Imagine How Many Lives Would Have Been Saved IF We Had Accepted Japans 1 Condition Earlier?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:57 PM - Edit history (2)

No Okinawa, or Iwo?

No nuclear arms race?

No cold war?

After we ran out of nukes, and the soviets invaded, we finally accepted that 1 condition.

Japan would have continued to fight on if we hadn't.

It was a wise decision, it should have happened earlier though, but politics demanded the SHOCK & AWE.

The Japanese only surrendered when their one condition was met, when we FINALLY accepted their 1 condition, and the Chrysanthemum Throne stands in testament to the wisdom of that decision, as the oldest continuing hereditary monarchy in the world to this very day... too bad we didn't accept it earlier.



On Edit: Some links for further review by those who demand more than 7 decades old pap and propaganda.

What did the Leaders including nearly every single military leaders think about the military neccessity to drop the bombs...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Truman (Via his Dick Cheney Like VP) took out what EVERYONE told him would end the war SOONER from potsdam...

Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. (THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.)

However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. (THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.)

source (very bottom of page)
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Watch this very informative video by 3 respected historians (one of them is linked above) for more details on what was happening then (fast forward to Gar Alperovitz to get right to it) make sure to stick around to the end for the Q&A.

K&R if you would like to pass the word.

Thank you!

[msongs]

1. could've saved even more lives by surrendering after pearl harbor nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

2. I am talking about the end of the war, not the beginning, when Japan was militarily defeated.

[Deep13]

3. The USSR and Stalin weren't going anywhere.

And one of the mistakes of the Allies was not invading Germany and Turkey. This allowed the Germans in particular to believe that they were never actually defeated in war, but that the politicians, socialists and Jews especially, sold them out, creating an appetite for round II. One possibility you fail to consider is a second war with Japan.

[Gregorian]

4. I like you.

My thought has always been that we had these really cool bombs that just had to be tried out. They were so awesome that they wanted to see what they'd do on real people. Not those pigs in mailboxes, and empty buses and houses in the desert.

[Th1onein]

80. You hit the nail on the head.

That's why we didn't bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki in the previous missions; because we wanted to see what damage our bombs would do. Also, notice that the bombs were engineered differently? It was kind of an experiment, you see? Of course, it killed hundreds of thousands of human beings, and even killed our own soldiers who were being held in Hiroshima as POWs, but what the heck, eh?

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if Japan had never invaded China

Millions.

[branford]

16. or if the never bombed Pearl Harbor . . .

[Posteritatis]

17. If they never attacked China they probably wouldn't have attacked the western Allies. (nt)

[branford]

19. I fully agree. "What if" games are just pointless.

[Posteritatis]

20. But what if they weren't?

*ducks and scurries away, dodging thrown objects*

[branford]

21. Oh, I see what you did there . . . :)

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Cold war existed first

We just didn't refer to our Frienimy that way. Only question is Who and Where would the world be shown the horror of atomic weapons.

[Wilms]

7. Interesting question/point. n/t

[nyquil_man]

8. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if Japan hadn't pursued war in the first place.

"What If" is a fun game, innit?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

27. Cop-out

My question has to do with actual history that happened, and where we had two paths to follow... unconditional surrender, or conditional surrender.

We were uncompromising, until the end, when we finally accepted their 1 condition, and the war ended.

But what if we had accepted it sooner?

Imagine how many lives would have been saved.

It is a fair question, especially when folks talk about how many lives the nukes 'saved'

[nyquil_man]

28. Oh, I see. On what date in history may we begin to engage in speculation? nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. Cop-out

[nyquil_man]

32. Okay, I'll play.

Suppose we had accepted their condition for surrender.

Would that mean that the firebombing of Japan, which resulted in as many as 900,000 casualties, was perfectly kosher?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

39. It would have saved lives.

And that would not negate the fact that the firebombing of Japan was a war crime.

But, if we could have come to terms of surrender before than 3/9/1945, it would have saved even more lives.

[nyquil_man]

42. Yet you call the notion of never pursuing war in the first place a cop-out.

Imagine all those millions of lives that would have been spared had the war never happened at all.

