Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII

[monty of ll]

Nono, you asked: "I ask you, as I ask PH, to tell me how you would have conducted yourself if you had been in Truman's shoes."

Your question seems to beg that we get away from the question of necessity of dropping the bombs and that's not where I am going. But I will attempt to answer the question and at the same time stay away from the question of necessity. As I have stated before, it may have been the best thing to do in the circumstances because the test on a large city would have inevitably taken place sooner or later. Having said that, I would add that obviously it would have been more desirable that no city was ever hit with an atomic bombSo it's difficult for me to guess at what Truman should have done. I suppose that he could have demonstrated the destructive power of the bomb by hitting a Japanese military base instead of a city which was a civilian target for the most part. I think we can safely say that the desired effect was not to destroy the military capabilities of the small number of military personnel in Hiroshima.

So let's establish something right now if we intend to discuss the matter. Do you think that the dropping of the bombs was meant to diminish Japan's military capabilities or do you think it was meant as a demonstration of the bombs? Perhaps we should keep in mind that Truman stated that the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was being dropped on a military establishment and expressly stated to be not on civilian population. Maybe Truman was under the impression that Hiroshima 'was' a military base and he was not intentionally lying about the target. Your comments on those issues for a start?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Nono So much for Kyushu. What about the rest of that enormous archipelago?

Umm-

Invasion sight, kinda like Normandy. That aside, if you read from the posting, you would know that these were best estimates and not exact figures. The problem is that the previous post claimed estimates of over a million deaths and we only intended to invade with a force of 1 to 1.5 million men and nowhere in Europe or the Pacific did casualty, much less death rates approach 100 percent. Like I said, I was attempting to bring realism to a topic worthy of serious debate. There is a part of me that believes we were more interested in the power politics of the situation (scaring the shit out of the USSR and limiting their participation in the Pacific theater while still reaping the benefits of that participation) than in the human costs of invasion v. a-bomb death ratios. I believe there is a strong argument that those were just window dressing justifications to do what we felt it was politically and strategically expedient to do. But I also understand that I was not in Trumans mind and I have never seen an order or a memo that establishes one way or the other what was the absolute driving force behind Trumans weight of factors.

[righthand]

Quote by: monty of ll If so, I'm not interested in arguments that are solely for the purpose of clearing the U.S. of it's responsibility and I suggest that you shouldn't be either, rather we should all be interested in coming to the correct conclusion. If there was no sarcasm intended then my apologies.

Good on you Monty. We do seem to have attracted a higher class on this thread. And Nono is doing a good job too, allowing you to share your ideas with all of us. There's one little cus from the 'hang 'em high' gang scratching about looking for a row, but he's insignificant.

[righthand]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Like I said, I was attempting to bring realism to a topic worthy of serious debate.

Right on.

Quote by: lsbskins1 There is a part of me that believes we were more interested in the power politics of the situation (scaring the shit out of the USSR and limiting their participation in the Pacific theater while still reaping the benefits of that participation) than in the human costs of invasion v. a-bomb death ratios.

The final decision to drop the bomb was made on the plane back to the US. Stalin had not been deferential enough. Truman thinks: "If you knew what I know then...high and mighty." Stalin thinks: "I know what you don't think I know and fuc* you. We won this war and we're getting our share." Little boys games with millions of lives in the balance. Was it ever any different?

Quote by: lsbskins1 I believe there is a strong argument that those were just window dressing justifications to do what we felt it was politically and strategically expedient to do. But I also understand that I was not in Truman's mind and I have never seen an order or a memo that establishes one way or the other what was the absolute driving force behind Truman's weight of factors.

The memo would have been found if his motives were pure.

Pooeypants Waited for Russia to declare war on Japan and then accept their conditional surrender? [center]Critical Asian Studies [/center]

is a far better source than what I intended posting, but I do have other data, soon.

[PatrickHenry]

Try this essay: http://members.aol.com/essays6/abomb.htm
A brief quote:

Many US military officials were less than enthusiastic about the demand for unconditional surrender or use of the atomic bomb. At the time of Potsdam, Gen. Hap Arnold asserted that conventional bombing could end the war. Adm. Ernest King believed a naval blockade alone would starve the Japanese into submission. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, convinced that retaining the emperor was vital to an orderly transition to peace, was appalled at the demand for unconditional surrender. Adm. William Leahy concurred. Refusal to keep the emperor "would result only in making the Japanese desperate and thereby increase our casualty lists," he argued, adding that a nearly defeated Japan might stop fighting if unconditional surrender were dropped as a demand. At a loss for a military explanation for use of the bomb, Leahy believed that the decision "was clearly a political one", reached perhaps "because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project".{16} Finally, we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary of war that: Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face". The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.{17} If, as appears to be the case, the US decision to drop the A-bombs was based on neither the pursuit of the earliest possible peace nor it being the only way to avoid a land invasion, we must look elsewhere for the explanation.

