Which presidents, or candidates could/would have nuked Japan?

[mdn2000]

Palin would nuke South Korea if she had to

Thank god, for if Sarah Palin thought she had to Nuke South Korea that means South Korea was over ran by communist China, if Sarah Palin thought she had to Nuke South Korea than that would of been the best option the Pentagon came up with. If Sarah Palin has to Nuke South Korea that means everything else has failed.

Thank god people are finally supporting Sarah Palin.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

Wish I was home so that my books are behind me, I agree with you at least how you end your post. The Japanese after the war send they would not of surrendered without the dropping of the bomb, the surrender to Russia is misleading, without books my memory sucks, maybe I could find it on the web but the Japanese surrender behind the scenes was a minority of individual without the power to surrender.

The surrender itself was fraught with danger, actually the people attempting to surrender had to keep themselves from assassination at the same time.

Japanese officials take the side of Truman, Japanese officials actually state we had to drop the bomb and this is right after the war.

 

[whitehall]

Talk about loaded questions lacking historic perspective? Harry Truman was arguibly 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.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Truman was dealing with the information he had. He had the casualty lists from Saipan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima.

He also knew how the japanese would fight when we went to the mainland. Saipan had 90% casualties among the civilians. Okinawa had 40%.

without the bombs, Japan would have been eradicated. They would not give up. The only way to deal was for them to die. It sounds stupid and crass, but the bombs really did save millions of Japanese lives.

 

[Douger]

The fight started with a sucker punch. You think it ended with one?

Sure did.

It's not a "sucker punch" when you warn the opponent numerous times, before delivering said punch.

Who was the "opponent" A bunch of slant eyed little gals workin in a factory ? Their kids and grandkids ?
YOU are an idiot.
Enjoy your demise that you voted for.
Remember
Gawd blass murka
Idiots.

 

[Jeremy]

I voted for everyone except Obama.

 

[kyzr]

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The estimated cost in American lives to invade Japan was 1 million.

Any leader worth their salt would have done the same thing.

Out of that list I only think obama and carter lack the stones to drop the bomb. Even with "hindsight".

 

[mdn2000]

Sure did.

It's not a "sucker punch" when you warn the opponent numerous times, before delivering said punch.

Who was the "opponent" A bunch of slant eyed little gals workin in a factory ? Their kids and grandkids ?
YOU are an idiot.
Enjoy your demise that you voted for.
Remember
Gawd blass murka
Idiots.

Hiroshima, Eighth Army Headquarters

Nagasaki, Mitsubushi shipbuilding and repair facilities and all the industry that supported them.

Notes were air dropped by the USA on Nagasaki, thousands fled, over 100k fled to the hills and lived.

War is ugly, even at its best in Iraq.

 

[Intense]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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

 

[Intense]

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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

A nice source I have used in the past is Mitsubishi's website, that is how I know they built ships and repaired ships in Nagasaki before and during the war.

Nagasaki, right on the coast, Naval repair yard, Mitsubishi has the history on its website.

 

[mdn2000]

I have Henry Stimson's book, ON ACTIVE SERVICE IN PEACE AND WAR by HENRY L. STIMSON AND McGEORGE BUNDY

Great book, a perfect source, in it Stimson states not one person disagreed with dropping the bomb. He was speaking of top officials, I dont have the book with me, wish I did, not one top person.

I also have books by Eisenhower, I found Eisenhower's comments disingenuous.

Truman's memoirs are great as are some footnotes in later books, Truman was pretty candid with comments to the press and or student. Truman stated he thought of the bomb as nothing more than the biggest bullet in the arsenal, I am paraphrasing, but that is close, it can be backed up. To Truman it was no different than any other advance in weapons. We were just had God to thank it was on our side.

The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945

Hirohito, Emperor of Japan.

I am slowly getting as many books that cover this subject as I can, old books by the people who fought the war.

 

[Blagger]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

Call is what you like, that is the nature of war, Germans made a statement murdering million of people, Japan made a statement raping women and children then driving a bayonet through them and sending pictures home (reportedly sent to the local papers for publishing).

That Truman and his cabinet did a study of every implication of using the newest, most modern, awe inspiring weapon shows the intelligence and thought put into using a tactical weapon shows only one thing, they did the best that any person in the world was capable of in defeating a country that started a war.

I wish we could of used it before the rape on Nanking.

 

[editec]

Every one of them, I suspect.

Hell! I'd have dropped the big one myself.

 

[Intense]

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.

After checking out your well documented and supported link I totally agree. For me, the problem until now, was all of the disinformation, that is repeated over and over. This should be part of WWII History Curriculum.

 

[whitehall]

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.

Truman wasn't elected president at the time. He was hand picked by democrats to become president while they were telling Americans that the corpse who was running was heathy. Democrats considered Wallace to be an independent thinker and that is dangerous in the democrat party so they chose a senator who would cooperate with the wishes of a dead man and do whatever the Military told him to do. Truman refused to negotiate with Japan while they were desperate for reasonable surrender terms and were forced to negotiate with Stalin. FDR said "unconditional surrender" and that's the way Truman delt with it. Ironically the sticky point was the continuation of the Japanese emperor and Truman said no. The emperor was preserved anyway after we nuked them with two bombs.