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

We could have continued up from the "soft underbelly of Europe into Eastern Europe and reached Berlin long before the Russians, thus cutting off the Russia capturing and enslaving Eastern Europe - as Churchill vehemently urged. FDR was becoming ill and had pro-Russian, anti-British advisors, so agreed to give Eastern Europe to Russia.
All the broadcasts we made for freedom fighters to engage in actions against the Germans for liberation were all a known lie. They were not fighting for liberation from Germany. They were fighting to be enslaved by Russia - only they didn't know it. If they had known the truth they likely would have fought with Germany rather than against Germany. It was a horrific betrayal - and a deliberate one as FDR had made the deal to give Eastern Europe to Stalin.
Why would we drop atom bombs on Russia? That doesn't even make sense.
If we had atom bombs we should have done as we did in Japan - bomb German industrial cities threatening total obliteration if Germany did not surrender. Exact same strategy. Japan had not massed their troops in specific locations within Japan either.

 

Hitler's entire political program was aimed @ the German & European Jewish population - they were essentially declared nonpersons in the 1930s. & he wouldn't have used them even if they'd offered - @ least, not as scientists. The Nazi atomic program stalled - they misestimated the amount of uranium needed for a critical mass. & the V-2 could only carry a payload of 2,200 pounds - the US bombs (Little Boy @ 9,700#, Fat Man @ 13,300#) were far too heavy (see Wikipedia under the weapon names for specs).

The V-2 was a tactical weapon anyway, it didn't have the range. Germany might have developed something with more legs & payload, but they waited too long to pursue it - along with tinkering with jet engines, & they never did build a long-range heavy bomber, either.

 

I often point out that the Democratic Party now is essentially the diametric opposite of the former Democratic Party. You see that on this thread.

Who used to be heroes of the Democratic Party - Presidents FDR and Truman - are now defined by most of the extreme partisan Democrats on the forum as incompetent sadistic mass murderers, as dropping the atom bomb on Japan initially was FDR's plan, then Truman'ss. According to those Democrats on this forum, they were 2 of the most evil American presidents to ever exist - literally deliberate mass murderers. THAT is how much the Democratic Party and their minions has changed.

 

The atomic bomb was not available. VE day is May 8, 1945. The first atom bomb test in Alamagordo NM was on 7/16/45. VJ day is August 14, 1945.

 

Taking European Russia, expelling or killing the inhabitants, & turning it into a German breadbasket (& resource base) was the other half of Hitler's political program. Without that, he'd be someone else. In other words, he couldn't invade the USSR & then accept Soviets as volunteers - the entire fairytale was that the Aryans deserved everything they took, & that no one else mattered - or was even human - @ all.

 

Fortuitously Hitler had his head up his a$$ as a military strategist and commander.

 

Just fer clarity -- yer spot on. The krauts had the A-Series multi-stage rockets in planning stages for attacks on the US, but never had enough time.

 

Churchill went back & forth on Overlord - FDR finally had to whip him into line. Read

Commander in chief : FDR's battle with Churchill, 1943 / Nigel Hamilton, c2016, Houghton Miflin Harcourt, 940.532 HAMI.

Summary

• "Nigel Hamilton's Mantle of Command drew on years of archival research and interviews to portray FDR in a tight close up, as he determined Allied strategy in the crucial initial phases of World War II. Commander in Chief reveals the astonishing sequel--suppressed by Winston Churchill in his memoirs--of Roosevelt's battles with Churchill to maintain that strategy. Roosevelt knew that the Allies should take Sicily but avoid a wider battle in southern Europe, building experience but saving strength to invade France in early 1944. Churchill seemed to agree at Casablanca--only to undermine his own generals and the Allied command, testing Roosevelt's patience to the limit. Churchill was afraid of the invasion planned for Normandy, and pushed instead for disastrous fighting in Italy, thereby almost losing the war for the Allies. In a dramatic showdown, FDR finally set the ultimate course for victory by making the ultimate threat. Commander in Chief shows FDR in top form at a crucial time in the modern history of the West."-- Publisher description.

