Atomic bomb

The Interim Committee documents:

At Stimson's request, President Truman authorized the creation of The Interim Committee, which began in May 1945 with Stimson as its chairman. One of the Committee's recommendations for President Truman came from the June 1, 1945 meeting. As stated in the Committee notes for that meeting, " Mr. [James] Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that... the [atomic] bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers' homes; and that it be used without prior warning." (underlining in original).

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

http://www.doug-long.com/hstimson.htm

 

Just saw a show on PBS.
Byrnes had Trumans ear.
Pottsdam was delivered but was ignored by Japan, because the Russians did not sign it since at that time they were not officially at war with them yet. In hopes of reaching an agreement with the Russians, Japan decided (the select few decided)(the people were contemplating all sorts of revo-things by then), to ignore.
The first one fell. That same Soto? and his new war monger (Lord of War) said the U.S. had only one.
The second one fell.
The Russians attacked and smashed through the best they had and scared them about having a large Russian army comming in instead of makeing a peace with favorable restrictions.
The conditions were almost insane and rejected, "imerial perogitives" written in, (whatever that means).
A more feasible one was delivered to the U.S., and it was modified, sent back and accepted.
All sorts of other things could've happened.
MacArthur wanted to lead the biggest invasion in history, and "Manhatten" informed him they could have 7 ready by November 1st. Planned invasion of Kyushu(sp), with it's 14 divisions of regulars from China.
They actually wanted to soften up the island defenses with those 7. They were going to prepare U.S. troops for heat/light but knew nothing about radiation. Invader & invaded would have never returned from the land of the dead.
Never the less the Emperor cast the deciding vote to capitulate and less than an hour later there was a coup at the Palace. Two guards were killed and those who voted against total war/certain destruction houses were burned.
The delays were (for capitulation) made by the Empero as he needed time to collect the "symbols" of Imperial power and his families right to hold the throne which were in 3 different cities. The "curved jewel", The "sword", and The "mirror". The time needed to do this allowed the second to drop and the Russians to make their moves.
It is said that the Emperor seemed to be more concerned with his proof to reign than with his people.
As with many episodes in history the people did not make the choices, but were given the blame/punishment.

 

Without the atom bombs Japan would still surrender...given the right condition.

Now that more and more official records have been released from Secrecy Act time-tables, we now know that Truman knew all along that Japan was willing to surrender long before the atom bombs.

Every single one of Truman's Intelligence, military and political advisors went along with every single member of the General Staff and all his cabinet save 2...were adamantly against not only using the bombs, but Unconditional Surrender in the first place. They all agreed it was only prolonging the war.

Sec'try War Stimson(though against Japanese interment camps) felt we had to use the bombs, not so much to scare the Japanese but in his words, intimidate Stalin. Unfortunately that didn't work at all.

Byrnes(Truman's Carl Rowe) was the only other for it.

Even Curtiss LeMay of all people(who created SAC and ability to nuke cities around the world) argued he didn't want to be remembered as a 'war criminal' and sincerely felt he could be tried as such someday.

Eventhough Stalin was lying about submitting Japanese peace proposals to us since 1943, Swedish, Swiss, Argentine and other histories prove they were used as well.

Worse, we KNEW EXACTLY the Japanese position at the time in regards to the Emperor even amongst the 'peace party'. The one code we were best at breaking was their Diplomatic Code. We were reading what they were saying to eachother even before they were. We KNEW that even months before the atom bombs, the Japanese were determined to fight on over only one issue anymore, not even land, but the Emperor's safety, security and position. Something we ended up guaranteeing anyways.

That's like saying the reason I slapped you was because you weren't willing to give up "A" and then even after I slapped you I let you keep "A" anyways.

Unconditional Surrender was one of the biggest mistakes on our side.
Cabinets, Staff even the most ardent commanders like MacArthur, Patton, Montgomery and Ike were all against it from start to finish.

To start with, we had to do was recind Unconditional Surrender.
Then the Japanese would see that they would be treated differently depending upon which leaders they supported.
The militarists, who had already started losing their throat grip on the politicians even before Tojo was sacked, were already divided amongst themselves voting against the 'die to the end' extremists.

The Brits were smart.
Upon surrender, they immediately asked the Emperor's permission to keep Japanese military and re-arm them. The Brits and Dutch used these 'surrendered' Japanese garrisons, air,army even sea, to 'hold down the fort' against the communists throughout Indonesia, Borneo, Malaya/malaysia and Burma. The first Japanese returning home in 1946, the last in 1951. By doing that, the British and Dutch succeeded where the French and Americans failed in keeping the communists from power.

If you like, ignore that the Japanese still refused to surrender after touring the carnage of the first bomb, that the Soviets invaded BEFORE the second bomb and that decoded Japanese records indicate that to them, that was at least as telling a blow. Like the Germans, the Japanese would have preferred to keep the communists as far away an uninvolved as possible.

If we had agreed to do what we ended up doing anyways, leave the Emperor, we could not only have ended the war before the Soviets got involved, but also, like the British and Dutch, in such a way that by incrementally replacing the Japanese military occupying Asia with ours, China would never have become communist, there would have been no Korean nor Vietnam war. No decades of Trillions of dollars of spending in an Asian as well as European Cold War.

Without a doubt the Japanese were willing to surrender even without the atom bombs, in an even more advantageous end-scenario situation for our side as well.

What is worse, is that this isn't 'hind-sight-wisdom', Truman and our Intel and staffs KNEW this to be true. But Stimson(who did not believe the only good jap is a dead jap) believed Stalin would 'mind his place' only if we used it.

