It seems to me you have to take into consideration the hatred, desire for revenge, and prejudice, in mens minds back then when considering why we used the bomb, if you are going to be honest about it.
Uncle Frank
:?
To some degree thats true Frank. I think if anything it fed into perceptions that the Japanese were a merciless enemy that would never surrender. The brutal fighting across the pacific, including the Kamikaze fighters reinforced these views. Its the prism that informs alot of these discussions.
At the same time many officials could get pass personal hatred and considered the wider implications of their actions. The fact that
Kyoto, Nara and the Imperial Palace were removed from the strategic bombing lists illustrate this the best. The use of the atom bomb was never taken lightly by Truman or his senior advisors. The new president felt he did not have sufficient information to make a decision, so he had the Interim Committee established to discuss its use. It consisted of a number of senior officials, scientists and the like who were charged with dissecting issues related to the bomb.
So, it was you who said: "The Manchurian invasion could have ended the war on its own."
That is a typo and I apologize for that. It should read "The Manchurian invasion could not have ended the war on its own."
Somebody here recommended to read Wikipedia. If you do, maybe your posts will be less riddled with inaccuracies and misinerpretations.
Wikipedia is a poor source and highly prone to inaccuracies. I don't accept it from students, so why would I accept it here? The problem with wikipedia is that its often an accurate source. For example the article on the use of the bomb relies heavily on the work of Gar Alperovitz, which was later discredited by
Robert Maddox in Hiroshima in history: the myths of revisionism because he altered the meaning of many of his citations in order to prove his point.
By comparison everything I've written here is based on works I've read, including Gar Alperovitz's works. These include:
John Lewis Gaddis:
The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947 (1973 Bancroft Prize Winner)
Melvyn Leffler:
Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War.(Bancroft and Hoover Prize winner)
Michael James Lacey
The Truman Presidency
The Reports of General MacArthur.
Robert James Maddox (ed.)
Hiroshima in history: the myths of revisionism
Gar Alperovitz
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
Robert Joseph Charles Butow
Japan's decision to surrender
As I said, I don't just use wikipedia for a reason.
Fleet Admiral Nimitz said: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of you, in the defeat of Japan." So, it is not my opinion only that the Truman's decision was political and not military. Nimitz thought the same, as I stated earlier.
This is the problem with Wikipedia. I've never seen this quote before, and upon further investigation its
from this website, where its not cited at all. Its also fundamentally at odds with the what Nimitz actually recommended in the spring and summer of 1945.
In February 1945 he recommended the acceleration of the timetable to use the bomb, and then on August 7th asked for a third bomb to be used on Tokyo. So whatever he may have said later, Nimitz was a forceful proponent of the Atomic bomb's use.
Fleet Admiral Lehay said: "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age." I was probably wrong. The ability to speak foreign languages will not help brainwashed American nationalists. They obviously have problems with reading in English too.
Yes, Leahy was against the bomb, but for different reasons. In his book, he suggests as an alternative the United States should continue strategic bombing of Japanese Cities with B-29s and carrying out a naval blockade. This reveals a major contradiction; He suggested to inflict more suffering and death through regular bombing and starvation was better than fewer deaths by a nuclear weapon. Moreover Leahy was against the bomb in general because he feared it would make the navy obsolete. He claimed up until the day the bomb was dropped it would not work.
I don't see any evidence except your opinion. Moreover, you are contradicting yourself. You pointed out that Japanese soldiers would have fought to the end, basically to the suicide. Why did you assume that they would have been scared of the new weapon?
I don't assume anything and its not a contradiction. It was one viewpoint within the Japanese government. During the Cabinet deliberations on surrender, Butow notes that Army Chief of Staff Umezu stated (Butow Pg 161);
Japan's soldiers and sailors were not permitted to surrender, that the penal code of the services prescribed heavy penalties for those who laid down their arms and tat the word "capitulation could not be found in the Japanese military dictionary. This inculcation had gone as far as to advise Japanese soldiers that, in the last extremity when their weapons were useless and they were powerless to fight on, the only honorable outlet was to commit suicide on the spot. In view of this psychological conditioning, Umezu considered it highly unlikely that the men at the various fighting fronts would obey an order to surrender.
This was part of the view held by individuals like Umezu and Army Minister Anami. Even after hearing about the Soviet Invasion, they either rejected calls for surrender or called for a stipulations like the retention of the emperor, internal warcrimes trials and no occupation, which they knew would not be accepted by the allies (Asada in Maddox Pg 33)
Given the atomic bomb and the soviet entry, there is no chance of winning on the basis of mathematical calculation...(but) there will be some chance as long as we keep fighting for the honor of the Yamato race... if we go on like this and surrender, the Yamato race would be good as dead spiritually.
So that refutes your claim that the invasion changed the hardliners minds too. It was only the intervention of the emperor which resulted in them agreeing to unconditional surrender.
They wouldn't.They would have kept fighting and the USA would have had to lose their people and probably dropped a couple of more A-bombs. My evidence is that the USSR was the only diplomatic hope for Japan to stay active in war. When they lost the neutrality of the Soviets, they understood they lost the war.
Actually they were swayed by the Hiroshima bombing. The bombs shifted the balance of power within the government, away from the Umezu and Anami to Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and the Emperor himself. As the emperor said on the 7th (Asada in Maddox Pg 35);
Now that such a new weapon has appeared, it has become less and less possible to continue the war. We must not miss a chance to terminate the war by bargaining [with the allied powers] for more favorable conditions. Besides, however much we consult about [surrender] terms we desire, we shall not be able to come to an agreement. So my wish is to make such arrangements as will end the war as soon as possible.
It was on August 8th that Suzuki decided to endorse unconditional surrender, a day before the invasion and the second strike. It was the force of these opinions, which were strengthened by the Soviet invasion, which led to the end of the war.
You said they would kill, rape, tortur, murder, etc.. as if it was the Soviet only style of "liberation." I told you that you were wrong.
Did I ever claim otherwise? The point was to say that an invasion of Japan by Soviets would cause unbelievable amounts of Japanese casualties as would an American invasion.
I should note There is a qualitiative difference between the two. German occupations were methodical in how they applied violence. The Wehrmacht was a proper army with deep military traditions going back to Prussia. They carried out massacres within their military framework, which was the systematic use of violence. Referring to its European conquests, The Germans sent in special squads after the front line units to "clean up" villages. That meant summary executions and the like.
By comparison the Soviet Army was far less disciplined; there was rarely the systematic use of violence. Rather it was largely done by regular soldiers and officers killing raping and looting at their own interests.