BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 05:04 AM

Brucie,

I'm away from my books, so you'll have to wait for a response for another two weeks, but I won't forget it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:58 AM

They were butterfingers?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 01:24 AM

Amen, Rabbi Sol!

(Some of us might have gone underground as "crypto-Jews," as had happened during the inquisition. It would have been more difficult, though, since the inquisition allowed you to live a normal life if you converted, whereas with Hitler you'd have to disguise the fact that you had ever been Jewish. Still, no Hebrew or Yiddish for sure!)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:13 PM

Well it appears I was wrong - I should have checked the details rather than posting from my increasingly inaccurate memory. Germany was (perhaps) sending uranium or uranium oxide to Japan, although I'm not sure that there was any chance of Japan being able to use it in a nuclear device.

Details here

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

I'm with you on that, Sol.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:00 PM

I can't say anything about the Americans or British speaking German, had Hitler won the war. However one thing I can say as a certainty is that there would be nobody speaking Hebrew or Yiddish had Hitler won. He would have killed all Jews everywhere. I think everyone would agree that he was the most evil person ever to walk the face of this earth in the history of mankind. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:40 PM

Thanks LH, that's what I'd have said but it would have been pure opinion on my part, as I've only read stuff that was slightly related to the subject. It's a good thread this, especially since the 'opinion-only' people seem to have lost interest and left it to us history nuts.

I'll try and turn up the details of the story I alluded to earlier, about the Japanese sending Uranium to Germany by submarine, only for it to be diverted to the USA upon the defeat of Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:14 PM

I think it would have been rather difficult for Roosevelt to declare war on the Germans. They were not active allies of Japan in the full sense of what that means. For instance, the Japanese were not helping the Germans fight Russia, nor were the Germans helping the Japanese fight in China or anything like that. They had a friendly association, not a binding military alliance.

I suspect it would have taken Roosevelt several months at least to persuade Congress to declare war on Germany, had not Hitler solved the problem for him by immediately declaring war on the USA.

Why Hitler did that is inexplicable, except that he acted out of sheer passion, devoid of any rational thought on the matter whatsoever. It was the dumbest thing he could have done under those circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 03:04 PM

That's the way that I see it, Nerd. Not so many Normans arrived with Bill the Conker Root, but they brought a whole lot of language and culture with them. It didn't take a whole lot of Romans to turn us from Celtic to Romano-British either.

LH - Hitler's long-term plan was war with Britain in 1948. He needed that amount of time to build sufficient warships. This was the Z-Plan, agreed by Hitler in March 1939. He wasn't intending to engage the Royal Navy in fleet action, so much as to have the right vessels to wage an efficient commerce war. He didn't expect Britain to support the Poles when he invaded (not that we did, we just dropped leaflets on them while the Poles fought both the Germans and the Soviets). Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union, although they invaded Poland at the same time as Germany.

Mind you, I wonder about Hitler's declaration of war on the United States. Would Roosevelt have been easily able to declare war on Japan's European allies or would there still have been a feeling in the US that they should only fight Japan?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:53 PM

I'll agree with that, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:43 PM

Actually, Les, most indications are that emigration of Angles and Saxons to Britain was relatively small in comparison to the total population; in other words, the majority of people in Britain are still Celtic by heritage, descended from Celtic speakers. (The few DNA studies that have been done on bog bodies and the like support this.) So while you're right that the British situation was not one of political domination from a far-off land, it WAS one of political domination from a small minority population resulting in wholesale adoption of the dominant language throughout most of Britain (remembering that Scots is also derived from Anglo-Saxon). It is not hard to imagine a small minority population of Germans settling in England and enforcing German-only education. This is what the English did in Ireland, and it worked pretty well. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is entirely possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:32 PM

Well, let me put it another way...any victor, no matter how powerful and dominant he is, eventually passes away and is replaced by something else. It's just a matter of time.

I knew you'd catch me on that one, Wolfgang. :-) One can quote various examples where a defeated side simply died out, like the Beothuk Indians in Newfoundland. There are none left now at all.

Hitler had a great deal of respect for England and the English culture in a general sense, and he viewed them as his natural allies, so I doubt that the Germans would even have had any intention of sweeping away the English culture (had they won). Their intention would have been more like: now that we got rid of that scoundrel, Churchill, and are allies like we always should have been, let's go and destroy the Communists together. Happy days are here again! (And a lot of English people would have been happy to do just that...anti-communism was very strong in the West.)

