The Bells of Nagasaki

[Arnie]

Not sure what your point is. That politicians and generals disagree isn't exactly a news flash. Maybe we could have gotten the Japanese to surrender without dropping the second bomb, but time was of the essence. The Russians were turning their attention to Japan and Truman was not going to allow them to enter the war with Japan in a way that could have seen Japan partitioned just as Germany was. This was OUR war. MacCarthur understood the Asian mind better than anyone (I've read American Caesar, great book, btw), so he may have been right, but we didn't have the luxury of waiting them out. My father was in the Pacific Theather (Logistics) and he said the invasion of Japan would have dwarfed the D-Day invasion. When he left the Phillipines he said there were fields filled with all manner of vehicles that would have been used in the invasion. He said you could stand in the middle and not see the end of them in any direction.

I won't even address your implying that we needed to drop that second bomb to "test" it on humans. If you believe that we would do that, you should find another country to call home.

 

[2cents]

Quote from drmarkan:

There was a complete split between the major decision makers as to whether they should surrender or not. The belief was that America could not have that many bombs, so they should continue the fight. Even when the Soviets broke the neutrality pact, the Japanese scoffed at this fact.

Once the second bomb fell on Nagasaki, the Emporer decided that this could go on no longer. There had been enough bloodshed at the hands of the Japanese by that point. To argue waiting for their reply rather than driving the point home is something you do not do in a war. Especially a war that saw as much bloodshed as WWII.

there is truth to that and i am not disputing the sad necessity of Hiroshima... but my point remains: what are your reasons to think that a 2nd bomb couldn't wait another week, while post-Iwojima & Okinawa, Japan military had no hope left of a 'final' battle victory, the country was already being burnt to the ground thanks to an effective & long-raging strategic bombing campaign they could do nothing against...
"Strategic bombing in Europe never reached the decisive completeness that the American bombing campaign in Japan achieved, helped in part by the fragility of Japanese housing which was particularly vulnerable to the use of incendiary bombs. "
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97abom/peace/e/04/aramo.htm scroll down to "air raid" for a recap

and the Soviets had just launched their offensive?

why did it have to be that very day - before a proper assessment of the dead and of the 1,000s and 1,000s of civilians writhing in agony in the ashes of Hiroshima could have been reported to the already swayed emperor - and when the Japanese as everybody else knew that a second and probably even more strikes were CERTAIN to come?

what would Japan have been able to achieve had they been given an extra week do you think?

why did Truman not order the construction of n more plutonium bombs do you think?

because the original intent was always that if the bombs had to be used, then on a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" basis which is sthg presidents understand very well, might as well test 2, for the reasons laid out in my previous post... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1183119&highlight=fullscale#post1183119
and the only "acceptable" way then for the 2nd one, was a non-simultaneous drop saying "we gave them a chance", but early enough so that official surrender couldn't get in the way...

pretty big stakes if you remember, plus the Soviet threat to deal with, therefore the imperative to maintain a strategic lead viz understanding effects & devising countermeasures (for both plutonium & uranium-based bombs)...

a good read, even stricken out sections:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistl...mb/large/documents/fulltext.php?fulltextid=20
"We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history -- and won."

 

[2cents]

Quote from Arnie:

Not sure what your point is. That politicians and generals disagree isn't exactly a news flash. Maybe we could have gotten the Japanese to surrender without dropping the second bomb, but time was of the essence. The Russians were turning their attention to Japan and Truman was not going to allow them to enter the war with Japan in a way that could have seen Japan partitioned just as Germany was. This was OUR war. MacCarthur understood the Asian mind better than anyone (I've read American Caesar, great book, btw), so he may have been right, but we didn't have the luxury of waiting them out. My father was in the Pacific Theather (Logistics) and he said the invasion of Japan would have dwarfed the D-Day invasion. When he left the Phillipines he said there were fields filled with all manner of vehicles that would have been used in the invasion. He said you could stand in the middle and not see the end of them in any direction.

I won't even address your implying that we needed to drop that second bomb to "test" it on humans. If you believe that we would do that, you should find another country to call home.

there is truth to that too but perhaps you should get out of your comfort zone and re-examine what you term 'my implying'... let me horrify you: this was war and i think truman made the right call... but there is no point in lying to oneself, nagasaki was unnecessary on military grounds, and if you respect MacArthur...

perhaps its time for America to compensate the surviving Hibakusha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

 

[Sam123]

You peddle and spin like a Palestinian.