[Nono]

Sorry, Pat, I simply didn't spot your reply there, somehow passed over it.

Pooey's article is interesting in an abstractly maybe-conceivably-one-never-knows sort of way, as in: if we added water and stirred maybe it would set, then again...

Quote by: monty I would add that obviously it would have been more desirable that no city was ever hit with an atomic bombSo it's difficult for me to guess at what Truman should have done. I suppose that he could have demonstrated the destructive power of the bomb by hitting a Japanese military base instead of a city which was a civilian target for the most part. I think we can safely say that the desired effect was not to destroy the military capabilities of the small number of military personnel in Hiroshima.

I agree, but I also remember that they were in possession of precisely two Bombs, and doubtless wanted to go for maximum effect, maximum shock. They could also have used one to obliterate an uninhabited island. But at that point in the war, after so much bloodshed and brutality (unbelievable brutality on the Japanese' part), that simply wasn't the dynamic in gear.

Quote by: PH No US lives were at risk in a conventional bombing campaign. You figure it out, Nono.

I've thought about this. Seems to me that it shows a callous disregard for civilians lives. And makes you sound a lot like the Bush family re the virtues of dropping "smart" bombs on this or that country to make it see sense. About as many people were killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo as died in Hiroshima or in Nagasaki. You think the people in Tokyo were somehow less dead than the ones in H&N?
You think that starving them would have been more humane?
How many skeletal civilian corpses would it have taken to prompt the militarists running the Japanese government into hoisting the old white flag or ritually disembowelling themselves? You figure it out, Pat.

(And while you're at it, I really would like to know how a guy who finds so appalling the idea of nuking -- to finally and swiftly bring it to its knees -- a country that had gone rampaging with max cruelty around every country within its reach can at the same time hold in his pantheon of heroes somebody who advocating the nuking of a small Asian country that posed no threat whatever to the United States.)

Sorry guys, nothing in this thread has convinced me that using the Bomb wasn't the fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war, not that I idealize Truman or anyone else, or deny that they didn't also toss a coupla ulterior motives into the mix.

Nor, however, do I forget the suffering of civilians in the countries occupied by the Japanese, and see the suffering in H&N as just another variation on the whole nightmarish theme.

[righthand]

Quote by: Nono Pooey's article is interesting in an abstractly maybe-conceivably-one-never-knows sort of way, as in: if we added water and stirred maybe it would set, then again...

Seems a most simplistic way to dismiss a very well researched essay that would take a lot or reading to digest. Does it work for you not to take on board anything new you don't immediately agree with. It will take me a week to read it all.
[center] Critical Asian Studies {Press to read} [/center]

NonoI agree, but I also remember that they were in possession of precisely two Bombs, and doubtless wanted to go for maximum effect, maximum shock. They could also have used one to obliterate an uninhabited island. But at that point in the war, after so much bloodshed and brutality (unbelievable brutality on the Japanese' part), that simply wasn't the dynamic in gear. I've thought about this. Seems to me that it shows a callous disregard for civilians lives. And makes you sound a lot like the Bush family re the virtues of dropping "smart" bombs on this or that country to make it see sense. About as many people were killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo as died in Hiroshima or in Nagasaki. You think the people in Tokyo were somehow less dead than the ones in H&N? You think that starving them would have been more humane? How many skeletal civilian corpses would it have taken to prompt the militarists running the Japanese government into hoisting the old white flag or ritually disemboweling themselves? You figure it out, Pat.

I think you missed the point some pages ago. Has it not been understood by us all by now that the bombs did not stop the war. PatrickHenry gave the answer first that it was "the Commies". Critical Asian Studies also gave the same answer. I could pick out the relevant bits but would not do justice to a well reasoned essay.

Nono (And while you're at it, I really would like to know how a guy who finds so appalling the idea of nuking -- to finally and swiftly bring it to its knees -- a country that had gone rampaging with max cruelty around every country within its reach can at the same time hold in his pantheon of heroes somebody who advocating the nuking of a small Asian country that posed no threat whatever to the United States.) Sorry guys, nothing in this thread has convinced me that using the Bomb wasn't the fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war, not that I idealize Truman or anyone else, or deny that they didn't also toss a coupla ulterior motives into the mix. Nor, however, do I forget the suffering of civilians in the countries occupied by the Japanese, and see the suffering in H&N as just another variation on the whole nightmarish theme.

