WOW! WWII, why we needed to drop 2 A-bombs, facts you did not learn in school.

[cobber]

What does that have to do with anything? They didn't kill him and he had the final say.
Wanna guess how qualified an historian simply growing up during the war makes you?

You are representing yourself as an historian then? Have you consulted the Japanese Army archives? What other primary sources have you consulted. You are recanting facts here that are no more authoritative than the facts you seek to rebut.

You are also apparently unaware that academia has been chiseling away at this issue for the last 50 years to discredit the decision. You are simply parroting that new point of view.

If the Japanese were ready to surrender, and the A-bomb was NOT a decisive factor, then why did they NOT surrender prior to its employment? And once is was employed, why did they surrender shortly thereafter?

Saying they "would have surrendered anyway" begs the question, when exactly was that going to happen, sans the use of nuclear weapons (or the complete devastation of the country by conventional and siege warfare, or the invasion by land forces and the probable partition of Japan into US and Soviet zones of occupation).

There was no guarantee after the A-bombs that the emperor would be allowed to remain, just as there was no guarantee prior to the A-bomb. So if the A-bombs were NOT the catalyst as you suggest, what then was?

If you are going to assume the mantle of historian, you are obligated to provide a credible and plausible explanation of why events turned out the way they did. That is what history is all about.

So, why did the Japanese NOT surrender prior to the A-bomb, and why DID they surrender afterwards?


As to the aside that growing up in the times does not qualify you to be an historian, how does NOT growing up in the times, and reading books written by people who also did not grow up in the times, give anyone GREATER authority? History is distilled opinion, more or less based on some primary sources. Historians may or may not have a clue what they are talking about. Just because one agrees with their assessment does not necessarily make them correct.

Argumentum ad auctoritatem is an historical fallacy not uncommonly seen.

 

[HenryWallace]

Like the algorithm used to manipulate the Silver market, our history is presented to us in a method that is swallow-able and acceptable to our pride, emotions, and convenience. You know... the important stuff.

History is written by the victor, yes! But the loser also has their own untold history.

 

[HenryWallace]

I watched some of the you tube video posted above. But stopped after Leahy's comments that he made yrs. after the bomb was dropped.....he thought and said it was not ethical.....but he fire bombed civilians throughout the war......? Ya the Japs were defeated, but they had not surrendered and thats the key, no way the Empororer in hearing what the bomb did, could not of had a effect on him. Bombs away.

You're right. Almost every comment in this thread is correct, but we're missing the point that this should tell us. It really has absolutely nothing to do with the story that we hear. It's political positioning. War under the dinner table and we're all serving drinks.

 

[ghuns]

A lot of surface scratching issues here... Emotional issues. Let's get into the meat of the matter.

Untold History: The Coup Against Wallace and What Might Have Been - YouTube

This is why I've chosen Wallace as my Avatar. This was IMO, the first STOLEN election. The change to Blatantly obvious overpowering governmental actions. The beginning of The CIA, NSA, distrust of all other nations... And The change of the face of the Democratic party.
Then...

The Bomb Sends a Message to the World - Untold History - YouTube

Wallace may be the last truly principled man to hold national office. Had he remained as vice president and assumed the presidency when FDR died, the world might have turned out to be a very different place, but maybe not for the better. He probably would not have dropped the bombs. Japan would have eventually conditionally surrendered. Possibly retaining enough military power to become a problem in years to come, instead of rebuilding and become a world leader in industry. He admitted later that he had been wrong in his judgements about the Soviets, especially Stalin. Imagine if he were president and set US policy towards the USSR in a way that assumed that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy and we can find a way to along with the USSR in a non-adversarial way.

What ifs and second guessing are fun, making real decisions that affect the entire world for generations to come are hard. I would love to read a fictional account of how the world of today would look had Wallace been president and Truman had went back to selling shoes.

 

[Hookeye]

I'm still cool with it, even if it turns out that we just wanted to show a potential enemy how strong we were, by using new technology on a current enemy.

