Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Palin would nuke South Korea if she had to
Of course, Japan was negotiating with the USSR instead of the US, in the months before Hiroshima. Truman had the specter of Japan surrendering to the Soviets instead of us. He also knew that the Soviets were about to declare war on Japan, thus giving them divvy rights.
Had Truman merely demonstrated the bomb offshore, let's say, instead of using it on Hiroshima, the USSR would have had the time to get their war declaration and invade, and we would have had not only a divided Vietnam and a divided Korea, we would have had a divided Japan as well.
Casualties? We killed three times as many people with our conventional firebombings of Japan than we did with the two nukes. No one seems to remember that.
I don't second-guess Truman on this, just for those who might have misunderstood my earlier statement.
Who was the "opponent" A bunch of slant eyed little gals workin in a factory ? Their kids and grandkids ?It's not a "sucker punch" when you warn the opponent numerous times, before delivering said punch.Sure did.The fight started with a sucker punch. You think it ended with one?
Talk about loaded questions lacking historic perspective? Harry Truman was arguably a rube senator from Missouri and the only president lacking a college education. He was hand picked by the democrat party to run as VP on FDR's 4th (and last) term while Wallace was on vacation. He admitted that he woke up one day in April without a clue. God help us if we are ever in that kind of situation again.
Who was the "opponent" A bunch of slant eyed little gals workin in a factory ? Their kids and grandkids ?It's not a "sucker punch" when you warn the opponent numerous times, before delivering said punch.Sure did.
YOU are an idiot.
Enjoy your demise that you voted for.
Remember
Gawd blass murka
Idiots.
I hope none would, as a deterrent it's about having the ability, not using it other than as a last resort.
At the time, it was a closely held secret and, not being known about, would have deterred nothing.
This was a real world decision. Given the method of all out war at the time, the entore country would have bombed to rubble and the civilian dead would have at least equaleed and probably exeeded the effect of the two Nukes even before the invasion. Fire bombing was a popular method to break the spirit of the enemy and LeMay had no qualms about ordering this type of weapon to be used.
The absolute devastation caused by the two bombs caused the Emperor to surrender, but his generals would have continued to fight lacking that order.
This prevented the loss of additional lives that an invasion would have cost and lacking the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese would have fought to the last man and the Japanese citizens would have killed themselves prior to being captured as they did in other invasion examples.
Hopefully, all of the names on the list would have dropped that bomb.
I hope none would, as a deterrent it's about having the ability, not using it other than as a last resort.
At the time, it was a closely held secret and, not being known about, would have deterred nothing.
This was a real world decision. Given the method of all out war at the time, the entore country would have bombed to rubble and the civilian dead would have at least equaleed and probably exeeded the effect of the two Nukes even before the invasion. Fire bombing was a popular method to break the spirit of the enemy and LeMay had no qualms about ordering this type of weapon to be used.
The absolute devastation caused by the two bombs caused the Emperor to surrender, but his generals would have continued to fight lacking that order.
This prevented the loss of additional lives that an invasion would have cost and lacking the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese would have fought to the last man and the Japanese citizens would have killed themselves prior to being captured as they did in other invasion examples.
Hopefully, all of the names on the list would have dropped that bomb.
True it is too easy to be an after the fact arm chair Quarterback. Still, two things come to mind, if not three. First, it was a civilian population center that was targeted, second, the time lapse between the first and second bombings was way too short, not giving Japan adequate time to respond, in terms of surrender, third, an alternate target could have been chosen. This is all after the fact, granted. What's done is history, nothing can change that.
At the time, it was a closely held secret and, not being known about, would have deterred nothing.
This was a real world decision. Given the method of all out war at the time, the entore country would have bombed to rubble and the civilian dead would have at least equaleed and probably exeeded the effect of the two Nukes even before the invasion. Fire bombing was a popular method to break the spirit of the enemy and LeMay had no qualms about ordering this type of weapon to be used.
The absolute devastation caused by the two bombs caused the Emperor to surrender, but his generals would have continued to fight lacking that order.
This prevented the loss of additional lives that an invasion would have cost and lacking the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese would have fought to the last man and the Japanese citizens would have killed themselves prior to being captured as they did in other invasion examples.
Hopefully, all of the names on the list would have dropped that bomb.
True it is too easy to be an after the fact arm chair Quarterback. Still, two things come to mind, if not three. First, it was a civilian population center that was targeted, second, the time lapse between the first and second bombings was way too short, not giving Japan adequate time to respond, in terms of surrender, third, an alternate target could have been chosen. This is all after the fact, granted. What's done is history, nothing can change that.
