he was to be tried for war crimes he and Truman should have both been standing in front of an International Court.

[bpilgrim]

156. there are even more but there are also FACTS

and even if i could raise ike or bull halsley and the other from the dead to tell you to your face that an invasion wasn't necessary i suspect you STILL wouldn't believe it.

the emperor was a PUPPET, always had been, but most americans don't know that and are willing to believe anything about the gaijin... like most folks, really.

:hi:

peace

[DrWeird]

6. I don't think many saw this.

According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it , we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe).

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

[bpilgrim]

9. thanks!

many probably haven't read it since it is never talked about in america cept in the old propaganda parlance.

peace

[TheBigGuy]

13. yeah but so what...why is this a 'barbarous weapon"?

The point im making is what is it that, in the context of both axis and allied bombing offensives, that makes the a-bomb so special?

By the end of the war the allies where getting similar effects with conventional bombing that they did with the a-bomb...destruction of large areas of the urban fabric and mass civilian casaulties....so the A-bomb was just a much more efficient way of achieving the same results.

Wouldn't mass air-raids over Hiroshima and Nagasaki been the equivilant of dropping an a-bomb? And wouldnt Japan have surrendered as they saw we where going to flatten their citys, albeit by conventional means.

[bpilgrim]

14. are you KIDDING? in this age of WMD and the DIRTY BOMB

where one bomb can cause such huge devestation with horrfic radiation that inflects even the UNBORN you ask what's the difference?

i think you demonstrate the need for this discussion very clearly.

please start by reading john hersey's classic 'HIROSHIMA' it is small but devestating

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679721037/002-0443014-0736042?v=glance&vi=reviews

peace

[TheBigGuy]

17. yeah, so..the radiation is the new wrinkle.

Other than that, so whats the difference? Do you think some of those incendiary raids on Tokyo also didn cause mass casualties and destruction over wide areas?

[bpilgrim]

18. how old are you?

i am sure you must be a young person and not have suffered in your life to be so shallow on this topic.

please read at least a LITTLE about the topic before you spout of in public in such an igorant and insensitive matter about such horror you come off sounding like an extremist, not good.

if you care to talk about the mass destruction of innocent civilians fine, are you asking me my opinion of it?

i say it is TERRORISM.

peace

[WilliamPitt]

10. I would be interested in something here

I have always believed that, while insanely horrible, dropping the bombs actually saved lives: The lives of the civilians who would have been dragooned into the fight, and the lives of the American soldiers who would have had to invade the mainland. The slaughter would have been unreal.

BUT

Several posters whom I respect have alluded to some sort of secret peace offering that got ignored, or something to that effect. If true, this would change my perspective immensely. I have never, not once, in my whole life heard of this, and I consider myself to be a fairly astute amateur student of history.

So here's what: I would love it if someone could offer me this evidence. Hopefully, it will not be a link to www.MyWebsite.com/JapanSlaughterBecauseISaidSo.htm, if you get me. By that I mean credible sources, credible historians, preferably with documentary backup. This is deadly serious, so I am going to insist on being a stickler.

Hit me.

ON EDIT: I see the post above mine. Several of the people cite that Japan was 'ready to surrender.' Was this opinion? Links?

[Dookus]

11. it may have...

but it always seemed to me we could've either:

bombed unpopulated areas to SHOW them what we could do...

OR... alerted the cities a day ahead of time so civilians could evacuate. This would be especially true of Nagasaki.

[bpilgrim]

12. here you go...

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

excellant site with scholarly research with the most up to date information and arguments well organized.

will MOST if not ALL of our military leaders in theater at the time were against its use with the supreme and horfic irony being that they based their arguments on the rationale that it would SAVE LIVES by ending the war early.

the fact is that we NUKED a DEFEATED and trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent civilians and even some of our own pows TWICE!

Kurt Vonnegut said something close to this...

Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon, succeeded only by NAGASAKI.

i can't recall ever being against a stance he ever took on an issue and was my first clue to start looking deeper into what really happened back then and i stand 100% behind him on this charecterization as well after doing much reading on this topic and wwII and japan in general.

:hi:

peace

[WilliamPitt]

15. That thread contains proof of a surrender/peace deal?

Before I dive in, that was my question.

[bpilgrim]

16. it was well known by many of our leaders then that the japanese

were not only DEFEATED but ready to surrender and is why so many were against the use of the bomb.

here is an excerpt from the site - it is much more than just a thread - that quotes many of the military leaders of being against the bombs use.

i will dig around for more info on the talks the japanese were having with the russians regarding a surrender.

we knew they wanted to surrender even before their russians since we BROKE THEIR CODE - google 'MAGIC' and wwII but i will look for that page at the site.

<start>


II: MILITARY NECESSITY. Centrally related to all of this is information we now have concerning the views of top World War II American military leaders. In this connection it is also important to note at the outset that the recent debate, like much traditional literature, has been characterized by a continued unwillingness to confront some of the most significant modern evidence.

The issue of what U.S. military leaders felt and advised occupies four chapters of THE DECISION. A fundamental claim of those who reject views like those cited above is that the use of the atomic bomb was a matter of military necessity. President Truman himself repeatedly stated that he made the atomic bomb decision because his military advisers told him it was absolutely essential to do so.

If so, one would expect to find evidence of this--both at the time and after-the-fact.

(A) The rather stark truth, however, is that with one very "iffy" exception virtually all the important high-level World War II military leaders who had access to the relevant top secret information are on record as stating that the use of the atomic bomb was not a matter of military necessity. Indeed, many repeatedly, forcefully and consistently stated positions which in today's parlance would be termed strongly "revisionist."

An important contention of THE DECISION is that this fact can no longer be ignored or swept under the rug on the basis of one or another speculative theory as to why all these men would say what they did--and say it so regularly and so often, both privately and publicly, even while President Truman held office and was in position to decide issues of great importance to the various services:

...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

* The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a NEW YORK TIMES reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:

The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.

In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

* Arnold's deputy, Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, summed up his understanding this way in an internal military history interview:

Arnold's view was that it was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it.

Eaker reported that Arnold told him:

When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.

* On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LEMAY: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

THE PRESS: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LEMAY: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

* Personally dictated notes found in the papers of former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman describe a private 1965 dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF) and was subsequently chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. Also with them at dinner was Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general at USASTAF, Frederick L. Anderson. Harriman PRIVATELY noted:

Both men . . . felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used.

Harriman's private notes also recall his own understanding:

I know this attitude is correctly described, because I had it from the Air Force when I was in Washington in April '45.

* On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . .

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . .

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . .

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

* In his "third person" autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated:

The President in giving his approval for these attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.

* Private interview notes taken by Walter Whitehill summarize King's feelings quite simply as: "I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it."

* In a 1985 letter recalling the views of Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy elaborated on an incident that was

very vivid in my mind. . . . I can recall as if it were yesterday, insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question . . . the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision.

* In a separate memorandum written the same year McCloy recalled: "General Marshall was right when he said you must not ask me to declare that a surprise nuclear attack on Japan is a military necessity. It is not a military problem."

There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . .

* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION .)

much more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Generic Other]

20. Link to an earlier post with more citations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=158079&mesg_id=158079

[happyslug]

25. Notice No Japanese Leaders of the Time period are quoted.

As I have read of the time period, yes Japan was defeated, blockade and staving. The problem is that does not mean Japan was ready to surrender. After the Naval Defeat at Leyte, and the complete loss of Control over their own air space, Japan was defeated, but defeat does not mean Surrender. To look into Surrender you have to see what the JAPANESE LEADERSHIP were doing (and saying) at that time period.

I remember reading about a young Japanese woman who were told to weave cloaks for protection doing bomb blasts, any color was OK till after the Atomic Bombing when white Cloaks were order to better reflect radiation.

After Japan did surrender there was an attempted Coup against the Government by Military personal to reverse the decision (The Coup failed, but came closer to succeeding than people have wanted to admit since 1945).

After the Tokyo Fire Bomb Raid in March 1945, Hap Arnold switched side and stop saying the A-Bomb should be used, his reason was tied in with the effectiveness of the Fire Bombs we had been dropping on Japanese Cities.

As to LeMay, he was the Father of the US Air Force's Ability to completely nuke the USSR, at the time of the A-Bombing he was commander of the US Air Force bombing of Japan and was complaining that he had no more targets and wanted to fire bomb the four cities he had been ordered NOT to fire Bomb (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyoto and a fourth I can not remember). These four Cities had been reserved for the A-Bomb and the planners did not want any earlier damage to the cities so to better see the effect of the A-Bomb. The point I am Making as to LeMay was he advocated the same mass bombing that later became the US Air Force policy doing the Cold War. His only objections to it was NOT using it against the USSR when the USSR did NOT have the ability to strike back. Thus LeMay opposed MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) of the 1960s not because it kept the peace but it prevented him from nuking Russia off the map.

Also NOT mentioned is the statement of the Japanese General who said he could defeat one American Invasion by a Mass movement of the Japanese people. He could not stop a Second Invasion but people will talk about the heroic fight of the Japanese People for a 1000 year (paraphrase his statement).

As to MacArthur’s statement, five years later he would be advocating nuking the border of Korea and China to keep the Chinese Army out of Korea.

My own opinion (which is reflected in the many statement quoted when not only is the A-bombing is question, but so is the Russian intervention) , is that the Japanese only surrendered (earlier correspondence to the West were in the form of asking for negotiations on the terms to surrender NOT to ask to surrender a BIG difference) after the USSR intervened into Manchuria.

The Russian intervention destroyed the only hope the Japanese had of ending its shortage of Fuel, the Naval Blockage and the lack of Modern Planes AND trained pilots. That hope was that the USA and the USSR would come to blows and the USSR would supply aid to Japan in the form of oil, planes and pilots (or in the alternative the USA, to secure its Pacific flank, would give very generous terms to surrender). In either situation Japan would view it as a “win”, they has already conceded the wars in the Pacific and China were lost, but the leadership could have said it “Won” by staying in power (i.e. much like Saddam stayed in Power after Desert Storm, his army was driven out of Kuwait, but he than defeated two uprising in Iraq proper and claimed Victory).

Thus the Japanese position in 1945 was to wait for the USA and the USSR to go to war and than play one side against the other and hopefully stay in power. When the USSR invaded Manchuria this dream was shattered and Japan surrendered within a week. Thus the Russian intervention (which had been planned since the fall of Germany in April 1945) showed that the USA and the USSR did NOT want to fight each other and would co-operate together to prevent such a fight.

With the USSR willing to co-operate with the USA, Japan had no room to maneuver diplomatically. Japan had to surrender and quickly for if Russian Troops managed to get to the Home Islands, the Russians could help install into the Government the only Japanese leadership with a following in Japan AND not tied in with the Far right of Japan (and not killed off in the 1930s when many moderate and Liberal Japanese had been assassinated by the Japanese Far Right). Since that leader was a Communist and sitting in Moscow that was a greater fear than surrendering to the USA, thus Japan surrendered before its far right would have lost everything.

Thus the Russian intervention was the Cause of the Japanese Surrender NOT the A-Bombing of Japan. The A-Bombing has been a convenient excuse since 1945, convenient for the Japanese as the “Victim” of the A-bomb, and to the US to show the US resolve to nuke any country (i.e. the USSR) the US was at war with (And to a limited extent the old USSR to show the world how far “capitalist” America would go to control the World). The Illusions the Japanese leadership were operating under in the Summer of 1945 were NOT destroyed by the A-Bombing but by the Russian intervention.

[bpilgrim]

28. the japanese only surrendered once their 1 condition was met

as you very nicely pointed out the japanese were ready and willing to fight on in case it wasn't.

but history shows that once we accepted their 1 condition the war was brought to successful conclusion.

the japanese were ready to surrender as we well knew since we had broken their communications long before.

i don't see how anything you posted disproves those points which demonstrate that it was unnecesarry from a military stand point in the war.

the informed military leaders in theater at the time were against it's use and so am i.

peace

[happyslug]

75. Look HOW the Japanese rejected Potsdam, not that they did.

Yes, the Japanese wanted to Surrender prior to August 1945, BUT the communications involved the request for Terms of Surrender NOT offers to Surrender. There is a huge difference between those two positions.

The Japanese leadership prior to August 1945 had not yet come to an understanding among themselves as what to do, most did want to surrender but Japan is (and was in WWII) ruled by group-think, and the leadership group had not yet decided on what terms to ask for and what terms to agree to (and some of the leadership was still rejecting Surrender completely).

The Leadership had agreed on one term, they wanted to preserve the Emperor, but except for that term the leadership had neither offer unconditional surrender nor the terms it would surrender on. The Leadership had NOT rejected the Potsdam proposal, but also had not accepted it (except for the subject of the Emperor which the Japanese said had to be preserved). Notice the Leadership had said it wanted to keep the Emperor BUT did not state that the Emperor's Status was its only objections, it was an objection but not that it was Japan's only objection.

On August 15th the Japanese Government surrendered with no objections to the Potsdam offer except for the Emperor. An offer we than accepted. It was only as Russian tanks threaten to move into Korea did the Japanese Surrender. Japan had to surrender to get American Troops in South Korea to keep the Russians away from the Japanese Main Islands. By August 15th it was clear that the Russians would take Manchuria by the end of August and than move into Korea (The Russians would reach the South Coast of Manchuria by the official Surrender date of September 1, 1945). Thus the Japanese had to Surrender in August or face Russian troops in the Japanese Main islands. The Japanese had guessed that the US would invade in the October-December time period. By that time Russian Troops would have had all of Korea and ready to "assist" the US in the invasion of Japan.

Thus by August 15th, 1945 it was clear that Japan had to surrender then or face Communist Troops on its soil. The Americans were bad enough, but they were NOT Communists. This produced the consciences to surrender.

