The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[Mushroom]

The had their ambassador propose a return to status quo ante, December 6th 1941, with the Japanese controlling the disarmament (which means NO disarmament), No war crimes trials, the Japanese government to be untouched. No occupation of Japan. The proposal was so delusional the Japanese ambassador told his own government that it wouldn't even be accepted by any neutral power to pass along. That's all in the Japanese's own records as well as wartime intercepts. No, the Japanese weren't ready to surrender, they were willing to grant the allies a "do-over" if it didn't cost Japan anything.

Technically, that was known as a "pro quo ante bellum", which is Latin for "the condition as it existed before the war". Literally a ceasing of hostilities as it existed prior to the outbreak of war but on their conditions.

And it was much more than you said, as Japan would recover any of their territory that had been lost (Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, etc), and do anything they wanted to with it. However, territory they had captured (China, Philippines, etc) would become demilitarized with Japan supervising the demilitarization and continuing to occupy them. And as you said, no war crimes trials, no occupation, no disarmament, nothing. In essence everything would end in their favor.

And they pitched this idea to multiple neutral nations in the hope that somebody would present that proposal to the Allied Powers for them. Both the Swiss and Finland outright rejected even proposing the notion, as they knew the Allies would win and proposing such a bad deal would only lower the respect of the Allied Powers towards their own nations. The only nation even willing to talk to Japan about this was the Soviet Union. Who of course had already agreed to enter the war on the Allied side and was just playing Japan for time as it made preparations for attacking themselves.

And yes, Ambassador Sato knew that the Soviets would never present the proposal to the Allies, and told Foreign Minister Togo as much. That is why I encourage everybody to actually read the Sato-Togo Telegrams, as it is an important look into the minds of the Japanese leaders of the time.

As Ambassador Sato was in negotiations, he constantly encouraged Togo to be a realist, and recognize that Japan had to surrender. That their idea of an armistice was foolish and the Soviets would never even present that. And that the negotiations had to start on the basis of negotiating the terms of the surrender, not the idea of an armistice which would never be accepted.

Under these circumstances, the Soviet Government might be moved, and the desire to have it mediate will not be an impossibility. However, in the above situation, the immediate result facing us would be that there will be no room for doubt that it will very closely approximate unconditional surrender.

I have expressed my extremely unreserved opinion in the foregoing and I beg your pardon for such frank statements at this time. I have also heard that at the Imperial Court His Majesty is greatly concerned. I find these dreadful and heartbreaking thoughts unbearable. However, in international relations there is no mercy, and facing reality is unavoidable. I have transmitted the foregoing to you in all frankness, just as I see it, for I firmly believe it to be my primary responsibility to put an end to any loose thinking which gets away from reality. I beg for your understanding.

Sato to Togo 12 July 1945

And after several messages back and forth with little movement from Tokyo, Sato sent the following on 15 July 1945.

Judging from these circumstances, a peace treaty by negotiation is something which cannot win the support of the Soviet Union. In the final analysis, if our country truly desires to terminate the war, we have no alternative but to accept unconditional surrender or something very close to it.

Ambassador Sato was a seasoned diplomat. And he knew that the Soviets would never forward an armistice proposal for Japan. Therefore the only workable solution was to attempt to negotiate a surrender.

And the response to that was clear, in this cable from Togo to Sato on 17 July 1945:

In such times, we continue to maintain our war strength; if only the United States and Great Britain would recognize Japan's honor and existence we would terminate the war and would like to save mankind from the ravages of war, but if the enemy insists on unconditional surrender to the very end, then our country and His Majesty would unanimously resolve to fight a war of resistance to the bitter end. Therefore, inviting the Soviet Union to mediate fairly does not include unconditional surrender; please understand this point in particular.

Now onw thing should be made clear, nowhere in the Potsdam Declaration did it ever call for the "Unconditional Surrender of Japan". That was never-ever part of the demand. What was actually stated was this:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

Not the surrender of the nation or the government, just the armed forces. Those kinds of terms were actually common in Europe and had been for thousands of years. The surrender of a nation after a war did not mean surrendering of their sovereignty, simply the surrender of their forces in the field and their returning home with no more hostilities. However, Japan had no such tradition, and every war only had a single outcome. And that was the destruction of the losing side.

