Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While the academic question of the thread title is an interesting one, I suppose it was inevitable that most posters would be unable to refrain from dragging the discussion down to yet another quibble about the morality/justification of the use of the bombs, from one side of that debate or the other.
I suspect the OP started the thread with exactly that in mind.
Too bad...
Very too bad. The attempt to retrofit Cold War mentality on the WWII scenario will always fail if the posters are willing to accept the reality of the two situation are different.
Very too bad. The attempt to retrofit Cold War mentality on the WWII scenario will always fail if the posters are willing to accept the reality of the two situation are different.
Although, business as usual on this particular forum, the people who actually have a supported point of view posted up some solid ideas, and the people with what are I hate to say are essentially hysterical opinions unsupported by actual historical facts were challenged to support them, and of course failed. Good scholarship prevailed. Perhaps people with out-of-context ideas on how FDR might have "pulled a rabbit out of the hat" have learned why this seems quite unlikely. Perhaps some young kids, who have probably been indoctrinated at school and university that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary atrocities (and I think this is the current politically correct "opinion") have learned something. I certainly learn new things and perspectives every time I log on here!
As an aside, sometimes I wonder about the modern idea that nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons are totally beyond the pale, yet virtually all other forms of mayhem are considered to be like a good rough play in Rugby, perfectly all right. I get, of course, how things can rapidly get out of hand if even 2 relatively small nuclear armed nations "have at it" and how keeping a lid on this is a good thing. But, still, to me considering Hiroshima some sort of over-the-top attack, while Dresden was just business as usual seems to me an artificial divide. My point being, "war is hell" and that holds with or without using a particular technology. It was hell when done only with sticks and stones.
The Japanese asked for a lot of conditions at first, basically winning the war. They were refused.
Some people will say that allowing Japan to keep the Emperor was a condition that was allowed. He was deemed useful to the occupation and rehabilitation of the country. The Imperial Rescript ending Japan's war carried his force with it. If the Allies had deposed him the men who had reluctantly obeyed his orders may have felt no longer bound by his command. And Japan would make might fine guerrilla country.
The Emperor staying in his position was not a condition for surrender however. Japan surrendered knowing very well that the emperor could be arrested and executed for war crimes. From all accounts, Hirohito was surprised that he wasn't. Indeed he was useful to the occupation.
The Emperor staying in his position was not a condition for surrender however. Japan surrendered knowing very well that the emperor could be arrested and executed for war crimes. From all accounts, Hirohito was surprised that he wasn't. Indeed he was useful to the occupation.
Exactly. There really was not much of an option but to use them. People look at the Japan of today and forget about how Imperial Japan was to fight against - they always fought to the death, period. To the last man. And like most, they fought with maximum ferocity on their home turf. A decent brief discussion is Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (Google will take you right to it.)
Now I will grant you probably in any alternative scenario Nagasaki would not have been bombed, since it was a secondary target of opportunity. (See the mess that starts to unravel when considering alternative scenarios?)
Of course there options: Invasion, saturation bombing, blockade. They were debated and rejected. The allies were war worry. The future of nuclear weapons could not be foreseen, only speculated, and that very weakly at the time. The same people who advised Truman, also advised FDR and FDR was certainly more vocal about his negative feelings against Japan than Truman. The morality of both men dealt only with Japanese deaths vs. allied deaths and the Japanese had already killed more soldiers and civilians than the 2 atom bombs ever would.
Gen. Curtis LeMay is the one responsible for dropping the bombs. He speeded-up the delivery of them from Arizona by 9 days from the set schedule, and then without hesitation, dropped the first one. He had learned that a secret and bloodless surrender had been negotiated with Japan and didn't want to miss his chance to show the world what his weapon could do. The diplomats thought they had more than a week remaining to work out the fine details and announce the surrender. But LeMay had been authorized to use the bombs and did, without anyone outside his command realizing that he could trim that much time off the delivery date.
When Truman heard that one bomb had been dropped, he was enraged, but knew he could say nothing, because if the world learned that we had set up a surrender and then still dropped a bomb, we would have been reviled by everyone. He didn't even know that LeMay had a second bomb and would drop it three days later. When he heard about that, he shouted to an aide, "That S.O.B. doesn't have a third bomb, does he? He'd better not use it if he does!". This story was revealed by Maj. Gen. Frank Merrill in a deathbed confession, in 1955. Merrill had been a friend of LeMay and was told how he had side-stepped the hierarchy in order to use the bombs. When you think of what would happen even today, if this secret were widely known and believed, it's no wonder it has been repressed at all levels in the chain of information.
I heard this story on a late-night talk show on KGO, from a special guest. But that guest and the story vanished quickly afterwards. It must have been heard by many thousands on the West Coast. I wonder how many remember it?
Gen. Curtis LeMay is the one responsible for dropping the bombs. He speeded-up the delivery of them from Arizona by 9 days from the set schedule, and then without hesitation, dropped the first one. He had learned that a secret and bloodless surrender had been negotiated with Japan and didn't want to miss his chance to show the world what his weapon could do. The diplomats thought they had more than a week remaining to work out the fine details and announce the surrender. But LeMay had been authorized to use the bombs and did, without anyone outside his command realizing that he could trim that much time off the delivery date.
When Truman heard that one bomb had been dropped, he was enraged, but knew he could say nothing, because if the world learned that we had set up a surrender and then still dropped a bomb, we would have been reviled by everyone. He didn't even know that LeMay had a second bomb and would drop it three days later. When he heard about that, he shouted to an aide, "That S.O.B. doesn't have a third bomb, does he? He'd better not use it if he does!". This story was revealed by Maj. Gen. Frank Merrill in a deathbed confession, in 1955. Merrill had been a friend of LeMay and was told how he had side-stepped the hierarchy in order to use the bombs. When you think of what would happen even today, if this secret were widely known and believed, it's no wonder it has been repressed at all levels in the chain of information.
I heard this story on a late-night talk show on KGO, from a special guest. But that guest and the story vanished quickly afterwards. It must have been heard by many thousands on the West Coast. I wonder how many remember it?
Gen. Curtis LeMay is the one responsible for dropping the bombs. He speeded-up the delivery of them from Arizona by 9 days from the set schedule, and then without hesitation, dropped the first one. He had learned that a secret and bloodless surrender had been negotiated with Japan and didn't want to miss his chance to show the world what his weapon could do. The diplomats thought they had more than a week remaining to work out the fine details and announce the surrender. But LeMay had been authorized to use the bombs and did, without anyone outside his command realizing that he could trim that much time off the delivery date.
When Truman heard that one bomb had been dropped, he was enraged, but knew he could say nothing, because if the world learned that we had set up a surrender and then still dropped a bomb, we would have been reviled by everyone. He didn't even know that LeMay had a second bomb and would drop it three days later. When he heard about that, he shouted to an aide, "That S.O.B. doesn't have a third bomb, does he? He'd better not use it if he does!". This story was revealed by Maj. Gen. Frank Merrill in a deathbed confession, in 1955. Merrill had been a friend of LeMay and was told how he had side-stepped the hierarchy in order to use the bombs. When you think of what would happen even today, if this secret were widely known and believed, it's no wonder it has been repressed at all levels in the chain of information.
I heard this story on a late-night talk show on KGO, from a special guest. But that guest and the story vanished quickly afterwards. It must have been heard by many thousands on the West Coast. I wonder how many remember it?
Give 'em Hell Harry sacked MacArthur (a MUCH bigger public figure than LeMay) for less.
Yet LeMay went on the become SAC chief.
Care to rethink that late night talk show stuff?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght...