I hold that war, in general, is insanity. You seem to hold that war is insane only if one side has cried uncle.

War crime? War itself is a crime against humanity.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

60. It is a cop-out when considering the OP

Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.

[nyquil_man]

65. Your OP is speculation.

I'm sorry you object to my speculation.

If you only care about saving lives when it suits your point, please say so plainly.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

66. No, it's not. We let Japan keep their emperor, and it ended the war.

Otherwise Japan would have continued fighting, just like the germans.

Anyone who thinks otherwise does not really know Japanese history, nor their fighting during wwII.

[nyquil_man]

71. "Imagine if" is speculation.

Imagine if the sky were green. Imagine if pigs could fly.

Do you lack the imagination to consider a scenario in which the misery that is war had never happened in the first place?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

107. That is a

Cop-out

[Renew Deal]

101. The fact that your argument has been proven to be ridiculous is not a cop out.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

102. Please explain how?

I have provided ample examples of what the leaders at the time thought, while the critics provide nothing.

You can start by explaining what two key paragraphs were removed from Potsdam.

1. The Russians are coming
2. We will not harm the emperor.

That, in my mind could be argued to have prolonged the war, and cost American lives.

[geek tragedy]

9. Japan never offered to surrender with that one term prior to Nagasaki. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

10. Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamati

Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. (THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.)

However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. (THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.)

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

[geek tragedy]

11. The military almost overthrew the Emperor after he decided to surrender.

So, no, that was not the single dispositive factor.

There was no consensus inside the Japanese government at any time.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

13. a few die hards FAILED. Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a s

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).

The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.

[geek tragedy]

14. Togo was one of two civilians on the war council. He did not speak for the military. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

23. Which has nothing to do with the fact that Japan surrendered once their 1 condition was met.

[Agschmid]

40. And....

I don't think you can play armchair general and say that one condition made it happen... There are so many other factors involved here.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

41. I think only someone not familiar with Japanese history and WWII would not think it important

My main point is that nuking a defeated nation, ready to surrender, was a terrorist act of epic proportions.

[Agschmid]

43. I did NOT say it was not important...

I said I think it's not reasonable to point to one thing and say that is the reason...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

54. I think it was the main reason

[sarisataka]

33. Point of correction

they were not trying to overthrow the Emperor, that would be anathema to all Japanese values and system of government.

There is a notable history of military leaders taking the Emperor in as a guest and trying to change his mind on a subject. Since the Emperor never directly speaks to the people, no Emperor has ever contradicted a leader's proclamation of the Emperor's wishes

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

127. good point

the institution of Emperor has largely been ceremonial in Japan when it comes to politics for at least 2 hundred years.

[Igel]

12. What a strange post.

1. The offer of surrender wasn't made. A cable was sent to the USSR asking if they'd be intermediaries. No terms were offered to the US so there was nothing to accept.

2. We had a demand--unconditional surrender. There's a good chance that if they'd come back with a "our only condition is the Emperor" it would have been accepted. But nobody knows, really. Unless Truman, right after the decision, had said, "Gee, if only they'd surrendered with that one condition years ago." If he said it, nobody knows about it.

3. The Potsdam Declaration is really rather pointless here and seeks to blame the US by holding Japan to be a passive observer. "Oh, well, they say they want unconditional, that means we can't ever offer a conditional surrender." Yet that's precisely what they did. What, it just didn't dawn on them for a while that maybe the Potsdam Declaration wasn't the law of the Medes and Persians?

On the other hand, the increased intensity of fighting as the US got to the main islands; the preparations made for continuing the war; not only the disbelief but the unimportance of what happened to Hiroshima all lead to the conclusion that Japan was going to fight with the hope of defending their home and protecting their hour until they realized that (1) they'd certainly lose and (2) they'd lose in a very painful, honorless way. It is dishonorable to yield to an adversary that is more powerful than you but which you have a chance of winning. It is much less dishonorable to yield, after at least pro forma resistance, to an adversary that can easily crush you. The bomb was a game changer. Face is a game.

[geek tragedy]

15. +1000 nt

[branford]

18. +1

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "A

Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).

The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. [THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.]