Also very simplistic logic. Obviously you would not have bothed capturing Baghdad. Wipe it out. "Fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war". So how long is the list of 'dead' cities now. Well, Havana, no about every Latin American city. Look I'm not wasting my time on such a foolish argument.

The leaders of Japan and Germany were bad people who got their comeuppance. Neither the German or Japanese people were/are any more bad than Americans. To say different is to be racist!!! The Japanese were/are wedded to the idea of the Emperor being God on earth. Millions dying for them was less than dishonouring their 'god'. So again the bombs were never going to end the war.

Dealing with what you do/may know. Towards the end of the war in Europe two points:

First the mad rush west by everyone who could to surrender to the Yanks. Why not to Russia?

Secondly, why the mad rush by the western allies to reach Berlin before the Russian and the also suicidal advance by the Russians on Berlin.

[A notion struck me this week about checking the German births nine months after the Russians passed through. There were few men. Those that there were would not have been UP to much.]

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono And while you're at it, I really would like to know how a guy who finds so appalling the idea of nuking -- to finally and swiftly bring it to its knees -- a country that had gone rampaging with max cruelty around every country within its reach can at the same time hold in his pantheon of heroes somebody who advocating the nuking of a small Asian country that posed no threat whatever to the United States.

This is off topic, Nono. But because you insist on an answer: I do like Sen. Goldwater as a conservative before conservatism was twisted to mean something else. I wasn't actually a supporter of his in the 1964 Presidential campaign, ( I was too young for politics, really) And I had many transformations to negotiate before ending in the now. In truth, I never liked Republicans for president in my life. Looking back, Barry Goldwater would have been an exception.

I think his advocacy of using nukes on North VietNam was hyperbole, and wouldn't have ever happened, even if he were the CinC. He still shouldn't have said it and I don't support that position he misguidedly articulated. His other views were more reasonable and well worth making him a hero of mine.

As to your other arguments: No, I don't think starvation of civilian populations is humane, but it doesn't bring instantaneous death, radiation burns, or irreversible genetic damage. I have acknowledged that the atomic bombs, by forcing a quick though gruesome end to the war, may have actually saved lives of Japanese civilians. I haven't attempted to confirm or disprove that conjecture. But they were attempting to surrender already.

The facts are that the Bombs were used on cities as a demonstration of:

• the power of the devices to obliterate cities
• US ruthlessness and willingness to kill civilians where no military targets were located
• a show of bravado and ferocity to the Reds

Nono, did you read the essay by Blum that I linked? (not just the quote)

The Atomic bombings were a turning point for the soul of America. WWII was the last war that was fought by the US in a defensive mode. During that war the US took on the despicable characteristics of its enemies. It has been a downward spiral ever since, and I fear that the way back is now lost. IMO, penance will be required for expiation.

[Nono]

Quote by: righthand Seems a most simplistic way to dismiss a very well researched essay that would take a lot or reading to digest.

What I was endeavouring to convey is that it sounds highly speculative – because it is.

Has it not been understood by us all by now that the bombs did not stop the war.

Not by me, I'm afraid (sorry). The one event was followed fairly closely by the other (after a period needed by the Emperor to finally gird his loins and become his own man). Of course, H&N and Japan's surrender may have been coincidence, but it would be up to you to prove this. (If tomorrow Osama blows up the main oil-delivery facilitities in the Gulf and shortly thereafter the price of oil skyrockets, anyone who argues that B isn't due to A bears the onus of proof, as do you in any claim that the Bomb wasn't what caused Japan to capitulate.)

The fact is that the US dropped the Bomb in August and a few weeks later Japan had signed on the dotted line – after a decade and a half of mass-scale homicide and enslavement. That is the fact.

Obviously you would not have bothed capturing Baghdad. Wipe it out. "Fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war".

Jeez, right, please stop -- you're absolutely killin me here with these devastating "Gotcha!" remarks of yours. :)
You clearly haven't read many of my posts on this board.
Your strawman drivel speaks for itself.

[Nono]

Thanks, Pat, for squarely answering my questions.

Quote by: Pat Nono, did you read the essay by Blum that I linked? (not just the quote)

Yes I did.

First, it contains a couple of historical falsehoods: "The Japanese have apologized to the Chinese and the Koreans", for example, is a warning sign of slipshod scholarship and bias (just ask the Chinese and Koreans).

