Infamous Debate: The Bomb

Nickedfresh,

So as I undestand you agree that the bomb was used mainly (I am not talking about all other secondary “benefits”) as an instrument in geopolitical battle (against USSR, as Japan was done) not as a local millitary tool.

Thta is why for me it is very close to be crime because it had not practical purpose but political one. For which mostly civilians had to pay price (there were also killed app. 400 american POW in Nagasaki. And the american genrals knew forehand that they were in the blast zone).

Best regards
Igor Korenev

No, I’m saying it was mainly used to end the War with Japan. But the USSR’s advances in the far east were a consideration. And yes, it was a demonstration of power, but mainly to the Japanese (whom were also working on an A-bomb, as was the USSR)…

Thta is why for me it is very close to be crime because it had not practical purpose but political one. For which mostly civilians had to pay price (there were also killed app. 400 american POW in Nagasaki. And the american genrals knew forehand that they were in the blast zone).

Best regards
Igor Korenev

All war is political! thus all military operations are inherently political. And you could say that the entire waging of WWII (and I’d throw WWI in there too, since I think of these wars as rather interrelated!) was a crime and that all sides were ‘criminal,’ the only question here is scale. And those 400 US POWs would have surely been killed if the US had invaded Japan, this was clearly the plans of the Japanese (to kill all Allied POWs during an Anglo-American advance in the home-islands). It is easy for you to make such moral pronouncements since you were not there, as neither was I, but I have made the attempt to read books such as “Flyboys” and “Flags of Our Fathers” by Bradley, which deal extensively with the Pacific War. You could ask the Americans what they thought of fighting a brutally suicidal enemy that often forced their own civilian population to commit suicide (there is stunning footage of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs with their children rather than submit to the pleading US Marines begging them not to kill themselves on Okinawa) rather than surrender to the Americans. How many cases in the European Theater did a German force fight truly to it’s “last man?” On Tarawa, a Japanese force of 5000 fought to the absolute death, only 17 Imperial Japanese Army soldiers were captured by the US Marines! and then they were only captured after being incapacitated by wounds or battle shock.

What do you think the Allies were in in store for after they invaded the Home Islands? A civilian population charging them with bamboo spears? Mass suicides? Who knows? You could make the argument that quick moving US massed-armor may have changed things a bit as Soviet armor had “shocked” the Japanese Army in Manchuria, and it probably would have. But no one can argue that UK-US casualties would have been horrendous in the opening days of the invasion, as they could only land in one area of Japan during the amphibious operations: Operation Downfall. To dismiss the A-bombing as merely criminal mass murder effectively deflects all blame away from a Japanese high command that was brutal, sadistic, and highly indifferent to the lives on not only its enemies, but to its own soldiers whom they referred to as what can be translated as “postage,” meaning the cost of mailing a draft card --and to its own civilian population.

If German had been on the crusp of producing a bomb, and the Allies had learned this, and the US decided to drop the bomb on Berlin in order to kill the Nazi high command and thereby preventing any plans to use the A-bomb, would it still have been a ‘crime?’ Or is it okay then?

Is it okay to kill civilians in artillery attacks as long as soldiers are nearby? But not okay to use bombs or nuclear weapons? You can tell me many things, but one thing you cannot is that the US A-bomb attacks actually prevented more deaths in the end, because by any rational historically-based analysis, they did…

Obviously US did not want the land invasion. They were not mad. But again Japain was about to capitulate, because USSR was about to join the war and eliminated about one million strong Japaneese army in the Manchuria from the equation. So the invasion is a part of it but an auxilary issue.

I do not doubt that A-bombs were a enormous accelerator for the Japanese capitulation.
But my point is that the main strategical goal of US was not Japan but USSR at that point.

Peace, love and a little bit of sex…

I don’t think so. The Emperor may, or may not, have been considering capitulation, but members of his own Army tried to overthrow him even after the bombs had been dropped. And I doubt the Japanese ever considered its Manchurian armies much use in defending the Home Islands or Japan.

Peace, love and a little bit of sex…

Agreed man!

(whom were also working on an A-bomb, as was the USSR)…

As I know USSR did not have dedicated nuclear weapon program until Podsdam conference where Truman tried to impress Stalin with it (it is kind of a famous story). Starin call right way to Beria and ordered to enforce the program.