However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. [THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.]

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

[Posteritatis]

25. Pretty much that, yeah.

People also like proclaiming how obvious things had to have been back then with our benefit of generations of hindsight.

The Battle of Okinawa ended only four days before the Trinity test. Considering that taking that fairly small island cost something on the order of a third to a half million soldiers and civilians killed and wounded, it's pretty understandable that the Allied planners just might have been doubtful as to whether Japan was as on the ropes as people think now.

(At least people are pushing the war-guilt stuff up to near the end this year; I remember threads in previous years fretting that everything after Midway was unnecessary. WTF, people.)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

29. nonsense

I am using quotes from the men who were there, not hindsight.

Though with hindsight, it should be even more obvious that they were not militarily necessary to end the war.

[Posteritatis]

35. Ooh, quotes. Anyone can cherrypick. (nt)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. Better than no quotes, nor any historical references

[dbackjon]

122. [phone]

[DCBob]

24. Japan was not in a position to set any conditions on surrender.

I would have not have trusted them anyway. Who knows.. they could have been stalling for time to make another sneak attack.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

26. All wars up till that time have been concluded by negotiated terms of surrender

And when we finally accepted their one condition, the war ended, and the occupation took place without any major disruption.

We should have accepted their 1 condition earlier.

[DCBob]

31. And once the bombs were dropped we could be sure they would show up to surrender..

otherwise Tokyo would have been next.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. you just revealed your total ignorance on this matter

[DCBob]

37. True ignorance is assuming an enemy like Japan could be trusted unless they were totally decimated.

Take your mindless insults elsewhere. I am done with this thread.

[Nevernose]

44. Tokyo was virtually gone by August 1945

The series of firebombings we launched against them probably did more damage and killed more people than Horoshima or Nagasaki, and quite possibly more than both combined. In fact, the bombing of Tokyo was the first time that the Japanese seriously considered surrendering.

[DCBob]

47. The Imperial Palace was still standing.

[Kaleva]

76. Some but not all

Neither side "surrendered" at the conclusion of the War of 1812 nor did the CSA formerly surrender at the end of the Civil War.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

77. that does not negate the point

[Kaleva]

82. There were 4 conditions

The "doves" on the Japanese Supreme War Council advocated holding out for the one condition you mentioned but the "hawks" argued for an additional three which were:

No military occupation the the Japanese home islands, Korea or Formosa
demobilization and disarmament left to Japanese Imperial General Headquarters
Japanese government to be responsible for punishment of war criminals

It's been argued that it was the Soviet declaration of war on Imperial Japan was what convinced the military diehards on the council that continuation of the war was pointless.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. True, but I think the most important was the maintenance of the Throne

which was the ONLY condition they got, and which was enough for them to surrender.

However, I am not dismissing the invasion of the soviets, but to think that it was the nuking of Japan which prompted their surrender is to ignore a great deal of history, not to mention the fact that the imperial family survives to this very day.

[Kaleva]

90. I agree that the maintenance of the throne was by far the most important

Edit: The war very likely would have ended months before it did had the Allies compromised and accepted the 4 conditions but that most likely would have been a political impossibility.

[yellowcanine]

110. Really? How much "negotiating" did Hitler do? Or Lee at Appomattox?

It is flawed logic in any case. Each war has it's own reality. You can't possibly draw these kinds of lessons from one war to another.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

112. The norm until that time was to negotiate terms of surrender

It is a very important point since that was a major change and most likely prolonged the war in the pacific at least, and therefor cost more lives.

[NCTraveler]

115. "All wars up till that time have been concluded by negotiated terms of surrender"

Misses the mark of accuracy by a long shot.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

116. Not at all, that was the norm

[Vattel]

38. The nuclear bombings of H and N

and the conventional bombings of Tokyo and other cities were mass murder plain and simple. Attempts to rationalize them are not even slightly plausible.

[COLGATE4]

109. Well, with that brilliant factual exposition

you've certainly convinced me!

[Vattel]

124. I know, but I get tired of arguing the point.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

125. I hear ya, and I appreciate the statement

BTW: I added some links to my OP to lift that burden somewhat.

