BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:07 PM

Americans need feel no shame nor remorse over the events of the Pacific war. The Nip military, government, Emporer et al, by pursuing an aggressive politic against their Eastern neighbours, the U.S. and allied British Commnowealth nations and demonstrating a most vile and inhuman attitude to those they subdued bit off more than they could chew. They sowed a storm and reaped a hurricane. The US had a task to do and they did it in the most efficient manner; it brought to an end a war that had already cost countless lives and could have continued. War, ever since Adam was a boy, has cost lives, innocents especially and nobody has found a formula for a "limited war". When we do and we can decide who and how many must be sacrificed let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:06 PM

Truman was a tough, determined, cold-blooded, and effective man. He was a good guy to have on your side, a very bad guy to have as an enemy. My biggest beef with Harry Truman (aside from dropping the atomic bombs) is his UFO coverup which has remained in effect to this day. The Roswell incident occurred during Truman's time in office, and led to the formation of MJ-12 (Majestic) and the coverup, which has been the most determined in history as far as I know.

As Presidents go, Truman was one of the most effective, I'll grant that. He may well have been preferable to his Republican opponents at the time. Hard to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 11:20 AM

Well, IF Truman were back, we'd at least know where the buck stops. And, if it DOES stop on the President's desk, does that mean that Halliburton is . . . ?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 11:07 AM

in fifty years the question will be "Exactly why did the US invade Iraq?" and those of you who bought the administrations version, or the misinformation and propoganda will be saying: 'Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, etc.' The same is true of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The government's story, that many still propogate, is ' It saved millions of American lives!' there is absolutely NO evidence for that, it is purely speculation, based on what we Americans, who have little or no experience with Japanese culture, think the Japanese may or may not have done. useless to discuss. The question is WHY did the US drop the bombs? and to me there is not now, nor were there ever, any justification for it's use. end of argument. you don't kill innocent civilians, period.

Rabbi Sol talks about the madman, Hitler getting the bomb. you could as easily argue that Truman was a madman, 'only a madman could have done what he did'. and probably not be right in either case, Hitler may or may not have been a madman, just as Sadam Hussein may or may not have been, Personally I don't think either of them were insane, just willing to use the power they had. Just as the neo-cons argument for a new American Century is 'because we have the power we should use it' to remake the world in our image.

As to the original question and it's usual response, "to save American lives, if we had invaded they would have fought to the death, etc." the question that is never asked is: Why did we have to invade? Japan was defeated, no navy, no air force, no longer a threat to anyone, why not stand down, let your forces r & r in the South Pacific for a few months and blockade the Island? would starvation have been less or more cruel than nuclear anhailation? I know an army loosed is hard to restrain, but there was no reason to bomb or invade, just as there was no reason to invade Iraq. It was the choice of our 'leaders', and we have to live with the consequences. We are now a terrorist nation, for the threat behind everything we want other countries to do is 'we have the bomb!' and we are not afraid to use it. It angered and amazed me to hear the Bushes say that Sadam must be stopped because if he ever got a nuclear weapon he was a madman who would use it against defenseless civilian populations. that is US, the U. S. and we did it twice. yes, EVERY country has committed war crimes and attrocities, but this is our own personal shame. I only hope we are the only country to have to live with it, but the future is a nuclear nightmare, it's only a matter of time, our chickens will come home to roost, and boy will we be outraged!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:59 AM

Sorefingers - "Do not forget that there were many many evil deeds done in Europe by the Allies as they waged war against the Axis. Included in these vile acts was the bombing of Dresden. OC I must add that Germany bombed Coventry mistaking the city for an armaments manufacturing target, which often I read as an excuse.. but......In the case of Dresden trhe Allies knew in advance that it was cold blooded murder of civilians."

So the persistent bombing by the Germans of British towns and cities, night after night after night for several years, resulting in the deaths of over two million British civilians doesn't count, in your strangely out-of-kilter world, as cold-blooded murder, or acts of evil? You mention Coventry as though it was the only city attacked, and then only on one occasion. I don't know where you're from but I can tell you, laddo, that every major city and many smaller towns in the UK were bombed repeatedly by the Luftwaffe during WWII. Not only bombed 'conventionally' by dozens of manned aircraft, but also by V1 and V2 missiles which, unlike today's cruise missiles and ICBMs, were completely unguided and simply fell randomly from the sky when they ran out of fuel, killing whoever had the ill-fortune to be beneath them - whether it be a munitions worker, a village postman or a child asleep in bed. Were these not also 'vile acts'?

