Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An overlooked A-bomb issue: the wait-a-couple-weeks argument [View all]Bucky
(53,997 posts)8. A list of incorrect statements in this thread so far
from comments:
I have asked why the hypothetical "million casualties" invasion was necessary. I have not received an answer.
This is a well covered topic. The US never estimated they'd indure a million deaths from invading Japan. The high end estimates were horrible--about a quarter million. If the US had failed to invade Japan and fully defeated its armed forces, then the fascist militarist party would have triumphed interally and the so-called "peace party" factions would have been driven from the government. Japan would have spent a generation more or less acting like North Korea does now, biding its time until its militarist elements, considered heroes for having scared off the "cowardly Americans", launched new aggressions. A clear win put the peaceful elements in charge of Japan almost immediately.
You now have your answer.
It {the atomic bombings} was obviously a message to the Soviets
A common revisionist critique that is, unfortunately, not backed up by facts.
The US was in the midst of a war with a determined enemy. Efforts by peace factions within Japan were blocked and frustrated by the dominant (and murder prone) war party. The bombing was clearly and frequently cited by internal councils in the US government as a means to either (1) force Japan to surrender or (2) wipe out concentrations of Japanese military & industrial power to quicken the end of the war. While there is no doubt that Truman and Byrnes were aware of the impression Hiroshima would give to the Soviets, there is exactly one quote from Byrnes about what it would make the Soviets think and literally hundreds of in-context quotes about what the bombs were supposed to drive Japan to do.
I agree though that we could've waited
Waiting would have been disastrous for Japan. Upon hearing at Potsdam that the US had the Bomb, Stalin moved up the calendar for his attack on Japan's forces by two weeks. The Soviet war on Japan was spectacularly successful, despite losing half of their prep time to Stalin's insistance on having a seat at the surrender table. Every delay in forcing the surrender risked giving the Soviets yet bigger concessions than what they already won
from OP:
Most of the defenders of the bombings assume that the bombings shortened the war
People who've studied the history generally recognize that it was the Soviet invasion, not the bombing of Nagasaki, that was the nail in the coffin of the militarist faction.
In early August 1945, the Japanese had drawn some encouragement from the Soviet Unions failure to act against them, even after the end of the war in Europe. They thought that there might be some kind of Asian solidarity against the Western allies, so that the Soviet Union might remain neutral and help to broker a peace agreement. The Japanese government had begun communications with Moscow to explore that possibility.
You're close here. First, your post implies (but doesn't state) that Japan began its negotiations with Moscow in August. They'd been persuing them with Russia since the Spring of 45 actually. The whole time the Soviets were just stringing the Japanese along--a deliberate waste of their diplomatic assets so that the Japanese didn't seek other mediators (like Sweden). The Japanese thought they could buy off the Russians with Manchura, Sakhalin, fishing rights off Hokkaido, the whole ball of wax. By July, before the Potsdam conference, Japan's ambassador to Moscow, Sato, was almost impudently telling his bosses they were wasting their time with Russia. But the Peace Party was as stubborn as the War Party--they truly believed Stalin could be bought off and could force the US to end the war short of unconditional surrender. It was self-delusive. Fascists are prone to that sin.
The Japanese did not have any illusions about Asian solidarity. I don't know where you got that. They always saw Russia as a European power.
{Truman} had an easy and obvious alternative to hold off on the bombing for a few weeks and wait to see what effect the Russian attack would have.
Holding off the bombing was not an easy alternative. If you read Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy, you'll see the very point of rushing the bombs into deployment was to prevent the Soviets from taking part in the surrender of Japan. Truman, during his stay at Potsdam, found out how the Russians had raped and brutalized all the women in the household the American delegation was staying at. The Americans were horrified (and helpless) by Soviet violation of the Yalta agreement in his subjugation of Poland and other European countries. The principal hope of the bomb was to force Japan to surrender before the same "liberation" occurred to too much of Asia.
In fact, one reading of the situation is that a major purpose of the bombing was that American planners wanted the power of the weapon to be graphically demonstrated not to a prostrate Japan, but to the Soviet Union.
Discussed upthread. It's a "reading" that isn't supported by a wide review of primary sources.
They wanted to intimidate Moscow. That goal would not be achieved if the Soviet attack caused Japan to surrender with no need for (excuse for) the dropping of the bomb.
One thread of advice running to Truman, particularly from his scientists, was that the US would not be holding a monopoly on atomic bombs for very long. They may have been thinking 10 years instead of 4, but they were under no delusion that the Soviets could be intimidated for long by atomic power
The real motivation was a fear that Japan WOULD surrender. Planners in Washington didnt wait a few weeks because they wanted to get the bombing done while they still had the chance to kill scores of thousands of people, instead of just dropping it on some uninhabited island.
The underlined statement is an utter fabrication. Based on US "Magic" interceptions of Japanese messages, the Truman Administration knew perfectly well that Japan was not on the cusp of surrender. They knew Japan's main diplomatic efforts, talking to the duplicitous Soviets, were drilling a dry well. It would have made Truman's day if the Japanese surrendered because that would achieve his number one and number two strategic goals--ending the war before the Soviets got in on it.