[hrmjustin]

45. Imagine if they did not attack us in the first place how many lives would have been saved.

[WinkyDink]

46. I don't know. What IF the US hadn't entered WWII? I think millions MORE would have died in camps.

[hrmjustin]

48. The moral of the story is it is easy now to say we should have done this or that but we were not

there to make these choices. Yes they were horrible choices and should never be done again. But the fact is the Allies believed the Japanese would continue to fight and they had good reason to believe that. Many atrocities where done on both sides. War is evil. Total war is evil.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

49. Cop-out

[hrmjustin]

50. Well it is tru if they did not attack us lives would have been saved.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

51. still a cop-out on the topic of this OP

[hrmjustin]

52. What was the one condition that you speak of?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

53. The Chrysanthemum Throne

[hrmjustin]

55. The Japanese also asked for the ability to prosecute their own war criminals, disarm themselves,..

and not occupation of Japan by the allies. None of which was ever going to happen.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

56. Yet, the Chrysanthemum Throne remains to this very day

[hrmjustin]

57. So? They got to keep the throne. Was the throne worth all the death they caused?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

58. That is my question in the OP

[hrmjustin]

59. NO it was not worth the war they started.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

61. Cop-out

BTW: It could be argued that the U.S. started it with their oil embargo. Just as we would claim if someone were to do it to us.

[hrmjustin]

62. First how is that a cop-out? Second the Japanese were the one who attacked us.

They started it. Remember they invaded several nations before they attacked us. They were controlled by warlike leaders.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

63. It ducks the question of the OP.

The Japanese were using the same excuses of all the colonial battles in asia that came before from the west.

They had their interest in asia, as did the west before and since.

I do not support any of the colonial excuses but I will not fail to notice our own sins.

[hrmjustin]

64. I am not saying we do not have sins but we did not deserve Pearl Harbor.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

67. Pearl Harbor was a military base, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities.

They did not deserve that.

[hrmjustin]

68. Are you saying Pearl Harbor was ok?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

69. I'm saying that the U.S. engaged in an act of war against Japan

and Japan responded militarily against a military target.

[hrmjustin]

70. So you think we deserved it. Just come out and say it.

Were there no military bases in the cities we hit with the bomb?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

72. Stop projecting

[hrmjustin]

73. Stop being cryptic.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

74. We know you feel that the Japanese deserved it, while I said no such thing

Is that clear enough?

[hrmjustin]

75. I don't feel they deserved it. War is evil. I just think we should be honest about the historical

context. War is evil as is total war. I have lost relatives in war so I know what it means to loose someone you love.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

78. Than you more than others should be for ending it sooner

And that is what the OP is about.

[hrmjustin]

81. Yes but it was never going to happen. Listen I am sorry I made an assumption about your

views. I should not have done that. The reality is the US wanted unconditional surrender and they had good reasons for that. But more people died because of it. That is a sin. War is evil no matter what it is about. People die because politicians can't agree. Both sides did crappy things. Those bombs are a stain on this country forever. It can not be wiped clean, nor should it be.

We should remember the historical context and the realities that were facing the men that lead this country. We should never hide our sins.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

83. Thank you for your thoughful reply

I appreciate it.

[hrmjustin]

84. Your welcome. I am sorry it took it so long to happen.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

86. I'm glad we could carry on until we both respected each others point of view

I have family in both Japan and the U.S. so this is a sensitive topic for me, as I know it is for most Americans, I just really wish we could come to terms with our sins, in the sincerest hope that they would not be repeated.

I also wish for Japan to come to terms with her sins of that horrid period, and to publicly renounce them in such a way as that they would be heard and respected throughout Asia.

Japan has come a long way since wwII, and has walked the path of peace, which she and all her citizens should be rightfully proud, and they should hold up that tradition in a full throated rejection of her military and barbarous behavior during wwII.

peace hrmjustin

[hrmjustin]

87. Yes we need to make peace with our sins.

Peace to you usGovOwesUs3Trillion, my friend.

[edbermac]

88. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities" Not really.