And it didn't end with bombing - in my own small home-town (15,000 population) there were, until a few years ago, still buildings with bullet-holes in the brickwork where a German aircraft on its way home from a bombing raid on a nearby city strafed a group of people leaving the local cinema. Oh the Germans knew exactly what they were doing too, they targetted factories, power stations, gas-works, railway marshalling yards, docks. These weren't military targets, they weren't manned by soldiers, they were full of civilian workers who died or were maimed in their hundreds of thousands. And they hit residential areas too - ask any senior citizen of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Coventry, Southampton, and hundreds of other towns in the UK who, I suspect unlike you, lived through the horror of it all.

But I guess you probably think we got what we deserved? And I guess you probably live in a certain country that sustained not so much as one single air-raid during the whole of WWII?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:26 AM

From my perspective, I have a letter which was written in Manila by my father and sent to my mother the day after the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. In it he states flatly that he doesn't know about these new, more powerful, bombs but if they end the war and let him and his buddies get back home they're all for them.

The problems with the WWI surrender of Germany has long been discussed by historians and it's pretty much agreed that the Versailles treaty led directly to Germany's re-arming, the rise of Hitler, and WW2. The policies that led to WW1 were formulated back around 1860 by Otto von Bismarck -- Grossdeutschland and all that. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 confirmed Germany's opinion of itself (Austria-Hungary was considered a nice cousin) and its militaristic doctrine. The arms races -- in guns, ships, and armies -- that dominated the end of the 19th Century and first decade of the 20th led directly to WW1, from that to WW2.

Any point in history is the peak of a pyramid. I believe it was Chekov who wrote, "If you hang a gun on the wall in the first act, you must use it in the third." And that's what all too often happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:18 AM

Bert - the Japanese were attempting to surrender. OK they weren't doing it fast enough, and they were doing it the wrong way, and 'unconditional' wasn't being mentioned, but they were addressing surrender. The Allies were intercepting Japanese signals and could read most of the ciphers (after some delay).

The Japanese weren't developing a nuclear device, which is why they sent the uranium by submarine which ended up in the USA when that submarine surrendered (allegedly). Apart from a very small exchange of essential materials, weapon designs and one or two personnel there was very little actual contact between the Germans and Japanese during WW2. So when the Germans were defeated it didn't have such an impact on the Japanese - it was half a world away. Of course it would release men and materials for the war against Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:43 AM

Oh dear, Fartin Gibberass is trying to stir things up again. Perhaps that week off to get his meds adjusted was not long enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:04 AM

Jack the Sailor:

"From a North American perspective, the Mudcat left, is pretty much everyone but DougR. "

Hardly. About 44% of the likely voters still support Bush, about the same that supports getting rid of him. You seem to have a vastly inflated opinion of the support that the Left has in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 06:47 AM

Two_Bears, Iraq did not bomb the towers. There is not one scrid of evidence that they had anything to do with that. I stand ny my "opinion".

If Truman were running for president today he'd get my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:49 AM

Carol,

once more you are making an assumption about me. You see to assume that when I point to similarities I don't see dissimilarities. That's wrong.

But the similarity is what worries me and therefore I point to it. That similarity is not just in some minor detail, like Little Hawk can be read to imply (though I'm not sure here), but a whole string of argumentation.

I could translate whole passages on Israel and on American politics from European Neonazi sites and that would go down well with some of the lefts here.

I think one should be at least a tiny bit worried about the own position and the arguments for it if someone with which one does not want to be compared shares not only the position but also the string of argumentation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: mooman
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:15 AM

Mooman, were you there to personally interview the general consensus of Navy seamen to make suck a ridiculous statement as you did?

No MG I was not there. But, as I said in my post, my father was on active service on a destroyer on escort duty to a battle fleet off Japan for many months and, according to him and I had no reason to have doubted him, that was the opinion of a large proportion of the serving seamen. So it is their view which is "ridiculous", I only posted what had been reported to me by someone who had been involved in the bombardment and blockade of Japanese ports and, more widely, in the Pacific campaign. As others have said, Japan was very close to total economic collapse at the time the bombs were dropped and had already begun to sue for peace. And, as for not knowing what the effects would be, plenty could be postulated following the original testing and knowldege that there was of Japanese building techniques. Certainly it would have been known in advance that 10s of 1000s of ordinary civilians would be killed instantaneously.

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:22 AM

Umm...well, no chance of that, Bert. The Japanese hadn't even begun investigations in the direction of an atomic project by 1945, and they lacked the necessary strategic resources to accomplish it anyway.

The general rule in a war is...a country will fight against foreign invasion and occupation as long as it is still able to...specially if it's being bombed. People get mad when they're being bombed. So if you want such a country to give up sooner, you talk to them about negotiating conditions, you don't demand "unconditional surrender". If their position is very bad, they may well negotiate. If not, you were no worse off for trying.