I can go on and on, but it was this cultural lock that Japan trapped itself in, and Ambassador Sato recognized. He knew what the Potsdam Declaration said, and was encouraging Togo to give him the power to negotiate a surrender that would be in keeping with Potsdam. However, back in Tokyo they culturally could not comprehend a surrender that did not completely destroy their nation.

 

[Mushroom]

I am just trying to flag a troll. The person understands everything, knows the history, nothing they post do they believe. Hence there is no need to comment in reply with an essay

Myself, I know trying to debate the trolls and idiots is pointless. And in reality I am not even trying.

What my posts 90% of the time are actually aimed at is those that have not yet locked in their ideas and are open to either change or finding out what really happened. In the hopes that they will actually research true history and not fall for what the idiots, fools, and conspiracy nuts say.

That is why I so heavily reference most of my posts like that, and actually include whenever possible the links to the raw source material. So people can read the actual documents that the people who wrote the history books read and decide for themselves if the history books are accurate or not.

One can debate a conclusion in a book all day long, but it becomes damned hard to debate the raw documents. Unedited and without a ton of people trying to twist them into what they want to believe.

 

[Mushroom]

which was 100% false since the Japanese had already repeatedly offered to surrender

Oh really?

And then what was their Ambassador doing in Moscow?

Who did they make this offer to? And no, don't give me that entirely garbage nonsense that people like MacArthur claimed years later. A single time where Japan outsight said prior to 8 August "OK, we want to surrender".

It never happened. Hell, I have been quoting from the very telegrams that their Foreign Minister was sending to their Ambassador in Moscow! And in them the Foreign Minister forbid any discussion of surrender! Insisting it be a peace upon Japan's terms and nothing else.

Hell, even after they agreed to surrender it took them another 6 days to tell the Allied Powers they were throwing in the towel. And that was the first time the nation of Japan ever contacted them after the war broke out on 8 December 1941. Even Germany and Italy maintained at least backdoor channels between the Allied nations during the war, mostly through Finland and the Swiss. But Japan ended all communication after they went to war, refusing any attempts to negotiate or discuss anything.

 

[Mushroom]

"During World War II, it has been estimated that between 19,500 and 50,000 members of the Imperial Japanese military surrendered to Western Allied combatants prior to the end of the Pacific War in August 1945. Also, Soviet troops seized and imprisoned more than half a million Japanese troops and civilians in China and other places."

The vast majority of them were either Korean and Okinawan conscripts, civilians, or at the end of the war when they knew it was over.

And you are aware that the Soviets did not stop fighting until they had secured their goals on 2 September, almost 3 weeks after Emperor Showa ordered his forces to surrender. That gave them almost 3 weeks to press on and the Japanese were ordered by that time to stop resisting and surrender by their Emperor.

How many who were culturally Japanese were captured prior to 15 August?

 

[Mushroom]

Modification. You may fool unkotare.

Naw, there is no fooling Poop Head. He is just as ignorant to reality as Gipper is.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Mass murder in the Pacific! I suggest anyone who reads this thread needs to go to the National Cemetery in San Diego. In rows over rows of Marines, many teenagers, died and many were injured.

See this:

WW II war in the pacific - Google Search

 

[elektra]

Myself, I know trying to debate the trolls and idiots is pointless. And in reality I am not even trying.

What my posts 90% of the time are actually aimed at is those that have not yet locked in their ideas and are open to either change or finding out what really happened. In the hopes that they will actually research true history and not fall for what the idiots, fools, and conspiracy nuts say.

That is why I so heavily reference most of my posts like that, and actually include whenever possible the links to the raw source material. So people can read the actual documents that the people who wrote the history books read and decide for themselves if the history books are accurate or not.

One can debate a conclusion in a book all day long, but it becomes damned hard to debate the raw documents. Unedited and without a ton of people trying to twist them into what they want to believe.

You have stacks of raw documents?

Books reference raw documents.

