Atomic Bombings of Japan

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@gonzomax

Three days to react. Three days. A nuclear bomb goes off in their country and we give them 3 days. One,two,three.

How many would have been enough for your armchair generalship?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@gonzomax

Three days to react. Three days. A nuclear bomb goes off in their country and we give them 3 days. One,two,three.

Three days would actually be counting up to 259,200 but with all the history you’ve been ignoring, I guess math is small potatoes.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

@gonzomax

Three days to react. Three days. A nuclear bomb goes off in their country and we give them 3 days. One,two,three. We were dropping the Nagasaki bomb .The plans were made. It was just a field experiment.

As is made clear from Togo’s writings post-war (which I linked to above), the Japanese were well aware of the effects of the bomb:

The Army replied to my inquiry that it could as yet say only that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was one of high effectiveness, and that the details were under investigation. The United States and Great Britain launched large-scale propaganda on the atomic bomb, declaring that its use would alter utterly the character of war and would work a revolution in the life of the human race, and that if Japan did not accept the declaration of the three Powers the bomb would continue to be used until the nation was annihilated.

Truman in the immediate aftermath spelled out exactly what had happened, and what would be the consequences if the Japanese did not consent to terms:

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

The Secretary of War, who has kept in personal touch with all phases of the project, will immediately make public a statement giving further details.

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/truman1.html

They were well aware of the effects of the bomb, what it was and what we would do with it. Yet still they continued to hold out, seeking only a peace. If you know anything about Imperial Japan you will know that accepting their terms would be very, very dangerous; a threat to world peace earning the enmity of China and Korea.

The war had been dragging on for 4 long years (or 6 from our point of view - longer for the Chinese and Koreans). We needed to end it as soon as we were able. Every day it carried on meant more death. We couldn’t afford to twiddle our thumbs while the Japanese cabinet rejected our terms.

[gonzomax]

Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Leahy
In my opinion, the use of this barbarous weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,was of no material assistance in the war against japan.The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.
My own feeling is that by being the first to use it,we had adopted an ethical standard common with the barbarians of the Dark Ages.I was not taught to make war in that fashion and wars can not be won by destroying women and children.
We dropped one and 3 days later the second. After the second one, it took SIX days for the Japanese to surrender. We gave them 3 after the first. We could have waited a week or 2 and risked nothing. We wanted to see what it would do.
The ultimate weapon should be used to save your country. It is a horrible weapon and should be used in desperation. But we used it as a offensive weapon,forever cheapening its use.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Leahy also said: “This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.”

So what did he know?

[Mr.Kobayashi]

@gonzomax

Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Leahy
In my opinion, the use of this barbarous weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,was of no material assistance in the war against japan.The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.
My own feeling is that by being the first to use it,we had adopted an ethical standard common with the barbarians of the Dark Ages.I was not taught to make war in that fashion and wars can not be won by destroying women and children.

And we have shown multiple times that the Japanese were not ready to surrender. They were ready to resist an Allied invasion.

We dropped one and 3 days later the second. After the second one, it took SIX days for the Japanese to surrender. We gave them 3 after the first. We could have waited a week or 2 and risked nothing. We wanted to see what it would do.
The ultimate weapon should be used to save your country. It is a horrible weapon and should be used in desperation. But we used it as a strategic weapon,forever cheapening its use.

This is simply false. Nagasaki was hit with Fat Man at approximately 11:01AM, local time, August 9th.

Early the next morning the Japanese government contacted the Allies by telegram:

Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the Emperor’s will, which it did. Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration but would not accept any peace conditions that would “prejudice the prerogatives” of the Emperor

.

Surrender of Japan

The full text of the statement, send via neutral Switzerland, is here:

In obedience to the gracious command of His Majesty the Emperor who, ever anxious to enhance the cause of world peace, desires earnestly to bring about a speedy termination of hostilities with a view to saving mankind from the calamities to be imposed upon them by further continuation of the war, the Japanese Government several weeks ago asked the Soviet Government, with which neutral relations then prevailed, to render good offices in restoring peace vis-à-vis the enemy powers. Unfortunately, these efforts in the interest of peace having failed, the Japanese Government in conformity with the august wish of His Majesty to restore the general peace and desiring to put an end to the untold sufferings entailed by war as quickly as possible, have decided upon the following.