The Union and Confederacy tried to negotiate an end in 1864, with Lee hunkered down in trenches in front of Petersbury, Virginia. They talked for 2 or 3 days about it, while a ceasefire was held. The negotiations failed, because the South was still thinking of itself as an independent country and the North was thinking of them as rebels who must return to the Union...and it was absolutely unreconcilable. Too bad. A lot of lives could have been saved, and a lot of bitterness avoided. Atlanta and Richmond would not have burned. Too bad.

I have always thought that unconditional surrender was a bloody stupid idea, and I continue to think so. Without that lunatic Hitler leading Germany, the Germans could have negotiated an end to the war soon after Normandy...had the Allies been willing to negotiate in that case...but Stalin would never have agreed to it.

Again, too bad. These were missed opportunities, in every case.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:20 AM

I suspect that the one who started this thread does not realize that nobody ever learns EXACTLY why anything happens the way it does. The best we can do is ponder it some and then try to get some of it in focus.

Even then we can't always believe that what we see is the exact truth of it.

From here, though, it seems the bombs were dropped to win the damn war.

Mission accomplished--for better or worse.

And now that we are married to it---we learn to live or die with it.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bert
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:03 AM

Little Hawk,

I don't think that the 'reason' they didn't want to surrender alters the fact that they didn't surrender, or the fact that it was apparent to the allies that they weren't going to surrender.

I would not have preferred that the war had been prolonged enough for the enemy to have developed and used an equal or greater weapon against us.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:45 AM

And you know, Bert, Hitler was similarly befuddled in 1940 as to why the British didn't seek a negotiated settlement after the fall of France! He simply couldn't fathom it. They were all alone. They were outnumbered and outgunned. Their only ally had surrendered. Why didn't they throw in the towel and come to terms with Germany?

I think you know the answer to that.

Just imagine that YOU were a Japanese in the 1940's, believing implicitly in your country and cause, and you will know exactly why they found it difficult to throw in the towel too.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:36 AM

From Martin Gibson....
somewhere in rural Alabama, pretty well isolated from the melting pots of America, and good dentists for that matter.

Yeah you're a "liberal" all right. Who plays the front of the horse you ignorant bigot?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:35 AM

Well, Bert, I think you should read some books by and about the Japanese who were actually there at the time, and you would know very well why they didn't want to surrender.

The reasons were mostly psychological, rather than rooted in any kind of practicality or pragmatism. It goes back to the whole Japanese honor system, and the fact that Japan had never been defeated in a war prior to World War II. They were accustomed to victory. They had even beaten the Russians in 1905, astounding the World. They also thought of themselves as a good and advanced society, as do most people.

Now, Bert, you know perfectly well why the British were not inclined to surrender in 1940 don't you? Just think about it. The Japanese felt pretty much the same way in 44-45.

When a distant foreign society, whose motives and moral capabilities you know little or nothing about is bombing you, sinking your shipping, and menacing you on every side, what do you do????

You hunker down and fight back as best you can! Just like the British did. Just like the Germans did while Hamburg burned. Just like the Russians did in the ruins of Stalingrad. You fight on. That is all the Japanese were doing.

Do you think for a moment that the ordinary Japanese citizen or soldier thought his country was in the wrong? Hell, no. They thought that their country had responded in the only way it could to outside threats. That's what people always think when their country is at war. It may be naive, but it's as common as dandelions.

You are simply failing to realize that the Japanese fought on for exactly the same reason people always fight on in any embattled country, regardless of whether their Allies surrender, specially if that country has a very proud military tradition.

It was the job of their political leaders (who had more information than the ordinary people) to recognize when it was time to quit, and some of them did recognize that (although somewhat later than they really should have) and were trying to make arrangements through the Russians to end the fighting.

As a citizen of the UK, a country with a glorious history (like pre-WWII Japan), a proud and independent island (like Japan), a naval power (like Japan), with an overseas empire (like Japan), never successfully invaded since William the Conqueror (like Japan again)....as a citizen of that country how would YOU react if a consortium of hostile foreign powers, deadly enemies, surrounded the UK and demanded that you unconditionally surrender, disband all your armed forces, and submit to immediate occupation by foreign troops?

You'd dig in and keep fighting like hell, just like the British did in 1940. No matter what.

The reason you can't comprehend why the Japanese would not want to surrender is that you don't realize that when it comes right down to it they are just like you...human in full degree...and proud of their country.

They are not "bad guys", they're ordinary, fallible human beings, and they are easily fooled by an unscrupulous government, as is the case with virtually all human populations in all eras.