[bpilgrim]

79. Communist Troops were already on her soil...

as well as were americans - okinawa, and remain both of us, to this very day - and she still did NOT surrender till we met her 1 condition.

as i have previously posted most, if not all, of are military leaders, in theater and fully informed, agreed with it's use at that time.

that should tell you something...

we need to reign in our own war crimminals before it is too late but we need to start owning up to them, even the ones that happened long ago, especially those, before we can expect any real change.

peace

[TSElliott]

44. Here is a Quote from Daiun Harada Roshi

It took place in July of 1944 one year before the bomb was dropped but even at this time Japan's outcome was considered bleak.

Note- Daiun was a Zen Master at the time not a military leader or a Government official but he was still an influential character of the time.

An article from the publication "Daijo Zen" date July 1944:

"Be Prepared, One Hundred Million, for Death with Honor!"

It is necessary for all one hundred million subjects to be prepared to die with honor...If you see the enemy you must kill him; you must destroy the false and establish the true-these are cardinal points of Zen. It is said that if you kill someone it is fitting that you see his blood. It is further said that if you are riding a powerful horse nothing is beyond your reach. Isn't the purpose of zazen we have done in the past to be of assistance in an emergency like this?

-Daiun Harada Roshi

[suigeneris]

26. The 1946 Strategic Bombing Report of the Sec War says...

dropping the bombs was not necessary. If you have an opinion on this topic or want to learn something extremely to the point but very rarely mentioned, do yourself a favor and read this whole C&P from the other thread. Please!

Will, this is staight from the horse's mouth. No guesswork, pure, elaborate, scholarly, topical, military analysis:

---

But first may I state that I appreciate those here who are bucking the tide of unqualified acceptance of our use of the bomb. We should not have used it for moral reasons and it was unnecessary to use it for the practical reason of ending the war. I am surprised and dissappointed that here on DU the orthodox pablum of saving lives on both sides has taken root in minds and hearts as established dogma. It is not so.

I will quote from the UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY, SUMMARY REPORT, (Pacific War)WASHINGTON, D.C., 1 JULY 1946. In its foreward this report states:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt. It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study of the effects of our aerial attack on Germany, to be used in connection with air attacks on Japan and to establish a basis for evaluating air power as an instrument of military strategy... On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan.

...

The Survey's complement provided for 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. Sixty percent of the military segment of the organization for the Japanese study was drawn from the Army, and 40 percent from the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy gave the Survey all possible assistance in the form of men, supplies, transport, and information. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with subheadquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland.

The Survey secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry. In addition, studies were made of Japan's over-all strategic plans and the background of her entry into the war, the internal discussions and negotiations leading to her acceptance of unconditional surrender, the course of health and morale among the civilian population, the effectiveness of the Japanese civilian defense organization and the effects of the atomic bomb.

I'll provide a link to the entire 32 page summary report but will quote the section called Japan's Struggle to End the War, beginning with its conclusion:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Here is the whole of that section:

Japan's governmental structure was such that in practice the Emperor merely approved the decisions of his advisers. A consensus among the oligarchy of ruling factions at the top was required before any major question of national policy could be decided. These factions, each of which had a different point of view, included the group around the Emperor of whom Marquis Kido, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, was the most important, the ex-premiers constituting the Jushin or body of senior statesmen, and the cabinet. The Army and Navy named their own cabinet ministers, who, together with the two chiefs of staff, had direct access to the Emperor. The cabinet could perpetuate itself only so long as it was able to absorb or modify the views of the Army and Navy ministers, who, until the end, were strongly influenced by the fanaticism of the Army officers and many of the younger Navy officers. The ruling oligarchy considered the opinions of the Japanese people as only one among the many factors to be taken into consideration in determining national policy and in no sense as controlling.

The first definitive break in the political coalition which began the war occurred following our success at Saipan. Ten days thereafter, on 16 July 1944, the cabinet headed by General Tojo fell. This significant turn in the course of Japan's wartime politics was not merely the result of an immediate crisis. Even at that date, elements opposing continuation of the war had found means of applying pressure against the fanatic exponents of Japan's militaristic clique. The original factions who had either opposed war before Pearl Harbor, or gone along, or "retired" in the first phase of the conflict recognized as early as the spring of 1944 that Japan was facing ultimate defeat. By that time, United States determination to fight and her ability to mount over-powering offensives in the Pacific, even before the opening of the European Second Front, had already been demonstrated to many of those who had access to all the facts. The political problem of those who saw the situation was to circulate among other leaders in retirement or outside the government a true picture of the war and then unseat the Tojo government in favor of one which would bring the war to an end.

Rear Admiral Takagi of the Navy General Staff made a study between 20 September 1943 and February 1944, of the war's battle lessons up to that time. Based on analysis of air, fleet and merchant ship losses, Japan's inability to import essential materials for production, and the potentiality of air attacks on the home islands, Takagi concluded that Japan could not win and should seek a compromise peace. His study and a similar one made by Sakomizu of the Cabinet Planning Board documented the fears of the Jushin, and through them of Marquis Kido, that all was not well with Tojo's prosecution of the war. With the loss of Saipan, it was possible to build up sufficient pressure to force Tojo's retirement.

The government of General Koiso, who was chosen by the ever-cautious Kido to head the succeeding cabinet, did not have the strength to stand up to the military and was a disappointment to the more enthusiastic peace makers. In spite of original instructions to give "fundamental reconsideration" to the problem of continuing the war, his only accomplishment in that direction was the creation of a Supreme War Direction Council, an inner cabinet which supplied the mechanism through which the problem of surrender was eventually resolved.

The conviction and strength of the peace party was increased by the continuing Japanese military defeats, and by Japan's helplessness in defending itself against the ever-growing weight of air attack on the home islands. On 7 April 1945, less than a week after United States landings on Okinawa, Koiso was removed and Marquis Kido installed Admiral Suzuki as premier. Kido testified to the Survey that, in his opinion, Suzuki alone had the deep conviction and personal courage to stand up to the military and bring the war to an end.

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator.

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

On 6 August the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on 9 August Russia entered the war. In the succeeding meetings of the Supreme War Direction Council, the differences of opinion previously existing as to the Potsdam terms persisted exactly as before. By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender.

The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands. Military defeats in the air, at sea and on the land, destruction of shipping by submarines and by air, and direct air attack with conventional as well as atomic bombs, all contributed to this accomplishment.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Res ipsa loquitur
QED

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#jstetw

[happyslug]

50. Always read these reports in the Context of the period

Remember people have agendas when writing these reports, not always to find the truth, but to further whatever agenda the authors want to advance.

In this case AFTER the Surrender the Japanese wanted to show they were "Good People" lead by "Bad leaders". Thus you have a lot of Japanese wanted to show the occupying Americans that they wanted to Surrender but the "Bad leaders" prevented them. Thus by the time this report was being prepared the Japanese wanted to show that they would be good people and the US should leave them rule themselves AND not bring in any exiled politician sitting is Moscow (This was the Japanese agenda).

The US Agenda for this report was similar, the US Air Force wanted to be independent of the US Army (that would take place in 1947). The Air Force could justify it independence if it could show it was as valuable in War as the US Navy and the US Army. The few A-bombs that existed in 1945-46 could not be used for that justification (Even Eisenhower commented that if you only had 1-2 A-bombs they were of very limited military usability, and in 1945-46 that is all we had), thus the US Air Force had to justify its independence from the Army based on its CONVENTIONAL bombing ability.

