Wake Up America

[Zhukov]

Don't misunderstand this post. I'm in full agreement with Truman's actions. If I were alive at the time, I would have urged a third and fourth, all the while yelling. "what? what, i can't hear you?"

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
Regardless of what people have said about what we know now and all the stuff about how Japan was going to surrender, there are still some things I don't understand.

1) Why didn't they surrender after the first one was dropped?

There is some indication that they at least tried. Certain more moderate members of the Japanese ruling clique attempted to surrender after the first one, but the military hard-liners would have none of it. I've read articles indicating even the Emperor was in favor of a surrender after the first one, but that could be revision.

2) With all that we heard about how hard they fought and how they often fought to the death (as well as those stories about Japanese soldiers who didn't believe the war was over and did not want to get out of their caves), they were just going to surrender? That doesn't sound right.

Here you're absolutely right. An invasion of the mainland was a given. It was assumed even with the first wartime use of tactical nukes to aid with the landings, we would suffer about 1 million additional casualties. The Japanese population would have been decimated. Every major city would have been bombed, and tens of millions of citizen-soldiers doubtlessly would have died in futile kamikaze mass surges against U.S. troops with machine guns.

3) What would a demonstration of the A-bomb do? I just don't see what that accomplishes.

Don't think for a second Stalin didn't notice. He saw proof positive that we had it (tho it's likely he already knew that thru his intelligence) but more than that he saw unequivocal proof that we had the will to use it. During the war it was necessary to co-operate with the Soviets, but nobody had any illusions about the post-war peace. Many in the U.S. military and civilian leadership assumed we'd be at war with the Soviets before too long. The demonstration to the Soviets of our super weapon, tho not a deciding factor in it's use, was certainly a plus in that it likely served to intimidate the Soviet's from pursuing an overly agressive course of action.

 

[Bry]

RWA: here again, you can read and learn, or you can commit yourself to unsupportable opinions. In the end, if you choose to reject information thoroughly and painstakingly presented, for no other reason than that it conflicts with your opinion, that's your right.

Phadras: you're funny.

sitarro: If I read you correctly, you are suggesting that the killing of 200,000 + Japanese civilians with the atomic bombs is justified because the Japanese soldiers commited war crimes and attrocities. If that is correct, I couldn't disagree more strongly. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the fact that you don't keep a diary does not have any bearing on whether or not Truman had one.

Tim and Zhukov: You're thoughtful responses are appriciated.

1) Why didn't they surrender after the first one was dropped?

The Japanese were trying to surrender well before the bomb was dropped. The only obstacle was the "unconditional surrender" insisted on by Truman: the Japanese would not surrender their emperor. Truman at Potsdam actually removed a provision that would offer to allow them to maintain their emperor. As this clarification was finally granted in the final terms of surrender, there is no reason for not having offered it before, except that Truman wanted to use the bombs.

2) With all that we heard about how hard they fought and how they often fought to the death (as well as those stories about Japanese soldiers who didn't believe the war was over and did not want to get out of their caves), they were just going to surrender? That doesn't sound right.

I agree that this is interesting, and that isolated soldiers that had no means of communication continued fighting after the surrender, but this would have been true with or without the bomb. I repeat that invasion of the mainland was not a necessity, as the US intercepted communications between Japan and Russia asking for a clarrification of the surrender terms, especially regarding the status of the emperor. Truman did not offer that clarrification until after he used the bombs, in spite of recording in his diary his surety that Japan would surrender if given assurances for their emperor.

3) What would a demonstration of the A-bomb do? I just don't see what that accomplishes.

Zhukov is right on this, accept that I believe influencing the Russians was the primary reason for dropping the bomb.

 

[Zhukov]

The Japanese were trying to surrender well before the bomb was dropped. The only obstacle was the "unconditional surrender" insisted on by Truman: the Japanese would not surrender their emperor. Truman at Potsdam actually removed a provision that would offer to allow them to maintain their emperor. As this clarification was finally granted in the final terms of surrender, there is no reason for not having offered it before, except that Truman wanted to use the bombs.

Well trying to surrender on their own terms doesn't really count now does it?

Why couldn't Truman have changed his mind? Perhaps he rethought it and decided it was best to keep their emperor after having had a chat with MacArthur, who supported that position? It would would explained MacArthur's flagrant disrespect for the Office of the President if he had managed to change the President's mind on so important a point.

Also, don't underestimate the neccesity to ensure that the Japanese knew they were beat.