The American population was recently fooled into launching an unprovoked war against Iraq, for example, on excuses far more flimsy than Japan's ire over American trade embargos on steel and oil in 1941.

If one's own country is surrounded and bombed, one mans the barricades and shoots back. It's as simple as that. If they demand unconditional surrender, you fight back all the harder. The Russians sure did, didn't they? Everybody did. That's people's nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:30 AM

It was a joke Martin.

You are not moderate at all you are foul mouthed and abrasive.

Who gives a flying leap what your politics are? I don't read the garbage that you post anyway, so I'll never know.

And as a matter of fact I do know Jack Shit. He's your father.
It was cruel of him giving you the birthname Fulla.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bert
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:40 PM

Well speaking as one, who as a schoolkid, hid under the desk many times from the threat of German bombs, I'd like to say a word or two.

We were at WAR, they were killing us, and we were killing them. The game is that, if you can kill enough of them then you win.

From the history that I have read, I think that the Japanese were more ferocious and determined than the Germans. The defeat of Germany proved that the Axis powers would fight until the very end.

The Japanese were STILL fighting after the end of the war in Europe. So it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to think that they were ready to surrender. If that were really the case then why did they NOT surrender at the defeat of their Axis partners?

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:36 PM

Furthermore, Truman didn't invade the wrong country like this dildo we have in the White House now.

Kendall; that is only your opinion.

There was a warning to regimes that supported terrorsts. Remember?

There was a Hammas terrorist training camp in Iraq.

There was an Al Qaeda training base in Iraq.

Abu Abbas, and Abu Nidal infamous terrorists, there is Zarakawi (SP) that has beheaded several people in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein supported the attacks on Israel by sending $25,000 to the family of terrorists who blow themself up to kill Israeli's and people visiting Israel.

I don't like Bush because he is slowly weakening the bill of rights; but I DO support the war on terrorism (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day).

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:36 PM

Jack the Sailor as usual you don't know Jack-shit. Or have even a clue as to how I vote or what my politics are.. You are such a dork. Others here know that I was demonstrating on the corner of Michigan and Balbo in August 1968 at the Democratic convention. People who know me also know I was a very visable left-wing long hair throughout the 70s. Others who really know me know that I now think the far-left mentality such as yours is as twisted as Rush Limbough's is for the far right. Except that he is smart enough to be making money at it while you punch the keyboard of a computer in a tin can somewhere in rural Alabama, pretty well isolated from the melting pots of America, and good dentists for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:34 PM

The British High Command knew that Coventry would be bombed. They allowed it to happen. To have evacuated or defended the city would have alerted Germany that their codes had been broken, and the Allies needed the intelligence more than they needed Coventry. So, they allowed it to happen. Riight or wrong? That act may have saved tens of thousands of lives on June 6, 1944. However, I am not a seer.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:29 PM

Ok so Saddam was not a comparable case - but then the principle stands anyway. It does not matter whether you are a murderer or a nun, when you are caught DWI you will be punished, that is the law.

Nor does it help to beg the question by saying, 'it's the President or this one or that one who is responsible' and/or 'the act is not criminal'. The fact is simply, the entity of the USA is the responsible agent here, and it is that which must sooner or later face the music of justice before some world court! At that time it will be decided whether this act was or was not a crime.

Do not forget that there were many many evil deeds done in Europe by the Allies as they waged war against the Axis. Included in these vile acts was the bombing of Dresden. OC I must add that Germany bombed Coventry mistaking the city for an armaments manufacturing target, which often I read as an excuse.. but.

In the case of Dresden trhe Allies knew in advance that it was cold blooded murder of civilians. If the Nazis wanted revenge upon this city they could not have done a better job of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:26 PM

Read the Manhattan Project when ya getta chance. The fact that the US had only three bombs was a closely-held secret.

"At 5:29:45 (Mountain War Time) on July 16, 1945, in a white blaze that stretched from the basin of the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico to the still-dark skies, "The Gadget" ushered in the Atomic Age. The light of the explosion then turned orange as the atomic fireball began shooting upwards at 360 feet per second, reddening and pulsing as it cooled. The characteristic mushroom cloud of radioactive vapor materialized at 30,000 feet. Beneath the cloud, all that remained of the soil at the blast site were fragments of jade green radioactive glass created by the heat of the reaction.

The brilliant light from the detonation pierced the early morning skies with such intensity that residents from a faraway neighboring community would swear that the sun came up twice that day. Even more astonishing is that a blind girl saw the flash 120 miles away.