Debate a book's conclusion? We could debate your opinion as to the conclusions you believe every book is written to.

 

[Delldude]

Great column on the subject.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Tested in Japan? You really don't have any sense, look up the history of the first tests in the desserts of America.

 

[Delldude]

Tested in Japan? You really don't have any sense, look up the history of the first tests in the desserts of America.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reserved targets not open to conventional bombing for the explicit reason they were a test bed for the bombs effectiveness.

 

[Rye Catcher]

You have stacks of raw documents?

Books reference raw documents.

Debate a book's conclusion? We could debate your opinion as to the conclusions you believe every book is written to.

Take a hike down to the National Cemetery in San Diego. See the real documents. The graves look out to the bay, I served in 32nd Street.

 

[Mushroom]

Mass murder in the Pacific! I suggest anyone who reads this thread needs to go to the National Cemetery in San Diego. In rows over rows of Marines, many teenagers, died and many were injured.

Or look at the Rape of Nanking. Where after the Chinese threw in the towel and declared the city to be an "Open City", the Japanese Army went on a wanton orgy of death and destruction and killed between 200,000 and 300,000 Chinese civilians.

The same thing was done in the Philippines, where the US ordered all fighting in the city to stop and withdraw but the Japanese attacked and bombed it anyways.

 

[elektra]

Pellegrino’s book is a moving and grueling close-up look at the horrors experienced by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki both on the day of the bombing and in the days and years afterward. I have the heart of a dried-up raisin but even I got a little teary in places.

There are few opportunities for inspiring “triumph of the human spirit” narratives amid the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings were titanic, apocalyptic events that mock human scale and comprehension. Pellegrino depicts dazed “ant-trails” of survivors threading through the instantaneously blasted landscapes and past heaps of the dead, dying, and horrifically maimed in the shadow of an eight-mile high radioactive cloud. Fate and the desperate efforts of the rescuers saved some, but many lives literally disintegrated in seconds, minutes, days, and years after the bombs were dropped.

Near the hypocenter, the experience of death was overwhelming and random in a dehumanizing way. For some, it came down to the decision to wear a white shirt or a dark shirt. The white shirt might reflect the intense, instantaneous radiation of the blast with remarkable efficacy; a black shirt absorbed the radiation and incinerated the wearer.

The bottom line for many survivors is that their families, their communities, their city, most of the world they knew, their health, their spiritual equilibrium, even their social status had been annihilated in an event of overwhelming horror. The survivors experienced physical and mental trauma; ostracization; guilt; shame; and lingering illness.

Nevertheless, Pellegrino does document instances of courage, compassion, and ingenuity and people sustaining their humanity through acts of love and sacrifice.

An inspiration for the title of the book is the “double” hibakusha, people who experienced and survived both the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One survivor of Hiroshima goes back home to Nagasaki and tells his co-workers of the awful weapon he had experienced; he warns them if they see a blinding flash—the pika—they must use it as a signal they have a few seconds to seek shelter before the don—the crash, the massive shock wave created by the bomb, arrives.

And so “duck and cover” was born.

Nice post, a reference to a book is good. I can add it to my collection

Take a hike down to the National Cemetery in San Diego. See the real documents. The graves look out to the bay, I served in 32nd Street.

I Like louie zamparini's book, as well as pappy boyington. I have other books, many about the cruel culture of the japanese. Certainly mom and dad, were not innocent onlookers.

 

[Unkotare]

Thank you for the essays.

You dont realize gipper is a troll and my replys force the troll to come into the light.

It is nice to show off your knowledge but even I and most people here are looking for an easy quick read.

The troll and my attempt to have others see him/her as such is lost in the chapters of history be quoted.

I can write an essay myself. I have the knowledge and sources at my fingertips. What others liknk to, a sentence, i own the book which allows me to put any quote in context refuting revisionest and or opinion comments.

Feel free to look at my pics, feel free to suggest what is missing
View attachment 795124View attachment 795125

 

[Mushroom]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reserved targets not open to conventional bombing for the explicit reason they were a test bed for the bombs effectiveness.

