The three choices Truman had. Was there really any choice?

[whitehall]

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

All I can come up with is "page 1 of 192 of the Chicago Trib" and I really don't want to download 192 pages. It's interesting to note that the Chicago Trib might be coming clean about the Truman administration (or maybe defending it) 20 years after the fact. Everything is political.

 

[Unkotare]

Ignored Japanese Peace Bids Plague U. S., West, with What Might Have Been (August 14, 1965)

 

[Unkotare]

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

All I can come up with is "page 1 of 192 of the Chicago Trib" and I really don't want to download 192 pages. It's interesting to note that the Chicago Trib might be coming clean about the Truman administration (or maybe defending it) 20 years after the fact. Everything is political.

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

• "In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity."

"In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:



[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .


n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:



It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26)"

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
I am basing it on facts in evidence from the cold war to when they declared war on Japan and it being the VERY NEXT DAY they dropped FAT MAN.

That is thin evidence indeed.

The Soviets knew about the atomic bomb program.

They wanted to grab up as much territory as possible before Japan surrendered.

The plan for the second bomb being dropped was in effect before the Soviets declared war on Japan- and had nothing to do with the second bomb being dropped.

The Emperor didn't care about his 'face' with the Japanese people- in the end he pushed for surrender to save Japanese lives.

 

[Theowl32]

[Q
I am basing it on facts in evidence from the cold war to when they declared war on Japan and it being the VERY NEXT DAY they dropped FAT MAN.

That is thin evidence indeed.

The Soviets knew about the atomic bomb program.

They wanted to grab up as much territory as possible before Japan surrendered.

The plan for the second bomb being dropped was in effect before the Soviets declared war on Japan- and had nothing to do with the second bomb being dropped.

The Emperor didn't care about his 'face' with the Japanese people- in the end he pushed for surrender to save Japanese lives.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&u=oak30216&u=oak30216&jsid=885fa2cddb280d23cd06bf9c5ed436a5&p=UHIC:WHIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|CX2876300010&zid=4a6103da6d025e4543bf83800209eb8f

Since then, however, historians saw that the United States quickly turned from fighting the Japanese to challenging the Soviet Union. Recognizing that after the surrender of Germany, the Soviets were pledged to join the war against Japan, the United States had sought to end the Pacific war quickly before Soviet forces could move into East Asia. The atomic bomb was meant both to prevent Soviet expansion into the Pacific and to demonstrate to Joseph Stalin that the United States possessed a weapon which could destroy any city in the world.

This interpretation gained more credence among scholars after the Cold War became a fixture in world politics and after the Vietnam War demonstrated that some American leaders would not tell the nation the truth. Should the Vietnam experience discredit Truman? In these two essays, scholars Margaret Mary Barrett and Margo Dowling take different approaches to the question of the atomic bomb. Barrett sees the bombing as a cynical show of power against the Soviet Union. Dowling, on the other hand, argues that reading our contemporary biases into history distorts our understanding of it. One can make judgments about the past, but one cannot simply imagine that the men and women who acted in the past did so with motives we might understand. That is, we cannot simply explain the atomic bomb by taking President Truman’s word for why he made his decision. Nor can we condemn Truman as devious because we know that Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard M. Nixon was devious. Instead, we must try to take into account the world as Truman knew it and understand his decision in light of the facts he understood.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan, and the atomic bomb could be read as a strong message for the Soviets to tread lightly. In this respect, Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been the first shots of the Cold War as well as the final shots of World War II. Regardless, the United States remains the only nation in the world to have used a nuclear weapon on another nation.

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

-------------------------------------------------------

There are many historians that have shown the Soviet influence in the region being a strong factor in the decision to drop both bombs, especially the second one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The real reason the US dropped the bombs on Japan IMO. After the Yalta conference, it is important to know that is when the official COLD WAR began with the USSR. It is important to know WHEN that was. February of 1945. Ok? About 6 months before the Hiroshima bomb.

The USSR (Stalin) was making a power move. Yalta became controversial after Soviet-American wartime cooperation degenerated into the cold war. Stalin broke his promise of free elections in Eastern Europe and installed governments dominated by the Soviet Union. Then American critics charged that Roosevelt, who died two months after the conference, had “sold out” to the Soviets at Yalta.

Stalin was not stopping there. He was also encroaching in the Far East. The valuable trade routes were certainly catching his attention. It is apparent that there were clandestine meetings going on between Japan and the USSR. I am sure Stalin was negotiating for Japan to surrender to him and Japan would be able to save some face with the Japanese people. Making it attractive to the emperor.

This is the interesting timeline.

February 1945 the Yalta Conference where the official COLD WAR began.