Length xv, 464 pages, 16 unnumbered pages of plates : index

(My emphasis)

FDR died in harness - as did many managers during WWII. Churchill survived the war, & wrote to "bury his mistakes", as he said. & he did. Plus he was a journalist by training, he wrote well, he spoke well, & somehow (in his voluminous writing & orating, @ least) he was always right, far-seeing, noble, generous, loved his mom & never kicked his dog. & besides, Churchill had a lot of time on his hands, having finally blown up all his bridges, whether on them or before them. A brilliant book.

 

Trinity Site is near Alamogordo, true enough - 77 miles, as the crow flies. & we did once have an Atomic Bar & Grill (didn't everybody in the US, @ one time?) But still, let this cup pass ...

 

Ahem, do not take my word for it, read this from Stars & Stripes: https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...out-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300#.WN1aAdIrKJA It is known that Nippon would have surrendered before the use of the two Atomic Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, just as I stated yesterday and earlier today, so I ask the question, why were Atomic Weapons used against Nippon?

 

We should have continued up thru Italy. Churchill was correct.

Reportedly at one point British agents dressed as SS penetrated the "Wolf's Lair" when Hitler was there, but were to ignore the order to assassinate him (sniper action) because they wanted him to remain in control of the German military rather than German commanders.

 

That is not what the article says at all. The articles says that SOME believe Japan would have surrendered by the end of 1945 - maybe. The atomic bomb was first dropped in August. SO... the claim is we should have just let Japan keep killing Americans, POWs, Chinese and building up its weapons and forces in September, October, November and December - while waiting to see if Japan actually did surrender. THAT IS ABSURD.

Your message is nonsense anyway on its face. You said "Nippon would have surrendered before the use of the two Atom Bombs." IN FACT, Japan did NOT surrender before the use of the two atomic bombs.

This is actually very simple. The Japanese were still sinking American ships, still killing POWs, still Kamikazi attacking our ships, still massively killing Chinese. Still building advanced weapons, including pursuing the atom bomb, jet aircraft and more. We dropped 2 bombs that killed less than the firebombings - and the war and all the killing stopped everywhere.

I suspect the REAL reason some opposing us having dropped the bombs is they wanted tens of millions of Japanese killed in a horrifically costly invasion - while wanting Russia to take control of China and Northern Japan. Of course they can't say that, so instead they pretend it is crying for the Japanese, when those two bombs saved tens of millions of Japanese lives, plus avoided another million+ Chinese killed and avoided a million American casualties.

Just think of all the great war movies those armchair warriors could watch if we had fought and slaughtered our way across Japan?

 

How did the Japanese feel about it afterward?

"Mitsuo Fuchida, the pilot who guided the first wave of Japanese planes in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, met Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, who had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. He told Paul, “You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude of that time, how fanatic they were. They’d die for the Emperor. Every man woman and child would resist the invasion with sticks and stones if necessary.”

https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Japanese-feel-the-atomic-bombs-saved-lives

 

I don't know. Must have been a hard call to make, I imagine. I wouldn't want to be in such a situation where I had to make that decision. I'm sure the results (or at least for anyone who witnessed them first hand) would be enough to torment the most hard of hearts, regardless if it was the "right" decision to make or not? Anyways, it happened and it's too bad it had to end that way.

 

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave Japanese leaders the excuse they needed to take the absolutely unthinkable action of surrendering. Indeed, the atomic bombings figured prominently in Emperor Hirohito’s unprecedented speech to the nation announcing Japan’s surrender. “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization,” the Emperor told a stunned Japanese nation (stunned partly because they had never heard the Emperor speak and partly because they couldn’t believe Japan was surrendering.)