Upon witnessing the explosion, its creators had mixed reactions. Isidor Rabi felt that the equilibrium in nature had been upset -- as if humankind had become a threat to the world it inhabited. J. Robert Oppenheimer, though ecstatic about the success of the project, quoted a remembered fragment from the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds." Ken Bainbridge, the test director, told Oppenheimer, "Now we're all sons of bitches."

from    inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050300a.htm

The awesome power of that bomb was known to the scientifc and military personnel. The petitions from scientists to stop the use of the bomb was NOT heeded.

Today, we use atomic bombs to set off hydrogen bombs. And so it goes. IMO, if there is a second atomic war, I hope to be at ground zero. There, I have read, the blast is so fast the the human nervous system has no time to react. Basically, dead before you know it. I think it was Einstein who said, "If there is an atomic war, the living will envy the dead." I hope to be one of the latter very early on. And I pray that my children are, also.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:18 PM

Well, it was certainly successful, Zol. :-) I'll grant you that.

The reason Germany did not negotiate a rational surrender in World War II was because Germany was in the control of a totally irrational man. (His braver generals certainly advised him to negotiate from time to time, but he WOULD NOT.) That was not a result of any Allied lack of resolve at the end of WWI. In fact, it was a rather unique situation in European history. Germany has been in a number of wars, and no other war in modern times resulted in the devastation of the whole country, nor does a country escape the future clutches of a dictator by being totally devastated by foreign forces.

Nope, I don't follow your line of reasoning regarding Germany in the least. The tradition in European wars was always to fight until one side sees it has lost...then you negotiate. Hitler's regime was different. He was determined to bring the whole country down with him to death and destruction. That was certainly not the case with the Kaiser, or Bismark, or Blucher, or Frederick the Great or any previous German leader in relatively modern times.

A more punitive attitude toward Germany in 1918 would not have benefited the situation in the least, in my opinion, but far greater resolve shown toward the Nazis in the 30's before WWII would have been a very good idea. They should have been nipped in the bud early on before rearming, and they could have been, but France and England lacked the resolve to do it. France and England were NOT lacking in resolve in 1918. Not in the least. They laid the whole blame for the First World War on Germany...and Germany was not wholly to blame for that war. In fact, everyone was pretty much equally to blame for it.

People were just angry at the Germans in 1918 because they had made gains, occupied territory, and fought so damned well. No one could bother being mad at poor, pathetic Austria-Hungary, could they? Nope, it was the Germans who were chosen to be the "fiend incarnate" of the hour. That's what it's like after a war, and it was precisely that punitive attitude that gave Hitler the fuel he needed to power the Nazi Party, burn the Reichstag and have Germany in the palm of his hand.

Revenge on the part of the victors after a war breeds a new war. People should know better. Losing a war is punishment enough in itself. France and England tried in every way they could to gut Germany after WWI, and they inherited the results of that in 1939-40 and beyond.

MacArthur handled the occupation of Japan very wisely, with respect and dignity, and he did not take revenge upon the people or try to destroy the economy...and the Japanese, for their part, were extremely cooperative with the occupying forces, so the whole thing worked out far better than it might have.

Helping a defeated enemy rebuild is obviously the way to go. It worked wonderfully with Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: jets
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 11:10 PM

I think that I have mentioned before that I was on a Liberty ship enroute from Greece to Italy .We had large timbers in the cargo holds . We were too load tanks and other war material for the invasion of Japan. And we heard of the bomb being dropped.
We anchored outside of Barrie Italy for several days .We then took aboard 20 GIs and headed for the Good Old USA. The bomb changed my course and it certainly had an impact on the lives of the soldiers that we returned to their homes and famils.
It is my belief that the bomb and its effect gave the Emperor of Japan the oportunity to surrender without losing Face.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 10:52 PM

I don't believe that is correct, Carol. As far as I know, the Japanese did not begin thinking in terms of "losing" the war until after the huge naval battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. That was really the last hurrah of the Japanese fleet. It was after Leyte Gulf that the naval staff knew for certain the war was lost, and they were really unable to threaten the US fleet again with anything but kamikaze attacks by airplanes and the odd submarine attack here and there. Kamikaze attacks are necessarily a short range and short-lived defensive action borne of total desperation, and they require the near approach of an enemy fleet. They are not a means of gaining any military initiative.

It was in late '44 that the Japanese began thinking about making peace overtures through the Russians. Those efforts intensified in '45, but were fruitless, as Stalin did not pass on any of the messages to the USA or Britain.

Russia was not at war with Japan, so Japan still had diplomats in Moscow. Stalin, however, was planning to declare war on Japan, and gobble up as much spoils in Asia as he could as soon as he could transfer sufficient forces from Europe. He had secretly agreed with the Allies at the Yalta Conference to declare war on Japan within weeks of the end of the European fighting. This had not been announced publicly, so the Japanese knew nothing about it.