Given the Geography of the USSR (a much larger country than Germany or Japan with limited friendly air fields close by), the ability of the Air Force to do Conventional Strategic Bombing against the USSR was limited (Made more limited as the Nationalist in China lost the Chinese Civil War to the Communist forcing the US to Abandon its B-29 bases in China).

The B-29 could reach SOME targets in the USSR from England but huge parts of the USSR was out of range of the B-29. Thus the Air Force wanted its new Super Bomber, the B-36. The Air Force needed the B-36 to drop conventional bombs on the USSR. To justify the B-36 the Air Force had to show that the Air Force had won the War against Japan WITHOUT the A-bomb and the Russian intervention. To do that the report down play the Russian intervention AND the destructiveness of the A-bomb.

The US Army and Navy had similar agendas, given the Eastern European and Central Asia situation of the USSR, the US Navy would have been reduced in size compared to the Air Force unless the US Navy it could show its Carriers (Which had participated in the Blockade of Japan) could be used to launch attacks on the USSR. The US Army had become very depended on Air Superiority and thus wanted the Conventional Air Force kept up to be used to support any land operations against the USSR.

Thus the US as a whole had reasons to down play the Russian Intervention and the A-bombing in the 1945-1946 time period when this report was written. After about 1950 when we finally perfected ways to "mass produce" A-bombs then and only then did the US Air Force abandoned the "need" to retain conventional strategic bombing power (reflected in the replacement of the B-36 with the B-52. The B-36 was the last Bomber of the US that had self-defending machine guns, the B-52 only had such machine guns in its tail to reflect that it would rarely operate in a group. Thee B-36 had been planned to operate in a group with the Machine Guns of the Bombers defending each other. The B-52 only had a tail gunner to defend itself as it flown its load of Nuclear weapons to the targets).

Thus when you read this report it reflects the desires of the Military to retain the ability to drop conventional bombs by Conventional mass bombing techniques just like we did doing WWII with B-17s, B-24s and the B-29s (Through the Air Force wanted to use B-29s and B-36s to do the bombing). The US Air Force wanted to keep as many B-29s it could and get as many B-36 as the Congress would vote for. That was the US real purpose of this report NOT to judge the effectiveness of the A-bombing AND not to judge the Russian Intervention. These had to be addressed but the authors agenda were to minimize them and emphasize the need for a huge US Independent Air Force.

[bpilgrim]

53. bodily fluids

yeah, i don't thing it's fair to condem a whole program due to a single slip up.

peace

[oneighty]

21. I often wonder

if Hiroshima was all white folks?

Would maybe the 'Bomb" have worked

just as well on Berlin for instance?

I lived in Japan for a number of years,

They were not all Tojos, those humans.

180

[Woodstock]

149. The rascist accusation is shallow and false

The Japanese did horrific things to the Chinese and the Koreans, among other Asians. The non-Japanese Asians didn't share your nasty attitude about the Americans who helped to end their suffering.

[Shanty Oilish]

22. Japanese refusal to surrender

Decrypted Japanese diplomatic communications establish conclusively that the Japanese were not ready to surrender. They were ready to face invasion and let those "targeted civilians," as we are now calling them, engage the American military. (Among those citizens were men, women, children and elderly people. They were all expected to fight and I've never heard a serious argument to the effect that they would NOT fight. Indeed, at least as far back as 1933, girls in middle school were getting military training in the use of rifles.)

The intercepted messages are examined in "Marching Orders" by Bruce Lee, c 1995, Crown Publishers, NY. Starting around page 494, the author details the Japanese attempts to continue to resist, to cut a deal with Stalin and carve up Asia between them. The nuclear victim mentality isn't evident in messages intercepted the day Hiroshima was bombed, or the day after---the atomic "holocaust," as we are now calling it, isn't even mentioned.

The Japanese leaders started the war, and it is they who refused to surrender as demanded, and it is they who bear the blame for the deaths of the so-called innocent citizens, most of whom would have enthusiastically killed any American soldier that Truman might have sent ashore, despite having the means to prevent more American losses. An invasion would have led to what we now call "quagmire."

As Lee writes: "As proven by the Magic Summaries...the Japanese military must bear the full burden of responsibility for the event and, worse, making Japanese civilians the tragic victims of their hubris." Read why, in their own words.

Incidentally, the author states that Republican members of the Joint Committee investigating Pearl Harbor, released to the media the information that the Japanese code had been broken, despite the pleas of President Truman; and with that, our most important source of information about Japanese intentions was lost after November 1945.

[bpilgrim]

23. until their one condition was met was not budged even after 2 nukes

though you want also get a serious argument from anyone in the know about the condition of the nation of japan at that time regarding it's military capability it was utterly defeated as even Yamamoto realized would be her fate.

that they were also ready to surrender is also no longer in doubt as we had been reading their secret messages for quite a while by then and are now part of the public record.

the only real arguments left are 2

a. it saved lives

b. they deserved it by bringing it upon themselves by their own actions.
(the one you raise)

i argue that the evidence shows that number one is a myth by the FACT that most military leaders argued against the use of the bomb and accepting their 1 condition to surrender.

and to your second opinion i say i tremble for my nation when i realize that god is just and his justice will not sleep forever.

the second one is really the body count argument and i say it is specious since we may even loose that one since we are still racking up the score so to speak and ignores our own crimes in the old argument that the end justifys the means.

it will always amaze me how some can not admit to our own nations sins no matter how obvious nor horrific.

horisma is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon, imho.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

29. Wouldn't dream of putting you on ignore, bpilgrim...

However, neither would I dream of trying to change your mind.

Reason: on the other thread you mentioned that Baron Hirota deserves a medal. (He was one of those sentenced to death rather than life imprisonment at war crimes trial.)

I think that puts us beyond any possibility of meaningful dialogue.

Peace.

[bpilgrim]

30. sure you wouldn't... and btw it was Hirota Koki

one of japans best diplomat ever.

why is admiring a diplomat who did his best avert war and destruction put me beyond reasonable dialog? :shrug:

as i have said above some will NEVER accept our nations OWN CRIMES no matter how horrific nor OBVIOUS.

the 'True Believers' are the ones i find it hard to have a rational discussion with. i have a hard time with extremeist, it's probably the moderate in me comming out.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

31. Baron Hirota Koki nt

peace

[bpilgrim]

33. are you speaking in some kind of code?

i don't get it.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

59. Baron Hirota Koki

Prime Minister, naikaku sori daijin, shushô, Baron Hirota Koki. Prime Minister, head of government of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1937.

[bpilgrim]

62. and that is supposed to mean what exactly?

that he was a diplomat?

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

78. From the top

In the other thread you said you'd pin a medal on Hirota Koki.
In this thread I mentioned your comment and referred to him as Baron Hirota.
You then said it was Hirota Koki, as if to say it was not Baron Hirota.
They were the same person, I tried to say in the subject line "Baron Hirota Koki nt" ...nt meaning no text follows this subject line.
You asked me what "Baron Hirota Koki nt" meant, was it code?
I responded with his name and titles.
They are the same thing, Baron Hirota is Hirota Koki. Convicted on 3 counts in the war crimes trial and hanged in 1948.