Nickedfresh,

Thanks for your long post. It was interesting. I mean it.

But it does not really prove your point I think. What you say about japanese being fanatic is very true. And again I agree that US was trying to avoid the land invasion. That is why USSR was obliged to declare war to Japan during Yalta and Podsdam conference.

What I am talking about is what the US generals had in thier minds. I beleive they were thinking about USSR not Japan at that point. That’s firstly.

Secondly, US would drop the bomb on Japan even if country USSR never existed. Because the gratest democracy in the world did not give a f*ck about the people when the stakes are high. In my subjective oppinion of course.

Nowadays we kind of got used to nukes. But back then everyone informed (fery few people) we petrified and scared of this thing. And yet they made the step to unleash the beast. Twice.

And thirdly, regardless of the development stage of German nuclear program US would have A-bombed Berlin if they got the bomb earlier.

These all because they are not better than Stalin when it come to international affairs (internal affares is a different subject and it is difficult to chalange Comunist revolutionary’s cruelty level).

IMHO!

Nicdfresh , my friend, thanks a lot for the spreaded post. But don’t lead your point to the absurd please.
Don’t make equal the artillery attack and the MASS-DESTRUCTION wearpon application.
This is absolutly “not okay” to use any wearpon against civil population, but it case of A-bomb is not the same that storm of cities by the infantry troops. I hope you’ll agree.

[quote]
You can tell me many things, but one thing you cannot is that the US A-bomb attacks actually prevented more deaths in the end, because by any rational historically-based analysis, they did…

Well firstly mate it cann’t prevented more death becouse you couldn’t to know will the Japane continie the war after USSR joined to the alllias. Stange but today iit’s the popular point that Japanes will continie the war with allies ( beeng in isolation and full economical and war blockade). Many peoples simply overestimates the Japanes ability to suicide prefere represent them as fanatic idiots.
Second. The hight US military command had not the single point about A-bombing.

“In my opinion, the application of this barbaric weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not render essential aid in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already conquered and ready to be returned. Personally I consider that, after using by its first, we accepted the ethical standard, characteristic for the barbarians of the middle ages, thus they did not learn to wage war similarly, and war cannot be won, destroying women and children.”

Admiral William Legi, the chief of staff of the President OF THE USA in 1945

“In 1945…, to year the Minister of Defense Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany and reported to me that our government prepares to drop A-bomb in Japan. I was one of those, who saw a number of convincing reasons to doubt the sense of a similar step…
In proportion to Stimson transferred facts, the desperation grew in me, and I shared with it with bad presentiments. In my opinion, in the nuclear bombardment not there was need, since Japan already lost war. I assumed that to our country to nothing to shock world community by the weapon, whose application for the rescuing of the lives of American citizens is already not necessary. In my view, Japan at that moment already searched for the ways of capitulation with the smallest possible “loss of the person”. To Minister of Defense my position was not pleased, and it here began to refute my reasons, calling their prompt.”
General D. Eisenhower -future president of USA.

So my friend american hight officer in contrast to the american politicians could see the reason to doubt in need to test the a-bomb in the alive people…
And the third. As you wrote rational historically-based analysis prove for you that Japane in august 1945 beeing in full sea blockade , without oil- and matterial- supplies, whithout food and petrol could not to continie the war no more than the latest till december of 1945.
Thus mate whithout a-bombing , whithout mythical “millions death”, whithout land-operation Japane simply would be forced to capitulate in at latest end of 1945.
But certainly american politics didn’t wist to wait to the end of 1945 while the Red Army and uncle Joe moved with gigantic strides through China. ( and directly to the South- Eastern Asia where were the former british colonies ).This was unpossible.
So they used a-bomb. They did it.They were steep guys.:slight_smile:
But my friend don’t please repeat this propogandic slogans about “saving a millions japanes lives”.
Even Hoebbels don’t told the jews that he killed them for the “saving a millions of lives”.
This was a war - most unhuman war in history.

Cheers.

The USSR was never “obliged” to declare War on Japan. They indeed resisted doing so until Japan was clearly going to be defeated, and the Germans were nearly defeated.