Though of course I believe he also suggested using it only on a military only target, island, maybe even (though bad for the natives too) Truk instead.

What if there was no A-bomb?

We still could have and should have won even better than we did.

 

Totally agree

Byrnes was Trumans mentor, Father figure, took him under his wing (as a junior congressman), and for that (almost alone) Truman felt obligated to listen/obey his wishes. According to that show.
There were Japanese historians who spoke as well on that program.

The more I see/learn about governments, the more similarities I see with childhood. Only on a larger scale, more costly, more deadly.

Vendettas, promises, secrets, lies, hate, revenge, rage, treaties, sides, deals, pay-offs, rumors, propaganda, etc...

One has to work people up into a frenzy to get them off their arses (many times), and then once the Juggernaught gets rolling it takes on a life of its' own, and is all but impossible to stop.

As you say...

More damage. Too much damage. Way too long a lasting damage. A damage that spreads to other uninfected areas, beyond the scope of the original (is this the right word) Intent?

Hopefully we'll see this comming....and do things differently....next time ?

 

Glad you've changed your mind

 

For the future, or there'll be no future.

At the time it was the "least death" option.

How could anyone have known its full measure....then ?

Hind-site is 20/20.

I believe it prevented its use all the way until today. It wised us up.

Imagine if everyone got it at the same time and used them like GP bombs simultaneously.

 

You raise a good point here.

 

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker....
Albert Einstein

The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one....
Albert Einstein

The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true....
J. Robert Oppenheimer

When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb....
J. Robert Oppenheimer

No man should escape our universities without knowing how little he knows....
J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

Thanks for your service and your great post. Hope to here more of your experiences, if you choose to share them and I'm glad you are here to share them with us.

 

Your welcome, You remind me of my Barber who always tells me "they just don't think like us." He was a Corpsman at the Chosin Reservoir and one I trust with a straight razor. Nothing like a good shave.....also different back then.

 

Is the Strategic Bombing Survey accurate for the situation in Japan? Their estimate of the Strategic Bombing impact in Europe is under-exaggerated.

From what I've read, Japan was due for some starvation in a couple months due to the submarine blockade. I'm also pretty sure that the first victims of starvation are children and old people. Though old people don't matter much in terms of a country's viability, the children definitely do.

Let's put it this way; I greatly prefer talking about this rather than having to talk about "Was Operation Olympic Justified".

As for morals...I'm pretty sure that the world was operating under the principles of Total War at the time being.

 

This is an hypothesis.

If you check previous posts on this very thread, you'll see that many people, including Eisenhower, Mc Arthur etc thought this hypothesis was bullshit pure and simple.

 

Thanks for this important clarification, SWPV, I thought it was Mc Arthur like Mc Enroe Mc Donalds etc

It has often been said on this subject that the alternative was nuke or Olympic, at least it was the official story.

If you read Truman's speech just after Hiroshima, you'll see that it's already propaganda : he says he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, a military base D), in order to spare the life of hundreds of thousands young Americans.

But many very high ranked officials, politician and military personel thought at the time (again - scroll dow this thread to read their quotes) that the most probable outcome was a quick collapse of Japan, without having to launch nuke neither Olympic operation.

My point is not that Olympic would have been better than the nukes, I just like to remind that there was a third valid option.

 

From all I've read both in these forums and elsewhere Olympic was still a go in August of 41. There is a good chance that as the intelligence picture got clearer they would have postponed it until 46. In this case Japan might have surrendered before the invasion. On the other hand if the war went on even another month or two the Japanese casualties would likely have been significantly higher famine and continued conventional bombing would likely have seen to that.

 

Excellent point Jeff, The whole point of the Atomic bomb was to prevent more American casualties like those suffered in Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The Bushido code and the Japanese propaganda as well as Kamikaze attacks, including that of the Yamato were certainly ample reasons for the President to choose the bomb over the invasion of Japan by ground troops.

 

This is all good saying that with hindsight , but could you live with sending extra Allied troops to there death , just to save Japanese lives

 

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but Japan was anything
but a unified mind with respect to the war. The population was
tired and wanted it to end. Many in the government wanted it to
end too but were too afraid of the military. Several politicians
were assasinated before the war because of their opposition.

There is even some question as to whether the Emperor really wanted
the war but just went along because the military would have deposed
him otherwise. And, of course, there is the frightening episode
where renegade officers tried to stop the surrender broadcast.
That event's success hung by a thread.

The two planes that carried the Japanese surrender delegation to
Iwo Jima had to be extremely cautious lest they get shot down by
their own planes.

The book, "Dear General MacArthur", documents hundreds of thousands
of letters civilians sent to him thanking him for ending the war.

PacwarPJ

 

Yes, it's true that there were divergent opinions in Japan before the war started. But once the shooting started, the pro-war side had the upper hand and opposition was muted.

I would venture to say that if foreign troops had invaded Japan, the fighting would indeed be very bloody and would have galvanized the Japanese into fighting even more. They have been conditioned into it from years of war.

Also, there would also be Japanese units or groups who would have attack invaders on their own initiative. They would rather go down fighting instead of seeing enemy troops on their own soil. I cite the Battle for Manila when Japanese naval units ignored orders declaring the city an open city and chose to fight off US troops on their own. If that's how fanatical the Japanese could be on an occupied land, just imagine how fanatical they could be on their own soil.

As to the different opinions of the US upper brass, that's just about it. They're just opinions. Still, they're valid. Personally for me, I'd take the view of the grunts on the ground.