I repeat that invasion of the mainland was not a necessity, as the US intercepted communications between Japan and Russia asking for a clarrification of the surrender terms, especially regarding the status of the emperor. Truman did not offer that clarrification until after he used the bombs, in spite of recording in his diary his surety that Japan would surrender if given assurances for their emperor.

Again, in the context of the time, it is vital to understand the Japanese had to know they were beat. Unfinished business of the first World War directly led to the second one. We were determined not to let that happen again. Therefore complete indisputable victory was required. The Big Three agreed to this at Yalta. Without an invasion, the atomic bomb was a useful means to convey that feeling of utter defeat.

And if dropping the bombs was for the sole purpose of showing off to the Soviets? So what? It worked, and who knows how many lives that may have saved.

 

[Bry]

And if dropping the bombs was for the sole purpose of showing off to the Soviets? So what? It worked, and who knows how many lives that may have saved.

It is this thought that I live with. Perhaps for you, it was a good idea to kill 210,000 Japs to scare the Soviets at the bargaining table.

 

[Zhukov]

It is this thought that I live with. Perhaps for you, it was a good idea to kill 210,000 Japs to scare the Soviets at the bargaining table.

Let us hypothesize that we did not use the A-bomb on Japan. The first and only event where an atomic weapon was used in anger would never have happened.

The Soviet Union would have developed it's own nuclear weapon at the same time as it did, thru the efforts of it's own scientists, the efforts of captured german scientists, and the information delivered to it by spies in the United States.

Stalin would have seen we had the bomb and did not use it. Why? What conclusions would he draw from this?

Weakness. Timidity.

Stalin felt that the continued delay of the D-Day landings was due to the U.S. and U.K. being reluctant to spend more lives than were absolutely neccessary. By the time we did land in France, Germany's days were already numbered.

A reluctance to sacrifice life combined with Stalin's calculation that the Soviet Union could withstand a nuclear first strike from the U.S. and all this combined with perceived weakness and timidity had we not dropped thoose two bombs. Would Stalin have been so reluctant to seize all of Berlin? To move into Western Europe?

210,000 Japanese lives would have been sacrificed to prevent a thrid world war which could have led to the complete Communist enslavement of the world or the complete extinction of humanity.

Fair price to pay I'd say considering 100,000 japanese were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo alone.

Still, it's revisionist history. We were at war with Japan. Total war. We dropped very large bombs on two of their industrial centers. They surrendered. Why read anymore into than that?

If the same had been accomplished by several huge waves of heavy bombers we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bry, no matter how painstakingly presented, conjecture is still just conjecture. It really is just that simple. There's no credit for effort; this is not a public school.

 

[sitarro]

Zhukov ,
You took the post right off of my key board . . . . bravo !

Bry , you again mistook the point I was trying to make by refering the board to that site that showed just one of the Japanese army's attrocities . The point was , these are the things the American administration was seeing at the time , what the American public knew . There was a huge mistrust of the Japanese . Those two cities were going to be leveled ,as Zhukov pointed out . Truman had to decide to send hundreds of bomber crews into danger or one to accomplish the same thing . I am sure that even with the extreme hatred of the Japanese at the time this was still a monumental decision that he lived with to his death .
Historical data can be interpreted in many ways , especially when grant money is involved . It sounds like, while you distrust politicians , You have no problem trusting that everything historical "experts" say is true . I don't , I attended college , I can count the decent professors I had on half of a hand . Most were losers that would be destroyed in the real world so they hide out in the University system where they can mess with the virgin minds of young kids . I'm sure there are some real teachers out there but in my 4 years of school I only met 3 , these opinions come from someone who has been in the real world(out of school) for 30 years . What I did experience was shallow , lazy , corrupt , biased , condesending and bitter academic egomaniacs . Should I take these "researchers word as Gospel ? These people can be just as dishonest , if the money is right , as anyone. A historian needs to find something new to be noticed . A lot of the conjecture I have read reminds me of the poetry experts that want to tell you what the poet was thinking 100 years ago . Or the art critic that just "knows" what Van Gogh was trying to say with his self portrait .
I stand by the decision of President Truman just as I believe President Bush because I know that they are given an infinite amount of information more than we to make their decisions from .

 

[Avatar4321]

First, I cant help but noticed this thread is basically an attack on special interests and accusing them of driving the war effort. Id like to address this first.