The Soviet Nuclear program began in 1939, and was accelerated by 1943, two years before Potsdam. Are you going to blame the US for this as well?

What I am talking about is what the US generals had in thier minds. I beleive they were thinking about USSR not Japan at that point. That’s firstly.

Well, I believe you’re clearly wrong. There is no evidence that the Soviet Union was anything but a distant secondary consideration…

Secondly, US would drop the bomb on Japan even if country USSR never existed. Because the gratest democracy in the world did not give a f*ck about the people when the stakes are high. In my subjective oppinion of course.

Now you’re clearly contradicting yourself.

And how is the US supposed to be concerned with Japanese lives when their own gov’t isn’t? Where the Soviets more concerned about Germans and Poles they were raping?

And if the US didn’t “give a fuck” about people, then why did we rebuild Europe via the Marshall plan, and indeed build one of the most stable, technologically advanced democracies in Japan? One that indeed took a big economic toll on the US in the 1970s & 80s?

Again, you’re applying a hyper-critical standard to the US whilst ignoring all others and completely ignoring historical contexts…:rolleyes:

Nowadays we kind of got used to nukes. But back then everyone informed (fery few people) we petrified and scared of this thing. And yet they made the step to unleash the beast. Twice.

And thirdly, regardless of the development stage of German nuclear program US would have A-bombed Berlin if they got the bomb earlier.

As anyone would have done…

These all because they are not better than Stalin when it come to international affairs (internal affares is a different subject and it is difficult to chalange Comunist revolutionary’s cruelty level).

IMHO!

Really? Then why did Germans flee in droves to the US and British sectors, away from Stalin’s gloriously humanitarian Red Army? Because he nice to them?

And most Eastern Europeans will strongly disagree with this notion…

[QUOTE=Chevan;91639]

Nicdfresh , my friend, thanks a lot for the spreaded post. But don’t lead your point to the absurd please.
Don’t make equal the artillery attack and the MASS-DESTRUCTION wearpon application.

Really? Then how were people killed in Rwanda? How was your citizenry murdered in WWII? By nuclear weapons? Poison gas? Or was it rifle-fire and explosives? Did they die a nicer death since they weren’t killed by WMDs? Were the millions of Soviet casualties inflicted by the Germans an exaggeration for political purposes? The vast majority of deaths in WWII occurred from malnutrition, summary execution, and disease caused by the cruel actions of occupiers.

This is absolutly “not okay” to use any wearpon against civil population, but it case of A-bomb is not the same that storm of cities by the infantry troops. I hope you’ll agree.

No. What I believe you are saying is that it is not okay for the US and UK to use weapons against a civil populace. Everyone else, well it seems to be just fine…

Well firstly mate it cann’t prevented more death becouse you couldn’t to know will the Japane continie the war after USSR joined to the alllias. Stange but today iit’s the popular point that Japanes will continie the war with allies ( beeng in isolation and full economical and war blockade). Many peoples simply overestimates the Japanes ability to suicide prefere represent them as fanatic idiots.
Second. The hight US military command had not the single point about A-bombing.

Well, Japan did continue to fight, even after the Soviets entered the War. And you can read Japanese home island defense war planning on the internet, and it’s plainly clear that massive civilian casualties would have resulted.

So my friend american hight officer in contrast to the american politicians could see the reason to doubt in need to test the a-bomb in the alive people…
And the third. As you wrote rational historically-based analysis prove for you that Japane in august 1945 beeing in full sea blockade , without oil- and matterial- supplies, whithout food and petrol could not to continie the war no more than the latest till december of 1945.

Well, you didn’t read my link, because the Japanese could easily have continued since they grew most of their food on the islands, and did not have a great reliance on oil since they had limited mechanization and would have inflicted the majority of casualties in the opening phases of the invasion.

Thus mate whithout a-bombing , whithout mythical “millions death”, without land-operation Japan simply would be forced to capitulate in at latest end of 1945.

“Mythical?” These were projections based on Japanese defenses of their home islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Granted, the US would have eventually advanced and broken Japanese resistance in short order once they reached the Tokyo Plain with Sherman and Pershing tanks, but only after suffering 100,000s of casualties in difficult amphibious operations and operating on terrain that was not conducive to armor or vehicles.