[bpilgrim]

80. right and that is ALL the few who even heard of him or can google can tell

you on the subject... but as i tried to indicate inadequetly above, that ISN'T say'n much.

but i suppose yall knew that, too.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

83. Well, there's one other thing about him: the Rape of Nanjing

occurred under his administration. That's one of the 3 (hundred thousand) things he was hanged for.

[bpilgrim]

85. the one he was appalled by carried out by the military without his knowled

nor permission the one who took steps to try to reign in the military after that and was deposed off by them for his efforts, yeah thats him.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

89. Beats "just following orders" defense

Please. It's a historical fact he was head of government at the time. The prosecution made their case and he was hanged.
You think he was quite the diplomat, and you'd pin a medal on him.
This is why I don't think there's any point in discussing it.
He didn't get to be head of the government of the Japanese Empire by being a sensitive, humanitarian, peace-loving fellow. Think about it. Or read the trial documents.

[bpilgrim]

94. huh? i am talking about the actual history not some propaganda spoon fed

to you since birth.

you think there is a record of justice in those records? please, he was hanged because his name was on the short list we put up for the show trial.

he was a diplomat of the first order and disagreed mightily with the severe actions being taken by the military who were literally out of control by then.

he took measures to try and control the military and was outsted but later hanged by us anyways due to formality.

you have no knowledge of the man other than what you may have read via a show trials court transcript but i am sure you will defend your ignorance to the bitter end.

remember the main point of this discussion is wether or not we should have NUKED a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with inoccent civilians, TWICE.

Hirota Koki is simply a distraction to this larger issue but illustrates the ignorance of many of us in regards to japan then and now.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

96. First one to say "propaganda" as an argument...

...must be right, eh?

Is your knowledge of the man something besides what you've read?

I'd just as soon not argue with you, as I said in the first place. You think he deserved a medal, I think he deserved the hanging. We're not going to get a dialogue going that way.

What do you say we just meet at a Bush-bashing thread and get along?

[bpilgrim]

102. wrong, just pointing it out...

what, you think we don't use propaganda? of course you don't think that.

the man died long before i was born so the knowledge can only come second hand and mostly from what i have read of him or discussed with japanese educators who knew about him.

i am confident that you know hardly anything at all about the man since you dismiss him so tritely but that speaks volumes on your attitude on this subject and is what i expect from many of my american brothers and sisters.

i am merly pointing out facts about what we did to that nation in the end that was one of the worst things ever done in human warfare imo that many are unfamiliar with.

trying to justify it by saying how evil they are is the same tact that the neo-cons use AND doesn't hold water since our own hands are dripping with blood as well.

i think it is obvious that we should not have used those weapons and i really don't think they should be used at all except for a deterence but to lower the bar as we did at the end of that war will be a permenant stain on america and wont ever fade until we deal with it as rational adults who have seen the error of our ways and commit to change which can only begin by abandoning denial. so with that being said i am always willing to help remove the denial from anyones mind about what really happened at the end of that war to try to ensure that never happens again though it looks as if i have a long row to hoe.

though i do hope to see you on a bush bashing thread soon :hi:

peae

[Shanty Oilish]

107. Just one question...

How do you explain Baron Hirota's rise up the ladder to the position of Prime Minister? I would think if he'd been the peace-loving humanitarian, he'd have been mustered out faster than a black ant in a red colony. If he tried to remedy the situation in Nanjing (or did that even happen?), how could he have failed?
Not going to argue with ya :) Just curious about how you resolve these points.

[bpilgrim]

110. old school, family history with connections, military mindset trump card..

didn't even begin till the 20s when by the 30s is just comming of age and was begining to horrorfy many of the carrear diplomats at the time Hirota Koki, from the old school of rule by elder states man, being one of them who was a very respected man well known for his diplomatic skills in the region.

kind of reminds me of a lot of our present day diplomats who resigned in outrage at some of the current gov - neo-con - policies.

of course our culture still prizes - till ashcroft gets through - indepandant thoughts and actions, something quite the opposite in japanese culture. though, nonetheless, differences of opinion were abound and expressed.


"If he tried to remedy the situation in Nanjing (or did that even happen?), how could he have failed? "

well as i have said, the 'massacre' happened with out his knowledge or permission but upon learning about the crime he imediatley took action to try and remove officers who he thought were behind them or allowed them to happen and provide more senior officers and supplies since he felt this may be a result of low morrale. though i don't believe he was successful.

but it is interesting how even the tokyo court after the war never tried general Matsui who was in command of those troops for any war crimes in nanking.

btw: i am not arguing i am discussing. though i think it may be a good idea to graduate from the 'evil doer' refrain.

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Don't Forget That B Pillgrim Compared

the Korean comfort women who were kidnapped by the Imperial Army and forced into sexual bondage with the prostitutes who were drawn by the lure of "easy money" to American bases in Asia.

He basically argued that the comfort women were treated better because they were given room and board in return for their indentured service....

Sounds like antebellum American slavery but with a horrific wrinkle.

So according to B Pilgrim there is no difference in a guy looking in the yellow pages and paying an escort $500.00 for sex than a man who jumps out from behind the bushs and rapes a woman.

[bpilgrim]

115. no i am pointing out two facts

you choose to demonize one and ignore the other i choose to condem them both.

thanks for putting words in my mouth, though :hi:

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. Respectfully You Conflated Them

For instance I condemn murder and petty theft but the two aren't remotely comparable.

You stated that there was a rough moral equivalency between an American GI having sex with a Filipino or Vietnamese prostitute with a soldier for the Imperial Army having forced sex with a Korean Comfort Woman.

If that wasn't your position were you mistaken then or are you mistaken now.

[bpilgrim]

122. i disagree, respectfully

military bases and prostitution go hand in hand and have since the dawn of time.

always they are forced, one way or another.

that is my point AND may i remind you has NOTHING to do with OUR decision to NUKE a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities FILLED with the inoccent, TWICE!

some will hold up another alledged mass murder - nanking - as proof of an evil deed though they can never bear to hold up our own.

that is truely sad though a good example of how people are easilly lead to demonize other human beings, any other... but their OWN group and is exactly the mindset that leads to such tradgidies in the first place on ALL sides.

peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. I Want

to know how there's a moral equivalency between a Filipino woman who had sex with an American GI for money and a Korean woman having sex with a member of the Imperial Army at the point of a gun.

So if I call an escort and give her $500.00 for her services I am as morally culpable as a rapist.

[bpilgrim]

126. evidence that prostitution and sex slaves are related?

i think that if you google the term it will keep you busy for years.

i think both are bad for women and practiced by men since the begining, though i fail to see what that has to do with NUKING a defeated nations inoccent civilians... TWICE.

but maybe i am just slow and you need to break it down for me like i am 10 :shrug:

peace

[Ein]

32. The big deal (to me)

Is that those fucking things exist. They are stronger now too. And terrorists could make them, I suppose. Terrorists can't carpet bomb us... unless its state terrorism I guess *cough*cough*.