People talk about special interests as being bad. But special interests arent bad. Special interests are how the people communicate with the government. People believe in a cause and to help get their cause noticed they get together with other people who believe in the same cause to create a special interest to influence politics. There is nothing wrong with people having a voice in politics which is why when i heard people like Howard Dean proposing to take the Special interests out of politics it pretty much ticked me off because the government was set up so that different groups of people could influence government. the Check in the Constitution is that there are other special interests groups that want the opposite to take place and thus they balance out.

As for American corporations making money of liberating Iraq, Why shouldnt they? Americans are the ones risking their lives to liberate these people. They should be the ones who get some of the rewards. Why should the French and the Germans who opposed liberating Iraq for their own gain profit for what our loss of blood? Also, those who oppose the war and the corporations making money are also the ones demanding that the economy recover and more people get jobs. How are is it consistant to demand more jobs and then be upset when corporations make money and the need to create these jobs?

Second, The War in Iraq is part of the ongoing war on terror. I understand that many people hate war. I hate war myself, but war is sometimes necessary to stop evil. Id love peace. If there was a way for peace without war id be all for it. But you cant negotiate peace with people whose goals consist of killing you for what you believe or what you dont believe. These Islamic terrorists are waging a war on the United States because we are a Free nation. We allow people to choose their own lives. Particularly our belief that all men should be allowed to choose their own religion and speak their mind bothers these people. They dont want peace with us. They will not rest until we are wiped off the face of this planet. And when they have succeeded in killing us they will turn their attention to the people who supported them and enslave them. Appeasement didnt work with Hitler, it wont work now.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Well said avatar!!

 

[Bry]

Zhukov: thanks again for the well constructed response. The article I selected presents the evidence available regarding the decision to use Atomic bombs in Japan. The evidence shows incontrovertibly that the administration, including Truman, was convinced two months before the use of the atomic bombs that the Japanese would surrender if they were permitted to keep their emperor. That evidence is added to the fact that the Soviets were preparing to enter the war. Neither the atomic bombs nor the fire bombing which you hypothesize would have been necessary even in the absence of the atomic bombs. The end of the war was simply delayed two months. Truman purposely avioded ending the war for two months.

In light of the fact that you consider this argument to be "revisionist history", I do not see how you can even pretend to engage in the speculation involved in hypothesizing what might have happened vis a vis Russia had the atomic bomb not been used. It is a choice between the hard historical evidence of documents and records reflecting on what actually happened, and pure and simple, unsubstantiable speculation about what might have happened if... I am clear on which of the two I prefer.

RWA: it is a choice between acknowledging the importance and relevancy of hard incontrovertable facts and burrying your head in the sand to protect your precious patriotism. While conjecture is involved in supporting either side, the weight of evidence supports only one while the demonstrated revisionism of the McCarthy years supports the other. Here too it is clear where each of us stand.

sitarro: You are right that I distrust politicians, but you are wrong to imagine that I have full confidence in academics. The difference is that academia has a built in mechanism of self-critique. A historical analysis lives and dies by the evidence on which it rests. If the historical analysis goes against evidence, it is rapidly criticized and ammended by the community. If it is demonstrated that a historical analysis is more invention than synthesis of the entirety of real evidence available, the source of the invention is ex-communicated from the community. The same process controls the scientific community where a scientist which falsifies results is simply ostrasized from the community of scientists. (This process is put at risk by allowing corporate interests to conduct research in secret without making public their findings and methods.) Politicians, on the other hand, are frequently not subject to the same sort of criticism simply because they control the access of the publics to the facts on which the public may form their criticism and finally their vote. Democracy is impossible in the absence of a transparent governing process. I don't entirely disagree with you that in academia, many egoes are at play, and that many professors take advantage of the authority which is conferred by their academic robes to influence the minds and hearts of their young students, and even to recklessly play with the futures of those students by castigating those that dare to differ with the ideology of the professor. But I maintain that what happens in the classrooms is something very different from what happens in the academic community with research and publications.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your standpoint that the only real test of a person is how he or she performs in the free market. Society needs all of its roles filled, and someone who dedicates themselves to being police or firefighter or store clerk or professor is not by any stretch of the imagination less than someone who dedicates themselves to the relentless search for profit. Nor would I say the opposite, that a businessman is necessarily less than anyone else. The evaluation must come for each individual looking at the sum total of how they lived their life, and is not significantly dependent on the carreer they choose.

