Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

You go first. Since you have stated 100+ times the Emperor was going to surrender in a few weeks, quote him. Let me see the exact quote.

What I have exactly quoted is the Emperor's surrender broadcast - and the reason he gave: the atom bombs threatened the "extinction of the human race."

No, he did not also say "I was going to surrender anyway in a few weeks."

 

Yes it would have.

 

No. I produced quotes from military experts that knew more about Japanese intelligence than you ever will. You would drop an atomic bomb on anyone for anything. I think you would aim for the childrens hospital if you could

 

You have no understanding of the Russian front. Russia did not have to beat Germany. The Russian winter did.

 

The cold in 1941 was G-d's miracle -- had Germans won the Holocaust would have been much worse.

The Russian People have won the war by their heroism and enormous sacrifice.

 

That is such a simplistic statement as to be worthless. Germany lost because they split their forces, refused to bypass Stalingrad for Hitler's ego, and Hitler has blocked the Germany air force wanting 4 engine long range bombers, allowing Stalin to move much of his industry to the East outside of the German air force. Hitler delaying the invasion also did play a factor due to the Russian winter and there was some bad planning regarding German uniforms.

The Russians were heroic, but that heroism was backed up by Russian firing squads and putting machine guns behind the troops to eliminate any Russian troops who retreated. The battle of Stalingrad more likely motivated by a desire to live given that Stalin had banned the civilians from evacuating than heroism, though certainly there were many acts of heroism. One of the more notable was extreme heroism by Russian women troops who repeatedly refused to retreat even when ordered to, inflicting huge casualties and equipment loses on the German forces - something a lot of military men really don't like to discuss.

Of the many great errors Hitler made, was not allowing Russian nationalists to join first line German forces nor announcing to Ukraine he was freeing them from Stalin and Russia. Had he done the German military likely would have run across Russia as it would have refueled the Russian revolution having Russians fighting Russians and non-Russians under Stalin fighting Stalin's forces too, plus put a million plus Russians on Germany's side.

There are no short one-liners to define nearly anything about WW2, though "the atom bombs caused the Emperor of Japan to surrender" is such a one-liner.

 

All Truman knew was that Japan was still refusing to surrender, and using the A-bombs might help to make them surrender.

Possibly laws against ethnic cleansing.

I am not familiar enough with these events to say.

Probably none. But I'm not an expert in British war actions.

None. We were trying to destroy Japanese war industry.

Depends on the details of the event.

Mistakes?

The A-bombs weren't an atrocity or a crime.

I regret that the entire war happened. It wasn't something that anyone in the US wanted to happen. But it was forced on us anyway.

We had to destroy Japan's war industry.

Japan did not offer to surrender until after both A-bombs had been dropped.

There was a need though to make Japan surrender.

Quite a few lives were lost in the Asian theater.

The A-bombs did not even exist when there was still fighting in the European theater.

At the start the rate was about three per month. But then they were expecting five in November, and then a minimum of seven a month starting in December.

Japan had millions of soldiers waiting to fight to the death when we invaded.

Wrong. The A-bombs were an attempt to make Japan surrender.

Like Okinawa and Iwo Jima were walkovers?

Had the war continued, we would have produced seven more A-bombs by the end of October, another five bombs in November, and then a minimum of seven bombs a month from December on.

It certainly didn't look that way when the bombs were being dropped. All anyone knew was that Japan was still refusing to surrender.

Actually I posted facts.

Wrong. Not one of them advised Truman against using the A-bombs.

Japan surrendered only after both A-bombs had been dropped.

They only said that after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

There was certainly no sign that Japan was near surrender when the A-bombs were dropped.

That is probably why none of these military experts advised Truman against using the A-bombs.

Wrong. Not one of these military experts advised Truman against using the A-bombs.

Not one of these "great minds" advised Truman against using the A-bombs.

Not one of your military experts advised Truman against using the A-bombs.

Truman was quite well informed about the military situation.

Not one of these "great minds" advised waiting a couple weeks before using the A-bombs.

At the time the A-bombs were dropped, no one knew what it would take to make Japan surrender. We just knew that Japan was still refusing to surrender.

How dare those Jews live in their own homeland!

I am quite familiar with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and with the fact that it contains nothing that would have outlawed the A-bombs.

You cannot point to any part of the Fourth Geneva Convention that would have outlawed the A-bombs.

No laws have been written that would have prohibited the use of the A-bombs.

There wasn't any other way of forcing Japan to surrender.

Unfortunately civilians are often accidentally killed in warfare.

Unfortunately it was not enough to make Japan surrender.

I have no such phobia. I am only relaying facts.