Quote from 2cents:

there is truth to that too but perhaps you should get out of your comfort zone and re-examine what you term 'my implying'... let me horrify you: this was war and i think truman made the right call... but there is no point in lying to oneself, nagasaki was unnecessary on military grounds, and if you respect MacArthur...

perhaps its time for America to compensate the surviving Hibakusha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

 

[2cents]

agree that a sense of humour is a good thing, but that doesn't solve everything...

 

[TM_Direct]

Once again, when you are at WAR its always a mistake to take a wait and see approach if you have a distinct advantage....Did Al Queda crash One plane into a tower and then take a wait and see approach? of course not, they had the element of surprise! Why take a wait and see approach? we had the advantage and demanded a quick and unconditional surrender...they didn't so we dropped another.

 

[drmarkan]

Quote from 2cents:

there is truth to that and i am not disputing the sad necessity of Hiroshima... but my point remains: what are your reasons to think that a 2nd bomb couldn't wait another week, while post-Iwojima & Okinawa, Japan military had no hope left of a 'final' battle victory, the country was already being burnt to the ground thanks to an effective & long-raging strategic bombing campaign they could do nothing against...
"Strategic bombing in Europe never reached the decisive completeness that the American bombing campaign in Japan achieved, helped in part by the fragility of Japanese housing which was particularly vulnerable to the use of incendiary bombs. "
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97abom/peace/e/04/aramo.htm scroll down to "air raid" for a recap

and the Soviets had just launched their offensive?

why did it have to be that very day - before a proper assessment of the dead and of the 1,000s and 1,000s of civilians writhing in agony in the ashes of Hiroshima could have been reported to the already swayed emperor - and when the Japanese as everybody else knew that a second and probably even more strikes were CERTAIN to come?

what would Japan have been able to achieve had they been given an extra week do you think?

why did Truman not order the construction of n more plutonium bombs do you think?

because the original intent was always that if the bombs had to be used, then on a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" basis which is sthg presidents understand very well, might as well test 2, for the reasons laid out in my previous post... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1183119&highlight=fullscale#post1183119
and the only "acceptable" way then for the 2nd one, was a non-simultaneous drop saying "we gave them a chance", but early enough so that official surrender couldn't get in the way...

pretty big stakes if you remember, plus the Soviet threat to deal with, therefore the imperative to maintain a strategic lead viz understanding effects & devising countermeasures (for both plutonium & uranium-based bombs)...

a good read, even stricken out sections:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistl...mb/large/documents/fulltext.php?fulltextid=20
"We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history -- and won."

The emperor made his statement of acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration after the second bomb hit. There is no documentation that he was willing to surrender prior to the second strike. The debate for the military leaders was whether they believed the U.S. could have more than one bomb. They found out the hard way. Anyways, I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Would it make you feel better if they had dropped the 2 bombs simultaneously? That would take this whole discussion off the table then. Or it would change the discussion to why Truman dropped a third bomb.

Even after the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese were split on accepting the Potsdam Declaration as it was written. The U.S. was not going to compromise this. The emporer agreed though and a military coup was in the works. Who's to say that General Anami would not give his support had there only been one bomb? Especially considering that he was unwilling to go along with the declaration until the Emperor's position was guaranteed.

If people are trying to find controversy in this situation, I don't understand why. The ultimatum was given. If you really want to look at a controversy from that time, in which people are unwilling to take stock of what they have done, look at the Nanking Massacre. To this day the Japanese Nationalists deny the slaughter that took place there.

 

[2cents]

no need to distract from the subject at hand... the Japanese will have to come to terms with their history... there's not much of a controversy over the rape of Nanking... that doesn't absolve the US for her(?) own wrongdoings in any way

as regards the last-ditch coup attempt and its motivations, that simply goes to show again (as if we didn't know) how totally fanatical & suicidal the japanese military was and how sensitive a play it had to be even for the emperor to announce his decision to accept the terms...

there are some reasonably detailed records of the council meetings etc held in the last few weeks but given that ultimately everybody had an interest in preserving the emperor's role & image, they can't be considered reliable, therefore won't bother linking...