Avatar: It seems perfectly defendable to me for someone to suggest that the system of special interests which de facto influence our government is inadequate and severly flawed. You are right that there is a hypothesized self-balancing of these special interests, but the reality is otherwise, and the system heavily weights those groups which can muster the greatest amount of capital (i.e. bribe money). This process is antithesis to the very concept of democracy and effectively nullifies the importance of one man's vote.

Corporate America is NOT the America which is risking its lives in Iraq. One segment (disproportionately lower class and immigrant) risks its life for the monetary gains of a very different segment. If you were to say that profits gained from Iraq should be unquestioningly handed over to the families of those soldiers that died, I might be attempted to agree with you. To my mind, contracts should be awarded to those who can do the best job for the lowest price, and their nationality should not be considered. I want the greatest return for my tax money, and do not care if the profits wind up in the pockets of an American or a frog. (Neither of the two, in the final analysis, give a damn about me.) Evidence shows that the American corporation does not add jobs to the American market, but accelerates the exportaion of jobs. There is no contradiction in this position.

You make the common mistake of conflating the war in Iraq with the conflict with Islamic extremist terrorist. The government of Saddam was secular, and the invasion of iraq makes the radicalization of their government more likely. They do not hate us because we are free (that's a very self-flattering and popular myth), but rather the opposite: we insist in manipulating their internal politics, effecting coup de etats, supporting dictators. We are internally free, but rigorously hegemonic in our foreign policy. Your writing on this point is singularly hyperbolic and paranoic, as you rest on vague and caricaturized terms of "them" and "us".

 

[NightTrain]

Welcome back, Bry.


How's things over there? Better, I would think, as far as popular thoughts on Americans.


Have you registered Republican yet?

 

[Annie]

Bry:

One segment (disproportionately lower class and immigrant) risks its life for the monetary gains of a very different segment. If you were to say that profits gained from Iraq should be unquestioningly handed over to the families of those soldiers that died, I might be attempted to agree with you.

Have to agree that it's been this way, with the exception of the selective service being fairly enforced. So, you're in favor of a 'no academic waiver' draft?

Many recent immigrants, including my grandfather who basically got off the boat from Ireland and onto an American warship for the Mexican-American War, chose this path to near immediate citizenship. You wish to take that away?

Bry:

Evidence shows that the American corporation does not add jobs to the American market, but accelerates the exportaion of jobs. There is no contradiction in this position.

Some reasonable people disagree, not only with your findings, but also with your analysis. http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2454530

 

[Bry]

NT: Hello old jousting partner! You have alot of nerve insinuating that you have been here and I have not. It's been months since you made a regular contribution yourself. How's the wife? Everything well, I hope.

Kathiane: Thanks for the thoughtful response. If a draft were deemed necessary, I would say it should not be affected by anything other than age and physical capability.

As long as military service is voluntary, I think immigrants should be allowed to participate, though care should be taken to avoid the type of specious logic presented in Avatar's post that American's risked their lives, therfore American's should reap the benefits: those are NOT the same groups, and the family who looses their son or daughter is poorly compensated by the thought that some corporation is benefiting economically.

You rightly point out that my thoroughly brief "evidence and analysis" of job exportation is not shared by all, including some very intelligent people. This is what I said:

Evidence shows that the American corporation does not add jobs to the American market, but accelerates the exportaion of jobs. There is no contradiction in this position.

In view of your implicit criticism (very politely and generously presented, for that I thank you) I will correct this statement to say that no link has been made between the corporate involvement in the restruction of Iraq and the creation of jobs in the US. I did not wish to make (and realize that my words were not well formulated to reflect my wish) such a generalized pronouncement about the nature of the present economy so much as to point out that Avatar's argument that Iraq war = American jobs is unsupported.

To respond to the article, I am generally in agreement with the analysis presented. I don't think NAFTA should be reworked, and I do think Democrats are getting too much play from the current weakness in the job market. However, the article claims that the job losses experienced is cylical, not structural, and have seen several articles directly refuting that claim. Generally, too, the trend in the US has been an eroding of workers rights, toward longer hours, fewer benefits. What the recovery of productivity in the absence of job growth may indicate is that businesses across the board are forcing greater productity from reduced work forces (while the rewards taken by the upper management have remained static or grown), and this is less than beneficial for the American worker, which indicates a possible flaw in any analysis that is done strictly by the economic numbers. Thanks for the interesting read.