Given the fact that Stalin was probably just as destructive a leader as Hitler, it would not have been hard to unite western Europe into an anti-communist crusade in the 40's.

Hitler stumbled into war with England and France in 1939. He was not looking for a war with them. He expected them to stand aside when he invaded Poland. His next plan after Poland was to attack Russia, NOT attack in the West, but Britain and France declared war over Poland. Hitler did not expect that, and it derailed his entire plan of action and drew him into conflicts in western Europe that he did not anticipate until they erupted. He scored a very quick victory over France, against all expectations. France was considered the strongest land army in western Europe in 1939-40. He then was confronted with an insoluble war with England, the one country he LEAST wanted to be at war with in all of Europe. He then was drawn into conflicts in the Balkans, mostly through the very stupid actions of Mussolini (who decided to attack Greece)...and due to an anti-fascist coup in Yugoslavia, which had been friendly to Germany prior to that coup. He then was drawn into ever-expanding conflicts in North Africa, again through the stupid actions of Mussolini. And so it went...

A long tale of misadventure and miscalculation.

Am I making excuses for Hitler? No. I am saying that he was on a planned path of aggression, but he seriously miscalculated. He did not think the British and French would fight on behalf of Poland. He thought they would just grumble and complain, then accept it as an accomplished fact, then later help him destroy communist Russia.

He was looking for a great war in the East, but got one in the West instead. He committed the final folly by launching his great war in the East ANYWAY, in the spring of '41 when he attacked Russia. And that decision lost him everything in the end...but it took several years of hard fighting to decide it. The attack on Russia has to stand as one of the most stubborn and ill-advised decisions ever made by a wartime leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 11:24 AM

If the English hadn't invaded New Amsterdam, New Yorkers would still be speaking Dutch.

;-)

Personally, I don't see why it really matters, except when invaders try to obliterate the ancient languages of indigenous people. I'm definitely against that.

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

England takes its name from the Angles--Angle Land.

Wolfgang: You mentioned Basque aborigines in the Iberian Peninsula. I was under the impression the no cognates are found anywhere for words from the language spoken by the Basque people. What is your source for that? (I don't doubt you; however, it's news to me and I'd like to read up on it.)

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 10:11 AM

Wolfgang - I think you are mixing up invasion with emigration. When an invasion is accompanied by emigration, there are changes in languages and culture. So if the invading Saxons and Angles hadn't brought their wives and kids over, we'd still have a Celtic language in England (except it wouldn't be called England, of course).

Sometimes language and culture change because they are replaced by something better (or trendier!), and sometimes it becomes advantageous to suck up to the ruling class. Historians these days don't believe in a group of invaders killing most of the inhabitants and forcing their language and culture on the survivors.

But you are right about invasions not being temporary. We still can't get rid of those bloody Normans!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kendall
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 09:21 AM

The Rissians already had the Kurile islands, and I'm sure Truman didn't want them in Tokyo.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 05:39 AM

Jack the Sailor,

Thank you for the clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 05:08 AM

All victories, my friend, are temporary...believe me. (LH)

I picture the Turc speaking invadors leaving little Asia, the Angles and Saxons leaving England, the white man leaving Canada, the Germanic tribes going back from Germany to their Baltic and Northern origins, the Romanic speaking invaders leaving the Iberian peninsula to the Basque speaking aborigines and smile: It's Little Hawk using words in a nonconventional sense.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 02:49 AM

LH--I just don't think Truman could have or should have waited for a Russian attack on manchuria that may or may not have materialized, nor am I as convinced as you that the Japanese would then have surrendered, nor am I convinced that Truman could have known whether they would or wouldn't--so I don't think anyone's proved anything.

By the way, the Irish are speaking English, many Kazhaks are speaking Russian, and many Mongolians are speaking Chinese. What "we" would be speaking is not so easy to tell. (I'm American, and I can't imagine the US getting defeated and invaded in the 1940s, so by "we" I mean the European allies...) It's not a question of overestimating the ABILITY of a victor, so much as the WILL and the POLITICAL EFFECTIVENESS. We didn't WANT to force Japan and Germany to speak English, nor is our political system well-adapted to doing so, so of course they aren't. Hitler and Hirohito may have wanted it, and their political systems were much better adapted.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bert
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:35 AM

Yup Little Hawk, I love discussing history as well. And you're right that we wouldn't all 'really' be speaking German.