BOTH targets were MILITARY. Both had huge Headquarters building Armies to resist an Invasion, Both had Industry and as I recall one if not both were ports. Claiming they were not military targets is a mistake.
The time lapse gave the Emperor time to respond his response was that he would not unconditional surrender.
The targets chosen were the ones that were available. Truman specifically forbade Tokyo or any rich cultural city of the Japanese.
Primary Sources about the bombings.
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
Good Link. It answers the questions in great detail.
Were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an "atomic diplomacy" capability as a "bonus"?
To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties stemming from an invasion of Japan?
Were there alternatives to the use of the weapons? If there were, what were they and how plausible are they in retrospect? Why were alternatives not pursued?
How did the U.S. government plan to use the bombs? What concepts did war planners use to select targets? To what extent were senior officials interested in looking at alternatives to urban targets? How familiar was President Truman with the concepts that led target planners to choose major cities as targets?
Did President Truman make a decision, in a robust sense, to use the bomb or did he inherit a decision that had already been made?
Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? To what extent had Emperor Hirohito prolonged the war unnecessarily by not seizing opportunities for surrender?
If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for "unconditional surrender" by guaranteeing a constitutional monarchy would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
How greatly did the atomic bombings affect the Japanese decision to surrender?
Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
Would the Soviet declaration of war have been enough to compel Tokyo to admit defeat?
Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
Thanks for the correction.
Good Link. It answers the questions in great detail.
Were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an "atomic diplomacy" capability as a "bonus"?
To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties stemming from an invasion of Japan?
Were there alternatives to the use of the weapons? If there were, what were they and how plausible are they in retrospect? Why were alternatives not pursued?
How did the U.S. government plan to use the bombs? What concepts did war planners use to select targets? To what extent were senior officials interested in looking at alternatives to urban targets? How familiar was President Truman with the concepts that led target planners to choose major cities as targets?
Did President Truman make a decision, in a robust sense, to use the bomb or did he inherit a decision that had already been made?
Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? To what extent had Emperor Hirohito prolonged the war unnecessarily by not seizing opportunities for surrender?
If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for "unconditional surrender" by guaranteeing a constitutional monarchy would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
How greatly did the atomic bombings affect the Japanese decision to surrender?
Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
Would the Soviet declaration of war have been enough to compel Tokyo to admit defeat?
Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
Thanks for the correction.
Whilst I understand you've all been focused on which president, past and present, would've been able to detach themselves from their conscience in order to save US lives, Intense has, perhaps inadvertently, touched on a factor so far overlooked.
Was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima used to make an open statement and establish America's position in an emerging political climate and the subsequent power-play?
Both Truman and the Stalin would have been equally aware of one glaring fact: the world was going to be a very different place after WWII. The Nazis had surrendered in Europe and Russia was annexing eastern Europe. Of the three allies, all had emerged victorious. But although America and Russia were severely exhausted, the once dominant world power, Great Britain, had started to cough little drops of blood. The British Empire was headed in only one direction, and that was decline. America and Russia knew this, but America drew its ace and dropped it twice on Japan.
Although the atomic bombing of Japan was certainly a tactical decision, there's no denying that it was a statement made to a world emerging from war. Europe was in tatters, the far-east had been subdued and although Russia was still in a better position than most, it wasn't as industrialised as the United States to compete economically. America knew this and took decisive action to affirm their position. And although the playing field was fairly evenly balanced for the next 50+ years, America had established herself as the dominant power of the western world.
Good Link. It answers the questions in great detail.
Were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an "atomic diplomacy" capability as a "bonus"?
To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties stemming from an invasion of Japan?
Were there alternatives to the use of the weapons? If there were, what were they and how plausible are they in retrospect? Why were alternatives not pursued?
How did the U.S. government plan to use the bombs? What concepts did war planners use to select targets? To what extent were senior officials interested in looking at alternatives to urban targets? How familiar was President Truman with the concepts that led target planners to choose major cities as targets?
Did President Truman make a decision, in a robust sense, to use the bomb or did he inherit a decision that had already been made?
Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? To what extent had Emperor Hirohito prolonged the war unnecessarily by not seizing opportunities for surrender?
If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for "unconditional surrender" by guaranteeing a constitutional monarchy would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
How greatly did the atomic bombings affect the Japanese decision to surrender?
Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
Would the Soviet declaration of war have been enough to compel Tokyo to admit defeat?
Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
Thanks for the correction.
Whilst I understand you've all been focused on which president, past and present, would've been able to detach themselves from their conscience in order to save US lives, Intense has, perhaps inadvertently, touched on a factor so far overlooked.
Was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima used to make an open statement and establish America's position in an emerging political climate and the subsequent power-play?