Read Racing the Enemy. It's an eye opener and a balloon buster on both sides of the debate. Much of it is online right now.
Right here ==> http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&pg=PA7&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
This is a well covered topic. The US never estimated they'd indure a million deaths from invading Japan. The high end estimates were horrible--about a quarter million. If the US had failed to invade Japan and fully defeated its armed forces, then the fascist militarist party would have triumphed interally and the so-called "peace party" factions would have been driven from the government. Japan would have spent a generation more or less acting like North Korea does now, biding its time until its militarist elements, considered heroes for having scared off the "cowardly Americans", launched new aggressions. A clear win put the peaceful elements in charge of Japan almost immediately.
You now have your answer.
A common revisionist critique that is, unfortunately, not backed up by facts.
The US was in the midst of a war with a determined enemy. Efforts by peace factions within Japan were blocked and frustrated by the dominant (and murder prone) war party. The bombing was clearly and frequently cited by internal councils in the US government as a means to either (1) force Japan to surrender or (2) wipe out concentrations of Japanese military & industrial power to quicken the end of the war. While there is no doubt that Truman and Byrnes were aware of the impression Hiroshima would give to the Soviets, there is exactly one quote from Byrnes about what it would make the Soviets think and literally hundreds of in-context quotes about what the bombs were supposed to drive Japan to do.
Waiting would have been disastrous for Japan. Upon hearing at Potsdam that the US had the Bomb, Stalin moved up the calendar for his attack on Japan's forces by two weeks. The Soviet war on Japan was spectacularly successful, despite losing half of their prep time to Stalin's insistance on having a seat at the surrender table. Every delay in forcing the surrender risked giving the Soviets yet bigger concessions than what they already won
from OP:
People who've studied the history generally recognize that it was the Soviet invasion, not the bombing of Nagasaki, that was the nail in the coffin of the militarist faction.
You're close here. First, your post implies (but doesn't state) that Japan began its negotiations with Moscow in August. They'd been persuing them with Russia since the Spring of 45 actually. The whole time the Soviets were just stringing the Japanese along--a deliberate waste of their diplomatic assets so that the Japanese didn't seek other mediators (like Sweden). The Japanese thought they could buy off the Russians with Manchura, Sakhalin, fishing rights off Hokkaido, the whole ball of wax. By July, before the Potsdam conference, Japan's ambassador to Moscow, Sato, was almost impudently telling his bosses they were wasting their time with Russia. But the Peace Party was as stubborn as the War Party--they truly believed Stalin could be bought off and could force the US to end the war short of unconditional surrender. It was self-delusive. Fascists are prone to that sin.
The Japanese did not have any illusions about Asian solidarity. I don't know where you got that. They always saw Russia as a European power.
Holding off the bombing was not an easy alternative. If you read Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy, you'll see the very point of rushing the bombs into deployment was to prevent the Soviets from taking part in the surrender of Japan. Truman, during his stay at Potsdam, found out how the Russians had raped and brutalized all the women in the household the American delegation was staying at. The Americans were horrified (and helpless) by Soviet violation of the Yalta agreement in his subjugation of Poland and other European countries. The principal hope of the bomb was to force Japan to surrender before the same "liberation" occurred to too much of Asia.
Discussed upthread. It's a "reading" that isn't supported by a wide review of primary sources.
One thread of advice running to Truman, particularly from his scientists, was that the US would not be holding a monopoly on atomic bombs for very long. They may have been thinking 10 years instead of 4, but they were under no delusion that the Soviets could be intimidated for long by atomic power
The underlined statement is an utter fabrication. Based on US "Magic" interceptions of Japanese messages, the Truman Administration knew perfectly well that Japan was not on the cusp of surrender. They knew Japan's main diplomatic efforts, talking to the duplicitous Soviets, were drilling a dry well. It would have made Truman's day if the Japanese surrendered because that would achieve his number one and number two strategic goals--ending the war before the Soviets got in on it.
Read Racing the Enemy. It's an eye opener and a balloon buster on both sides of the debate. Much of it is online right now.
Right here ==> http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&pg=PA7&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
heaven forfend that we should discuss possible alternatives in such a horrific event.
niyad
Aug 2013
#3
Rape of Nanking. Heaven forbid that we should discuss possible alternatives in
Nanjing to Seoul
Aug 2013
#14
is it so hard to understand that the possible alternatives discussion reference should have happened
niyad
Aug 2013
#31
The world had gone through WWI and now less than thirty years later was engulfed in another war
Fumesucker
Aug 2013
#9
The targeting documents are dry reading, like most military documents, but are available
ConcernedCanuk
Aug 2013
#60
I appreciate that you're not echoing the tired "save American lives" meme, but....
Jim Lane
Aug 2013
#25
Thanks for responding. I've based my arguments on primary sources, hence contradictions.
Bucky
Aug 2013
#36
I have often wondered what the ramifications of waiting for a Soviet invasion were
Lee-Lee
Aug 2013
#34
Sure, wait the additional time if you know that yet another powerful nation will declare war.
Jim Lane
Aug 2013
#38
Regardless - the indiscriminate slaughter and maiming of tens of thousands with one bomb is amoral
ConcernedCanuk
Aug 2013
#66