It is also fun to study the affect that the Norman conquest had on the English language, but that should be another thread.

I still don't think that you can attempt to surrender. Either you Cry Uncle or you try some other way to wriggle out of the situation without surrendering.

Whilst it is possible to understand WHY the Japanese didn't surrender, it is almost certain that if they had said "WE SURRENDER - WHAT ARE YOUR TERMS?" then the bomb would not have been dropped.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:48 AM

I see DougR is still around and kicking. Consensus does not mean "total agreement." It means a larger group than any other group that happens to be out there. A plurality exists as far as the types of opinions, but a larger number seems to give Truman the benefit of the doubt than the preferences of the various others of us who have other opinions. What's so hard to figure about that?

Plurality voting is our current system. Each voter votes for one candidate, and the candidate with the plurality (most votes) wins, regardless of whether that candidate gets a majority or not. In a plurality election with N candidates, a candidate can theoretically win with just over 1/N of the votes. The larger the number of candidates, [or in this case, opinions] the smaller the percentage of the votes needed to win. Plurality voting is perfectly adequate when only two candidates are running, but it cannot effectively and fairly accomodate more than two viable candidates. This fact is known as "Duverger's Law," and it explains why the US political system is a two-party duopoly without effective competition from other parties.

That about sums it up for this discussion also. Though there are many views, it seems always to boil down to just a couple. So recognizing a plurality is necessary to understand my use of concensus. To quote from another site (NIH), a consensus statement provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge of the conference topic. At this point in time, in this group, this is what appears to be the case. Got it? It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Or anything, really. As several have said, that war is over.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:46 AM

Doug, you must be hanging out on the wrong threads. There is much funnier stuff than that being posted here and there. Here's a challenge: Avoid all political threads for the next 30 days, and see what occurs in your life. Then PM me and let me know how it went. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:30 AM

Bert, I am going to nitpick here... :-) You said, "If the war hadn't been fought then we would be speaking German or Japanese right now."

No way, man! Are the Japanese speaking English now? Are the Germans speaking English and Russian now? (as their first language, I mean...) Nope! We would most definitely NOT be speaking German now if the Germans had won, we would still be speaking English just like we were before. You entirely overestimate the ability of a victor to totally alter the cultural fabric and tradition of a foreign society that he has scored a temporary victory over in a war.

The Chinese are still speaking Chinese now too, despite having been occupied by several foreign powers for an extended period in history, and the Indians are still speaking Hindi.

All victories, my friend, are temporary...believe me. People who win a war sometimes lose the peace that follows it!

And that is my nitpicking statement on your last post. I am sick of people saying "we would all be speaking German now if Hitler had won". It's a cliche, and it is a foolish one in the extreme.

I understand your feelings on the matter perfectly, however. My father was in England during the Blitz, and he went ashore at Normandy and fought the Germans till VE-Day.

Oh...jeez...gotta nitpick again. "How do you ATTEMPT to surrender?"

You attempt to end a losing war by suggesting to the other side that you would be willing to discuss terms if they would be willing to. The Japanese were making such suggestions through Russia by early 1945. While that does not necessarily equal total "surrender" it does indicate a willingness to seek a mutually agreed upon end to hostilities...an armistace. And that is how most wars in history have been ended, by mutual discussion and an armistace. That is the sensible way to end a war.

"The Japanese were still shooting at us" Well, yeah! We were still shooting at them. And our level of shooting power exceeded theirs at the time by a huge measure. Why would they not shoot at fleets of bombers over their cities? I certainly would have if I was them.

Raedwulf - You are absolutely right about the Treaty of Versailles. It was the French who vigorously sought punitive reparations against Germany after WW I, not the French AND the British, as I had suggested. I typed in haste there and I was in error. It was Clemenceau who insisted on his pound of flesh where Germany was concerned. The French were bitter over the Franco-Prussian War and over the damage which had been done on French soil. This is understandable. Nevertheless, their attempt to permanently punish and cripple Germany after WW I was ill-advised. They suffered the consequences in 1940.

