Re: Happy Hiroshima Day

Bill C wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:30 pm, Mark <mandmljNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Finally, many creditable historians, rather than noting any imperative
Truman felt in /saving lives/, cite the momentum of the Manhattan
project - not to mention the something like $2 billion (with a "b") in
1940's dollars that had been spent on it. Remember that Truman learned
of Manhattan only after taking office in April '45; many simply took it
for granted that The Bomb would actually be used, and the momentum that
late in the project may have swept Truman along.

[1] I've had a very hard time finding excerpts of Stimson's article on
line, and never from an unimpeachable source, but here's one excerpt
that appears reliable enough:https://www.westshore.edu/personal/MWNagle/US2/stimson&a-bomb.htm

Mark J.

I'm not disputing that the wanted to use the bombs. I'm not disputing
that they changed the surrender conditions. They changed the
conditions because they were being told that the Army was never going
to surrender without exemption for the Emporer, even after the bombs
they wanted to keep fighting. We had channels inside the Japanese
military, primarily Naval officers letting us know what was going on.
The Army argued a couple of things, one that we couldn't have a large
supply of the bombs, that they'd already endured worse from the
firebombing campaign (That was Lemay's idea), and that the people only
existed to serve and die for the Emporer so it didn't matter how many
were killed, and the people in large believed that, along with the
propaganda from their own government that we would slaughter them all
anyway. There were lots of surprised Japanese captives, when they
weren't tortured and executed immediately.
After the second bombing the Emporer finally stood up to the Army
leadership and brought the end about. Before the second bomb the Army
had no intention of allowing the Emporer to surrender.
I'd have to go digging and the wetware is shaky, but as I remember
the Emporer and his Cabinet folks made an unauthorized, by the Army,
radio broadcast, after the second bomb to the people to prevent the
possibility, and it was a good one, of the Army saying he commited
seppuku and continuing the fight.
Trying to reduce this to a simple "we wanted to display our Imperial
might!" argument is imbecility.

I agree that there is no simple answer to why the atomic bombs were used, only want to point out that Stimson's "saving lives" argument was likewise simplistic and I believe rather disingenuous. Note just for a start that Stimson's article wasn't published until February '47, although I believe similar notes were sounded in Truman's first announcement.

There is strong evidence that relations with the Soviets figured into the decision; see Truman's private (now in Pres. libraries) comments after the Potsdam conference with Churchill and Stalin. Intimidation was definitely on the table, IMNSHO.

Also, while the US had previously demanded (and gotten the Soviets to agree - ?Yalta?) to enter the Pacific war by early August, the US later decided that having Soviets take more of then-Japanese-held land (in Manchuria?) was not such a good idea. So ending the war very quickly (rather than, say, by an extended firebombing campaign or blockade or both) became very attractive. Remember also that the US ground assault on Japan (Operation Olympic) wasn't planned to begin until November 1, 1945. So nuclear bombing before, say, late September or early October wasn't necessary to avoid the death toll of an invasion - but it did end the war before the Soviets gained too much ground in ?Manchuria? or wherever they were supposed to attack.

Definitely not a simple issue.

Like Bush's Iraq buiild-up, the facts have been cherry picked to
revise reality by the anti-bomb folks, led by the Japanese who are
still in deep denial over their actions such as Nanking.

No question, there is plenty of cherry-picking opportunity for /both sides/. The "saving lives" argument, when presented as the sole motivation for the bombings, is, I believe, an example of said cherry-picking.

Mark J.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Happy Hiroshima Day
    ... Truman felt in /saving lives/, cite the momentum of the Manhattan ... The Army argued a couple of things, one that we couldn't have a large ... existed to serve and die for the Emporer so it didn't matter how many ... Before the second bomb the Army ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Happy Hiroshima Day
    ... Truman felt in /saving lives/, cite the momentum of the Manhattan ... I'm not disputing that the wanted to use the bombs. ... The Army argued a couple of things, one that we couldn't have a large ... existed to serve and die for the Emporer so it didn't matter how many ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • OT: Elementary, My Dear Ansermetniac!
    ... who promised the land of Palestine to both the Jews and the ... "Harry Truman, the thirty-third president of the United States, was ... August 6, 1945, and the second, a nuclear bomb, detonated over ... of Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder and the man a mass murderer, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT: Elementary, My Dear Ansermetniac!
    ... who promised the land of Palestine to both the Jews and the ... "Harry Truman, the thirty-third president of the United States, was ... August 6, 1945, and the second, a nuclear bomb, detonated over ... of Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder and the man a mass murderer, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: "I looked at it, and it was a B-29!" ....August 6, 1945
    ... Nagasaki, Japan, thereby ending World War II. ... Another interpretation suggests that the use of the atomic bomb had ... J. Samuel Walker's "`prompt & utter destruction': Truman and the Use ... In the end, as Walker documents, five fundamental ...
    (talk.origins)