Both Truman and the Stalin would have been equally aware of one glaring fact: the world was going to be a very different place after WWII. The Nazis had surrendered in Europe and Russia was annexing eastern Europe. Of the three allies, all had emerged victorious. But although America and Russia were severely exhausted, the once dominant world power, Great Britain, had started to cough little drops of blood. The British Empire was headed in only one direction, and that was decline. America and Russia knew this, but America drew its ace and dropped it twice on Japan.
Although the atomic bombing of Japan was certainly a tactical decision, there's no denying that it was a statement made to a world emerging from war. Europe was in tatters, the far-east had been subdued and although Russia was still in a better position than most, it wasn't as industrialised as the United States to compete economically. America knew this and took decisive action to affirm their position. And although the playing field was fairly evenly balanced for the next 50+ years, America had established herself as the dominant power of the western world.
Good Link. It answers the questions in great detail.
Were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an "atomic diplomacy" capability as a "bonus"?
To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties stemming from an invasion of Japan?
Were there alternatives to the use of the weapons? If there were, what were they and how plausible are they in retrospect? Why were alternatives not pursued?
How did the U.S. government plan to use the bombs? What concepts did war planners use to select targets? To what extent were senior officials interested in looking at alternatives to urban targets? How familiar was President Truman with the concepts that led target planners to choose major cities as targets?
Did President Truman make a decision, in a robust sense, to use the bomb or did he inherit a decision that had already been made?
Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? To what extent had Emperor Hirohito prolonged the war unnecessarily by not seizing opportunities for surrender?
If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for "unconditional surrender" by guaranteeing a constitutional monarchy would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
How greatly did the atomic bombings affect the Japanese decision to surrender?
Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
Would the Soviet declaration of war have been enough to compel Tokyo to admit defeat?
Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
Thanks for the correction.
Whilst I understand you've all been focused on which president, past and present, would've been able to detach themselves from their conscience in order to save US lives, Intense has, perhaps inadvertently, touched on a factor so far overlooked.
Was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima used to make an open statement and establish America's position in an emerging political climate and the subsequent power-play?
Both Truman and the Stalin would have been equally aware of one glaring fact: the world was going to be a very different place after WWII. The Nazis had surrendered in Europe and Russia was annexing eastern Europe. Of the three allies, all had emerged victorious. But although America and Russia were severely exhausted, the once dominant world power, Great Britain, had started to cough little drops of blood. The British Empire was headed in only one direction, and that was decline. America and Russia knew this, but America drew its ace and dropped it twice on Japan.
Although the atomic bombing of Japan was certainly a tactical decision, there's no denying that it was a statement made to a world emerging from war. Europe was in tatters, the far-east had been subdued and although Russia was still in a better position than most, it wasn't as industrialised as the United States to compete economically. America knew this and took decisive action to affirm their position. And although the playing field was fairly evenly balanced for the next 50+ years, America had established herself as the dominant power of the western world.
Truman ordered the bombing to end the war. Nothing else had worked. Japan was a basket case, unable to feed her people and come winter unable to provide a heating source. The Soviets were poised to attack the Chinese and Korean Holdings. YET they refused to surrender.
Saipan, and Okinawa had shown that as a people the citizenry of Japan would mostly obey the order to commit suicide rather then surrender. The Japanese defense plans in case of a Home Island Invasion were to arm all civilians with bamboo spears and have them wave assault the Invasion beaches. The US was looking at a million casualties for ONE island.And fr the Japanese? Genocide.
Even after the first bomb was dropped the Generals that ran the Government REFUSED to surrender. They thought they could dictate terms. After the second the Generals STILL refused. The Emperor had to make the decision. And then the Army staged a Coup to prevent that.
Those 2 bombs saved the Japanese race and probably saved a few hundred thousand dead Americans and hundreds thousands more wounded.
Any political Statement was an afterthought and played little in the decision.
Talk about loaded questions lacking historic perspective? Harry Truman was arguably a rube senator from Missouri and the only president lacking a college education. He was hand picked by the democrat party to run as VP on FDR's 4th (and last) term while Wallace was on vacation. He admitted that he woke up one day in April without a clue. God help us if we are ever in that kind of situation again.
Why do you think the poll lacks historical perspective? Truman was a "rube" from Missouri and Palin is a "rube" from Alaska. I also see a major similarity in their educations, not being from the Harvard/Princeton/Yale blue-blood club.
I'm still not sure if we want a prez with a pedigree or one that has a heart and can see thru the bullshit.
I could have made the poll "which presidents would support moving 14,000 US factories overseas?" and I'm curious how the results would have been different.
This poll was intended to see which presidents' response might deter a terror attack, and who would be seen as weak and idealistic.