Nerd - I agree that the Germans and Japanese were responsible for starting the war(s) that are collectively known as WWII. I agree absolutely. I do not agree, however, that an invasion of mainland Japan OR the use of atomic bombs in 1945 was necessary to end it. It would have ended sometime in late 1945 regardless. The Russian attacks on the Chinese mainland after 8th August '45 would have been plenty enough to persuade the Japanese to quit. The Allied invasion of Japan was scheduled for the spring of 1946, but the war would have already have ended before that invasion ever needed to take place. Factions were growing ever stronger in Japan around the Emperor arguing for a necessity to end the conflict, and the Russian attack would have been quite sufficient to put those factions in control, despite certain fanatics in the Army who wanted to die fighting.

That's just my opinion, based on what I've read about it. Like other people, I trust my own opinion (naturally).

And I just love discussing history. That's why I keep coming back here.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:29 PM

The concensus on this thread, SRS? Jeeze, what the hell does that mean? That is one of the most laughable posts I've ever seen on the Mudcat.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:27 PM

Jack, I am far from poor and have really been around the block as far as formal education and street smarts.

What's your excuse? Just have a boner for most of what goes on in America, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:11 PM

Then, there are those who hate America, who are jealous of America simply because we have done some bad deeds in the past just like every other country.
It only proves the old saying; "The smallest dog can piss on the biggest building."

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

Poor ignorant Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:28 PM

Jack the Sailor,

The "joke" is in your hand when you take a piss. As for your father, the best part of you was in his used rubber.

You do read my posts, burr-head. And you don't understand much about anything. I'm sick of being a liberal because of being identified with unwashed stained underwear types like yourself.

The Mudcat "left" like yourself are precisely what is wrong with Mudcat.    Your wife, especially. You are the worst possible of far-left liberals. You listen to nothing reasonable and have the common sense of a used tampon.

I claim and will claim to be a moderate, Jack-off the Sailor. Now eat the shit you shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:13 PM

From: beardedbruce - PM

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.

You misunderstand me, I was talking about the "Mudcat" left. I will wager that for every Bush supporter on the Mudcat there are twenty who would vote against him.

The Mudcat "Right" is bout 10 or 15 people, a couple of whom have no name. The Mudcat "Left" is pretty much everyone else, with the exception of DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bert
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 07:52 PM

Les, you say the Japanese were attempting to surrender. How do you ATTEMPT to surrender? You either surrender or you don't.

I don't recall reading in any history that The Japanese said "OK we give up"

And being a child during WWII, I have read quite a lot about it since.

Mind you I am VERY BIASED, having been forced out of my home and separated from my family by GERMAN BOMBS. If I had been given the decision whether to drop the bomb or not I would certainly have said yes.


It's all well and good to sit back in the safety of your homes in fairly peaceful times. But to try to apply modern peaceful morals to those times is unrealistic - we were at WAR.

The Allied decision to fight WWII was inevitable. If the war hadn't been fought then we would be speaking German or Japanese right now.

Once you are fighting a war you have to kill them before they kill you. And The Japanese were STILL SHOOTING AT US. That doesn't seem to me like an attempt to surrender and I'm sure it didn't seem like that to the GIs being shot at.

If you are morally opposed to war, as most of us are, then use your indignation for the current political situation, and don't waste your energy on trying to revise history.

It's done, ALL of the people who were killed in WWII - ARE DEAD.
Let's use our energy and efforts to try to prevent WWIII.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 07:20 PM

When the twin towers fell to the ground and with it the deaths of 3000 civilians, the USA rightfully sought out the criminals who did it and running them down shot and killed as many as they could find. It is still going on today, but mostly in Iraq.

Killing innocent civilians is saving up misfotune for the agency doing it! Maybe not in the short term, but in the end it will come back and whack the guilty in the head unless some mechanism is employed to resolve the issue.

I suspect that in the future we shall see a global legal system established to deal with such problems. Todays methods are unjust, costly and ineffective.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Displaced Camelotian
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 07:03 PM

Re: War Crimes Trials

The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that the post-war republican government in Germany ("The Weimar Republic") should bring to justice those guilty of various war crimes, mostly committed in 1914 during the German invasion of Belgium.