They were just as much 'military bases' as Pearl Harbor. The primary purpose of dropping the bombs was to cripple Japan's war machine, not to just kill civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army which commanded the defense of all southern Japan.[66] Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army was headquartered in the Hiroshima Castle and his command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected.[67] Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 5th Division, 59th Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[68] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns of the IJA 3rd AAA Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd AA Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate AA Battalions.[69] In total, over 40,000 military personnel were stationed in the city.[70]"

"Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military but it also had large depots of military supplies and was a key center for shipping.[71] The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb."

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."

Also the prime target of the Fat Man bomb was not Nagasaki, but Kokura, which had a large arsenal used by the Japanese army.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

89. That's just plain ludicrous to compare a whole city to a military base.

[edbermac]

91. No, it was just plain ludicrous of Japan to turn down the Potsdam Declaration.

They had a chance to end the war and said no.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

92. Please, educate yourself (LINK)

Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. (THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.)

However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. (THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.)

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

[edbermac]

96. Who is Doug Long? And what makes him the expert on Hiroshima?

And again, they had a chance for peace and turned it down.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

97. It is professor Gar Alperovitz work

http://www.garalperovitz.com/about-gar

Please, read it first before commenting.

[edbermac]

98. Looked him up in wiki

Criticisms
"Alperovitz's writings criticizing the decision by U.S. President Harry S Truman to use the atomic bomb against Japan have been characterized as revisionist by several historians, including Robert James Maddox, Professor Emeritus of History at the Pennsylvania State University. Maddox has criticized Alperovitz for "his unscholarly use of ellipsis" and other alleged misrepresentation of sources. Maddox also accuses Alperovitz of cherry-picking his sources, ignoring those that undermine his thesis."

However I will read this when I can.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

99. Everyone has their critics, but his book on the matter is widely respected (VIDEO)

I highly recommend this video, too...

Doctor Atomic: Wartime Decisions and the Atomic Age

[AZ Progressive]

79. The U.S. demanded them to immediately and easily accept the humiliation

Reminds me of some police, if you don't do as their told immediately they will get extremely aggressive at you, they demand total obedience and subordination.

[Rex]

93. Imagine if they would have invaded Australia first.

or embedded themselves in China or worked out a deal with the Chinese. They got to pick which way they entered the war and it was a surprise attack from the air on Pearl Harbor. The outcome might have been completely different, but that is why they call it history.

[spanone]

94. and the purpose of imagining about the past is........?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

95. To prevent the same mistake being repeated

of course

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

100. *** I highly recommend this VIDEO on the subject as well

Doctor Atomic: Wartime Decisions and the Atomic Age

[hughee99]

103. Was that their "one and only condition" before dropping the bombs,

or was it a mere pretext for their military to continue the war rather than surrendering? After the two bombings, is it possible they dropped any other conditions they may have had? I haven't seen any reports suggesting that their leadership had agreed to end the war with that one condition prior to the bombings, but maybe I missed something.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

104. See posts on Potsdam and watch the video

Everyone believed with the threat of a soviet invasion, and assurance in regard to their emporer Japan would have surrendered.

That is not revisionist history, that is the opinions of the men who were there.

[Niceguy1]

105. what if games are fun

Especially decades after with totally different data availalabe to the decision makers at the time.

Second guessing is silly after so long.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

106. They are a learning tool

Why not participate.

[yellowcanine]

108. I think the premise is flawed. And no cold war? How do you get there?

I don't see how anyone can say now what kind of negotiating was going on and what the Japanese would have accepted. At best it is speculation, at worst, revisionist history. Falls into the same category as speculation about how Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War. If he had not defended Fort Sumter, blockaded the Confederacy, raised an army and invaded Virginia, etc. etc.

No cold war? This is patently absurd. The cold war was based far more on what was going on in Europe - particularly divided Germany and Eastern Europe - than what happened with Japan, at least initially.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

111. There are plenty of historical documents, and quotes

That make the case that Japan would probably have surrendered without the nukes, which is really not in debate.

Please review the links and video.

The Cold War is considered to have started on August 6th when we dropped the first nuke, but it really could be argued that it started at trinity when it caused Truman to use it as a big diplomatic stick (documented as well)

Russia went from ally to immediately feeling threatened.