August 6th 1945, the US drops bomb on Hiroshima.

August 8th 1945, the USSR declares WAR ON JAPAN after invading Japan after the USSR invades Manchuria.

August 9th 1945, second bomb dropped on Japan.

August 15th 1945, Japan surrenders and ends WWII.

Now, imagine this if you are in Truman's shoes. It is rather obvious the USSR was pushing its weight around and trying to take Japan. Stalin counting on the fact that the US could not stomach another long drawn out war. Not with Japan (that was over) but with the USSR.

Patton had seen this and wanted to go to war with the USSR. He rightfully pointed out that the USSR would be a major problem, and their army was greatly weakened. Many of their war factories were bombed where the US war factories were in perfect working order. The US Armed forces hardware were already in the region and so the logistics were pretty much in place.

Politically, it would have been impossible for Truman to sell that to the American people. Stalin counted on that and he used that as an opportunity to take Japan.

So, what are the choices?

1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and the USSR takes over the region even though they had NOT fought in that campaign and lost no one. How would that have been sold to the American people?


2. Go to war with the USSR like Patton wanted. The US would most likely have won the war, but we would not have had an ally in the UK who were decimated. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The USSR Army, while greatly weakened would have been very tough to beat. How would that have been sold to a war weary American public?

3. Drop the bombs to get the USSR to back the hell off. Sell it like it has been sold all of these years. It is true that it would have saved thousands of American lives. Just not with Japan, but with a HOT conflict with the USSR.


Those are the choices. What do you do? It is important to remember that the "axis and allies" of WWII was done after the Yalta Conference. That is precisely when the COLD WAR began. No longer at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the USSR and the US allies.

What do you do?

See how right Patton was about the USSR?

FDR was a Stalin sock puppet who gleefully enslaved Eastern Europe under the thumb of his M\aster, Uncle Joe and sold out China to Mao

 

[there4eyeM]

Why not drop it on Imperial Army positions instead of civilian concentrations? That would have demonstrated the situation to everyone while at least remaining somewhat justifiable.

 

[Theowl32]

Why not drop it on Imperial Army positions instead of civilian concentrations? That would have demonstrated the situation to everyone while at least remaining somewhat justifiable.

Fair enough points. In those days it was not exactly known where the military installations were. It was not uncommon tactic to bomb cities. The fire bombing of Dresden for instance. The bombing of London etc. This is all a part of the paradigm and reality of a world with NO satellites.

If you want to research the vast atrocities committed by the Japanese during that time period, go ahead and research these.



Following Japan's brutal invasion of China in 1937, Japanese soldiers frequently rounded up Chinese to provide them with bayonet practice. After the fall of Nanking (Nanjing), these unfortunate Chinese were herded into one of many slaughter pits and are shown providing Japanese soldiers with bayonet practice using live victims. This photograph was taken by a Japanese and processed in a Japanese-owned photographic shop. A Chinese photographic technician made copies that were smuggled out of China.

INDEX TO SELECTED IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY WAR CRIMES

The Rape of Nanking (1937), also known as the Nanjing Massacre

The Bangka Island Massacre (1942): Slaughter of Australian Army Nurses

The Bataan Death March (1942)

The Sandakan Death March (1945)

Murder and cannibalism on the Kokoda Track (1942)

Conscripting women for sexual slavery in Japanese Army brothels (1937-1945)

Mutilation and murder of Dutch civilians in Borneo

Murder and cannibalism - captured American pilots

INDEX TO SELECTED IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY WAR CRIMES

Murder of American pilots and aircrew at Midway (1942)

The bombing of the hospital ship Manunda (1942)

The sinking of the hospital ship Centaur (1943)

Extermination of survivors of merchant vessels sunk by the Japanese (1943-45)
The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rape of Nanking 1937-38

Not saying it was not a tragedy and sad. I am saying there was more than one reason why Truman dropped the bombs, and the notion that he did it for the "fun of it" and it was because they were NOT WHITE is a pathetic lame attempt to show America as evil white racists....again.

 

[there4eyeM]

That the Japanese committed atrocities is no justification for committing atrocities. To act the same way is to nullify differences between 'us' and 'them'.

 

[Theowl32]

That the Japanese committed atrocities is no justification for committing atrocities. To act the same way is to nullify differences between 'us' and 'them'.

Got it. I know what you are about. All America's fault. Their atrocities are not even on your radar.

The overall point is the country avoided another potential lawn drawn out hot war with the USSR if not for the bombs.

It is far more complicated than the SIMPLE notion that Truman was just a racist and hated the Japanese cause they were not white.