I am not aware of anyone doing such a thing. And I've read every post in this thread.

It appears to me that they seek to remain close military allies with us.

I think that Japan still wishes to have trade ties with the US.

Japan did need to surrender. The United States demanded it of them.

It mattered though if Japan refused to surrender, because in that case we would have kept on attacking them.

We'd have mustered enough men to do it.

But we vastly preferred to not have to invade.

 

Great message,Toggle. I predict once again they will ignore everything you say and just repeat one-liners.

 

A curious twist the last quote of Diamond, who claims that "Japan was Impenetrable to invasion forces" - meaning Japan had no reason to surrender - ever. As for Japan's ability to fight, Japan was fighting and nothing short of invasion would stop that. I guess his view was that we would just keep having American ships sunk by Kamikazi planes and sunk by Japanese submarines - as Japan continued to slaughter the Chinese - as his definition of Japan being unable to fight.

But he is correct in that Japan was NEVER going to surrender because they were certain they could not be successfully overrun. The A-bombs made it clear we didn't have to. His messages make the strongest case for using the A-bombs.

 

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamed Operation Ketsugō.[10] This was to be a radical departure from the defense in depth plans used in the invasions of Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000 kamikazes would be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000 Shin'yō suicide boats and the remaining destroyers and submarines—"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"—to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, only 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless.

Japan had held over 10,000 planes in reserve. Stopping Kamikazis traveling hundreds of miles was one thing - even they they were sinking ships. Them coming directly off the mainland at our invasion (or blockaid) was another. Japan was not defeated and had no reason to surrender. What reason did Japan's military leadership have to surrender? Because Japanese commanders wanted to be hung for war crimes?

 

I don't get modern Democrats ideas of WW2 Japan. Today they seem fun loving and peaceful. But then they made war like they taught war. They did not mind losing humans. And those who died being lost, did not mind dying for Japan either. To them, dying was a privilege.

An uncle of mine fought the Japanese on the islands and though he never said, I wager he would not have wanted to be invading Japan. As it was, when Korea war broke out, he was very early there and got killed very quickly.

A lot of people need to pull up maps of Japan and really look them over. They might appreciate the two A bombs much more.

But more than the A bombs Truman dropped on Japan, he really managed to royally screw things up by not dropping two more on the north Koreans. Hit them in Pyongyang and see how they took that.

 

One thing I truly believe. When you fight a snake, cut off the head. Same with military. War is not fun. Hit harder than they can hit you.

Truman truly should have used A bombs in North Korea as MacArthur wanted to. Mac would have saved us decades of problems with the North Koreans. Truman had to have guts. He had to stop feeling sorry for Japan. And he really made a lot of American angry when he fired the General.

 

Truman intentionally omitted a reference to the preservation of the emperor system from the surrender terms, which made it very difficult for Japan to surrender. Without ensuring Hirohito's safety, Japan would not have surrendered easily as it was the single most important condition for peace, according to Truman's diaries. There were also language difficulties and racial animosities between the two nations, which caused miscommunications and hampered peace negotiations. I think Hirohito thought about sacrificing his own life to save the nation after the atomic bombs were dropped.

 

Looking at the map Jake kindly provided, has me thinking of had he not used the A bombs.

Military forces sufficient to defeat Japan would mean invasions in the north island and the rest of the islands. We would have had the Soviets owning some of their islands. Was England and France also wanting a piece? They split up Berlin that way.

Truman's soul can rest in peace. But he truly screwed up in Korea. Look what a mess that country is right now.

 

MacArthur asked for permission to bomb Communist China and use Nationalist Chinese forces from Taiwan against the People's Republic of China. Dragging Communist China into the Korean War was against Truman's policy to keep the conflict in Korea a “limited war” without further escalations. Even though Communist China was not officially a party to the Korean War, it sent tens of thousands of ground troops to North Korea. Truman authorised the transfer of atomic bombs to Guam but he needed to be wary of possible Soviet involvement in Korea as well. For more on the early Cold War:



Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford Nuclear Age Series): Melvyn P. Leffler

 

It was summer of 1950, which put me close to starting the 8th grade so what I recall of the war has a lot to do with the fact that then I delivered a major newspaper so I read the paper daily. Nothing beats delivering papers if you want to keep up to date. I do not get why MacArthur wanted to bomb China since had he used A bombs in 1950 rather than later, it would be hard to see why China would get into that area. Who wants to send troops were A bombs are blowing up? But the border is the Yalu River as memory is telling me so there was a reason why China could stay home and not face A bombs themselves. I thought he wanted to only bomb North Korea. Still Truman had been a Captain in the Army in WW1 and got the idea he knew more than the General did.