But certainly american politics didn’t wist to wait to the end of 1945 while the Red Army and uncle Joe moved with gigantic strides through China.

Which was Gen. MacArthur’s plan (to invade what is Taiwan, using it as a staging base to thrust into China after landing with armor), because China was ideal tank country against an Imperial Japanese Army that lacked any sort of modern anti-tank weapons and effective tanks. The British had similar experiences in Burma, as did the US troops engaging the Japanese anytime the fought battles of maneuver in open terrain.

The Soviet troops weren’t conducting amphibious assaults, were they? The most complex and predictable operations in modern warfare, making the attacker extremely vulnerable and largely immobile for a time.

And BTW, the people you quoted had little or nothing to do with the Pacific Theater or Operations, their opinions are largely invalidated, especially since they killed thousands of Germans via strat. bombing…

( and directly to the South- Eastern Asia where were the former british colon"In 1945…, to year the Minister of Defense Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany and reported to me that our government prepares to drop A-bomb in Japan…"

You forgot about one inportaint reason my friend. The FEAR FOR THE ITS CRIMES.
2.5 millions of perished soviet POWs who had the much worst relation then even the Jews in Getto.
about 6 million civils victims who had died firstly becouse the german henocide politic on the occuped Eastern Europe territories.
about 3 millions civils died under jermans bombs , artillery or from the starvation and ills.
My be you forgot my friend about those millions?No?
Now tell me please how many millions civils or POWs from America or Britain were killed by the Germans? Zero million.
So don’t tall the stupid questions about germans who run to the British and US sector.
We are all know the why. Those countries HAD NEVER BE OCCUPED BY GERMANS and never feeled the germans henocide on the own skin.
They run away firstly becouse its fate was absolutly clear in the “Stalin’s gloriously humanitarian Red Army” hands.

And most Eastern Europeans will strongly disagree with this notion…

you forgot to say that most East Europeans (except the Poland and Yougoslavia) supported the Hitler during his invasion to the Russia.

Yes you right the total victims of WW2 is about 45-50 millions. So you want to say this is the reason to use A-bomb which totally killed about ONLY 500 000 in Japane. About 100 00 of them simply were burned during the explosion.
Is it right Nickdfresh?

Well, Japan did continue to fight, even after the Soviets entered the War. And you can read Japanese home island defense war planning on the internet, and it’s plainly clear that massive civilian casualties would have resulted.

Oh those stupid japanes idiots who will continie to die for the imperor. Yes we heared this version already.
The problem my friend was that Japanes in summer of 1945 were ready to begin the capitulation. They bring up only one condithions - saving the Monarhy Institute in Japane i.e. post of Imperor. They were agreed for the any war conditions.
That what wrote former american intelligent officer Zacharias E. M. in his memours :“Secret Missions. The Story of an Intelligence Officer”; New York, 1946

Japan was ready to capitulate. In order to gather harvest, to us it remained to only shake it as the apple tree, strewn by ripe apples.
Investigations carried out on the spot after the capitulation of Japan showed that the emperor was completely informed about the psychological campaign conducted by us and about that success, which it had. He understood, that we clearly visualize the situation in Japan and that precisely toward the end of June 1945 was created such situation, when it was necessary to conclude peace. With the examination of several high ranking Japanese, close to the emperor, one of them, the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he stated: "the radio transmissions Of zakhariasa had clout, especially to the government circles… Important significance in these transfers had a question about the difference between the unconditional surrender and the dictated peace. The Japanese knew the position of Germany under similar conditions already, how Zacharias promised, that if Japan will take the conditions of unconditional surrender, then to it will be disseminated Atlantic charter.
People began to look at the possibility of this turning of the matter concerning the hope even he understood that this nothing of the kind, about which spoke the militarists. It seemed people that the unconditional surrender in the interpretation Of Zacharias presents the specific output for Japan ".
Tosio Siratori read the record of my radio transmissions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At first he related to them skeptically, then he believed in them. They transferred the record of each radio transmission to emperor. To Siratori it stated that these transfers had an effect both on the emperor himself and on his those approximated.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/usa/zacharias_em/33.html

So Nickdfresh, if the Potsdam declaration of US-Britis-China had less agressive anti-japane demand , Japane could capitulate already in the jule of 1945.
But strange , why did the US-British politicans desided continie the war and ignored Japanes attempts to capitulate.