In the interwar years, these atrocities were widely ridiculed in Britain, America, and of course Germany as the fantasies of English propagandists. But research of German army archives by German (and other) historians in the past ten or twenty years show without a doubt that such atrocities took place, for example, the destruction of several Belgian towns along with mass executions of civilians.

The German courts set up to try the accused had little interest in condemning German officers for crimes against "enemy" civilians in wartime. Virtually all the defendants (there were dozens of them) were acquitted.

The Allies in World War II determined that Nazi war criminals would not get off so easily.

Some of the accused Nazis, by the way, were actually acquitted. So much for the idea that the trials were just "for show."

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 06:51 PM

When the Russians attacked the Japanese positions in Asia, the Japanese knew the jig was up.

A bit presumptuous to know from such a distance through space and time what "the Japanese" knew, LH. For one thing they were sharply divided -- there was a strong central contingent of militarists who believed the jig would never be up until the lights went out. There was no unified point of view in Japan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 06:41 PM

No, Raedwulf, I've been reading the thread--where have you been? A substantial number of the people posting here seem to feel that Truman was gulled into dropping the bomb. They would give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't say that I share that opinion, because I haven't read enough about Truman the man (outside of this Mudcat forum) to form that particular opinion. Did you read it differently? Then just say so, no need to get snotty.

SRS

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

What "general consensus", SRS? Is yours the only opinion that counts now or something?

Hawk - your analysis of the necessity for invasion is flawed, I'm afraid, as is your assertion (if I've remembered the author correctly) that the British & French are to be blamed for the Versailles Treaty, reparations & the humiliation of Germany. Regarding the latter, the British were against reparations. It was the insistence of the French along with the support of the Americans that led to VT.

As to the former, I haven't got time to type any more right now, sorry! I'll try to come back to this in the next day or two, though...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:09 PM

Just a quip to yank Doug's chain, Amos. But you're right, some people thought about that a lot, and what some of them thought was pretty odious. General concensus here says they managed to conceal an agenda from those who had to say yes or no. What goes around comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:00 PM

I think a lot of people who are demonizing Truman on this thread have lost sight of an obvious difference between the US and UK on one hand, and the Japanese and Germans on the other, in WW2. The Germans and Japanese started the war by attacking the US, UK, France and other allies. They initiated the war. For LH to say something like "Without that madman Hitler, the Germans could have surrendered after Normandy" misses an obvious point: without that madman Hitler, France would not have been occupied by Germans. There would have been no Normandy, or surrender. Without the Japanese military command, the US would not have been at war with Japan.

People have also made the spurious argument that "the losers always get blamed for war crimes, and the victors always get off." In places like Rwanda, the victors are blamed for war crimes. In most wars, war crimes are an individual question: did so-and-so do thus-and-such? In the case of WW2 it was clearly different: the Nazis committed crimes the likes of which had not been seen before, at least not in Europeans' living memories. Their acts of aggression were so repugnant to practically everybody else that they made war crimes allegations inevitable. And again, they had initiated the war. But it is not usual for a war crimes tribunal to ask "was the whole course of action in fighting the war criminal?" Of course it is!

And then again, of course it isn't!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 04:18 PM

I might add, however, that believing a mainland invasion of Japan was necessary may not have been quite so much of a "no-brainer" in 1945. It may just have been standard conventional thinking. After all, they had just done it in Europe, hadn't they? And in a whole series of island battles. So, they were simply following the usual procedure in planning for the next big event. I'd call that a bit unimaginative, but I wouldn't call it a "no-brainer". Not at that time.

I call it a no-brainer NOW, given the benefit of hindsight.

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

A "no-brainer" is the notion that a mainland invasion would ever have been necessary at all, with or without the atomic bomb.

It would not have.

When the Russians attacked the Japanese positions in Asia, the Japanese knew the jig was up. The Americans could have stood by, let the Russians devastate the Japanese armies on the mainland (which they certainly would have, having a crushing advantage in tanks and other heavy weaponry over the Japanese), and not lost a man, and the Japanese would have sued for peace anyway within quite a short time.

This, however, would have entailed the Russians possibly greatly expanding their Asian sphere of influence...and THAT Truman was not willing to contemplate. :-)

It was power politics, as always, people. And they called it "saving lives" in order to disguise their more weighty intentions which have to do with the gaining and wielding of power not the saving of lives. It's never about the saving of lives. It's about winning, and winning big.