 

What? Do you spend your days figuring out what you imagine people are thinking or believe?

 

This is rubbish; Japan had little or no fuel for these mythical attacks, and was reduced to distilling pine roots to produce a next to useless synthetic!
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

 

Absolutely disagree. The use of the bombs were more than just a demonstration which they were but Truman already told Stalin at Potsdam that the US had a terriblely awesome weapon with no details.
The US had to end the war quickly because a prolonged of the war against Japan would only embolden Russia to expect more in land grabs from Japan for their "help". Remember that Soviet.Russia did not help against the war with Japan until Germany was defeated and all the whike the good countries the good allies founghtva two theather war. Russia was no friend to the allies during WWII is was only an opportunistic land grading evil empire headevby the genocidal Stalin. Yes we glad to show them the bomb. Would it have been better if we used Moskov as a demonstration?

 

As I stated yesterday, quite a few lives were lost in Europe during WWII, so if the goal in using the Atomic Bomb, why was not the A-Bomb used in that theater? The German military, die Luftwaffe und die Storm Soldat among other auspices of Die Third Reich were a formidable military force to be reckoned with, as can be attested to through detailed accounts of Normandy, Atlantic, Sicily, Salerno, Cassino, Anzio, Brest, Dragoon, Metz, Nancy, Operation Market Garden, Hurtgen, und Aachen. Let s not forget The Battle of the Bulge, Operation Nordwind, Colmar, Pocket, Ruhr Pocket, Operation Varsity, Spring Offensive, ec. I am going o provide a link so that you can do the math yourself. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_battles_involving_the_United_States
So as I stated yesterday und Today, if loss of life was the main concern, why was not the Atomic Bomb used to stop Die Waffen SS und die Luftwaffe?

some intel:
Pacific War as 106,000 ie 300,000 US troops were killed in the European War. As US troops were basically "only" engaged against the Germans for 2.4 years, that's quite a total.
Overall, US Army Deaths, including USAAF, by theater, and includes KIA, DOW, POW-KIA, POW-DOW, POW-NBD, MIA-DD, and MIA-NBD:

Atlantic Area Theaters:
Africa-Middle East – 1,031
Caribbean & South Atlantic - 38
European – 135,576
Mediterranean – 40,455
TOTAL – 177,100

Pacific Area Theaters:
Alaska Department - 877
China-Burma-India – 2,479
China (Separate) - 227
India-Burma (Separate) – 1,021
Pacific Theater – 50,385
Strategic Air Forces – 2,148
TOTAL – 120,186

Unknown Theater - 146
Enroute to Theater – 490

TOTAL US Army Battle Deaths: 225,618

US Navy deaths from enemy action (using the generalized Army categories):

Atlantic Theaters – 5793
Pacific Theaters – 31,157

Add in 19,733 USMC deaths from enemy action, for all intents and purposes 100% in the Pacific Theater, and you get

Atlantic Theaters: 182,893
Pacific Theaters: 171,076

So no, not a 3:1 ratio.
Source: https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=133371

 

Was it an episode of "accidental" consequence or was it an episode of intentional/deliberate results? I say that it is the latter instead of the former, but that is probably just me.

 

Exactly how did the US betray E. Europe?

The USSR didn't get into the war - Nazi Germany invaded them. Although I think Stalin would have known better than to trust the Nazis. & without the USSR to fight the great bulk of the Nazi military, I don't know that the US could have produced enough material; recruited, trained, armed, transported, deployed enough military fast enough & in sufficient numbers to turn the tide in Europe. The US military estimate was that without the USSR, the US would need to raise 213 divisions (as opposed to the 90 divisions we did raise). We also needed to build/raise a huge Navy (to transport troops, supplies, material, arty, vehicles, fuel, ammo & protect the transports - for ourselves & our allies) & Air force (273-air-group), plus maintain the civilian workforce in order to produce everything for our military & our allies.

If we'd had fission bombs in time for use against Germany, Would we have used them? The only place they massed was on their Eastern Front - would we have used atomics there & laid waste E. Europe, & likely killed/wounded USSR troops & civilians & damaged USSR land for decades? Ordinarily, that would be an act of war in & of itself.

 

To use against Japan? We didn't have it, nor a way to transport it, nor a bomber to drop it from. We had to fight our way across the Pacific to get an airbase close enough to Japan. We had to design & build B-29s - nasty, cantankerous airplanes that were apt to start engine fires & have other mishaps - & make them reliable enough to do the job. As it was, the second atomic strike was a nightmare of near misses.

 

Duh. We did not have the atom bomb until after the war with Germany was over. Using the atom bombs in Japan thus ending the war is why there were less casualties in the Pacific theater.