The Hiroshima bomb fell on August 6th. On August 8th Russia declared war on Japan. This shocked the Japanese even more than the atomic bomb strike had. The following day Nagasaki was bombed. Following that, the Emperor met with his ministers and chiefs of staff and advised them to accept the Allies' Potsdam Declaration (which demanded unconditional surrender). On August 14th a group of young officers assasinated General Mori, commander of the Imperial Guards Division, after failing to persuade him to use the unit in a rebellion to take the government by force and continue fighting the Allies. War Minister Anami, hearing the shooting, wrote a letter of apology to the Emperor, and killed himself with a short sword. Meanwhile, loyal troops led by General Tanaka put down the short-lived rebellion. The next day, August 15th, the Emperor read a short message to the entire nation over the radio. Most people had never heard his voice before. It was clearly an announcement of Japan's surrender, although the war "surrender" was not used. What he said was that Japan must "endure the unendurable and suffer what is insufferable". You have to understand the Japanese penchant for understatement. It meant surrender, that was for sure. Everyone in Japan knew that immediately.

The Japanese were not actively seeking a negotiated end until the spring of '45. What they did in '42, after Midway, their first substantial defeat, was to clench their teeth with grim resolve, admit that there was a tough fight ahead rather than a cakewalk, and start desperately trying to build more aircraft carriers. They were in no way thinking of defeat at any time in 1942 or 1943, nor were they seeking any negotiation at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 10:34 PM

Little Hawk: When Germany was defeated in WWI, we did not impose unconditional surrender on them. We reached an armistice and did not occupy Germany proper. What happened. Along came Hitler to avenge the honor of the fatherland, and we had to fight another even more bloodier war. Had we occupied Germany the first time and imposed unconditional surrender, Hitler would have never come to power. We learned our lesson well after that, and given the Japanese penchant for the Bushido code of honor, we could not allow another dictator to arise. We had to insist on unconditional surrender and occupation in order to change the entire mindset of the country. When you see how anti-war Japan is today and what a valuable role they play in the world economy, you can see that our course of action was correct and successful. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 10:12 PM

Hey Pete. You didn't strike me as a blood thirsty savage when I met you up in Michigan.

I don't really have an opinion on this issue at this time, but every now and then someone says something that makes me a bit confused, like the bit about the planned Soviet invasion of Japan (and now that it's been explained to me, I understand it a bit better). This part of your post has left me puzzled:

Then consider that Japan had begun sending out peace proposals early in 1942. They got more insistant following Midway. They got more frantic with each defeat.

If they were so insistant with their peace proposals, why didn't we accept them instead of using the nukes?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 10:09 PM

I seriously doubt that anyone here is trying to justify Japan's aggression in the 30's and 40's. That is not what is at issue.

What is at issue is whether there was any actual need to drop A-bombs on Japan OR to launch an invasion of the Japanese mainland either. My answer to that is "No" in both cases. Truman may have seen it differently, and in fact I'm sure he saw it differently. So Truman and I would disagree on that one. Fine. We would probably disagree on any number of things.

In a war one fights to win. Winning does not necessarily require complete annihilation of, occupation of, or complete humiliation of the opponent. It just requires attaining a winning position, that's all.

Let me give a hypothetical example. The South could conceivably have won the Civil War, had they held out long enough and won certain key battles (like Gettysburg), but winning would not have required them to entirely conquer the North (which would have been beyond their capability anyway), nor would it have required them to force an unconditional surrender on the North, nor would it have required them to burn Washington or force the North to disarm its entire armed forces or any other such overweaning action.

Nope. Winning would simply have required them to convince the North that IT could not win, by inflicting serious enough defeats on the North. It was the North that was seeking unconditional surrender.

It was abundantly clear to even ordinary servicemen in Japan that Japan could not win by 1945. Totally, absolutely obvious! Everybody knew it, but hardly anyone dared to say it openly, because of their peculiar honor system. They had already lost. The government would have fallen in disgrace with or without an American invasion, and not too far down the line. The High Command would have been disgraced and kicked out. Their empire was in a shambles. Their navy was defunct. Their air force was nearly defunct. Their armies were helpless to do anything about the situation.

There is no need to do much further to a nation in such straits, and there is certainly no need to either invade them or drop A-bombs on them. Just blockade them, let their economy starve, and wait for them to ask for terms (which they in fact were already asking for...but through the Russians! Bad choice of intermediary. However, they didn't know who else to do it through, because they didn't have diplomatic contacts with anyone else at that point.)

The reason I disagree with Truman is partially because of hindsight. I fully realize that he may have thought it necessary to invade Japan or use the Bomb. That he did think so was a form of hubris common in great victorious powers.