And "Japan was frantically trying to end the war" is more than simply a strange statement. If that were true, why weren't offensive hostilities suspended and why didn't the call for peace go out over Radio Tokyo and the multitude of other means at their disposal. And what about all the back channels they could have used, neutral powers like Turkey, Sweden and Switzerland, on archival traces of which historians would by now have eagerly pounced?

And most telling, how does one square the kamikazes, the civilians-as-human-shields, etc. etc. used by these suddenly peaceable Japanese as the Americans worked their way through the island chains? Sorry, but that wasn't a country even interested in peace, far less frantic for it.

Of course what the average Japanese wanted and what the militarist fanatics running the show wanted may have been two different things. That's often the way it is. And so Blum says that the Japanese sent the Germans (the Germans?!!) a telegram saying that "the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation". What does "large sections of the Japanese armed forces" mean? Any relation to large sections of the US armed forces in Vietnam? Its essentially meaningless. That said, I respect Eisenhower and would be interested in substantiation of his views, which this article fails to provide.

However, I'm afraid I simply don't believe that the Japanese authorities were interested in anything other than going down in flames if they couldn't be victorious. Everything in their martial tradition speaks for this. Blum's piece strikes me as at best anecdotal. He quotes somebody in the Japanese foreign service? OK, I'll quote Hisatsune Sakomizu, Japan's chief cabinet secretary in 1945:

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

[monty of ll]

Nono said: "Sorry guys, nothing in this thread has convinced me that using the Bomb wasn't the fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war,........"

Sorry Nono, but isn't this debate about whether or not the bomb was necessary to end the war, not about the fact that it did end the war? And hasn't it become a defence of the Americans by you rather than you defending the necessity or you substantiating the necessity.

Hearing nothing of the sort from anyone, I believe that the case has been stated quite nicely that the bomb wasn't necessary. But I do hold out hope for a good rebuttal because I think it's worth it to at least settle the dispute here on this forum.

[Nono]

Point taken, monty. Nobody ever said the Bomb was a sine qua non. Yet I repeat: "Sorry guys, nothing in this thread has convinced me that using the Bomb wasn't the fastest and most 'humane' route to ending the war,........"

Yeah, a coupla more years, a coupla hundred thousand (or a coupla million) more deaths. That's what it seems to me foregoing the Bomb would have meant.
Would you be willing to be one of those people?

[monty of ll]

Quote by: Nono Yeah, a coupla more years, a coupla hundred thousand (or a coupla million) more deaths. That's what it seems to me foregoing the Bomb would have meant. Would you be willing to be one of those people?

Yes, I understand that your position is that it would have cost hundreds of thousands or even a million but I was hoping for a good solid argument on why you or anyone else think that. I think that there has been a fair amount of evidence put forward to show the opposite was true.

And no, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have been willing to be one of the people who had to sacrifice my life. Knowing what I know now I would have been insistent on the allies pursuing a surrender. Did you know that the Japanese were suing for peace on the same terms on which the final surrender was agreed upon? That's my information and if you care to continue to pursue this interesting topic then maybe you could check that out. Therefore, if that were true, then wouldn't that have made the bombs absolutely unnecessary?

[Nono]

Look, monty, let me be clear: I have no emotional stake in believing H&N to have been right as opposed to wrong.* It's just the way I see it on the basis of what I have read and heard. If you can supply credible information (as opposed to vague hearsay) to the effect that the Japanese were trying to end the war but the US wouldn't let them, bring it on.

* Look at my posts on this board. They're anything but those of a lick-spittle lackey of US foreign policy.

Did you know that the Japanese were suing for peace on the same terms on which the final surrender was agreed upon?

No I didn't, and don't. I think that's a load of wishful BS. As I see it, their actions were in keeping with the precise opposite.

That's my information (...) maybe you could check that out.

Fine. Present it.

If that (Japanese frantically suing for peace) were true, then wouldn't that have made the bombs absolutely unnecessary?

Yes. But I don't think there is any truth to it at all. Show me.

[Nono]

Jeez, al, you've managed to go way off-topic on your very first post.
But I'll allow myself to cherry-pick from it. The Japanese atrocities to which you refer are precisely the sort of thing that make me doubt these people were in any way disposed to considering a peaceful outcome.

[monty of ll]

Oooooooo, sorry Nono, I didn't realize that this was becoming a personal issue with you! I had heard that the Japanese were suing for peace but I asked you to do the homework and find it because I wanted to draw you into the topic a little deeper. Anyway, I don't have a lot of time right now but if it is true that they were suing for peace before the bombs on the same terms which were agreed upon, then it should be easy to prove. I think. For the moment I will leave you with this:

http://www.nonviolence.org/cgi-bin/m...i?entry_id=200

And please don't think you need to explain to me that you have no emotional stake in this discussion. I could care less one way or another. I'm interested in pursuing the question because I don't believe the topic has been exhausted by anyone yet. If we here on Volcanvo are capable of doing that with our access to the internet then I invite you to join me.