The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.

The Japanese Government sincerely hope that this understanding is warranted and desire keenly that an explicit indication to that effect will be speedily forthcoming.

August 10, the 20th year of Shöwa.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm

The formal surrender did not take place until several days later, as the Allies were deliberating the offer, responding and waiting for the response. We did temporarily cease bombing runs at the time, although some spillover was bound to happen. We certainly weren’t going to drop any more nukes though, mainly because we didn’t have another ready in that timeframe. Plus; no need. We’d got them.

[Magiver]

@gonzomax

Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Leahy
In my opinion, the use of this barbarous weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,was of no material assistance in the war against japan.The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…

and yet they DIDN’T. Leahy was wrong. You’re quoting someone whose opinion about Japan’s readiness to surrender was wrong.

[Squink]

@gonzomax

Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Leahy

The ultimate weapon should be used to save your country. It is a horrible weapon and should be used in desperation. But we used it as a offensive weapon,forever cheapening its use.

So he’d have approved of Kennedy using it on the Russians in Cuba?
I guess those who survived wouldn’t be calling that just a missile crisis now, would they?

[Kent_Clark]

@gonzomax

Three days to react. Three days. A nuclear bomb goes off in their country and we give them 3 days. One,two,three. We were dropping the Nagasaki bomb .The plans were made. It was just a field experiment.

Gonzomax you seem to have rejected my suggestion to consult this site to look at the contemporaneous source material. If so you would have seen:

From August 7 (the day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.)

The Army appeared to be trying to discount its effect as much as possible.

From August 8.

The Prime Minister’s words are difficult to understand. When he speaks, he still tries to sound tough by mentioning [the battle of] Komaki-yaga, the winter siege of Osaka and such. The other day as well, at a Cabinet meeting, he started to argue that to talk about ending the war would be almost as if we were encouraing frontline soldiers to start a riot and that it had been common knowledge for a long time that commanders abroad would not obey their master’s orders.

From August 9. After Hiroshima and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, the Japanese cabinet can’t agree on surrender even with the following conditions:

1. The terms will not include any demand regarding the Imperial House
2. The Japanese military forces abroad will voluntarily withdraw and be mobilized
3. The issue of war criminals will be dealt with by the Japanese government
4. There will be no occupation of the Japanese territory

With the army and navy still holding out, even with those conditions attached to the offer of surrender, the prime minister declares the Privy Council deadlocked. The Emperor orders the offer to be made.

August 13 – even after Nagasaki, and fully aware of the impact of the atomic bomb, the cabinet is still divided over trying to get more favorable terms. The army, in particular still wants to fight.

By the way, those sources are Japanese.

[gonzomax]

The army always wants to fight. What is new there. That is why they should be ignored. We don’t train them to give up. They develop a group think that makes them dangerous to listen to. What general says we have plenty of troops, we don’t need more weapons or lets quit ,this battle makes no sense.
I have given opinions from big time American generals. Why do you simply reject them? Is Ike too dumb to listen to . Is Leahy less credible than your web sites?
We all wanted to believe it was the right thing to do. It was an horrific act that no other country ever did. Yet we did it twice. I would love to think we were right to do it. I can not. It was a dark day for America and we should not accept that the use of atomic weapons is OK. It is not. Every atomic weapon should be destroyed and every location that can make them should be leveled.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

You are really exposing your ignorance about Japan, here. The military always wants to fight, you say. Well, guess who ran Japan!

Q. From an earlier statement, however, I gathered that you felt the Army was very much in politics, much more so than the Navy, if the Navy was at all. Is that correct?

A. I do not hesitate to state definitely that such was the case; namely, that the Army did participate in politics and that is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back considerably into the past. tracing as far back as the MEIJI era. I can see from the way in which the Army played a part, even in the formation of the cabinets, that the political activity of the Army went back many years into the past.