Without the atomic excuse, Japan’s leaders would have ordered that the military continue to fight despite the Soviet’s declaration of war against Tokyo. The fighting that would have ensued before they surrendered would have resulted in far more deaths than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. After all, given the amount of deaths Japan had endured during the war, the leaders could not have surrendered after only 200,000 soldiers were killed.

Moreover, the fighting would have resulted in the Soviet Union conquering and occupying parts of Japan. This is problematic for at least two reasons. First, after WWII ended, millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians were scattered all across Asia. The unlucky 600,000 Japanese POWs taken by the Soviets suffered horrendously, being interned in labor camps where they died at an appalling rate (roughly 10 percent by some estimates). Had the Soviet Union conquered portions of Japan, it’s likely that the residents in those areas would have suffered similar fates.

Secondly, allowing the Soviet invasion to proceed would have likely resulted in a divided Japan, with part of the country living under Moscow rule and the rest occupied by the United States. This might have eventually been resolved peacefully in the mold of Germany. However, even the German case resulted in many tense standoffs between nuclear-armed superpowers. Having a second Berlin during the Cold War would hardly have been conducive to peace. On the other hand, a divided Japan could have gone the way of Korea and Vietnam where brutal wars followed their divisions, killing millions in the process. In the case of Korea, between 1.1 and 1.5 million people died during the war and yet the nation remains divided and still technically at war. North Koreans continue to suffer under a backwards and horribly oppressive regime.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved the most lives by demonstrating to the world the horrors of atomic warfare.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/how-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-saved-millions-of-lives/

 

The Japanese cabinet was still deadlocked and incapable of deciding upon a course of action is telling both of the power of the Army and naval factions in the cabinet, and of their unwillingness to even consider surrender. Even following the personal intervention of the emperor to break the deadlock in favour of surrender, there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender and take the Emperor into 'protective custody'. Once these coup attempts had failed, senior leaders of the air force and Navy ordered bombing and kamikaze raids on the U.S. fleet (in which some Japanese generals personally participated) to try to derail any possibility of peace. It is clear from these accounts that while many in the civilian government knew the war could not be won, the power of the military in the Japanese government kept surrender from even being considered as a real option prior to the two atomic bombs.

 

The speech the pro-Japanese Democrats on this thread claim President Truman should have made to the American people:

"To avoid needless Japanese civilian deaths, I have decided that I will allow the Japanese Empire to continue attacking and killing Americans, the British and our other allies, to continue to kill Chinese civilians, and to rebuild and modernize their military industry for the next months until the end of the year. It is my hope that by ceasing to counter-attack, Japan will then surrender and some people think Japan will surrender and their military leadership voluntarily submit to be put on trial for war crimes and hung. In the meantime, we will no longer be killing Japanese people because it is wrong.
I believe if we stop fighting then Japan will surrender - eventually - probably with a few months around the end of the year.
As a foreign policy decision, I have agreed that Russia may occupy Northern China and to the partition of Japan between Russia and us like we are currently doing in Germany. Russian will have Northern Japan and the Northern half of Tokyo and will we have the Southern half of Japan and Tokyo.
Remember, most Japanese are good people and we can not blame all the Japanese people for what their country, government and military does. We dare not attack any Japanese war industry factories, military bases or other facilities anymore because there are innocent Japanese civilians working in those factories. Our country has engages in mass atrocities and mass murder war crimes against the Japan, for which I am the only finally to blame, and we will commit no more atrocities against the Japanese people.
I am made this decision learning that we now have a way to force Japan to surrender by devastating attacks with a new weapon that can kill Japanese almost as much as our firebombings have. We must not used this weapon to quickly end the war because Japanese civilians will be killed.
It also is important to remember that the Japanese are killing less Americans, allies and civilians than they were before and the level of American, allies and non-Japanese civilians being killed by the Japanese is loses acceptable to me as an ethical decision, since the only alternatives might harm Japanese civilians."