 

[David2004]

The annual federal deficit over ½ trillion dollars and the United States trade deficit over a ½ trillion dollars with the national debt over 7 trillion dollars. If this is not bad enough President Bush wants to add an Amendment to our Constitution outlawing Gay marriages making this a major political topic in the up coming election. Between the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and now the War on Gays and many battles with France, United Nations and any other ideologies that do not agree with our ways. It is the state of health and security of our nation and its people that should be the real political issues in the up coming election.

The economy of the United States and the international community is on the cusp of imploding. With much of the international community losing confidence in the policies and actions of the United States Government, they are no longer going to want to finance our spiraling deficit spending. The double standards and the level of the bar to the Rule of Laws that we hold our allies and foes too are self-serving. Since the end of World War II the United States has dictated and bribed its policies onto the global community of nations. As the American families buy now and pay later, so does our federal, state and local governments putting us in an un-secure position.

It is the lack of common sense and fairness in our domestic and foreign policies that are the greatest threat to our national security. Only with a major change in our policies and attitudes towards our people in America and other nations of people in the world do we have a chance in securing the future of our children.

 

[sitarro]

OK David ,
You have just been elected President , let's hear what President David is going to do about the Democrat 'talking point" criticisms and exaggerations you have just listed . Or are you like all of the Democrat candidates that can only criticise but have no realistic clue how to get out of bed in the morning without a script.
Oh by the way , congratulations , you are the first to use the most rediculous term I have heard this month . . . . "the war on gays" . That could easily make it to the end of the year as the most assinine line . If anything , there is a war on the English language , tradition of marriage , and of course Christianity .
Before you give us your solutions , you might want to check the latest unemployment figures compared to such powerhouses as France , Germany , or Russia . You might also check our latest economic growth percentages and again compare them with the rest of the world .
I'm chomping on that old proverbial bit waiting to hear your pearls of wisdom President David , hurry up , this country needs you .

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
How would an International Department of Peace enforce peace?

Well with well trained US troops of course.

 

[MtnBiker]

Yeah I know what you mean MadMax. The idea of an agency enforcing peace in a peaceful manner is not always the case, so when such agency would invetibly have to resort to forcefull actions would they still be a Department of Peace? It is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Comrade]

Bry,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Why didn't they surrender after the first one was dropped?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The Japanese were trying to surrender well before the bomb was dropped. The only obstacle was the "unconditional surrender" insisted on by Truman: the Japanese would not
surrender their emperor. “

Documented history reveals that the only surrender terms deemed acceptable to the military junta in the final days of the war is based on "four points", simply put as:

1. Keep Emperor.
2. No US occupation of Japan home islands.
3. The Japanese military would disarm themselves voluntarily.
4. All war criminals prosecuted by Japanese government itself.

#1 is largely symbolic, while the rest are material concessions entirely unreasonable to expect after Potsdam. Yes, there were doubts about these among some civilian aspects of the Japanese government and its true they made some efforts to work around the military covertly. Yet a military coup to remove the emperor from these “civilian cowards” was attempted and this happened in between the two atom bombs.

Who doubts the government led by this faction intended to continue the war at all cost? Actual testimony from Japanese schoolgirls describing training with bamboo spears is readily available. Just be aware of the facts before doubting the Truman admin, there’s no reason to make it so simple as you put it.

Reading back to your article Bry, it’s logically a revisionist claptrap. It implies the invasion of the home islands would have cost at most 40-50,000 US casualties. American casualties over real estate only a fraction as vast or as well defended:

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/03-02.asp

Iwo Jima: 26,000
Okinawa: 48,000

Relative to these smaller islands an invasion of both Honshu and Kyushu would involve casualties on an order of magnitude so large that a million is not unreasonable. I think you mistake the nominal cost of the landings as a the total estimate.

This is one reason I can't agree the primary reason for using the a-bomb use was to influence the Russians. Remember also it was after all the US who appealed all along to Stalin to attack Japan (by invading Manchuria), so if post-WWII influence was of greater importance than simply ending the war as fast and expediently as possible, this was a bizarre request.

Also note our unique position and ability for the few years after made little difference in Stalin’s seizure of East Europe and subsequent Berlin blockade. We certainly had the will to use it on Hiroshima but when it came to starting another war so soon after the last, it was unthinkable to the West and it’s public. And nukes or not, and Stalin knew this, and so did our president.

If there was one mistake made in the decision to detonate the bomb, it was one the father of the concept himself warned of. He knew the USSR was in no condition to spend the kind of money to develop the same program the US had spent billions on, UNLESS they knew the theories worked and the bomb could actually be built. Essentially, Hiroshima proved it could be done, and from there came history.