I'm not seeing anyone joining in to the discussion who wants to take your side and I'm wondering why that is. Is it because nobody cares, nobody wants to care, or maybe nobody is capable of taking part in a sensible debate on the issue.

Of course ther is little interest by anyone wanting to take my side either. (??)

[Nono]

Quote by: monty I didn't realize that this was becoming a personal issue with you!

Mystic stuff. It's nothing of the kind. What makes you say that?

For the moment I will leave you with this: http://www.nonviolence.org/cgi-bin/...gi?entry_id=200

Embarrassing, ain't it? This link seems practically 100% hostile to your position. :confused:

[monty of ll]

Nono- What made me say this was getting to be a personal thing with you was your post #54 where you seemed to be getting a little testy with me. It was the 'look monty' etc. Sorry if I got you wrong. As to the link I gave you, I didn't even look at it so I couldn't say whether or not it contradicts my position. I was in a hurry and had to leave for a while so It was meant to give you an introduction to the idea that we may explore together. I'll do some searches when I get a chance but it's my understanding that the Japanese were suing for peace on the basis of them being allowed to keep their emperor. That's the condition that they needed for surrender and that's what they got.

[monty of ll]

Nono- Here's one link that I have found that corroborates what I said and what I suspect are the facts:

http://www.bizniz.net/dada/mail.cgi?...20040809141043

"Intelligence information available to President Truman indicated that from May 1945 on, Japan wished to surrender. Her only stipulation was that the emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, be spared. (Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 6, 1992). Truman, however, rebuffed Japan's overtures, demanding "unconditional surrender." In July the emperor indicated that he was interested in suing for peace. Again the offer was refused. Truman's adamant insistence on unconditional surrender was the obstacle to ending the war. Why didn't the President take that small step for peace and allow the emperor to remain in place?"

Now I admit that's just a start and it's not a U.S. government source but it seems to be stating the issue fairly clearly to me. But as I said earlier, the surrender wasn't unconditional and did contain the provision that Japan would be allowed to keep it's emperor, as I understand the surrender terms. Truman therefore accepted the same terms for surrender as the Japanese were suing for before the bombs were dropped. What do you think?

And then on a slightly different note but still pertinent to this discussion:

Stimson talking: "I told him [President Truman] how I was trying to hold the airforce down to precision bombing... I was a little fearful that before we could get ready, the Air Force might have Japan so bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. He [Truman] laughed and said he understood."

"Hiroshima was spared for mass killing at a later date."

But I urge you and others who may be interested to read the entire link because I think everyone can learn a little from it.

[Liminus]

Good link monty.
Here's a little snippet:
"The consensus among historians today, after consideration of recently released records and documents, is that the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan primarily for two reasons--to keep the Soviet Union out of the Pacific and to establish who would be the dominant power in the postwar world. "
OK so I'm not informed enough to know if that's a consensus opinion or not but it's certainly entirely in keeping with the history of US global strategy. Also you've got to remember that they spent $20 billion (in real terms) on this and they were not going to waste it. Not very nice I know but that's the US government for you.
Also: "The justification for the use of the bombs was that they would end the war quickly and make unnecessary a land invasion of Japan. The U.S. government stated that the atomic bombs saved the lives of "half a million" American troops. This was a gross exaggeration. The Joint War Plans Committee estimated on June 18, 1945, that 40,000 Americans would be killed in an invasion of the Japanese mainland, not "half a million."
Well well well.
I am confident in saying it is universally accepted today that US military planners were openly talking about world domination during WWII, given that the only economic rivals, Europe were in chaos (and debt to the US), and the only military rival, Russia, had to be put in its place. Put yourself in Truman's shoes, if you had this weapon, at this time, of course you'd use it because you'd know that it would usher in the age of the US as the sole global superpower, which it did.
(By the way this has been the case since 1945, Russia was never a contender, if you don't believe me read some Noam Chomsky, or if you think he's anti-american or something and you don't want to go near him, just check out economic and military statistics for the US and Russia 1945-91. There's no contest.)
I conclude that the bombings were unecessary, that they had everything to do with long term global strategy and very little to do with ending WWII.
If you want to know more about US global strategic thinking at the highest levels of goverment, go to www.newamericancentury.org or do a search for "Vision for 2020".
Scary stuff.