And...he may have been in a hurry...because of the Russians. They had plans for the Japanese holdings on the Asian mainland.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: PeteBoom
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:50 PM

Ummmm.... Why did Japan invade China? Why did Japan attack every direction it possibly could?

Consider Saipan.

Then the next time you go off with soft comfy moralistic pontification, remember that if you pick a fight, you'd better be in it to win - because the other guy might be precisely in it to win. When you make war, every resource available must be thrown into it - or you will fail. The object of war is to utterly destroy your opponent's belief in their victory.

When you cite statistics on the number of dead from either, or both, of the atomic bombs, consider the number of dead combatants and civilians where "conventional forces" were used - and consider the percentages of the defending forces and civilian population. Then consider that Japan had begun sending out peace proposals early in 1942. They got more insistant following Midway. They got more frantic with each defeat.

That is what usually happens. The bosses at the top urge the worker bees at the bottom to give everything they have - while they look for an out themselves.

The bomb(s) ended the pretense in the eyes of the average person that the war COULD be won. THAT ended the war far more effectively than anything else.

Yup - I'm a blood thirsty savage - I've been told that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:48 PM

So, if the USA had had a third bomb, then they would have been required to drop it on Japan so that the World could see that they had more than two bombs, I suppose...?

After all, are 2 measly little A-bombs really enough to sufficiently impress the World (and the Russians in particular)? They only dropped 2 because they only had two to drop. Japanese lives were not considered very valuable at the time. Matter of fact, I believe they were hardly considered to be human at all by a lot of westerners.

Fortunately the Emperor of Japan took it upon himself to make the decision to end the fighting. Good thing. The Army generals were less sensible than he was.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:26 PM

For those of you who are old enough to remember WWII, Truman had a very agonizing decision to make. The cost in lives, both, American and Japanese, would have been much greater, had we undertaken an invasion of Japan by conventional means. All the intelligence we had indicated that the Japanese would have resisted the invasion stubbornly, by any means at their disposal. Having experienced their kamikazee pilots crashing into our battleships, we already knew that they had no fear and would fight to the last man. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the only way to convince tha Japanese that all further resistance was futile, and brought an abrupt end to a very long war. SOL ZELLER

Sol:

I was born 10 years AFTER WW II ended; but I want to say that you have this issue ABSOLUTELY correct.

The Kamikaze were willing to die for their cause, and if Japan had been invaded; the fighting would have been urban warfare fighting house to house.

Before the bomb (little boy) if memory serves was dropped on Hiroshima; it was believed there was not enough fisionable Uranium to make a bomb.

Hiroshima was bombed, and they had to drop the bomb (fat man) over Nagasaki to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. has more than one bomb.

The two bombs used different sets of technology.

"little Boy" was built in a cylinder with two non critical masses of uranium in each end, then an explosion slamming the two masses together to cause a critical mass and start the fision process. (splitting the atoms)

"Fat Man" has one non critical mass then was surrounded by explosive that compacted the element into a smaller and smaller space until Critical mass eas reached and begin the process of fision (splitting the atoms.)

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:24 PM

Oh, yeah -- you have to keep your decision within the limits of what was known then. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:23 PM

Truman is dead. Roosevelt is dead. Groves is dead. Conant is dead. Oppenheimer is dead. Teller is dead. Einstein is dead. Fermi is dead. Doolittle is dead. Churchill is dead. Stalin is dead. I believe that all of the crew of the Enola Gay and Bock's Car are dead, but I don't know for certain. But I do know that damned near everyone of any consequence has had to face a Judge far more just and knowing than any human one and we who live now have to live with the decisions made then.

Refighting WW2 (or any other war) is an interesting and even fruitful exercise, but you can't change the actual historical outcome. Sure, a naval blockade could have starved Japan into submission -- perhaps, but we'll never know.

Try this: You are Harry S. Truman. Your nation has been at war for four years, there are lots of dead and wounded. Germany has surrendered, and you're turning your attention to the Pacific. The troops in Europe will go fight, but they certainly aren't enthusiastic. You're told that an invasion of Japan will bring millions of casualties, and you're also told that there's a new weapon of immense, unbelievable power. Churchill and Stalin are both aware of this weapon, and they too have troops that will be committed or are committed in the Pacific. What do you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 09:07 PM