Well, you didn’t read my link, because the Japanese could easily have continued since they grew most of their food on the islands, and did not have a great reliance on oil since they had limited mechanization and would have inflicted the majority of casualties in the opening phases of the invasion.

…you want to say possible invasion Nicdfresh?

Which was Gen. MacArthur’s plan (to invade what is Taiwan, using it as a staging base to thrust into China after landing with armor), because China was ideal tank country against an Imperial Japanese Army that lacked any sort of modern anti-tank weapons and effective tanks. The British had similar experiences in Burma, as did the US troops engaging the Japanese anytime the fought battles of maneuver in open terrain.

The Soviet troops weren’t conducting amphibious assaults, were they? The most complex and predictable operations in modern warfare, making the attacker extremely vulnerable and largely immobile for a time.

Right mate, therefore quickly surrending and crashing the 1.5 millions Kvantun Army in august of 1945 Red Army was extremaly danger for the US-Britain. And don’t forget about powerful pro-communist movement in China and Sout-Eastern asia - the obvious reason quick defeat of Gomindan in China in 1945-46.
Now you know why the US and British politicans prefered the cruel demonstration of A-bomb through the execution of Japan.

And BTW, the people you quoted had little or nothing to do with the Pacific Theater or Operations, their opinions are largely invalidated, especially since they killed thousands of Germans via strat. bombing…

Who ordered the str. bombing in Europe? Eisenhower and Legi?
Are you sure?

To Nickdfresh:

The USSR was never “obliged” to declare War on Japan. They indeed resisted doing so until Japan was clearly going to be defeated, and the Germans were nearly defeated.

If I repeat my statement you most likely will not beleive me. So he is the third party comment (check it up if you want) from the book Worldwar 1939 - 1945, printed by International affairs institute in Stockholm in 1947, volume 4, page 316 (my translation from Danish):
On the 8th of August Russia declared war on Japain in accordance with the agrement taken during Yalta conference in January 1945.
Russian troops gained quickly a fast advance in Manchuria.

The Soviet Nuclear program began in 1939, and was accelerated by 1943, two years before Potsdam. Are you going to blame the US for this as well?

As I said I did not think USSR had dedicated nuclear programm. I was not sure about it.
I just looked it up here (http://nuclear-weapons.nm.ru/russia/weapons/first-bombs/rds-1.htm), and it looks like on 28/09/1942, after a tip about American programm, an order was given to start works on uran aplications.
On 11/Feb/1943 special lab is organised.
But it all turned to top priority on 20/Aug/1945 after the Potsdam conference, where Truman tried to scare Stalin (24-july) saying him privately “US posesses now the weapon of enormous destructive power”. Truman actually got mesage (“The Baby is born”) that the weapon is working during the very first day of the conference.

And if the US didn’t “give a fuck” about people, then why did we rebuild Europe via the Marshall plan, and indeed build one of the most stable, technologically advanced democracies in Japan? One that indeed took a big economic toll on the US in the 1970s & 80s?

Marshal paln is to build anti-Soviet block. It ia not a secret. By the way it was not done out of generocity. Lending someone money to buy your products and then getting the money back with interest. It is called business. The same happened in Kuwait after first Gulf war.

Regarding “giving f*ck for the people”, I can just tell you that during and after the unjustly started by US war in Iraq already died several times more people than during whole 24 years of Saddam rule. Please get back to the ground from the sky!

I do not claim that US did extremely terrible crime. Holocaust was worse. But claming that it was just another ordinary episode is just not true. It was an exceptional even during WW2 and US is fully responsible for it. But it is up to you to deny it.

Best regrads
Igor korenev

Egorka did you hear the point that Marshal plan let the American corporation took under its control practically all Western Europ production. Shares of Western European firm get to the american hands.
US simply need to do something with enourmous quantity of dollars - resault of war economy.

Lads, the Marshal Plan can be debated in another topic, it has nothing to do with Firebombings in Japan.

Cheers

OK, OK boss :wink:
Certainly we need another thread.

Cheers.