Lesson: don't be the enemy.

 

[jamil]

I'm not at all surprised my opinion is in the minority, I went to public schools and know first hand they don't exactly turn out well educated people.
As to your point that Eisenhower wasn't qualified to make a decision, what do you say to the fact that General MacArthur, Chester Nimitz and Carl Spaatz were against using the bomb as well? They were the Supreme allied commander south pacific, Commander in chief pacific ocean areas and commander of US strategic Air forces in the Pacific.
Why were they wrong to oppose the bombing? Were they in position to come to fair opinions on the issue?

I'm glad you admit that it's an opinion. You have yours, others have theirs. I have mine. It's only an opinion that the Japanese were about to surrender. You can draw what you want from your quotes, but you lack the complete context of all sides. Events played out such that we won't truly know. The Japanese didn't surrender until after TWO bombs were dropped.

From the same information, others draw different conclusions from you. Yet you choose to believe that it's YOUR conclusions that are the correct, just and especially moral ones. Well, as Chad Fowler said, "everyone else is a 'me' too".

The conclusions you draw after the fact don't make you the morally superior one so you might as well climb down off your morally superior pedestal. Other people's opinions expressed in this thread qualify their morality no less than your opinions do.

A lot of opinions and "I think" in this thread.

Yep.

 

[9mmfan]

No I completely agree, the choice was solely up to the president. I'm telling you that majority of the top brass disagreed with that decision. You can say their objections were ignored, and you'd be correct, but you can't say their opinions are any less valid than say, yours.

If the 'top brass' had their way, we would not have SOCOM right now. It's one of the reasons civilian leadership of the military works (usually).

 

[Redhorse]

I'm still cool with it, even if it turns out that we just wanted to show a potential enemy how strong we were, by using new technology on a current enemy.

Lesson: don't be the enemy.

Good call

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Applying modern "truths" to past conflicts is always tricky at best. Today when our country goes to war, most of us are isolated. There is no draft. A tiny percentage of the population actually serves in the military. There is no rationing. Fewer and fewer people work in industries that directly support the war effort. The US has been at war for, what, 12 years now, and life goes on as normal for the vast majority of us. We don't act like a country at war during WWII.

I'm no historian, and I'm certainly no expert on WWII. Even the limited amount *I* know is that Japan had industrial centers spread out in residential homes. Even *I* know that civilians were preparing to fight on the mainland. The concept of a civilian population being innocent and uninvolved with the war effort isn't the same as the concept we have today. Civilians were instrumental in the war effort, both in providing materials of war that kept the military fighting and in being a final line of defense against invasion.

Only by showing that we had the technology and the willingness to use a bomb that could wipe out their infrastructure and manpower WITHOUT TAKING A SINGLE CASUALTY OF OUR OWN caused the Japanese to capitulate. There was no honor in throwing away their homeland and people without the knowledge that they could strike back and inflict pain on those doing the taking. Again, look at how few Japanese POWs were taken. Death was viewed as much more honorable than surrender, fighting to the last man at least inflicted additional casualties on the enemy.

Seriously, I thought this was common knowledge. Its like a Reader's Digest view of the Pacific portion of WWII.

 

[rambone]

Admiral William Leahy was Truman's Chief of Staff, and chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs.

He proclaimed that "the Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. In 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."

Leahy angrily told the journalist Johnathan Daniels in 1949, "Truman told me it was agreed they would only use it to hit military objectives... Of course, they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was what they wanted all the time."

 

[MPH]

Admiral William Leahy was Truman's Chief of Staff, and chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs.

He proclaimed that "the Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. In 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."

eahy angrily told the journalist Johnathan Daniels in 1949, "Truman told me it was agreed they would only use it to hit military objectives... Of course, they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was what they wanted all the time."

Another profile in courage, who complained after his tour of duty in a memoir.
I'm glad he didn't implement tactics in the war. He was born in 1875..if he'd had his way, horse-riding cavalry would have been lowered off of ships to invade the island in the Pacific, just like it was when he was commissioned, during the Spanish-American War.