Q. In other words, the Army had a profound influence on national policies. It that a correct statement?

A. I think so.

From an interview with a Japanese Admiral, http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/////AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-75.html

We reject your quotations as unfounded assertions and opinion not backed up by the reality we can now be sure of in hindsight (it’s also fair to say that Ike had minimal experience in the Pacific Theatre). You also contradict yourself in saying that we shouldn’t give credence to what those evil army-types say, yet to support your argument draw upon the quotes of generals and admirals?

We did it twice to end the war. It ended the war. It was the right thing to do.

[Guinastasia]

@gonzomax

They just wanted to keep the emperor

And even IF that were so, (it wasn’t)let’s say that Germany were ready to surrender, and all they asked was to keep Hitler*, what then? We’d have told them to go fuck themselves with a chainsaw, and rightly so.

Since we had first considered using the bombs on Germany, when we initially began to develope them, what about that? Let’s say it was Germany, rather than Japan. Germany REFUSES an unconditional surrender. No war crimes trial. No dismantling for the Nazi system of government. They want to keep Hitler. We decide to bomb, oh, say Potsdam. Germany still refuses to move. Should we then hesitate to bomb Frankfurt? I say no.

(I’d use Italy as an example as well, but since he was Mussolini’s ass was fertilizer by the time and he was offed by his own people, I don’t think that would work)

*Does this count as a Godwin? I wouldn’t think so, since this is about WWII, and the Axis powers, but I just thought I’d ask.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@gonzomax

Every atomic weapon should be destroyed and every location that can make them should be leveled.

So you’re in favour of nuking Iran? That would solve two problems at once.

[hansel]

@gonzomax

I would love to think we were right to do it.

No you wouldn’t. You’ve plainly invested so much in the idea that it’s wrong that the mountains of evidence against your interpretation won’t move you. Your belief is willful and a-rational. I feel suckered for having bothered with you.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@gonzomax

The army always wants to fight. What is new there. That is why they should be ignored.

That’s hard to do in a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP! Like say the one in JAPAN!

I have given opinions from big time American generals. Why do you simply reject them?

Because often, even in the 2nd World War, Generals & Admirals can be a bit removed from the reality of combat & casualties. Their opinion matters, in a sense, but I do not consider it to be canon, especially in the face of the actual evidence. Also, many commanders

Is Ike too dumb to listen to.

No, but he was in a completely different theater of war.

Is Leahy less credible than your web sites?

If he says Japan was ready to surrender, then yes he is. We have figures, documents, and opinions from the Japanese military. He has an opinion, made well after the fact, and with no real basis in reality.

I’ve read plenty of accounts of the soldiers actually doing the fighting before and around the time the bombs were dropped. They openly say the bomb was pretty horrific to them, but at the time they were relived that something had ended the fighting at last. US Soldiers being transferred from the European to Pacific theater were on the verge of mutiny over the length of the war. Why do you discount their opinion?

[gonzomax]

He is a fucking general in charge and has access to information the field soldiers did not. That is one reason. There was no mutiny. We have soldiers in Iraq that have been there longer. Another is he agrees with me. therefore his opinion has more credibility.

[hansel]

@gonzomax

Another is he agrees with me. therefore his opinion has more credibility.

The heart of it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@gonzomax

Another is he agrees with me. therefore his opinion has more credibility.

Well, I’ll take that as the punchline of a very long and drawn-out joke.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@gonzomax

He is a fucking general in charge and has access to information the field soldiers did not. That is one reason.

But not all the information, and even if they have the information many a general has chosen to ignore it in favor of their own opinions. Take the decision to go ahead with Market-Garden, for example.

There was no mutiny.

Please. In January of 1946 there were riots and demonstrations. Before that the grumbling was growing exponentially. For heaven’s sake pick up some books and read soldier’s accounts instead of quote-mining.

We have soldiers in Iraq that have been there longer.

Not really. The US has a policy of rotation these days. Plus soldiers in Iraq are not anywhere near the level of intense combat seen in the WW2 theaters. Oh wait - you think everything from Germany on was a ‘mop-up’ operation. :rolleyes:

Another is he agrees with me. therefore his opinion has more credibility.

:rolleyes:

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, I’ll take that as the punchline of a very long and drawn-out joke.

Yeah, I am beginning to think we’re being, err, dragged along by a line, so so speak.