This one is about THE BOMB. Yes it made fire but all things to do with ww2 nuclear weapons and japan please post.

You must enjoy throwing complete exaggerations. It was more like 210,000 Japanese subjects died from radiation poisoning and the blasts, not 500,000.

For someone that cries that “Jews exaggerate the Holocaust,” you sure seem to have little interest in the true number of deaths? :rolleyes:

Oh those stupid japanes idiots who will continie to die for the imperor.

Who said they were “stupid…idiots?” In fact their strategy was quite viable and clever --to inflict high percentages of casuaties on a technologically superior enemy forced to conduct amphibious landings, forcing a “negotiated peace” since the cost of invasion would be too high in blood. Far from stupid…

Please stop implying that I do not respect the Japanese honor and courage of their War dead. The Japanese soldier, when adequately armed and supplied, was second-to-none. It was their ruthless high command I despise…

Yes we heared this version already.
The problem my friend was that Japanes in summer of 1945 were ready to begin the capitulation. They bring up only one condithions - saving the Monarhy Institute in Japane i.e. post of Imperor. They were agreed for the any war conditions.

Oh really? What an intellectually-false collection of half truths. Here’s a clue as to what was about to take place:

From: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a “negotiated peace” involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a “negotiated peace” to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

Joseph Stalin, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference, July 1945The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself. Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding “unconditional surrender,” in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state. In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a “carrot and a stick,” trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of “prompt and utter destruction” if Japan did not surrender immediately. No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state. Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945,Mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, August 6, 1945 President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of Emperor Hirohito negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.

Planning for the use of additional nuclear weapons continued even as these deliberations were ongoing. On August 10, Leslie Groves reported to the War Department that the next bomb, another plutonium weapon, would be “ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.” Fat Man at Tinian Island, August 1945 Following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only two targets remained from the original list: Kokura Arsenal and the city of Niigata. Groves therefore requested that additional targets be added to the target list. His deputy, General Kenneth Nichols, suggested Tokyo. Truman, however, ordered an immediate halt to atomic attacks while surrender negotiations were ongoing. As the Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary, Truman remarked that he did not like the idea of killing “all those kids.”

B-29s on bombing run On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only. Debate raged within the Japanese government over whether to accept the American terms or fight on. Meanwhile, American leaders were growing impatient, and on August 13 conventional air raids resumed on Japan. Thousands more Japanese civilians died while their leaders delayed. The Japanese people learned of the surrender negotiations for the first time when, on August 14, B-29s showered Tokyo with thousands of leaflets containing translated copies of the American reply of August 12. Later that day, the emperor called another meeting of his cabinet and instructed them to accept the Allied terms immediately, explaining “I cannot endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer”; if the war did not end “the whole nation would be reduced to ashes.” Aircraft fly in formation over the U.S.S. Missouri during the Japanese surrender ceremony, Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945.

The only question remaining now was if Japan’s military leaders would allow the emperor to surrender. Loyalty to the emperor was an absolute in the Japanese military, but so was the refusal to surrender, and now that the two had come into conflict, open rebellion was a possible result. The emperor recorded a message in which he personally accepted the Allied surrender terms, to be broadcast over Japanese radio the following day. This way everyone in Japan would know that surrender was the emperor’s personal will. Some within the Japanese military actually attempted to steal this recording before it could be broadcast. General Douglas MacArthur signs the Japanese surrender document, U.S.S. Missouri, Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. broadcast, while others attempted a more general military coup in order to seize power and continue the war. Other elements of the Japanese military remained loyal to the emperor. The Minister of War, General Anami Korechika, personally supported continuing the war, but he also could not bring himself to openly rebel against his emperor. The strength of his dilemma was such that he opted for suicide as the only honorable way out. In the end, his refusal to assist the coup plotters was instrumental in their defeat by elements within the military that remained loyal to the emperor.

Cont’d

So in summary, the Japanese pre-atomic attacks musings on “surrender” were actually little more than negotiations in which surrender was out of the question.

And…

If the Emperor had surrendered without the bombs being dropped, his Army may well have had a successful coup.

Not quite as easy as you would like to make it, is it?

That what wrote former american intelligent officer Zacharias E. M. in his memours :“Secret Missions. The Story of an Intelligence Officer”; New York, 1946

He was a US Navy officer, and these were his own speculations based on limited information. That’s his opinion, not necessarily the “truth.”