We should've just carpet bombed them if we were going this route. I'm not sure the exact circumstances behind the surrender, I know we wanted them to concede to it all, and I know they did concede alot. Also, wasn't thier fuel supply spent? Oil is why they attacked us anyways, right?

There had to be another way. I read a report by one nuclear scientist who worked on the bomb (if i recall) saying the effects of the bomb weren't well known.

Biggest POS science has ever crapped out.

[Fescue4u]

41. Just of of many many things that science has brought

and will continue to bring.

Cant really blame the scientist for uncovering the nature of matter, energy and the universe around us.

All through history there has been an "ultimate unfair weapon". For several centuries it was the long bow and was considered a violation of warfare to use it (it would penetrate armor)...Another similiar "ultimate unfair weapon" was the submarine, as it was considered treacherous and unmanly.

God help us when the next "ultimate unfair weapon" is built.

[Fescue4u]

38. It save not hundreds of thousands, but millions..

No doubt that the bombing of Hiroshima saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives, that would have otherwise been lost in a continued Japanese war.

However, even beyond WW II, the horrible demonstration of the Atom bomb proably saved millions from dying in conflict with the USSR. Without the horrific possibility of nuclear anihliation, eventual war with the USSR was quite likely, in which millions of not just Americans, but many nationalitys would have been killed.

The Enola Gay and its payload, is proably responsible for saving more lives than one one machine in the history of mankind

[noiretextatique]

42. saving lives, by killing people

war is peace.

[Fescue4u]

46. No war is not peace...

But the threat of war can keep peace in some cases.

Its brutal, barbaric and effective...sadly enough.

[bpilgrim]

48. hasn't worked for over half a centuary and counting

not to mention we ain't doin to good at the start of this new one in case you haven't noticed.

peace

[Fescue4u]

51. No it did work

The arms race, while expensive and grotescue, worked. We never went to war with the USSR. Millions of lives were saved.

Did it work in every case? Of course not.

[bpilgrim]

55. ah... so it worked with one war...

and that is what you are putting up for a SUCCESS? ooookay.

and don't we all now feel so much safer :crazy:

peace

[Fescue4u]

56. One bloody BIG war

Essentially WW III without the nukes

Which is pretty Ironic that the commonly held view of WW III will be WITH nukes.

[bpilgrim]

58. we it may have prevented one war but it only made us all less safe

look at where we are at today, and we have been insecure since we have entered the atomic age with all these weapons of mass destruction WE have created and the lowered standard for their use that we set.

i am glad that has somehow made you feel more secure it certainly hasn't for me.

peace

[Fescue4u]

61. More secure? no not really

I don't feel more secure that Nukes are all around the world.

However, if their existance is assured, then I believe our security is enhanced by having them.

I certainly would not want to NOT have them, when all our enemies do.

[bpilgrim]

64. i c

so that has what to do with us dropping two nukes on a defeated trying to surrender nation?

it hasn't made us more secure and it has probably made us even less so as scientist warned back then when it was more likely to be contained and controlled.

not to mention the morality of using such a weapon to slaughter tens of thousands of innocents.

peace

[Fescue4u]

68. Japan was ' defeated 'as Iraq is now

Japan was as defeated as Iraq is now.

TO send in an army of cannon fodder to Japan, only to possibilite be pulled our is just as immoral.

This may still yet happen to us in Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

72. and ready to surrender as she did once her 1 condition was met and was

NOTHING like iraq is now.

iraq now is like AFGHANISTAN or VIETNAM nothing like japan though, especially AFTER she surrendered and before then she was a FORMIDABLE FOE unlike iraq, no airforce or navy. she was only simular to japan in the fact that she was basically DEFENSELESS before a major assult was carried out against her people.

peace

[Devils Advocate NZ]

91. No, it didn't prevent that war!

It always strikes me as hilarious that so many people think that the US and USSR never went to war.

Let me just list a few of the OBVIOUS US-USSR wars:

Korea
Viet Nam
Afghanistan (The 80's version)
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
and many many more...

In all of these cases, one side was directly supported by the US, while the other was directly supported by the USSR.

You were led to believe that the US and USSR never went to war, but the fact is that for half a century they were AT war. I guess it is hard to see the forest for the trees. By the way, you, like me, may see the number of different nations involved in this US - USSR war as indicating a "World War". Personally I belive the next "World War" should be called "World War Four".

As for the subject of this thread, many people seem to have missed the point. They keep refering the the "millions of lives saved" while missing the fact that the military were NOT worried about the lives of the soldiers required for an invasion BECAUSE NO INVASION WAS NECESSARY!

All they had to do was continue to blockade Japan until they surrendered, as was shown in the quotes. Japan was almost totally reliant on imported products to maintain their military. In fact, the 1940/41 oil blockade was one of the main reasons the Japanese went to war in the first place!

With their supplies cut off, they would not have been able to rebuild their military, and they would therefore not have been able to breach the blockade, and the vicious cycle of degeneration would have continued until the Japanese were no threat to anyone.

Thus, there was no need to invade Japan EXCEPT FOR THE POLITICAL NEED TO SUBJUGATE A DEFEATED ENEMY!

However, I bet many if not most Americans will REFUSE to see the moral degeneration of killing hundreds of thousands of civillians (or millions if no atomic bomb had existed) JUST SO THE ENEMY COULD BE PROPERLY HUMILIATED.

That is what the atomic bombing was about. It was a great big dick wagging to prove that the US was the most powerful nation on earth and that all people (friend and foe alike) should tremble at the mention of its name. For the half century since, the US has continued to act like this, and it is only getting worse.

That is why I agree that the discussion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is probably paramount in the discussion of US foreign policy, becuase it was those bombs that signaled the change from an attitude of partnership to an attitude of domination.

If not for Hiroshima PNAC wouldn't exist.

[bpilgrim]

95. i agree...

just didn't feel like arguing that point and why i said 'may have' but i am glad you did :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

47. isn't that interesting how that works.

:hi: noiretblu

peace

[Fescue4u]

52. Interesting? Thats not how I would put it.

Brutal and barbaric is how I would describe.

btw, what is noiretblu?

[bpilgrim]

45. that is the BIG LIE

since all our military leaders in theater agreed at the time that japan was defeated and not only ready but trying to surrender.

they suggested that by agreeing to japans 1 condition, emperor to remain as figure head, the fighting could stop and therefore SAVE LIVES.

as to the demo, we could have done the same thing without the LIVE, INNOCENT CIVILIANS, no?

or were we trying to prove how depraved we really were? a good ole fashioned 'Shock-N-Awe'... is that it?

many say all it started was a deadly and expensive arms race that we all loose in the end.

your closing thought is EXACTLY what the programming has been putting out since day 1.

peace

[Fescue4u]

49. Oh no doubt , Japan was defeated..

Just as Iraq is now.

But look whats happening in Iraq. Had we invaded Japan we would have had "Iraq" 58 years earlier and 100x worse.

Could we have done a demo without live innocent people? I doubt it.