in any event, that doesn't address any of the points i have raised:
. for one, the Trinity test was made public the same day as Hiroshima, not doubt the info wld have reached Japan v.quickly if it wasn't provided to them same day by some other party/diplomatic channel. But even then, when you can make one, you can make two, three... ten... once you've got the mix etc right, it doesn't take months to put another bomb together, even the Japanese knew that... let's not use simplistically dismissive arguments
. in the context, and even if we are to dismiss what MacArthur and others said on the lack of military justification, 3 days was basically the same as launching simultaneously, which is actually completely consistent with what i am saying was the rationale at play behind the Nagasaki bombing... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1184430&highlight=stricken#post1184430

 

[drmarkan]

Quote from 2cents:

no need to distract from the subject at hand... the Japanese will have to come to terms with their history... there's not much of a controversy over the rape of Nanking... that doesn't absolve the US for her(?) own wrongdoings in any way

as regards the last-ditch coup attempt and its motivations, that simply goes to show again (as if we didn't know) how totally fanatical & suicidal the japanese military was and how sensitive a play it had to be even for the emperor to announce his decision to accept the terms...

there are some reasonably detailed records of the council meetings etc held in the last few weeks but given that ultimately everybody had an interest in preserving the emperor's role & image, they can't be considered reliable, therefore won't bother linking...

in any event, that doesn't address any of the points i have raised:
. for one, the Trinity test was made public the same day as Hiroshima, not doubt the info wld have reached Japan v.quickly if it wasn't provided to them same day by some other party/diplomatic channel. But even then, when you can make one, you can make two, three... ten... once you've got the mix etc right, it doesn't take months to put another bomb together, even the Japanese knew that... let's not use simplistically dismissive arguments
. in the context, and even if we are to dismiss what MacArthur and others said on the lack of military justification, 3 days was basically the same as launching simultaneously, which is actually completely consistent with what i am saying was the rationale at play behind the Nagasaki bombing... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1184430&highlight=stricken#post1184430

What wrongdoing? We told them if they didn't accept our terms, they were going to suffer by air. Trying to say I simplistically dismissed an argument by stating that there were leaders in the Japanese military who believed there may only be one bomb is your way of dismissing the argument simplistically. You want us to simply buy your argument that "when you can make one, you can make two, three... ten... once you've got the mix etc right, it doesn't take months to put another bomb together, even the Japanese knew that... ". Talk about simplicity.

I suggest you read Michael Hogan's book "Hiroshima in History and Memory". You may get some perspective on how the Emporer was the key element to the delay by Japan to surrender.

You are wrong about it being the same as a simultaneous bombing though. The Japanese had 3 days. That is plenty of time to figure it out. It only took them a couple hours to figure it out after the second bomb dropped.

As for the comment you made about war crimes at the beginning of the thread, what is the basis for this? The Japanese were the aggressors in this war. We fought back and chose to use our final solution. We tried to take POW's, but they kept blowing themselves up as well. You are just fishing for something to hate America for and you don't have your facts straight. In your first post, you forgot to thank Albert Einstein as well for working to persuade FDR to research nuclear fission in the first place. Do you hate him as well?

I wonder if you cry after basketball games because they never end in a tie. You must have really hated the Bulls when Jordan was there.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from 2cents:

no need to distract from the subject at hand... the Japanese will have to come to terms with their history... there's not much of a controversy over the rape of Nanking...

Try to tell that to the Japanese. This is quoted from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The controversy flared up again in 1982, when the Japanese Ministry of Education censored any mention of the Nanking Massacre in a high school textbook. The reason given by the ministry was that the Nanking Massacre was not a well-established historical event. The author of the textbook, Professor Saburō Ienaga, sued the Ministry of Education in an extended case, which was won by the plaintiff in 1997.

A number of Japanese cabinet ministers, as well as some high-ranking politicians, have also made comments denying the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in World War II. Some subsequently resigned after protests from China and South Korea. In response to these and similar incidents, a number of Japanese journalists and historians formed the Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai (Nanjing Incident Research Group). The research group has collected large quantities of archival materials as well as testimonies from both Chinese and Japanese.

While most in Japan do not deny that a massacre took place in Nanking, many feel that the extent of crimes committed have been exaggerated in order to give a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism, which aims to weaken Japanese power and influence in the region. This is especially true with the more hardline members of the government cabinet, who have grown increasingly wary of China's military build-up in recent years.