Not true, both were extensively bombed. Especially Nagasaki as it was one of their major Naval ports.

And most especially as already stated. The target for the second bomb was not even Nagasaki, but Kokura.

But the fact is, the widespread bombing of Japan unlike Germany had only started in June 1944. That was because until that time there were no bases within range to actually start bombing. First they had to push forward and take multiple islands so their air forces could even be within range. So compared to say Germany which had been under almost constant bombardment from 1939 to 1945, Japan only had about a year of bombing and only the longest range bomber (B-29) could even reach it.

This can be seen in the largest bombing on Japan ever during the war. Operation Meetinghouse in March 1945. where 279 B-29s dropped bombs on Tokyo.

Compared to the 400, 700 and 1,000 bomber raids conducted against Germany over more than 6 years, Japan was barely touched.

 

[Unkotare]

We had no choice. Truman had to do what he did.

Of course "we" had a choice. truman didn't "have to" do what he did. Grave choices with monumental moral considerations.

 

[Unkotare]

He would've killed more GI's with an invasion force.

There were more than just two choices.

 

[Mushroom]

There were more than just two choices.

And what were those two choices Poop Head? And what were the other choices?

 

[Unkotare]

Technically, that was known as a "pro quo ante bellum", which is Latin for "the condition as it existed before the war". Literally a ceasing of hostilities as it existed prior to the outbreak of war but on their conditions.

And it was much more than you said, as Japan would recover any of their territory that had been lost (Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, etc), and do anything they wanted to with it. However, territory they had captured (China, Philippines, etc) would become demilitarized with Japan supervising the demilitarization and continuing to occupy them. And as you said, no war crimes trials, no occupation, no disarmament, nothing. In essence everything would end in their favor.

And they pitched this idea to multiple neutral nations in the hope that somebody would present that proposal to the Allied Powers for them. Both the Swiss and Finland outright rejected even proposing the notion, as they knew the Allies would win and proposing such a bad deal would only lower the respect of the Allied Powers towards their own nations. The only nation even willing to talk to Japan about this was the Soviet Union. Who of course had already agreed to enter the war on the Allied side and was just playing Japan for time as it made preparations for attacking themselves.

And yes, Ambassador Sato knew that the Soviets would never present the proposal to the Allies, and told Foreign Minister Togo as much. That is why I encourage everybody to actually read the Sato-Togo Telegrams, as it is an important look into the minds of the Japanese leaders of the time.

As Ambassador Sato was in negotiations, he constantly encouraged Togo to be a realist, and recognize that Japan had to surrender. That their idea of an armistice was foolish and the Soviets would never even present that. And that the negotiations had to start on the basis of negotiating the terms of the surrender, not the idea of an armistice which would never be accepted.


Sato to Togo 12 July 1945

And after several messages back and forth with little movement from Tokyo, Sato sent the following on 15 July 1945.



Ambassador Sato was a seasoned diplomat. And he knew that the Soviets would never forward an armistice proposal for Japan. Therefore the only workable solution was to attempt to negotiate a surrender.

And the response to that was clear, in this cable from Togo to Sato on 17 July 1945:



Now onw thing should be made clear, nowhere in the Potsdam Declaration did it ever call for the "Unconditional Surrender of Japan". That was never-ever part of the demand. What was actually stated was this:

Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

Not the surrender of the nation or the government, just the armed forces. Those kinds of terms were actually common in Europe and had been for thousands of years. The surrender of a nation after a war did not mean surrendering of their sovereignty, simply the surrender of their forces in the field and their returning home with no more hostilities. However, Japan had no such tradition, and every war only had a single outcome. And that was the destruction of the losing side.

I can go on and on, but it was this cultural lock that Japan trapped itself in, and Ambassador Sato recognized. He knew what the Potsdam Declaration said, and was encouraging Togo to give him the power to negotiate a surrender that would be in keeping with Potsdam. However, back in Tokyo they culturally could not comprehend a surrender that did not completely destroy their nation.

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

 

[Unkotare]

The vast majority of them were either Korean and Okinawan conscripts, civilians, or at the end of the war when they knew it was over.

....

Move them goalposts!