Pete - Your general description of the Japanese attitude toward negotiations is pretty accurate. In that respect they acted exactly like any other country in their general position usually acts. They did not face up to the real possibility of defeat until it had become really quite undeniable on any rational basis. That's pretty typical, isn't it?

How long do you think the USA would remain defiant, if its navy and air force were smashed and its borders were being threatened with a fullscale foreign invasion? A long time, I figure. No country gives up its own sovereignty on its own land while it still has any means to resist effectively.

But...you don't have to take away another country's entire sovereignty to win or to end a war. You just have to put them in a clearly losing position, as the Japanese did to the Russians in 1905 or America did to Spain in 1898. Then they will negotiate.

(Nice lively thread, isn't it?)

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

SRS:

I think that is a bit unfair. There was a LOT of selfdoubt and anguish AND brains behind the various arguments on using those weapons. There was good reason to believe that ending the war by less extreme measures would have cost thousands of American lives. There was reason to believe that the final overthrow of Japan would have been as bloody as the Normandy invasion or the earlier battles for Pacific Theater sites. There was a lot of ruthlessness already exchanged between sides and the war was NOT over.

I would not have wanted to have the decision to make.

And I don't really feel qualified to second-guess the people who had it to make.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 03:43 PM

Yup. There were no brains that went into the decision, you have that right, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 03:08 PM

That's a no brainer, Bobert old buddy: to save lives and end the war in the Pacific.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:54 PM

Even to-day some Americans still believe that "agent orange" was a fruit drink.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:42 PM

One further point for Wolfgang...

In the US, some white supremacist hate groups use the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights as a significant part of their argumentation. Does this mean we in the US should abandon our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or even call their legitimacy into question? Obviously not.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:26 PM

"Nip"

Japanese, maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 01:08 PM

100,00 Japanese lives, ot a million US servicemen. No brainer!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:51 PM

To bring in a musical reference, I'll quote Tom Lehrer:

Who's next?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:25 PM

Exactly my point, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,PeteBoom at Work
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:24 PM

Carol C (and LH) -

The early "peace proposals" from Japan consisted essentially of "you don't fight us and we won't kill you and we'll keep everything we captured." Around the Leyte Gulf / Phillipines campaign (second one, not the first...) these changed to "let's call it a draw." After Leyte Gulf, as Little Hawk said, they became far more serious and entered into negotaions through the Russians along the lines of "well, OK - you don't attack us and we'll talk about what we'll give back."

In a war of conquest, negotiating a peace deal without breaking the absolute will and ability of the agressor to do so again will merely set the stage for another round of wars and violence. In that case, a lightning strike victory (eg., the franco-prussian war) will set up another round of war within a generation. Beating and bleeding the agressor into absolute submission teaches a social lesson that becomes deeply embedded into society itself and takes generations to overcome to the point where launching military activity is worth considering. Until then, any thought of military aggression brings back the spectre of the "last time."

That is why the terms had to be "unconditional". And "unconditional" was unacceptable to Japan.

The difference between a civil war/revolution/war of independence and a war of conquest is that usually the group attempting to break away will be content with that alone - which is why the Confederate States did not need to aggressively invade the Northern states to win the war. Essentially like Vietnam or the Anglo-Irish war - Make it impossible for the other side to govern, and you will eventually win if you can hold out long enough.

On a personal note, my father's unit was training for the invasion of Japan at the time the bombs were dropped. The war planners had it slated to land in Japan on D-Day. Based on the plans, within a week, it was expected to be "removed from the order of battle". "Removed from the order of battle" is the fancy way of saying "shot to pieces" based on the experience of previous invasions.

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 12:18 PM

I think you have made the point that I wanted to make myself, Wolfgang. When you post two similarities, as you did, and you leave out all of the many dissimilarities, you give a (hopefully) false impression that you only see the two similarities and not the dissimilarities.

In the case of the two (very) different sets of people you are trying to compare, the dissimilarities pretty much render irrelevant any similarities there may be.

On your point of whether or not people who criticize the governments of the US and Israel should worry because of the fact that the Neonazis do the same, I would point out that the criticism are perfectly legitimate. But what the Neonazis are doing with those criticisms is what is illigitimate. They are using them as a protective cover to give their very illigitimate cause an air of legitimacy. It surprises me greatly that you have not figured this out yourself.