On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu).[8] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position.[9] On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[10]
In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[11]
This is what I was always taught by History books, the History Channel, my grandparents etc. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary I will refuse to believe that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that we dropped the bomb just to show Russia what's up. We could have nuked an Island that killed no people to show what we could do. So I just don't buy this argument. This is coming from someone who is convinced that LBJ had Kennedy whacked so I'm not Anti Conspiracy.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
.....
This is what I was always taught by History books, the History Channel, my grandparents etc. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary I will refuse to believe that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that we dropped the bomb just to show Russia what's up. We could have nuked an Island that killed no people to show what we could do. So I just don't buy this argument. This is coming from someone who is convinced that LBJ had Kennedy whacked so I'm not Anti Conspiracy.
and what would that have shown? that the US could destroy an island. big woop? no loss of life, no horrific injuries and no vapourised bodies. exactly what would nuking an uninhabited island show again? these bombs are a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. if you dont instill terror, then there is no point. so youre wrong, just dropping them on an island devoid of human life, would have shown nothing and definitely not what they were capable of nor how horrific such a weapon is/was.
so i guess i dont buy your argument either.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So there were no other options than just those two?
Well we could have kept lobbing bombs for 10 years until Japan and the US eventually reached an agreement. Of course that would have led to civilian deaths as well.
There weren't to many scenarios that didn't involve extreme loss of life because it was a friggin War. One that unlike the War in Iraq actually served a better purpose as millions and millions of Jews and Asians were being slaughtered by Germany and Japan. At the same time the US soldiers were young and were dying as well. War is hell and should never be entered lightly.
Let's say Truman held out on dropping the bomb and Japan never surrendered. Both sides would have suffered extreme soldier casualties as well as the civilians killed during the combat. And we still might have had to drop the bomb to win the war. There is no way to know how the war would have played out either way other then there would be thousands of deaths. Thats why no one should want to be president and make those kind of decisions
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
and what would that have shown? that the US could destroy an island. big woop? no loss of life, no horrific injuries and no vapourised bodies. exactly what would nuking an uninhabited island show again? these bombs are a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. if you dont instill terror, then there is no point. so youre wrong, just dropping them on an island devoid of human life, would have shown nothing and definitely not what they were capable of nor how horrific such a weapon is/was.
so i guess i dont buy your argument either.
We first tested the bomb in July and dropped it in August. We weren't even sure of the effects. Plus dropping the bomb didn't keep Russia off of our backs at all. If anything it made it worse as they developed there own weapons. So if dropping the bomb was met for a show for Russia then it didn't really prevent anything.
Just seems likes something strange to do when the Cold War didn't really start until after we dropped the bomb.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
We first tested the bomb in July and dropped it in August. We weren't even sure of the effects. Plus dropping the bomb didn't keep Russia off of our backs at all. If anything it made it worse as they developed there own weapons. So if dropping the bomb was met for a show for Russia then it didn't really prevent anything.
Just seems likes something strange to do when the Cold War didn't really start until after we dropped the bomb.
oh my, fancy that... the US government acting militarily without full knowledge of what their actions would result in.
and the fact that they had NO clue as to what the result would be makes the act even more heinous. i can't ever condone an action that basically says, lets drop these bombs and see what happens.
and as for their relationship with russia.....
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh my, fancy that... the US government acting militarily without full knowledge of what their actions would result in.
and the fact that they had NO clue as to what the result would be makes the act even more heinous. i can't ever condone an action that basically says, lets drop these bombs and see what happens.
and as for their relationship with russia.....
In 1945, they (the government) had hopes that the atomic bomb could be safely used in domestic engineering projects that required the removal of tons of earth...big bomb is equal to a compact little bundle of TNT was one line of thinking. They didn't know the effects of the bombs....no one knew the effects of the bombs.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Well we could have kept lobbing bombs for 10 years until Japan and the US eventually reached an agreement. Of course that would have led to civilian deaths as well.
There weren't to many scenarios that didn't involve extreme loss of life because it was a friggin War. One that unlike the War in Iraq actually served a better purpose as millions and millions of Jews and Asians were being slaughtered by Germany and Japan. At the same time the US soldiers were young and were dying as well. War is hell and should never be entered lightly.
Let's say Truman held out on dropping the bomb and Japan never surrendered. Both sides would have suffered extreme soldier casualties as well as the civilians killed during the combat. And we still might have had to drop the bomb to win the war. There is no way to know how the war would have played out either way other then there would be thousands of deaths. Thats why no one should want to be president and make those kind of decisions
Based on the Japanese rice harvest in 1945 and the blockade of the country, famine was in line for winter 1945-46 if the war continued. The U.S. was shifting it's bombing strategy from cities to industrial sites and the rail system. This would have stopped food production and movement through the country and worsened any famine conditions.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
In 1945, they (the government) had hopes that the atomic bomb could be safely used in domestic engineering projects that required the removal of tons of earth...big bomb is equal to a compact little bundle of TNT was one line of thinking. They didn't know the effects of the bombs....no one knew the effects of the bombs.
doesn't make them less negligent. tis a bit aiming a gun at someone and saying well, im not sure just how big a hole this will open up in your body, lets find out shall we?
anyhoo at least with the knowledge we now possess about how destructive these weapons are perhaps no one will ever again be foolish enough to test their strength. mutual assured destruction does have a certain ring to it don't you think?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
dont shoot the messenger. I don't know. (I assume) that was long before any of our time. neither option was good.
but from what I read, everyone throwing down their weapons and enjoying some Californian rolls wasn't an option.
Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.
No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.
No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.
But they accepted the one condition Japan wasn't willing to concede anyway, the irony in this terrible affair. And you have to realize, according to official US documents, a ground invasion wasn't even needed to force Japan to surrender.
Think we have to remember negotiations are for the weak, when it comes to international affairs. Countries get what they want if they can back it up militarily.
But they accepted the one condition Japan wasn't willing to concede anyway, the irony in this terrible affair. And you have to realize, according to official US documents, a ground invasion wasn't even needed to force Japan to surrender.
Think we have to remember negotiations are for the weak, when it comes to international affairs. Countries get what they want if they can back it up militarily.
The Japanese were so trusting in negotiations....like carrying on with them while the fleet steamed towards Pearl Harbor???
Post-war documents may say...well we really didn't to invade...but in July/August 1945, that was the plan....until they re-ran the numbers and didn't like them. The navy backed out of the initial plans first.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
The Japanese were so trusting in negotiations....like carrying on with them while the fleet steamed towards Pearl Harbor???
Post-war documents may say...well we really didn't to invade...but in July/August 1945, that was the plan....until they re-ran the numbers and didn't like them. The navy backed out of the initial plans first.
What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.
And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.
What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.
And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.
You keep asking for pre-Hiroshima reports about Japan's military state-which was obviously reduced to nothing if the war was over Tokyo, but you provide nothing pre-Horoshima that says ATOMIC WEAPONS were necessary. Typical hypocritacal US posturing.
Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.
No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.
THat is sort of what I have always thought about the bombing it was one terrible option out of a group of many terrible options. Personally I think if you start a war any casuatiles on your side are on you. Of course it is sad that people were killed but I think the Japanese created their own fate. Even if they were trying to surrender they should have made it perfectly clear that they did not want to be attacked (like broadcasting your surrender on every radio frequency) so that there could have been no debate about it today. If they had done that and were still attacked they would obviously have gotten infinitely more sympathy. Otherwise I have to say it is mostly on them.
The fact is they attacked us first and dragged us into the war. Had they not done that we would have never dropped the bomb.
I don't get why the US has to get all of the blame especially AFTER Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, but it's just not quite as black and white as that though. I think you'll find that - not unlike 9/11 - there was a bit of history prior to that event. These things don't occur out of an historical vaccum.
Post-World War II Assistance to Japan
Total U.S. assistance to Japan for the years of the occupation, from 1946-1952
was roughly $2.2 billion ($15.2 billion in 2005 dollars), of which almost $1.7 billion
was grants and $504 million was loans. The Greenbook presents these figures as
provided under five headings. Over three-quarters (77 percent) of these funds were
provided through GARIOA grants. Most of the remainder (i.e., 23 percent) was $490
million in related funds that Japan repaid and is classified as a loan. There is no
information in the Greenbook or readily available published sources regarding how
much of this was provided for economic reconstruction, although the intent of the
occupation after 1948 was to promote economic recovery.
Thanks. That's all I was asking for - a bit of clarification.
And as far as these Japanese factories being superior to U.S factories - do you have any material on that?
They didn't know the effects of the bombs....no one knew the effects of the bombs.
Perhaps they didn't know about radiation sickness but they certainly knew they'd kill thousands of innocent people. They deliberately killed thousands of innocent people.
But whether they knew or not, "Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?" I think not.
What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.
And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.
U.S. Navy...backed out of the original invasion plans.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Thanks. That's all I was asking for - a bit of clarification.
And as far as these Japanese factories being superior to U.S factories - do you have any material on that?
Try the Juran Institute web site or look up Juran...a U.S. quality assurance guru who went to Japan post-war and got them behind the six-sigma movement long before anyone in the U.S. would listen to him.
The story about Toyota and the Korean War should also be easy to find....they were going belly up until their proximity to the conflict swelled their orders.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
THat is sort of what I have always thought about the bombing it was one terrible option out of a group of many terrible options. Personally I think if you start a war any casuatiles on your side are on you. Of course it is sad that people were killed but I think the Japanese created their own fate. Even if they were trying to surrender they should have made it perfectly clear that they did not want to be attacked (like broadcasting your surrender on every radio frequency) so that there could have been no debate about it today. If they had done that and were still attacked they would obviously have gotten infinitely more sympathy. Otherwise I have to say it is mostly on them.