[yellowcanine]

117. "...Japan would probably have surrendered without the nukes, which is really not in debate."

Obviously it is in debate.

"The Cold War is considered to have started on August 6....."

Again, that is an assertion. Considered by whom? Where is your proof that this is the general consensus of historians?

Certainly there are those who will argue about the effect of use of the atomic bomb on U.S./Soviet relations but the main problem for the Soviets was that the U.S. had the bomb and the Soviets did not, not that the U.S. used it. And there were plenty of other issues which played into the Cold War. The origins of the Cold War go back to the Russian Revolution when the U.S. and other western allies materially supported the White Army against the Red Army. Other events which played in were the Soviet-German pact on the eve of WWII and the Soviet exploitation of outbreak of war in 1939 in Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, the perception of Stalin that the Western Allies delayed the Normandy invasion until 1944 in order to weaken the Soviet Union after the war, the Atlantic Charter (which ironically created almost as many problems for Britain, France and the Netherlands as the Soviets, with its clause of self determination for all peoples), disagreement over Eastern Europe and the subsequent Soviet occupation of same, abandonment of the Morgenthau Plan, which would have left Germany as an agricultural state with virtually no military capability, in favor of the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt West Germany as a modern industrial state with a modern military. In short, the Cold War was a product of a perfect storm of historical events and probably inevitable, given the emergence of the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the two major super powers at the end of WWII.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

119. Not among the leaders who were there

Nor among most historians.

As far as the bomb goes it was used by Truman in leu of diplomacy with Russians and is also well documented.

I recommend you watch the video linked at the bottom of this thread that has 3 highly regarded historians discussing the main issues.

[yellowcanine]

118. This is rich also: "Please review the links and video."

You posted nothing to back up your claims in the OP. It was only afterward that you went looking for links to back up your claims. So we are supposed to search through your many arguments to find your supporting material which I greatly doubt is on par with actual historical research of which there exist thousands of volumes on WWII and the Cold War?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

120. I will add the links to the OP

Thanks for pointing out the oversight.

I am very familiar with the material though as I have spent a lot of time reading up on it as I have family in both Japan and the US.

[Savannahmann]

113. Sorry to bust your bubble.

But the conditions were not just that they keep the Emperor.

http://www.doug-long.com/anami.htm

The actual conditions were.....

Retention of the emperor (upon which all Japanese leaders agreed, since they considered the emperor to be a god)


• No Allied occupation of the Japanese mainland


• Japan would disarm itself


• Japan would try its own war criminals

Would you have accepted those conditions? That by the way was the position of the Japanese Prime Minister General Anami. That could hardly be considered the opinion of a low ranking person with no authority.

In fact, as War Minister which was the other title he held, he had ordered the arrest of those who even discussed peace.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

114. The historical facts are that they only surrendered when

They were allowed to keep their emperor, right after Russia invaded, two points that we're in the original Potsdam papers but we're removed after the trinity test.

The real question stands, how many lives would have been saved if we hadn't waited for the bombs.

In the immoral stain is permanent of nuking a defeated nation, TWICE.

[dbackjon]

121. Revisionist history that has no basis in reality

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

123. 0 Content post. May I add some substance to it...

Some links for further review by those who demand more than 7 decades old pap and propaganda.

What did the Leaders including nearly every single military leaders think about the military neccessity to drop the bombs...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Truman (Via his Dick Cheney Like VP) took out what EVERYONE told him would end the war SOONER from potsdam...

Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. (THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.)

However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. (THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.)

source (very bottom of page)
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Watch this very informative video by 3 respected historians (one of them is linked above) for more details on what was happening then (fast forward to Gar Alperovitz to get right to it) make sure to stick around to the end for the Q&A.
Doctor Atomic: Wartime Decisions and the Atomic Age

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

126. Updated the OP added links and video

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

128. Kick for Nagasaki

Never forget.

peace

[Hekate]

129. Another one?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

130. How many?

[Rex]

132. Sadly yes.

Another one.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

131. Excellent NHK Documentary on Atomic Bomb Survivers NOW

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/