Atomic Decison

There's no arguing that the Japanese were trying to surrender. We were demanding "unconditional" surrender and they wanted to keep their Emperor.
That's the only thing this is about. Read the Strategic Bombing Survey at the time: we believed the Japanese were going to surrender shortly, conditions or no. Basically, the politicians were FOR the bombing, while the military commanders were against it. American military never seriously planned on invading the Japanese islands. They were used for political reasons. Shameful days in American history.

 

Originally posted by Friedrich:

It would have been a terrible price, but it would have gotten us the total victory our government decided to persue.

Knight, before the A-bomb, the Japanese had more terms for surrender than simply keeping their emperor.
Originally posted by Greg A:

This would have denied us the victory the president promised to the people. Politically it would have been a death sentence for Truman, and it would have let them prepare for another agressive war at a later date. Add to that, Ive read several testimonials on McArthurs plans to invade Japan. I believe he took the proposition very clearly. Im not even sure he knew about the bomb before it was used.

Also, the Japanese were not ready to surrender. Even after both atomic bombings, there were those within the government that wanted to continue the war. Emperor Hirohito was the man who made Japan surrender, for fear of seeing his country totally destroyed.

 

They gave in on the last three terms before the bomb was dropped.
DasR: Where are you quoting from?
They insisted on keeping the Emperor: a term which didn't change, even after the bombs.
In ANY CASE, it was obvious they were moving towards a negotiated peace and an invasion would not be unnecessary.

 

But I will tell you one thing. If not for the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--MY father and three of my uncles were going to be in that invasion and some or all could have been killed had it NOT been for the bombs being dropped.

Not only that--but they expected 1million allied casualties invading Japan. Dropping those two bombs saved lives--Allied and Japanese lives.

You have to figure in the "other" casualties not directly included with the two bombs. I.e. The actual Invasion casualties and the casualties that would have happened had there been a ground war in Japan. Then include the "extra" casualties that would have happened had there been heavy ground fighting all across Japan--Allied and Axis.

Sadly and undoubtedly many more civilians would die--because of bombing raids all over Japan--using conventional bombs. More Deaths caused by Naval and land Artillery-fire. Also probably many additional deaths on both sides from radiation fallout--which wasnt fully understood at that time.

Yes--I do believe that the dropping of the two bombs did prevent millions of other deaths. My 2 cents worth.

 

Carl, we've been over this in the thread I started last August. You should take another look at it for the references I cited.
The "One Million dead from island invasion" was a complete myth.
Yes: myth.

The military knew that the Japanese were going to surrender--this is why they did not have ANY serious invasion plans mapped out. The only people holding up the process were the American politicians , who, for non-military reasons, wanted to delay negotiations until we could get the bomb ready and drop it.
The politicians were actually in a rush to finish development on the bomb and use it before the Japanese could surrender.
After Nagasaki, the Japanese still insisted on keeping their Emperor--a condition the Americans accepted. This means that the surrender terms prior to Hiroshima were the same as the surrender terms after Nagasaki.
This is a sticking point of the Second World War which Americans simply refuse to accept.
Rather than investigating the actual political events, they cling to these stories about "one million casualties" and a mythical invasion plan.
Of course, much of the reasoning comes from an inability to admit that the United States was simply wrong in what it did. A defeated nation, with no military remaining, negotiates for peace; and, while they are negotiating, America executes a massive attack to kill Japanese civilians. An attack which made no difference at all to the outcome of the surrender talks.
Read Ambrose's "Rise to Globalism."

 

Yes but-- Nobody said that there would be 1 million dead. I didn't.

 

Carl, this was from your last posting:

(Must have been your evil twin, Skippy, at the keyboard. )

I've heard this 1 Mil. figure before.
I don't know where it came from, but, apparently you do. Who is the "they" you are referring to?

 

Knight--not quite--if you go back and re-read it it says exactly this: Not only that--but they expected 1 million allied casualties invading japan.

Nowhere does it say or emply that--there will be 1 million allied dead. Casualties also means those who will or are or were Wounded.

Nope, Sparky, I do not have an evil twin at the keyboard.

The "THEY" I am referring to was Pres Truman--Gen MacArthur, Gen Marshall, and whoever the other Washington and General Staff planners were. Those are the: "They" I speak of.

[ 05. March 2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

Fine. One million CASUALTIES.
For all the difference it makes...
I really don't think you've researched this very much. I keep referring to the events surrounding the peace negotiations and you're splitting hairs over this sh*t.
My point is that we never intended on invading Japan, so, whether it's a million or a zillion casualties/deaths/sprained ankles--it's all nonsense.
The military was almost unanimous in NOT wanting to use the atomic bomb.
Read the quote from the Strategic Bombing Survey I put up in the other thread.

 

knight--it sounds to me like YOUR losing sleep over this thread.

And what do you base your point on?

Ill tell you something though--im GLAD my relatives did NOT have to fight and quite possibly become C-A-S-U-A-L-T-I-E-S in the invasion of japan thanks to those two bombs being dropped.

And ya--I do admit I havent done tons of research on that subject as I have priorities elsewhere on other subjects to do with ww2.

Just because you have a VERY slanted view on Americans, America, and Americas politics--isnt my fault. I for one--do not support all the policies in place but--I do support my president and all of our soldiers.

Yes--we all know you take in EVERY word that phil donahue says--along susan saranden.

[ 06. March 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

I'm citing Stephan Ambrose.
Not Phil Donahue.
Also, the Strategic Bombing Survey.

 

Getting back to the issue at hand...Knight, what do you suppose would have happened had we decided not to drop the bomb, and Japan did not surrender? The Soviets would have seen it as yet another oppurtunity to make a sattelite state, and invaded. Whether or not the US Army wanted to invade, we would have had to to prevent the Soviets from gaining more ground. Even if the Japanese were willing to capitulate, which some elements of the Army definitely werent, we had to have serious plans for invading Japan at least for a last ditch effort to prevent communization by the Soviets.

 

knight--ambrose is just as bad if not worse than donahue.

Ive almost never read a book by any auther other than this one who is so one-sided--with one exception, as ambrose is. Hate to admit it--though I love reading this British authors works, but some of his stuff is also one-sided--and always making the Germans look like buffoons. The author is: with the last name of Davis--I cant think of his first name at the moment.

 

from previousthread:
http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000008;p=1