The problem was that the Japanese Old Guard who started the war wanted to stay in power....according to the Allies that was completely unacceptable...just like it would have been in Germany or Italy. The Old Guard was trying to circumnavigate that by "searching" for peace.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
the rationalization is use the bombs or risk more innocent people and US soldiers dying by a US invasion of the mainland.
the facts of the situation can be debated all day but those are the 2 sides of the argument.
On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu).[8] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position.[9] On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[10]
In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[11]
This is what I was always taught by History books, the History Channel, my grandparents etc. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary I will refuse to believe that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that we dropped the bomb just to show Russia what's up. We could have nuked an Island that killed no people to show what we could do. So I just don't buy this argument. This is coming from someone who is convinced that LBJ had Kennedy whacked so I'm not Anti Conspiracy.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Right.
So there were no other options than just those two?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
dont shoot the messenger. I don't know. (I assume) that was long before any of our time. neither option was good.
but from what I read, everyone throwing down their weapons and enjoying some Californian rolls wasn't an option.
and what would that have shown? that the US could destroy an island. big woop? no loss of life, no horrific injuries and no vapourised bodies. exactly what would nuking an uninhabited island show again? these bombs are a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. if you dont instill terror, then there is no point. so youre wrong, just dropping them on an island devoid of human life, would have shown nothing and definitely not what they were capable of nor how horrific such a weapon is/was.
so i guess i dont buy your argument either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well we could have kept lobbing bombs for 10 years until Japan and the US eventually reached an agreement. Of course that would have led to civilian deaths as well.
There weren't to many scenarios that didn't involve extreme loss of life because it was a friggin War. One that unlike the War in Iraq actually served a better purpose as millions and millions of Jews and Asians were being slaughtered by Germany and Japan. At the same time the US soldiers were young and were dying as well. War is hell and should never be entered lightly.
Let's say Truman held out on dropping the bomb and Japan never surrendered. Both sides would have suffered extreme soldier casualties as well as the civilians killed during the combat. And we still might have had to drop the bomb to win the war. There is no way to know how the war would have played out either way other then there would be thousands of deaths. Thats why no one should want to be president and make those kind of decisions
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
We first tested the bomb in July and dropped it in August. We weren't even sure of the effects. Plus dropping the bomb didn't keep Russia off of our backs at all. If anything it made it worse as they developed there own weapons. So if dropping the bomb was met for a show for Russia then it didn't really prevent anything.
Just seems likes something strange to do when the Cold War didn't really start until after we dropped the bomb.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
oh my, fancy that... the US government acting militarily without full knowledge of what their actions would result in.
and the fact that they had NO clue as to what the result would be makes the act even more heinous. i can't ever condone an action that basically says, lets drop these bombs and see what happens.
and as for their relationship with russia.....
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
doesn't make them less negligent. tis a bit aiming a gun at someone and saying well, im not sure just how big a hole this will open up in your body, lets find out shall we?
anyhoo at least with the knowledge we now possess about how destructive these weapons are perhaps no one will ever again be foolish enough to test their strength. mutual assured destruction does have a certain ring to it don't you think?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.
No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.
But they accepted the one condition Japan wasn't willing to concede anyway, the irony in this terrible affair. And you have to realize, according to official US documents, a ground invasion wasn't even needed to force Japan to surrender.
Think we have to remember negotiations are for the weak, when it comes to international affairs. Countries get what they want if they can back it up militarily.
Post-war documents may say...well we really didn't to invade...but in July/August 1945, that was the plan....until they re-ran the numbers and didn't like them. The navy backed out of the initial plans first.
And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.
And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.
You keep asking for pre-Hiroshima reports about Japan's military state-which was obviously reduced to nothing if the war was over Tokyo, but you provide nothing pre-Horoshima that says ATOMIC WEAPONS were necessary. Typical hypocritacal US posturing.
THat is sort of what I have always thought about the bombing it was one terrible option out of a group of many terrible options. Personally I think if you start a war any casuatiles on your side are on you. Of course it is sad that people were killed but I think the Japanese created their own fate. Even if they were trying to surrender they should have made it perfectly clear that they did not want to be attacked (like broadcasting your surrender on every radio frequency) so that there could have been no debate about it today. If they had done that and were still attacked they would obviously have gotten infinitely more sympathy. Otherwise I have to say it is mostly on them.
Yeah, but it's just not quite as black and white as that though. I think you'll find that - not unlike 9/11 - there was a bit of history prior to that event. These things don't occur out of an historical vaccum.
Thanks. That's all I was asking for - a bit of clarification.
And as far as these Japanese factories being superior to U.S factories - do you have any material on that?
Perhaps they didn't know about radiation sickness but they certainly knew they'd kill thousands of innocent people. They deliberately killed thousands of innocent people.
But whether they knew or not, "Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?" I think not.
naděje umírá poslední
The story about Toyota and the Korean War should also be easy to find....they were going belly up until their proximity to the conflict swelled their orders.