 

[tenring]

As Truman didn't even know about the bomb until FDR died and he was sworn in, how did so many others know about it. Maybe FDR had no trust in Truman? Or did all these people suddenly turn politician by coming out against the bomb, to avoid any heat later on, or was it that the war came to an abrupt end and the were upset because they knew the military would soon be down sized and they would no longer be useful.

 

[Hookeye]

WW2 Japan= Trayvon Martin?
Bet there's an academic polishing his manuscript saying such.

 

[Jludo]

As Truman didn't even know about the bomb until FDR died and he was sworn in, how did so many others know about it. Maybe FDR had no trust in Truman? Or did all these people suddenly turn politician by coming out against the bomb, to avoid any heat later on, or was it that the war came to an abrupt end and the were upset because they knew the military would soon be down sized and they would no longer be useful.

It's common knowledge that FDR kept Truman in the dark on most everything.

 

[Jludo]

Another profile in courage, who complained after his tour of duty in a memoir.
I'm glad he didn't implement tactics in the war. He was born in 1875..if he'd had his way, horse-riding cavalry would have been lowered off of ships to invade the island in the Pacific, just like it was when he was commissioned, during the Spanish-American War.

Can't make that comparison, horses to tanks was a shift in military technology and strategy,
the nuclear bomb is a world paradigm shifting device.

 

[MPH]

Can't make that comparison, horses to tanks was a shift in military technology and strategy,
the nuclear bomb is a world paradigm shifting device.

...Do you just like to type so you can see what you're thinking?
Frankly, you know little. But I do admire your consistency. Tell you what, if you have the courage of your convictions: Go to any VFW and speak your mind..enlighten those who actually fought in WW2 and also to their children and grandchildren of how "sickening" Truman's decision was, and Why it was sickening. Be sure and toss in pithy but irrelevant notions such as 'world paradigm shifting events', etc.

I'd be surprised if you came out of the hall, alive..or in severely damaged shape.

 

[lj98]

As a professional historian, I would recommend not relying too much upon William Leahy. As a Navy admiral, he of course had a vested interest in proclaiming the Japanese being close to surrender as a result of the US naval blockade. During and after WWII the Navy and Air Force continued to have a heated, and at times, very public debate over the role of strategic airpower and, more importantly, the Navy's use of airpower versus the Air Force. I would expect Leahy, as did other Navy officers, to tow the service line.

 

[Jludo]

I'm still cool with it, even if it turns out that we just wanted to show a potential enemy how strong we were, by using new technology on a current enemy.

Lesson: don't be the enemy.

See this I really can't comprehend, would you be alright with killing every single inhabitant of a country that attacks you on the basis that it deters future aggressors?

 

[Jerchap2]

Wow. I did not realize how much discussion this would garner when I started this thread by posting the Bill Whittle video. I guess I should have. It is an interesting tread -- a mixture of strong opinion and people using articles they find that seem to support their position, many of which are opinions themselves written by people who took positions on the issue based on political or idealistic motives, and many after the fact.

 

[JTScribe]

The Japanese of today should be thanking their lucky stars we did drop the bombs. The conventional invasion plan of the home islands, IIRC, called for the usage of up to 17 atomic bombs to soften the defenses, predicted upwards of a million American casualties, ten times that many Japanese dead and was anticipated to last two years. In such a case the Japanese as a culture and civilization would basically have been wiped out.

People really don't understand the difference in outlook between then and now. Japanese papers would run stories regarding a competition between two Japanese Imperial officers where the kept track of the number of Chinese they decapitated with their service sabers. They'd keep stats like a sporting event. The motto that was ingrained into each and every civilian was "kill at least one American soldier" before dying. It would have been the invasion of Okinawa to the nth degree. My grandpa was a medic in the Pacific Theater and they would cover their Red Crosses because the IJA would use them for target practice.