 

Here is what Admiral Leahy said 7 WEEKS BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED

Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

 

I hadn't heard that but it is very scary to think about the even greater damage that Germany/Italy/Soviet Union/Japan could have done to the democratic countries of the world if Hitler would have made rational decisions about the strategy and weapon development in WWII.

 

So what - the Emperor would not surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Why would anyone believe that the Emperor would surrender after Okinawa fell ??

 

Well the military experts of the time did. They are quoted as saying so. The emperor wanted one thing....and we gave him that very thing. We could have just given it to him and not dropped the bombs and the war was over. But Truman WANTED to drop the bombs to show russia who is boss.

 

Churchill kept gaming the system, trying to flood the US/UK Allied military/political command to have the Allies cut across the Mediterranean, simultaneously securing comms to India (a big deal for UK), & avoiding British & Commonwealth casualties. Churchill had agreed to a Normandy invasion ASAP, to relieve pressure on the USSR, but was worried that Normandy would be another Dieppe, or Dunkirk fiasco, & that UK couldn't take another hit like that.

He hoped that somehow the USSR & Nazis would beat each other to death, & that the Western Allies could then simply walk in & mop up, & call it a victory. FDR knew better - if the Allies never put boots on the ground in Europe & got skin in the game, Stalin would have no reason to show any restraint whatsoever.

The fate of E. Europe was sealed when Soviet forces rolled over the Nazis. Short of an all-out war against the USSR @ the end of WWII (& there was no support for that), there would be no displacing the Soviets from lands they had conquered from the Nazis. Churchill was good @ politics, terrible @ strategy. He was given to fits of enthusiasm for military adventures - but in WWII, we - the Allies - needed a steady hand @ the strategic level, & incremental production & improvement in execution in the field, especially the US & other newly raised forces across the Alliance.

 

The experts at the time knew the Japanese military would never surrender as the Japanese military never did and they knew they would be put on trial for war crimes - and it known the military had repeatedly tried to arrest the Emperor in a total military take over. I already cited that, which of course you ignored and instead just keep spamming the same false claim.

When the Japanese military successfully arrested the emperor no surrender would have ever been possible. After the 2nd atom bomb the Emperor made a desperate radio broadcast of surrendering - stating the atom bombs were going to literally kill 100% of all Japanese people - hoping this would prevent the military defying him fearing a popular uprising. The days left for the Emperor to have any say whatsoever were very limited.

Again, I cited that the Japanese military was pursuing a military coup against the emperor and repeatedly trying. The Emperor was basically fortified in his palace under repeated attacks by the Japanese military leadership to put him under house arrest for even considering surrender. The atom bombs gave the Emperor the power to surrender while he still had any power at all. The Emperor couldn't even directly communicate with us, only by a radio broadcast from the palace knowing we would hear it, not just the Japanese people.

 

Yes he was one of the generals who wanted the war to shift to a war with Russia and against Chinese communists so they could keep being hero-generals reading of victories in the newspaper. The war ending would cost them their jobs the same as a corporation going bankrupt and closing. Many American generals and admirals did NOT want the war to end. They wanted the war to continue and evolve to a war with communist Russia and the Chinese communists. You have cited those generals as your "proof" - even who wanted to drop atom bombs on China and Russia. You are citing war mongers who wanted WW2 to become a war against Russia and against Mao and the Chinese communists.

That we did not go to war against Russia and against Chinese communists lead to McCarthyism - which the Democratic Party now has returned to. It was your experts who lead the McCarthyism and Red Scare era in which Americans were required to say the pledge "under God" against the heathen communists, etc.

Your experts were NOT against war. They wanted to shift the war to against Russia and Chinese communists. Basically they wanted WW3.

 

The military experts who fought the Japanese in the Pacific ?? That's ridiculous. Truman dropped the bombs to save US lives and in the process saved many more Japanese lives and saved the nation of Japan.