Remember, the Japanese were not willing to surrendar EVEN AFTER HIROSHIMA. It was until after Nagasaki that Japan surrendered.

So if a demo on on a live living city didnt work, I don't believe it would have worked in a baren desert earlier.

And remember, at that time we only had 3 bombs. The first was detonated in the desert, the 2nd Hiroshima and the 3rd of couse Nagisaki. Japan surrendered under the false pretense that we had many more weapons to level every city in Japan with a week or two.

[bpilgrim]

57. japan surrendered ONLY AFTER their 1 condition was met NOT after even

TWO nukes.

the NUKES provided no material support for ending the war.

as kristof's NYT article points out recently the japanese were willing to fight on even if we had 50 more nukes but what he FAILS to mention in that article is why they finally did.

peace

[Fescue4u]

60. Was that condition really met?

Remember the emperor was then subjugated to MacArthur and his status as "god" was debunked.

I honestly don't know if the "condition" stipulated the emperors status, or just his prescence.

[bpilgrim]

65. u serious? the emperor remains on his uniterupted throne to this very DAY

as a figure head, as he has been since even before the meiji restoration and is the only reason japan stoped fighting.

:hi:

peace

[Fescue4u]

70. I am serious..The emperor was subjugated to MacArthur.

For quite sometime after the war.

look it up.

[bpilgrim]

81. the role he was all too familiar with...

why do you think he was so good at it?

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

82. Text of Unconditonal Surrender, re Emperor

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender".

This was accepted long before MacArthur arrived. Japan surrendered unconditionally. There was no guarantee that Hirohito would be immune from prosecution for war crimes. MacArthur believed that retaining the emperor would make Japan's rehabilitation easier. His views prevailed, eventually.

The Japanese did not hold out for that term or any other.

The following January, Hirohito issued a public proclamation asserting that the concept of the divinity of the emperor was false.

The new constitution (US-approved) relegated the emperor to a ceremonial role.

[bpilgrim]

84. oh... so McCarther had a soft spot for him, eh?

and the politicos were gonna listen to a single general on a political decision of this magnitude this time because...

it was part of the deal... everyone knows that no politician could ever surrender without that 1 condition being met and history stands as testimate even today to the wisdom of FINALLY accepting though for reasons of NATIONAL SECURITY keeping it secret.

the japanese were ready to fight on even if we had fifty more nukes as the recent NYT aricle points out but not why they finally did.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

90. Single general! Try "Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers"

Invested with absolute authority to implement the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. There was disagreement, history validated MacArthur, but after all he was Supreme Commander, not just a "single general" with a soft spot.
It's you who have a soft spot. Respectfully. There are numerous examples of Japanese documents referring to the potential for exploitation of the atomic bombings, written immediately after the events. They sought to save face and mitigate war guilt. Don't buy it. The atrocity was the Japanese aggression and the heinous fraud perpetrated on their own people.

[bpilgrim]

97. and when we had all the generals saying that we should accept their

SURRENDER nobody listened why? because politics TRUMPS any general - with all his titles - or a whole group of them, always has and always will.

"War is too important to be left to the generals," Clemenceau

the point is we NUKED a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with inoccent civilians, men women and children TWICE against the advice of most of our military leaders at the time in order to shock and awe the world not force the surrender of japan as is part of the american propaganda.

nothing changes that reality and the fact that even after that the japanese still stuck to their 1 condition and we FINALLY conceded, thank god.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

101. Here is the text of Unconditional Surrender

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=203

The documents are there. "Unconditional surrender" is written repeatedly. No conditions. It concludes:

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to
rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to ef-
fectuate these terms of surrender."

Signed by Hirohito and everyone else. What more do you want?

[bpilgrim]

103. where the institution of the emperor is honored by acknowledgment

and meets their 1 condition.

thanks for sharing that :toast:

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

108. There was no condition, it's obvious.

Acknowledging he is the emperor...that's just reality. One can't strip an emperor of his authority without mentioning him.

Let's look at the alternatives.

Make him, Hirohito, a party to the unconditional surrender which says that henceforth he is subject to the authority of the SCAP. This alternative, which is what happened, clearly negates your argument that the emperor was off-limits.

Or, leave him out of the deal, carefully edit out all reference to the emperor...this alternative would properly suit your argument that the Japanese stood firm on "one condition," the preservation of the authority of the emperor.

Wherever the emperor is mentioned in surrender, as in every other authority, there's no equivocation. On the contrary, the terms are absolute, unequivocal and all-inclusive.

[bpilgrim]

111. that the institution of emperor remains to this very day...

that is a HARD FACT to cover up when so many were HOLLERING and SCREAMING for HEADS especially for the head of the EMPEROR.

wonder how he sliped through the cracks, eh? oh, or maybe the SCAP was a genious in regards to japanese culture and history and thought it would be a good idea... no, the ONLY WAY to proceed with rebuilding and the politicos agreed? a bit naieve, no?

or was that trumans idea as well?

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

114. In an altogether different form, changed by the victors

It WAS a good idea, it left them a sense of national identity and integrity (by which I mean only cultural unity).
When MacArthur arrived, the Japanese all understood that they were completely at the mercy of the Americans. Hirohito could have been arrested, for all anyone knew. There was extraordinary wisdom and grace in the American approach to the surrender, particularly after the ferocity and duration of the war. There was foresight, which is even harder to employ. MacArthur's finest hour, IMO.
It was an excellent idea, but it was not a condition of surrender.

I think I'm done with this line of discussion, but I hope the thread has inspired folks to delve a bit deeper.

Peace, :toast:

[bpilgrim]

116. which they had known before...

it had changed in diety and function over the milineum.

and everyone know that they would not have surrendered if that one condition wasn't met which is why we should have accepted the generals advice before nuking a defeated, trying to surrender nation TWICE.

peace

[Shanty Oilish]

119. 'everyone knows'

Ok, everyone knows what ain't so!

Show me where any Japanese leader says, in so many words, "We're not surrendering unless they lay off the emperor, although they don't have to put it in writing, we'll just take their word for it."

They (the Japanese in charge of the matter) were not trying to surrender. In fact they were trying to ignore the Potsdam Declaration and, according to their intercepted diplomatic communication, they were even trying to ignore Hiroshima for 2 days.

I'm done here. I've been posting to counteract your misinformation, not to try to convince you. Once more, in case anyone needs to start somewhere, here's the text of the Unconditional Surrender:

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=203

Peace and adios!

[bpilgrim]

124. the informed military leaders in theater at the time, that is...

KNEW that japan was a DEFEATED, TRYING to SURRENDER nation, period.

i have provided ACTUAL QUOTES and links from our own gov ARCHIVES or PRESS that bear this out.

to try and paint a DIFFERNET PICTURE now is REVISIONIST HISTORY at it's WORST.

you somehow try to defend the FACT that we NUKED a defeated, prostrate, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with innocent civilians against all the advice from OUR informed military leaders in theater at the time with OLD propagandon and think you have stated your case?

you remind me of the men Hirota Koki had to go up against and try to restrain... NO AMOUNT of logic worked.

you even dared to hold up another aledged crime to try and justify this one as if you actually cared about those civilians because according to your logic if you were part of the japanese military extremist you would be trying to justify that one.

good day :hi:

peace

[Woodstock]

151. draftcaroline, you rock!