Oh, Sol...Mr Truman would have been on trial if he had been on the totally defeated and losing end of a great war...like Goering and Tojo were. Depend on it. :-) Not that I am disagreeing with your basic point that Saddam was a far less law-abiding man than Truman. Not at all. But it's the losers of wars that go on trail, not the winners. The winners always find plenty of good reasons to try the losers and blame them for the whole thing. That's politics. And the majority of people always seem to believe those reasons, whether they are true, half-true or entirely false and self-serving. The courageous Germans who tried to assassinate Hitler were tried, depicted as the most dreadful and contemptible lot of terrorists, and brutally executed. He who controls the power metes out the punishment to whomever he deems to be the "evil ones". In this same way, America executed many brave Native American leaders and warriors who only fought to save their land and their ancestral way of life. (and they too sometimes committed atrocities in the process...the Natives did, I mean...war tends to result in people doing that)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 08:39 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 08:37 PM

Harry Truman was the democraticly elected leader of his country. Sadaam became the leader of his country via an armed coup. He had the guns and the other guys did not. Truman did not gas citizens of his own country who disagreed with him. Sadamm, in order to retain his dictatorial power, gassed his own civilians. That is why he is on trial. Anyone who does not understand this basic difference deserves to flunk History 1.1 and Political Science as well. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 08:19 PM

Turning away from history saying it is done with and cannot be undone, is dangerous, and untrue!

Besides while denying other nations the benefit of nuclear weapons they nonetheless continue to manufacture them, all the while warning any who feel the urge to make war upon the US that they will be incinerated.

What is there to stop a US administration from declaring a President 'Emperor'? as it nearly did in the selection of G W?

Anyway who is watching the watchers?

If anything a World Court of Justice should remove all nukes from the US precisely because of Hirsohima and Nagasaki it cannot be trusted with them.

Let those who say this evil act was justified think about this; Saddam used chemical weapons on civilians to end a war and we now have him in jail awaiting trial for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 08:07 PM

In any case, Wolfgang, if I may be the devil's advocate to your statement...

Even people who are catastrophically wrong (like the Nazis) may and often DO make isolated statements that are in themselves quite accurate...while using those statements within the context of a larger wrongful intention!

That doesn't invalidate the accurate statement itself.

I bet even Joe Stalin and Al Capone made some very cogent and astute remarks in their time. Criminals and scoundrels do not oblige us by uttering ONLY exaggerated lies and obvious misrepresentations...they frequently sprinkle some cold, hard truths among them. It is precisely in that way that they succeed in persuading many people to side with them, don't forget.

Only a fool would tell nothing BUT lies when attempting to persuade people of the rightness of an extreme position.

The Far Right in America also tells the truth about certain specific matters...while generally presenting what I would term a destructive viewpoint on things in the larger context.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:56 PM

What always amazes and worries me deeply is that there are two themes in which the Mudcat lefts are hardly distinguishable from the German Neonazis in their argumentation

Here's the difference for you, Wolfgang, although I fear it may be too subtle for you. The German Neonazis advocate killing, whereas, the Left Mudcatters advocate not killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:48 PM

Sorry Jack - I should have made it clear that I meant after the test and before the decision to drop, there were just the two bombs. It would have taken a long time to produce another (the fourth, if we include the test).

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:43 PM

Sorry, din't mean to start such a fuss... I was curious...

And, yes, Sinsull. My spellin' has gone into it usual late summer slump but... I'll try harder...

Does seem from what I have read here that, given what we know now about Japan's desires to surrender, that someone should be held accountable??? Jus MO, of course...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:41 PM

There's actually a lot of sympathy in Canada now for Louis Riel, Gabriel Dumont and the rest of the Metis.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:40 PM

Unquestionably, Kendall. The Metis got a very raw deal, for the usual reasons...valuable land that someone else wanted jurisdiction over. As usual, the guys with the most money and guns won the fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:38 PM

mitis?

Massacre?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kendall
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:37 PM

Let's not forget Canada and the massacre of the Mitis.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:33 PM

Absolutely! What I find disturbing is the acrobatics people go through, winners and losers both, to sanitize and make excuses for the atrocities their side committed in wartime.

There seems to be an unwillingness out there to bear responsibility.

Of course, if you want to harangue another generation of young kids into going off willingly to war you certainly don't want to dampen their ardour with stories of past war crimes committed by your OWN people, do you now? Ah, no...what you want to do in that case is inflame their ardour by only mentioning the OTHER side's atrocities. Standard Orwellian tactics.

If people in general were more keenly aware of what war entails there would be very few who would ever support launching one in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Aug 04 - 07:25 PM

There is not one, single nation, not one, that cannot say that their people haven't committed a war atrocity. Beziers, Malmady, "Killing Fields", Nanking, Kilkenny, Wounded Knee, "Bataan Death March", My Lai, Manchuria, the Gulags, Warsaw Ghetto, Oradour sur Glane -- the list is endless and is not limited to Western countries or any particular time.

If you want to see war crimes, look to the history of any country, not just the US or Japan.