BTW, do you know who were the most decorated unit in WWII was the 442nd. The Japanese American soldiers.

 

[there4eyeM]

Every time 'got it' comes up, all that is shown is some kind of projection rather than understanding. The atrocities committed by America are America's fault. Justifying them by pointing out that others committed atrocities is ludicrous. No one is denying the militarists that ran Japan committed atrocities. GOT IT?

 

[Theowl32]

Every time 'got it' comes up, all that is shown is some kind of projection rather than understanding. The atrocities committed by America are America's fault. Justifying them by pointing out that others committed atrocities is ludicrous. No one is denying the militarists that ran Japan committed atrocities. GOT IT?

So, what would your choice be?

1. Allow Stalin to bully his way and take over Japan even though they did little to nothing in that Pacific campaign.

2. Declare a HOT WAR with Stalin and go with what Patton wanted? May have worked considering the fact that America had all of the logistical advantages at the time and there was a distinct possibility that the US and the USSR were going to get into a big conflict at a later date and the USSR would have had time to build a significant formidable army.

3. Drop the bombs and force and unconditional response and in the process make the USSR withdraw from their nefarious intentions and thus avoiding a long HOT WAR with the USSR which would have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. Not including the lives lost in an invasion of Japan in order to force their surrender without the bombs.

 

[there4eyeM]

Your questions reflect and interesting 'take' on the time period. It is simply impossible for me to put myself in the position of decision maker at that time and select one of these options. I would definitely have found another choice. Sorry I can't conform to the request, which I am not saying is unreasonable as a 'thought experiment'. I do point out that the option of at least trying to take out Stalin and co. by nuking Moscow would not have been any more outrageous than what, in fact, was done.

 

[Theowl32]

Your questions reflect and interesting 'take' on the time period. It is simply impossible for me to put myself in the position of decision maker at that time and select one of these options. I would definitely have found another choice. Sorry I can't conform to the request, which I am not saying is unreasonable as a 'thought experiment'. I do point out that the option of at least trying to take out Stalin anndeavd co. by nuking Moscow would not have been any more outrageous than what, in fact, was done.

That would have been an impossible endeavor. First of all a declaration of war would have needed to have been passed. That is and would have been an impossibility considering how congress would not have been willing to pass that.

Even if they did pass and grant a war against stalin, they would not have been able to just fly to "Moscow" or any other major city in the USSR. The Russian airforce was very formidable and all of their major cities were fairly well defended.

The enola gay flew over Hiroshima unescorted for the Japanese no longer had any pilots or any real fortifications to speak of.

You have made your choice, even though you said you couldn't. Your choice would have been to draw out another hot war with stalin like Patton wanted which would have cost perhaps millions of lives.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was a drawn out war with Russia anyway. The surprise was that the U.S. and the S.U. didn't burn down the world over small, ephemeral economic differences. Somehow, the odious Russkies had the sense to see when the jig was up, after all their spies int he west had been exposed, and quietly went out of business. Thank 'God' for Gorby.

 

[namvet]

that's my dad's Cruiser in the background

I used to live in his home town

 

[WheelieAddict]

Ten of Japan's worst War Crimes

The Japanese ran a brutal, violent, savage, inhuman military. They raped, pillaged, and killed anyone in there way in the most inhuman ways and had zero respect for human life or "rules of war". Their soldiers killed themselves in kamakazi attacks via land and air to kill as many as possible for their cult beliefs, like modern day terrorists.

Assholes like Unkotare bitch and moan how it was so brutal that American Japanese were moved to camps during the war because of the extreme threat of Japanese terrorism, and try to demean one of our greatest presidents that made a tough decision to do this under massive public pressure to do so. It wasn't right to do this in retrospect, but you must look at the violent terrorist regime the Japanese were at this time to put it in context. And this is during a time of all out war when it was a national emergency that Japan would invade the American west coast.

As far as the nuke bombings go as horrible a tragedy as they were they likely saved many American and Japanese lives. The batshit crazy suicidal terrorist Japanese regime would not have given up without this massive display of power. The alternative would have been mass bombings from the US 24 hrs a day that would have leveled the islands and killed far more Japanese, and a bloody invasion that would have killed many Americans and more Japanese still.

Of course dbags like Unkotare will never mention the unspeakable atrocities and war crimes that the Japanese inflicted on Americans throughout the war. Nowadays Americans and Japanese alike are at peace with each other, have forgiven each other, and don't blame their respective leaders for what happened during that time. Except Unkotare who holds a grudge against one of our greatest presidents, because he/she/it can't grow up and move on like everyone else has.

 

[namvet]

 

[namvet]

 

[namvet]