Excellent points throughout this thread.

[Fescue4u]

109. "honored" by subjugation?

Isnt exactly what the Japanese originaly had in mind I think.

[bpilgrim]

112. well, thats what usually happens when a nation surrenders...

yes it is, they didn't hang the emperor nor tear down his institution as agreed.

peace

[happyslug]

63. The US only had three Plutonium bombs in late 1945.

Yes we only had about three PLUTONIUM bombs in 1945, the Hiroshima Bomb was an Uranium bomb and thus does not count. We had enough Uranium to make one Uranium bomb (and it was believed that it would work without being tested and was NOT tested before we dropped it).

The real issue in 1945 was whether the Plutonium bomb would work. Thus it was a Plutonium bomb that was tested in the Desert of New Mexico and when that was successful dropped on Nagasaki. We had very limited amount of Uranium just enough to make one bomb, but with enrichment we could make 3-4 Plutonium bombs, thus in late 1945 we had about 2 plutonium bombs (In addition to the ones used in July and August 1945) which we were going to drop during the Invasion of Japan.

The Japanese also seem to have calculated that we had about that number. The Japanese Navy had been looking at A-bombs since the 1930s but did only theoretical research on the matter. This research permitted them to guess the number of A-bombs we had, based on the fact we had used them and would have used them once they were made. Thus the Japanese guessed we had 2-3 more and also knew that their cities had been hit so hard we would not waste them till the invasion.

The Japanese also seem to have wondered why four of their major cities had NOT been bombed at all. When two of them were hit by the A-bomb they guessed why and that again confirmed their guess we only had 2-3 more.

Thus the Japanese knew they would be hit by further A-Bombs, but only 2-3 and the effect would be less than the earlier Conventional Fire Bombings. Thus as a whole the A-bombs became an excuse to surrender NOT the reason to surrender. For more details see my prior post on the subject.

[Fescue4u]

67. yes only 3..

Remember that was the very beginning of the "nuclear industry"

Getting the material (plutonium or Uranium), was a massively expensive, time consuming affair.

In fact, not enough of either material was available to construct all 3 weapons of the same material.

The first and last bomb was sphere of plutonium, surrounded by convential explosives (which when detonated "squeezed" the sphere to critical mass).

The bomb that was detonated over Hiroshima was a Uranium type which rammed two pieces of Uranium together via a "pipe" to reach critical mass. The US only had enough Uranium to construct one bomb of this type.

IN fact, a great deal of planning and concern went into what would happen if the Urnanium nuke did not detonate and the material was lost to the japanese.

[MercutioATC]

43. It's all about perspective...

We, as homo sapiens, have an interest in keping a global status quo.

Nobody else does.

As we seem to be the dubious "dominant species" right now, we think we have the right to call the shots.

The universe will be fine without the Earth. The Earth will be fine without us. We are only important because we think we are.

Regardless of what we do, the universe (and Earth) will survive.

We need to stop worrying about "save the planet" and start being concerned with "save the species"....if, in fact, the species in question really IS worth saving...

[Fescue4u]

54. perspective indeed

While I suspect the Earth will be fine without us, who's to say that we are not every bit as important to the Earth, as say the Whales, or the spotted owl?

Maybe we our just a blot that in inhibiting the Universe from achieving whatever it is supposed to achieve....or maybe humanity is the lynchpin of it all.

[pizzathehut]

86. History Channel on this...

Did you catch the "secret weapons of WW2" on the Histroy channel. The Japanese were preparing some nasty weapons to use against us including rocket powered planes that were built on updated plans from the Germans. Also they had over 1,000 Kamakaze planes ready which if only 1 in 10 would have gotten through could have really devastated the troop transports.

They also were preparing to use biological and chemical weapons on US troops like they used in China. Not to mention training children to run up to GI's with a bomb on their back.

They also pointed out the logistical problems facing an invasion of Japan, along with these new weapons, would have made an invasion VERY costly. Which would have only caused more grief for both sides.

[TheBigGuy]

98. Interesting question as to why poison gas wasnt used in WWII

I recall reading that Churchill had wanted to bomb German citys with poison gas but Roosevelt demurred on that.

[bpilgrim]

99. this reminds me of how we trumped up saddams capabilities

and bears little relation to the reality of the time... japan was utterly defeated, had no control of her on skies and a criticle shortage of everything including pilots.

it is all part of the subtle justification for the evil we wrought on a defeated nation.

remember all the military leaders at the time have said that nuking japan provided no material support for ending the war.

think about it... :hi:

peace

[Woodstock]

152. Yes, I saw this, too

The Kamakazes were taking a devastating toll. My father was there and managed to escape with his life. A tremendous amount of suffering went on prior to the bombs ending the war. And a tremendous amount more would have been endured had it gone on (which it would have.)

[bpilgrim]

154. the BIG LIE

the bombs did not end the war as the informed military leaders in theater - OUR guys - at the time said.

you should read the thread good sources and you might learn something new?

peace

[TheBigGuy]

100. I think people are missing my angle on this.

Im not really interested in debating whether or not the air raids on Hiroshima and Nagaski where justified and whether or not Japan was ready to surreneder or not.


The point I wanted to discuss was whether the A-bomb was so out-of-line from the kind of air war that was waged in Europe and Japan.

I think people are hung-up on the technology thing here...that the A-bomb was such an incredibly efficient weapon, and that it had the side-effects of radiation.

My contention is the end-result of those two air raids on Hiroshima and Nagaski wasn't much different than what would have been produced by conventional air raids. And that conventional air-raids also targeted civilian noncombatants and civilian urban districts together with industrial and transportation targets.

By the end of the war the US and Britain where carpet bombing citys and generating firestorms, with some pretty massive one-night casualities. So I see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of the general strategy, just that the strategy was carried out extremely efficiently.

[Garage Queen]

104. Oh, I get it now.

You aren't interested in a debate, you just want to narrow the debate to the point that people are cornered into agreeing with your position.

Got it.

:eyes:

[TheBigGuy]

105. Im interested in one aspect of this.

Im not sure what your point is . My interest in the a-bomb was more in the context of aerial warfare and strategic bombing.

[bpilgrim]

106. that has been addressed

1. that the targeting of civilians is wrong - or used to be
2. that the weapon is a lot different than conventional bombs in that it keeps killing long after it has been exploded.
3. we used it on a defeated nation that was trying to surrender
4. it started a mad nuclear arms race
5. it set the stage for PNAC by signaling our willingness to be as ruthless as necessary to achieve our own ends.

so there are plenty more differences than it simply being a 'more efficient' killing machine though that is also another reason why it is to be feared and debated as to it's usefulness and rules for engagement with nukes.

peace

[Junkdrawer]

136. The point is that a fire bomb attack requires hundreds of...

heavy bombers and thousands of men. Now a single MIRV can take out several large cities with a button push (or, to be accurate, two key turns).

Hiroshima and Nagaski crossed a threshold that many, many people wish was never crossed.