So Nickdfresh, if the Potsdam declaration of US-Britis-China had less agressive anti-japane demand , Japane could capitulate already in the jule of 1945.
But strange , why did the US-British politicans desided continie the war and ignored Japanes attempts to capitulate.

…you want to say possible invasion Nicdfresh?

“Capitulation?” See above. They never ignored the possibilities, they merely never believed the sincerity…

Right mate, therefore quickly surrending and crashing the 1.5 millions Kvantun Army in august of 1945 Red Army was extremaly danger for the US-Britain. And don’t forget about powerful pro-communist movement in China and Sout-Eastern asia - the obvious reason quick defeat of Gomindan in China in 1945-46.

Why were they a danger for the US/UK?

They were an ally, correct?

BTW, why did the Soviets cynically attack Japan to steal territory and get the bloody spoils of War only in 1945 in an area where they had absolute strategic and tactical advantages, even though they knew Japan supposedly wanted to “capitulate?”

Could it be that the Red Army is a cruel, inhuman force that existed only for the nationalist benefit for the Soviet Union, and really had little interest in “liberating” anyone?

Now you know why the US and British politicans prefered the cruel demonstration of A-bomb through the execution of Japan.

As opposed to Stalin’s cruel power grab in Eastern Europe? And the primary “demonstration” was to the Japanese gov’t/military (one in the same really), not to crabby Russians…

Who ordered the str. bombing in Europe? Eisenhower and Legi?
Are you sure?

That’s not the point. Why didn’t they speak out against the “bombings” that killed far more people than the A-bombs ever did?

Neither does half of the other crap in this thread…

But point taken.

I don’t disbelieve you, I just wonder why they waited eight months?

As I said I did not think USSR had dedicated nuclear programm. I was not sure about it.
I just looked it up here (http://nuclear-weapons.nm.ru/russia/weapons/first-bombs/rds-1.htm), and it looks like on 28/09/1942, after a tip about American programm, an order was given to start works on uran aplications.
On 11/Feb/1943 special lab is organised.
But it all turned to top priority on 20/Aug/1945 after the Potsdam conference, where Truman tried to scare Stalin (24-july) saying him privately “US posesses now the weapon of enormous destructive power”. Truman actually got mesage (“The Baby is born”) that the weapon is working during the very first day of the conference.

Semantics and perception. But the fact is that the Soviet Union WAS conducting “serious” nuclear weapons research, but so was everybody else. (Which is my point)

Marshal paln is to build anti-Soviet block. It ia not a secret. By the way it was not done out of generocity. Lending someone money to buy your products and then getting the money back with interest. It is called business. The same happened in Kuwait after first Gulf war.

No. It was to rebuild Europe and prevent another rise of fascism like the Versaille Treaty had done. It was also to build markets for US goods. Most of the money was not “lent,” it was mostly GIVEN. I don’t deny a selfish US interest, there WAS ONE! It was to build populations where we could sell our goods, but at least it was a farsighted one that benefited everybody…

Regarding “giving f*ck for the people”, I can just tell you that during and after the unjustly started by US war in Iraq already died several times more people than during whole 24 years of Saddam rule. Please get back to the ground from the sky!

Actually, that “fact” isn’t true, and it has nothing to do with this conversation. So I won’t discuss this here…

I do not claim that US did extremely terrible crime. Holocaust was worse. But claming that it was just another ordinary episode is just not true. It was an exceptional even during WW2 and US is fully responsible for it. But it is up to you to deny it.

Okay, on this point we agree. I won’t argue that a the nuclear decimation to two cities was “normal.” And I’ve never denied anything. I only ask that it be looked at in proper historical context.

The Holocaust, or the systematic murder or Soviet citizens, perpretrated by the Nazis were acts carried out by a sovereign power(s) in territories that they controlled and were telling policies that they sought to institute once they had “won” the War, which thank god they did not! That atomic bombings, and I agree the targeting was terrible and should have been military, were combat missions designed to end the War. The Japanese were treated quite well by the US after the War, so calling it a “genocide” is hyperbole.

Best regrads
Igor korenev

You too!